Would not having a wedding recognized by the state be grounds for annulment?

  • Thread starter Thread starter WannabeSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WannabeSaint

Guest
If a couple had a valid church wedding without obtaining a marriage license from the state, would they be able to have their marriage annulled?
 
No. Civil and Church recognition are two separate things. In some parts of the world the civil and Church requirements are fulfilled in the same ceremony. In other parts, couples need to go through the civil part separately. It’s perfectly possible (although illegal) for me to marry a couple who don’t have a marriage licence. Their marriage wouldn’t be recognised civilly but would be recognised by the Church.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
40.png
WannabeSaint:
If a couple had a valid church wedding without obtaining a marriage license from the state,
Click to expand...
How would this happen exactly?

In US, priests won’t marry you in the Church without a marriage license.
Click to expand...
Do all states require a licence?

One province in Canada does not require a licence if banns are published in Church. At the time I got married the same law applied in my province but that has since changed.
 
Celebrating marriage only in the Church is a valid sacrament, but it is allowed by the canon law only with the permission of the bishop. The permission may be granted if the civil law is unjust. If there is no bishop’s permission, the marriage is a so-called valid but illicit sacrament.
 
Yes, all 50 US States require a marriage license.

At this point I’m not aware of any state having a marriage law the Church would regard as unjust.
 
Last edited:
I can see this happening in pre-civil rights era USA where, if I"m not mistaken, the Church was open to marrying couples of different races even where the civil law did not allow it.
 
In the US, no priest or deacon would be permitted to officiate such a wedding. We are bound to follow the law.
 
Would that apply to mixed-race couples during the Jim Crow-era?
 
tuffsmurf said:
Would that apply to mixed-race couples during the Jim Crow-era?
Click to expand...
The Church would marry them. Probably not all priests, but a good many did.
I think one priest was martyred for doing that.

Edited to add, there was one priest in California also who didn’t marry the couple but referred them to a lawyer who helped them sue the state with the Church’s support to get the marriage law changed.
 
Last edited:
That is a question for a Canonist who is an expert in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
 
Bernoulli said:
Celebrating marriage only in the Church is a valid sacrament, but it is allowed by the canon law only with the permission of the bishop. The permission may be granted if the civil law is unjust. If there is no bishop’s permission, the marriage is a so-called valid but illicit sacrament.
Click to expand...
If I remember correctly, it is also allowable under canon 1079 in urgent danger of death. For example, a couple is preparing for marriage and gets into a bad car accident, a priest (or a deacon with faculties) could marry them before providing last rites even without the bishop’s permission (assuming that the pastor could not contact the bishop). If they pulled through, the marriage would be both valid and licit with regard to the Church. An edge case for sure, but mentioned for completeness sake. 😉

In the instance you reference, it would seem unlikely that it could be used as grounds for a declaration of nullity even if it was illicit, but I’d leave that up to a canonist as the interplay between validity, licitiness and proper faculties (which could impact validity) tend to get me tied in knots. 🤨
 
Since the Church requires a divorce to open up an annulment investigation I would think one would have to be married by the state.
This is one area where, in most countries, the Church has given authority to the state over a sacrament. Given the fact that the Church and state now define marriage in an irreconcilable way, there will be a future clash between the two. The state has the high ground as of now.
 
I know my former Pastor was roundly chastised by the province when he celebrated the marriage of a couple whose marriage licence had expired. He had done it on purpose because the community was isolated, he had been delayed going there by the weather, they had no licensing office there, and it cost about $700 to fly to our community to acquire said licence, plus pay for the licence.

Another ceremony was done, paperwork filed, then it all came back to us because the bride had signed the documents with the married name she’d been using since the first ceremony. Eventually he got a judge he knew involved and things were resolved. And the province finally appointed licence issuers in the isolated communities - in some cases it was RCMP members in charge of the local detachment.
 
True, but that doesn’t stop people from doing their own thing. Not everyone follows the law, and maybe there is one out there who would.
 
It’s not all that far fetched surprisingly. Here, a couple have to apply for a marriage licence in advance of their wedding which gives me (civil) permission to officiate at it. I’m supposed to sight this licence on the day (or beforehand) and then complete the accompanying paperwork. It’s easy to envisage a couple either forgetting to bring the licence with them on the day (usually I tell them to bring it to the rehearsal a couple of days before) or forgetting to apply for it altogether and then begging me to celebrate it regardless. This would of course put me in an awkward predicament - everyone and everything’s ready and waiting but if I refuse the wedding’s not going ahead.

Would this cause problems? Well, for one thing it’s illegal and so I could be removed from the register of celebrants which would stop be solemnizing weddings altogether.
 
Usige said:
If I remember correctly, it is also allowable under canon 1079 in urgent danger of death. For example, a couple is preparing for marriage and gets into a bad car accident, a priest (or a deacon with faculties) could marry them before providing last rites even without the bishop’s permission (assuming that the pastor could not contact the bishop). If they pulled through, the marriage would be both valid and licit with regard to the Church. An edge case for sure, but mentioned for completeness sake.
Click to expand...
Please forgive me, everyone, if I’m just being unwittingly obtuse, but why would a couple, where death is imminent, need to get married?

In the civil law, I could understand it — to ensure inheritance rights (even for one’s heirs), survivor’s rights if only one were in danger of death, continuity of insurance or veteran’s benefits, beneficiary rights, and so on — but what spiritual need is there? The only thing I can remotely imagine, is the need to legitimize a child in the eyes of the Church. Presumably in the “bad car accident” scenario, there is no civil marriage license.

What am I missing here?
 
HomeschoolDad said:
if I’m just being unwittingly obtuse, but why would a couple, where death is imminent, need to get married?
Click to expand...
From what I remember, death does not need to be ensured or the most likely outcome, but that the possibility of death and survival are equally probable. The example we were given was something like a village is being attacked by overwhelming force and a person is called to serve as a soldier in the local malitia. Because people have the right to request the sacraments their right in danger of death trumps dispensible Impediments.

While one can argue that the sacrament of matrimony is of little to no use if someone will die shortly afterwards, it is possible that the graces of marriage are the “spark” that leads one to conversion of heart or perhaps gives them the fortitude to survive and return to their spouse.

As I said it’s an odd corner case but is a reason where it might be possible to validly have the sacrament of matrimony without civil effect. I would certainly try to do everything possible to contact the bishop, vicar general, or chancery before proceeding.
 
Last edited:
This is not the case in all countries, as there are countries where divorce is/has been forbidden unless you have a religious annulment.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top