Author Topic: Civil Marriage long before Religious (Read 1422 times)

Änσnymσus · « **on:** October 31, 2016, 09:48:23 AM »

A relative a mine got engaged several months ago, and their wedding in the Church is planned to occur in the near future. However, it was recently revealed that they went to the courthouse and obtained a civil marriage shortly after getting engaged. They still live separately, do not plan on moving in together until after the sacramental marriage occurs, and do not hold themselves out as husband and wife. As far as I know, they are living chastely.

Apparently, my relative was going to lose health insurance, and by obtaining a civil marriage, they were able to get on the fiance's plan together. Is there anything wrong with this?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #1 on:** October 31, 2016, 10:25:17 AM »

In certain countries, they separate the civil and sacramental aspects of marriage. Where do they live, OP?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #2 on:** October 31, 2016, 12:49:08 PM »

Quote from: Guest

In certain countries, they separate the civil and sacramental aspects of marriage. Where do they live, OP?

That's not the case in this circuмstance, they live in the United Sates. They did not get the civil marriage because it was required by law, they got it for a financial/insurance benefit several months prior to the sacramental wedding.

nctradcath · « **Reply #3 on:** October 31, 2016, 01:48:24 PM »

What you wrote sounds reasonable.

Geremia · « **Reply #4 on:** October 31, 2016, 03:07:37 PM »

Don't all Catholics who marry nowadays get a marriage license prior to marrying?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #5 on:** October 31, 2016, 05:36:27 PM »

I know someone who did something similar to this, for visa reasons. One of the two was a foreigner on a work visa that was expiring shortly after the wedding, so they did the civil wedding earlier to avoid issues. The practice is generally discouraged, but if there is a legitimate reason it is allowed from what I understand.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #6 on:** November 01, 2016, 08:56:14 AM »

Quote from: Geremia

Don't all Catholics who marry nowadays get a marriage license prior to marrying?

Yes, I'm not questioning that. I'm questioning that fact that they obtained a civil marriage (not merely a license, which in most cases the priest signs after the wedding) over a year before when the sacramental wedding is to take place.

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #7 on:** November 01, 2016, 08:58:12 AM »

Quote from: Guest

I know someone who did something similar to this, for visa reasons. One of the two was a foreigner on a work visa that was expiring shortly after the wedding, so they did the civil wedding earlier to avoid issues. The practice is generally discouraged, but if there is a legitimate reason it is allowed from what I understand.

Thanks for the information. Do you know if there is any written guidance about this issue?

Stubborn · « **Reply #8 on:** November 01, 2016, 09:27:16 AM »

Quote from: Guest

A relative a mine got engaged several months ago, and their wedding in the Church is planned to occur in the near future. However, it was recently revealed that they went to the courthouse and obtained a civil marriage shortly after getting engaged. They still live separately, do not plan on moving in together until after the sacramental marriage occurs, and do not hold themselves out as husband and wife. As far as I know, they are living chastely.

Apparently, my relative was going to lose health insurance, and by obtaining a civil marriage, they were able to get on the fiance's plan together. Is there anything wrong with this?

The problem is that the Church recognizes all marriages which conform to the civil law as valid marriages, provided of course that the two people are free to marry. She does not automatically disqualify Jєωιѕн, prot, civil etc. marriages as invalid - so Catholics who get married by the Justice of the Peace, actually are considered sinful but valid. It would seem in their quest to save insurance / money, they did so at the expense of committing sin.

Would they get divorced if their plans involving the civil ceremony didn't work out as planned or would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened?

Änσnymσus · « **Reply #9 on:** November 01, 2016, 11:30:58 AM »

Quote

The problem is that the Church recognizes all marriages which conform to the civil law as valid marriages, provided of course that the two people are free to marry. She does not automatically disqualify Jєωιѕн, prot, civil etc. marriages as invalid - so Catholics who get married by the Justice of the Peace, actually are considered sinful but valid. It would seem in their quest to save insurance / money, they did so at the expense of committing sin.

Would they get divorced if their plans involving the civil ceremony didn't work out as planned or would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened?

They're not valid marriages if they're baptized Catholic(s) and get "married" outside the Church. Canon law is pretty clear about that. I didn't go to my brother's wedding because he married a non-Catholic outside the Church (albeit he hasn't been to mass in 10 years).

Dolores · « **Reply #10 on:** November 01, 2016, 12:21:45 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The problem is that the Church recognizes all marriages which conform to the civil law as valid marriages, provided of course that the two people are free to marry. She does not automatically disqualify Jєωιѕн, prot, civil etc. marriages as invalid - so Catholics who get married by the Justice of the Peace, actually are considered sinful but valid. It would seem in their quest to save insurance / money, they did so at the expense of committing sin.

Would they get divorced if their plans involving the civil ceremony didn't work out as planned or would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened?

As has been pointed by someone else, the bolded portion of the above statement is inaccurate. While it is true that non-Catholics validly marry outside of the Church (assuming they are free to marry), if a Catholic attempts to marry outside of the Church, the marriage is invalid. Both the 1917 and the 1983 Codes of Canon law are clear on this.

Stubborn · « **Reply #11 on:** November 01, 2016, 12:40:16 PM »

Quote from: Guest

Quote

The problem is that the Church recognizes all marriages which conform to the civil law as valid marriages, provided of course that the two people are free to marry. She does not automatically disqualify Jєωιѕн, prot, civil etc. marriages as invalid - so Catholics who get married by the Justice of the Peace, actually are considered sinful but valid. It would seem in their quest to save insurance / money, they did so at the expense of committing sin.

Would they get divorced if their plans involving the civil ceremony didn't work out as planned or would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened?

They're not valid marriages if they're baptized Catholic(s) and get "married" outside the Church. Canon law is pretty clear about that. I didn't go to my brother's wedding because he married a non-Catholic outside the Church (albeit he hasn't been to mass in 10 years).

Well, from the OP, looks like the marriage was valid, sinful but valid. What about if their plans didn't work out - would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened and go their own separate ways? get divorced? get an annulment?

There are Church Laws regarding marriage. They are all framed with the recognition of the holiness of the sacrament and the gravity of it - and the need that we have for not only the grace of the sacrament, but also for the directives that the laws contain.

I assure you that CL does not permit Catholics to get a civil marriage for convenience sake, then finalize the whole thing all over again with all the trappings officially within the Church when it is once again convenient to do so.

Let me put it this way - if it were me and I were to do that for any reason, I would be validly married and would be committing mortal sin by getting married outside the Church, that's the way that works for me. If your relative found a loop hole, please spill the beans as I am sure there's a few couples out there might like to partake.

Stubborn · « **Reply #12 on:** November 01, 2016, 12:41:40 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: Stubborn
The problem is that the Church recognizes all marriages which conform to the civil law as valid marriages, provided of course that the two people are free to marry. She does not automatically disqualify Jєωιѕн, prot, civil etc. marriages as invalid - so Catholics who get married by the Justice of the Peace, actually are considered sinful but valid. It would seem in their quest to save insurance / money, they did so at the expense of committing sin.

Would they get divorced if their plans involving the civil ceremony didn't work out as planned or would they simply forget the whole thing as if it never happened?

As has been pointed by someone else, the bolded portion of the above statement is inaccurate. While it is true that non-Catholics validly marry outside of the Church (assuming they are free to marry), if a Catholic attempts to marry outside of the Church, the marriage is invalid. Both the 1917 and the 1983 Codes of Canon law are clear on this.

Please post the 1917 canon(s) that applies.

Against the Heresies · « **Reply #13 on:** November 01, 2016, 01:08:18 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

Please post the 1917 canon(s) that applies.

Easy task:

Quote

Can. 1094. Ea tantum matrimonia valida sunt quae contrahuntur coram parocho, vel loci Ordinario, vel sacerdote ab alterutro delegato et duobus saltem testibus, secundum tamen regulas expressas in canonibus qui sequuntur, et salvis exceptionibus de quibus in can. 1098,1099.

Stubborn · « **Reply #14 on:** November 01, 2016, 01:10:44 PM »

Well that certainly helps to all who can understand Latin.

Author Topic: Civil Marriage long before Religious (Read 1422 times)

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus

Änσnymσus