Marriages not recognized by civil law

[edward_george1]

A dispensation is not the same thing as a permission. A dispensation is from an impediment that renders the marriage invalid. Permission is required for a marriage to be licit, that is, according to the law. If a marriage is celebrated illicitly, it may still be valid if no impediments are present.

 

[Augustinian]

interracial marriages that were contracted in the Southeastern part of the United States where the civil law proscribed such marriages?

Inter-racial marriages were prohibited by law in large portions of America, far beyond the southeast. 30 of the 50 states had such laws.since the end of WWII.

Younger Americans as well as people abroad get the mistaken impression that segregation was just a southern phenomenon. Absolutely not true at all. Not even close.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/engl_258/lecture notes/american_antimiscegenation.htm

 

[poche]

Much of the Catholic Church was a willing partner in much of this also.

 

[acanonlawyer]

So if the civil authorities raised the marriage age to 25 or 30, the Church would have to assent to that?

What do you mean by “assent to that”? The Church would have to acknowledge the law as a reality. This doesn’t mean that no one under 25/30 would be allowed to marry in/by the Church.

Dan

 

[Gabika50]

marriage has two tracks- civil and sacramental. In order to do the sacrament of marriage in the Catholic church, you need a marriage license and to be free of other bonds of marriage (divorce decree and anulment).

 

[poche]

And if the marriage license is not legally obtainable?

 

[Gabika50]

Why would that be the case unless and individual was too young or married already.?

 

[Arkansan]

You need to understand the difference between invalidity and being illicit. To use an analogy, if a surgeon performs an operation that is illegal, or if he lacks a license, or the like, he performs surgery illicitly but still validly. If he puts a person under, cuts into them to create the appearance of having performed the operation, but does not actually perform the operation that he pretends to, then he performs surgery invalidly.

So, when the law declares that marriage is invalidates, it means that no marriage actually happens under the given circumstances. When the law simply prohibits marriage, it simply makes it illicit, but a marriage contracted illicitly is still a valid marriage.

As to the question you pose, the permission of the bishop is required for a Catholic to enter a marriage forbidden by civil law. However, if a priest celebrated such a marriage without permission, it would still be valid.

The state does have the right to regulate marriages among the unbaptized (since the Church has no authority over them), so marriages among the unbaptized would be invalid if they were invalid under civil law.

Current canon law defers to the law of non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities concerning the marriage laws which apply to their members. So the validity of a civilly invalid marriage among Protestants would be determined by whether their community had its own marriage law, or deferred to the civil law (as most Protestants do). However, this is a recent development, and was not the case before 1983. Prior to 1983, the validity of a Protestant marriage would have been governed by the same laws governing Catholic marriages, excluding the laws governing proper form.

I’m also not sure whether the prohibition on celebrating civilly prohibited marriages was part of pre-1983 canon law.

Tl;dr the state does not have a native right to regulate Christian marriage, so such marriages would have been valid when contracted among Christians, but would have been invalid when contracted among unbaptized persons.

 

[Phemie]

I’ll give you an example. A former pastor was also responsible for a parish you could only reach by plane or boat. In order to get a marriage licence one of the parties had to fly to our town to get one, there was nowhere to get one anywhere else nearby. The cost to come to our town to get a licence, ~$500. The licence was $50.

So, a couple got a licence and prepared for their wedding. Everything was set but a storm set in and flights were cancelled for several days. In the meantime, the licence, which was valid only for 30 days from issuance date, expired.

The priest, very upset by the situation that forced his parishioners to spend such a large amount of money, money most of them couldn’t afford, went ahead with the wedding without a valid licence. The marriage was valid as far as the Church was concerned. It was invalid as far as the law was concerned and there was hell to pay.

Fr. had to go back to the community and celebrate the marriage again to satisfy the law. Then the bride signed the marriage documents with the name she’d been using since her church wedding but the law wouldn’t accept that as she wasn’t legally married. IOW, we had a big mess on our hands. In the end a judge got involved and made things right. And the gov’t appointed someone to issue marriage licences in the community. Fr. had the best of intentions but it caused a lot of heartache and worry for the couple.

 

[DarkLight]

Why would that be the case unless and individual was too young or married already.?

It’s not typically the case in the U.S. or most western countries, since most legal impediments would also be religious impediments (such as consanguinity). It could definitely occur in other countries. For example, certain countries still forbid a woman to marry without the permission of her male guardian, no matter her age. One could easily see a situation where the guardian would refuse their consent to a christian marriage.

 

[poche]

There was a time when racially mixed marriages were proscribed by law. There is an impediment to the celebration of marriages that are proscribed by the civil law. The question I had is about the status of those marriages.
There are a number of people still alive who entered into racially mixed marriages whose marriages fell apart because of the additional pressures that those marriages endure that people in other situation don’t have to deal with.
A number of question come to mind. In one instance the priest refused to officiate at this type of marriage. The couple, both baptized into the Catholic church, went before a Protestant minister to be married. In this circumstance technically the marriage is not valid. This was a case of Catholic refusal. What is the validity and licity of marriages that are contracted by Catholics outside of the Catholic Church under these or similar circumstances?

 

[Phemie]

There was a time when racially mixed marriages were proscribed by law. There is an impediment to the celebration of marriages that are proscribed by the civil law. The question I had is about the status of those marriages.

There is such a thing as a secret marriage. I imagine those are rare today but they are celebrated when the civil law is unjust. The marriage itself is expected to remain secret.

 

[Gorgias]

There was a time when racially mixed marriages were proscribed by law. There is an impediment to the celebration of marriages that are proscribed by the civil law. The question I had is about the status of those marriages.

Umm…aren’t you using a provision in the 1983 CIC against a civil situation which had disappeared prior to that time?

 

[poche]

In 1983 the laws were still on the books.

 

[Gorgias]

In 1983 the laws were still on the books.

But not enforced, right? Therefore, the persons involved were able to get marriage licenses and subsequently marry in the Church not only canonically licitly but also civilly legally.

 

[Gabika50]

Could try for a radical sanation.

 

[poche]

But there are technicalities. For example, a person who is baptized in the Catholic church but brought up outside of it could be married outside the Catholic Church for many years yet that marriage would not be recognized as valid.

 

[Gorgias]

For example, a person who is baptized in the Catholic church but brought up outside of it could be married outside the Catholic Church for many years yet that marriage would not be recognized as valid.

Actually, I’ve talked to canon lawyers who point out that canon law is intended to work in favor of persons, not against them, and therefore, they allow cases like these to work in favor of the person. Usually, in the case you’re mentioning, the person has divorced and wishes to marry another in the Church. So, this pastoral move allows for the marriage.

Nevertheless, this example doesn’t speak to the case you’re making, so I’m not sure what its relevance is to the discussion.

 

[Digitnomy]

One situation where this can occur in the US would be where a person’s immigration status prevents civil marriage.

 

[dochawk]

One situation where this can occur in the US would be where a person’s immigration status prevents civil marriage.

I haven’t practiced immigration law in a couple of years, but AFAIK, there is no such situation.

Marriages between citizens and illegal aliens are downright common, and are actually sufficient to cause administrative closure of a deportation case in immigration court.

hawk