Marriage Validity for Baptist Considering Catholicism

[rkremer]

Hello,

I’m starting this thread as an attempt to seek rational, logical help on the topic of Marriage validity. Recently, a family member has chosen to embark on the RCIA process. She has however, encountered a few big personal road blocks. One of these is the validity of her marriage.

My sister-in-law grew up, was Baptized and Married a Catholic man in the Baptist Church (a priest was not present). Through the RCIA process, she has been stunned, heartbroken and angered to discover that the Catholic Church does not recognize her Christian marriage and that she cannot become Catholic unless she is remarried. In my understanding, Catholic Matrimony is considered a Holy Sacrament, which differentiates it in a way from a non-Catholic union, however, neither my wife nor myself is able to succinctly and rationally explain (perhaps because we don’t completely understand) why this rule exists – ESPECIALLY since (as I understand) had neither of them been Catholic when they were married, remarriage would not be necessary for entry into the Church (Correct me if I’m wrong).

My sister-in-law has sought guidance from her RCIA instructor as well as a Priest and has not been satisfied with their responses, or at least their explanation.

I’m not sure that she will ever get the answer *she’s looking for *or get past this, because the law is not going to change (anytime soon anyway). I am prayerful however, that someone on these forums might offer clearly logical, methodical and especially anecdotal insight into the validity of marriage and why remarriage is necessary in this specific instance. I’m hoping for a way to explain this requirement in a beautifully simplistic way that is compelling and makes sense.

Thank You in advance!

-rkremer

 

[Avocadomom]

Hello,

I’m starting this thread as an attempt to seek rational, logical help on the topic of Marriage validity. Recently, a family member has chosen to embark on the RCIA process. She has however, encountered a few big personal road blocks. One of these is the validity of her marriage.

My sister-in-law grew up, was Baptized and Married a Catholic man in the Baptist Church (a priest was not present). Through the RCIA process, she has been stunned, heartbroken and angered to discover that the Catholic Church does not recognize her Christian marriage and that she cannot become Catholic unless she is remarried. In my understanding, Catholic Matrimony is considered a Holy Sacrament, which differentiates it in a way from a non-Catholic union, however, neither my wife nor myself is able to succinctly and rationally explain (perhaps because we don’t completely understand) why this rule exists – ESPECIALLY since (as I understand) had neither of them been Catholic when they were married, remarriage would not be necessary for entry into the Church (Correct me if I’m wrong).

My sister-in-law has sought guidance from her RCIA instructor as well as a Priest and has not been satisfied with their responses, or at least their explanation.

I’m not sure that she will ever get the answer *she’s looking for *or get past this, because the law is not going to change (anytime soon anyway). I am prayerful however, that someone on these forums might offer clearly logical, methodical and especially anecdotal insight into the validity of marriage and why remarriage is necessary in this specific instance. I’m hoping for a way to explain this requirement in a beautifully simplistic way that is compelling and makes sense.

Thank You in advance!

-rkremer

They can get the marriage convalidated at any time, and her road to joining the Church should be none the longer for it. It could potentially be a matter of calling the priest this week, attending a class next week, and convalidating the following weekend right after the 9 AM Mass.

Proper Protestant marriages are considered sacramental. Your family member’s just isn’t valid because, as a baptized Catholic, the husband was bound to marry according to Cannon law, and chose not to. It’s really a very common situation, and the fix is easy.

I don’t understand why this is so complex to grasp for your family member. Catholics must marry according to Cannon Law. Her husband disregarded this and attempted to do “his own thing.” The Church does not view this as valid. It needs to be fixed, and the fix is simple.

 

[LSK]

What I would ask her is this:

Did her Catholic husband receive a dispensation from the Bishop of his diocese to marry outside the Church?

If not, what the Church is seeing is that her marriage needs to be normalized. It does not mean that she did anything wrong or that the marriage is bad; rather, it means her lovely but probably poorly catechized husband did not follow the necessary form when they first married.

I would then emphasize to her that this is a FABULOUS thing, not a sad or angry thing. It means that she has the chance to get everything all straightened out according to Church law and enter into full communion with The Bride of Christ without any impediment.

Then I would say, “AND you get more WEDDING PRESENTS!”.

But then - that’s me.

 

[1ke]

My sister-in-law grew up, was Baptized and Married a Catholic man in the Baptist Church (a priest was not present).

Ok, let’s make sure we understand these facts:

• Your sister in law grew up and was baptized in the Baptist church.
• Her husband was baptized in the Catholic Church.
• They married in the Baptist church.
• This was the first and only marriage for both of them (you don’t say one way or the other, so just checking).

You mention that no priest was present. That isn’t really the issue. The issue is that, as a Catholic, her husband is bound by Church law on marriage. He can only be validly married in the Catholic form of marriage OR in a non-Catholic church with a dispensation from the bishop. All he would have had to do is get such permission and the marriage in the Baptist church would have been perfectly valid.

You don’t say why he failed in his obligations as a Catholic-- was he not practicing, did he not know, etc. The first thing a Catholic contemplating marriage needs to do is have a meeting with their pastor and go over all they need to do to prepare for and receive the sacrament. Sounds like her husband didn’t do any of that.

Or, maybe he did and there’s been a misunderstanding. Can you clarify this point?

Through the RCIA process, she has been stunned, heartbroken and angered to discover that the Catholic Church does not recognize her Christian marriage and that she cannot become Catholic unless she is remarried.

Not exactly. Her irregular marriage situation can be rectified either by convalidation (giving new consent in the Catholic form) OR by radical sanation (retroactively validating the original exchange of consent and completing those permissions/dispensations that her husband failed to obtain originally).

I’d recommend radical sanation.

In my understanding, Catholic Matrimony is considered a Holy Sacrament, which differentiates it in a way from a non-Catholic union,

Actually, no. All valid marriages between the baptized are sacramental. Two Baptists, two Catholics, a Baptist and a Catholic, etc, who marry validly have a sacramental marriage.

Marriage involving one or both unbaptized people are valid, natural marriage. So, for example, two Jews, two atheists, a Jew and a Catholic, etc.

had neither of them been Catholic when they were married, remarriage would not be necessary for entry into the Church (Correct me if I’m wrong).

If neither of them had been Catholic (or Orthodox) then they would have a valid marriage.

But, that is not the case. Her husband is a Catholic, and as such either needed to be married in Catholic form OR receive a dispensation to be married in her church. He did neither.

My sister-in-law has sought guidance from her RCIA instructor as well as a Priest and has not been satisfied with their responses, or at least their explanation.

I cannot comment since I don’t know what they told her. Has she articulated precisely what the dissatisfaction is?

remarriage is necessary in this specific instance.

“Remmariage” is not necessary, precisely. Correcting the lack of form through an exchange of consent in Catholic form (convalidation) OR retroactively correcting the defects associated with the lack of dispensation from form (radical sanation) will make the marriage valid.

 

[rkremer]

They can get the marriage convalidated at any time, and her road to joining the Church should be none the longer for it. It could potentially be a matter of calling the priest this week, attending a class next week, and convalidating the following weekend right after the 9 AM Mass.

Proper Protestant marriages are considered sacramental. Your family member’s just isn’t valid because, as a baptized Catholic, the husband was bound to marry according to Cannon law, and chose not to. It’s really a very common situation, and the fix is easy.

I don’t understand why this is so complex to grasp for your family member. Catholics must marry according to Cannon Law. Her husband disregarded this and attempted to do “his own thing.” The Church does not view this as valid. It needs to be fixed, and the fix is simple.

Thanks for your response.

Had he married according to Cannon Law, would their wedding have been performed any differently? In other words, would the substance of their union be different, would their vows be any different? I understand (as does she…I think) that this is a pretty easy fix. I think what is difficult (maybe impossible) to swallow is that their good faith Christian Marriage (one where he was ignorant, not negligent to his “responsibility”) is not valid.

I think you did a good job of summarizing. Any anectodal comparisons that might make his repsonsibility as a Catholic easier to explain without going into the specifics of Cannon Law?

Thanks!

 

[rkremer]

Ok, let’s make sure we understand these facts:

• Your sister in law grew up and was baptized in the Baptist church.
• Her husband was baptized in the Catholic Church.
• They married in the Baptist church.
• This was the first and only marriage for both of them (you don’t say one way or the other, so just checking).

This is all correct

You mention that no priest was present. That isn’t really the issue. The issue is that, as a Catholic, her husband is bound by Church law on marriage. He can only be validly married in the Catholic form of marriage OR in a non-Catholic church with a dispensation from the bishop. All he would have had to do is get such permission and the marriage in the Baptist church would have been perfectly valid.

You don’t say why he failed in his obligations as a Catholic-- was he not practicing, did he not know, etc. The first thing a Catholic contemplating marriage needs to do is have a meeting with their pastor and go over all they need to do to prepare for and receive the sacrament. Sounds like her husband didn’t do any of that.

Or, maybe he did and there’s been a misunderstanding. Can you clarify this point?

I’m not completely sure. I married into the family 5 years later. It is my assumption that he was not aware of his obligations, and thus, did not take the necessary steps.

Not exactly. Her irregular marriage situation can be rectified either by convalidation (giving new consent in the Catholic form) OR by radical sanation (retroactively validating the original exchange of consent and completing those permissions/dispensations that her husband failed to obtain originally).

I’d recommend radical sanation.

I’ll see if she is aware of “Radical Sanation”

Thank You for your thoughtful and prompt response!

 

[Avocadomom]

Thanks for your response.

Had he married according to Cannon Law, would their wedding have been performed any differently? In other words, would the substance of their union be different, would their vows be any different? I understand (as does she…I think) that this is a pretty easy fix. I think what is difficult (maybe impossible) to swallow is that their good faith Christian Marriage (one where he was ignorant, not negligent to his “responsibility”) is not valid.

I think you did a good job of summarizing. Any anectodal comparisons that might make his repsonsibility as a Catholic easier to explain without going into the specifics of Cannon Law?

Thanks!

Had he married according to Cannon Law, he would have almost certainly been married in a Catholic Church by a Catholic priest or deacon. He could have asked for a dispensation, but this is rare. In a Catholic wedding, certain promises are made that are not standard for other the wedding ceremonies of other faiths (for example, promising to welcome children into the union.)

I understand that it might feel insulting to hear “Actually, you haven’t been married all this time,” when in fact they feel married and have acted married. The bottom line is that there are obligations when one is a Catholic. To Protestants, this might seem legalistic or silly or even mean. For example, as you know, we are obligated to go to Mass every weekend. We are obligated to fast prior to receiving communion. We are obligated to make at least one good confession per annum. It’s for the good of the soul of the person.

 

[1ke]

Had he married according to Cannon Law, would their wedding have been performed any differently? In other words, would the substance of their union be different, would their vows be any different?

If they had married in Catholic form the vows would have been those in the Marriage Rite. The priest would have ensure valid intent and consent (i.e., you’ve come here freely, etc).

If married in the Baptist church, the priest would have gone over essentials to ensure no impediments and discussed valid consent/intent. The Baptist minister would have received the vows in whatever manner they normally do.

As long as there was no intentional omission or denial of an essential property of marriage-- fidelity, perpetuity, and fecundy – then whatever form the Baptist ceremony took would have been fine.

I understand (as does she…I think) that this is a pretty easy fix. I think what is difficult (maybe impossible) to swallow is that their good faith Christian Marriage (one where he was ignorant, not negligent to his “responsibility”) is not valid.

it’s simply a fact, not a judgment on either of them. I am sure the emotion is coming from somehow feeling judged or “less” or something. But that’s not the case at all.

Whenever people talk in emotionally charged terms, it’s hard to move them to resolution. Hopefully your sister-in-law will be able to see it’s not personal, it’s not a judgment. It is simply a fact that needs rectifying.

For example, people on here often get up in arms regarding a parent receiving an annulment, as if that somehow impacts them. My own parents were in an invalid marriage when they had me. It’s simply a fact. It’s not any reflection on me.

Any anectodal comparisons that might make his repsonsibility as a Catholic easier to explain without going into the specifics of Cannon Law?

Sure lots of them come from civil law. For example, if their marriage had been witnessed by a friend on the beach who had no standing with the state, they would not be validly married even though they exchanged vows.

Similarly, they needed to either exchange their vows in front of the official witness of the Church, or receive permission to be excused from that requirement, to be recognized as validly married by the Church.

The Church has a right to regulate the sacraments in which their citizens partake just as the civil government can regulate the legal contracts into which their citizens enter. Her husband is a citizen of the Catholic Church. He failed in his obligations, but it can be corrected.

 

[1ke]

He could have asked for a dispensation, but this is rare.

I don’t know where you live, but in the Catholic Church this is not in any way “rare”. It is a very frequent occurrence.

In a Catholic wedding, certain promises are made that are not standard for other the wedding ceremonies of other faiths (for example, promising to welcome children into the union.)

Which doesn’t mean the marriage ceremony would be invalid. The priest would ascertain valid intent and consent in the premarital process.

 

[rkremer]

If married in the Baptist church, the priest would have gone over essentials to ensure no impediments and discussed valid consent/intent.

Sure lots of them come from civil law. For example, if their marriage had been witnessed by a friend on the beach who had no standing with the state, they would not be validly married even though they exchanged vows.

Similarly, they needed to either exchange their vows in front of the official witness of the Church, or receive permission to be excused from that requirement, to be recognized as validly married by the Church.

Thanks again for your explanation. Please know that my continued inquiries are in an effort to build (for lack of a better word) an argument for purposes of explaining this issue in a way to satisfy her.

In response to your example (and notwithstanding the fact that her husband did not comply with his obligations) I anticipate this question from my sister in law: How have two Non-Catholics, who were married in a non-Catholic Church exchanged their vows in front of the official witness of the Church? How can they be recognized if there is no way to certify their intent and/or consent or that there were no impediments? Why is their marriage valid when perhaps the vows and and intent of those vows may not have aligned with the Catholic Church? Shouldn’t they too have to formally consent to the implications and requirements of a marriage in the Catholic Church?

I think she feels like she is being punished for her husband’s omission. For example, and correct me if I’m wrong, she will not be able to enter into full communion with the church until this issue is rectified…however, this invalid marriage is through no fault of hers.

Thanks again!

 

[1ke]

How have two Non-Catholics, who were married in a non-Catholic Church exchanged their vows in front of the official witness of the Church?

They aren’t members of the Catholic Church. They have no obligation to exchange consent before a witness of the Church. Ecclesial law binds those who are baptized into or received into the Catholic Church by profession of faith. It does not bind non-Catholics in any way, except as it pertains to something such as a non-Catholic marrying a Catholic. To the extent that the Catholic has obligations under ecclesial law, the non-Catholic is placing themselves under it as well.

How can they be recognized if there is no way to certify their intent and/or consent or that there were no impediments?

The words we say and the actions we take are presumed to match the internal disposition.

The presumption of validity goes to the couple. If there are facts that show the marriage is invalid, then they would be examined on an individual basis.

Why is their marriage valid when perhaps the vows and and intent of those vows may not have aligned with the Catholic Church?

There marriage has *presumption *of validity. Barring any facts to the contrary it is valid. Again, if facts established a doubt, then the individual case would need to be examined.

Shouldn’t they too have to formally consent to the implications and requirements of a marriage in the Catholic Church?

No.

think she feels like she is being punished for her husband’s omission. For example, and correct me if I’m wrong, she will not be able to enter into full communion with the church until this issue is rectified…however, this invalid marriage is through no fault of hers.

I am sure she feels like she is being punished. She did not do anything wrong, you are correct. That is why I suggest radical sanation, which recognizes their original consent.

That is true, she cannot enter full communion until this is resolved. But it is easily resolved if she will stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If she does not recognize the authority of the Church over its members as valid and binding, why does she seek to place herself under that authority?

She really can’t have it both ways. She is seeking to be Catholic after all.

 

[phil19034]

I was a born Catholic and fell away from the church while in college, and married outside the church without dispensation. I didn’t even know that dispensation was possible.

After I returned to the Church, I learned that I could not receive communion. I knew that I was in a marriage the church didn’t recognize, but I didn’t know I couldn’t receive communion. Again, I didn’t know I had options other than not getting married because I didn’t know about this thing called a dispensation, nor that it’s pretty easy to get (unless both bride and groom are Catholic).

My wife, who is Jewish, refused to receive a con-validation because she felt our wedding was valid. So, after the priest got to know me, I applied for a Radical Sanation and received the Bishop’s approval.

The priest had never done one before and the parish didn’t have the paperwork, so they needed the diocese to send the forms and instructions in the mail. The priest helped me understand the questions and helped me articulate my answers so the bishop would understand my responses.

A couple weeks after we mailed in the Radical Sanation application, I received my approval and certificate.

So why was this necessary (besides Canon Law)? Why does the Canon Law exist?

First lets identify some points:

1. The Catholic Church views marriage as a Sacrament, it’s more than just a tradition. Growing up Catholic, I received terrible catechesis, but I still knew that Matrimony was a Sacrament. I didn’t know about dispensations, radical sanations, canon law, etc; but I knew it was a Sacrament. Most Catholic kids can name all 7 sacraments. And if they can’t, they usually know matrimony is one of them.
2. Protestants do not believe in the Sacraments. However, Protestants do believe that marriage is supposed to be between a man & woman, joining together with God. So they preform the sacrament if they are both baptized when they marry (even though they don’t know it).
3. while a Catholic Priest or Deacon does officiate a Catholic wedding, the ministers of the sacrament are actually the Bride & Groom themselves, with The Holy Spirit.
4. finally, the Catholic Church views all marriages to be valid unless there is evidence to suggest that it may not be valid (notice I said “may not be” not “is not”).

So what does this all mean?

The Church is going to assume, that as a Catholic, your sister-in-law’s husband and/or his family knew that Matrimony is a sacrament. When a Catholic (or Orthodox) does not marry according to the form required by the Church it is viewed as evidence that spouse may not believe in the Sacrament of Matrimony. Therefore, this is viewed as evidence that the marriage might not be valid, because it casts doubt on the Catholic’s view and understanding of Marriage.

Therefore, because the Church has a possible reason to doubt the validly of the husband’s intent, then the Church cannot vouch for the validly of this particular marriage.

To rectify this, there are two ways:

1. the easy way: redo the vows so the Church can be sure the intent is there. This is called a con-validation. It only requires the bride & groom, a priest or Deacon, and two witnesses. No money needed (unless they are going to do a full blown second wedding with hundreds of guests). The 5 (there could be a few more) people can celebrate con-validation in the by themselves in the Church Chapel, during a Sunday or Daily Mass, or even inside the Rectory. Free and easy. The only “downside” for some people is that the Church will never vouch for the first wedding.
2. the other way: show the church that the consent was there and “prove” (for lack of a better word) that the marriage is valid. This is the Radical Sanation. Often, the priest will want to feel comfortable with the couple before completing the paperwork because both the couple and the priest must swear (under moral perjury) that the answers are truthful. The completed Radical Sanation application provides the Bishop all the information he (and the priest) needs to comfortably recognize (or not) the original wedding ceremony. The application includes questions about why the couple didn’t get married in the Catholic Church, why a dispensation wasn’t received, if the couple’s intent was to get married for life, who married them, where the wedding took place, etc. If/when approved, the original wedding is recognized and vouched for by the Church. Church records will show both the date of the original wedding and the date of the Radical Sanation.

This is a dirty snap shot of WHY the Canon Law exists. NOTE: I’m not a canon lawyer and I’m not a theologian; so it is possible I may have left some things out. But I think this is a good layman’s answer.

I hope this helps and if you have any questions, please let me know.

God Bless!

 

[z_0101]

Ok, let’s make sure we understand these facts:

• Your sister in law grew up and was baptized in the Baptist church.
• Her husband was baptized in the Catholic Church.
• They married in the Baptist church.
• This was the first and only marriage for both of them (you don’t say one way or the other, so just checking).

SIGN[/SIGN]

1ke
You’re good! Covered it all in a very well laid out format.
OP would be good to show your post to the family member

 

[z_0101]

I was a born Catholic and fell away from the church while in college, and married outside the church without dispensation. I didn’t even know that dispensation was possible.
[SIGN]SNIP[/SIGN]

and a very nice followup to 1ke’s post.

 

[rkremer]

That is true, she cannot enter full communion until this is resolved. But it is easily resolved if she will stop making a mountain out of a mole hill.

If you would, could you please offer explanation as to the reason(s) she is not allowed to enter into full communion? She was not bound by Cannon Law, and did not personally infringe on any obligations.

Does anyone have an anecdote comparing her barment from full communion based on her husband’s failure to act?

Thanks again. I really appreciate the time and effort everyone has offered.

 

[casslean]

If you would, could you please offer explanation as to the reason(s) she is not allowed to enter into full communion? She was not bound by Cannon Law, and did not personally infringe on any obligations.

Does anyone have an anecdote comparing her barment from full communion based on her husband’s failure to act?

Thanks again. I really appreciate the time and effort everyone has offered.

I’m not sure if this will help, but here is a purely secular analogy (and I hope I’m getting this right):

When two parties enter into a contract, if the conduct of ONE of those parties is sufficient to invalidate the contact, that’s enough - the contract is invalid. It can’t be validated merely because the other party (in law, we call them the “innocent party”) has acted entirely in accordance with the law.

It’s the same here. When her husband entered into the marriage, it was in a manner that deemed the marriage invalid under Canon Law - as a Catholic, he was obligated to be married in the Church or receive permission to be married outside the Church.

It isn’t a punishment. I personally would see it as a further reason for celebration - she is not only bringing herself but her marriage into the Church.

 

[1ke]

If you would, could you please offer explanation as to the reason(s) she is not allowed to enter into full communion? She was not bound by Cannon Law, and did not personally infringe on any obligations.

The marriage as a whole is either valid or invalid. It isn’t valid for one and not the other.

Typically the bishop requires that irregular marriages be rectified first because being in an ongoing invalid marriage is an impediment to receiving other sacraments-- unless the couple is continent. That would be something that the pastor would discuss with them. If the couple is not continent, knowing that they are in an invalid marriage, they are basically freely continuing in grave sin.

There were not in any sin while ignorant of the situation, but now they know that there are steps that must be taken to fix their situation. Knowing this, and refusing to take the steps or knowing this and continuing in the invalid situation while having marital relations is objectively grave matter.

We must be in a state of grace to receive the sacraments, therefore additional sacraments such as Confirmation and Eucharist cannot be given if they are not in a state of grace. Technically, she could indeed make her profession of faith while awaiting the sanation. But, she would not be able to receive any sacraments until the situation is fixed.

There certainly are ways to be in a state of grace and receive the sacraments, namely convalidation/sanation and/or continence on their part. However, the Church also recognizes that continence is difficult for some situations (unwilling spouse) and the Church is also trying to prevent a situation where a person becomes a Catholic and unable to adhere to or fulfill the requirements of the Church. That would make the Church herself complicit with their objectively grave situation. The Church cannot do that.

Does anyone have an anecdote comparing her barment from full communion based on her husband’s failure to act?
.

Technically it’s not full communion she is barred from, it’s reception of the sacraments. And we are ALL prohibited from receiving the sacraments when in are not in a state of grace, regardless of what put us there.