Just got married yesterday!

[Mulligan2]

Do you extend that to homosexual “marriages” as well. From a Catholic perspective they are not married.

There are already many threads on CAF regarding homosexuality, so I would prefer to stick to the topic of the OP and not veer off topic. I noted the difference between a legal marriage and a sacramental marriage, and I’ll leave my comments at that.

 

[Annie39]

There are already many threads on CAF regarding homosexuality, so I would prefer to stick to the topic of the OP and not veer off topic. I noted the difference between a legal marriage and a sacramental marriage, and I’ll leave my comments at that.

So, if this couple does not marry in the Church and lets say 6 or so years go by and they decide that they want to divorce. Then lo and behold one or both of them find a good Catholic partner and decide that he/she wants to marry in the church so they must go through and annulment process, which they will qualify for. An annulment of the marriage means that no marriage has taken place. I do not mean to distinguish between a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

They ARE married. A “legal” marriage is a marriage. They have not had a “sacramental” marriage. I imagine your intention was to distinguish between legal and sacramental. However, to tell someone who is legally married that “You are not married” is insensitive at best.

Civil marriage and Catholic marriage are not one in the same. That should be blatantly obvious. Catholic marriage is the same across the world, while civil marriage varies from country to country (certain legal requirements for Catholic marriage may vary to be also civilly recognized). Futhermore, all “legal” civil marriages are not necessarily universally recognized. If a Saudi citizen with two wives attempts to become a US citizen there will be a problem due to lack of recognition of polygamy in the U.S.

Furthermore, this is not a forum for secular law; it is a forum for Catholicism. If one of the spouses is Catholic and the couple did not marry in Catholic form, the Catholic Church deems the marriage invalid. It is actually insensitive not to address this issue with the couple, since there are consequences if they wish to participate in the Church. The will not be allowed to participate in various Church functions, issues will arise if the wish to become God-parents or have their children receive sacraments, they are prohibited from receiving the sacraments until they address their irregular marriage (i.e., no “martial” relations), etc.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

There are already many threads on CAF regarding homosexuality, so I would prefer to stick to the topic of the OP and not veer off topic. I noted the difference between a legal marriage and a sacramental marriage, and I’ll leave my comments at that.

This is a Catholic person posting on Catholic forums that they are married and did not do so in the Church. They are not married. In the eyes of the state they might have a piece of paper but it is not the state that judges souls is it?

 

[Mulligan2]

This is a Catholic person posting on Catholic forums that they are married and did not do so in the Church. They are not married. In the eyes of the state they might have a piece of paper but it is not the state that judges souls is it?

I’ll repeat once again:

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

To say unequivocally that they are “not married” - without offering any qualifying statements (such as “in the eyes of the Church”), is simply not true.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I’ll repeat once again:

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

To say unequivocally that they are “not married” - without offering any qualifying statements (such as “in the eyes of the Church”), is simply not true.

It is you who must qualify your statement not the Church. You must qualify it with, “in the eyes and legality of the state” The Catholic position does not need to be qualified.

And, since you brought it up, lets talk about “sacramental” marriage. The Church recognizes non sacramental marriages all the time! When a Catholic marries a non Catholic it is not sacramental. It is a valid marriage but not a sacramental one. So the Church distinguishes between valid, invalid and sacramental. Those are the three types. Invalid means it does not exist. Which is what the OP has. A non existent marriage.
If this were called State Law Answers Forum, I would need to qualify my statements. The OP attempted marriage but did not succeed. When you understand this, you can see what nullity really means.

 

[Mulligan2]

It is you who must qualify your statement not the Church. You must qualify it with, “in the eyes and legality of the state” The Catholic position does not need to be qualified.

And, since you brought it up, lets talk about “sacramental” marriage. The Church recognizes non sacramental marriages all the time! When a Catholic marries a non Catholic it is not sacramental. It is a valid marriage but not a sacramental one. So the Church distinguishes between valid, invalid and sacramental. Those are the three types. Invalid means it does not exist. Which is what the OP has. A non existent marriage.
If this were called State Law Answers Forum, I would need to qualify my statements. The OP attempted marriage but did not succeed. When you understand this, you can see what nullity really means.

Are you saying that the two “facts” I listed in my previous post are untrue?

 

[Cojuanco]

I would see your priest. A courthouse marriage is not sacramentally binding unless either celebrated in the presence of a priest and two witnesses in a parish church, or a dispensation reserved to the bishop is granted beforehand. Also another condition, that is, to consumate the marriage, but that is hardly the issue here

Once again, before you do anything you come to regret, consult your priest, or if said priest is incapacitated, find another for the duration.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I’ll repeat once again:

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

To say unequivocally that they are “not married” - without offering any qualifying statements (such as “in the eyes of the Church”), is simply not true.

The issue at hand is that the OP does not appear to understand that the civil marriage and marriage in a Church are not the same thing. Yes, they are civilly married. However, they are not married in the eyes of the Church, and are treated as such; e.g., no marital relations. The sooner the OP is aware of this, the better. From yours truly, someone that originally married outside of the Church.

IMHO, I prefer “civil union” when discussing the legal contract referred to as “marriage.” Civil “marriage” has been redefined to the point where it has nothing to do with what marriage has referred to for thousands of years. In many areas, civil “marriage” is gender neutral, has no expectation of permanency, no expectation of sex, no expectation, of children, etc.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Are you saying that the two “facts” I listed in my previous post are untrue?

What I am saying is that you are not using terms correctly nor understanding the issue. A Catholic posted on a catholic board that she is married. She is in fact not married as a Catholic. It just does not get any plainer than that. It even goes beyond sacramental marriage. Many Catholics married IN the Church do not have a sacramental marraige but they do have a valid marriage. The Church also recognizes that other faiths have valid marriages but not sacramental. But the Church does not do is call valid a Catholic’s attempt at an invalid marriage. And the OP AS A CATHOLIC is bound by the Church. If the OP is a practicing Catholic then she is outside of the law on this issue. The law of the Church. Which for a Catholic is the supreme law in this situation.

So in a way, yes, your two previous “facts” are untrue. However you could qualify your facts to make them true. You could say that she is married civilly. But as a Catholic, (which is what she is presenting herself as, no she is in no way married.)

Valid
Invalid
Sacramental
Civil.

These are the words we are using for this discussion. And for this discussion they should be used as the Church uses them because that is the issue being addressed.

If a Catholic came on these boards and claimed to be married and it was a same sex “marriage” the same would apply. There would be no marriage.

The State of Nebraska could decide to ordain a pope, the person could then post on the boards that they are Catholic and a pope and the answer would be the same.

If the OP were not Catholic, or if you wished to point out that civilly she is married then we all would agree. But the OP is Catholic, and the Church does not accept that she is married.

This comes into play in annulment situations. What an annulment is is the Church saying that a marriage never existed. Sacramental really has nothing to do with it as much as validity and invalidity. So for there to be annulments there needs to be no marriage. There is no marriage here.

The OP has attempted to marry invalidly. She is not married.

 

[Mulligan2]

I’ll repeat once again:

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

To say unequivocally that they are “not married” - without offering any qualifying statements (such as “in the eyes of the Church”), is simply not true.

Are you saying that the two “facts” I listed in my previous post are untrue?

"…in a way, yes, your two previous “facts” are untrue.

You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

 

[agapewolf]

You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

Actually Mulligan, you are in the wrong here.

A civil or legal marriage does NOT actually make a marriage for Catholics. They have no power to marry catholics (unless the Catholic was given a dispensation).

and you ARE using terms incorrectly.

2 baptized catholics marry through the church, it is a sacrament.

A Catholic marries a non-baptized person through the permission of the church, it is VALID, but not sacramental.

A Catholic attempts a marriage outside of the permission to anyone outside the permissions of the church, it is neither valid OR sacramental.

2 non-baptized people marry each other, in however capacity they do, it is presumably valid, but not sacramental.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

You are entitled to your own opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts.

It is quite frustrating when you are presented with facts and when I have taken the time to explain my position for you to basically just say “no, you are wrong”

If you wish to engage in a discussion of these terms and the legality of the state laws and the church laws where perhaps we both can gain some sort of growth in this issue I am on board. But I sense that you do not wish to understand these issues outside of a political ideology. And that is your right. But please recognize that this is a Catholic board and a Catholic OP posting about a Catholic issue. It is only logical that the Church law apply here. And again. They are not married. You have been given several reasons and examples on why or why not.

I get the idea that you wish to debate what “marriage” is. If so, there are plenty of threads of threads for that, or you could start one and I would be happy to contribute.
Perhaps you cannot get past the idea that Illinois says she is married. And if that is your religion, I understand your position.

Again, you have been given the information. Do with it what you will.

 

[Mulligan2]

It is quite frustrating when you are presented with facts and when I have taken the time to explain my position for you to basically just say “no, you are wrong”

If you wish to engage in a discussion of these terms and the legality of the state laws and the church laws where perhaps we both can gain some sort of growth in this issue I am on board. But I sense that you do not wish to understand these issues outside of a political ideology. And that is your right. But please recognize that this is a Catholic board and a Catholic OP posting about a Catholic issue. It is only logical that the Church law apply here. And again. They are not married. You have been given several reasons and examples on why or why not.

I get the idea that you wish to debate what “marriage” is. If so, there are plenty of threads of threads for that, or you could start one and I would be happy to contribute.
Perhaps you cannot get past the idea that Illinois says she is married. And if that is your religion, I understand your position.

Again, you have been given the information. Do with it what you will.

I am aware of the church position on marriage. However, simply re-stating the church’s position does not give you permission to re-define the pertinent facts of the discussion.

The OP was married civilly, hence she is legally married. Do you agree or disagree that she is legally married?

The OP was not married in the church, hence she is not sacramentally married. Do you agree or disagree?

You will note that I have qualified my statements - i.e. legal versus sacramental. If you are personally viewing her situation solely through the prism of sacramental marriage, then you can say she is not married. Viewed any other way, she most certainly is married.

I think that’s about as clear as I can make it.

 

[LongingSoul]

Are you saying that the two “facts” I listed in my previous post are untrue?

It’s just that your facts are an incomplete list; for example…

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

Their marriage is invalid. This is a fact.

If the OP had said they were both *non-Catholic *(and assuming there are none of the usual impediments to marry), their marriage would in fact be valid. The appropriate response could well be ‘congratulations’. But the OP posted on a catholic board that she and her fiance are both Catholic and they engaged in a civil marriage ceremony, so for us Catholics, the appropriate response would be one of correction and guidance in how to proceed to a valid marriage… upon which end, the appropriate response would be ‘congratulations’.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I am aware of the church position on marriage. However, simply re-stating the church’s position does not give you permission to re-define the pertinent facts of the discussion.

The OP was married civilly, hence she is legally married. Do you agree or disagree that she is legally married?

The OP was not married in the church, hence she is not sacramentally married. Do you agree or disagree?

You will note that I have qualified my statements - i.e. legal versus sacramental. If you are personally viewing her situation solely through the prism of sacramental marriage, then you can say she is not married. Viewed any other way, she most certainly is married.

I think that’s about as clear as I can make it.

You are still misunderstanding sacramental marriage. You state that you understand the Church’s “position” on marriage but you keep misusing the terms so it may just be that you do not wish to delve into the issue further. If the OP married a non baptized person IN the CHurch she would have a valid but not sacramental marriage. So non sacramental marriages DO exist within the Church. I think you are just being stubborn and not taking the time to learn the terms or subject as it relates to Catholicism. Yes. As every single person has said, she is civilly legally married.

However, as a Catholic, she is NOT married. The marriage does not exist. Were she not Catholic it would however exist. Go Figure. What I offered you was an explanation of the terms
Valid
Sacramental
Invalid
as they pertain to the issue at hand.

Do you wish to engage in a discussion, you are going to have to start offering definitions of terms and a knowledge of the law of the state and the Church.

By the power of the state to proclaim a sacrament she is married.
As a devout Illinoisan she is married.
As a Catholic and Child of God she is not.

To you this may not register, but in the Church it matters a TON because the marriage is null. It does not exist.

This affects future lives of children and families. Thread after thread is on here about how someone just is “waiting for the annulment to go through” But if we took your position there would never be annulments at all. Because you are stating that a marriage exists. IT is quite clear that it does not.

Hypothetically:

If the country goatistan allowed for the marriage of a man and his daughter and that man got on the CAF boards and said he was a Catholic who married his daughter, the answer would be the same. He did not in fact marry his daughter just because a state government said he did.

Your argument is not with me, but rather the authority that says she is not married, and that is the Church. I am just telling you what the authority says.

 

[Mulligan2]

It’s just that your facts are an incomplete list; for example…

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

Their marriage is invalid. This is a fact.

If the OP had said they were both *non-Catholic *(and assuming there are none of the usual impediments to marry), their marriage would in fact be valid. The appropriate response could well be ‘congratulations’. But the OP posted on a catholic board that she and her fiance are both Catholic and they engaged in a civil marriage ceremony, so for us Catholics, the appropriate response would be one of correction and guidance in how to proceed to a valid marriage… upon which end, the appropriate response would be ‘congratulations’.

I have no issue with your post, and I would concur with your addition of the third “fact.”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Here, I’ll give you a mulligan,

From the USCCB site.

1. Why does the church teach that marriage is a sacrament?

The sacraments make Christ present in our midst. Like the other sacraments, marriage is not just for the good of individuals, or the couple, but for the community as a whole. The Catholic Church teaches that marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament. …

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.

1. What is the difference between a valid and an invalid Catholic 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.

1. If a Catholic wants to marry a non-Catholic, how can they assure that the marriage is recognized by the Church?

In addition to meeting the criteria for a valid Catholic marriage (see question #3), the Catholic must seek permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic. If the person is a non-Catholic Christian, this permission is called a “permission to enter into a mixed marriage.” If the person is a non-Christian, the permission is called a “dispensation from disparity of cult.” Those helping to prepare the couple for marriage can assist with the permission process.

1. If a Catholic wishes to marry in a place outside the Catholic church, how can he or she be sure that the marriage is recognized by the Catholic Church as valid?

The local bishop can permit a wedding in another church, or in another suitable place, for a sufficient reason. For example, a Catholic seeks to marry a Baptist whose father is the pastor of the local Baptist church. The father wants to officiate at the wedding. In these circumstances, the bishop could permit the couple to marry in the Baptist church. The permission in these instances is called a “dispensation from canonical form.”

1. If two Catholics or a Catholic and non-Catholic are married invalidly in the eyes of the church, what should they do about it?

They should approach their pastor to try to resolve the situation.

1. What is an annulment?

An annulment is a declaration by a tribunal (Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to Church law actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union (see question #3). Unlike civil divorce, an annulment does not erase something that was already there, but rather it is a declaration that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day. A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship ever existed between the couple, or that the spouses truly loved one another.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

It’s just that your facts are an incomplete list; for example…

They are legally married. This is a fact.

They are not sacramentally married. This is a fact.

Their marriage is invalid. This is a fact.

If the OP had said they were both *non-Catholic *(and assuming there are none of the usual impediments to marry), their marriage would in fact be valid. The appropriate response could well be ‘congratulations’. But the OP posted on a catholic board that she and her fiance are both Catholic and they engaged in a civil marriage ceremony, so for us Catholics, the appropriate response would be one of correction and guidance in how to proceed to a valid marriage… upon which end, the appropriate response would be ‘congratulations’.

Civil marriage yup
Sacramental Marriage nope
Valid Marriage nope

So, as a Catholic, the OP is not married.

 

[Rau]

Civil marriage yup
Sacramental Marriage nope
Valid Marriage nope

So, as a Catholic, the OP is not married.

I assume the notion of Valid/Invalid is a Catholic-specific qualification, and hence no need to qualify the 3rd fact with a reference to “in the eyes of the church”?