Question About Marriage

[reclaimed]

I have always wondered about this, and it’s probably just the romantic in me, but consider this.

If two people were stranded alone on an island, with no imminent chance of being rescued, and they loved each other, could they make marriage vows to each other in front of God and have it be a valid marriage, i.e. the consumation not being a sin? Then if they were by some chance rescued they could have their marriage blessed by the Church. I’ve always wondered, is that possible? lol

 

[Mom_of_5]

I well rmember asking one of my teachers (nun) this same question when I was in High School. She said, yes, this could be a valid marriage sacrament. So, I vote, yes! in this case,marriage is between 2 individuals, man and woman with God as the witness.

Love and peace,
Mom of 5

 

[Matt_Collins]

When two people enter a sacramental marriage, even before a priest, it is the husband who is the minister of the sacrament to the wife and the wife who is the minister of the sacrament to the husband. The priest is simply a witness and is not, strictly speaking, necessary for the validity of the sacrament in such extraordinary circumstances.

And because it would, in fact, be a sacramental marriage, it would be indissoluble.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Any parties, regardless of religious status, would still need to be free of divine impediments, such as an existing prior valid marriage, or blood relationship as direct ancestor - descendant, etc.

• If at least one party is Catholic, two witnesses in addition to freedom from these divine and any ecclesiastical impediments would be needed for canonical validity.* If this is the case, there would be no subsequent “blessing” or convalidation, since the marriage already exists. The couple could have another kind of ceremony upon rescue, such as those customary for the celebrations of anniversaries though. They would need to report the marriage for proper entry in parish records, probably informing the bishop.
• Witness are required by canon 1116 in such a case*: “§1. If a person competent to assist at marriage according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses alone only: 1º in danger of death; 2º outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month. §2. In either case, if another priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.”

Any ecclesiastical impediments would still need to have been dispensed: such as in the marriage of a Catholic to an unbaptized person, or being in the clerical state, etc.

• The case of parties, neither of whom is Catholic and who cannot obtain witnesses, would be another matte*r. The divine impediments but not the ecclesiastical impediments would apply.
• As to the form of marriage, if neither party is Catholic but still belongs to a Church or other ecclesial community, the validity of marriage would be weighed according to the marriage laws of that body*. The validity of marriage for those without such membership would be assessed according to civil law. We’d look there in the case of no witnesses. But I imagine there might be some room for a natural law discussion in the case of moral impossibility.

 

[johnnycatholic]

Watching Cold Mountain, my wife and i decided that at the end when Nicole Kidman and Jude Law “consummate” that it probably could have counted as marital. As they were in hiding, they couldn’t exactly get a preacher to do things up right, and their actions throughout the movie indicated their seriousness about and devotion to one another. Now they didn’t really take any vows before God, but i thought if they would have, it could have counted. Not exactly the same situation, but i thought it relevant.+
3

 

[OriginalJS]

When two people enter a sacramental marriage, even before a priest, it is the husband who is the minister of the sacrament to the wife and the wife who is the minister of the sacrament to the husband. The priest is simply a witness and is not, strictly speaking, necessary for the validity of the sacrament in such extraordinary circumstances.

And because it would, in fact, be a sacramental marriage, it would be indissoluble.

This is correct. The reason the priest is involved is to be a witness. A priest is not necessary for a sacramental marriage.

 

[StCsDavid]

Just so long as everyone realizes we’re talking about an extreme example here of two people being stranded on an island. This scenario doesn’t play in Peoria, or anywhere else where there is civilization. In that case the couple would simply be shacking up. Were the couple wanting to break up after they got rescued, either would probably have pretty good grounds for a nullity of the marriage.