Valid marriage?

[HelenRose]

…

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.

‘’’’’’’’’

.

I am taking this statement out of your other points. (I may agree or disagree but they are good points to make)

In the case of your hypothical couple they may believe that the state is unaware of their arrangement. But in the event of their separation the laws of the our state governments will certainly come into play if one or the another files suit.

I doubt if a Priest would validate their marriage if they did not conform to the laws and norms of their own country unless there is some pressing reason not to: for instance if they lived in a country that had laws against Christian marriages,

 

[PatriceA]

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.

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).

Is that not the definition of co-habitating? Last time I checked, co-habitating is frown upon by the Catholic Church. Sounds like you’re trying to find a loop hole where there is none.

I can declare myself the queen of the US and make a vow or take an oath with plenty of witnesses, hang a sign outside my door saying so, but it doesn’t make it true.

 

[jilly4ski]

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.

I don’t understand the bolded part of what you have written. Making these contracts or giving someone power over your healthcare or financial decisions if you become incapacitated in no way means “married.” You can give this power to whomever you want, including your parents, a sibling, a child (who is of age), a friend, a priest, etc. The state automatically gives these powers to a married couple by operation of law, but a married person could sign a power of attorney to someone besides their spouse if they don’t trust their spouse with financial matters or etc. Thus creating legal arraignments for property or healthcare or etc. does not and should not give people with these forms a ''married" status nor receive benefits from the State or other entities who recognize “traditional” marriage.

 

[HelenRose]

I don’t understand the bolded part of what you have written. Making these contracts or giving someone power over your healthcare or financial decisions if you become incapacitated in no way means “married.” You can give this power to whomever you want, including your parents, a sibling, a child (who is of age), a friend, a priest, etc. The state automatically gives these powers to a married couple by operation of law, but a married person could sign a power of attorney to someone besides their spouse if they don’t trust their spouse with financial matters or etc. Thus creating legal arraignments for property or healthcare or etc. does not and should not give people with these forms a ''married" status nor receive benefits from the State or other entities who recognize “traditional” marriage.

I am making these statements as a warning to couples who think that they are avoiding “commitments” because they are not “legally” married.

Many couples think of themselves free of the mundane civil and legal constraints that marriage affords. What they are really doing is accepting the restraints of marriage without the benefits of marriage.

Except for the expression “I am in a relationship”, nothing makes me cringe as much the announcement of a “Commitment Ceremony.” I wonder what in the world does that mean.

 

[HelenRose]

I am coming from the position of a grandmother and an aunt who has been blessed with the responsibility over the years of caring for a good number of children: my own, my nieces and nephew and foster children. I have watched these children struggle as they grow up. They make mistakes and have often had very skewed concepts of love, life and marriage. This does not keep me from loving them dearly. It does keep me praying a lot for them.

Presently I am thinking a young woman whose concept of marriage has been rather casual to say the least. She is now very much in love with a military man. Marriage has suddenly become important to her.

 

[jilly4ski]

I am making these statements as a warning to couples who think that they are avoiding “commitments” because they are not “legally” married.

Many couples think of themselves free of the mundane civil and legal constraints that marriage affords. What they are really doing is accepting the restraints of marriage without the benefits of marriage.

Except for the expression “I am in a relationship”, nothing makes me cringe as much the announcement of a “Commitment Ceremony.” I wonder what in the world does that mean.

Indeed, shacking up is one of the worst legal moves someone can do, unless they seriously think about it consult a lawyer and draft the necessary documents, they are in a world of hurt if the relationship ever goes south. (Of course the legal docs aren’t going to help make it better morally ).

 

[constantconvert]

 

[carn]

Is that not the definition of co-habitating? Last time I checked, co-habitating is frown upon by the Catholic Church. Sounds like you’re trying to find a loop hole where there is none.

I do not know any definition of cohabitating except man and women living together without being married.
I do not know any definition of non-catholic marriage, excep requiring some public form, promise and intent to be faithful and be open to children.

I know that any catholic would look t my example couple and instinctively say “What they do is wrong, they are not married.” and would look at all those traditional weddings e.g. in africa and instinctively say “Well, they are nt catholics, but they are married and its ok.”

But when to nail down, why these reactions are correct, i fail.
Because the only thing different with the tradional african marriages is that its its custom in those regions. But customs are nothing but what humans usually do and therefore if couples in the US or europe start to just proclaim “we are married.” then thats simplya new custom.

So i cannot see the obvious element that makes it cohabiting.

Normally the obvious element is the lack of commitement, the lack of promise and the lack of public. But if someone hangs a sign at their door “Here live X and Y in undocumented marriage”, i can no longer assume a lack of commitment, a lack of promise and a lack of publicity.

I can declare myself the queen of the US and make a vow or take an oath with plenty of witnesses, hang a sign outside my door saying so, but it doesn’t make it true.

But the point about marriage is:
“Can. 1057 §1. The consent of the parties, legitimately manifested between persons quali-fied by law, makes marriage; no human power is able to supply this consent.”

At its core marriage is nothing more than a mutual declaration of a man and a woman that they are married. For catholics additional requirements are set. For non-catholics few requirements exist beyond that, except publicity.

Which in basic means that if two non-catholics use a megaphone to inform the (completely uninterested) visitors of the shopping mall “we are hereby married and will stay together faithful till the end and hopefully have many nice children”, then the church has to assume they are married from that moment on (till contrary evidence arises). It contains all necessary elements and its some public form, although an unusual one.

 

[Vico]

From the Archdiocese of Los Angeles website:

The Catholic Church presumes that every marriage – whether it involves a Catholic or not – is valid until the contrary is proven. This presumption is unaffected by the granting of a civil divorce.

…

In judging the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics, a Church Tribunal does not apply those positive laws of the Catholic Church which affect only marriages involving a Catholic, but only those principles arising from the natural law or divine positive law which affect the validity of any marriage.

In particular, the Catholic Church holds that certain elements belong to the very nature or essence of marriage itself as determined by the Creator and are not optional elements that can be included or excluded at will. Consequently their positive exclusion from marriage consent would make that consent invalid.

[Taken from *Roman Replies and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1997, pp. 25-26.]
archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/respondents.html

 

[carn]

From the Archdiocese of Los Angeles website:

The Catholic Church presumes that every marriage – whether it involves a Catholic or not – is valid until the contrary is proven. This presumption is unaffected by the granting of a civil divorce.

…

In judging the validity of the marriage of two non-Catholics, a Church Tribunal does not apply those positive laws of the Catholic Church which affect only marriages involving a Catholic, but only those principles arising from the natural law or divine positive law which affect the validity of any marriage.

In particular, the Catholic Church holds that certain elements belong to the very nature or essence of marriage itself as determined by the Creator and are not optional elements that can be included or excluded at will. Consequently their positive exclusion from marriage consent would make that consent invalid.

[Taken from *Roman Replies

and CLSA Advisory Opinions 1997, pp. 25-26.]
archdiocese.la/prayer/sacraments/tribunal/respondents.html

As far as i understood these elements are just consent, promise of faithfulness, intent to have children and public form.

Since in the OP example, presumably many of the traditional marriages in africa (some are polygamous) and in the “mall wedding” example all these elements are present, it seems they are all valid marriages from catholic viewpoint.

The normal cohabiting often done today is still not valid, because it lacks some or all these elements.

 

[Vico]

As far as i understood these elements are just consent, promise of faithfulness, intent to have children and public form.

Since in the OP example, presumably many of the traditional marriages in africa (some are polygamous) and in the “mall wedding” example all these elements are present, it seems they are all valid marriages from catholic viewpoint.

The normal cohabiting often done today is still not valid, because it lacks some or all these elements.

Generally meaning, was not free in consenting to marry, or did not understand marriage as the Church means it, or did not mean what was said, or did not have the capacity to carry it out, or an impediment that cannot be dispensed.

Including diriment impediments of age, impotence, difference of worship – baptized and unbaptized, Sacred Orders, solemn vows, abduction, crime - adultery, homicide, or both, relationship, or affinity within proscribed degrees, spiritual relationship, legal relationship - adoption when State forbids marriage between adopter and adopted, clandestinity, public decency.

And the Catholic Church recognizes the diriment impediments of non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities when their members are parties to a marriage.