|
|
 |
|
Kendric
Page
wrote:
|
|
Hi, guys —
My inquiry is about Catholic conversion and
marrying a baptized Catholic. I'm currently
divorced from a marriage that took place in
a courthouse. Neither one of us were either
Catholic or baptized. The only thing that
we share together is my son. My friend who
is a baptized Catholic has never been married
or had any children.
- Will it be possible for us to unite in
marriage given the circumstances of my
past?
Kendric
|
|
{
Since neither of us were previously Catholic or baptized, can I now convert and marry a Catholic? }
|
|
John
replied:
|
Hi, Kendric —
It sounds like it should be simple
enough. Your wife-to-be will need
a dispensation to marry a non-Catholic unless you convert. It sounds like
your previous marriage can be easily
dissolved since two non-Christians were getting married. I say non-Christians
because you said neither of you
were baptized at the time of this
marriage. You may have been believers but technically you need to be baptized
in order to be considered a Christian.
We are not canon lawyers.
This is a matter that you and your
bride-to-be need to discuss with
a priest. There will be some extra
hoops anyway because you are not Catholic but I believe it should be possible.
John
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Kendric —
Because you are converting, you could
possibly get a Pauline Privilege dissolution of the previous union.
The declaration of nullity might
not be long and complex to achieve,
but you do need to start the process
with your local pastor as soon as
possible. Some of the parameters
would be:
- What did you think marriage was
when you married?
- Did you intend permanence?
- Did you intend children?
- Did you marry without pressure:
- of circumstances or
- other people?
- Was there any material information
withheld by one party from the
other?
These are the sorts of things.
Mary Ann
|
Eric
replied:
|
Mary Ann —
- Doesn't the Pauline privilege
require that there be a situation
where the conversion of one partner
to Christianity causes conflict
with the non-Christian partner?
(1 Corinthians 7:12-16, Canon
1144)
Eric
|
Mary
Ann replied:
|
Hi, Eric —
Non-sacramental unions are also valid
and indissoluble, assuming that the
couple fulfilled all conditions for
a valid marriage. All marriages are
presumed valid, until found otherwise.
As for whether there has to be conflict,
I don't know. If the other partner doesn't want
to convert or keep the marriage,
that may suffice.
Mary Ann
|
Eric
replied:
|
Hi, Kendric —
Based on Mary Ann's reply:
- you probably need a declaration
of nullity;
- It is not guaranteed and may
take a year or longer;
- you should consult the parish
priest to start the annulment
or look into other possible options
such as the Pauline Privilege.
Eric
|
Fr. Jonathan, our priest/canon lawyer contact replied:
|
Mike,
John's answer was not a good
one. His answer could easily be interpreted
that the woman has only a short process.
Mary did better indicating the Pauline
Privilege was an option; however,
that is for the Tribunal to determine
rather than the Parish priest.
First, the marriage in question is
not a sacramental marriage because
they were not baptized but it was
a valid natural marriage. Therefore,
the woman is not free to marry the
Catholic man until her first marriage
is dealt with in some form. The usual
way is for her to begin the process
of a declaration of nullity and that
indeed begins with a meeting with
the parish priest.
As Eric noted, the Pauline Privilege is based on 1 Corinthians 7:12-16.
It provides for the dissolution of
the marriage of two unbaptized persons,
even if consummated, when one of
them is baptized and the other still
non-baptized leaves the marriage.
The couple could only seek this from
the diocesan bishop if the first
husband is willing to participate
and answers the questions. If he
is not in the picture, you can't
do it.
The questions are basically
if he is willing to receive Baptism
and live peacefully with the baptized
party. If the answer to both of these
questions is negative then he is
seen as departing the marriage. There
need not be any conflict. One more
thing — the privilege cannot
be used if the fault of the departure
of the unbaptized person was that
of the baptized person after the
Baptism.
You can see all this in Canons around 1143 and 1144:
Canon 1143
§1. A marriage entered into
by two non-baptized persons is
dissolved by means of the Pauline
Privilege in favor of the faith
of the party who has received
baptism by the very fact that
a new marriage is contracted by
the same party, provided that
the non-baptized party departs.
§2. The non-baptized party
is considered to depart if he
or she does not wish to cohabit
with the baptized party or to
cohabit peacefully without affront
to the Creator unless the baptized
party, after baptism was received,
has given the other a just cause
for departing.
Canon 1144
§1. For the baptized party
to contract a new marriage validly,
the non-baptized party must always
be interrogated whether:
- he or she also wishes to
receive baptism;
- he or she at least wishes
to cohabit peacefully with
the baptized party without
affront to the Creator.
§2. This interrogation must
be done after baptism. For a grave
cause, however, the local ordinary
can permit the interrogation to
be done before baptism or can
even dispense from the interrogation
either before or after baptism
provided that it is evident at
least by a summary and extrajudicial
process that it cannot be done
or would be useless. |
I hope this is helpful, feel free
to use this information.
Fr. Jonathan
|
|
|
|
