Civil then Catholic

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

What does the church say if you decide to have a civial marriage then have a catholic marriage a year later? Is it a problem?

-- Diane (babyshoes08062000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2003

Answers

Response to Civial then Catholic

Yes it is a very big problem, because if you are Catholic you are not validly married after a civil ceremony. Therefore you would be living in a state of fornication for a year. It would be exactly the same as if you had simply moved in together without the civil ceremony.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 06, 2003.

Thank you for your answer. We are not planning to live together. We have been together for over 3 years, he has been in living in my country for 2.5 years but has not been earning good money he has the chance to go to a very good paying job but extremely difficult to get a work permit. So we set the date of Marriage for next year and would like to get married civially first with out any extended family knowing then we will have the proper ceromony in a year Is that okay?

-- Diane (babyshoes08062000@yahoo.com), October 06, 2003.

Diane,
I'm having trouble understanding the scenario.

First you say, "We are not planning to live together."
Then you say that you "would like to get married civilly first" (for a year).

But Paul just told you that the civil ceremony would not actually result in your "get[ting] married." So, unless you remain chaste and separate from one another after that civil ceremony, you would be "liv[ing] together" in a state of fornication (which is mortally sinful).

Are you planning to remain separate and chaste for that first year, and you just want to go through a "paper ceremony" in order to deceive the immigration office? Would that be dishonest? Illegal? It doesn't sound "kosher" to me.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 06, 2003.


Paul:

You said: "It would be exactly the same as if you had simply moved in together without the civil ceremony.". This is contrary to what is said in Fam iliaris Consortio. Section 82 deals with this situation and says [emphasis added]:

   82. There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.

The aim of pastoral action will be to make these people understand the need for consistency between their choice of life and the faith that they profess, and to try to do everything possible to induce them to regularize their situation in the light of Christian principle. While treating them with great charity and bringing them into the life of the respective communities, the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments.

  

The text states that "Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all", which is quite different from your "exactly the same". Yes, having only a civil marriage is "not ... acceptable to the church" and, yes, "the pastors of the Church will regrettably not be able to admit them to the sacraments", but your "exactly the same" misrepresents the teaching of the church.

I have, lurking here, noticed that on this site, concerning marriage, there is a rather consistent emphasis on the letter of canon law rather than the theology of marriage. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in section 1641, talks of "grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony" and in section 1642 "Christ is the source of this grace" [emphasis in original]. There is something disturbing about this legalistic tendency to reduce the grace of Christ to a legal technicality -- "... for the letter brings death, but the Spirit gives life" [2 Cor. 3:6].

But if you need an indication in canon law that a civil marriage is not "exactly the same" as a free union, note that canon 1161 [and on through 1165] allows for retroactive validation of an invalid marriage "without the renewal of consent" from "the moment the marriage was celebrated", which means that the Church recognizes in canon law that consent in a canonically invalid marriage can be a proper exchange of consent resulting in a "real" marriage. As the exchange of consent makes a marriage [The Catechism of the Catholic Church 1626: "The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that 'makes the marriage.' If consent is lacking there is no marriage." [Code of Canon Law 1057: "A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable."], surely the Church is not going to have a provision for the possibility such retroactive validation with no renewal of consent if in principle such marriages are "exactly the same" as free unions with no effective consent being exchanged.

-Tom

-- Tom Quinn (tomquinn@mailinator.com), October 06, 2003.

Dear Tom,

It is the Catholic Church with its frontal assault on all marriages and its public support of adultery and all its consequences, with a total disregard for the victims of its crimes that has "legalized" marital discussions. Rome opened the floodgates of divorce through annulments and silly men like yourself fail to see just where the shoe fits.

You are to inobservant to even see that you are much more like Paul than you care to accept.

Karl

-- karl (pARKERKAJWEN@HOTMAIL.COM), October 06, 2003.



Dear Tom,

Thank-you for that information. It is interesting. However it appears from where I sit that even though Catholics going through a civil ceremony vs. Catholics simply moving in together may not be "exactly the same" from a technical/legal viewpoint, it really comes out exactly the same in actual practice, as far as the Church is concerned. In either case, the couple does not have a union recognized by the Church; is not in fact married; is living in an overt state of mortal sin. About the only real difference in practical terms is that the civil union would have to be divorced and annulled in order to formalize what has been the case right along - their objectively unmarried state! In effect it amounts to two unmarried people making things tougher for themselves. It would really be easier to just cohabit, and would be the same for all practical purposes, even though it might have a shade of difference technically.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 06, 2003.


Thanks Tom, for posting this, because I was getting confused.... How can the Church recognize civil marriage and divorce when hearing annulments but then would say that a civil union is simply shacking up in the same breath?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 06, 2003.

Tom,

You are confused and confusing others...

No, they are not exactly the same relative to each other... One does have a bit more 'public' commitment per se...

HOWEVER, they are both same in regard to recognition and validity - they are BOTH invalid and unacceptable conditions.

Do you understand the complexity here?

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 06, 2003.


"But if you need an indication in canon law that a civil marriage is not "exactly the same""

Tom,

Your example does not concern a 'civil marriage' -IT concerns an act of will irregardless of pomp or circumstance or witness or recognition civil or otherwise.

In regards to Catholics specifically, our Church does NOT recognize civil ceremony as marriage...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 06, 2003.


Then you shouldn't need an annulment later on.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 06, 2003.


"Then you shouldn't need an annulment later on."

In the context of marrying in the Church after the fact, when there is a previous 'marriage' --Yes you should...

EVEN if a marriage in any form appears invalid --to be 'null' (not an impediment) it must be officially investigated and declared invalid by the proper authority...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 06, 2003.


Earlier, Daniel, you were saying a civil marriage is invalid because it is not in the Church. Then why would it need investigating at all? It either is valid or it isn't.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 06, 2003.

Apples & Oranges...

"It either is valid or it isn't."

Very true... Yes, BUT until determined 'officially' and in the context presented regarding a subsequently attempted marriage in the Church IT is presumed a valid impediment that requires official investigation and declaration... in this case it may be validated or it may not be validated; however, it is always invalid unless and until validated...

"Earlier, Daniel, you were saying a civil marriage is invalid because it is not in the Church."

Very true again...

For Catholics the 'condition' is not recognized as marriage in regard to being recognized valid BUT can be 'recognized'/validated as Tom pointed out above...

Additionally, as stated in first part of my response -the 'condition' is recognized as an impedident requiring official investigation... In this case it may be valid and then again it may be invalid; however, it is always an impediment...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 06, 2003.


diane here is some verses frome the bible you need to know

Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge" (Hebrews 13:4).

first of all, the catholic church is not God or any other church at that.. why have faith in man have faith in the the word of god (the bible). you may get many different answers for your questions from several different people but that don`t mean any of them are even right remember that their opinions are still just opinions. but the bible is the truth and the life of our lord Jesus Christ..

remeber when you say your vowels you vowel to god not the preist or the judge or the preacher or the paster when you make a vowel to god in marriage it is binding and honoured by god untill death god will even honour your marriage to a non believer because the apostal paul said not to be unequaly yoked and said that you can even be married to a harlot paul says that it is not a good ideal but god honours all marriage even a civial marriage

-- jason kennon (jasonkennon@yahoo.com), October 18, 2003.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ