Does the church consider a civil marriage a marriage?

[Just_Lurking]

---

In this situation — if the two Catholics who married outside the law and form of the Church --obtained a civil divorced—are they free (without some form of annulment) to marry another in the Church – since the first marriage was not valid?

It depends what you mean by “some form of annulment”. There needs to be some type of investigation into the civil marriage to ensure that canonical form was required but not followed. In some dioceses, this investigation must be conducted by tribunal personnel, because of the complexity of the applicable canon law. This investigation is technically different than a decree of nullity, in that the canon law procedural rules for annulment do not need to be followed. For example, the ex-spouse does not need to be contacted in any way.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

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

 

[Walking_Home]

It depends what you mean by “some form of annulment”. **There needs to be some type of investigation into the civil marriage to ensure that canonical form was required but not followed. In some dioceses, this investigation must be conducted by tribunal personnel, because of the complexity of the applicable canon law. **This investigation is technically different than a decree of nullity, in that the canon law procedural rules for annulment do not need to be followed. For example, the ex-spouse does not need to be contacted in any way.

---

That is what I was getting at — thanks.

 

[jmcrae]

---

In this situation — if the two Catholics who married outside the law and form of the Church --obtained a civil divorced—are they free (without some form of annulment) to marry another in the Church – since the first marriage was not valid?

No, since the situation with the marriage is not that it is definitely invalid, but that it is doubtful.

It falls into a weird twilight zone of needing to be validated if the couple remains civilly married, and needing to receive a Declaration of Nullity if they have civilly divorced.

In most cases, the Declaration of Nullity would simply be a matter of paperwork; I have known a divorcee in this situation who got one in less than a week.

 

[jmcrae]

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

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.

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Thanks Jmcrae, but I don’t think I’m confusing valid with sacramental. The priest said that if one person was (as was the case) baptised in the Church of Scotland and the other an unbaptised person of no religion whatever, and they married in a reg office, the CC would not consider that Church of Scotland member to have been married before if they then went on to marry an RC in the future. If they had both been baptised in the C of Scotland or some other protestant denomination, then the RC would recognise the marriage as valid between two baptised persons and so it would be a bar on any future marriage and require an annulment.

Thanks

JTG’S

 

[jmcrae]

Thanks Jmcrae, but I don’t think I’m confusing valid with sacramental. The priest said that if one person was (as was the case) baptised in the Church of Scotland and the other an unbaptised person of no religion whatever, and they married in a reg office, the CC would not consider that Church of Scotland member to have been married before if they then went on to marry an RC in the future.

Sorry, no, that’s incorrect. A Tribunal investigation would be required to find the marriage to be null, before the person could undertake a marriage to a Catholic. The marriage would be presumed valid until proven otherwise.

We had a case of this in my RCIA one year, with a Buddhist girl who had married a Presbyterian man. They had divorced after six months. The Buddhist girl was converting to the Catholic faith to marry her Catholic boyfriend - she had to go through the Tribunal process to ascertain the validity of her first marriage, and in her case it took several months.

So, no, it’s not true that a mixed marriage would be automatically considered “not valid.”

 

[Jimmytwoguns]

Just telling you what the priest told me. It may be that a tribunal would bve required, but it shouldn’t take them long.

JTG’S

 

[1ke]

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

This priest is flat wrong.

 

[jmcrae]

Just telling you what the priest told me. It may be that a tribunal would bve required, but it shouldn’t take them long.

JTG’S

If a Tribunal is required, even for ten seconds to sign a document, then the marriage was presumed valid until such time as the document was presented to the Tribunal.

 

[1ke]

Just telling you what the priest told me. It may be that a tribunal would bve required, but it shouldn’t take them long.

JTG’S

Not true. The first marriage in the case you stated might very well be found to be valid.

 

[Timidity]

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.

Impossible. In marriage validity and sacramentalness (a new word) go hand in hand. A marriage can’t be one without being the other. See Canon 1055.

 

[1ke]

A civil marriage between two non-Catholics who later enter the church is valid in the Church’s eyes (assuming an annulment is not needed), but not sacramental. The same ceremony I mentioned above will make it sacramental.

No, Ruthie, this is not true.

Two non-Catholics who marry (without prior marriages or impediments) have a valid marriage. If they are both baptized, their marriage is also a Sacrament whether they are Catholic or not. If they become Catholics there is no change in the status of their marriage nor do they need to convalidate it.

In the case of two non-Catholics where one or both are unbaptized, their marriage would be valid but not a sacrament. If they both become baptized (in ANY Christian denomination) their marriage automatically becomes a Sacrament. NO convalidation is needed if they become Catholic.

 

[1ke]

Impossible. In marriage validity and sacramentalness (a new word) go hand in hand. A marriage can’t be one without being the other. See Canon 1055.

Only for the baptized.

Unbaptized persons can have valid marriages. They are not sacramental.

 

[Phemie]

This topic has been covered many times in Ask an Apologist.

The gist of it is:

A civil marriage of any kind is valid under civil law. It takes a divorce under civil law to make it invalid.

No, a divorce doesn’t rule on the validity of a marriage, it dissolves a civil marriage. Invalid means there never was a marriage. A civil marriage can be found to be invalid by a civil court but that’s not the same as a divorce.

A civil marriage between two non-Catholics who later enter the church is valid in the Church’s eyes (assuming an annulment is not needed), but not sacramental. The same ceremony I mentioned above will make it sacramental.

Two non-Catholics who have a civil marriage are validly married if their own Church allows a civil marriage. If they’re both baptized they also have a sacramental marriage. No convalidation is required since they are already validly married.

Ruthie

 

[jmcrae]

Impossible. In marriage validity and sacramentalness (a new word) go hand in hand. A marriage can’t be one without being the other. See Canon 1055.

**
Can. 1055 ß1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.**

It means that, between the baptized (that is, if you have two people who have been baptized), marriage is a Sacrament.

It does not mean that unbaptized people cannot have valid marriages - it only means that only baptized people can have Sacramental marriages.

 

[Phemie]

Impossible. In marriage validity and sacramentalness (a new word) go hand in hand. A marriage can’t be one without being the other. See Canon 1055.

Not true. A Catholic who marries in the Catholic Church with someone who’s not baptized is in a valid, non-sacramental marriage.

 

[Timidity]

It means that, between the baptized (that is, if you have two people who have been baptized), marriage is a Sacrament.

It does not mean that unbaptized people cannot have valid marriages - it only means that only baptized people can have Sacramental marriages.

I agree. But that’s not what you were saying in the post I replied to.

 

[jmcrae]

I agree. But that’s not what you were saying in the post I replied to.

Yes, it is.

I said that baptized non-Catholics have valid, Sacramental marriages and that unbaptized people’s marriages are valid, but not Sacramental.

 

[puzzleannie]

---

In this situation — if the two Catholics who married outside the law and form of the Church --obtained a civil divorced—are they free (without some form of annulment) to marry another in the Church – since the first marriage was not valid?

the marriage is invalid due to lack of form, so if one of them wishes to marry, they must take care of the paperwork so that it is established for the record the first marriage is invalid–not a full blown annulment investigation, but there is still a process that must be followed. please search this forum for these exact questions which have been answered recently many times for fuller discussion and links to resources

it is also understood that these are general discussions of hypothetical cases. there is not possible way to give an accurate answer to a question about an specific individual marriage, as each situation is unique. the standard advice: go to you local pastor, schedule an interview, give him ALL the facts about your first marriage and let him guide you from there. Pastor–not secretary or nun in charge of marriage prep.

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