Spouses as Ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage?

[1ke]

Also, in the US, they are not civilly married either.

That depends on what state they live in. There are 8 US states that recognize common law marriage.

• Colorado.
• Iowa.
• Kansas.
• Montana.
• New Hampshire.
• South Carolina.
• Texas.
• Utah.

 

[tafan2]

But simply exchanging private vows makes no difference with regards to common law marriage, at least in my state. Perhaps other states are different.

 

[Vico]

Interesting. So, hypothetically, if a man and woman, in the presence of some witnesses, simply say “we take each other in marriage”, or somesuch, that’s a valid marriage? In the church? I find that a bit of a head scratcher as it kind of upends my notions of marriage!

Yes under certain circumstances. CIC = Latin Canon Law, CCEO = Eastern Canon Law

CIC

Can. 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.
_____[ADD C. 1116 §3 (De concordia inter Codices, 15 September 2016)]
§3. In judging the cases, mentioned in §1, nn. 1 and 2, the local ordinary can give to any catholic priest the faculty of blessing the marriage of the Christian faithful of an Eastern Church which does not have full communion with the Catholic Church if [those faithful] voluntarily ask for this, as long as nothing stands in the way of a valid and licit celebration [of the marriage]. The same priest, always with necessary prudence, is to inform the competent authority of the non-Catholic Church, who are concerned, of the fact.

CCEO

Canon 832 - §1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:
1° in danger of death;
2° outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
§2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.
§3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.

 

[acanonlawyer]

1623 In the Latin Church, …

That paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was modified in the “typical” (second) edition and now it reads: “According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.”

Dan

 

[acanonlawyer]

In fact, there are plenty of open questions in sacramental theology. The first papal document that explicitly claims this is Amoris Laetitia.

To what in Amoris laetitia are you referring?

Dan

 

[Vico]

hope:

1623 In the Latin Church, …

That paragraph of the Catechism of the Catholic Church was modified in the “typical” (second) edition and now it reads: “According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ’s grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses, but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.”

Dan

Also, it can be valid without a blessing.

CCEO

Can 828. §1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.

 

[sealabeag]

Definitely learned a lot from all the answers in this thread on a question I’ve had for a long time! Thanks guys.

 

[sealabeag]

Interesting. So just a couple of questions if you don’t mind:
If a couple did just do a “We agree to be married” type of situation, with no witnesses and no priest, would this be valid but illicit, or neither valid or licit or what?
Second: You mentioned non Catholics - What, lets say on a “natural law” level, constitutes two people being married as opposed to being simply cohabiting/fornicating etc.? A simple exchange of vows?
Would a non-Christian married couple need to go through a Catholic marriage ceremony for it to be recognised in the Church?
Sorry for so many questions, this stuff just interests me.

 

[otjm]

There are some canon lawyers who argue we no longer require canonical form. It is only imposed on Catholics. If two non-Catholic Christians were to marry we, i.e. the Catholic Church, would recognise their marriage as a valid, sacramental marriage even though they had not observed canonical form.

I am not sure who, in your first sentence, “we” refers to. Two baptized Christians (not Catholics) have no duty to follow canonical form; as long as they intend marriage as the Church intends it, they can get married in front of their pastor, deacon, or other authorized church official, or in front of a justice of the peace or any other individual properly deputed by the state they are in. As to common law marriage, I ahve never come across the issue, so I don’t resume to know how the Church would respond.

Perhaps you meant something else or I misread your post; but Protestants are presumed validly married by the Church, form as per the Church not required.

 

[1ke]

If a couple did just do a “We agree to be married” type of situation, with no witnesses and no priest, would this be valid but illicit, or neither valid or licit or what?

If one or both are Catholics, then this is an invalid attempt at marriage.

Second: You mentioned non Catholics - What, lets say on a “natural law” level, constitutes two people being married as opposed to being simply cohabiting/fornicating etc.? A simple exchange of vows?

Whatever civil law says it is.

Would a non-Christian married couple need to go through a Catholic marriage ceremony for it to be recognised in the Church?

No.

 

[1ke]

Unless the jurisdiction accepts common law marriage.

In the US there are 8 states that do so.

 

[dochawk]

That depends on what state they live in. There are 8 US states that recognize common law marriage.

Be careful with that list, though–it gets more restrictive every couple of years. I think that SC has changed since I left law school.

Typically, the law will state the two new Common Law marriages could begin.

At actual Common Law, it was seven (8?) years of cohabitations while holding themselves out as husband and wife that created it. That is, simply shacking up wasn’t enough, nor was just claiming marriage without meeting the time period.

Also, generally, a CL marriage started in a jurisdiction can be completed in another state.

I vaguely want to say that Texas doesn’t even have a time period (e.g., one night held out as married), but it’s been a while and I won’t stick to that.

But in no event is just the exchange of views enough for CL marriage; holding out as married is required (which necessarily creates a witness).

 

[kapp19]

Section 75. It is the first time it is directly stated in this way, by a teaching document of a pope. There have been less direct statements (like by Pius XII if I remember correctly), but not quite like that.

I personally find Cano’s arguments strong, but I wonder if custom has proven that the sensus fidei is in agreement with Bellarmine.

 

[TomH1]

I am not sure who, in your first sentence, “we” refers to.

I believe in the context in which it was employed it is clear: us, i.e. Latin Catholics.

Two baptized Christians (not Catholics) have no duty to follow canonical form

I know and that is what I said.

As to common law marriage

That is not really a marriage anyway. I was once in court where a solicitor referred to a man’s common law wife. He was interrupted and rebuked by the judge who informed him that common law made no provision for marriage.

I misread your post

I believe you have because your reply is not to what I wrote.

 

[TomH1]

If a couple did just do a “We agree to be married” type of situation, with no witnesses and no priest, would this be valid but illicit, or neither valid or licit or what?

As I said previously it would be considered invalid by the Church. It would, also, be recognised by no state. The couple simply would not be married.

Second: You mentioned non Catholics - What, lets say on a “natural law” level, constitutes two people being married as opposed to being simply cohabiting/fornicating etc.? A simple exchange of vows?
Would a non-Christian married couple need to go through a Catholic marriage ceremony for it to be recognised in the Church?
Sorry for so many questions, this stuff just interests me.

The answer to your question is really: It depends.

The Catholic Church only requires canonical form when the parties to the marriage are Catholics.

Let us say a man and a woman are both Lutherans and get married in a Lutheran church. The Catholic Church would consider their marriage valid and because they are both baptised Christians the Church would also consider it to be a sacrament.

If a Jewish couple married in a Jewish ceremony the Church would consider their marriage to be valid. Because neither are Christians the Church would consider their marriage to be natural but not a sacrament.

If a man and a woman who profess no faith were married in a civil ceremony the Church would consider the marriage valid and also natural.

If any of the couples in the above three examples were to become Catholics the Church would still recognise their marriages and not require them to do anything. If in the case of either the Jewish or non-believing marriages if both parties were baptised on baptism their marriages would become sacraments. I must emphasise they must both get baptised. If, for example, in the case of the Jewish couple, if the wife became a Catholic but the husband remained a Jew their marriage would not be a sacrament.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Section 75.

Oh, so in what you said here

This is a much more complex topic than people realize. In fact, there are plenty of open questions in sacramental theology. The first papal document that explicitly claims this is Amoris Laetitia.

the “this” in “that explicitly claims this” refers to the spouses being the ministers of the Sacrament, not to there being open questions in sacramental theology.

Dan

 

[otjm]

That is not really a marriage anyway. I was once in court where a solicitor referred to a man’s common law wife. He was interrupted and rebuked by the judge who informed him that common law made no provision for marriage.

Canada? It is legally recognized in a few states in the US, but not in mine (although in a long term relationship, the Court might make a “workaround”).

Thanks for responding; your post wasn’t clear to me.

 

[otjm]

Ah, it has been way too long. My recollection is that in Oregon, mixing finances over a long period of time may result in a proceeding, similar to a divorce, of a distribution of property. Beyond that, it no longer involves me. Too much water under the bridge and over the dam.

 

[dochawk]

yeah, that.

too much information, and too few reasons to use it over the years . . .

 

[TomH1]

When I said, ‘That is not really a marriage anyway.’ I was thinking more about what the Church teaches. I didn’t know anywhere accepted two people living together as if they were married.