Lack of Form Marriage- MAJOR CONFUSION

[aggiecatholic85]

This isn’t my personal situation, but a couple of friends of mine in RCIA currently.

Spouse A is a baptized Christian.

Spouse B is a baptized only Catholic (no instruction or sacraments further than that)

Spouse A wants to be Catholic and starts the RCIA process.

In their meeting with the parish priest, Spouse A is informed that Spouse B will have to join RCIA as well if they want their marriage to be validated in the Catholic Church upon Spouse A’s initiation

Spouse B is unsure whether they want to move forward with Catholicism just yet.

Priest informs couple that Spouse B will have to formally renounce Catholicism in order to validate their marriage with Spouse A at initiation, basically blessing the marriage of a new Catholic and a former Catholic/now just baptized Christian.

I’m completely confused as to the theology behind this. Spouse A would be a new Catholic with all the sacraments. Spouse B will be a Catholic lacking sacraments and practice. Can their marriage not be validated in this state?

 

[runningdude]

Being confirmed is required as part of Catholic marriage form. Sometimes you can get a dispensation from this requirement, but this priest doesn’t seem to want to pursue that route. It would be harmful to the newly confirmed spouse A to have a lukewarm Catholic partner; if the spouse is serious about the faith, and the other “isn’t sure”, then this not shaping up to be a well thought out marriage.

It seems your priest is trying to not-so-subtly tell the future spouse B to get his act together. He/she is being given the choice whether he really has a moral issue with the church so he can formally leave, or he can come to join it more perfectly. Fence sitters don’t make good husbands or wives!

Now it would also be harmful for one spouse to be a renounced Catholic, but it is still possible, as a marriage can be valid even if one of the spouses is in a state of mortal sin. Its setup this way so that the marriage can be a source of grace to lull the wayward back towards penance. If the marriage were invalid, it would further endanger both spouses, as it would technically be fornication. Sex outside of valid marriage usually destroys relationships.

 

[Benadam]

Priest informs couple that Spouse B will have to formally renounce Catholicism in order to validate their marriage with Spouse A at initiation, basically blessing the marriage of a new Catholic and a former Catholic/now just baptized Christian.

I’m completely confused as to the theology behind this. Spouse A would be a new Catholic with all the sacraments. Spouse B will be a Catholic lacking sacraments and practice. Can their marriage not be validated in this state?

This doesn’t make sense to me either. Completely severing a broken relationship in order to recieve Grace meant ultimately to bring about it’s healing ?

 

[runningdude]

This doesn’t make sense to me either. Completely severing a broken relationship in order to recieve Grace meant ultimately to bring about it’s healing ?

I think the priest is just offering this as bate to finish his sacraments; either take a strong stance for the church, or against the church. No wishy-washyiness. I hope the priest is just betting “spouse A” won’t feel so strongly as to leave, and will take the RCIA classes and grow in faith with his wife.

 

[aggiecatholic85]

Actually, Spouse B is the wife. There are some birth control issues that she doesn’t want to concede on.

 

[1ke]

They are currently in an invalid marriage due to Spouse B being a Catholic who married outside Catholic form without dispensation.

Therefore, in order for Spouse A to become a Catholic, the marriage must be convalidated either through exchange of new consent in the Catholic form (simple convaldation) or via radical sanation.

The rest of what the priest said, going by what you relay, is off the mark entirely. I would encourage them to talk to someone at the diocesan level. Radical sanation is an option, and does not require the exchange of new consent or any decision to practice the faith on the part of Spouse B. Convalidation does not require Spouse B to " renounce" Catholicism. (which isn’t possible to do anyway and certainly does not make one “not
Catholic”). While Confirmation is encouraged if possible it NOT an absolute requirement,

Bottom line, there are many ways to validate this marriage and not much of what the priest said makes any sense at all (again going only on what you said here, which could have been misunderstood by A and B.

I suggest a call to the Chancery Office and a talk with someone in the Tribunal office.

 

[1ke]

I think the priest is just offering this as bate to finish his sacraments; either take a strong stance for the church, or against the church. No wishy-washyiness. I hope the priest is just betting “spouse A” won’t feel so strongly as to leave, and will take the RCIA classes and grow in faith with his wife.

“Baiting” with incorrect information is a bad idea.

 

[1ke]

I think the priest is just offering this as bate to finish his sacraments; either take a strong stance for the church, or against the church. No wishy-washyiness. I hope the priest is just betting “spouse A” won’t feel so strongly as to leave, and will take the RCIA classes and grow in faith with his wife.

“Baiting” with incorrect information is a bad idea. Some might call it dishonest.

 

[Bookcat]

They are currently in an invalid marriage due to Spouse B being a Catholic who married outside Catholic form without dispensation.

Therefore, in order for Spouse A to become a Catholic, the marriage must be convalidated either through exchange of new consent in the Catholic form (simple convaldation) or via radical sanation.

The rest of what the priest said, going by what you relay, is off the mark entirely. I would encourage them to talk to someone at the diocesan level. Radical sanation is an option, and does not require the exchange of new consent or any decision to practice the faith on the part of Spouse B. Convalidation does not require Spouse B to " renounce" Catholicism. (which isn’t possible to do anyway and certainly does not make one “not
Catholic”). While Confirmation is encouraged if possible it NOT an absolute requirement,

Bottom line, there are many ways to validate this marriage and not much of what the priest said makes any sense at all (again going only on what you said here, which could have been misunderstood by A and B.

I suggest a call to the Chancery Office and a talk with someone in the Tribunal office.

Also there is not longer any possibility of “formal defection” anyhow.

 

[runningdude]

Also there is not longer any possibility of “formal defection” anyhow.

Canon law still allows for it. The mechanism for such a declaration has been removed though. Its kind of a Catch-22, but my guess is too many people were “formally” abdicating out of boredom and amusement, and the church has added an extra step to filter out those applications.

To become an apostate now, I believe you generally have to petition the chancery directly, and demonstrate that you actually have some idea of what your talking about to do it. Its not something you would begin half-heatedly. It is possible though.

 

[runningdude]

“Baiting” with incorrect information is a bad idea. Some might call it dishonest.

Bating is not exactly what I believe is going on. I think its more the case that the priest is simply presenting both options, even if one is rather absurd, in the hopes of educating his parishioner. Through the filter of this being a second hand account, it may be more confusing than the priest intended.

 

[runningdude]

They are currently in an invalid marriage due to Spouse B being a Catholic who married outside Catholic form without dispensation.

Therefore, in order for Spouse A to become a Catholic, the marriage must be convalidated either through exchange of new consent in the Catholic form (simple convaldation) or via radical sanation.

The rest of what the priest said, going by what you relay, is off the mark entirely. I would encourage them to talk to someone at the diocesan level. Radical sanation is an option, and does not require the exchange of new consent or any decision to practice the faith on the part of Spouse B. Convalidation does not require Spouse B to " renounce" Catholicism. (which isn’t possible to do anyway and certainly does not make one “not
Catholic”). While Confirmation is encouraged if possible it NOT an absolute requirement,

Bottom line, there are many ways to validate this marriage and not much of what the priest said makes any sense at all (again going only on what you said here, which could have been misunderstood by A and B.

I suggest a call to the Chancery Office and a talk with someone in the Tribunal office.

I didn’t quite figure out that they were already invalidly married the first time around, so thanks for explicitly pointing that out!

I think though that convalidation would be the only option here. Radical sanation would only be granted in the favor of an active and practicing Catholic, whose spouse refused to conform to remarriage through the church. Since the husband would be stuck in RCIA limbo due to his marriage situation, and the wife is lukewarm at best, radical sanation would be a difficult sell to the bishop.

Convalidation with a dispensation from confirmation could be achievable, but it would be best for the marriage if the wife-to-be took part in the RCIA classes, even if only to better understand the faith for her husband’s benefit. It should only be case of the wife refusing to conform to the church teaching after being properly educated.

 

[1ke]

Canon law still allows for it.

This is not correct as of the Pope’s Motu Proprio of October 26, 2009.

Formal defection, if one were still to attempt it, has absolutely no effect in law from that date forward. It does not eliminate the requirement to be married in the Catholic form.

The actual *procedure for formal defection and definition of what constitutes *formal defection never existed in canon law. It was promulgated by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts. It can be found here.

 

[1ke]

Bating is not exactly what I believe is going on. I think its more the case that the priest is simply presenting both options, even if one is rather absurd, in the hopes of educating his parishioner. Through the filter of this being a second hand account, it may be more confusing than the priest intended.

He is presenting two options that are inaccurate:

(1) Formal defection has no canonical force as of October 26, 2009. It cannot be done.

(2) Convalidation of the marriage does NOT require Spouse B to be a practicing Catholic or to be confirmed or any other thing. This marriage could be a candidate for Radical Sanation, actually. Spouse A could petition for radical sanation without the participation of Spouse B.

 

[1ke]

Radical sanation would only be granted in the favor of an active and practicing Catholic, whose spouse refused to conform to remarriage through the church.

It can be granted to anyone, Only one party must be Catholic in order for sanation to occur. The Catholic does not have to be the petitioner. The Catholic does not even have to be informed.

Spouse A could ask for radical sanation. See here.

Since the husband would be stuck in RCIA limbo due to his marriage situation, and the wife is lukewarm at best, radical sanation would be a difficult sell to the bishop.

I disagree entirely. Radical sanation would convalidate the marriage and allow Spouse A to complete the sacraments of initiation without delay.

Convalidation with a dispensation from confirmation could be achievable, but it would be best for the marriage if the wife-to-be took part in the RCIA classes, even if only to better understand the faith for her husband’s benefit. It should only be case of the wife refusing to conform to the church teaching after being properly educated.

There is no dispensation required for a Catholic who is not confirmed. See this canon:

Can. 1065 §1. Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before they are admitted to marriage if it can be done without grave inconvenience.

Lack of confirmation is not listed as an impediment to valid marriage, nor is there any dispensation required.

 

[Bookcat]

Canon law still allows for it. The mechanism for such a declaration has been removed though. Its kind of a Catch-22, but my guess is too many people were “formally” abdicating out of boredom and amusement, and the church has added an extra step to filter out those applications.

To become an apostate now, I believe you generally have to petition the chancery directly, and demonstrate that you actually have some idea of what your talking about to do it. Its not something you would begin half-heatedly. It is possible though.

I believe 1ke has already answered …

(PS I would not necessarily give that sort of thing to those in RCIA…sometimes some “documents” that are not really formulated for the adv. reader are not really the right fare for persons in RCIA…they are written for canon lawyers etc)