Validity of marriage?

[Truth_Faith13]

Could someone explain why a baptised catholic who married outside the church is not considered validly married and therefore still living in sin?

I could understand why you would prefer a Catholic Church wedding, but why are they considered to be living in sin? By law they would be married?

 

[1ke]

Could someone explain why a baptised catholic who married outside the church is not considered validly married and therefore still living in sin?

Because the Church requires Catholic form or a dispensation from it for validity.

Can.* 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

An attempt at marriage by a Catholic that lacks form or dispensation from it is not valid.

I could understand why you would prefer a Catholic Church wedding,

It is not a matter of preference, it is a matter of what is required.

but why are they considered to be living in sin?

Because they are not married to each other. Therefore, they are objectively violating the sixth commandment.

It would be better to say it is grave matter, rather than “sin”, since we do not know if they are even aware of the requirements of the Church. Sometimes they can be invalidly married due to ignorance, not defiance.

By law they would be married?

By civil law, perhaps.

But, no, not by Canon Law.

 

[4love2God]

I think that 1Ke was a little over-zealous in his response.

Whatever the Catholic doctrine says about marriage, it is just the Church’s opinion.
This has more to do with the availability of getting a Divorce, than the Church calling everyone fornicaters.

An officially sanctioned Catholic service (with the 6 months of pre-marriage indoctrination), is the way that most practicing Catholics should strive for. As part of the marriage, the couple also receives the Sacrament of marriage.

Probably 95% of ALL marriages are not done by the above method.
This does not give liberty to Catholics to call all Islamicly-married couples fornicaters, or Jews, or Buddhist, or ____ (fill in the Blank).

And, also remember, that if a priest performs the formal Catholic marriage, but does not ALSO have the benefit of a state-issued Marriage License, then the marriage is not legal (and everyone can call them fornicaters, even with the Church’s sanction being given to it).

 

[Cristiano]

I think that 1Ke was a little over-zealous in his response.

Whatever the Catholic doctrine says about marriage, it is just the Church’s opinion.
This has more to do with the availability of getting a Divorce, than the Church calling everyone fornicaters.

An officially sanctioned Catholic service (with the 6 months of pre-marriage indoctrination), is the way that most practicing Catholics should strive for. As part of the marriage, the couple also receives the Sacrament of marriage.

Probably 95% of ALL marriages are not done by the above method.
This does not give liberty to Catholics to call all Islamicly-married couples fornicaters, or Jews, or Buddhist, or ____ (fill in the Blank).

And, also remember, that if a priest performs the formal Catholic marriage, but does not ALSO have the benefit of a state-issued Marriage License, then the marriage is not legal (and everyone can call them fornicaters, even with the Church’s sanction being given to it).

I think that it is better to stick with 1ke answer that is very accurate. In this post I see quite a few misleading statements.
First when the Church doctrine says something about marriage we are not hearing just “the Church opinion”, we are hearing the Truth. When we hear about Curch disciplines what we hear is the power of a law, power granted by God.
The discipline of the Church about marriage in the Church has nothing to do with the availability of divorce. It predates divorce quite a bit. The Church role is not to call people fornicators but to remind fornicators that salvation is at risk.
The only marriage between two Catholics is a sacramental one, there is no other option, one and complete or nothing. Playing with a difference between ecclesiastical and secular marriage is the equivalent of saying “I am a Catholic” and “I am not a Catholic” at the same time, it goes against the principle of non contradiction.
Catholics do not have the right to call Jews or Muslims fornicators because they are not. The Church recognizes those marriages as valid and denying that is being a false witness.
If a priest is given the faculties to celebrate a marriage even without a marriage license from the state then the marriage in truth is a marriage. In that case people could call the couple fornicators but that would be grave matter because it is being a false witness.
Marriage comes from God given natural law, it is raised to the level of a sacrament through Christ, and it is acknowledged by secular law.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Thanks for your responses, I guess what I was asking is where does the teaching come from? With all other issues, I can see writings in the early church fathers, tradition, the bible etc etc, but I can’t see where this teaching would come from?

It is my understanding that Jesus wants us to respect the law, but if a marriage is legal, why isn’t it valid? I understand that catholics see the validity of non catholic weddings, I understand that if a catholic is married outside the Catholic Church it is not valid, but I don’t understand why this teaching is in place, where it came from etc?

The Catholic Church obviously accepts legal marriages as otherwise non catholic marriages wouldn’t be valid…so where did this extra bit come from?

Confused…

 

[Cristiano]

Thanks for your responses, I guess what I was asking is where does the teaching come from? With all other issues, I can see writings in the early church fathers, tradition, the bible etc etc, but I can’t see where this teaching would come from?

It is my understanding that Jesus wants us to respect the law, but if a marriage is legal, why isn’t it valid? I understand that catholics see the validity of non catholic weddings, I understand that if a catholic is married outside the Catholic Church it is not valid, but I don’t understand why this teaching is in place, where it came from etc?

The Catholic Church obviously accepts legal marriages as otherwise non catholic marriages wouldn’t be valid…so where did this extra bit come from?

Confused…

I think that your confusion comes from accepting secular legality independently or above Church legality. That is not possible for Catholics because of the principle of non contradiction. I have to admit that a lot of Catholics fall in that pitfall because today it is not common to think in terms of Church law.
Now you are asking why the marriage outside the Catholic Church is not valid and where the rule comes from. First a person could get married outside the physical building of a Church once a proper authorization is given, but from a legal point of view that is still being married in the Catholic Church because the Church herself is not constrained to a building. Now the rule to perform Catholic marriages in the Curch it is because of the public liturgical aspect of the rite of marriage. Marriage is a sacrament between three beings: God, man, and woman, and the sacramental liturgy by norm happens in sacred spaces where the community of faithfuls is present. For the same reasons we have baptism, confession, communion, confirmation, holy orders, and the funeral rite in a sacred space. You can also see that sometimes sacramental liturgy is approved outside sacred spaces: Mass on the battlefield, annointing of the sick at home, funeral at sea etc.
One of the problems is that in the past few decades the hedonistic part of our culture influenced the concept and ritual of marriage creating a departure from its true meaning. Now more Catholics look at weddings as self glorification and entertainment thus as a consequence you see an ever increasing number of divorces and annulments.
The extra bit that you mentioned about the other marriages is that they are not Catholic but at least they are perormed in accordance with natural law. Natural law marriages are valid.

 

[1ke]

I think that 1Ke was a little over-zealous in his response.

Accurate. Not overzealous.

Whatever the Catholic doctrine says about marriage, it is just the Church’s opinion.

No, Church doctrine is revealed truth of divine revelation.

Church law contains doctrine, and it also contains discipline. Those aspects of Church law that are disciplinary are not “opinions”. They bind Catholics absolutely.

This has more to do with the availability of getting a Divorce, than the Church calling everyone fornicaters.

The question posed has nothing to do with divorce. It has to do with failure to marry validly.

Probably 95% of ALL marriages are not done by the above method.
This does not give liberty to Catholics to call all Islamicly-married couples fornicaters, or Jews, or Buddhist, or ____ (fill in the Blank).

No one asserted this. You are defending a statement no one made.

The original question was about Catholics, therefore the answer given was about Catholics.

Why is it that people get upset about something written, accuse others of being overzealous, when the root of the problem is a failure to actually read what has been written?

And, also remember, that if a priest performs the formal Catholic marriage, but does not ALSO have the benefit of a state-issued Marriage License, then the marriage is not legal (and everyone can call them fornicaters, even with the Church’s sanction being given to it).

The marriage would be valid, a real marriage. Legality is irrelevant.

 

[1ke]

Thanks for your responses, I guess what I was asking is where does the teaching come from? With all other issues, I can see writings in the early church fathers, tradition, the bible etc etc, but I can’t see where this teaching would come from?

It is my understanding that Jesus wants us to respect the law, but if a marriage is legal, why isn’t it valid? I understand that catholics see the validity of non catholic weddings, I understand that if a catholic is married outside the Catholic Church it is not valid, but I don’t understand why this teaching is in place, where it came from etc?

The Catholic Church obviously accepts legal marriages as otherwise non catholic marriages wouldn’t be valid…so where did this extra bit come from?

Confused…

Marriage is a sacrament between the baptized. The Church is the authority over ALL sacraments, given that authority by God.

Therefore, the Church can set requirements for validity, enumerate impediments, and regulate form just as she does for all other sacraments.

The Church does not currently assert authority over those non-Catholic Christian sacraments that are valid (despite objectively having such authority)-- baptism and marriage-- this has not always been the case.

 

[Southernbelle12]

The way I see it, Catholics are a bit like those in the armed forces…
They are bound by the rules of the secular state like everyone else. But they are also bound by another layer of law, military law. Two layers of law to follow.

A Catholic that is married in a non Catholic rite or without the required dispensation is not married under canon law. In fact, there are a number of reasons a Catholic may not be married under canon law, not just the above example, which is called “defect of form”. But if everything was legal, under the state, he is married under secular law. Two layers.

Civil divorce for the secular law, annulment for the canon law, if possible. The annulment depends on the circumstances of the marriage.

Two layers.

That’s the way I think of it. I hope it’s correct?

Don’t know when or why it came about, but I would guess something about consolidating your assets in a young Church surrounded with Paganism. And also. It makes those getting married think very hard about the commitment they are agreeing to. Wise.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Marriage is a sacrament between the baptized. The Church is the authority over ALL sacraments, given that authority by God.

Therefore, the Church can set requirements for validity, enumerate impediments, and regulate form just as she does for all other sacraments.

The Church does not currently assert authority over those non-Catholic Christian sacraments that are valid (despite objectively having such authority)-- baptism and marriage-- this has not always been the case.

It always fascinated me that the Church asserts authority over this particular sacrament, but has not done so with regard to other sacraments which are far more problematic, notably Holy Orders (illicit ordination), and to a lesser extent baptism.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

The way I see it, Catholics are a bit like those in the armed forces…
They are bound by the rules of the secular state like everyone else. But they are also bound by another layer of law, military law. Two layers of law to follow.

A Catholic that is married in a non Catholic rite or without the required dispensation is not married under canon law. In fact, there are a number of reasons a Catholic may not be married under canon law, not just the above example, which is called “defect of form”. But if everything was legal, under the state, he is married under secular law. Two layers.

Civil divorce for the secular law, annulment for the canon law, if possible. The annulment depends on the circumstances of the marriage.

Two layers.

That’s the way I think of it. I hope it’s correct?

Don’t know when or why it came about, but I would guess something about consolidating your assets in a young Church surrounded with Paganism. And also. It makes those getting married think very hard about the commitment they are agreeing to. Wise.

Ah that actually makes sense…thank you

 

[1ke]

It always fascinated me that the Church asserts authority over this particular sacrament, but has not done so with regard to other sacraments which are far more problematic, notably Holy Orders (illicit ordination), and to a lesser extent baptism.

I don’t know why you are under this impression.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

It’s no different than any other sacrament. Sacrament prep is needed. We don’t just allow just anyone to come and receive the Eucharist. One must be prepared for it. And trust me, speaking as a baptized Catholic who originally did NOT get married in the Church, that sacrament prep is extremely important. My husband and I had no idea what the Church taught about marriage and children for the first decade of our marriage. The way the Church does the sacrament of marriage for baptized Catholics is such a gift to us and the requirement offers us protection.

 

[Casilda]

Thanks for your responses, I guess what I was asking is where does the teaching come from? With all other issues, I can see writings in the early church fathers, tradition, the bible etc etc, but I can’t see where this teaching would come from?

It is my understanding that Jesus wants us to respect the law, but if a marriage is legal, why isn’t it valid? I understand that catholics see the validity of non catholic weddings, I understand that if a catholic is married outside the Catholic Church it is not valid, but I don’t understand why this teaching is in place, where it came from etc?

The Catholic Church obviously accepts legal marriages as otherwise non catholic marriages wouldn’t be valid…so where did this extra bit come from?

Confused…

Confused here, too. My otherwise valid marriage of over 3 decades, due to it being considered invalid, will now have to be ‘broken’. We are separating until this convalidation mess is sorted out. I do not understand this, my husband is now willing to be Catholic, and yet obstacle ontop of obstacle is being placed in our path. WHY? Instead of getting closer we are getting farther away. H E L P!

 

[CarrieSpooner]

Confused here, too. My otherwise valid marriage of over 3 decades, due to it being considered invalid, will now have to be ‘broken’. We are separating until this convalidation mess is sorted out. I do not understand this, my husband is now willing to be Catholic, and yet obstacle ontop of obstacle is being placed in our path. WHY? Instead of getting closer we are getting farther away. H E L P!

What obstacles are being placed in your way?

 

[Truth_Faith13]

Confused here, too. My otherwise valid marriage of over 3 decades, due to it being considered invalid, will now have to be ‘broken’. We are separating until this convalidation mess is sorted out. I do not understand this, my husband is now willing to be Catholic, and yet obstacle ontop of obstacle is being placed in our path. WHY? Instead of getting closer we are getting farther away. H E L P!

See that just makes me cross. Someone who has been married for 30years shouldn’t be broken. For a church that hates divorce, yet it’s willing to break up a legal marriage of 30years! Disgraceful

 

[CarrieSpooner]

See that just makes me cross. Someone who has been married for 30years shouldn’t be broken. For a church that hates divorce, yet it’s willing to break up a legal marriage of 30years! Disgraceful

What do you mean. #1 they didn’t have a valid marriage therefore the Church can not be blamed for breaking what never existed. #2 they don’t have to break up. Your anger is misdirected

 

[Truth_Faith13]

What do you mean. #1 they didn’t have a valid marriage therefore the Church can not be blamed for breaking what never existed. #2 they don’t have to break up. Your anger is misdirected

She said she felt like they were being pushed further apart and even used the word “broken”. They have had a legal marriage for 30years, that can’t be just viewed as nothing and yes you can blame the church as it’s only their teaching, not the legal law. Legally they are very much married. Outside of the church, it very much existed.

 

[CarrieSpooner]

She said she felt like they were being pushed further apart and even used the word “broken”. They have had a legal marriage for 30years, that can’t be just viewed as nothing and yes you can blame the church as it’s only their teaching, not the legal law. Legally they are very much married. Outside of the church, it very much existed.

I know she used those words but those are not accurate words to describe what the Church does. We will have to wait for a response for clarification about what she means. The Church does not view the legal marriage as nothing. They view it as precisely what it is - a legal civil marriage. That does not make it a valid marriage for the Catholic spouse. Objectively, this view does not cause anything to be broken. I, too, have personally been through this.

 

[Truth_Faith13]

I know she used those words but those are not accurate words to describe what the Church does. We will have to wait for a response for clarification about what she means. The Church does not view the legal marriage as nothing. They view it as precisely what it is - a legal civil marriage. That does not make it a valid marriage for the Catholic spouse. Objectively, this view does not cause anything to be broken. I, too, have personally been through this.

So from your understanding, if someone who has a legal civil marriage comes back to the church, what happens? What’s the process?

Edit, I also find it interesting how they will accept a non catholic baptism (which is a sacrament?) but they won’t accept a marriage from a non catholic church? (I know we don’t know where she married, this is just a general thought)