Tatiana Maria
Majesty
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2013
- Messages
- 6,737
- City
- St Petersburg
- Country
- United States
Máxima received dispensation from the Roman Catholic bishop of Rotterdam for her non-Catholic marriage. It was indeed clear from the start that the children would be baptized in the Dutch Reformed Church (later Protestant Church of the Netherlands).
See for example this article written at that time: https://web.archive.org/web/2014022...site_maxima/paginas/achtergronden/geloof.html
Are you sure that Máxima ever made such promise? When she became engaged, it was made very clear to her and, I believe, to the public, that she would have a Protestant wedding and that the children of the marriage would be baptized in the Protestant church, and she accepted those conditions. It would be strange and, I would dare say, even dishonest on her part to promise to raise her children as Catholics when she knew a priori that it would be impossible to fulfill such promise.
Maybe the fact that she did not have a Catholic wedding makes her situation slightly different than Maria Laura's.
The difference between the marriages of Máxima and Maria Laura is that in order to ensure their church recognized their marriages as religiously valid, Máxima Zorreguieta needed to seek approval from church officials twice over (to marry a non-Catholic as well as to hold the wedding ceremony outside of a Catholic church), whereas Princess Maria Laura only needed to seek approval for marriage to a non-Catholic (as she intends to have her religious wedding in a Catholic cathedral).
Quoting the explanation from the Catholic Church's US wedding website:
If the non-Catholic is a baptized Christian (not necessarily Catholic), the marriage is valid as long as the Catholic party obtains official permission from the diocese to enter into the marriage and follows all the stipulations for a Catholic wedding.
[...]
In cases where a Catholic is marrying someone who is not a baptized Christian – known as a marriage with disparity of cult – “the church exercises more caution,” Hater says. A “dispensation from disparity of cult,” which is a more rigorous form of permission given by the local bishop, is required for the marriage to be valid.
[...]
Because Catholics regard marriage as a sacred event, the church prefers that ecumenical interfaith couples marry in a Catholic church, preferably the Catholic party’s parish church. If they wish to marry elsewhere, they must get permission from the local bishop. He can permit them to marry in the non-Catholic spouse’s place of worship or another suitable place with a minister, rabbi, or civil magistrate – if they have a good reason, according to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. This permission is called a “dispensation from canonical form.” Without it, a wedding not held in a Catholic church is not considered valid.
Further, because the promise concerning children is tied to the interfaith marriage, not the wedding ceremony, it will have been undertaken by both women. As each of them married after 1983, they would only have promised to "do all in their power". The website explains that this does not constitute an absolute promise to raise their children Catholic:
Because of these challenges, the church requires the Catholic party to be faithful to his or her faith and to “make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power” to have their children baptized and raised in the Catholic faith. This provision of the 1983 Code of Canon Law is a change from the 1917 version, which required an absolute promise to have the children raised Catholic.
Likewise, the non-Catholic spouse is no longer required to promise to take an active role in raising the children in the Catholic faith, but instead “to be informed at an appropriate time of these promises which the Catholic party has to make, so that it is clear that the other party is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party,” the code states. (See the 1983 [current] Code of Canon Law, canons 1124-1129 on “Mixed Marriages” for the full text.)
But suppose the non-Catholic party insists that the children will not be raised Catholic? The diocese can still grant permission for the marriage, as long as the Catholic party promises to do all he or she can to fulfill that promise, Hater writes.
I am not very familiar with Michael of Kent, but it appears that he and Marie Christine only had a civil wedding. They later received a blessing of their marriage in a Catholic ceremony (with special papal dispensation), but I don't think they were ever technically married in the Catholic Church. So I am not sure what kind of promises either Michael or Marie Christine had to make, if any at all.
Some articles refer to the 1983 ceremony as a wedding. The Catholic church itself apparently labels the process of making a civil marriage religiously valid as "convalidation".
At first glance, it seems to involve the same requirements and ceremony as a religious-only wedding, so I assume the same promises would apply.
https://www.foryourmarriage.org/convalidation-bringing-your-marriage-into-the-church/
In fact, I wonder if the aforementioned change of church rules in 1983 was the reason why Prince and Princess Michael of Kent were able to marry/convalidate in the Catholic Church that year. As stated on the website, prior to 1983 the Roman Catholic Church would have demanded that even the Anglican Prince Michael make an unequivocal promise to raise his children as Catholics, which he was not willing to agree to.