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

Status
Not open for further replies.
No, that’s true…but marriages were validly contracted without a priest prior to Trent. It may have been a simple ceremony in the village among the families. The Church didn’t approve, but they were recognized as valid. Trent changed that…the Church has the authority to govern the essential form of marriage.
 
I was talking about those who were baptized Catholic. If you read my first post I made that clear - those who were baptized Catholic but not aware of that fact. I am not commenting on their culpability, but rather the objective reality. If baptized Catholic, even without their knowledge, their attempts at marriage outside of the Catholic Church are invalid. The Church could change this…and I think it would be a great act of pastoral mercy.
The fact that you mention convalidation proves the point…making valid what was invalid. Someone coming into the Church who was never baptized Catholic would have no need to convalidate their marriage, as it would already be presumed valid.
 
twf said:
If baptized Catholic, even without their knowledge, their attempts at marriage outside of the Catholic Church are invalid.
Click to expand...
this is incorrect. Their marriage is valid. The church recognizes natural marriage as valid. It is only considered illicit. Illicit means it was done outside the norm. But the marriage is still valid and the church would consider them to be married. However, if they divorced and the baptized Catholic remarried then the church would consider that person to be committing adultery and the second marriage as not valid.
 
vsedriver said:
this is incorrect. Their marriage is valid. The church recognizes natural marriage as valid. It is only considered illicit. Illicit means it was done outside the norm.
Click to expand...
No, that isn’t the case. The Church recognizes natural marriages as contracted between non-Christians. The Church also recognizes sacramental marriages contracted between non-Catholic baptized Christians. Those baptized Catholic, however, whether they practice or not, are bound by the canonical form of marriage…and since Trent, this means the marriage is completely null and void if the canonical form is not followed.

If a non-Christian entered into a natural marriage and later becomes a Catholic, no convalidation is required…the Church recognizes his natural marriage, and even “automatically” recognizes it as a sacramental marriage the moment he’s baptized. On the other hand, had he been baptized Catholic as a child, whether he practiced or not, convalidation is required to make the marriage valid…its right there in the word - convalidation.

Can. 1086 §1. n A marriage between two persons, one of whom was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

§2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. 1125 and 1126 have been fulfilled.

§3. If at the time the marriage was contracted one party was commonly held to have been baptized or the baptism was doubtful, the validity of the marriage must be presumed according to the norm of can. 1060 until it is proven with certainty that one party was baptized but the other was not.

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.
 
Last edited:
Since they could change the (to me antiquated) rule and yet they don’t, I suspect keeping the rule carries an incentive. What that incentive is, I don’t know. Perhaps the ability to easily declare null many first marriages, since that is an obvious consequence of the rule in the first world.
 
Willing_Spirit said:
I don’t think there is a difference between validity and licity when it comes to marriage.
Click to expand...
Actually, there is.

Marrying a baptized non-Catholic in Catholic form without permission for mixed marriage is valid but illicit.

If a couple did not get permission from their pastor to be married somewhere else, it’s valid but illicit.

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

A couple who marries in Catholic form (before a Catholic priest or deacon or designee) before an annulment is finalized (when the prior marriage is found to be null) marry validly but illicitly. A priest violates canon law if he allows this, but the marriage is still valid.
 
twf said:
those who were baptized Catholic but not aware of that fact.
Click to expand...
I am sure it does happen, however, I’ve never encountered someone in my work or life who had parents baptize them in the Church then keep that a secret for decades on.
 
@twf is correct.

A person baptized into or received into the Catholic Church does NOT marry validly if they marry outside Catholic form without dispensation.

Their marriage is NOT merely “illicit” it is also not valid, and NOT a “natural marriage”.

A natural marriage is a valid marriage. It is distinguished from a sacramental marriage by the fact that one or both parties in that valid marriage are not baptized.
 
Last edited:
There is a lot of confusion everywhere about Catholic marriage law. As we saw in another thread, sometimes the ignorance goes from the DRE right up to the Judicial Vicar.

Catholic marriage law is hard to understand. Even I made a grave mistake in another thread. I took a class in Canon Law when training as a Catechist/Deacon, and we spent more time making jokes than we did on marriage law, but it was an important part and that was stressed to us.

A good friend of mine is Catholic, and he had two invalid marriages. He said to me “you know why I never got married in the Church? Because I knew they wouldn’t last!” This is a sad but prevalent abuse of the “lack of form loophole” that causes some canonists to plead for a relaxation of the requirement of canonical form.

However, at present we still have canonical form with us. Who knows if Pope Francis wants to reform things that far? It would not surprise me if he did; he sure attempted to streamline the nullity process.

Every Catholic deserves to know the truth about marriage law. Every Catholic preparing for marriage has a right to know what they’re getting into. And every baptized Catholic has a duty and responsibility to submit to and obey the laws of the Church which cares for his or her soul.
 
vsedriver said:
for the Church to recognize their marriage all they have to do is have their marriage convalidated.
Click to expand...
As someone for whom @twf’s fictional situation is not fiction but the exact reality… it’s not that simple, because these are matters on which the two spouses are not always of one mind, to put it mildly.

In our case, there’s one of us recognizing that we’re basically living in sin and wanting to put that right, and the other finding the mere suggestion of a potentially sinful situation deeply insulting.
 
Dorothy said:
What you wrote doesn’t make any sense to me. In the scenario that you provided the person didn’t know about the teachings of the Catholic Church specifically because he wasn’t taught.

Someone would have to deliberately defy a commandment of God in order to be guilty of something.
Click to expand...
I was baptized in the Catholic Church, but given almost nothing by way of religious education. I found Jesus in the Protestant tradition. I met a Protestant guy. We married in a Protestant church.

I was aware, because I was a theology student at a Reformed seminary and we’d had a class about the paperwork needed for mixed marriages, that canon law would have required me to have a dispensation of canonical form, but I thought Catholicism was wrong anyway. So I didn’t ask for one.

In a sense, I didn’t know what the Church taught, because I hadn’t been explained it and I had no idea why it was so – and at the same time, I knew what the Church taught, because I knew what it required me to do.
 
Thank you for your message. The Lord knows what is in our hearts and leads us to what we need to do.

Blessings to you!

Dorothy
 
I as single person who wasn’t brought up in the faith came back to fulfil my baptismal vows, I came to start believing that all the sacraments are Jesus ministering to me, once I knew that the obligation was a pleasure it applies to all sacraments, until it became a pleasure the church was right to say it’s an obligation it says so because it’s through the sacraments especially that Jesus has chosen to grace us - it’s good for us even if we don’t yet realise it. The first step for me was appreciating my christening.
 
Last edited:
twf said:
I’m now objectively fornicating, living in an objectively invalid marriage… and I have no clue and never will… that doesn’t seem fair or just.
Click to expand...
What is unfair? That you are in an objectively invalid marriage or that you you have no clue you are?
If they have no clue and never will, they are not guilty of mortal sin because of invincible ignorance.

But the real desire should not to rail against what is true, but desire that the person would come to know and embrace the truth. The truth shall set you free.
 
twf said:
Right, but the thing is even if they don’t know that they’re Catholic they are still bound. Imagine I was baptized Catholic as a baby. My parents never took me back to the church. I was provided with no religious education. As an adult, I had a conversion experience and joined a protestant church. I get married in the protestant church. I’m now objectively fornicating, living in an objectively invalid marriage… and I have no clue and never will… that doesn’t seem fair or just. And no, it’s not a matter of divine law… it’s a matter of Church law. The Council of Trent bound Catholics to marry in the Church… prior to Trent, Catholics could validly, though illicitly, marry in a civil ceremony. The Church could change this requirement tomorrow… it would still be illicit to marry outside of the Church, but at least these couples wouldn’t be living in a perpetual state of fornication… it seems to me it would be an act of mercy.
Click to expand...
what about occasions where the party get married in both the church and another religious ceremony? I know a case about a Catholic who married a Hindu a couple of years ago. The church marriage was on a Saturday. And on Friday, they had a Hindu marriage as well with a Hindu priest and rituals.
 
Yet this is a question of Church discipline not doctrine. That’s why I’m questioning whether a change may be prudent.
 
The Church doesn’t allow this… but I suspect it would still be valid by virtue of the Church wedding.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top