Posted on 12/20/2009 2:27:52 PM PST by NYer
Part I
Pope Benedict has released a new motu proprio titled Omnium in mentum which revises the Code of Canon Law on two points.
First, before getting into the changes, let me offer a high five to canonist Edward Peters for predicting, over ten years ago, that this would be the model followed in the future for changing canon law. Following the codification of canon law in 1917, the Code underwent a thorough revision in 1983. Rather than letting issues build up and then having another thorough revision at some point, John Paul II issued a motu proprio in 1998 that amended specific canons. Ed thereupon predicted that this would be the model for the foreseeable future--tweaking the text of the Code here and there as needed rather than leaving things sit until time for a massive revision.
So what's new in the motu proprio?
Two things: First, some language in the Code has been modified to describe the way that the office of deacon is understood. This brings the language of the Code in line with the language of the Catechism, which was itself brought in line with the language of Vatican II's decree Lumen Gentium (n. 29). I need to do further study on this point before commenting on it in any depth, though, so I'll pass on to the second change.
Second, the exemptions in the Code's marriage laws for those who have formally defected from the Church are now gone (or, rather, they will be when the motu proprio goes into force three months after its publication in Acta Apostolicae Sedis; CIC, can. 8).
This is quite interesting.
One of the things introduced in the 1983 Code was a set of exceptions in the Church's marriage law for those who had defected from the Church by a formal act. Specifically, if you had so defected then you were not obligated to
1) get a dispensation if you want to marry a non-baptized person (cf. can. 1086),
2) observe the Catholic form of marriage (i.e., "get married in the Church;" cf can. 1117), or
3) get permission to marry a non-Catholic Christian (cf. can. 1124).
The purpose of doing this was to allow people who had left the Church to validly enter into marriages of the kinds indicated.
Unfortunately, a lot of problems were generated by the law. For a start, it was unclear what constituted a formal act of defection. To try to rectify the problem, in 2006 the Holy See issued a clarification which set very specific requirements for the act, requirements which resulted in basically nobody committing acts of formal defection.
The clarification was, to my mind, bad law, and it raised a bunch of new headaches which have not subsequently been clarified, so far as I have been able to determine.
The Holy See also seems to have come to the conclusion that the formal defection law was not working as desired, and so it has now gotten rid of the whole thing.
As of the time the motu proprio goes into effect, therefore, anybody who has ever been a Catholic (even if they were baptized one as an infant and then raised something else) must follow the same marriage laws as those who consider themselves Catholic or their marriages will be invalid.
It brings to mind the old saying, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." I'm not sure what people always had in mind by this saying--whether they were saying that Catholic culture runs deep in the soul, even if one joins another church; whether they were asserting that it is impossible to truly leave the Church; or whether they were asserting something else.
Whatever was meant, though, and whatever nuances have been introduced theologically about kinds or degrees of ecclesial communion, going forward everybody who has ever been Catholic will be juridically Catholic, attempts at formal defection or no. It was only in its marriage law that the Church made exceptions for formal defection, and now those exceptions are being retired.
This is one way of cutting the Gordian knot. It may or may not be the optimal one, but it's what the law is going to be for now.
As far as I can tell, this creates the following timeline for handling the above marital situations:
The potential validity of a marriage involving a case of formal defection will thus depend on which of these four time periods it was attempted in--so far as I can tell.
HERE IS GOOGLE'S MACHINE-ASSISTED/COLLABORATIVE TRANSLATION FROM THE ITALIAN OF THE MOTU PROPRIO.
Part 2
Here we go:
1. Is a validly baptized baby baptized into the Catholic Church or are they merely baptized as a Christian (whatever that means)? Is it better to say that they are baptized into Christ, but not necessarily the Church (although I do not see how that is possible)
All people who are baptized are placed in communion with Christ and his Church. This communion will be complete is nothing obstructs it. If something does obstruct it then the communion will be real but incomplete.
If someone baptizes a person intending that person to be Catholic then there is nothing obstructing on these grounds and the person's communion with the Church is full, the person counts juridically as a Catholic and is subject to canon law.
If someone baptizes a person intending that the person will not be Catholic then there is something obstructing the person's communion with the Church and so it is partial and the person is not juridically a Catholic and is not bound by canon law.
If someone baptizes a person and is unclear about whether the person is to be Catholic or not then the situation is legally unclear and we'd need further guidance from the Church on how to handle such cases juridically.
2. If they are baptized Catholic, is the relationship merely material or formal? If the relationship is merely material (whatever that means in this case, borrowing from a poster, above), when do they become a formal Catholic? At no time, unlike those entering the Church from a Protestant denomination, are cradle Catholics required to take an oath of allegiance.
The Church does not use the categories "formal" and "material" in this context, so far as I know, and I'm not sure what they would mean here.
A person becomes a Catholic by baptism at the moment they are baptized with the intention that they be Catholic. No further act is needed to make them Catholic, though their communion with the Church will grow through the other sacraments of initiation and their assimilation of the teachings of the faith.
If the relationship is formal, then since no formal defection is now possible, such baptized babies, if raised as a Protestant or worse, are really being spiritually abused since their natural heritage is being damaged.
I don't know that the Church would use the language of abuse, but there is a contradiction between what the child objectively, ontologically, and juridically is and the way it is being raised.
3. Since formal defection is not possible, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, so the old argument that Canon Law does not bind people outside of the Church is harder to apply to those cases where the baptism is in the Catholic Church and the person leaves for a Protestant denomination.
Correct, although it was only in the three marriage canons that there ever was an exception for formal defection. All other laws were still binding on a person who had been baptized or received into the Church. There was no automatic dispensation, e.g., from needing to observe holy days of obligation or days of fast and abstinence. Now it's (going to be) consistent across the board, marriage laws included.
They are no longer to be considered outside of the Church, since there is no process by which this may happen, except by excommunication.
Correct, except that excommunication does not place one outside the Church. Despite its name, excommunication's effects do not include making one not-a-Catholic (cf. CIC, can. 1331).
As such, unless there are exceptions provided for in the Canons (the in extremis exceptions of Can. 1116 have already been mentioned), such people must seek to be married in front of a priest or else their marriage will be invalid.
Yes.
4. I thought, however, that the marriage of any two baptized people was sacramental.
Yes. Any valid marriage between two baptized people is sacramental.
By law, the marriage can be blocked (rendered invalid) by a defect in form.
Yes.
However, simply exchanging vows without a priest (two witnesses are required), in extremis, must be the minimal form necessary for a valid marriage.
Under current canon law, yes. Before Trent, that wasn't the case. Witnesses were not needed for validity. Nor was a priest. This caused lots of problems, which is why form was established in the first place.
This implies that there must be something in addition to the minimum form required for a normal form Catholic marriage, just as in the case of baptism, where, ordinarily, it is to be done in a Church by a priest.
"Minimum form" is not the right way to phrase it, but essentially, yes. The conditions that are required for form are spelled out in canons 1108-1116.
5. Since baptism performed in a Protestant assembly, where considered valid by the Church, is not administered by a priest but a laymen, these baptism are considered not normal, but of an emergency variety.
I don't know that this is the best way to put it. Such baptism are valid. Applying additional categories like ordinary/extraordinary/normal/emergency/etc. may not add much, conceptually, outside of a Catholic context.
Are weddings performed in a Protestant assembly also to be considered of an emergency or in extremis variety?
Ditto. They're valid. And there is even less basis for calling them extraordinary or emergency or anything like that since if you are not bound by canon law there is no requirement whatsoever to observe the Catholic form of marriage.
6. In any case, do Catholics incur any responsibility to inform other Christians of the requirements of the Church, since they cannot defect from it (probably not, under the usual rules for fraternal correction, I assume).
If someone has never been baptized into the Catholic Church or received into it then the person is not bound by canon law (CIC, can. 11) and there is no need for Catholic to inform them of the requirements of canon law because they don't apply to them . . . . unless the non-Catholic is doing something like trying to marry a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation from form, in which case a Catholic is involved and the Catholic party is subject to canon law.
7. How can there be a dispensation from cult if a Protestant cannot defect from the Church?
Protestants do not need a dispensation for disparity of cult (e.g., to marry a Jew or a Muslim or whatever) because they are not subject to canon law and thus the impediment arising from disparity of cult does not apply to them.
These questions were all easier to answer when I thought the statement, "Those outside of the Church are not bound by her laws." Now, I am not sure who is outside and who is inside the Church. This is the fundamental question on which all of the other questions are based.
Divine and natural law binds everyone. Divine positive law (e.g., don't get baptized again if you've already been baptized) applies to all the baptized. Latin rite merely ecclesiastical law binds those who are members of the Latin rite of the Catholic Church, per canon 11:
Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.
Hope this helps!
That priest was dead wrong in saying, In the eyes of the Church, you are no longer a Catholic. For the sake of his soul, I hope that he repents of what he said to you and your son.
Once you are baptized a Catholic, you are a Catholic for life. Even if you were excommunicated ferendae sententiae (by a formal sentence) by a competent authority, you would still be a Catholic. Why? Because all you would have to do is to go to confession and then pick up right where you left off. (Obviously, in a case of excommunication, that condition would have to be lifted by the competent authority, but still...)
Keep in mind, though, that the priest is within his prudential judgment on whether he will, or will not witness a marriage. It might be perfectly proper for him to say that a person who has been away from the sacraments for years needs to start receiving the sacraments regularly again before consenting to use the parish church and to be willing to witness the marriage. But that is a whole lot different than saying, "In the eyes of the Church, you are no longer a Catholic" because somebody has been away from the sacraments for a couple of years.
Sorry to interject here, but it pisses me off to no end when I hear about some priest who goes off half cocked and becomes his own "magesterium."
I think you should spend as much time as possible on it.
That's absolutely right.
But that is not to say that I wouldn't say that there are any number of protestant denominations. They split and rejoin so much that it is entirely impossible to keep track of who believes what.
Look at recent events: you have yet another split developing within the ELCA over homosexuality and ordination; likewise, it appears that worldwide Anglicanism is getting ready to have a complete realignment over the same issue. And that is just within the last six months.
And we, of course, all know the joke about the baptists that ends 'die heretic scum.'
And, of course, that is not even to begin to discuss all the individual "independents" that are not part of any denomination and may, or may not, have any common beliefs.
The point was, do you classify each "independent" non-denominational church as its own denomination? Do you classify all branches of Luthernism together as one (I know a few LCMS people who would vigorously object to being grouped with the ELCA)? How about Presbyterianism (would you like to be grouped with the PCUSA)?
Fact of the matter is that one could as easily assert that there are 500,000,000 denominations as easily as 30,000. Why? Because in Protestantism, each man is his own magesterium (i.e., teaching authority) and the only thing that unifies them all is that they are proudly non-Catholic. Jesus Christ doesn't even join them all, since they don't all agree on who He is to begin with (some deny the Trinity by calling Jesus a created being, while others deny the Trinity through "oneness." )
Frankly, that's why I disavow using the 30,000 number. Because one could just as easily say 7,000...30,000...500,000,000. It really doesn't matter.
bump
LOL you are right, they will drag me kicking and screaming to be subject to Rome.
This belief explains 1)how they keep up their member numbers and 2) Why only 30% attend church regularly. The rest of us are at church somewhere else
When I left the church, my father, who was a real rogue, asked why I left the church, it was a part of our family tradition.It had nothing to do with eternity, just we have always been catholic..
I am glad you found a comfortable spiritual home..
“Because I was baptized as a Catholic and raised as a Catholic, even though I now reject central doctrines and teachings and choose membership in another denomination am I still officially a Catholic?”
It depends on what you mean by “officially.”
It's quite likely that if you're no longer registered in a parish that you're no longer counted as a Catholic. Thus, when the Church says that there are sixty-umpteen-million-and-so-many-hundreds-of-thousands of Catholics in the United States, it's quite likely that you're not part of that number. Our parish purges its rolls every couple of years, and once you're out, you're out. If the pastor doesn't see you around at Mass on a regular basis, or if the accountant doesn't note that you're giving anymore to the parish, you're likely to be purged from the rolls. If you don't re-register in another Catholic parish, then you're no longer officially counted as a Catholic.
However, juridically and ontologically, you're still a Catholic. For all eternity. That means that you're still subject to Catholic canon law, and it means that the mark on your soul that makes you Catholic will persist for all eternity.
In this life, unless someone comes back to the Church, it probably doesn't mean much. It's not likely that a fallen-away Catholic will care much about Catholic canon law or the rulings thereof, so what's the difference?
In the next life, if the Church turns out to have been right all along, and the fallen-away Catholic, well, not so much so, then the consequences may not be so insubstantial.
sitetest
Sola Deo Gloria!
Could you point me in the direction of the scripture that says baptism leaves a denominational mark on your soul or any mark??
I wasn't trying to debate theology with you. You expressed confusion about a theological point of the Church of Jesus Christ, and I thought I'd try to make it more clear, that you would understand precisely what it is the Church means by what She says.
If you disagree with the Church, I'm uninterested in trying to persuade you from your beliefs.
sitetest
Merry Christmas..
I was not looking to “argue” theology I just like things sourced if I am to believe they have validity.
I just know the RC church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid, so if there was a denominational mark tied to it they would be marked Methodist or presbyterian etc..
So I was looking to a source for that thought
Have a blessed holiday
It does make it a lot easier if one desires to return to the Catholic church.
“I was not looking to ‘argue’ theology I just like things sourced if I am to believe they have validity.”
Why would I try to demonstrate the “validity” of the teachings of the Church to you, in that you've already rejected those teachings? If you don't understand what the teachings mean, I'm willing to help clear up some of the confusion, but you've made clear many, many times that you reject them, so I'm uninterested in trying to demonstrate that you're wrong.
“I just know the RC church accepts all Christian baptisms as valid, so if there was a denominational mark tied to it they would be marked Methodist or presbyterian etc..”
I see here that the misunderstanding is deeper than I initially thought. Your post appears to rest on some premises that don't have much to do with what the Church believes and teaches about baptism.
Merry Christmas to you, too.
sitetest
Probably, because the Roman church does not have much to do with what the Bible teaches about Baptism
“Probably, because the Roman church does not have much to do with what the Bible teaches about Baptism”
Your posts show no evidence of understanding what it is the Church teaches in the first place.
It's tough to judge what one doesn't understand.
Merry Christmas!
sitetest
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.