When did record keeping for Marraiges start?

[Brenda_V]

Hi everyone -

I wasn’t sure where to put this but decided since the question involved a Sacrament I would put it here and I know there are many out there in CAF land who might be able to direct me to an answer.

I happened to catch a portion of “The Doctor is In” when Colleen Mast (sp?) was on. She took a call from an older woman (in her 60’s or 70’s even - didn’t quite catch the age but know it was at least a decade older than I am) who asked why she couldn’t have a “wedding without the government getting involved, you know like they did it way, way, way back when (as in New Testament/pre-New Testament times)”

Colleen answered in a good way but the woman kept insisting that she didn’t want to have to sign a piece of paper and why couldn’t another Christian who believed like she did officiate! Quite frankly this woman didn’t sound like she even understood what the Sacrament of Matrimony was about but she got me to thinking, when did actual written records of marriages start?

I was thinking it must have been or could have been at least in Jesus times because he talks about how a man can divorce a woman by giving her a “letter”. This doesn’t sound verbal or just witnessed to me and if in order to divorce someone something had to be in writing wouldn’t that be to go with something that was in writing about a marriage that existed?

Not only that but this woman was implying that “way, way, way back when” there was no official to witness a Marriage which didn’t ring true either, she just sounded like she didn’t want the government involved because if they did get involved they would lose some social security monies, just a thought.

So, I ask again, when did we start having a written record of Marriages and when did the Government start to get involved in that written proof. We do have our Marriages recorded at the Parish where we were Baptised along with a recording of our First Communion and Confirmation.

Brenda V.

 

[dlltoms]

I am not sure when they started keeping records of marriages and baptizems but when we as a family were tracing our family tree we did a lot of getting information from the marriage linsense in the chruches and the baptizem records from place in europe. Those priests kept good records only problem we had sorting them out was if the priest was a differnt language. so the pronunciation was hard to understand. If you can find the names or your family and know some things you can trace them back and find a lot of information. a lot of the information went to quebec it was amazing to find out so much about our family. All catholic. and most baptized and married in the church though some were like 35 years because there wasn’t a priest handy. Some had civil marriages then had them blessed later I am certain there are alot of people if they would set down and start traceing they would find that there are catholic marriages even in their own families.

 

[AHapka]

The reason the church requires marriage to be witnessed and documented is because in the middle ages some higher society males were marrying women and then later denying that they ever did after having sex. The church requires that marriage be celebrated in front of witnesses.

Now there is a provision in cannon law (1130-1133) which allows a marriage to be celebrated secretly. The local ordinary can allow this for a grave and urgent cause. There are still witnesses, but they keep secret.

The government is really only involved for reasons of secular law.

Now whether or not a Bishop will decide to allow a marriage to be celebrated secretly for financial reasons is something only their Bishop can answer. Have them contact their local Bishop.

 

[Brenda_V]

The reason the church requires marriage to be witnessed and documented is because in the middle ages some higher society males were marrying women and then later denying that they ever did after having sex. The church requires that marriage be celebrated in front of witnesses.

Now there is a provision in cannon law (1130-1133) which allows a marriage to be celebrated secretly. The local ordinary can allow this for a grave and urgent cause. There are still witnesses, but they keep secret.

The government is really only involved for reasons of secular law.

Now whether or not a Bishop will decide to allow a marriage to be celebrated secretly for financial reasons is something only their Bishop can answer. Have them contact their local Bishop.

Ah, thank you. I am not in contact with the person in question, I just heard her on the radio so was only postulating her reasons for not wanting the government to now if she was married. It could just be that she is old and it really makes no sense to her why the government needs to be involved in her life any more than necessary which Mrs. Mast did not address.

dltoms - I do know that Marriages occurred frequently in our new country without the benefit of a Priest because they were itinerant and traveled around to do so. Many a marriage in the early parts of our two countries (Canada and USA) were “blessed” at the same time as all the children of that union were Baptized. The Sacrament though, at that time was considered to have been done because it is the couple who are the Ordinary Ministers of this Sacrament, the Priest or Deacon is just the Churches witness of the Sacrament along with the other members of the community with the official witnesses being usually the Maid (Matron) of Honor and the Best Man.

My question really is, did the government or religious communities prior to recent times require some form of written proof of marriage. My definition of recent times is the past 500 or so years.

Brenda V.

 

[puzzleannie]

civil law governing marriage varies by country and society. some record of marriage has always been kept in societies with legal systems that depend on definitions of family relationships for property and inheritance purposes. Civil law governing who may witness a marriage also differ. In many countries a priest or religious minister of any kind is not a legal witness, so couples must first comply with civil marriage laws and registers, and only then my get a religious wedding ceremony. In many countries the actual civil registration of the marriage, duly witnessed is the only “ceremony” there is. The person in question since they are making the allegation must provide historical proof for what she says existed at any given time and place.

Eloping couples in regency romances are always going to Gretna Green, the first town over the border between England and Scotland, because in Scotland at that time a couple could be considered legally married by exchanging vows with each other and presenting themselves as husband and wife, without a witness or civil process, but even there eventually a civil registration had to be made to secure property rights.

 

[Just_Lurking]

For the question of when did record keeping for marriages become mandatory for Catholics, the answer is in 1563, when the Council of Trent enacted the Tametsi decree (see here).

Prior to this, a man and a women who were free to marry each other could go off into the woods and, without any witnesses, exchange vows before each other and God, and become married. The Church considered this practice “illicit but valid”, i.e., it was not approved but it was nonetheless efficaceous at creating a valid marriage.

The Tametsi decree explained that, by default, the exchange of vows by itself can create a valid marriage, but the Church has the power to enact a rule requiring a canonical form for marraige that can prevent the private exchange of vows from creating a valid marriage. This rule took force when Tametsi was published in a diocese.

 

[Brenda_V]

Thanks for the replies Puzzleannie that was really good and what Colleen Mast should have said but I don’t think either was really connecting on what the real question was. I don’t even know if the questioner knew exactly what she wanted to know.

So, since it is Canon law that we have Canonical Form, someone who goes off and says vows in front of someone who is not duly ordained or appointed by the governing body and/or the religious community would or could be considered not married and/or living in sin.

Didn’t the Jews at the time of Jesus require a witness from Judaism at a wedding? Not just the community but someone official like the local Rabi? Without that you don’t have a Marriage, you might have a Wedding but no Marriage.

I know that it is within the last 20 or so years that my own State of NM no longer recognizes “common law” Marriages - that is a couple who live together as a married couple in a steady relationship and have children in this relationship for a minimum of 7 years (this is the time frame for NM). Here is a case of not having to have a “piece of paper” but time and action that shows a marriage exists.

It all boils down to the availability of someone to officiate at a Wedding - we are no longer some frontier where you can’t find the proper official to “do” your marriage .

Brenda V.

 

[puzzleannie]

part of the confusion, I imagine with the program you was, and in current discussion, is failure to distinguish between civil and canon law, because it sounds like the person who posed the original question is appealing to religious and civil laws of other times and places to make a point about today, and that is ludicrous unless she can show the link or development to current practice. cannot accurately answer questions about Jewish practice at the time of Christ, other than to observe the obvious betrothal custom we know from Luke’s gospel. The rabbi in Judaism functions as more of a judge of the law, rather than as a minister of rites, and his role as a witness would be a legal one, not a priestly one.

 

[Phemie]

The reason the church requires marriage to be witnessed and documented is because in the middle ages some higher society males were marrying women and then later denying that they ever did after having sex. The church requires that marriage be celebrated in front of witnesses.

Now there is a provision in cannon law (1130-1133) which allows a marriage to be celebrated secretly. The local ordinary can allow this for a grave and urgent cause. There are still witnesses, but they keep secret.

The government is really only involved for reasons of secular law.

Now whether or not a Bishop will decide to allow a marriage to be celebrated secretly for financial reasons is something only their Bishop can answer. Have them contact their local Bishop.

Secret marriages are not celebrated to circumvent the laws of the land UNLESS those laws are unjust or contrary to natural law (ie. the laws of apartheid). Secretly marrying an older couple to circumvent the social security/old age pension rules would not be something the Church would engage in as it would be suborning fraud.

 

[Brenda_V]

Secret marriages are not celebrated to circumvent the laws of the land UNLESS those laws are unjust or contrary to natural law (ie. the laws of apartheid). Secretly marrying an older couple to circumvent the social security/old age pension rules would not be something the Church would engage in as it would be suborning fraud.

This is an interesting question that follows from this, is it unjust that the government says your social security/old age pension is lowered or eliminated because you wish to marry someone when you are both in your 70’s? Why is that a just law? Someone works for years and has earned some of these monies or in many cases of women who are in their 70’s, they did not work outside the home so they are getting the amount from what their husband has earned or widows benefits which are totally eliminated if she marries someone else. I don’t know exactly how it works but it does seem unjust, not just unfair.

Puzzleannie, Colleen did get into how society and the laws are there to support the natural law and to protect families upon which the woman said both of their children were grown so what did it matter? She sounded so like a teen trying to get away with something and trying to use “logic” to get there. I am pretty sure had she called the Apologetics program she would have been given a bit more time and had questions asked of her to see if everyone really understood what she was saying, don’t know if she could have answered them because everytime Colleen asked her to clarify she basically repeated herself - not good communications skills, if not understood the frist time try the explain it using different words!

At any rate we need to pray for her and for all who think like her. Even my mom when referencing my Aunt who was at the time living with a guy because her current Ex- was still alive thought that the two of them could be considered “Married in the Eyes of God”, what? Shacking up is shacking up. They did get married once my Uncle passed on, so many inconsistencies here and my mom is a very intelligent woman from whom I have learned much about my Faith in the times of warm fuzzy religious education.

Brenda V.

 

[Phemie]

This is an interesting question that follows from this, is it unjust that the government says your social security/old age pension is lowered or eliminated because you wish to marry someone when you are both in your 70’s? Why is that a just law? Someone works for years and has earned some of these monies or in many cases of women who are in their 70’s, they did not work outside the home so they are getting the amount from what their husband has earned or widows benefits which are totally eliminated if she marries someone else. I don’t know exactly how it works but it does seem unjust, not just unfair.

While it seems unfair, the gov’t has a right to run its social security net any way it wants as long as it’s the same for everyone. You and I might not think it’s fair, just as I don’t think it’s fair that DH’s military pension will be cut when he starts to receive Canada pension, but it’s the way the system is set up to benefit the most people at the cheapest cost. It’s true that two can’t live as cheaply as one, but two together can live more cheaply that two apart.