Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T14:19:48.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Mixed Marriages: Conversations in Theology, Ecumenism, Canon Law and Pastoral Practice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2008

John McAreavey
John McAreavey
Affiliation:
Bishop of Dromore The text of the Fifth Lyndwood Lecture delivered at Archbishop's House, Westminster on 15 November 2004
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper traces the developments in the Catholic law on mixed marriages beginning with an outline of the canonical provisions that were in force prior to the Second Vatican Council. The impact of the Council teaching on ecumenism and religious freedom became apparent with the promulgation of Matrimonii sacramentum (1966), Crescens matrimoniorum (1967) and Matrimonia mixta (1970). These documents put the legislation on mixed marriages on a new footing and provided the basis for the legislation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Bishop McAreavey analyses various ecumenical dialogues on mixed marriages: ARCIC, the dialogue between the Lutheran World Federation, the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Catholic Church, and ongoing dialogues between the Methodist Church and the Orthodox Church (primarily in the United States) and the Catholic Church. He notes in particular what those discussions have to say on the issue of ‘the promises’ and canonical form and comments on the provisions of the 1983 Code of Canon Law on mixed marriages. He considers the basis of the commitment required of the Catholic party ‘to remove dangers of defecting from the faith’ and the commitment ‘to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the Catholic faith’. He accepts the view of Fr Navarrete that whereas the former obligation is of divine law the latter obligation goes no further than ‘to do his or her best’ (pro viribus in the Latin phrase). In the final section, he reflects on the pastoral impact of developments in the canon law regarding mixed marriages, noting the statements of the World Gatherings of Interchurch Families in Geneva (1998) and in Rome (2003).

Type
Articles
Information
Ecclesiastical Law Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 37 , July 2005 , pp. 121 - 146
Copyright
Copyright © Ecclesiastical Law Society 2005

References

1 The term ‘mixed marriage’ in this paper refers exclusively to marriages between Catholics and other baptised Christians. For a discussion of the historic relationship between the impedient of mixed marriage and the diriment impediment of disparity of worship, cf Navarrete, U, ‘L'impedimento di “disparitas cultus” (Can 1086)’, in I matrimonii misti ([Studi giuridici XLVII], Libreria editrice vaticana, Città del Vaticano, 1998) pp 110–116.Google Scholar Navarrete describes this as a symbiotic relationship.

2 For a consideration of the implications of mixed marriages in the Northern Ireland context, cf McAreavey, John, The Canon Law of Marriage and the Family (Four Courts Press, Dublin, 1997) pp 239–241.Google Scholar Mixed marriages have created difficulties also within the Republic of Ireland where membership of the minority Protestant Churches has declined substantially after the foundation of the Irish State. For a study of this, cf Sexton, J J and O'Leary, R, ‘Factors affecting population decline in minority religious communities in the Republic of Ireland’ in Building Trust in Ireland (Blackstaff Press, Belfast, 1996).Google Scholar

3 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Plenary 2001 (available on Vatican website, www.vatican.va).Google Scholar

4 ‘Impedient impediments render a marriage illicit, whereas diriment impediments rendered it invalid’ (Can 1036). English translations of the 1917 Code are taken from Woywood, S, The New Canon Law (Joseph F Wagner (Inc), New York/B Herder, London, 1918).Google Scholar

5 Severissime Ecclesia ubique prohibit ne matrimonium ineatur inter duas personas baptizatas, quarum altera sit catholic, altera vero sectae haereticae seu schismaticae adscripta; quod si adsit perversionis periculum coniugis catholici et prolis, coniugium ipsa etiam lege divina vetatur.Google Scholar

6 Sed omnes sacri ritus prohibentur; quod si ex hac prohibitione graviora mala praevideantur, Ordinarius potest aliquam ex consuetis ecclesiasticis caerimoniis, exclusa simper Missae celebratione, permittere.Google Scholar

7 Ecclesia super impedimento mixtae religionis non dispensat, nisi (1°) urgeant iustae ac graves causae; (2°) caution praestiterit coniux acatholicus de amovendo a coniuge catholic perversionis periculo, et uterque coniux de universa prole catholice tantum baptizanda et educanda; (3°) moralis habeatur certitudo de cautionum implemendo; § 2: Cautiones regulariter in scriptis exigantur. Canon 2319 states: ‘They are subject to excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Ordinary: 1° who contract marriage before a non-catholic minister, against Canon 1603, § 1…; 2° who contract marriage with the implied or express agreement that all or some of the children shall be educated outside the Catholic Church…; 3° who knowingly dare to offer their children to non-Catholic ministers for baptism…; 4° parents or those who taken their place, if they knowingly offer children to be educated or brought up in a non-Catholic denomination…’.Google Scholar

8 Coniux catholicus obligatione tenetur conversionem coniugis acatholici prudenter curandi.Google Scholar

9 Matrimonia vero inter partem catholicam et partem acatholicam extra ecclesiam celebrentur; quod si Ordinarius prudenter iudicet id servari non posse quin graviora oriantur mala, prudenti eius arbitrio commititur hac super re dispensare, firmo tamen praescripto Canon 1102, §2.Google Scholar

10 Conzemius, V, ‘Ecumenism’ in Rahner, Karl with Ernst, Cornelius and Smyth, Kevin (eds) Sacramentum Mundi: An Ecyclopedia of Theology (Burns & Oates, 1968) vol 2 p 199.Google Scholar

11 Of particular relevance to mixed marriages is the following statement: ‘The Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. Freedom of this kind means that all men should be immune from coercion on the part of individuals, social groups and every human power so that, within due limits, nobody is forced to act against his convictions in religious matters in private or in public, alone or in associations with others’ in Flannery, (ed) Vatican II: vol 1, The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents (new revised edition 1998) p 800 n 2.Google Scholar

12 Pope Paul VI anticipated the results of the Council by extending to local Ordinaries the faculty of dispensing from the impediments of mixed religion and disparity of cult. Cf Pastorale munus nn 19–20 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 56 (1964) p 8.Google Scholar

13 Issued by the S.C.D.F. on 18 March 1966. Cf Flannery pp 474–478;Google ScholarCf Latin, text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 58 (1966) pp 235–239.Google Scholar

14 Issued by the SCOC on 22 February 1967. Cf Flannery pp 481–482;Google ScholarCf Latin, text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 59 (1967) pp 165–166.Google Scholar

15 An apostolic letter issued motu proprio by Pope Paul VI on 7 January 1970. Cf Flannery pp 508–514;Google ScholarCf Latin, text in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 62 (1970) pp 257–263.Google Scholar

16 Flannery p 475.Google Scholar

17 I 2 Flannery p 476.Google Scholar

18 I 3 Flannery.Google Scholar

19 Flannery.Google Scholar

20 IV Flannery p 477.Google Scholar

21 V Flannery p 478.Google Scholar

22 VII Flannery.Google Scholar

23 Flannery.Google Scholar

24 N 18 Flannery pp 447–448.Google Scholar

25 Flannery p 508.Google Scholar

26 Flannery.Google Scholar

27 Flannery p 509.Google Scholar

28 Flannery p 510.Google Scholar

29 Flannery.Google Scholar

30 Flannery.Google Scholar

31 Flannery.Google Scholar

32 For a contemporary judgment of the impact of Matrimonia mixta, note the comment taken from the Letter from the Second World Gathering of Interchurch Families to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity [2003]: ‘The papal motu proprio Matrimonia mixtra…brought in legislative changes the positive significance of which was not at first fully appreciated by other Churches. It also put forward a less negative view of mixed marriage. It did so in the characteristically understated way by which the Vatican heralds radical change. It said that “mixed marriages…do not, except in some cases, help in re-establishing unity among Christians”. Most Protestant readers, unschooled in Vatican ways, failed at first to detect the positive smuggled in under cover of the negative’. Doctrine and Life 54/3 (03 2004) p 45.Google Scholar

33 Flannery p 511. This was a major change in canonical legislation; henceforth a marriage celebrated without a dispensation would be illicit, not invalid.Google Scholar

34 Norm 3 Flannery p 512.Google Scholar

35 Norm 4 Flannery.Google Scholar

36 Norm 5 Flannery.Google Scholar

37 Norm 9 Flannery.Google Scholar

38 Norm 11 Flannery p 513.Google Scholar

39 Norm 14 Flannery pp 513–514.Google Scholar

40 Published by the Church Information Office, Church House, London, in association with the Catholic Information Office (Infoform), Herts 1976.Google Scholar

41 Cf Meyer, Harding and Vischer, Lukas (eds) Growth in Agreement (Ecumenical Documents II) (Paulist Press, New York/Ramsey-WCC, Geneva, 1984) pp 279–305.Google Scholar The text is also available in One in Christ 14/2 (1978) pp 162–196.Google Scholar

42 Cf Growth in Agreement pp 322–325 nn 69–78a.Google Scholar

43 Ibid pp 348–350 nn 35–43.

44 Ibid pp 382–385 nn 48–56.

45 Burgess, Joseph A and Gros, Jeffrey (eds) Building Unity (Ecumenical Documents IV) (Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah, NJ, 1989) pp 326–327.Google Scholar

46 Ibid pp 335–338.

47 Ibid pp 339–341.

48 Ibid pp 342–353.

49 Burgess, Joseph A and Gros, Jeffrey (eds) Growing Consensus (Ecumenical Documents V) (Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah, 1995) pp 497–504.Google Scholar

50 Cf Flannery, (ed) Vatican II, vol. 1: The Conciliar and Post-Conciliar Documents pp 479–480.Google Scholar

51 Introduction.Google Scholar

52 Ibid.

53 N 15. Earlier the reports states: ‘Behind the requirement concerning the baptism and upbringing of children…as Roman Catholics, lay a doctrine of the Church which Roman Catholics cannot abandon and which Anglicans cannot accept’ (n 9).Google Scholar

54 Ibid n 17.

55 Ibid n 19.

56 Ibid n 58.

57 Ibid n 59.

58 Ibid n 60.

59 The documents that date from the 1970s do not use the inclusive his/her that is common today. I have not amended the original texts.Google Scholar

60 Ibid nn 67–68.

61 Ibid n 63.

62 Ibid.

63 For ease of reference, I will refer to this as the Venice Report.Google Scholar

64 Theology of Marriage and the Problems of Mixed Marriages in Meyer, Harding and Vischer, Lukas (eds) Growth in Agreement (Ecumenical Documents II) (Paulist Press, New York-Ramsey/World Council of Churches, Geneva, 1984) p 293 n 52.Google Scholar It added: ‘This letter shows canon law, as it is no doubt intended, as an expression of Christ's loving care for his people, and the Church's attempt to carry out the love in the daily circumstances of life’ (ibid).

65 ‘The Catholic Church Sees certain matters against a different horizon from the Lutheran and Reformed Churches. This is particularly true in the field of canon law relating to marriage. This is not only a matter of the function and weight that the Catholic Church on the one hand and the Lutheran and Reformed Churches on the other attribute to such a system. Each of the two sides, quite obviously, sees the juridical system in a different dimension, as belonging to an altogether different plane. The two sides therefore treat canon law in completely different contexts, assess it in different ways, and assign altogether different tasks and functions to it’ (ibid p 296 n 64).

66 Ibid p 296 n 66.

67 Ibid p 298 n 80.

68 Ibid.

69 Ibid p 301.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid p 304 n 105. They referred to a similar suggestion made in ARCIC n 71.

72 Ibid p 303 n 101.

73 Cf footnotes 31–33.Google Scholar

74 Growth in Agreement (Ecumenical Documents II) p 323 n 73.Google Scholar

75 Ibid pp 323–324 n 74.

76 Ibid p 349 n 40.

77 The agreements to which I refer were all reached in the United States of America. As such they may not represent the full range of views between the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church. The ‘Agreed statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages’ (New York/New Jersey, 1986)Google Scholar states: ‘Specific attention can be given to the relationship of the Churches in the Americas. The situation here offers some distinct advantages. The political, ethnic and cultural differences which in the old countries, often nourished mistrust, and even hatred, are disappearing’. Building Unity (Ecumenical Documents IV) p 345.

78 ‘An Agreed statement on mixed marriages’ Building Unity (New York, 1970) p. 326.Google Scholar

79 Building Unity p. 327.Google Scholar

80 ‘Agreed statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriage’ Building Unity (New York/New Jersey, 1986) p 349.Google Scholar

81 Ibid pp 349–350.

82 ‘An agreed statement on the sanctity of marriage’ (New York, 1986) ibid p 337.

83 ‘Agreed statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages’ Building Unity (New York/New Jersey, 1986) p 347.Google Scholar

84 Ibid pp 339–341.

85 Ibid p 340.

86 Ibid pp 340–341. Note that the solution found here is based on ecclesiology. This ‘solution’ is echoed also in ‘A pastoral statement on marriage [Joint committee of Orthodox and Roman Catholic Bishops in the United States, October 3–5, 1990, Johnstown, PA] in Burgess, Joseph A and Gros, Jeffrey (eds) Growing Consensus (Ecumenical Documents V), (Paulist Press, New York/Mahwah, 1995) p 502.Google Scholar ‘Decisions, including the intial one of the shildren' church membership, rest with both husband and wife. The decisions should take into account the good of the children, the strength of the religious convictions of the parents and other relatives, the demands of parents’ consciences, the unity and stability of the family, and other specific concerns. In some cases, when it appears probable that only one of the partners will fulfil his or her responsibility, it seems desirable that the children should be raised in that partner's church. In other cases, the children's spiritual formation may include a fuller participation in the life and tradition of both churches, respecting always each church's canonical order. In these cases, the decision regarding the children's church membership is more difficult to make. Yet we are convinced that it is possible to make this decision in good conscience because of the proximity of our churches’ doctrine and practice which enables each, to a high drgree, to see the other precisely as Church as the locus for the communion of the faithful with God and with each other through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spitit’.

87 ‘Agreed statement on Orthodox-Roman Catholic marriages’ in Building Unity (New York/New Jersey, 1986) p 350.Google Scholar

88 Ibid.

89 Ibid p 351.

90 The equivalent canons in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches are Canons 813–816. Cf also Title XVIII, Ecumenism or fostering the unity of Christians (Canons 902–908).Google Scholar

91 For a detailed analysis of the work of the Code Commission on this canon. Cf Communicationes 9 (1977) pp 353–359.Google Scholar

92 For a detailed analysis of the development of the canonical text from Matrimonia mixta to the Code of Canon Law, Cf Bucciero, M, I matrimonii misti: aspetti storici, canonici pastorali, (Millennium Rome 1997) pp 74–92.Google Scholar

93 ‘And such a family becomes the evangeliser of many other families and of the neighbourhood of which it forms part. Families resulting from a mixed marriage also have the duty of proclaiming Christ to the children in the fullness of the consequences of a common baptism; they have moreover the difficult task of becoming builders of unity’. Cf Flannery, (ed) Vatican Council II: More Post-Conciliar Documents, (Dominican Publications, Dublin, 1982) p 747 n 71.Google Scholar

94 Permission differs from dispensation inasmuch as it is ‘according to the law’ and may be presumed when the competent authority cannot be approached. Cf Lobo, G The Christian and Canon Law in Hite, J and Ward, D. J, Readings, Cases, Materials in Canon Law (Revised edition, The Liturgical Press, St John's Abbey, Collegeville MN, 1990) p 41.Google Scholar

95 Gramunt, I, Hervada, J, Wauck, L A, Canons and Commentaries on Marriage (The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 1987) p 72.Google Scholar

96 Cf Communicationes 9 (1977) p 356.Google ScholarCf. also Caparros, E, Thériault, M, Thorn, J, Code of Canon Law Annotated (Wilson & Lafleru Limitée, Montéal, 1993) p 713.Google Scholar

97 Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, Directory for the application of principles and norms of ecumenism (1993) n 151.Google Scholar

98 Glazier, Michael, Marriage and Canon Law, (Wilmington, Delaware, 1986) p 187.Google Scholar Örsy adds: ‘The law assumes that the Catholic is intensely committed to his faith and to his church; in real life it may happen that the non-Catholic is the one who is more dedicated to Christian beliefs and practices. If so, the balance must shift from the ideal which cannot be reached to the concrete good that can be obtained. The Catholic should be humble enough to admit that acting on his religious strength, vires, the child would learn less about Christian life than by letting the non-Catholic ake care of his education’. Siegle, while insisting on the divine law obligation of Catholics entering mixed marriages observes that ‘the obligation is imposed upon the catholic only in the degree to which this is concretely possible’. He adds: ‘The catholic baptism and the education of the children is to be undertaken “as far as possible”. In other words, the Catholic promises “to do all in his or her power” because no one is bound to do the impossible’. Marriage According to the New Code of Canon Law (Alba House, New York) pp 151–152.Google Scholar

99 For example, Pastoral Guidelines and Faculties issued in the diocese of Hallam (1991) state: ‘Deans (within their deaneries) and parish priests (within their parishes) may give permission for a mixed marriage to take place. The conditions of Canon 1125 must always be fulfilled’ (7.3). The faculty granted to deans and parish priests also includes the power to dispense from the disparity of worship ‘insofar as it may be necessary’.Google Scholar

100 For a detailed analysis of the work of the Code Commission on this canon, cf Communicationes 34 (2002) pp 62–76.Google Scholar

101 Chiappetta, L, Il Codice di Diritto Canonico, vol. II (Edizioni Dehoniane. Napoli, 1988) p 257 n 3785.Google Scholar

102 Örsy, op cit p 191.Google Scholar

103 N 12.3 p 26.Google Scholar

104 Code of Canon Law 1917, Canon 1060.Google Scholar

105 Cf introduction, Flannery, op cit vol I p 510.Google Scholar

106 An explanation is given in another ecumenical dialogue: ‘Greater awareness of the historicity of the Church in conjunction with a new understanding of its eschatological nature requires that in our day the concepts of ius divinum and ius humanum be thought through anew. In both concepts the word ius is employed in a merely analogical sense. Ius divinum can never adequately be distinguished from ius humanum. We have the ius divinum always only as mediated through particular human forms. These mediating forms must be understood not only as the product of a sociological process of growth, but because of the pneumatic nature of the Church, they can be experienced as a fruit of the Spirit’. Lutheran-Roman Catholic Conversations [Malta Report/1972] in Growth in Agreement (Ecumenical Documents II), p 175 n 31.Google Scholar

107 Cf Tillard, J-MR, Church of Churches (A Michael Glazier Book, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1992) pp 2–53.Google Scholar This duty is also clearly stated in Canon 209 §1.

108 Walsh, L. The Sacraments of Initiation (Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1988) p 52.Google Scholar This duty is clearly stated in Canon 211.

109 N 56. This point is reinforced in the blessing of fathers: ‘God is the giver of all life, human and divine, May he bless the fathers of these children. With their wives they will be the first teachers of their children in the ways of faith. May they always be the best of teachers, bearing witness to the faith by what they say and do…’ (n 70).Google Scholar

110 Pre-Nuptial Enquiry: Pastoral Guidelines (Veritas, Irish Episcopal Conference, 1991) p 11. The questions are as follows: 6. Do you accept that marriage has been instituted by God and made a sacrament by Christ? 7. Are you resolved to remain steadfast in your Catholic faith and to practise it regularly? 8. Do you promise to do what you can within the unity of your partnership to have all the children of your marriage baptised and brought up in the Catholic faith?Google Scholar

111 Navarrete, U, L'impedimento di ‘disparitas cultus’ in, I matrimonii misti, p 121.Google Scholar

112 Navarrete, ibid p 122. CJ Errázuriz, in a review of I matrimonii misti, takes a contrary view; he argues that, notwithstanding the changes in the canon law, a Catholic is forbidden by divine law from entering a marriage in which he/she will have to sacrifice the right to hand on his/her faith to his/her children (‘Sul fondamento della disciplina circa i matrimonii misti’ in Ius Ecclesiae 11 (1999) p 522.

113 Cf the instruction, Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi, issued by the Pontifical Council for the pastoral care of Migrants or Immigrant People, 3 May, 2004, n 63: ‘With regard to marriage between Catholics and non-Christian migrants, this should be discouraged, thouh to a varying degree, depending on the religion of each partner, with exceptions in speicla cases in accordean with the norms of CIC and CCEO. It should in fact be remembered that, in the words of Pope John Paul Il, “in families where boith parents are Catholic, it is easier for them to share their common faith with theri children. While acknowledging with gratitude interfaith marriages which succeed in nourishing the faith of both spouses and childre, the Synod encourages pastoral efforst to promote marriages between people of the same faith”. Ecclesia in Oceania 2992 n 45’.Google Scholar

114 Anglican-Roman Catholic Marriage, nn 9, 22, 23, 25, 27. For a systematic treatment of this theme, cf Corecco, E, The Theology of Canon Law: A Methodological Question (Duquesne University Press, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1992).Google Scholar Whether this remains as true of Catholics today as it was in the 1970s is a moot point.

115 Ibid p 77. The recently published Lambeth Commission on Communion (the Windsor Report 2004) is, in my view, evidence that the Anglican Church winhes to reclaim this element of ‘the genius of the Western Church’.

116 N 68.Google Scholar

117 Op cit p 77.Google Scholar

118 Cf World Council of Churches, Mutual Recognition of Baptism in Interchurch Agreements (Faith and Order Paper 90, Geneva 1978).Google Scholar

119 Since 1975 ‘the Inter-Church Standing Committee on Mixed Marriages’ has provided such a forum in Ireland.Google Scholar

120 For the statements issued, cf Interchurch families, Journal of the Association of Interchurch Families 7/1 (01 1999), p 7. The Association's website: www.interchurchfamilies.org.Google Scholar

121 For the statement issued, cf Doctrine and Life 54 (2004), pp 43–4;Google Scholar a ‘letter from the Second World Gathering of Interchurch Families to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity’ is available (ibid pp 44–47).

122 The letter to the Pontifical Council, referred to above, states: ‘As we grow into our unity as a couple and family, we begin and continue to share in the life and worship of each other's church communities. We develop a love and understanding not only of one another, but also of the Churches that have given each of us our religious and spiritual identity, and we share that love and understanding with our children. In this way interchurch families can become both a sign of unity and a means to grow towards it. We believe that interchurch families can form a connective tissue helping in a small way to bring our Churches together in the one Body of Christ’. Cf Doctrine and Life 54/3 (2004) pp 46–7).Google Scholar

123 Ecumenical News, Message of Cardinal Walter Kasper to the 2nd International Gathering of the Association of Interchurch Families, Mondo Migliore (Castel Gandolfo), July 24–28 2003.Google Scholar

124 N 9.Google Scholar

125 Acta Apostolicae Sedis 92 (2000) pp 742–765.Google Scholar

126 ‘What do we mean by a “unique occasion” in the life of a family or an individual? We are thinking of an occasion which of its nature is unrepeatable, a “one-off” situation at a given moment, which will not come again. This may well be associated with the most significant moments of a person's life, for example, at the moments of Christian initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, First Communion), Marriage, Ordination and death’ (n 109).Google Scholar

127 ‘The decision whether the bride or groom who is not a Catholic may be admitted to Eucharistic communion must always be made in keeping with the general norms regarding the conditions for such admission, ‘taking into account the particular situation of the reception of the sacrament of Christian marriage by two baptised Christians”. As we stated earlier, the sharing together of the sacraments of baptism and marriage creates a sacred bond between husband and wife, and places the couple in a new relationship with the Catholic Church. The spouse who is not a Catholic remains, however, someone who is not in full communion with the Catholic Church, and for this reason the Directory stresses that ‘Eucharistic sharing can only be exceptional”. Even when the bride or groom is indeed admitted to Holy Communion at a Nuptial Mass, it is not envisaged that this be extended to relatives and other guests not in full communion with the Catholic Church’ (n 111).Google Scholar

128 Griffin, B F, ‘The challenge of ecumenism for canonists’ in Canon Law Society of America Proceedings 55 (1993) pp 17–38.Google Scholar

129 Doe, N, Hill, M and Ombres, R (eds) ‘Ecclesiology, ecumenism and canon law’ in English Canon Law (Essays in honour of Bishop Eric Kemp) (University of Wales Press, Cardiff, 1998) p 56.Google Scholar

130 Anglican-Roman Catholic Marriage n 9.Google Scholar

131 Ut unum sint n 17. Robert Ombres has pointed out (op cit) that the Latin version of this phrase — crescens in continua reformatione communio — is even more powerful.