Marriage and wedding questions

[pioneer1572]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.
2. In a Catholic wedding, is the presence of a wedding party necessary? (i.e. Bridesmaids, bridegrooms/groomsmen.) Can the congregation in attendance serve as the witnesses rather than a maid of honor and best man?

3.Are there reasons for a dispensation of marriage for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in a NON-Catholic ceremony? For example (I’m making this up off the top of my head, I don’t know anyone in this situation ) Catholic woman wants to marry Presbyterian Man in his church by a Presbyterian minister…is there any reason the Church would “OK” that without a need for con validation afterwards?

Thanks for your help, this site will no doubt be of use to me for many years to come.

 

[929dad]

#1 I have no idea though I’m sure others will have the right info.
#2 Why not? The presence of witnesses is required. Fancy dresses or official titles aren’t.
#3 Again, no clue.

 

[Joe_5859]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.

The short answer is that I don’t know. I’m having trouble imagining a situation in which an adult would only get baptized, but not become fully initiated. If an adult is converting to the Catholic faith, he would receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at the same time. And if he is only being baptized in some other Christian denomination, then Pauline Privilege wouldn’t apply.

1. In a Catholic wedding, is the presence of a wedding party necessary? (i.e. Bridesmaids, bridegrooms/groomsmen.) Can the congregation in attendance serve as the witnesses rather than a maid of honor and best man?

Canon Law states:

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

Any two people can serve as the witnesses. It doesn’t have to be a “best man” / “maid of honor” thing. If for some reason a couple didn’t want to go this route, they would, of course, talk it over with their pastor as to what the best course of action would be.

3.Are there reasons for a dispensation of marriage for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in a NON-Catholic ceremony? For example (I’m making this up off the top of my head, I don’t know anyone in this situation ) Catholic woman wants to marry Presbyterian Man in his church by a Presbyterian minister…is there any reason the Church would “OK” that without a need for con validation afterwards?

Again, we look to Canon Law:

Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.

§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

So a dispensation can be given, but it must be sought out, and there must be a reason for it. I’m sure there are many different possible reasons. If the reason is that the Presbyterian church is “prettier”, then that’s probably not a good enough reason. If the reason is that the Presbyterian man’s family will disown him if he gets married in a Catholic church, then that may be a compelling reason for the bishop to grant a dispensation of form. Really, though, the couple needs to talk through it all with their priest. He’ll let them know.

Thanks for your help, this site will no doubt be of use to me for many years to come.

Welcome to CAF! Enjoy your stay.

 

[pioneer1572]

The short answer is that I don’t know. I’m having trouble imagining a situation in which an adult would only get baptized, but not become fully initiated. If an adult is converting to the Catholic faith, he would receive all the Sacraments of Initiation at the same time. And if he is only being baptized in some other Christian denomination, then Pauline Privilege wouldn’t apply.

Interesting. As I understood it, Pauline Privilege requires ONLY conversion to Christianity…and isn’t Baptism universally recognized? Doesn’t the Church define a Christian as someone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, Son + Holy Spirit? I suppose I would assume it would recognize Christian conversion by means of Baptism alone since the Petrine Privilege recognizes similar situation where ONE of the former spouses was baptized and it doesn’t specify a Catholic baptism or otherwise.

The Canon law says this:
Can. 1143 §1 In virtue of the pauline privilege, a marriage entered into by two unbaptised persons is dissolved in favour of the faith of the party who received baptism, by the very fact that a new marriage is contracted by that same party, provided the unbaptised party departs.
So this leads me to believe that when they say “baptism,” it could be by any Christian denomination, as long as its valid (father son + holy spirit formula).

Canon Law states:
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. 144, 1112, §1, 1116, and 1127, §§1-2.

Any two people can serve as the witnesses. It doesn’t have to be a “best man” / “maid of honor” thing. If for some reason a couple didn’t want to go this route, they would, of course, talk it over with their pastor as to what the best course of action would be.

This is what I suspected. Thanks for a good answer on this!

Again, we look to Canon Law:

Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.

§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

So a dispensation can be given, but it must be sought out, and there must be a reason for it. I’m sure there are many different possible reasons. If the reason is that the Presbyterian church is “prettier”, then that’s probably not a good enough reason. If the reason is that the Presbyterian man’s family will disown him if he gets married in a Catholic church, then that may be a compelling reason for the bishop to grant a dispensation of form. Really, though, the couple needs to talk through it all with their priest. He’ll let them know.

Again thanks for a good answer!

Welcome to CAF! Enjoy your stay.

Will do

 

[revert_jen]

So a dispensation can be given, but it must be sought out, and there must be a reason for it. I’m sure there are many different possible reasons. If the reason is that the Presbyterian church is “prettier”, then that’s probably not a good enough reason. If the reason is that the Presbyterian man’s family will disown him if he gets married in a Catholic church, then that may be a compelling reason for the bishop to grant a dispensation of form. Really, though, the couple needs to talk through it all with their priest. He’ll let them know.

That is my understanding as well, but I believe there is an additional requirement that a priest (of the local diocese? or possibly just deputed by the local pastor) needs to be present at the wedding (not necessarily officiating in any way, could be just as a guest).

But Joe has given the best advice, talk to the priest.

–Jen

 

[Matthew_Holford]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.

I don’t know the answer to this one.

1. In a Catholic wedding, is the presence of a wedding party necessary? (i.e. Bridesmaids, bridegrooms/groomsmen.) Can the congregation in attendance serve as the witnesses rather than a maid of honor and best man?

There must be three witnesses to the wedding. One must be an official witness appointed by the Church. The Church’s witness is usually a bishop, priest, or deacon but it may be a lay person. There must be two other witnesses. Where I live there is usually a male one called the best man and a female one called the matron/maid of honour (depending on her marital status). The witnesses do not have to be one of each sex. The witnesses do not need to be given titles such as best man, groomsman, maid of honour, bridesmaid, etc.

3.Are there reasons for a dispensation of marriage for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in a NON-Catholic ceremony? For example (I’m making this up off the top of my head, I don’t know anyone in this situation ) Catholic woman wants to marry Presbyterian Man in his church by a Presbyterian minister…is there any reason the Church would “OK” that without a need for con validation afterwards?

Catholics are bound to get married according to canonical form. The Church can grant dispensation from canonical form. If dispensation from canonical form is granted the marriage is valid and there would be need for a convalidation.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

So this leads me to believe that when they say “baptism,” it could be by any Christian denomination, as long as its valid (father son + holy spirit formula).

I’m not a canon lawyer, but speaking logically, if someone were being baptized into the Methodist church, for example, why would they care about the Pauline privilege? It would only be of interest to someone who was entering the Catholic Church.

 

[pioneer1572]

I’m not a canon lawyer, but speaking logically, if someone were being baptized into the Methodist church, for example, why would they care about the Pauline privilege? It would only be of interest to someone who was entering the Catholic Church.

Haha, I suppose it sounds funny when you phrase it that way. I was thinking if someone wanted to marry a Catholic (and be baptized in order to do so) but wasn’t yet ready themselves to have a full-on conversion to Catholicism.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Haha, I suppose it sounds funny when you phrase it that way. I was thinking if someone wanted to marry a Catholic (and be baptized in order to do so) but wasn’t yet ready themselves to have a full-on conversion to Catholicism.

Someone doesn’t have to be baptized in order to marry a Catholic. The Catholic needs a dispensation but that isn’t a huge obstacle.

Both parties, however, need to be free to marry. The previous marriage of the non-Catholic would need to be investigated by a Tribunal.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Haha, I suppose it sounds funny when you phrase it that way. I was thinking if someone wanted to marry a Catholic (and be baptized in order to do so) but wasn’t yet ready themselves to have a full-on conversion to Catholicism.

From here:

For a Converting Petitioner: If the petitioner is not already a baptized Catholic, a full course of instructions in the Catholic faith must be completed before the case is submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This course of instruction and formation would normally be accomplished within the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults.

A converting petitioner is not to be baptized or received into full communion with the Catholic Church without the official notification that the Favor has been granted by the Holy Father. Any and all exceptions to this rule must be discussed with the Judge Instructor of the case.

For a Petitioner Who is Not Converting: If the petitioner does not wish to convert to Catholicism, a “full course of instructions” in the Catholic faith is still necessary. In this context, by a “full course of instructions” is meant the equivalent of those given to a non-Catholic in his/her premarital instructions. This should include knowledge of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith from which an informed decision about exploring eventual conversion could be considered, and which would enable the petitioner to understand the obligations of his/her prospective Catholic spouse and any children to be born in the union.

 

[SMHW]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.

Interesting question.

I believe the Pauline Privilege is granted at the diocesan level. I don’t know if this gives the bishop authority over the case of non-Christians who wish to convert to non-Catholic Christianity and marry Catholics.

 

[pioneer1572]

For a Petitioner Who is Not Converting: If the petitioner does not wish to convert to Catholicism, a “full course of instructions” in the Catholic faith is still necessary. In this context, by a “full course of instructions” is meant the equivalent of those given to a non-Catholic in his/her premarital instructions. This should include knowledge of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith from which an informed decision about exploring eventual conversion could be considered, and which would enable the petitioner to understand the obligations of his/her prospective Catholic spouse and any children to be born in the union.

This is just what I was looking for. So it seems to me it IS possible to be baptized in a different denomination and still invoke the privilege to marry a Catholic, without taking the full RCIA program. Cool. Great answer, good reference. THANKS!

 

[1ke]

Canon 1118 does not apply to a dispensation from form. “Another suitable place” is talking about a marriage between Catholics (or a Catholic an non-Catholic) in the Catholic form. “Another suitable place” might be, for example, a chapel on a college campus.

The canon regarding dispensation from form for a mixed marriage is canon 1127.2

vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P41.HTM

 

[dans0622]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer. …

Hello pioneer1572,

While it is true that the standard Protestant wouldn’t care about the dissolution of marriage bond through the “Pauline privilege” (since they seem to accept a civil divorce as the dissolution of the bond), it seems to me that the following situation could occur:

–Fred and Wilma, both unbaptized and unmarried, marry
–Fred is baptized in a Lutheran community
–Wilma is having none of it and leaves the marriage and gets a divorce
–Fred then wants to marry Betty, who is a free-to-marry Catholic

On the face of it, this is a textbook example of St. Paul’s scenario in 1 Cor. 7. If Fred were to come to a diocesan tribunal and say “my marriage to Wilma is invalid because of a, b, and c. I want a declaration of nullity so I can marry Betty”, the Tribunal would say “We won’t bother with that, we can utilize the Pauline Privilege.” Then, the relevant canon law would be applied, the dissolution would happen, and Fred would be validly married to Betty, his previous marriage having been dissolved.

I don’t have any sources to point you toward, except 1 Corinthians, canon law (which you have referenced), and the old Catholic encyclopedia, which can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm Proceed down to the section with the heading “Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith.” The important quotation is:

“Whether, however, the privilege is so joined to baptism that it belongs to Christian adherents of a non-Catholic denomination when they profess the Christian Faith by the reception of baptism is a question disputed by theologians. Some theologians of repute assert that the privilege is granted in this case, and that a practical decision to this effect has been made by a Roman Congregation, according to the testimony of Koenings, “Theol. mor.”, II, 394 (New York, 1878). (Cf. Palmieri, “De matrim. christ.”, th. xxvii, p. 224; Tarquini in “Archiv für decretal.”, IV, n. 702, not. 59; Gasparri, “De matrim.”, II, n. 1331; Ballerin-Palmieri, “Opus theol. mor.”, 3d ed., VI, 457 sqq.) Even in the early ages the Venerable Bede and St. Augustine seem to have understood the passage from St. Paul (1 Corinthians) in this sense.”

The encyclopedia is speaking of a scenario where no one is Catholic. So, if our second wife Betty was another Lutheran, for example, the privilege would still apply.

Hope this is comprehensible and helpful.

Dan

P.S. The link provided by “Just Lurking” refers to the so-called Petrine Privilege. The requirements for that dissolution are different than those for the Pauline Privilege.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

From here:

For a Converting Petitioner: If the petitioner is not already a baptized Catholic, a full course of instructions in the Catholic faith must be completed before the case is submitted to the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. This course of instruction and formation would normally be accomplished within the Order of Christian Initiation of Adults.

A converting petitioner is not to be baptized or received into full communion with the Catholic Church without the official notification that the Favor has been granted by the Holy Father. Any and all exceptions to this rule must be discussed with the Judge Instructor of the case.

For a Petitioner Who is Not Converting: If the petitioner does not wish to convert to Catholicism, a “full course of instructions” in the Catholic faith is still necessary. In this context, by a “full course of instructions” is meant the equivalent of those given to a non-Catholic in his/her premarital instructions. This should include knowledge of the basic tenets of the Catholic faith from which an informed decision about exploring eventual conversion could be considered, and which would enable the petitioner to understand the obligations of his/her prospective Catholic spouse and any children to be born in the union.

That is dissolution in favour of the faith, the so-called Petrine Privilege. The OP is asking about the Pauline Privilege.

 

[puzzleannie]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.

the normative route for a non-Catholic adult to enter the Catholic Church is RCIA, with baptism, profession of faith, confirmation, and first reception of the Eucharist at the same celebration, namely the Easter Vigil. There is no provision for bringing adults into the Church through baptism alone, except in some exceptional case, with persmission of the bishop to delay the other sacraments.

An adult who is validly baptized in another Christian denomination also comes into full communion with the Catholic Church through profession of faith, confirmation and first reception of the Eucharist at the same time.

The Pauline Privilege is a rather rare one and the individual should see the Catholic pastor who is receiving him into the Church for advice applicable to his personal situation. Yes it is reserved for Catholics, because the Church has this authority only over Catholics.

1. In a Catholic wedding, is the presence of a wedding party necessary? (i.e. Bridesmaids, bridegrooms/groomsmen.) Can the congregation in attendance serve as the witnesses rather than a maid of honor and best man?

Two witnesses are required. None of the cultural hooplah surrounding weddings is required other than the priest or deacon as official witness for the Church, and two other witneses. No, the entire congregation is not a witness.

3

.Are there reasons for a dispensation of marriage for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic in a NON-Catholic ceremony?

it is possible for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, and in a non-Catholic church, but only in extraordinary circumstances with a non-Catholic official witness or minister. Possible, but not common, the reasons must be compelling, and must be granted by the bishop. again, the Catholic party needs to see his own priest.

 

[pioneer1572]

That is dissolution in favour of the faith, the so-called Petrine Privilege. The OP is asking about the Pauline Privilege.

I didn’t realize that it was a link to Petrine Privilege on the site. The question still remains relatively unanswered!

Hello pioneer1572,

While it is true that the standard Protestant wouldn’t care about the dissolution of marriage bond through the “Pauline privilege” (since they seem to accept a civil divorce as the dissolution of the bond), it seems to me that the following situation could occur:

–Fred and Wilma, both unbaptized and unmarried, marry
–Fred is baptized in a Lutheran community
–Wilma is having none of it and leaves the marriage and gets a divorce
–Fred then wants to marry Betty, who is a free-to-marry Catholic

On the face of it, this is a textbook example of St. Paul’s scenario in 1 Cor. 7. If Fred were to come to a diocesan tribunal and say “my marriage to Wilma is invalid because of a, b, and c. I want a declaration of nullity so I can marry Betty”, the Tribunal would say “We won’t bother with that, we can utilize the Pauline Privilege.” Then, the relevant canon law would be applied, the dissolution would happen, and Fred would be validly married to Betty, his previous marriage having been dissolved.

I don’t have any sources to point you toward, except 1 Corinthians, canon law (which you have referenced), and the old Catholic encyclopedia, which can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/05054c.htm Proceed down to the section with the heading “Non-Christian marriage can be dissolved by absolute divorce under certain circumstances in favour of the Faith.” The important quotation is:

“Whether, however, the privilege is so joined to baptism that it belongs to Christian adherents of a non-Catholic denomination when they profess the Christian Faith by the reception of baptism is a question disputed by theologians. Some theologians of repute assert that the privilege is granted in this case, and that a practical decision to this effect has been made by a Roman Congregation, according to the testimony of Koenings, “Theol. mor.”, II, 394 (New York, 1878). (Cf. Palmieri, “De matrim. christ.”, th. xxvii, p. 224; Tarquini in “Archiv für decretal.”, IV, n. 702, not. 59; Gasparri, “De matrim.”, II, n. 1331; Ballerin-Palmieri, “Opus theol. mor.”, 3d ed., VI, 457 sqq.) Even in the early ages the Venerable Bede and St. Augustine seem to have understood the passage from St. Paul (1 Corinthians) in this sense.”

The encyclopedia is speaking of a scenario where no one is Catholic. So, if our second wife Betty was another Lutheran, for example, the privilege would still apply.

Hope this is comprehensible and helpful.

Dan.

Thanks for that info, good stuff to read and know.
That scenario is pretty much what I is close to what I had made up in my mind. I was thinking of something like this:

Betty and John marry, unbaptized.
They divorce and have no chance of living in peace, etc.
Betty wants to be baptized in the christian faith and now wants to marry a Catholic in the Church, and use the Pauline Privilege.
John remains unbaptized and will not convert to Christianity, allowing the dissolution to occur and grants the favor.

To me it seems that under Canon law, Betty would be within her rights to seek invoke a Pauline Privilege in order to A. be received into the church as a Christian (not Catholic), and B. marry a Catholic…even if Betty isn’t ready to be a full-blown Catholic convert yet (for whatever reason…maybe she’s scared).

**There is no provision for bringing adults into the Church through baptism alone, except in some exceptional case, with persmission of the bishop to delay the other sacraments. **

I realize this, but the wording of the law makes it sound like in order to acquire such a privilege, one needs to be baptized. It doesn’t specify how or where or even if it is to be Catholic. On the other hand, the Petrine Privilege will work if someone is baptized ANY denomination of Christianity; so why wouldn’t the same hold true for someone who seeks the privilege through non-Catholic baptism? Baptism is universal and the law says nothing about conversion to the Catholic Faith; just Christianity.
And to get technical, the privilege is being granted to the CATHOLIC in the situation; i.e. the new intended spouse, who MUST be Catholic… do you follow me?

Two witnesses are required. None of the cultural hooplah surrounding weddings is required other than the priest or deacon as official witness for the Church, and two other witneses. No, the entire congregation is not a witness.

Thanks for this. The cultural aspect of weddings (particularly in America) really distorts the reality of sacrament and its requirements for Catholics.

3 it is possible for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, and in a non-Catholic church, but only in extraordinary circumstances with a non-Catholic official witness or minister. Possible, but not common, the reasons must be compelling, and must be granted by the bishop. again, the Catholic party needs to see his own priest.

This is what I suspected; that the reason would have to be somewhat serious, other than just “I want to get married in Hawaii under a waterfall” or something to that effect

 

[1ke]

1. For the Pauline Privilege to be invoked, is a full conversion to Catholicism necessary (through RCIA perhaps), or JUST the baptism? Does the baptism have to be performed by a Catholic priest or will any valid baptism suffice? I’ve read conflicting things about this and no one seems to have the correct answer.

No. The petitioner does not need to be Catholic or become Catholic.

See here:

toledodiocese.org/index.php/tribunal/pauline-privilege-

 

[pioneer1572]

No. The petitioner does not need to be Catholic or become Catholic.

See here:

toledodiocese.org/index.php/tribunal/pauline-privilege-

Thanks, 1ke, for this most helpful link. I also found one here that says this:

b. The petitioner must be baptized and received into the Catholic Church or at least be baptized in a non-Catholic church before a marriage can take place in the Catholic Church.
Source here.

 

[1ke]

A. be received into the church as a Christian (not Catholic)

Betty would not be received into the Church at all. To be received into the Church is another way of saying that she becomes a Catholic.

Perhaps what you mean is that the Church recognizes her non-Catholic baptism as valid. This would be the case provided the baptism was not in a non-Trinitarian sect which lacks valid baptism (such as Oneness Pentecostal, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witneesses, etc). In that case, the Church would consider the person to be unbaptized.