civil ceremony before church wedding

[benedictgal]

This is actually a bad idea from all standpoints. First of all, having assisted at several weddings at the Cathedral, I’ve seen lavish ones that wind up ending in divorce court and simple ones that have really embraced their vows.

When we’ve had convalidations, the rector would tell the wife that her father should not be giving her away and that the couple needs to process up the aisle together. The wife was offended, but, as the rector told her, “what is there to give away if the marriage has already been consummated?” That may sound harsh; however, Jesus wasn’t all hearts and flowers.

Something else to consider: speeding up the wedding just to get the benefits isn’t a good way to start your life together as a couple. It’s as though you are merely looking at the fiscal benefits and not at the whole picture. It is as though you are placing the dollars ahead of the sacrament, and that is not a good way to begin things.

Furthermore, what kind of example would you be setting for the children that you are to embrace lovingly and rear according to the laws of Christ and His Church?

I would suggest that you and your fiance take the FOCCUS test. Ask your pastor to administer it to you. Marriage takes more than being a financial wizard or feathering up the nest egg. There needs to be a great deal of commitment to each other and to Christ, first and foremost. Without Christ as the center of your marriage, I’m afraid you may not stand much of a chance.

 

[notsmart]

I just hope it all works out for you Op. I know there are classes at the church I go to that is for couples getting married, I think the bulletin calls them pre-cana classes. I don’t know what else to say except that I am sure you are already praying about this, and hopefully God will guide you to his will in this.

I wish you a blessed future with your soon to be husband.

Monica

 

[gmarie21]

yes there is a rule
for Catholics the rule is canon law
if you marry outside the Church you have voluntarily excommunicated yourself, and divorced yourself from the sacraments, including marriage. you do not just decide to convalidate months later at your convenience. you will have to go through whatever it takes to reconcile with the church first.

Puzzleannie, I usually agree with you, but I"m not so certain about the part in bold. Many Catholics, living as “brother and sister” waiting on convalidation in a Church ceremony for whatever reason, would, according to what you wrote, be automatically excommunicated, yet they aren’t. Heck, even the Pope has written about ministering to those in “invalid” marriages within the Church. If our pope does not state they are excommunicated, how can your statement be true?

 

[benedictgal]

Puzzleannie, I usually agree with you, but I"m not so certain about the part in bold. Many Catholics, living as “brother and sister” waiting on convalidation in a Church ceremony for whatever reason, would, according to what you wrote, be automatically excommunicated, yet they aren’t. Heck, even the Pope has written about ministering to those in “invalid” marriages within the Church. If our pope does not state they are excommunicated, how can your statement be true?

Actually, puzzleannie isn’t puzzled at all. She is right. A Catholic in an invalid marriage cannot receive Holy Communion. Therefore the Catholic is excommunicated because he is living in sin. My grandmother was in an invalid marriage for nearly 40 years before her annulment was approved. She could not go to communion. However, she never stopped going to Church.

 

[notsmart]

Puzzleannie, I usually agree with you, but I"m not so certain about the part in bold. Many Catholics, living as “brother and sister” waiting on convalidation in a Church ceremony for whatever reason, would, according to what you wrote, be automatically excommunicated, yet they aren’t. Heck, even the Pope has written about ministering to those in “invalid” marriages within the Church. If our pope does not state they are excommunicated, how can your statement be true?

I don’t see the connection, maybe I don’t understand.

Just because the pope does not explicitly state they are excommunicated, does not neccesarily mean they have not done so by themselves. And, of course ministering to the ones in need is a good thing, but it’s no indication of approval.

 

[lizaanne]

I don’t see the connection, maybe I don’t understand.

Just because the pope does not explicitly state they are excommunicated, does not neccesarily mean they have not done so by themselves. And, of course ministering to the ones in need is a good thing, but it’s no indication of approval.

(nosmart - this is very OT, but I just wanted to say how totally proud of you I am! You are really learning about the Faith and applying it to reason arguments - you are coming right along in your journey! )

~Liza

 

[benedictgal]

I don’t see the connection, maybe I don’t understand.

Just because the pope does not explicitly state they are excommunicated, does not neccesarily mean they have not done so by themselves. And, of course ministering to the ones in need is a good thing, but it’s no indication of approval.

No, it’s not. The big problem here is that Jesus speaks explicitly and directly about the issue of marriage, moreso than in any other issue. Granted, he addresses divorce, but, it is a slippery slope.

The problem is that what the OP is considering is tantamount to making the financial matter more important than the sacrament. It is very rare for a couple to maintain the “brother/sister” relationship. Our friends from Japan have fortitude; however, it doesn’t always work that way.

Incidentally, Mexico is another country that doesn’t recognize religoius ceremonies as valid for entry into the marriage log. In Mexico, because of its anticlerical laws, the couple must have a civil wedding.

 

[gmarie21]

Actually, puzzleannie isn’t puzzled at all. She is right. A Catholic in an invalid marriage cannot receive Holy Communion. Therefore the Catholic is excommunicated because he is living in sin. My grandmother was in an invalid marriage for nearly 40 years before her annulment was approved. She could not go to communion. However, she never stopped going to Church.

So, a Catholic in a state of mortal sin (ranging from purposefully missing a Holy Day of Obligation to murder) has excommunicated themselves? Yes, if one is in a state of mortal sin they should not present themselves for the Eucharist, but not being able to receive the Eucharist is quite different than excommunication.

 

[notsmart]

So, a Catholic in a state of mortal sin (ranging from purposefully missing a Holy Day of Obligation to murder) has excommunicated themselves? Yes, if one is in a state of mortal sin they should not present themselves for the Eucharist, but not being able to receive the Eucharist is quite different than excommunication.

I don’t quite know if there is a signifigant difference. Maybe you are thinking of a formal excommunication?

There can be no worse punishment than being deprived of the Eucharist.

 

[benedictgal]

So, a Catholic in a state of mortal sin (ranging from purposefully missing a Holy Day of Obligation to murder) has excommunicated themselves? Yes, if one is in a state of mortal sin they should not present themselves for the Eucharist, but not being able to receive the Eucharist is quite different than excommunication.

However, you need to realize someting. If a Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that person is going to live in sin until the situation is resolved. What is the use of going to receive Our Lord if you are going to remain in sin? Going to confession will not do the person any good because there won’t be a firm puprose of amendment if the person is still going to be living in an invalid marrraige.

 

[gmarie21]

However, you need to realize someting. If a Catholic is in an invalid marriage, that person is going to live in sin until the situation is resolved. What is the use of going to receive Our Lord if you are going to remain in sin? Going to confession will not do the person any good because there won’t be a firm puprose of amendment if the person is still going to be living in an invalid marrraige.

Please, do not assume what goes on behind closed doors for all Catholics in invalid marriages who are aware of the situation they need to correct. If the couple remains celebate, then that changes things, does it not? I know that many believe it to be impossible to live as “brother and sister” but, as has been reported by at least one member of a tribunal on Relevant Radio, more couples are living as “brother and sister” in order to receive the Eucharist than many think (still not a majority, but still more than zero). These couples are permitted to receive the Eucharist since they are not living in a sinful state (though at times it may be tempting). Please, if I am incorrect, give me Church documentation supporting your disagreement (and also Church documentation pertaining to excommunication for those living in an “invalid” marriage - whether or not that marriage was consumated).

 

[notsmart]

Just a thought- whether or not they live as sister in brother, is the secondary problem I think. The first would be why did they marry outside of the chruch? I could be wrong.

Please, do not assume what goes on behind closed doors for all Catholics in invalid marriages who are aware of the situation they need to correct. If the couple remains celebate, then that changes things, does it not? I know that many believe it to be impossible to live as “brother and sister” but, as has been reported by at least one member of a tribunal on Relevant Radio, more couples are living as “brother and sister” in order to receive the Eucharist than many think (still not a majority, but still more than zero). These couples are permitted to receive the Eucharist since they are not living in a sinful state (though at times it may be tempting). Please, if I am incorrect, give me Church documentation supporting your disagreement (and also Church documentation pertaining to excommunication for those living in an “invalid” marriage - whether or not that marriage was consumated).

 

[gmarie21]

Just a thought- whether or not they live as sister in brother, is the secondary problem I think. The first would be why did they marry outside of the chruch? I could be wrong.

I would venture to say that most do so out of ignorance.

 

[notsmart]

I would venture to say that most do so out of ignorance.

I would agree. But, the OP here can’t make that claim now.

 

[gmarie21]

I would agree. But, the OP here can’t make that claim now.

Oh, I agree. I did have friends (they married each other) who civilly married before the Church ceremony so that she could receive benefits and him more pay (he was military). However, one lived in KS (where he was stationed) and the other in IL until they married in the Church because they were aware of the requirements of the Church.

 

[bilop]

Incidentally, Mexico is another country that doesn’t recognize religoius ceremonies as valid for entry into the marriage log. In Mexico, because of its anticlerical laws, the couple must have a civil wedding.

And what if the couple refuse to have a civil wedding? Why can’t they just ignore the civil marriage?

God Bless

 

[notsmart]

Oh, I agree. I did have friends (they married each other) who civilly married before the Church ceremony so that she could receive benefits and him more pay (he was military). However, one lived in KS (where he was stationed) and the other in IL until they married in the Church because they were aware of the requirements of the Church.

But, in the meantime they are willfully seperating themselves from the Eucharist… until they correct the matter with the Church?

It seems to me, at this stage in my growth- that you cant put a pricetag on the grace you recieve in the Eucharist.

Believe me, I am going to have to wait one more year to take RCIA, and if you don’t think that is bothersome to me,…

But, I am not waiting to recieve because I am getting finacial benefits for doing so.

 

[gmarie21]

But, in the meantime they are willfully seperating themselves from the Eucharist… until they correct the matter with the Church?

It seems to me, at this stage in my growth- that you cant put a pricetag on the grace you recieve in the Eucharist.

Believe me, I am going to have to wait one more year to take RCIA, and if you don’t think that is bothersome to me,…

But, I am not waiting to recieve because I am getting finacial benefits for doing so.

On can receive the Eucharist if one is not sinning (abstaining from sexual relations within an invalid marriage, while it may be putting extreme temptation in one’s presence, is not a sin). There are members of CAF who are in such situations (waiting for annulment decisions, once ignorant but now aware, or any other possible combination) where they are now abstaining, have confessed their sins (and are truly repentant and do not intend to have sexual relations until, if ever, they can make their civil marriages valid). Most are working with spiritual advisors and their pastors/priests so as to make sure that they are proceeding with caution and not sinfully.

 

[notsmart]

On can receive the Eucharist if one is not sinning (abstaining from sexual relations within an invalid marriage, while it may be putting extreme temptation in one’s presence, is not a sin). There are members of CAF who are in such situations (waiting for annulment decisions, once ignorant but now aware, or any other possible combination) where they are now abstaining, have confessed their sins (and are truly repentant and do not intend to have sexual relations until, if ever, they can make their civil marriages valid). Most are working with spiritual advisors and their pastors/priests so as to make sure that they are proceeding with caution and not sinfully.

But, I thought we already established that marriage outside of the church is verboten. As such, it is a sin. And, we established the OP is now aware of this, so going ahead is- in direct defiance of the Church’s policy.
It hardly matters if they abstain from sex at this point.
If they do this, they have already broken their relationship with the Church right?
The sex matter is secondary in this case.

(I am not assuming the OP will go ahead- I am just presenting the situation for the sake of clarity so we can get to the bottom of what the sin would be and why)

 

[benedictgal]

And what if the couple refuse to have a civil wedding? Why can’t they just ignore the civil marriage?

God Bless

The problem occurs when it comes to benefits and property. If the state doesn’t recognize the marriage, then, in their eyes, the kids are not legitimate and the wife doesn’t have a claim on any property in the event her husband dies.