Catholic marrying non-Catholic in another Christian church

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Hi, I'm just recently engaged. I am Catholic and I am planning to marry a person who is from the United Reform church of Canada. Because of circumstance and some tradition, I will be marrying in the bride's small home town. As a result, I will most likely be marrying in another church probably with another ceremony. I am staying a cathoilic for life of course and she is staying United Reform, so I was wondering what are the laws about a situation like that. I have heard responses from it's okay with the catholic church to that I will be excommunicated!! Ahhhh. What must I do or what is allow or excepted. Please I will appreciate any insight and if anyone could quote from the Catecism book, that would be even better. Thank-you!

-- Justin (babybass76@yahoo.com), May 11, 2003

Answers

Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

Justin,

Under current laws every Catholic is obliged to be married in a Catholic ceremony, before a Catholic priest. If you do otherwise, without a dispensation, your marriage would not be recognized by the Church. You need to apply for a "dispensation from canonical form." Talk to your local pastor or contact the chancery office of your diocese. A simple form will have to be filled out, including your reasons for seeking the dispensation and then either the Bishop or his delegate will have to grant the dispensation. Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 11, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

Jmj
Hello, Fr. Skrocki. I have a couple of questions for you.

1. If Justin receives a dispensation from canonical form, what is his Catholic pastor required to do so that the Church will be able to record the fact that a marriage has (presumably) taken place? Specifically ...
----- a. Is it true that EITHER the Catholic priest may take part in the non-Catholic ceremony OR the priest may be present as a witness OR the priest may be absent, but the couple must report to the priest that the non-Catholic ceremony has occurred?
----- b. When no priest is present at all, must one or two Catholics, in addition to the married couple, be present and relay their "witness" to the Cathoic priest?
----- c. Must the Catholic priest obtain a copy of the wording of the vows, so that he can determine that they constitute the required form of consent?

2. I noticed that your e-mail address says "abounamike." Since I know that "Abouna" is Arabic for the title, "Father," while you appear to have a Polish name, I can't help wondering if you are part Arab or if (like Polish-American Fr. Mitchell Pacwa) you are bi-ritual?

Thanks for starting to sign off as "Father," after initially signing off as "Mike." In its 4.5 years of existence, this forum has rarely had priests visiting (at least identifying themselves as priests) -- and usually only for a few days.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 11, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

John,

Presuming the couple gets the dispensation then the marriage would be considered valid. A Catholic priest would not be obliged to take part. They should take the completed marriage license (or whatever equivalent civil document is in Canada) to their Catholic Church and the pastor should record the marriage - and the dispensation, in the marriage register.

As for myself, you are very observant. My last name is indeed Polish, however, I serve in the Melkite Eparchy in the US. The Melkites come primarily from the Near, and Middle East. I do have biritual faculties.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 11, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

John,

Also, perhaps when you have a moment you could fill me in, privately via e-mail, as to the history and make-up of the forum. I found it quite by accident. Is it based in Canada?

Perhaps also some background on yourself. I've been reading various posts and I must say you are quite well informed/educated, though as I think I said in response to another post you may occassionally come off a bit forceful. Please remember the mercy of Christ for his people. We need to state the truth but, if I may, always in a Christian spirit of love.

-- Fr. Mike Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 12, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

Jmj
Hello, Fr. Skrocki.

Thanks for answering my second question and part of my first (multi-part) question. The one thing you missed was this, which I hope you can answer for me:
When the bishop gives permission for a Catholic to be married in a non-Catholic ceremony, "Must the Catholic priest obtain a copy of the wording of the vows [in advance], so that he can determine that they constitute the required form of consent?"
I'll extend this question by asking ... If the priest does not have to see the vows in advance, how can he have reason to believe that genuine consent has been given? Left to their own devices, people (with permission from questionable clergy) can come up with some mighty strange "vows" these days. For example, there may be nothing in the words about their entering into a lifelong covenant -- something essential for validity.

Thanks for the compliment you paid me -- as well as the criticism (even though I don't think I deserved it this time). I hope that you will find, as time goes on, that I am "a bit forceful" or "a bit gentle" when the situation calls for one or the other -- maybe even "very forceful" or "very gentle." All of these forms of address -- not just gentleness -- can be examples of "the Christian spirit of love," depending on the circumstances. I believe that there is probably something wrong when a person is always forceful or always gentle. The "mercy of Christ for his people" exists not on its lonesome, but hand in hand with the justice of Christ. People need to be reminded of one or the other or both, depending on the situation.

When I can find a free moment, I will be in touch with you by e-mail. Feel free to remind me if I forget.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 12, 2003.



Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

John,

No there's no obligation for the priest to review the vows. Though I agree with you that sometimes folks can vow odd things.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 12, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another christian church

Jmj

Hello, Fr. Skrocki.
Thanks for answering the leftover question about previewing the vows, but you overlooked the follow-up -- which was ...
"If the priest does not have to see the vows in advance, how can he have reason to believe that genuine consent has been given? ... For example, there may be nothing in the words about their entering into a lifelong covenant -- something essential for validity."

Father, if I were a parish priest, especially knowing the marriage/divorce/nullity crisis that exists in the U.S., I would want my parishioner (the Catholic fiance[e]) to show me a copy of the vows that are intended to be used. Or is this not done because promises are elicited from such a couple in pre-marriage meetings with a priest or deacon -- i.e., that both the Catholic and non-Catholic promise that they will be agreeing to a faithful, fruitful, and lifelong union?

Thanks in advance.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

John,

Sorry, I seem to keep missing a lingering point. Canon 1096 of the CIC (Latin Code) states that for valid matrimonial consent the parties must at least not be ignorant that marriage is "a permanent consortium between a man and a woman, which is ordered toward the procreation of offspring by means of some sexual cooperation." The key point, I think, for your question likes in paragraph two of that canon: "Such ignorance is not presumed after puberty."

The Church presumes the parties know that unless it can be proven otherwise.

Also, it's not up to the local pastor to determine whether valid consent was given - again it's presumed until proven otherwise.

On a completely different topic could I ask a favor of you? If you are comfortable with it, I'd prefer to be called "Fr. Michael" rather than "Fr. Skrocki." It's the custom in the Melkite Church to address clergy such - even our beloved Bishop is "Bishop John" not "Bishop Elya."

Hope that's helpful.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 13, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

Jmj

Thanks, Father, for reminding me about Canon 1096.
I have not read it for a long time, so I forgot about it. Your answers to my several questions were very, very helpful.

Forgive me if it disappoints you, but I think that I need to call you "Father Skrocki" or just "Father." This is how I was taught, so many years ago, to address diocesan priests. Though you celebrate Mass according to two rites, I sort of have a "mental block" right now that makes me picture you as a Latin/Western parish priest. Maybe that will change, with time.
You can call me "Mr. Gecik" if you want to get revenge for this! (;p)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 13, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

Uh.....John?

It's ok to give in. ¿Que vas ha perder?

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 13, 2003.



Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

If two Catholics marry before an Byzantine priest who is not bi ritual and who does not get dispensation from canonical form are they validly married? Mary

-- mdeweil (mary@deweil.com), May 14, 2003.

Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

Jmj
Hello, Rod and Mary.

Mary, I'm not clear on the situation you are depicting. Are you referring to two Latin/Western Catholics being wed in a Byzantine Catholic celebration of the sacrament of Marriage -- but without getting permission for this from either bishop (Latin/Eastern)?

If that's what you mean, it's an interesting question. I could speculate as to the answer, but would prefer that Father (if he sees this) say something you could really depend on.


Rod, I don't appreciate your comment, because it is none of your business.
Father wrote these words to me: "If you are comfortable with it, I'd prefer to be called 'Fr. Michael' rather than 'Fr. Skrocki.'" It follows that he was saying, "If you are not comfortable with it, don't change." Obviously, I am not comfortable with it.
Now, I would have changed (despite any discomfort), if he had said to me: "John, no one has called me 'Fr. Skrocki' for years. Everyone calls me, 'Fr. Michael,' so it would mean a lot to me if you would do the same."
But he didn't do that. He left it up to me. Please have the courtesy to do the same, Rod.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 14, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

John-

This is a public forum, uh....right? I've thought about leaving this forum because I didn't want to upset you. I've realized that you are tough with people. I have yet to show my toughness. I could be tough, but I choose not to. There is much to learn from you and many others in this forum, even if you are easily irritated. Fr. Michael was trying to be polite in asking to be addressed a certain way, but it made you uncomfortable. I guess it's ok to call others by other names, this doesn't make you uncomfortable. I wonder if it makes them or anyone else uncomfortable. I understand why you react the way you do. I just don't have to agree with it.

If I could have a small portion of your intellect and knowledge, I would be extremely joyful. You have the answers and the ability to bring people to the Word. But, for those who are lost or disagreeable, WATCH OUT! Does it have to be "an eye for an eye"?

Ok.....I probably made you angry again. I'm

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


Response to Catholic marrying non-catholic in another Christian church

"I'm sorry."

I'm on a Mac and my sentences get chopped at the end.

rod. . .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 14, 2003.


No need to apologize, Rod. I'm not angry. You have a right to your opinion.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.


Hi John.

I have learned a lot about the Church from you and others. I really am fortunate that you can provide this forum with valuable and enlightening information. You are a good man! I've never doubted that. I do look foward to reading your replies and I'm sure that many here can say the same. Please know that I have admiration and respect for you.

Thanks John.

rod. .

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 15, 2003.


Thank you, Rod.
Just think of me as hard-working, though -- not "good." As Jesus said, "Only God is good." I sin every day, many times.

Rod, I am happy that we have mutual respect for each other. Hang in there!
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 15, 2003.


As to the situation I was referring to it goes as follows. 2 Latin rite Catholics marrying with Byzantine ceremony before a Byzantine priest who was not bi-ritual and who had no dispensation i.e. Latin dispensation.

-- MaryD (mary@deweil.com), May 18, 2003.

Calling Fr. Michael Skrocki ... are you still stopping by?

Father, Mary D asks:
"If two Catholics marry before an Byzantine priest who is not bi ritual and who does not get dispensation from canonical form are they validly married?"
She clarifies: "As to the situation I was referring to it goes as follows. Two Latin rite Catholics marrying with Byzantine ceremony before a Byzantine priest who was not bi-ritual and who had no dispensation i.e. Latin dispensation."

Father, in your opinion, would a tribunal consider this celebration of the sacrament to be valid-but-illicit (as I suspect), valid-and-licit, or invalid?

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 18, 2003.


John,

Valid but illicit is right on John. Valid sacramental form was followed for this couple. However, the priest did not have proper delegation - he didn't have jurisdiction over the couple. Their Roman (Latin) pastor or the Chancery should have given delegation.

-- Fr. Michael Skrocki, JCL (abounamike@aol.com), May 19, 2003.


Thank you, Father.

Mary D, I hope that this answers your question fully.
If not, or if you didn't understand the answer, please speak up.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), May 19, 2003.


I have a question regarding Catholic marriages. I am deeply emotionally involved with a strict Italian Catholic man. We see our relationship going pretty far, if we can get around one problem.

I am currently an atheist. I say currently because I am open to my belief changing one day. I do not want to say that I am atheist and that's how I will believe forever.

My boyfriend used to be agnostic, so he understands how I am feeling. We were both agnostic at the same time. As time went on, he seemed to have found the light, and I went the other direction.

We seriously do not know what to do. He is having his second meeting with his Father about this.

I completely respect and accept, but more importantly, LOVE HIM for what he believes. He on the other hand, can't seem to accept my belief (or non-belief). I told him that I don't mind at all raising the children Catholic, even though it is not the practice I personally follow. I was raised a Christian, and I feel it is beneficial for children to be raised as I was. Being atheist, I still share much of the same morals as Christians.

We love each other beyond words, but we are stuck in this situation. Can anyone help with this?

-- Christina Triplett (xinared@yahoo.com), June 14, 2003.


i dont see where your problem is so bad actually, you are willing to meet the needs of the church for marraige, so thats an ace in the hole right there.

in light of that, my situation is much the same as yours, im dating someone without set beliefs either. BUT she has attended mass with me and enjoys the catholic faith. shes also told me that shes considering conversion to the faith. i hope that you will give catholicism a chance too and go to mass with your fiancee a couple of times, it will at least give you new perspective.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 14, 2003.


Yea, but don't I have to "convert" before marrying a Catholic man?

How could I convert if I'm atheist?

I don't mind sharing the values and raising the children Catholic or even converting to the religion, if that will make things work.

-- Christina (xinared@yahoo.com), June 15, 2003.


you dont have to convert before marraige, all you have to do is truthfully promise that you will not interfere when your future husband tries to raise your children catholic, and your husband will have to promise to do all in his power to raise his children catholic. that means you cant put your foot down and demand that the children not attend mass on sundays.

HOWEVER, i would still urge you to attend mass several times with your future husband. if nothing else the experience would give you a healthy perspective on what catholics believe, and hey, you might even like it.

best wishes and God bless.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 16, 2003.


I REALLY ENJOY THE VERY INFORMATIVE DIALOG ON THIS SUBJECT KEEP IT UP I WILL BE READINGIT FOR MORE INFORMATION THANK YOU...RICHARD

-- RICHARD FERRO (dickferro6@yahoo.com), December 07, 2004.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ