June 11, 2009
In Utero Baptism
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Sure, no problem. I got a number of queries after I mentioned on Catholic Answers Live that there was a document from the Holy Office (the predecessor of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) that expressly allowed for in utero baptism.I was listening to you on podcast and was very interested to find the document about in utero baptism. As a labor and delivery nurse, this info would have made a world of difference (had I know it) for some of the families I have led thru their losses. Could you direct me?
But we do have express warrant from the Holy Office acknowledging the practice. The document is rather old--it came out in 1901, so just over a century ago--but the conclusion has not been repudiated (not that I'm aware of) and the same principles would apply.
So, here's the text of the document, which takes the form of a responsum ad dubium (a response to a question), which in this case was posed by the Archbishop of Utrecht in the Netherlands. Here is the response as printed in the last edition of Denzinger (before Denzinger-Schonmetzer) and published in English as Sources of Catholic Dogma:
The Matter of Baptism
[From a Decree of the Holy Office, August 21, 1901]
The Archbishop of Utrecht relates:
[D 1977] "Many medical doctors in hospitals and elsewhere in cases of necessity are accustomed to baptize infants in their mother's wombs with water mixed with hydrargyrus bichloratus corrosives (in French: chloride de mercure) [in English: mercuric chloride--ja]. This water is compounded approximately of a solution of one part of this chloretus hydrargicus in a thousand parts of water, and with this solution of water the potion is poisonous. Now the reason why they use this mixture is that the womb of the mother may not be infected with disease." Therefore the questions:
I. Is a baptism administered with such water certainly or dubiously valid?
II. Is it permitted to avoid all danger of disease to administer the sacrament of baptism with such water?
III. Is it permitted also to use this water when pure water can be applied without any danger of disease?
The answers are (with the approbation of Leo Xlll):
To I. This will be answered in. II
To II. It is permitted when real danger of disease is present.
To III. No.
On Catholic Answers Live I mentioned this decree and also discussed how the baptism could be performed. One way would be to apply the water of baptism to the baby through a syringe, as is used in amniocentesis.
In practice, though, I would not recommend administering the water to these and would stick with the safer option of administering the water to the conventionally-recognized body of the baby and, especially, its head.
The reader also writes:
Beyond the amnio idea, I have wondered about baptism as the cervix is examined. Once the amniotic sack is ruptured, the child can be felt and an angiocath with a water-filled syringe could be used to deliver the water (sterile) to the child for baptism. A relatively easy procedure for L&D staff.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (114)
June 08, 2009
Post-Confession Feelings
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Today, I went to confession...the priest remained silent the entire time I was confessing...which I kind of like, because it allows me to recount all of my sins without distraction.
I will not go into details, but I did have a couple of things I thought would warrant a good chastisement from the priest. All he told me at the conclusion of my confession was to make an act of contrition and say 1 "Our Father" as my penance...
I honestly and whole heartedly feel I made a good confession...but if that is the case, why do I feel like a huge weight is still on me? I still feel as if I am in mortal sin? Do you think it was the lack of participation/chastisement on the part of the priest? Could it be something else?
Is it possible it is my mind giving me a hard time, because as of late, I have been confessing the same thing frequently...so possibly, I feel crummy because I feel as if I am abusing the sacrament by confessing the same thing over and over again. I don't know if I need to go again and confess all the things over or what?
|
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (30)
June 04, 2009
"Vatican Says . . . "
(Jimmy Akin)
You just know when you see a headline that begins "Vatican Says" that you're about to read something that almost certainly does not represent an official statement on the part of the Holy See but instead simply represents something that somebody who works there said in an interview.
[Archbishop Mauro Piacenza, secretary of the Congregation for Clergy] says the Vatican plans to publish this year a kind of handbook on confession to drum up enthusiasm among Catholics toward the sacrament.
One can never be sure with a story as imprecise as the ones the AP cranks out, but the use of the word "handbook" could mean that a new vademecum is being prepared, in which case it might be an actually useful document.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (16)
May 26, 2008
Sacramental Marriage
(Jimmy Akin)
When is a marriage sacramental?
This is a question that is subject to significant confusion. For a start, some individuals use the word "sacramental" when they mean "valid." In other words, they are under the impression that any marriage that is not sacramental is invalid.
This is not the case. Many people have marriages that are valid in the eyes of God, yet these marriages are not sacramental.
Why?
Because marriage as a sacrament can exist only between two baptized persons. Therefore, if either or both persons are not baptized then their marriage is not a sacrament. That doesn't mean that it's invalid. It's just not a sacrament.
But what about marriages between the baptized? What makes their marriages sacramental? Is it the act of getting married itself that results in the sacrament or, as I've heard more than one person suggest recently, is it the act of consummation that makes a marriage between the baptized sacramental?
The answer is found in the Code of Canon Law.
Canon 1055 states:
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
This means that as soon as the matrimonial contract comes into existence between two baptized persons, they have a sacramental marriage. The moment of sacramentality does not wait upon consummation or anything else.
We can show this, for example, by reading a few additional canons:
Can. 1061 §1. A valid marriage between the baptized is called ratum tantum [established only] if it has not been consummated; it is called ratum et consummatum [established and consummated] if the spouses have performed between themselves in a human fashion a conjugal act which is suitable in itself for the procreation of offspring, to which marriage is ordered by its nature and by which the spouses become one flesh.
So there are two kinds of valid--and thus sacramental--marriages between the baptized: those that are established but unconsummated (ratum tantum) and those that are established and consummated (ratum et consummatum). Hence consummation is not necessary for validity or, between the baptized, for sacramentality.
If that's the case, what does happen at consummation?
Can. 1141 A marriage that is ratum et consummatum can be dissolved by no human power and by no cause, except death.
Can. 1142 For a just cause, the Roman Pontiff can dissolve a non-consummated marriage between baptized persons or between a baptized party and a non-baptized party at the request of both parties or of one of them, even if the other party is unwilling.
It is consummation that makes valid sacramental marriages indissoluble. Prior to that point, even valid sacramental marriages can be dissolved, as can marriages in which a baptized person is validly but non-sacramentally married to an unbaptized person.
These cases are referred to colloquially as "Petrine privilege" cases, since they involve the action of the Roman Pontiff. (So-called "Pauline privilege" cases involve two unbaptized persons are do not require the intervention of the pope.)
So, to sum up, here are the types of valid marriages that can exist:
- Non-sacramental marriages between unbaptized persons
- Non-sacramental marriages between a baptized person and an unbaptized person
- Sacramental marriages (i.e., between two baptized persons) that are unconsummated
- Sacramental marriages (i.e., between two baptized persons) that are consummated
The last of these categories is intrinsically indissoluble. The first three categories are at least potentially dissoluble.
Hope this clarifies matters.
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (82)
December 20, 2007
Christmas Trees Unsafe - Faith Inconvenient
(Tim Jones)
Hey, Tim Jones here again. This is from my blog Old World Swine;
I link THIS STORY (Reuters) - about the removal of Christmas trees due to the risk of fire - only because it reminded me of an incident that took place when I was a newly minted Catholic and Parish Council member.
During one council meeting I noted that some parishioners had asked me to ask if we couldn't have some votive candles in the church. The priest made some remarks about the fire hazard, and said he wasn't sure about insurance and liability, and stuff. He suggested electric candles. The meeting moved on, as I silently resolved not to press the issue lest we actually wind up with prayer candles that turned on and off and reminded me of a tacky chandelier at my aunt's house.
Father then read a letter from our Bishop, directing all parishes to begin working toward perpetual Eucharistic Adoration as soon as possible.
If there is a word the opposite of "enthusiasm", it was written all over our priest's face. Once again, he noted all the problems that would have to be overcome... security, scheduling... well, that was about it, but the upshot was that it was going to be a pain in the tush and the Bishop's letter was going to be ignored. That was it.
I must have made some sort of grunt of perplexitude, because I remember Father explaining to me again what a gigantic logistical headache perpetual Adoration would be, and ending with the clincher that "This parish is just not that devotionally-minded".
Had I been older, and a more grizzled and seasoned Catholic, I might have asked the question that popped into my head, "...and you are okay with that? As the spiritual father of the parish, the complete lack of interest in classic Catholic devotions doesn't bother you just a teensy bit?". I guess I didn't ask because I knew the answer.
This also got me to thinking about another question that has bothered me from time to time, about why we don't hear from the ambo more encouragement for Catholics to make use of the sacrament of Confession. It seems like it is always scheduled at dawn-thirty on Saturday mornings, and I can count on one hand the number of times I have heard even the mildest endorsement of it in a homily. Forgive me if I have entertained the idea that some priests might not push Confession because they really don't want to make more work for themselves.
It must be a dreary job, in a sense, listening to the same old sins week in and week out, and some that must grieve any sensible person. There is no one else in the parish who can do it. My Dad was a cop for a number of years, and I think the constant exposure to the underbelly of the human family took its toll on him over the years, though he never talked about it. Cops are basically the guys who follow after the parade with a shovel.
I would like to have some input from priests or others who might be able to answer the question. Are some priests, perhaps, partly motivated to keep mum on the dearth of confessing Catholics by a desire not to further clutter their already busy schedules? Just asking.
Posted by Tim Jones in Sacraments, Technology | Permalink | Comments (71)
March 22, 2007
Specific Confessions
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
Can you invalidate a confession by not being specific enough in confessing your sins?
In particular, if you say "I read something I shouldn't have" instead of "I read a book with sexual material that I knew might or would be an occasion of sin," have you actually confessed the sin?
I have made several confessions like this, assuming it was okay, but now I am suddenly not sure.
It is possible to invalidate a confession if one deliberately refuses to confess in adequate detail, however that does not apply in this case. I'll explain why.
First, a word about what adequate detail is: We are expected--to the best of our reasonable ability--to confess our mortal sins in number (how many times you did it) and kind. Kind is where the question of specificity comes in, and the rule is that we are to confess specifically enough that anything that affects the species of the sin is mentioned.
To understand that, one needs to have a grasp of the difference between genus and species. Genus is the general category to which a sin belongs. Species is the variation that distinguishes one sin from others in the same general category.
For example, saying "I committed a sexual sin" would cover only the genus of the act but does not address the species of sexual sin that has been committed. One would thus need to say "I committed adultery" or "I committed fornication" or "I committed a homosexual act" or "I committed masturbation" or "I committed incest" or whatever the case may be. Adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, masturbation, incest, etc., are all the various species of sexual sin.
Now, because of the shame involved in confessing many of these things, penitents often use circumlocutions to convey the idea while blunting the sense of shame that is involved. For example, they may say, "I had impure thoughts" rather than "I wilfully engaged in sexual fantasies about someone I'm not married to." "Impure thoughts" is code for what they did, and priests understand what it means. Technically, your thoughts could be impure in all sorts of way not involving sex (i.e., they could be tainted, and thus not pure, by any kind of sin you wilfully entertained), but priests know people mean they entertained improper sexual thoughts when they say this.
The important thing is not the words that are used but that the priest understands the species of the sin that is being confessed. As long as he understands--or as long as you reasonably believe that he understands--then you have confessed adequately.
If you said something like "I read something I shouldn't have" then priests are quite likely (given a knowledge of penitents and how often sex comes up in confession) that you were confessing deliberate exposure to materials that could produce sexual temptation. If someone says that they read something they shouldn't have, and they're too embarassed to say why they shouldn't have read it, sex is going to be the first thing that suggests itself. Unless a priest knew that you were in the habit of reading things likely to produce grave temptations of some other nature, a normal priest is going to assume that you're talking about sex.
If he has doubts about what you're confessing then he should ask for a clarification, and in these cases it seems that the priests you confessed to didn't ask, indicating that they understood your meaning.
It thus seems to me that "I read something I shouldn't have" is basically the same kind of thing as "I need to confess impure thoughts." Neither is an explicit statement, but both are going to be understood by a confessor.
Even if they weren't, though, you would not have invalidated the confession because you believed that you were adequately confessing. You therefore were not deliberately holding anything back that you knew you needed to confess. As long as that's the case, your confession is formally integral (to use a bit of technical jargon that means you intended to make a complete confession, or one complete enough for validity) and the absolution will be valid.
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (50)
January 15, 2007
RLDS/Community of Christ Baptism Validity
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I've got a question for you! My husband is seriously considering converting to the Church, and I'm giving him as much information and help as I can. Would he need to be baptized again? He was raised Reorganized Latter Day Saint (now called Community of Christ). They don't consider themselves Mormon, although they use their own Book of Mormon. They baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, and their beliefs in the Trinity seem to be more like those of the Catholic Church. We understand that the Church does not consider the baptism of Mormons valid, but what how does it view the RLDS baptism?
The Catholic Church does not have a position on the validity of RLDS/Community of Christ baptisms, though the question periodically comes up in pastoral practice.
A few years ago I did some research--including talking to the folks at the Community of Christ headquarters--at the request of a diocese that was dealing with a situation similar to that of your husband. Though my memories are not as clear as I would like (they never are), my understanding is that the RLDS has passed through a clarification in its views on the Trinity. A few decades ago the understanding was shakier and had tendencies toward modalism--that is, viewing the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three "modes" in which God exists rather than as three Persons. More recently, their official doctrinal statements have articulated the Trinity much more clearly, though from what I can tell there seems to remain some question about how well it is understood among some members of the community.
Their current doctrinal statement on the Godhead, as found on their web site, seems to reflect this evolution:
God
The one eternal, living God is triune: one God in three persons. The God who meets us in the testimony of Israel is the same God who meets us in Jesus Christ, and who indwells creation as the Holy Spirit. God is the Eternal Creator, the source of love, life, and truth. God actively loves and cares for each person. All things that exist owe their being to God who alone is worthy of our worship.
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ is "God with us," the Son of God, and the living expression of God in the flesh. Jesus Christ lived, was crucified, died, and rose again. The nature, love, and purpose of God are most clearly seen in Jesus Christ, our Savior.
Spirit
The Holy Spirit is the continuing presence of God in the world. The Spirit works in our minds and hearts through intelligence, comfort, guidance, love, and power to sustain, inspire, and remake us [SOURCE].
The expression in blue is thoroughly orthodox and correctly articulates the Trinity in terms of three Persons rather than three modes. The expressions in red can be understood in either an orthodox or an unorthodox sense and may reflect the previous understanding of the Father, Son, and Spirit as modes of God's existence.
It is very heartening that the Community of Christ has undertaken this purification of its understanding of the doctrine of the Trinity, and they are to be commended for being willing to rethink this matter.
The groups history suggests that there is still reason for caution in assessing the validity of baptisms. Because the group has not historically had as firm an understanding of the Trinity as it now does and because of its common origin and relationship with the Salt Lake/LDS church (which is now known to have an invalid baptism), it is difficult to arrive at a firm conclusion on this question.
Ideally, it would be possible to find out how the doctrine of the Trinity was understood by the minister and the recipient at the time of the baptism, but a variety of factors (fading memories, difficulty in contacting people, etc.) this is likely to be impractical. For this reason, in view of the overall circumstances, I personally would recommend that people becoming Catholic from the Community of Christ receive a conditional baptism (with a formula like "If you are not baptized, I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit") to make sure that they are validly baptized, while still respecting the fact that their first baptism may have been valid.
One other practical note: The pastoral workers you are likely to encounter may not know that much about the Community of Christ or its history, and so you may need to help them understand that it is not the same as the Mormon church (whose baptism is invalid) and that it is not the same as ordinary Protestant groups (whose baptisms are valid). I would suggest making these points and then asking for a conditional baptism.
Please feel free to refer them to this post or to get in contact with me if I can be of assistance.
I hope this helps, and God bless your husband for being willing to investigate the Catholic faith!
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (13)
January 12, 2007
Confession & Confirmation Validity
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
There's just something that's been troubling me lately and I thought I'd ask your opinion. I was baptised as a Catholic as a baby, but didn't receive any other sacraments or attend Mass regularly until I was 18 when my interest in the faith was kindled. I joined an RCIA group and received confirmation and first Eucharist. A few months later, I realised to my horror that for confirmation to be valid, one must have first made their first Reconciliation - I had never been to confession. I was not once told during RCIA that I needed to first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation and can plead ignorance, though I know I ought to have studied the faith more deeply and it is therefore my fault really.
When I made my first Confession, I told the priest the situation at the start (he was a visiting priest). He seemed a tad startled by the situation, but heard my confession and absolved me. When I later spoke to my church's catechetical co-ordinator, she assured me that my Confirmation was not voided, but I can't help but worry that my reception of the sacrament was not valid. Bearing in mind that I did genuinely receive Confirmation in good faith and genuine intent, should I be concerned?
What hte priest and the catechetical coordinator told you is correct. Your confirmation's validity would not have been affected by the fact that you had not received the sacrament of reconciliation prior to it, so you an rest easy in this matter.
It is true that, in many places in the Latin rite, individuals make their first reconciliation before being confirmed, but it is not an absolute necessity that they do so, as illustrated by the fact that in many Eastern Catholic churches, confirmation (or chrismation) is given to infants at the time they are baptized.
The reason that reconciliation often precedes confirmation in the Latin church is to ensure that the candidate is in a state of grace at the time he receives confirmation. Confirmation is one of the sacraments of the living, meaning that you need to be in a state of grace to receive it. Unlike baptism and reconciliation and the anointing of the sick, it does not restore you to the state of grace if you are not in it.
Thus the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
To receive Confirmation one must be in a state of grace. One should receive the sacrament of Penance in order to be cleansed for the gift of the Holy Spirit (CCC 1310).
But this requirement does not affect the validity of the sacrament. This is made clear in the Code of Canon Law, which states:
Can. 889 §1. Every baptized person not yet confirmed and only such a person is capable of receiving confirmation.
§2. To receive confirmation licitly outside the danger of death requires that a person who has the use of reason be suitably instructed, properly disposed, and able to renew the baptismal promises.
The conditions named in §1 are those that the recipient must meet for the confirmation to be valid. He has to be baptized and not yet confirmed.
The conditions in §2 are those that are required for the sacrament to be licit (celebrated in conformity with the law). This is where the state of grace fits into the picture. It is one of the dispositions needed to receive the sacrament (indeed, it is the main disposition required), and so one must be in a state of grace to be suitably disposed to receive confirmation.
If you were not in a state of grace at the time of your confirmation then your confirmation would have been celebrated illicity (not in conformity with the law) but it would nonetheless be valid.
You therefore don't need to be concerned about this matter and can set your mind at rest.
The sacraments are like Tonka trucks--they're hard to break--and God made them that way because he knew he was entrusting them to fallen individuals who wouldn't always perform them correctly, and so he suited them to our fallen condition. If the state of grace was necessary for the validity of confirmation then there would be endless scrupulosity about whether or not one was validly confirmed, based on one's inability to remember whether one was in a state of grace at the time. The same thing goes for marriage and ordination. Consequently, God simply did not make the state of grace a requirement for these sacraments to be valid. One is morally obliged to receive them in a state of grace, but one is still validly confirmed, or married, or ordained, even if one was not in a state of grace.
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (29)
January 09, 2007
Marriage Questions Reader Roundup
(Jimmy Akin)
Yesterday's post on marriage questions produced a bunch of important follow-up questions, so here are my replies. Let's start with a couple sent by e-mail:
Regarding the reader's question, "If he converts to Catholicism in 5 years, should he leave his "wife" since he is making her an adulterer?", you answer, in part, "If the annulment is granted then their marriage could be convalidated ("blessed") and they would be genuinely married."
I'm wondering, since this case involves two people who were non-Catholics at the time of their wedding, why would their marriage need to be convalidated once her annulment is granted, since, as you explained earlier, it is possible that their marriage is already valid?
Similarly, the reader asks, "If both he and his wife convert to Catholicism, would his wife have to get an annulment for the first marriage and then he and her get remarried in the Catholic Church?" and you answer, "Yes".
Assuming she gets an annulment, why would the couple need to get remarried in the Catholic Church? After her annulment, wouldn't their marriage be automatically presumed valid?
The reader is quite correct. In answering these two questions I fuzzed out on the fact that if the wife's annulment is granted then the marriage would NOT need to be convalidated.
The reason is that she would have been free to marry her current husband at the time of the wedding, and so her current marriage would be presumed valid. Thus no convalidation would be necessary.
My apologies for the mental lapse. (I've also contacted to the original reader to make sure he knows about this correction.)
In the combox, a reader writes:
What should be the position of a grandmother whose Catholic grandson is going to marry a Protestant girl in a Protestant ceremony? He says he doesn't care about the Catholic thing and has been attending her church for years.
Based on matters as you present them, the marriage will not be valid, and I could not recommend attending it. The situation could be fixed if one of three things happens: (1) the couple changes its plans and gets married in a Catholic ceremony, (2) the grandson gets a dispensation from his bishop to have a non-Catholic ceremony, or (3) the grandson contacts the bishop and formally defects from the Church, relieving him of the obligation to observe the Catholic form of marriage. These options are in their order of preferability.
Another reader writes:
A friend of mine is getting married. She was baptized Catholic but not raised as such, and has never attended church or received instruction or other sacraments. The groom-to-be is also in this same situation. They are planning a civil ceremony. Is it alright to attend this wedding, praying that when this couple starts a family they might see the need to raise the children in the faith?
The same answer as was given to the case of the grandmother and her grandson applies here, only with both of the parties needing to take the actions indicated.
Also, rumor has it they are getting a special permit from the governor for a special "one day" justice of the peace. The person they are asking to perform the civil ceremony is a practicing Catholic. Is this a problem?
Since the marriage is presumably invalid, I could not recommend that a Catholic officiate at the service. If the situation were changed so that the marriage would be valid (by dispensation or formal defection) then a Catholic could serve as the officiant in good conscience.
Another reader writes:
This is giving me a big "uh-oh" moment, so can someone help me? Situation: While still a Protestant, I married a divorced woman, also a Protestant. I am now in RCIA and was hoping to be confirmed this Easter. My wife is remaining Protestant but supports me in my conversion.
The RCIA questionnaire the pastor gave us asked simply "Are you re-married?" I said no. It did NOT ask if my wife is re-married so I have not told him that fact. The article above makes me think that I am now in an adulterous relationship. Is this correct?
Not necessarily. If your wife's original marriage was invalid then she was free to marry you and your current marriage is presumed valid and thus non-adulterous.
Will it prevent me from being confirmed?
Not necessarily. Until it is able to examine your wife's first marriage, the Church has to assume that it was valid and, if you are leading a conjugal life with her, the Church would have to assume that you are in a state that would prevent confirmation. However, if you were living as brother and sister then this would not apply and you could be confirmed.
If it matters, my wife's first husband was abusive and abandoned her and their child. She believes he is mentally ill. I am now his child's father, for all practical purposes - he does not pay child support and has not tried to see his son for years. So I would think there are strong grounds for annulment, but she has not requested one.
If the conditions you mention were present at the time she married him, or manifested shortly thereafter, they may signal that the marriage was not valid, meaning that your marriage to her is valid, conjugal relations you have are not adulterous, and an annulment would be possible to obtain.
You have my sympathies for discovering this unexpectedly. I was in a similar situation when my wife was alive and we discovered that the Church did not regard us as married since we had not had a Catholic service (I was not yet Catholic at the time). It sounds to me that you have reason for optimism in your situation, and I would encourage you to trust God to lead you and your wife as you explore what needs to be done.
If you'll e-mail me your physical address, I'd like to send you a copy of my booklet on annulments to answer some basic questions that you may be having at present.
God bless you!
Another reader writes:
Isn't INTENT necessary for a marriage to be considered valid? For example, during a play that has a marriage ceremony no real marriage takes place because there was no intent to marry.
In order for a sacrament to actually be a sacrament, the INTENT must be at least "to do what the Church says it does" even if one's own knowledge of what the Church says the sacrament is about is limited. For example, a Catholic can take part in the sacrament of Penance without really knowing how he is absolved of his sins so long as he intends for his sins be be absolved. Conversely, if a Catholic during Penance intends to be forgiven for all sins, save for "that one", the sacrament is not valid.
Now many, if not most, Protestants do not intend to do what the Church does when they marry. Many will actually take classes that will teach them that marriage can be dissolved in X Y Z circumstances, and most Protestant groups will actively teach that marriage is not a sacrament. Therefore, at the time of marriage, many Protestants have not INTENT or WILL or KNOWLEDGE to enter into the sacrament of marriage.
Is it therefore not the case that, while Protestant marriages are given the favor of the law, most of them are not valid sacramental marriages anyway?
Intent is necessary for the performance of a sacrament, but the intent that is required is general, not specific. Individuals do not have to intend all of the effects of the sacrament. They don't even have to have a clear idea of what a sacrament is. As long as they are intending to do what the Church does in a general way then the sacrament will be valid. Thus Protestants can have valid baptisms and marriages without understanding either the effects of the sacraments or that these are sacraments.
They're still intending to do what Christ wills Christians to do. They may not understand the nature of these realities or their effects, but they understood that Christ wills them, and by willing what Christ wills, they implicitly will the content of his will, even if they have an erroneous understanding of that will. As long as the intent to do what Christ wants is governing their choice then they virtually will the contents of Christ's will.
If I am a Protestant and I want to be baptized because it is Christ's will for me then even if I don't understand what baptism is (a sacrament) or does (regenerate and remit sins) then I will be validly baptized because the controlling factor in my decision is the intent to do what Christ wants. If I am a Baptist who has been taught that baptism is not a sacrament and that it does not regenerate or remit sins, that is mental clutter that is of secondary importance to my intent to do what Christ wants. Such secondary clutter does not invalidate.
The same thing applies to matrimony, mutatis mutandis. If I want to marry a woman who is Christian because this is what Jesus wants me to do (rather than simply setting up house with her) the the fundamental factor involved in my choice is the intent to do what Jesus wants, and thus I implicitly will what Jesus wills. I do not have to have an articulated understanding of what Christian marriage is (a sacrament) or does (impart grace to the spouses to let them live their married lives). I may even have mental clutter to the contrary, but as long as my misconceptions about marriage aren't more decisive to me than my intent to do what Christ wants, the marriage will be valid.
Another reader writes:
Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one.
2 questions regarding this one:
1. Does this mean he can keep his favorite one, even if she is not necessarily the first one? I’m confused about the meaning of “if it is hard for him to remain with the first one”.
It's a little stronger than that. The canon appears to presume that he will chose the first one unless their is a special difficulty with choosing her. This does not preclude one from saying, "Well, my preference for Wife #2 is so strong that I would find it hard to live with Wife #1," but to merely pick one's favorite wife with no further thought seems foreign to the way the canon is written.
2. Could this apply to those Mormon groups who still practice polygamy, since the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize the Mormon baptism as being valid?
Same thing applies. The Mormon groups that practice polygamy (so far as I know) are in the same condition as the LDS church with respect to the invalidity of their baptisms. Thus canon 1148 would apply to men in their number directly.
Another reader writes:
I attended the wedding of my sister-in-law, practicing Catholic, and her husband, a divorced Protestant. They were wed outside of church by a Lutheran minister because husband had not sought an annulment. I knew at the time that their wedding was improper, but I never thought twice about attending. Is this a sin for which I must confess?
If you never thought twice about attending it then you did not display the degree of deliberation (indeed, you did not deliberate) needed to commit a mortal sin and thus do not need to confess it.
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (31)
January 08, 2007
Marriage Questions
(Jimmy Akin)
A reader writes:
I went out to lunch with my Protestant friend the other day. He is getting married in a month to another Protestant, who is divorced. I told him the Catholic Church (and God, for that matter) would consider his marriage invalid, and I told him I would not be able to attend his wedding. This started a firestorm of questions I did not know the answer to.
I'll be happy to take a crack at the questions, but first I have a note regarding the initial conversation. It's always a difficult prudential question to figure out how to discuss these matters with folks coming from a Protestant perspective because they do not generally share the Catholic understanding of the indissolubility of marriage. Often they hold the view they do in good conscience, because it is the one that they have been taught all their lives and because there are verses that--unless you examine them closely--can make variants of their view seem plausible.
That being said, it would be a mistake to tell someone in the situation you describe (apparently, a never-been-married Protestant marrying a civilly divorced Protestant) that the marriage will definitely be invalid. It may or may not be invalid. Here's why:
The never-been-married Protestant is free to marry if he chooses. The civilly divorced Protestant may or may not be free to marry. If her former husband is still alive AND her original marriage was valid then she is still bound to her first husband and is not capable of marrying another person, per the teaching of Jesus and Paul. In that case her union with the never-been-married Protestant would be invalid because the two parties were not free to marry each other due to her prior bond.
However, this is not the only possibility. If her former husband is dead OR if he is still alive BUT her first marriage was invalid then she was not genuinely married to him and so she is still free to marry and can validly wed the never-been-married Protestant if she wishes. In that case, both parties of the new union would be free to marry each other and the union would be valid.
Since we don't know for sure whether her first marriage was valid or invalid, we don't know for sure whether she is free to marry the never-been-married man, and so we don't know for sure whether their contemplated union would be valid or not.
So I wouldn't present matters to him as definitely as that.
What should one do instead?
The starting point, as the Code of Canon Law puts it, is that marriage "enjoys the favor of the law." That means that, in legal terms that the Catholic Church presumes a marriage is valid until the contrary is proved. If we as individual Catholics take our cues from canon law in this way then we also would presume that the divorced woman's marriage is valid and thus that her contemplated union will not be valid.
This is not an indefeasible presumption, though.
It could be overturned if, for example, the woman were to apply for an annulment in the Catholic Church and it were granted. That's not likely to happen, given the fact that she's not marrying a Catholic and thus understandably has no reason from her perspective to do so. But other things might defeat it as well.
For example, if I knew her and knew that her first marriage was one she contracted at age sixteen and was never consummated and her husband was an active and violent alcoholic at the time and that the marriage broke up in two weeks then, even in the absence of an annulment, I as a practical matter would feel comfortable concluding that her original marriage had so much wrong with it that there was almost certainly invalid and that she is currently free to marry.
Apart from such a strikingly clear case, though, we need to fall back on the presumption that canon law makes regarding her first marriage, which is that it was valid.
If her first marriage is presumed valid then I would recommend not attending or celebrating the union because it must be presumed to be adulterous--i.e., she will be objectively committing adultery against her first husband in marrying the second, which is what Jesus meant when he said, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery" (Mark 10:11-12) and what Paul meant when he wrote, "a married woman is bound by law to her husband as long as he lives. . . . Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive (Romans 7:2-3).
I can't recommend attending or otherwise celebrating an objectively adulterous union. To do so would confirm the parties in an objectively sinful state and thus constitute a form of false witness.
Because the parties are presumably acting in good conscience, though, this situation should be handled as gently, humbly, and lovingly as possible.
If, as indicated, you've told your friend that his marriage will not be valid and, if you didn't further nuance this in the conversation, I would go back to him and explain--as gently, humbly, and lovingly as possible--that his marriage may not be valid and that you have to presume that this is the case and thus, with sincere sorrow and regret, you won't be able to attend the wedding, but this does not mean that you don't love and respect your friend.
Now for the questions:
1. Although I should not attend his wedding, is it permissible for me, a devout Catholic, to attend his bachelor party (assuming they do not partake in immoral acts)?
As a batchelor party is a celebration of an upcoming wedding, I could not recommend attending for the reasons cited above. I would explain this as gently and lovingly as possible.
2. If he converts to Catholicism in 5 years, should he leave his "wife" since he is making her an adulterer?
If her first marriage is valid then his leaving her would not make her an adulterer. To the contrary, it would cause an objectively adulterous situation to cease.
That is not to say that he should leave her, because we do not know if her first marriage was valid or not. To determine that, an annulment could be pursued. If the annulment is granted then their marriage could be convalidated ("blessed") and they would be genuinely married. Also, in the ensuing five years they may have had children and--as some couples have--they might determine, even in the absence of an annulment and convalidation, to stay together for the sake of the children, living as brother and sister.
3. If his "wife" converts to Catholicism and he does not, should she leave him and try to reconcile with her ex-husband?
If her first marriage was valid then, as long as the former husband is alive, she would have the option of reconciling with him, staying single, or living as brother and sister with her current husband, or pursuing an annulment and convalidation with her current husband. Which of these options would be the best would depend on a variety of factors. However, assuming that her situation with her current husband is good, the last of these options would likely be the first one she would want to pursue.
4. If both he and his wife convert to Catholicism, would his wife have to get an annulment for the first marriage and then he and her get remarried in the Catholic Church?
Yes.
5. If an Egyptian man is married to 3 wives, and he converts to Catholicism, what does he do with his three wives? Is he only married to one of them? Or none of them?
This situation is expressly dealt with in the Code of Canon Law, which provides:
Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.
§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed.
§3. Keeping in mind the moral, social, and economic conditions of places and of persons, the local ordinary is to take care that the needs of the first wife and the others dismissed are sufficiently provided for according to the norms of justice, Christian charity, and natural equity.
I hope this helps, and I ask readers to keep you and your friend and his fiancee in their prayers.
20
Posted by Jimmy Akin in Sacraments | Permalink | Comments (75)
