Is there a way not to be legally married by the church?

[Phemie]

phemie, from the perspective of the Catholic Church a Convalidation is to marry those who do not have an existing marriage. An invalid marriage is, but definition, non existant. Look through Canon Law on the subject, the term ‘convalidation’ doesn’t even show up.

Don’t know where you ever came up with that idea.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

The same is true in any treaste on Marital Sacramental theology. It is simply a ‘bookeeping term’

No, the purpose of this ‘non legal’ marriage was to Sacramentally marry my wife.

As to ‘tired of waiting’, not true. We had a marriage date agreed with the Church many months in advance. In the US (as in Canada) the Federal Government has no right to tell a Catholic under what terms they may recieve Sacraments. Do you feel that INS had a right to tell me I could not recieve a Sacrament under the terms provided by Church Canon Law?
You could just as easily have married her legally as well as sacramentally. Your reason for not doing was to avoid having to deal with the INS rules that go with marrying someone outside the country and then bringing them into the US as your spouse.

 

[SMHW]

Originally Posted by Brendan forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
phemie, from the perspective of the Catholic Church a Convalidation is to marry those who do not have an existing marriage. An invalid marriage is, but definition, non existant. Look through Canon Law on the subject, the term ‘convalidation’ doesn’t even show up.

Don’t know where you ever came up with that idea.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

The same is true in any treaste on Marital Sacramental theology. It is simply a ‘bookeeping term’

If I understand Brendan correctly, the “convalidation as a bookkeeping term” he is talking about is probably a form used at the parish or diocesan level which explains why the marriage license was not signed, merely examined. It seems as if they had a marriage license; the priest just didn’t sign it.

As to ‘tired of waiting’, not true. We had a marriage date agreed with the Church many months in advance. In the US (as in Canada) the Federal Government has no right to tell a Catholic under what terms they may recieve Sacraments. Do you feel that INS had a right to tell me I could not recieve a Sacrament under the terms provided by Church Canon Law?
You could just as easily have married her legally as well as sacramentally. Your reason for not doing was to avoid having to deal with the INS rules that go with marrying someone outside the country and then bringing them into the US as your spouse.

You could probably say that they were trying to thwart immigration rules. I guess if they married legally in Canada then that would mean his wife would have to start the immigration process all over again, correct? But this seems a bit different then the case of a couple who doesn’t want to marry for tax purposes. In the case of Brendan and his wife there is no actual harm done to either the United States or Canada. In the case of the couple desiring to keep their individual governmental retirement benefits they are cheating the state out of money. (One has to compare the benefits/inconveniences that live-ins get versus what marrieds get over the course of a lifetime. I do think such laws ought to be re-examined but that’s a discussion for another thread.)

 

[Just_Lurking]

I’m not sure why people on this forum feel qualified to second-guess the actions of a Catholic bishop, but FYI, the term “convalidation” is used several times in canon law (see here).

 

[Sir_Knight]

I don’t consider it punishment. The government rules make sense to me. Social security is just that, security. Since getting married and moving in together cuts many expenses in 1/2 why should the government keep paying double? Are they worse off marrying than they were living a moral life apart? No. Immorality is their choice, based on finances.

Yet, if they do the immoral thing and live together without getting married, they do not see a reduction in benefits and it is completely legal. Thus, they are rewarded for doing something immoral and punished by having their benefits reduced for doing the moral thing.

 

[Soler]

I have no idea what the issue is here. The natural thing to do seems to be to get married sacramentally, but omit the signing of the register (or whatever is done in the US to marry the couple civilly).

As far as the Church is concerned, Mr. and Mrs. Roe are now married and living together. As far as the State is concerned, there was some ceremony down at the Church of St. X, a big party at Hotel Y, and Mr. Roe and Miss Doe are now living together. No law has been broken, and everyone’s happy.

Am I right?

—Soler.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I have no idea what the issue is here. The natural thing to do seems to be to get married sacramentally, but omit the signing of the register (or whatever is done in the US to marry the couple civilly).

As far as the Church is concerned, Mr. and Mrs. Roe are now married and living together. As far as the State is concerned, there was some ceremony down at the Church of St. X, a big party at Hotel Y, and Mr. Roe and Miss Doe are now living together. No law has been broken, and everyone’s happy.

Am I right?

—Soler.

Look back at message #19.

Canon law requires that marriages be recognized by both canon law and the local civil law. This is because the state has a responsibility to support the institution of marriage because the family based on marriage between a man and a woman is the basic building block of society.

 

[Corki]

I No law has been broken, and everyone’s happy.

Am I right?

—Soler.

Since this was in Michigan, it seems that Michigan law was broken. The same law that gives clergy authority to perform the civil side of a marriage ceremony says.

(2) A person authorized by this act to solemnize a marriage shall keep proper records and make returns as required by section 4 of Act No. 128 of the Public Acts of 1887, as amended, being section 551.104 of the Michigan Compiled Laws.

and is subject to a fine

Sec. 14.

If a person authorized to solemnize marriages knowingly joins any persons in marriage contrary to the provisions of this chapter, he or she shall forfeit for each offense a sum not exceeding $500.00.

The INS was also defrauded. It is against immigration law to enter as a “visitor” when you intend to be married while you are “visiting”.

 

[Soler]

Look back at message #19.

Ah. Thanks.

Do you know the exact canon? Do you know if this also applies to Eastern Catholics?

—Soler.

 

[Soler]

Corki,

I don’t think any law would have been broken. A church ceremony was performed which was nothing got to do with civil marriage. **No marriage happened in the eyes of the State.
**

 

[Corki]

Corki,

I don’t think any law would have been broken. A church ceremony was performed which was nothing got to do with civil marriage. **No marriage happened in the eyes of the State.
**

If a person authorized to solemnize marriages knowingly joins any persons in marriage contrary to the provisions of this chapter, he or she shall forfeit for each offense a sum not exceeding $500.00.

The state, in the US, makes no distinction between the Sacramental ceremony and the civil one. So, yes, a marriage was performed. It was performed by a priest authorized to perform marriages in the state. It did not follow the laws for marriage in the state.

Not saying it was right or wrong, just that a law was indeed broken.

 

[Soler]

I’ve just realised that I’m perhaps missing something.
In the US, do any papers need to be signed to make the marriage valid in the eyes of the State, or does the State consider the marriage valid merely by virtue of the ceremony?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Ah. Thanks.

Do you know the exact canon? Do you know if this also applies to Eastern Catholics?

—Soler.

The answer above came from a canon lawyer…and I don’t even play one on TV. So I can’t help.

 

[Marsha_Adams]

In Florida there are sacramental marriages performed between elderly individuals that are not legal in the eyes of the state. Some people’s social security checks are not adequate to even meet the poverty line. It is no sin, for two people to want to be married AND eat at least twice a day.

 

[Soler]

SuscipeMeDomine,

OK. I might see if I can find it myself. Thanks again.

 

[Seatuck]

I think if the civil laws are unjust and impose an undue burden or for another grave reason the church could quietly witness the sacrament of matrimony. I think it’s up to the Bishop.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The social security issue is not suitable grounds for a secret marriage. There has to be a “grave and urgent” reason and as of now, this is not recognized as one. The old code stated that a secret marriage may take place in the face of unjust civil laws. While the current law of the USA is a hardship and perhaps ill conceived, it is not intrinsicly unjust.

 

[brigid12]

In Florida there are sacramental marriages performed between elderly individuals that are not legal in the eyes of the state. Some people’s social security checks are not adequate to even meet the poverty line. It is no sin, for two people to want to be married AND eat at least twice a day.

It is often both unjust and immoral (but then, it’s been a long time since the government had anything much to do with morals).
Has this question been taken up with the USCCB, does anyone know? It appears that a separation of marriage faculties between the Church and the State is quite appropriate (i.e. Conn. Catholic Charities needing to stop adoption services, more and more states legalizing gay “marriage”,et al). Forcing people to decide between destitution and morality, unless they decide on loneliness, seems unjust to me.

 

[brigid12]

The social security issue is not suitable grounds for a secret marriage. There has to be a “grave and urgent” reason and as of now, this is not recognized as one. The old code stated that a secret marriage may take place in the face of unjust civil laws. While the current law of the USA is a hardship and perhaps ill conceived, it is not intrinsicly unjust.

It would seem that recognition is overdue!

 

[Corki]

The social security issue is not suitable grounds for a secret marriage. There has to be a “grave and urgent” reason and as of now, this is not recognized as one. The old code stated that a secret marriage may take place in the face of unjust civil laws. While the current law of the USA is a hardship and perhaps ill conceived, it is not intrinsicly unjust.

I am not a lawyer let alone a canon lawyer but I read the canon law chapters on marriage. The previous poster’s (immigration) situation does not meet any of the categories for convalidation. The current canon law says “grave and urgent cause” as the condition for a secret marriage. But it also says that all the parties must observe secrecy regarding the marriage. So a big Church wedding would be out. One can’t claim justification for a secret wedding and only keep it secret from the government.

 

[Phemie]

I am not a lawyer let alone a canon lawyer but I read the canon law chapters on marriage. The previous poster’s (immigration) situation does not meet any of the categories for convalidation. The current canon law says “grave and urgent cause” as the condition for a secret marriage. But it also says that all the parties must observe secrecy regarding the marriage. So a big Church wedding would be out. One can’t claim justification for a secret wedding and only keep it secret from the government.

Not to mention that the secret marriage is to be recorded in the secret archives, not in the baptismal registers of the people involved.