Posted on 08/20/2007 1:02:12 PM PDT by NYer
Having read ahead in this thread, I see that you are confused about Catholic marriage laws and how Nicole Kidman’s situation fits into them. The law is actually pretty straightforward, so let me try to piece it together for you. I’ll try to do this logically, starting with the norm and working my way out from there.
Most often (ie: “normally”), a Catholic will marry another Catholic in a Catholic ceremony. Unless force or fraud or the like has been employed by one or both parties, the marriage is, of course, valid in the eyes of the Church. It is also a Sacrament.
Sometimes a Catholic will marry a non-Catholic Christian. In order to do this validly in the eyes of the Church, the Catholic will have to get a “dispensation from cult” from the bishop in order to marry the non-Catholic. If the ceremony is to take place in a non-Catholic church, a dispensation from proper form will also need to be obtained from the bishop. These dispensations are given rather routinely these days, though, in the past, they were much less common. A marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic Christian with the proper dispensation is considered both valid and sacramental, assuming the non-Catholic is baptized. If the non-Catholic party is not a baptized Christian, then, with the dispensation noted above, the marriage is still valid, but it it is not sacramental. It is considered to be a “natural marriage.”
In all other circumstances of marriage involving a Catholic, whether the other party is Catholic or not, the marriage is considered to be invalid by the Church. This includes marriage without the aforementioned dispensations, marriage in front of a JP, etc. If, later on, the Catholic party has civilly divorced in this scenario, an annulment based on defect of form can be granted, since, as far as the Catholic Church is concerned, no valid marriage ever took place.
Having said all this, things are a bit different when neither party is Catholic. If two baptized non-Catholics marry, the Church recognizes their marriage as both valid and sacramental. This is so because, being both baptized, the parties have the power to confer the sacrament to each other (whether they realize this or believe this is immaterial to the Church’s stance here), yet, since they are not Catholic, they are not subject to the Church’s marriage laws. The Church presumes all marriages under these circumstances are valid, and will not give a decree of nullity for them unless the same criteria as Catholics would have are met (fraud, force, too close blood relationship, insanity at the time of the wedding, concealed impotence known about before the wedding, a pact or understanding that “marriage is only temporary” or “we will absolutely never consider having children”). Of course, a refusal of a decree of nullity would mean nothing to non-Catholics, unless at some point one of the parties converts and wants to marry someone in the Church. It could become an issue then.
If two non-Christians marry, they are presumed by the Church to be in a valid, natural marriage. This marriage can never be broken unless one of them converts at a later point, and the other party will not let them live in peace. This exception is called the Pauline Privilege, and is based on 1 Corinthians 7:12-15. In the case of two non-Chriatians where one converts and the other accepts this, the Pauline Privilege does not apply.
In the case of Nicole Kidman, it is easy to see how she got an annulment of her Scientology marriace to Tom Cruise. She, a Catholic, married Cruise in a ceremony outside of the Church AND not officially witnessed (presided over) by a Catholic deacon, priest or bishop. By definition, this marriage was not recognized by the Church, and when she married someone else a couple of years ago, having first obtained a declaration of nullity for the Cruise marriage, she was able to have a Church ceremony. Should she divorce again (a common enough Hollywood problem!) she will have a much harder time getting a Church wedding the third go-round, I’m quite sure!
The marriage laws of the Catholic Church are really pretty simple, I stated them at length above to be clear on a few points. But, basically the summary is as follows:
1) Two Catholics must marry in the Church with no concealed or agreed to impediments (force, fraud, etc. as above).
2) A Catholic may marry a non-Catholic with a dispensation from the bishop, and may marry at the non-Catholic’s venue with dispensation as well. No other circumstances of place or celebrant will be recognized.
3) Catholics cannot divorce and subsequently remarry for any reason if the first marriage was sacramental. They can do so in unsual circumstances such as apply to the Pauline Privilege (where the marriage started out between two non-Christians anyway), but that’s about it.
4) The Catholic Church recognizes the sacramental nature of marriages contracted between two non-Catholic Christians, and their marriages are considered sacramental. The same restrictions on divorce and remarriage apply to them, and any party subsequently converting to the Catholic Church will need to take that into account.
5) Non-Christian marriages are presumed to be valid, natural marriages. When one party subequently converts and cannot be allowed to live in peace as a Christian by the other, then divorce and remarriage is allowed under St. Paul’s teaching as found in 1 Corinthians 7:12-15.
Them’s the basics!
If he got a dispensation to marry you at the Methodist Church, then there is no problem. If not, then the situation can be remedied. He can ask for the marriage to be “convalidated,” basically a retroactive blessing of the marriage by the Catholic Church. If he takes his own faith seriously, he may want to consider this. In no case like yours does the Church consider the children to be “bastards” under its own law. They are perfectly legitimate, based largely on the understanding (misinformed though it might be in the eyes of the Church) of the parties that they were married when the children came.
The Church considers itself to be the custodian and guardian of the Sacraments. Marriage, in the Catholic Church, is a Sacrament. Therefore, the Church reserves the right to determine for its members what criteria apply to the Sacrament of Marriage. Understandably, many non-Catholics chafe at this, but this is our position. If your husband is still a Catholic, and you support his life of faith, then both of you might wish to prayerfully consider his need to rectify the situation if you were married without the dispensation required. His parish priest should be able to get you started in the right direction. If he is not paying any attention to his faith anyway, then it is unlikely that what the Church sees as a defect in form will matter to him.
But, either way, be assured that the Church does not look, officially or otherwise, upon your children as bastards or anything like that.
What you’re saying is not actually correct. The marriage of a Catholic in a non-Catholic setting IS invalid unless it was done with the bishop’s dispensation. It is called a “defect of form.” Until such a marriage can be convalidated (retroactively “blessed”), the Catholic should not be receiving the Sacraments. Of course, with catechesis in this and other matters being so deficient lately, many, many catholics in this position don’t even know what they should be doing here. You might want to see my posts 61 and 62 for more detail.
Thanks for this review...the only movies I go to now are ones I take my kids to, and not even children’s movies are safe from Hollywood’s filth, it seems.
What’s a parent to do?
If Catholics attempt to marry before a non-Catholic minister, they not only commit sin, but they are excommunicated from the Church. They are not married (C_of_D note - I was wrong on this last point).
They are excluded from the sacraments, may not be godparents for baptism and confirmation and may not receive Christian burial. Their excommunication lasts until they go to confession, receive absolution from the bishop, and get married before a Catholic priest, if they are to live as spouses.
NYer, neither you nor I are priests, theologians or canon lawyers. The best advice is to send a person to a qualified priest. Laypersons have no business giving reassurance or condemnation on this matter. It's complicated.
A family member of mine was married outside the Church in the 60s. She was excommunicated. She could not get her baby baptized in the Catholic Church because of it. She and her husband were remarried in the Church and the baby was conditionally rebaptized.
The rules may have relaxed since VII or maybe not. The local N.O. parish advises those not married in the Church to refrain from Holy Communion and make an appointment with the pastor.
These are excellent posts. Thank you for the clarification.
That is an excellent catechism! I stumbled across it a couple of years ago while looking for something new to use with my homeschooled daughter. Too bad they don’t reprint Fr. Morrow more widely. It’s perfect for kids over ten and useful for adults, too, especially in these days of poor/non-existent catechesis.
Angelus Press sent out an email this past week. They sell My Catholic Faith but their supply has sold out since the Motu Proprio was released. Same with their Missals. If the U.S. Bishops think no one is interested they are wrong!
1. Thank you for that - that had to take some time to put together. I appreciate it.
2. You have not lessened my impression that this is complicated. :)
Already we have a problem. The book is out of date. I caught Dr. Peters last night on the program cited above. He commented that back in 1889(?) divorce had become prevalent amongst US Catholics. Only the US bishops approached the pope to request that excommunication be applied to American Catholics who divorced and remarried. (Yes ... I realize the subject is different from that posed by freeper Flo Nightengale). They hoped that such an edict would stem the tide of divorce. It didn't. (Personally, I can attest to the fact that my own mother, to this day, recalls being told by the nuns in elementary school that her mother would burn in hell for having divorced her father. That shocked, scandalized and permanently damaged my mother insofar as her faith). She became a 'marginal' Catholic, as a result. Dr. Peters went on to explain last night, that in 1977, recognizing this had little or no effect on US Catholics, the NCCB asked the Holy Father to lift the edict of excommunication for that same offense. In so doing, those who were excommunicated during those 80 years were immediately restored.
NYer, neither you nor I are priests, theologians or canon lawyers. The best advice is to send a person to a qualified priest.
Such a priest would have to be an expert in Canon Law; that excludes the majority.
The rules may have relaxed since VII or maybe not.
Relaxed? Even under the worst circumstances - abortion, murder, etc. - someone 'excommunicated' from the Catholic Church remains Catholic, and under the obligation to follow Church doctrine, except for receiving the Sacrament of Holy Eucharist. Such individuals are expected to attend Mass on Sunday and Holy Days of Obligation.
This was truly an enlightening program and one I hope you can watch as a rerun.
Wrong. Your personal opinion, and we all know your hatred of your pre-VII experiences, does not make fact. Truth does not change. The Catholic Faith does not change. The Church has not ruled this book may not be used and it is still sold today. It remains a highly regarded catechism.
This kind of thinking is exactly what got us into this mess in the first place. Those who hated the traditions of the Church rebeled against everything pre-VII.
I don't get my Catholic education from the mental meanderings of laymen or my own personal opinion. You shouldn't either.
You’re very welcome.
Though I still think reducing nearly all possible scenarios to five summary points isn’t too complicated! ;-)
God bless.
Wow! I have no hatred for the pre-VCII Church ... if anything, it is precisely that experience that has kept me orthodox in my Catholic faith. Where did you come up with this idea?
Truth does not change. The Catholic Faith does not change. The Church has not ruled this book may not be used and it is still sold today.
Truth does not change but, as I posted above, bad decisions made by some US bishops were responsible for some American Catholics believing they had been excommunicated when in fact, that is no longer true. The Church is infallible; the men that run it are not.
I don't get my Catholic education from the mental meanderings of laymen or my own personal opinion. You shouldn't either.
Dr. Edward Peters is one of the most widely-known and well respected lay canon lawyers in North America. Hardly capable of mental meanderings.
Now, COD, please retract your claws and cover up the fangs; they are most unbecoming of you.
I'll let that comment stand in its own filth. You are unbelievable.
************
Interesting question. I thought the term "bastard" was more a legal definition that addressed property and financial assets.
Probably 95% of the Morrow catechism concerns doctrine, and doctrine doesn’t change. It is the best overall catechism I’ve seen that can be used by anyone over ten years of age. The basic ideas are explained fairly simply but clearly, and, for those desiring a higher level of understanding, the smaller-print sidebars are just excellent. This side of Aquinas, it’s an A+ effort.
>>Interesting question. I thought the term “bastard” was more a legal definition that addressed property and financial assets.<<
Interesting. I don’t know. I do know the guy the English called William the conquerer for conquering England in 1066 is called Guillume le Batard by the French so that word goes way back.
Trivia: They call lots of things differently. Syphilis in England was “The French pox” while in France it was “The English pox.”
I think so too. Some of it is on line HERE.
PS. I like the illustrations. = )
**************
I'm not surprised. :) Relations between the english and french have long been uneasy.
I’ve read the series. The first book is actually pretty good. Yes, the Catholic Church is bad guys, but it’s an alternative universe and alternative Church. Martin Luther is mentioned as a past Pope, and there are other hints at a divergent history.
As I said, the first book of a series is very good, probably one of the best within its genre. The author has great imagination (I particularly loved the panzer bears.) Unfortunately, the following books devolve into nonsense. And not particularly interesting nonsense, either. The ending is pretty strong, though.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.