Marriages not recognized by civil law

  • Thread starter Thread starter poche
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

poche

Guest
According to Canon Law;

Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM

What is the validity of interracial marriages that were contracted in the Southeastern part of the United States where the civil law proscribed such marriages?
 
poche said:
According to Canon Law;

Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3W.HTM

What is the validity of interracial marriages that were contracted in the Southeastern part of the United States where the civil law proscribed such marriages?
Click to expand...
Since the canon law applies to a Catholic marriage and that would be celebrated with the approval of the Catholic Church, the local ordinary would either approved it, or there would need to be a case of necessity that would allow it, for it to be valid.
 
Last edited:
I don’t imagine that there were many, and that was over fifty years ago, so do the math.
 
Then what is the purpose of this decree in canon law?
If there is a defect in the form then it is invalid. If it says that we have to follow the civil law then why is that not invalid?
 
Canonical Form isn’t determined by whether or not the marriage can be solemnized civilly. That wouldn’t make any sense. Not every law connected to the sacrament of marriage concerns its validity, or really any sacrament for that matter. Consent makes marriage, carried out before the duly authorized minister in the proper form. Civil law has nothing to do with validity. You’ll notice that this Canon doesn’t say anything about validity, whereas the ones concerning that which can invalidate a marriage say so.

The reason the Canon exists I’ll have to dig up in the commentary in the morning, but I’m at home and it lives at the office.

-Fr ACEGC
 
poche said:
Then what is the purpose of this decree in canon law?
If there is a defect in the form then it is invalid. If it says that we have to follow the civil law then why is that not invalid?
Click to expand...
The purpose of the law is exactly what you’ve already illustrated.

First, the Church does not perform marriages which cannot be recognized by civil law. This is a matter of respecting the civil authority and the state’s ability to legislate marriage. In practical terms, the couple must present a marriage license issued by the state before the wedding occurs.

Civil law requires a marriage license. If a priest were to go around officiating at marriages without that civil license, it would cause no end of problems. It would pit the Church against the state. We would become outlaws (in a sense). In most (I’m almost certain “all”) states, officiating at a marriage without the proper licenses is a felony. Some states require the officiant to have a license, as well as each couple. If we were to go around performing marriage without proper licenses, we would be in all kinds of trouble both criminally and civilly. We would have a lot of priests in jail and a lot of lawsuits against the Church.

However, at the same time, the Church does recognize that there can be times when the civil law is either unjust broadly (like prohibiting inter-racial marriages) or has an unjust effect in a particular situation (such as a couple who really should be able to marry, but who cannot merely because of some legal obstacle in their particular situation). In that case, the Church allows an exception to the rule.

Therefore, to get back to your original question, the Church made exceptions to the rule and allowed inter-racial couples to marry. Such marriages are/were perfectly valid.

The canon you cited first sets out the rule (no marriages unless the state recognize it), then the possibility of an exception.
 
OldCAFMember said:
I don’t imagine that there were many, and that was over fifty years ago, so do the math.
Click to expand...
True, but it could mean a lot to someone whose ancestors were in such a marriage. Such a person might be asking “does the Church consider that my great-grandfather was an illegitimate child?”

A few years ago, I had someone ask me exactly that question, and not as a hypothetical.
 
On a related note, the canon also mentions “marriage of a minor child of which the parents are not aware or reasonably opposed.” What is the Church’s position on coming of age, such that a person can consent to marriage even over his/her parents’ objection, and the civil authorities capacity to block such a union?
 
Such marriages would be Canonically Irregular yet still presumed Valid.
 
mythbuster1 said:
On a related note, the canon also mentions “marriage of a minor child of which the parents are not aware or reasonably opposed.” What is the Church’s position on coming of age, such that a person can consent to marriage even over his/her parents’ objection, and the civil authorities capacity to block such a union?
Click to expand...
That question doesn’t have a specific answer. Instead, it depends on the exact age of both spouses.

Couple A: a 16 year old male and a 14 year old female
Couple B: both 20 years old

Would yield very different answers.

What I’m saying is that your question needs to be more specific.

Can. 1072 Pastors of souls are to take care to dissuade youth from the celebration of marriage before the age at which a person usually enters marriage according to the accepted practices of the region

Can. 1083 §1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
§2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.
 
The question does have a specific answer: At what age are people old enough to marry in spite of their parents or any civil law forbidding them to marry?
 
mythbuster1 said:
The question does have a specific answer: At what age are people old enough to marry in spite of their parents or any civil law forbidding them to marry?
Click to expand...
The question is a non-sequitur. It does not have an answer.

No couple can marry in the Church when they are too young to marry according to civil law.

There is no answer. There is no age at which a person (or couple) can marry in the Church, while being too young to marry according to the law.

Now, if you want to change the question to something which makes sense, I can try to answer it.

The minimum age to marry (either with or without parental consent) varies by country and by state (or province or whatever word might apply). This results in dozens of possible combinations. So, again, there is no one answer.
 
Last edited:
So if the civil authorities raised the marriage age to 25 or 30, the Church would have to assent to that?
 
This same canon also prohibits the marriage of transients. Does that mean that gypsies, migrant farm workers, and other nomadic peoples are incapable of contracting marriage?
 
That’s not what “transient” means in Canon Law. It simply means someone who has neither a domicile nor a quasidomicile.
 
So does that mean that the homeless and the people who lead a nomadic lifestyle are ircapable of contracting a valid marriage in the Catholic church?
 
poche said:
So does that mean that the homeless and the people who lead a nomadic lifestyle are ircapable of contracting a valid marriage in the Catholic church?
Click to expand...
No.

Read the canon. Read the words.
Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:
1/ a marriage of transients;
Click to expand...
It simply means that the priest must first get the permission of the ordinary, before he allows such a marriage.

Saying “you first need permission to do this” is not the same thing as saying “doing this invalidates an attempt at marriage.”
 
Needing to get permission means that there is an impediment to the marriage.
 
If he celebrates the marriage without getting that dispensation doesn’'t that invalidate the marriage?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top