Just to add another angle to the OP, my husband and I had a rather lively discussion about this very topic at our wedding rehearsal dinner.
We had our wedding rehearsal the evening before our actual wedding day, and went through the whole wedding, twice in fact, vows and everything, at the church, with the minister.
On the way to the dinner, hubby-to-be looked at me and said, “You know, I think we’re married know. We did everything, said our vows, said ‘I do’ and all that, right?”
The general consensus of the guests at the dinner was that the rehearsal doesn’t count and that we wouldn’t be “technically” married until the moment that the minister says “I now pronouce you Husband and Wife…” on the date that is on the marriage certificate issued by the state.
"765.16 Marriage contract, how made; officiating person. Marriage may be validly solemnized and contracted in this state only after a marriage license has been issued therefor, and only by the mutual declarations of the 2 parties to be joined in marriage that they take each other as husband and wife, made before an authorized officiating person and in the presence of at least 2 competent adult witnesses other than the officiating person . . . "
So, at least in Wisconsin it is the couple that marries itself, even though they are before an officiating person. The second “I do” does the trick.
The statutes further say that any marriage in violation of certain specified parts of the Wisconsin marriage law is invalid, but failure to file the completed license is not among those specified parts.
There was a high-profile event last year where two couples married in the Metropolitan church by publication of banns… but the provice refused to register the marriages. This presumably meant that the marriages were not considered to exist as far as provincial laws and regulations went. This may or may not have contravened federal legislation.
It seems that, in Ontario, the marriage comes into being with the act of registration, not the ceremony. Laws of Ontario online and searcheable.
A question needs to be explicitly answered: is the jurisdiction giving permission for a marriage to take place, or is it merely recording their occurence?
IMHO, the jurisdiction should simply record the event.
The Code of Canon Law, Can. 1057, §1, provides in pertinent part:
Consent is manifested during the marriage ceremony, not in the wedding bed. In fact, Can. 1085 §1 provides that a person bound by the bond of a previous marriage, even if not consummated, invalidly attempts marriage. This phrasing shows that the marriage exists even if not consummated.
It is true that lack of consummation, if proved, may be a reason to support an annulment. But Can. 1060 provides that marriage enjoys the favour of law, and in doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven. In other words, the burden of proof is on the one asserting the lack of consummation.
Indeed, Can. 1681, addressing the course of action to be followed in annulment hearigs, provides that whenever a highly likely doubt arises that the marriage has not been consummated, the tribunal can suspend the nullity case and apply for a dispensation from a non-consummated marriage. In other words, a ratified but non-consummated marriage can be much more easily declared void than a consummated marriage. But the essential element is NOT consummation - it is the manifestation of consent.
To answer the OP’s question, it is at the instant in which the second spouse places the ring on the finger and says that he (or she) gives the ring in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
I remember very clearly that instant in my wedding.
My understanding is that the Church recognizes a civil ceremony between two Catholics as valid. Also I thought that if a married couple converted to Catholicism, they would not be required to remarry as whatever civil or non-Catholic religious ceremony would be adequate. I don’t think that either of those circumstances apply to your case cher3, but it would be interesting if someone could confirm or debunk those.
Thanks for clarifying that point on consummation, Bricker. I was wondering how that could be applied to a marriage where one or both of the parties could not physically have sex.
Rick, I think the “I do” part is much more meaningful as a manifestation of consent (although if the rings are done first, you may have a point).
On the hijack trail, my wife and I were married by my father. He is not clergy of any sort, bogus or otherwise. Instead, we had him register with the county (Marin County, California) as a wedding commissioner. Such a registree can legally perform one wedding, on the date stated on his certificate. There is also a more permanent sort of registry for those who wish to make a living by officiating at weddings.
Incidentally, we also got our marriage license in Marin because they had the lowest registration fee, but we performed the ceremony in Sonoma county because, well, that’s where we were doing it.
My understanding is that the Church recognizes a civil ceremony between two Catholics as valid. Also I thought that if a married couple converted to Catholicism, they would not be required to remarry as whatever civil or non-Catholic religious ceremony would be adequate. I don’t think that either of those circumstances apply to your case cher3, but it would be interesting if someone could confirm or debunk those.
Thanks for clarifying that point on consummation, Bricker. I was wondering how that could be applied to a marriage where one or both of the parties could not physically have sex.
"Can. 1055 §1 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of their whole life, and which of its own very nature is ordered to the well-being of the spouses and to the procreation and upbringing of children, has, between the baptized, been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.
“§2 Consequently, a valid marriage contract cannot exist between baptized persons without its being by that very fact a sacrament.”
