Married or Not?

[Lost_Child]

okay…im curious.
Say a couple was married in a non-catholic church. then later decided to both become catholic. Would/does the Church recognize their marriage as valid? and if NOT then would they have to live as brother and sister until they became catholic and had a catholic wedding? WOuld it be considered aldultry or fornication cause their marriage wasnt recognized? I just cant figure out which one is ture. i get so many mixed stories on this one. Any help would be appreciated. Thank you

 

[kp1]

I am not an apologist, you might want to repost on their forum, however I can say what I think is true.

First, I think it depends on the faith the couple is coming from for specifics like baptism, etc. As Catholics, we recognise marriage as a sacrement and many others do not.

Second, the marriage can be blessed by a Catholic priest. We just had a couple convert in our church and the priest blessed their marriage at mass.

I hope this helps

 

[Catholic2003]

Lost Child:

okay…im curious.
Say a couple was married in a non-catholic church. then later decided to both become catholic. Would/does the Church recognize their marriage as valid?

If neither party had been baptized in the Catholic Church prior to the wedding, and if neither party had been married before (and divorced), then the Church would recognize the marriage as valid.

(This is the basic rule; there are many minor exceptions to this that probably don’t apply, e.g. if either party was Eastern Orthodox, if either party was impotent, etc.)

 

[puzzleannie]

non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic laws on marriage, so the Catholic Church recognizes marriages between non-Catholics as valid until proven otherwise. Provided they were both free to marry, gave consent, the marriage is valid. Anyone who contemplates entering the Catholic church should give the full particulars of their marriage situation in the first couple of interviews with the priest or person in charge of the RCIA program.

 

[cameron_lansing]

non-Catholics are not bound by Catholic laws on marriage, so the Catholic Church recognizes marriages between non-Catholics as valid until proven otherwise. Provided they were both free to marry, gave consent, the marriage is valid

Correct and to the point. But it may be useful to add the obvious. All people are bound to the divine laws on marriage which are given expression in Catholic laws as well. Two impediments are relevant for everyone: prior bond (called ligamen) and blood relationships in the direct line (mother-son) of any degree as well as in the first and second degrees of the collateral line (siblings, nieces and nephews with their uncles and aunts).

It doesn’t matter if our parties were baptized or not at the time of their marriages. If both were baptized, they already enjoy the sacrament in a valid marriage. If one is unbaptized and becomes baptized to enter the Church, the valid marriage also turns into a sacrament.

In any case, these marriages are not to be later convalidated (commonly but incorrectly called “blessing a marriage”) after the parties join the Church. The Book of Blessings allows some flexibility and adaptation, so a nice blessing (in its proper sense) might be welcomed by the parties.

(Dcn) John Cameron
Lansing, MI

 

[Catholic2003]

cameron_lansing:

blood relationships … in the first and second degrees of the collateral line (siblings, nieces and nephews with their uncles and aunts).

My understanding is slightly different. First of all, by canon 108 §3:

• (brother and sister) = second degree of the collateral line
• (niece and uncle) or (nephew and aunt) = third degree of the collateral line

These relationships invalidate marriage according to canon 1091 §2, but since the third degree relationships can be dispensed (cf. canon 1091 §4), they are a matter of ecclesiastical law that does not apply to the marriage of two non-Catholics by canons 11 and 1059.

For marriage between non-Catholic brother and sister, my recollection is that the Bouscaren commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law claims that these marriages are to be recognized by the Catholic Church under the 1917 code equivalent of canon 1060, since there is debate among canonists as to whether the brother-sister impediment is of divine or ecclesiastical law.

 

[Catholic2003]

Catholic2003:

For marriage between non-Catholic brother and sister, my recollection is that the Bouscaren commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law claims that these marriages are to be recognized by the Catholic Church under the 1917 code equivalent of canon 1060, since there is debate among canonists as to whether the brother-sister impediment is of divine or ecclesiastical law.

I can’t seem to locate my recollection anywhere, so it is probably faulty. The closest thing I found was from the 2000 CLSA New Commentary, in a footnote to the commentary on canon 1091:

In one reported case, Paul VI declared that the consanguinity in the second degree of the collateral line was an ecclesiastical law impediment and dispensed from it to permit the convalidation of a marriage of a blood half-brother and half-sister who had been raised apart. Paul VI, rescript, January 21, 1977, CLD 9, 627-628.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Catholic2003: My understanding is slightly different. First of all, by canon 108 §3:

* (brother and sister) = second degree of the collateral line
* (niece and uncle) or (nephew and aunt) = third degree of the collateral line

No, actually your understanding is not just slightly different. I is absolutely correct, and, boy, am I embarassed. I should have reviewed my draft more thoroughly before hitting the post button. My wife has been telling me to get my glasses checked. This settles it.

“[F]irst and second degrees of the collateral line (siblings, nieces and nephews with their uncles and aunts).” should have read "econd and third . . . " Thanks for pointing that out.

The usage I presented erroneously would have been that under the former code which computed relationship under the Germanic mode.

The *Canon Law Digest *section referenced (Paul VI, rescript, January 21, 1977, CLD 9, 627-628) reads:
[627]
"CANON 1076
"First Degree of Collateral Consanguinity Dispensed (Paul VI, 21 Jan., 1977) Private.
"Pope Paul VI sent the following communication to the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
The request is made for a brother and a sister, siblings, who grew up separately from infancy, but now have been living together for years, for ‘a dispensation from the first degree of consanguinity in the collateral line, for the purpose of regularizing their union with a religious marriage and of legitimating their offspring.’ Let it declare itself competent and favorable to granting the couple in question ‘pastoral concern in the instance’ and ‘after having considered the opinion of canonists that the practice of the Church not to grant such a dispensation in cases like that presented here does not say that the Church does not have the right to grant [628] it in exceptional cases, since the impediment in question is to be considered as deriving from ecclesiastical, not divine, law.’
“(Private): Paul VI, rescript, 21 Jan., 1977; reported in Ochoa; Leges Ecclesiae, vol. 5, n, 4488.”

(I’m unclear where the “half-brother” and “half-sister” part came into the CLSA footnore. There is probably a reason but I don’t know it.)

Similarly, Bouscaren and Ellis, (3rd revised), p 535:
"Dispensation. 1. A dispensation is never granted when the impediment is probably of divine law, for example, the first degree of the collateral line (brother and sister) or remoter degrees of the direct line.
“2. Very special reasons and a personal recommendation by the Ordinary are required in the case of uncle and niece, aunt and nephew, that is, the second degree of the collateral line touching the first.”

The revised code uses the Roman mode (count the persons on both sides from the common ancestor, including the parties and the common ancestor, and then subtract the common ancestor.)

 

[Catholic2003]

cameron_lansing:

The *Canon Law Digest *section referenced (Paul VI, rescript, January 21, 1977, CLD 9, 627-628) reads:

Thanks for looking that up! I don’t have access to that volume. (The university law library only has volumes 1-6, and of the rest, I just have volumes 10 and 11.)

cameron_lansing:

Similarly, Bouscaren and Ellis, (3rd revised), p 535:

I don’t know what I was thinking of here. Any example along the lines I was positing (i.e., brother and sister joining the Catholic Church after already being married) could only take place after 1983, when non-Catholics were no longer subject to ecclesiastical marriage law.