Catholic Marriage

[Truth_Faith13]

Why does the Catholic Church view non Catholic marriages as valid (and sacramental if both parties are baptized) but not valid if one of the persons is Catholic and they havent got a dispensation?

 

[e_c]

First - it’s the law that a Catholic needs such a dispensation.

Second - it’s the law because the Church sees it as prudent for a pastor or bishop to be able to exercise power over Catholics marrying outside of the Faith.

If neither party is bound by the law, then the sacrament works as it does simply because of the grace already present, which is then built upon in the exchange of vows.

What sparked the question?

 

[1ke]

Why does the Catholic Church view non Catholic marriages as valid (and sacramental if both parties are baptized) but not valid if one of the persons is Catholic and they havent got a dispensation?

Catholics are bound by canon law, the legitimate authority of the Church to bind.

The current code of canon law requires Catholics to marry in Catholic form or be dispensed from form. The law imposes these requirements for validity, therefore a Catholic who does not follow the law attempts marriage invalidly.

Non Catholics are not subject to canon law, unless seeking to marry a Catholic,per the code itself.

 

[Gorgias]

Why does the Catholic Church view non Catholic marriages as valid (and sacramental if both parties are baptized) but not valid if one of the persons is Catholic and they havent got a dispensation?

The Catholic Church recognizes that Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament; therefore, for baptized Christians, a valid marriage is automatically a sacrament.

Catholics are bound by the laws of the Catholic Church, but other non-Catholic Christians aren’t. (This makes sense: after all, Canadians are bound by the laws of Canada, but non-Canadians aren’t.) So, the Catholic Church has requirements of ‘form’ for a valid marriage, and Catholics are bound to follow them.

Among other things, these requirements of ‘form’ include: marriage inside a Catholic Church; marriage by a Catholic priest or Catholic deacon.

Now, these requirements are able to be dispensed with – a person who prepares a couple for marriage can make a formal request for a relaxation of the requirement. Typically, these requests tend to be granted.

On the other hand, if two non-Catholic Christians marry, they follow the rules for the ‘form’ of marriage that their denomination or congregation require. As long as they follow their denomination’s rules, the Catholic Church says, “Yep… valid marriage!”

Same deal with Catholic(s) who marry – as long as they follow the rules for form, the Catholic Church says “Yep… valid marriage!”

 

[cominghome1966]

Why does the Catholic Church view non Catholic marriages as valid (and sacramental if both parties are baptized) but not valid if one of the persons is Catholic and they havent got a dispensation?

If I understand your question, you are asking about something called “canonical form.” From what I understand, it was first instituted in order to stop the problems being caused by clandestine marriages. I am not a canon lawyer, but found this article interesting as it explains the history of canonical form and why it was implemented:

interchurchfamilies.org/index.php/sacramental-and-other-resources/marriage/the-canonical-form-of-marriage.html

Some people argue that canonical form is no longer needed and should be abolished.

 

[angell1]

The Catholic Church recognizes that Christ raised marriage to the level of a sacrament; therefore, for baptized Christians, a valid marriage is automatically a sacrament.

Catholics are bound by the laws of the Catholic Church, but other non-Catholic Christians aren’t. (This makes sense: after all, Canadians are bound by the laws of Canada, but non-Canadians aren’t.) So, the Catholic Church has requirements of ‘form’ for a valid marriage, and Catholics are bound to follow them.

Among other things, these requirements of ‘form’ include: marriage inside a Catholic Church; marriage by a Catholic priest or Catholic deacon.

Now, these requirements are able to be dispensed with – a person who prepares a couple for marriage can make a formal request for a relaxation of the requirement. Typically, these requests tend to be granted.

On the other hand, if two non-Catholic Christians marry, they follow the rules for the ‘form’ of marriage that their denomination or congregation require. As long as they follow their denomination’s rules, the Catholic Church says, “Yep… valid marriage!”

Same deal with Catholic(s) who marry – as long as they follow the rules for form, the Catholic Church says “Yep… valid marriage!”

exactly, I really have a hard time understanding this objection to the catholic church requiring laws for its members. any organization that even wants a hope of succeeding has laws.

it’s about as absurd as claiming one wants to be an American but refusing to abide by the laws of the country.

I’m a Canadian, I don’t have to abide by certain American lwas while in Canada, though I think the laws are pretty similar. However, if I want to go to the United states then yes, I would have to respect their laws. or if I wanted to marry an American, I’m sure there would be some legal aspect to it as well

same deal here, catholics must abide by the laws of the church, non-Catholics do not, if a non-Catholic wants to marry a catholic, then the law would apply to them in that circumstance.

 

[1ke]

On the other hand, if two non-Catholic Christians marry, they follow the rules for the ‘form’ of marriage that their denomination or congregation require. As long as they follow their denomination’s rules, the Catholic Church says, “Yep… valid marriage!”

This is true of other true particular Churches. It is not true of ecclesial communions.

 

[carefullytread]

If I understand your question, you are asking about something called “canonical form.” From what I understand, it was first instituted in order to stop the problems being caused by clandestine marriages. I am not a canon lawyer, but found this article interesting as it explains the history of canonical form and why it was implemented:

interchurchfamilies.org/index.php/sacramental-and-other-resources/marriage/the-canonical-form-of-marriage.html

Some people argue that canonical form is no longer needed and should be abolished.

This a very interesting article; thank you for posting it! It reminds us how dependent the law is on history.

 

[Gorgias]

This is true of other true particular Churches. It is not true of ecclesial communions.

I was always taught that, strictly speaking, it is true – but that they don’t have requirements of form. Half dozen of one, six of another… right?

 

[carefullytread]

exactly, I really have a hard time understanding this objection to the catholic church requiring laws for its members. any organization that even wants a hope of succeeding has laws.

it’s about as absurd as claiming one wants to be an American but refusing to abide by the laws of the country.

I’m a Canadian, I don’t have to abide by certain American lwas while in Canada, though I think the laws are pretty similar. However, if I want to go to the United states then yes, I would have to respect their laws. or if I wanted to marry an American, I’m sure there would be some legal aspect to it as well

same deal here, catholics must abide by the laws of the church, non-Catholics do not, if a non-Catholic wants to marry a catholic, then the law would apply to them in that circumstance.

The article from cominghome1966 actually outlines the historical objections. I had never heard these argument before, but apparently they were strongly held by many bishops in the past. The whole article is worth reading, but here is an excerpt about objections to the imposition of canonical form:

So in the years before the Council of Trent it can be said that people should marry in the canonical form for lawfulness, but not for validity. And the meaning of canonical form was variously understood before Trent. For instance, in some areas it was customary to celebrate a wedding with a considerable gathering of friends and acquaintances, without ecclesiastical ceremony. This was held to be a marriage “in the face of the Church”, “Church” being understood as an assembly of the faithful. In such circumstances, the canonists held that a marriage carried out with the usual celebrations could rightly be described as having been solemnised before the Church.

The Council of Trent

By the time the Council of Trent began its deliberations, the Reformers had introduced their own terminology. A public marriage was one undertaken with the consent of the parents, otherwise it was clandestine and invalid. The principal reason for this was the Church’s sense of limitation in her own authority. To marry is one of the most fundamental rights of a man and a woman. Not only must any reason for limiting the exercise of this right be a most serious one, but if it were agreed to set conditions to the right to marry, the conditions could be laid down effectively. The Church acknowledged that no one but the spouses can create the marriage, and this by their own acts of consent. Should she, could she, invent a new condition for the validity of the consent, one that clearly did not come from divine revelation, not from tradition, and certainly not from canonical precedent? Some of the bishops held that voiding the efficacy of otherwise sufficient marital consent as a punishment for violating the law would be a disproportionate sanction. Decreeing persons to be legally incapable of creating a marriage only because they refused to have a positively imposed form of witness also seemed disproportionate to some of the Council members, since all declarations of legal incapacity had until that time been grounded either in positive divine law (for instance, the incapacity of a married man to marry bigamously) or in natural law (the incapacity of an impotent man for marrying). Some of the ablest theologians at Trent held that, where the sacraments were concerned, the conditions for validity had been fixed by Christ himself, and that the Church could not alter them. If all that God requires for marriage is that two people, who are free to do so, express consent, then how could the Church nullify that consent because of the absence of procedural points of law?

 

[1ke]

I was always taught that, strictly speaking, it is true – but that they don’t have requirements of form. Half dozen of one, six of another… right?

No.

They have no apostolic succession or priesthood.

Their clergy are simply lay men or lay women. When they witness a marriage, it is as a civil authority (in places like the US) or when a couple goes to the magistrate or JP, the civil marriage is the marriage.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

First - it’s the law that a Catholic needs such a dispensation.

Second - it’s the law because the Church sees it as prudent for a pastor or bishop to be able to exercise power over Catholics marrying outside of the Faith.

If neither party is bound by the law, then the sacrament works as it does simply because of the grace already present, which is then built upon in the exchange of vows.

What sparked the question?

Its one of the things I have always found “strange” about the Catholic Church and then there was another thread asking a similar question which reminded me.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thanks all.

I understand your point about different countries law but it is slightly different in that where say in America its is illegal to drink at 18 but legal in the UK. With marriage, anyone with the legal authority (churches, registry office etc) can legally marry someone. The Catholic Church itself recognises a marriage in say CofE as legal if both parties are non catholic, therefore it recognises the legal authority of the CofE to perform marriages. However if one of the parties is Catholic its now illegal and they would be living in sin?? It would be like America treating American citizens who drink in the UK at 18 the same way as they would in America even though its legal in the UK. Does that make sense?

 

[Gorgias]

No.

They have no apostolic succession or priesthood.

Immaterial, though, since their marriages are sacramental… right?

Their clergy are simply lay men or lay women. When they witness a marriage, it is as a civil authority (in places like the US) or when a couple goes to the magistrate or JP, the civil marriage is the marriage.

The question isn’t the status of their clergy, is it? It’s the sacramentality of the marriages they witness. After all, their marriage isn’t sacramental because civil authority recognizes it…

 

[e_c]

Thanks all.

I understand your point about different countries law but it is slightly different in that where say in America its is illegal to drink at 18 but legal in the UK. With marriage, anyone with the legal authority (churches, registry office etc) can legally marry someone. The Catholic Church itself recognises a marriage in say CofE as legal if both parties are non catholic, therefore it recognises the legal authority of the CofE to perform marriages. However if one of the parties is Catholic its now illegal and they would be living in sin?? It would be like America treating American citizens who drink in the UK at 18 the same way as they would in America even though its legal in the UK. Does that make sense?

Think of it more as an American citizen going to Cuba (before the recent diplomacy changes) and spending money without permission.

 

[1ke]

Immaterial, though, since their marriages are sacramental… right?

The question isn’t the status of their clergy, is it? It’s the sacramentality of the marriages they witness. After all, their marriage isn’t sacramental because civil authority recognizes it…

That wasn’t the question at all. You asked about form. I answered that question.

 

[Gorgias]

That wasn’t the question at all. You asked about form. I answered that question.

right… but then claimed, in response to my question, that ‘valid priesthood’ was the reason that ecclesial communions do not have requirements of form…

 

[Horton]

Thanks all.

I understand your point about different countries law but it is slightly different in that where say in America its is illegal to drink at 18 but legal in the UK. With marriage, anyone with the legal authority (churches, registry office etc) can legally marry someone. The Catholic Church itself recognises a marriage in say CofE as legal if both parties are non catholic, therefore it recognises the legal authority of the CofE to perform marriages. However if one of the parties is Catholic its now illegal and they would be living in sin?? It would be like America treating American citizens who drink in the UK at 18 the same way as they would in America even though its legal in the UK. Does that make sense?

The church only hold those who are Catholic at the time of marriage to be married in the Catholic Church or get a dispensation to not marry in the Church. Practicing Catholics know this.

The Catholic Church does recognize marriages in other churches as valid and if there are no impediments, sacramental. For you, if you choose the Catholic Church, your marriage would become sacramental as soon as you are baptized. This in no way means the Church doesn’t recognize your marriage, she does. In the Catholic Church all marriages are considered valid as long as there are no impediments or that one party was Catholic at the time of marriage. (If married outside the Catholic Church)

 

[Vico]

Thanks all.

I understand your point about different countries law but it is slightly different in that where say in America its is illegal to drink at 18 but legal in the UK. With marriage, anyone with the legal authority (churches, registry office etc) can legally marry someone. The Catholic Church itself recognises a marriage in say CofE as legal if both parties are non catholic, therefore it recognises the legal authority of the CofE to perform marriages. However if one of the parties is Catholic its now illegal and they would be living in sin?? It would be like America treating American citizens who drink in the UK at 18 the same way as they would in America even though its legal in the UK. Does that make sense?

So there is natural marriage and sacramental marriage but there is civil authority and religious authority.

Religious authorities may have requirements apart from civil authorities establishing what is necessary for a valid marriage.

 

[Phemie]

The Catholic Church does recognize marriages in other churches as valid and if there are no impediments, sacramental.

That should read, “The Catholic Church does recognize marriages in other churches as valid if there are no impediments. If both parties are baptized those marriages are also sacramental.” Impediments affect validity.