Sacramental marriage without civil marriage

[Phemie]

Really? you mean that the seniors would not care about being united in God’s Eyes before they choose to live together?

I’m saying your scenario is only about fraud.

First you claim that it is “French Law” and then list a requirement on the priests. Is it your claim that the French civil law regulates when\if a priest may perform a Sacrament?

As a matter of fact, in regards marriage, yes, and has done so since the revolution. Clergy cannot, by law, marry anyone who is not civilly married. All Churches abide by that law and clergy will ask to see a marriage certificate before celebrating a religious marriage.

 

[FAB]

Our pastor, at a parish with a lot of immigrants, talked about an interesting problem the other day. It seems like a lot of immigrants into this country come here with marriages which are not done in the Church and they are not even married civilly. They get here, and through one means or another, rediscover the Catholic Church and become quite serious about their faith. So of course, they want to have their relationships normalized with a real marriage. But due to immigration issues, they can’t get civilly married. Now in this country (maybe everywhere), the Catholic Church will not do a marriage if it is not legally valid with the state. So this leaves them in a very bad state, they want to get married, they can’t. They often have kids, so they can’t live apart. There is no impediment to a marriage from a canonical standpoint, it is simply the civil law which keeps the church from marrying them.

?

Actually this is stated backward. Most of these marriages are civil and not sacramental. Mexico does not give the church the authority to marry and it be reconconized by the state. In the US then, the Church can convalidate the marriage so it is sacramental, same is true in Mexico. The state is not involed, the couple does need to provide valid baptismal certificates.As long as there are no complications, i.e. previous marriages, it can be very strait foreward.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I do not think that defrauding a pension fund falls under this canon.
Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent reason, the local Ordinary may permit that a marriage be celebrated in secret.

 

[dans0622]

… I am just curious about the exact requirements of the Church with regards to sacramental marriages required to go hand-in-hand with civil marriages, the reasons behind this requirement, and opinions about how this should be handled. According to my pastor, priests are often bringing this subject up with their Bishops and they want a solution to the problem that does not require a political/legal change in the law of this country, as that is looking more and more hopeless. Any thoughts?

Hello tafan,

I am not sure I understand the specific scenario encountered by your pastor. If he is talking about two people who are here illegally and want to marry but can’t because they are unable to get a marriage license, then it is possible that the couple can still be married “in the Church” in a couple of ways. First, a priest with the faculty to witness their marriage could ask for permission from the local ordinary and then go ahead with the wedding. The permission would be necessary because the marriage would not be recognized civilly (cf. c. 1071). The priest could keep this “secret” if he thought it necessary. This option is a bit troublesome in that if this marriage was ever brought to the attention of the civil authorities, the priest could get into some trouble. I doubt the couple would have any troubles because of this…they’d have enough difficulty with their “illegal” status.

Another option is to have the couple utilize the “extraordinary form” of marriage. This is explained in canon 1116 §1. "If a person competent to assist 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 only:

1. in danger of death;
2. outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other 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."

The couple should have the parish priest make sure this is all properly recorded. I don’t know if anyone in authority has ever promoted this idea but it seems the option is there.

Dan

 

[Brendan]

I do not think that defrauding a pension fund falls under this canon.
Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent reason, the local Ordinary may permit that a marriage be celebrated in secret.

Actually, this was one of the cases we covered in my Canon Law class at the seminary when I was in the Diaconate program.

What fraud is being commited exact? Fraud, by defintion, entails deceit. Is the Church claiming that a legally recognized marriage exists? Quite the opposite actually, the Church is not claiming anything that is not 100% factual, nor anything than cannot be verified in a court of law.

 

[laszlo]

The Canon Law has no requirement for the civil marriage, or marriage license.

Usually states require marriage license before the marriage in the Church or anywhere else. This is matter of civil obedience.

In my opinion the separation of the Church and State is valid point for civil disobedience in this case: the state has no rights whatsoever over the sacraments of the Church.

The illegal immigrants have no additional risk. They will be not married in the eye of the state, but living together w/o marriage is not crime at this point.

The priest who is witnessing the marriage has some risk for legal disobedience. Only practicing lawyers can tell the seriousness of this risk, but imho the priest can keep himself to the truth: he did not administered a legal marriage in the given state, only witnessed as a men and women administered a sacrament to themselves.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

The Canon Law has no requirement for the civil marriage, or marriage license.

Usually states require marriage license before the marriage in the Church or anywhere else. This is matter of civil obedience.

In my opinion the separation of the Church and State is valid point for civil disobedience in this case: the state has no rights whatsoever over the sacraments of the Church.

The illegal immigrants have no additional risk. They will be not married in the eye of the state, but living together w/o marriage is not crime at this point.

The priest who is witnessing the marriage has some risk for legal disobedience. Only practicing lawyers can tell the seriousness of this risk, but imho the priest can keep himself to the truth: he did not administered a legal marriage in the given state, only witnessed as a men and women administered a sacrament to themselves.

I think you are correct in the case of people who are in the United States illegally.

But two people who are getting secretly married for the sole purpose to defraud their pension funds the priest could be liable criminally and civilly for assisting in this.

Defrauding a pension plan is neither a grave nor an urgent matter.

 

[Brendan]

I think you are correct in the case of people who are in the United States illegally.

But two people who are getting secretly married for the sole purpose to defraud their pension funds the priest could be liable criminally and civilly for assisting in this.

Defrauding a pension plan is neither a grave nor an urgent matter.

I ask again, where exactly is the fraud? The Church is deceiving no one. Everything being declared by the Church is 100% factual.

 

[Phemie]

I ask again, where exactly is the fraud? The Church is deceiving no one. Everything being declared by the Church is 100% factual.

The only reason to not get married civilly is to defraud. Why would a priest participate in that?

 

[laszlo]

But two people who are getting secretly married for the sole purpose to defraud their pension funds the priest could be liable criminally and civilly for assisting in this.

I disagree. The civil marriage, allowing divorce, is no valid marriage in the eyes of the Church. These people do not want civil marriage, they want only the sacrament, outside of the jurisdiction of the state.

The separation of the state and church works both way.

 

[Brendan]

The only reason to not get married civilly is to defraud. Why would a priest participate in that?

What deceit is being commited.

Without a deceit, there is no fraud.

definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

Is the priest, Church or the couple involved making claims that are factually incorrect or misrepresenting their state. Is anyone claiming that a legal marriage would exist between the couple?

 

[tafan]

Actually this is stated backward. Most of these marriages are civil and not sacramental. Mexico does not give the church the authority to marry and it be reconconized by the state. In the US then, the Church can convalidate the marriage so it is sacramental, same is true in Mexico. The state is not involed, the couple does need to provide valid baptismal certificates.As long as there are no complications, i.e. previous marriages, it can be very strait foreward.

I realize that is most of the cases with immigrants, but I did not state it backwards. He was talking about people who had no marriage, civil or sacramental, but were in effect “common-law” husband/wifes.

 

[tafan]

There is absolutely NO reason why immigrants can not be married both legally and Sacramentally. Even illegal immigrants can get married, with a valid marriage license. And ANYONE, regardless of citizenship status, can obtain a marriage license (that is done through State law, NOT Federal law).

I would love to see any legal evidence that any state requires that you be legally admitted to the US, or have US Citizenship, in order to be married.

Whoever is telling you this, quite literally does not know what they are talking about.

Well, I guess my pastor did know what he was talking about. To get a marriage license in this state, one must have a valid SS card, a government issued ID (driver’s license or US passport or US military ID), and a certified birth certificate. Apparently the SS card (or proof of SS) is starting to be enforced in many places. My understanding anyway

Thanks for all the responses everyone.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

What deceit is being commited.

Without a deceit, there is no fraud.

definitions.uslegal.com/f/fraud/

Is the priest, Church or the couple involved making claims that are factually incorrect or misrepresenting their state. Is anyone claiming that a legal marriage would exist between the couple?

These are fun questions to ask in the abstract. However, no bishop wants his diocese before a court on this issue and the Holy See would be livid with the diocese for creating such a situation. You might win in the end but then you might also be stripped of your legal authority to perform any marriages.

 

[FAB]

I realize that is most of the cases with immigrants, but I did not state it backwards. He was talking about people who had no marriage, civil or sacramental, but were in effect “common-law” husband/wifes.

That then is a very different case, but there are specific parameters for a marriage to be considered common law, just not living together, to which there is a certificate from the state that can be issues validating the marriage civilly.

the Church is required to follow the laws of the state, in these cases a marriage license would have to be issued and after the ceremony sign by the witnessing clergy. Can’t address the state law as to if a license is issued to non citizens.

 

[laszlo]

There is absolutely NO reason why immigrants can not be married both legally and Sacramentally. Even illegal immigrants can get married, with a valid marriage license. And ANYONE, regardless of citizenship status, can obtain a marriage license (that is done through State law, NOT Federal law).

I would love to see any legal evidence that any state requires that you be legally admitted to the US, or have US Citizenship, in order to be married.

Whoever is telling you this, quite literally does not know what they are talking about.

Here is the required ID for marriage license in Chicago

cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/whatid/Pages/default.aspx#special

from the Cook County Clerk

cookcountyclerk.com/vitalrecords/marriagelicenses/Pages/default.aspx

These are natural for citizens, or those who are here with legal visa.

Special ID requirements for marriage licenses
One form of ID if submitting one of the following:

* State drivers license
* State identification
* U.S. passport
* U.S. Armed Forces identification card

• OR -
  Two of these forms of ID:
  • Certified copy of Birth Certificate (English translations required for foreign certificates)
  • U.S. naturalization certificate
  • U.S. resident alien card
  • Life insurance policy (at least 1 year old)
  • Foreign passport
  • Baptismal record (date of birth must appear)
  • Consulate identification card (matricula)

 

[puzzleannie]

I realize that is most of the cases with immigrants, but I did not state it backwards. He was talking about people who had no marriage, civil or sacramental, but were in effect “common-law” husband/wifes.

I suggest the pastor contact someone in the diocese whose job it is to deal with these and other immigration issues, and find out what both civil and canon laws apply in the situations he encounters in your state and diocese. Any diocese that has a large immigrant population has such an office.

 

[Brendan]

These are fun questions to ask in the abstract. However, no bishop wants his diocese before a court on this issue and the Holy See would be livid with the diocese for creating such a situation. You might win in the end but then you might also be stripped of your legal authority to perform any marriages.

The example I gave was exactly the example my Canon Law professor gave in response to our questions about Canon 1130

He is both a Canon Lawyer and a practicing secular Lawyer. (J.D and a J.C.D)

 

[PacoG]

I doubt that. The Church would be suborning fraud against the government. It may not seem fair but decreasing someone’s benefits when they marry doesn’t violate natural law. Two may not live as cheaply as one, but two together can live more cheaply than two apart.

I’m not correcting you to be a jerk. I’m just being a jackass (and trying to be good humor). So please please please take it in stride.

Frauds are perpetrated. Perjury is suborned. (That’s a distinction that Midlaws [what 2nd year law students are called at the University of Texas] learn).

 

[PacoG]

There is absolutely NO reason why immigrants can not be married both legally and Sacramentally. Even illegal immigrants can get married, with a valid marriage license. And ANYONE, regardless of citizenship status, can obtain a marriage license (that is done through State law, NOT Federal law).

I would love to see any legal evidence that any state requires that you be legally admitted to the US, or have US Citizenship, in order to be married.

Whoever is telling you this, quite literally does not know what they are talking about.

I think the purpose of the marriage license varies from State to State. In Texas, for example, the marriage license is per se proof of marriage but it isn’t a permission to marry.

Additionally, in Texas, apparent authority (and not actual authority) governs the power to conduct a marriage. If I tell you and your girlfriend that I am a member of the Lions Club and I can marry you legally (a totally false statement) and you two believe me and then go through with the ceremony, you have been joined under the laws of the State of Texas.