Marriage, Formal Defection, Dispensation from form, and ignorance

[matthias]

I posted this in the “ask an apologist” section for a quasi-official answer but I am interested in seeing a kind of open discussion of the issue as well so I am re-posting it here…

I have a question about the validity of marriage in a particular situation. The following question would best be understood in the context of a post on Jimmy Akin’s blog (link), discussing canon 1117, formal defection, and validity of marriages. With this canon in mind and the clarification from Rome mentioned on Jimmy’s blog in mind, this is my question…

If someone were baptized as in infant into the Catholic Church (as I understand it binding them into the church’s legal jurisdiction and canon law), and then if the child’s parents left the Church (without anything constituting a formal defection), like say they just quit attending mass and joined a Lutheran ecclesial community.

OK, so then the infant is raised as a Lutherian Christian and never even knows that they were baptized into the Catholic Church. They are ignorant of the fact that they are catholic. Then later in life this Lutheran child, now grown up, decides to get married to another Lutheran in the Lutheran ecclesial community.

As I see this canon being interpreted by Rome, this child, who never even knew they were baptized into the Catholic Church, is incapable of having a valid marriage, unless they discover the Catholic Church later in life and converted back to the Church they never even knew they left.

So basically any baby baptized in the Catholic Church but not raised in the Church (and I believe this is not too uncommon) cannot get validly married.

This seems a big problem. I personally know some people that this would apply to. They never knew they were catholic and are good practicing protestant Christians and presumably are incapable of having a valid marriage.

Is my interpretation correct?

 

[1ke]

Perhaps cameron_lansing will reply. He is a canon lawyer.

 

[Gertabelle]

I’ll jump in with my ignorant response. I have only my own experience with filling out the “lack of form” paperwork for my own annulment. In other words, this ain’t no cannon lawyer responding.

Yes, Baptism in the Church does bring one into the Catholic Church and under her authority. However, there are two other sacraments of initiation: Holy Eucharist and Confirmation. An adult who only received baptism in the Church is not fully initiated. Without full initiation, the hypothetical individual of which you speak may in fact be able to enter into a valid marriage.

And that, dear one, is the opinion from the peanut gallery.

Gertie

 

[1ke]

I’ll jump in with my ignorant response. I have only my own experience with filling out the “lack of form” paperwork for my own annulment. In other words, this ain’t no cannon lawyer responding.

Yes, Baptism in the Church does bring one into the Catholic Church and under her authority. However, there are two other sacraments of initiation: Holy Eucharist and Confirmation. An adult who only received baptism in the Church is not fully initiated. Without full initiation, the hypothetical individual of which you speak may in fact be able to enter into a valid marriage.

And that, dear one, is the opinion from the peanut gallery.

Gertie

Lack of these other Sacraments is not an impediment to a valid marriage.

Confirmation while typically required, is not *absolutely *required per canon law-- and it’s not listed as an impediment.

 

[matthias]

Yes. A person who has not received the other two sacraments of initiation is, in some way, not yet fully initiated, but that isn’t relevant to the question. The question would be if they fall into the juridical authority of canon law and I am fairly sure they would.

 

[cathyf]

If someone were baptized as in infant into the Catholic Church …

This is probably off-topic as far as this forum goes, but what exactly does it mean to be baptized into the Catholic Church as opposed to baptized into Christianity?

In my family’s genealogy in mid-late 1600’s Maryland, I see examples of Catholic babies being baptized in Anglican churches, sometimes with a notation, sometimes not.

The church teaches that baptism may be performed by any person, even a non-Christian – so how do you even tell that it’s a Catholic as opposed to Christian baptism? Imagine this example: a baby is born and is in severe distress. In the controlled chaos that is an emergency in a hospital setting, one nurse does not have other responsibilities. She looks at the mother, and asks, “do you want this baby baptized?!?” The mother responds, “Oh, yes!” The nurse pages the chaplain, stat. The chaplain does not appear in a reasonable amount of time. The nurse grabs some water from the sink and baptizes the baby. The baby pulls through the crisis and survives and is just fine.

Everything that I have been taught says that this is a valid baptism. (My mom has been a nurse for 50 years, including 3 years in the neonatal intensive care unit. Nurses and doctors do baptize babies on occasion.) Take all the variations you want on the scenario – mother Catholic, mother protestant; nurse Catholic, nurse protestant, nurse non-Christian; Catholic hospital, non-Catholic hospital; chaplain makes it and does the baptism – chaplain a Catholic priest; chaplain a Catholic layperson; chaplain a protestant; chaplain a non-Christian. I’m quite sure that any of those variations would still be a valid Christian baptism – which ones are or are not a “Catholic” baptism?

 

[1ke]

Short answer: If they were brought to an Anglican Church under no danger of death and baptized in an Anglican baptismal ceremony, they are not Catholics they are Anglicans. Clearly the parents express will is to have them baptized in the Anglican Church. The child would have to convert to the Catholic faith to receive the other Sacraments.

If they are baptized in an emergency situation, such as a nurse, the child must then be brought to a Catholic priest and conditionally baptized by the Catholic priest and the baptism recorded in the Sacramental records. They would then be Catholic. If the child were to die after the emergency baptism, they would be considered Catholic by virtue of their parents express wishes that they be baptized Catholic had they lived and buried in the Catholic Church.

 

[matthias]

Not to discourage discussion… but I am actually curious about the question in my original post. Does anyone know if my interpretation is correct?

I would have asked in a Canon Law forum here if there was one but asked in apologetics instead because it’s probably the closest.

Can anyone respond to my original question?

 

[1ke]

Can anyone respond to my original question?

I am not a Canon Lawyer. However, as you describe the situation, you are correct the marriage would not be valid-- it would be a putative marriage.

A putative marriage is one that is entered into in good faith and is presumed to be valid until/unless it is questioned.

 

[matthias]

I am not a Canon Lawyer. However, as you describe the situation, you are correct the marriage would not be valid-- it would be a putative marriage.

A putative marriage is one that is entered into in good faith and is presumed to be valid until/unless it is questioned.

Ah. I hadn’t heard of that definition/expression before, putative marriage. It is an interesting and very frustrating/difficult concept to grasp that someone might unfortunately have an invalid marriage through no fault of their own because of canon law. Anyway thanks to those who discussed this with me. It is helpful to at least get the affirmation of someone that I don’t appear to be crazy in my interpretation.

 

[otjm]

I Don’t believe that is correct. Two non-Catholic Christians can have a valid marriage, and may have a sacremental marriage; marriage is the one sacrament that the couple confects; the priest is only the witness.

In your example, the child was baptized and that makes the child a Christian. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of almost all Christian denomenations. The child was never raised a Catholic, so saying that the child was baptized a Catholic, while correct that the child was baptzed in a Catholic Church, does not mean that the child is any more or less Catholic than any other baptized child, until such time as they have been raised Catholic or raised Lutheran, or whatever.

 

[mosher]

I Don’t believe that is correct. Two non-Catholic Christians can have a valid marriage, and may have a sacremental marriage; marriage is the one sacrament that the couple confects; the priest is only the witness.

In your example, the child was baptized and that makes the child a Christian. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of almost all Christian denomenations. The child was never raised a Catholic, so saying that the child was baptized a Catholic, while correct that the child was baptzed in a Catholic Church, does not mean that the child is any more or less Catholic than any other baptized child, until such time as they have been raised Catholic or raised Lutheran, or whatever.

However, part of the baptism ceremony is a profession of faith binding the child to the Church and not some abstract idea of Christianity. So the point is a good one by the OP.

I think a general principle in the law here holds true. This is the issue of ignorance of the law. If a person being free is ignorant of their status of being bound to canon law then if it is violated under said ignorance then they will not be culpable in their violation of the law. One is not bound by that which one does not know in particular in the instance of a positive law of the Church such as so called ‘canonical form.’ Also, in the application of the law of the Church there is a further principle and that is when there is a restriction it is interpreted very narrowly and when there is an allowance it is interpreted liberally. Thus in the strict sense canonical form only binds those Catholic who know they are bound by canonical form.

 

[1ke]

I Don’t believe that is correct. Two non-Catholic Christians can have a valid marriage, and may have a sacremental marriage; marriage is the one sacrament that the couple confects; the priest is only the witness.

Yes, this is true. Two non-Catholics may have a valid marriage. However, in the OPs example, he is not talking about two non-Catholics. He is talking about a baptized Catholic.

In your example, the child was baptized and that makes the child a Christian. Keep in mind that the Catholic Church recognizes the baptism of almost all Christian denomenations. The child was never raised a Catholic, so saying that the child was baptized a Catholic, while correct that the child was baptzed in a Catholic Church, does not mean that the child is any more or less Catholic than any other baptized child, until such time as they have been raised Catholic or raised Lutheran, or whatever.

You are incorrect. A child who is baptized a Catholic is a Catholic under Canon Law. Therefore, all of the Canons related to marriage apply to them, including the requirement of Catholic form.

 

[mosher]

You are incorrect. A child who is baptized a Catholic is a Catholic under Canon Law. Therefore, all of the Canons related to marriage apply to them, including the requirement of Catholic form.

I am not so sure of this - see my post prior to this one.

 

[1ke]

I am not so sure of this - see my post prior to this one.

I did read your post. I disagree with your assessment, based on Canon Law and Vatican documentation.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind *those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church *or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Regarding “formal act” of defection mentioned in Canon Law in various places, the Vatican issued a clarifying document which is very specific on what is entailed.

And, lastly, let me quote another forum member, a Canon Lawyer, on this very subject on a prior thread: * " Infants or minors might be brought to another Christian Church or ecclesial community or a non Christian religious body in such a way simply because they are under the control of their parents or guardians. It may be questionable that a minor has the capacity to place such an act, and highly unlikely that an infant can place an act of the will with juridic effect."*

Based on all of the above, it is highly likely that the person would be considered Catholic from the standpoint of the Catholic Church. A tribunal investigation of the marriage would be required to determine this definitively.

 

[otjm]

I did read your post. I disagree with your assessment, based on Canon Law and Vatican documentation.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind *those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church *or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Howwever, reading this seems to presume that the one baptized remains in the Church; I think the OP was speaking of a child baptized in a Catholic Church but then was moved before the age of reason, and before any catechesis. In other words, no “age of reason” and unde4r the age of 7; all the child knows is that he was baptized at a Catholic Church and has been Lutheran ever since.

Regarding “formal act” of defection mentioned in Canon Law in various places, the Vatican issued a clarifying document which is very specific on what is entailed.

I would think defection would not apply; I believe that is an intentional act to leave the Church; the child posited never belonged to the Church in order to leave it, excepting baptism.

Where is Deacon Lansing when we need him?

 

[1ke]

Howwever, reading this seems to presume that the one baptized remains in the Church; I think the OP was speaking of a child baptized in a Catholic Church but then was moved before the age of reason, and before any catechesis. In other words, no “age of reason” and unde4r the age of 7; all the child knows is that he was baptized at a Catholic Church and has been Lutheran ever since.

No, you are misunderstanding what the **canon **is saying. The canon says that if a person is baptized Catholic and the person is now over the age of reason they are subject to Canon Law. It has **nothing **to do with them going to another church from infancy.

I would think defection would not apply; I believe that is an intentional act to leave the Church; the child posited never belonged to the Church in order to leave it, excepting baptism.

Where is Deacon Lansing when we need him?

The quotation I posted with the opinion that that the child/now adult would be considered Catholic under Catholic law was from Deacon Lansing.

Only a tribunal investigation would determine it for sure, but all the evidence and the Deacon’s informed opinion point to the person being considered a Catholic.

 

[mosher]

I did read your post. I disagree with your assessment, based on Canon Law and Vatican documentation.

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind *those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church *or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

Regarding “formal act” of defection mentioned in Canon Law in various places, the Vatican issued a clarifying document which is very specific on what is entailed.

And, lastly, let me quote another forum member, a Canon Lawyer, on this very subject on a prior thread: * " Infants or minors might be brought to another Christian Church or ecclesial community or a non Christian religious body in such a way simply because they are under the control of their parents or guardians. It may be questionable that a minor has the capacity to place such an act, and highly unlikely that an infant can place an act of the will with juridic effect."*

Based on all of the above, it is highly likely that the person would be considered Catholic from the standpoint of the Catholic Church. A tribunal investigation of the marriage would be required to determine this definitively.

I agree that it would need to be investigated but I am relatively certain that in such a case where a child is unknowingly baptised a Catholic and raised in an Ecclesial communion or the like the canonical form requirement would not be necessary specifically because it is a positive addition and not intrinsic to the sacrament and because canon law is not interpreted in the English form of jurisprudence but rather the Roman it is more likely that a tribunal would rule in favor of the sacramental bond than against. Remember that laws binding are interpreted as narrowly as possible unlike in the English manner where it is nearly the opposite.

 

[kage_ar]

As I see it, the situation presented by the OP enforces how important are those promises made by the parents. At Baptism, these parents made serious promises before God.

During Baptism instruction, those doing the teaching should remind these parents how serious these promises are, and that Baptism is something serious - not just something you do to take pretty pictures and have a party.