Valid Marriage Questions

Tami87

Hi all,
So I've been reading through a few posts and have gotten myself confused about when a marriage is considered valid. For the record these questions don't apply to my FI and I, as we are both practicing Catholics and getting married in a Catholic church, I am just curious.

Okay so from what I've learned on this board my understanding is (and please correct me if this is wrong!) if two non-Catholics get married their marriage is assumed to be valid unless there is evidence otherwise (this would be determined through annulment process).

But if a non-practicing Catholic marries a non-Catholic outside the Catholic church this marriage is not considered valid unless a proper form is filled out and apporved or there is a covalidation ceremony later in a Catholic church.

So I am particularly confused about the second scenario as to why this marriage would be considered invalid. My guess is because the Catholic party knows that proper form is to marry in a Catholic church and choses not to do so anyway.

Okay, so then I also have a question about a particular scenario. My MOH is a practicing methodist but she was baptised in the Catholic church. Her dad was Catholic and her mom a protestant. They were married in a Catholic church and had their two kids baptised in a Catholic church. Her dad then fell away from his faith and stopped attending mass with the family. Her mom continued taking the kids to the Catholic church for a little while but then starting taking them to a Methodist church where she felt more comfortable when it became clear that the dad no longer cared about attending church or raising the kids Catholic. So from the time my MOH and her brother were 5 and 3 they have been raised methodist by their mom. (Side note about a decade later her dad had a change of heart and suddenly decided he wanted to go to church again and they are all practicing methodists now). So... if my MOH were to marry a non-Catholic in a protestant church would her marriage be considered valid? LIke I said she was baptised Catholic as a baby but has received no other sacraments, nor was she raised in the faith.

AshP12

Yeah, the church can be a bit confusing sometimes. This is how I understand it all:

As our priest explained to us, there are two types of marriage: 1) legal marriage (as recognized by the government) and 2) Marriage before God (marriage as recognized by the church). Therefore, if you are married in a courthouse, the church does not recognize your marriage, even if both parties are Catholic. (I feel like I could be wrong on this point, but that's just how I understood it in the context of when annulments are granted -- so if you were both married in a courthouse, then converted to Catholicism, then later wanted a divorce and annulment, they would grant you the annulment since your marriage was never officially recognized by the church. But I also don't think they would count it as "living in sin" while you were married and Catholic since you had the legal marriage before your conversion). I hope that makes sense.

According to our priest, annulments can be granted if the marriage wasn't valid, which he also included situations such as one member feeling pressured to marry against their will, or a marriage based on conditions (i.e. green-card marriage, or "I'm marrying you so I can have kids"). These invalidate a marriage even if both parties are Catholic.

As for  the special dispensation, we need one for our marriage because we are having an "inter-faith marriage" (FI is Protestant, I'm Catholic, it will be a Catholic ceremony outside the mass). It's basically just a formality; our priest said the archdiocese never denies anyone.

As far as your MOH, I think the main point for the Catholic church is the "married before God" part. If the marriage was performed by a Methodist minister and the couple had every intention of including God in their marriage, then I do believe the Catholic church would recognize that as valid because it was a Christian marriage ,regardless of people's baptismal certificates or sacramental standing.

It really just boils down to that the church can't really tell if a marriage is valid or not. I had confirmation with kids who said outright they weren't Christians, they were just getting the sacrament to please their parents. Those same kids are now getting married in Catholic churches for the same reason. The church will consider those marriages vaild -- but they really can't judge people's hearts, no matter how hard they try.

agapecarrie

Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. It is impossible to be "undone". Whether a person practices or even denies their Catholic faith, they will always be Catholic. A Catholic is bound to the promises made at Baptism (either by them or their Godparents). This is why it is so important to have God parents that are in good standing with the church so that if a parent falls away and neglects their responsibilities that they promised to uphold in the church, the Godparents take over.

This may be through no fault of their own. This is in no way saying that they are doomed to hell . some folks might not even know they are Catholic, but that doesn't change the ontological state of their soul (objective reality that they are "imprinted"). By this very nature, a marriage just won't happen unless following the norms of the church (or getting them dispensed of properly). 

agapecarrie

2 non-Catholics are not bound by Canon law. They can marry anywhere and the church honors that marriage, provided they have no impediements (such as previous marriages, lack of free will, etc).

A Catholic is bound to get married according to the norms of the church, or to get official dispensations from form.  

unplainjane

when you say "valid" it depends on who's validating it. basically if a couple is non-catholic then their marriage is "valid" under civil law. a marriage being valid by the catholic church only applies to catholics.

like PP said once a catholic always a catholic. If you are catholic and marry anyone not in a catholic church then your marriage is not valid under the eyes of the catholic church.

a catholic can marry a non-catholic in a catholic church by getting permission from the archdiocese. in this case their marriage is considered valid as well.

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_valid-marriage-questions?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:f8e08ba2-f2a6-4500-9396-d46025af5e1bPost:c79b1bdd-cee4-4c09-8948-2e5d910faf19">Re: Valid Marriage Questions</a>:
[QUOTE]when you say "valid" it depends on who's validating it. basically if a couple is non-catholic then their marriage is "valid" under civil law. a marriage being valid by the catholic church only applies to catholics. like PP said once a catholic always a catholic. If you are catholic and marry anyone not in a catholic church then your marriage is not valid under the eyes of the catholic church. a catholic can marry a non-catholic in a catholic church by getting permission from the archdiocese. in this case their marriage is considered valid as well.
Posted by unplainjane[/QUOTE]

<div>Well, actually, it applies to non-catholics too, whether they care or not. This is why non-Catholics who have previous marriages can petition the tribunal for annulment. </div><div>
</div><div>There is an objective reality to the situation about marriages. Non-Catholics might not care whether the church considers them married or not, but natural law determines what marriage "is"</div>

catarntina

I have a question...

If we, as Catholics, believe that there is one baptism, then when someone converts from say Lutheranism to Catholicsm, they are not baptized again.  Is that correct?  (I'm a cradle Catholic, so I don't know if they are re-baptized, or if they are even baptized in the Lutheran church.)  They take Holy Communion, Confirmation, can be married, and they are considered Catholics, not Lutherans.

If that is correct, what happens when someone who was baptized Catholic converts to Lutheranism?  Why are they still considered Catholics?  Why couldn't someone who has converted to Lutheranism have a valid marriage in the eyes of the church?  If say that person gets a divorce, meets a Catholic, and wants to get remarried, he'd only have to do a simple Lack of Form, and not a full annulment even if he still considers himself Lutheran.  Why is that the case?

agapecarrie

One Baptism: means that anyone baptized with the correct formula is considered Baptized and they would not be rebaptized.

When someone is received into the Catholic church, and commits to it, they are then bound to the form and laws of the Catholic church. This cannot be undone. This is the basic simple fact. You cannot "undo" Catholic.

There used to be a canon law about "formal defection". There was a whole confusion in the tribunals as to what formal defection meant, and how someone formally defected. They tightened it up and stated that one must actually write the Bishop and have it accepted to be considered formally defected. Well, no one who is leaving the church actually cares about the authority of the Bishop so no one did it, nor even knew they had to. A few years ago, the formal defection exception was done away with completely. 

professorscience

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_valid-marriage-questions?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:f8e08ba2-f2a6-4500-9396-d46025af5e1bPost:e90ff93f-4faf-42b0-be04-b3e7d29314f5">Re: Valid Marriage Questions</a>:
[QUOTE]I have a question... If we, as Catholics, believe that there is one baptism, then <strong>when someone converts from say Lutheranism to Catholicsm, they are not baptized again.  Is that correct? </strong> (I'm a cradle Catholic, so I don't know if they are re-baptized, or if they are even baptized in the Lutheran church.)  They take Holy Communion, Confirmation, can be married, and they are considered Catholics, not Lutherans. If that is correct, what happens when someone who was baptized Catholic converts to Lutheranism?  Why are they still considered Catholics?  Why couldn't someone who has converted to Lutheranism have a valid marriage in the eyes of the church?  If say that person gets a divorce, meets a Catholic, and wants to get remarried, he'd only have to do a simple Lack of Form, and not a full annulment even if he still considers himself Lutheran.  Why is that the case?
Posted by catarntina[/QUOTE]

<div>Yeah, there's no re-baptism.  They'll do "conditional baptisms" if the convert can't provide proof that they were baptized but says they were (example: baptized in some tiny church that has since closed up, all the members passed away or moved).  Although many protestant churches view baptism as the actual entrance into their church.  My dad was raised Catholic and then got baptized in the Church of Christ when I was about 12.</div>

Tami87

Thanks for the responses guys. It makes sense that baptism into the Catholic church is something that can't be undone. But I am still am struggling with understanding why someone could not even know they were baptised Catholic as a baby and still be expected to get married in the Catholic church for their marriage to be valid, while a non-Catholic's marriage outside the church could be valid. I get that Catholics are bound by canon law, but if you have never been taught what canon law is, how would you be expected to follow it?

I agree this scenario does highlight the importance of parents and Godparents helping to raise their children/God children in the faith.

Also it is really interesting about how there used to be a canon law about "formal defection". I've never hear d that before. I learn so much on these boards so thanks for that.

agapecarrie

I think it really does illustrate how big and serious decision it is to get children baptized, and what the commitment it is. 

lalaith50

I've heard about the "formal defection" before, but I didn't know that it wasn't still an option? I wonder why?

agapecarrie

Because virtually no one who wants to defect cares about the authority of the Bishop to write him, if they even knew they had to. There are 2 reasons right there. Seeing as how we have always believes "once Catholic always Catholic" anyway, it didn't make sense to have formal defection to begin with. I believe that was in there for the purpose of charity, for marriages,  and it causes more confusion because one really can't "Defect" from the Catholic faith. 

The advocates and tribunals have a huge headache trying to figure out who was lack of form and who is full out annulment. This is so important to have clarity on this issue.

Resa77

Agape, you seem to know your stuff, so let me know if this sounds correct...

I think there's some confusion about "licit" vs "valid."  The proper matter of the sacrament of marriage is 2 baptized people (man and woman), and the proper form is the vows.  This is my understanding of it, based on what I was told by a priest as well as teachers in Catholic school.

A Catholic who marries a protestment in a Lutheran church, for example, still has a valid marriage.  It's just illicit.  That's why they don't get re-married, but rather have a convalidation, to follow the proper Church norms.

I think it actually gets tricky here because so many protestants now write their own vows, and so how can you be sure the vows actually included what's needed for it to be a sacrament?  It used to be that Christian wedding vows were pretty standard, but that's really not the case anymore. 

A marriage can also be licit but invalid.  Two close friends of mine recently got married, and their marriage falls into this category.  He is Catholic, she is Jewish.  Their marriage is licit, in that they went through the Catholic church for marriage prep and such.  It is invalid because they do not have the proper matter for the sacrament, because she's not baptized. 

Again, this is just what I've always been taught.  If Agape or anyone else has corrections/clarifications to add, I'm all ears

agapecarrie

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_valid-marriage-questions?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:f8e08ba2-f2a6-4500-9396-d46025af5e1bPost:fa991ff5-aca4-4e90-8572-e51d16c6ccb3">Re: Valid Marriage Questions</a>:
[QUOTE]Agape, you seem to know your stuff, so let me know if this sounds correct... I think there's some confusion about "licit" vs "valid."  The proper matter of the sacrament of marriage is 2 baptized people (man and woman), and the proper form is the vows.  This is my understanding of it, based on what I was told by a priest as well as teachers in Catholic school. A Catholic who marries a protestment in a Lutheran church, for example, still has a valid marriage.  It's just illicit.  That's why they don't get re-married, but rather have a convalidation, to follow the proper Church norms. I think it actually gets tricky here because so many protestants now write their own vows, and so how can you be sure the vows actually included what's needed for it to be a sacrament?  It used to be that Christian wedding vows were pretty standard, but that's really not the case anymore.  A marriage can also be licit but invalid.  Two close friends of mine recently got married, and their marriage falls into this category.  He is Catholic, she is Jewish.  Their marriage is licit, in that they went through the Catholic church for marriage prep and such.  It is invalid because they do not have the proper matter for the sacrament, because she's not baptized.  Again, this is just what I've always been taught.  If Agape or anyone else has corrections/clarifications to add, I'm all ears :)
Posted by Resa77[/QUOTE]

Nope this is incorrect. The Form for Catholic marriage is more than just vows. It is going through the channels in the church. It is getting married IN the church building. A catholic who marries outside the church without dispensation is not in a valid marriage. This is why it is "lack of form" annulment. They are not considered in a valid marriage at all.

A convalidation IS actually a wedding. It IS when people actually "get married". It is called "convalidation" because it means that the priest is making the marriage valid "along with" the legal marriage that is already valid.  The term convalidate is referring to the lack of legal aspect that the priest is doing.

Your reference for "illicit" is also incorrect.
2 people can enter into a valid natural marriage. It is also a Sacrament when they are both Baptized. There is nothing "illicit" about either scenarios.

Illicit refers to when there may be an abnormality in the way Mass is performed...such as a liturgical abuse-- say the priest decides to skip the Gloria on a Sunday that its supposed to be sung, ON PURPOSE (not an accident). This is illicit, but does not make the Eucharist in that mass invalid.

Resa77

In Response to <a href="http://forums.theknot.com/Sites/theknot/Pages/Main.aspx/cultural-wedding-boards_catholic-weddings_valid-marriage-questions?plckFindPostKey=Cat:Cultural%20Wedding%20BoardsForum:615Discussion:f8e08ba2-f2a6-4500-9396-d46025af5e1bPost:8217f448-1bc7-47ab-9ff3-de588d4b1692">Re: Valid Marriage Questions</a>:
[QUOTE]In Response to Re: Valid Marriage Questions : Nope this is incorrect. The Form for Catholic marriage is more than just vows. It is going through the channels in the church. It is getting married IN the church building. A catholic who marries outside the church without dispensation is not in a valid marriage. This is why it is "lack of form" annulment. They are not considered in a valid marriage at all. A convalidation IS actually a wedding. It IS when people actually "get married". It is called "convalidation" because it means that the priest is making the marriage valid "along with" the legal marriage that is already valid.  The term convalidate is referring to the lack of legal aspect that the priest is doing. Your reference for "illicit" is also incorrect. <strong>2 people can enter into a valid natural marriage</strong>. It is also a Sacrament when they are both Baptized. There is nothing "illicit" about either scenarios. <strong>Illicit refers to when there may be an abnormality in the way Mass is performed...such as a liturgical abuse-- say the priest decides to skip the Gloria on a Sunday that its supposed to be sung, ON PURPOSE (not an accident). This is illicit, but does not make the Eucharist in that mass invalid.</strong>
Posted by agapecarrie[/QUOTE]

You misunderstood me there...When I use the term "valid" here I'm referring solely to sacraments.  Valid and licit are terms that I was always taught in relation to all sacraments. I was referring to the sacrament not being valid, because it would not have proper matter (a baptizedd man and a baptized woman). By licit, I meant the marriage is allowable as a natural marriage recognized as such by the Church, since all the proper steps were followed.  Just a matter of semantics :)

I understand fully what licit means.  Your example is correct, because the gloria is not part of the sacrament of the Eucharist. though it is part of the rubrics of the Mass  If the priest skipped the words of the consecration, or used pretzels instead of unleavened bread, then the sacrament would be illicit and invalid. 

Back to the whole marriage form -- I'm just super confused as to why I was taught this incorrectly?  I mean ,we were given examples such as the following:

-- 2 Catholics wish to marry.  There is not priest around, and no organized Catholic Church (think: stranded on an island).  They say vows to each other.  They have a valid sacramental marriage.

So yeah, now I'm just super confused.  Also, at my brother's convalidation, the priest very clearly said that they were already married, and that this ceremony was the Church giving its blessing (ie making it licit). 

lalaith50

(actually, pretzels, assuming they were made from wheat, *might* be "valid," but definitely illicit. The addition of other elements to the "bread" doesn't necessarily invalidate it. {but I'm just not positive to what degree.} I think it might have to be "recognizable" as bread, which pretzels probably aren't, but that's debatable. And regarding the leavening, the Greek Orthodox have a completely valid Eucharist, and they use leavening.)

agapecarrie

The term valid is used differently for marriage, and licit isn't a term that is used at all. 

If one isn't baptized, the word sacrament is just not brought into the equation.  Saying "the sacrament isn't valid" implies much more...there is a bit of nuance in the way it is said. 

Your scenario regarding 2 catholics on an island is actually something quite different as it is an extreme example and canon laws allow for some extremes. There are many nuances to the canons regarding this that I don't know... I'm not sure if its covered without any witnesses at all, but a couple without access to a priest can still marry before witnesses...but still must  go through proper channels. 

The terms used officially for canonical purposes are many times different than the commonly understood definitions.

For example: the word "Extraordinary". Most commonly we understand that to mean above the ordinary/ magnificent/ or "better than most". IN the church, it uses the terms with the roots in mind.... meaning "out of the ordinary". Such as "extraordinary ministers" or "extraordinary form".  

The priest at the convalidation perhaps could have used more qualifying terms, but he wasn't altogether incorrect. They were already "married" (civilly). The church was giving its blessing, but that is not the correct terminology. A blessing is an actual blessing a priest or deacon gives.  (like at the nuptial blessing). A convalidation is actually making a marriage happen...making what was perceived to be a marriage become one.