How does moral status of sex depend on legal status of marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ZackMartin
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

ZackMartin

Guest
Hi

My question is about the moral status of sex outside of marriage, and whether a putative marriage is recognised under state law or Church law is relevant to that question. Let’s make the focus of discussion people who aren’t Catholic, and what is or is not a sin for them to do sexually (since more strenuous requirements might be imposed on those who are.) One might see this as a question about natural law.

So, the Catholic Church teaches that sex prior to marriage is sinful, and I take it that it teaches this to be true, not just for Catholics, but for people of all religions and none. (So an atheist who has sex before marriage is in the Catholic Church’s view sinning, while a married atheist who has sex with their husband/wife is not in the Catholic Church’s view sinning, apart from whatever other sins they might be committing as an atheist.)

The question then is - what counts as marriage? Is the canon law of the Catholic church determinative here? I would have thought that the canon law might impose requirements that go beyond the natural law, that would thus be morally binding on Catholics but not non-Catholics? Would there be some marriages, which while invalid by canon law, nonetheless would be valid by divine law? An example might be a marriage of persons related in the third or fourth degree collaterally (i.e. uncle-niece/son-aunt and first cousin marriages) - those are invalid under canon law unless permitted by the local ordinary. But a non-Catholic would not have a “local ordinary” to give them a dispensation - if two atheists, a man and a woman, who are first cousins, and then get married, in a jurisdiction in which first cousin marriage is legal, and then have sex, have they sinned? Would the Catholic church recognise their marriage, given that as non-Catholics they would never have asked their local Catholic Bishop for permission to marry?

Do people have to get legally married to be counted as married under natural law or divine law? Suppose two people declare “We are married”, and start living together and engaging in sexual relations, but never get legally married (whether under the Church’s law or secular law) - are their sexual relations sinful? It would seem that marriage under secular law is not necessary to be married under divine law, given that canon 1071.1.2 says that a marriage may occur in the Catholic church unrecognised by or contrary to secular law, provided it has the local ordinary’s approval. But that only applies to Catholics (non-Catholics would not have an ordinary of which to seek the approval) - suppose Jack and Jill both belong to Pastor Fred’s Church, which teaches that the government is evil, that it is sinful to contract a legally recognised marriage, so they go to Pastor Fred, and Pastor Fred declares them married, and they start living together. Now let’s take it that Pastor Fred is teaching falsehoods, and maybe even he is sinning in so doing, but suppose that Jack and Jill are innocently believing the religious beliefs their parents raised them in, and have no reason to think that Pastor Fred’s teachings are wrong. If Jack and Jill then have sex, have they sinned? Is their marriage valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church? Valid in the eyes of God? It would not be valid in the eyes of most country’s legal systems.

What about common law marriage, which I read is legal in 10 US states and in DC - i.e. two people start living together, they hold themselves out to be married, and by doing so they legally become married? Is such a marriage valid in the eyes of God? in the eyes of the church? under natural law? If two people have a common law marriage, do they sin by having sex? What about two people, who read about common law marriage, and decide they have one, but they don’t happen to live in a jurisdiction which legally recognises the concept - does whether the jurisdiction in which they live recognises the concept have moral significance? Is there a moral difference between “common law marriage”, v.s. the Australian concept of “de facto”, or the French concept of “pacte civil de solidarité” (PACS)? - Legally, they have much of the rights and privileges of marriage, and in the Australian case (but not the French case) are established similarly to common law marriage, but both are not legally considered the same as a marriage. (I am talking here about only heterosexual relationships, not homosexual ones.)

On a practical level, the concept of “common law marriage” seems to exist even where not recognised. A co-worker of mine has been with his current partner for over 20 years, and has two children with her. He habitually calls her “my wife”, even though they are not legally married.

Thanks
Zack
 
This link takes you to the USCCB website, and it answers all the questions you have asked here.

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml

This paragraph explains the essence of the Church’s view on marriage:

“Just as individual states have certain requirements for civil marriage (e.g., a marriage license, blood tests), the Catholic Church also has requirements before Catholics can be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church. A valid Catholic marriage results from four elements: (1) the spouses are free to marry; (2) they freely exchange their consent; (3) in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children; and (4) their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to the last requirement must be approved by church authority”
 
Perhaps you should think about it as being determined by the sacramental status of marriage, and not the legal status of marriage.

Just a thought.
 
Perhaps you should think about it as being determined by the sacramental status of marriage, and not the legal status of marriage.

Just a thought.
Exactly what I was going to say. So I guess I’ll just say, “Ditto.”
 
Perhaps you should think about it as being determined by the sacramental status of marriage, and not the legal status of marriage.

Just a thought.
But, as I understand, not all valid marriages are sacramental? As the USCCB marriage FAQ which jpjd cited above says:
  1. Do Catholics ever validly enter into non-sacramental marriages?
Yes. Marriages between Catholics and non-Christians, while they may still be valid in the eyes of the Church, are non-sacramental. With permission, a priest or deacon may witness such marriages.
So would it not follow that the moral status of a marriage is independent of its sacramental status?
 
But, as I understand, not all valid marriages are sacramental? As the USCCB marriage FAQ which jpjd cited above says: So would it not follow that the moral status of a marriage is independent of its sacramental status?
I’m not as up on my marriage theology as some others on here might be, but it probably has to do with the idea that the couple to be married act, in some way, as the ministers of the sacrament.

Hopefully someone else who has more knowledge in this area will chime in.
 
Perhaps you should think about it as being determined by the sacramental status of marriage, and not the legal status of marriage.

Just a thought.
Marriages can be valid without being sacramental.

The legal status of a marriage has no bearing on the Church’s view on whether the marriage is valid.
But, as I understand, not all valid marriages are sacramental? As the USCCB marriage FAQ which jpjd cited above says: So would it not follow that the moral status of a marriage is independent of its sacramental status?
Zack,

I suggest that you not think of marriage in terms of “moral” but rather of “valid.”

A marriage does not have to be sacramental to be valid. To be considered validly married in the eyes of the Church, these requirements must be met:
  1. the spouses are free to marry
  2. they freely exchange their consent
  3. in consenting to marry, they have the intention to marry for life, to be faithful to one another and be open to children
  4. their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to this last requirement must be approved by church authority.
 
I’m not as up on my marriage theology as some others on here might be, but it probably has to do with the idea that the couple to be married act, in some way, as the ministers of the sacrament.
CCC 1213 describes baptism as the “the door which gives access to the other sacraments”. So my understanding is that includes marriage, so sacramental marriage is only possible between baptised persons, not between two unbaptised persons, or a baptised and unbaptised person. But the Catholic church would still recognise as valid a marriage between two unbaptised persons, or between a baptised non-Catholic and an unbaptised person, or between a baptised Catholic and an unbaptised person (in the later case only with the dispensation of the impediment of the disparity of cult, which is not required in the first two cases) - none of these would be a sacramental marriage, but rather valid non-sacramental marriages - have I summarised matters correctly?
 
  1. their consent is given in the presence of two witnesses and before a properly authorized Church minister. Exceptions to this last requirement must be approved by church authority.
I assume the last requirement only applies to marriages where at least one party is Catholic? Just the part about the properly authorised minister, or the part about the two witnesses also?
 
Zach,

I wish some canon law expert would wander in for you here. I’ll tell you what I know. Typically, the Church lets the unbaptized be governed by civil marriage law. So, how two unbaptized people get married is specified by some local authority. The Church will generally view them as married if they did the thing that the local authority says is the thing to do to get married and so long as they met the legal requirements of the local authority, and also any of divine law. If jumping over a broom before 10 witnesses is the thing, and it is recognized by the community, then this would get them married.

About cousins and the like, called consanguinity. It is divine law (I think, you need a canon lawyer to tell you solid details) that a father cannot marry his daughter. First cousins is probably Church law and not divine, but I don’t know with certainty (yes, I can read, and the commentary I have says most agree it is not divine, if I recall, I can try to look it up again, if you like). Thus if the local authority allowed first cousins to marry, then two unbaptized cousins could.

You asked about **sin **though. To be held responsible, one must know it is wrong on some level. Thus, if someone thinks they are married in clear conscience, they are not charged with sin for having relations with their spouse.

Your Pastor Fred example may be on the level of a local community and getting married according to the form of the local community, the local community here being all the church of Pastor Fred. I don’t know. People have a natural right to marriage.

I can’t answer about common law marriage, I haven’t read about how the Church handles that. It might matter if the civil law says that they are not married for the first 10 years, say, so all that time they would not be married.

Oh, and yes, the unbaptized would have a valid natural marriage, one that is not a sacrament. If one of them became baptized, and then later the other did, the Church would not feel the need to marry them. They would be considered married. Furthermore, at the time of the second baptism, the marriage is now a sacrament. They didn’t suddenly become married upon the second baptism. They were already married.

Pug
 
The legal status of a marriage has no bearing on the Church’s view on whether the marriage is valid.
It has always been my understanding that a marriage must be legally sanctioned by the state in order to be considered valid by the Church.
 
I assume the last requirement only applies to marriages where at least one party is Catholic? Just the part about the properly authorised minister, or the part about the two witnesses also?
The Catholic Church recognizes non-Catholic marriages, so I believe this this requirement applies to any marriage.

There are so many permutations we could come up with – what if one person is Jewish, or Muslim, or what if the ceremony was not held in a church, or what if the marriage was never consummated, or what if one was under 18 and one was over 21, or…

When discussing whether a marriage is valid, it is best to consult a priest.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top