J
JulianN
Guest
Yes. As I said in my first post, this was in the case of Catholics who married unbaptized persons without a request for dispensation.
- Status
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
I would say that if a person were to marry “in the Church”–that is, properly manifest marital consent before a priest/deacon who has the faculty to ask for and receive the consent of the Parties in the name of the Church as well as two other witnesses–then the marriage enjoys the favor of the law. In other words, the marriage has a legal presumption of validity.
It would not be correct to say that such persons “were not married in the eyes of the Church.”
Dan
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
Yes, they called it a “dispensation” (instead of the current “permission”) but the effect of not getting that dispensation was the same as it is now if one does not receive the corresponding permission: the marriage would not be invalid because of the lack of the “dispensation.” That’s somewhat convoluted but I hope it’s still comprehensible.
Dan
1
1ke
Guest
You are correct. 1917 code required dispensation. 1983 code, permission.
P
Phemie
Guest
I thought the 1983 code had relaxed the rules but I guess it just changed the language, at least for this canon.Phemie:
Yes, they called it a “dispensation” (instead of the current “permission”) but the effect of not getting that dispensation was the same as it is now if one does not receive the corresponding permission: the marriage would not be invalid because of the lack of the “dispensation.” That’s somewhat convoluted but I hope it’s still comprehensible.
Dan
Prior to the 1983 code could a Catholic marry a non-baptized? If yes, were we always allowed to do so?
1
1ke
Guest
The OP’s situation involves a baptized non-Christian. I thought you were responding to that, not talking about a separate instance.
J
JulianN
Guest
Sorry – I guess I wasn’t clear. My apologies. It looked like the OP wanted an answer for both scenarios, even though the instant case involved two baptized Christians. The cases about which I was talking were examples of Catholic/non-baptized marriages. Although that particular pastor didn’t get permission or dispensation – regardless of circumstance. We ended up with a bit of regularizing needing to happen.
A
acanonlawyer
Guest
On this issue, the foundational change in the 1983 Code was the deletion of the “impedient (or “impeding”) impediments” from the law. Such impediments, if not dispensed, would result in an illicit wedding. The prime example of this sort of impediment was that of “mixed religion”–where a Catholic and a person baptized into a heretical/schismatic sect, as the law used to say, wished to marry.
In addition to “impedient impediments”, there were “diriment impediments” that, if not dispensed, would cause an invalid marriage. “Disparity of cult” was such an impediment. In those days, Catholics could marry unbaptized persons but then, as now, if this was attempted without a dispensation from the impediment, the marriage would not be valid.
I’m sure that this dispensation was not always granted–there must have been some instances where it was denied (just a law of averages). My impression (mere opinion, really) is that the dispensation for disparity of cult was not asked for as often as it is nowadays and was not granted as readily as it is now.
Dan
- Status