Married in Protestant Church

[Micahbob]

Good advice though you may have intended to write “defectionis” (genitive) rather than “defectionibus” (ablative/dative) here.

Still a positive act of the will, that is, a willful intention, by a person capable of placing it would be necessary to effect this defection in any case, and that would be part of the examination.

Ha, thanks for catching my mistake. In truth I said neither “defectionibus” nor “defectionis,” but rather “defectionibis,” which I guess is some sort of cross between the genitive and the ablative.

And I’ve even taken Latin classes, so I have no excuse. Serves me right for not proof-reading my post. That was not the only mistake I missed… I also mentioned a so-called “Cod of Canon Law.”

Yes, a positive act of the will, or a willful intention, is a necessary component of what constitutes a “defection by formal act.”

My point was that such a “positive act” does not constitute a “formal act” by itself. A formal letter of defection sent to the local Ordinary (see my previous post) is another necessary component, according to the 2006 notification.

The Ordinary also needs to agree that an act of the will was made (and thus that the sin of apostasy, heresy, or schism was committed).

I don’t know that you were disagreeing with me on this point, but I’m just restating it for the sake of clarity.

You said something interesting, in commenting about being re-baptized. In general, the rules which bind Catholics only bind them so long as they have not renounced the Faith. It may very well be that at the time of your marriage (which I am presuming was after your re-baptismal ceremony) you were no longer bound by form - that is, no longer bound to have your marriage officially witnessed by a priest of deacon. Since you say that you are in a rural area, you may need to get ahold of someone at the dioccese or archdiocese level, to put you in contact with a Canon lawyer, and get to the bottom of your situation.

You might want to be careful with your terminology. The rules governing Catholics regarding marriage are binding until someone makes a “formal act” of defection. Again, the Vatican notification from March of 2006 defines what is meant by a “formal act,” and I recommend Jimmy Akin’s blog entry about it:
jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

In any case, it looks to me like the OP is doing all the right things. I just wanted to clarify this point.

 

[otjm]

I also mentioned a so-called “Cod of Canon Law.”

Yeah, I thought someh=thing wa fishy…

http://www.jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

In any case, it looks to me like the OP is doing all the right things. I just wanted to clarify this point.I don’t pretend to be a Caonon lawyer (just a JD), and I have not read the formaly process. However, I wonder if that is restrictive; most people would have no clue they would need to send a letter to the bishop; but it would seem pretty clear that going through another baptismal ceremony would be indicative of “formally” leaving the Church. I would presume that canon law is not set up as a trap to the unwary - i.e. that one could only leave by a letter of formal recognition. But then, perhaps no one thought through the practical side; or perhaps there are specific reasons that it would be so limited. The letter would make obvious the intent; the question may be whether or not there is any other means of showing intent.

Wahtever; I thought I was being obviously circumspect by “In general” and “It may very wll be”.

 

[Micahbob]

I don’t pretend to be a Caonon lawyer (just a JD), and I have not read the formaly process. However, I wonder if that is restrictive; most people would have no clue they would need to send a letter to the bishop; but it would seem pretty clear that going through another baptismal ceremony would be indicative of “formally” leaving the Church. I would presume that canon law is not set up as a trap to the unwary - i.e. that one could only leave by a letter of formal recognition. But then, perhaps no one thought through the practical side; or perhaps there are specific reasons that it would be so limited. The letter would make obvious the intent; the question may be whether or not there is any other means of showing intent.

Wahtever; I thought I was being obviously circumspect by “In general” and “It may very wll be”.

Yes, I was very surprised at how strict the interpretation is as well. But that is indeed what it says; a letter to the Ordinary is required. And that’s exactly right, most people have no clue that they would need to send a letter to their bishop to formally defect, and the type of people who would leave the Church is probably not the type that would care.

I am also no Canon Laywer, or JD for that matter, but I have read the March 2006 document, as well as commentary on it from Jimmy Akin and Ed Peters.

Here is part of Jimmy Akin’s response:

Now, as is obvious, this is waaaaaay stricter than commentators have been thinking up to this point.

It also has the effect of reducing to basically zero the number of people who will have formally defected in the sense necessary to trigger the exemptions from the Church’s marriage laws.

In fact, it reduces the number of people falling under the exemption so far toward the vanishing point that it is not clear why an exception should be made in the first place.

As Jimmy Akin indicates, most commentators used to interpret “formal act” much less strictly before this 2006 notification, which is why there is still a lot of confusion on this among people who have not read the recent document from the Holy See or heard about it.

 

[jmcrae]

In answer to the question raised above, my take on it is that the Church does not want to make it easy to leave the fulness of the faith.

It seems to me that by requiring a letter to the Ordinary that is worded in a specific way, the Church ensures that no one can leave who does not have a full appreciation of the gravity of the action they are taking - nobody can leave by accident, or be misled into leaving by well-meaning non-Catholics wishing to “save” their souls.

 

[otjm]

In answer to the question raised above, my take on it is that the Church does not want to make it easy to leave the fulness of the faith.

It seems to me that by requiring a letter to the Ordinary that is worded in a specific way, the Church ensures that no one can leave who does not have a full appreciation of the gravity of the action they are taking - nobody can leave by accident, or be misled into leaving by well-meaning non-Catholics wishing to “save” their souls.

Um, I probably would not interpret it that way. “Leaving” may have different meanings. Many leave the Church simply by no longer attending, and going instead to a Protestant or other (e.g. LDS) church. There are no accidents here; the intent is just as intentional, and as effective in practical terms - they no longer receive the sacraments available to them. And as to the gravity, while I might agree that it might hit home a bit more if they knew they had to write a letter, I suspect that some understand somewhat the gravity of the issue; many probably don’t and I don’t know that the letter would catechize them any better than they already were (which, I am willing to bet, was not all that well catechized).

I would also note that many leave over issues of marriage - they get married to a Protestant and are “dragged out” of the Church; or they are in a second marriage post divorce without an annulment.

What is interesting about it is that by requiring a formal latter - which I think we can all agree is going to happen extremely rarely - it sets up the marriage subsequent to that as a short track process - lack of form - for anyone who leaves without the letter, gets married, gets divorced, and for whatever reason ends up in front of a tribunal concerning that first non-Catholic wedding.

Was this the intent? I kind of doubt it, as that would be somewhat Byzantine. But it does make for an interesting result.

 

[jmcrae]

What is interesting about it is that by requiring a formal latter - which I think we can all agree is going to happen extremely rarely - it sets up the marriage subsequent to that as a short track process - lack of form - for anyone who leaves without the letter, gets married, gets divorced, and for whatever reason ends up in front of a tribunal concerning that first non-Catholic wedding.

Was this the intent? I kind of doubt it, as that would be somewhat Byzantine. But it does make for an interesting result.

Well, it certainly makes it way easier to get back into the Catholic Church and have a valid, Sacramental marriage - and this time, really mean to do so. I don’t know whether that’s intentional, or not - but, as you say, it is the end result.

 

[cameron_lansing]

I don’t know that you were disagreeing with me on this point. . . .

No. I’m just one of those aforementioned canon lawyers who are presented with these kinds of cases and actually have to plod through them in the concrete — although sometimes it feels like plodding through the mud. The canonists at the diocese of the original poster will know what to do once the facts are presented.

 

[Jesus_Saves]

What a sad issue this is. This man is married and yet he worries about whether it is legitimate. I wonder if he worries about whether he is truly saved too?

Why is there no solid ground in the Catholic church? Everyone is worried about whether they are saved, whether they are married properly, praying for the dead, etc…

Why? Jesus gave us the examples to follow, so just follow Jesus and not the rules and legalities of the Catholic church. You will be much happier.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me.”

Friends, all the answers are in Jesus, not the Church. Only Jesus will get you into heaven, nothing else.

 

[benedictgal]

What a sad issue this is. This man is married and yet he worries about whether it is legitimate. I wonder if he worries about whether he is truly saved too?

Why is there no solid ground in the Catholic church? Everyone is worried about whether they are saved, whether they are married properly, praying for the dead, etc…

Why? Jesus gave us the examples to follow, so just follow Jesus and not the rules and legalities of the Catholic church. You will be much happier.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me.”

Friends, all the answers are in Jesus, not the Church. Only Jesus will get you into heaven, nothing else.

You make some very contradictory statements. Perhaps you have forgotten what Jesus told St. Peter after the Apostle made his remarkable confession of faith:

16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19*** And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.***

Are you denying, then, that Jesus did not give his own authority to the Church he built upon the Rock of St. Peter? The Lord gave Peter, in the symbolism of the keys, the power to govern His Church and make decisions in His Name.

The Church cannot make any decisions that go against the will of her Divine Spouse. This most assuredly includes marriage. Furthermore, the Church has the pledge of Jesus, Himself, that the gates of hell shall never prevail against it.

 

[jmcrae]

What a sad issue this is. This man is married and yet he worries about whether it is legitimate. I wonder if he worries about whether he is truly saved too?

Why is there no solid ground in the Catholic church? Everyone is worried about whether they are saved, whether they are married properly, praying for the dead, etc…

Why? Jesus gave us the examples to follow, so just follow Jesus and not the rules and legalities of the Catholic church. You will be much happier.

Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life, no one comes to the father but through me.”

Friends, all the answers are in Jesus, not the Church. Only Jesus will get you into heaven, nothing else.

Jesus established the Catholic Church (Matthew 16:18-19) and gave it His authority (John 20:22-23). Therefore, to follow the Church is, indeed, to follow Christ.

Those who are confused have become so by being outside of the Church and disobeying its precepts. Those who spend their lives in obedience to the Church will never have any confusion about what they have done, or what they are doing, or who they are, or what is their purpose in life.

 

[Agent]

Apparently, I did not defect from the Church and am still held to the marriage laws of the Church even though I did not consider myself to be a member of the Catholic Church and at the time of the marriage had no idea that I had to have a priest/deacon present… You mentioned plodding through the mud. Think how I feel?!

It is odd to be told that your marriage is invalid, you are objectively living in a state of sin, and that it will take 6 months to get marriage convalidated. We have a son, have had Christian pre-marital counseling. I feel like a huge jerk telling my wife that the Church thinks our marriage is invalid.

I have repented, I have gone to confession, I have prayed, I have emailed and talked with priests. Now it is a matter of waiting for a priest or the diocese to get around to helping me get out of this situation.

 

[otjm]

Apparently, I did not defect from the Church and am still held to the marriage laws of the Church even though I did not consider myself to be a member of the Catholic Church and at the time of the marriage had no idea that I had to have a priest/deacon present… You mentioned plodding through the mud. Think how I feel?!

It is odd to be told that your marriage is invalid, you are objectively living in a state of sin, and that it will take 6 months to get marriage convalidated. We have a son, have had Christian pre-marital counseling. I feel like a huge jerk telling my wife that the Church thinks our marriage is invalid.

I have repented, I have gone to confession, I have prayed, I have emailed and talked with priests. Now it is a matter of waiting for a priest or the diocese to get around to helping me get out of this situation.

On the other hand, because of non-compliance with the laws of the Church which you felt, at the time, did not apply, you have the benefit of a fast resolution to the prior marriage issue. There is a silver lining in the matter.

 

[Agent]

You wrote, “you have the benefit of a fast resolution to the prior marriage issue”. I do not understand what you mean by “fast resolution.” It does not seem fast to me, and there is only 1 marriage, and one wife. There is no “prior marriage”. Leaving aside canon law and the Catholic Church for the moment, I have one wife, and one marriage. Try to see things from her perspective? The Church is telling my wife that our marriage does not exist, that it is invalid and that it is causing her husband to live in a state of grave sin and that nothing will be done to rectify this for another half of year. Think of the spiritual turmoil this causes??

Strange, but one could committ mass murder, confess this , and be forgiven, but if one marries outside of the Church, one cannot be forgiven until the Church gets around to validating the marriage. I feel very upset that I have to wait in a state of grave sin for 6 months.

 

[jmcrae]

Six months does seem like a long time. If it’s not too personal, what’s the hold-up?

(My godson took what seemed to me like an awfully long time to marry his wife in the Church, too, which is why I’m curious.)

 

[Agent]

The Hold-Up is the Church: paperwork, the diocese, red tape, etc

 

[otjm]

You wrote, “you have the benefit of a fast resolution to the prior marriage issue”. I do not understand what you mean by “fast resolution.” It does not seem fast to me, and there is only 1 marriage, and one wife. There is no “prior marriage”. Leaving aside canon law and the Catholic Church for the moment, I have one wife, and one marriage. Try to see things from her perspective? The Church is telling my wife that our marriage does not exist, that it is invalid and that it is causing her husband to live in a state of grave sin and that nothing will be done to rectify this for another half of year. Think of the spiritual turmoil this causes??

Strange, but one could committ mass murder, confess this , and be forgiven, but if one marries outside of the Church, one cannot be forgiven until the Church gets around to validating the marriage. I feel very upset that I have to wait in a state of grave sin for 6 months.

Oops, My apologies; I crossed over two threads.

 

[rick43235]

Strange, but one could committ mass murder, confess this , and be forgiven, but if one marries outside of the Church, one cannot be forgiven until the Church gets around to validating the marriage.

I also find this strange. A murderer goes to confession, talks to one priest, receives absolution, and he’s good to go. Violate one of the Church’s rules on marriage and your life goes under a microscope to be examined by a tribunal in a process that might take more than a year.

Another thing that I don’t understand: A person raised as a Catholic can marry and divorce at will as long as it’s not in the Church, and then when they finally come to their senses, can marry in the Church with no problem, simply claiming “lack of form” for their previous marriages. No so for someone who was not Catholic at the time of their earlier marriage and divorce. They have to face the above mentioned tribunal.

Hey…I understand those are the rules. They just don’t make sense to me.

 

[anamchara]

Don’t know. I am quais-going to TAKE ANOTHER LOOK class for returning Catholics but I am the only regular attender and it isn’t that helpful. I just wanted to audit the RCIA classes. Feel almost unwanted by Church if truth be told. . .

I very much appreciate all of the advice and comments.

I went to reconcilliation last night and explained my situation as well as I could. The priest was very good and helpful. He advised me to refrain from communion and said he hadn’t studied canon law in 8 years and that he would research the issue and get back to me sometime in the next week or so. (I will anonymously call the Church. . .)

I am pleased and content with his response. he seems very willing to help and readily admitted that he couldn’t give me a quick answer. I appreciated his candor.

There’s a few things I honestly don’t understand. Why in heavens name do you have to take an RCIA class? You were already confirmed. Unless you wanted to that’s fine. All you need is confession which from one of your post you have already done this. As far as the marriage I am not understanding what the hold up is. My husband (our marriage) was in the same boat as you when I converted. He grew up Catholic but we married in the Protestant Church because of me. We then belonged to the Protestant Church for over 10 years. No other marriages for us either. I honestly don’t understand the hold up. There shouldn’t be at all.

 

[benedictgal]

There’s a few things I honestly don’t understand. Why in heavens name do you have to take an RCIA class? You were already confirmed. Unless you wanted to that’s fine. All you need is confession which from one of your post you have already done this. As far as the marriage I am not understanding what the hold up is. My husband (our marriage) was in the same boat as you when I converted. He grew up Catholic but we married in the Protestant Church because of me. We then belonged to the Protestant Church for over 10 years. No other marriages for us either. I honestly don’t understand the hold up. There shouldn’t be at all.

It is because your husband is Catholic and both of you married in a Protestant ecclesial community that necessitated the reason for your having your marriage convalidated. Had both of you been Protestant, there would not have been a hold-up. However, as a Catholic, your husband was bound by the laws of Christ and His Church at the time of your marriage. Even though neither of you had a previous marriage, your marriage was invalid due to defect of form because the nuptials weren’t celebrated according to the guidelines of the Church. This is the same problem that the OP is encountering.

It’s not that I’m being insensitive. A couple of folks have vented their frustrations regarding the stance of the Church on this issue. However, the matter of a valid marriage is a precept of the Church. It is something that she has no authority to change on her own because it flows from Christ’s direct teachings on marriage. Granted, He specifically addressed the issue of divorce, but, the issue of marriage finds its source in Christ because it reflects the relationship of the Divine Bridgegroom and His Bride, who is the Church.

People accuse the Church of having man-made laws and binding them on people. Well, in a stretch, one could say it is man-made, established by the God-Man Jesus Christ, after all, Jesus is fully Divine and fully Man. But, that is for another thread.

 

[Micahbob]

I also find this strange. A murderer goes to confession, talks to one priest, receives absolution, and he’s good to go. Violate one of the Church’s rules on marriage and your life goes under a microscope to be examined by a tribunal in a process that might take more than a year.

Another thing that I don’t understand: A person raised as a Catholic can marry and divorce at will as long as it’s not in the Church, and then when they finally come to their senses, can marry in the Church with no problem, simply claiming “lack of form” for their previous marriages. No so for someone who was not Catholic at the time of their earlier marriage and divorce. They have to face the above mentioned tribunal.

Hey…I understand those are the rules. They just don’t make sense to me.

It is important here to recognize the connection between Catholic “rules” and theology. Or rather, the connection between Catholic rules and reality. If the Church determines that a marriage lacked proper form, it does not simply mean that it was against the Church rules and therefore a sin; it means that there was never a marriage in the first place, in the eyes of the Church and of God.

In your post you presented two contrasts, and I will address each one individually.

Firstly, you presented what seems to be a double standard in the way that the Church gives absolution for violations of the rules of marriage compared with other sins, such as murder.

But in reality there is no double standard, and the difference is very simple. The murderer in this case committed the sin in the past and now has a firm purpose of amendment. Whereas the person in an invalid marriage is persisting in what is objectively a state of sin, and has no firm purpose of amendment.

To continue with your murder example, if someone was a professional hit man for the mafia, and thus he was persisting in a state of sin, he would also be denied absolution unless he resolved to end his profession. Thus there is no difference between the nature of the sins (murder vs. violation of the rules of marriage) and how they are handled in the confessional. What matters is contrition, which includes a purpose of amendment. What matters is the current state of the penitent.

Secondly, you contrasted two examples: one of a Catholic who can marry and divorce at will and then claim “lack of form” and return to the Church, and the other of a non-Catholic with one or more previous marriages who wants to come into the Church.

The difference is that only Catholics are governed by the ecclesiastical laws of marriage. If a Catholic attempts to marry outside of the Church without a dispensation, the marriage will be invalid. He will not be married in the eyes of God or of the Church.

So the Church treats a Catholic in this situation (defect of form) differently because the reality is different. The Church knows right away that his prior marriage was not valid, so there is no need for further investigation. For many other situations, it is not so clear whether or not a marriage was valid, and a tribunal is necessary.

I don’t know if this has helped you to understand at all. But I hope at least it may help you think it on your own - or search out better sources of material - and come to a better understanding.