Civil Marriage in itself Sinful?

[FrDavid96]

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).

Until a few minutes ago, the question was just hypothetical. Now that it’s become personal that changes things (in terms of my own responses here).

All I can say at this point, is to go back to the original question and try to re-phrase the answer.

If it’s your intention to deceive, then that’s sinful. If you deceive without “intending” to do so, it’s still a sin because objectively, it’s still a lie.

If you are not deceiving anyone, there’s no sin.

It’s not about the marriage ceremony itself. What I’m trying to express here is that the question of sin (which is what you originally asked) is not about the issue of marriage, but about telling the truth.

The question (and I stress that from my perspective, it’s a question, not an answer) is really not about the 6th commandment, but about the 8th.

 

[Vico]

To obey the laws of marriage is one of the precepts of the Church.

CIC

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

Can. 1069 All the faithful are obliged to reveal any impediments they know about to the pastor or local ordinary before the celebration of the marriage.

 

[Usige]

J1Miltans, I hope everything works out and hope the local priest can give you better guidance.

If you are looking for the relevant sections of canon law those would be likely be:

1057§1 A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable…
1060 Marriage enjoys the favour of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.
1117 which requires Catholics to marry in the Church with a member of the clergy as witness.

For non-catholics a civil marriage is assumed to be valid so the real question will be if the civil marriage of Catholics is considered a valid natural marriage since intent is there without detriments, but just lacks canonical form. Even then intent is a gray area since it’s intent to marry “in the future.” (?) Not sure if that would be considered invalid or just illicit. Even without the conjugal acts a valid marriage is considered ratified, but unconsummated.

That gets a lot deeper into canon law than I understand, but thought I’d provide the information since you were curious about the sections of canon law rather than civil law.

 

[choliks]

In this case, most people of the earth or at least those coming from a civil marriage alone are children of a ‘sinful relation’ since it was not made as a church sacrament? What is the view of the church concerning non catholic marriages?

I’m sorry. I think you failed to see the phrase “Catholic couple” in the OP, hence my reply does not pertain to non-catholic couples.

 

[Warrior1979]

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.

What sin? The husband is impotent.

Also because it is against the teaching of the Church, it sets an example to oppose the teaching of the Church on matrimony.

I haven’t seen anything specific on the matter, so I would be hesitant to call it a sin. Furthermore, at best it would be part of Tradition…I don’t recall Christ saying impotent people are prohibited from having families.

 

[1ke]

Not sure if that would be considered invalid or just illicit.

It it not illicit. It is INVALID.

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses

 

[1ke]

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.

The situation is that the Church has her laws on marriage for a reason, and that includes the prenuptial investigation and the preparation required for the sacrament. You want to circumvent the Church and marry civilly.

NO reason you give is reason to disobey the Church.

Yes, what you propose to do is a sin. You are purposely trying to avoid obeying Church law and requirements on marriage.

You need to put on the brakes, follow Church guidelines, and stop with this nonsense about the hardship of being apart. You are in too big of a rush, and frankly having only seen each other once is a huge red flag and won’t convince anyone here of the justice of your cause.

You need to go talk to your priest and get permission to do what you want to do otherwise, YES you are trangressing the laws of the Church and are culpable for the sin of disobedience-- good luck with that.

 

[Rock_Happy]

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.
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.

Like, if they need to clear up something legally speaking, but that something can’t wait till the actual Catholic marriage.

Thanks. God bless.

I doubt that married Protestant ministers who convert to become Catholic priests are required to be married again in the Catholic faith. Perhaps I am wrong about that. But is it is similar scenario.

 

[Usige]

1ke, you are of course correct. I was more trying to align how the Church envisions the cooperation of civil and sacramental marriage and the underlying moral underpinnings of the relative sections of canon law. The Church does have provisions for Radical Sanation of a marriage when canonical form was not observed, so there is some level of recognition of civil marriages.

Long and short is whether there is duplicity in a civil marriage if you don’t consider it a real marriage.

Me personally I think the easiest solution is to explain the situation to the priest and ask them to dispense with any waiting periods assuming there are no detriments. They have them come on a vistitor visa and get married in the Church then. When I see references to waiting until finances are stable I hear “We want a large Nuptial Mass and can’t afford it right now.” I know plenty of people who were dirt poor and elected to celebrate with a simple marriage outside of mass. There is the same sanctifying graces and removes the question of finding loopholes between civil and sacred law.

 

[J1Militans]

The situation is that the Church has her laws on marriage for a reason, and that includes the prenuptial investigation and the preparation required for the sacrament. You want to circumvent the Church and marry civilly.

NO reason you give is reason to disobey the Church.

Yes, what you propose to do is a sin. You are purposely trying to avoid obeying Church law and requirements on marriage.

You need to put on the brakes, follow Church guidelines, and stop with this nonsense about the hardship of being apart. You are in too big of a rush, and frankly having only seen each other once is a huge red flag and won’t convince anyone here of the justice of your cause.

You need to go talk to your priest and get permission to do what you want to do otherwise, YES you are trangressing the laws of the Church and are culpable for the sin of disobedience-- good luck with that.

What the heck are you talking about bro?
With the “red flag” or presuming that we are trying to disobey the Church??
I won’t get into any more details here, but it was already said that the civil marriage is not to pretend we are married validly, THAT would be disobeying the Church and calling holy something that is not. I haven’t said anything of how long we have been together, so I would hesitate before making judgments and claiming red flags.
In this case is not a matter whether the civil marriage will be valid or otherwise, but if there is reason enough to do it. In other words, if it’s valid to do it as a mere legal process (which may be fraud, maybe not).

The whole convo has proven some things.

1. Talk to your local priest about such cases
2. In itself civil marriage is not sinful
3. It may be illicit or perhaps even sinful, however, to get married civilly for the wrong reasons, even if the couple is fully aware the marriage isn’t valid but just a legal process.
4. Don’t bring personal cases to strangers >_<

 

[EasterJoy]

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.

You’re going to wait to get married in the Church until you have that stable source of income? This is not what I had thought you meant.

Do you think you eat less before you’re married? Consider whether you could get the legal paperwork done in order to make the marriage of the bride and groom in an intended home country of marriage possible, then marry in the Church as soon as possible thereafter, and then pay off your debts and save money. This is more honest.

As for “just don’t tell anybody”, it is fine not to tell people who can’t have the whole story and might be expected to make a rash judgement. If you’re doing something where scandal could fairly be taken by someone who knows the whole story, though, that is something else again.

Fr. David has a point: When you obtain a civil marriage, you are telling the government that you are a married couple. The government understands that to mean that you intend to share a common home as soon as that is possible. It is understandable that there might be a considerable lag between when you can arrange the civil marriage and when you can arrange the religious marriage and the sharing of that common home, especially if the natural-born citizen can move back to their home country immediately and the new citizen is held up for some reason. As with the service member being deployed immediately, that could legitimately be a very long wait, and the resulting wait could even hold up the date on which the religious marriage and the sharing of a common home could take place. The hazard of the service member being in harm’s way and the amount of time he could not possibly be at home parenting could be a legitimate reason to use abstinence in order to delay the arrival of children, as well.

The government’s understanding is that when you marry, your intention is to share a common home as husband and wife as soon as circumstances allow. The process of becoming husband and wife in the eyes of the Church is not something that can be suspended indefinitely without violating even the government’s understanding of marriage. In the US, they will actually send somebody from Immigration and Naturalization, find that you’ve had the opportunity to set up house to together, and yet haven’t, and can declare the whole thing a fraud.

If something akin to that happens, and the non-native party is sent away, then you may unfortunately find how much government paperwork unfortunately *can *get in the way of your intention to marry. Don’t mess around with this. Know *what the government means *by acting married, and be sure to do that. Heaven may forgive failures that come with “good intentions”, but the courts probably will not.

I think it would be wise to get your facts together with regards to the legal understanding of civil marriage and fraudulent marriage in the countries involved, and have another meeting with the priests involved concerning the ethics of what you’re doing. It is the specific details of the countries you are dealing with and your situation that will count.

 

[EasterJoy]

Until a few minutes ago, the question was just hypothetical. Now that it’s become personal that changes things (in terms of my own responses here).

All I can say at this point, is to go back to the original question and try to re-phrase the answer.

If it’s your intention to deceive, then that’s sinful. If you deceive without “intending” to do so, it’s still a sin because objectively, it’s still a lie.

If you are not deceiving anyone, there’s no sin.

It’s not about the marriage ceremony itself. What I’m trying to express here is that the question of sin (which is what you originally asked) is not about the issue of marriage, but about telling the truth.

The question (and I stress that from my perspective, it’s a question, not an answer) is really not about the 6th commandment, but about the 8th.

I don’t think the OP’s intention is to deceive, but I now see that you weer far more astute that I in seeing that perhaps the couple was considering giving themselves far more latitude than honesty would allow about “intending to” marry as soon as they “could”.

If you were right about that, then I have to agree with you. Most governments would consider the legal marriage a dishonest representation performed in order to unfairly obtain the benefits of marriage without actually marrying.

 

[Vico]

What sin? The husband is impotent.

I haven’t seen anything specific on the matter, so I would be hesitant to call it a sin. Furthermore, at best it would be part of Tradition…I don’t recall Christ saying impotent people are prohibited from having families.

If it is pre-existing and perpetual impotentence, then it is an impediment of divine law that prevents matrimony. If the couple proceeded without the Church, it would be a sin of disobeying the precepts of the Church, and no marriage would exist. Because no marriage would exist, but they lived together as civilly married, it would be also against divine law due to diobeying the precepts of the Church and by bad example to others (scandal), including any adopted children. In addition, to put oneself in a situation of sexual temptation is sinful, even if impotent, for either can sin by lustful thought as well as action.

 

[Warrior1979]

If it is pre-existing and perpetual impotentence, then it is an impediment of divine law that prevents matrimony. If the couple proceeded without the Church, it would be a sin of disobeying the precepts of the Church, and no marriage would exist. Because no marriage would exist, but they lived together as civilly married, it would be also against divine law due to diobeying the precepts of the Church and by bad example to others (scandal), including any adopted children. In addition, to put oneself in a situation of sexual temptation is sinful, even if impotent, for either can sin by lustful thought as well as action.

The rights of abandoned children take precedence over nosy neighbors.

 

[Vico]

The rights of abandoned children take precedence over nosy neighbors.

It does not mean it is acceptable. A similar situation illustrates the gravity:

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

“With respect to the aforementioned new pastoral proposals, this Congregation deems itself obliged therefore to recall the doctrine and discipline of the Church in this matter. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ(5), the Church affirms that a new union cannot be recognised as valid if the preceding marriage was valid. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Holy Communion as long as this situation persists(6).”

“The faithful who persist in such a situation may receive Holy Communion only after obtaining sacramental absolution, which may be given only “to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when for serious reasons, for example, for the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they ‘take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples’”(8). In such a case they may receive Holy Communion as long as they respect the obligation to avoid giving scandal.”

“6. Members of the faithful who live together as husband and wife with persons other than their legitimate spouses may not receive Holy Communion. Should they judge it possible to do so, pastors and confessors, given the gravity of the matter and the spiritual good of these persons(10) as well as the common good of the Church, have the serious duty to admonish them that such a judgment of conscience openly contradicts the Church’s teaching(11). Pastors in their teaching must also remind the faithful entrusted to their care of this doctrine.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_14091994_rec-holy-comm-by-divorced_en.html

 

[Warrior1979]

It does not mean it is acceptable. A similar situation illustrates the gravity:

It is not similar. People that can consummate a marriage and people that cannot consummate a marriage are not similar.

Can you cite something that states, say, it is a mortal sin for an impotent man to be a father, or that it if an impotent man adopts it is a mortal sin for the child to also have a mother?

It’s interesting to see that the child’s needs are placed secondary to whether or not invaginal ejaculation can take place.

 

[Vico]

It is not similar. People that can consummate a marriage and people that cannot consummate a marriage are not similar.

Can you cite something that states, say, it is a mortal sin for an impotent man to be a father, or that it if an impotent man adopts it is a mortal sin for the child to also have a mother?

It’s interesting to see that the child’s needs are placed secondary to whether or not invaginal ejaculation can take place.

True, they are dissimilar, in that respect, and that is why those that are impotent cannot be married Catholic. It is the living as if husband and wife when not married that is the sin. The sinfulness of the cohabitation is not based upon the potential for consummation.

 

[Warrior1979]

True, they are dissimilar, in that respect, and that is why those that are impotent cannot be married Catholic. It is the living as if husband and wife when not married that is the sin. The sinfulness of the cohabitation is not based upon the potential for consummation.

So let me get this straight…impotent people cannot live with anyone of the other sex and may not have children. Furthermore, it is more proper for these children to live in an orphanage or be bounced around from family to family.

Is this really the Church’s position?

If not, then I don’t see the problem with a civil marriage that benefits children. Celibate and raising a family? IMHO, it’s as holy as it gets…barring the opinions of nosy neighbors, of course.

 

[EasterJoy]

So let me get this straight…impotent people cannot live with anyone of the other sex and may not have children. Furthermore, it is more proper for these children to live in an orphanage or be bounced around from family to family.

Is this really the Church’s position?

If not, then I don’t see the problem with a civil marriage that benefits children. Celibate and raising a family? IMHO, it’s as holy as it gets…barring the opinions of nosy neighbors, of course.

In 1997, the City of San Francisco passed a law that all companies must provide the same benefits for domestic partners as for spouses. Archbishop Levada objected that this violated Catholic teaching on the unique status of marriage. In order to be in compliance with the city ordinance, which he did not succeed in changing, Archbishop Levada stated that unmarried employees of the archdiocese could designate any person sharing the same address as their beneficiary. This complied with the statute while avoiding a privileged status for unmarried domestic partnerships.

In other words, it is not having the same benefits for married people as for unmarried people that is the problem. It is extending a status or benefits to sexual relationships other than marriage to some people when the same status or benefits would be denied to celibate people living at the same address.

The Church will not oppose the legal recogntion of unions other than marriage, as long as these other unions are not predicated on an immoral sexual relationship. In other words, it is fine to give benefits to gay couples, as long as you don’t make the same benefits inaccessible to, say, a brother and a sister living together, or a father and his son or daughter.

When offered this kind of solution in Oregon, *gay advocates did not want it! *It is approval for their sexual relationship that they want, a status equivalent to marriage, not a status that might be made available to any adults living together for mutual benefit.

In other words, the fight being waged against marriage is not about fairness or support for “non-traditional” living arrangements that can benefit children. Don’t believe that. It is not true.

 

[Vico]

So let me get this straight…impotent people cannot live with anyone of the other sex and may not have children. Furthermore, it is more proper for these children to live in an orphanage or be bounced around from family to family.

Is this really the Church’s position?

If not, then I don’t see the problem with a civil marriage that benefits children. Celibate and raising a family? IMHO, it’s as holy as it gets…barring the opinions of nosy neighbors, of course.

Easter Joy has an very good post. I just present some rules:

Those that are not validly married are not to live together as husband and wife. (There is a problem of scandal given, not avoiding the occassion of sin for oneself or others, lustful desires that may occur, not being able to fulfill the covenant, etc.)

All Catholics are bound to be married with approval of the Church.

Those that are already and irreversibly impotent (man or woman) cannot be married, by divine law.

One who is validly married and later becomes impotent remains married.