Can't get married outside?

[Rence]

Not in the United States. Because in the US the officiant witnesses for the state. The person can only be legally married once.

If they legally wed via the civil ceremony first, then they would have to have their marriage convalidated.

No, this is not correct in the United States.

Yes it is. If the priest does not sign the marriage license during the sacramental marriage, which is NOT required, and doesn’t have to be done (it is NOT a part of the ceremony, but is separate), YES, you can get married civily outside of the sacramental ceremony. Because the state does not recognize church weddings without a civil marriage license attached to it.

My parents, as well as my grandparents, went to city hall to get married civily, and then at a later date got married sacramentally at the Church. So yes, it can be done, and yes, you can only be married legally once. Correct. Again, civil marriage has nothing to do with, and is completely different from, a catholic sacramental marriage.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

To the OP, I don’t know of anyone who isn’t married civily as well as Sacramentally, because the two are entirely different. Usually, the priest marrying the couple signs the marriage license, but many get the civil ceremony done separately, even if they just go to the justice of the peace to sign it. So anyone who wants an outdoor wedding can simply have the Sacramental part in a small setting in a small church or chapel, and have the civil ceremony elsewhere. That is totally acceptable because the Sacrament was still done in Church

I do not think this is common. Either you have a church wedding OR you have a civil ceremony, and if civil, you can ask the judge or other official to marry you out of doors (obviously NOT for Catholics). When you marry in a church, the papers are filed with the city and county but that does not mean you have had a civil wedding. In fact, if you married in the church, and then tried to also have a civil ceremony, I am pretty sure you would be turned down, because you are already married. I am totally sure it works the other way too - if you marry civilly you cannot then have a traditional church wedding. You are already married in the eyes of the Church and you have to get convalidated or blessed or whatever.

 

[Rence]

I do not think this is common. Either you have a church wedding OR you have a civil ceremony, and if civil, you can ask the judge or other official to marry you out of doors (obviously NOT for Catholics). When you marry in a church, the papers are filed with the city and county but that does not mean you have had a civil wedding.

If you’ve already been married civily, the church doesn’t process the papers…they’ve already been processed.

In fact, if you married in the church, and then tried to also have a civil ceremony, I am pretty sure you would be turned down, because you are already married. I am totally sure it works the other way too - if you marry civilly you cannot then have a traditional church wedding. You are already married in the eyes of the Church and you have to get convalidated or blessed or whatever.

If you are married in the Church, and don’t have the priest process the civil marriage documents, which is not required, you can still be married civily.

K, ya’ll, don’t say it can’t be done. Because I know it’s been done at least twice, with my own family My parents and grandparents had licit marriages. Both were married civily first and then had a big Church wedding after.

 

[KostyaJMJ]

What loophole? Of course it’s allowed.

I mean that it is too simple of a solution, and if it were permitted then I believe it would be used more often.

 

[1ke]

Yes it is. If the priest does not sign the marriage license during the sacramental marriage, which is NOT required, and doesn’t have to be done (it is NOT a part of the ceremony, but is separate), YES, you can get married civily outside of the sacramental ceremony. Because the state does not recognize church weddings without a civil marriage license attached to it.

I am not aware of any diocese in the US that allows their priests to “marry” someone without a marriage license in hand. Can you produce documentation from one that does?

My parents, as well as my grandparents, went to city hall to get married civily, and then at a later date got married sacramentally at the Church.

This is called a CONVALIDATION. They had their invalid civil marriage convalidated.

So yes, it can be done, and yes, you can only be married legally once. Correct. Again, civil marriage has nothing to do with, and is completely different from, a catholic sacramental marriage.

A person who marries civilly violates canon law in doing so. They have an *invalid *marriage. If they live apart and chastely until they have their marriage convalidated then they have not committed the sin of fornication, although disobeying Church law on marriage is a sin itself. They correct their situation through convalidation.

Again. let me state that I am speaking specifically about the United States.

In other countries that require a civil marriage first, and do not allow the church personnel to witness the marriage for civil legality, the couple absolutely does marry first at the magistrate’s office. BUT they then immediately marry in the Church and they live apart in the few days between the registration of their marriage with civil authorities and their completion of their vows before the Church. In these countries you can view the entire process as one. Not so in the US.

 

[Rence]

I am not aware of any diocese in the US that allows their priests to “marry” someone without a marriage license in hand. Can you produce documentation from one that does?

This is called a CONVALIDATION. They had their invalid civil marriage convalidated.

A person who marries civilly violates canon law in doing so. They have an *invalid *marriage. If they live apart and chastely until they have their marriage convalidated then they have not committed the sin of fornication, although disobeying Church law on marriage is a sin itself. They correct their situation through convalidation.

A person who marries civily violates canon law if they then go on and live as a married couple. A person who marries civily, lives separately as if not married, and then marries in the Church is perfectly compliant with the rules of the Church. Therefore, a couple can get married by a justice of the peace on the beach, swing by the chapel or church, and get the sacramental part done (marriage license in hand) and then go on to the reception. That’s not how you would have it done, and heck, it’s not how I would have it done either…but it can and does get done that way.

 

[lizaanne]

Well, I do not see the importance of the requirement to have the ceremony in a Church, and I know very well the significance and importance of the Sacrament. I guess I just don’t feel God is limited to a building and I feel the Church is more than just a building. Where do you suppose Catholics got married before the first “Church” was built? If we were still in caves and catacomes and members’ houses, would canon still require us to be married in a “Church”? Somehow I doubt it.

At the end of the day it really doesn’t matter what YOU think and how YOU feel about. You are Catholic, and you are expected to be obedient to the Bride of Christ. Period. If you don’t agree, then figure out why you don’t agree and fix whatever it is within you that is contrary to the Church. It is YOU who have the defect, not the Church.

~Liza

 

[estesbob]

The desire to get married outside is a symptom of today’s view on the marriage ceremony People look upon the marriage ceremony as more akin to to planning a Broadway musical than a sacred ceremony where they are making a lifetime commitment

 

[ComputerGeek25]

The preferred place for the sacraments to take place is in Church, unless of course there is good reason not too.

For example, I’ve been at mass outside. But there were an estimated 800,000 people there and the pope said mass. Try fitting that into your enighborhood church!

 

[Spirithound]

I mean that it is too simple of a solution, and if it were permitted then I believe it would be used more often.

It is permitted, but who wants to pay for two weddings? If you’re getting married civilly for the fancy setting, that’s the one you’re inviting 100 people to, but then are ya really going to want to go simple for the Church wedding?

 

[stephe1987]

Simple solution:

1. Get married in the church.
2. Have the reception at the beach.

Why don’t people WANT to get married in a Church, in God’s house? You can go to the beach anytime, but marriage is a once-in-a-lifetime sacrament.

 

[HolyCow21]

So many responses here seem to be trying to use guilt by saying in what seems like a “DUH!” tone, “why would somebody not want to get married in the church?!” I know, I know, you have nothing to do with guilt, it’s my own conscience, etc etc. Spare me.

Like another poster pointed out, I also do not believe God is not bound by the walls of a building.

So besides the answers that try to bring about guilt for not wanting to do it the way The Church instructs, or the reasons of nature or man made hazards, this rule seems quite arbitrary.

 

[davidv]

So many responses here seem to be trying to use guilt by saying in what seems like a “DUH!” tone, “why would somebody not want to get married in the church?!” I know, I know, you have nothing to do with guilt, it’s my own conscience, etc etc. Spare me.

Like another poster pointed out, I also do not believe God is not bound by the walls of a building.

So besides the answers that try to bring about guilt for not wanting to do it the way The Church instructs, or the reasons of nature or man made hazards, this rule seems quite arbitrary.

If you think they are arbitrary, why do you still think so? Reasons were provided is some of the posts that did not include guilt. What was wrong with them? Seems pretty arbitrary that you are dismissing them without any stated reason.

God is not bound by any walls. However Jesus establish His Church and gave her the authority to bind and loose. The Church’s requirements are not arbitrary and are not power plays. The requirements are designed to get us to heaven.

 

[Phemie]

If you’ve already been married civily, the church doesn’t process the papers…they’ve already been processed.

If you are married in the Church, and don’t have the priest process the civil marriage documents, which is not required, you can still be married civily.

K, ya’ll, don’t say it can’t be done. Because I know it’s been done at least twice, with my own family My parents and grandparents had licit marriages. Both were married civily first and then had a big Church wedding after.

I know of no priest in the US or Canada today who will witness a religious wedding but not register it unless the couple is already legally married. A convalidation? Yes, of course, they happen all the time. But not the reverse.

Even in countries where there are two separate ceremonies, a civil and a religious one, the religious one always comes second, by law. The Church obeys because there is no reason not to.

 

[1ke]

So many responses here seem to be trying to use guilt by saying in what seems like a “DUH!” tone, “why would somebody not want to get married in the church?!” I know, I know, you have nothing to do with guilt, it’s my own conscience, etc etc. Spare me.

Well, on an internet forum, your mileage may vary. So, you often get responses you don’t necessarily want to hear. Like vegetables, they are good for us. It is quite typical for people to come to a forum wanting only to hear those that agree with them-- “oh you poor thing, the church is so unfair and mean.” Well, you aren’t likely to get that.

That said, there isn’t anything inherently evil or wrong about having a wedding (or any sacrament) outside or this practice would be strictly forbidden. It isn’t. It is not the *ordinary *place for a wedding or other sacrament, and it requires *permission *from the bishop and a compelling reason. That is because the Church is the steward of the sacraments and it is her duty to ensure they are respected, conducted with decorum and solemnity, and that there is no abuse of them. So, as the steward entrusted by Christ, we follow the guidelines of the Church. If you have a bishop who generously allows his priests to celebrate masses and weddings outside for suitable reasons, then great. If you don’t, then start picking out flowers for the church because that’s where the wedding will be.

Like another poster pointed out, I also do not believe God is not bound by the walls of a building.

But Christ does bind us to the authority put over us in the person of the Bishop.

So besides the answers that try to bring about guilt for not wanting to do it the way The Church instructs, or the reasons of nature or man made hazards, this rule seems quite arbitrary.

Perhaps it does seem that way to you.

But, the answer remains the same. Permission of the bishop is required for the celebration of marriage (or any other sacrament) outside its normal form or place as defined in canon law.

 

[1ke]

I know of no priest in the US or Canada today who will witness a religious wedding but not register it unless the couple is already legally married. A convalidation? Yes, of course, they happen all the time. But not the reverse.

Even in countries where there are two separate ceremonies, a civil and a religious one, the religious one always comes second, by law. The Church obeys because there is no reason not to.

Yep. That is why I asked for documentation from a Catholic diocese that allows this. They simply don’t.

Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

 

[PatriceA]

So many responses here seem to be trying to use guilt by saying in what seems like a “DUH!” tone, “why would somebody not want to get married in the church?!” I know, I know, you have nothing to do with guilt, it’s my own conscience, etc etc. Spare me.

Like another poster pointed out, I also do not believe God is not bound by the walls of a building.

So besides the answers that try to bring about guilt for not wanting to do it the way The Church instructs, or the reasons of nature or man made hazards, this rule seems quite arbitrary.

I see nothing arbitrary about wanting to get married in front on the tabernacle where Jesus is present. Its HIS house, what is arbitrary about wanting to grant the respect Jesus so rightly deserves? We should feel priviledged and honored to have the opportunity to start out our married life in His house.

Look at it this way. You want to throw a party for your most loved family member in your house but the person of honor says, nope your place isn’t good enough. The whole occasion isn’t important to them, as long as they get don’t get to make all the decisions. How would you feel?

 

[Tietjen]

So many responses here seem to be trying to use guilt by saying in what seems like a “DUH!” tone, “why would somebody not want to get married in the church?!” I know, I know, you have nothing to do with guilt, it’s my own conscience, etc etc. Spare me.

Like another poster pointed out, I also do not believe God is not bound by the walls of a building.

So besides the answers that try to bring about guilt for not wanting to do it the way The Church instructs, or the reasons of nature or man made hazards, this rule seems quite arbitrary.

I don’t care whether you feel guilt or not. I don’t know you or your sister, but if neither of you want to abide by the authority of the Church, I certainly won’t loose any sleep over it. There are, after all, supposed Catholics that don’t agree with the Church’s position on abortion as well. You’ve been given the answer… don’t like it? Tough!

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Well, on an internet forum, your mileage may vary. So, you often get responses you don’t necessarily want to hear. Like vegetables, they are good for us. It is quite typical for people to come to a forum wanting only to hear those that agree with them-- “oh you poor thing, the church is so unfair and mean.” Well, you aren’t likely to get that.

That said, there isn’t anything inherently evil or wrong about having a wedding (or any sacrament) outside or this practice would be strictly forbidden. It isn’t. It is not the *ordinary *place for a wedding or other sacrament, and it requires *permission *from the bishop and a compelling reason. That is because the Church is the steward of the sacraments and it is her duty to ensure they are respected, conducted with decorum and solemnity, and that there is no abuse of them. So, as the steward entrusted by Christ, we follow the guidelines of the Church. If you have a bishop who generously allows his priests to celebrate masses and weddings outside for suitable reasons, then great. If you don’t, then start picking out flowers for the church because that’s where the wedding will be.

But Christ does bind us to the authority put over us in the person of the Bishop.

Perhaps it does seem that way to you.

But, the answer remains the same. Permission of the bishop is required for the celebration of marriage (or any other sacrament) outside its normal form or place as defined in canon law.

Rock solid answer, as usual

 

[HolyCow21]

I don’t care whether you feel anything about my guilt either. Not my point. It’s other people’s apparent attempt to use guilt to convince of a point and the “DUH” attitude as if why wouldn’t you want to get married in Jesus’s house instead of a place not suitable like the awesome beautiful natural world that He created for us and is not longer any part of? I’m really happy that every single thing the church does is so extremely obvious to so many of you and that you don’t care what other people think. I know the church has the right to make whatever rules it wants to and I respect that. As for the reasons why it makes some of its rules, I don’t always fully agree with them.

Like I said earlier, the best way for me to understand it is shut up and realize it’s again because The Church says so. It doesn’t even affect me anyway since I’m not the one getting married here.

And Tietjen’s answer about “supposed Catholics” is why I hate discussing things here most of the time. Sorry I’m not as good as you. Shall I (virtually) bow to in reverence to you now?