Requirement for civil marriage contract?

[pragmatist91]

Recently, I met with my parish priest to talk about issues I have been having, both in my personal life and with the Church. He is familiar with my family and the problems being endured. One of the things I asked him is why the Church requires a civil marriage contract for the sacrament of matrimony.

Before I go any further, let me explain a few things about myself. Growing up, my parents had a rocky marriage. In my teen years, they split up and began a very messy divorce. Due to my mother’s mental health problems, the case dragged on and my dad lost a lot of money on attorney fees. I will not have anywhere to live in the near near future due to the resulting foreclosure. To make a long story short, I do not want to get married legally. I just want to have a religious marriage without any government paperwork. The Bible does not say a legal contract from the state is required to please God.

When I asked my parish priest why the Church requires a civil contract, the only reason he gave is that the government requires priests to have the civil marriage license and that he could be fined/jailed for refusing to comply. Honestly, I’m kind of skeptical about that answer.

1. In the name of religious freedom, wouldn’t a religious institution have the right to avoid a legal partnership with the state (ie, reject the idea of civil marriage contracts)?
2. If it is really true that such a legal requirement exists for marriage contracts, why are certain Protestant churches able and WILLING to perform purely religious marriages?
3. Do you agree with the priest’s answer or is there more to it?

 

[Rau]

Recently, I met with my parish priest to talk about issues I have been having, both in my personal life and with the Church. He is familiar with my family and the problems being endured. One of the things I asked him is why the Church requires a civil marriage contract for the sacrament of matrimony.

Before I go any further, let me explain a few things about myself. Growing up, my parents had a rocky marriage. In my teen years, they split up and began a very messy divorce. Due to my mother’s mental health problems, the case dragged on and my dad lost a lot of money on attorney fees. I will not have anywhere to live in the near near future due to the resulting foreclosure. To make a long story short, I do not want to get married legally. I just want to have a religious marriage without any government paperwork. The Bible does not say a legal contract from the state is required to please God.

When I asked my parish priest why the Church requires a civil contract, the only reason he gave is that the government requires priests to have the civil marriage license and that he could be fined/jailed for refusing to comply. Honestly, I’m kind of skeptical about that answer.

1. In the name of religious freedom, wouldn’t a religious institution have the right to avoid a legal partnership with the state (ie, reject the idea of civil marriage contracts)?
2. If it is really true that such a legal requirement exists for marriage contracts, why are certain Protestant churches able and WILLING to perform purely religious marriages?
3. Do you agree with the priest’s answer or is there more to it?

I wonder what end you think you are serving my seeking to avoid the legal marriage arrangements? In many jurisdictions, after a period of cohabitation, the State will deem you to be married (“de facto”) and subject to the relevant legal obligations of marriage.

In some countries, the Priest acts also as representative of the State and there is only a single marriage ceremony. The priest is thus bound to fulfil both Church and State obligations pertaining to the registration and witnessing of the marriage. The registration must occur some period, eg. 1 month, before the actual marriage.

In other countries, separate processes/ceremonies (State and Church) are involved, and I believe the order of ceremonies is not important.

 

[Catholic1954]

Recently, I met with my parish priest to talk about issues I have been having, both in my personal life and with the Church. He is familiar with my family and the problems being endured. One of the things I asked him is why the Church requires a civil marriage contract for the sacrament of matrimony.

Before I go any further, let me explain a few things about myself. Growing up, my parents had a rocky marriage. In my teen years, they split up and began a very messy divorce. Due to my mother’s mental health problems, the case dragged on and my dad lost a lot of money on attorney fees. I will not have anywhere to live in the near near future due to the resulting foreclosure. To make a long story short, I do not want to get married legally. I just want to have a religious marriage without any government paperwork. The Bible does not say a legal contract from the state is required to please God.

When I asked my parish priest why the Church requires a civil contract, the only reason he gave is that the government requires priests to have the civil marriage license and that he could be fined/jailed for refusing to comply. Honestly, I’m kind of skeptical about that answer.

1. In the name of religious freedom, wouldn’t a religious institution have the right to avoid a legal partnership with the state (ie, reject the idea of civil marriage contracts)?
2. If it is really true that such a legal requirement exists for marriage contracts, why are certain Protestant churches able and WILLING to perform purely religious marriages?
3. Do you agree with the priest’s answer or is there more to it?

Your priest is correct. Except under severe persecution, the Church will follow the law and not marry anyone without the proper legal documents. Other churches are free to obey the law, or not; we, however render unto Cesar.

 

[UpUpAndAway]

Catholic1954 is correct: it’s a “render unto Caesar” thing. The Church respects just civil law (that is, civil law that does not conflict with God’s law), and there is nothing objectively unjust about the state’s process for validly contracting marriage between one man and one woman.

In other countries, separate processes/ceremonies (State and Church) are involved, and I believe the order of ceremonies is not important.

France is such a country, and the civil ceremony must take place first. No priest/rabbi/imam etc. will preside over a wedding without proof of the civil contract. We had to provide a certified copy of the government-issued livret de famille (family register) before our Nuptial Mass.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

Marriage is supposed to be an “all in” thing. Telling a priest that you want to marry, you just don’t want to risk losing money or material possessions tells him that you aren’t all in. You’re holding back and preparing for the marriage to fail. No, he won’t marry you because you either don’t have the proper understanding of what marriage is, or you do and are just unwilling to risk a sacrifice. In either case, it could be used as evidence for an annulment later.

 

[Phemie]

In other countries, separate processes/ceremonies (State and Church) are involved, and I believe the order of ceremonies is not important.

Most of the European countries I’ve researched require the civil ceremony to proceed before the religious one and, since that is not an unjust law, the Church will not perform the ceremony without proof that a civil marriage already exists.

 

[Lou2U]

Marriage is supposed to be an “all in” thing. Telling a priest that you want to marry, you just don’t want to risk losing money or material possessions tells him that you aren’t all in. You’re holding back and preparing for the marriage to fail. No, he won’t marry you because you either don’t have the proper understanding of what marriage is, or you do and are just unwilling to risk a sacrifice. In either case, it could be used as evidence for an annulment later.

Agreed.

Pragmatis91, do you actually want to get married? I can understand your reluctance given the situation with your parents, but do you actually want to marry your fiancée? Do you trust yourself and your fiancée to work through any issues you have, or do you want to protect yourself if something goes wrong?

How does your fiancée feel about this?

From your post, it sounds as though you would rather prepare for your marriage to fail than work to create success. If you go into a marriage with a negative mindset, it will be harder for you to convince yourself to work on issues, and it will be easier for you to think of leaving.

I advise you consider if you really want to get married, and if you really want to marry your fiancée before avoiding a civil marriage, which will afford you benefits under the law.

Lou

 

[tee_eff_em]

In other countries, separate processes/ceremonies (State and Church) are involved, and I believe the order of ceremonies is not important.

Most of the European countries I’ve researched require the civil ceremony to proceed before the religious one and, since that is not an unjust law, the Church will not perform the ceremony without proof that a civil marriage already exists.

I believe this is the case everywhere that the state reserves the right to contract marriages, and precisely to prevent the sort of situation that the OP is desirous. That is: If the order of the ceremonies “did not matter”, there would be no (or at least: lesser) impetus for the religiously married couple to seek a civil marriage.

tee
**Disclaimer: **Neither a Civil Nor a Canon Lawyer

 

[pragmatist91]

I live in the US, where most states don’t have common law marriage. I know the Church will disagree with me, but I would argue that civil marriage can be very dangerous if either party decides to capitalize on the marriage/divorce process. The legal system is set up in such a way that you can lose everything. This is precisely what happened happened to my dad (and the reason I won’t have a place to live in the near future).

I am Catholic but I don’t agree with the Church on everything. I understand the Church’s teaching on marriage (aka being willing to destroy your life if it means staying married) and I reject it. In all honesty, having a roof over my head and keeping my future earnings/property safe from a vengeful ex/money-grabbing attorney is far more important to me than being fully compliant with the Church. I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I’m just giving a straight answer to a straight question. Given the standards of the Church, I think the vast majority of marriages would be considered “invalid”. I am not engaged to anyone yet, but I do want to get married. If there are problems, I will make a reasonable effort to work towards a solution. But that being said, I’m not going to ruin my life just to stay married to the same person. If the relationship goes to hell, I have every intention of leaving.

 

[Rau]

I live in the US, where most states don’t have common law marriage. I know the Church will disagree with me, but I would argue that civil marriage can be very dangerous if either party decides to capitalize on the marriage/divorce process. The legal system is set up in such a way that you can lose everything. This is precisely what happened happened to my dad (and the reason I won’t have a place to live in the near future).

I am Catholic but I don’t agree with the Church on everything. I understand the Church’s teaching on marriage (aka being willing to destroy your life if it means staying married) and I reject it. In all honesty, having a roof over my head and keeping my future earnings/property safe from a vengeful ex/money-grabbing attorney is far more important to me than being fully compliant with the Church. I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I’m just giving a straight answer to a straight question. Given the standards of the Church, I think the vast majority of marriages would be considered “invalid”. I am not engaged to anyone yet, but I do want to get married. If there are problems, I will make a reasonable effort to work towards a solution. But that being said, I’m not going to ruin my life just to stay married to the same person. If the relationship goes to hell, I have every intention of leaving.

The legal system is setup to protect the parties, not to decimate one of them. Your understanding of the Church position is also quite flawed.

You won’t be able to marry and avoid the legal requirements. I suggest you :

• discuss and document with any future fiancé your attitude to marriage breakup;
• agree ahead of time assets each brings to the marriage and your mutually intended principles for dividing all assets under any future dissolution. This requires a competent lawyer to prepare.

Good luck with all that!

 

[Rau]

I believe this is the case everywhere that the state reserves the right to contract marriages, and precisely to prevent the sort of situation that the OP is desirous. That is: If the order of the ceremonies “did not matter”, there would be no (or at least: lesser) impetus for the religiously married couple to seek a civil marriage.

tee
**Disclaimer: **Neither a Civil Nor a Canon Lawyer

As a practical matter, civil ceremony first must surely be the sensible order. I can’t recall the context where I read “order doesn’t matter” but it was in a dioscesan document. It may have just been making the point that the order can be whatever the law allows, not sure… I agree with your point.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The legal system is setup to protect the parties, not to decimate one of them. Your understanding of the Church position is also quite flawed.

You won’t be able to marry and avoid the legal requirements. I suggest you :

• discuss and document with any future fiancé your attitude to marriage breakup;
• agree ahead of time assets each brings to the marriage and your mutually intended principles for dividing all assets under any future dissolution. This requires a competent lawyer to prepare.

Good luck with all that!

While a “prenuptial agreement” does not *necessarily *invalidate a marriage in the eyes f the Catholic Church, one written with an eye toward division of assets in the event of divorce likely does, since it indicates a lack of faith in the permanence of marriage.

:twocents: But since the OP admits this attitude and disagreement with Church teaching, perhaps she would not mind hiding such a document in deception of the Church’s witness? I judge that such behavior could lead to living in an objective state of sin, however. :twocents:

tee
Still neither a Civil nor Canon Lawyer.

 

[1ke]

The legal system is setup to protect the parties, not to decimate one of them. Your understanding of the Church position is also quite flawed.

You won’t be able to marry and avoid the legal requirements. I suggest you :

• discuss and document with any future fiancé your attitude to marriage breakup;
• agree ahead of time assets each brings to the marriage and your mutually intended principles for dividing all assets under any future dissolution. This requires a competent lawyer to prepare.

Good luck with all that!

Prenuptial agreements of this type are an impediment to valid marriage.

 

[1ke]

I live in the US, where most states don’t have common law marriage. I know the Church will disagree with me, but I would argue that civil marriage can be very dangerous if either party decides to capitalize on the marriage/divorce process. The legal system is set up in such a way that you can lose everything. This is precisely what happened happened to my dad (and the reason I won’t have a place to live in the near future).

I am Catholic but I don’t agree with the Church on everything. I understand the Church’s teaching on marriage (aka being willing to destroy your life if it means staying married) and I reject it. In all honesty, having a roof over my head and keeping my future earnings/property safe from a vengeful ex/money-grabbing attorney is far more important to me than being fully compliant with the Church. I’m not trying to pick a fight with anyone, I’m just giving a straight answer to a straight question. Given the standards of the Church, I think the vast majority of marriages would be considered “invalid”. I am not engaged to anyone yet, but I do want to get married. If there are problems, I will make a reasonable effort to work towards a solution. But that being said, I’m not going to ruin my life just to stay married to the same person. If the relationship goes to hell, I have every intention of leaving.

I too am a child of divorce. Without counseling, these feelings of hurt, betrayal, and fear of lifelong marriage will linger for years.

Please get professional help. This is not something to work through alone.

 

[Rau]

Prenuptial agreements of this type are an impediment to valid marriage.

I’ll take your word for that. Evidently the OP has already set his priorities, and protecting his assets is his top priority.

 

[pragmatist91]

What the legal system was designed to do and what it actually does are two very different things. My father was not protected by the legal system during the divorce and lost so much as a result of it. I agree that a prenuptial agreement focusing on property division would result in an invalid marriage by Church standards. But I would argue that the marriage would still be valid by God’s standards (one area where I disagree with the Church). I can only imagine how many people walk away from the Church due to the impractical (and not even biblical) demands being made by the clergy.

I don’t have these views because I’m emotionally traumatized. I have these views because there are genuine legal risks associated with civil marriage. I am a hardcore pragmatist (hence my sn). Sticking my hand in a toilet that hasn’t been flushed to get a penny is impractical because the cost is too high (VERY dirty hands) and the reward is too low (1 cent). Legal marriage isn’t worth it to me for the same exact same reason.

I’ve already said my points and you guys have already said your points. 2/3 of the questions I posted initially have already been answered. But I still am curious to know why religious leaders in the US aren’t allowed to reject civil marriage contracts in the name of religious liberty.

 

[SMHW]

I’ve already said my points and you guys have already said your points. 2/3 of the questions I posted initially have already been answered. But I still am curious to know why religious leaders in the US aren’t allowed to reject civil marriage contracts in the name of religious liberty.

Are you suggesting that the Church in the United States should have special regulations that differ from those required of the rest of the world?

Or are you suggesting that the Federal and/or State governments in the United States should not impose requirements on the Church in the United States?

In general the Church expects that marriage should be a civil institution (as it was for thousands of years prior to it becoming a sacrament.) In fact the Church believes that marriage is a foundational institution for society. That means it is by its very nature both a civil and religious institution.

Unfortunately that means that one party to a marriage can hurt the another financially, even if the marriage terminates via divorce or turns out to be sacramentally and/or civilly null.

 

[Rau]

…But I still am curious to know why religious leaders in the US aren’t allowed to reject civil marriage contracts in the name of religious liberty.

What element of religious liberty is compromised by the attachment of a legal framework to “marriage”?

Men and women have been giving themselves to each other for a very long time. The State and the Church both recognise this.

 

[Lou2U]

What the legal system was designed to do and what it actually does are two very different things. My father was not protected by the legal system during the divorce and lost so much as a result of it. I agree that a prenuptial agreement focusing on property division would result in an invalid marriage by Church standards. But I would argue that the marriage would still be valid by God’s standards (one area where I disagree with the Church). I can only imagine how many people walk away from the Church due to the impractical (and not even biblical) demands being made by the clergy.

I don’t have these views because I’m emotionally traumatized. I have these views because there are genuine legal risks associated with civil marriage. I am a hardcore pragmatist (hence my sn). Sticking my hand in a toilet that hasn’t been flushed to get a penny is impractical because the cost is too high (VERY dirty hands) and the reward is too low (1 cent). Legal marriage isn’t worth it to me for the same exact same reason.

I’ve already said my points and you guys have already said your points. 2/3 of the questions I posted initially have already been answered. But I still am curious to know why religious leaders in the US aren’t allowed to reject civil marriage contracts in the name of religious liberty.

Marriage is a commitment, and if you marry in the CC you believe it to be a lifelong commitment. I’m sorry your parents’ marriage didn’t last, but you owe it to yourself and your future spouse to overcome our trauma. Counselling will help you with this.

Rejecting a civil marriage will only hinder you. You will not receive legal benefits, and you will create a lot of problems. Civil marriage does not infringe on Catholicism.

OP, how do you think your future spouse would feel if you promised to marry them, but said “I don’t want to marry you civilly because if we divorce, I am protected”? As I said in my earlier post, going in with a negative mentality will damage your marriage.

Unless you work on your emotional trauma, I suggest you stay away from getting married altogether. Instead of using it as an excuse to protect yourself, you should help yourself to heal from it.

Lou

 

[Gorgias]

I understand the Church’s teaching on marriage (aka being willing to destroy your life if it means staying married)

As has been mentioned to you already, this is not “the Church’s teaching on marriage.” If this is what you think the Church teaches about Christian marriage, then you really don’t understand what the Church teaches.

In all honesty, having a roof over my head and keeping my future earnings/property safe from a vengeful ex/money-grabbing attorney is far more important to me than being fully compliant with the Church.

This simply means that you’re not ready to enter into Christian marriage, then.

Given the standards of the Church, I think the vast majority of marriages would be considered “invalid”.

No, they aren’t. A marriage performed by the Church, that has done all the preparation and investigation required, has the favor of the law – that means that, by definition, they are explicitly not “considered invalid”.

I am not engaged to anyone yet, but I do want to get married. If there are problems, I will make a reasonable effort to work towards a solution. But that being said, I’m not going to ruin my life just to stay married to the same person. If the relationship goes to hell, I have every intention of leaving.

OK. This means that you won’t be able to marry in the Church – unless your opinion changes – because the Church teaching on marriage is that the spouses must intend indissolubility.