Does the church consider a civil marriage a marriage?

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Help. My daughter who is catholic is married to a non catholic outside the church. We have discussed her getting married in the church, but she gives me excuses why that cannot happen. Recently, she sent me the statment and question below. Can you help me answer her?

1 The Catholic Church understands marriage between a baptized man and woman to be a sacrament, a visible sign of the grace that God gives them to help them live their lives here and now so as to be able to join him in eternity.2 For Catholics, marriage is social as well as religious, but its religious aspects are very important. The Bible repeatedly compares the relationship between man and wife to that between God and Israel (cf. Hos. 9:1) or between Christ and his Church (cf. Eph. 5:21-32). For Catholics, marriage is a holy vocation.
According to this quote Jim & I are not married. Since the Church doesn’t think of civil marriage as MARRIAGE how does a gay civil marriage affect the church?

She is missing one SMALL word in her opening statement. “The Catholic Church understands valid marriage between a baptized man and woman to be a sacrament…” There is no such thing as “Gay Marriage” as far as the Catholic Churcgh is concerned.

 

[cameron_lansing]

it would also be far more helpful and less confusing if we avoid posting when we do not have the correct answer.

:clapping:

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

If a tribunal is required then yes, you’re right re an intitial assumpion of validity. I don’t accept the priest was flat wrong. More likely that he meant a tribunal would quickly decide in favour of non-validity or at least that there was no bar to future marriage between baptised people.

JTG’S

 

[1ke]

More likely that he meant a tribunal would quickly decide in favour of non-validity or at least that there was no bar to future marriage between baptised people.

JTG’S

He cannot know that a marriage will be found invalid. And, especially if he’s making a general statement.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

You state that :- For any two non-Catholics with no requiremtn in their own faith community to marry in a certain form-- baptized or not-- their civil marriage is valid. If they are baptized non-Catholics, their civil marriage is both valid and a sacrament.

I recently discussed this very subject with a priest who has a great deal of knowledge in this field. He advised me that if two non catholic people marry in the reg office and one is not baptised, then the CC does not recognise that marriage as valid for future purposes. If they are both baptised then the marriage is valid.

JTG’S

You are mixing up “valid” and “Sacramental”.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Be careful not to confuse the term “valid” with the term “sacramental.”

The Church assumes that all non-Catholic marriages are valid. But only those between two baptized non-Catholic Christians can be considered sacramental.

This second statement would also be somewhat incomplete also.

 

[jmcrae]

This second statement would also be somewhat incomplete also.

I should have said, “Only those non-Catholic marriages between two baptized non-Catholic Christians can be considered sacramental.”

Better?

 

[Our_Refuge]

The question posted is whether or not a CIVIL marriage is valid

From a Catholic.com apologist
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=49352

I

I married a non-catholic women about 5 years ago. It was not a Catholic wedding, in fact the ceremony took place in a court house. About a year later things fell apart rather quickly and bitterly. We were seperated and then divorced soon after.

After the divorce I went to talk to a priest about an annulment, he told me that because I was never married by a Catholic priest **the marriage never actually happened **so there was no need to file for one.
I’m wondering though was the priest correct or should I file for an annulment anyway?

As a Catholic when you married 5 years ago you were required to observe the canonical form of the celebration of marriage (cf. Code of Canon Law, 1117) - or to be dispensed from this requirement - for your marriage to be valid. **Therefore, since you married outside the Church without permission, your marriage was and is invalid. **Unless you plan to attempt marriage again, you need only go to confession to be reconciled to the Church.

If you plan to attempt marriage again the Church must first **officially declare **your prior marriage to be invalid (null). In such case, the annulment investigation is abbreviated (documentary process) and should take a relatively short period of time. Contact your pastor or your diocese’s marriage tribunal for more information.

---

Jim Blackburn
Catholic Answers Apologist

 

[cameron_lansing]

The question posted is whether or not a CIVIL marriage is valid . . . From a Catholic.com apologist . . .

When canonical form is required and not observed, and not dispensed, and no other provision of law would cover the situation, Rotal jurisprudence has consistently maintained there is not even an appearance of validity. Not a whiff.

From a technical perspective, the documentary process as treated in canon 1686+ is not applicable. The pre nuptial investigation of canon 1066-1067 would suffice to establish that the parties did not assume the bond of marriage and would be free to marry. This was established according to an authentic interpretation of canon 1686 (Pontifical Commission on the Authentic Interpretation of the Code of Canon Law, cf. AAS, LXXVI, 1984, 746-747).

In practice, because of the possible complications that can be involved, many diocesan bishops hand the examination and determination over to their tribunals. This is broadly true, but in some dioceses, the parish priest can make the determination himself.

However, as canon 1066 says, “Before marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.”

So a party who was bound to canonical form, not dispensed from, and not covered by another provision of law, would have to have that marriage examined in some way by the Church before he or she could subsequently celebrate a marriage in the Church.

There must be absolute clarity of a person’s freedom to marry - even when a marriage is manifestly never brought into canonical existence due to “total lack of canonical form.”