Married a Divorced Lutheran

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I was raised Catholic and married a divorced Lutheran (he was married to a Catholic, not annulled, she committed adultery). I realize my marriage is not recognized by the Catholic Church; however, I would still like to attend Catholic mass with family and friends especially family holidays, weddings, baptisms, etc. My question is what am I "allowed" to do within the Catholic Church? My understanding is that I am not "allowed" to receive communion or any other sacraments. Can I make the sign of the cross, participate in the mass (pray, respond, kneel, sing, etc.) w/o being disrespectful? When we go that route, would our children be "allowed" to be baptized and raised Catholic? Am I making matters worse if I accept requests to be a godmother at Catholic baptisms? Thanks in advance for any words of wisdom so I don't compound the situation.

-- lisa johnson (thefair01@yahoo.com), October 15, 2001

Answers

Jmj

Hello, Lisa.

I must say that I am left somewhat confused by your message, but I'm sure that with a little conversation, we can clear things up.

A key question in my mind is whether or not you consider yourself a Catholic or whether you have formally left the Church at some point.

You said that you were "raised Catholic." That is a phrase often used by people who have left the Church. But I'm not sure.
You said that you married a divorced Lutheran. That too may indicate that you left the Church -- but not necessarily.
You said that you would like to attend Mass on special occasions. That seems to indicate that you no longer consider yourself a Catholic, since a Catholic would want to attend Mass at least weekly.
But still I'm not certain -- especially because you say that you may want your children to be baptized and raised Catholic. That is a hint that you never formally left the Church -- or that you left but returned.

Can you please help me to understand? The status of your Catholicism (or non-Catholicism) has a major effect on the answers to some of your questions. I will be able to say more after hearing further from you.

But I don't have to wait at all to tell you that, regardless of your status, you are permitted to participate (and you are encouraged to participate) in the Mass in every way you mentioned. So, when you attend Mass, please do join in in every way, except the reception of Holy Communion.

Looking forward to reading your next message,
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 16, 2001.


Thank you for responding. If you can bear with me while I stumble through my thoughts. In my mind, I don't consider that I have formally "left the Catholic Church," as much as I don't feel "welcomed" b/c I married a divorced non-Catholic. We have been attending Lutheran services while I figure out what my "status" is with the Catholic Church -- perhaps that alone means I have "formally left"? When we have children, I feel that despite my marriage choice, Catholicisim is still what I know and was raised with. I would probably be the primary nurturer of faith and spirituality for our children, so it would be more "natural" to raise my children as Catholics. Plus, I went to Catholic schools and would be interested in sending my children as well so their faith, spirituality, morality, etc. are nutured in addition to their brains. Living in the Catholic Church's eyes in a "state of perpetual adultery" doesn't sit well with me. I don't even know if I am "allowed" to go to confession to at least acknowledge my "sin" in the Catholic Church's eyes to get to a better place? I feel guilty sitting in a Catholic Church b/c the doctrines of Catholic faith declare that I have done something so "wrong." I struggle with Catholicism on this b/c I don't agree philosophically with what the Church says about marriage, divorce, annullments, etc. so perhaps that alone answers my question - - how can I practice a faith whose doctrines I don't believe in?

-- Lisa Johnson (thefair01@yahoo.com), October 16, 2001.

Dear Lisa--
Isn't your final sentence here in the last post, significant? ''- - How can I practice a faith whose doctrines I don't believe in? '' --Better than this, how is there FAITH, when the doctrine is in doubt? You are accusing yourself of a lack of faith, despite your acknowledged need for the Church, and your duty to your children, ''nurturing their faith''. ''I struggle with Catholicism on this b/c I don't agree philosophically with what the Church says about marriage, divorce, annulments, etc.''-- --You have no ''philosophical'' disagreement. The Catholic Church teaches only the truth. We accept it, or we reject it. Your struggle is with your conscience, not with the Church, Lisa.

You aren't alone. Many others have been caught in your predicament. The only question is, what do you intend to do about this? Have you even consulted a priest? It might be the best thing for you now. You are considered legally married; but separated from the sacraments. That doesn't necessarily mean lost, or damned. You must remain in the Church, even if it turns out you aren't in a state of GRACE. We are taught that God is infinitely merciful; and you can indeed reach His divine mercy. But it will be a test of your faith. You should pray, --pray fervently and constantly, that He have MERCY on you and on your husband and children.

Don't ever depart from the FAITH. All of us are sinners, Lisa. Without God's Divine Mercy, we will ALL be lost. Only by greater FAITH in Him is there a way to salvation.

Just remember, you can't just change churches! That's a sin, an error, and a cop-out. You have to be honest and straightforward with Him, or your faith is just ''pretending''. Real faith is your only way out now.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), October 16, 2001.


Jmj

Hello, Lisa.

I'll put your words in double brackets and then respond to them.

[[In my mind, I don't consider that I have formally "left the Catholic Church," as much as I don't feel "welcomed" b/c I married a divorced non-Catholic. We have been attending Lutheran services while I figure out what my "status" is with the Catholic Church -- perhaps that alone means I have "formally left"?]]

Just attending Luthern services does not mean that you formally left the Church. You would have to make a firm decision to leave, in your mind, and then you would have to publicly act on that decision -- e.g., announcing orally or in writing that you had left, enrolling as a member of a non-Catholic community, etc.. Far from doing any of those things, you say that you "don't consider that [you] have formally" left the Church.

[[When we have children ... I would probably be the primary nurturer of faith and spirituality for our children, so it would be more "natural" to raise my children as Catholics. Plus, I went to Catholic schools and would be interested in sending my children as well so their faith, spirituality, morality, etc. are nurtured in addition to their brains.]]

Great. These are exactly some of the things that the Church teaches about parents and schools.

[[Living in the Catholic Church's eyes in a "state of perpetual adultery" doesn't sit well with me. I don't even know if I am "allowed" to go to confession to at least acknowledge my "sin" in the Catholic Church's eyes to get to a better place?]]

Well, if you don't have one of the prerequisites of the Sacrament of Reconciliation -- a firm purpose of amendment (intention to stop committing sin) -- then the priest could not absolve you. However, many kind and sensitive priests would welcome your paying a visit to the confessional (or a visit to the rectory, or a phone call) to talk things over and give you the best advice available -- better than we can give you here. Priests, by virtue of their seminary education and their ordination, are given special training and graces to help people like you. I don't perceive your situation to be hopeless at all. (Did you know that the man you love, even though he is a Lutheran and not intending to convert, can ask the Catholic Church to study his first "union" to determine whether or not it was valid? Then, if it was not valid, your marriage could be blessed in the Church, and you could return to the sacraments.)

[[I feel guilty sitting in a Catholic Church b/c the doctrines of Catholic faith declare that I have done something so "wrong." I struggle with Catholicism on this b/c I don't agree philosophically with what the Church says about marriage, divorce, annullments, etc. so perhaps that alone answers my question -- how can I practice a faith whose doctrines I don't believe in?]]

I think that it is possible that you disagree with what you think the Church teaches about marriage, divorce, nullity, etc. ... when, in reality, the teaching may be somewhat different. Perhaps you can let us -- or better yet, your local Catholic pastor -- discuss the difficulties/disagreements that are troubling you? The key thing that you need is faith, a deep abiding trust that (1) Jesus really founded the Catholic Church, (2) that the Holy Spirit always has and always will animate the Church, preventing her from teaching error, (3) that the Church protects and passes along the entire, authentic "deposit of the faith" that Jesus entrusted to the Apostles, preserved in Scripture and Sacred Tradition, as interpreted by the pope and the bishops in union with him. If you can make a daily "Act of Faith" to believe those general principles, then you will receive the graces you need to believe each of the specific doctrines of the Church, including the really tough ones.

Now, I promised that, after you wrote again, I would try to answer two of your original questions that I had to leave unanswered.

You have convinced me that you are still Catholic, but you are in an "irregular union" and you may have doubts about certain doctrines.
You asked: "[1] When we go that route, would our children be 'allowed' to be baptized and raised Catholic? [2] Am I making matters worse if I accept requests to be a godmother at Catholic baptisms?"

[1] The Church's Code of Canon Law (canon 868) says this about whether or not a child may be baptized: "For an infant to be baptised lawfully it is required that the parents, or at least one of them, or the person who lawfully holds their place, give their consent; that there be a well-founded hope that the child will be brought up in the Catholic religion. If such hope is truly lacking, the baptism is, in accordance with the provisions of particular law, to be deferred and the parents advised of the reason for this."

So, Lisa, the answer to your first question is that it will be up to a Catholic pastor to make the necessary judgment related to the words I have put in bold type. If he believes that your child(ren) will be raised as believing Catholics, he should baptized the child(ren).

[2] Canon Law also provides the necessary information to answer your second question. Canon 874 says this about being a baptismal sponsor: "To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must:
1° be appointed by the candidate for baptism, or by the parents or whoever stands in their place, or failing these, by the parish priest or the minister; to be appointed the person must be suitable for this role and have the intention of fulfilling it;
2° be not less than sixteen years of age, unless a different age has been stipulated by the diocesan Bishop, or unless the parish priest or the minister considers that there is a just reason for an exception to be made;
be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has received the blessed Eucharist, and who lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken;
not labor under a canonical penalty, whether imposed or declared;
5° not be either the father or the mother of the person to be baptised."

So, Lisa, the answer to your second question is, "I'm not sure." Again, the answer will come through a conversation with a Catholic pastor. He will make a judgment about whether you qualify under points 3 and 4, which I highlighted above. On point 3, I believe that some, if not many, bishops require a potential sponsor to be registered in a parish and be considered active there. On point 4, I do not know if a person in an irregular marital union is considered to be "under a canonical penalty." [Canon 874 goes on to say that a non-Catholic may not be a baptismal sponsor, but can act "as a witness to the Baptism" "in company with a Catholic sponsor."]

You are in our prayers, Lisa. Rest assured of that.

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2001.


I believe that she cannot act as a Sponsor (Godparent) while in an Irregular Marriage. Because she must be in "good standing with the Catholic Church". She is of course not excommunicated or anything like that but is not allowed to aprticipate in the Sacraments of the Catholic Church except in danger of death. She can attend Mass.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), October 17, 2001.


Hi, Rich.
Can you tell me where that phrase comes from -- in "good standing with the Catholic Church"?
It is not in the Canon that I quoted. Perhaps it is just a popular layman's way of stating what the Canon says? -- "To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must ... be a Catholic who ... lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken" ?
If that phrase comes from a Magisterial document, I would like to read it, so that I can understand what "good standing" consists of.
Thanks. JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 18, 2001.

What a great forum! You have all been incredibly helpful, enlightening, and honest...I know the next step is meeting face-to- face with a priest to discuss my situation and get my faith back on track. This at least arms me with valuable information so I can talk intelligently on the matter and not just emotionally. I can also hold my head up high during mass to celebrate and pray at least even if I can't participate in communion. Thank you very much.

-- Lisa Johnson (thefair01@yahoo.com), October 19, 2001.

John:

I was always under the impression that a sponsor for Baptism didn’t have to be Catholic, but had to be baptised Christian. In looking for the answer to my question I came across an old article written in 1963 by Nicolas Halligan at an EWTN site. It can be read here: http://www.ewtn.com/library/DOCTRINE/SPONSORS.TXT

The relevant part that concerns my question reads, “53. - 1. - Validity. The qualifications for capability to act as sponsor are contained in canon 765. a) fundamental requisites. I. - baptism. Only those who have been validly baptized can function validly in an ecclesiastical office, such as that of baptismal sponsor.”

You will note the Canon number is different and probably derived from the old law. My question then is: Did this law change with the new Canon?

St. James and Mary Our Blessed Mother pray for us!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), October 19, 2001.


Jmj

Thanks for the compliments, Lisa. I pray that God will bless you with a happy and holy life. Please come back to visit often.

Hi, Ed.

I'm afraid that you did not read far enough in that Halligan article. A short distance after the paragraph you quoted, you'll find the following words [also from the "qualifications" list in old canon 765]:

"b) status. The one designated to act as sponsor should not belong to an heretical or schismatical sect, nor have been declared excommunicated by condemnatory or declaratory sentence, or infamous by law, or excluded from legal acts, nor be a deposed or degraded cleric. It is preferable to have no sponsor than to have a heretic act."

So those words from 1963 clearly indicate the prohibition of both Protestant and Orthodox Christians as sponsors in a Catholic Baptism. And the above language, from "pre-ecumenical" times, is much stronger than that which is in new Canon 874, section 2 of which says this:
"A baptised person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community may be admitted only in company with a Catholic sponsor, and then simply as a witness to the baptism.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.


Oh, Ed ... I forgot to mention that the language of the new canon that I just quoted actually takes away the old prohibition on the Eastern Orthodox. They may now act as sponsors. I can tell that by the key words, "non-Catholic ecclesial community." That is how our Church has referred to all Protestant bodies at least since Vatican II. Because of their apostolicity, the Orthodox bodies are referred to, not as "ecclesial communities," but as true "churches."
JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 19, 2001.


John, I do remember reading that part, but I didn't realize the term Christians excluded Protestants and Orthodox. I am the first to admit I am not familiar with this terminology. Thanks for clearing this up for me.

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), October 19, 2001.


Whoa! Now you've got me a bit confused, Ed.
I don't think that I (or either of the canons) said that Protestants and Orthodox are not Christians. They certainly are.
In the old canons, I see that two tests had to be met:
first, a potential sponsor had to be baptized (i.e., a Christian) and,
second, he/she had to be a non-heretic/non-schismatic [even though a heretic or schismatic might be a baptized Christian].
Does that clarify it further? JFG

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.

John, now I am totally confused. Can a non-Catholic Christian act as a full sponsor for Baptism? Canon 874.3 says a sponsor must be a Catholic...?

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), October 20, 2001.


Jmj

Hello, Ed.
We'll get to the bottom of this, I promise!

You just asked:
"[1] Can a non-Catholic Christian act as a full sponsor for Baptism? [2] Canon 874.3 says a sponsor must be a Catholic...?"

(1) The answer to the first question is yes and no. Yes, a member of an Eastern Orthodox church may be a sponsor. No, a Protestant may not. (More about that in a moment.)

(2) The answer to the second question is no, that's not what canon 874 says. It says, "A baptised person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community may be admitted only in company with a Catholic sponsor, and then simply as a witness to the baptism."

Do you see the distinction? A Protestant is in a "non-Catholic ecclesial community," but an Orthodox Christian is in a non-Catholic, but apostolic church, with seven valid sacraments, a valid liturgy, etc.. Thus, the Orthodox can be a sponsor.

My comment last time was intended to make sure no one was left with the impression that we believe that only Catholics are "Christians." (Protestants and Orthodox are Christians too.)

St. James, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 20, 2001.


Thanks John! I think I now have it straight!

Ed

-- Ed Lauzon (grader@accglobal.net), October 21, 2001.



John, I thought that the distinction between schismatical Orthodox and those in union with Rome (Eastern Rites)is still made under normal circumstances. Except in the case of receiving Sacraments in danger of death or no access to a Latin Rite priest. That a schismatical Orthodox person could not be a Godparent in a Latin Rite Baptism under normal circumstances.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), October 21, 2001.

Jmj

Rich, you have prompted me to take a second look at the pertinent canon here (#874), and I think I see a possible internal contradiction that would have to be resolved for us by a bishop or the Vatican.

I will quote just the pertinent phrases:
"§1 To be admitted to undertake the office of sponsor, a person must: ... 3° be a Catholic who has been confirmed and has received the blessed Eucharist, and who lives a life of faith which befits the role to be undertaken; ...
§2 A baptised person who belongs to a non-Catholic ecclesial community may be admitted only in company with a Catholic sponsor, and then simply as a witness to the baptism."

In section 1, the canon says that the sponsor must be a "Catholic," while section 2 rules out only a Protestant, not an Orthodox (who is not a member of "a non-Catholic ecclesial community." Perhaps the intention was to leave it up to a bishop to grant an indult in particular cases, so that an Orthodox Christian could be a sponsor.

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.


Sorry, Rich. I was too "quick on the trigger," hitting the "Submit" button before I was finished.

I noticed two problems in your last post.
-- You have cited a standard for reception of sacraments [danger of death and lack of access to one's regular minister]. I don't believe a "reception standard" necessarily applies to a baptismal sponsor (who is not "receiving" a sacrament).
-- More importantly, the standard you have cited applies to Protestants and non-Christians, rather than to members of apostolic churches that are in schism (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Polish National Catholic Church). Here is part of the Canon that helps to explain this:

"Canon 844
"§1 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments only to Catholic members of Christ's faithful, who equally may lawfully receive them only from Catholic ministers, except as provided in §§2, 3 and 4 of this canon and in can. 861 §2. [I will include only the pertinent exception now. JFG]
§3 Catholic ministers may lawfully administer the sacraments of Penance, the Eucharist and Anointing of the Sick to members of the Eastern churches not in full communion with the Catholic Church, if they spontaneously ask for them and are properly disposed. The same applies to members of other churches which the Apostolic See judges to be in the same position as the aforesaid Eastern churches so far as the sacraments are concerned."

So you can see that, for an Orthodox Christian, neither danger of death nor lack of access to his minister is required. [On the other hand, the bishop of the Orthodox Christian may impose a tighter restriction on him, and the Church would respect such a disciplinary rule.]

God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.


Thanks for your insite John. I was not looking at any document when I asked the question, and I don't know is it has ever come up. I guess the Canon Law Digest might suggest an answer if it has. I was thinking about the Documents of Vatican II on the Orthodox relationship. Anyway thanks again.

-- Br. Rich SFO (repsfo@prodigy.net), October 22, 2001.

You're welcome, Rich! And you did me a favor by making me look into this more deeply, by which I learned some things.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ