Non-Catholic Marriages and Validity

[MysticMissMisty]

As I understand it, non-Catholic marriages are considered valid, provided there are no impediments to marriage.

However, many Protestant denominations as well as other religions allow for divorce in some or any circumstances. If a Protestant or other non-Catholic marries under in a context that accepts this belief system, is their marriage still considered valid? Why or why not? Same question would apply as to the question of openness to life, as many Protestant denominations accept birth control and sometimes even abortion as licit within the married state.

 

[1ke]

is their marriage still considered valid?

Yes. It is presumed to be valid.

Why or why not?

For two reasons.

1). Marriage enjoys the favor of the law unless the contrary can be proven.

2). What a denomination does or does not teach about marriage does not necessarily determine the will of the individual person. The Church presumes their internal disposition (I.e. their will) matches their external words and actions- they come before witnesses and promise fidelity, fecundy, and perpetuity.

So in general such marriages enjoy the presumption of validity. An individual marriage may not, for example if the vows they actually exchanged excluded an essential property of marriage.

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Interesting.

Another thought (admittedly perhaps more theoretical) comes to mind, though…

Have there ever been instances in the past (remote and recent) and/or in other cultures/civilizations where all marriages within a particular culture/civilization would not have been considered valid because of what that culture/civilization defined as marriage? For instance, would Roman (pre-Christian/pagan) marriages have been considered valid by the Church because of divorce being allowed and other factors?

 

[LittleFlower378]

This I wonder about as well. Most Muslims believe in polygamy. A valid marriage can only be between one man and one woman who before the marriage have the intention to be open to life and are wanting to be faithful to the one spouse until death. Wouldnt most Muslims marriages be invalid if this were the case?

 

[MysticMissMisty]

Well, Ive never known a Muslim, at least here in the US, to have more than one wife. Certainly, in very radical sects, this happens, but, even in other countries, I don’t think I’ve heard of polygamy in mainstream Islam.

Still not exactly sure how this would relate to the discussion, though.

And, another question related to all this might be how we are to treat those couples who are clearly invalidly married for some reason.

 

[LittleFlower378]

This is a good writing on your question, although pertaining to Catholics:

How to Act Towards Invalidly Married Catholics
http://pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/oregon/html/ctsorfam090.html

 

[acanonlawyer]

As I understand it, non-Catholic marriages are considered valid, provided there are no impediments to marriage.

Generally speaking, if the man and woman legitimately (i.e., in accord with the law that binds them in this regard) manifest their marital consent, then the law of the Church presumes that they are married.

Have there ever been instances in the past (remote and recent) and/or in other cultures/civilizations where all marriages within a particular culture/civilization would not have been considered valid because of what that culture/civilization defined as marriage?

In a manner of speaking, yes, and it is true to this day. The current Code of Canon Law states:

"Can. 1148 §1. When he receives baptism in the Catholic Church, a non-baptized man who has several non-baptized wives at the same time can retain one of them after the others have been dismissed, if it is hard for him to remain with the first one. The same is valid for a non-baptized woman who has several non-baptized husbands at the same time.

§2. In the cases mentioned in §1, marriage must be contracted in legitimate form after baptism has been received, and the prescripts about mixed marriages, if necessary, and other matters required by the law are to be observed."

So, there is a clear tension here between, on the one hand, addressing these people as “husbands” and “wives” and, on the other hand, requiring the convert to marry in accord with legitimate form. The implication is that there was, indeed, something essentially wrong with the “marriages” that had been contracted prior to conversion. This essential thing is to be supplied in the new contract. Nevertheless, there is some sort of relationship between the men/women involved, prior to the conversion/marriage in the Church, even to the extent that the “first wife/husband” has some precedence (not only temporally speaking).

Dan

 

[1ke]

Have there ever been instances in the past (remote and recent) and/or in other cultures/civilizations where all marriages within a particular culture/civilization would not have been considered valid because of what that culture/civilization defined as marriage?

No. (Excluding polygamy). Marriage is a natural institution. The bar isn’t that high. People can contract valid marriages whether religious or not. Jump the broom, take the woman into your tepee, whatever— you are married.

For instance, would Roman (pre-Christian/pagan) marriages have been considered valid by the Church because of divorce being allowed and other factors?

Yes, they were and are. The Church has always accepted non-Christian marriages. And accepted those of pagan Rome.

Christ elevated marriage among Christians to a sacrament. He didn’t alter natural marriage, which is as old as Adam and Eve.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The Church in her wisdom has the case of polygamy covered:

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a6.htm#2387

Other offenses against the dignity of marriage

[2387] The predicament of a man who, desiring to convert to the Gospel, is obliged to repudiate one or more wives with whom he has shared years of conjugal life, is understandable. However polygamy is not in accord with the moral law." [Conjugal] communion is radically contradicted by polygamy; this, in fact, directly negates the plan of God which was revealed from the beginning, because it is contrary to the equal personal dignity of men and women who in matrimony give themselves with a love that is total and therefore unique and exclusive."180 The Christian who has previously lived in polygamy has a grave duty in justice to honor the obligations contracted in regard to his former wives and his children.

 

[1ke]

Well, Ive never known a Muslim, at least here in the US, to have more than one wife.

Because it’s illegal in the US, not because they don’t believe in it. Some marry one woman legally and others in religious only ceremonies so as not to break the law.

Although certainly many westernized Muslims do not engage in polygamy (I have Muslim friends who were born and raised in the US and UK who do not consider polygamy palatable, likely because they were raised in a culture that prizes monogamy).

Certainly, in very radical sects, this happens, but, even in other countries, I don’t think I’ve heard of polygamy in mainstream Islam.

Oh, no, it’s quite legal and quite mainstream (and practiced widely) in any country that is majority Muslim. And in some countries that are historically Catholic or Christian they’ve made polygamy legal specifically for Muslims only (the Philippines).

See here:

Legality of polygamy - Wikipedia

 

[TC3033]

I’m on my phone so I was really only able to skim that pamphlet tonight. It’s definitely “interesting”.

If you subscribe to that, it also goes a long way in helping to describe your submissive wife thread.

 

[Vico]

…would Roman (pre-Christian/pagan) marriages have been considered valid by the Church because of divorce being allowed and other factors?

Marriages that are not between two validly baptized Christians may be dissolved, as can those that are unconsummated.

Catechism

1061 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84

84 CIC, can. 1055 § 1; cf. GS 48 § 1.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have always had a hard time understanding how we can uphold, at the very least, purportedly “sacramental” marriages (i.e., between two baptized non-Catholics) where one or both spouses has in mind “this marriage, or others just like it, can be dissolved”. Implicitly, that is precisely what they have in mind, if they subscribe to the secular mindset regarding marriage, which has been embraced by most non-Catholic Christians.

To expand upon this, their logic appears to go something like this:

• This marriage, which I am entering into today, is a sacrament
• However, this marriage can potentially be dissolved (e.g., by a court of law) if things ever get to that point
• I do not intend for that to happen in this marriage, but the possibility exists, because other people who enter into this same sacrament do get divorced, and once they are divorced, the marriage is dissolved

Given this mindset — which seems to be implicit in most if not all non-Catholic marriages — how can it be said that the person “intends to do what the [Catholic] Church does”? Isn’t the proper intent essential to the validity of any sacrament? And if they do not intend this, how can their marriage be valid?

I will grant that, at the very least, they could have a natural, non-sacramental marriage.

 

[mythbuster1]

It’s a specific application of the Pauline Privilege: A convert whose unbelieving lawful spouse is willing to live peaceably with the convert remains the Catholic’s lawful spouse in a natural marriage. If, however, the unbeliever refuses to live peaceably with the Catholic, the natural marriage can be dissolved in favor of a sacramental marriage. Concubines are not lawful spouses, and therefore the first and lawful spouse has the right-of-first-refusal. Should the lawful spouse refuse to live peaceably with the Catholic, the Catholic is then free to marry another Catholic, which could be any of the concubines who agrees to convert or someone else entirely.

 

[1ke]

I will grant that, at the very least, they could have a natural, non-sacramental marriage.

A valid marriage between the baptized is by its very nature a sacrament. That is Church teaching.

A marriage is valid or invalid. If it’s valid, and you are both baptized, it’s also a sacrament.

 

[1ke]

Isn’t the proper intent essential to the validity of any sacrament? And if they do not intend this, how can their marriage be valid?

Yes. Again, the Church presumes that the words they say and their intent match up. If they don’t, then of course they didn’t contract a valid marriage. The presumption is that they did. What a denomination may or may not teach about marriage doesn’t determine the will of the individual.

Even if a person knows about divorce (such as in my case where my own parents were divorced and remarried, my dad 4 times in fact) that does not determine their own will in the matter of getting married. It certainly didn’t determine mine-- i went into marriage meaning what i said in my vows regarding permanence, fidelity, and fecundy.

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law. In absence of evidence to the contrary the marriage is considered valid.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Granted. My question (in its simplest form) was whether the sacrament can be valid if one or both parties have the understanding and intent cited in my example. Valid sacraments require valid intention (as well as form and matter).

 

[1ke]

But that isn’t what you said. You proposed they could have a natural marriage. And that isn’t the case.

If two people are baptized they either have a valid marriage, which is also a sacrament, or they have no marriage at all (invalid marriage).

A natural marriage is a valid marriage involving one or more unbaptized people.

 

[acanonlawyer]

It’s a specific application of the Pauline Privilege:

Yes, that’s the historical background/context of that canon. Talking about presumed validity, though, it would not make sense to me to say that the law of the church presumes that every marriage of a polygamist is valid, when you’ve got the guy sitting there with 4 wives. The first one would be presumed valid.

The converted polygamist’s wedding after conversion is both a way to dissolve a prior, legitimate marriage, as well as a way to, in a way, convalidate one of his “prior marriages”, whether it was the first one or a subsequent one. That’s how I look at it, anyway. It’s all theoretical for me. I have yet to meet a polygamist and see how this canon would work in an actual situation…

Dan

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The idea I was putting forth was “well, let’s say the marriage isn’t a valid sacrament because the intent of one or both baptized parties was defective — could it be, then, that they have at least a natural marriage, such as two non-baptized persons have?”.

If it is true that, as you say, two baptized Christians either contract a valid sacramental marriage or none at all, then obviously the answer is “no”.