I wanted to offer some further thoughts on the recent decision regarding what counts as formal defection from the Church.
First, let me note a minor but nonetheless significant repercussion of the decision: There will be fewer marriages that (I think) you can go to.
My basic philosophy on attendance at sacramental celebrations is that if God is going to show up for the sacrament then (in principle) you can, too. In other words, any time a sacrament will be valid, it is legitimate in principle to provide the minimal form of endorsement of it that is signalled by one’s presence. Thus, you can go to any baptism that is presumed valid, even if it is in a non-Catholic Church. You can go to any Mass that is valid, even if it is in a non-Catholic Church (it may not fulfill your Sunday obligation, but you can be there unless there is a specific reason not to). And you can go to any wedding that is presumed valid, even if it is in a non-Catholic Church.
In particular cases there may be a reason not to attend a valid sacrament (e.g., because regularly attending a schismatic Mass may tempt you toward schism, because your ex-Catholic relative will construe your presence at her wedding as an endorsement of her defection from the Church), but in the absence of such circumstances, you can be there.
This is not my attitude toward sacraments that will be presumed invalid.
Your attendance at the celebration of a sacrament communicates a minimal endorsement of the sacrament that at least says "What you are doing is valid before God," and if that isn’t true–if what the parties are doing is not valid before God–then your attendance will communicate a message that is false, which if done deliberately is a form of deception and scandal since it confirms another in objectively sinful actions.
I know all the arguments about keeping lines of communication open. I used to use those arguments myself. But after further and deep reflection on the subject, I had to conclude that they ultimately don’t hold up.
It doesn’t matter if your loved ones theoretically know that you don’t approve of what they are doing. The fact that you showed up signals to them that, on some level, you’re not really serious about your opposition to what they are doing.
"If he really meant what he said, he wouldn’t have been there" is the message they will take home when the event is over.
And so I don’t recommend showing up at sacraments where God will not show up (i.e., ones that are invalid).
If a relative of mine were to get baptized in the Mormon church (God forbid), I would not show up because God would not show up and make the sacrament valid.
And if I were invited to the wedding of a relative who was already bound to another in marriage, I would not show up at that, either. Because God wouldn’t.
If God doesn’t endorse the union, neither can I.
So how does the new decision on what counts as formal defection be parsed in these terms?
While I strongly disapprove of the decision to construe formal defection in the way that the recent notice has, I recognize the Holy See’s authority to make the determination that Catholics are not exempt from the law of the Church regarding marriage if they have not secured from their bishop or proper pastor a recognition that they have formally defected.
This means that many people who formerly would have been exempt from observing the Catholic form of marriage are no longer exempt.
Since the new decision basically means that nobody has formally defected, this means that virtually no former Catholics are exempt from the requirement to observe the Catholic form of marriage.
As a result, the marriage of virtually no former Catholics will be valid, and I correspondingly cannot recommend that they be attended by anyone.
If God isn’t going to show up at these marriages, neither should we.
To my mind, this further underscores the wisdom of the original exceptions that were made regarding such marriages and the non-wisdom of the recent decision.
{ 56 comments }
Jimmy. What prompted you to write this strong statement on Catholic marriage? It was such a strongly written piece, that I am curious as to what promoted you. Thank you.
I have a question, and I ask it in all earnestness and not at all in a spirit of dissent.
From 1983 until the time of the notice, we presume Marriage A was valid. In your parlance, ‘God showed up’ at such unions.
Starting with the notice, marriage B, with the exact same external characteristics, and is identical in every percievable regard to marriage A, is now no longer valid. And you are saying that ‘God does not show up’ at such a union.
Are we saying that this law of the church determines whether God can show up or not?
I know the church has the power to bind and loose, but something seems off kilter. Can such a law really ‘prevent’ God ‘showing up’ at a union today that He would have ‘shown up’ at last week?
The only reconciliation I can come up with is that the law really doesn’t affect God’s action, but rather it affects the guide by which WE try to make a determination of validity.
I honestly don’t understand this? What am I missing?
What about Jewish weddings? Are they valid in the eyes of the Church?
So do I understand that this new reading of the defection means that Catholics who have left the Church, but not formally are NOT married?
If so, then is there a sense in which this will “ease the burden” of the tribunals by not having to handle annulments of folks who never intended to get married in the church but subsequently find themselves in need of its annulment determination?
The question I have to ask is:
How do you tactfully tell close friends that you can’t attend their weddings?
I have two – including one in May I’ve already RSVP’d for and one that I helped make invitations for – that don’t meet the requirements of a Catholic wedding.
I want to attend. I’ve been friends with both couples for nearly ten years. I can tell you right now that not attending will create a rift in these friendships, especially since I shouldn’t lie and say I have other obligations that conflict.
How do I tell them that I can’t come? Without sounding as though I think I’m morally superior? Is there any way I can go without violating Church teaching?
Interesting that you discuss affirmation of a sacramental celebration by one’s presence. What then, of attending Protestant confirmation services or Protestant ordinations?
SteveG, I think you’re asking a great question, one that asks about the heart of God. If you’ll be so kind as to indulge me, I’ll make an attempt at giving you my thoughts on the subject:
While I completely agree in principle that the Church does not have inherently have power over God, there are two factors that would make it seem as though it was the case:
1. God’s request that we be obedient to His Church
2. God gave the Church certain powers on earth.
To address point #1 and to give a silly theoretical example, let’s assume the Church said a bride HAD to wear red to their wedding. If a bride knowingly chose to disobey that rule and wear white, by thumbing their nose at the Church is just begging God to not to show up. It’s not because the bride is wearing white. It’s because the bride is disobeying the Church. And a bride who is disobeying the Church is disobeying God. If the following week the Church changed its mind and said the bride HAD to wear white, the same bride would not be thumbing her nose at the Church and would, on those grounds alone, not be risking God’s attendance. So it would appear that the Church has authority over God, but the reality is that God has power over us all and wants us to obey His Church.
To address point 2, God told us that he was giving the Church certain powers/authority on earth. Part of giving another person authority is giving up your own authority in those matters. Using another silly example, if I told my son that he can pick where we’re going to eat dinner tonight and he picks a place I would never go, unless I chose to yank that authority from him, I’m bound by his decision. So in a funny sense, for certain matters and issues, God has by His own decision, chose to yield to the authority of the Church. However, just as a child needs to remember who gave him that meal-choosing authority and should use it wisely, the Church remembers who gave it authority.
I hope that provides some insight and of course I yield to our gracious host Jimmy should I have made any theological blunder in my analysis, which is all too easy to do when addressing difficult questions.
I agree with the possible exception that I think that I would go to a non-sacramental marriage. God does not show up for a marriage between two Buddhists nor do they believe that he does… in this instance I would probably attend.
I would not however attend a marriage that was invalid.
The interesting end of this lies in that if you told a Catholic gone Protestant that had not formally defected that their marriage would not be sacramental they would agree with you… they do not view marriage as a sacrament, at least most denominations do not. If you told them that their marriage would be invalid that means something else entirely.
Jimmy, I think you are wrong to assume that because something is “invalid” it means God doesn’t show up. There was a discussion of this on Pontifications a few months ago, with reference to Anglican celebrations of the Eucharist or Protestant Holy Communion ceremonies. All that invalid means is that certain criteria for validity are not met. That means a Catholic can’t know for sure that Jesus is sacramentally present as He promised His Church he would be. It doesn’t mean we know for sure that He isn’t present, sacramentally or in some way, at these celebrations. It is wrong to say that they are empty or meaningless or that “nothing happens.” (Cardinal Newman said he thought God would grant Anglicans who believed they were receiving Jesus in the Blessed Sacrament a “quasi-sacramental grace” when they did so.) Likewise we don’t know whether when Jane X, baptised Catholic but with very little Catholic education or understanding of what it means to be a Catholic, marries Joe Y, baptized Methodist, in a Methodist church, fully meaning to be married, permanently, in a Christian sense, before God, as far as she understands this, she is actually married. That God would be absent from such an event or fail to bless two of his children sincerely trying to make a marriage commitment, I highly doubt. I accept the Church’s perogative to say what is valid or not and what would have to be done to straighten things out if these folks later decide to be Catholics. But this doesn’t mean I think we can ever say we know when God is absent.
I remember when I was a new Christian, saying to a friend that God hadn’t been at my wedding…the marriage of two unbaptized people in a Unitarian Church. The friend said…Oh yes, He was there, although you didn’t know it at the time. (Just so you know I know, this was a valid but not sacramental marriage. I was baptized the next year, but my husband was baptized over 30 years later, at which time, I am told, the marriage became sacramental.)
And by telling people they ought not to attend these events you are going beyond what the church says. The church doesn’t say I can’t attend an Episcopal Eucharist with my husband, just that I can’t receive communion. As far as I know there is no absolute law about attending marriages known to be invalid. Most question and answer forums ask people to balance the witness they might give by not attending with the family unhappiness they might cause, and to make a conscientious decision in each particular circumstance. If this is mistaken advice, what authority are you citing? You are certainly entitled to make your own decisions of conscience about this, but I don’t think your decisions are binding on other Catholics.
Susan Peterson
Where two or more are gathered in my name…
Jimmy- you made a very precise statement which is now being misunderstood.
Your precise statement is free from error, certainly, and though your practice need not be everyone’s practice, your choices are certaikly your prerogative.
However, I think you ought to remember that the readers of your blog do not always read as precisely as you write…
I have a major dilemma regarding attendance at an upcoming wedding.
My cousin was baptized Catholic, received her first Holy Communion, attended Catholic grade school and was possibly confirmed. But her parents didn’t really raise her in the faith or take her to Mass, so I’m not sure if she was ever truly “a practicing Catholic.”
Anyway, she is engaged to marry a non-denominational Christian man. Apparently, they both attend Sunday services together at his church and have done so for some time now. Most likely, she will marry in his church and continue worshipping there. (She once took him to our Catholic parish to show him what “her church” was like, but she had never even been a parishioner there.)
My entire family will be going to her wedding, probably regardless of what I tell them about all of this. And I would like to attend, as well. I think it’s still a year away, so what does she have to do to make her marriage valid? I would gladly help her out.
Should she try to get a dispensation? What does that process require? (I don’t think she will ever attend Catholic Mass again or raise any children as Catholics, but getting a dispensation at least leaves the door open for her to return someday.)
Or, do I help her formally defect?
How long and difficult is the dispensation and/or formal defection process? Is there a lot of work and paperwork involved? (I certainly hope there isn’t because she would probably simply forge ahead without doing either one.)
Is it sinful for me to help her to make a “formal defection” if she has no intention of being a practicing Catholic ever again? That would at least allow her to marry and live as a Protestant without being held to the laws of the Catholic Church …
Some help … any help at all … would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks!!!
As the only Catholic in my extended family, I’ve had to wrestle with the issue of whether to attend weddings among previously-married Protestant relatives. Sometimes I’ve done so on the grounds that their ignorace of the church’s teaching on marriage was complete and that it would be pointless to mount some last minute objection from a church whose teachings they’re barely aware of (I’m in the deep South). On other occasions I’ve found excuses not to be there. And sometimes I had no idea whether the non-family person had been married or not before.
What to do?
In general, I don’t go to weddings.
I’ve probably been to two in the last 20 years.
Once was a Catholic wedding for a fellow who was in my wife’s RCIA class, and their marriage ended in divorce a couple years later.
The other was the non-Catholic wedding of a young man to whom I ministered for many years in my evangelical Church. He introduced his fiancee to us before he told his mother (his father had passed away). We were kind of like second parents to him. I went, but my wife did not. I had to endure an endless onslaught of “We miss you…please come back to our church” comments. I left before the reception.
If my niece or nephew get married, I’ll probably attend, and not worry about the Catholic-or-not status. But I don’t expect to attend any other weddings in this life.
Personally, I find marriage much more interesting than weddings.
The depth and detail seen in these (other posted elsewhere) questions is a sign of how deeply this document is going to cut. there won’t be quick answers on this one folks. my hunch is that this is going to get a very, very close reading in the canonical community. i wish there were answers now, the fact that there aren’t, is troubling. stay tuned.
1) Relax: you can go to a non-Catholic wedding. Why? Because most non-Catholic weddings are perfectly valid, perfectly licit, and in fact sacramental (when performed between Christians). If your Baptist or Methodist or whatever friends get married, you can pretty much always go (unless one of them happens really to be Catholic). God will “show up” at these weddings, even though He wasn’t really invited.
2) It’s only non-Catholic “weddings” involving Catholics that are invalid and illict, and to which we should not lend our support. As for authority, let’s consult our handy Baltimore Catechism: “For a Catholic marriage there must be a priest plus two witnesses. No priest equals no marriage. Some Catholics attempt to get married by a justice of the peace. This is a civil marriage, but not a real marriage. It is a mortal sin.” Feel free to substitute “Protestant Minister” for “justice of the peace,” because the affects are the same.
3) How can we tell that God doesn’t “show up” at invalid marriages and Protestant play-acting? Because the Church has told us so. Al Kimmel has some interesting discussions, but his dog just ain’t gonna hunt here: it has been made explicitly clear by the Church that Protestants do not possess sacramental power or authority; when they hand out crackers, nothing happens. Whether God wants to dispense actual graces (which is what a “quasi-sacramental grace” would boil down to) to people for their observance of acts they feel obligated to participate in is up to Him — but that has to do with the subjective attitude of the individual, not the objective nature of the act.
Weddings, weddings, weddings…
Fortunately or unfortunately, I am at an age where my friends are getting married, one after another. Having gone to lukewarm Catholic schools that serve as little more than a training ground for people who have (not formally, of course) defected from the Church, I have no less than three wedding invitations looming for non-Catholic ceremonies in the next year. All of them will include at least one lapsed Catholic. Including my sister-in-law’s and my best friend’s.
In addition, I found out this week that the secular wedding my wife and were invited to for this weekend will include a divorced groom (my wife is a coworker of the bride and did not know this about the groom).
I really don’t know what to do. We already created something of a rift in my family last year when we didn’t attend my (never Catholic, divorced) uncle’s remarriage (in an Episcopal church) to a practicing Catholic.
Jimmy, is it possible to hire you to explain the Canon Law ramifications of their actions and why my attendance will compromise my morals?
Just kidding. (but not really…)
Worst wedding guest story of my life, from just about 20 years ago, which is probably why I quit going to weddings.
One Saturday.
Two Weddings.
In the morning, a Lutheran ceremony in my (deceased) maternal grandmother’s backyard where my step-grandfather marries (for the third time) to the widow of a co-worker. Numerous vulgar “gag gifts” for my grandfather.
In the afternoon/evening, a secular “rent-a-priest” ceremony in a hotel for my father’s fourth or fifth wedding (I lost track) which degenerated into a drunken riot as the night went on.
So, how many people can say that in a single day they went to their grandfather’s wedding in the morning, and their father’s wedding in the afternoon?
Now, if I get invited to a wedding, I just send a gift.
Wow,
This thread has degenerated into a lament about invalid weddings and the need to avoid them.
This is pretty sad because so many people have asked good questions about what needs to be done in order to make a friend or family member’s wedding valid.
I, for one, would like to know the solution. A friend or family member is about to have an invalid wedding … What can be done to make it valid? If they have no intention of ever worshipping in the Catholic Church again or raising their kids as Catholics, should you help them get a dispensation or help them formally defect?
Two people have already asked whether it is a sin to help a person formally defect so that their wedding might at least be valid. Yet instead of answering this question, everyone is just going on and on about how bad invalid marriages are.
I know they are bad. So,HOW DO YOU PREVENT THIS EVIL?
What are the processes involved for a dispensation or a formal defection? Is there a lot of paperwork involved? Are there certain requirements that would indicate which would be the best move for a certain individual? For instance, is it a valid marriage if a lapsed Catholic gets a dispensation but continues to worship in a Protestant church and raises his/her children as Protestants?
Kudos to Chris! Well said!
It does seem like a lot of people on this thread are earnestly looking to prevent a serious sin from being committed. But unfortunately, no one seems to be giving them any useful advice, just an endless litany of “Attending an invalid wedding is a sin” and “This new clarification will make things difficult for me.”
How does any of that help?
Is this really the best response to these earnest questions? When people come looking for truth and trying to save wedding-minded friends from serious sin, shouldn’t they expect more help than they’re getting on this thread? Like, oh I don’t know, maybe answering their questions …
I wish I knew something that would resemble a coherant answer to these people’s questions. Since I really don’t, I’ll try an incoherant answer, for what it’s worth.
As for divorcees, one might posit that if the person is not Catholic, then attendance at a secular wedding should be ok — there’s no reason to believe the person understands that divorce is prohibited or is bound by any positive ecclesiastical law. Maybe the wedding itself would be valid, maybe it wouldn’t — sort of hard to say.
As for the relative issue, we had that in my family — my dad boycotted his younger brother’s not-a-wedding and caused a bit of a kerfuffle. As for defecting, do you promote a grave sin in order to prevent another grave sin? You might argue that by helping someone defect you’re protecting the validity (?) of that person’s marriage and perhaps (?) eliminating some headaches if, Deus gratis, the person were to come back to the Church, as well as avoiding the various adulterous sins that would follow from having an invalid marriage. This would seem to apply a double effect principle, but I don’t know that it does a good job. The evil (defection) is immediate and grave, while the desired goods (avoiding adultery, perhaps returning) are amorphous and remote, invalidating the applicability of this principle and leaving you stuck “not doing evil so that good may result.” How the fact that the person is already a de facto apostate changes this, I don’t know . . . someone pick me up.
Like Old Zhou, I had the ‘joy’ of attending my own father’s (3rd) wedding. Now that I’m old enough, I generally avoid weddings. I will not attend a divorcee marriage. As far as other disagreeable weddings go, my wife and I generally try to attend the reception briefly. Previously we tried attending the wedding only due to drunkness at receptions, but these weddings tend to be true horrors with vow alterations and the rest.
For those looking to get out of weddings, I suggest having young children. People will always understand, and the more worldly will generally thank you for keeping the children from distracting from the performance, err ceremony.
Chris, I can answer one of your questions, I believe, or at least one aspect of it:
For instance, is it a valid marriage if a lapsed Catholic gets a dispensation but continues to worship in a Protestant church and raises his/her children as Protestants?
Yes, the marriage is valid assuming that they weren’t being deceptive in how they got a dispensation. A marriage can not deteriorate from valid to invalid. The moment a valid marriage is started, it can not be broken no matter what the bride and groom do thereafter.
The more interesting question is whether they’ll be able to get a dispensation if they say, “we have no intention of coming back to the Catholic Church… ever.”. It would seem it to be more appropriate in that case for them to go through the defection process.
So,
I’m confused … What can be done to make the following wedding valid:
A baptized, but nonpracticing Catholic is marrying a nondenominational Christian in a nondenominational church. She will never practice the Catholic faith and will most likely raise her children as nondenominational Christians.
What can be done to make her wedding valid?
Is her Catholic family then forbidden from attending her wedding at all costs? Is there nothing licit that she can do (with or without her family’s help) to render her wedding a valid one between two Protestants, rather than an invalid one between a Catholic and Protestant?
A previous poster seemed to suggest that by helping a lapsed Catholic go through the defection process, in an effort to make the marriage valid and preserve attending Catholics from causing scandal by their presence at an invalid wedding, would be a grave sin on the part of the faithful Catholic helping her out. Is that really the case?
By the way, the lapsed Catholic in question wasn’t religious when she was Catholic. Having her entire Catholic family boycott her wedding would seem to send the wrong message to a person who went from a pretty unsavory lifestyle into a virtuous one, albeit one without the fullness of Truth.
Is there nothing that could be done to make the marriage valid, without being complicit in committing a grave sin myself?
While I accept the Vatican’s authority to issue a clarification like this, why on earth would they do it?
To say that a “baptized Catholic, but practing Protestant” is still bound by the Catholic form of marriage doesn’t seem to make much sense, especially if the person knows little about the Catholic faith and started leading a Christian life in a Protestant church.
Is it sinful/dissenting/disobedient for me to view this as a seemingly imprudent and hurtful ruling, while at the same time admitting that the Vatican possesses the authority to make the ruling? (Obviously, I accept the Vatican’s authority since this is giving me so much grief.)
It just seems so destined to wreak havoc on Christian families because faithful Catholics will have to boycott what previously appeared to everyone to be a wedding and marriage between two Protestants (one a baptized Protestant, the other an apostate Catholic).
I’m assuming that the Vatican considered this issue completely already and will not be revisiting this, no matter what its pastoral effects might be? Has the Church ever reversed itself on a clarification like this before?
Is there actually anything in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that actually says that it is a sin to attend a Protestant marriage ceremony between a “lapsed Catholic, practicing Protestant” and a Protestant?
I’ve heard Jimmy and “The Baltimore Catechism” state that it is sinful, but does the “sure norm for teaching the faith” (i.e. “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”) or the current Code of Canon Law actually say anything against it?
Two questions come to my mind as I read this. One is what defines a “Catholic”? If you were brought up in the Catholic church but never understood (or cared to understand) are you “Catholic” and bound to canon law when you get to that rebellious age and go to a different church? I think a more difinitive definition needs to be in place here (maybe there is I just don’t have Canon Law handy to look it up).
The other thing is to avoid mortal sin by formally defecting seems to mean that a person is saying they are guilty of apostasy, heresy or schism (assuming I am reading the document correctly). So which is the worse option? Isn’t being an apostate, heretic or schismatic mortally sinful too? (again, don’t have the references handy to look this up).
My siblings and I were all baptized in the Catholic Church, but there was never the intention that we be raised in it. No further catechesis was ever provided. We were raised to be good practicing Methodists, and my brother and sister still are. I “defected” to the Church in college and my husband and I are now worried about how this will affect my siblings weddings. Can anyone help me? Please?
This change is not just, in a way, because almost nobody that it affects (unless they read Catholic apologetics blogs for fun) will be aware of it at all.
One reason that this thread may be short on answers is that this is a new decision, and the ramifications of it are just now being hashed out. I would think that the LAST thing a canon lawyer would want to do in this kind of circumstance is shoot from the hip without having thoroughly analyzed things.
TimJ. Music to my ears.
“You can go to any Mass that is valid, even if it is in a non-Catholic Church (it may not fulfill your Sunday obligation, but you can be there unless there is a specific reason not to)”
So Tell guys…What Non Catholic Church has a valid Mass?…Thought we had the corner on the the term?…Please dont say Anglican or Espicopal are Mass!
Since the instruction deals with the validity of marriage and not whether one may attend, I wonder if the distinction between objective and subjective sin would make any difference on attendance?
Objectively, the instruction seems to say, one is not dispensed on grounds of defection from the faith without a written statement of defection. But if someone potentially attending a wedding decides that the “former Catholic” has an attitude that is the equivalent of formal defection – e.g., contempt expressed for the church, etc. – might one decide that subjectively there is the same thing as a formal defection, and hence no damage to one’s faith, or anyone else’s, in attending?
After all, if I were to decide that Catholicism is bunk, I would probably not bother to tell a priest that I have left, since even that act would be giving the priest a legitimacy I no longer felt he had. I would simply leave. I presume anyone else would do the same.
In a previous post, someone wrote, “I would think that the LAST thing a canon lawyer would want to do in this kind of circumstance is shoot from the hip …”
That strikes me as grotesquely unhelpful.
Marriages will be happening within the next few months and within the next year. Catholics have to make a decision about something that could cause a rift in their family. In order to make this decision, they need expert advice.
Canon lawyers exist as experts in Canon Law. Their advice therefore carries more weight than that of a regular Joe Catholic, who hasn’t read the Code of Canon Law from cover to cover.
It seems like a betrayal of their own profession for Canon lawyers to say, “Well, we must study the issue first. Handle your own family situations and make your own decisions. We’ll let you know at a later date if you’ve cooperated and enabled a mortal sin.”
I know canon lawyers aren’t pastors, but one would think pastoral concerns might enter into their picture somewhere.
Looking back over the list of questions, I see once again that two very important questions — with a strong pastoral focus — have been left ignored:
1.) Where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church or in Canon Law does it say that it is a sin to attend an invalid marriage between a lapsed Catholic (with no desire to return to the Church) and a Protestant? I know The Baltimore Catechism says it. I know Jimmy says it. But all requests to know where it is actually said in the Catechism (the “sure norm for teaching the faith”) or Canon Law (the very jurisdiction of Canon lawyers) has been ignored.
2.)If a person has no desire to continue as a Catholic and will marry and worship as a Protestant for the rest of their lives, haven’t they already committed the sin of apostasy/schism/heresy? Would it be an additional sin for them to make a “formal defection” in writing? Also, would it be a sin for a person to help them file the paperwork needed to make this official, so that the marriage would at least be valid?
Yeah,
What we’re asking from Canon lawyers is the same thing we’d ask from a group of esteemed scientists if an asteroid was going to collide with Earth within the next 24 hours: “We don’t know how everything will pan out, but we need your expert opinions. How can we save lives?”
Imagine if the scientists’ response was “There are most likely ways to save lives, but we’d feel much more confident about our diagnosis after obtaining a sample and spending at least 5 weeks researching it in our labs.”
How many people must grapple with an issue of serious sin before Canon lawyers will be willing to put aside some of their research and make the kinds of interpretations that they were trained — and are currently being paid — to make?
I will keep checking this Web site for information. speedzoo198 asked the two questions I most want to know. I hope this discussion is still going on. People really expect help from Cannon Law professionals.
Ruthie, Canon Law professionals really expect to get paid for their professional work.
People expect help from dentists and doctors, too, but not for free. Although most doctors will tell you, for free, “Eat less and exercise more.” That is the level of “general help” that we should, justly, expect from free from the (professional) Canan Lawyers among us.
All you in need of an immediate decision should check with a priest you trust for orthodoxy, and place your decision in his hands.
A priest told me years ago in my battle with scrupulosity: “Please follow my direction and know that if you do wrong that wrong falls on my shoulders and not yours.”
Old Zhou,
Did I understand you correctly? You seem to be saying that a Cannon Lawyer can tell a Catholic, “Sin is bad and a virtuous life will lead you to heaven. If you want anything more, schedule an appointment and open your wallet.”
To tell the truth, there are some great doctors out there who will answer questions over the phone, even when it means they will lose the co-pay for a doctor’s visit.
I think the two questions speedzoo1981 asked fall within the “general help” that would be expected of Cannon Lawyers. Those questions don’t require an appointment, but rather an understanding of Church law; that kind of advice can be dispensed freely, just as a doctor can tell a person what to do about mild, everyday maladies without demanding the patient schedule a physical.
Father Tharp, on the earlier thread on this topic, mentioned: “The message was evident: formal defection should not be assumed unless paperwork, photos, or some other evidence was in hand.”
That is neat. I actually have a whole photo album of gatherings from my past two evangelical Protestant churches. Not pictures of me preaching (how vain!), but of me with those to whom I ministered, pictures of their life events (and time at our home), pictures of Sunday schools and Friday Nights. And pictures of our wedding and various receptions with church and family. And I do know the URL of an online copy of a Protestant apologetics publication that has my name in it in an article on the Trinity. And some of my work is online at a Lutheran Seminary in the midwest. And, if necessary, I can produce several hundred living witness that would just love to see me “come to my senses” and leave “that apostate Church of Rome” and come back to minister to them. And I have my old passport that records my missionary trip. If necessary, I could probably find from these churches old videotapes of me preaching, old church rosters with my name, many, many pages of religious education and gospel materials I worked on, etc.
More recently, my wife and I just sponsored her sister in RCIA. Her sister, like us, is now Catholic (Deo Gratias!). She just exited that indigenous, Chinese evangelical Protestant Church in which I was a minister. Her husband, my grad school rommmate, and another sister of my wife, are still in it. Plenty of witness available to document my full involvement.
But, why? I mean, my wife and I are now both happily, deeply Catholic since the Easter Vigil in 1999. She is no longer “enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church” (Can. 1124). If it is just a concern about the “form” of our marriage in May 1987 (Can. 1117), well, then, we’d be happy to go along with whatever form of whatever action our Bishop now requires of us, if any.
But the “documentation” point by Fr. Tharp is interesting, and not, as far as I can see, discussed thus far.
Are we really dealing with an issue of mortal sin here? I thought for something to be a mortal sin you have to know that it is a mortal sin and choose to do it anyway. The general concensus here seems to be we know less than we even knew before.
Well, anon for now, actually we have “The Baltimore Catechism” and Jimmy Akin suggesting that its definitely a mortal sin to attend an invalid wedding; meanwhile, friends and even a very knowledgeable Catholic in my diocese are informing me that it is not a sin at all.
It seems that there should be an official Church position on the sinfulness of attending invalid weddings, contained in either the Catechism or Canon Law, not merely in “The Baltimore Catechism” and Jimmy Akin’s Blog.
Anybody? Perhaps, a canon lawyer willing to work pro bono … just kidding
At what point have we become like the Pharisees who had rules for everything? I once heard a Jewish friend say that there are 500+ rules for being Jewish, but if you only follow a few hundred, you are doing okay! I hope that is not what Christ intended when he started the Catholic Church.
I think it is a principle of moral theology that “a doubtful law does not oblige.”
God isn’t going to send you to hell if you gave your conscience your best shot and got it wrong.
Isn’t everyone missing the reason for this change? In Europe, where church funding is often collected and distributed by the governments based upon church membership roles, a great many believers have taken their names off the roles to avoid the extra tax burden. This seems like a clarification of status for believers that are no longer official members of a church but might still want access to its sacraments, including marriage.
Alas, the same two questions … Still unanswered
Chris wrote
“It seems that there should be an official Church position on the sinfulness of attending invalid weddings, contained in either the Catechism or Canon Law, not merely in “The Baltimore Catechism” and Jimmy Akin’s Blog.”
No offense to Jimmy or TBC, but I think he hits the nail on the head. Michael also raises an interesting question. I had no idea that “formal defection” even existed. I did not realize it is common practice in Europe.
The clarification of the Canon Law states nothing about attendance.
If there is a rule, I’d like to see it. I’ll bet you can ask 10 priests and get 10 different answers. Frankly, I’d like something more definite so at least I can give a coherant explaination to the couple whose wedding I cannot attend.
Catholics United for the Faith have this tract online
Should I Attend? for anyone interested. It gives advice about what moral principles should be considered.
I think that about 99% of what goes on a weddings is cultural and local. The word “wedding” only occurs once in the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and that is in a situation about an impediment being discovered too late. (Canon 1080)
In Canon Law, marriage is often referred to as a covenant or contract, and the bride and groom “contract marriage.” The only people needed for the proper “form” are (Canon 1108):
(1) the two persons contracting marriage
(2) the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist
(3) two witnesses.
The whole “wedding” tradition is a cultural thing, not a Canon Law or Church thing. So I would not expect any clear guidance from the Church on Weddings, any more than I would expect clear guidance from the Church on Bachelor Parties.
Where did we get the line of thinking the Jimmy and the Baltimore Catechism say it’s a mortal sin to attend a wedding between a lasped Catholic and a non-Catholic performed outside the Catholic Church? It looked to me that the piece of the the Baltimore Catechism quoted said it was a mortal sin to enter into such a marriage, but didn’t necessarily address the question of attending one.
The two possible causes of sin, it seems to me, in attending an invalid sacrament are:
1) Giving scandal through appearing to give support to something which the Church clearly teaches is wrong (in this case entering into an invalid marriage).
2) (perhaps the same thing in different words) The appearance of apostacy or heresy through ‘participating’ in a sacramental rite which the Church does not believe to in fact be a sacramental rite.
One of these could theoretically be a mortal sin, and clearly we should give a lot of thought to how to behave in these circumstances so as to both act with charity and also clearly present the teachings of our faith.
Ironically, I wonder if the main practical effect of this clarification will be to ease the process for lapsed Catholics return to the Church and seeking to have their current marriages blessed. If any marriage entered into outside the Church by a lapsed Catholic is defact invalid, it should make the job of tribunals a whole lot easier.
DarwinCatholic – thank you for the clarification of the BC piece; it spoke to matrimony itself and its validity, not to the question of attendance.
Mark – The Orthodox have valid (ie, “real”) sacraments. Also, an SSPX chapel or other church with a schismatic priest (such as Fr. Bozek in St. Louis) would have a valid Mass, but it would also in that case be illicit (Dr. Peters had a whole discussion of that a while back).
Everyone who wants the canonists instantaneously to give a definitive answer to every situation – Calm down. Yes, these situations are coming up in the immediate future and no, I don’t think canonists would insist on being paid in order to dispense any advice or analysis; Dr. Peters’ postings on this and his own website surely indicate otherwise. The problem is that providing an honest and accurate answer to questions like these requires study. It’s really not analagous to the astroid scenario at all: the scientist has a purely results-orientated task, and he doesn’t care HOW he prevents the astroid from obliterating earth; he just has to try something. But moral questions (and legal questions in general) have right and wrong answers in the way a daring scientific gamble doesn’t — you have to examine the document, related documents, and precedents, apply mitigating variables for the different situations, and then see what results the various factors have produced. If a lawyer gives you seat-of-the-pants advice, he can’t guarantee that the advice he’s giving you is any good. And we call that “malpractice.” If you want unsure advice, all sorts of people can give it to you; but don’t ask the professional community to violate its ethical standards to meet that demand.
The BC is authoritative. The question is really simple: is it okay to participate in sacrilige? A Catholic marrying outside the Church is sacrilige. Now, what constitutes participation — be the best man, be an usher, simply attend — is I think a valid question.
Well, “The Baltimore Catechism” says: “When a Catholic is ‘married’ at a civil or non-Catholic ceremony, other Catholics are not allowed to be present, or even to send gifts or show any approval, since this is not a real marriage, but simply a terrible agreement to live together in sin. If the ‘marriage’ takes place at a religious ceremony, the Catholic party is excommunicated. To have this sin forgiven, the couple must be married by a priest, or separate from each other.”
But as we saw earlier in this thread, Catholics United for the Faith has a tract that says the Church has no rule against attending a wedding of this nature, but asks the Catholic attendees to weigh the need for charity with the desire not to support sacrilege, resulting the possibility of choosing either to attend or not to.
Catholics United for the Faith, I thought, was a very reputable and magesterium-friendly outfit …
So, confusion still reigns …
Here’s a new aspect of this question for you all:
My wife and I, being assured that we had a valid, sacramental marriage, have been a happy, married, Catholic couple the last 7 years, receiving sacraments, being sponsors, leading RCIA, etc.
Now, suppose the Church (including the Vatican fellow who wrote the “clarification,” my national Episcopal Conference the USCCB, my Bishop, and my pastor) decides that there was a misunderstanding, and that, actually, our marriage is null in the eyes of the Church because I had not really “formally defected” sufficiently formally.
It seems there are, actually, two paths to consider:
(1) We decide, again, that we want to be married, and pursue convalidation in the Church, basically making a new (first) marriage in the eyes of the Church, or
(2) We decide, in prayer and spiritual direction and consultation with our pastor, that God’s will is not that we be a married couple (indicated in part, perhaps, by the Church’s new decision that we are not really married anyway), and we separate (e.g., end of 20 year old household) and, maybe, pursue civil divorce to undo “merely” civil marriage. [Side note: sexual activity is not an issue at our age; but concern about "scandal" of living together if we are not really married.]
Gee, that’s interesting.
It seems that for convalidation to be done properly, there really should be a time of reflection on whether or not God is calling the couple, now, into a new and “real” marriage.
Could this ruling lead to the end of a number of marriages that the Church considered perfectly “real, valid and sacramental” for the last 23 years?
Would the decision apply to marriages performed before it, or would marriages be judged according to the norms in place at the time the couple got married?
With respect, Paul, I don’t think anyone on this site “wants the canonists instantaneously to give a definitive answer to every situation.” Rather there are a few common questions already asked that appear to have been lost in the shuffle.
For instance, the two main questions to which the last Ruthie C. post referred are questions about the current Catechism and current Code of Canon Law. Therefore, they should still be within the purview of professional canonists.
Also, I’m glad that you share my hope that canonists would not “insist on being paid in order to dispense any advice or analysis.” However, I think Old Zhou’s original post on that subject painted canonists in that light.
However, I disagree with you that this situation is “really not analagous to the astroid scenario at all.” In the interim, before this controversy over the clarification is resolved definitively by canonists, weddings will occur and Catholics must be free to seek advice on how to respond to their wedding invitations.
While it may not be “the definitive answer,” the opinion of a canonist does carry weight and will certainly help in the formation of conscience. Again, no one is looking for “the definitive answer,” but merely for the educated and informed (albeit human and thus imperfect) perspective of a canon lawyer, who by virtue of his/her education, has a better (though not perfect) grasp of the variables involved in this situation than the average Catholic.
“Seat-of-the-pants advice” from a canon lawyer in this sense is a far cry from malpractice, Paul. Since “the definitive answer” will only come after years of review and research, Catholics who are set to attend (or not attend) a wedding in the next year need to inform their consciences. They can’t wait for “the definiteive answer.” All they can do is ask for the best information and opinions they can and then make up their mind. Certainly one of the best souces for that information is a canon lawyer.
Withholding all advice until “the definitive answer” is available strikes me as ungenerous, especially since it means forcing Catholics to make a decision armed with NO FACTS, rather than with IMPERFECT FACTS. The former rather than the latter strikes me as malpractice.
If you were brought up in the Catholic church but never understood (or cared to understand) are you “Catholic” and bound to canon law when you get to that rebellious age and go to a different church?
Invicible ignorance always precludes guilt.
However, vincible (or willful) ignorance at most mitigates it. If the problem is that you never “cared to understand,” yes, you are guilty.
Jimmy,
Given that they reportedly feature valid consecrations, how does your reasoning preclude attendance at a Black Mass?
What about a secular ceremony in a non-denominational church with a bride who is a confirmed Catholic but doesn’t go to church very much and groom who is sort of agnostic/atheist? That’s not valid, I imagine, but it’s not truly invalid either because it’s not even pretending to be a religious ceremony. I will be attending a wedding like that, but some of the other people who will be there are very hard line Catholics and they probably won’t have any idea until they show up at the church and notice that it’s not a Catholic church. Then they’ll realize what’s up and will be a bit surprized.
Comments on this entry are closed.