A reader writes:
I am a Catholic was married in a civil ceremony several years ago. I have
since realized that I needed to be married in the
Catholic Church in order to receive Communion. My wife agreed that we
would get our marriage blessed even though she is not Catholic.We asked the priest about having
sexual relations and he told us that since we weren’t going to get it
blessed for another year (gave ourselves plenty of time to plan) that
it is not expeced that we hold off for that long.
Okay, what the priest told you on this point is wrong. He was trying to make things easier on the two of you, but he was wrong. If two people are not validly married then they should not be having sexual relations until such time as they are.
My wife and I agreed
on several months but overstepped it ….on the last time
however she has gotten pregnant.At the wedding she will probably
not be showing yet.
Is there any issues with going ahead with the wedding. Do we tell the
priest that she is pregnant?
You should go to confession about this, but I’m not seeing any other issues. I also don’t see any need to tell the priest about the pregnancy at this time since it is not relevant to the wedding. You will want at some point talk to the parish about making arrangements for the child’s baptism, though.
I want to be able to receive our Lord in Communion but I want to do it
the right way and not be in mortal sin.
The way to do this is to resolve to live continently until the wedding and go to confession. Then you’ll be able to receive Communion immediately, even before the wedding.
Just a curious question…..is masturbation or contraception still a
mortal sin when ones wife is already pregnant??
Masturbation is always gravely sinful, and the fact that one has a pregnant wife does not change this. I don’t understand why one would want to use contraception with a pregnant spouse since the purpose of contraception is to prevent conception, and this is not at issue while she is pregnant. Some forms of contraception (e.g., condoms) also damage the unitive aspect of the sexual act and so couldn’t be used for that reason. Others might pose a danger to the child.
In your case, though, since the two of you are not yet validly married, you shouldn’t be engaging in sexual relations until the wedding. Once that happens, though, you’d be able to engage in them the same as any other married couple during pregnancy, provided it isn’t posing a danger to the child.
I know that this may not all be what you were hoping to hear, but you deserve the truth, and I want to be straight with you. You also should be commended for your willingness to do what is needed to follow Christ and rectify your marital situation. You wife also is to be commended for her willingness to help you follow your conscience even though she is not Catholic. God will bless you both for your efforts.
Hope this helps!
20
If the priest says, “I forgive you your sins in the Name of…” is this equivalent of the proscribed, “I absolve you from your sins in the Name of…”?
The EWTN Q&A seems, for the most part, to argue that saying “forgive” instead of “absolve” invalidates the confession, and one canon lawyer argues your sins won’t be forgiven, while another canon lawyer believes that they can be forgiven even though the sacrament of confession was invalid.
I’ve found other priests who think they’re equivalent, and thus the confession would be valid- but illicit, but I’d like a more comprehensive opinion. It’d be nice to know that whenever I go to confession I won’t have to run and find another confessor if the current confessor says “I forgive you…”
Thanks for anyone’s insight regarding this issue.
Pax Christi,
Bobby
Oops. I just realized that the above space was supposed to be for comments related to convalidation. Sorry about that.
Bobby
I think it’s ridiculous that this man has an extended wait for the wedding ceremony to be performed. Why couldn’t he and his wife be validly married on the spot, or near to it, once his situation became known? Maybe this was an option, but he chose to forgoe it in favor of an elaborate ceremony that’s needed to be planned.
However, I don’t know what’s needed to be “planned.” Is this planning necessary for the blessing? Or does it concern other peripheral matters to the ceremony like typical weddings?
My question for Jimmy is:
Could this man, if he chose, be married by the Church very quickly given his several years-long status of his civil marriage? Or does the Church say he would need to wait for a certain amount of time?
In our case the priest suggested allowing enough time to complete the Pre-Cana counseling, and for the appropriate documents (statements from the counselor, affidavits of freedom to marry, and certificates of baptism) to be forwarded to the convalidating parish. Other than that there was no real delay.
Our ceremony was tiny: ourselves (me hugely pregnant), and the priest and two witnesses (which we hardly knew). And I was the non-Catholic. After I converted, I asked my husband, shouldn’t we have abstained during that period? (about 7 months, we moved during that time). He said, yeah, we should have. He said he was aware of the sin, but didn’t have the will to put it on me (I was hostile to “the Church being in our bedroom” for awhile). And maybe he didn’t have the follow-through necessary either. But praise God, I am now in the Church, and I presume that sin was forgiven in my first confession, even though I wasn’t aware of it at the time.
Hold on… In another post Jimmy (I think) said that the Church presumes that a mariage outside the Church is valid until found to be invalid. But now you are saying that this couple’s civil ceremony is definitely not valid. What’s the difference here? Were you only refering to christian weddings in the other post?
mettw,
Jimmy was referring to marriages of two non-Catholics in those other posts. A Catholic must be married in the Church in order for their marriage to be valid, whether it is to a non-Catholic or Catholic.
I still think that a 7-12 month delay is inexcusable if the reason has to do with paperwork. I understand counseling is important, but given that the couple has already been married for several years, is it really that necessary to do it before performing the blessing?
It was not too long ago that if two people wanted to get married, they got married relatively soon. In our world now, the actual ceremony is delayed interminably long mostly for issues that are cultural, not religious.
I understand why the paperwork is important for certain reasons, but no reason why it should delay the ceremony for two people already married who wish to do so. This is legalism and has nothing to do with the sacrament.
If I was this man, I would firmly insist to my priest that the blessing be performed as soon as possible – certainly within the month. Any longer delay, I believe, has less to do with fidelity to Christ and more to do with other issues.
Put me down in the column of those who think that waiting a year for this couple to get married is nuts. In the old days, priests used to advise against long engagements, recognizing that for people of normal libidos, a long wait before marriage would almost inevitably constitute an occasion of sin. And that goes double for a couple who are actually living together in an invalid marriage.
The post doesn’t make clear whether the couple themselves or the priest is the cause of the delay. If it’s the couple (because, e.g., they want to plan a big shindig), they need to be told that they ought to forget the big party and regularize their situation ASAP. If it’s the priest, enforcing some rule about requiring a minimum engagement period, then he or the local ordinary is the one who needs a lesson about priorities.
Chris,
But the point is that they are *not* already married. Civil marriages are not recognized by the Church. They are living in sin, cohabiting, shacking up – whatever phrase you want to use. Performing on-the-spot marriages without counseling, etc., is the same as giving a free marriage pass to anyone who decides to violate the Church’s teachings on marriage. With the current woeful state of marriages in the world, is that really a good idea?
I just went back and re-read the post, and though it’s not 100% clear, it looks like it’s probably the couple’s idea to wait a year.
Hmmm… a lot of comments for a “rule 20 question”. I guess that’s ok.
Civil marriages are not recognized by the Church.
That isn’t quite true, as I understand it. If two agnostics were married in a civil ceremony that would be presumed to be a valid marriage. (So for example if they divorced and one later wanted to marry a Catholic or join the Church and remarry an annullment of the first marriage would be required, and not necessarily granted).
Maybe someone who knows more than I can correct or clarify that, but it is my present understanding.
But no baptised Catholic – not even a lapsed Catholic, unless he/she has formally and publicly rejected the faith – can validly marry without doing so in the proper form (i.e. in front of a priest with two witnesses and/or with the proper express dispensations from the Bishop).
Jon: Comments and questions in a Rule #20 post are just fine. I welcome them. It’s outright disagreement that I’d like directed to me by e-mail.
Church marriage law and procedures are complicated and are difficult to summarize quickly in a comment. Also, each couple’s situation is different and needs to be considered individually and separately. I am curious about the quickness with which some of the above posters assume that the priest/bishop/church is likely to be at fault, when in fact, there was not enough specific information given to make a judgment about whether anyone was at fault.
To clarify just a couple of points mentioned above. A Catholic may validly marry in a) a proper Catholic form (i.e. Catholic Church, priest, deacon or bishop presiding, etc) OR in another form (e.g. before a minister) IF the couple has received a dispensation to be married in such a form. These dispensations are routinely given when the marriage takes place in the christian church of one of the spouses.
Second, in most dioceses, there is a strong encouragement or even a requirement that convalidations (i.e. ‘blessings’ of canonically valid civil marriages) be done simply, and also that they not be done within a year or so of the invalid civil ceremony. The latter requirement is to prevent quick convalidations after the couple just decided to do what they wanted by being married at the beach, in a hot air balloon or whatever.
Third, the woman’s pregnancy is relevant to the wedding – whether a usual wedding or a convalidation – insofar as it may mean that she feels under pressure or force to get married. (Although this seems not to be the case here.)
Fourth, the “paperwork” involved can usually be expedited for convalidations. However, it may be that one or both parties have been previously married (requiring an anullment) or that there are other complicating factors, such as the priest’s doubt about whether the couple has the required intentions (permanance, openness to children, mutual and loving fidelity) or capacity to do what they are pledging themselves to do.
Fifth, there is a subtext of some of the above that seems to assume that marriage is a private event. It is not. It is always a public, religious act and a public religious relationshiop, in addition to being a private relationship. Therefore, the Church has the power and obligation to become involved and to refrain from being a mere ‘rubber stamp’ to whatever the couple wants.