Civil Marriage

[Chacal1015]

I am not clear now a days with people that have married civil but not buy the church. I asked a Parish Priest if it was a sin, he gave me a long drawn answer that did not respond my question. If someone out there could tell me and cite the Church Resource that specifies that.

Thanks

 

[1ke]

I’m not sure why he gave you a “long drawn out answer.” It is quite short and simple.

A Catholic who marries outside the Church marries invalidly and commits a grave sin in doing so.

“Outside the Church” means they did **not **marry in the Catholic form-- before a priest/deacon and two witnesses and they did **not **receive a dispensation from the Bishop to be married outside the Church. A Catholic marrying a non-Catholic can marry validly (for example,in their fiance’s church) IF they receive a dispensation from the Bishop.

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 according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

 

[illmatic]

A civil marriage is not recognised by the church as a valid marriage.

… which brings up an interesting point: why does the Church campaign against gay civil weddings when it does not against straight civil weddings.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

A civil marriage is not recognised by the church as a valid marriage.

… which brings up an interesting point: why does the Church campaign against gay civil weddings when it does not against straight civil weddings.

Because the Church recognizes civil weddings as valid for non-Catholics. Only Catholics must follow canon law.

 

[illmatic]

Because the Church recognizes civil weddings as valid for non-Catholics. Only Catholics must follow canon law.

and why is the Catholic Church trying to legislate for non-Catholics. I’ve seen a lot of Catholics on here post about secularists injecting their opinions into Catholicism… isnt’ it the same principle?

 

[OraLabora]

A civil marriage is not recognised by the church as a valid marriage.

… which brings up an interesting point: why does the Church campaign against gay civil weddings when it does not against straight civil weddings.

Because while a civil wedding may not be sacramentally valid, it is still a natural marriage. On the other hand a gay civil “marriage” in fact denatures the very definition of marriage by attempting to make it between two people of the same sex who cannot participate in the natural, unifying procreative act. It’s a natural law thing.

Two homosexuals cannot become “one flesh”, since homosexual sex acts have no biological basis. On the other hand the natural sex act is the only biological process that actually does require two persons of the opposite sex in order to arrive at its natural conclusion.

Therefore two homosexuals cannot be “married” without totally distorting the meaning and concept of the word “marriage”. You can call a dog a “cat” all you want, but it will always be a dog. Similarly, you can call a gay union a “marriage” all you want, but it won’t make it an actual “marriage”.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am not clear now a days with people that have married civil but not buy the church. I asked a Parish Priest if it was a sin, he gave me a long drawn answer that did not respond my question. If someone out there could tell me and cite the Church Resource that specifies that.

Thanks

the priest was probably trying to be pastorally sensitive and not flat out accuse you of sinning. He was also trying to explain options open to you. The church source is canon law.

Yes it is a mortal sin for a baptized Catholic to attempt marriage outside canon law on the sacrament. There can be permission for a good reason–military deployment, immigration issue, civil law requirements. But that marriage must be solemnized (convalidated) in the Catholic Church as soon as possible, and of course the couple may not engage in the marital embrace until that time, even if they do have to occupy the same living space. This cannot be done on their own initiative however, they need to work with their pastor and follow his pastoral counsel. If they assume marital intimacy beforehand that of course would be another mortal sin.

there are several provisions of canon law that apply, which is why your pastor sounded long-winded. Some of those can be dispensed, some cannot. The best way to get an answer to your own specific situation is to sit down with him, by appointment and explain your own needs.

 

[Ron_Conte]

“Let no one, then, be deceived by the distinction which some civil jurists have so strongly insisted upon - the distinction, namely, by virtue of which they sever the matrimonial contract from the sacrament, with intent to hand over the contract to the power and will of the rulers of the State, while reserving questions concerning the sacrament of the Church. A distinction, or rather severance, of this kind cannot be approved; for certain it is that in Christian marriage the contract is inseparable from the sacrament, and that, for this reason, the contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well. For Christ our Lord added to marriage the dignity of a sacrament; but marriage is the contract itself, whenever that contract is lawfully concluded.” (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, n. 23).

“Hence it is clear that among Christians every true marriage is, in itself and by itself, a sacrament” (n. 24)

"And since the valid matrimonial consent among the faithful was constituted by Christ as a sign of grace, the sacramental nature is so intimately bound up with Christian wedlock that there can be no true marriage between baptized persons “without it being by that very fact a sacrament.” " (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, n. 39; inner quote from the older Canon Law, Cod. iur. can., c. 1012.).

Among Christians, there is no merely natural marriage; only the Sacrament of marriage is possible, although that Sacrament includes natural marriage, just as the New Convenent includes the Old Convenant, but in a higher form.

 

[puzzleannie]

… which brings up an interesting point: why does the Church campaign against gay civil weddings when it does not against straight civil weddings.

this is an entirely different issue. OP’s question is about canon law that applies to Catholics. This question is about a civil law change which effects all society and family adversely. And the Church at least in America is campaigning vigorously against the trend OP notes of Catholics disregard of marriage laws. Marriage is the theme of this year’s catechetical Sunday and the bishops have mandated teaching on the sacrament at every level of parish life and ministry this year.

and why is the Catholic Church trying to legislate for non-Catholics. I’ve seen a lot of Catholics on here post about secularists injecting their opinions into Catholicism… isnt’ it the same principle?

as stated this is a separate discussion. Please stick to OP’s question which as about Church law that applies to Catholics

 

[Brendan]

I’m not sure why he gave you a “long drawn out answer.” It is quite short and simple…

Because it IS somewhat drawn out.

For example, what is meant by “Civil Marriage”. Does that mean that is the only marriage the couple are planning on?

In several countries , France and China for example, Church weddings are not legally recognized, so civil marriages are required in addition to the Church marriage.

My wife and I did something similar. She is Canadian, I am American. She was living across the river from Detroit in Windsor, Ont. For customs purposes, it was necessary for us to do a civil marriage. But that was simply paperwork to us. She continued to live in her apartment in Canada, I had finished off the lease at my apartment and moved in with my parents until our actual Wedding in the Church.

It was not until that point where we together got an apartment and began a married life.

 

[thistle]

Because it IS somewhat drawn out.

For example, what is meant by “Civil Marriage”. Does that mean that is the only marriage the couple are planning on?

In several countries , France and China for example, Church weddings are not legally recognized, so civil marriages are required in addition to the Church marriage.

My wife and I did something similar. She is Canadian, I am American. She was living across the river from Detroit in Windsor, Ont. For customs purposes, it was necessary for us to do a civil marriage. But that was simply paperwork to us. She continued to live in her apartment in Canada, I had finished off the lease at my apartment and moved in with my parents until our actual Wedding in the Church.

It was not until that point where we together got an apartment and began a married life.

It is the same here in the Philippines. Despite being a Catholic country (85% Catholic) Church weddings are not legally recognised. A civil marriage is required by law for a marriage to be legally recognised. Thereafter Catholics would have a Church wedding.