RCIA process - receiving communion

[Gorgias]

Who said anything about adultery?

You did. Remember when you mentioned “abstaining from sex”? The failure to do so would constitute adultery (i.e., extra-marital sin), sometimes called “fornication” in this context.

And why are you flip flopping?

I don’t think I am.

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

Well, it’s more like the Church says “the validity of your ‘marriage’ isn’t recognized by the Church”.

Defending the Church’s position is not easy, so I can understand some confusion when you try to do it.

Is the Church really saying “your marriage is not a marriage”?

Yes.

Why would anyone think that is the right thing to say, let alone for the Church to say?

Gee… maybe because the Church has the authority to regulate her sacraments?

“Because you did not fill out the paperwork correctly, you are not really committed to one another.” How does that make sense?

Sarcasm is really the best argument you’ve got?

What the Church does say is that a valid marriage, for Catholics, consists of valid consent, the absence of impediments, and proper form.

But, since you brought it up, I think I’d point out that the civil government does the exact same thing that you’re attempting to lampoon
, so let’s look at it, too, ok?

• “Because you did not complete the marriage license properly, you’re not validly married.”
• “Because you did not get married by a minister licensed by the state, you’re not validly married.”

See? Same argument. Same assertions. Same conclusion. And yet, you’re only lampooning the Church. Good form, brother.

In this situation adultery is the wrong word; fornication is the sin the Church is asking the couple to avoid.

Fair enough. Yet, when a person fornicates, which commandment is he breaking? (Hint: the 6th – “thou shalt not commit adultery”).

 

[Elf01]

The whole point is that no, the Church doesn’t know because the Church wasn’t involved in the process.

Yet she will recognize the marriages of those outside the Church, when she also wasn’t involved in the process.

My opinion is that all marriages outside the Church, or none of them, should be recognized.

 

[maryjk]

You did. Remember when you mentioned “abstaining from sex”? The failure to do so would constitute adultery (i.e., extra-marital sin), sometimes called “fornication” in this contex

Adultery is when married folks have sexual relations with someone other than their spouse.

Fornication is a single person having sexual relations.

The two are not interchangeable.

 

[Dovekin]

Same argument. Same assertions. Same conclusion. And yet, you’re only lampooning the Church.

I am not lampooning anyone. There is a realm in which it makes sense to say “the Church does not recognize your marriage. We need to fix it so that we can…” It does not make sense to say “You should behave as if you are not married because we did not see(?) your vows.”

I think by now I have made it pretty clear what I think. I have said I do not know how to justify it based on Church teaching, so there is not much point to arguing with me. I believe Church teaching is being misapplied in a hurtful manner, so please do not continue to reply.

 

[Elf01]

For the record, hopeful3542 is quoted here, not me.

Sorry, I fixed the quote.

 

[Gorgias]

The two are not interchangeable.

Tell that to God, who gave us the ten commandments.

Yet, I get it: when we’re using the terms in a specific sense, once speaks to offenses against marriage by married folks, and the other among single folks.

It does not make sense to say “You should behave as if you are not married because we did not see(?) your vows.”

Again, let’s take the analogous situation in the civil realm. Can a couple who is not validly married in the eyes of the law assert their right to file taxes as a married couple? To have shared property as a married couple? To inherit property as married couples do? Of course not! And therefore, in a civil context, what they’re being told is precisely that they cannot behave as married couples do, because they’re not validly married in the eyes of the law.

I believe Church teaching is being misapplied in a hurtful manner, so please do not continue to reply.

“I get to say my peace, but you don’t”? That’s how internet fora work?

I appreciate that you disagree, but you’re not giving any rationale for your opinion, other than “it seems hurtful.”

 

[JulianN]

I think by now I have made it pretty clear what I think. I have said I do not know how to justify it based on Church teaching, so there is not much point to arguing with me. I believe Church teaching is being misapplied in a hurtful manner, so please do not continue to reply.

I understand this is a difficult situation, and in the case of the OP, she is completely blameless, since she was unaware of her husband’s obligation to marry according to the requirements of the Church.

However, the teachings of the Church are not being misapplied. The Church does not consider them married because her husband was, in fact, obligated. In this case, until the marriage is convalidated, they are required to either live as brother and sister or refrain from receiving the sacraments.

 

[Dovekin]

I appreciate that you disagree, but you’re not giving any rationale for your opinion, other than “it seems hurtful.”

My position has changed. It is hurtful.

the teachings of the Church are not being misapplied.

I disagree. At very least, the Church recognizes that a person who in good conscience believes they are married can be admitted to the sacraments in some circumstances, even if the Church does not recognize it as a valid marriage. I cannot imagine anyone who would have a clearer conscience about their marriage than someone in this situation. (the problem with bringing up adultery, it evokes other topics…)

We are allowed to disagree.

 

[JulianN]

At very least, the Church recognizes that a person who in good conscience believes they are married can be admitted to the sacraments in some circumstances, even if the Church does not recognize it as a valid marriage.

They can – they are just required to live as brother and sister until their marriage is convalidated. Especially once they have been made aware that they are not, in fact, in a valid marriage.

 

[Gorgias]

At very least, the Church recognizes that a person who in good conscience believes they are married can be admitted to the sacraments in some circumstances, even if the Church does not recognize it as a valid marriage.

That kinda misrepresents the position in Pope Francis’ document, don’t you think? The ‘pastoral solution’ you reference is really an acknowledgement that return to sacramental communion may take place when two people are no longer actively committing sin and when their situation in life doesn’t take on an appearance that might be an occasion of the sin of scandal.

We are allowed to disagree.

Certainly. But when you don’t provide any rationale for your position, but merely say “here’s how it makes me feel”, then it’s not much of a discussion, is it?

 

[Elf01]

Try to see it from the perspective of the Church as a parent. A mother has the right to create specific rules for her children because they are under her authority. It would be wrong for her to expect children that do not belong to her to follow her rules.

It still doesn’t make sense.

If the reasoning behind Catholics not being allowed to marry without a dispensation outside the Church is that they may not have been prepared, that also applies to non Catholics.

Illicit, I would get, invalid I don’t.

 

[JulianN]

It still doesn’t make sense.

If the reasoning behind Catholics not being allowed to marry without a dospensation outside the Church is that they may not have been prepared, that also applies to non Catholics.

Illicit, I would get, invalid I don’t.

There are certain rules a Catholic has to follow in order to enter into a valid marriage – some are divine, some are canonical. They must either be followed, or the Church must have dispensed the couple from following the rules. If they are not, then the marriage (despite the wedding ceremony) did not exist.

Some of these include propinquity of relationship, impotence, etc. Canonically, a Catholic must marry in the Church or receive permission to marry elsewhere. Additionally, the Catholic would have to obtain permission to marry a non-Catholic. While that is routinely granted, it is a required step.

In the OP’s case, the Catholic neither received permission to marry outside the Church, nor to marry a non-Catholic. So, in the Church, the marriage never happened, although a civil marital contract was created. This is the reason that, if a couple in this situation were to divorce, they would also not need a formal nullity case – all they would have to provide would be a copy of the Catholic’s baptismal certificate with no marriage notation on the back. That’s what a lack of form case is – the required form was not followed, so the marriage did not occur.

Two non-Catholics are not bound by the Church’s rules, and so there marriage would be presumptively valid. But that’s a different situation than this one.

 

[Gorgias]

If the reasoning behind Catholics not being allowed to marry without a dispensation outside the Church is that they may not have been prepared, that also applies to non Catholics.

No. The reason is that the form is a part of the requirement for validity for Catholics. “Canonical form” is not part of the requirements for validity for non-Catholics, and therefore, it’s not being dispensed; it’s simply not present as a requirement at all.

 

[Elf01]

There are certain rules a Catholic has to follow in order to enter into a valid marriage – some are divine, some are canonical. They must either be followed, or the Church must have dispensed the couple from following the rules. If they are not, then the marriage (despite the wedding ceremony) did not exist.

I know what the law is. I don’t see the reasoning behind it.

 

[Elf01]

The reason is that the form is a part of the requirement for validity for Catholics

Since it can be dispensed clearly not always.

 

[Gorgias]

Since it can be dispensed clearly not always.

It’s required, but it can be dispensed. In the absence of a dispensation, it must be present.

Let’s look at it another way: is it a requirement – namely, a precept of the Church – that Catholics must attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation?

(Yes.)

Can the obligation be dispensed?

(Yes.)

Does that mean that there’s no obligation to attend Mass?

NO.

 

[Elf01]

Does that mean that there’s no obligation to attend Mass?

NO.

True, but thats not talking about the validity of a sacrament.

It doesn’t make sense to me that Church rules can impact the validity of a sacrament. Licity, yes, but not validity.

 

[Gorgias]

It doesn’t make sense to me that Church rules can impact the validity of a sacrament. Licity, yes, but not validity.

Fine. Then pick up a piece of pizza and a glass of soda, and attempt to consecrate it and make it the Eucharist. Let me know how that goes for you.

If you get the form and/or matter wrong, or do it outside the requirements for performing the sacrament, then you don’t have a valid sacrament.

 

[Elf01]

Fine. Then pick up a piece of pizza and a glass of soda, and attempt to consecrate it and make it the Eucharist. Let me know how that goes for you.

However a priest could consecrate leavened bread.

If I pour water over a babies head and say I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit they are baptized. It is illicit, but invalid.

Marrying outside the Church seems more analagous to those situations to me.

 

[Dovekin]

I know what the law is. I don’t see the reasoning behind it.

The marriage has not been vetted properly, so it may turn out that she has been married 7 times. That her first 7 husbands all died on the first night after the wedding. Or other unusual circumstance the Church does not want to endorse. Or does.

There are some other issues involved, but they really are not about validity, but liceity as you said. The real problem is that “the Church” that won’t recognize the marriage does not want to accept responsibility for the defect; they prefer to accuse the innocent.

I honestly do not believe the Church puts burdens like this on people without helping them, no matter what others claim.