Priest vs. Canon Law

[rpp]

She agreed to do the validation – she was just uncomfortable about the teaching and the reason for doing it. I’m assuming most non-Catholics would be uncomfortable with such a teaching. I’m Catholic and I’m even uncomfortable with it…but faith isn’t easy. In the Gospel of Mark, Jesus says pick up your cross and follow me…

But, since she already affirmed, without much, if any, nudging from me, that the children with be raised Catholic and that she is even leaning toward Catholicism, I don’t think it will turn out to be a huge issue. The only issue for us will be finding the right witnesses for a ceremony like this. But that is a minor issue that we should be able to resolve.

I heard of radical sanation, but I hear the process can be quite long and can be costly. My parish priest told me that the convalidation is a very simple and quick ceremony.

For me, radical sanation cost nothing, and consisted of me making a phone call to the archdiocesan pastoral, getting a one page form, and waiting six weeks. No expense at all.

 

[kyrie80]

For me, radical sanation cost nothing, and consisted of me making a phone call to the archdiocesan pastoral, getting a one page form, and waiting six weeks. No expense at all.

You filled out the form or your parish priest did?

 

[rpp]

You filled out the form or your parish priest did?

Thinking back on it and remembering more clearly, I think I gave the form to my priest after filling it out. It was a very simple process.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Yes, the Church does recognize marriages performed in the Lutheran Church, but NOT when one of the parties was baptized Catholic.

Which of course is silly. How can the church recognize the marriage, if both are protestants, but not if one is a Catholic.

Its either a marriage or its not.

And the fact that he’s coming back to the Catholic Church, should not prohibit him from receiving the Eucharist, especially since two priest have told him they wouldn’t prohibit him from receiving.

Again, he should follow the advice of his priest.

Jim

 

[kyrie80]

Which of course is silly. How can the church recognize the marriage, if both are protestants, but not if one is a Catholic.

Its either a marriage or its not.

And the fact that he’s coming back to the Catholic Church, should not prohibit him from receiving the Eucharist, especially since two priest have told him they wouldn’t prohibit him from receiving.

Again, he should follow the advice of his priest.

Jim

That is exactly what I have been thinking. What I have been wondering is this – if I get divorced, will the RCC require me to get an annulment? If they are consistent, they would not because I am in an ‘invalid’ marriage. However, Canon law says I would be required. Why is this? Annulments in my diocese run about $1000-1500. Is money the reason?

Although I love the Church and want to and intend to follow its laws, I find it interesting that abortionists, murderers, rapists, theives, etc., can return to full communion be repenting and going to confession. But marry outside the Church…sorry, you need to jump through these hoops first. Confession is not enough.

I’m not bashing the RCC by any means – I’m just thinking out loud.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

kyrie80

That is exactly what I have been thinking. What I have been wondering is this – if I get divorced, will the RCC require me to get an annulment? If they are consistent, they would not because I am in an ‘invalid’ marriage.

Yes they would require you to get an annulment.

Why is this? Annulments in my diocese run about $1000-1500. Is money the reason?

Well I don’t know about cost, my brother’s cost $100. It depends on the amount of work involved to investigate the marriage. My brother was married and his ex, were both baptized, confirmed and married in the dioceses, so it wasn’t much to investigate.

Although I love the Church and want to and intend to follow its laws, I find it interesting that abortionists, murderers, rapists, theives, etc., can return to full communion be repenting and going to confession. But marry outside the Church…sorry, you need to jump through these hoops first. Confession is not enough.

I’m not bashing the RCC by any means – I’m just thinking out loud.

Remember, Canon law isn’t infallible.

Jim

 

[kyrie80]

kyrie80

Remember, Canon law isn’t infallible.

Really? Canon law isn’t the Holy Father speaking ex cathedra? For some reason, I thought everything the church teaches is infallible.

I guess this is the reason that if I read about a church teaching, I should seek and take the advice of the parish priest rather than coming to forum pages like these. That is, after all, what they went through Seminary for…if we can’t trust them to lead the flock, we are in big trouble.

This can all get very confusing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Really? Canon law isn’t the Holy Father speaking ex cathedra? For some reason, I thought everything the church teaches is infallible.

I guess this is the reason that if I read about a church teaching, I should seek and take the advice of the parish priest rather than coming to forum pages like these. That is, after all, what they went through Seminary for…if we can’t trust them to lead the flock, we are in big trouble.

This can all get very confusing.

I’m not a Canon lawyer, but I do not believe everything in Canon law is infallible, which is why following the advice of your priest is the best policy.

Jim

 

[nightwalker]

The majority of canon law is discipline, not doctrine (and discipline, apart from keeping with the basic principle of ‘Do good, avoid evil’, in not infallible).

I would say that your approach from the OP is correct (educated yourself and then seek the guidance/assistance of your priest). The assumption that the priest is automatically correct is a form of clericalism that rather prevalent in parts.

As several posters have said, get the convalidation, and abstain (either from the Eucharist or from sexual relations) until then.

But the caution on reading canon law (well not reading it but attempting to apply it) is worth noting. In this case it seems that you are absolutely correct (and you could check it with a canon lawyer to be sure), but there are situations where people trying to apply canon law by civil law standards can create a mess.

 

[Brendan]

Which of course is silly. How can the church recognize the marriage, if both are protestants, but not if one is a Catholic.

Its either a marriage or its not.

Correct, it’s not a marriage if one party is Catholic and they are married outside of the Form set by Canon 1108.

Protestants are not bound by Canon Law, but Catholics are.

I’m not a Canon lawyer, but I do not believe everything in Canon law is infallible, which is why following the advice of your priest is the best policy.

Jim

It’s not infallible, but we are still bound to obey it.

Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I

1. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.

That’s a document from an Ecumenical Council, which IS infallible.

 

[Brendan]

That is exactly what I have been thinking. What I have been wondering is this – if I get divorced, will the RCC require me to get an annulment? If they are consistent, they would not because I am in an ‘invalid’ marriage.

Yes, it is called a Declaration of Nullity Due to Lack of Canonical Form.

Here is a bit on that from the website of the Dioces of Shreveport

All Catholics must marry in front of a priest, deacon and two witnesses in a sacred place (c.1108). If a Catholic does not secure permission from the proper authorities for a dispensation from this form, their marriage is considered null due to Lack of Canonical Form

.

dioshpt.org/canonical/marriage4.htm

 

[Sheeniac]

Yes, it is called a Declaration of Nullity Due to Lack of Canonical Form.

Here is a bit on that from the website of the Dioces of Shreveport

.

dioshpt.org/canonical/marriage4.htm

And this is a very simple thing to obtain (as compared to the regular annulment). I submitted this - it’s free at my parish. My BF is going through a regular annulment ($125 or so) and it’s a lot more work.

 

[Phemie]

Yes, it is called a Declaration of Nullity Due to Lack of Canonical Form.

Here is a bit on that from the website of the Dioces of Shreveport

dioshpt.org/canonical/marriage4.htm

Some dioceses don’t even require that since his marriage doesn’t enjoy a presumption of validity. My bishop just has the priest carefully document the circumstances of the invalid marriage and the divorce + check with the diocese where the marriage was celebrated to see if a dispensation was granted. No dispensation, no validity, no marriage.

Matter of fact, there will be a wedding celebrated next month where the bride just went through this.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

That is exactly what I have been thinking. What I have been wondering is this – if I get divorced, will the RCC require me to get an annulment? If they are consistent, they would not because I am in an ‘invalid’ marriage. However, Canon law says I would be required. Why is this? Annulments in my diocese run about $1000-1500. Is money the reason?

Although I love the Church and want to and intend to follow its laws, I find it interesting that abortionists, murderers, rapists, theives, etc., can return to full communion be repenting and going to confession. But marry outside the Church…sorry, you need to jump through these hoops first. Confession is not enough.

I’m not bashing the RCC by any means – I’m just thinking out loud.

No one is “required” to get an anullment when they divorce - in fact, some of them may not be able to because they are indissolubly married. What you would have to do if you were discerning re-entering the dating world, though, is prove with moral certainty that your current relationship is not valid - since, as Phemie said, it enjoys no presumption of validity, a full anullment process is not required, but there would at least need to be enough of an investigation to ascertain that a) you are Catholic and b) married outside the Church without dispensation. If, though, as I alluded, you have no intention of ever dating again, you would have no need of a declaration of nullity.

The reason it is, as you might say, “easier,” for other manifest grave sinners to be reconciled to the Church is that their immoral activity presumably ends after confession. An abortionist confesses the abortions performed, resolves not to perform any more, and can thus be reconciled. You could also be reconciled that easily if you confessed and resolved to cease treating your legal wife like someone to whom you are validly married. In marriage cases, though, many people are not willing to give up their invalid relationships while waiting to sort things out to the point that they can get married, and thus they cannot be reconciled to the Church because they will not resolve to avoid the sin in the future.

Remember, Canon law isn’t infallible.

Canon law is never guaranteed to be ideal, and we also have no guarantee that it will be properly enforced, but there is the category of disciplinary infallibility that guarantees the Church will never bind consciences with a command contrary to faith and morals.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Andreas Hofe

No one is “required” to get an anullment when they divorce - in fact, some of them may not be able to because they are indissolubly married. What you would have to do if you were discerning re-entering the dating world, though, is prove with moral certainty that your current relationship is not valid - since, as Phemie said, it enjoys no presumption of validity, a full anullment process is not required, but there would at least need to be enough of an investigation to ascertain that a) you are Catholic and b) married outside the Church without dispensation. If, though, as I alluded, you have no intention of ever dating again, you would have no need of a declaration of nullity.

Sigh! You obviously didn’t read the OP’s post. He isn’t getting a divorce nor has he been divorced.

Jim

 

[Ilroy]

Andreas Hofe

Sigh! You obviously didn’t read the OP’s post. He isn’t getting a divorce nor has he been divorced.

Jim

But the OP did put forth the hypothetical of IF he did get divorced, would he be required to get a declaration of nullity, after you had put errant information into the OP’s head. He is here looking for valid answers to his query.
Andreas Hofer was addressing the hypothetical that was presented.

 

[rpp]

I am confused by these points about marriages “not presumed to be valid”.

I do not think that is correct. After my divorce, I had to get an annulment. And in my case, my ex-wife was not baptized, at the time of our marriage we were both atheists and we were married by a Wiccan priestess in a civil ceremony. I was told that this marriage was presumed valid. I received my declaration of nullity, on the grounds of lack of marital permanence, this past April.

In short, I would tell anyone what I was told by the Tribunal here in my archdiocese; All marriages are presumed valid, even if they have not been convalidated. However, a marriage may not be sacramental. There is a difference between a valid marriage and a sacramental one.

 

[Brendan]

In short, I would tell anyone what I was told by the Tribunal here in my archdiocese; All marriages are presumed valid, even if they have not been convalidated. However, a marriage may not be sacramental. There is a difference between a valid marriage and a sacramental one.

That is correct, all marriages have the presumption of validity.

I think what Phemie was trying to say was that, since a annulment based on Lack of Canonical Form is the most documentable and requires the least nuance in Canon Law, it’s conclusion is almost a given.