sorry, 1 more marriage question

[GreekGrl]

what year did the Catholic church start allowing Catholics to marry non baptised persons and have the marriage be considered valid?
(I read that the Catholic church does not consider this type of marriage to be sacramental(for obvious reasons) but they will recognize it as "Valid" hennce the Catholic remains in good standing with the church).

 

[Rhamiel]

wow, i have no clue, I have been no help to you in either thread, sorry

 

[Davidnic]

Well that is "Disparity of Cult" so there would need to be paperwork. And if they wanted to get married outside of a Catholic Church there would need to be "Dispensation from Canonical Form"

Let me see if I can find an exact date on when those were introduced.

 

[hsilgne]

what year did the Catholic church start allowing Catholics to marry non baptised persons and have the marriage be considered valid?
(I read that the Catholic church does not consider this type of marriage to be sacramental(for obvious reasons) but they will recognize it as "Valid" hennce the Catholic remains in good standing with the church).

I believe a Bishop has always had the authority to validate a marriage. I'm pretty sure the Church teaches that both people must be baptized, however a bishop may decide their is intent, or 'baptism by desire' on the part of the non-christian.

 

[Davidnic]

Doing some quick looking at least as early as 1880 you could get a dispensation for disparity of cult and the marriage would be considered "valid". But it was not easy.

In practice I would say around 1964 it became far more possible. Gotta run...if no one gives a better answer I'll try to do more research tomorrow.

 

[Davidnic]

I believe a Bishop has always had the authority to validate a marriage.

Pretty much. It just was more or less common at times.

 

[GreekGrl]

I believe a Bishop has always had the authority to validate a marriage. I'm pretty sure the Church teaches that both people must be baptized, however a bishop may decide their is intent, or 'baptism by desire' on the part of the non-christian.

not to correct a Catholic in their own forum but, my husbands brother was Jewish and Married his Catholic wife in the Catholic church. With Proper dispensation it is allowed. The marriage is just not sacramental from what I understand.

 

[hsilgne]

not to correct a Catholic in their own forum but, my husbands brother was Jewish and Married his Catholic wife in the Catholic church. With Proper dispensation it is allowed. The marriage is just not sacramental from what I understand.

My wife was not baptized for the first decade of our marraige but, like your BIL we received dispensation, and I thought it was sacramentally valid.

Basically, this has been edited because I was wrong.

 

[Anygma]

what year did the Catholic church start allowing Catholics to marry non baptised persons and have the marriage be considered valid?
(I read that the Catholic church does not consider this type of marriage to be sacramental(for obvious reasons) but they will recognize it as "Valid" hennce the Catholic remains in good standing with the church).

from the catechism:

1637 In marriages with disparity of cult the Catholic spouse has a particular task: "For the unbelieving husband is consecrated through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is consecrated through her husband."138 It is a great joy for the Christian spouse and for the Church if this "consecration" should lead to the free conversion of the other spouse to the Christian faith.139 Sincere married love, the humble and patient practice of the family virtues, and perseverance in prayer can prepare the non-believing spouse to accept the grace of conversion.

if the non believing partner is considered consecrated, i believe that mean he's involved in something sacrametal.

 

[YourBrotherInChrist]

what year did the Catholic church start allowing Catholics to marry non baptised persons and have the marriage be considered valid?

There is an article on the impediment of Disparity of Worship (Christian marrying a non-Christian) in the old online Catholic Encyclopedia. This encyclopedia is hopelessly out-of-date for understanding the Catholic Church today, but as an historical source it shouldn't be too bad.

According to that article, your question is phrased backwards. You should ask in what year did the Catholic Church start deciding that the impediment of Disparity of Worship invalidated a marriage. And the answer to that is sometime around the 12th century, when the growth in numbers of the Church and therefore of marriage possibilities to other Catholics removed the necessity of allowing marriages to non-Christians. Prior to that, marriage to a non-Christian was considered sinful, but not invalid.

The first explicit citation of a dispensation for this impediment in the article is Pope Gregory XIII (1572-1585) granting faculties to the Christian missionaries of Japan to dispense with this impediment in the cases of newly converted Japanese Catholics.

 

[starlite]

A Catholic who wishes to marry an unbaptized person must first receive a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult. This dispensation is required if the marriage is to be recognized as valid in the Catholic church (Code of Canon Law, canon 1086). When one of the parties is unbaptized, a dispensation from disparity of cult is required, and the resulting marriage is nonsacramental. It is what the church calls, a "good and natural' marriage, but a nonsacramental marriage. It is only a sacramental marriage if both parties are baptized. If the nonbaptized person becomes baptized at any time within the marriage, at that moment, the marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament Both parties need to be baptized christians in order for it to be a sacramental marriage. (Code of Canon Law, canon 1055,1056).

 

[Gwendolyn]

A Catholic who wishes to marry an unbaptized person must first receive a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult. This dispensation is required if the marriage is to be recognized as valid in the Catholic church (Code of Canon Law, canon 1086). When one of the parties is unbaptized, a dispensation from disparity of cult is required, and the resulting marriage is nonsacramental. It is what the church calls, a "good and natural' marriage, but a nonsacramental marriage. It is only a sacramental marriage if both parties are baptized. If the nonbaptized person becomes baptized at any time within the marriage, at that moment, the marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament Both parties need to be baptized christians in order for it to be a sacramental marriage. (Code of Canon Law, canon 1055,1056).

Great post.

Yep, when a person is unbaptised, the marriage is "natural", but not Sacramental. I have a friend who is a good Catholic, but she married an unbaptised man who identifies as a pagan (I know, weird combo), and she knows that the marriage is not considered Sacramental because her husband is not baptised.

 

[AMDG]

I remember that in or around the 1960, if one of the bride or groom was not Catholic, the wedding had to take place outside the altar rail. (This sort of "fits" with Davidnic's post about 1964, since after Vatican II was when many altar rails started to be removed.) I also believe that if one party wasn't Baptized, the wedding had to be a quiet affair in the rectory.

I know that in 2005 when my son and his bride started their marriage preparation, the priest was quite surprised that the bride had never been Baptized, and mentioned that he couldn't use the word "Sacramental" then. I also know that they received a wedding planning booklet with three wedding ceremonies normally used--one wedding ceremony included a Mass (probably used when both parties are Catholic), one without a Mass (for ecumenical purposes, most likely used when one party is not Catholic) and yet another (one for a "natural" wedding, not a Sacramental one.)

 

[hsilgne]

not to correct a Catholic in their own forum but, my husbands brother was Jewish and Married his Catholic wife in the Catholic church. With Proper dispensation it is allowed. The marriage is just not sacramental from what I understand.

You can correct me anytime GG. Especially when you know I'm wrong.lol



So our marraige was non sacramental up until my wife's baptism???

I must have misunderstood when it was explained to us. Not that I even cared at the time. We only did it because mom seemed to think it was important.

 

[Anygma]

A Catholic who wishes to marry an unbaptized person must first receive a dispensation from the impediment of disparity of cult. This dispensation is required if the marriage is to be recognized as valid in the Catholic church (Code of Canon Law, canon 1086). When one of the parties is unbaptized, a dispensation from disparity of cult is required, and the resulting marriage is nonsacramental. It is what the church calls, a "good and natural' marriage, but a nonsacramental marriage. It is only a sacramental marriage if both parties are baptized. If the nonbaptized person becomes baptized at any time within the marriage, at that moment, the marriage is raised to the level of a sacrament Both parties need to be baptized christians in order for it to be a sacramental marriage. (Code of Canon Law, canon 1055,1056).

I guess i can thank our liberal diocese for not explaining those things to us. we knew we needed a special dispensation and the priest that came at the marriage preparation told us, when we mentioned that, not to worry, that he knew the bishop well. i wish i didn't only find out about the sacramentality or absence of it, right now.

so far, i can't complain though, my husband is very supportive of my faith. he come to mass on Sunday whenever he can (he work shifts) and he does not want to be an obstacle between me and God. even my dad wasn't always that supportive of my mom, and he was catholic. so to me, marrying a catholic wasn't a guaranty of success or happiness in a marriage.

 

[JoabAnias]

To marry a non-baptized person is called "lack of canonical form."

Disparity of cult is when there is different faiths but assumes that both are practiced. One of who can still be unbaptized.

Either can be dispensed by the bishop but neither can have a nuptial Mass as far as I know. Why would it matter after that. A justice of the piece can do the same thing.

In effect, the Priest is witness the same as a justice of the piece in that case.

In either circumstance, if the non-Catholic party is not baptized, would hold any sacramental form and be non binding by the Church unless proper dispensation were granted but under what circumstances that would even be requested I am unaware.

The marriage is illicit though made valid by the civil contract, not by the sacrament because canonically the sacrament cannot be conferred by the unbeliever.

Basically, what you have is a marriage outside of the Church with a priest as a witness instead of some other non-catholic official. A Catholic priest officiating does not a Catholic marriage make.

Thus, if there was ever a civil divorce, no annulment would even be necessary because impediment of form was absent at the ceremony. Only a declaration of lack of canonical form would be needed to free the Catholic to attempt a marriage.

Though if it lasts, then its possible for the believer to be the salvation of the non believer. Yet if the non-believer should choose to leave, then the believer is free to attempt a true marriage with nothing more than a declaration of lack of canonical form.

The questions to ask would be, why bother with a priest or the Church at all or why would the priest bother officiating other than to catechise the non believer who would be reguired to agree to raise any offspring Catholic and or protect the interest of the Catholic.

Is that clear as mud?

 

[starlite]

It is as clear as mud. Can I try to clarify a bit?

To marry a non-baptized person is called "lack of canonical form."

Not true. If a Catholic marries anyone (non-baptized or non catholic, or, for that matter a catholic, and it takes places outside the catholic church then, that marriage is invalid because it did not have the proper canonical form. (Unless they received a dispensation from canonical form.) Without a dispensation from canonical form, that marriage is not recognized as valid because it did not take place in a catholic church without the proper canonical form. so - if this marriage ended in divorce the catholic party would not have to apply for a church annulment - that person would simply have to gather documents together and would receive a declaration of nullity based on a documentary process - it would state that this marriage is declared null and void because of a lack of canonical form.


Disparity of cult is when there is different faiths but assumes that both are practiced. One of who can still be unbaptized.

Wrong again - disparity of cult is a dispensation given to a catholic party who marries a non-baptized person. This dispensation is given by the bishop. Usually what happens is when the couple go to the priest who prepares them for marriage, the priest files for the dispensation and receives it and it is recorded in the marriage notation. This dispensation is for validity. In other words, if that marriage ended and it was discovered that the priest never applied for or received the dispensation, then the marriage could be declared invalid because of the impediment of disparity of cult which existed at the time of the marriage, and was not dispensed.

If a Catholic married a baptized Christian (but not Catholic) the priest who performs the ceremony must also apply for permission for mixed marriage. Permission is for liceity. In other words, if this marriage ended in divorce and that permission had never been applied for, the marriage could be declared illicit, but not necessarily invalid. That person would have to apply for a church annulment in order to declare the marriage invalid.

Permission is for liceity, and dispensation is for validity. (an easy rule to understand in canon law)

And the rest of what you said - sorry - you totally lost me. but, this may also be as clear as mud.

 

[Globalnomad]

The mud is rising!

 

[JoabAnias]

It is as clear as mud. Can I try to clarify a bit?

To marry a non-baptized person is called "lack of canonical form."

Not true. If a Catholic marries anyone (non-baptized or non catholic, or, for that matter a catholic, and it takes places outside the catholic church then, that marriage is invalid because it did not have the proper canonical form. (Unless they received a dispensation from canonical form.) Without a dispensation from canonical form, that marriage is not recognized as valid because it did not take place in a catholic church without the proper canonical form. so - if this marriage ended in divorce the catholic party would not have to apply for a church annulment - that person would simply have to gather documents together and would receive a declaration of nullity based on a documentary process - it would state that this marriage is declared null and void because of a lack of canonical form.


Disparity of cult is when there is different faiths but assumes that both are practiced. One of who can still be unbaptized.

Wrong again - disparity of cult is a dispensation given to a catholic party who marries a non-baptized person. This dispensation is given by the bishop. Usually what happens is when the couple go to the priest who prepares them for marriage, the priest files for the dispensation and receives it and it is recorded in the marriage notation. This dispensation is for validity. In other words, if that marriage ended and it was discovered that the priest never applied for or received the dispensation, then the marriage could be declared invalid because of the impediment of disparity of cult which existed at the time of the marriage, and was not dispensed.

If a Catholic married a baptized Christian (but not Catholic) the priest who performs the ceremony must also apply for permission for mixed marriage. Permission is for liceity. In other words, if this marriage ended in divorce and that permission had never been applied for, the marriage could be declared illicit, but not necessarily invalid. That person would have to apply for a church annulment in order to declare the marriage invalid.

Permission is for liceity, and dispensation is for validity. (an easy rule to understand in canon law)

And the rest of what you said - sorry - you totally lost me. but, this may also be as clear as mud.

I should have been more clear.

What I said was assumed in the absence of a dispensation.

And actually, disparity of cult is an impediment and why would anyone want to enter a marriage with an impediment once they know that to be the case? The answers to that are rather obvious.

Dispensation from an impediment does not remove the impediment but only gives permission to proceed with a marriage with a known impediment. If the attempt at marriage were to fail the dispensation does not remove the pre-existing impediment which would still be valid to determine nullity. And with diparity of cult, especially with the mother, grave scandal to the children is at risk.

It should be discouraged by the pastor and in some opinions even denied dispensation at all because what is taking place is a non sacramental marriage under the condition of a pre existing impediment.

If a couple has that little regard for the faith then why bother with a Church wedding at all? Again the answers are obvious. They would likely go to a justice of the peace anyway.

Why do they care about a church wedding at all? Appearances only perhaps?



The mud just got thicker.

 

[AMDG]

Appearances only perhaps?

Probably because parents would have a royal fit, and it was feared that with such disaproval things would end up in jeopardy... (Then there's the idea that "love conquers all"--"we will be an exception to all the rules that warn that it's difficult", and "we're already so much in love that we just can't put on the breaks now".)