Civil Marriage in itself Sinful?

[EasterJoy]

In the scenario you’ve described, it would indeed be sinful.

In that case, the couple is committing fraud by entering into a civil marriage just to obtain a piece of paper (a marriage license). That’s lying and lying is a sin.

How is it sinful to use civil law to negotiate the barriers that civil authorities put on Catholics who are citizens of different countries who wish to marry each other? It would be a fraud if they had no intention to live as husband and wife and did not want to accomplish that as soon as possible, but only wanted the legal benefits of marriage. In this case, however, they are only doing what is necessary to actually live as man and wife without offending either civil law or Church law.

For instance, I had friends who met in college: she was from Mexico, he was from the US. They decided to marriage, and did their marriag preparation with a priest in the US. They obtained a civil marriage in the US before flying down for their Catholic wedding in her home parish. If they had not done that, the US Department of Immigration and Naturalization would have made life very difficult for those newlyweds. As it was, they could have told anyone in the government what they were doing, and no one would have seen any deceit in their actions.

I’m sorry, but it is not lying to tell the government that you are married as the government understands marriage, even if you are not married as you understand marriage. Princess Grace and Prince Rainer got legally married one day and had their Catholic wedding in the church the next day. The entire planet knew that they did not consider themselves truly married until the next day, even if they were married in the eyes of civil law the day before. Their civil marriage was not a lie.

If one member of a couple is in the military, they are in the Catch-22 that the fiance has no legal standing before marriage to the service member. If that lack of standing prevents a religious wedding from taking place, but the problem can be solved by obtaining a civil wedding some time prior to the religious wedding, again: I do not see how this is lying, when the couple fully intend the action as a means by which they may become husband and wife. They are merely negotiating the legal barriers that civil law and policy pose to their intention to marry validly in the Catholic Church. That is not fraud.

 

[ConstantineTG]

In the scenario you’ve described, it would indeed be sinful.

In that case, the couple is committing fraud by entering into a civil marriage just to obtain a piece of paper (a marriage license). That’s lying and lying is a sin.

I’m sorry Father but why is the couple lying here? As far as the secular government is concerned, they are bound to each other by marriage in legal matters. They do have the intention of marrying one another but the legal marriage would serve a purpose. I have put one example where the couple need to work on their immigration papers. Church weddings takes a while and here in North America its normally 6 months so that the parish can prepare and also more importantly, the marriage prep course can be undertaken. This ensures the legal papers are worked on so that they can live together after their Sacramental marriage in the new country. I’ve known quite a number of people who have done this.

 

[Usige]

I don’t want to speak for FrDavid96, but the issue for me is the time frame (6-12 months) stated by the OP.

Let say you work for a company that only lets you add a spouse to your insurance on the first day of the month. If you said we had a civil marriage on Thursday the 24th and turned in the insurance paperwork to be processed on the 1st and then have a sacramental marriage on Saturday the 3rd that doesn’t bother me as much.

On the other hand lets say you have someone you fall in love with who is on a student visa and now has graduated college and needs to leave. If the reason for the gap between the “two marriages” is you are trying to keep them here while you wait to have a sacramental marriage, what happens if you find out 6 months later that you aren’t going to get married in the church (for what ever reason)? You now have a civil marriage that was never consummated and you get a divorce. I am sure that immigration would be interested in why that happened. Just because you planned on getting married is not the same as having done so. Those are the instances where you are essentially committing fraud.

At an even more basic level, if you tell authorities that you are married, but you are not living as husband and wife, by definition you are lying. Maybe some are willing to gamble on God understanding legalities, but I wouldn’t want to try to explain why it was okay to lie about something so sacred.

 

[Will_S]

At an even more basic level, if you tell authorities that you are married, but you are not living as husband and wife, by definition you are lying.

That is not true, because when you tell governmental authorities that you are married, you are speaking in terms of their definitions, not those of the Church.

However, your comment does bring to mind the fact that in the case of marriage involving immigration to the United States, Immigration Services does require some evidence of common life when the green card status is reviewed at some time after entry into the United States. Obviously it would be fraudulent to forge such documentation, so it would be wise to plan things such that genuine evidence of common life exists at the time of the review.

 

[Usige]

Will, the OP’s statement of:

they do this as a legal process only,** to speed up some legal issue** they need resolved, and plan on still living separate

is where I have issue. You are doing one action to get a specific outcome while intending another. Most courts or governments would likely consider contracting marriage with the intent to “speed up a legal issue” while intending to “live separately” as fraud. It’s called gaming the system and generally frowned on.

Pretending to be married on paper just for a legal reasons feels wrong and my grandma always told me that doubts and guilt are God’s way of saying “think about what your doing.”

 

[Monica4316]

I think it’s best to ask a priest

 

[ciero]

In the scenario you’ve described, it would indeed be sinful.

In that case, the couple is committing fraud by entering into a civil marriage just to obtain a piece of paper (a marriage license). That’s lying and lying is a sin.

How is it a sin if you plan on getting married in the church?

 

[Warrior1979]

Hello,

Is civil marriage, in and of itself, sinful?

What I mean, more specifically, is:
An engaged Catholic couple get married ONLY by civil law, but do NOT see it as an valid marriage (since it’s not religious), and therefore do NOT live together NOR have sexual relations.

One case I can see this being justified is when an impotent person wants to be a parent. The Church will refuse to allow this person a marriage in the Church. However, if this person wants to adopt, in many cases is would be far easier if he we were married. A civil marriage would take care of that situation, and the person would not be sinning in the sense that no fornication would be taking place.

Beats me if the Church would consider this situation sinful or not.

 

[Vico]

One case I can see this being justified is when an impotent person wants to be a parent. The Church will refuse to allow this person a marriage in the Church. However, if this person wants to adopt, in many cases is would be far easier if he we were married. A civil marriage would take care of that situation, and the person would not be sinning in the sense that no fornication would be taking place.

Beats me if the Church would consider this situation sinful or not.

If there is an undispensible impediment preventing the matrimonial union, then it would be sinful to live together as husband and wife, due to scandal. The scandal can result from temptation to sin. Also because it is against the teaching of the Church, it sets an example to oppose the teaching of the Church on matrimony.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t see any fraud at all in what the original poster is suggesting.

He’s talking about people who fully intend to marry in the Church and live as a Catholic married couple for the rest of their lives, but who have some legal reason to obtain a civil marriage before their real marriage.

As an example, imagine a man and a woman from different countries, where one of the two would have a very difficult time gaining entry to the country of the other unless they are married. In this case, the civil marriage is going to be all that matters to the government officials involved anyway, so they will have to obtain a civil marriage no matter what.

Given that fact, why shouldn’t they be able to choose to have the actual real Catholic marriage in the destination country, which then by necessity must take place some time after the civil marriage?

Personally I don’t see a problem here as long as the couple understands that they are not truly married until the Catholic wedding, and behaves accordingly.

The problem is in the original post. Here’s a quote

Say, they do this as a legal process only, to speed up some legal issue they need resolved, and plan on still living separate and a good holy life, and get married 6-12 months after either way.

When people get married only to “speed up some legal issues” that’s another way of saying that they are getting a marriage license from the state but they have no intention of actually being married, that’s lying and yes, lying is still a sin.

This is very different from the situation in some countries where a couple first gets married by a civil authority and then immediately married in the Church–places where this is the normal procedure. In many countries, the couple has to get married by the state in the morning and by a priest in the afternoon. It’s very different than what the OP is describing because of the 6 to 12 month delay.

 

[FrDavid96]

How is it a sin if you plan on getting married in the church?

The sin is the fact that the couple is lying to the state by pretending to be married only for the sake of obtaining a piece of paper.

The “sacramentality” of the situation actually has nothing to do with it.

For example, if I lie to the state for the sake of getting a new license plate for my car, the lie is still a sin even though it has nothing to do with any sacrament.

Even though civil ceremonies can take any number of forms, let’s just say for the sake of discussion that the ceremony involves the traditional wedding vows. When the couple says “I do” but what they really mean is “no, I don’t, I’m only here for the license” that’s a lie.

 

[FrDavid96]

How is it sinful to use civil law to negotiate the barriers that civil authorities put on Catholics who are citizens of different countries who wish to marry each other? It would be a fraud if they had no intention to live as husband and wife and did not want to accomplish that as soon as possible, but only wanted the legal benefits of marriage. In this case, however, they are only doing what is necessary to actually live as man and wife without offending either civil law or Church law.

For instance, I had friends who met in college: she was from Mexico, he was from the US. They decided to marriage, and did their marriag preparation with a priest in the US. They obtained a civil marriage in the US before flying down for their Catholic wedding in her home parish. If they had not done that, the US Department of Immigration and Naturalization would have made life very difficult for those newlyweds. As it was, they could have told anyone in the government what they were doing, and no one would have seen any deceit in their actions.

I’m sorry, but it is not lying to tell the government that you are married as the government understands marriage, even if you are not married as you understand marriage. Princess Grace and Prince Rainer got legally married one day and had their Catholic wedding in the church the next day. The entire planet knew that they did not consider themselves truly married until the next day, even if they were married in the eyes of civil law the day before. Their civil marriage was not a lie.

If one member of a couple is in the military, they are in the Catch-22 that the fiance has no legal standing before marriage to the service member. If that lack of standing prevents a religious wedding from taking place, but the problem can be solved by obtaining a civil wedding some time prior to the religious wedding, again: I do not see how this is lying, when the couple fully intend the action as a means by which they may become husband and wife. They are merely negotiating the legal barriers that civil law and policy pose to their intention to marry validly in the Catholic Church. That is not fraud.

There’s a significant difference between the examples you give, where the couple gets married by the Church immediately, and the situation described by the OP where the Church wedding is 6 months to a year in the future. The other difference is in the OP’s own words that the couple is doing this only to speed up some legal issues. That’s very different than your example of Princess Grace. Your example of the military is very open-ended. In situations like that, it might or might not be lying to get the license. We would have to be more specific on the details before discussing whether or not it would be lying. To give 2 extremes, if the church wedding happens in 3 days, no problem. If it happens in 3 years, problem.

 

[EasterJoy]

There’s a significant difference between the examples you give, where the couple gets married by the Church immediately, and the situation described by the OP where the Church wedding is 6 months to a year in the future. The other difference is in the OP’s own words that the couple is doing this only to speed up some legal issues. That’s very different than your example of Princess Grace. Your example of the military is very open-ended. In situations like that, it might or might not be lying to get the license. We would have to be more specific on the details before discussing whether or not it would be lying. To give 2 extremes, if the church wedding happens in 3 days, no problem. If it happens in 3 years, problem.

OK, if the legal issues have nothing to do with clearing the way for the marriage, I can see your point. If they do, however, I don’t see where time is the issue. It takes the time it takes.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, if the legal issues have nothing to do with clearing the way for the marriage, I can see your point. If they do, however, I don’t see where time is the issue. It takes the time it takes.

Not quite.

Let’s take the Princess Grace example. When she got married by the state, she said “I do” (ok, I’m presuming that’s what happened, but you get the point). She knew that meant “effective tomorrow when the marriage is blessed by the priest”, and the state also knew she meant “effective tomorrow.” Everyone knew it, so there was no deception.

In what the OP is discussing, is engaging in some kind of civil marriage ceremony but having no intention of actually “being” married until 6 to 12 months in the future. The state knows full well that many people obtain marriage licenses just for the sake of immigration paperwork, and doing it this way is illegal. That’s where the deception comes into play.

And that’s the key point. If 2 people do something to intentionally deceive the government, that’s a lie, and it’s still a sin. If there’s no deception, then of course, there’s no lie.

 

[ConstantineTG]

The sin is the fact that the couple is lying to the state by pretending to be married only for the sake of obtaining a piece of paper.

The “sacramentality” of the situation actually has nothing to do with it.

For example, if I lie to the state for the sake of getting a new license plate for my car, the lie is still a sin even though it has nothing to do with any sacrament.

Even though civil ceremonies can take any number of forms, let’s just say for the sake of discussion that the ceremony involves the traditional wedding vows. When the couple says “I do” but what they really mean is “no, I don’t, I’m only here for the license” that’s a lie.

But this is not marriage of convenience when people get married to get a visa, and then divorce at a later time. The couple does intend to get married, but there are legal issues where they need to get the civil marriage done right away.

 

[Vico]

Not quite.

Let’s take the Princess Grace example. When she got married by the state, she said “I do” (ok, I’m presuming that’s what happened, but you get the point). She knew that meant “effective tomorrow when the marriage is blessed by the priest”, and the state also knew she meant “effective tomorrow.” Everyone knew it, so there was no deception.

In what the OP is discussing, is engaging in some kind of civil marriage ceremony but having no intention of actually “being” married until 6 to 12 months in the future. The state knows full well that many people obtain marriage licenses just for the sake of immigration paperwork, and doing it this way is illegal. That’s where the deception comes into play.

And that’s the key point. If 2 people do something to intentionally deceive the government, that’s a lie, and it’s still a sin. If there’s no deception, then of course, there’s no lie.

One can see how many issues are raised through this canon law, even in addition to any deception.

Canon Law # 1160

A marriage which is null because of defect of form must be contracted anew in canonical form in order to become valid, without prejudice to the prescript of can. 1127, §2.

Canon Law # 1161

§1. The radical sanation of an invalid marriage is its convalidation without the renewal of consent, which is granted by competent authority and entails the dispensation from an impediment, if there is one, and from canonical form, if it was not observed, and the retroactivity of canonical effects.
§2. Convalidation occurs at the moment of the granting of the favor. Retroactivity, however, is understood to extend to the moment of the celebration of the marriage unless other provision is expressly made.

There are several important concepts there:

invalid marriage,
consent,
dispensation,
canonical form,
canonical effects,
celebration (presumed to be the moment that consent is validly given, unless there was a known lack of consent).

In the example, it is not stated if the couple has had a nuptial investigation before proceeding with a civil marriage or not. That must be done to ensure that there are not impediments that require dispensation, of if it is even possible for them to properly consent, and to rule out divine impediments.

If it is celebrated, then it will be without canonical form, so it will require a later convalidation (simple or retroactive).

 

[J1Militans]

Eh, alright, a few things.

One, a clarification, I’m not in the US, and for someone to get a marriage visa here, it needs to be by law, or religious and then register in the notarys office.
Two, the intention is for the other person (my fiancee) to get here and be able to work legally, since I can’t go to the States yet.
Three, this means that the civil marriage is that needed legal process, so that both of us can work here.
Four, stable job is a necessity for marriage, and given what we studied (liberal arts curriculum), we need to study something else if we want to make a salary that’s fit for marriage.
Five, the famous 6-12 month gap is not, please, please, please understand, a sign of doubting, nor is there anything reasonable or foreseen that could happen that we would breakup. Only God knows in the end, but I could say: no way. The reason for such a time is pretty much money/work.

Or in other words. If the person could come here legally, that’d be fine, but given the reality that work visas may be hard to get, then the best and surest way is a civil marriage.
I would not say it’s a fraud but a legal process that we need in order to be together because if we could get married in the Church instead of that stupid civil marriage, by all means we would. And it needs to be noted, too, that the reason is not just to get some license or even immigration papers, as much as securing one of the few possibilities we have to stay together, since we have been separated for 9 months already.
It’s a matter of 1. Staying together (ie, same country) legally through the civil marriage, 2. Staying together with her either as a tourist (no working), or working illegally (that’s a moral fault, too), or 3. Not be together until June pretty much, or even later, to make a total of at least 18 months of not being together.

But the situation is not so. The situation is: stay separate, as a couple, another 9 months or more, on top of the 9 months we have already have to endure with only seeing each other ONCE. I hope this gets across that if 9 months of seeing each other only once has not deterred our desires for marriage, 6 months of living in the same country and working so we can get married, seems very very unlikely to change our minds.

So in short:
I had to leave my person almost 10 months ago, and we have endured these months and still want to marry each other. If we could do it on November, when she’s coming to take some course here and see me, then by all means we would. So let it be clear that the “6-12 month gap” is not because of doubt or ill-intentions, but solely because of readiness (work-wise mostly) to be married and live together. Again, if we could get married even today, we would.
But given that we have needed to study more in order to find better jobs, then our options are: 1. To be separated for another 9 months at least, while I get a decent job enough to support me and her, and just marry by the Church… It may be 9 months or more depending on how job hunting goes.
2. To hope for a work visa and not be together until they grant it, which may be a while, especially if she finishes her certificate December, needs to go back to the US, apply for a job in January, right when school starts here (so its probable not to get anything till June, which is our intended month to marry anyway), and who knows how long work visa applications take, or
3. Take the civil marriage and have her stay now if she can find work (which is a lot easier to do in person than by internet).

So really only Option 2 and 3 are available, and if 3 is not sinful sacramentally/spiritually or morally, then I’d take 3 so we can finally be together and we can prepare for marriage better.
Also to note that Option 2 has a potential of working, as well as a potential of being the same exact thing as Option 1. So it’d be a total of at least 18 months of not being together and only seeing each other twice.

Hope that clears up lot of things.

Either way, I plan to talk to my local priest about it, since he knows me and her very well. Another priest I consulted (but not from here) said it’s ok as long as we dont have relations and don’t tell many people (as to avoid scandal). I want to know what the local priest says, nonetheless.

 

[FrDavid96]

But this is not marriage of convenience when people get married to get a visa, and then divorce at a later time. The couple does intend to get married, but there are legal issues where they need to get the civil marriage done right away.

Let’s keep the question in perspective.

The original question was phrased this way “Say, they do this as a legal process only, to speed up some legal issue they need resolved.”

Now let’s look at it this way.

Just for example (since I thought it would be easy to find), I looked up the California marriage laws online. Here’s the Family Code, section 402

(a) No particular form for the ceremony of marriage is required for solemnization of the marriage, but the parties shall declare, in the physical presence of the person solemnizing the marriage and necessary witnesses, that they take each other as
husband and wife.

Let’s take those 2 sets of words

that they take each other as husband and wife

and

they do this as a legal process only, to speed up some legal issue they need resolved.

Do you see the difference between the 2?

 

[J1Militans]

Not quite.

Let’s take the Princess Grace example. When she got married by the state, she said “I do” (ok, I’m presuming that’s what happened, but you get the point). She knew that meant “effective tomorrow when the marriage is blessed by the priest”, and the state also knew she meant “effective tomorrow.” Everyone knew it, so there was no deception.

In what the OP is discussing, is engaging in some kind of civil marriage ceremony but having no intention of actually “being” married until 6 to 12 months in the future. The state knows full well that many people obtain marriage licenses just for the sake of immigration paperwork, and doing it this way is illegal. That’s where the deception comes into play.

And that’s the key point. If 2 people do something to intentionally deceive the government, that’s a lie, and it’s still a sin. If there’s no deception, then of course, there’s no lie.

Eh. Of course to me your opinion weighs a lot more because you’re priest, but I do have to say few things in my defense, or really, for clarification’s sake.
I already mentioned them in my apologia above, but I’ll go ahead and double-check.

I would argue that I could echo Princess Grace, She knew that meant “effective tomorrow when the marriage is blessed by the priest”, but instead of “tomorrow” I’d say “effective in 6 months, or less or more, as God wills it”
There IS an intention, a clear one, a grave one, a strong one (having had to fight with family, to fight being away for 9 months already, etc.) to get married, and to do so ASAP. The 6-12 month is a realistic projection of how long it may take to make enough money to save, pay debts, and have for the marriage.

So the intention is not to deceive anyone. The intention is to take advantage that the government allows this type of marriage, in order to be able to bring my person here, so we can both get jobs, and get married when we have that stable source of income, whether it’s 6 months after the civil marriage or more.

 

[J1Militans]

And lastly, marriage laws here do require proof that there have been no marriages before, etc.

–

Simpy put: the civil marriage is the way to bring my loved on here so we can be together (ie, same country) after 9 months (it’ll be 11 when she comes) of being apart, and then patiently wait for stable income fit for marriage.

And either way, a local priest would be the one who knows best, given he knows how law is in here, and he knows our case personally.

Since he’s often busy, I wanted to see if there was some canon law or catechism paragraph that said if civil marriage, in itself, was wrong, or if it was wrong only because it basically includes fornication (given the couple or one of them is Catholic).