Civil marriage=fornication?

[nodito]

Don’t get me wrong. I know it would be gravely sinful. But…I just don’t think fornication is the right word, and I just would like for someone (and one reply did) to concede that it is at least not the equivalent to a one night stand. People are actually saying that they are 100% morally equivalent!!

Well, they are both examples of fornication as we understand that word, even if our culture would not call it that. However, I think Catholics who marry civilly (and therefore, invalidly) often do so with reduced culpability for this sin because they have not been catechized properly, whereas most decent people realize one-night stands are wrong, at least on some level. That said, a case could also be made that since the one-night stand is, by definition, only one night, the situation of a couple living in an invalid marriage is actually worse, since they continually engage in grave sin.

 

[adrift]

Don’t get me wrong. I know it would be gravely sinful. But…I just don’t think fornication is the right word, and I just would like for someone (and one reply did) to concede that it is at least not the equivalent to a one night stand. People are actually saying that they are 100% morally equivalent!!

FORNICATION
An act of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman who are not validly married, although they are free to marry. It is by its nature gravely sinful. (Etym. Latin fornicatio, fornication; from fornix, a vault, arch, brothel.)

I agree with you that words mean something. I would also state so do definitions.
The above definition would not leave room for a difference between those who marry only by civil authority and one night stand. The definition of both would be fornication.

 

[fix]

But ask the next priest or bishop you see the question I asked in bold in the above post. I’m sure there are priests who would agree, but some would have more nuanced answers.

It is fornication. Please share with us which Bishop claims it is not fornication. This is not open to polls. It is a matter of fact

 

[Miss_Felicity]

Miss Felicity, I wonder if this analogy would be helpful. Before you converted, I imagine you were learning about the faith at that time and maybe even trying it out a bit. Many catechumens and candidates will attend Mass and read Catholic books, give up old vices, fast along with the Church on days of fasting and abstinence, etc, as preparation for their joining the Church. But before their formal reception into the Church, they are not Catholic, regardless of how many Catholic things they do. Suppose one of them decided not to be baptized at the Easter vigil. Instead he goes home and just starts telling people he’s Catholic. Maybe he gets a friend to pour apple juice over his head in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Even if he attends Mass every week, tithes to the Church, and welcomes children lovingly with his wife, would we really say he became Catholic?

Marriage is absolutely about living together, having conjugal relations, welcoming children, loving thy neighbor, and being supportive. But it’s more than that. It’s an actual thing that happens to the spouses, an actual bond that forms when the spouses exchange valid marriage vows. If two people do not exchange these vows validly, they are no more married than the man who poured apple juice over his head is really baptized, regardless of what comes after.

Thank You for that well thought out analogy. It does help me understand but I still have questions and struggles. Please know that I am not trying to be difficult or obtuse I just am truly struggling with a few concepts. Just as in RCIA I spent 18 months learning, studying, attending mass and preparing to be welcome into the church. I like to think the experience of those 18 months means as much as the actual Easter Vigil. Likewise my personal belief is that marriage is the journey its the duration, the good times and bad for better or worse until God calls someone home. I support Sacramental marriage I think its beautiful but I don’t think people who don’t have it are less married or less capable of excelling at the vocation of marriage.

 

[1ke]

I know where the church stands I was stating why I struggle with the church’s stance. For me thats a little disheartening that your actions in your marriage mean very little or at least from the standpoint of the church.

I do not believe anyone has stated that our actions in our marriages “mean very little”. They certainly mean a lot. They just don’t happen to define validity.

They define as a spouse, they shape our children, and our relationship to God. They move us towards or away from holiness.

They simply do not define validity.

How is that not “valid” I seems to me that God would bless that marriage the same as one that happened in front of a Priest.

It is not valid because the Church has the authority given by God to administer and regulate the sacraments.

And, God has given such a couple all they need to bring their marriage to the Church. That the do not is obstinate and grave matter, no different than if they lived their lives as “good people” but failed to go to Mass, failed to go to Confession, failed in any of the other obligations they have before God.

Being “a good person” is necessary, not sufficient, on judgment day.

 

[Miss_Felicity]

I do not believe anyone has stated that our actions in our marriages “mean very little”. They certainly mean a lot. They just don’t happen to define validity.

They define as a spouse, they shape our children, and our relationship to God. They move us towards or away from holiness.

They simply do not define validity.

It is not valid because the Church has the authority given by God to administer and regulate the sacraments.

And, God has given such a couple all they need to bring their marriage to the Church. That the do not is obstinate and grave matter, no different than if they lived their lives as “good people” but failed to go to Mass, failed to go to Confession, failed in any of the other obligations they have before God.

Being “a good person” is necessary, not sufficient, on judgment day.

I agree that being a “good person” is not sufficient but grace and mercy are. God has the power to admit anyone he chooses into the Kingdom of Heaven and I have a difficult time with the concept that if I married civilly, upheld my vows, and had a marriage according to how God commands us to be married that he will then send me to hell. Again please understand it is not my desire to appear argumentative or insulting to the Church in the least. I think my issue is that there are things that my catachesis did not prepare me for and now I struggle. Thank You for the explanation. I have a lot to think about and pray about.

 

[adrift]

I agree that being a “good person” is not sufficient but grace and mercy are. God has the power to admit anyone he chooses into the Kingdom of Heaven and I have a difficult time with the concept that if I married civilly, upheld my vows, and had a marriage according to how God commands us to be married that he will then send me to hell. .

God doesn’t send anyone to hell. Hell is a choice. God honors are free will. We don’t have to chose God. We can choose to be without Him that is hell. The statement that a marriage according to how God commands is at odds with having a civil marriage because God commands otherwise.

 

[1ke]

if I married civilly, upheld my vows, and had a marriage according to how God commands us to be married

If you are a Catholic, then you did not have a marriage according to how God commands you to be married. God commands us to listen to his Church and obey his Bishops.

that he will then send me to hell.

We send ourselves to Hell by obstinately refusing the authority over us vested in the Church and bishops, by our own manifest grave sin, by our own actions.

God holds us accountable for our actions, for what we know and choose to do with that. If a person genuinely had no idea they had to marry in Catholic form and somehow lived their whole married life with no one ever catching on or informing them otherwise, then God will judge them according to what they knew. Willful ignorance would incur culpability, but genuine ignorance does not.

Again please understand it is not my desire to appear argumentative or insulting to the Church in the least. I think my issue is that there are things that my catachesis did not prepare me for and now I struggle. Thank You for the explanation. I have a lot to think about and pray about.

I did not think that at all.

 

[Pug]

I understand and share in your confusion. It doesn’t sit well with me that civil marriage by Catholics is automatically invalid. When I was going through RCIA I was taught that the church recognized civil marriages. I found out later that was marriages between non Catholics but it is still something I struggle with because shouldn’t the validity of marriage have more to do with the “fruits” of that marriage? If a couple marries civilly, honors their vows believes that marriage is only dissolvable by death. If they are faithful to each other, raise and educate their children well to the very best of their ability it seems like that would be pretty valid. Likewise a couple who does little to none of that who stood in front of a Priest seems like the fruit of their marriage would leave the validity open to question. But I respect that thats not how the church works but I admit I struggle with it.

The requirement to observe a particular form when at least one party has been baptized Catholic has not historically always been so. I sometimes wonder if it is meant to be a merciful policy in this era, to facilitate return to the Church, if it should happen that the baptized person reverts/converts later on and has remarried. Perhaps the policy is best when one takes a worldwide view.

 

[inflight]

That does throw up some other questions though.

If a couple is married in a purely civil ceremony.
Then they get divorced years later.

Can the participants get married in church later (to other people)?

Is there no need for an annulment?

Can we have an official answer?

No. They were never married in Church, so there is no need for annulment

 

[1ke]

The requirement to observe a particular form when at least one party has been baptized Catholic has not historically always been so. I sometimes wonder if it is meant to be a merciful policy in this era, to facilitate return to the Church, if it should happen that the baptized person reverts/converts later on and has remarried. Perhaps the policy is best when one takes a worldwide view.

Actually its origins are in the middle ages. When exchange of consent had no form, it was easy for Lords who tired of their wives to set them aside claiming they were not validly married. Exchange of consent in the Catholic form gave protection to the wife (and now to both spouses).

 

[Pug]

Actually its origins are in the middle ages. When exchange of consent had no form, it was easy for Lords who tired of their wives to set them aside claiming they were not validly married. Exchange of consent in the Catholic form gave protection to the wife (and now to both spouses).

Yes, it definitely was a protective policy against problems with clandestine marriage back when they came up with the policy. I should have elaborated and said that I wondered if they keep it in place *still *because it has a merciful function now for reverts who have remarried. At least around here I don’t hear much about there being a problem with clandestine marriage and people pretending it didn’t happen. The State is too involved for that.

Clandestine marriage could still be a noticeable problem in other countries, though, I don’t know.

 

[mek42]

I hope it is Ok to ask a related question inspired by the responses here.

Let us take two people raised and confirmed RC who then lapsed into nonpractice. If they get married only by the State, then later one, only one, enjoys renewal to the Church, what is the expected behavior?

 

[Elizium23]

I hope it is Ok to ask a related question inspired by the responses here.

Let us take two people raised and confirmed RC who then lapsed into nonpractice. If they get married only by the State, then later one, only one, enjoys renewal to the Church, what is the expected behavior?

Convalidation, or radical sanation.

Until then, abstinence from the sacraments due to a life of obstinate sin.

 

[adrift]

Convalidation, or radical sanation.

Until then, abstinence from the sacraments due to a life of obstinate sin.

Convalidation means to have your marriage recognized by the Catholic Church a simple wedding ceremony is preformed
A radical sanation is a decree issued by the diocesan bishop stating that he accepts the original consent of the marriage as valid. A radical sanation is usually sought when one party to the marriage does not want to participate in a new ceremony for some reason (e.g., because of belief in conscience).

 

[Elizium23]

Convalidation means to have your marriage recognized by the Catholic Church a simple wedding ceremony is preformed

Convalidation means that an assumption is made that there was no marriage prior, this is why it is performed as a wedding ceremony, because it is the actual beginning of the marriage. It can be simple or elaborate according to the couple’s wishes.

 

[adrift]

Convalidation means that an assumption is made that there was no marriage prior, this is why it is performed as a wedding ceremony, because it is the actual beginning of the marriage. It can be simple or elaborate according to the couple’s wishes.

I was going off the link I provided which said

For Catholics, marriage is governed by two sets of laws – the civil law of the state/nation and the canon law of the Catholic Church. When a marriage has taken place which is civilly valid but canonically invalid, it is in need of a convalidation. That is, validity in the eyes of God and his Church needs to be added to the civil contract recognized by the government.

So when a Catholic marries in a non-Catholic religious ceremony or in a civil ceremony (or by Elvis in a casino in Las Vegas), and with no dispensation from a Catholic bishop, then a convalidation is needed. Otherwise, the Catholic is not permitted to receive Holy Communion.

There are two forms of convalidation: A simple convalidation, which is used most of the time and which involves a simple marriage ceremony, at least the exchange of consent part of a wedding. Or a radical sanation, which is used on more rare occasions which does not involve a new ceremony but instead entails the diocesan bishop issuing a decree that accepts the original consent of the marriage as valid.