Not a canonist, but I can see this being canonically complex as well. Parishes are determined geographically, typically. Outside of restrictions on marrying non-Catholics, I believe canon law affirms the right to marry the person of your choice. However, there is a bit somewhere in there that says something like long-standing regional customs having the force of law (which I am very fuzzy on). My personal opinion is that this particular custom is far too heavy to take precedence over the others, but presumably the Archeparchy disagrees.
It would be nice to see an article/podcast on this from the canonical perspective.
I’m less sympathetic to his case as presented since it seems the civil marriage has presupposed the true sacramental marriage (as well as assuming the rights thereof) and the particulars of his church are secondary to him. A willing obedience, prayer, and potential sacrifice of his membership could have been the better path here, but as ALT said a canonical explainer would be beneficial.
I've heard of this rule before and I have no idea why the Vatican has let it continue to this point. It goes against everything the Catholic Church stands for.
“When our child is born, the church won’t allow baptism either. I hope to win the case before that.”
This is concerning. Is this a cultural norm or a legitimate canonical requirement?
Not a canonist, but I can see this being canonically complex as well. Parishes are determined geographically, typically. Outside of restrictions on marrying non-Catholics, I believe canon law affirms the right to marry the person of your choice. However, there is a bit somewhere in there that says something like long-standing regional customs having the force of law (which I am very fuzzy on). My personal opinion is that this particular custom is far too heavy to take precedence over the others, but presumably the Archeparchy disagrees.
It would be nice to see an article/podcast on this from the canonical perspective.
I’m less sympathetic to his case as presented since it seems the civil marriage has presupposed the true sacramental marriage (as well as assuming the rights thereof) and the particulars of his church are secondary to him. A willing obedience, prayer, and potential sacrifice of his membership could have been the better path here, but as ALT said a canonical explainer would be beneficial.
I've heard of this rule before and I have no idea why the Vatican has let it continue to this point. It goes against everything the Catholic Church stands for.