RCIA process - receiving communion

[Gorgias]

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

OK. I get that this is your personal opinion.

The Church, who has the authority to regulate her sacraments, disagrees with you.

 

[Gorgias]

I honestly do not believe the Church puts burdens like this on people without helping them

That’s a valid – but completely distinct! – assertion.

Sometimes, though, “helping someone” doesn’t mean “here, let me give you what you want because you want it.” Sometimes, it means “let me help you understand how what you want doesn’t lead to authentic human flourishing.”

 

[Elf01]

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.

That is also true of protestants.

 

[Gorgias]

That is also true of protestants.

It was an example that wasn’t sufficiently illustrative of the issues we’re addressing. One example that might be more illustrative is “she has been married seven times, and some of her seven husbands – but not all – have passed away, and others have prior spouses (such that there’s a valid question as to whether they were free to marry her at the time of their wedding).” That’s not too “unusual” a set of circumstances that the Church regularly encounters.

 

[Elf01]

It was an example that wasn’t sufficiently illustrative of the issues we’re addressing. One example that might be more illustrative is “she has been married seven times, and some of her seven husbands – but not all – have passed away, and others have prior spouses (such that there’s a valid question as to whether they were free to marry her at the time of their wedding).” That’s not too “unusual” a set of circumstances that the Church regularly encounters.

Again, also true of protestants.

 

[Gorgias]

Again, also true of protestants.

Ahh, but that’s the rub. We’d consider their previous marriages valid, and therefore, not able to be nullified. So… big difference.

 

[Elf01]

Ahh, but that’s the rub. We’d consider their previous marriages valid, and therefore, not able to be nullified. So… big difference.

They could be null, but are not automatically considered null.

Given most protestant churches are ok with divorce and remarriage, I find it hard to believe that they meet the criteria of intending permanence.

 

[Gorgias]

They could be null, but are not automatically considered null.

Exactly. However, in a Protestant context, their marriages and remarriages are considered valid – divorce is considered legitimate in their communities.

Hence the problem: while folks are Protestant, we honor the validity of their marriages, and don’t deign to interfere. But, when a Protestant wishes to enter the Catholic Church, we assess the validity of their marriage(s) according to Catholic standards. So, the OP – whose marriage was considered valid in the eyes of her non-Catholic Christian community, and on whose behalf the Catholic Church would never consider interfering with her – now wishes to enter into the Catholic Church, and the validity of her marriage is now analyzed in terms of Catholic standards. That’s the reason it feels like a betrayal to her, I’d suggest. In a very real way, she’s saying “my marriage was valid before ! Why isn’t it considered valid now ?!?”

The answer – which is not at all comforting – is “because the difference is that we are looking at things from two different perspectives: non-Catholic standards of validity and Catholic standards of validity.”

It ends up feeling like we’re blaming her. We’re not. We’re merely asking that she brings her marriage into line with Catholic standards for marriage. That’s not too big a deal in the context of Communion, for example, but very intensely personally big a deal in terms of her understanding of marriage.

 

[Horton]

That is also true of protestants.

And those Protestants who wish to join the Catholic Church and have prior marriages must go through the tribunal process to investigate the prior marriage(s).

 

[JulianN]

Again, also true of protestants

The Church would only presume validity for the first marriage where the spouse was still living. We don’t recognize remarriage without nullity for Protestants either.

 

[Gorgias]

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

So, let’s go back to that argument. Can pizza be consecrated as Eucharist? If the answer is ‘no’, then you have reason you’re searching for.

 

[Usige]

Given most protestant churches are ok with divorce and remarriage, I find it hard to believe that they meet the criteria of intending permanence.

Just because a protestant community allows divorce does not mean that all (or even most) of their members do not intend permanence. Very few people I’ve met, regardless of creed, entered marriage without intending it to be lifelong. The Church explicitly states that knowledge of divorce does not invalidate consent, but rather that it is an individual’s intent against permanence that invalidates their consent.

 

[Gorgias]

Very few people I’ve met, regardless of creed, entered marriage without intending it to be lifelong.

Here’s the rub: there’s a difference between “expectation” and “resolve” – namely, the difference is between “I don’t expect that my marriage will fail” and “if XYZ happens, I will nevertheless never entertain divorce.”

When you prepare couples for marriage as a deacon, the question is never “do you think you guys will end up divorcing?” … because every couple will answer, “us? Never !!!”. The question, rather, is “if s/he cheats on you, will you leave? If things don’t turn out well for ya’ll, would you end the marriage?”

It’s not “knowledge of divorce” that’s relevant at the time of marriage – it’s whether the person thinks recourse to divorce is a possibility for him that is what you’re attempting to discern! An “intent against permanence” merely means “would you consider divorce, under the right circumstances?”… and an answer of “yes” indicates defective consent.

And, given @elf01’s statement, what s/he’s presenting really does rise to the level of “intent against permanence” among certain non-Catholic Christian denominations – if such a person believes that divorce is an option, even if s/he hopes their own marriage will be permanent, then there’s a defect of consent. From Foster’s “Annulment: The Marriage that Was”:

Marriage is a lifelong commitment that cannot be dissolved; rather, it is indissoluble. If a person consents to a marital union that is something less than indissoluble, then that person does not bring about a marriage, as the Church understands marriage. This ground is often evidenced in cultures that have a pervasive divorce mentality. It could also be applicable if a person espouses the tenets of a religion that does not support the indissolubility of marriage as part of its beliefs.

 

[Usige]

Here’s the rub: there’s a difference between “expectation” and “resolve” – namely, the difference is between “I don’t expect that my marriage will fail” and “if XYZ happens, I will nevertheless never entertain divorce.”

Yes, there is a difference between “expectation” and “resolve”, but the Church holds to the presumption that interior disposition conforms to their spoken words. That means if someone says “… to have and to hold, from this day forward, til death do us part” we must accept that they intended permanence unless the contrary is proven by a positive act. It is not enough to hold that it is okay for some people to divorce, if they intend for their particular union to be binding for life.

Having read several decisions from the Roman Rota, @Elf01’s argument is incorrect that we can almost automatically assume that protestants do not intend permanence because their community accepts divorce. It is why each marriage must be examined individually. As one Rotal auditor wrote:

Even in societies where the legal system countenances divorce, the natural marital tendency to want a permanent bond remains. … It would be anthropological pessimism to think that people commonly anticipate that their marriage will end in failure. They realize of course that this might happen; but for people who sense each other to be really in love it remains a remote possibility, far from their minds and intentions. Therefore when it is clearly established that a couple were in fact in love, the allegation that one or other consciously and deliberately impaired the essential nature of marital consent, must always be considered an unlikely hypothesis.

This too explains why the Church resists any tendency towards allowing a presumption of “automatic” exclusion of indissolubility from marital consent, based simply on the grounds that a person had voted for a divorce law. Such a fact may certainly favor the proof of a positive act of exclusion applied to the particular marriage contracted; but is not in itself sufficient proof of this positive act. Otherwise it would be but a step to holding that all modern marriages have to be presumed null; and it is non-exclusion that has to be proved. … This is an inversion of what is required. The Church presumes the conformity of the exterior words of consent and interior acceptance; it is disconformity which, if alleged, has to be proved. And the disconformity has to expressed in a positive, deliberate and conscious act.

In essence this means that it has to be show that someone had possitively held/stated something like: “if XYZ happens then our marriage is over” and not simply holding a general attitude that marriages can fail.

 

[OddBird]

Given most protestant churches are ok with divorce and remarriage, I find it hard to believe that they meet the criteria of intending permanence.

As a Protestant minister, I would invite a couple to seriously reconsider their wish to have their union blessed in the church if I doubt their intent about permanence. Just because we do not forbid blessing of second - or more - marriages (which a number of ministers, myself included, would really hesitate about) does not mean we do not take the commitment seriously or do not our best to ensure the that the couple making it know what they do and have the proper intent.

 

[Gorgias]

Having read several decisions from the Roman Rota, @Elf01’s argument is incorrect that we can almost automatically assume that protestants do not intend permanence because their community accepts divorce.

Right. It’s not an ‘automatic’ presumption, although it’s something that a good deacon will suss out in the premarital interview. So, if you haven’t had a discussion that plumbs these depths, and you only have the spoken vows to go on, then you’ve kinda missed the boat.

Of course, on the other hand, if the couple affirms to you in the course of your discussions with them that not only do they think it won’t happen in the course of their relationship, but also, it’s something that they intend to not accept in the course of their lives, then you’ve got something to go on.

In essence this means that it has to be show that someone had possitively held/stated something like: “if XYZ happens then our marriage is over” and not simply holding a general attitude that marriages can fail.

Right. And, in the course of the pre-marital interviews which you conduct, it will be your responsibility to find out whether the two persons hold to the former.

 

[Usige]

While I don’t disagree about what should be done during the premarital investigation, I fail to see how it’s germane to the topic at hand; recognition of non-Catholic marriages in the face of questions on indissolubility.

 

[Gorgias]

While I don’t disagree about what should be done during the premarital investigation, I fail to see how it’s germane to the topic at hand

You brought up the topic of “interior disposition” in the context of consent to perpetuity. As a minister of the Church, you will be responsible for determining whether valid consent exists, because, after all, you are not permitted to be the celebrant at a wedding you know to be invalid.

 

[Dovekin]

We’re merely asking that she brings her marriage into line with Catholic standards for marriage. That’s not too big a deal in the context of Communion

I would agree with this if it were what the Church is doing. It is not. Marriages in nonCatholic churches are treated just like Catholic marriages unless a Catholic is involved without a dispensation.

IOW, if twin sisters have a double wedding in a Baptist church, one marrying a Baptist, the other a Catholic without a dispensation. The same ceremony, same witnesses. The Church recognizes the two nonCatholics as married, but the Catholic is not married to the other sister.

The difference is not about belief in permanence. It is not about anything in the ceremony or where it took place. It is not about the attending minister. It is only about the Catholic who committed himself to his wife without the Church’s permission. That apparently invalidates what would otherwise be an indissoluble marriage just like her sister’s.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

We’re merely asking that she brings her marriage into line with Catholic standards for marriage. That’s not too big a deal in the context of Communion

I would agree with this if it were what the Church is doing. It is not. Marriages in nonCatholic churches are treated just like Catholic marriages unless a Catholic is involved without a dispensation.

I suspect we’re looking at the same thing and calling it by different names. A marriage between non-Catholic Christians is already “in line with Catholic standards for marriage”. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, a valid marriage between two non-Catholic Christians is a sacramental marriage.

IOW, if twin sisters have a double wedding in a Baptist church, one marrying a Baptist, the other a Catholic without a dispensation. The same ceremony, same witnesses. The Church recognizes the two nonCatholics as married, but the Catholic is not married to the other sister.

Presuming the Catholic was not dispensed from form, of course.

The difference is not about belief in permanence.

Let’s take the example a step further, then, because this is where the discussion is going: let’s presume that, ten years later, the girl who married the Baptist guy gets divorced and wants to remarry – let’s say that she wants to marry the Catholic best man at her first wedding. Now we have an issue: her first marriage is putatively valid. So, if we wish to assert it was not valid, we have to ask whether there were any defects in consent or any impediments present, at the time of the wedding.

The question we’re discussing – intent against perpetuity – is one of the things to discern. The question here is not “did you and Bobby think that you’d never get divorced – that you’d have the perfect marriage and live happily ever after?” Rather, the salient question is “at the time of your wedding, did you consider divorce a possible recourse, even if you thought (or hoped) that you’d never make use of it?”

If the answer is “yes”, then you’ve got a possible cause of “intention against perpetuity”.

Anyway, that’s the particular tangent we’ve been exploring.