Sometimes the semantics matter.
“Marriage” is the word that has been used in English for a committed partnership that’s recognised by the surrounding society pretty much since there’s been English.
“Civil union” was conceived for the specific reason that some relationships are considered by some people to be not good enough for the word “marriage”. It will never lose the ‘just not good enough to be treated like a real relationship’ baggage for me.
Words’ meanings do matter. As the Mass. Supreme Court stated in its advisory opinion on the Legislature’s brief contemplation of a civil union bill:
The term is proposed by those who accept the principle of equal protection but still want to think of homosexuals as somehow not as good as themselves. It would continue the institutionalization of discrimination in the guise of eliminating it, although it would still be a large step.
Excellent link. I guess the people who value marriage the most are Atheists from Massachusetts. Strangely enough, Massachusetts is the only state with legal gay marriage.
This is also a bit of a hijack, but I’ve been wondering about this for a while…
What are the practical implications of the Church not acknowledging their marriage? Are they considered to be “living in sin”? Should she go to confession every time she has sex with her husband? Are there other practical aspects about membership in the Catholic Church that are denied to them (as a couple) because the Church doesn’t recognize their civil marriage?
More broadly, are there many denominations that don’t recognize marriages performed outside their church? What are the functional social effects of this, if any?
Sorry for the hijack–I’m honestly curious.
None of the above – she’s not Catholic, she’s Zwinglian of all things (a Swiss form of Christian, I gather). As for the rest, not being Catholic either, I’ll leave the answers to someone who knows more than I do.
As far as I know,
aCatholic person married outside the Church without a priest present is not supposed to go to Communion because their Marriage would not be a santified union, just a civil one. The Catholic is considered living in sin:if she went to confession she would be told she would have to not have sex with her husband and could not be in full communion if she did.
If the rules have changed in the last 30 years I do not know,but I did hear on the news that the new Pope said that Catholics not married in the church could not recieve communion. Personally, I do not see why they would want to if they didn’t believe in their churches teachings enough to follow the rules. I do not want to go to a communion when I do not believe the religion.
Monavis
I’m tempted to let Tom~ sort this, but you may be mixing concepts here. As I understand it, the Catholic Church accepts civil marriages as valid, i.e., properly contracted to be a “real” marriage, but not licit, i.e., “following the rules for a Catholic.” It is also not a sacramental marriage, one committed to before God and blessed by Him through His Church, in their view.
At one point, marrying contrary to the rules of the Church incurred an automatic excommunication. Now it doesn’t. That’s them changing their church rules to be more merciful – not rewriting what God thinks but how they go about trying to do His will.
The Catholic church does except a civil union of a Catholic as legal but not santified,If they were married in a civil cermony and divorced they can remarry some one else in the Church. But a Catholic married in the church needs to get an annulment of their first marriage. Which now days seems to be quite easy.
Monavis
No.
If a person was married by a Justice of the Peace, and later divorced, that person is not free to marry in the Church without first receiving a decree of nullity.
The Church presumes all marriages valid, and requires a decree of nullity before reversing that presumption. All marriages - whether they were civil ceremonies or not.
Thanks for all the replies!
A few questions, just to make sure I’m understanding this:
So that means that a Catholic married to a non-Catholic is not considered “living in sin” and can receive communion, contra monavis’s earlier statement?
If the couple wanted a Catholic marriage, would a priest agree to marry a Catholic to a non-Catholic, or would the latter have to convert?
Also:
You can’t imagine a devout Catholic falling in love with a non-Catholic?
Actually, my brother is also married to a Catholic, and I seriously considered marrying one for a while. My brother did not convert, but he agreed to raise their children as Catholics and has done so. We celebrated my nephew’s First Communion last month.
Monavis, my ex-boss got engaged to a girl who wanted a full Catholic wedding. Getting his first marriage annulled wasn’t all that easy, actually. Among other things, it took a bit of doing to find a priest who was willing to file the paperwork, and this is in a city where more people are Catholic than anything else and every restaurant in town except the vegetarian ones has a fish special during Lent. Also, to clarify, my best friend, who is female is non-Catholic; it’s her husband who’s Catholic and, while he was somewhat lapsed when he married her, he’s been turning back to the church. No one has said a thing about their marriage, as far as I know and, if they did, I can see that putting him back off Catholicism.
You have two separate questions, here, (from the perspective of the church).
You would not be considered to be “living in sin” in the sense of committing fornication with your spouse.
Whether you could receive Communion would be a separate issue regarding the way in which you went about getting married. The church condones (somewhat grudgingly) marriages between Catholics and those who are not, but it still expects the Catholic partner to have followed a set of rules set out by the Church during the preparation for the marriage. If those rules are not followed, one may find oneself in a situation in which the church expects one to refrain from receiving Communion until those conditions are rectified.
Of course they have to have a civil divorce,But my nephew that is a Catholic Priest said if it wasn’t sanctified in the church it was not a sacramental marriage and the Church beleives it has the right to decide what God has joined or what was joined by man. They do recognize other faith’s marriages as a valid marriage, but if a Non Catholic(married and divorcied) wants to turn Catholic they can Marry in the Church.
Monavis
I can indeed because when I was catholic I married a Non Catholic(in the Church) ,he agreed to follow the Catholic church’s teachings.We have been married for 55 years but neither of us believe in organized religions.
A catholic married out of the church is not supposed to go to communion.
I have gone to several Catholic funerals and weddings and the priest announced that a Catholic in good standing could receive Communion, the rest could come up for a blessing.( We stay in our seat). If I chose to I could go to comunion if I confessed the so called sin of Apostasy. I have no desire to do either.
Monavis
Even if you do believe that marriage is the basic unit of civilization, it doesn’t explain why gay marriage is any different. I’m asking in honest curiosity here; why doesn’t gay marriage count on that basis? It’s not exactly the same as every other marriage, but during the days when interracial marriages were illegal, neither were they. It seems to me your argument could be used equally in that circumstance, to imply that marriages within racial lines are “the basic unit of humanity”, and thus that interracial marriage shouldn’t be legalized.
But you don’t explain why it has to be a man and a woman.
No, this is not the case, and that’s, frankly, an entirely ridiculous suggestion.
Can I ask, then, what your views were back when you were opposed to gay marriage? (I’m six kinds of impressed, incidentally, at your change of heart.) Since you’ve always struck me as a pretty rational person, what was your justification for your view back at that time?
The key is not a Catholic married to a non-Catholic… it’s whether or not the marriage was solemnized in accord with Church rules. Even a civil marriage may be later solemnized to conform to the laws of the church concerning matrimony.
If a couple has obeyed the laws of the Church concerning matrimony, then they are perfectly able to approach the sacraments.
As monavis correctly notes, there is no requirement to convert, although such a marriage must receive a dispensation in order to proceed.
It’s true that a marriage may be considered valid without being considered sacramental. However, if a non-Catholic, previously married and divorced, wishes to marry in the Church, then regardless of whether he converts to Catholicism or not, he must get a decree of nullity with respect to his previous marriage.
The bottom line: ANY PREVIOUS MARRIAGE, no matter what its form (civil, non-Christian religious, non-Catholic religious, Catholic religious) is a bar to any subsequent marriage unless and until an anullment is granted.
Even when I took the position that I opposed same-sex marriage, I favored civil unions. I always supported the idea that the legal advantages available to straight couples via marriage also be available to same-sex couples. My only objection was to the use of the WORD marriage. It had, I believed, a specific and historical meaning, and it was unnecessary and inappropriate to extend that meaning to same-sex couples, especially, when the same legal effects could be obtained through another process.
I know a Catholic woman who married a divorced man, she could not receive Communion unless they agreed not to sleep together. If her husband was willing to turn Catholic they would have annuled his marriage and then she could have Married in the church. The man did not want to do so. He did not want any more children, and she wouldn’t practice birthcontrol. They then slept in seperate rooms and abstained form sexual contact so she was allowed to go to communion,(which she did every day). He wanted a divorice because he found someone else and she wouldn’t give it to him. They had 3 children so they stayed together, but he lived in resenment of her until he died. It didn’t make sense to me.
Monavis
Nor to me.
There is no requirement that the husband in that situation convert. It’s unclear to me where the misunderstanding arose – your friend, the priest in her parish, you… but it’s absolutely untrue that a man in that position would be required to convert.
He was already married, in the Church’s eyes – he was previously married, and his divorce meant nothing. In order to be free to marry in the Church’s eyes, he needs not a divorce but an annullment, a legal finding that his prior marriage, despite appearances, never actually happened.
He WOULD be required to obtain an anullment in order to marry, yes. Not to convert.
I legal finding or a religious finding? Does the state annul marriages, and does the Catholic Church automatically recognize a secular annulment? (Just quesitons, as I’m curiouis. I honestly don’t know.)