A different kind of IANAL April 16, 2010 10:12 AM Subscribe
Just like legal questions or medical questions, questions involving Roman Catholic canon law require a lot of specialized knowledge. That's become a real problem in this thread.
As I try to explain in my response, there's no way for us to know from the poster's question whether the Catholic Church considers their putative marriage (as the canon lawyers put it) to be valid. The reassuring answers provided are therefore not correct.
There are also many other innacuraccies, e.g. Catholics don't have to be married by a priest if they get permission to be married in a civil ceremony or the ceremony of another religion (and they can also be married by a deacon without any special permission), and the non-Catholic party in a mixed marraige does not anymore have to promise that the children will be raised Catholic.
Please be careful when answering these kinds of questions, because you may not know what you believe you know.
As I try to explain in my response, there's no way for us to know from the poster's question whether the Catholic Church considers their putative marriage (as the canon lawyers put it) to be valid. The reassuring answers provided are therefore not correct.
There are also many other innacuraccies, e.g. Catholics don't have to be married by a priest if they get permission to be married in a civil ceremony or the ceremony of another religion (and they can also be married by a deacon without any special permission), and the non-Catholic party in a mixed marraige does not anymore have to promise that the children will be raised Catholic.
Please be careful when answering these kinds of questions, because you may not know what you believe you know.
I didn't want to derail the thread with too much "this is wrong" "that is wrong","please be careful", especially since the canonical side is more easily solved and not really the focus of the question, which is more relational, perhaps I erred on the side of being too cautious over there. So I was more trying to keep any possible Grarr out of askme than to get wider publicity for it. If I've erred, mea maxima culpa and feel free to close this up.
posted by Jahaza at 10:27 AM on April 16, 2010
posted by Jahaza at 10:27 AM on April 16, 2010
Honestly, this seems like something that, while useful in that thread, is interesting and useful as a "hey, headsup" for MetaTalk as well.
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:39 AM on April 16, 2010
posted by Pope Guilty at 10:39 AM on April 16, 2010
IANAC? (I am not a Catholic?)
As in: IANAC, but I think you have to eat a black, triangular host and drink water drawn from a well that an unbaptized baby was drowned in for that.
posted by charred husk at 10:44 AM on April 16, 2010
As in: IANAC, but I think you have to eat a black, triangular host and drink water drawn from a well that an unbaptized baby was drowned in for that.
posted by charred husk at 10:44 AM on April 16, 2010
If you are refuting inaccuracies I don't think it is wrong to directly post in the AxMe thread, especially if you can cite examples. If you are refuting inaccuracies with an "I believe that is wrong because..." I think that is still ok.
Any actual arguments about these should indeed be brought to MeTa
posted by edgeways at 10:53 AM on April 16, 2010
Any actual arguments about these should indeed be brought to MeTa
posted by edgeways at 10:53 AM on April 16, 2010
I find canon law fascinating, but I think Jahaza largely fails to make his/her case here and is being unnecessarily alarmist. The act of simultaneously demanding policy assistance as a matter of policy here on Metafilter suggests to me that this is just a particularly nerdy troll.
This is especially true in the criticism: "For isntance, while there's a lot that's good in cross_impact's answer, the bit about it being enough that your marriage was blessed in a trinitarian form is completely untrue."
Jahaza is the the one offering "complete untruths," here. All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it, because his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country. The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved. That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up. I think it's clear from the context that the AskMe answerers were giving advice to a married man, not to a divorced man worried about the sacraments.
Jahaza's illicit claims to expertise (in pursuit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is particularly troubling in this context. cross-impact teaches marriage preparation courses for the Catholic Church. That's an authoritative position. Jahaza makes no similar claim to expertise, nor supplies credentials that would indicate otherwise. If Jahaza did have this expertise, than he would know that Canon Law starts from the position of default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven. Anonymous and his wife can go the rest of their lives without any trouble unless anonymous's wife seeks to have the marriage annulled, which she'll do or not for emotional and relational reasons, not Canon Law reasons.
Finally, even if Jahaza were an expert, in this case the comparison of canon law to real law is just absurd. Much of the canon law executed by "marriage tribunals" in the RCC does not deserve to be called law. It's more like a set of loose guidelines executed with little oversight by clerics whose primary interest is to promote and preserve marriage. This is not the same kind of problem we see with someone facing criminal or civil court, or even a priest who is threatened with dismissal from the clerical state where there would actually be an investigation and escalation in the Church hierarchy.
Bringing the ethical requirements of the legal profession (like malpractice: I Am Not Your Canon Lawyer?!?) into this question is so off-base that I think it's fair to say that Jahaza is trolling us.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:31 AM on April 16, 2010 [5 favorites]
This is especially true in the criticism: "For isntance, while there's a lot that's good in cross_impact's answer, the bit about it being enough that your marriage was blessed in a trinitarian form is completely untrue."
Jahaza is the the one offering "complete untruths," here. All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it, because his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country. The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved. That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up. I think it's clear from the context that the AskMe answerers were giving advice to a married man, not to a divorced man worried about the sacraments.
Jahaza's illicit claims to expertise (in pursuit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt) is particularly troubling in this context. cross-impact teaches marriage preparation courses for the Catholic Church. That's an authoritative position. Jahaza makes no similar claim to expertise, nor supplies credentials that would indicate otherwise. If Jahaza did have this expertise, than he would know that Canon Law starts from the position of default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven. Anonymous and his wife can go the rest of their lives without any trouble unless anonymous's wife seeks to have the marriage annulled, which she'll do or not for emotional and relational reasons, not Canon Law reasons.
Finally, even if Jahaza were an expert, in this case the comparison of canon law to real law is just absurd. Much of the canon law executed by "marriage tribunals" in the RCC does not deserve to be called law. It's more like a set of loose guidelines executed with little oversight by clerics whose primary interest is to promote and preserve marriage. This is not the same kind of problem we see with someone facing criminal or civil court, or even a priest who is threatened with dismissal from the clerical state where there would actually be an investigation and escalation in the Church hierarchy.
Bringing the ethical requirements of the legal profession (like malpractice: I Am Not Your Canon Lawyer?!?) into this question is so off-base that I think it's fair to say that Jahaza is trolling us.
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:31 AM on April 16, 2010 [5 favorites]
Canon Law: I have a canon. I am the law.
posted by Jofus at 12:03 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Jofus at 12:03 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
That comic ticks me off every time because he stepped on the punchline. The funny is at "Someone on the Internet is wrong" not "Someone is wrong on the Internet".
Death is easy, comedy is hard. I guess.
posted by Justinian at 12:40 PM on April 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
Death is easy, comedy is hard. I guess.
posted by Justinian at 12:40 PM on April 16, 2010 [2 favorites]
Maybe I am the poor XKCD stick figure, but it seems to me that the US Conference of Catholic Bishops can speak definitively about whether the non-Catholic partner has to promise to raise children Catholic (#8).
Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage
(Completely emotionally invested in the idea that a non-Catholic can marry a Catholic without having to promise to raise hypothetical children in a religious tradition? Why yes, yes I am.)
posted by teragram at 1:21 PM on April 16, 2010
Frequently Asked Questions about Marriage
(Completely emotionally invested in the idea that a non-Catholic can marry a Catholic without having to promise to raise hypothetical children in a religious tradition? Why yes, yes I am.)
posted by teragram at 1:21 PM on April 16, 2010
> Is this you, Jahaza?
That's a cheap, shitty reaction. Jahaza has a right to bring a legitimate concern to MetaTalk without being accused of being a troll or a basement-dwelling obsessive.
posted by languagehat at 1:23 PM on April 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
That's a cheap, shitty reaction. Jahaza has a right to bring a legitimate concern to MetaTalk without being accused of being a troll or a basement-dwelling obsessive.
posted by languagehat at 1:23 PM on April 16, 2010 [4 favorites]
Jahaza, I disagree for two reasons:
First, canon law has nothing to do with the questions asked. It has bearing only to determine whether his wife's statement that she does not considered them married is correct or not, from the point of view of the church, and determining that is not the question. His problems, as determined by his questions, are with his relationship with his wife.
Second, canon law, just like legal questions and medical questions, does not inhabit a special shrine in MetaFilter, where only the anointed can answer questions. This was hashed out on Meta a few months ago, and the mods' position was clear. if everyone took issue with incorrect answers on their particular area of expertise and had carte blanche to complain about it on Meta, that's all we would do.
Please be careful when answering these kinds of questions, because you may not know what you believe you know.
We're supposed to be careful when answering any question. That's what Ask is for.
posted by Cobalt at 2:13 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
First, canon law has nothing to do with the questions asked. It has bearing only to determine whether his wife's statement that she does not considered them married is correct or not, from the point of view of the church, and determining that is not the question. His problems, as determined by his questions, are with his relationship with his wife.
Second, canon law, just like legal questions and medical questions, does not inhabit a special shrine in MetaFilter, where only the anointed can answer questions. This was hashed out on Meta a few months ago, and the mods' position was clear. if everyone took issue with incorrect answers on their particular area of expertise and had carte blanche to complain about it on Meta, that's all we would do.
Please be careful when answering these kinds of questions, because you may not know what you believe you know.
We're supposed to be careful when answering any question. That's what Ask is for.
posted by Cobalt at 2:13 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
I apologize for the incompleteness of this response to the concerns raised so far, busy afternoon and I'll be back later.
canon law, just like legal questions and medical questions, does not inhabit a special shrine in MetaFilter, where only the anointed can answer questions.
I was taking that as a given. I've read those threads about doctors and lawyers too, that's why I refrenced them. It's an area where there are right and wrong answers and they matter deeply to people's lives and they don't always work the way non-experts think they do. Does this mean only credentialed experts should answer, of course not, but it does mean that people should be careful, which is what I said.
We're supposed to be careful when answering any question. That's what Ask is for.
Sure, but I think it's reasonable to say we should be more careful in answering some questions than others.
canon law has nothing to do with the questions asked. It has bearing only to determine whether his wife's statement that she does not considered them married is correct or not,
Which is to say that it does have some bearing. Furthermore, the answerers before me frequently choose to include statements in their answers that, whether they know it or not are statements about canon law. Many of those statements were wrong.
Will address the concerns raised by anotherpanacea later.
posted by Jahaza at 2:45 PM on April 16, 2010
canon law, just like legal questions and medical questions, does not inhabit a special shrine in MetaFilter, where only the anointed can answer questions.
I was taking that as a given. I've read those threads about doctors and lawyers too, that's why I refrenced them. It's an area where there are right and wrong answers and they matter deeply to people's lives and they don't always work the way non-experts think they do. Does this mean only credentialed experts should answer, of course not, but it does mean that people should be careful, which is what I said.
We're supposed to be careful when answering any question. That's what Ask is for.
Sure, but I think it's reasonable to say we should be more careful in answering some questions than others.
canon law has nothing to do with the questions asked. It has bearing only to determine whether his wife's statement that she does not considered them married is correct or not,
Which is to say that it does have some bearing. Furthermore, the answerers before me frequently choose to include statements in their answers that, whether they know it or not are statements about canon law. Many of those statements were wrong.
Will address the concerns raised by anotherpanacea later.
posted by Jahaza at 2:45 PM on April 16, 2010
I'm actually an expert in Cannon Law, and I just wanna say if either of the marriaged personas in questions are thinking about firing their kids out of a cannon - well, just don't. It's against the law.
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:51 PM on April 16, 2010
posted by the quidnunc kid at 3:51 PM on April 16, 2010
As a former lumpencatholic (i.e. end-user), I want to vaguely agree with Cobalt and say that canon law isn't necessarily the issue in the Ask question. Individual priests, parishes, and communities do (whether or not they are 'allowed' to) constantly differ from what is written in Rome. This seems totally reflected in the thread -- one person says "yo yo I do this in this place and it's like this" and another says "what what I'm in Houston etc. etc." The idea that there is one canon lawyer (which, admittedly, Jahaza never claims to be) who actually knows 'the real deal' isn't really possible. I have family members who married into the Church, didn't convert, and take communion with the knowledge of the priest. The American church (can't speak for the Canadian or British, but I assume they have similarities) in practice is not undertaken with the obedience to detail that typifies modern legal systems. It is therefore not just not 'wrong', but extremely helpful for the questioner to get a sense of the different kinds of Catholicisms possible.
For me, jahaza goes off the rails when he says this:
I don't think you neccesarily need to worry about your wife trying to convert you all the time
because Catholic doctrine doesn't instruct believers to force conversions. The questioner has already been very clear, though, about the fact that this is happening, and that it's a problem. We seem to be talking about jahaza's abstract, possible Catholicism, instead of what is happening in the questioner's life.
In general, I feel like canon law (in this thread, and in one other I've encountered) is sometimes used as a 'trump card' to contradict the experiences of individuals and individual parishes. It shouldn't be -- especially not if that causes people with relevant experience or knowhow to stay out of threads about Catholicism because they're not 'experts'.
I do think this is one of the cases in which everybody's got the best interest of the questioner in mind, though.
posted by Valet at 6:47 PM on April 16, 2010
For me, jahaza goes off the rails when he says this:
I don't think you neccesarily need to worry about your wife trying to convert you all the time
because Catholic doctrine doesn't instruct believers to force conversions. The questioner has already been very clear, though, about the fact that this is happening, and that it's a problem. We seem to be talking about jahaza's abstract, possible Catholicism, instead of what is happening in the questioner's life.
In general, I feel like canon law (in this thread, and in one other I've encountered) is sometimes used as a 'trump card' to contradict the experiences of individuals and individual parishes. It shouldn't be -- especially not if that causes people with relevant experience or knowhow to stay out of threads about Catholicism because they're not 'experts'.
I do think this is one of the cases in which everybody's got the best interest of the questioner in mind, though.
posted by Valet at 6:47 PM on April 16, 2010
I want to vaguely agree with Cobalt and say that canon law isn't necessarily the issue in the Ask question.
I agree that it is not "the" issue, but when a Catholic says to her spouse that they're not really married and wants to get married again, it's at least partly about canon law. This is proved by all the responses before mine that touched on canon law.
But also, the poster writes that his wife wants him to go through a Catholic marraige ceremony now. He says:
Since he's worried about the new ceremony in particular (as an athiest probably should be about a Catholic ceremony, since it (at least in the books) requires saying things like "N., take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and answering in the affirmative to the question "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?".
Radical sanation may offer a way out of this dilemma. It's a decree that "fixes" the marriage ex post facto. That's an important canonical answer that could make a big difference to the asker, I think.
Individual priests, parishes, and communities do (whether or not they are 'allowed' to) constantly differ from what is written in Rome. This seems totally reflected in the thread -- one person says "yo yo I do this in this place and it's like this" and another says "what what I'm in Houston etc. etc." The idea that there is one canon lawyer (which, admittedly, Jahaza never claims to be) who actually knows 'the real deal' isn't really possible. I have family members who married into the Church, didn't convert, and take communion with the knowledge of the priest. The American church (can't speak for the Canadian or British, but I assume they have similarities) in practice is not undertaken with the obedience to detail that typifies modern legal systems. It is therefore not just not 'wrong', but extremely helpful for the questioner to get a sense of the different kinds of Catholicisms possible.
I agree with much of what you say here. But the answers weren't even really phrased that way, as "here it's like this". Inturnaround didn't write, "I know an athiest who had to promise to raise their kids Catholic to get married in the Catholic Church." He wrote, "If you marry in the Catholic Church, the priest will make you and your wife promise to raise the children Catholic."
This is demonstrably untrue as teragram's FAQ from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops makes clear. Even if it's true somewhere (somewhere where they're more strict than the Vatican policy) as a blanket statement it's false.
Three blind mice wrote: "Unless the marriage is sanctioned by the church and performed by a priest, you're not married (according to the Catholic church)."
This isn't a matter of differing practice: "some Catholics will consider you unmarried". It's a universal statement. But in reality, Catholics don't have to be married by a priest for the Church to be considered validly married. Catholic deacons (who are not priests) can perform weddings. And, as that USCCB FAQ makes clear, with a dispensation from canonical form, the wedding doesn't have to be witnessed by a Catholic minister at all:
For me, jahaza goes off the rails when he says this:
OK... so this is the part of my comment that's not about canon law.
The poster did write, "she now proselytizes to me often" and I admit that in answering the canonical part of the question, that part didn't fully sink in to me. What I was trying to emphasize is that there are models of relationships between Catholic and non-Catholic family members that are other than constant proselytizing. My "possible" Catholicism was both a qualified statement "neccessarily" and it's based on my actual experience in a non-deal interfaith family. Err so, my "abstract, possible Catholicism" is based on my real family, which I think makes it not really abstract at all.
In general, I feel like canon law (in this thread, and in one other I've encountered) is sometimes used as a 'trump card' to contradict the experiences of individuals and individual parishes. It shouldn't be -- especially not if that causes people with relevant experience or knowhow to stay out of threads about Catholicism because they're not 'experts'.
I think that's true. But they also need to a) try not to say things that are unquestionably wrong and b) make clear that their experience isn't neccessarily identical with the rules of the Church.
I do think this is one of the cases in which everybody's got the best interest of the questioner in mind, though.
Agreed.
posted by Jahaza at 8:03 PM on April 16, 2010
I agree that it is not "the" issue, but when a Catholic says to her spouse that they're not really married and wants to get married again, it's at least partly about canon law. This is proved by all the responses before mine that touched on canon law.
But also, the poster writes that his wife wants him to go through a Catholic marraige ceremony now. He says:
I am concerned as to the consequences of me not doing this but feel I have already compromised myself once in taking part in the blessing (though my brother says if i don’t believe then it shouldn’t feel like i have compromised - but taking part in the act makes it feel like i am legitimising something i do not respect or feel comfortable with).Then he asks about whether he should hold out on this. My main point, was to try to bring up the fact that there's another procedure besides a new ceremony, something no one else had mentioned in the thread. By the process called radical sanation, it may be possible to make his marriage valid in the eyes of the Church (if it's not already, as I said, he doesn't give us enough information to tell) without having to go through another ceremony.
Since he's worried about the new ceremony in particular (as an athiest probably should be about a Catholic ceremony, since it (at least in the books) requires saying things like "N., take this ring as a sign of my love and fidelity. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" and answering in the affirmative to the question "Will you accept children lovingly from God, and bring them up according to the law of Christ and his Church?".
Radical sanation may offer a way out of this dilemma. It's a decree that "fixes" the marriage ex post facto. That's an important canonical answer that could make a big difference to the asker, I think.
Individual priests, parishes, and communities do (whether or not they are 'allowed' to) constantly differ from what is written in Rome. This seems totally reflected in the thread -- one person says "yo yo I do this in this place and it's like this" and another says "what what I'm in Houston etc. etc." The idea that there is one canon lawyer (which, admittedly, Jahaza never claims to be) who actually knows 'the real deal' isn't really possible. I have family members who married into the Church, didn't convert, and take communion with the knowledge of the priest. The American church (can't speak for the Canadian or British, but I assume they have similarities) in practice is not undertaken with the obedience to detail that typifies modern legal systems. It is therefore not just not 'wrong', but extremely helpful for the questioner to get a sense of the different kinds of Catholicisms possible.
I agree with much of what you say here. But the answers weren't even really phrased that way, as "here it's like this". Inturnaround didn't write, "I know an athiest who had to promise to raise their kids Catholic to get married in the Catholic Church." He wrote, "If you marry in the Catholic Church, the priest will make you and your wife promise to raise the children Catholic."
This is demonstrably untrue as teragram's FAQ from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops makes clear. Even if it's true somewhere (somewhere where they're more strict than the Vatican policy) as a blanket statement it's false.
Three blind mice wrote: "Unless the marriage is sanctioned by the church and performed by a priest, you're not married (according to the Catholic church)."
This isn't a matter of differing practice: "some Catholics will consider you unmarried". It's a universal statement. But in reality, Catholics don't have to be married by a priest for the Church to be considered validly married. Catholic deacons (who are not priests) can perform weddings. And, as that USCCB FAQ makes clear, with a dispensation from canonical form, the wedding doesn't have to be witnessed by a Catholic minister at all:
For example, a Catholic seeks to marry a Baptist whose father is the pastor of the local Baptist church. The father wants to officiate at the wedding. In these circumstances, the bishop could permit the couple to marry in the Baptist church. The permission in these instances is called a "dispensation from canonical form."So even if there is difference in practice across different communities, you can still say things that are wrong, both by the law and by the practice. If I was to say "Priests don't allow non-Catholics to receive communion" without any qualification you would know from your personal experience that this is false.
For me, jahaza goes off the rails when he says this:
I don't think you neccesarily need to worry about your wife trying to convert you all the timebecause Catholic doctrine doesn't instruct believers to force conversions. The questioner has already been very clear, though, about the fact that this is happening, and that it's a problem. We seem to be talking about jahaza's abstract, possible Catholicism, instead of what is happening in the questioner's life.
OK... so this is the part of my comment that's not about canon law.
The poster did write, "she now proselytizes to me often" and I admit that in answering the canonical part of the question, that part didn't fully sink in to me. What I was trying to emphasize is that there are models of relationships between Catholic and non-Catholic family members that are other than constant proselytizing. My "possible" Catholicism was both a qualified statement "neccessarily" and it's based on my actual experience in a non-deal interfaith family. Err so, my "abstract, possible Catholicism" is based on my real family, which I think makes it not really abstract at all.
In general, I feel like canon law (in this thread, and in one other I've encountered) is sometimes used as a 'trump card' to contradict the experiences of individuals and individual parishes. It shouldn't be -- especially not if that causes people with relevant experience or knowhow to stay out of threads about Catholicism because they're not 'experts'.
I think that's true. But they also need to a) try not to say things that are unquestionably wrong and b) make clear that their experience isn't neccessarily identical with the rules of the Church.
I do think this is one of the cases in which everybody's got the best interest of the questioner in mind, though.
Agreed.
posted by Jahaza at 8:03 PM on April 16, 2010
I find canon law fascinating,
Great! So do I.
but I think Jahaza largely fails to make his/her case here
I'm not sure which case you mean, that people should be more careful or that people are wrong. I'll address your particular concerns further on.
and is being unnecessarily alarmist.
If you mean the metatalk post, I acknowledged that it might be overkill and suggested that jessamyn should feel free to close it an hour before you posted. If you mean the AskMe, then I disagree. Quite a few blanket statements were made in the thread about Catholic faith and/or practice that were clearly wrong.
The act of simultaneously demanding policy assistance as a matter of policy here on Metafilter suggests to me that this is just a particularly nerdy troll.
I'm not sure what you mean by "demanding policy assistance". I wasn't asking the mods to do anything (this wouldn't be the right forum for that anyways), I was asking the posters do something now and in the future. It wasn't trolling, but since that's mostly about intent, you'll probably just have to take my word for it.
This is especially true in the criticism: "For isntance, while there's a lot that's good in cross_impact's answer, the bit about it being enough that your marriage was blessed in a trinitarian form is completely untrue."
Jahaza is the the one offering "complete untruths," here. All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it, because his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country. The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved. That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up. I think it's clear from the context that the AskMe answerers were giving advice to a married man, not to a divorced man worried about the sacraments.
Let me break this down a bit in responding:
All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it
Which was part of my answer, "...the best thing for you to do is to talk to someone who is. If you contact your local diocese and ask to speak with someone from the 'marriage tribunal' they'll be able to give you personalized and highly accurate advice on the legal requirements."
I also tried to give him some advice on what kind of expert he should seek and how to find them... and offered the personal assistance of myself and my friends if he was interested.
his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country.
Clearly this is not the case. There is currently discord in the marriage because the wife believes the marriage is not valid by the laws of the Catholic Church. It matters to her and therefore it matters to the poster.
The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved.
If by "The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages" you mean that they do not issue civil divorces this is true. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorces as dissolving a valid marriage. From the web site of the marriage tribunal of the Archdiocese of Denver:
Annulments can be sought for both sacramental marriages and for non-sacramental marriages. Non-catholics sometimes seek annulments from Catholic marriage tribunals for their putative marriages to non-catholics because they want to marry a Catholic and before the bishop will give permission for the wedding he wants to know that the non-Catholic is free to marry (by canonical standards, not civil standards, because, as I said, the spiritual bond of marriage is not neccessarily absent just because there has been a civil divorce.
That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up.
Nope. It's not about the licitness of the marriage at all, but the validity and these are two different things. The validity of the marriage has already come up. Hence the question. Catholics seek convalidation (correction by the Church) of invalid marriages all the time. That's why question 7 of the USCCB FAQ refers to just that situation:
His wife is worried about receiving the sacraments, which could be affected by their living together as husband and wife in an invalid marriage. I recommended a way that they might be able to meet her concern (the possible invalidity of the marriage) while also meeting his (not wanting to go through a new ceremony).
Jahaza's illicit claims to expertise
Illicit? My claims are illegal or in violation of a law?
(in pursuit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt)
Huh? I'm not doubtful or uncertain about the wrong answers. They're wrong and I'm certain about it. I'm also certain that the poster didn't provide enough information to judge whether his marriage is valid or not, even if we desired to. I tried to provide hope (an opposite of fear) that there may be a way to solve one of his problems without compromising his wifes conscience or his own.
Solutions that are wrong... "you can't get married without promising to raise your children as Catholics" are what really promote fear. Completely unjustified fear.
is particularly troubling in this context. cross-impact teaches marriage preparation courses for the Catholic Church. That's an authoritative position. Jahaza makes no similar claim to expertise, nor supplies credentials that would indicate otherwise.
I don't claim any special credentials beyond some knowledge of the relevant law. That cross-impact teaches marriage preparation doesn't mean he's neccessarily correct.
Cross-impact wrote this:
Catholics are required to observe the Catholic form of marriage unless dispensed that includes:
If Jahaza did have this expertise, than he would know that Canon Law starts from the position of default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven. Anonymous and his wife can go the rest of their lives without any trouble unless anonymous's wife seeks to have the marriage annulled, which she'll do or not for emotional and relational reasons, not Canon Law reasons.
The fact that people can come to realize that their marriages are invalid and do something about it is well known... hence the entry in the USCCB FAQ:
We're getting deep into the weeds here, but it's not as simple as "default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven."
Here's an explanation from Canon Law on Marriage by Adolfo N. Dacanay:
Finally, even if Jahaza were an expert, in this case the comparison of canon law to real law is just absurd. ...
Your opinions about the worth of canon law are not relevant. The fact of the matter is that you made errors in describing what the law requires, just as many posters in the original post did. Even if you don't think canon law is serious there are lots of folks who do. And their actions, based on their taking it seriously can have real impact on others (like the poster). That's why it's important that answers be accurate.
Bringing the ethical requirements of the legal profession (like malpractice: I Am Not Your Canon Lawyer?!?) into this question is so off-base that I think it's fair to say that Jahaza is trolling us.
It's a little bit of humor... chill. You may have seen other examples of this meme... people write stuff like IANYC (I am not your cheesemonger), IANYLHW (I am not your licensed hippo wrangler), etc. (and yes, I just made those "examples" up, but trust me, it's been done).
Wow, that's long. Apologies for that.
posted by Jahaza at 10:04 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
Great! So do I.
but I think Jahaza largely fails to make his/her case here
I'm not sure which case you mean, that people should be more careful or that people are wrong. I'll address your particular concerns further on.
and is being unnecessarily alarmist.
If you mean the metatalk post, I acknowledged that it might be overkill and suggested that jessamyn should feel free to close it an hour before you posted. If you mean the AskMe, then I disagree. Quite a few blanket statements were made in the thread about Catholic faith and/or practice that were clearly wrong.
The act of simultaneously demanding policy assistance as a matter of policy here on Metafilter suggests to me that this is just a particularly nerdy troll.
I'm not sure what you mean by "demanding policy assistance". I wasn't asking the mods to do anything (this wouldn't be the right forum for that anyways), I was asking the posters do something now and in the future. It wasn't trolling, but since that's mostly about intent, you'll probably just have to take my word for it.
This is especially true in the criticism: "For isntance, while there's a lot that's good in cross_impact's answer, the bit about it being enough that your marriage was blessed in a trinitarian form is completely untrue."
Jahaza is the the one offering "complete untruths," here. All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it, because his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country. The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved. That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up. I think it's clear from the context that the AskMe answerers were giving advice to a married man, not to a divorced man worried about the sacraments.
Let me break this down a bit in responding:
All that anonymous needs is to find someone to recognize his marriage and advise him in mending it
Which was part of my answer, "...the best thing for you to do is to talk to someone who is. If you contact your local diocese and ask to speak with someone from the 'marriage tribunal' they'll be able to give you personalized and highly accurate advice on the legal requirements."
I also tried to give him some advice on what kind of expert he should seek and how to find them... and offered the personal assistance of myself and my friends if he was interested.
his marriage is legal by the only laws that matter: the laws of his home country.
Clearly this is not the case. There is currently discord in the marriage because the wife believes the marriage is not valid by the laws of the Catholic Church. It matters to her and therefore it matters to the poster.
The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages, though there is a different and separate question as to whether or not his marriage counts as a sacrament should the civil marriage be dissolved.
If by "The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages" you mean that they do not issue civil divorces this is true. However, the Catholic Church does not recognize civil divorces as dissolving a valid marriage. From the web site of the marriage tribunal of the Archdiocese of Denver:
It is critical for all who have undergone a civil divorce to understand that the Church still recognizes the validity of a marriage, even if it is a dissolved union at the civil level; for marriage is first and foremost a physical and spiritual union of a man and a woman.Except in a few limited circumstances, the Catholic Church believes that marriages cannot be dissolved at all or does not (in its view) permit them to be dissolved. The annulment process does not dissolve a marriage. In a way, it is a misnomer. The decree usually referred to as an annulment is a "Declaration of nullity", it doesn't undo something that was done, but declares that it didn't happen because it didn't meet the requirements necessary to happen.
Annulments can be sought for both sacramental marriages and for non-sacramental marriages. Non-catholics sometimes seek annulments from Catholic marriage tribunals for their putative marriages to non-catholics because they want to marry a Catholic and before the bishop will give permission for the wedding he wants to know that the non-Catholic is free to marry (by canonical standards, not civil standards, because, as I said, the spiritual bond of marriage is not neccessarily absent just because there has been a civil divorce.
That's because the licitness of the marriage will only become an issue during annulment proceedings, which requires anonymous and his wife to split up.
Nope. It's not about the licitness of the marriage at all, but the validity and these are two different things. The validity of the marriage has already come up. Hence the question. Catholics seek convalidation (correction by the Church) of invalid marriages all the time. That's why question 7 of the USCCB FAQ refers to just that situation:
If two Catholics or a Catholic and non-Catholic are married invalidly in the eyes of the church, what should they do about itI think it's clear from the context that the AskMe answerers were giving advice to a married man, not to a divorced man worried about the sacraments.
His wife is worried about receiving the sacraments, which could be affected by their living together as husband and wife in an invalid marriage. I recommended a way that they might be able to meet her concern (the possible invalidity of the marriage) while also meeting his (not wanting to go through a new ceremony).
Jahaza's illicit claims to expertise
Illicit? My claims are illegal or in violation of a law?
(in pursuit of fear, uncertainty, and doubt)
Huh? I'm not doubtful or uncertain about the wrong answers. They're wrong and I'm certain about it. I'm also certain that the poster didn't provide enough information to judge whether his marriage is valid or not, even if we desired to. I tried to provide hope (an opposite of fear) that there may be a way to solve one of his problems without compromising his wifes conscience or his own.
Solutions that are wrong... "you can't get married without promising to raise your children as Catholics" are what really promote fear. Completely unjustified fear.
is particularly troubling in this context. cross-impact teaches marriage preparation courses for the Catholic Church. That's an authoritative position. Jahaza makes no similar claim to expertise, nor supplies credentials that would indicate otherwise.
I don't claim any special credentials beyond some knowledge of the relevant law. That cross-impact teaches marriage preparation doesn't mean he's neccessarily correct.
Cross-impact wrote this:
I can tell you for certain that your current marriage is valid, especially if you went and had it "blessed" in a Christian Church in the Trinitarian Form. The deal is that it is not Sacramental which is a different, "higher level" kind of commitment. If you were to divorce, she would be considered still married in the Church unless she got an annulment. But as of now your marriage is not Sacramental, and that's important to Catholics.It's not knowable from the facts the asker gave us that his marriage is valid. We know these facts 1) The asker is not Catholic 2) the spouse is Catholic. 3) they got married in a civil ceremony 4) their marriage was subsequently blessed by an Anglican minister.
Catholics are required to observe the Catholic form of marriage unless dispensed that includes:
Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.Since the poster doesn't say anything about a dispensation or defection from the Catholic faith, we don't have enough information to know that his marriage is valid. Since his wife (who presumably would know) is worried, it's reasonable to provide advice for what to do if it's invalid. Certainly no one can say they are "certain" the marriage is valid.
Can. 1117 The form established above must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act, without prejudice to the prescripts of ⇒ can. 1127, §2.
Can. 1127 §2. If grave difficulties hinder the observance of canonical form, the local ordinary of the Catholic party has the right of dispensing from the form in individual cases, after having consulted the ordinary of the place in which the marriage is celebrated and with some public form of celebration for validity. It is for the conference of bishops to establish norms by which the aforementioned dispensation is to be granted in a uniform manner.
If Jahaza did have this expertise, than he would know that Canon Law starts from the position of default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven. Anonymous and his wife can go the rest of their lives without any trouble unless anonymous's wife seeks to have the marriage annulled, which she'll do or not for emotional and relational reasons, not Canon Law reasons.
The fact that people can come to realize that their marriages are invalid and do something about it is well known... hence the entry in the USCCB FAQ:
7. If two Catholics or a Catholic and non-Catholic are married invalidly in the eyes of the church, what should they do about it?In fact, an overturning of the presumption of validity is not required if the marriage lacked the proper form (which seems to be the question being raised here as best we can tell...)
We're getting deep into the weeds here, but it's not as simple as "default recognition of all marriages unless invalidity is proven."
Here's an explanation from Canon Law on Marriage by Adolfo N. Dacanay:
According to C. 1060, marriage enjoys the favor of the law. Therefore, unless the contrary is clearly proven with the certainty required by law, the validity of the marriage must be upheld. To say that marriage enjoys the favor of the law means that there must have been a public celebration of the marriage, observing the solemnities required by law. C. 1057 clarifies that marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent. For the Catholic, the lawful manifestation of consent means the manifestation according to the form prescribed by C. 1108, the so-called canonical form. If there is such a celebration, there is a figura matrimonii, and it is this putative marriage that enjoys the favor of the law. A marriage civilly contracted where at least one of the parties is Catholic does not constitute this figura matrimonii which enjoys the favor of the law.You can go read the rest of the paragraph at the link, but to summarize, it also says that if the couple believes themselves to be married, there is a presumption of validity, but of course, the whole problem here is that the spouse doesn't believe that.
Finally, even if Jahaza were an expert, in this case the comparison of canon law to real law is just absurd. ...
Your opinions about the worth of canon law are not relevant. The fact of the matter is that you made errors in describing what the law requires, just as many posters in the original post did. Even if you don't think canon law is serious there are lots of folks who do. And their actions, based on their taking it seriously can have real impact on others (like the poster). That's why it's important that answers be accurate.
Bringing the ethical requirements of the legal profession (like malpractice: I Am Not Your Canon Lawyer?!?) into this question is so off-base that I think it's fair to say that Jahaza is trolling us.
It's a little bit of humor... chill. You may have seen other examples of this meme... people write stuff like IANYC (I am not your cheesemonger), IANYLHW (I am not your licensed hippo wrangler), etc. (and yes, I just made those "examples" up, but trust me, it's been done).
Wow, that's long. Apologies for that.
posted by Jahaza at 10:04 PM on April 16, 2010 [1 favorite]
If by "The RCC does not invalidate legal marriages" you mean that they do not issue civil divorces this is true.
No, by this I mean that RCC does not invalidate marriages unless they have already been dissolved or divorced civilly. That's because no Catholic priest sees himself in the business of breaking up civil marriages, but only in sacramentalizing them.
So long as a man and woman are married under civil law, the Catholic Church will never declare that marriage annulled. All of the concerns that you purport to address under the question of validity are actually licitness questions. Since you misunderstand the fundamental nature of validity versus licitness in Canon Law, I'm not sure why you bothered with such a long response.
Even if you don't think canon law is serious there are lots of folks who do. And their actions, based on their taking it seriously can have real impact on others (like the poster). That's why it's important that answers be accurate.
Of course it's serious! But just because it's serious doesn't mean we should act as if those who execute canon law for most parishioners will be doing so with an eye to punishing infractions. Your legalism here is absurd.
It's particularly galling that you quote the Bishop's question 7 as proof of anything. Because of people like anonymous's wife and yourself, sometimes anxieties about marriage validity arise among ordinary Catholics which have no basis in the reality of Canon Law as practiced. That's precisely why the answer to that question is simply:
"They should approach their pastor to try to resolve the situation."
That's because it's the priests job to redirect legalistic concerns to the real root of the matter, which is the relationship and (in this case) the tensions in mixed marriages. Notice what it doesn't say: "Get a lawyer." That's because your whole approach is pernicious to the sacrament of marriage.
Look, these people are still married. Some armchair Canon Lawyer scared the wife into thinking she might have a problem marriage. Now she's channeling relationship anxieties into the Canon Law question. A good priest will redirect the validity question to the matters of fundamental concern. You're not helping.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:35 AM on April 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
No, by this I mean that RCC does not invalidate marriages unless they have already been dissolved or divorced civilly. That's because no Catholic priest sees himself in the business of breaking up civil marriages, but only in sacramentalizing them.
So long as a man and woman are married under civil law, the Catholic Church will never declare that marriage annulled. All of the concerns that you purport to address under the question of validity are actually licitness questions. Since you misunderstand the fundamental nature of validity versus licitness in Canon Law, I'm not sure why you bothered with such a long response.
Even if you don't think canon law is serious there are lots of folks who do. And their actions, based on their taking it seriously can have real impact on others (like the poster). That's why it's important that answers be accurate.
Of course it's serious! But just because it's serious doesn't mean we should act as if those who execute canon law for most parishioners will be doing so with an eye to punishing infractions. Your legalism here is absurd.
It's particularly galling that you quote the Bishop's question 7 as proof of anything. Because of people like anonymous's wife and yourself, sometimes anxieties about marriage validity arise among ordinary Catholics which have no basis in the reality of Canon Law as practiced. That's precisely why the answer to that question is simply:
"They should approach their pastor to try to resolve the situation."
That's because it's the priests job to redirect legalistic concerns to the real root of the matter, which is the relationship and (in this case) the tensions in mixed marriages. Notice what it doesn't say: "Get a lawyer." That's because your whole approach is pernicious to the sacrament of marriage.
Look, these people are still married. Some armchair Canon Lawyer scared the wife into thinking she might have a problem marriage. Now she's channeling relationship anxieties into the Canon Law question. A good priest will redirect the validity question to the matters of fundamental concern. You're not helping.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:35 AM on April 17, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm an atheist who has never belonged to the Catholic Church. Does anyone know what actions I need to take to get a papal bull and/or a full bell, book and candle excommunication?
posted by double block and bleed at 9:09 AM on April 17, 2010
posted by double block and bleed at 9:09 AM on April 17, 2010
just because it's serious doesn't mean we should act as if those who execute canon law for most parishioners will be doing so with an eye to punishing infractions.
Huh? It's not a matter of punishing, it's a matter of fixing.
You've just written this in the thread:
So long as a man and woman are married under civil law, the Catholic Church will never declare that marriage annulled.
True, but they also won't declare a marriage annulled for lack of form either. Those cases don't proceed to the annulment , which involves a trial etc., they just document the lack of form and move on.
All of the concerns that you purport to address under the question of validity are actually licitness questions.
Umm... no. What is you think a convalidation does? Why do you think it's called "validation" if it doesn't have to do with validity?
Since you misunderstand the fundamental nature of validity versus licitness in Canon Law, I'm not sure why you bothered with such a long response.
Actually, I don't misunderstand it. Here's an example... from the web site of the Diocese of Lincoln:
The reason I suggest that he talk to a canon lawyer is that, many places, the recommendation of the parish priest will be to repeat the vows. This is the easiest way for the parish priest. But the asker has said he didn't want to do this... and their are other options as I've tried to explain... so I advised that he seek someone with more particular expertise.
From a Catholic perspective this is not just misplaced anxiety. The wife may very well have a legitimate concern. I understand that you think this is all legalistic hokum, but that's not the way it is for many Catholics.
posted by Jahaza at 10:57 AM on April 17, 2010
Huh? It's not a matter of punishing, it's a matter of fixing.
You've just written this in the thread:
All legal marriages are valid.This is just not how it works. It is not the case that all legal (civilly legal) marriages are valid. People have legal civil marriages all the time that are invalid due to lack of form or for other reasons. This is what convalidation, either simple (through renewal of vows) or radical sanation (through a decree) do. These are regular practices.
Not all valid marriages are licit.
You have a legal marriage.
∴ You have a valid marriage.
You may not, however, have a licit marriage.
So long as a man and woman are married under civil law, the Catholic Church will never declare that marriage annulled.
True, but they also won't declare a marriage annulled for lack of form either. Those cases don't proceed to the annulment , which involves a trial etc., they just document the lack of form and move on.
All of the concerns that you purport to address under the question of validity are actually licitness questions.
Umm... no. What is you think a convalidation does? Why do you think it's called "validation" if it doesn't have to do with validity?
Since you misunderstand the fundamental nature of validity versus licitness in Canon Law, I'm not sure why you bothered with such a long response.
Actually, I don't misunderstand it. Here's an example... from the web site of the Diocese of Lincoln:
I have a Catholic friend who was married in a Lutheran Church. He was told by a priest he cannot receive Holy Communion because he is living in a state of sin, not being really married. Is that true?It's not merely a case of the wife questioning the licity. Marriages can be illicit (in the eyes of the Catholic Church), but not invalid. (For instance if a Catholic marries a member of an Orthodox Church without permission.) But if a marriage lacks proper form, it can be invalid. Folks are told to approach their priest because their marriages are possibly invalid, not because they're possibly illicit.
All Catholics are bound for licitly and validity, to the Catholic form of marriage, unless they receive a dispensation from that form. Therefore, a Catholic who would marry outside the Catholic form without a dispensation from the bishop would not be married in the eyes of God. His or her marriage would be illicit and invalid and such a person would be living in a state of serious sin.
The reason I suggest that he talk to a canon lawyer is that, many places, the recommendation of the parish priest will be to repeat the vows. This is the easiest way for the parish priest. But the asker has said he didn't want to do this... and their are other options as I've tried to explain... so I advised that he seek someone with more particular expertise.
From a Catholic perspective this is not just misplaced anxiety. The wife may very well have a legitimate concern. I understand that you think this is all legalistic hokum, but that's not the way it is for many Catholics.
posted by Jahaza at 10:57 AM on April 17, 2010
Umm... no. What is you think a convalidation does? Why do you think it's called "validation" if it doesn't have to do with validity?
You're confusing convalidation and radical sanation.
Convalidation is only used for diriment impediments: sterility, lack of consent, consanguinity,etc. But as members of a mixed marriage, anonymous and his wife face only a possible prohibitory impediment, "which render a marriage illicit, but do not impair its validity."
A little learning is a dangerous thing....
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:19 AM on April 17, 2010
You're confusing convalidation and radical sanation.
Convalidation is only used for diriment impediments: sterility, lack of consent, consanguinity,etc. But as members of a mixed marriage, anonymous and his wife face only a possible prohibitory impediment, "which render a marriage illicit, but do not impair its validity."
A little learning is a dangerous thing....
posted by anotherpanacea at 11:19 AM on April 17, 2010
Do you even read the things you link to?
Radical sanation is a species of convalidation of which there are two. Your link for "convalidation" actually goes goes to simple convalidation, which is one species of convalidation. Radical sanation is the other as Canon 1161 says, "The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation" (emphasis mine).
But as members of a mixed marriage, anonymous and his wife face only a possible prohibitory impediment, "which render a marriage illicit, but do not impair its validity."
The main issue isn't whether it's a mixed marriage, the issue is that they weren't married according to the Catholic form and whether they had a dispensation from the Bishop or the spouse had formally defected from the faith. This question of lack of canonical form is entirely separate from the question of permission to marry a baptized non-catholic, which indeed would be a question of illicitness and not invalidity.
Do you understand and accept that (as a general principle) lack of canonical form can invalidate a marriage?
Also, if the asked hasn't been baptized (and he doesn't say) then it's not a question of mixed marriage at all, but of disparity of cult, which is a diriment impediment, see Can. 1086. This is why I've repeatedly said we don't have enough information to know if the askers marriage is considered valid by the Catholic Church.
A little learning is a dangerous thing....
Really, your condescension is entirely inappropriate (though slightly better than accusing me of being a troll). I don't see any evidence you're an expert, especially when your quote above appears to come from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Since it was published two codes of canon law have been promulgated changing the law in addition to various one-off changes.
posted by Jahaza at 11:49 AM on April 17, 2010
Radical sanation is a species of convalidation of which there are two. Your link for "convalidation" actually goes goes to simple convalidation, which is one species of convalidation. Radical sanation is the other as Canon 1161 says, "The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation" (emphasis mine).
But as members of a mixed marriage, anonymous and his wife face only a possible prohibitory impediment, "which render a marriage illicit, but do not impair its validity."
The main issue isn't whether it's a mixed marriage, the issue is that they weren't married according to the Catholic form and whether they had a dispensation from the Bishop or the spouse had formally defected from the faith. This question of lack of canonical form is entirely separate from the question of permission to marry a baptized non-catholic, which indeed would be a question of illicitness and not invalidity.
Do you understand and accept that (as a general principle) lack of canonical form can invalidate a marriage?
Also, if the asked hasn't been baptized (and he doesn't say) then it's not a question of mixed marriage at all, but of disparity of cult, which is a diriment impediment, see Can. 1086. This is why I've repeatedly said we don't have enough information to know if the askers marriage is considered valid by the Catholic Church.
A little learning is a dangerous thing....
Really, your condescension is entirely inappropriate (though slightly better than accusing me of being a troll). I don't see any evidence you're an expert, especially when your quote above appears to come from the old Catholic Encyclopedia. Since it was published two codes of canon law have been promulgated changing the law in addition to various one-off changes.
posted by Jahaza at 11:49 AM on April 17, 2010
> A little learning is a dangerous thing
Jahaza is being pedantic and long-winded, but you're being a jerk. Please don't do that; the subject is contentious enough as it is.
posted by languagehat at 3:02 PM on April 17, 2010
Jahaza is being pedantic and long-winded, but you're being a jerk. Please don't do that; the subject is contentious enough as it is.
posted by languagehat at 3:02 PM on April 17, 2010
Radical sanation is a species of convalidation of which there are two.
Indeed, but not all sanated marriages were originally invalid. The specific example of such sanation is mixed marriages which Can. 1127 shows are not all invalid.
Do you understand and accept that (as a general principle) lack of canonical form can invalidate a marriage?
Of course: for instance, a secret marriage. But using an Anglican priest is a dispensable impediment, not dirimentive. As such, it's a matter of liceity, not validity. Impermissible but not fake.
Really, your condescension is entirely inappropriate (though slightly better than accusing me of being a troll).
Of course you are a troll. This is classic concern trolling. That's why you'rve been making your case here and not in the original thread: you don't care about giving good advice to anonymous, you just want to argue about Canon Law.
But that's the problem. That motivation is a violation of the spirit in which the Canon Law was promulgated:
...it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.
[...]
To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law, besides the virtue of justice, is to take cognizance of charity, temperance, humaneness and moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself.
Hence unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather recourse is to be taken to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline.
Pope John Paul II realized that any codification will tend to lead to the kind of uncharitable legalism you've displayed, and so he warned those who would read and enforce the Canon Law that the principle of charity ought to guide its interpretation and application.
Consider an analogy to the US Supreme Court: when Justice Sonia Sotomayor was asked whether she used empathy to guide her decision-making, she rightly decried this as inappropriate for a judge in the highest court in the land: "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts." Empathy is not a judge's job, and the secular law cannot be applied with empathy in mind. The Canon Law, on the other hand, is all about empathy. It's founded on and ratified by caritas, God's love.
As I said at the outset, I'm fascinated by the Canon Law: but what fascinates me about it is the principle of charity that guides its interpretation. Any Canon Law discussion that fails to proceed from faith and charity is bound to fail by the terms of Canon Law itself.
We're not talking about an abstract question, here: we're talking about a family in distress. Much of my frustration at your legalism is driven by your failure to express anything but a desire to debate. On many issues, the kind of argument you want to have is useful. Not here, though. Here, it is dangerous.
I meant what I said: a little learning is a dangerous thing. The danger, in this case, is that you will panic anonymous or harden his heart with bad advice badly given, and in so doing contribute to the ruin of a marriage. Until you learn both the content and the method of Canon Law, you should forgo lecturing other pastors' parishioners on it. Save your pedantry for Apple v. Microsoft debates.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:42 AM on April 18, 2010
Indeed, but not all sanated marriages were originally invalid. The specific example of such sanation is mixed marriages which Can. 1127 shows are not all invalid.
Do you understand and accept that (as a general principle) lack of canonical form can invalidate a marriage?
Of course: for instance, a secret marriage. But using an Anglican priest is a dispensable impediment, not dirimentive. As such, it's a matter of liceity, not validity. Impermissible but not fake.
Really, your condescension is entirely inappropriate (though slightly better than accusing me of being a troll).
Of course you are a troll. This is classic concern trolling. That's why you'rve been making your case here and not in the original thread: you don't care about giving good advice to anonymous, you just want to argue about Canon Law.
But that's the problem. That motivation is a violation of the spirit in which the Canon Law was promulgated:
...it appears sufficiently clear that the Code is in no way intended as a substitute for faith, grace, charisms, and especially charity in the life of the Church and of the faithful. On the contrary, its purpose is rather to create such an order in the ecclesial society that, while assigning the primacy to love, grace and charisms, it at the same time renders their organic development easier in the life of both the ecclesial society and the individual persons who belong to it.
[...]
To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law, besides the virtue of justice, is to take cognizance of charity, temperance, humaneness and moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself.
Hence unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather recourse is to be taken to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline.
Pope John Paul II realized that any codification will tend to lead to the kind of uncharitable legalism you've displayed, and so he warned those who would read and enforce the Canon Law that the principle of charity ought to guide its interpretation and application.
Consider an analogy to the US Supreme Court: when Justice Sonia Sotomayor was asked whether she used empathy to guide her decision-making, she rightly decried this as inappropriate for a judge in the highest court in the land: "We apply law to facts. We don't apply feelings to facts." Empathy is not a judge's job, and the secular law cannot be applied with empathy in mind. The Canon Law, on the other hand, is all about empathy. It's founded on and ratified by caritas, God's love.
As I said at the outset, I'm fascinated by the Canon Law: but what fascinates me about it is the principle of charity that guides its interpretation. Any Canon Law discussion that fails to proceed from faith and charity is bound to fail by the terms of Canon Law itself.
We're not talking about an abstract question, here: we're talking about a family in distress. Much of my frustration at your legalism is driven by your failure to express anything but a desire to debate. On many issues, the kind of argument you want to have is useful. Not here, though. Here, it is dangerous.
I meant what I said: a little learning is a dangerous thing. The danger, in this case, is that you will panic anonymous or harden his heart with bad advice badly given, and in so doing contribute to the ruin of a marriage. Until you learn both the content and the method of Canon Law, you should forgo lecturing other pastors' parishioners on it. Save your pedantry for Apple v. Microsoft debates.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:42 AM on April 18, 2010
Your search - dirimentive - did not match any documents.
What am I missing here? No hits at all seems a bit rare!
posted by Wolof at 7:55 AM on April 18, 2010
What am I missing here? No hits at all seems a bit rare!
posted by Wolof at 7:55 AM on April 18, 2010
Indeed, but not all sanated marriages were originally invalid.
No, all sanated marriages (at least for those contracted under the current law, which the posters was) were believed to be invalid.... that's why they're convalidated.
There are two kinds of convalidation, simple convalidation and radical sanation and both are applied to (and only to) those marriages beleived to be invalid:
"Can. 1156 §1. To convalidate a marriage which is invalid because of a diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment ceases or is dispensed and that at least the party conscious of the impediment renews consent."
"Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent"
The specific example of such sanation is mixed marriages which Can. 1127 shows are not all invalid.
Yes, not all mixed marraiges are invalid. But 1127 doesn't refer to sanation. It refers to dispensation from form generally, which is usually done before a marriage is contracted. Dispensation without which a marriage that lacks canonical form is considered invalid, not because of its being mixed, but because it lacks canonical form.
Of course: for instance, a secret marriage.
If by a secret marriage you mean a marriage conducted by the couple themselves only without any witnesses than yes. Of course there are also secret marriages which are witnessed by the Church, which are valid.
But using an Anglican priest is a dispensable impediment, not dirimentive. As such, it's a matter of liceity, not validity. Impermissible but not fake.
Point to the place in Canon Law or in a Canon Law textbook written after the current code of Canon Law was published that says that using an Anglican priest is an impediment at all. You won't be able to, because using an Anglican priest is not an impediment in the first place. The dispensation required to use an Anglican priest for a Catholic's wedding is not a dispensation from an impediment at all, it's a dispensation from canonical form. This dispensation is required for validity.
An Anglican and a Catholic who want to marry can get married before a Catholic priest. That doesn't require a dispensation. It requires a permission for a mixed marriage. If that permission is lacking it's a matter of licity.
Much of my frustration at your legalism is driven by your failure to express anything but a desire to debate.
I've expressed two things other than my desire to debate. 1) I expressed a willingness to help the original poster. Including personally, and through my friends. I have helped him, by providing correct information. 2) I've expressed a desire to not see him misled by people who don't understand canon law concepts like the difference between the permission for a mixed marriage and the dispensation from form necessary for a valid marriage by a Catholic and a non-Catholic before an Anglican minister or a civil official. Folks who don't understand that distinction have downplayed the poster's wife's concern as irrational or legalistic. That's wrong, from a Catholic point of view. It won't help the posters marriage if he goes back to his wife and says "you're just being legalistic".
I have personal experience in dealing with the subculture which it appears that the poster's wife has been exposed to (that is, people who take concerns about the validity of marriages according to canon law seriously.) The way you dismiss this concern as legalism shows that you don't have experience with this subculture or lack the ability to empathize with it.
Unfortunately, I see that EyebrowsMcGee has posted more incorrect information in the original thred. GeekDad correctly pointed out that a Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation could be asked to refrain from receiving communion. Here's an example from the Diocese of Lincoln. Relying in part on incorrect statements (including yours) earlier in the thread, he says that GeekDad is wrong... but he isn't.
Then EyebrowsMcGee says:
If anyone would like to test this question of marriages outside Catholicism being recognized, try to take a second spouse within the Church on the grounds that your FIRST marriage isn't real because it isn't Catholic. :P I think you'll find a holy bootprint on your butt when the priest kicks you into next week.
This isn't actually true. If you sought to marry after a divorce in the Catholic Church on the grounds that your first marriage wasn't real because it wasn't Catholic you wouldn't need an anullment. You'd simply have to show that the marriage lacked proper form. This doesn't require a trial the way an anullment does. This kind of investigation is sometimes referred to as an anullment informally, but it's actually not.
posted by Jahaza at 6:29 PM on April 18, 2010
No, all sanated marriages (at least for those contracted under the current law, which the posters was) were believed to be invalid.... that's why they're convalidated.
There are two kinds of convalidation, simple convalidation and radical sanation and both are applied to (and only to) those marriages beleived to be invalid:
"Can. 1156 §1. To convalidate a marriage which is invalid because of a diriment impediment, it is required that the impediment ceases or is dispensed and that at least the party conscious of the impediment renews consent."
"Can. 1161 §1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent"
The specific example of such sanation is mixed marriages which Can. 1127 shows are not all invalid.
Yes, not all mixed marraiges are invalid. But 1127 doesn't refer to sanation. It refers to dispensation from form generally, which is usually done before a marriage is contracted. Dispensation without which a marriage that lacks canonical form is considered invalid, not because of its being mixed, but because it lacks canonical form.
Of course: for instance, a secret marriage.
If by a secret marriage you mean a marriage conducted by the couple themselves only without any witnesses than yes. Of course there are also secret marriages which are witnessed by the Church, which are valid.
But using an Anglican priest is a dispensable impediment, not dirimentive. As such, it's a matter of liceity, not validity. Impermissible but not fake.
Point to the place in Canon Law or in a Canon Law textbook written after the current code of Canon Law was published that says that using an Anglican priest is an impediment at all. You won't be able to, because using an Anglican priest is not an impediment in the first place. The dispensation required to use an Anglican priest for a Catholic's wedding is not a dispensation from an impediment at all, it's a dispensation from canonical form. This dispensation is required for validity.
An Anglican and a Catholic who want to marry can get married before a Catholic priest. That doesn't require a dispensation. It requires a permission for a mixed marriage. If that permission is lacking it's a matter of licity.
Much of my frustration at your legalism is driven by your failure to express anything but a desire to debate.
I've expressed two things other than my desire to debate. 1) I expressed a willingness to help the original poster. Including personally, and through my friends. I have helped him, by providing correct information. 2) I've expressed a desire to not see him misled by people who don't understand canon law concepts like the difference between the permission for a mixed marriage and the dispensation from form necessary for a valid marriage by a Catholic and a non-Catholic before an Anglican minister or a civil official. Folks who don't understand that distinction have downplayed the poster's wife's concern as irrational or legalistic. That's wrong, from a Catholic point of view. It won't help the posters marriage if he goes back to his wife and says "you're just being legalistic".
I have personal experience in dealing with the subculture which it appears that the poster's wife has been exposed to (that is, people who take concerns about the validity of marriages according to canon law seriously.) The way you dismiss this concern as legalism shows that you don't have experience with this subculture or lack the ability to empathize with it.
Unfortunately, I see that EyebrowsMcGee has posted more incorrect information in the original thred. GeekDad correctly pointed out that a Catholic married outside the Church without a dispensation could be asked to refrain from receiving communion. Here's an example from the Diocese of Lincoln. Relying in part on incorrect statements (including yours) earlier in the thread, he says that GeekDad is wrong... but he isn't.
Then EyebrowsMcGee says:
If anyone would like to test this question of marriages outside Catholicism being recognized, try to take a second spouse within the Church on the grounds that your FIRST marriage isn't real because it isn't Catholic. :P I think you'll find a holy bootprint on your butt when the priest kicks you into next week.
This isn't actually true. If you sought to marry after a divorce in the Catholic Church on the grounds that your first marriage wasn't real because it wasn't Catholic you wouldn't need an anullment. You'd simply have to show that the marriage lacked proper form. This doesn't require a trial the way an anullment does. This kind of investigation is sometimes referred to as an anullment informally, but it's actually not.
posted by Jahaza at 6:29 PM on April 18, 2010
The way you dismiss this concern as legalism shows that you don't have experience with this subculture or lack the ability to empathize with it.
Yup: me and Pope John Paul II are famous for our lack of experience and empathy for Catholics!
Yup: me and Pope John Paul II are famous for our lack of experience and empathy for Catholics!
To foster the pastoral care of souls as much as possible, the new law, besides the virtue of justice, is to take cognizance of charity, temperance, humaneness and moderation, whereby equity is to be pursued not only in the application of the laws by pastors of souls but also in the legislation itself.posted by anotherpanacea at 10:12 PM on April 21, 2010
Hence unduly rigid norms are to be set aside and rather recourse is to be taken to exhortations and persuasions where there is no need of a strict observance of the law on account of the public good and general ecclesiastical discipline.
That's a discussion of the penal elements of the law. It's not relevant here.
As for you, do you know people who have had their marriages convalidated? Do you think they were just deluded?
posted by Jahaza at 11:09 AM on April 22, 2010
As for you, do you know people who have had their marriages convalidated? Do you think they were just deluded?
posted by Jahaza at 11:09 AM on April 22, 2010
Well look... to try and prevent another "Legalist! Legalist" personal attack... the general principle is relevant. But it doesn't work they way you think it does. We're not talking about the application of a penalty here... it's not a penalty if a marriage isn't valid, it's just a fact. There's not even any moral judgment involved given the rules about putative marriages. It's just something that can be fixed... and claiming that there's no problem doesn't help the fixing.
posted by Jahaza at 11:16 AM on April 22, 2010
posted by Jahaza at 11:16 AM on April 22, 2010
First, you're wrong: the quote I've repeated is not a discussion of the penal elements of the law, but of the role of codified law in an otherwise uncoerced community of faith.
Second, every case of convalidation I've come across has been due to the deepening faith of both partners which caused their shared concerns to bring them to a priest. In these cases, the priest in question has explicitly said that the purpose was to quell doubts in the simplest possible way. The purpose of these ceremonies has been to avoid distracting a loving couple from the the relationship onto Canon Law questions. Nobody wants to have to think about coerced, unwitnessed, and consanguine marriages as they try to deepen their faith and their relationship. I think that's the right motive and the right practice, and I've demonstrated my reasons for holding this view above, in some cases using your own links.
Anonymous's concerns are very different: he doesn't share his wife's doubts. Thus he's not a good candidate for this kind of cautionary convalidation. Given that the Church is willing to dispense mixed marriages like his, I think the best bet is to proceed as the Pope advises: set aside unduly strict norms and focus on humaneness and moderation. In practice, this means avoiding the legal arguments and offering advice as a friend would do, not as a lawyer would do. This is especially true because, as you acknowledge above, the Anglican ceremony that he and his wife used may be illicit but it is not invalid.
By siding with the wife and the legalism that the ordinary and universal magisterium decried, you're working at cross-purposes to the sacrament of marriage. I think you should reflect on what motivates you here. I don't think it's the principle of charity that brought you here to MetaTalk to take on all comers in a battle to be King of the Canon Law.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:22 PM on April 22, 2010
Second, every case of convalidation I've come across has been due to the deepening faith of both partners which caused their shared concerns to bring them to a priest. In these cases, the priest in question has explicitly said that the purpose was to quell doubts in the simplest possible way. The purpose of these ceremonies has been to avoid distracting a loving couple from the the relationship onto Canon Law questions. Nobody wants to have to think about coerced, unwitnessed, and consanguine marriages as they try to deepen their faith and their relationship. I think that's the right motive and the right practice, and I've demonstrated my reasons for holding this view above, in some cases using your own links.
Anonymous's concerns are very different: he doesn't share his wife's doubts. Thus he's not a good candidate for this kind of cautionary convalidation. Given that the Church is willing to dispense mixed marriages like his, I think the best bet is to proceed as the Pope advises: set aside unduly strict norms and focus on humaneness and moderation. In practice, this means avoiding the legal arguments and offering advice as a friend would do, not as a lawyer would do. This is especially true because, as you acknowledge above, the Anglican ceremony that he and his wife used may be illicit but it is not invalid.
By siding with the wife and the legalism that the ordinary and universal magisterium decried, you're working at cross-purposes to the sacrament of marriage. I think you should reflect on what motivates you here. I don't think it's the principle of charity that brought you here to MetaTalk to take on all comers in a battle to be King of the Canon Law.
posted by anotherpanacea at 12:22 PM on April 22, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:16 AM on April 16, 2010