They aren’t really married in the eyes of the Church in the sense of it being a sacramental marriage.
You know, in Coach class you don’t even get to date the attendants.
A bishop can waive most of the church rules within his jurisdiction, and the Pope is a bishop, with the whole world under his jurisdiction.
Lemur866 is correct, both in that it’s considered to be at least a “natural marriage”, and in that if they convert the Church will not and cannot marry them (even setting aside the whole officiants are the spouses thing), recognizing the marriage as sacramentally valid from its inception instead. They could ask for a renewal of the vows ceremony if they wanted to, but the marriage already existed.
Both civil marriage and canonical marriage are the recognition of natural marriage by different legal systems. Sacramental marriage is natural marriage with some additional requirements: not every natural marriage is sacramentally valid, but every sacramentally valid marriage is a natural marriage.
The question often comes up when marriage is explained in catechesis, and answered via reductio ad absurdo: “were Joseph and Mary married? Abraham and Sarah? OK, so marriage exists without and even before the RCC ever did.” Depending on the ages involved, the explanation may stop there (little kids) or go on into the types of marriage.
OK you got me. I would only possibly be impressed if he flew under his own power.* Then, I would rethink everything:D
*levitation or arm flapping, NOT piloting
Oh yeah, what a shining exampleto all of us.
Thanks, Nava! I tried researching and could only find references to interfaith marriages where one person is Catholic. “Natural marriage” is the key I needed. 
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek in my reply (especially about the Indulgences), but what is factually inaccurate? I was taught, in my 12 years of Catholic school, including a year long course titled “Love Sex and Marriage”, that Catholics must be married according to the canonical rules, which include the marriage being performed by a priest. There are exceptions to this - like two Catholics being stranded on a desert isle with no immediate hope of rescue - but “the Church was knocked down by an earthquake” is not one of them - certainly they had the opportunity during the following seven years to have their marriage performed by a priest.
So they were not married, and were committing the sin of fornication during those 7 years. I was also taught that willfully and repeatedly committing a major sin, with no intention of stopping, is a mortal sin, so receiving the sacraments in that state (except for confession of course), would be yet another mortal sin.
Was I taught incorrectly? Is it now acceptable for Catholics to marry in a civil ceremony and live a married life together? Was that the case in the 70s & 80s, when I was in Catholic school?
Maybe you should tell all of this to the Pope. His Holiness seems to have been all right with them fornicating for seven years.
Hey, all I want to know is what’s changed in the past 40 years. I’m stating what I was taught 40 years ago, Bricker dropped a DtC-esque “That’s factually inaccurate” post without any further explanation, so I want my ignorance fought.
I think muldoonthief has both me and gigi in ignore… 
I did read your reply. My reply was about what I learned 40ish years ago, not 15th century & previous.
And as I said, I don’t see that the exceptions for a canonical marriage would apply in their case. I’m not the Pope though, so I won’t argue with his ability to say they do.
Look, I’m not saying the Pope can’t do whatever he wants. I don’t really care. But it seems to me that it would be a lot more effective and praiseworthy if he actually changed the rules for Catholic marriage, instead of just getting some friendly press coverage for performing a cutesy marriage on a plane.
Here’s a short video about the in-flight wedding: AOL - News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com
Hey, one step at a time. The entire church is infested with pedophiles in positions of power. If he came crashing down on them, he’d likely get suddenly ill and die, to be replaced by some Trumpian figure who would vow to undo everything he’s done.
The absolute best way to handle the pedo priests is with criminal charges by the nations in which those crimes were committed. Sadly, this doesn’t seem to be happening much, and THAT is what really bothers me about the whole thing.
I agree! The discussion upthread of two people getting married in their non-Christian religion and that being recognized by the Church is one thing. Two Catholics getting married only civilly and not in the Church is another. That’s why I mentioned Confession before this marriage.
There are many different rules. Catholics are supposed to get married in a religious ceremony in a church, and if they don’t, then they’re violating a rule. But they’re still married, and so the rule they’re violating isn’t the one against fornication.
I’ve always felt that what they teach in catechism class is more aimed at never let the kids know we don’t absolutely HAVE to do it the Church way, or else we just will not.
It’s too bad he had to go and shit all over the whole visit after doing something nice like this.
Which mortal sin does this refer to?
"However, if a Catholic enters marriage outside of the Catholic Church without the necessary dispensation, then the marriage is considered invalid and is not recognized by the Church. Moreover, this action places the person in a state of mortal sin. For instance, if a Catholic marrying either another Catholic or anyone else just decides to be married in some other Church or by a Justice of the Peace, that marriage is invalid. While such a marriage may have legal standing in the eyes of the state, it has no legitimate standing in the eyes of the Church. "