Sacramental Validity of an Anglican Wedding

[Morningkill]

I am in the process of writing a story which features a wedding between two members of the Anglican Church, and it is relevant (because of a conversation between two other - Catholic - characters) whether or not this is actually a Sacramental union.

The hypothetical situation is as follows;

Both are baptized Christians (baptized validly)
Both are marrying of their own free-will and have no legal impediments to marriage (they have not been married before, and are of legal age in the country where they are getting married)
The marriage is performed by an Anglican Vicar
The marriage is performed in an Anglican church

It is my understanding that - because the two of them are baptized Christians and are intending to get married and making vows before God and including God in their marriage - that this is recognized as valid, sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I base this on my reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia and vague things which I recal reading but cannot remember where. The key distinction is that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the couple, not the person performing the ceremony.

If someone (or some ones) could confirm or deny my suspision, and also - if such things exist - offer a link to material which might discuss this, I would be most grateful.

 

[Cran]

Unless they haven’t been baptized in the Catholic church, the marriage is valid. They are not memebers of the Catholic church and are therefore not bound to have their marriage their like Catholics do, and as the marriage is a sacrament that is not administered by the priest (he “only” gives the blessing), the lack of a validly ordained priest is no impediment for a valid marriage.

 

[Seatuck]

I am in the process of writing a story which features a wedding between two members of the Anglican Church, and it is relevant (because of a conversation between two other - Catholic - characters) whether or not this is actually a Sacramental union.

The hypothetical situation is as follows;

Both are baptized Christians (baptized validly)
Both are marrying of their own free-will and have no legal impediments to marriage (they have not been married before, and are of legal age in the country where they are getting married)
The marriage is performed by an Anglican Vicar
The marriage is performed in an Anglican church

It is my understanding that - because the two of them are baptized Christians and are intending to get married and making vows before God and including God in their marriage - that this is recognized as valid, sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I base this on my reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia and vague things which I recal reading but cannot remember where. The key distinction is that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the couple, not the person performing the ceremony.

If someone (or some ones) could confirm or deny my suspision, and also - if such things exist - offer a link to material which might discuss this, I would be most grateful.

2 baptized christians, both free to marry, neither bound by Catholic canonical form etc = valid, sacramental marriage.

 

[cameron_lansing]

If someone (or some ones) could confirm or deny my suspision, and also - if such things exist - offer a link to material which might discuss this, I would be most grateful.

The Anglican communion is an ecclesial community which is not in communion with the Catholic Church. Therefore its members may validly marry according to whatever form of marriage it specifies. To my knowledge, the Anglican communion accepts even a civil form of marriage and does not require a religious ceremony in the presence of an Anglican minister. So there need be no explicit reference to God involved.

However, by virtue of divine law, only a man and a woman can marry each other validly.

If a man and a woman are qualified to marry (free from impediments of divine and/or ecclesiastical law) and legitimately manifest their consent according to any required legal form, they establish valid marriage by their consent (c. 1057 §1). When both parties in a valid marriage are validly baptized, the marriage is necessarily a sacrament (c. 1055 §2)

Now all marriages are regulated by divine law and also civil law in regard to the merely civil effects of marriage (c. 1059)*. However, if even one of the parties to a marriage is Catholic, then the marriage is also regulated by ecclesiastical laws of Catholic canon law.

Going back to c. 1057 §1 then, by contrast, two non Catholics, baptized or not, would be not be subject to Catholic ecclesiastical impediments that would disqualify them from marriage. Nor would they be required to manifest their consent to marriage according to the Catholic form of celebration.

Dignitas connubii, while an instruction on handling nullity cases, clarifies this in regard to the form of marriage for baptized non Catholics. Article 4 states that such may marry according to any form of celebration that is prescribed or accepted in the Church (i.e., a non Catholic Easter Church) or ecclesial community.

I assume the Catholics who discuss the situation in your scenario are Latin Catholics. If they were Eastern, some additional nuances would be noted. While the consent of the parties is needed to establish marriage (CCEO c. 817§1), the form of the celebration in Eastern Churches differs from that in the Latin Church.

In this case of the Eastern Churches, CCEO canon 828 applies. A sacred rite is required in the presence of an authorized hierarch, pastor or priest with the faculty of blessing the marriage and two witnesses. The blessing is constitutive of creating marriage.

The form of marriage in the Latin Church requires an authorized cleric (or rarely a designated lay person) with the faculty of assisting and two witnesses to be present. The assistant asks for the contractants’ manifestation of consent and receives it in the name of the Church (c. 1108 §2). The nuptial blessing in the Latin Church does not establish the marriage but is only an invocatory blessing.

*However, recall that civil law cannot trump divine law (e.g., a civil divorce does not dissolve the bonds of a valid marriage).

 

[Morningkill]

That is what I believed, but I am very grateful that you could explain that with reference to the various canons and so forth. Thank you very much!

(Copies the reply so that he has a copy of it!)

 

[puzzleannie]

the general rule, assuming the parties are otherwide free to marry (no divorce or other impediment, full consent etc.) any marriage between two validly baptized persons is sacramental, and is both valid and sacramental until proven otherwise. Only baptized Catholics also have to comply with Church laws on marriage (witness is a priest etc.) these laws are not binding on non-Catholics. If you are a writer doing research and need exact answers I would contact the canon law tribunal of your diocese and explain why you are asking.

do not rely on the Catholic Ency for your research since canon law, liturgy and so many other things have changed in the 100 or so years since it was published.

 

[Morningkill]

If you are a writer doing research and need exact answers I would contact the canon law tribunal of your diocese and explain why you are asking.

Oh, I don’t think that it’s worth disturbing them for something like this - the advice I have got here is very good, and certainly confirms what I already knew.

do not rely on the Catholic Ency for your research since canon law, liturgy and so many other things have changed in the 100 or so years since it was published.

Well, the story is set in the 1950s, although it is unlikely that what consitutes a valid sacrament will have changed since then.

 

[puzzleannie]

Oh, I don’t think that it’s worth disturbing them for something like this - the advice I have got here is very good, and certainly confirms what I already knew.

Well, the story is set in the 1950s, although it is unlikely that what consitutes a valid sacrament will have changed since then.

yes there have been some changes, the basic principle as stated remains the same, but without knowing the rest of the circumstances (have also done research for a book that touches on Catholic marriage law as it applied 1939-1957) yes a call might be in order, or contact with an older priest who was active in that era, who would know for sure. research is a legitimate reason to make such a call.

 

[benedictgal]

I am in the process of writing a story which features a wedding between two members of the Anglican Church, and it is relevant (because of a conversation between two other - Catholic - characters) whether or not this is actually a Sacramental union.

The hypothetical situation is as follows;

Both are baptized Christians (baptized validly)
Both are marrying of their own free-will and have no legal impediments to marriage (they have not been married before, and are of legal age in the country where they are getting married)
The marriage is performed by an Anglican Vicar
The marriage is performed in an Anglican church

It is my understanding that - because the two of them are baptized Christians and are intending to get married and making vows before God and including God in their marriage - that this is recognized as valid, sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church. I base this on my reading of the Catholic Encyclopedia and vague things which I recal reading but cannot remember where. The key distinction is that the ministers of the sacrament of matrimony are the couple, not the person performing the ceremony.

If someone (or some ones) could confirm or deny my suspision, and also - if such things exist - offer a link to material which might discuss this, I would be most grateful.

There is one red herring that I think would get thrown into this thread: what are the sexual orientations of the people getting married?

I bring this point up because much has been made about the US Episcopal Church’s only openly gay bishop (who wants to marry his male partner in June) and about some Episcopalian priests officiating at “same sex” quasi-nuptial ceremonies that happen in their ecclesial communities. Obviously, if two men are “marrying each other” or, two women, then, it is not a sacramental marriage because the Church does not recognize “same sex” unions. This clearly goes against Church teaching, irregardless of the “couple” being baptized Christians.

 

[Morningkill]

Both of them are entirely heterosexual and they are of different genders

Sorry - I didn’t point that out because (alas for my innocence!) I am still used to the notion that only gurls and boyz get married to each other! I thought that it would be obvious - but in today’s crazy mixed-up world, who knows?!

I would not present homosexual relations (or even those who were homosexual) in such a positive light in one of my stories; I am actually using homosexuality as a device to illustrate the evil and depravity of a different character elsewhere and so - even if I could stomach the notion - such a thing would not be artistically valid.

 

[benedictgal]

Both of them are entirely heterosexual and they are of different genders

Sorry - I didn’t point that out because (alas for my innocence!) I am still used to the notion that only gurls and boyz get married to each other! I thought that it would be obvious - but in today’s crazy mixed-up world, who knows?!

I would not present homosexual relations (or even those who were homosexual) in such a positive light in one of my stories; I am actually using homosexuality as a device to illustrate the evil and depravity of a different character elsewhere and so - even if I could stomach the notion - such a thing would not be artistically valid.

I completely understand and I apologize for bringing it up. I figured that would be the only way that the marriage wouldn’t be recognized by the Church.

 

[Morningkill]

Oh - don’t apologize! I think this raises a very interesting point (although one outside of the original topic) - the fact that nowadays one CANNOT assume that everything will be “above board” as it were. We have to be constantly on guard - the fact that there are people who would even CONSIDER that a homosexual union could be a marriage is one which has caught us all by surprise. We need to react to such things and take care that we find out the full truth before supporting or not condemning anything.

 

[cameron_lansing]

Oh - don’t apologize! I think this raises a very interesting point (although one outside of the original topic) - the fact that nowadays one CANNOT assume that everything will be “above board” as it were.

Now you know the reason for the second paragraph of my initial response, and here’s the status in 1950.

Two persons, baptized Anglican, and marrying each other in the 1950’s in the U.K., were not bound to Catholic form for the validity of marriage. Twisting history below.*

As to the other point, canon 1012 §2 of the 1917 code made the same dogmatic assertion (in fact, verbatim) as canon 1055 §2 of the current code regarding the necessary sacramentality of marriage when contracted between the baptized.

---

*The Council of Trent (1545-1563) required the presence of a priest for the validity of marriage in a decree called Tametsi. But as one can imagine, baptized non Catholics were not at all likely to call on a Catholic priest when getting married among themselves. Consequently, the baptized who had split off to Anglicanism, Lutheranism, Presbyterianism, etc., pretty much all married invalidly.

While people from that first generation, so to speak, who knowingly and willingly left the Church by schism or heresy married invalidly, in time, so did their children, grandchildren, etc. All those later generations were born into non Catholic religions without personal fault but still bound to Tametsi.

In time, there was a growing assessment of this as a true hardship to souls by the Holy See and a desire to remedy this situation. Since the requirement of a Catholic priest was a matter of disciplinary rather than divine law, the requirement could be changed.

So the Benedictine declaration (1741) exempted baptized non Catholics (whom we did not call “separated brethren” at the time) from this requirement. However both Tametsi and the declaration were unevenly promulgated. In some countries they were promulgated and effective. Where not promulgated, they were not effective. This got really messy.

Ne Temere (issued in 1907 but not in effect until the following year) was promulgated everywhere though. It exempted non Catholics, whether baptized as non Catholics or unbaptized, in marriage among themselves, from the obligation to observe the Catholic form of betrothal or marriage. It had some other elements which caused consternation and complicated things though.

The dust seemed to settle when Ne Temere was effectively incorporated into canon 1099 §2 of the 1917 code. However, there did exist some complexities and even doubts of law related to lapsed or apostate Catholics and their children as well as the children of non Catholics who were baptized Catholic but not raised so. There were also significant pieces of legislation in 1930 and in 1948 about that. Until then, you had to keep both a time chart and a map handy to make sense of any given case. I heard of one case where the number of religious medals a person had in childhood were evaluated to figure out if the person were bound to canonical form. So I suppose you also had to be good in math.

But effectively in August 1948, Pius XII made Catholic baptism the basis for obligation to canonical form and nothing else. (The new code recomplicated that but that’s another discussion).

Fortunately, this scenario avoids those matters and there isn’t a lot of call to examine marriages from those times for invalidity due to lack of canonical form these days. So I will not comment on them.

 

[Rose_Maniple]

There is one red herring that I think would get thrown into this thread: what are the sexual orientations of the people getting married?

I bring this point up because much has been made about the US Episcopal Church’s only openly gay bishop (who wants to marry his male partner in June) and about some Episcopalian priests officiating at “same sex” quasi-nuptial ceremonies that happen in their ecclesial communities. Obviously, if two men are “marrying each other” or, two women, then, it is not a sacramental marriage because the Church does not recognize “same sex” unions. This clearly goes against Church teaching, irregardless of the “couple” being baptized Christians.

No Province of the Anglican Communion currently recognises the sacramental validity of same-sex marriages. In some jurisdictions, a blessing may be pronounced on the couple, but such a blessing would be considered a “sacramental” (like holy water, or the blessing of chalk on Epiphany) rather than the sacrament of Matrimony. This may change in the future in some parts of the Communion, but at the moment same-sex unions are not reckoned as having parity with opposite-sex marriages.

 

[DL82]

Oh, I don’t think that it’s worth disturbing them for something like this - the advice I have got here is very good, and certainly confirms what I already knew.

Well, the story is set in the 1950s, although it is unlikely that what consitutes a valid sacrament will have changed since then.

I’m not sure when the Pope ruled on the invalidity of Anglican sacraments, but I think it was a grey area for a while. Might have been post-Vatican II. Pre-Vatican II however, the Church had a much more exclusive understanding of its relationship to non-Catholic Christians, with a much more literal understanding of extra ecclesia nulla salus. Might be worth speaking to some older Catholics who remember that period if you want accuracy. Probably worth speaking to them anyway, and making close observation, so that the dialogue, language, manners, etc. of your characters are accurate too.