Why must married couples abstain until their marriage is blessed?

[Texas_Roofer]

Truly I am sorry if I sounded like I was making a straw-man. That portion of the quote from me was addressed to Texas-Roofer. I was worried about something he said, not what you said. I’m sorry I wasn’t clear in my paragraph workings. I am trying to be sure we are addressing your *actual *question. I just don’t promise I know the answer…

Thanks for clarifying the question. The Church has bound that Catholic woman you mention to marry according to form, while the Church does not currently bind non-Catholic baptized parties in the same way. By fiat/law the Church has declared that the marriage will be invalid. It did not used to be so. Historically, the Church used to not regulate marriage in this way. A set form was not required. Now it is. Because the woman is so bound by law, she is not legally free to marry in some other form, so she is not free to do what she is doing, hence she does not succeed in doing it. She is legally unable to do the contract (marriage is viewed somewhat like a contract by the Church if I understand properly).

Your question then probably is, why? Why did they do this? I don’t know for sure. The Church only regulated marriage as it became necessary. The laws in our current code of canon law have evolved, often in response to a need. Much of Church history works that way, like they often only clarify certain doctrines when there is a need to on account of a bunch of people arguing about it. Marriage, being a rather public sort of thing, has public consequences for the common good. There are reasons it might come to need regulating, such as if women are abducted and forced to marry. The law-making body then eventually responds by making a law about how she is not free to contract marriage unless she is first separated and completely safe from her captor. That way she cannot be coerced by kidnapping into marriage and all that entails, property, children, inheritance, dowries, her freedom, etc. (This is a real example, not a hypothetical. They have such a canon.) My best guess is that overall, they (the Church) have felt that right now it is overall in the best interest of all for the better functioning of marriages/society to bind/regulate a Catholic’s ability to contract a valid marriage by requiring them to marry according to form, or to get a dispensation. By the way, that woman CAN validly marry before the Baptist minister if she requests and is granted permission by the appropriate bishop. If they think it is for the best, they will grant the dispensation. They are not doing it based upon if the Baptist preacher will get money so the Catholic priest won’t get money. Truly, I’ve seen no sign of this in my dealings. Rather, they want to promote lasting, stable, just relationships among the flock. I assume they see nothing to be gained along those lines by making a general law binding non-Catholic baptized individuals (and typically a canon law would only apply to a Catholic). They clearly do for the baptized Catholic person.

It is obvious to me that marriage as a whole is struggling painfully along, barely surviving in these current times. I understand the Church’s interest in trying to stem the tide. I’m not convinced they have done all that can be done, but I don’t really know, either. Nor can I truly claim to know the mind of a lawmaker (the Church). I’ve read many of the canons in our canon law, though, and it seems designed as other laws are, for the benefit of those the laws apply to, so that overall things go smoothly, fairness is preserved, the minimum needed is all that is bound, so as to achieve a good effect, etc.

It isn’t standard doctrine training to instruct Catholics *why *certain canon laws were put into effect. You might have better luck asking a canon lawyer, particularly one with a background in the history of the law. There is one regular member on this site who is a canon lawyer, but he is not on the thread. I haven’t “seen” him in a while, but then, I am a spotty member. He often answers questions about annulments and the like. Your question is a little different from what I usually see him answer.

Feel free to ask if I can clarify anything.

God created marriage by creating Eve for Adam. Men developed sexual sins and separated woman from the position god placed Eve in. Women became second class citizens in many places and even less than citizens in some places. For these “hard hearted” Moses had to allow divorce for his “stiff necked” people. Jesus taught us we must no longer be hard hearted, so we should not divorce anymore. Catholics are to return women to their place as mans gift from god to complete him. So they are to be one. No longer can there be a greater and a lesser they must be one in the same. These actions raised marriage to a sacrament among Catholics. Marriage became a vocation. Catholic who reject Jesus teaching on marriage, the binding of the church on the subject of marriage, the sacramental demand, or the duties of this vocation are not married in the eyes of the church. They are out of communion with the Church. If they attempted a marriage under those circumstances the marriage is said to be invalid. Invalid refers to the missing part whether it be in the heart, denial of scripture, or the church bindings. Invalid opposes illicit. Invalid actually means one of the couple failed to achieve their part of marriage prep, while illicit means the sacrament did not occur whether the parties were ready or not. So licit or illicit is on the celebrant. The church evidentially installed the current bindings to bind Catholics to god’s plan.

Hope that helps explain it

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Okay, I guess that the final answer is I have to be Catholic in order to receive an answer about a Catholic teaching. So, then entire concept of apologetics and evangalization is useless?

To the deaf speach has a diminished value, without research education does not exist

 

[Pug]

Trying my best to simplify the answers because you wrote “free to marry” which means she has a dispensation which implies she had marriage education and is current on other sacraments then the catholic church considers her marriage valid- (I think you did not mean that). If she self proclaims herself “free to marry” she lacks authority for such. Which is not to say the Church will always ignore this marriage, this marriage can be petitioned to the church for radical sanate. Now is that what you meant? There are other possibilities and other caveats but trying to keep it simplistic your girl does not have authority to declare anybody to include herself free to marry nor does she have authority to award a sacrament. Now comes the mud - she can have this as a Natural Marriage - void of Catholic communion.

I altered your post with some red and blue to indicate what caught my eye. I think you were talking about the hypothetical baptized Catholic woman who was marrying a man before a Baptist minsiter.

You make an interesting comment here, one that leads me to consider a question/possibility that I hadn’t considered before, that of a natural marriage alone being present between two baptized individuals. I’m not sure that is what you had in mind, but it naturally comes to my mind in this context since most Baptists that I know are baptized. Canon law makes an interesting remark:…a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament (section 2 of canon 1055)
Thus that woman could only get a natural marriage if the man she was marrying was unbaptized? Is canon law trying to say that?

Also, I apologize, I put a hyphen in your name in one of my previous posts by faulty memory. I noticed my mistake too late to edit the post.

Oh, I have seen your most recent post. I’m still thinking about it. I went and looked some stuff up in Trent because I know that is when they did the reforms about clandestine marriage, which is part of what created our three banns and two witnesses before a priest thing (parts of the “form” of marriage).

 

[Drawmack]

To the deaf speach has a diminished value, without research education does not exist

Like I said, no need for apologetics or evangalization we only need educate those who are already Catholic.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I altered your post with some red and blue to indicate what caught my eye. I think you were talking about the hypothetical baptized Catholic woman who was marrying a man before a Baptist minsiter.

You make an interesting comment here, one that leads me to consider a question/possibility that I hadn’t considered before, that of a natural marriage alone being present between two baptized individuals. I’m not sure that is what you had in mind, but it naturally comes to my mind in this context since most Baptists that I know are baptized. Canon law makes an interesting remark:…a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament (section 2 of canon 1055)
Thus that woman could only get a natural marriage if the man she was marrying was unbaptized? Is canon law trying to say that?

Also, I apologize, I put a hyphen in your name in one of my previous posts by faulty memory. I noticed my mistake too late to edit the post.

Oh, I have seen your most recent post. I’m still thinking about it. I went and looked some stuff up in Trent because I know that is when they did the reforms about clandestine marriage, which is part of what created our three banns and two witnesses before a priest thing (parts of the “form” of marriage).

I think “valid” is the key word which is being used by the church so lets not apply the street definition of valid. So the two baptized entering a natural marriage would be held invalid in the church definition. Thus it is invalid = non sacramental, this will be the same whether the example marriage was baptized/baptized or baptized/non-baptized because the catholic party did not follow their bindings. Remember the noncatholic couple were not bound by the canon.

And now the circle is full: the catholic could return to celibacy and return to communion (assuming other violations were not present) Which is exactly where the thread started.

 

[Pug]

God created marriage by creating Eve for Adam. Men developed sexual sins and separated woman from the position god placed Eve in. Women became second class citizens in many places and even less than citizens in some places. For these “hard hearted” Moses had to allow divorce for his “stiff necked” people. Jesus taught us we must no longer be hard hearted, so we should not divorce anymore. Catholics are to return women to their place as mans gift from god to complete him. So they are to be one. No longer can there be a greater and a lesser they must be one in the same. These actions raised marriage to a sacrament among Catholics. Marriage became a vocation. Catholic who reject Jesus teaching on marriage, the binding of the church on the subject of marriage, the sacramental demand, or the duties of this vocation are not married in the eyes of the church. They are out of communion with the Church. If they attempted a marriage under those circumstances the marriage is said to be invalid. Invalid refers to the missing part whether it be in the heart, denial of scripture, or the church bindings. Invalid opposes illicit. Invalid actually means one of the couple failed to achieve their part of marriage prep, while illicit means the sacrament did not occur whether the parties were ready or not. So licit or illicit is on the celebrant. The church evidentially installed the current bindings to bind Catholics to god’s plan.

Hope that helps explain it

I altered your post with red to highlight where I did not agree.

I agree that “illicit” can be the fault of the presiding clergyman, who ought to know the rules and apply them. I do not agree that it means that no sacrament took place. Invalid means no sacrament took place. Illicit usually would mean that it did take place, but against the law, or unlawfully. For example, when applied to the consecration of the Eucharist, to say there was an illicit consecration means that the true Real Presence is now there under the appearances of bread and wine, but the priest did something illegal in the process, like for a Latin priest to have used leavened bread. If he used coke and pizza in place of bread and wine, it would have been invalid, and there would be no Real Presence. That coke and pizza are not only illegal; but also will not serve as valid matter. For an example from marriage, it would be illicit for a priest to assist at the marriage of two transients (homeless people are an example of this) without getting permission from the ordinary, but the marriage would still be valid, assuming all the usual rules were met, like they were free to marry. The two transients would probably never have any idea that the priest was supposed to get such permission or if he ever did so or not. Thus, the illicitness would be on his plate, not theirs, as you mentioned. They have this rule about marriage because special care might be needed in the investigation of freedom to marry in the case of the homeless.

I completely agree with you that Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament and he wanted to have things be right again between man and woman. I think having marriages be public helps protect women from unscrupulous men (or vice versa). If there were not a set public form, then a man could more easily conceal a string of “wives” that he married secretly, or when he does get married having it be public allows the person with the “objection” to come forward and state it. Banns used to work that way, but since people are so mobile these days, they don’t really work for that purpose anymore since often no one in the parish knows much about you if you didn’t grow up there. It works better to have all marriages recorded at the parish where you were baptized and then if you get married, the priest where you are getting married will request a copy of that baptism certificate to see if any previous marriages turn up. As you see, I am working on a better answer for Drawmack…

Texas Roofer, I see what you mean about my other question. The word valid matters there.

 

[Drawmack]

I completely agree with you that Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament and he wanted to have things be right again between man and woman. I think having marriages be public helps protect women from unscrupulous men (or vice versa). If there were not a set public form, then a man could more easily conceal a string of “wives” that he married secretly, or when he does get married having it be public allows the person with the “objection” to come forward and state it. Banns used to work that way, but since people are so mobile these days, they don’t really work for that purpose anymore since often no one in the parish knows much about you if you didn’t grow up there. It works better to have all marriages recorded at the parish where you were baptized and then if you get married, the priest where you are getting married will request a copy of that baptism certificate to see if any previous marriages turn up. As you see, I am working on a better answer for Drawmack…

Well, the parish where one is baptized might not work. I was baptized in a Lutheran Church at the age of seven. I get the concept of what you’re saying and this is probably the network planner in me coming out, but the parish of baptism just might not work.

 

[Pug]

Thank you for actually answering my question to the best of your ability and not attempting to explain why my question isn’t valid or simply dismissing me as being rude.

Drawmack, I’m now sure an answer exists for you. I’ve researched it further and can at least point you in a better direction. One of the principle problems with marriage that was being encountered in the Middle Ages was called “clandestinity” or the problem of hidden, secret marriages. Protestants (by the time there are Protestants) and Catholics agreed that they were a big problem. Different methods were devised by each group to deal with the problem. To understand why it would be a problem, consider if a man marries secretly, that is, without some public hoopla, then if he goes to marry another woman, she will have zero chance of knowing he is already married. It is not like back then she could research him on the internet. This issue might have been handled in an older cultural setting by having marriages only arranged by the families. The established families know each other and who is who and could investigate the issue. The son or daughter literally could not go out and contract a secret marriage, since he couldn’t make one at all without the whole family and tradition thing happening. But with the understanding of marriage being contracted by just a man and a woman giving consent, with no family arranging the thing, this allowed clandestinity to flourish, or so I’m led to believe from what I’ve read.

You can fix it back then in a few ways. You need a way to keep track of who is free to marry. Parental consent could be required. Or you could require witnesses and that one marry in front of a set public representative (and not allow them to go off and find a different representative in timbuktu so that the local representative remains in ignorance of it) and you can record it in a register that is kept long term. You can read banns to any community in which the persons have any sort of claim to residence, etc. These are the sorts of things that were in fact done. The requirement of Catholic form retains these exact types of things. That is what you are looking at. To put it rather simplistically, the Catholic person has to follow the Catholic rules and the Church is reasonably happy to let the non-Catholic follow the civil laws about it, letting the state determine who was free to marry (many Protestant bodies appear to leave it to the state, but if they don’t, the Church leaves it to that body to determine it for those under their jurisdiction). The Church does not seem to really recognize the authority of the State to determine which Catholics may marry, though.

The Council of Trent (in the 1500’s), which is where you can point to for some of the history of decrees about having to observe Catholic “form”, is helpful and actually gives some of its reasoning process. Many things in that council are for “reform” and are a response to abuses.
Council of Trent:

…whereas [the holy Synod] takes into account the grievous sins which arise from the said clandestine marriages, and especially the sins of those parties who live on in a state of damnation, when, having left their former wife, with whom they had contracted marriage secretly, they publicly marry another, and with her live in perpetual adultery; an evil which the Church, which judges not of what is hidden, cannot rectify, unless some more efficacious remedy be applied; wherefore, treading in the steps of the sacred Council of Lateran celebrated under Innocent III., it ordains that, for the future, before a marriage is contracted, the proper parish priest of the contracting parties shall three times announce publicly in the Church, during the solemnization of mass, on three continuous festival days, between whom marriage is to be celebrated; after which publication of banns…

It goes on to state, among other things, that it has to be your own parish priest, and if it is to be another, your parish priest has to know about it and permission be granted or other similar provisions, you need two witnesses, there must be a written record, etc. I think these considerations are very helpful in a Medieval setting, and still somewhat remain so today.

I suggest two other considerations. Since the Church views many marriages as sacraments, she has a vested interest in ensuring that the minimum liturgy that is fitting to the dignity of a sacrament be observed. Having baptized Catholics marry in the Church directly helps with overseeing a sacrament that is taking place. Also, since the Church is interested in her flock and their well-being, she gets a great opportunity to minister and address married life and counsel and teach by having Catholics marry in the Church because then she gets the chance to require pre-cana classes/instruction or at least talk with each couple one on one beforehand to give them what they need personally.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I altered your post with red to highlight where I did not agree.

I agree that “illicit” can be the fault of the presiding clergyman, who ought to know the rules and apply them. I do not agree that it means that no sacrament took place. Invalid means no sacrament took place. Illicit usually would mean that it did take place, but against the law, or unlawfully. For example, when applied to the consecration of the Eucharist, to say there was an illicit consecration means that the true Real Presence is now there under the appearances of bread and wine, but the priest did something illegal in the process, like for a Latin priest to have used leavened bread. If he used coke and pizza in place of bread and wine, it would have been invalid, and there would be no Real Presence. That coke and pizza are not only illegal; but also will not serve as valid matter. For an example from marriage, it would be illicit for a priest to assist at the marriage of two transients (homeless people are an example of this) without getting permission from the ordinary, but the marriage would still be valid, assuming all the usual rules were met, like they were free to marry. The two transients would probably never have any idea that the priest was supposed to get such permission or if he ever did so or not. Thus, the illicitness would be on his plate, not theirs, as you mentioned. They have this rule about marriage because special care might be needed in the investigation of freedom to marry in the case of the homeless.

I completely agree with you that Jesus elevated marriage to a sacrament and he wanted to have things be right again between man and woman. I think having marriages be public helps protect women from unscrupulous men (or vice versa). If there were not a set public form, then a man could more easily conceal a string of “wives” that he married secretly, or when he does get married having it be public allows the person with the “objection” to come forward and state it. Banns used to work that way, but since people are so mobile these days, they don’t really work for that purpose anymore since often no one in the parish knows much about you if you didn’t grow up there. It works better to have all marriages recorded at the parish where you were baptized and then if you get married, the priest where you are getting married will request a copy of that baptism certificate to see if any previous marriages turn up. As you see, I am working on a better answer for Drawmack…

Texas Roofer, I see what you mean about my other question. The word valid matters there.

The reason the pizza and coke do not work is because they void the ignorance of the recipient. Since the example is a Catholic marrying in the Baptist church with a Baptist preacher the same is true. The attempt is illicit (as well as invalid) had the same Baptist preacher came into the catholic church and wore catholic vestments and celebrated the same marriage it could be illicit and valid because the couple could believe the man to be an ordained priest. In the example the couple willing seeks an illicit ceremony so their actions are invalid and their ceremony is illicit. So the question is “Why does the catholic church refuse to acknowledge this invalid and illicit marriage ceremony?”

 

[maryjk]

Well, the parish where one is baptized might not work. I was baptized in a Lutheran Church at the age of seven. I get the concept of what you’re saying and this is probably the network planner in me coming out, but the parish of baptism just might not work.

That IS how it works for those that are Catholic. When I got married, I gave the name of church where I had been baptized. All of your sacraments are recorded there. I don’t know how it works for someone that wasn’t baptized in the Catholic Church, but I bet it would be recorded where you received your first sacrament in the Catholic Church. If you have never received a sacrament, then there would be no records and maybe that is why you need permission from the Bishop to marry outside of the Catholic Church.

 

[Corki]

The reason the pizza and coke do not work is because they void the ignorance of the recipient. Since the example is a Catholic marrying in the Baptist church with a Baptist preacher the same is true. The attempt is illicit (as well as invalid) had the same Baptist preacher came into the catholic church and wore catholic vestments and celebrated the same marriage it could be illicit and valid because the couple could believe the man to be an ordained priest. In the example the couple willing seeks an illicit ceremony so their actions are invalid and their ceremony is illicit. So the question is “Why does the catholic church refuse to acknowledge this invalid and illicit marriage ceremony?”

I am afraid we are getting a bit far afield here but you have aroused my curiosity with this. As I understand it, ignorance on the part of the Catholic party, does not change the validity of an attempted marriage. It would mitigate the sinfulness of attempting marriage outside the Church without dispensation. This is one of the reasons given for not Baptizing without well founded hope the child will be raised in the Church – once Baptized Catholic, that person is bound to Church law including that on marriage, but might grow up without any understand of that law.

Is this right?

 

[chain]

And now the circle is full: the catholic could return to celibacy and return to communion (assuming other violations were not present) Which is exactly where the thread started.

My understanding that is the exception rather than the rule. If cohabitation exists, mere celibacy does not not significantly reduce the risk of scandal. I think the preferred method is to correct any flaw present in the marriage so that the marriage can be blessed.

That said, that leads me to a second issue (no need to discuss here - it needs it’s own thread) - the celibate couple living as brother and sister are still prevents them from receiving the sacrament of reconciliation. Even though they have repented their sin is still held bound (until the marriage is corrected or they get an extraordinary exception (which is usually not offered if the marriage is correctable). For these people the only possible methods of reconciliation is a perfect act of contrition or last rights.

 

[maryjk]

My understanding that is the exception rather than the rule. If cohabitation exists, mere celibacy does not not significantly reduce the risk of scandal. I think the preferred method is to correct any flaw present in the marriage so that the marriage can be blessed.

Most people of the congregation were not aware of my marriage situation. I have been civilly married for 11 years. Most people assumed that I had been married in the Church, so there was no scandal. And the best thing to do is to correct the problem. But that takes time. Paperwork needs to filled out and it needs to be sent to the Bishop Convalidations take some planning.

That said, that leads me to a second issue (no need to discuss here - it needs it’s own thread) - the celibate couple living as brother and sister are still prevents them from receiving the sacrament of reconciliation. Even though they have repented their sin is still held bound (until the marriage is corrected or they get an extraordinary exception (which is usually not offered if the marriage is correctable). For these people the only possible methods of reconciliation is a perfect act of contrition or last rights.

 

[Pug]

Well, the parish where one is baptized might not work. I was baptized in a Lutheran Church at the age of seven. I get the concept of what you’re saying and this is probably the network planner in me coming out, but the parish of baptism just might not work.

I agree, it won’t work in all situations. I myself am an exception to the general rule of how it is done. I was baptized Methodist long before I converted and was confirmed Catholic. Later on I married in the Catholic Church. I believe they told me at the time that my records would all go back to the parish in which I was confirmed. My memory is a rather shriveled thing, though, these days.

I suppose I could try to be a tricky person and remarry in the Church by claiming to still be Methodist, and not ever producing any of my Catholic records. I’ve never considered how one might do it. Even with them checking state records, I’m sure there is still a way to be a bigamist in this day and age, sadly.

Huh. It wouldn’t work in my case anyway, since there are still living members at my old Methodist Church who know I got married. Someone might say something…

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am afraid we are getting a bit far afield here but you have aroused my curiosity with this. As I understand it, ignorance on the part of the Catholic party, does not change the validity of an attempted marriage. It would mitigate the sinfulness of attempting marriage outside the Church without dispensation. This is one of the reasons given for not Baptizing without well founded hope the child will be raised in the Church – once Baptized Catholic, that person is bound to Church law including that on marriage, but might grow up without any understand of that law.

Is this right?

Well I am not sure I follow you. When the recipients know or create the condition it becomes invalid, however if the celebrant does something incorrect then the issue is illicit as I understand it. Now the catholic who married in ignorance cannot use valid through ignorance argument because the marriage is not real within the catholic church so they are out of communion until issues are rectified. This is very much how the thread started. If the catholic in question recognizes the attempted marriage as a failed attempt and returns to the normal state of celibacy then it is possible to return to communion before the real marriage occurs.

My understanding that is the exception rather than the rule. If cohabitation exists, mere celibacy does not significantly reduce the risk of scandal. I think the preferred method is to correct any flaw present in the marriage so that the marriage can be blessed.

That said, that leads me to a second issue (no need to discuss here - it needs it’s own thread) - the celibate couple living as brother and sister are still prevents them from receiving the sacrament of reconciliation. Even though they have repented their sin is still held bound (until the marriage is corrected or they get an extraordinary exception (which is usually not offered if the marriage is correctable). For these people the only possible methods of reconciliation is a perfect act of contrition or last rights.

Though I have heard this before I do not see it in Church Canons nor teachings. It is difficult to see how reconciliation failed to work for them. Actually since reconciliation is a sacrament if they are in a continuous state of sin absolution is itself bared. And again this is the very issue the thread started with.

 

[nancy_dalrymple]

Neither question can be given a proper answer, but to help let me explain none of the divorced parties can be in communion with the Catholic Church until both an annulment and a blessing. So who in this group wants to be in communion with the Catholic Church ?

Trying my best to simplify the answers because you wrote “free to marry” which means she has a dispensation which implies she had marriage education and is current on other sacraments then the catholic church considers her marriage valid- (I think you did not mean that). If she self proclaims herself “free to marry” she lacks authority for such. Which is not to say the Church will always ignore this marriage, this marriage can be petitioned to the church for radical sanate. Now is that what you meant? There are other possibilities and other caveats but trying to keep it simplistic your girl does not have authority to declare anybody to include herself free to marry nor does she have authority to award a sacrament. Now comes the mud - she can have this as a Natural Marriage - void of Catholic communion.

Now the other couple is simply not under catholic authority so they are presumed to have done marriage correctly though no proof is presented either for or against their marriage. This allows you the opportunity to see should they seek communion with the catholic church, annulment, and it be granted; it shows evidence indicates no real marriage ever existed. The presumed state of marriage was a false presumption.

Hope that helps

Excuse me but I don’t think anyone here has the right answer only the priest they all do thing’s the way they want, I know they do. It all depends on how they feel about your situation if I told you mine you would say that is not Catholic But as far as i can see it is catholic. Thank you!

 

[Drawmack]

That IS how it works for those that are Catholic. When I got married, I gave the name of church where I had been baptized. All of your sacraments are recorded there. I don’t know how it works for someone that wasn’t baptized in the Catholic Church, but I bet it would be recorded where you received your first sacrament in the Catholic Church. If you have never received a sacrament, then there would be no records and maybe that is why you need permission from the Bishop to marry outside of the Catholic Church.

I was talking about adult converts who were baptized outside the Catholic Church but later converted. They would not have a “parish” of Baptism and it would be silly to keep the record of their sacraments at another denomination’s offices. You addressed this with the bolded portion above.

 

[Drawmack]

Drawmack, I’m now sure an answer exists for you. I’ve researched it further and can at least point you in a better direction. One of the principle problems with marriage that was being encountered in the Middle Ages was called “clandestinity” or the problem of hidden, secret marriages. Protestants (by the time there are Protestants) and Catholics agreed that they were a big problem. Different methods were devised by each group to deal with the problem. To understand why it would be a problem, consider if a man marries secretly, that is, without some public hoopla, then if he goes to marry another woman, she will have zero chance of knowing he is already married. It is not like back then she could research him on the internet. This issue might have been handled in an older cultural setting by having marriages only arranged by the families. The established families know each other and who is who and could investigate the issue. The son or daughter literally could not go out and contract a secret marriage, since he couldn’t make one at all without the whole family and tradition thing happening. But with the understanding of marriage being contracted by just a man and a woman giving consent, with no family arranging the thing, this allowed clandestinity to flourish, or so I’m led to believe from what I’ve read.

You can fix it back then in a few ways. You need a way to keep track of who is free to marry. Parental consent could be required. Or you could require witnesses and that one marry in front of a set public representative (and not allow them to go off and find a different representative in timbuktu so that the local representative remains in ignorance of it) and you can record it in a register that is kept long term. You can read banns to any community in which the persons have any sort of claim to residence, etc. These are the sorts of things that were in fact done. The requirement of Catholic form retains these exact types of things. That is what you are looking at. To put it rather simplistically, the Catholic person has to follow the Catholic rules and the Church is reasonably happy to let the non-Catholic follow the civil laws about it, letting the state determine who was free to marry (many Protestant bodies appear to leave it to the state, but if they don’t, the Church leaves it to that body to determine it for those under their jurisdiction). The Church does not seem to really recognize the authority of the State to determine which Catholics may marry, though.

The Council of Trent (in the 1500’s), which is where you can point to for some of the history of decrees about having to observe Catholic “form”, is helpful and actually gives some of its reasoning process. Many things in that council are for “reform” and are a response to abuses.
It goes on to state, among other things, that it has to be your own parish priest, and if it is to be another, your parish priest has to know about it and permission be granted or other similar provisions, you need two witnesses, there must be a written record, etc. I think these considerations are very helpful in a Medieval setting, and still somewhat remain so today.

I suggest two other considerations. Since the Church views many marriages as sacraments, she has a vested interest in ensuring that the minimum liturgy that is fitting to the dignity of a sacrament be observed. Having baptized Catholics marry in the Church directly helps with overseeing a sacrament that is taking place. Also, since the Church is interested in her flock and their well-being, she gets a great opportunity to minister and address married life and counsel and teach by having Catholics marry in the Church because then she gets the chance to require pre-cana classes/instruction or at least talk with each couple one on one beforehand to give them what they need personally.

Thank you again Pug. Can requirements to the form of the sacrament be changed if they are deemed unnecessary? I’m not talking about changing something about the sacrament or how it is performed. To be specific to marriage. Would it be possible for the Catholic Church to take advantage of the internet and move all these records to a central repository in Rome, database them, and make that accessible so that any Catholic can simply provide a username and password and their full church records are accessible. Then the system could use the rules of cannon to automatically make a preliminary ruling on things like open to marry.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Excuse me but I don’t think anyone here has the right answer only the priest they all do thing’s the way they want, I know they do. It all depends on how they feel about your situation if I told you mine you would say that is not Catholic But as far as i can see it is catholic. Thank you!

I would love to hear your story, here or in another thread.

 

[maryjk]

That said, that leads me to a second issue (no need to discuss here - it needs it’s own thread) - the celibate couple living as brother and sister are still prevents them from receiving the sacrament of reconciliation. Even though they have repented their sin is still held bound (until the marriage is corrected or they get an extraordinary exception (which is usually not offered if the marriage is correctable). For these people the only possible methods of reconciliation is a perfect act of contrition or last rights.

Though I have heard this before I do not see it in Church Canons nor teachings. It is difficult to see how reconciliation failed to work for them. Actually since reconciliation is a sacrament **if they are in a continuous state of sin **absolution is itself bared. And again this is the very issue the thread started with.

If they are living as brother and sister, what is their sin?