RCIA process - receiving communion

[SJstl]

When the Apostles were discussing whether Gentiles should get circumcised in order to become Christians, they met in Jerusalem and decided they did not. In their letter, quoted above, they used the phrase “no greater burden than necessary.”

Thank you. There are many that are quick to offer advice and pin all the faults on the Catholic party involved. Sometimes they, the Catholic in question, just don’t know what they don’t know. Yours is my favorite response thus far.

Don’t blame or point fingers at the person trying to enter the Church. There are standards for the sacraments and entry into the Church has and they should be respected. The person for Angel to ask of course is the priest or ask for a referral to the next competent authority if he has a question. Several on this forum though will jump up on top of the table and scream out the faults of others and I don’t think that was what was happening with the Gentiles. They had a legitimate concern that was asked and answered by the Apostles.

If a person who was baptized Catholic, participated in their First Communion but then was never catechized in the Catholic church because of a parents divorce be eternally punished if they want to re-enter the Catholic church? Of course not. If that individual however, married another baptized person in a Protestant church, why make it hard on either individual? How about then, those same two married and the Catholic was free to marry but the Protestant was divorced? Now we’re talking something that the Church makes nearly impossible to resolve. Yes, there are tribunals and such, but that other party who is being “disgraced” is not going to a willing participant. They think their marriage is valid. The Catholic party though, who was never confirmed and never catechized, is caught in the middle.

Sort of like the Gentile in my opinion. They weren’t doing anything wrong in their mind and were absolved. They weren’t about to be unnecessarily circumcised as adults. The marriage issue is much more painful than that but there are many that just jump up and say “well you should have done this” when the parties involved are unknowingly guilty.

I know and understand what the teachings are on marriage. Sometimes though, is seems as if you can break any of the X Commandments and be absolved without prejudice but if a Catholic marries a Protestant in any form, it turns into an eye of the needle scenario, especially if there was a prior divorce involved.

Good luck to the OP. Some good parish guidance and meaningful discussions at home will pull you through this.

 

[Phemie]

acanonlawyer:

There isn’t a whole lot to explain. Such a union doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity so it is not a “sacramental” marriage. That doesnt mean that God can’t work in the lives of those involved, certainly.

There is a lot to explain here to those of us who are not experts in canon law.

Suppose a woman who married a Catholic in a Baptist Church came to you to arrange to marry a different Catholic in a Catholic Church. Would you say her marriage “doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity” so there is no reason for an annulment?

The situation here is similar to that in many ways, except that the judgment of “not a “sacramental” marriage” is an insult instead of a relief. I think there is something more that needs to be explained here. I cannot do it, but someone should.

If the woman in your example had married a Catholic who had not gone through his Pastor & Bishop for a dispensation to marry outside the Church she WOULD NOT need an annulment. Her original marriage document, his recent baptismal certificate, and her divorce papers would be enough to prove her original marriage hadn’t been valid and she is free to marry.

A non-Catholic who marries a Catholic anywhere but a Catholic church and has not met with a Catholic priest before getting married should assume that the Church won’t recognize the marriage.

 

[Phemie]

Thank you. What do u mean by the standard term, no greater burden than necessary?

The Rite itself makes it clear that the Baptized should not be made to jump through hoops to be received into full communion. A well-catechized Anglican, say, might be ready to make their profession of faith a mere month after starting their journey. A not-so-well-catechized candidate might need a year, or more, to reach that point. One should not be made to wait for the other. But that’s the ideal and, although some parishes will have several receptions into full communion in a year, you won’t find the ideal in too many places.

 

[JulianN]

Suppose a woman who married a Catholic in a Baptist Church came to you to arrange to marry a different Catholic in a Catholic Church. Would you say her marriage “doesn’t enjoy the presumption of validity” so there is no reason for an annulment?

If there was no dispensation obtained to marry in the Baptist church, then yes, the marriage does not enjoy the presumption of validity. There’s some administrative paperwork to fill out, which is often handled by the Tribunal (although that varies by diocese).

There is no need for a declaration of nullity, because the Church doesn’t recognize that a marriage took place.

 

[SJstl]

For my own education and edification, do you have a source document or reference for this? Are there papers or case studies published anywhere outside of the canonical documents that help us that are not so educated in the manner come to a conclusion?

As I mentioned already, this is a difficult topic and maybe the most misunderstood of all of the teachings of the Church. It’s not the biblical teaching that makes it hard to understand, but rather the whole introduction of an annulment argument that makes it difficult to understand.

 

[Dovekin]

A non-Catholic who marries a Catholic anywhere but a Catholic church and has not met with a Catholic priest before getting married should assume that the Church won’t recognize the marriage.

Thank you and @JulianN for your responses. I should be more careful with my hypotheticals, but I probably would have gotten it wrong in any event. Correction is helpful.

What is left still needs some explanation. Assuming that the Church “won’t recognize the marriage” can come across as insulting, particularly if it is understood as meaning one is not married. That would be a reason for many to stay away from the Church.

 

[Phemie]

Phemie:

A non-Catholic who marries a Catholic anywhere but a Catholic church and has not met with a Catholic priest before getting married should assume that the Church won’t recognize the marriage.

Thank you and @JulianN for your responses. I should be more careful with my hypotheticals, but I probably would have gotten it wrong in any event. Correction is helpful.

What is left still needs some explanation. Assuming that the Church “won’t recognize the marriage” can come across as insulting, particularly if it is understood as meaning one is not married. That would be a reason for many to stay away from the Church.

Catholics who want to marry must, with their future spouse, meet with their pastors to prepare for their marriage.

If the future spouse is a baptized non-Catholic or non-baptized, the Catholics must then promise that this marriage will not cause them to abandon the Faith and that they will do everything in their power (not to the point of destroying the marriage) to have their children baptized and raised in the Catholic Church. Once that is done, the non-Catholic is informed of the promise and the implications that arise from it.

That taken care of, the Catholic must be granted either permission to marry a baptized party (mixed marriage) or a dispensation to marry a non-baptized party (disparity of cult marriage). In many dioceses, like mine, the Bishop grants the faculty to grant permission for a mixed-marriage to his priests. But a dispensation must be sought from the Bishop for a disparity-of-cult marriage.

When marrying a non-Catholic, the Catholic may also seek a dispensation to be married outside the Church. The priest is the one who applies for it. The form I’ve seen has him providing all the information of where and who the celebrant would be for the non-Catholic wedding, and giving the reasons why he thinks the dispensation should be granted. The Bishop gets the whole prenuptial file to review and it’s up to him to either grant or deny the dispensation.

If the dispensation for a disparity of form marriage ceremony is granted the Catholic is then responsible to return to his parish with the documents to show that the marriage has taken place at which point it will be recorded in the marriage and baptismal registers or, if the parish is not where he/she was baptized, the baptismal parish is notified. Our former pastor had gone one step further and provided a form for the non-Catholic celebrant to fill out and give to the Catholic party to return to the parish.

A Catholic who marries outside the Church without having taken these steps should know that his/her marriage is not valid.

 

[Gorgias]

What is left still needs some explanation. Assuming that the Church “won’t recognize the marriage” can come across as insulting, particularly if it is understood as meaning one is not married. That would be a reason for many to stay away from the Church.

Let’s look at it from an analogous perspective: suppose a couple didn’t do what was necessary in order for their marriage to be recognized as valid in a civil sense. Would it “come across as insulting” if the courts said to them “the government doesn’t recognize your ‘marriage’”?

The difference, I’d assert, is that folks would presume that the civil government has the right to regulate marriage, but not that the Church has that same right. I’d wager that this is where the shock and insult comes from…

 

[Dovekin]

Would it “come across as insulting” if the courts said to them “the government doesn’t recognize your ‘marriage’”?

That is not the problem. Would it come across as insulting if the civil government told them they could not consider themselves husband and wife and so could not continue to live together, have sex, or raise their children?

The Church has a marginally greater right to say something like that, but I do not believe that is what the Church would say. I do not know the subject well enough to express why, so maybe I should have kept quiet. I just cannot see how it would be right to tell a couple they are not married. “The Church does recognize your marriage” is bad enough, but the marriage never happened is inconceivable to me.

 

[JulianN]

I just cannot see how it would be right to tell a couple they are not married. “The Church does recognize your marriage” is bad enough, but the marriage never happened is inconceivable to me.

But from the Church’s perspective, this is exactly the case. In the example @Gorgias gave, the equivalent would be a couple who lived together expecting the recognition and benefits of marriage—without actually getting married.

In your example, there was never a marriage because the Catholic party neither married in the Church nor received a dispensation.

 

[Sarad22]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, I, The non-catholic seeking to convert to Catholicism, am held responsible for actions that my husband should have taken before our marriage? I’m confused as to how his actions can effect my ability to join the church and what his actions have to to with my relationship with God or the church. I consider my relationship with God personal.

 

[Sarad22]

I agree and keep getting more upset the more I think about this. When I spoke to my husband about this whole mess, he said, we already talked and agreed if we had kids they would be baptized and raised Catholic. Both of his parents are deceased, and he said trying to ask me to get married in a church where he has no ties anymore would be asking for too much. We were married in the church where I grew up and my name is on the wall. My mother is still very active st my church and my husband saidv to ask to take that joy away from my parents would be asking too much.

With this explaination above, I’m sure if he would have asked for dispensation he would have been granted one. But I can’t do anything about it now.

I’m sure it’s all in God’s plan how this will work out.

 

[Vico]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, I, The non-catholic seeking to convert to Catholicism, am held responsible for actions that my husband should have taken before our marriage? I’m confused as to how his actions can effect my ability to join the church and what his actions have to to with my relationship with God or the church. I consider my relationship with God personal.

The Catholic Church is responsible to verify that you could receive the sacraments, which would require the marriage to be valid.

Fr. Richard Eldredge, T.O.R. (+2019) wrote:

For a married person to be in Full Communion with the Catholic Church also means being married according to the norms of the Catholic Church. Catholics are required to be married by a Catholic priest or deacon, or to have received a dispensation from the local bishop to be married in a church of the faith tradition of the person who is not Catholic.

 

[Phemie]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, I, The non-catholic seeking to convert to Catholicism, am held responsible for actions that my husband should have taken before our marriage? I’m confused as to how his actions can effect my ability to join the church and what his actions have to to with my relationship with God or the church. I consider my relationship with God personal.

Unfortunately, your husband’s actions affect you because marriage involves two people. You have no guilt in the matter because you didn’t know better, but now that you know you are being given the opportunity to correct the matter. Without the convalidation, whether simple or radical sanation, you remain unmarried and not living a life in accordance with Church teaching. The Church would be remiss in welcoming you with open arms with full knowledge that that situation was going to persist that’s why she provides these ways to change it before welcoming you into the fold.

It’s very unfortunate that this was not made known to you at the time you started RCIA to prevent the shock you must have felt when you found out at what is, really, the last minute.

My two oldest children are in exactly this position. They opted to marry outside the Church. If our son-in-law decided to convert (highly unlikely) they would have to have their marriage convalidated.

In their case my daughter knew her marriage would be invalid but she still opted for just a civil marriage. At first I thought it was because she wanted the fairy tale wedding she had at a wedding venue, which she could have had with a dispensation, but she told me that to get a dispensation she would have had to lie and say she would raise her kids Catholic and she had no intention of doing that.

Son and daughter-in-law were both baptized Catholic but now proclaim themselves atheists. The Church was never going to be an option for them no matter how much her mother and I tried.

 

[Gorgias]

Just to make sure I understand correctly, I, The non-catholic seeking to convert to Catholicism, am held responsible for actions that my husband should have taken before our marriage?

I think I would frame it up a bit differently. As a non-Catholic, you weren’t responsible to follow the Church’s standards for celebrating a marriage. As one seeking to convert to Catholicism, you will now have that responsibility. It’s not that you’re “held responsible for actions that your husband should have taken”, it’s that you now have the opportunity to do it right!

I’m confused as to how his actions can effect my ability to join the church

As @Phemie said, a marriage is all about a partnership – as the Bible says, you two have become “one flesh” – and so, your actions affect each other profoundly. In reality, your actions now will bring him back into a state of grace that he hasn’t been in, since your wedding!

I consider my relationship with God personal.

Some non-Catholic Christian denominations take this stance. Their mantra is that it’s all about “Jesus and me” – that is, establishing a “personal relationship with Jesus”. Although that relationship is important, the Catholic perspective is a bit different (and, to tell the truth, a bit more Biblical!). We see ourselves (that is, all of us in the Church) as the “Body of Christ”. St Paul talks about it at length. We are all members of this body – together! – and it’s never solely about a personal experience. The shared experience of the individual as part of a faith community in Christ is central to the understanding of the Catholic faith!

With this explaination above, I’m sure if he would have asked for dispensation he would have been granted one.

Yep!

But I can’t do anything about it now.

Yes, you can! Seek convalidation! If he won’t go with you to church for it (and BTW, is your anniversary before Easter? You could always go on your anniversary, to get over the hurdle of the “two wedding dates” thing), then seek radical sanation. Either way, this is doable!

 

[Gorgias]

Would it come across as insulting if the civil government told them they could not consider themselves husband and wife and so could not continue to live together, have sex, or raise their children?

The Church doesn’t say that either… but, in an analogous way that the civil government talks about legal actions, the Church talks about sinful actions. The government says “we don’t recognize your marriage, and therefore, you don’t have the right to your purported spouse’s retirement benefits”. Is that “insulting”? Or does it merely present a statement of fact?

Same dynamic with the Church.

“The Church does recognize your marriage” is bad enough, but the marriage never happened is inconceivable to me.

They’re equivalent, both in the context of legal recognition of marriage and ecclesiastical recognition of the same.

 

[Dovekin]

The Church doesn’t say that either…

Yes, that is pretty much what I have been saying. The Church says they do not recognize that you are married. They do not say you must not recognize your marriage, ie abstain from sex until the Church recognizes it. (sex is not the issue, it just stands in for the nonbureaucratic legalistic understanding)

My apologies for leaving the not out in the second quote. But otherwise, you are wrong, the statements are in no way equivalent.

 

[JulianN]

They do not say you must not recognize your marriage, ie abstain from sex until the Church recognizes it.

Well, yes, they do say that. Or refrain from receiving the sacraments.

 

[Gorgias]

They do not say you must not recognize your marriage, ie abstain from sex until the Church recognizes it.

Umm… actually, that’s precisely what the Church says.

After all, the Church is in the business of calling folks to refrain from sinning. Adultery is sin. So…

But otherwise, you are wrong, the statements are in no way equivalent.

That’s your opinion, and you’re entitled to it… as ‘personal opinion’. On the other hand, if we look at what the civil government says and does, and what the Church says and does… they’re the same thing, in their respective contexts.

 

[Dovekin]

After all, the Church is in the business of calling folks to refrain from sinning. Adultery is sin. So…

Who said anything about adultery? That has nothing to do with the original situation. I would be hard pressed to find any sin in that situation, so let me ask you why you keep injecting it into the discussion.

And why are you flip flopping?

“if the civil government told them they could not consider themselves husband and wife and so could not continue to live together, have sex, or raise their children?”

The Church doesn’t say that either…

And now you say “ you must not recognize your marriage” is precisely what the Church says.

Defending the Church’s position is not easy, so I can understand some confusion when you try to do it. Still, this is the heart of the issue. Is the Church really saying “your marriage is not a marriage”? Why would anyone think that is the right thing to say, let alone for the Church to say? “Because you did not fill out the paperwork correctly, you are not really committed to one another.” How does that make sense?