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

[nodito]

It seems to me that the Church is going to have to get out of the civil witnessing portion anyway due to the recent legislations on same sex marriage. Just as she is being forced to get out of the adoption business.

The Church is not required to marry a couple just because the state would recognize the marriage. On the other hand, the Church is not allowed to marry a couple if the state would not recognize the marriage. See the distinction? For example, say a couple approached a priest asked to be married in the Catholic Church, but neither of them was Catholic and neither had the intention of becoming Catholic. The priest could rightly refuse to allow them to marry in the Catholic Church, even though the State would otherwise recognize their marriage.

 

[SMHW]

The Church is not required to marry a couple just because the state would recognize the marriage. On the other hand, the Church is not allowed to marry a couple if the state would not recognize the marriage. See the distinction? For example, say a couple approached a priest asked to be married in the Catholic Church, but neither of them was Catholic and neither had the intention of becoming Catholic. The priest could rightly refuse to allow them to marry in the Catholic Church, even though the State would otherwise recognize their marriage.

That’s the way things are now.

The concern is that the state may at some time pass laws (or a court decision may come down) that would make it illegal for the Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples who would otherwise be able to contract a legal marriage. I don’t see how such a law or ruling could ultimately be ruled constitutional, But it could still cause some grief in court time and expenses.

 

[Phemie]

It seems to me that the Church is going to have to get out of the civil witnessing portion anyway due to the recent legislations on same sex marriage. Just as she is being forced to get out of the adoption business.

I think she ought to get out of the civil part for a totally different reason. If couples had to marry civilly first (and that’s the way it works everywhere I’ve checked) couples who couldn’t care less about the religious aspect of the wedding would stop using the Church.

 

[Soler]

I think I now understand about the situation under civil law in the US with regard to the priest acting as a representative of the State, etc. whereby all religious marriages must be registered with the State. It’s just that that concept is non-existent in Ireland, as far as I know. Thanks for all your time and sorry for your trouble.

I will now leave this thread.

—Soler.

 

[Linuse]

Just to put a little lite-hearted-ness into this thread.
I had a priest friend, who had a wedding one Saturday afternoon. The couple is married right?–but hold on.
After the ceremony, he was entering the marriage in the parish books, and then finishing up the marriage license. Oh-Oh, a problem! The marriage license was from another state. The marriage, to be civilly valid, would have to take place in that state.
So after the Sat. evening Mass, he went to the reception, rounded up the couple and the witnesses, and then drove across the state line to a road side park there. And since he was certified in both states, they couple repeated their vows. For a short time, the couple had been validly married in the church, but not according to civil law.
I bet the couple has had many a laugh about their double wedding ceremony.

 

[Seatuck]

The Church is not required to marry a couple just because the state would recognize the marriage. On the other hand, the Church is not allowed to marry a couple if the state would not recognize the marriage. See the distinction? For example, say a couple approached a priest asked to be married in the Catholic Church, but neither of them was Catholic and neither had the intention of becoming Catholic. The priest could rightly refuse to allow them to marry in the Catholic Church, even though the State would otherwise recognize their marriage.

Yes, but if we have two catholics suffering from same sex attraction approach the priest and he refuses he is going to be guilty of a hate crime. There have already been civil lawsuits against protestant organizations over wedding venue that was denied due to same sex attraction couples.

 

[FastLearner]

I think I now understand about the situation under civil law in the US with regard to the priest acting as a representative of the State, etc. whereby all religious marriages must be registered with the State. It’s just that that concept is non-existent in Ireland, as far as I know. Thanks for all your time and sorry for your trouble.

I will now leave this thread.

—Soler.

I know nothing about Irish law, but if that’s the case, what’s to stop two US citizens from hopping on a plane, flying to Ireland, getting married in an Irish Catholic church, not registering the wedding with the state, then returning home Canonically married but not legally married?

 

[Digitonomy]

The Church is not required to marry a couple just because the state would recognize the marriage. On the other hand, the Church is not allowed to marry a couple if the state would not recognize the marriage. See the distinction? For example, say a couple approached a priest asked to be married in the Catholic Church, but neither of them was Catholic and neither had the intention of becoming Catholic. The priest could rightly refuse to allow them to marry in the Catholic Church, even though the State would otherwise recognize their marriage.

Two points:
First, although in general your second sentence is true, there are circumstances where the couple is properly disposed to receive the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the Church cannot deny them even though local law may prohibit such a marriage.

Second, the point that was being made in the post prior to yours was that in future, the government may require non-discrimination as a requirement for ministers or others to perform marriage ceremonies for the state. I don’t foresee this in the near future, but it will probably happen in some states down the road. If the state lists sexual orientation as a protected class, Catholic ministers may be limited to witnessing the sacramental marriage, and be unable to officiate at the legal marriage. Seatuck’s later remark about priests being guilty of hate crimes for not marrying gay couples is ludicrous.

 

[Phemie]

Second, the point that was being made in the post prior to yours was that in future, the government may require non-discrimination as a requirement for ministers or others to perform marriage ceremonies for the state. I don’t foresee this in the near future, but it will probably happen in some states down the road. If the state lists sexual orientation as a protected class, Catholic ministers may be limited to witnessing the sacramental marriage, and be unable to officiate at the legal marriage. Seatuck’s later remark about priests being guilty of hate crimes for not marrying gay couples is ludicrous.

Don’t be so sure about Seatuck’s remark. Priests have already been accused of hate crimes for simply quoting the Bible and teaching the Church’s doctrine.

catholicanada.com/web/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=698&Itemid=210

I do foresee priests getting charged with a hate crime for refusing to marry same-sex couples. I don’t think they would be found guilty but I do think that, at least in Canada, the day of one being charged is not far off.

 

[Digitonomy]

Don’t be so sure about Seatuck’s remark. Priests have already been accused of hate crimes for simply quoting the Bible and teaching the Church’s doctrine.

I do foresee priests getting charged with a hate crime for refusing to marry same-sex couples. I don’t think they would be found guilty but I do think that, at least in Canada, the day of one being charged is not far off.

Canada is a different animal, where an act of hate can be a crime by itself. Seatuck mentioned states, so I assume he’s talking about the US, where a hate crime is generally one which begins as a crime, and is exacerbated by its discriminatory intent. Religious expression, such as refusing to marry some minority group, is not by itself a crime, and is protected by the First Amendment, so it cannot be made a hate crime. The government can choose not to take part in any marriage by the group and strip the official credentials from the minister, it can choose to withhold funding of whatever kind from the religious group, it could even prosecute the minister or the church for fraud if a promise was made to follow state non-discrimination guidelines in performing marriages. But in the US a religion is free to discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, creed, sex, age, sexual orientation, medical condition, etc. The Church regularly discriminates in granting some sacraments on the basis of those last five, and it’s not going to stop soon, nor should it.

 

[NHInsider]

That’s what I was trying to say several posts ago. You stated it much clearer. The Michigan law that I pasted says it’s a crime punishable by a fine. I would assume most states have similar statutes.

It’s only a crime IF the cleric invokes “the power vested in my by the State of Wherever” - the law does not say that the cleric must always serve as an agent of the state.

Personally I think clerics should get out of the “agent of the state” business quickly, before the states start insisting that their agents witness marriages that our churches do not recognize (there are already numerous cases of secular employees being forced to issue licenses contrary to their religious convictions).

 

[Leonius]

Is it possible to get married in the eyes of the Church but remain unmarried civilly? If so, how does one go about doing this? Thanks in advance for your replies.

Short answer is no, in the USA a priest will not marry you unless you have a valid marriage licence.

Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s applies to the situation you are mentioning.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

That’s the way things are now.

The concern is that the state may at some time pass laws (or a court decision may come down) that would make it illegal for the Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples who would otherwise be able to contract a legal marriage. I don’t see how such a law or ruling could ultimately be ruled constitutional, But it could still cause some grief in court time and expenses.

Such an issue would never happen in the US. The government cannot force a Church to marry anyone. Churches are not even required to perform interracial marriages.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

It’s only a crime IF the cleric invokes “the power vested in my by the State of Wherever” - the law does not say that the cleric must always serve as an agent of the state.

You are incorrect. Any formal declaration of marriage is an issue of law. Polygamists are arrested based on the fact that they are religiously but not “civilly” married. Generally the government leaves them alone, but technically they can be raided for performning polygamist marriages.
If you hold yourself publicly as husband and wife then you are entangled in civil legal issues.

 

[SMHW]

Such an issue would never happen in the US. The government cannot force a Church to marry anyone. Churches are not even required to perform interracial marriages.

The United States Constitution protects Churches from such things.

My fear is that there are some local District Courts who will rule otherwise. The Supreme Court would have to overturn such a District Court ruling (assuming the Supreme Court justices continue to honor the Constitution) and perhaps the whole situation would be a positive witness for the Church. But it would cause some headaches for any parishes involved.

 

[sueginlis]

I am a tribunal aide in my parish. A lady came to me for an annulment. Her previous marriage was married by church but without a civil license/marriage. I am wondering if her marriage is not in cannonical form because of her lack of civil license. what is be best approach for her the Lack of Form or a formal application? Any direction to the proper canon law and information is very much appreciated. God Bless you for all your work.

 

[Corki]

I am a tribunal aide in my parish. A lady came to me for an annulment. Her previous marriage was married by church but without a civil license/marriage. I am wondering if her marriage is not in cannonical form because of her lack of civil license. what is be best approach for her the Lack of Form or a formal application? Any direction to the proper canon law and information is very much appreciated. God Bless you for all your work.

This is a very old thread.

You are going to have to speak to someone in the diocese about this. In the US, a civil divorce is required to initiate the annulment process. But there are rare cases where a valid marriage is done without the corresponding civil license (for example, in countries where Christian marriages are illegal).

 

[sueginlis]

thank you !