Let’s be careful here. The bold applies only to Catholics with no dispensation from form or for members of the Eastern Churches. For others a marriage at the courthouse is very much a marriage if there are no impediments.
Nope. Christ said, “What God has joined together…” Period. Caesar has no authority over marriage. Were it otherwise, there would be no need for convalidation when a civilly “married” couple comes into the Church. The Church does not recognize the validity of state-sanctioned “marriage.” The Church does recognize the marriages of persons in other religions and cultures as “presumptively valid” assuming they are of one man and one woman and there were no impediments, but beyond that, any “marriage” confected by the state is invalid, and is therefore no marriage at all. This is the authentic teaching of the Church. Don’t take my word for it, look it up.
That’s true, but that’s a “policy” not a matter of canon law and certainly not a requirement of the sacrament. In Mexico, in the 1920s, people flocked to receive the sacrament before the sacraments were outlawed. There was no “six-month” waiting period. The sacrament can be conferred at anytime, witnessed by any priest or deacon (because it is the man and woman who confer the sacrament onto each other). The whole six-month thing is an attempt to help prepare people, but it is not a requirement of the sacrament. And to hell with paperwork…Christ turned water into wine at Cana. He didn’t wring his hands and whine, “Oh, gee…I think we better wait six months for all the paperwork to go through…”
You’re wrong, I’m afraid.
I’m not sure about that. The Church presumes that marriages that took place in other faiths or cultural traditions are valid (assuming it’s one man and one woman, and there were no impediments), and thus no convalidation is necessary, because the marriage is “presumptively valid.” At issue here is whether the State has the authority to validate a marriage in the eyes of God. My read of Church teaching is that it does not, for the reasons mentioned above. Caesar has no authority over the sacraments.
I would argue that the Church has indeed given authority to the state in the sacrament of marriage. That is part of the reason we are in the confusion about marriage we see today. When the Church requires something from the state to even look at the validity of one of Her sacraments (You must file for divorce to have a tribunal to look at your marriage) then what the Church has done is released authority to the state in regards to a sacrament and the Church’s proceedings. If I want to find out the validity of one of the sacraments of the Church, I must get something from the state to do so. If that is not a relinquishing of power I don’t know what is. I agree with you theologically, but in reality the Church has put herself in a dangerous position with one of Her sacraments. And this issue will lift it’s ugly head in the very near future.
All this is what I was thinking.
Bureaucracy is bureaucracy, whether we are taking about the Church or the State. I think my likelihood of winning a million dollars in the lottery today is probably better than the likelihood of the OP getting sacramentally married in the Church tomorrow.
Yep. My marriage was rushed through by the priest because my husband was shipping out on military orders. It still took 3 months and we had no wedding–just said our vows at a regularly scheduled Mass. Look, they have a baby that needs and deserves married parents. Marriage matters. If the Church was not run by imperfect humans than this would not be an issue, but it is and unfortunately it makes it not feasible to always follow the protocol asked of us. There are reasons why in many places to separate marriages are required if you want your marriage recognized both civilly and religiously. Honestly I think it would be wise to require that here as well. It would solve many issues in terms of marriage going on here
Agreed; that’s why I characterized it as an ‘exception’ – and a rare one at that!
Right. Why should we bother investigating whether the couple is actually free to marry, or has no impediments? Nah… let’s just get them to the altar, and let it all sort out later!
Why, indeed?!? In fact, I think you’re misinterpreting things yourself:
No, that’s not at all what’s going on here. For a Christian wedding to be valid, there must be the consent of the spouses, a lack of impediments, and adherence to the form of marriage.
Just to be clear.
You do know that once a dispensation from form is given the marriage can be celebrated anywhere, even by a JP, don’t you? It doesn’t matter where a non-Catholic’s marriage takes place. Barring any impediments, if their own faith tradition recognizes it – and as far as I’m aware only the Orthodox Church would not recognize a civil marriage or, in fact, a Catholic marriage celebrated by a Deacon – the Catholic Church presumes it is valid.
If the couple are not religious a civil wedding is still considered a valid marriage, to my knowledge.
Not religious? What does that mean. Catholic law binds baptized Catholics. “religious” or not.
By that I mean someone who was never baptized and did not consider themself a member of any particular church.
I does not matter what one “considered” themselves. A baptized Catholic is bound by the Church and her sacraments. A Catholic who married civilly to do so quicker or for insurance would be compounding the sin of premarital sex/adultery with sacrilege of a sacrament.
Indeed, you are correct. Maybe I mistyped. What I meant was that a civil marriage is considered valid IF the couple are not Catholic (i.e. never baptized or received into the Catholic Church). I would expect that one of the more common situations in which a civil ceremony is chosen would be the case of a couple who are not members (baptized or otherwise) of a particular faith.
Umm… Helpmeet wrote ‘never baptized’, Hoosier.His_helpmeet:
I does not matter what one “considered” themselves. A baptized Catholic is bound by the Church and her sacraments.
