 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
graceknowledgement
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 01:00 am |
|
Hi,
If I revert back to the church, what do I do about my marriage? I was confirmed in the CC. My wife has never been a part of the CC.
Thanks,
Peter
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 02:03 am |
|
Hello, Peter. Good to hear from you again. Marriage irregularities are probably the toughest thing returnees and their spouses have to face. Sometimes they are a major issue, sometimes not.
1. Who presided at your wedding?
2. Was either of you ever married to someone else?
Your answer to these two questions will most likely determine what will be needed.
David
|
|
|
graceknowledgement
Member
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 01:01 pm |
|
Hi David,
We were maried by a Protestant minister. Of course, I also WAS a Protestant minister at the time! Neither of us have ever been married to anyone else.
She looked over my shoulder last night as I typed the question and was very upset afterwards. She told me it's hurtful to think that God has not validated and blessed our marriage, considering all the joys and miracles he has done in our lives. I told her I didn't exactly know the position on everything, that's why I was asking.
Now, in my case I was Confirmed as a nod to my parent's traditionalism, but I had been going to Protestant church for YEARS (under the spiritual guidance of my oldest sister and her husband, who have since returned to the Catholic Church! only they had it easier returning--they were married in the Catholic church) and had really stopped going to Mass way before my confirmation. (I only remember going to Penance for my first penance, and I think one additional time when the whole class was required to go.) I was a closet Protestant while I was still attending Catholic grammar school. Is my confirmation considered valid? If so, what now (if I do revert-I'm not positive yet), and what if my wife refuses to do anything that is required of me/us? I have been trying to not drive a wedge in between us about the CC, but this may be a really big one.
Thanks,
Peter
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 02:27 pm |
|
graceknowledgement wrote: We were maried by a Protestant minister. Of course, I also WAS a Protestant minister at the time! Neither of us have ever been married to anyone else.
As a Protestant minister, I think there is at least a fair case that you had renounced your Catholic faith. In that case, the Church's marriage rules would not apply and your marriage would be considered valid. If not, then you would need to seek recognition either by exchanging vows before a priest, or through a process called "radical sanation". As you can see, there are several possibilities. You will have to discuss your own particular situation with a priest to see what applies and how it can be handled in the best way possible.
You can tell your wife that the question is not whether your marriage has been blessed by God, but rather whether the Church is aware of that blessing. As a Catholic, there are certain rules that must be followed, and when a Catholic is married outside the Church, there are no guarantees that they were. So the Church asks either that you willingly renew your commitment, or that you take certain actions to certify what the Church has not witnessed.
Some states recognize "common law" marriage, where a couple that has lived together for a proscribed period is considered legally married. Louisiana does not recognize common law marriage under any circumstances. Someone who is in a legal "common law" marriage in California is considered single if they move to Louisiana. So that means someone who files a joint tax return in California may not be able to file a joint tax return in Louisiana. As a citizen of Louisiana, I am expected to follow the rules in Louisiana. Otherwise, my marriage will not be recognized by the state.
As a Catholic, you are expected to follow the rules of the Catholic Church or the Catholic Church will not recognize your marriage. You didn't follow the rules. Now, in order for the Church to consider you married, you have to take an action to correct the situation. Like the California couple who considers themselves married has to exchange vows to have their marriage recognized in Louisiana, you will have to take steps to have your marriage recognized by the Church. It doesn't change reality, just the recognition of what already exists. In addition, since marriage is a sacrament, it involves not only the couple but the Church as well. Recognition of your marriage by the Church brings the Church into the relationship as a well of sacramental grace which can only strengthen your union.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
JeffM
Member
| Joined: | Wed Aug 1st, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | Jeff | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Raised Protestant-left the faith- now looking for more |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Aug 2nd, 2007 11:42 pm |
|
I suppose I have a similar problem.
I was married by the state of Texas. Wife is confirmed catholic, and of course I am not.
Suppose I will have to do something similar to get the marriage recognized. I will ask around this coming Monday at my meeting, once I get an answer I will pass it along 
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 12:53 am |
|
graceknowledgement wrote:She [my wife] looked over my shoulder last night as I typed the question and was very upset afterwards. She told me it's hurtful to think that God has not validated and blessed our marriage, considering all the joys and miracles he has done in our lives.
This initial reaction is almost universal, even among Catholics who have “been away.” As Rick explained, its mostly a technicality, like different states having different laws governing common law marriages.
There is nothing wrong with your marriage as you have understood it up to now. But you are about to move to a new state, where the laws are different. It’s good that you have asked now, and not waited until you were about to enter the Church to go through the shock of learning that the requirements are different.
What is usually required is kind of like a renewal of your marriage vows, known as a convalidation. All it does is allow the Church to “catch up” to where you are and officially witness to the fact that you are married. This wouldn’t be an issue except that you were already Catholic.
Rick also mentions the possibility that, because you are an ordained minister in another religion (as defined by the Catholic Church, any Christian community outside the Catholic Church qualifies as “another religion” for the purposes of canon law; although we do recognize Protestants as Christians in other senses of the word, questions of jurisdiction are not amenable to this), you may have ceased to be Catholic. Then there would be no need for a convalidation. However, you would have to formally re-enter the Catholic Church.
It’s kind of like when I moved from Oregon to Texas back in the 70s. According to Texas law, I had to pay an “import tax” on my vehicle to register it in Texas. If I had paid a sales tax on it in Oregon, the rule regarding double taxation would allow me to register the vehicle without paying the import tax. But Oregon is the only state that has no sales tax. So I had to pay. (Now why doesn’t that double taxation rule also apply to my phone bill? The different entities all get a cut, and for me at least, this runs the bill up to nearly triple the phone company’s actual charges.)
The final question you raise concerns the validity of the sacraments you received in an unbelieving state. Because you were still nominally Catholic, these sacraments were valid, but they would remain dormant until such time as you regain your faith and return to the fold. At that time, the grace you received back then would become active.
This is based on the fact that the sacraments are effective ex opere operato, or by the very fact that they have been received. That effectiveness can be hindered by one’s adverse attitude, but the barrier can be removed by a subsequent turning toward God.
David
|
|
|
graceknowledgement
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 01:41 pm |
|
Hi, thanks David.
I did believe that my Confirmation would be considered valid. I find I am testing the waters because I am not used to approaching things from this angle. I believed certain things and found out they are not true. Thanks for elucidating.
I hate paying tax, by the way (who doesn't?). Hate the analogies you and Rick have had to use to explain this because it gets my ire up! Makes me realize how far I still need to move toward holiness.
Your words were also comforting. Most likely in response to all this, my wife just put up what seems like ALL of our wedding pictures on the wall in our hallway.
Peace,
Peter
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 02:09 pm |
|
graceknowledgement wrote: I did believe that my Confirmation would be considered valid.
Baptism and marriage are the only sacraments that can be confected outside the Church because they are the only sacraments which do not require ordained ministers for their administration.
Anyone can baptize. Even a person who is not baptized can say the right words and immerse the candidate or pour water on them properly, and the baptism is valid. That's why baptism in a Protestant church is valid: not because the person doing the baptizing is a minister, but because the words are right and the water is present.
Marriage is performed by the couple, and the priest only stands as an official witness. Catholics are required to be married in the presence of a priest or other official witness, but he does not have to be the person performing the ceremony. Those who are not Catholic are not bound by the requirement to have an official Catholic witness present. (A Declaration of Nullity recognizes that the "ministers" of the sacrament, the couple, did not have the proper intent to confect the sacrament and so it was never validly administered.)
The Eucharist may be distributed by anyone duly authorized, but only a priest can consecrate the Precious Body and Precious Blood of our Savior.
The other sacraments (Penance/Confession, Confirmation/Chrismation, Holy Orders, and Anointing of the Sick) can be administered only by a validly ordained priest or bishop, so confirmation in a Lutheran, Methodist, or Anglican/Episcopal church is not valid.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
graceknowledgement
Member
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 10:28 pm |
|
David W. Emery wrote:
The final question you raise concerns the validity of the sacraments you received in an unbelieving state. Because you were still nominally Catholic, these sacraments were valid, but they would remain dormant until such time as you regain your faith and return to the fold. At that time, the grace you received back then would become active.
This is based on the fact that the sacraments are effective ex opere operato, or by the very fact that they have been received. That effectiveness can be hindered by one’s adverse attitude, but the barrier can be removed by a subsequent turning toward God.
David
Hi Rick,
Since I was a Catholic at the time (nominally), my Confirmation was valid. I was thinking that it would be considered valid, but I didn't want to take anything for granted, as certain things I had thought would be observed a certain way aren't. I was kind of hoping the Confirmation wouldn't be valid so I could get off the hook, but the more I think about what you and David have said, it makes sense. After all, for Baptism, we don't rebaptize (if it's really a baptism). Grace is present even if it's not recognized. Same with Confirmation--and David and you both explained some of the caveats. Thank you.
PeterLast edited on Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 10:30 pm by graceknowledgement
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 10:45 pm |
|
graceknowledgement wrote:
Since I was a Catholic at the time (nominally), my Confirmation was valid.
You're right. I answered at work, and honestly thought you were referring to a confirmation in another faith. I apologize for the misunderstanding, but the information I gave you was wrong as it was based on an assumption that the confirmation was not performed in a Catholic ceremony.
For a baptized Catholic, Catholic sacraments are always valid even though they may not be operative at the time due to a state of sin. For example, confirmation received in a state of mortal sin is valid but not effective. Once the mortal sin is forgiven, the grace of the sacrament of confirmation becomes effective. The sacrament does not have to be repeated.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 11:07 pm |
|
CajunRick wrote: Anyone can baptize. Even a person who is not baptized can say the right words and immerse the candidate or pour water on them properly, and the baptism is valid. That's why baptism in a Protestant church is valid: not because the person doing the baptizing is a minister, but because the words are right and the water is present.
Hey Rick, Maybe things have changed. Can you clarify? I have always understood that to baptize, you need water, the correct words, and to intend what the Church intends. Before Vatican II, all converts even if they were already baptized, were "conditionally" baptized just in case, because one could never be absolutely certain of the intention of the baptizer. I understand this has changed since my convert-Baptist husband was not conditionally baptized when he entered the Church.
Anyway, form, matter and intention: aren't those the three things baptism [and blessings, consecrations, marriage, etc] have to have?
Marriage seems less complicated because the spouses actually "marry each other" with the priest as witness. Ironic, no?
For a baptized Catholic, Catholic sacraments are always valid even though they may not be operative at the time due to a state of sin. For example, confirmation received in a state of mortal sin is valid but not effective. Once the mortal sin is forgiven, the grace of the sacrament of confirmation becomes effective.
That is very interesting! Thanks for that tidbit.
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
Tina in Ashburn
Member
| Joined: | Mon May 21st, 2007 |
| Location: | Ashburn, Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 263 |
| First Name: | Tina | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | Cradle Roman Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, presently practicing as Roman Latin ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 3rd, 2007 11:25 pm |
|
graceknowledgement wrote:She [my wife] looked over my shoulder last night as I typed the question and was very upset afterwards. She told me it's hurtful to think that God has not validated and blessed our marriage, considering all the joys and miracles he has done in our lives.
David W. Emery wrote:
This initial reaction is almost universal, even among Catholics who have “been away.”
Peter, Gosh sorry to hear about the shock to your poor wife at hearing of the possibility of going through some more steps on your marriage. I feel bad.
I wonder if it would help at all if you tell her that this mix-up is allllll your fault and its nothing she did wrong? She did everything as best as she knew how, this is not a reflection on her. You have come out of slumber and re-invigorated with grace, you now are compelled to respond.
Can anybody tell me if all spouses going through this feel this sense of betrayal? There must be a zillion stories like this from others in this same predicament - to which David alluded.
Is there a way to communicate to her that you now are impelled to live up to your baptism and confirmation?
I pray that you find a caring priest to give you good solid direction.
Once everything is set aright, whether complicated or simple, the new grace of the full Sacrament will imbue you both with such blessings!
____________________
Tina
Arlington Diocese
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 12:10 am |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote:I have always understood that to baptize, you need water, the correct words, and to intend what the Church intends.
Correct. Rick is saying the same thing in different words. The fact that he has left out the necessary intent is probably an oversight; if we mention it, I’m sure he will agree.
Matter, form and intention are requisites for all the sacraments. In addition, except for baptism and marriage, the one conferring the sacrament must be a bishop or a priest, and the one receiving it must be a baptized Christian. (Canon law, not the invalidation of the sacraments, prohibits non-Catholic Christians from receiving the sacraments outside of baptism and marriage. And there are certain exceptions to this precept.)
Before Vatican II, all converts, even if they were already baptized, were "conditionally" baptized just in case, because one could never be absolutely certain of the intention of the baptizer.
Even before Vatican II, the baptism of certain Protestant denominations was assumed to be valid unless there was an impediment or some other condition that would invalidate it. Therefore, not “all” but “many” people who were previously baptized in a Protestant denomination were conditionally baptized.
I entered the Catholic Church in the middle of the council (in 1963), before the post-council legislation began, and I was told in so many words by the priest that my Methodist baptism would have been automatically counted as valid. As things turned out, an extraordinary invalidating condition was discovered and I was baptized unconditionally, but the general rule held.
After Vatican II, the list of valid denominational baptisms was expanded due to greater mutual understanding between Christian bodies, and conditional baptism became less prominent, although it has by no means disappeared.
Can anybody tell me if all spouses going through this feel this sense of betrayal? There must be a zillion stories like this from others in this same predicament — to which David alluded.
In my experience, this reaction happens in nearly 100 percent of cases. A very few people seem to understand from the outset that something will have to be corrected because they had disobeyed the Church years ago. These are the blessed souls who have submitted themselves completely to the will of God.
But this acceptance does not mean that their spouses are doing the same, so there may be difficulty even for them. On the other hand, I have seen on occasion strong anti-Catholics “going along” with the Church’s requirements out of love for their spouses.
I wonder if it would help at all if you tell her that this mix-up is allllll your fault and its nothing she did wrong?
Sometimes. But often the spouse will continue to blame the Church in spite of what anyone says.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 01:02 pm |
|
Tina in Ashburn wrote: CajunRick wrote: Anyone can baptize. Even a person who is not baptized can say the right words and immerse the candidate or pour water on them properly, and the baptism is valid. That's why baptism in a Protestant church is valid: not because the person doing the baptizing is a minister, but because the words are right and the water is present.
Hey Rick, Maybe things have changed. Can you clarify? I have always understood that to baptize, you need water, the correct words, and to intend what the Church intends.
That's correct, Tina, but the Church today presumes intent unless there is specific reason to deny it. In my statement above, I presumed intent by the use of the word "baptize". If a person does not intend what the Church intends, such as in a Jehovah's Witness initiation ceremony, it is not truly "baptism". That's why it's not accepted by the Church.
If, for example, a Muslim nurse knows that a child's parents are Christian and baptizes a dying child, her intent is to do what the parents would want done. If the parents are Catholic, then the parents' wish would be to do what the Church intends, so the presumption of intent is correctly applied and the child is validly baptized. On the other hand, if the nurse is Catholic, the intent will be based on her own understanding and again, it would be to do what the Church intends. If the nuse is an evangelical or fundamentalist Protestant, who would consider the baptism of an infant irrelevant, the child would not be baptized unless it is to comply with the parents' wishes, and we're back to the parents' intent.
This is covered in the Catechism:
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon. In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person, with the required intention, can baptize, by using the Trinitarian baptismal formula. The intention required is to will to do what the Church does when she baptizes. The Church finds the reason for this possibility in the universal saving will of God and the necessity of Baptism for salvation.
1278 The essential rite of Baptism consists in immersing the candidate in water or pouring water on his head, while pronouncing the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. |
And finally, from Canon Law:
Can. 869 §1. If there is a doubt whether a person has been baptized or whether baptism was conferred validly and the doubt remains after a serious investigation, baptism is to be conferred conditionally.
§2. Those baptized in a non-Catholic ecclesial community must not be baptized conditionally unless, after an examination of the matter and the form of the words used in the conferral of baptism and a consideration of the intention of the baptized adult and the minister of the baptism, a serious reason exists to doubt the validity of the baptism.
§3. If in the cases mentioned in §§1 and 2 the conferral or validity of the baptism remains doubtful, baptism is not to be conferred until after the doctrine of the sacrament of baptism is explained to the person to be baptized, if an adult, and the reasons of the doubtful validity of the baptism are explained to the person or, in the case of an infant, to the parents. |
So a baptism is to be considered valid unless there are serious reasons to doubt the validity based on either defective form or matter, or a serious flaw in the intent of both the minister and the baptized person. And while not licit in the Catholic Church, baptism by sprinkling is also considered valid. This is covered in the Faith Fact, "What Must Be Done for a Valid Baptism?":
Some Christian denominations sprinkle water rather than immerse or pour. Though unlawful in ordinary circumstances in the Catholic Church, sprinkling does bring about a valid baptism. Regarding intention of the minister, despite what religious affiliation the minister may adhere to, the baptism is valid as long as the minister intends what the Church intends. For example, a child is dying in a hospital. The nurse, who is Hindu, knows that the Catholic parents would want the child baptized. In their absence, she takes water, sprinkles it upon the infant and says the words, “I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Her intent is to baptize as the parents believe. The baptism is valid.
If the child survives, the Church would wish to perform the other parts of the Baptismal Rite (prayers, anointings, etc.) but the baptism itself would not be repeated. It should be recorded in the sacramental registry of the Church.
And if there is any doubt as to whether the person has been previously baptized, or wishes to be baptized, conditional wording should be used: "If you have not previously been baptized, and if you wish to be baptized, then I baptize you in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."
I know you already know most of this, Tina, but others reading this message may not.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
graceknowledgement
Member
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 05:56 pm |
|
Hi Rick,
You said:
If the nuse is an evangelical or fundamentalist Protestant, who would consider the baptism of an infant irrelevant,...
All evangelical Protestant denominations do not consider baptism irrelevant. Both of my daughters were purposely BAPTIZED (not "dedicated"), and that was in the Church of the Nazarene. However, the Church of the Nazarene's roots stem from Methodism, which stem from Anglican, and these all believe in baptism (although, not all people choose to baptize their infants, of course, because of the anabaptist influence over the last few centuries that promotes "believer's baptism", dependent upon the choice of a believer when they are "old enough to decide".
The validity of infant baptism in the Church of the Nazarene has been one of the factors leading me to investigate the Catholic Church, which I am now doing.
But, here we are talking about baptism when the discussion was originally on marriage! (Or, actually, it was moved here, as I started the discussion in the wrong place originally. I'll get better--I promise!)
I have to say I want to challenge you, Rick, and you, David, because I see that you are up to the challenge and I really, really like the way you handle the questions, although it is sometimes difficult for me to accept the answers because of my past 30 years of experience in Protestantism.
Peace,
Peter
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 4th, 2007 07:27 pm |
|
graceknowledgement wrote: But, here we are talking about baptism when the discussion was originally on marriage! (Or, actually, it was moved here, as I started the discussion in the wrong place originally. I'll get better--I promise!)
That's all we ask.
I have to say I want to challenge you, Rick, and you, David, because I see that you are up to the challenge and I really, really like the way you handle the questions, although it is sometimes difficult for me to accept the answers because of my past 30 years of experience in Protestantism.
David and I are the moderators, but the teachings are those of the Catholic Church. Many here are quite capable of doing a better job than me at "nuts and bolts" apologetics such as proving things from scripture, the writings of the Early Church Fathers, and other writings and documents, and many here have faced the same questions and are quite capable of speaking for themselves.
So ask away ... in the proper forum, of course!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Gnyssa
Member
| Joined: | Sat Nov 18th, 2006 |
| Location: | California USA |
| Posts: | 29 |
| First Name: | Gnyssa | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Episcopalian, Roman Catholic since 2003, RC priest 2006 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 17th, 2007 08:20 pm |
|
I think when non-Catholics first hear that they need to get their marriage blessed in the Church, they can be shocked or annoyed, and we need to be sensitive to this. But it is my experience that this can be the first step a greater blessing - even if the spouse does not become Catholic, it is their first Catholic rite they can really share.
The term is "Convalidation" and it is a simple matter for a priest to arrange. Some parishes have a class or three you have to go through. I encourage you to speak with a priest or deacon about it, and if he is not helpful, go find another. I find it a wonderful way of welcong people into or back into the Church.
For the record, we had to get convalidated, and it later turned out that in our case it was not required after all! So now I can tell people that I was married twice to the same girl.
Fr Gnyssa
(Pastoral Provision)
|
|
|
Current time is 07:20 am | |
|
|
|
|
|
