A comment from the author: If you're reading this in your email, you may see me say "It is impossible for Catholics to have a valid but non-sacramental marriage."
This should say that it is impossible for "two Catholics to have a valid but non-sacramental marriage." I've corrected the text, but the correction won't carry over to your email.
It is possible for an individual Catholic to contract a valid non-sacramental marriage, if he marries an unbaptized person, but he is still bound to canonical form in order to do so validly.
Given the current debate re Eucharistic coherence in the US, I think criticism of Mr. Johnson should focus on his politics (i.e support for abortion and commercial surrogacy “rights” as well as euthanasia), which certainly aren’t very “conservative” in that regard.
That said, whilst a valid marriage is always cause for celebration, I understand that people are scandalised by two very prominent Catholics living together (and having a child) before receiving the sacrament.
I made sure to thank my bishop after mass yesterday (Bishop Johnston) for his statement on Eucharistic coherence. And that I would pray for him and the bishops at their meeting. Thanks to the Pillar for keeping me informed about things!
What the world sees is that Mr Johnson (a) became an Anglican and was Confirmed in that Church; (b) Mr Johnson was previously married twice (both parties being baptised on both occasions); and (c) that Canon Law is defective in its insistence that this is his "first" marriage.
You gloss over Johnson's confirmation as a member of the Anglican Church, by which he undertook a formal and public act initiating him into another ecclesial community, and thereby defected from the Catholic Church. Given that both of his previous putative marriages took place before 'Omnium in mentem' came into effect it would appear that the clause in Canon 1117, as it stood from 1983-2010, exempting those who had "defected from it by a formal act" from obligation to marry according to canonical form, applies. Your observations on this would be welcome.
Well.....Cannon law says a Catholic who promotes grave evil, (like a politician voting to murder millions of babies) should not receive Holy Communion. But the Pope and Bishops don't care.
The Church some years ago revised the section of canon law dealing with “ formal defection from the faith.” Previously Catholics who formally defected from the faith and subsequently wished an annulment had to have their putative marriages looked at substantially since they were no longer under a defect of form. However it became impossible to analyze and apply conditions for a formal defection. So now, all Catholics, whether they defect or not, are bound by canonical form. Any putative marriage contracted while they were Protestant and then they return to the church, all fall under defect of form.
A comment from the author: If you're reading this in your email, you may see me say "It is impossible for Catholics to have a valid but non-sacramental marriage."
This should say that it is impossible for "two Catholics to have a valid but non-sacramental marriage." I've corrected the text, but the correction won't carry over to your email.
It is possible for an individual Catholic to contract a valid non-sacramental marriage, if he marries an unbaptized person, but he is still bound to canonical form in order to do so validly.
Thanks for letting me clarify.
Nice summary.
Given the current debate re Eucharistic coherence in the US, I think criticism of Mr. Johnson should focus on his politics (i.e support for abortion and commercial surrogacy “rights” as well as euthanasia), which certainly aren’t very “conservative” in that regard.
That said, whilst a valid marriage is always cause for celebration, I understand that people are scandalised by two very prominent Catholics living together (and having a child) before receiving the sacrament.
I made sure to thank my bishop after mass yesterday (Bishop Johnston) for his statement on Eucharistic coherence. And that I would pray for him and the bishops at their meeting. Thanks to the Pillar for keeping me informed about things!
What the world sees is that Mr Johnson (a) became an Anglican and was Confirmed in that Church; (b) Mr Johnson was previously married twice (both parties being baptised on both occasions); and (c) that Canon Law is defective in its insistence that this is his "first" marriage.
Does Ed know about the official summer drink of The Pillar?
I sense a Pillar pastoral document on Beverage Coherence being on the cards in the near future...
You gloss over Johnson's confirmation as a member of the Anglican Church, by which he undertook a formal and public act initiating him into another ecclesial community, and thereby defected from the Catholic Church. Given that both of his previous putative marriages took place before 'Omnium in mentem' came into effect it would appear that the clause in Canon 1117, as it stood from 1983-2010, exempting those who had "defected from it by a formal act" from obligation to marry according to canonical form, applies. Your observations on this would be welcome.
Well.....Cannon law says a Catholic who promotes grave evil, (like a politician voting to murder millions of babies) should not receive Holy Communion. But the Pope and Bishops don't care.
The murder of millions and they don't care.
I agree. https://creyna.substack.com/p/the-city-of-soul-ac2b17600b8e?r=fo3ax&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&utm_source=copy
The Church some years ago revised the section of canon law dealing with “ formal defection from the faith.” Previously Catholics who formally defected from the faith and subsequently wished an annulment had to have their putative marriages looked at substantially since they were no longer under a defect of form. However it became impossible to analyze and apply conditions for a formal defection. So now, all Catholics, whether they defect or not, are bound by canonical form. Any putative marriage contracted while they were Protestant and then they return to the church, all fall under defect of form.