Civil marriage=fornication?

[TheAdvocate]

Say a Catholic couple is only civilly married. Is it premarital sex? Are they fornicating?

 

[mab23]

Say a Catholic couple is only civilly married. Is it premarital sex? Are they fornicating?

yes, since civil marriage is only a legal institution by the government and without the priest and the sacrament of matrimony it is valid under the Catholic church

one can fix this by getting the marriage convalidated or blessed by a priest at a Catholic Church

 

[Elizium23]

yes, since civil marriage is only a legal institution by the government and without the priest and the sacrament of matrimony it is valid under the Catholic church

one can fix this by getting the marriage convalidated or blessed by a priest at a Catholic Church

Couple inaccuracies here. I am sure you meant “it is invalid” and it was just a typo. Also, a priest is not necessary for a valid Catholic wedding. A deacon may witness a ceremony not held in the context of Mass. A minister of another faith or a civil authority may witness in the case of dispensations from canonical form.

Finally, a “blessing” is not adequate and will not happen from any pastor worth his salt. It is formally called a “convalidation” and this is the only thing that will remedy an invalid marriage. It is canonically equivalent to a marriage ceremony and identical liturgically. A blessing is not the same thing.

 

[FrancisBenedict]

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?

 

[1ke]

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?

If one or both are Catholic, this is called a lack of form. Yes, they can marry in the Church. No they do not need a decree of nullity. In the US and Canada, they file administrative paperwork in the diocese for a declaration of freedom to marry. In other parts of the world, the pastor handles this at the local level.

If you are talking about two NON CATHOLICS, they marry validly when they marry civilly. So, yes, they would require a declaration of nullity before they could marry a Catholic (or in some cases they would receive a dissolution of the bond if one or both were unbaptized).

 

[Elizium23]

Can we have an official answer?

We are happy to give you links and references to Canon Law and other such official sources to document what we are asserting, but no, you cannot have an official answer on this forum thread. We are all just anonymous volunteer participants here. You might hear from a priest, deacon or religious forum user, but not being your pastor or in your diocese, it is not authoritative for you. If you want an official answer, contact your own diocesan chancery and speak to the tribunal, or go through the pastor of the parish in which you are a member.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Ok, I’ve let this thread sit for a while with few responses. (Is this topic too challenging?)

So, if you say that civil marriage = fornication, then what about this? It is myth no. 10 from the the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s website concerning annulment:

archbalt.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=6575

MYTH NUMBER TEN:
An Annulment Means The Marriage Never Took Place
The truth is that an annulment can’t erase history, and doesn’t try to. An annulment in the Catholic
Church deals only with the sacrament of marriage, and not the legal, historical, emotional truth of
marriage. An annulment states that the sacrament was never present in the marriage, and not that the
marriage never took place. It is a myth that an annulment means that the marriage never happened.

If an annulment *doesn’t *mean that marriage never happened because there was a legal, historical, emotional truth of marriage…

THEREFORE…

the Church recognizes that there IS a marriage at least on some level, and therefore, if a couple is civilly married only, their sexual relations would not be considered purely as fornication in the same way that two people who are merely dating.

 

[Portofino]

Ok, I’ve let this thread sit for a while with few responses. (Is this topic too challenging?)

So, if you say that civil marriage = fornication, then what about this? It is myth no. 10 from the the Archdiocese of Baltimore’s website concerning annulment:

archbalt.org/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=6575

MYTH NUMBER TEN:
An Annulment Means The Marriage Never Took Place
The truth is that an annulment can’t erase history, and doesn’t try to. An annulment in the Catholic
Church deals only with the sacrament of marriage, and not the legal, historical, emotional truth of
marriage. An annulment states that the sacrament was never present in the marriage, and not that the
marriage never took place. It is a myth that an annulment means that the marriage never happened.

If an annulment *doesn’t *mean that marriage never happened because there was a legal, historical, emotional truth of marriage…

THEREFORE…

the Church recognizes that there IS a marriage at least on some level, and therefore, if a couple is civilly married only, their sexual relations would not be considered purely as fornication in the same way that two people who are merely dating.

If, for example, you’re a Catholic who is against (civil) gay marriage, I don’t think you want to say that civil opposite sex marriage is tantamount to fornication and imply that it is, indeed, civil “marriage” (in quotation marks). If one is against (civil) gay marriage, then one will want to defend the current state of civil marriage precisely by acknowledging its legitimacy, as opposed to dubbing it illegitimate begin with. For if civil “marriage” wasn’t a marriage to begin with – but rather an oxymoron, an abuse of language – it would be difficult to maintain that the reason why gay “marriage” cannot exist is precisely because it is an oxymoron, an abuse of language.

Given current arguments about “preserving the sanctity of marriage” – in the civil sphere – civil marriage must be something more than legally-protected fornication.

 

[TheAdvocate]

If, for example, you’re a Catholic who is against (civil) gay marriage, I don’t think you want to say that civil opposite sex marriage is tantamount to fornication and imply that it is, indeed, civil “marriage” (in quotation marks). If one is against (civil) gay marriage, then one will want to defend the current state of civil marriage precisely by acknowledging its legitimacy, as opposed to dubbing it illegitimate begin with. For if civil “marriage” wasn’t a marriage to begin with – but rather an oxymoron, an abuse of language – it would be difficult to maintain that the reason why gay “marriage” cannot exist is precisely because it is an oxymoron, an abuse of language.

Given current arguments about “preserving the sanctity of marriage” – in the civil sphere – civil marriage must be something more than legally-protected fornication.

My point exactly…

…ERGO, civil marriage by two Catholics DOES NOT EQUAL fornication.

 

[1ke]

My point exactly…

…ERGO, civil marriage by two Catholics DOES NOT EQUAL fornication.

Decree of nullity/annulment does not appply in the case of a Catholic married outside the Church with lack of form. There is no putative marriage in such a case. There is no presumption of validity.

In short, the archdiocesan website is talking about putative marriages, not Catholics married outside the Church.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Decree of nullity/annulment does not appply in the case of a Catholic married outside the Church with lack of form. There is no putative marriage in such a case. There is no presumption of validity.

In short, the archdiocesan website is talking about putative marriages, not Catholics married outside the Church.

So I just want someone to directly answer my query: if two Catholics only get married civilly and they enjoy the marital embrace, are they fornicating?

And second question: if your answer is “yes” then do you believe it is at least somewhat less immoral than, say, a Catholic couple having sex while only in courtship, but not married in any way, not even civilly?

 

[1ke]

So I just want someone to directly answer my query: if two Catholics only get married civilly and they enjoy the marital embrace, are they fornicating?

Yes.

And second question: if your answer is “yes” then do you believe it is at least somewhat less immoral than, say, a Catholic couple having sex while only in courtship, but not married in any way, not even civilly?

No.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Yes.

No.

So even though they are married, any sex they are having after being civilly married is premarital??? It is, at least, a so-called natural marriage when it is civil. And the Church does offer some recognition to natural marriage.

And for you, such a couple is just as fornicating as, say, a one night stand?

 

[1ke]

So even though they are married,

They are not married at all.

any sex they are having after being civilly married is premarital???

They are violating the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. You can parse it any way you would like. They are not married to each other and are engaging in fornication. Unless of course there is a prior marriage involved for one of them, then it would be adultery. Still a violation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. Still grave matter no matter how you slice it.

It is, at least, a so-called natural marriage when it is civil.

No, it is not a marriage at all.

A **natural **marriage is a **valid **marriage between or involving the unbaptized.

You have asked about Catholics who have “married” civilly outside the Church. They are not in a valid marriage at all. It is not a “natural marriage”.

And the Church does offer some recognition to natural marriage.

We are not talking about a natural marriage. We are talking about an invalid attempt at marriage involving Catholics.

And for you, such a couple is just as fornicating as, say, a one night stand?

Yes, they are objectively “just” as fornicating as any other fornicator.

 

[TheAdvocate]

They are not married at all.

They are violating the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. You can parse it any way you would like. They are not married to each other and are engaging in fornication. Unless of course there is a prior marriage involved for one of them, then it would be adultery. Still a violation of the sixth commandment of the Decalogue. Still grave matter no matter how you slice it.

No, it is not a marriage at all.

A **natural **marriage is a **valid **marriage between or involving the unbaptized.

You have asked about Catholics who have “married” civilly outside the Church. They are not in a valid marriage at all. It is not a “natural marriage”.

We are not talking about a natural marriage. We are talking about an invalid attempt at marriage involving Catholics.

Yes, they are objectively “just” as fornicating as any other fornicator.

Here is proof for my position from JP II’s Familiaris Consortio:
Catholics in Civil Marriages

1. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

Ok, so it’s not acceptable to the Church. But clearly, John Paul is not equating it to merely living together or casual fornicating. This is starkly different from your position. When asked the question in a previous post:

And second question: if your answer is “yes” then do you believe it is at least somewhat less immoral than, say, a Catholic couple having sex while only in courtship, but not married in any way, not even civilly?

Your answer:** No.**

 

[1ke]

Here is proof for my position from JP II’s Familiaris Consortio:

I don’t think that “proves” your position at all.

Nothing in the Pope’s statements indicate it is not fornication, not a sin against the sixth commandment, not grave matter. Grave matter is grave matter, regardless of the intentions.

 

[TheAdvocate]

I don’t think that “proves” your position at all.

Nothing in the Pope’s statements indicate it is not fornication, not a sin against the sixth commandment, not grave matter. Grave matter is grave matter, regardless of the intentions.

But you have to admit that for JPII, a mere civil marriage is somewhat less evil than no commitment at all. That’s the only concession I seek. At least, that’s what John Paul II says. There’s no way *he *would call it fornication, though, regardless of your own personal opinion.

Again:
Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond AT ALL, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life

 

[1ke]

But you have to admit that for JPII, a mere civil marriage is somewhat less evil than no commitment at all. That’s the only concession I seek. At least, that’s what John Paul II says. There’s no way *he *would call it fornication, though, regardless of your own personal opinion.

Again:
Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond AT ALL, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life

“While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.”

Why? Because they are fornicating and not in a state of grace.

 

[TheAdvocate]

“While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.”

Why? Because they are fornicating and not in a state of grace.

So what meaning do the words:

"their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond AT ALL"

…mean to you, if anything? What does “cannot…be likened to…AT ALL” mean to you?

 

[1ke]

So what meaning do the words:

Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond AT ALL

…mean to you, if anything? What does “cannot…be likened to…AT ALL” mean to you?

This paragraph is situated in the section related to pastoral care of such people. So, it is in a *pastoral *dimension that this is talking about-- how the pastor works with this couple to regularize their situation.