Author Topic: Civil Weddings Negativity (Read 1220 times)

Malleus · « **on:** April 09, 2015, 06:01:20 PM »

It seems to me i once read something negative about civil weddings from some traditionalist source but i just can't remember what it was. I don't know if it was doing them before sacramental marriage, the party, or if they were different before Vatican 2 etc., i just can't remember.

Does it ring any bells to anyone?

JezusDeKoning · « **Reply #1 on:** April 09, 2015, 07:23:18 PM »

Some countries keep the two separate (civil and sacramental marriage), I think. I know France, Ireland and Mexico do.

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #2 on:** April 09, 2015, 08:23:18 PM »

There are a number of people who think that a civil wedding is as good as a Catholic wedding.

This is condemned by the Church, though I do not exactly remember where...

If I remember correctly...Catholics are not even supposed to attend the wedding of another Catholic who gets married through a merely civil wedding.

Hope this helps a bit...

It might have been in the Baltimore Catechism...

Malleus · « **Reply #3 on:** April 09, 2015, 09:14:44 PM »

Quote from: AMDGJMJ

There are a number of people who think that a civil wedding is as good as a Catholic wedding.

This is condemned by the Church, though I do not exactly remember where...

Hope this helps a bit...

It might have been in the Baltimore Catechism...

I think it may have been something along those lines, regarding it as enough to start living together and that sort of thing, maybe.

Quote from: AMDGJMJ

If I remember correctly...Catholics are not even supposed to attend the wedding of another Catholic who gets married through a merely civil wedding.

Is this to be understood, if they explicitly make it known they will only get married civilly and make no mention of Church marriage?

Is the civil marriage supposed to be before or after the Church one?

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #4 on:** April 10, 2015, 06:24:35 AM »

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: AMDGJMJ
There are a number of people who think that a civil wedding is as good as a Catholic wedding.

This is condemned by the Church, though I do not exactly remember where...

Hope this helps a bit...

It might have been in the Baltimore Catechism...

I think it may have been something along those lines, regarding it as enough to start living together and that sort of thing, maybe.

Quote from: AMDGJMJ
If I remember correctly...Catholics are not even supposed to attend the wedding of another Catholic who gets married through a merely civil wedding.

Is this to be understood, if they explicitly make it known they will only get married civilly and make no mention of Church marriage?

Is the civil marriage supposed to be before or after the Church one?

This site seems to explain everything quite thoroughly:

http://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/k002rpMarriage2.html

AlanF · « **Reply #5 on:** April 10, 2015, 07:07:06 AM »

Quote from: Malleus

Quote from: AMDGJMJ
If I remember correctly...Catholics are not even supposed to attend the wedding of another Catholic who gets married through a merely civil wedding.

Is this to be understood, if they explicitly make it known they will only get married civilly and make no mention of Church marriage?

Catholics are bound be observe the Church's laws regarding marriage, which means having a church wedding witnessed by a Catholic priest. Catholics remain bound by the Church's laws even if they leave the faith or lapse. So if a baptized Catholic were to have only a civil wedding it would be null and void and Catholics should not attend it. The couple would be living in sin afterwards because they're not validly married.

I know a trad family who recently refused to go the "wedding" of one of the sons because he's apostatized and had a purely civil ceremony.

Quote from: Malleus

Is the civil marriage supposed to be before or after the Church one?

I countries like France where one has to have a civil ceremony before the church one they normally have the civil ceremony a day or so beforehand. I've been told by people who know France better than me that a lot of the trads there will intentionally dress sloppily and be as disrespectful as possible during the civil ceremony to make it clear they don't recognize the usurped authority of the state to contract marriages!

Centroamerica · « **Reply #6 on:** April 10, 2015, 07:35:04 AM »

In the U.S. a civil marriage is not necessary, so the Church officials do not recommend it. For baptized Catholics all civil marriages are invalid anyways. In Brazil, it is a law that one must be married civilly before any other religious authority can perform your marriage. For that reason I was married civilly here in Brazil where my Catholic marriage took place, however, we continued to live in seperate houses until the Catholic marriage took place. Whereas in the U.S., because of the difference in laws, a Catholic priest will prohibit you from a civil marriage, here in Barzil, in contrast based on the laws, a Catholic priest must see proof of your civil marriage before performing your marriage.

If I would've married in the U.S. a civil marriage is not necessary. Instead, in the U.S. you pay for a marriage licenses, which is not what we have to do in Brazil.

Protestant marriages are valid for protestants and pagan marriages are valid for pagans, but only in the natural sense, they receive no sacramental, supernatural nature. Mixed marriages outside the Catholic Church between a believing Catholic do not take any validity even in the purely natural sense.

There is an examination of conscience that asks if you have ever performed a civil marriage in the U.S. I am pretty sure it is published by the Society or an affiliate, so they consider it sinful in the U.S. where it is not necessary. Remember that in the U.S. you must get a marriage license and register your marriage by law and marrying civilly is not required if you marry in the Church.

Dolores · « **Reply #7 on:** April 10, 2015, 08:45:07 AM »

As others have stated, in many countries (basically all of continental Europe, for example), a religious marriage does not have the the force of civil law. So, in order to be married in the eyes of the state, people typically have a small civil wedding before a judge or other local official a few days before the (real) wedding in the Church. There is nothing wrong with this if your country's laws require it, and the Church has never forbade or condemned it.

In other countries, however (United States, United Kingdom, and Canada, for example), a wedding in the Church does have the force of civil law. There is, therefore, no need for a Catholic to ever have a civil wedding in any of these countries.

AMDGJMJ · « **Reply #8 on:** April 16, 2015, 07:45:44 PM »

I was reading something today and came across this:

"The second excommunication (n. 127) applied to American Catholics who married (or attempted marriage) before a non-Catholic minister. This excommunication was later complemented by canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which in turn was modified in 1953 to subsume the U.S.-only excommunication."

From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore...

Malleus · « **Reply #9 on:** April 17, 2015, 10:29:16 AM »

Quote from: AMDGJMJ

I was reading something today and came across this:

"The second excommunication (n. 127) applied to American Catholics who married (or attempted marriage) before a non-Catholic minister. This excommunication was later complemented by canon 2319 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, which in turn was modified in 1953 to subsume the U.S.-only excommunication."

From the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore...

That refers to sacramental marriage, not civil. It has of course always been forbidden to attempt to be married in the eyes of God by a non-Catholic minister.

So since civil marriages are a disgrace because they have to be done where the State doesn't recognize the Church to begin with, does this mean they shouldn't be celebrated? Now the practice is to have a little party in Novus Ordo civil marriages, as if they were something good.