Do Catholics need to be married in a Church?

[po18guy]

My girfriend and I are considering marriage. I’m Catholic and getting annuled. She’s not Catholic or getting annuled. She is baptised but was married by a JOP. Does she need to get this annuled? What are the ramifications of getting married outside of the church?

First, if the Church does not recognize your marriage, then you are not married - thus, fornicating. The Sacrament of marriage was instituted by God, with authority over it given to His Church. Man’s government, by itself, has neither the authority to join, nor to separate what God and His Church have sole authority over. Outside of God’s (i.e. Church) authority, marriage is just a secular ritual with meaning only in a courtroom or on a tax return.

Consider: Two Catholics marry in Church, then later divorce in civil court. After some years, they reconcile and decide to live together again. Know what they have to do, in the Church’s eyes? Nothing. They were always married. Now, if they sinned against their marriage during this separation, they will have to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But, that’s it.

Listen to coolcatholicguy and talk to your Priest.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

My girfriend and I are considering marriage. I’m Catholic and getting annuled. She’s not Catholic or getting annuled. She is baptised but was married by a JOP. Does she need to get this annuled?

Yes, she needs her marriage annuled. If she married a baptized Protestant then she’d require a “full fledged” annulment. If she married a baptized Catholic via a JOP then she’d simply need to supply the proof and it’d be an automatic lack of canonical form.

What are the ramifications of getting married outside of the church?

You would not be able to receive the Eucharist or act as a Godparent or sponsor. The Church would not recognize your marriage.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

There’s some potential misinformation in this thread. So let’s clear up a few things.

1. Catholics are bound by canon law. NonCatholics are not. That means no matter where they get married, 2 baptized Protestants enter into a valid sacramental marriage. Nonbaptized persons enter into a natural marriage.
2. Canon Law requires a Catholic to be married in a church by a priest, a deacon, or someone delegated by the Bishop. However, dispensations can be granted under various conditions.
3. A Catholic who is marrying a Protestant can receive a dispensation and validly enter into a sacramental marriage in a Protestant church with the Protestant minister acting as the witness.
4. A Catholic marrying a Jewish person can receive a dispensation and validly enter into a natural marriage with a Rabbi acting as the witness.
5. 2 Catholics can receive permission to be married in a legitimate Catholic chapel where ever one exists.

---

As others have pointed out, we need to be careful about what we “hear” because sometimes there are important details we don’t “hear.”

 

[puzzleannie]

My girfriend and I are considering marriage. I’m Catholic and getting annuled. She’s not Catholic or getting annuled. She is baptised but was married by a JOP. Does she need to get this annuled? What are the ramifications of getting married outside of the church?

not enough info to answer, and the only way to get an answer is for her to visit the priest who will be preparing you for marriage, because she as well as you have to prove you are free to marry at all. This means she has to be completely open and honest about her marital situation and submit to having her case investigated and judged by the canon law tribunal. There are all kinds of variables so there is no satisfactory short answer we can give here. As it stands, you have both been married so neither of you is free to marry, or even become engaged, until your free status is established. An early visit to your priest is indicated.

the ramifications of getting married outside the Church are the worst thing that can happen to a Catholic in this life, being separated from Christ in the sacraments, and the worst that can happen in the next life, the risk of losing one’s immortal soul.

 

[otjm]

First, if the Church does not recognize your marriage, then you are not married - thus, fornicating. The Sacrament of marriage was instituted by God, with authority over it given to His Church. Man’s government, by itself, has neither the authority to join, nor to separate what God and His Church have sole authority over. Outside of God’s (i.e. Church) authority, marriage is just a secular ritual with meaning only in a courtroom or on a tax return.

Your answer is either a bit truncated, or you may want to actually review what the Church says about marriage as your answer could be taken to mean what I suspect you do not mean.

Consider: Two Catholics marry in Church, then later divorce in civil court. After some years, they reconcile and decide to live together again. Know what they have to do, in the Church’s eyes? Nothing. They were always married. Now, if they sinned against their marriage during this separation, they will have to receive the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But, that’s it.

Listen to coolcatholicguy and talk to your Priest.

Well, no, that is not exactly “That’s it”, as the Church acknowledges the power and right of the government to regulate certain aspects of marriage - such as taxation - and while they may still be sacramentally married, they are not married as far as the tax man is concerned (or for that matter, anyone else in governments, and possibly in business, for example, insurance companies).

It is easy to give advice. It is harder to give correct advice.

 

[po18guy]

Your answer is either a bit truncated, or you may want to actually review what the Church says about marriage as your answer could be taken to mean what I suspect you do not mean.

Fair enough. Sacramental marriages in other faith traditions do complicate the matter. Let’s make it simple: two Catholics married by a justice of the peace (and without a dispensation from form or cult) are not married in the Church’s eyes. OK so far?

Well, no, that is not exactly “That’s it”, as the Church acknowledges the power and right of the government to regulate certain aspects of marriage - such as taxation - and while they may still be sacramentally married, they are not married as far as the tax man is concerned (or for that matter, anyone else in governments, and possibly in business, for example, insurance companies).

It is easy to give advice. It is harder to give correct advice.

I will let you straighten Fr. Serpa out on this point, for this is his answer. But, he was speaking strictly of the status of the marriage in the Church’s eyes. Tax and insurance considerations are rightly not the Church’s concern.

 

[otjm]

Fair enough. Sacramental marriages in other faith traditions do complicate the matter. Let’s make it simple: two Catholics married by a justice of the peace (and without a dispensation from form or cult) are not married in the Church’s eyes. OK so far?

Yep. Mo’ betta’.

I will let you straighten Fr. Serpa out on this point, for this is his answer. But, he was speaking strictly of the status of the marriage in the Church’s eyes. Tax and insurance considerations are rightly not the Church’s concern.

No, but they sure as heck are a concern of the individual couple.

As I said, it is easy to give advice. It is more difficult to give correct advice. If you are going to make a statement such as the couple who gets married in the Church, divorces, and then wants to get back together, it helps to deliniate what part(s) you are discussing and what parts you are not.

So, in the example you gave, it might be better to hedge your statement that “as far as the Church is concerned” and note that it does not address other issues. Some of your readers are not as sophisticated in their knowledge base as you are, and it helps to keep that in mind. Not trying to be a pain, but it helps if you are going to toss something out there that has other complications to it, that you at least note that there are other issues.

I have not read Fr. Serpa’s comment, but I suspect that he hedged it. Or it may be that the question was asked in such a way that it was clear only the Church’s position was being asked about. Ne?

 

[thistle]

I recently heard that a friend of mine’s parents were not married in a Church. Is that a sin?

As to where Catholics are married see Canon Law:

Can. 1118 §1 A marriage between catholics, or between a catholic party and a baptised non-catholic, is to be celebrated in the parish church. By permission of the local Ordinary or of the parish priest, it may be celebrated in another church or oratory.

§2 The local Ordinary can allow a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.

§3 A marriage between a catholic party and an unbaptised party may be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.

 

[neiacatholic]

I am Catholic and both of my parents are Catholic.

They were not married in a Church either.

They were married in the rectory by a priest on a weekday morning.

How things were done are different today than years ago.

 

[po18guy]

Yep. Mo’ betta’.

No, but they sure as heck are a concern of the individual couple.

As I said, it is easy to give advice. It is more difficult to give correct advice. If you are going to make a statement such as the couple who gets married in the Church, divorces, and then wants to get back together, it helps to deliniate what part(s) you are discussing and what parts you are not.

So, in the example you gave, it might be better to hedge your statement that “as far as the Church is concerned” and note that it does not address other issues. Some of your readers are not as sophisticated in their knowledge base as you are, and it helps to keep that in mind. Not trying to be a pain, but it helps if you are going to toss something out there that has other complications to it, that you at least note that there are other issues.

I have not read Fr. Serpa’s comment, but I suspect that he hedged it. Or it may be that the question was asked in such a way that it was clear only the Church’s position was being asked about. Ne?

I was replying strictly to kensz’s questions and concerns. He was concerned with Church teaching and discipline and I saw no concern in his post regarding civil government matters. Those are self-explanatory in most lives and need no attention here.

Father Serpa also addressed the marriage strictly from the Church’s view, as that is his role. He did not hedge his answer, as there is no contingency regarding a valid marriage. Once a valid marriage (emphasis: valid) occurs, you are married until either you or your spouse dies. Period. There is no Church divorce and neither is there Church re-marriage of those who are already married.

Worldly complications always set in, but I did not see that in kensz’s question. Thanks for pointing me toward clarification.

 

[otjm]

I was replying strictly to kensz’s questions and concerns. He was concerned with Church teaching and discipline and I saw no concern in his post regarding civil government matters. Those are self-explanatory in most lives and need no attention here.

Father Serpa also addressed the marriage strictly from the Church’s view, as that is his role. He did not hedge his answer, as there is no contingency regarding a valid marriage. Once a valid marriage (emphasis: valid) occurs, you are married until either you or your spouse dies. Period. There is no Church divorce and neither is there Church re-marriage of those who are already married.

Worldly complications always set in, but I did not see that in kensz’s question. Thanks for pointing me toward clarification.

As I noted, I suspect that you are more sophisticated in your knowledge base than many others. Having heard/seen responses from those who are not, my comments were only meant to encourage you to realize that often times, who you are responding to may not have a clue… There may not be an inquiry concerning other aspects of a question asked; that does not mean that the one asking has a grasp on the rest of the issues sufficient to even ask the questions… and I was not intent on picking on you.

 

[po18guy]

As I noted, I suspect that you are more sophisticated in your knowledge base than many others. Having heard/seen responses from those who are not, my comments were only meant to encourage you to realize that often times, who you are responding to may not have a clue… There may not be an inquiry concerning other aspects of a question asked; that does not mean that the one asking has a grasp on the rest of the issues sufficient to even ask the questions… and I was not intent on picking on you.

Thank you. We can only pray for all marriages, as I see an awful lot of them in crisis. I do not believe in coincidence, but I do believe in the devil.

Christ’s peace.

 

[otjm]

Thank you. We can only pray for all marriages, as I see an awful lot of them in crisis. I do not believe in coincidence, but I do believe in the devil.

Christ’s peace.

85% of marriages of Catholics which have ended in divorce have never even applied for a decree of nullity; out of the remaining 15% which have, 8% have either been refused one or have not completed the process.

And out of that mess of 93% divorced and no decree of nullity is a vast number of Catholics who have left the practice of their faith.

 

[po18guy]

85% of marriages of Catholics which have ended in divorce have never even applied for a decree of nullity; out of the remaining 15% which have, 8% have either been refused one or have not completed the process.

And out of that mess of 93% divorced and no decree of nullity is a vast number of Catholics who have left the practice of their faith.

I maintain that there are not too many divorces in America; rather, there are too many marriages. Our culture is strongly (and increasingly) biased against any sort of permanence in relationships. And, during the ceremony, we seem to hear only the “for better, for richer, in health” portion of the vows while completely ignoring the “for poorer, for worse, in sickness” components of those vows.

 

[otjm]

I maintain that there are not too many divorces in America; rather, there are too many marriages. Our culture is strongly (and increasingly) biased against any sort of permanence in relationships. And, during the ceremony, we seem to hear only the “for better, for richer, in health” portion of the vows while completely ignoring the “for poorer, for worse, in sickness” components of those vows.

Same coin, different sides.

 

[Phemie]

I am Catholic and both of my parents are Catholic.

They were not married in a Church either.

They were married in the rectory by a priest on a weekday morning.

How things were done are different today than years ago.

I could be wrong but I believe the OP and most of those responding are referring to marriages which didn’t occur within the rules of the Church (they were civil marriages, or marriages in Protestant churches) rather than within a physical church building. I’m old enough to remember when mixed-marriages couldn’t be celebrated in the church proper. My cousin had to be married in the sacristy when she married her Anglican husband.

 

[puzzleannie]

I am Catholic and both of my parents are Catholic.

They were not married in a Church either.

They were married in the rectory by a priest on a weekday morning.

How things were done are different today than years ago.

as previously stated “married in the Catholic Church” does NOT mean “married in a Catholic church building” it means married according to canon law on marriage, and yes in former years the exchange of vows was done on the church steps, in the rectory, or other location, not precisely in the sanctuary, at different times and places.

 

[po18guy]

Same coin, different sides.

We were approaching the problem from different directions, but with the same resolution in mind.

 

[kensz]

It’s been a year and my annulment is complete and affirmed. My situation with my girlfriend is still the same. Years ago, she was married by a JOP to a Baptist. She was baptised, but not as a Catholic. She doesn’t even know into what religion if/when she was baptised. She was married for a year and then divorced (infidelity).

As I see it, she has to get Catholic annulment, correct? I also see that the Orthodox annulment process is an option. Is that a valid option?

Finally, if I do marry her outside of the church I will no longer be able to have the sacrament of communion. Are all other sacraments illegal for me then as well (confession, etc…)

Help is appreciated. I’m trying to stay Catholic, but I feel like I’ve been going through this annulment process for nothing. I see why people take the easy way out and convert into another religion. I simply can’t believe that they’re all going to Hell.

 

[puzzleannie]

this is an old thread, and you might want to start a new thread on the liturgy and sacraments forum, and also search previous threads on the key word “annulment” or “marriage”.

There is no way to give you an answer that speaks to your individual specific situation in a general discussion forum like this. There are too many variables. You need to make an appointment with your priest and lay out the entire situation and follow his advice on what needs to be done. Do understand that the time of preparation and waiting is a time of grace for you and all involved, and the process of making things right with the Church is always a healing one.