Common law marriage valid?

[on_the_hill]

I was going to post a question about Common Law Marriage (in the U.S.) and saw the “Your topic is similar to…” pop-up.

I didn’t see that this question had been previously answered: Does the Church recognize common law marriages as valid? Or are the common law spouses in a state of sin?

Could a common law marriage that is recognized as such by civil authorities be subsequently convalidated in the Church?

I’m leaning toward an answer of ‘yes,’ based on the reasoning that the sacrament of marriage is between the man and woman: CCC 1601: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”
(I guess this assumes that the two are baptized)

• (My state recognizes common law marriages that were entered into prior to January 2, 2005.)

 

[Fauken]

I didn’t see that this question had been previously answered: Does the Church recognize common law marriages as valid? Or are the common law spouses in a state of sin?

Common law marriages do not and cannot replace sacramental marriage. Such a marriage would be a natural marriage at best. They are not married in the eyes of the Church. Convalidation occurs when a couple is married in another non-Catholic Christian church.

 

[1ke]

Does the Church recognize common law marriages as valid?

For non-Catholics, in places where common law marriage is civilly a valid form of marriage, I think you would need a canon lawyer to answer this question here.

I honestly do not know. At first I thought, “yes” because it’s valid civilly, however because there is actually no exchange of consent-- I have to go with “I’m not sure”.

For a Catholic, no.

Could a common law marriage that is recognized as such by civil authorities be subsequently convalidated in the Church?

Simple convalidation is the giving and receiving of consent in the Catholic form, it IS the marriage. So, yes, I am sure it can be. However, it may be tricky to produce the proof of marriage in order to proceed with convalidation.

Radical sanation is a form of convalidation that does not include exchange of consent and makes the marriage valid back to the original consent. I do not believe a common law marriage could be sanated since there never was any specific exchange of consent in any form.

 

[1ke]

Common law marriages do not and cannot replace sacramental marriage. Such a marriage would be a natural marriage at best.

You are confusing validity and sacramentality.

Sacramentality arises from any valid marriage between two baptized people.

Convalidation occurs when a couple is married in another non-Catholic Christian church.

Convalidation occurs when at least one of the two people is under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, are not validly married, and seek to be validly married.

In general, non-Catholics who marry civilly, whether in a church or not, marry validly. The question is whether they marry validly when they achieve common law marriage status. And, I don’t know the answer to that question. You seem to be implying non-Catholics don’t marry validly at all. Which is not true.

 

[on_the_hill]

I honestly do not know. At first I thought, “yes” because it’s valid civilly, however because there is actually no exchange of consent-- I have to go with “I’m not sure”.

Well, that’s part of it. Common law marriages require consent by both parties. I didn’t see where or how the consent is established, however.

 

[1ke]

Common law marriages require consent by both parties

Actually, it doesn’t.

Let me add: in some places, checking the “spouse” box on forms is all that’s needed to meet the “agree to be married” part of the equation. So, they don’t have to actually give explicit consent to each other or state consent.

 

[on_the_hill]

I found this on the web:

"But the standard established in a 1988 Pennsylvania Supreme Court case Staudenmayer v. Staudenmayer , remains quite high. As Justice Newman wrote in that case, “We have allowed, as a remedial measure, a rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage based on sufficient proof of cohabitation and reputation of marriage where the parties are otherwise disabled from testifying regarding verba in praesenti (words of present intent). However, where the parties are available to testify regarding verba in praesenti, the burden rests with the party claiming a common law marriage to produce clear and convincing evidence of the exchange of words in the present tense spoken with the purpose of establishing the relationship of husband and wife, in other words, the marriage contract. In those situations, the rebuttable presumption in favor of a common law marriage upon sufficient proof of constant cohabitation and reputation for marriage, does not arise.” 714 A.2d 1016 (Pa. Supreme 1988).

 

[dochawk]

Common law marriages do not and cannot replace sacramental marriage. Such a marriage would be a natural marriage at best. They are not married in the eyes of the Church.

In very narrow circumstances where clergy are not generally available, RC canon law recognizes a marriage without a priest (or deacon) as witness.

The requirement that a priest witness the vows is only about 700 years old, while the requirement that he request them actually didn’t come about until late in the 20th century! (the older problem of couples disappearing, coming back, and not agreeing on whether they exchanged vows let to the witnessing requirement, which led to the substitute abuse of waking the priest in the dark hours of the morning and exchanging vows in front of him while he came to his senses!)

Common Law marriage is a separate issue. At Common Law it would apply in the circumstances where clergy is not currently required. Generally it required cohabitation and the couple holding itself out as married for a period of seven years.

Very few jurisdictions still recognized common law marriage, and the time period varies.

hawk

 

[TechieGuy]

I didn’t see where or how the consent is established, however.

In Texas, if the couple presents themselves publicly as married, that would be sufficient.

Other typical methods are filling joint tax returns or signing up on one another’s health insurance plan from work

 

[Vico]

…

The Church only recognizes marriage that has been celebrated and witnessed.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The Church only recognizes marriage that has been celebrated and witnessed.

Yes, but that is only for the Church’s own part.

In many countries you need to go through two marriage cermeonies, one before the Church and one before the state because separation of church and state mean that what happens in the church is of no concern to the state and vice versa.

Now it sometimes happens that a couple marries in church but them skips the state part. The Church discourgaes this, but they cannot absolutely prevent it. Then such a couple is legally married in the eyes of the Church (and thus of God) but unmarried in the eyes of the state. This can happen for example when the state sees an impediment buit the church doesn’t.

The state allows the cohabitation of such a couple, but may object to certain other priveledges of marriage. Tax and inheritance priveledges for example.

Unless that is, you can claim a civil law marriage to by-pass the formal state ceremnony.

 

[on_the_hill]

on_the_hill:

I didn’t see where or how the consent is established, however.

In Texas, if the couple presents themselves publicly as married, that would be sufficient.

Other typical methods are filling joint tax returns or signing up on one another’s health insurance plan from work

That wouldn’t work in Pennsylvania. The courts specifically stated that joint tax returns, joint ownership of property, etc. isn’t sufficient proof of common law marriage.

 

[TechieGuy]

It looks like Texas has tightened up the law on this:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/FA/htm/FA.2.htm#E

Section is titled: SUBCHAPTER E. MARRIAGE WITHOUT FORMALITIES

 

[JimG]

Sometimes people who are in a common law marriage are a little unclear about just when they married. In other words, when did they begin holding themselves out to society as husband and wife. When I was in the mortgage business I pointed out to them that the title would recite their names as joint owners including the phrase “X and Y, husband and wife, as joint owners with right of survivorship.” That at least removed any lingering doubt.

 

[1ke]

That is only in Pennsylvania.

 

[In_prayer]

Church recognizes all marriages but that doesn’t make them sacramental. No matter how a couple are married outside the church making it sacramental is as easy as making an appointment with your church/diocese and being married sacramentally. You might be required to go through some premarital counseling (always a great idea) but please remember if you receive the marriage sacrament through the church its forever and can’t be undone even if you divorce through a court of law.

 

[DarkLight]

Church recognizes all marriages but that doesn’t make them sacramental. No matter how a couple are married outside the church making it sacramental is as easy as making an appointment with your church/diocese and being married sacramentally. You might be required to go through some premarital counseling (always a great idea) but please remember if you receive the marriage sacrament through the church its forever and can’t be undone even if you divorce through a court of law.

The church recognizes 2 categories of valid marriages, natural and sacramental. Any valid marriage between 2 baptized persons is a sacramental marriage. If at least one party was baptized Catholic, then there are additional rules in order to have a valid marriage. But a non-Catholic Christian couple who are validly married have a sacramental marriage with no involvement from the Catholic church. And we believe this marriage is still permanent and cannot be undone except by death. On the other hand, if 2 people have a valid marriage (natural or sacramental), there is no sin and if one chooses to convert to Catholicism there would be no need to go through any additional procedure to validate the marriage.

So for example, 2 baptized protestant Christians who marry before their own pastor have a sacramental marriage, assuming no other impediments. If one joins the Catholic church later, they are still considered married to their spouse and the bond cannot be dissolved. If they divorce and later one converts, the convert would not be able to remarry unless the first marriage was found to be null.

If 2 unbaptized atheists marry before a judge, they have a valid natural marriage (again assuming no impediments). If one converts, they are still in a valid natural marriage, but it can’t be made sacramental because baptism is the first requirement. However marital relations within a natural marriage are not sinful, but there are certain circumstances where a natural marriage can be dissolved. If they both convert, the marriage becomes sacramental when both are baptized; no additional ceremony is required.

Also, what @(name removed by moderator) said about invalid marriages.

 

[Vico]

…

Matrimony, per the Church law, can be valid yet illicit also.

 

[dochawk]

The Church only recognizes marriage that has been celebrated and witnessed.

Again, “only” is too strong.

This is the norm, but there are circumstances, though rare, in which the witness is not required.

And under normal circumstances, not just witnessing, but a higher cleric must request the vows, not merely witness them.

The state allows the cohabitation of such a couple, but may object to certain other priveledges of marriage. Tax and inheritance priveledges for example.

“The” state is all over the board on this. Most states do not even allow Common Law marriage (but allow completion of one started in another state). There is no uniformity among those that do.

Sometimes people who are in a common law marriage are a little unclear about just when they married.

Speaking as a lawyer (in a state with no common Law marriage, but with plenty of people from all over the country) . . . I think you misspelled “usually” :crazy_face:

The kabob law requirement of additional witness other than the couple is only 700 years old . . .

hawk

 

[Vico]

Vico:

The Church only recognizes marriage that has been celebrated and witnessed.

Again, “only” is too strong.

This is the norm, but there are circumstances, though rare, in which the witness is not required.

And under normal circumstances, not just witnessing, but a higher cleric must request the vows, not merely witness them.

…

Only, unless the impediment of no witnesses is dispensed, that is, for a Catholic.