Marriage outside the church question (old)

[Rachel126]

I am curious about something, and wonder if anyone who is better educated in such things than I can shed some light.
My Catholic grandma and Lutheran grandpa married in 1939. First marriage for both. As it was explained to me, Grandma wanted to marry in the Catholic church but in order to do so, Grandpa would have had to promise to raise their children Catholic, and he was unwilling to do this. He was adamant his kids be Lutherans. So, they married in the Lutheran church. My grandma continued to go to mass every sunday, but did not receive communion because she was living in an invalid, non-catholic marriage. After 25 years of marriage, she asked him to re-marry her in the Catholic church. Since they were too old for more kids, he readily agreed. They re-married at her parish in 1964 and she was able to receive communion again.
My understanding is that nowadays, the Church’s teachings on these things is a bit different. If the same situation happened today, if the Catholic party received permission from her priest to marry the Lutheran in a Lutheran church, the marriage would be considered valid and she would be able to continue to receive communion and be considered “in good standing” with the church. Additionally, I do know at least one Catholic bride who married a non-Catholic groom in her parish and he was never asked to promise to raise their kids Catholic (although he didn’t really care either way).
Why are things different nowadays? Is it related to Vatican II? It’s also troubling to me that my grandma, supposedly, spent 25 years of her life in a state of mortal sin (in the eyes of the church, though I am certain her own conscience was clear) for something that nowadays would apparently be considered okay. If we are truly the one true church, guided by the Holy Spirit, why do the rules sometimes change?

 

[Joe_5859]

I am curious about something, and wonder if anyone who is better educated in such things than I can shed some light.
My Catholic grandma and Lutheran grandpa married in 1939. First marriage for both. As it was explained to me, Grandma wanted to marry in the Catholic church but in order to do so, Grandpa would have had to promise to raise their children Catholic, and he was unwilling to do this. He was adamant his kids be Lutherans. So, they married in the Lutheran church. My grandma continued to go to mass every sunday, but did not receive communion because she was living in an invalid, non-catholic marriage. After 25 years of marriage, she asked him to re-marry her in the Catholic church. Since they were too old for more kids, he readily agreed. They re-married at her parish in 1964 and she was able to receive communion again.
My understanding is that nowadays, the Church’s teachings on these things is a bit different. If the same situation happened today, if the Catholic party received permission from her priest to marry the Lutheran in a Lutheran church, the marriage would be considered valid and she would be able to continue to receive communion and be considered “in good standing” with the church. Additionally, I do know at least one Catholic bride who married a non-Catholic groom in her parish and he was never asked to promise to raise their kids Catholic (although he didn’t really care either way).
Why are things different nowadays? Is it related to Vatican II? It’s also troubling to me that my grandma, supposedly, spent 25 years of her life in a state of mortal sin (in the eyes of the church, though I am certain her own conscience was clear) for something that nowadays would apparently be considered okay. If we are truly the one true church, guided by the Holy Spirit, why do the rules sometimes change?

The biggest difference between then and now is the new Code of Canon Law that was instituted in 1983.

That said, I don’t know that the laws really changed that much. Look at what the current Code says of “mixed marriages” (the technical name for a marriage between a baptized Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic):

Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:

1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;

2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;

3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

I’m not sure how the old Code of Canon Law articulated things. But in the new Code, it’s not a matter of the non-Catholic party promising to raise the kids Catholic, it’s a matter of the Catholic party making “a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church.” The non-Catholic party is then informed of the Catholic party’s promise and corresponding obligations.

Really, since the Code of Canon Law is only binding on Catholics, this approach makes the most sense. I’m not sure if the old Code articulated it differently or if people just misunderstood it.

I also don’t know that it was impossible back then for a Catholic to receive permission to be married in another Christian church. You just don’t hear of it happening as often back then. Again, it’s not so much a matter of changing rules as it is people being more familiar with the rules that are there.

Everything looks clearer in hindsight. I understand being frustrated that your Grandma missed out on 25 years of being in full communion with the Church. Whose fault that can be attiributed to would likely be difficult to ascertain and it’s really irrelevant at this point. She got things rectified and was brought back into full communion. That’s the most important thing.

 

[aemcpa]

The 1917 Code of Canon Law did not permit a dispensation for a mixed marriage unless the non-Catholic party promised, preferably in writing although at least orally to the minister, that any children born of the marriage would be raised Catholics. Since Grandpa apparently refused to so promise, the Church did not grant the dispensation. However, the lack of such a dispensation would render a mixed marriage illicit, but not invalid. The lack of Catholic form is what would have rendered the marriage invalid.

In light of the Second Vatican Council’s commitment to ecumenism, the Church resolved to relax some of the restrictions on mixed and interreligious marriages, retaining only those barriers that are of divine law.

 

[Corki]

The big difference then to now, is that it’s the Catholic spouse that promises to raise the children in the faith. The non-Catholic spouse does not promise that the children will be raised Catholic. However, he/she is usually asked to acknowledge that the Catholic spouse has this obligation. If it seems, during the marriage prep phase, that the non-Catholic spouse would interfere with the Catholic spouse’s raising of the children in the faith, the permission for a mixed marriage would probably not be given.

Raising children in the faith does not always mean that they will be baptized Catholic but that they will be educated in the faith, have knowledge of the Sacraments and that the Catholic spouse will be a visible example.

The permission for a mixed marriage already includes a assertion that the non-Catholic spouse will not interfere with the Catholic spouse’s practice of the faith and an assurance that the mixed marriage will not endanger the faith of the Catholic spouse.

 

[bzkoss236]

I am curious about something, and wonder if anyone who is better educated in such things than I can shed some light.
My Catholic grandma and Lutheran grandpa married in 1939. First marriage for both. As it was explained to me, Grandma wanted to marry in the Catholic church but in order to do so, Grandpa would have had to promise to raise their children Catholic, and he was unwilling to do this. He was adamant his kids be Lutherans. So, they married in the Lutheran church. My grandma continued to go to mass every sunday, but did not receive communion because she was living in an invalid, non-catholic marriage. After 25 years of marriage, she asked him to re-marry her in the Catholic church. Since they were too old for more kids, he readily agreed. They re-married at her parish in 1964 and she was able to receive communion again.
My understanding is that nowadays, the Church’s teachings on these things is a bit different. If the same situation happened today, if the Catholic party received permission from her priest to marry the Lutheran in a Lutheran church, the marriage would be considered valid and she would be able to continue to receive communion and be considered “in good standing” with the church. Additionally, I do know at least one Catholic bride who married a non-Catholic groom in her parish and he was never asked to promise to raise their kids Catholic (although he didn’t really care either way).
Why are things different nowadays? Is it related to Vatican II? It’s also troubling to me that my grandma, supposedly, spent 25 years of her life in a state of mortal sin (in the eyes of the church, though I am certain her own conscience was clear) for something that nowadays would apparently be considered okay. If we are truly the one true church, guided by the Holy Spirit, why do the rules sometimes change?

These rules are not on morality, but rather man-made laws of the Church to aid in the guidance of Her members.

The non-Catholic party may not need to promise to raise their children Catholic, but the Catholic party still has an obligation to do what they can to raise their children Catholic, and has to tell the non-Catholic party about their obligation at the appropriate time. The specific reasons as to why it was changed probably had to do with the very situation that your grandma went through. I don’t know this for sure, but could see that being the reason. They want Catholics to marry in the Catholic Church, and forcing the non-Catholic party to raise their children Catholic may have led the Catholics away from the Church.

Also, a dispensation must be gained from the bishop, not a priest.

Also, your Grandma should have also gone to confession before starting to receive the Eucharist again, if she didn’t.

 

[Just_Lurking]

Matrimonia Mixta (see here), the 1970 document that made the change, explains the reasons for the change in the introductory section. BTW, paragraph 15 of this document lifted the automatic excommunication that your Catholic grandmother received for marrying in a Lutheran church.

 

[Rachel126]

These rules are not on morality, but rather man-made laws of the Church to aid in the guidance of Her members.

The non-Catholic party may not need to promise to raise their children Catholic, but the Catholic party still has an obligation to do what they can to raise their children Catholic, and has to tell the non-Catholic party about their obligation at the appropriate time. The specific reasons as to why it was changed probably had to do with the very situation that your grandma went through. I don’t know this for sure, but could see that being the reason. They want Catholics to marry in the Catholic Church, and forcing the non-Catholic party to raise their children Catholic may have led the Catholics away from the Church.

Also, a dispensation must be gained from the bishop, not a priest.

Also, your Grandma should have also gone to confession before starting to receive the Eucharist again, if she didn’t.

I don’t know if she went to confession or not. However, I don’t think she was sorry she married my grandfather. Ergo, I guess I am supposed to assume she is in hell presently? And again, this makes no sense–if God’s law is unchanging, I just cannot see how her actions were a mortal sin for her, but for someone marrying today, would not be, or least, there would be one or more ways around it.
I completely understand, and agree with, what you are saying about how the rules were likely changed by the Church in response to this exact sort of situation. It was likely causing people to leave the church. However, “it’s causing people to leave the church” is not considered an acceptable reason to change doctrine, at least, not by the vast majority of people on this forum. I can’t wrap my head around the idea that a simple change in church rules–due to people getting angry and leaving the church–meant something was a mortal sin one day, and the next day, was not. While it’s tempting to dismiss the canon law of 1917, i’m sure had some sort of basis in sacred scripture and/or sacred tradition.

 

[Rachel126]

Matrimonia Mixta (see here), the 1970 document that made the change, explains the reasons for the change in the introductory section. BTW, paragraph 15 of this document lifted the automatic excommunication that your Catholic grandmother received for marrying in a Lutheran church.

Thank you for finding that for me.

 

[aemcpa]

I can’t wrap my head around the idea that a simple change in church rules–due to people getting angry and leaving the church–meant something was a mortal sin one day, and the next day, was not.

If your parents decided your curfew was 10 pm and you got home at 10:50, you would be punished. If your curfew was later changed to 11, and you got home at 10:50, you wouldn’t be punished. Does that mean your parents were being inconsistent when they punished you for violating your curfew?

Getting home at 10:50 isn’t a sin. Ignoring or disobeying your parents’ rightful authority to set a curfew for you is.

 

[twf]

I don’t know if she went to confession or not. However, I don’t think she was sorry she married my grandfather. Ergo, I guess I am supposed to assume she is in hell presently? And again, this makes no sense–if God’s law is unchanging, I just cannot see how her actions were a mortal sin for her, but for someone marrying today, would not be, or least, there would be one or more ways around it.
I completely understand, and agree with, what you are saying about how the rules were likely changed by the Church in response to this exact sort of situation. It was likely causing people to leave the church. However, “it’s causing people to leave the church” is not considered an acceptable reason to change doctrine, at least, not by the vast majority of people on this forum. I can’t wrap my head around the idea that a simple change in church rules–due to people getting angry and leaving the church–meant something was a mortal sin one day, and the next day, was not. While it’s tempting to dismiss the canon law of 1917, i’m sure had some sort of basis in sacred scripture and/or sacred tradition.

No, you should not assume she is in hell. You should never ever assume of that of any soul. We are called to pray for all of our deceased love ones. Offer a few prayers for her - it is never too late as God trascends time and space. Only God can judge the state of her soul - in order to be in a state of mortal sin one must commit a sin of grave matter, but also give full consent of the will and have full knowledge - only the priest in the confessional can assist us in understanding whether all of these criteria were met. Assume the best and leave it in God’s hands. She wouldn’t necessarily have had to been sorry that she married your grandfather, per se, but simply firmly resolved to “sin now more” - and if the marriage was convalidated in the Church, there would no longer be a question of sin.

Jesus gave His apostles the power of binding and loosing and this power passed down to their successors the bishops. The pope and bishops have the authority to impose, and if necessary, as the situation in which the Church finds herself changes, modify the disciplines that govern the Church for the good of the faithful. Jesus knew that cultures and circumstances would evolve, so he gave His representatives on earth, the bishops, a share in His own authority in order to ensure that they could govern the Church effectively down through the ages. As a child growing up, your parents probably changed their “rules” over the course of the years to addressing changing situations both in your life and in the household as a whole. The sin of marrying outside of the Church, in this situation, is not that marrying outside of the Church is intrinsically wrong - the sin is disobeying those in authority in the Church - our spiritual fathers.

 

[Rachel126]

If your parents decided your curfew was 10 pm and you got home at 10:50, you would be punished. If your curfew was later changed to 11, and you got home at 10:50, you wouldn’t be punished. Does that mean your parents were being inconsistent when they punished you for violating your curfew?

Getting home at 10:50 isn’t a sin. Ignoring or disobeying your parents’ rightful authority to set a curfew for you is.

Agreed…however, human parents are human, allowed to change, make mistakes, and most important, to change things like curfews as their children grow older and more mature and are able to take on more responsibility for themselves (generally the reason my curfew was moved later as I got older). Not really the same situation with the Church deciding things such as marriage, unless we are deciding that the Church changes its rules in response to social and cultural changes. In which case…there will be more changes in the future that we can’t even begin to envision now. Never say never, in other words.

 

[aemcpa]

Agreed…however, human parents are human, allowed to change, make mistakes, and most important, to change things like curfews as their children grow older and more mature and are able to take on more responsibility for themselves (generally the reason my curfew was moved later as I got older). Not really the same situation with the Church deciding things such as marriage, unless we are deciding that the Church changes its rules in response to social and cultural changes. In which case…there will be more changes in the future that we can’t even begin to envision now. Never say never, in other words.

The Church’s disciplines can, do, and should change over time. They are pastoral decisions. Not every rule the Church makes is divinely mandated. There are certain things about marriage that are sine qua non; on everything that isn’t, the Church does what she thinks is best for her children.

 

[Rachel126]

The Church’s disciplines can, do, and should change over time. They are pastoral decisions. Not every rule the Church makes is divinely mandated. There are certain things about marriage that are sine qua non; on everything that isn’t, the Church does what she thinks is best for her children.

This is somewhat off the original topic, but it reminds me of a conversation my husband and our (now retired) priest had a few years ago. He was in his early 70’s, I think, and he and my husband were having a general discussion about changes in the Church. Father told him that back when he entered the priesthood, if anyone had told him and his classmates that one day the Church would have lay Eucharistic Ministers, or that women would be allowed to be lectors, or that ordinary people would ever be allowed to touch the Holy Eucharist with their hands, he never would have believed them. Never.
I suppose this means we should be careful when we say about certain things that the Church will “never” change. It’s easy for us to look back now and say “oh, that was just a little Church rule, not a divine law, so the Church can change it,” but with things like mixed marriage, we are talking about a rule of automatic excommunication. By definition that ought to have always involved a pretty major offense against what we understand as being God’s law.

 

[aemcpa]

By definition that ought to have always involved a pretty major offense against what we understand as being God’s law.

Defying the Church’s law concerning marriage is a major offense. Marriage is the very foundation of the Church; we don’t need to look far to see the chaos wrought by people who want to make their own rules about it. And even if the Church chooses not to impose excommunication, it is still gravely sinful for a Catholic to marry outside the Church without the express permission of his or her bishop, and in fact such a marriage would not be valid.

 

[bzkoss236]

I don’t know if she went to confession or not. However, I don’t think she was sorry she married my grandfather. Ergo, I guess I am supposed to assume she is in hell presently? And again, this makes no sense–if God’s law is unchanging, I just cannot see how her actions were a mortal sin for her, but for someone marrying today, would not be, or least, there would be one or more ways around it.
I completely understand, and agree with, what you are saying about how the rules were likely changed by the Church in response to this exact sort of situation. It was likely causing people to leave the church.

It’s not that she should have been sorry for marrying your grandfather, but marrying outside the Church. The fact that she, though later in life, still went and married him in the Church made their marriage valid.

However, “it’s causing people to leave the church” is not considered an acceptable reason to change doctrine.

No doctrine was changed. Doctrines, by their nature of being truth, cannot change. This was a practice, a discipline, of the Church. A discipline is something that can change as the Church sees fit.

 

[Rachel126]

It’s not that she should have been sorry for marrying your grandfather, but marrying outside the Church. The fact that she, though later in life, still went and married him in the Church made their marriage valid.

No doctrine was changed. Doctrines, by their nature of being truth, cannot change. This was a practice, a discipline, of the Church. A discipline is something that can change as the Church sees fit.

Okay…but if the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches what Jesus has revealed, why would anything need to change? It seems the church put in place its previous rules to more or less forbid Catholics from marrying non-Catholics. Nowadays this happens routinely.

 

[Corki]

Okay…but if the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and teaches what Jesus has revealed, why would anything need to change? It seems the church put in place its previous rules to more or less forbid Catholics from marrying non-Catholics. Nowadays this happens routinely.

The disciplines of the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful. Decades ago, entering a mixed marriage was a serious threat to the faith of one spouse, especially if the spouse was a woman. Men were in control and women might even face violence if they didn’t go along with the religious inclinations of their spouses. Many communities were either Catholic or not. It would be hard for a Catholic living in a non-Catholic community with his/her spouse to practice the faith. Times have changed, women have more physical and financial protections. Most communities offer multiple faith opportunities. So the Church can be more flexible about mixed marriages.

The fact that the disciplines change doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the decisions but rather is proof that the Holy Spirit IS.

 

[Rachel126]

The disciplines of the Church change to meet the changing needs of the faithful. Decades ago, entering a mixed marriage was a serious threat to the faith of one spouse, especially if the spouse was a woman. Men were in control and women might even face violence if they didn’t go along with the religious inclinations of their spouses. Many communities were either Catholic or not. It would be hard for a Catholic living in a non-Catholic community with his/her spouse to practice the faith. Times have changed, women have more physical and financial protections. Most communities offer multiple faith opportunities. So the Church can be more flexible about mixed marriages.

The fact that the disciplines change doesn’t mean that the Holy Spirit is not guiding the decisions but rather is proof that the Holy Spirit IS.

I understand what you are saying.
However, it only takes a look around the community to see how many Catholics marry non-Catholics and end up either converting to the faith of their spouse, or stop practicing altogether. The evangelical megachurches often have plenty of former Catholic members, and often they arrived at this church through their spouse. In other words, it’s likely that the problem of people leaving the church has gotten worse, not better, in recent decades.

 

[aemcpa]

I understand what you are saying.
However, it only takes a look around the community to see how many Catholics marry non-Catholics and end up either converting to the faith of their spouse, or stop practicing altogether. The evangelical megachurches often have plenty of former Catholic members, and often they arrived at this church through their spouse. In other words, it’s likely that the problem of people leaving the church has gotten worse, not better, in recent decades.

There are any number of other reasons for that besides mixed marriage.