M
malta
Guest
Canon Law uses the term “left the Church by a formal act” yet it does not define what counts as a formal act. What actions would you consider sufficient to put a person outside the church?
- Status
A
Adam_D
Guest
I’m pretty sure that a formal act of leaving the Church involves something like mailing the bishop of your diocese and telling him “From now on, do not consider me a member of the Church. I quit.”
T
T.A.Stobie_SFO
Guest
Formally joining another church is another formal act that would count as well.
J
jjwilkman
Guest
you can’t quit, you can’t run and hide, the fisherman has set the hook!!! once a catholic, always a catholic, just like once a mexican, always a mexican
M
mumto5
Guest
Getting baptised into another religion, writing to your parish announcing you are leaving the church …
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
Defection from the Catholic Church by a formal act (“actu formali ab ea defecerit”) in canon 1117 consists of two notions: 1) defection, and 2) a valid formal act that manifests the internal will of the party. Other posts have focused on the material act. Let me address other aspects.
Departure from the Catholic Church requires the person to place a juridic act. A juridic act is an action that results in a legal effect. In this case it is a legal effect of changing the canonical condition of a person from Catholic to “Catholic who has defected by a formal act.”
Canon 124 states “§1. For the validity of a juridic act it is required that the act be placed by a qualified person and includes those things which essentially constitute the act itself as well as the formalities and requirements imposed by law for the validity of the act. §2. A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.”
So the law presumes that when an external act is correctly placed according to its formalities, that the person acted effectively. But when a tribunal or Church authority has to figure out if someone formally defected, it must look at the elements of the action carefully. It will consider if the person placed a positive act of the will which is juridically efficacious. This decision of the will is an essential element of the human act.
However, another canon adds some flavor to this. Canon 125: “§1. An act placed out of force inflicted on a person from without, which the person was not able to resist in any way, is considered as never to have taken place. §2. An act placed out of grave fear, unjustly inflicted, or out of malice (ex dolo) is valid unless the law provides otherwise. It can be rescinded, however, through the sentence of a judge, either at the instance of the injured party or of the party’s successors in law, or ex officio.”
We could summarize these three conditions. Generally they present what a Church tribunal might look at if it had to decide a case of defection by a formal act…
- The person must be qualified. A minor would not be considered qualified to place this kind of juridic act. The presumption would be that the minor is under the control of his or her parents. A child who is brought away from Catholicism, say to the Jehovah Witnesses, Hinduism, or Universalist Unitarianism, for example, by his parents is not considered to have formally defected. His parents did though. One lacking the use of reason would not be qualified.
- The person must have the free intention to depart. The words free and intention are critical. Obviously it cannot be forced. If it is placed out of unjustly inflicted grave fear, or even provoked by fraud (the malice or dolus in the canon) it is valid at face, since the law does not provide otherwise in this case. Though it can be rescinded according to provisions in paragraph 2. This can get complicated. Consider the case of a woman who “converts” to a Baptist Church, even being rebaptized, because she merely wanted to marry a Baptist but failed to want to formally defect from the Church. Did she formally defect? Both intention and freedom would be presumed so, but later this would be subject to exam.
- The person must place an act of defecting and do it formally. Approved canonists mention several possibilities. First there may be either a public declaration of abandonment of the Catholic faith by some communication in a written form or given orally before witnesses repudiation of the Catholic faith. Second there may be a manifestation through a formal external sign to enroll in another Christian church or even a non Christian religion. Examples would include “Re baptism”, “ordination” or something similar, into a non Catholic sect or conversion to Judaism.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Suppose that a non-Catholic woman marries a Catholic man in a civil ceremony, and they get divorced. If the non-Catholic woman then wishes to marry another Catholic in the Catholic church, what kind of proof is required to establish her freedom to marry? Specifically, if she has the marriage certificate and divorce certificate, and the tribunal has obtained a recent copy of the first husband’s baptismal certificate/sacramental record, what proof is required to establish that the first husband did not defect from the Church by a formal act?
Must the first husband be contacted? If so, does this make this a documentary case (or even a formal case) as opposed to a prenuptial investigation? What if the first husband cannot be located, or refuses to cooperate?
Is there some part of Dignitas Connubii that discusses this? I’m still trying to find my way around as far reading DC.
Thanks!
Must the first husband be contacted? If so, does this make this a documentary case (or even a formal case) as opposed to a prenuptial investigation? What if the first husband cannot be located, or refuses to cooperate?
Is there some part of Dignitas Connubii that discusses this? I’m still trying to find my way around as far reading DC.
Thanks!
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
A tribunal would always have to look at the concrete information before it. But some general comments can be hazarded.
Since dispensation from canonical form cannot be given for a civil ceremony, that wedding would be suspect rather than presumed valid. While it could be resolved by a simple pre-nuptial investigation (as the authentic interpretation of canon 1686 on June 26, 1984 indicates and as DC art 5, para. 3 restates), many dioceses have a curial office or the tribunal investigate it as a “lack of form” for safety and certainty. That he did not defect would be the presumption of fact unless overturned. Some fumus (a smoke, a hint worth pursuing) would have to raise the possibility of defection, and then the office or tribunal would proceed, generally along the lines I indicated earlier.
In this situation, if the respondent were contacted merely to establish the issue of defection, that act in itself would not provoke a documentary process.
However, if he admitted he had defected by a formal act, and the office or tribunal confirmed this, then a “formal” case would be required. But he need not be contacted if the issue doesn’t arise, since the documents establishing his Catholicity would speak for themselves. If it did arise and he couldn’t be contacted or wouldn’t respond, again, a closer look in the concrete would need to be taken, and I couldn’t speculate about that.
In a documentary process, authentic documents that are not subject to contradiction or exception are the proof themselves. While the prenuptial investigation or the lack of form investigation uses documents, we don’t call these documentary cases. Confusing, ain’t it? (Sometimes, the label is “administrative case,” but that’s not a universal label by any means.)
A documentary case in canon 1686 is which a defect of legitimate form would be tried envisions the case in which the form of marriage appeared legitimate but really wasn’t. For example, there was a Catholic ceremony with a priest and all, but the priest lacked delegation to witness the wedding. (FYI to readers, other types of cases are also tried by the documentary process.) As DC notes, some preliminary investigation is always needed in the cases of impotence and defect of legitimate form anyway. the impediment of ligamen and other diriment impediments, whether not dispensed or not able to be dispensed, travel more easily in the documentary process.
Article 297, § 2 and article 5, § 3.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Many thanks for the very thorough answer!
It makes sense to me that this would be the presumption, but I am at a complete loss as to how to justify this presumption from canon law. Canon 1060 would seem to indicate the contrary presumption, and I don’t know of any other canon relevant to the issue.
Along these lines, I assume that there is also a presumption that the conditions for the extraordinary canonical form of marriage (canon 1116) did not exist.
C
cameron_lansing
Guest
The presumption that Catholics do not defect is a reasonable presumption of fact that a judge might formulate from human experience. Otherwise when we show up for the Eucharist, we, whether people or priest, would be looking at each other and wondering. Further, the law is presumed to be obeyed. By its very nature as law, the legislator wills the community to obey the law. The apostolic constitution Sacrae disciplinae leges which promulgated the Latin code explains that “by their very nature canonical laws are to be observed.” That’s an underlying supposition of any legal system that underlies canon law, so it doesn’t have to be written down.
True, some indication that the couple used the extraordinary form in connection with a civil ceremony would have to be raised, and not merely that the conditions for its valid use existed…
Canon 1060 extends the favor of law, i.e., validity, to those marriages contracted under the terms of canon 1057§1, “The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons qualified by law, makes marriage.” The presumption is extended to the marriage of people who are known to be free to marry, properly follow whatever legal form binds them, and manifest consent. In the case of a Catholic lack of form ceremony, a condition is blatantly absent, so that the favor of law is not extended.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
Thanks again for the explanation! It was very helpful.
F
flameburns623
Guest
How then would one be restored once one had left by a formal act?
S
Sideline
Guest
That was very interesting.
Do you happen to know if it is possible to get the equivalent of an annulment of one’s Catholicism? Something along the lines of a formal recognition that, one is not only not a Catholic now, but never knew enough about what it meant to be Catholic to be Catholic in the first place.
1
1ke
Guest
No. The only thing that could be analogous would be proof of an invalid baptism. This would be pretty rare.
No. “Understanding” is not required, merely baptism.
1
1ke
Guest
Perhaps Deacon Cameron will post with the particulars but from what I understand the person would merely need to do the reverse-- contact the local ordinary/authority and present that they want to return to the faith. They would then need to go to the Sacrament of Reconciliation.
- Status