I don't think I was clear.  Canon Law requires baptized Catholics to get married before a priest.  What happens when a NO baptized Catholic who doesn't attend mass/doesn't practice gets married to a non-Catholic?  What is the chance that such a person would get married before a NO priest?  Even if he/she did, NO priests are doubtful. In the end, are these NO Catholics actually getting married before a priest?  And if not, what's the chance that such a person would get married before a certainly valid priest (outside of the SSPX, R&R or sede chapels)?

I have to wonder how this canon truly gets fulfilled by most who identify as "Catholic" these days.

Vermont,

It’s a complete mess. I remember when Father C. and I would discuss how horrifically difficult it will be for the Church to analyze and formulate a solution for these marriage cases when She reestablishes Herself. 

The Mortara case is interesting on several different levels. It’s one of the reasons the Jєωs hated Venerable Pius IX (A great man!)

I'm surprised that Wojtyla went ahead with the "beatification" of Pius IX after the howls and garment-rending from the Jєωιѕн quarter.  I did read somewhere else, though, that they secretly relished this beatification because it would given them additional ammunition against the Church.

So, it was actually the case of Pius IX that made me reconsider my erstwhile dogmatic sedevacantism.  I ran into a man who had decided that Pius IX was an anti-pope, a heretic.  That gave me pause to consider whether this guy, or Father Cekada's infamous "Aunt Helen," could just denounce any Catholic pope as a non-Catholic anti-pope.  There are a fair number of people who are starting jump on the bandwagon of declaring Pius IX an anti-Pope, therefore rejecting papal infallibility, and basically becoming Old Catholics and/or Orthodox.

What's interesting is that when Pope Pius IX condemned the Old Catholics, he accused them of rejecting the indefectibility (not infallibility) of the Church.  He realized that it was a bit of a circular argument to say that they were rejecting an infallibly-defined dogma when it was the ability of a pope to infallibly define dogma that was being defined.  So he teaches that the Old Catholics are heretical because their conclusion would mean that the Catholic Church had "gone off the rails" ... which is not possible given her indefectibility.  That's why I keep saying that the core problem here really is indefectibility.  People can quibble to a certain extent regarding the precise limits of "infallibility in the strict sense" (as Msgr. Fenton called it), but with the Conciliar Church we're not talking about a problematic statement in an Encyclical Letter, but the establishment of an entirely new theological system, system of worship ... in short, a new religion that, were this change attributed to the Catholic Church, it would be tantamount to a substantial corruption of the Catholic Church, making it unrecognizable as a religion to Catholics who lived and died before Vatican II, and therefore lacking the notes or marks of the One True Church founded by Christ.  That is the problem here more than the precise legal disposition of a heretic pope.

True, but he says "sometimes", and clearly I didn't mean it pejoratively. 

I'm not questioning the wisdom of the Church and her laws when I say that declaring children attaining the age of reason not to be Catholics if they are raised to believe a non-Catholic religion, declaring them legitimate even though their parents' marriage was null ab initio, and retroactively validating a marriage with a sanatio in radice (which can even be kept secret from the objecting spouse) are all legal fictions.  All three fall within the Church's authority of binding and loosing.  Put another way, creating legal fictions are part of that authority.

So, this is precisely why the code treats of those who are baptized into the Catholic Church, as the Church has the right and the authority to impose legal obligations for the conditions required to contract a valid marriage over and above the requirements of Divine Law.  Church has no such authority over those who were not baptized in the Catholic Church, and that is precisely the reason why this legal requirement does not apply to non-Catholics.  Conversely, the Church could at any time lift this requirement and declare that a Catholic could marry validly even in a civil ceremony.  But the Church in her wisdom realizes what grave harm this would do to the Sacrament of Matrimony.

So it is incorrect to call them legal fictions.  When the Church binds on earth, it is bound in heaven, and vice versa.  It's the Church's actual law and it determines reality, and not merely a legal fiction.  To use the term "fiction" suggests that such people are not REALLY married, but the Church is merely pretending that they are for the purposes of subsequent application of law.  When the Church declares a sanatio, the couple do in fact become married in reality, reality being "in the eyes of God".

This thread seems to be straining at gnats and swallowing a camel.

If only a valid Catholic priest can administer the sacraments(marriage being one of them) then doesn't it
stand to reason that all the people who were married in false churches and sects or the local courthouse or by an Elvis impersonator in Vegas, aren't really married at all?
If they then get a divorce are they free to marry in the Catholic faith since their first "marriage" wasn't really valid?

I think you may be forgetting about the Marriage Contract:

Canon 1012
§ 1. Christ the Lord raised the marriage contract itself to the dignity of a sacrament among the baptized.
§ 2. Therefore among the baptized there can be no valid contract of marriage without its also being a sacrament.

For Catholics who marry in the Church, while the sacrament itself suffices to assist the married spouses for their whole lives in all the duties they have till one of them dies, it is the contract that binds them to their vows until one of them dies.

Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.

Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.

The Church recognizes all marriages as valid initially - for the good of the family so that the children are not bastards, that they have a mother and father to take care of their material needs, so that divorce is discouraged so that there are not multiple step children/step parents/step cousins and step grand parents and step etc. to the point that the family is far separated from itself - as is common place today.    

Good question.  Wouldn't the canons regarding reasons for annulment provide some insight?

I may be wrong to do so, but I view this issue re: title of the OP, similar to all of the Church's sacraments, by that I mean simply that it is a mortal sin to administer or receive any of the sacraments outside of the Church, and while doing so is sinful, it does not invalidate the sacrament.

For example, an *adult* prot baptism done correctly is still a valid baptism, but is sinful to both the minister and the recipient because it is done outside of the Church. I don't know why it wouldn't it work the same way for the sacrament of matrimony, maybe it does but I don't see why it wouldn't.  

Simply, Catholics are not permitted to marry outside of the Church is because to do so is a mortal sin, but the marriage itself is still valid by virtue of the contract - provided both spouses were free to marry.

Someone feel free to correct me, but because of the Marriage Contract, Catholics who are free to marry and marry before a justice of the peace or outside of the Church does not in and of itself automatically render the marriage null. Sinful but not null.

Catholics may not validly marry without canonical form unless a dispensation to do so is granted by the bishop.  Two Catholics who hie themselves off to a justice of the peace, even if they are otherwise free to marry, do not marry validly, and there is no sacrament.  This is due to the Church's authority to bind and to loose, which trumps the fact that two Catholics, free to marry, confer a valid sacrament upon one another.  Canonical form gives them the "faculty", as it were, to confer the sacrament validly.

A similar analogy would be a priest who hears confessions without having faculties from the bishop of the diocese where he hears the confessions.  The absolution he confers is invalid, even though he has the power of the priesthood to grant absolution per se.  (I omit here the claims to emergency jurisdiction, epikeia, and the case of a priest who absolves someone in danger of death.  I refer here to normal circuмstances.)

Pushing the analogy even further, there is the scenario, discussed in Fr Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, where a priest may validly ordain another priest with the permission of the Pope.  He has the power to do so, but he cannot validly ordain without that permission.  (I know, I thought it sounded bogus too.  This is the reasoning that Fr Lucian Pulvermacher used when he ordained priests, and even consecrated bishops, when he became "Pope Pius XIII".  He inferred that if a priest can ordain another priest, then with permission of the Pope --- in this case, himself --- a priest can consecrate a bishop, who in turn can consecrate other bishops, "jump-starting" the apostolic succession, as it were, IOW, in extremis, apostolic succession can come through a priest, in that every priest has been ordained by a bishop.  IIRC --- don't quote me on this --- he used the alleged scenario of priests consecrating bishops secretly in Iron Curtain countries as a precedent.  I will welcome anyone confirming whether I have this latter scenario correct.)

He would have made a good Pope.  A far sight better than whom we have now.

Apologies for the length of the proceeding post, but it seems highly relevant. Copied and pasted from a thread from a few years ago, this table describes the lawfulness and validity of all possible marriages. Please be sure to read the "other notes" below, which argue that due to Canon 1098, marriages that violate the Catholic form of marriage are still valid due to the crisis in the Church and the inability of marrying before one's pastor.







NOTES:

[1] [Civil Marriage] "Marriage between unbaptized persons is subject to the civil power, and in the case of these marriages the civil law has the right to determine the condition of the validity as well as the liceity of these marriage contracts.  However, the civil power is bound to respect the divine law on marriage, and all civil laws which contradict the divine law are necessarily null and void" (Woywod vol. 1, p. 647 1957 ed.).

[2] [Marriage outside the Catholic Church] Canon 1094: "General Principle: Church Law requires for the validity of marriage that it be celebrated in the presence of the pastor or Ordinary of the place, or of a priest delegated by either of these, and at least two witnesses...

..."The Following Persons are obliged to observe the form above prescribed:

1) All who are baptized in the Catholic Church or who have been converted to it from heresy or schism, even though the former or the latter may later have left the Church, whenever the contract marriage among themselves;

2) The same persons above mentioned, if they contract marriage with non-Catholics, either baptized or not baptized, even after obtaining a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion or disparity of cult" (Bouscaren and Ellis, 1946, C. 1094, p. 516).

[3] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] "If the civil law demands it, the Church does not censure parties for appearing even before a non-Catholic minister who is acting merely as an official of the government, provided that their purpose is solely to comply with the civil law and to get civil recognition of their marriage" (Woywod., p. 704).

[4] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Valid and Licit] “Also note that Canon 1098 provides for Catholics who, if their pastor is unavailable to witness their marriage for the foreseeable future (a month), they are allowed to validly marry before witnesses only, and the canon does not require that these witnesses be Catholic.  So in such a situation, a civil ceremony would suffice” (Woywod p. 705). [Also see “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].

[5] [Civil Marriage between two Catholics as Invalid and Illicit] It would be invalid and illicit, taking into account the principles from [2] and the details of canon 1099, if the couple forewent the religious ceremony in favor of the civil ceremony.  Note that the civil officiation of the marriage does not make it valid or licit, but only under certain conditions simply makes it allowable, provided that canon 1094 is followed.

[6] [Marriage by two Catholics in the Catholic Church without the Bishop’s Permission] Does not seem possible; the bishops permission is not required except inasmuch as the couple are to be married in front of their pastor who is deputed by the bishop to act on his behalf.  So in the rare and unusual instance that a couple, though free to marry, are for some reason forbidden by their pastor from marrying (something he does not, to my knowledge, have the power to do), and they go and get married in a different parish, one might perhaps face this instance.  But it would still seem valid and lawful.

[7] [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church with Bishop’s Permission] Does not seem possible at all.

[8] [Marriage between two Catholics outside the Catholic Church without Bishop’s Permission as invalid and illicit] See Note [2].  Also, regard later notes re: C. 1098

[9] [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic as invalid and illicit] It depends on whether or not the baptized non-Catholic was baptized in the Catholic Church.  See note [2] and notes [3-5]

[10] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church with the Bishop’s Permission as valid and licit] The impediment of mixed religion may be dispensed from, rendering the marriage lawful and valid.  Note that mixed religion never (by itself) renders a marriage invalid (Woywod, p. 670).  The conditions for the dispensation to be granted is moral certainty on the part of the bishop that the non-Catholic party will at least not interfere with the upbringing of Catholic children and will not interfere with the Catholic life and duty of the family.

[11] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic in the Catholic Church, without the Bishop’s permission as valid and illicit] "Canon 1060. The Church everywhere most severely forbids the contracting of marriage between two baptized persons of whom one is a Catholic whereas the other is a member of a heretical or schismatical sect; and if there is danger of perversion for the Catholic party and the children, the marriage is forbidden also by the divine law itself" (Bouscaren and Ellis, p. 458 ).

My comment: without a dispensation (i.e., the permission of the ordinary), the marriage would be unlawful.

[12] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church with the Bishop’s permission as valid and licit] This would require not only a dispensation from the impediment but also a dispensation to the Catholic party to dispense them from observing the Catholic form of marriage.

[13] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the Bishop’s permission as valid and licit] Theoretically lawful and valid according to canon 1098.  [See also note [4] and “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].

[14] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church without the bishop’s permission as valid and illicit] Theoretically valid but unlawful according to canon 1098 depending on why the bishop's permission was not given-- was he appealed to?  Could he be appealed to?  etc. This note is not substantially different from the previous note.  It's a very complicated situation. [See also note [4] and “Regarding Canon 1098” at the end of the notes].

[15] [Marriage between a Catholic and a baptized non-Catholic outside the Catholic Church, without the Bishop’s permission as invalid and illicit] Without any extenuating circuмstance (such as one which would make canon 1098 applicable), the marriage would be invalid for wont of form and the lack of dispensation allowing the Catholic to marry elsewhere.

[16] [Civil Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized as valid and licit] This is the impediment of disparity of cult (C. 1070), which renders a marriage invalid unless dispensed from (Woywod p. 712, see note [17]).  So if this couple marries civilly without sufficient reason/dispensation, it is an invalid marriage.  If, however, a dispensation is granted and the marriage before civil authorities is simply to gain civil benefits and recognition while the couple intend to or already have married in the Church with the proper dispensation and form, see note [3].

[17] [Marriage between a Catholic and a non-baptized without the Bishop’s permission, regardless of place] Marriage between a person baptized in the Catholic Church, or received into the Church from heresy or schism, and an unbaptized person is null and void" (Woywod p. 712, C. 1070)

[18] [All marriages where both parties are not baptized] The Church's law does not govern infidels.  Such persons are capable of contracting natural marriages that are valid and lawful inasmuch as they meet the conditions established for validity and liciety according to whatever governing body to whom they answer.

OTHER NOTES

Regarding Canon 1098: Canon 1098 is, in my opinion (so take it for what it’s worth), a law which dispenses parties from the requirement to observe the proper form of marriage, i.e., it dispenses from the requirement to marry in front of one’s pastor under pain of invalidity.

My opinion is based on the fact that the canon itself makes no requirement regarding the quality of witnesses (that is, it does not require them to be Catholic), nor have I ever read any commentators who require such a thing—indeed, most who write about the canon presuppose that this is not the case (i.e., when a couple to whom canon 1098 applies decide to marry in front of a civil official).

If that is the case, and I believe it is, then as a general (though exceptional) rule given the current ecclesiastical crisis, we can view the marriages between Catholics who marry outside the Church, and between Catholics and the baptized non-Catholics who marry outside the Church, as valid.

This study goes into great detail on the matter and echoes my own view about it.

Presumption of Validity: To bolster that contention, I would point out that marriage is a unique sacrament because it enjoys the favor of the law.  That means that regardless of the type of doubt which may occur after the attempted contracting of marriage, marriages are presumed valid until and unless they are proven invalid.

Baptized in the Catholic Church: This term causes some confusion.  It is not a colloquial expression, but a technical term in canon law.  In principle, it has nothing at all to do with the actual minister or even the place of baptism but with the intent of the person who is seeking baptism (or in the case of infants, the intent of the parents who seek to secure baptism for their child).

Here is Woywod on the term:

"The term 'baptized in the Catholic Church' creates some difficulty, especially in cases of baptism administered by lay persons.  In the first place, if the father and mother, or at least one of them, are Catholics and adhere to the Church, the infant baptized at the request of the Catholic party by a non-Catholic doctor or nurse in a case of emergency may still be considered baptized in the Catholic Church, for there is but one baptism, and whether the reception of that baptism means the joining of the Catholic Church or of some non-Catholic denomination depends on the will of the person who has the right and duty to care for the welfare of the infant.  If neither parent adheres to the Catholic Church (i.e., if both are Protestants or apostate Catholics), but one of them consents to have the infant baptized by a Catholic priest, one must know whether some guarantee was given of the Catholic education of the child; if so, the child was by the will of the parent legitimately enrolled in the Catholic Church.  If such guarantee was not given, no Catholic priest or layman had the right to baptized the child, and it was not legitimately enrolled in the Church Church, except in urgent danger of death... The Committee for the Authentic Interpretation of the Code declared on April 29, 1940, that persons born of non-Catholics and baptized in the Catholic Church, but not raised as Catholics, are subject to the impediment of disparity of cult according to Canon 1070 when they marry unbaptized persons" (Woywod p. 713-14).

Again, “baptized in the Catholic Church” is not a “common sense” term, not a general colloquialism, or anything of the like.  It is a technical term with an intended legal meaning and legal consequences in this context.  Apostates, for instance, would be “baptized in the Catholic Church” and despite their current-non-membership and rejection of the Church, they would be bound by this law.  The Church normally governs only members in the sense that most of her laws apply only to members, but by divine right she has jurisdiction over all the baptized, and it is her jurisprudential prerogative to decide the extent to which she imposes her laws on them.


Purpose of Table: This is all my own opinion based on the sources provided.  It's not uncommon for questions about marital validity to pop up around the forums, so I thought having this table would be useful.  The table itself was designed by Geremia and posted on CI a while back, with a request for someone to fill it in.  I am more than happy to receive any corrections or additions to the table if I've got something wrong.

Please also note that when I reference a marriage as lawful, that doesn't necessarily mean that either party attempting the marriage is free of all guilt.  For instance, while I believe that the marriage between two Catholics in front of a Lutheran minister can be lawful, I do not mean to imply by this that the parties necessarily act with all moral uprightness in so marrying, only that the marriage itself is not unlawful.  Other Catholic and moral principles that are distinct from marriage law still apply to all individuals.

Furthermore, a note of validity assumes that parties are free to marry and that there are no other impediments which would render the marriage invalid.  In cases where other diriment impediments are present, those can of course render a marriage null regardless of who the parties are and where (and in front of whom) they marry.