In the combox down yonder, a reader writes:
I'd be curious how to find out what rite one is. I have a friend who was born to a Latin mother and a Ukrainian Catholic father and was baptized in a Byzantine Catholic church. As we understand it, it depends on what year he was baptized in, but we're not sure how the church of baptism factors into it. In any case, it's an interesting general question as to how the various rites are kept track of and managed as far as individuals are concerned.
Here is what the present law says:
Code of Canon Law (1983)
Can. 111 §1. Through the reception of baptism, the child of parents who belong to the Latin Church is enrolled in it, or, if one or the other does not belong to it, both parents have chosen by mutual agreement to have the offspring baptized in the Latin Church. If there is no mutual agreement, however, the child is enrolled in the ritual Church to which the father belongs.
§2. Anyone to be baptized who has completed the fourteenth year of age can freely choose to be baptized in the Latin Church or in another ritual Church sui iuris; in that case, the person belongs to the Church which he or she has chosen.Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches (1990)
Canon 29
§1. By virtue of baptism, a child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year of age is enrolled in the Church sui iuris of the Catholic father; or the Church sui iuris of the mother if only the mother is Catholic or if both parents by agreement freely request it, with due regard for particular law established by the Apostolic See.
§2. If the child who has not yet completed his fourteenth year is:
(1) born of an unwed mother, he is enrolled in the Church sui iuris to which the mother belongs;
(2) born of unknown parents, he is to be enrolled in the Church sui iuris of those in whose care he has been legitimately committed are enrolled; if it is a case of an adoptive father and mother, §1 should be applied;
(3) born of non-baptized parents, the child is to be a member of the Church sui iuris of the one who is responsible for his education in the Catholic faith.
And here is what the prior law said:
Code of Canon Law (1917)
Canon 756
§1. Children must be baptized according to the rite of the parents.
§2. If one parent belongs to the Latin rite, and the other to an oriental [rite], the children are baptized according to the rite of the father, unless provided otherwise by special law.
§3. If only one [parent] is Catholic, the children are to be baptized in that rite.
As you can see, there are some options. Partly, it does depend on when the child was baptized (and I'm presuming the child was under 14). If it was before 1983, the 1917 Code's canon would have applied. If it was after 1983 then that year's Code's canon would have applied. And if it was after 1990s, the Eastern Code's canon would also have applied.
It isn't just the year that is in issue, though. It is also the choice of the parents if it was after 1983.
My guess is that since the child had a Byzantine rite father and a Latin mother and the child was baptized in a Byzantine church that the parents probably had not agreed to have it baptized as a Latin (otherwise one would think it would have been baptized in a Latin parish). So probably the child belongs to whichever Byzantine rite church the father belongs to.
Which raises another point . . .
There is a difference between a "rite" and an Eastern Catholic church.
Canon 28
§1. A rite is the liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony, culture and circumstances of history of a distinct people, by which its own manner of living the faith is manifested in each Church sui iuris.
§2. The rites treated in this code, unless otherwise stated, are those which arise from the Alexandrian, Antiochene, Armenian, Chaldean and Constantinopolitan traditions.
Canon 27
A group of Christian faithful united by a hierarchy according to the norm of law which the supreme authority of the Church expressly or tacitly recognizes as sui iuris is called in this Code a Church sui iuris.
So properly speaking the child belongs to a church sui iuris (a church with its own law) and the church follows a particular liturgical/theological/spiritual/etc. rite. There are more than a dozen Catholic churches sui iuris that follow the Byzantine rite, but the child is only a member of one of them.
Thanks, Jimmy. Is there a particular place we should check with to find out exactly which church this person belongs to? Would it be noted on the baptismal record, or is there some other place we need to check? The reason it’s not as simple as looking at the canons is that the eastern church in which he was baptized was not the eastern church to which the father belonged. They were attending it at the time due to geography.
Checking the baptismal register would be one avenue, but asking the parents what their intentions were and applying the relevant canon might also solve it. (Or might not.)
What are the consequences of being baptized into a particular rite? I.e., what does it matter what church that person belongs to? (I mean this respectfully.)
It could matter in a number of ways: if one were a member of an Eastern Catholic Church, s/he would be obliged by that church’s rules for fasting & abstinence, holy days of obligation, etc.
So I am the person that Shane was referring about.
My Mom is Latin.
My Dad is Ukrainian Rite.
I was baptized & confirmed in 1982 at a Ruthenian Rite Church. This is because my parents were attending that church at a time and neither were following their Rites. To me it seems that Canon Law was broken as I was baptized & confirmed in neither of my parents rites.
To top it off I received first holy communion in the Latin Rite.
Mike,
There are too many variables for anyone to answer your question here, and each case is somewhat different. Trust me — I deal with this in my job (I work in a chancery), and there’s RARELY a quick answer. No two cases are alike, so each needs individual attention. I highly suggest that you discuss this with your local Ukrainian eparchy offices (whatever their equivalent of a chancery is) or Latin chancery. More likely than not, you’d be Ukrainian, so start there. The Eastern churches all tend to know Eastern Canon Law much better anyway, and they deal with ascription issues more frequently. If there’s no Ukrainian eparchy where you live now, then go to the Latin diocese. If there’s neither, then start with whichever church sui iuris is predominant, as, I believe, the predominant one has jurisdiction over Catholics wherever their church sui iuris does not have a diocese/eparchy of its own.
Beadgirl:
One difference that comes to mind deals with marriages. A deacon can witness the marriage of two Latin Catholics (or a Latin Catholic and baptized non-Catholic) because the Latin view of the sacrament is that the couple are the ministers of the sacrament, and the deacon or priest is there only to witness it. The Eastern view, on the other hand, is the the sacrament comes to the couple through the priest, so if one of the couple is Eastern, then Eastern canon law prevails, and the sacrament requires a priest for validity
A second difference is that, depending on which country he lives in, an Eastern Catholic married layman can be ordained a priest, whereas in the Latin he cannot.
Basically, one’s ascription to a particular church sui iuris matters because each church sui iuris has its own unique heritage, language, customs, etc. And it makes a difference in terms of disciplinary things, such as when one receives the sacraments. Part of why we allow it to matter is so that we can protect the heritage and contributions of the Eastern churches.
Marriage is an objective state. Both interpretations of who marries whom cnnot be oorrect.
The Chicken