What is the difference between sacramental and civil marriage?

[friendlymomma]

I am new to the idea of marriage as a sacrament and am still trying to understand the implications of it. I understand there is a difference between civil marriage and a valid sacramental marriage. I have also learned that Protestants are considered to have a valid sacramental marriage if there are no impediments. But what does it mean if there are impediments, such as an unwillingness to have children? Are they guilty of fornication since their marriage is not valid? Would (civil) divorce be wrong for a couple like this?

 

[runningdude]

Well, in the ideal world, there would be no differences between a sacramental marriage and a “civil” marriage. Both would simply be Holy Matrimony.

For a Catholic, a “sacramental” marriage simply means a couple followed the church’s rules for marriage. If both spouses-to-be are baptized, the marriage provides additional graces. If only one party is baptized, then the marriage won’t provide these extra graces, but the marriage is still valid. A Catholic must marry according to church rules, even if marrying a non-Catholic.

Non-Catholics are bound by fewer rules than Catholics. While non-Catholics don’t need to be married by the Catholic Church, they are still bound to a life-long monogamous marriage. Non-Catholics could choose to be married by a judge, city clerk, a member of the clergy, etc, but cannot divorce. If both non-Catholics are baptized, then they will have a sacramental marriage; otherwise they will simply have a marriage.

A civil “marriage” refers to any situation where there is the appearance of a marriage, but one of the rules was not followed. For instance, a Catholic who doesn’t marry according to the Church’s rules, or someone who attempts to “remarry” following a divorce. They may possess the legal rights associated with marriage, but they are not truly married.

 

[SonCatcher]

I am new to the idea of marriage as a sacrament and am still trying to understand the implications of it. I understand there is a difference between civil marriage and a valid sacramental marriage. I have also learned that Protestants are considered to have a valid sacramental marriage if there are no impediments. But what does it mean if there are impediments, such as an unwillingness to have children? Are they guilty of fornication since their marriage is not valid? Would (civil) divorce be wrong for a couple like this?

Unfortunately, the correct response isn’t an answer: The marriage would have to be examined by a tribunal before it can be determined whether a sacramental marriage took place.

Theoretically, however, it is possible to address directly. If there is an impediment, such as the refusal of one or both spouses to accept children, then there is no marriage, objectively. they are in the objective state of fornication.

However, their culpability may be limited. If they are unaware of the impediment to their marriage (or that the fault is an impediment to valid marriage), it wouldn’t be reckoned as sinful.

If the couple were to reconcile the fault, the impediment would be removed. They would be able to continue conjugal life without repeating their wedding. This is preferred over civil divorce.

Due to the problems that civil divorce causes, it is to be limited to situations where the couple cannot continue conjugal life at all (e.g. abuse, abandonment). Only after civil divorce can a marriage be examined for validity.

 

[jmjconder]

**One is a legal contract (civil) that can be broken…one is a covenant (Sacramental) that is eternal and cannot be dissolved.
**

 

[1ke]

I am new to the idea of marriage as a sacrament and am still trying to understand the implications of it. I understand there is a difference between civil marriage and a valid sacramental marriage.

Well, not exactly.

Any **valid **marriage between the baptized is a sacrament by virtue of their baptism.

What constitutes a **valid **marriage?

For non-Catholic Christians, it means exchanging valid consent such as before a civil authority or minister authorized by the state.

For Catholics and those marrying a Catholic, it also means exchanging valid consent but according to the laws established in Catholic canon law.

For the Orthodox, who have valid apostolic succession and valid holy orders, it means exchanging valid consent according to the laws of the Orthodox Churches which in their case is before an Orthodox priest.

The above presumes no known impediments such as a prior bond.

I have also learned that Protestants are considered to have a valid sacramental marriage if there are no impediments.

Correct. And the unbaptized have valid natural marriages.

But what does it mean if there are impediments, such as an unwillingness to have children?

This would be need to be proven in what the Catholic Church calls the external forum. So, for example, by the testimony of witnesses to the Tribunal.

Otherwise, our internal disposition is presumed to match the words said during the exchange of consent.

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Canon 1061 §3. An invalid marriage is called putative if at least one party celebrated it in good faith, until both parties become certain of its nullity.

Are they guilty of fornication since their marriage is not valid?

The marriage is termed a putative marriage when entered into in good faith by at least one party. No, they are not committing fornication.

If the couple becomes aware of a defect of consent or intent, they can correct it themselves privately. IOW, an act of the will can correct an impediment-- a new act of valid consent can be done privately unless the impediment is public and then they would have to exchange vows publicly.

See vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P46.HTM

Would (civil) divorce be wrong for a couple like this?

The answer is “maybe”.

Civil divorce indicates the permanent and irreconcilable breakdown of the marriage. Certainly every attempt should be made to save the marriage including correcting whatever defect exists.

If a person is convinced of the invalidity of their marriage and has no avenue to make it valid, such a person should seek guidance from their priest.

If a person chooses the path of civil divorce they could petition the tribunal to examine their marriage for nullity, but there is certainly no guarantee that one will be forthcoming.

In such a case, they would fall under the canons related to separation while the bond remains.

I can suggest the book Annulment The Wedding That Was by Michael Smith Foster for an organized explanation of the Church’s teaching on marriage and nullity.

On a forum such as this you are likely to get a mixed bag of answers, some of which may not be 100% accurate.

 

[friendlymomma]

These answers are very helpful; thanks! But I am still confused about some of the implications. If the marriage isn’t valid to begin with, why is a non-Catholic couple (or Protestant couple with an impediment) bound to a life-long monogamous marriage?

 

[SonCatcher]

These answers are very helpful; thanks! But I am still confused about some of the implications. If the marriage isn’t valid to begin with, why is a non-Catholic couple (or Protestant couple with an impediment) bound to a life-long monogamous marriage?

Because validity is assumed until proven otherwise. It may seem like a catch-22 situation but really is a natural conclusion from the doctrine of marriage indissolubility. That’s why a tribunal will not examine a marriage for validity until after it has already failed.

 

[friendlymomma]

Well, not exactly.

Any **valid **marriage between the baptized is a sacrament by virtue of their baptism.

What constitutes a **valid **marriage?

For non-Catholic Christians, it means exchanging valid consent such as before a civil authority or minister authorized by the state.

So, for a non-Catholic Christian, the “openness to children” rule does not affect the validity of the marriage? Is the marriage still sacramental, even if the couple is not open to children?

 

[friendlymomma]

Because validity is assumed until proven otherwise. It may seem like a catch-22 situation but really is a natural conclusion from the doctrine of marriage indissolubility. That’s why a tribunal will not examine a marriage for validity until after it has already failed.

This aspect is beginning to make sense to me. But if the couple has openly declared that they plan to never have children, then isn’t the marriage already proven invalid?

 

[SonCatcher]

This aspect is beginning to make sense to me. But if the couple has openly declared that they plan to never have children, then isn’t the marriage already proven invalid?

There is the chance they might repent. If so, then the marriage could be healed.

 

[SonCatcher]

So, for a non-Catholic Christian, the “openness to children” rule does not affect the validity of the marriage? Is the marriage still sacramental, even if the couple is not open to children?

Non-Catholics are not expected to understand all the requirements for validity. If it ends up in a marriage tribunal, it would be decided then.

 

[jmjconder]

**Any exchange bewteen Baptized people that meet the matter and form of the Catholic Church becomes a Sacramental Marriage.

Matter is the expressed consent between a man and a woman.

The form is the man and women conferring this upon each other…the couple is the form.

Therefore a bride and groom who are not Catholic still may have had a Sacreamental Marriage…and therefore would have to be declared null before another marriage can taken place in the Catholic Church.

This all may seem complicated…however it is our Churchs’ preservation of a Sacrament.

Myself? Grateful.**

 

[buzzoff1031]

Yes, these answers are very helpful and are helping me to understand an issue I’ve had questions about for a while. So, to make sure I understand even further, I want to present my situation. My wife and I were married by a civil authority prior to my coming into the church. She is unbaptized I’m sure (thoguh she says she doesn’t remember). I had been baptized before our marriage, but was not Catholic. Neither of us has been divorced–this is the first (and only ) marriage for each of us. Would my marriage be considered valid?

 

[1ke]

So, for a non-Catholic Christian, the “openness to children” rule does not affect the validity of the marriage?

Certainly a permanent intention against children could impact validity. I did not intend to imply otherwise.

Is the marriage still sacramental, even if the couple is not open to children?

A permanent intention against children when exchanging consent could indeed be an impediment to a valid marriage. This would mean one or both members of the couple deliberately excluded an essential property of marriage-- fecundy.

That is not at all the same thing as a couple who does not have an intention against children but finds themselves in a situation in which they need to postpone having children, perhaps even indefinitely.

For example, a couple marries intending to have children, and then the woman is diagnosed with a serious condititon that contra-indicates pregnancy. The couple has no intention against children, but yet they must avoid children indefinitely until the woman’s condition changes-- which it may never do.

Or, a couple has no intention against children but find themselves infertile. Again, no permanent intention against children.

These are merely illustrative examples of two possible situations. Permanent intention against children is something very specific-- it is a rejection of one of the essential properties of marriage.

This is an extremely technical area, and would involve the ability to prove such an intention.

 

[1ke]

This aspect is beginning to make sense to me. But if the couple has openly declared that they plan to never have children, then isn’t the marriage already proven invalid?

No. Only after a formal case is submitted to the Tribunal and a ruling is issued can a marriage be proven to be invalid and a party declared free to marry.

A public profession would certainly be evidence of the impediment. It is the Tribunal that has the authority to act on that evidence.

 

[1ke]

Non-Catholics are not expected to understand all the requirements for validity. If it ends up in a marriage tribunal, it would be decided then.

Well, yes and no.

Non-Catholics have available to them the example of natural marriage instituted by God with our first parents. Further, non-Catholic Christians have scripture and Jesus’s teaching.

Non-Catholics must recognize the essential properties of marriage: perpetuity, fecundy, and fidelity. It isn’t really a high bar to give valid consent.

The other elements are atypical at best-- force, abduction, murder of the previous spouse, mistaken identity, marriage involving consanguinity, etc. These are all rare, at least in the West. Of course in the news today was Morgan Freeman’s alleged plans to marry his step-granddaughter once his divorce fom her grandmother is final. So, I guess never say never. Of course, this is a straight-up example of a canon law impediment that probably doesn’t get used much in nullity cases-- affinity in the direct line. Apparently it must be legal civilly, somewhere.

 

[1ke]

Would my marriage be considered valid?

Yes.

And if she ever decides to be baptized, your marriage will become a sacrament at that moment.

 

[buzzoff1031]

Yes.

And if she ever decides to be baptized, your marriage will become a sacrament at that moment.

Very good. Thanks!