Why is a Baptized Catholic obligated to marry in the Catholic Church?

[Alexandria2020]

The Church doesn’t allow this… but I suspect it would still be valid by virtue of the Church wedding.

sadly it happens in certain dioceses.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Catholic marriage law is hard to understand.

If you are baptized Catholic and you are both free to marry, you marry another Catholic in the Catholic Church. If you are baptized Catholic and you want to marry a non-Catholic, you must get permission.

Two simple rules.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Why is someone obligated to marry in the Church because of Baptism, regardless of how little they were raised in the faith afterwards?

I haven’t read all the replies so pardon any repetition.

Catholic baptism (or reception into the Catholic Church after a non-Catholic baptism) is what makes a person a member of the Church’s visible body and subject to what are called “merely ecclesiastical laws.” The law regarding the “canonical form” of marriage is one such law.

Originally, “canonical form” was instituted to combat the problem of clandestine marriages–people have a right to marry and it is the consent of the Parties that makes marriage. However, if there is no public (i.e., witnessed by others) expression of consent, then it is impossible to prove whether or not the Parties actually married. 800 years ago, secular law did not impose any rules on how people were to marry. The Church stepped in and did so. The benefit of certainly as far as who is married to whom warranted, eventually, a demand that all Catholics were bound to marry in the way determined by church law.

This original justification does not really hold water anymore, since civil law pretty much obliges everyone, everywhere, to somehow publicly express marital consent in order to be married. So, the current justification is (in my view) more along the lines of the Church wanting to make sure that her members are aware of what they are doing when they marry. It is not so much the ceremony itself that is the point of “marrying in the Church”, it is the preparation that is supposed to precede it. This preparation should prevent invalid marriages.

On the other hand, the requirement of canonical form results in invalid marriages when people utterly fail to observe it. So, there is a trade-off.

Over the years, there have been exceptions to the demands of “canonical form” and so the Church certainly can modify this aspect of the law or even eliminate it entirely. Given the way many Church leaders view the general population’s understanding of marriage (or lack thereof), I don’t think the requirement of canonical form is going anywhere.

Dan

 

[MarkRome]

Nobody in the Church is keeping tabs or records. Honestly, it only makes a difference if one or both in the party want to become Catholic (or return to the Church). Outside of that I don’t think people give one hootenanny. The Catholic Church is the only religion to preserve the Sacrament of marriage. Protestants in the 16th century saw marriage differently which is why Trent declared what they did. I would say it is actually even MORE important now than back then. This teaching shouldn’t change.

 

[Pug]

It is not so much the ceremony itself that is the point of “marrying in the Church”, it is the preparation that is supposed to precede it. This preparation should prevent invalid marriages.

Does the typical preparation prevent invalid marriages? Because if it does not do so in any great measure, then it is not a trade off, and is making more first marriages invalid than there would be otherwise.

 

[1ke]

The Catholic Church is the only religion to preserve the Sacrament of marriage.

The Catholic Church doesn’t teach that. While the Orthodox and other true particular Churches have all seven sacraments, non-Catholic ecclesial communions retain two: baptism and marriage.

 

[MarkRome]

Protestants retain marriage and baptism as a sacrament from a Catholic viewpoint; however, they themselves do not view marriage as a Sacrament. My comment wasn’t including Orthodox because Trent was in response to the protestant reformation.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Honestly, it only makes a difference if one or both in the party want to become Catholic (or return to the Church).

Or if their Catholic friends/family ask them to serve as a Baptismal or Confirmation sponsor.

 

[acanonlawyer]

Does the typical preparation prevent invalid marriages?

Good question. I don’t know what the numbers show. Someone with the capability should do research to look into the statistics. Maybe that’s been done.

Dan

 

[tuffsmurf]

It seems very weird for the Church to insist that they have a sacrament they themselves state that they don’t.

 

[Kmon23]

A Catholic who marries an Eastern Orthodox in the EO Church without dispensation from form marries validly but illicitly.

Actually I think this is not true. Catholics are bound by canonical form for a valid marriage. It’s why both Protestants and Orthodox marriages are valid from a Catholic perspective. But a Catholic marrying an EO in an EO Church still requires canonical form for a valid marriage, and EO having valid sacraments doesn’t override that requirement for validity (and not just licity).

 

[1ke]

Actually I think this is not true

Yeah, it is true.

Catholics are bound by canonical form for a valid marriage

Catholics are bound by canon law, which includes canon 1127 specifically addressing this. Canonical form must be observed for liceity only.

It’s why both Protestants and Orthodox marriages are valid from a Catholic perspective.

That’s not why. See Dignitas Connubii.

But a Catholic marrying an EO in an EO Church still requires canonical form for a valid marriage, and EO having valid sacraments doesn’t override that requirement for validity (and not just licity).

Yes, it does, per canon 1127.

 

[Kmon23]

Yup you are definitely right. I was not aware of canon 1127, and it seems I was under the assumption of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which did require canonical form even of EO marriages.