Pope Benedict has released a new motu proprio titled Omnium in mentum which revises the Code of Canon Law on two points.
First, before getting into the changes, let me offer a high five to canonist Edward Peters for predicting, over ten years ago, that this would be the model followed in the future for changing canon law. Following the codification of canon law in 1917, the Code underwent a thorough revision in 1983. Rather than letting issues build up and then having another thorough revision at some point, John Paul II issued a motu proprio in 1998 that amended specific canons. Ed thereupon predicted that this would be the model for the foreseeable future–tweaking the text of the Code here and there as needed rather than leaving things sit until time for a massive revision.
So what's new in the motu proprio?
Two things: First, some language in the Code has been modified to describe the way that the office of deacon is understood. This brings the language of the Code in line with the language of the Catechism, which was itself brought in line with the language of Vatican II's decree Lumen Gentium (n. 29). I need to do further study on this point before commenting on it in any depth, though, so I'll pass on to the second change.
Second, the exemptions in the Code's marriage laws for those who have formally defected from the Church are now gone (or, rather, they will be when the motu proprio goes into force three months after its publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis; CIC, can. 8).
This is quite interesting.
One of the things introduced in the 1983 Code was a set of exceptions in the Church's marriage law for those who had defected from the Church by a formal act. Specifically, if you had so defected then you were not obligated to
1) get a dispensation if you want to marry a non-baptized person (cf. can. 1086),
2) observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., "get married in the Church;" cf can. 1117), or
3) get permission to marry a non-Catholic Christian (cf. can. 1124).
The purpose of doing this was to allow people who had left the Church to validly enter into marriages of the kinds indicated.
Unfortunately, a lot of problems were generated by the law. For a start, it was unclear what constituted a formal act of defection. To try to rectify the problem, in 2006 the Holy See issued a clarification which set very specific requirements for the act, requirements which resulted in basically nobody committing acts of formal defection.
The clarification was, to my mind, bad law, and it raised a bunch of new headaches which have not subsequently been clarified, so far as I have been able to determine.
The Holy See also seems to have come to the conclusion that the formal defection law was not working as desired, and so it has now gotten rid of the whole thing.
As of the time the motu proprio goes into effect, therefore, anybody who has ever been a Catholic (even if they were baptized one as an infant and then raised something else) must follow the same marriage laws as those who consider themselves Catholic or their marriages will be invalid.
It brings to mind the old saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I'm not sure what people always had in mind by this saying–whether they were saying that Catholic culture runs deep in the soul, even if one joins another church; whether they were asserting that it is impossible to truly leave the Church; or whether they were asserting something else.
Whatever was meant, though, and whatever nuances have been introduced theologically about kinds or degrees of ecclesial communion, going forward everybody who has ever been Catholic will be juridically Catholic, attempts at formal defection or no. It was only in its marriage law that the Church made exceptions for formal defection, and now those exceptions are being retired.
This is one way of cutting the Gordian knot. It may or may not be the optimal one, but it's what the law is going to be for now.
As far as I can tell, this creates the following timeline for handling the above marital situations:
- For marriages attempted prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code, the old law was in force and there was no exception for formal defection.
- From the promulgation of the 1983 Code to the 2006 clarification, the formal defection exception was in effect and was to be interpreted broadly, in keeping with the language of the law. (The 2006 clarification went beyond the language of the law and thus should not be retroactive in force; CIC, can. 16).
- From the 2006 clarification to the effective date of the new motu proprio, the formal defection exception was in effect but formal defection was to be interpreted much more narrowly.
- From the effective date of the motu proprio (should be some time in early 2010), the law reverts to the status quo ante the 1983 Code, so there will be no exception for cases of formal defection.
The potential validity of a marriage involving a case of formal defection will thus depend on which of these four time periods it was attempted in–so far as I can tell.
HERE IS GOOGLE'S MACHINE-ASSISTED/COLLABORATIVE TRANSLATION FROM THE ITALIAN OF THE MOTU PROPRIO.
I’m a little unclear with this: “As of the time the motu proprio goes into effect, therefore, anybody who has ever been a Catholic (even if they were baptized one as an infant and then raised something else) must follow the same marriage laws as those who consider themselves Catholic or their marriages will be invalid.” So, if a child is baptized by a priest/deacon but is never raised Catholic, never goes to First Communion or receive Confirmation, they are considered Catholic? Then, because we recognize other baptisms, wouldn’t this situation of “once Catholic, always Catholic” apply to Protestants as well since there is real distinction between a Protestant baptism and a Catholic baptism? I’m confused by this line. Tom
I’d been meaning to ask about this for a long time by a private email to Jimmy Akin, but I never got around to it:
I know a young person who, to my knowledge, “kind of” fell away from the church for some time, moved far away from home and secretly (from his family) got married in a civil ceremony to a girl who was also a Catholic not practicing her faith. (It would seem that their “defections” wouldn’t really count as defections according to the 2006 clarification.) After a few months they separated and she moved away (I am not sure if they actually got a legal divorce), but there was talk about maybe the two of them getting married “for real” (ie in the Church) at some point in the future. Apparently, after this became known, a local priest said that in their situation they would not be able to get married in the Church, and that they would only be able to have a small ceremony where the marriage would simply be blessed by the Church because they were already married. My question is, is that really true? My impression would be that since they were not married in the Church, their “marriage” was not real, and because they were effectively just two young adults misbehaving for a time, what’s to keep them from getting married in the Church after they’ve separated and gone to confession and returned to the Church?
So, Jimmy, would these two people be able to marry normally (in the eyes of the Church) once they’ve separated and gotten back into communion with the Church? Their civil marriage would have occurred after the 2006 clarification. Does it matter during which “time period” the civil marriage occurred in this case?
Interesting, I was just listening this morning to a Catholic Answers podcast from 12/8 with Karl Keating (second to last question on the mp3). It sounded like there was someone who wanted an outdoor wedding outside the Church. Her father said he couldn’t attend unless she formally defected from the Church. She did, and then he attended the wedding.
On a related note, I suspect the guillotine is a very effective cure for headaches.
My older brother, who just got married this past September, went the formal defection route purely because he knew that otherwise I could not attend the non-Catholic ceremony. He wrote to the bishop and got a response acknowledging his defection.
So… he’s grandfathered in, I guess? His marriage to my sister in law is a valid natural marriage?
I’m so confused. It seems like something this important should be the same way for all time, not something changeable.
If both he and your SIL have been baptized (regardless whether your SIL was ever Catholic), and no impediment prevents their union, their marriage is a valid sacramental marriage. Natural (non-sacramental) marriage is not possible between baptized persons, whether Catholic or non-Catholic.
“If both he and your SIL have been baptized (regardless whether your SIL was ever Catholic), and no impediment prevents their union, their marriage is a valid sacramental marriage. Natural (non-sacramental) marriage is not possible between baptized persons, whether Catholic or non-Catholic”
So, for the baptized, it is sacramental marriage or nothing, is that right?
My older brother, who just got married this past September, went the formal defection route purely because he knew that otherwise I could not attend the non-Catholic ceremony.
You didn’t realize that you were encouraging your brother to formally defect from the Church, thereby harming him, and that you should have just said that you wouldn’t go either way? As excuses go, that sounds a whole lot like “am I my brother’s keeper?” Talk about following the letter of the law without following the spirit!
If that sort of Pharasaism was encouraged by the old law, then I’m happy to see it go. If my kids get married outside the Church, it should be very clear that I am not going, and now it is.
Right.
Hold the phone, Jonathan. Are you saying it is better to be in the Church and in a non-valid marriage than to leave the Church and be in a valid marriage? Is it necessarily worse to leave the Church than to live in sin? The individual in question seems to have long since abandoned the Catholic Faith. I’m not sure that he isn’t better off living in a true sacramental marriage outside the Church than technically retaining Church membership and cohabiting outside of marriage.
I seem to have missed the part of Joye’s post where she wrote that she encouraged her brother to do anything.
I’ve often wondered if formally defecting vs. being in an invalid marriage is an “out of the frying pan, into the fire” situation. My brother, who is a fallen-away Catholic, will very likely marry without following the requirements for form, and I had been debating with myself whether, if it became clear that he would marry invalidly, I should encourage him to defect formally. I guess it’s a strictly academic question now.
Fair point, bill912. We might say “incentivized” rather than “encouraged.” What I’m questioning is whether an individual who acts on this incentive is necessarily worse off if the end result is a valid marriage rather than a non-valid one.
Are you saying it is better to be in the Church and in a non-valid marriage than to leave the Church and be in a valid marriage?
No, I’m saying that it is better for Catholics not to do evil that good may come of it. Formally defecting from the Church is intrinsically evil behavior, so even if the end is in some sense a relative good, exhorting someone to an evil means (i.e., formal defection from the Church) to achieve the good of a valid marriage is still immoral. A Catholic clearly cannot formally cooperate in that decision, and to the extent this is done by omission when the Catholic knows full well that his actions bear on the decision, he must remove himself from the situation. A proportionalist utilitarianism is not a sufficient guide for moral behavior.
I seem to have missed the part of Joye’s post where she wrote that she encouraged her brother to do anything.
You seem to have missed the part of the Confiteor about “I have sinned through my own fault … in what I have done and in what I have failed to do.” She had an obligation to do right by her brother by saying that she would not be present no matter what he did.
YOU accused her of “encouraging (her) brother to formally defect from the Church”. I still missed the part where she says she encouraged her brother to do anything.
But hold on – if formal defection is intrinsically evil, wouldn’t you also be accusing the Church of formal cooperation in evil by making canonical provision for it and even requiring it in certain cases? Leaving the church is intrinsically evil, if you like, but it seems to me that formal defection is merely an acknowledgement of something that already exists.
I still missed the part where she says she encouraged her brother to do anything.
Failing to discourage when you ought to do so is encouragement. If you know that someone is making a decision “purely because he knew that otherwise I could not attend the non-Catholic ceremony,” then I find it hard to believe that there is a credible case that one is not providing encouragement of the course of action by remaining silent.
But hold on – if formal defection is intrinsically evil, wouldn’t you also be accusing the Church of formal cooperation in evil by making canonical provision for it and even requiring it in certain cases?
Not in the least. Acknowledging the existence of evil and making it easier to remedy the mistake and/or reducing the consequences to innocent third parties (e.g., the non-Catholic spouse) according to a sense of economy is not the same thing as supporting the wrongdoing. In any case, the Church was always well within Her rights to forbid Catholics from marrying except according to form.
Leaving the church is intrinsically evil, if you like, but it seems to me that formal defection is merely an acknowledgement of something that already exists.
It is reaffirming the same evil act with the full commitment of one’s will. How can that not be evil? It’s no different than saying “Yes, I did it, and I’m not sorry about it either. I would do it again.” There’s no way that such an act of will can be good or even neutral.
Failing to take a positive action is itself a positive action in the opposite direction? Failing to say one thing is to say the opposite?
There are situations where keeping silent is a sin, but not always. As witness “Failing to discourage when you ought to do so is encouragement”
How does one know if they were or are Catholic? Is there a canon law you could point me to? Thanx.
Jonathan Prejean, and others, make good points/raise good questions, some of which touch on the very reasons that Rome has altered the law.
That being said, Jonathan’s initial comment was too pointed regarding Joye, and for that reason I almost deleted it when I saw it. (I would have except others had already started making substantive replies.)
We do not know–and should not inquire about–the details of what happened in that situation. Presumably Joye did not want her brother to defect from the Church, and to simply explain the Church’s law to someone is in principle legitimate, even if it is foreseen that the person will make a bad choice on that basis. (The usual principles of formal/material cooperation apply.)
If one wants to argue that a better law could be formulated, fine. But the responsibility of framing the law and applying it pastorally is a duty that falls principally on the pastors of the Church, not the sheep.
It is hard to blame someone for providing another with an accurate picture of the Church’s law and then letting the other make decisions on that basis. For an ordinary layperson to go beyond the law that the pastors of the Church have established would be an extraordinary–and usually unsafe–thing to propose.
In other words, lay off Joye. It is precisely to keep Catholics from being put in that kinds of impossible situation that the law was changed.
As always, focus on the issue, not the individual.
BTW, to answer Joye’s question, her brother’s marriage would be presumed valid. It would be natural if he married an unbaptized person and sacramental if he married a baptized one.
Her concern is also understandable about how something like this shouldn’t be changing all the time.
Holy guacamole, Batman! Jimmy’s the only one whose explained this so far in a way I understood it!
So the it appears that by the issuance of this motu proprio, that the Church deems that “formal separation” from the Church, i.e. the Body of Christ, the vine, etc., and the outright rejection of the Church, is a worse sin than NOT following the Church’s teaching on Marriage. Am I correct?
I’m confused too. Leave aside whether “formal defection” is a sin or not — is it even really possible? How do you stop being Catholic? I am a Catholic, and I assent to all the Church’s teachings and am loyal to the Magisterium, but this one is a real head-scratcher to me.
And how does it sift down to how we are to treat people, and their marriages, in real life? Like it or not, we all have to live in families where members of the family have DE FACTO (since it’s apparently not possible de jure!) defected from the Church and gone through wedding ceremonies outside it. But if there’s nothing whatsoever they can do in good faith to make those marriages valid short of going through a process they don’t believe in, what on earth are Catholics supposed to do? Treat them for the rest of their lives as if they are living in sin? Never, for example, invite them to our homes to sleep together under our roof, perhaps with their children? I can understand not wanting to, or feeling that one can’t, attend a wedding ceremony that one knows is invalid. After that point it starts to feel kind of ridiculous. It would be one thing if there was something they could in good conscience do to rectify the situation. But assuming people who *honestly* don’t believe in Church teachings, and who *honestly* follow something else, and who *honestly* don’t see a need to adhere to the form of a Church they don’t agree to… I am just having a really hard time figuring out what makes sense here. Is there something I’m not seeing? Can someone help me?
The only thing that looks clear to do or not do is to continually pray for conversion. Beyond that, I have to admit I’m flummoxed about whether I’m not doing the right thing in the way I behave around the people that I know and love who are baptized Catholic, no longer believing Catholics (if they ever were), and who live with and love someone they believe they’re married to.
(I should add that I can see that the new motu propriu will make the status of certain couples a lot clearer. My confusion has more to do with what the Church requires of its faithful members, with respect to our friends who in good faith entered into unions that WE believe are invalid and that THEY believe are not. It’s never been clear to me and the motu proprio doesn’t help.)
Seriously. I don’t feel like becoming a canon lawyer just to find out if I am Catholic (if I can participate in a mass in a latin-rite church) or not. How do I know? Can you give me a hint?
If you were baptized in a Catholic ceremony or formally professed your faith in order to be received.
I apologize for the injudicious comment. The observation by Jimmy actually made it clear to me why bill912’s argument struck me as so odd. I’m an attorney, and of course, we have positive ethical obligation to advise clients not to take certain courses of actions when we know such actions would violate the law and we know they are being contemplated. It could easily be a violation of my ethical duties “to simply explain the [secular] law to someone is in principle legitimate, even if it is foreseen that the person will make a bad choice on that basis.” Such a course could easily make me complicit with a client’s wrongdoing from an ethical perspective if I foresee such a violation and do not advise against it.
With my “lawyer hat” on, my intuition in the initial scenario was thus immediate and visceral. But I forget that most people are not bound by professional ethics in this regard, so counseling someone on violations of the law does not always appear obligatory. That’s not to say that I consider the ethical obligation absent in this case. I think the obligation is really there under the moral law for the reasons I gave above, and I think that failing to discourage in this case really would be encouragment from a moral perspective, akin to a lawyer failing to counsel against illegal conduct in the secular law. But it certainly isn’t the sort of self-evident moral obligation a layman might immediately perceive, even one who knew the law, so I was hasty in judging the scenario. Consequently, I apologize for the harsh personal inquiry, although I am glad that the law has now been changed to avoid such difficult moral choices where the layman is likely to be inadequately prepared.
So this means that all Christian, non-Catholic weddings are to be considered invalid?
How does this play out, if, for example, I know a Lutheran (from birth) engaged couple? Should I advise them to move up their wedding date to before the effective data of the change, so that I can treat them as a married couple.
This has nothing at all to do concerning marriages of those who have never been Catholic.
If you were baptized in a Catholic ceremony or formally professed your faith in order to be received.
This topic came up a while back when the subject of a possible Moslem-to-Christian (but not Catholic) convert was discussed. It is one which needs to be resolved, I suspect, for most of the Catholics, here, who wish to do due diligence and be properly informed. In fact, this questions seems to be at the heart of the matter: is a person who is validly baptized to be considered a Catholic? My initial suspicion is, yes, since there is no other valid form of the sacrament than the Catholic one and being baptized by a Catholic act of sacrament establishes an inclusion within the Church.
That being said (and I am more than willing to think I may be wrong), I think the real sticking point is not the validity of the sacrament of baptism and inclusion in the Church. It seems to me that the real problem in the Code is, as it presently exists, that marriages conducted without dispensation from form are considered invalid, not merely illicit. The word form is used much more broadly in the canons for marriage than in any of the other sacraments. The proper material for marriage is two unmarried opposite sex people of normal common sense and disposition (i.e., who understand at least in general terms, what marriage is and are able to live it); the proper form if the profession of vows binding one to the other.
Note:
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.
There are exceptions in case of emergency and they are stated in further canons:
Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:
1/ in danger of death;
2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.
§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.
At some point, invincible ignorance has to be taken into account. For those Christians who do not know they need the presence of a priest, might they not, somehow, be included in Can. 1116 or some other exception? If not, then, potentially, either chanceries are going to be flooded with marriage requests or hostility towards the Church could grow once other Christians find out they need to be married by a priest. One would hope that Protestant ministers (they are laymen, after all) might be included as the laymen of Can. 1116 who can marry due to grave inconvenience. I don’t know.
Mercifully, I am not a canon lawyer and don’t have to deal with these situations. In any case, I am probably wrong on many points in my analysis, above, so Ed and others, feel free to jump in and correct things I have said. I think I’ve left you plenty of wrong-headed things to correct to keep you discussing for oh, say, 60 posts. What constitutes proper form for a marriage? Is a person who is baptized according to Catholic form a Catholic? Can exceptions be made at the present time for “Invisible” Catholics (what I will call baptized people who do not attend Catholic churches) to get married without having to approach the very scary chancery of a Church they don’t understand?
Oh, in correcting me, be kind. Chickens bruise easily, you know. If my post is so egregiously wrong that it has to be deleted, could you leave a little box saying – “He meant well, but he is an idiot, after all.”
The Chicken
I understand that reverting to the old law makes it easier for fallen away divorced-and-remarried Catholics to return to the Church. That’s good. But it also deprives a huge number of people of the grace of the sacrament of marriage, since now it’s impossible for fallen-away Catholics to enter into a valid marriage (without returning to the Church, I mean). They’ll be living in an objective (if not culpable) state of fornication. They won’t even know it, but they’ll still be living without the grace of the sacrament.
From a pastoral point of view, isn’t the 1983 law better, simply because the number of non-practicing Catholics who are married must be so much greater than the number of divorced and remarried reverts?
I’m not questioning the Church’s authority to make such a law. I just don’t understand why it’s an improvement.
And I am baffled over how anyone could even _ask_ if the new law is retroactive. What would that even _mean_? That valid marriages suddenly stop being valid? That makes no sense.
The Masked Chicken, I think canon law is imposed only on those who are formally Catholic. Yes, there’s only one baptism, meaning that everyone who is baptized is materially Catholic. But those baptized outside of the Church have never been formally Catholic and thus are not subject to Canon Law.
I agree with John F. Kennedy’s analysis, it seems the Church is saying it’s worse to leave the church than to marry without a bishop’s permission. It looks like the intent of this change is to prevent people from leaving the Church simply in order to marry.
I think the big bush that everyone is beating around is that there are so many invalid marriages and this change doesn’t address that problem. I wonder what percentage of marriages are invalid simply because a Catholic doesn’t get permission. If permission wasn’t required would the number of invalid marriages increase because so many people are ignorant of what marriage really is? The state of marriage preparation isn’t great in many diocese, but it least it requires couples to get a basic understanding of marriage before they commit. I can see a case made both for keeping the requirement and for dropping it.
The Masked Chicken, I think canon law is imposed only on those who are formally Catholic. Yes, there’s only one baptism, meaning that everyone who is baptized is materially Catholic.
That distinction is good to remember, but consider the (in)famous case of Edgardo Mortara, who, because of emergency baptism by a Catholic housekeeper (the parents were Jewish), was taken into custody by Pope Pius IX. I don’t want to high-jack the thread to talk about that case, but my point is that if he were considered merely materially Catholic, then the Pope would have had a much weaker case than had he considered him formally Catholic by virtue of baptism. Does this apply to marriages? I don’t know. Canon Law had not been formalized during the reign of Pope Pius IX, so his view is not a legally binding view, per se. Still it does say something about the respect that baptism should have.
I don’t have time to research it, but does the Code make an explicit distinction between formal and material Catholic? Could someone cite the canon. It might help in the discussion.
The Chicken
“I understand that reverting to the old law makes it easier for fallen away divorced-and-remarried Catholics to return to the Church. That’s good. But it also deprives a huge number of people of the grace of the sacrament of marriage, since now it’s impossible for fallen-away Catholics to enter into a valid marriage (without returning to the Church, I mean). They’ll be living in an objective (if not culpable) state of fornication. They won’t even know it, but they’ll still be living without the grace of the sacrament.”
I think this is a good point, and I especially wonder about those baptized-but-lapsed Catholics who are not lapsed because, as adults, they rejected Catholic teaching (and should therefore presumably deal with the consequences including the inability to have a valid marriage), but those who are “lapsed” because their parents never took them to church, never took them to CCD, never taught them the faith.
I also wonder whether this change in the rules is going to lead to more people returning to the church but only to get a marriage (perhaps to appease family members, or out of some misguided sense that that is all they have to do to be good Catholics) but with no intention of actually being practicing Catholics.
You know, in my diocese you have to contact the church a year before the ceremony. This would appear to allow many Catholics to have a wedding without the form, if a month’s delay is sufficient to allow a marriage before witnesses to be valid.
His baptism was intended to be a Catholic one. If you, being a Catholic, baptize your baby because he is in danger of death, he’s a Catholic.
I’m afraid I don’t grasp defection at all. How can a person defect from the Church? I can’t really grasp it, quite frankly. A baptism cannot be undone, so what does defection even mean, other than that you’ve declared your lapse.
Not meaning to be argumentative. I just don’t get it.
Yes please. Please please please. Someone knowledgeable, please try to answer the questions being raised in this thread.
His baptism was intended to be a Catholic one. If you, being a Catholic, baptize your baby because he is in danger of death, he’s a Catholic.
Every baptism which is valid must have the intent to do what the Church intends by the sacrament and that includes being included into the Body of Christ which is the Catholic Church. This goes to Brian’s point, above:
But those baptized outside of the Church have never been formally Catholic and thus are not subject to Canon Law.
My question is: how can one be baptized outside of the Church and still have a valid baptism? In the encyclical, Dominus Jesu, section 4.17, the question is partially addressed:
On the other hand, the ecclesial communities which have not preserved the valid Episcopate and the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic mystery,61 are not Churches in the proper sense; however, those who are baptized in these communities are, by Baptism, incorporated in Christ and thus are in a certain communion, albeit imperfect, with the Church.62 Baptism in fact tends per se toward the full development of life in Christ, through the integral profession of faith, the Eucharist, and full communion in the Church.63
“The Christian faithful are therefore not permitted to imagine that the Church of Christ is nothing more than a collection — divided, yet in some way one — of Churches and ecclesial communities; nor are they free to hold that today the Church of Christ nowhere really exists, and must be considered only as a goal which all Churches and ecclesial communities must strive to reach”.64 In fact, “the elements of this already-given Church exist, joined together in their fullness in the Catholic Church and, without this fullness, in the other communities”.65 “Therefore, these separated Churches and communities as such, though we believe they suffer from defects, have by no means been deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Catholic Church”.66
The lack of unity among Christians is certainly a wound for the Church; not in the sense that she is deprived of her unity, but “in that it hinders the complete fulfilment of her universality in history”.67[Emphasis. mine]
Baptism incorporates one into Christ and in the normal course of things, one will go on to a full communion with the Church. This process can be short-circuited by the environment in which one is raised, but that does not mean that the intent of baptism is not to move one towards full communion with the Church.
That being said, here is the nub of the problem I am having in understanding the canon: how is it invalid if a marriage is not performed in the presence of a priest if the same marriage is valid without a priest in case of emergency. I can see how it would be illicit, but validity goes to the execution of the sacrament and is valid ex opere operato. I think I am missing an essential step in the sacramental theological argument of validity. Can someone, please, supply it. I know there must be a good argument, because the Church does the same thing for confessions before a laicized priest – they are invalid except in extremis. It appears that the Church supplies something necessary for validity by way of form that goes beyond simply performing the act of the sacrament. That is what is hanging me up. Apparently, in terms of form, the intent of the Church is expressed, in part, by its legislation. Is that correct?
The Chicken
Could it be that defection is just an administrative oddity, perhaps meaning more in the old Europe than anywhere today?
For example, in Scandinavia the Lutheran Church occupies some record keeping functions that are occupied by the state here, for everyone. If you are a Catholic, you’re in sort of an odd spot as a result. I can see where, for civil reasons, there may be a need to be able to formally note that you are not a Lutheran. As another example, the Catholic Church occupies some functions normally occupied by civil authorities in Ireland. Perhaps defection served some civil purpose, but really doesn’t here in the US, or in most localities now days?
Not stating, of course, that it does. Just trying to figure this out, as it really make no sense to me at all. Once baptized, you are baptized, and that’s that.
If I had to guess, the change has less to do with troublesome marriage situations than the church’s embarassment at the high number of defections, especially in places like Italy and Ireland, where many thousands have filed the paperwork. They seem to be saying they’re simply not going to recognize defections in canon law anymore. It seems kind of creepy and cult-like, like the 1-Billion year contracts Scientology uses. It’s one thing to say you can’t erase baptism or the fact of it. It’s quite another to asert the power of your law over people who don’t share your church’s beliefs and in many cases never ever made an informed adult decision to join. Even Satan does not presume eternal ownership of one’s soul without consent.
It’s also absurd in that it imposes a requirement which cannot be met. I effectively left the church soon after confirmation, married another lapsed Catholic three years ago in a pagan ceremony, and earlier this year filed a formal defection (I had not known of it before). I don’t care a whit about whether my marriage is valid to the church or not, but let’s say I did. With this new change, I’m required to observe the church form of marriage. But wait, apostates can’t take sacraments!
I’m glad they got rid of the law. It was basically worthless anyway. Anyone that defects from the Church usually doesn’t give two poops what the Church thinks, and almost always does not attempt to formally go through a process to get permsission from an entity the person considers false or without authority.
Jimmy and Steve need to collaborate on a post about the canon law implications of the marriage ceremonies in The Princess and the Frog.
Yes, I’m shallow.
Princess and the Frog? Apparently medieval European prince (thus probably baptized) is altered so as to appear a frog, but retaining human intelligence and power of speech, and then via a kiss is transformed back to human likeness so as to marry the apparently medieval European princess (thus also probably baptized)?
Valid and sacramental marriage.
On the other hand: The Princess Bride. Neverwhen European girl in a land with Impressive Clergymen who exactly resemble bishops (thus probably baptized) is forced into wedding ceremony against her will and then declared “man and wife” by clergyman under threat from royalty and in which said princess never says “I do”?
Totally null and void on grounds of abduction, force and fear, and *total absence* of matrimonial consent. As the movie says in making an excellent point of canon law, “If you didn’t *say* it, you didn’t *do* it.”
I *love* it when movies get canon law right.
There are some of us who care very much about the Catholic Church yet who have been compelled by circumstances to formally defect.
I see this action as a further insult to marriage and am more “satisfied” that my decision to defect seems confirmed by Church action to undermine marriage while saying otherwise.
The Catholic Church is in a horrific state of decay regarding marriage. Is is a terrible thing to experience.
Jimmy: The sacramental theology of The Princess and the Frog is a bit more complex than that. More to come.
For the sake of readers (okay, mostly me), let me summarize some questions that have come up. I thought I knew the answers to these, but apparently not in sufficient depth, so explain away, anyone in the know.
1. Is a validly baptized baby baptized into the Catholic Church or are they merely baptized as a Christian (whatever that means)? Is it better to say that they are baptized into Christ, but not necessarily the Church (although I do not see how that is possible)
2. If they are baptized Catholic, is the relationship merely material or formal? If the relationship is merely material (whatever that means in this case, borrowing from a poster, above), when do they become a formal Catholic? At no time, unlike those entering the Church from a Protestant denomination, are cradle Catholics required to take an oath of allegiance. If the relationship is formal, then since no formal defection is now possible, such baptized babies, if raised as a Protestant or worse, are really being spiritually abused since their natural heritage is being damaged.
3. Since formal defection is not possible, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, so the old argument that Canon Law does not bind people outside of the Church is harder to apply to those cases where the baptism is in the Catholic Church and the person leaves for a Protestant denomination. They are no longer to be considered outside of the Church, since there is no process by which this may happen, except by excommunication. As such, unless there are exceptions provided for in the Canons (the in extremis exceptions of Can. 1116 have already been mentioned), such people must seek to be married in front of a priest or else their marriage will be invalid.
4. I thought, however, that the marriage of any two baptized people was sacramental. By law, the marriage can be blocked (rendered invalid) by a defect in form. However, simply exchanging vows without a priest (two witnesses are required), in extremis, must be the minimal form necessary for a valid marriage. This implies that there must be something in addition to the minimum form required for a normal form Catholic marriage, just as in the case of baptism, where, ordinarily, it is to be done in a Church by a priest.
5. Since baptism performed in a Protestant assembly, where considered valid by the Church, is not administered by a priest but a laymen, these baptism are considered not normal, but of an emergency variety. Are weddings performed in a Protestant assembly also to be considered of an emergency or in extremis variety?
6. In any case, do Catholics incur any responsibility to inform other Christians of the requirements of the Church, since they cannot defect from it (probably not, under the usual rules for fraternal correction, I assume).
7. How can there be a dispensation from cult if a Protestant cannot defect from the Church?
These questions were all easier to answer when I thought the statement, “Those outside of the Church are not bound by her laws.” Now, I am not sure who is outside and who is inside the Church. This is the fundamental question on which all of the other questions are based.
Answers?
The Chicken
Oh, I didn’t phrase everything, above in the form of a question. Assume there is a question in each one of the points.
The Chicken
Ok, now I really want an answer to Chicken’s last question:
“7. How can there be a dispensation from cult if a Protestant cannot defect from the Church?”
My husband was raised Baptist, so he was not baptized as a child, and he left his parent’s church as a teenager. He spent many years exploring religions, and while we were engaged he was baptized into the Episcopal Church (so close . . . and yet so far). As required by Canon law (or so I thought) we got the dispensation. But now what does the change in law mean?
Is the answer that all baptisms are valid, but only Catholic baptisms produce Catholics (there must be some kind of difference between the two baptisms), regardless of what happens after? In other words, is the difference between protestants who were baptized protestant and protestants who were baptized Catholic?
I do not think that formal defection does not exist. I simply think that the canonical requirement for following Catholic marriage protocols is “bound” rather than “loosed” as before, but that is just a guess.
My defection has NEVER been recognized/acknowledged/accepted by the local ordinary in spite of my directly asking that he(and his predecessor)respond. Nor has it been denied either, except that getting no answer is the only answer I have received with regards to my formal defection. The lack of a response is part of the problem, not necessarily getting a negative answer.
I presume my defection since I have followed what was required. One day I will find out. I’ll have to be contented with that.
This is from Ed Peter’s “In Light of The Law” blog:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2009/12/omnium-in-mentum-two-important-changes.html
“Personally, I thought that Canon 1117 was a step (albeit an imperfect one) basically in the right direction, and I considered the narrow constraints on formal defection laid down in 2006 to be impractical, but today’s decision revoking the exemption in toto, while unquestionably within the authority of the Church to pronounce (c. 841), makes it imperative, I think, to ask a deeper question: does the requirement of canonical form still serve the best interest of the Church, or is it a solution that has outlived the problem that occasioned it (historically, clandestine marriages)?
I’ll only say, strong arguments can be raised for and against the continued requirement of form, and I caution anyone from concluding either way on the issue until one is familiar with the literature.”
I hope it does not offend him that I quote it here and cite it, as I know he contributes here sometimes. I do so in order to ask him if he could cite some reference works that are available in the “literature” in order to become aware of the “arguments” he alludes to. Perhaps it may be of interest to others here as well.
Thanks.
Chicken: Thanks for the summary of questions. I’ll try to answer them this afternoon.
Great post, Jimmy!
Related Post:
http://the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2009/12/new-motu-proprio-and-pastoral-doubt.html
Some context.
One quick and easy answer to the Chicken’s questions concerning baptism: if you’re “baptized Catholic” there’s a baptismal record at a parish somewhere. So maybe the real question here isn’t who does the baptism, it’s if you’ve ever formally been a member of the Catholic Church with a baptismal (for infants and adults who have never been baptized) or confirmation (for adults being received into the Church from other Christian communities) record.
Let’s say a child is born to Protestant parents and due to fear for his life is baptized by a Catholic nurse (or even a Catholic priest) at the hospital. He wouldn’t be formally Catholic because the parents wouldn’t have gotten a baptismal certificate from the local parish. But if the roles were reversed and a child born to Catholic parents was baptized by a Protestant in an emergency, they would go to their parish to get a baptismal certificate thus formally making him a member of the Catholic Church.
Karl, I’m very sorry that you’ve been harmed by Catholics who don’t value marriage as they should. But to whom else will you turn? As poor a job as the Catholic Church does in regarding the sacramental union of marriage as God does, who does it better?
Not that I really “owe” anyone an answer, but because I’m concerned I may have given scandal to Mr. Prejean:
My brother was baptized Catholic but my mother left the Church when he was still a baby. He has received no other sacrament, and has never thought of himself as a Catholic.
I was not baptized or raised Catholic but found my own way to the Church in adulthood. I have been trying hard in words and in example to bring my family to the faith, but of everyone it is hardest with my brother. When I first converted he would mock the Church every time it came up until I told him that I would not tolerate that any more.
It does relieve my mind to know that his marriage to my sister-in-law is sacramental (she’s baptized Protestant, and they go to a UCC congregation). I love them both and want them to get all the graces they can–and someday I hope they will come to the Church and receive graces in fullness.
Thanks for the answer, Mr. Akin.
Joye’s brother’s case is the worst-case scenario for the Church’s law obliging the Catholic form for marriage for validity.
The Church holds a man to be living in sin outside of wedlock who was never raised with the Church’s law, who was baptized in infancy but raised in another tradition, who has never rejected the Church because he was never conscious of belonging to it, who seeks no less than his e.g. Protestant neighbor to obey the law of God and marry in keeping with God’s law.
I am a loyal son of the Church, and will never, ever, ever be anything else. But this law seems to me unjust and contrary to the good of souls, families and communities.
I feel the way SDG does. I am willing to phrase it “I do not understand how this is just.” Perhaps the law is a reflection of an unpleasant-seeming reality and is the best that can be made of a bad situation. But I would like to see some more discussion of this on the blog.
And again, I’m still not terribly clear about the responsibilities of Catholics toward those who are in irregular marriages made in good faith. Anyone?
Bearing,
The responsibilites of Catholics towards those in these “relationships” is a whole other can of worms. For me, it is at the heart of why I defected from the Catholic Church.
I have long wished for a comprehensive, moral theologically based discussion/teaching about these very divisive and incredibly immoral situations, so that I could better understand what the Church is doing or not doing and why or why not?
Personally, I do not think priests care enough to involve themselves in “hard” cases in the context of the ease of nullity. This is especially so in Lack of Form cases but is really similarly easy when there are other “impediments” that can be “discovered” or “created” in order to “manufacture nullity” or when it is legitimately found that there never was a valid marriage. It is far easier to encourage divorce than it is to advise against it and use Church authority to bring those who call themselves Catholics to face their obligations when they can so easily destroy each other and their children in civil courts.
Related to this entire subject, though not directly, is this debate that is to be published soon:
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/book/Married_Personalism_a_Debate
All of these issues are related to married personalism. Much work needs to be done in this area and its seems a low priority to the Church.
Great Religion Magazine collection for all religious people. Wish you a Merry Christmas and May this festival bring abundant joy and happiness in your life!
Related to this entire subject, though not directly, is this debate that is to be published soon:
http://www.cormacburke.or.ke/book/Married_Personalism_a_Debate
All of these issues are related to married personalism. Much work needs to be done in this area and its seems a low priority to the Church.
Unfortunately, I have to agree in this case. In fact, much of the psychology involved in some of these cases is not really settled and I suspect many psychologists do not stay current with the literature. I have colleagues who are experts in personality theory and personality disorders and in trying to get people for their studies, they have told me that the number of people misdiagnosed by non-specialists is nontrivial. Even of those who are not misdiagnosed, environmental factors can so change the outcome of the disorder that any hard and fast conclusions are nearly impossible to make. Beyond that, forensic psychology, which is what some psychologist do in trying to decide if a person were psychologically fit to be married twenty years before, has a miserable track record. Putting all of this lack of good science together makes it much less likely that using psychological reasons for a declaration of nullity unless patently obvious, such as in cases of psychosis at the time of the wedding, while permitted under Canon Law, is a good idea. It seems to me to be putting too much faith in psychology at this time in history and, to my mind, should be the reasons of last recourse. As psychological science gets better, things should get sorted out, but at this time in history, as Burke points out in some of his writings, these sorts of reasons are not really compelling.
The Chicken
Well stated, MC. And appreciated.
Thanks for the comments Karl and MC. I am glad to know that I’m not the only one confused — well, sort of — I guess it would be better for the world if I WERE the only one.
This is not something I’ll leave the Church over but it is something I find very frustrating. I guess I should be relieved by the new motu proprio because it does clarify things, and lack of clarity in the “rules” is maybe the underlying common thread among all the things that do frustrate me…
I notice one thing that probably ought to raise a red flag in self-examination. Under the “new” rules there are more Catholics-according-to-canon-law than before, and so more people-subject-to-canon-law-with-respect-to-marriage, and fewer VALID marriages and more INVALID unions-that-look-like-marriage. The end result is that because MORE people are subject to canon law requirements, FEWER people who think they are married are bound by canon law into lifelong marriage to the same person.
Being bound by canon law into marriage is, practically speaking, a restriction on what one can and cannot do. (One can’t, for example, divorce and then later marry a faithful Catholic in the Church.)
So the motu proprio has basically lifted practical restrictions on the people we’re talking about, people who were baptized Catholic and through invincible ignorance later contracted marriage.
No, the people who now perceive restrictions would be… faithful Catholics who now, irritatingly, have to decide whether it’s right or wrong to attend non-Catholic weddings between people we happen to know were baptized Catholic. No wonder I’m annoyed.
“Invincible Ignorance”– another can of worms!
I wonder what the Motu Proprio REALLY means in the mind of the Pope?
I DO NOT advise, not really, taking the action that I have. If you ARE CATHOLIC, it will tear your heart and soul apart, but then so does what I see the Catholic Church doing to marriages, that has “driven me” to this, similarly affect me.
I cannot escape it. I never will until the Mercy of God has its final say.
One has to be the ultimate fool to think it is BEST to leave the Catholic Church, I mean REALLY leave it. For all its terrible faults, the Body of Christ IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
I do not support what it is doing regarding marriage, in fact, FURIOUSLY, I will continue to oppose its actions and practices. But I am ONLY CATHOLIC, God willing.
Karl,
My reflections, above, on the current inadequacy of some uses of psychology in deciding questions of nullity was made simply by way of analysis. It sounds as if you have been deeply hurt in this area. As such, it might be good to remember that Canon Law, while binding on Catholics, is still a man-made attempt to apply the Divine/Natural law and subject to perfecting. There will be many tragic situations and hurt during that process.
Still, God will not abandon his Church and even though the application of some laws may lead to pain (and God knows this), even this pain can be suffered for the good of the Church. In fact, it may be this very suffering, patiently borne, that is the very prayer that brings about a greater good for the Church, both in terms of one’s own sanctification and the sanctification of the law.
I am not a lawyer, but I do know that there are areas where Canon Law simply has not yet addressed certain things in detail and there are areas where what it does say will grow and be perfected as the knowledge of the Church grows and is perfected by its lived experience. God has foreseen this, as well as whatever suffering must be endured in this process in this life.
The Church will endure and the pain will stop. God has promised us both of these, but we must keep them in the right order. Despair often begins when we reverse the order and think that the pain will endure and the Church will stop.
Our hope is in the Cross and the Cross is at the heart of the Church. It is our redemption and the only thing we really, truly, know about love. The Cross will endure in the Church, but the pain of our own, personal Crosses, will be transformed in the twinkling of an eye into a crown of glory that will be united with the now glorious crown worn by Christ by virtue of what he suffered on his Cross if we but endure a little while. Certainly, no cross, however hard it is to bear, can be harder than his and he never defected from his Church.
I have no easy words of comfort in whatever you are agonizing over, but I do have a wish – that you return to the Church because you are sorely missed. If you feel the marriage law is inadequate, then pray for it and offer whatever suffering comes your way for its improvement as God sees the need (always, as he sees, not you or I). If you defect, what good can you do, other than rage? Within the Church, aside from the graces given to you by the sacraments, you can be an offering such that whatever merits you receive or pain you endure may redound to your sanctification and the good of the Church.
Certainly, argue within the bounds of charity and humility with what you feel are the defects of Canon Law with regards to marriage, but please, do so within the Church. If you must choose, be the son who said no, but then went and did as his Father asked. If Christ did not defect from his Church when he was forced to suffer so much for it, can you do anything less?
Forgive me for being so personal. If I have misunderstood you or insulted you in any way, treat it as simply my concern for you that ran too quickly to a conclusion.
The Chicken
Karl,
In thinking over my last post, I have come to the conclusion that I should have kept my mouth shut. I apologize for any hurt or harm from what I said. Discussing someone else’s situation without adequate knowledge is a danger of combox commentary, at least for me, and is a sin. This is the second time, tonight, I have had to apologize for my pride and lack of charity.
Again, I apologize.
The Chicken
Dear MC,
“Forgive me for being so personal. If I have misunderstood you or insulted you in any way, treat it as simply my concern for you that ran too quickly to a conclusion.”
One cannot be too personal, in concern, but I have seen far too much evil to go home. It is not a home if it welcomes my wife and her lover and does not require them to repent or expel them, along with the clergy(priests and bishops) who support them.
No, I will not go home.
To be fully honest, when I wrote:
My reflections, above, on the current inadequacy of some uses of psychology in deciding questions of nullity was made simply by way of analysis.
I was trying to stay impersonal, but I lied, a bit, in that I have had some personal frustration in this area, which is what started my doing some research and led to my earlier comments on the state of the use of psychology. In any case, my comment stands: I should keep my mouth shut in the combox when I don’t know the other person and their circumstances. I should mind my own business. It keeps me from sinning and it is much kinder to the other person.
Again, my apologies, Karl. This is my last comment in this post.
The Chicken
Karl, I’ve been away from Jimmy’s blog, but if memory serves, you’ve posted before, quite a while ago? Or am I mistaken?
Anyway, I’m taking you at your word when you say, “One cannot be too personal, in concern,”
It seems to me that the question at the moment is not so much your formal return to the Church, but your relationship with Jesus Christ, who was betrayed. He has gone before you, before all of us, down that path of pain and suffering. Mary, too, has known the exquisite suffering of unbearable pain. What is your relationship with Jesus and Mary? That’s not asking for an answer here, but it’s a question for you to ponder.
I take your words at face value (because I have no reason not to) and when I read them, I think of Hosea, who was asked to take as wife someone who would be unfaithful. I think of Jeremiah, described as a suffering servant. Not the messianic Suffering Servant described in Isaiah, but a suffering servant nonetheless.
It would be good if you could find a priest who is not in a rush to “fix,” but who is willing to listen and guide you through Jeremiah, Hosea, the sorrows of Mary, and the Passion of Jesus.
I don’t know what door God will open for you, but I do know that God will provide a way for you. I’ll keep you in prayer.
On a tangent, what’s with the avatars? That’s new since I was last here.
You have no need to apologize MC you have been nothing but kind and are guilty of being only upright and fair.
Thank you for the prayers, MK.
It’s exactly ridiculousness like this that caused me to quit being a Catholic many years ago. What does any of this have to do with one’s relationship to the Allmighty? My wife is Anglican and quite frankly I don’t care if the Pope or the rest of “the Church” likes it or not. So how does it work – she is married to me, but I’m not married to her? Is there a form I could fill out and send to the Pope to officially cancel my membership?
“Is there a form I could fill out and send to the Pope to officially cancel my membership?”
Yes, there is, and I have, and it’s not terribly difficult. It’s called a notice of formal defection, and you send it to the diocese or archdiocese in which you were baptized. You have to send it to the right person, usually “canonical services,” although an email or call will resolve who it in in your particular area. Within a week or two, they send you a short letter back saying that a notation of your formally leaving the church will be made to your baptismal record.
The flip side of that is they don’t consider you a “former Catholic” or an unbaptized one, merely someone who has broken ties with the church on earth, so to speak. They still regard you as just a Catholic in a deep state of sin, and the only exemptions they made were for the marriage laws. That’s about to change sometime this quarter when the new “motu proprio” gets formally published. I’ll be curious to see whether the church will simply stop processing formal defections given that their only basis in canon law has just been done away with. I guess if it’s important to you, get it in fast. There’s a very helpful site called http://www.countmeout.ie about this. It’s based in Ireland but has a directory of U.S. diocese too.