Valid marriage?

[carn]

Male A and female B both have no prior relationship. Both are atheistic or leaning towards and unbaptized. They fall in love with each other and promise each other to be faithful till the end and have some children. They inform their relatives, friends and so on about their decision. They move together and hang some sign at their entrance “Here live A and B in undocumented marriage happily ever after” or so. They have children.

Some time later both find God, get baptized and so on.

Would the church have to consider them validly married?

Looking through this text:
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM

the answer seems to be yes:
"A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage. "

Assume A and B are living in some western country they are from secular law free to promise to each other, to be faithful till the end and establish a family. They had consent and their consent included having a permanent realtionship and obviously to have children.
So it seems all requirements are met.

 

[Vatican2Rocks]

i say yes
they can later get their marriage blessed to elevate it to sacramental union. this is usually done on sunday during mass in the presence of all the faithful.

 

[thistle]

Male A and female B both have no prior relationship. Both are atheistic or leaning towards and unbaptized. They fall in love with each other and promise each other to be faithful till the end and have some children. They inform their relatives, friends and so on about their decision. They move together and hang some sign at their entrance “Here live A and B in undocumented marriage happily ever after” or so. They have children.

Some time later both find God, get baptized and so on.

Would the church have to consider them validly married?

Looking through this text:
intratext.com/IXT/ENG0017/_P3U.HTM

the answer seems to be yes:
"A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power.

§2 Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman by an irrevocable covenant mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage. "

Assume A and B are living in some western country they are from secular law free to promise to each other, to be faithful till the end and establish a family. They had consent and their consent included having a permanent realtionship and obviously to have children.
So it seems all requirements are met.

Any non-Christian couple, including atheists (male and female) who have no impediments to getting married would be considered validly married but not sacramentally married.

 

[Phemie]

Any non-Christian couple, including atheists (male and female) who have no impediments to getting married would be considered validly married but not sacramentally married.

In the OP’s example I think it would depend on whether the couple lives in a state/province or country where common-law marriages exist. If they aren’t considered legally married where they live then I think they would have to remedy that when they became Catholic.

 

[carn]

In the OP’s example I think it would depend on whether the couple lives in a state/province or country where common-law marriages exist. If they aren’t considered legally married where they live then I think they would have to remedy that when they became Catholic.

It follows from canon law that a common-law marriage is presumed to be a valid marriage.

I did not see the opposite that if there is a relationship that meets in principal all marriage requirements (especially reagarding intent and promises) but was not formed according to common-law rules is presumed to be non-valid.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Male A and female B both have no prior relationship. Both are atheistic or leaning towards and unbaptized. They fall in love with each other and promise each other to be faithful till the end and have some children. They inform their relatives, friends and so on about their decision. They move together and hang some sign at their entrance “Here live A and B in undocumented marriage happily ever after” or so. They have children.

Some time later both find God, get baptized and so on.

Would the church have to consider them validly married?

This armchair non-Canon-lawyer says: yes. Do you find this somehow problematic or disturbing?
PS. Their post-marriage baptisms are irrelevant to the question of validity.

i say yes
they can later get their marriage blessed to elevate it to sacramental union. this is usually done on sunday during mass in the presence of all the faithful.

No. If they are validly married and then become baptized, they are then sacramentally married.

tee
Still an armchair non-Canon-lawyer

 

[Chatter163]

It follows from canon law that a common-law marriage is presumed to be a valid marriage.

How so?

 

[PatriceA]

According to this answer on EWTN, if the couple in the OP doesn’t have some kind of legal form or marriage license to produce, it would not be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

search.yahoo.com/r/_ylt=A0oG7jKmzbtP2HMAPWFXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyN3NsZjR1BHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMQRjb2xvA2FjMgR2dGlkA0g0NjZfODE-/SIG=13gs1qoir/EXP=1337736742/**http%3a//www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage.asp%3fPgnu=1%26Pg=Forum9%26recnu=15%26number=482700

 

[carn]

This armchair non-Canon-lawyer says: yes. Do you find this somehow problematic or disturbing?

Irritating.

I think i know a few couples, who might be considered to have a valid marriage in that case, although they are not aware that the church might consider them married. (And most probably would not care but its still interesting.)

Specifically i know a couple having two children with a sign next to their entrance door, declaring themselves to live in an undocumented marriage. Therefore i started to muse about the idea, what cannon law perspective might be upon that. (Though with these real life example i completely lack knowledge about prior relationships of the two or even if their two children are both biologically theirs. But i have no reason to presume anything regarding that.)

@PatriceA
from your link:
“Canon law requires some “form” (or “format” for marriage) (canons 1057; 1128, §2; 1161, §2; 1162). For a marriage involving one or two Catholics, this means the requirement of canonical form – i.e. that the consent be exchanged before a priest or deacon and two witnesses. For marriage involving two non-Cahtolics, the “form” can be any public form. (“Public” in a canonical sense means that it can be proven through documents or witnesses, not that it is announced in the newspaper.)”

So for non-catholics its enough to have some witnesses confirming they exchanged promise and so on. No need for the state.

 

[PatriceA]

Irritating.

I think i know a few couples, who might be considered to have a valid marriage in that case, although they are not aware that the church might consider them married. (And most probably would not care but its still interesting.)

Specifically i know a couple having two children with a sign next to their entrance door, declaring themselves to live in an undocumented marriage. Therefore i started to muse about the idea, what cannon law perspective might be upon that. (Though with these real life example i completely lack knowledge about prior relationships of the two or even if their two children are both biologically theirs. But i have no reason to presume anything regarding that.)

@PatriceA
from your link:
“Canon law requires some “form” (or “format” for marriage) (canons 1057; 1128, §2; 1161, §2; 1162). For a marriage involving one or two Catholics, this means the requirement of canonical form – i.e. that the consent be exchanged before a priest or deacon and two witnesses. For marriage involving two non-Cahtolics, the “form” can be any public form. (“Public” in a canonical sense means that it can be proven through documents or witnesses, not that it is announced in the newspaper.)”

So for non-catholics its enough to have some witnesses confirming they exchanged promise and so on. No need for the state.

And if you read the next paragraph:

This results in the conclusion that a common law marriage is not valid in the eyes of God and his Church because of the “lack of form.” (This is distinct from a “defect of form,” which is a marriage involving one or two Catholics which is invalid because it did not take place in the Catholic Church.)

 

[carn]

This results in the conclusion that a common law marriage is not valid in the eyes of God and his Church because of the “lack of form.” (This is distinct from a “defect of form,” which is a marriage involving one or two Catholics which is invalid because it did not take place in the Catholic Church.)

But what form is required of non-catholics?

There does not seem to be any required form.

 

[PatriceA]

But what form is required of non-catholics?

There does not seem to be any required form.

According to the rest of the answer provided in the link, its a marriage license or some other legal document:

However, the problem that is coming up is that the priest is requiring a civil marriage license. So the two sets of laws interact at this point. The priest is requiring this because he is obligated by canon law to make sure that a marriage he celebrates is also civilly valid (canon 1071, §1, 2°). Also in the United States, priests act as civil officials as well as Church officials in officiating at marriages, and most states have some sort of penalties that would be imposed on a priest who celebrated religious ceremony without a valid civil bond also being effected.

This results in a priest being unable to proceed to celebrate a wedding without a marriage license. Or in the case of a convalidation, the priest will ask for a copy of the marriage license so that he is sure that the civil marriage already exists. The problem here is that the couple is unable to provide a civil marriage license because a common law marriage does not require one.

To solve this problem, perhaps there is a way of documenting the civil validity of the common law marriage. Perhaps you, as an attorney, know of a way of doing this. I would think that some sort of notarized affidavit involving both parties would be sufficient as a civilly valid proof of the existence of the civil marriage bond. This document can then be given to the priest in lieu of a copy of a marriage license. Then the priest can proceed as usual with the marriage.

 

[carn]

According to the rest of the answer provided in the link, its a marriage license or some other legal document:

That would mean non-catholics from some parts of africa are never considered married by the church, as in some parts there is simply nothing that could be called a state.

 

[Chatter163]

That would mean non-catholics from some parts of africa are never considered married by the church, as in some parts there is simply nothing that could be called a state.

Where? Last time I checked, all of Africa had been divided into nations.

 

[carn]

Where? Last time I checked, all of Africa had been divided into nations.

And there are everywhere where people live functioning state agencies?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state#2011

"proposed by the Fund for Peace, are often used to characterize a failed state:

loss of control of its territory, or of the monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force therein,
erosion of legitimate authority to make collective decisions,
an inability to provide public services, and
an inability to interact with other states as a full member of the international community.
"

Check the map on the right in wiki, it is possible that in that in some areas large red block of failed states it might be pretty hard to find any government official of the state existing on paper.

Reading this:
africanweddingtraditions.com/african-wedding-rituals.html
i cannot see anything about going to some government office. If boiling it down to the actual necessary elements, most of these wedding rituals consist of nothing more than asking some relatives permission and announcing that one is wed to most relatives, frends and neighbors in some fashion.

Nothing else do A and B do, although they do not ask anyones permission.

And in practice government often means nothing but the group with the most guns, swords or spears. Why should catholic recognition of non-catholic marriages depend on the recognition of the marriage by the locally strongest brigand band?

 

[PatriceA]

That would mean non-catholics from some parts of africa are never considered married by the church, as in some parts there is simply nothing that could be called a state.

Consulting a priest on the matter would then be needed. Perhaps they wouldn’t be recognized. But that doesn’t negate the teachings of the Church provided in the answer on EWTN. I’m not making up the teachings, its not my personal opinion. And how does living in Africa pertain to the couple in question in the OP? In the OP, you asked about a couple that the answer on EWTN would address, you seem not to like the answer given. You may not agree with the Church, but that doesn’t mean that the teachings of the Church are in error.

 

[HelenRose]

This really is an interesting question.

As for the Church, I don’t see a problem at all in establishing a sacramental marriage.
The Church would no doubt expect the couple to follow the norms of their cultural and laws of their country.

I see a problem with this kind of relationship in the secular world. Let us say that the man (or the woman) is in the military. I don’t think the military would acknowedge this relationship and give military benefits to the partner.

Also, the contract between this couple would need to be carefully and legally written out. If one of the partners become serious ill, his or her family can take charge of the situation and excude the other partner of visitation rights.

Back to the Church question: What if a couple has been in this relationship and then separate. Would they need to get an annulment to marry someone else in the Church? My guess is no they would not.

 

[jilly4ski]

Also, the contract between this couple would need to be carefully and legally written out. If one of the partners become serious ill, his or her family can take charge of the situation and excude the other partner of visitation rights.

This is actually not that big of a deal right now. It is called a healthcare directive, that combined with a power of attorney, and a living will (to express your own wishes) would give that person sole discretion over your healthcare (and financial) decisions, leaving the rest of the family out of it.

 

[HelenRose]

This is actually not that big of a deal right now. It is called a healthcare directive, that combined with a power of attorney, and a living will (to express your own wishes) would give that person sole discretion over your healthcare (and financial) decisions, leaving the rest of the family out of it.

You are right. But I know a number of young couples who do not have a clue about doing this and they are not interested in making even that much of a commitment. The love they feel for one another is “free, open and honest” . They reject the concept of practical day to day advice from the mundane world.

I believe also, that in making these legal contracts, a couple is in the eyes of the state married and have the same obligations as couples who have married in the more traditional way. If they decide to go their separate ways the legal battles in terms of property held would be the same. Battles about child support and custody would also be the same.

P.S. Back to the original question. I think that the Church is more understanding than the state.

 

[carn]

But that doesn’t negate the teachings of the Church provided in the answer on EWTN. I’m not making up the teachings, its not my personal opinion.

The question that is answered in the link is not identically to the answer i seek here:

"Canon law requires some “form” (or “format” for marriage) (canons 1057; 1128, §2; 1161, §2; 1162). For a marriage involving one or two Catholics, this means the requirement of canonical form – i.e. that the consent be exchanged before a priest or deacon and two witnesses. For marriage involving two non-Cahtolics, the “form” can be any public form. (“Public” in a canonical sense means that it can be proven through documents or witnesses, not that it is announced in the newspaper.)

This results in the conclusion that a common law marriage is not valid in the eyes of God and his Church because of the “lack of form.”"

The writer simply concludes that common-law marriage is not valid. He can do so, because en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage#Essential_distinctions
“Common-law marriages are not solemnized before witnesses in a wedding ceremony.” and therefore cannot meet the public criteria.

I made the mistake of not being aware that common-law marriage has a distinctive meaning especially in leagl terms, otherwise i should have corrected it immidieately. What i describe in the OP is not a common-law marriage according to the usual e.g. wiki definition, because
"They fall in love with each other and promise each other to be faithful till the end and have some children. They inform their relatives, friends and so on about their decision. "

There are promises exchanged and witnesses can testify to that.
And its made public:
“They move together and hang some sign at their entrance”

Therefore what A and B have is not common-law marriage according to wiki definition.

And the argument from the EWTN - lack of public form - cannot be applied to OP, A and B make it known they are married. They just do not bother to tell the state about it.

And how does living in Africa pertain to the couple in question in the OP?

One understands rules, if one can apply them to different circumstances.
The other way round, if one applies them to different circumstances and fails, one has yet not understood (I assume my conclusion that the church would consider all traditional african marriages invalid, as they are often undocumented and just declared verbally to relatives and people known, to be false, because it sounds like a wrong conclusion).