Why marriage of non-catholics/non-christians valid?

[carn]

As i understood, if a former non-catholic, who had been married and got divorced before becoming catholic, wants to marry again he/she needs an annulment, because the prior marriage is considered to be still ongoing.

Why?

The point about divorce being impossible was if i am correct:

“They are no longer two, therefore, but one flesh. So then, what God has united, human beings must not divide.’”

“Now I say this to you: anyone who divorces his wife – I am not speaking of an illicit marriage – and marries another, is guilty of adultery.”

If for example atheists marry they obviously do not do with Gods blessing, they only receive “blessing” of the state. So they did not get united by God, but by man.

Furthermore even if one considers this as a union united by God, the participants were not aware of it, so actually lacked understanding about what they commited themselves too.

And for non-christians and many non-catholic christians divorce is not considered sinful or in principal wrong. Therefore probably many non-catholics marry thinking that it is not a commitment till death does part them but till they fail to get along with each other. Especially in civil marriages there is not promise included “till death does part us”.

So it seems church considers non-catholic couples to have agreed to a contract, which the couples probably never considered or thought of.

Why are such marriages, especially civil marriages considered valid, when in fact they cannot be due to lack of understanding what marriage means?

 

[DavidFilmer]

This is what Canon Law has to say:

Marriage enjoys the favor of the law; consequently, when a doubt exists the validity of a marriage is to be upheld until the contrary is proven.

- Code of Canon Law, #1060​

The marriage is not necessarily “considered” valid (grave doubts may exist, and nobody may actually believe the marriage to be valid). But the marriage is presumed valid until actual proof to the contrary is presented.

This is similar to the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty - even if the person commits a crime in the presence of many witnesses and his act is recorded by several cameras. Nobody really thinks the guy might be innocent, but he is *presumed *innocent until such evidence is admitted into a Court of Law, and a lawful judgement is rendered. If nobody testifies, and no other evidence is presented, the guy walks.

The Church grants a similar presumption of innocence (validity) to all marriages, and convenes a Court of (Ecclesiastical) Law to hear evidence to the contrary - this Court is normally a marriage tribunal. In many cases, the trial is a mere formality (just as it is for the well-documented criminal), but it is a necessary formality. After all, if the Church passes summary judgement, where do you draw the line?

The bond of matrimony is far older than the Catholic Church (and even older than the Jewish Church), going back to the foundation of humanity. It has been recognized by every human culture in every place throughout all of human history. This is what the Church means when She says that marriage enjoys the favor of law - and why the Church is careful to demand proof when this bond is claimed to be invalid.

 

[carn]

This is what Canon Law has to say:

The marriage is not necessarily “considered” valid (grave doubts may exist, and nobody may actually believe the marriage to be valid). But the marriage is presumed valid until actual proof to the contrary is presented.

This is similar to the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty - even if the person commits a crime in the presence of many witnesses and his act is recorded by several cameras. Nobody really thinks the guy might be innocent, but he is *presumed *innocent until such evidence is admitted into a Court of Law, and a lawful judgement is rendered. If nobody testifies, and no other evidence is presented, the guy walks.

The Church grants a similar presumption of innocence (validity) to all marriages, and convenes a Court of (Ecclesiastical) Law to hear evidence to the contrary - this Court is normally a marriage tribunal. In many cases, the trial is a mere formality (just as it is for the well-documented criminal), but it is a necessary formality. After all, if the Church passes summary judgement, where do you draw the line?

The bond of matrimony is far older than the Catholic Church (and even older than the Jewish Church), going back to the foundation of humanity. It has been recognized by every human culture in every place throughout all of human history. This is what the Church means when She says that marriage enjoys the favor of law - and why the Church is careful to demand proof when this bond is claimed to be invalid.

But in justice system at first it is determined whether a crime actually happened. Beforehand one cannot presume innocence of any syspect, because without crime no suspects.

So how does the church determine, whether something “marriage-like” actually happened, which then is presumed to be valid?

Because only if something “marriage-like” happened one can presume the marriage to be valid.

It cannot be all “marriages” considered valid by secular laws, because some secular laws allow homosexual “marriages”, which certainly are never considered valid until proven otherwise.
Islamic law in some places (e.g. Iran) allows for “temporary marriages” and polygamy, which both leads to something called marriage by third parties.

E.g. Muslim has 3 “temporary marriages”, then marries two women at the same time, then divorces one of them, then marries another wife, then another wife, then converts to catholicism with wife 3. Doesn’t sound sensible to presume any marriage to be valid and yet according to the local law the man is probably still married to wife 3 (though that legal mess would be in practice the least of his problems).

 

[Phemie]

But in justice system at first it is determined whether a crime actually happened. Beforehand one cannot presume innocence of any syspect, because without crime no suspects.

So how does the church determine, whether something “marriage-like” actually happened, which then is presumed to be valid?

Because only if something “marriage-like” happened one can presume the marriage to be valid.

It cannot be all “marriages” considered valid by secular laws, because some secular laws allow homosexual “marriages”, which certainly are never considered valid until proven otherwise.
Islamic law in some places (e.g. Iran) allows for “temporary marriages” and polygamy, which both leads to something called marriage by third parties.

E.g. Muslim has 3 “temporary marriages”, then marries two women at the same time, then divorces one of them, then marries another wife, then another wife, then converts to catholicism with wife 3. Doesn’t sound sensible to presume any marriage to be valid and yet according to the local law the man is probably still married to wife 3 (though that legal mess would be in practice the least of his problems).

First of all you start with a presumption that the “state” or the “Church” marries the couple. They don’t, the couple marries each other, at least as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned.

And in order to be presumed validly married they must be

1. 
   *]One male & one female
   *]Have no prior bonds
   *]Have no close relation by blood or affinity.
   
   So, the ‘marriage’ of a same-sex couple is not presumed valid, neither is that of a brother and sister or the second marriage of someone who is divorced (unless the former spouse has died) or the second/third/fourth marriage of a polygamous couple. And neither is that of a Catholic who married ‘outside the Church’ without a dispensation. None of those situations would require an ‘annulment’, a process in which the marriage must be ‘proven’ invalid.

 

[tee_eff_em]

The institution of Marriage pre-dates the Church and the institution of the sacraments.
(And the elevation, by virtue of the parties’ baptisms, of Marriage to a sacrament)

tee

 

[carn]

And in order to be presumed validly married they must be

1. 
   *]One male & one female
   *]Have no prior bonds
   *]Have no close relation by blood or affinity.

1. 
   Is this list complete?
   
   I am sceptical, because marriage is also a union before God (otherwise Jeuss words forbidding divorce would not make sense).
   
   According to that list it seems that if man and women,which are neither relatives nor have prior bonds, decide “Lets live together till the end of our live.” then then the church would have to consider the two to be married until contrary evidence is shown.
   This would mean that a lot of cohabiting going on might actually have to considered to be marriage from the churchs point of view, because often cohabiting couples intend their relationship to be monogamous and long lasting.
   

   So, the ‘marriage’ of a same-sex couple is not presumed valid, neither is that of a brother and sister or the second marriage of someone who is divorced (unless the former spouse has died) or the second/third/fourth marriage of a polygamous couple. And neither is that of a Catholic who married ‘outside the Church’ without a dispensation. None of those situations would require an ‘annulment’, a process in which the marriage must be ‘proven’ invalid.

   Means my poor example ex-muslim would be considered to still be married with his first probably still muslim ex-wife.

 

[Phemie]

Is this list complete?

I am sceptical, because marriage is also a union before God (otherwise Jeuss words forbidding divorce would not make sense).

According to that list it seems that if man and women,which are neither relatives nor have prior bonds, decide “Lets live together till the end of our live.” then then the church would have to consider the two to be married until contrary evidence is shown.
This would mean that a lot of cohabiting going on might actually have to considered to be marriage from the churchs point of view, because often cohabiting couples intend their relationship to be monogamous and long lasting.

Means my poor example ex-muslim would be considered to still be married with his first probably still muslim ex-wife.

Two Catholics who can contract a valid marriage can do so with no clergy, no dispensation, nothing if they are in a situation where they cannot access clergy/dispensation for a prolonged period simply by speaking the vows in front of witnesses, because they are the ministers of the sacrament and because they are making their vows before God, as well as witnesses.

As I understand it, non-Catholics who are in an official common-law marriage would also need an annulment because, since they are considered married by the State, they are considered married by the Church.

As for the Muslim man in your hypothetical situation, he would have to resolve his marriage issues before becoming Catholic. His marriage to his first wife would be presumed valid until proof was received that it was not intended to be permanent. That would mean it wasn’t valid at the time it was contracted. Then the presumption would fall to the second marriage and so on and so on. Once they got to a marriage that could not be proven invalid, he would then be considered married to that woman.

But, if they were both Muslim and he wanted to be baptized, and she wanted to stay divorced and Muslim, his marriage could be dissolved though the Pauline Privilege.

 

[carn]

Two Catholics who can contract a valid marriage can do so with no clergy, no dispensation, nothing if they are in a situation where they cannot access clergy/dispensation for a prolonged period simply by speaking the vows in front of witnesses, because they are the ministers of the sacrament and because they are making their vows before God, as well as witnesses.

Why is there a need for witnesses?
(Except for avoiding all the problems to prove afterwards that marriage happened.)

As I understand it, non-Catholics who are in an official common-law marriage would also need an annulment because, since they are considered married by the State, they are considered married by the Church.

But in islamic countries the state might consider a “temporary marriage” to be a marriage. So just because a state considers something a marriage is in itself of no consequence for whether its a marriage from the churchs point of view.

As for the Muslim man in your hypothetical situation, he would have to resolve his marriage issues before becoming Catholic. His marriage to his first wife would be presumed valid until proof was received that it was not intended to be permanent. That would mean it wasn’t valid at the time it was contracted. Then the presumption would fall to the second marriage and so on and so on. Once they got to a marriage that could not be proven invalid, he would then be considered married to that woman.

Why not considering his first “temporary marriage” to be the first one to check?
It fulfills all three above criterias and it is recognized by some states. Of course it is also a legal cover for prostitution, but the criteria named so far, do not exclude it so far.

 

[1ke]

I suggest you read the entire Catechism section on Marriage.

Marriage is a natural institution, given by God at the beginning of the human race. It is not something given only to Christians. Marriages involving one or more unbaptized parties are valid natural marriages.

It is baptism of both parties that automatically raises an individual valid marriage to the dignity of sacrament and gives that marriage sacramental character. Therefore, baptized non-Catholics contract valid, sacramental marriages.

 

[Phemie]

Why is there a need for witnesses?
(Except for avoiding all the problems to prove afterwards that marriage happened.)

You’ve answered your own question. It’s also a rule of canon law that a Catholic’s marriage must be contracted before witnesses.

But in islamic countries the state might consider a “temporary marriage” to be a marriage. So just because a state considers something a marriage is in itself of no consequence for whether its a marriage from the churchs point of view.
Why not considering his first “temporary marriage” to be the first one to check?
It fulfills all three above criterias and it is recognized by some states. Of course it is also a legal cover for prostitution, but the criteria named so far, do not exclude it so far.

The first ‘temporary’ marriage would be the first one that would be checked. As soon as it was proved that it had been considered a temporary marriage it would automatically be ruled invalid since marriage must be intended to be permanent to be valid.
Once there are no impediments (affinity, consanguinity, prior bond or same sex) there are four things that must be present at the time the vows are spoken:

1. 
   *]You must come to marriage of your own free will (no shot gun marriage) and with full consent. IOW, if your fiancée knew she could never have children and failed to tell you that and you want your own children and would not have married her if you’d known this, the marriage was not contracted with full consent.
   *]You must intend that the marriage will be permanent.
   *]You must intend to be faithful.
   *]You must intend to have children, if it’s possible. One need not be able to have children to validly marry.

 

[carn]

@1ke

What i am looking for is the method to identify whether anything happened that might be marriage and is then presumed to be valid.

E.g. If A takes something from B without Bs consent and without any other justification, its theft.

If man A and women B … , then they are married.

For catholic marriages its obvious, but as the church considers also other marriages to be valid, there must be something to fill the above dots, so the church can discern what is marriage or at least a variation of.

The first ‘temporary’ marriage would be the first one that would be checked. As soon as it was proved that it had been considered a temporary marriage it would automatically be ruled invalid since marriage must be intended to be permanent to be valid.
Once there are no impediments (affinity, consanguinity, prior bond or same sex) there are four things that must be present at the time the vows are spoken:

So its not only no affinity, no consanguinity, no prior bond and no same sex that must be fulfilled, but also implicitely or explicitely some promises have to be exchanged for something to be marriage?

And considering i cannot name the difference between temporary marriage and prostitution (and some Islamic scholars cannot see any either), it sounds strange that the church might consider a temporary marriage to be valid.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Iran#Nikah_mut.E2.80.98ah_or_Sigheh
“Sigheh can last from 15 minutes to 99 years;”)

 

[Phemie]

@1ke

What i am looking for is the method to identify whether anything happened that might be marriage and is then presumed to be valid.

E.g. If A takes something from B without Bs consent and without any other justification, its theft.

If man A and women B … , then they are married.

For catholic marriages its obvious, but as the church considers also other marriages to be valid, there must be something to fill the above dots, so the church can discern what is marriage or at least a variation of.

So its not only no affinity, no consanguinity, no prior bond and no same sex that must be fulfilled, but also implicitely or explicitely some promises have to be exchanged for something to be marriage?

And considering i cannot name the difference between temporary marriage and prostitution (and some Islamic scholars cannot see any either), it sounds strange that the church might consider a temporary marriage to be valid.
(en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Iran#Nikah_mut.E2.80.98ah_or_Sigheh
“Sigheh can last from 15 minutes to 99 years;”)

A ‘temporary marriage’, by definition would be invalid, but the ‘temporary’ nature would have to be shown. I’m not sure if the Church would treat that as it would the marriage of Catholic outside the Church, as an administrative case, rather than a judicial case.

I have a hard time imagining the defender of the bond standing up and arguing that a ‘temporary marriage’ is valid. I would think rather that the paperwork showing a contract for a temporary marriage would be all that would need to be looked at to say ‘yes, he was free to marry’. But I’m not a canon lawyer and I don’t work at the Marriage Tribunal, so what I ‘think’ doesn’t carry much weight.

 

[carn]

A ‘temporary marriage’, by definition would be invalid, but the ‘temporary’ nature would have to be shown. I’m not sure if the Church would treat that as it would the marriage of Catholic outside the Church, as an administrative case, rather than a judicial case.

But how is it determined, that in a “temporary marriage” there is anything, which makes a consideration whether it is a valid marriage or not, actually necessary?

Assume man M and female F meet. M suggest F to pay her for sex, which might take an hour. F agrees, they have sex and part one hour later.

Any reason to consider this somehow as marriage?
No.

Would any of the two later need a dispensation for marrying?
No (Although they need to repent and confess).

Assume man N and female G meet. M suggest F to have a temporary marriage for one hour and suggest an adequate supportive payment and implies he would have sex in that hour. F agrees, they have sex and hour later they go on their own way.

Difference between M/F and N/G?
None that i can name, both cases prostitution and sinful. Only the latter is called by a different name.

And yet for some reason you seem to suggest that N/Gs relation would have to be considered to be a valid marriage until proven otherwise. Why?

 

[Phemie]

But how is it determined, that in a “temporary marriage” there is anything, which makes a consideration whether it is a valid marriage or not, actually necessary?

Assume man M and female F meet. M suggest F to pay her for sex, which might take an hour. F agrees, they have sex and part one hour later.

Any reason to consider this somehow as marriage?
No.

Would any of the two later need a dispensation for marrying?
No (Although they need to repent and confess).

Assume man N and female G meet. M suggest F to have a temporary marriage for one hour and suggest an adequate supportive payment and implies he would have sex in that hour. F agrees, they have sex and hour later they go on their own way.

Difference between M/F and N/G?
None that i can name, both cases prostitution and sinful. Only the latter is called by a different name.

And yet for some reason you seem to suggest that N/Gs relation would have to be considered to be a valid marriage until proven otherwise. Why?

No, I doubt that it would be considered to be a valid marriage, any more than a marriage contracted by a Catholic outside the Church without a dispensation would be considered a valid marriage. In Canada and the US that Catholic still has to produce the paperwork that shows he/she was married outside the Church, a recent certificate of Baptism that shows no notation of marriage and a divorce decree before they are deemed free to marry. The Muslim producing a contract for a ‘temporary marriage’ would not be considered to be validly married.

 

[dans0622]

…

What i am looking for is the method to identify whether anything happened that might be marriage and is then presumed to be valid. …

Hello,

A properly manifested expression of marital consent makes a presumptively valid marriage. This statement is based on the following canons: “Can. 124 §2: A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.” and “Can. 1057 §1: The consent of the parties, *legitimately manifested *between persons qualified by law, makes marriage… (emphasis added).”

This means that if a man and a woman express their marital consent in accord with whatever their own law requires, the Catholic Church presumes the marriage is valid. When marriage is considered as a contract, there is no other way to approach the matter: when two people do what is required to enter into any contract, society must presume that the contract is valid. If there is no such presumption, no contract would ever be secure or even worth entering.

You might find this address of Pope John Paul II to be helpful: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/2004/january/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_20040129_roman-rota_en.html

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[1ke]

If man A and women B are free to marry and exchange consent then they are married.

Typically that exchange of consent would conform to whatever is necessary to be civilly married.

 

[carn]

Thanks for the info.

A properly manifested expression of marital consent makes a presumptively valid marriage. This statement is based on the following canons: “Can. 124 §2: A juridic act placed correctly with respect to its external elements is presumed valid.” and “Can. 1057 §1: The consent of the parties, *legitimately manifested *between persons qualified by law, makes marriage… (emphasis added).”

This means that if a man and a woman express their marital consent in accord with whatever their own law requires, the Catholic Church presumes the marriage is valid. When marriage is considered as a contract, there is no other way to approach the matter: when two people do what is required to enter into any contract, society must presume that the contract is valid. If there is no such presumption, no contract would ever be secure or even worth entering.

Consent to what?

From the context of 1057:
“Can. 1056 The essential properties of marriage are unity and indissolubility, which in Christian marriage obtain a special firmness by reason of the sacrament.”

it seems that the husband and wife have to consent to unity and indisolubility.

So if a man and a women meet the requirements of no affinity, no consanguinity, no prior bond and consent in accord with their own law to something similar to unity and indisolubility, the church has to assume the marriage to be valid.

But what if what the law requires has nothing to do with unity and indisolubility?

Then it would seem wrong to assume validity of marriage just because it is according to the law the couple is subject to.

Take the example of temporary marriage in Islam. Although its called “marriage” in English and athough it is according to the law in some islamic regions (or at least was, its a bit blurry where this practice is still in actual use), it is the complete opposite of what marriage is about and therefore i cannot see why the church should ever presume such relationship to be valid marriage.

But the same problem arises also with other “marriage” law, e.g. “standard” islamic marriage often includes the option for the husband for further wives without need for consent from his first. Such a marriage although according to the law the couple is subject to, again violates the essentials of marriage and therefore again could never be presumed to be valid. Its not that one would presume the marriage to be valid and then check evidence to the contrary, it already fails in the process to decide that a marriage to have taken place, e.g.:
no affinity - checked
no consanguinity - checked
no prior bond - checked
consent - impossible, although they consented to something, they consented to something contrary to marriages essentials, therefore not checked
→
no presumption that a valid marriage took place

The same argument coul be raised with some secular laws, which have divorce built-in.

 

[dans0622]

… Consent to what?

…

consent - impossible, although they consented to something, they consented to something contrary to marriages essentials, therefore not checked
→
no presumption that a valid marriage took place

The same argument coul be raised with some secular laws, which have divorce built-in.

Hello again,

If you point to a couple who “marry” but their very words of consent make explicit an intention that is contrary to marriage, it might be a different story. Nevertheless, the foundational principle of the presumption of validity is the legally required/accepted expression of marital consent. Whenever that happens, the presumption arises. If the consent is not marital, there is no presumptively valid marriage. If it is not legally required/accepted, there is no presumptively valid marriage.

Maybe it is helpful to recall that this presumption is a matter of law: it is a probable conjecture about an uncertain matter and is the basis of certain, legal proceedings. It is an attempt to accomodate Catholics and non-Catholics alike as well as uphold the dignity of marriage, especially its indissolubility. How can ecclesiastical law presume that a man or woman is not doing what is in accord with human nature–i.e., get married? Marriage is an institution created by God for every single person, Christian and otherwise. The law, therefore, also has an unwritten presumption that everyone marries in accord with what “the Creator intended.”

Regarding the dignity/indissolubility of marriage, if it was the case that the law of the Church said e.g., “Only Christians enter a presumptively valid marriage” and a married Muslim divorces, comes to the Church and wants to marry, he could do so. The Church would actively assist him in disregarding his marriage. That would not help in building up the God-given institution of marriage. It would simply go along with the lamentable trends in society. The law of the Church would have easy, truly no-fault divorce enshrined in law. It would be even more than that, since the Church would say that such a person must separate rather than continue (presumptive) fornication.

Dan

 

[carn]

Regarding the dignity/indissolubility of marriage, if it was the case that the law of the Church said e.g., “Only Christians enter a presumptively valid marriage” and a **married]/b Muslim divorces, comes to the Church and wants to marry, he could do so. The Church would actively assist him in disregarding his marriage. That would not help in building up the God-given institution of marriage. It would simply go along with the lamentable trends in society. **

The problem is you say if a “married” Muslim …
But logically it is not that the a married Muslim comes to the church, but a Muslim and some events in his life could mean he is married. If this events truly indicate a marriage it is presumed to be valid. And if this events indicate no marriage has happened, it is not presumed he is in a valid marriage.

And some things called marriage in the world, fail that initial check e.g. temporary marriage and polygamous marriages.
Other things which are not called marriage on the other hand might actually pass this check. E.g. a non-chrisitan-cople promising in a sincere way to each other before some witnesses to be faithful to each other and stay together till the end. This would fulfill all the criteria for marriage named so far, it would only miss the title, although it would make far more sense to consider it a valid marriage than some things that are called marriage.

Is it simply that the church assume that if people call it marriage, that then it is assumed it is?