Sorry, another "marriage and reception into Church" question

[SeekingHisPlan]

Hi everyone

I was going to post this in another, similar thread, but I did not want to divert attention away from the original question in that thread.

Could I have your (name removed by moderator)ut on the following situation, in which one of our catechumens finds herself?

She is civilly married but separated from her husband
-The husband was married before, but we think, invalidly, because we believe he was Catholic, and had a civil marriage
-As I said, his marriage to this woman was also civil, so invalid if he is, in fact, Catholic

She is now presenting herself to receive the sacraments.

IF she and the husband were living together as husband and wife, the answer would be easy. They are invalidly married, and committing adultery (even if they don’t mean to). She cannot be received until her marriage is validated, which cannot happen until the previous one (her husband’s previous) is annulled.

Does the fact that they are currently NOT living as husband and wife, and don’t intend to resume doing so make any difference here? For example, suppose:

-The couple continues to live separately
-She decides to pursue an annulment so that she would be free to marry in the Church at a later time.

Does she need to wait for either her marriage or her husband’s previous marriage to be declared null before she may be received? Does the priest have discretionary power here, or is it a matter of Canon Law, or the Bishop’s direction?

Lastly, would the answer to any of the questions change if she were validly baptized in another Christian denomination, and therefore, was a candidate, rather than a catechumen?

Thanks for any thoughts you may have on this

 

[1ke]

She is civilly married but separated from her husband
-The husband was married before, but we think, invalidly, because we believe he was Catholic, and had a civil marriage
-As I said, his marriage to this woman was also civil, so invalid if he is, in fact, Catholic

You cannot really do much with speculation. You need facts. Is she on terms with her husband to ask him and to obtain baptismal records?

IF she and the husband were living together as husband and wife, the answer would be easy. They are invalidly married, and committing adultery (even if they don’t mean to). She cannot be received until her marriage is validated, which cannot happen until the previous one (her husband’s previous) is annulled.

I would call that a practice, a prudent one, but not a requirement. The couple could live in continence while the marriage is sorted out, or indefinitely, and the catechumen in question could be received into the Church at the pastor’s discretion.

Does the fact that they are currently NOT living as husband and wife, and don’t intend to resume doing so make any difference here?

Is there a reason they have not civilly divorced? Do they intend to remain separated withOut civil divorce? Is there a legal separation or just living apart? What does she plan in the future-- to live single the remainder of her life or to pursue another relationship? And if she says she will live singles what happens if she meets someone unexpectedly?

These are all rhetorical questions, ones your pastor should ask to understand the situation and to decide whether it is prudent to move forward.

-The couple continues to live separately
-She decides to pursue an annulment so that she would be free to marry in the Church at a later time.

It is always wise to present your facts to the Church and get a definitive answer on freedom to marry so that you make good decisions going forward based on those facts. If she is in the US (or most other places) she would need to be divorced to present a case although the there could be exceptions.

Does she need to wait for either her marriage or her husband’s previous marriage to be declared null before she may be received? Does the priest have discretionary power here, or is it a matter of Canon Law, or the Bishop’s direction?

The pastor would need to examine the facts (and in my opinion there are some significant facts missing here) and talk it over with the judicial vicar of the diocese if he is in doubt. Also her current baptismal status does leave open dissolution of the bond in favor of the faith if it turns out he is not Catholic or not baptized, and that should not be overlooked,

Lastly, would the answer to any of the questions change if she were validly baptized in another Christian denomination, and therefore, was a candidate, rather than a catechumen?

Favor of the faith might be off the table with that variable.

I must ask though, why are you asking here and not your pastor?

You really must bring all these facts to him, and gather additional ones, sooner than later.

 

[SeekingHisPlan]

Thank you very much for your replies.

I have asked my pastor, and he has replied that she may not be received until both her husband’s previous marriage and their current one to each other have been sorted out. He does not wish to discuss the situation further with me; meanwhile, I, the RCIA leader have a brokenhearted catechumen on my hands, who does not understand why she is being told she may not be received. I know that I must not have the full story.

The original problem here was that my understanding, based on prior practices was that all catechumens were interviewed before beginning RCIA, and only those with no impediments to entering the Church were allowed to go forward with the process. I never asked a single question about anyone’s marriages, past or present. I’m not the pastor and I’m not a Canon lawyer, so I figured that it was none of my business. The pastor interviewed this woman in September, and whatever he told her then, I left between the two of them. These issues have now blindsided me.

 

[1ke]

Thank you very much for your replies.

I have asked my pastor, and he has replied that she may not be received until both her husband’s previous marriage and their current one to each other have been sorted out. He does not wish to discuss the situation further with me; meanwhile, I, the RCIA leader have a brokenhearted catechumen on my hands, who does not understand why she is being told she may not be received. I know that I must not have the full story.

The original problem here was that my understanding, based on prior practices was that all catechumens were interviewed before beginning RCIA, and only those with no impediments to entering the Church were allowed to go forward with the process. I never asked a single question about anyone’s marriages, past or present. I’m not the pastor and I’m not a Canon lawyer, so I figured that it was none of my business. The pastor interviewed this woman in September, and whatever he told her then, I left between the two of them. These issues have now blindsided me.

Then perhaps the best course of action is for the catechumen in question to make an appointment to speak directly with the pastor to follow up on their September conversation.

 

[SeekingHisPlan]

She has spoken with him more than once recently, and still feels confused. She’s asking me because I’m the one she usually asks when she has questions about Church law and teaching. On this, I told her, “You must talk to Father,” and she did, but feels no further ahead in her understanding.

As I’ve said, Father does not wish to discuss the situation further with me, which is fine. I am trying to get a clearer idea which aspects of canon law are at play here, especially because my understanding, based on what I knew of the situation was that she may have options besides “wait until both marriages are figured out and then you can be received.” (I’m aware that I have the entire story.) I want to understand more, both so I can guide the catechumen in question, but also for future reference.

I’m going to have a chat with a member of our local marriage tribunal and see if she can lend some clarity

 

[otjm]

I have no clue as to why the pastor decided what he did, but the first thing is that there needs to be some clarification of communications. If he decided she could not come in, or could not come in until some of the pieces had been sorted out, that should have been communicated clearly to you as well as to her. It may have been to her (and she may not have understood - no surprise there), but most definitely you should have been apprised of at least the general outline. This has been let go way too long because of lack of communication. And that is not your doing.

The second thing is that there needs to be some resolution of the current marriage. Legally she is exposing herself to possible legal consequences if there is not a legal separation (or, not particularly surprising, possibly a divorce).

And it would appear that there needs to be some movement on the multiple of marriages, or she is setting up for problems in the future.

Even if everything came down to lack of form, I don’t see how anyone could get it resolved in the feww weeks left to Easter.

 

[Gorgias]

I have no clue as to why the pastor decided what he did, but the first thing is that there needs to be some clarification of communications. If he decided she could not come in, or could not come in until some of the pieces had been sorted out, that should have been communicated clearly to you as well as to her. It may have been to her (and she may not have understood - no surprise there), but most definitely you should have been apprised of at least the general outline.

Not necessarily. She may have disclosed something to the priest in confidence which he’s not at liberty to tell the OP. By giving the OP “the general outline”, that might disclose some aspect of the catechumen’s situation that he’s unwilling to disclose.

This has been let go way too long because of lack of communication.

Again, maybe not. In general, there are two basic approaches: either there’s a possible resolution and they’re doing the necessary research, or there’s no feasible resolution at this time and it’s necessary to wait until a possible resolution presents itself. If the former, then the situation hasn’t “been let go” – it’s on a path to resolution (although we don’t know how long it will take). If the latter, then there is no action to take other than to wait to see what develops.

Perhaps the catechumen doesn’t understand which of these two is her situation. Perhaps the OP could mention to the priest that the catechumen seems confused about what’s going on at the present. (Perhaps, if the OP does mention it to the priest again, she’ll yet again be told that he cannot discuss the case with her.)

Even if everything came down to lack of form, I don’t see how anyone could get it resolved in the feww weeks left to Easter.

If it were a simple matter of lack of form – and if all the necessary information that would be required in order to go through that process were available – then it wouldn’t take that long. However, one would expect that, if that were the case, then the priest would have already dealt with it back in September. Since he hasn’t, it seems to imply that there’s more here than meets the eye (or, at least, that there’s an impasse at the moment).

 

[Gorgias]

IF she and the husband were living together as husband and wife, the answer would be easy. They are invalidly married, and committing adultery (even if they don’t mean to). She cannot be received until her marriage is validated, which cannot happen until the previous one (her husband’s previous) is annulled.

When considering complicated cases like this one, it’s necessary to ask about all marriages. I noticed that you didn’t discuss her husband’s first wife’s marital history. Note that this might come into play here, too.

Does the fact that they are currently NOT living as husband and wife, and don’t intend to resume doing so make any difference here?

Not necessarily. Remember – for a pastor to allow the ‘pastoral solution’, there mustn’t be the possibility of scandal. If others might be led to sin or to a misunderstanding, then the pastoral solution shouldn’t be chosen.

For example, suppose:

-The couple continues to live separately
-She decides to pursue an annulment so that she would be free to marry in the Church at a later time.

If they plan only to “continue to live separately”, then this means that they are still married, right? She cannot pursue an annulment while still married.

Lastly, would the answer to any of the questions change if she were validly baptized in another Christian denomination, and therefore, was a candidate, rather than a catechumen?

Ouch! Reading between the lines, I think I hear you saying that you are considering whether someone might advise her to get baptized outside the Church and then approach the Catholic Church for Confirmation & full reception at a later date?!?!?!?!?

 

[otjm]

Not necessarily. She may have disclosed something to the priest in confidence which he’s not at liberty to tell the OP. By giving the OP “the general outline”, that might disclose some aspect of the catechumen’s situation that he’s unwilling to disclose.

Again, maybe not. In general, there are two basic approaches: either there’s a possible resolution and they’re doing the necessary research, or there’s no feasible resolution at this time and it’s necessary to wait until a possible resolution presents itself. If the former, then the situation hasn’t “been let go” – it’s on a path to resolution (although we don’t know how long it will take). If the latter, then there is no action to take other than to wait to see what develops.

Perhaps the catechumen doesn’t understand which of these two is her situation. Perhaps the OP could mention to the priest that the catechumen seems confused about what’s going on at the present. (Perhaps, if the OP does mention it to the priest again, she’ll yet again be told that he cannot discuss the case with her.)

If it were a simple matter of lack of form – and if all the necessary information that would be required in order to go through that process were available – then it wouldn’t take that long. However, one would expect that, if that were the case, then the priest would have already dealt with it back in September. Since he hasn’t, it seems to imply that there’s more here than meets the eye (or, at least, that there’s an impasse at the moment).

Sorry, but I don’t buy that. The priest knew, or should have known the individual was in RCIA. He does not have to disclose anything to say that the individual is going to need to resolve matters before they can be admitted to the Church, and that unless and until they do, the person will not be able to come forward Holy Saturday Night to join. That discloses nothing.

Maybe I am reading the RCIA director wrong, but I don’t think she is trying to obtain privileged information. She is dealing with a person who for whatever reason is not likely at this point to join the Church in a few weeks. I have no doubt that the individual is confused, as I have dealt with any number of confused people.

As there is an average of about 1 priest per parish, I also have no thought but that the priest may simply be overwhelmed with responsibilities for the parish. I am not trying to point fingers or find fault, but at the get go, at the start of the RCIA process, there needs to be identification of those who need to resolve marriage/divorce/remarriage issues, and without detailing privileged information, there needs to be some way of tracking so that if there are difficulties/problems/failure to resolve/delays/confusion, it does not wait until more than half the program is over before it is made clear that the individual is either heading for, or in a position of not entering on Holy Saturday Night…

I have been involved in RCIA for over 20 years. I am not so naive as to think that each and every person who starts the process towards joining the Church is going to buy into everything the Church holds and teaches. I just try to do my best, and leave those things which belong to the priest, to the priest, and those things which belong to God, to God. For someone who has to deal with the Church’s teaching on marriage/divorce/remarriage, it can be and often is a very emotional issue. And given that we do not yet (as far as I know, and I could be wrong) have the rules in place which might speed up the process at a Tribunal, it is my recollection that an average to resolve a case other than for form takes up to two years or more; at which point it is not my decision but the priest’s as to whether or not anyone proceeds through RCIA.

Given that the priest appears to have known about the matter early on, there should have been some way of tracking so that this did not occur as late as it has. That is called communication, and it does not require disclosing any confidential information whatsoever.

 

[Gorgias]

Sorry, but I don’t buy that. The priest knew, or should have known the individual was in RCIA. He does not have to disclose anything to say that the individual is going to need to resolve matters before they can be admitted to the Church, and that unless and until they do, the person will not be able to come forward Holy Saturday Night to join. That discloses nothing.

Fine; let’s play “what if” – at the end of it, if you don’t think that there’s even the remote chance that there could be some disclosure that the priest is protecting, then I won’t press the issue with you. (Of course, I’ll still believe it’s possible… )

OK, here goes: what if the discussion between the priest and the catechumen went something like this…

Priest: Hi, Sally! Your RCIA director tells me that you would like to talk to me about something?

Sally: Yes, Father. Let me describe my marital situation to you… (Explanation ensues.)

Priest: Hmm… well, let’s see. Is your husband Catholic?

Sally: Well… I think so, but I’m not sure. Whenever we talk about religion, he gets really agitated. He’s really not too happy I’m joining the Church. The last time I mentioned it, he hit me and stormed out of the room.

Priest: Hmm… ok. So, there’s really no way whether you can find out if he’s a baptized Catholic, and where and when he was baptized.

Sally: No. I’m afraid to bring it up with him.

Priest: OK. Are you planning to get a divorce?

Sally: I don’t think so; I can’t imagine how angry he’ll get, or how he’ll take it out on the kids…

Priest: OK. Well, why don’t you gather what information you can, safely, and we’ll wait until your marital situation figures itself out.

Sally: Ok. Thanks, Father. (Thinking to self: I wonder how long that will be?)

Or, how about another “what if”:

Priest: So, you and Bill are separated now?

Sally: Yes, Father. I have to admit, though: every once in a while, Bill stops by. And, I’m embarrassed to admit it, but when he visits, we’ve “gotten together”, if you know what I mean.

Priest: I see. Well, Sally, I’ll keep that information to myself. However, until your situation with Bill resolves itself – that is, until you two decide whether you’re going to try to work it out or if you two divorce – we really won’t be able to proceed with your entry into the Church. So, let’s just wait and see how your situation resolves itself, ok?

Sally: Ok, Father. (To herself, "Hmm… wonder how long it’ll be until he says “it’s resolved”?)

So, otjm, in each of these fictional scenarios, the priest is privy to info that he has to keep to himself: spousal abuse (but no divorce), and an ongoing sexual relationship (but no reconciliation). Both affect her situation vis-a-vis entry into the Church, and both require the priest to tell the OP, “I’m sorry, but I can’t discuss her case with you.”

Are you certain, then, that there’s no chance that the priest isn’t protecting confidential disclosures?

Maybe I am reading the RCIA director wrong, but I don’t think she is trying to obtain privileged information.

Oh, I don’t think that she’s intending to get privileged info – but that’s what she’s doing, inadvertently.

As there is an average of about 1 priest per parish, I also have no thought but that the priest may simply be overwhelmed with responsibilities for the parish.

Perhaps, but you’re reading that into the situation. It may be that the situation is at an impasse, and the priest cannot take additional information (and the catechumen remains confused about this, given that she’s not a canon law expert).

it does not wait until more than half the program is over before it is made clear that the individual is either heading for, or in a position of not entering on Holy Saturday Night…

Good point. But… isn’t that precisely what the OP has described? The priest told her, “wait until both marriages are figured out and then she can be received” and informed her that he cannot discuss the situation further with her. Whether that means that there’s an impasse, or that there’s something in the works, it seems that the priest’s advice to her is still in play (even if the catechumen is unclear on what it means). The only thing that’s in question is whether the priest or the OP made it clear to the catechumen that the situation is ongoing and not likely to resolve itself in the next six weeks. (Or, perhaps he has, and the catechumen isn’t hearing that message.)

And given that we do not yet (as far as I know, and I could be wrong) have the rules in place which might speed up the process at a Tribunal, it is my recollection that an average to resolve a case other than for form takes up to two years or more; at which point it is not my decision but the priest’s as to whether or not anyone proceeds through RCIA.

It has been implemented in my diocese, but it’s still too early to assess the effect on the duration of the nullity process. In any case, I’m guessing that it’s not “the priest’s decision”, but rather, depends on the situation and applicable canon law that determines “whether or not one proceeds through RCIA.” I’d find it difficult to believe, though, that a priest would OK continued participation for someone who he thought wouldn’t be able to receive the sacraments at Easter…

Given that the priest appears to have known about the matter early on, there should have been some way of tracking so that this did not occur as late as it has. That is called communication, and it does not require disclosing any confidential information whatsoever.

And I’m guessing that this communication did occur, between the priest and the catechumen (and so the OP isn’t in the loop), but I’m guessing it occurred…

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Fine; let’s play “what if” – at the end of it, if you don’t think that there’s even the remote chance that there could be some disclosure that the priest is protecting, then I won’t press the issue with you.

Well…as a priest I am loathe to play games of “what if,” so I am not going down that rabbit hole.

As a priest, I am also loathe to second guess a confrere whom I neither know nor have any basis to arrive at a judgement concerning.

However, in this case, the matter at hand really asks me to say something. As I read it, the catechumen is confused and does not understand one or multiple issues that are standing between her and becoming Catholic. However well or poorly the pastor has explained the issue(s), he has evidently failed to communicate – whatever he has or has not said, the catechumen is not understanding and that is what matters most at this point.
*

I have asked my pastor, and he has replied that she may not be received until both her husband’s previous marriage and their current one to each other have been sorted out. He does not wish to discuss the situation further with me; meanwhile, I, the RCIA leader have a brokenhearted catechumen on my hands, who does not understand why she is being told she may not be received

. I know that I must not have the full story.*
So the catechumen has gone to the RCIA director seeking a fuller or more understandable explanation and the priest does not wish to share the issue(s) with the RCIA director. I am not going to speculate on that. But that decision makes it obviously impossible for this RCIA director to intercede and try to make whatever the situation is comprehensible to the catechumen.

The catechumen has the right to know and the right to understand what is/are the issue(s) and also to be empowered with the knowledge of what remedies need to be done and how that is to be attempted – and in a way that she can comprehend.

If the priest at hand, for whatever reason, cannot succeed in accomplishing that task and is moreover not willing to work with someone else who is within the parish and who can try to help the catechumen, then the catechumen (with or without the help of the RCIA director) should contact the diocese – as in the judicial vicar, an episcopal vicar, the vicar general, or the bishop himself – and explain her circumstance and ask an official of the diocese to intervene with the priest and obtain the issue(s) from him so that someone somewhere can explain to this lady what is wrong and what needs to be done – and perhaps examine with fresh eyes any and all available options at hand.

Even if the priest is pursuing the resolution, the catechumen has the right to be able to understand the issues and the resolutions since this intimately concerns her.

 

[otjm]

The point I was trying to make is that the the catechumen/candidate 1) spoke with the priest; 2) the priest determined she would not be able to enter the Church until matters were straightened out concerning her marital status; 3) at this point, things seemed to go into “limbo”; that is, nothing was moving forward.

Somewhere along the line, there should have been some communication between the RCIA director and the priest so that this did not end up bordering on an emotional crisis with the individual.

None of that required the release of any confidential information.

It would not surprise me in the least if the individual failed for whatever reason - lack of understanding of exactly what she had to do; fear of moving forward; lack of understanding the process; laziness; threats implied or real; or whatever - to move forward with the process.

If the priest determined at the beginning of the RCIA process that the individual would not be allowed to enter the Church unless and until the work was done, it does not take any revelation of confidential matters for the priest to say to the individual “You have to start this process by “x” date, or you will not be ready by Easter” and follow up at some point prior to “x” date to see if that is occurring.

And if the priest is not able to follow up on that by keeping track of the individual’s process, then without revealing any confidential information, he needs to alert the RCIA director that same timeline. None of that is confidential information. it is simply practical information.

I am not attempting to hang the priest out to dry. There could be any number of reasons that he was not aware of the status of the individual’s case. But this person has been admitted to an RCIA program, and barring anything unusual, most people are admitted to the Church on the following Easter. Either communication of the timeline (“x” date), or communication that this individual is on a two year or three year track for RCIA, could have prevented this candidate from drifting through RCIA with the impression she was going to join the Church this Easter.

And it would not have required the revealing of any confidential information to prevent this occurrence. None whatsoever.

People come in all sizes, shapes and whatever else; some are confident in their choice and eager to join, Some are tenuous, and making what to them is an enormous decision, one they are not entirely sure about. Some are strong, others are fragile. All need to be treated with charity, and charity includes not setting them up, even unintentionally, for what may well appear to them as failure.

Somewhere this case appears to have fallen through the cracks. It does not take revealing confidential information for the RCIA director to be told that an individual needs to resolve matters concerning a marriage prior to being admitted to the Church, with some sort of time line within that needing to occur. That then allows the RCIA director somewhere prior to that date to speak with the pastor to see if the individual is on track. Being on track is not a confidential matter. If the priest says “I don’t know”, then it allows either the priest, or the RCIA director to get the individual on track; either the priest contacts her, or the RCIA director tells her to set an appointment "this week (or as appropriate) with the priest and follows up with the priest to see that it has been done. None of that requires any confidential information.

As Strother Martin, as Captain said, “What we’ve got here is failure to communicate.” This never should have taken this long to come to this point. And if it had been done properly, none of it would have violated any privacy of the individual.

I have been involved with RCIA for over 20 years. I have never needed to know what the substance of an individual’s tribunal application was about; but I certainly have been apprised when matters were not moving forward as they needed to, and none of that communication compromised privacy. I am not pointing fingers at anyone; perhaps it was the priest who did not communicate enough to the RCIA director, or the RCIA director did not follow up when they should have. But proper and reasonably frequent communication should have occurred well prior to this.

 

[SeekingHisPlan]

When considering complicated cases like this one, it’s necessary to ask about all marriages. I noticed that you didn’t discuss her husband’s first wife’s marital history. Note that this might come into play here, too.

Not necessarily. Remember – for a pastor to allow the ‘pastoral solution’, there mustn’t be the possibility of scandal. If others might be led to sin or to a misunderstanding, then the pastoral solution shouldn’t be chosen.

If they plan only to “continue to live separately”, then this means that they are still married, right? She cannot pursue an annulment while still married.

Ouch! Reading between the lines, I think I hear you saying that you are considering whether someone might advise her to get baptized outside the Church and then approach the Catholic Church for Confirmation & full reception at a later date?!?!?!?!?

-I didn’t discuss her husband’s first wife’s marital history because I don’t know it.

-Re: the pastoral solution, fair point. I perhaps should not discuss that further.

-In “decides to pursue an annulment” I considered, but did not say that she would have to be legally divorced first. Of course she would.

-As to the baptism issue, let me me crystal clear that I neither said, nor meant to imply anything of the sort. I am trying to understand the situation at hand, but also, the broader applications of Canon law in situations like this one.

 

[dans0622]

… If the priest at hand, for whatever reason, cannot succeed in accomplishing that task and is moreover not willing to work with someone else who is within the parish and who can try to help the catechumen, then the catechumen (with or without the help of the RCIA director) should contact the diocese – as in the judicial vicar, an episcopal vicar, the vicar general, or the bishop himself – and explain her circumstance and ask an official of the diocese to intervene with the priest and obtain the issue(s) from him so that someone somewhere can explain to this lady what is wrong and what needs to be done – and perhaps examine with fresh eyes any and all available options at hand.

Even if the priest is pursuing the resolution, the catechumen has the right to be able to understand the issues and the resolutions since this intimately concerns her.

I agree. The way the situation has been presented leaves me confused. The person involved, it seems, is also confused. My confusion is, at the end of the day, irrelevant. Her confusion is not. I hope she can find clarity and that her initiation will proceed according to the common (legal) practice of the Church.

Dan

 

[Gorgias]

Well…as a priest I am loathe to play games of “what if,” so I am not going down that rabbit hole.

Right – and, like I said, I’m not trying to guess at the reasons, but rather, simply to refute that claim that there couldn’t possibly be anything going on that would cause the priest to tell the OP that, in his best judgment, he could not comment further.

However, in this case, the matter at hand really asks me to say something. As I read it, the catechumen is confused and does not understand one or multiple issues that are standing between her and becoming Catholic. However well or poorly the pastor has explained the issue(s), he has evidently failed to communicate – whatever he has or has not said, the catechumen is not understanding and that is what matters most at this point.

Agreed. And yet, there doesn’t seem to be a confusion about what was told to her – that she’d have to wait – but rather, confusion about the particular reasons why she has to wait. That’s an entirely different issue.

In fact, the answer to the question “but why?” does, in fact, require a discussion that includes all the intricacies of her particular situation. That implies, then, that if the priest feels he cannot share these details with the OP, then the OP is not the person to explain them to the catechumen. Could the OP go back to the pastor and explain that the catechumen doesn’t fully understand the canonical situation? Sure; but she’s already indicated that the catechumen has spoken to the priest a number of times.

 

[SeekingHisPlan]

The situation is basically this (leaving out the personal details of this particular catechumen)

-Each candidate had an interview with the pastor before beginning the process

-My understanding from my previous involvement on the RCIA team, and our usual practice was that any candidate who had impediments to entry into the Church would not be allowed to proceed with the RCIA process until the impediments were resolved, or on a reasonable timeline for being resolved before the following Easter.

Fr and I must have miscommunicated in early Sept, because at that time, my understanding was that everyone in my group was OK to proceed, and there was no reason to doubt that everyone would be received at Easter.

-In Jan, I was asked whether <catechumen’s name> was still with the group. I said she was. I was then told that there were issues that needed to be resolved before she could proceed. This is the first time I understood that she may not be able to be received at Easter.

I do not want any more of the details of the situation than anyone is at liberty to give me, but the catechumen is confused, and she’s asking me for clarification, which I am not able to give.

 

[Gorgias]

The point I was trying to make is that the the catechumen/candidate 1) spoke with the priest; 2) the priest determined she would not be able to enter the Church until matters were straightened out concerning her marital status; 3) at this point, things seemed to go into “limbo”; that is, nothing was moving forward.

You’re reading into the situation – no one’s said that the situation is “in limbo.”

None of that required the release of any confidential information.

As I’ve demonstrated, an explanation of the reason why does, in fact, require a discussion of the situation, and therefore, very possibly, knowledge of confidential information.

It would not surprise me in the least if the individual failed for whatever reason - lack of understanding of exactly what she had to do; fear of moving forward; lack of understanding the process; laziness; threats implied or real; or whatever - to move forward with the process.

Right. And, of course, these don’t necessarily imply that the priest didn’t explain the situation to the catechumen (or that she made him aware that she continues to not understand the reasons why).

If the priest determined at the beginning of the RCIA process that the individual would not be allowed to enter the Church unless and until the work was done, it does not take any revelation of confidential matters for the priest to say to the individual “You have to start this process by “x” date, or you will not be ready by Easter” and follow up at some point prior to “x” date to see if that is occurring.

The OP never said he didn’t. She just said that the catechumen doesn’t understand why this is the case.

(Of course, it’s possible that the catechumen continues to be part of the RCIA program, which is confusing to the OP. That would be a reasonable question for her to ask her pastor: “If she cannot receive the sacraments, should we tell her to drop from RCIA and come back when the situation is resolved?” Given the fact that the woman is already heartbroken, such a response seems cold and unpastoral at best, since it could lead to the perception that “the Church told me to go away.”

And if the priest is not able to follow up on that by keeping track of the individual’s process, then without revealing any confidential information, he needs to alert the RCIA director that same timeline.

The OP seems aware that the catechumen will not be able to receive the sacraments at this time. That isn’t the issue she’s presented here.

Either communication of the timeline (“x” date), or communication that this individual is on a two year or three year track for RCIA, could have prevented this candidate from drifting through RCIA with the impression she was going to join the Church this Easter.

That seems to be another instance of reading something into the situation that the OP hasn’t stated. It seems that they’re pretty clear – the catechumen is ‘heartbroken’ precisely *because *she knows she’s not going to receive the sacraments this year.

Somewhere this case appears to have fallen through the cracks.

There’s nothing that we’ve been told that indicates it’s “fallen through the cracks.”

It does not take revealing confidential information for the RCIA director to be told that an individual needs to resolve matters concerning a marriage prior to being admitted to the Church

Umm… re-read the OP’s posts. That’s precisely what the priest has already told her.

with some sort of time line within that needing to occur.

What if there’s no time line? What if there’s some detail of the situation that makes the determination of the time line impossible? What if revealing that this is the case also reveals the presence of a particular (confidential) situation?

That then allows the RCIA director somewhere prior to that date to speak with the pastor to see if the individual is on track. Being on track is not a confidential matter.

Agreed. But, we don’t know if there’s a timeline. In fact, there seems that there is not. It may be the case that there’s no course of action at the present. There may be no possibility of resolving the issue through another meeting with the priest…

I have been involved with RCIA for over 20 years. I have never needed to know what the substance of an individual’s tribunal application was about; but I certainly have been apprised when matters were not moving forward as they needed to, and none of that communication compromised privacy.

Right. And hopefully, that’s what was shared with the OP; she hasn’t indicated that the catechumen’s timeline (or lack thereof) hasn’t been shared with her. Rather, she’s only indicated that she isn’t privy to the reasons for the situation.

But proper and reasonably frequent communication should have occurred well prior to this.

It seems that there has been ‘proper and reasonably frequent communication’ between the catechumen and the priest. Unfortunately, either she is unable to understand (or he is unable to explain in sufficiently clear terms) what the canonical situation is. Don R gives a good alternative – call the canon law office. Of course, they might not be (explicitly) aware of the details of the situation.

 

[otjm]

You’re reading into the situation – no one’s said that the situation is “in limbo.”

As I’ve demonstrated, an explanation of the reason why does, in fact, require a discussion of the situation, and therefore, very possibly, knowledge of confidential information.

Right. And, of course, these don’t necessarily imply that the priest didn’t explain the situation to the catechumen (or that she made him aware that she continues to not understand the reasons why).

The OP never said he didn’t. She just said that the catechumen doesn’t understand why this is the case.

(Of course, it’s possible that the catechumen continues to be part of the RCIA program, which is confusing to the OP. That would be a reasonable question for her to ask her pastor: “If she cannot receive the sacraments, should we tell her to drop from RCIA and come back when the situation is resolved?” Given the fact that the woman is already heartbroken, such a response seems cold and unpastoral at best, since it could lead to the perception that “the Church told me to go away.”

The OP seems aware that the catechumen will not be able to receive the sacraments at this time. That isn’t the issue she’s presented here.

That seems to be another instance of reading something into the situation that the OP hasn’t stated. It seems that they’re pretty clear – the catechumen is ‘heartbroken’ precisely *because *she knows she’s not going to receive the sacraments this year.

There’s nothing that we’ve been told that indicates it’s “fallen through the cracks.”

Umm… re-read the OP’s posts. That’s precisely what the priest has already told her.

What if there’s no time line? What if there’s some detail of the situation that makes the determination of the time line impossible? What if revealing that this is the case also reveals the presence of a particular (confidential) situation?

Agreed. But, we don’t know if there’s a timeline. In fact, there seems that there is not. It may be the case that there’s no course of action at the present. There may be no possibility of resolving the issue through another meeting with the priest…

Right. And hopefully, that’s what was shared with the OP; she hasn’t indicated that the catechumen’s timeline (or lack thereof) hasn’t been shared with her. Rather, she’s only indicated that she isn’t privy to the reasons for the situation.

It seems that there has been ‘proper and reasonably frequent communication’ between the catechumen and the priest. Unfortunately, either she is unable to understand (or he is unable to explain in sufficiently clear terms) what the canonical situation is. Don R gives a good alternative – call the canon law office. Of course, they might not be (explicitly) aware of the details of the situation.

Go read post 12 again, and then read the first 4 paragraphs of post 16.

Either you cannot understand what I am saying, or you are choosing to ignore it. In either case, repeating myself would be pointless.

The RCIA director said in post 16 exactly what I have been saying - there was a miscommunication, which is what I called a failure to communicate.

As a member of an RCIA team for +/- 20 years, I have had individuals who had marital issues they needed to resolve; I never had the problem similar to this as there was always communication between the RCIA team and the pastor, and if matters were not proceeding as needed, that matter was dealt with in a timely manner. And never did it require that I have access to any privileged information in any way, shape or form.

I am not trying to point fingers or determine who was at fault; I am not trying to throw either the pastor or the director under the bus. But this is a prime example of the need for at least somewhat frequent times of communication between the pastor and the director, so that this type of issue can be addressed reasonably early on.

If there had been better communications at the very start, and if there had been a meeting 4 to 6 weeks later, this should have come up, without any confidential information being given, at least by early November.

 

[Gorgias]

Go read post 12 again, and then read the first 4 paragraphs of post 16.

Either you cannot understand what I am saying, or you are choosing to ignore it. In either case, repeating myself would be pointless.

Looks like the OP was posting at the same time I was.

Nevertheless, unless you’re asserting that the catechemen was asking “Why (there was a seeming change in direction)”, the OP’s question still seems to be looking for information about "Why (the answer is ‘no’) " - which would require her to know all the sensitive details of the catechumen’s situation.

Yes, it would have been better if there hadn’t been a misunderstanding that persisted till last month. Still, the misunderstanding over status is resolved. Do you think that the OP is asking ‘why the misunderstanding’? C’mon, now… really?

The RCIA director said in post 16 exactly what I have been saying - there was a miscommunication, which is what I called a failure to communicate.

Yet, her question wasn’t about the ‘failure’; it was about the substance of the catechumen’s situation.

this is a prime example of the need for at least somewhat frequent times of communication between the pastor and the director, so that this type of issue can be addressed reasonably early on.

It seems like the pastor thought that ‘no go’ had already been communicated.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

I haven’t read through all the replies, so if this has been said, I apologize.

If she is living apart from her husband or living as"sister and Brother" wouldn’t she be allowed to validly join the CC?