Posted on 02/21/2014 6:25:32 AM PST by Weiss White
Q: What does canon law say about Catholics eloping? I understand the issue from the perspective of the sacramental theology of the Church, but was wondering if canon law had anything to say about it. –David
A: When we speak of “elopement” today, we usually envision a young couple running away in the middle of the night to be married in secret, and without the consent of their parents—usually by a justice of the peace in a civil wedding ceremony. Is it ever possible for a Catholic couple (or a couple including only one Catholic) to marry under such circumstances? There are actually several different components of the question that merit a closer look from a canonical standpoint.
(Excerpt) Read more at canonlawmadeeasy.com ...
Didn’t Romeo and Juliet do exactly that with the blessing of the priest?
Are you a canon lawyer?
Or are you a priest who sits on a tribunal?
How can we know that this is really true if you don’t post the entire article.
Most people don’t do a second click on a thread, FYI.
Different time, different place in the world, different culture and customs.
Think about it.
See #20... Comments?
I heard an interesting explanation of this on Catholic Answers the other day.
Basically, if one or both of the couple were Catholic at the time of their civil marriage, and didn’t get permission from either their bishop or priest to marry in a non-Catholic ceremony, and then later divorced without getting their marriage blessed, then their first marriage is considered null and both parties are free to marry.
This also holds true if they were married in another faith system not just a civil marriage.
In both instances Catholics must, even if they aren’t practicing Catholics, and even if they aren’t practicing and married another from another faith, the Catholic (or Catholics) must either also have a Catholic wedding or have their marriage blessed by the Church for it to be considered an actual marriage. Otherwise they aren’t married in the eyes of the Church. So then again, if they end up divorcing, they are free to marry another since their first marriage was automatically null.
In such an instance, if such a person wished to be married in the Church, they would only have to demonstrate they were married before via a non-Catholic ceremony (typically by providing their marriage license to a Church Tribunal) and also demonstrate they were Catholic at the time of their first marriage (e.g., providing their baptismal certificate or confirmation certificate to the same Tribunal). Then after doing this, the Tribunal would simply examine these documents and then issue a finding of nullity.
This all only applies if at least one of the first couple were Catholic (lapsed or not) at the time of their first marriage. If both were Protestant or some other religion, then their marriage is assumed to be valid unless evidence to the contrary is presented to the Tribunal (that’s where annulments become complicated, also if they did get married in a Catholic ceremony, obviously).
Are you Cathy Caridi?
About
Cathy Caridi is an American canon lawyer who practices law and teaches in Rome. She founded this website to provide clear answers to canonical questions asked by ordinary Catholics, without employing all the mysterious legalese that canon lawyers know and love.
In the past Cathy has published articles both in scholarly journals and on various popular Catholic websites, including Real Presence Communications and Catholic Exchange.
The copyright at the bottom left hand corner of the page says that NONE of the blog can be reproduced.
Good bye.
mark
There was a contract between Isaac’s representative and Rebecca’s father and a celebration (abbreviated) of the marriage at the home of Rebecca’s father.
At this point, I'd like to get the state out of the marriage business period.
See #25.
Ain’t gonna happen. It’s all about money.
What happens if you have a priest marry you, and then go for the civil ceremony, and don't tell them you've already had a Church wedding?
Can't happen. Too much law regarding inheritance, taxes, children, bigamy, etc which is dependent upon the marriage status of the parties involved. Which means the state needs to have a definitive way to determine whether two people are legally married.
You think it’s illogical because you don’t understand what an annulment is. An annulment, whether civil or ecclesiastical is a declaration that the marriage did not exist. In Kansas in a civil context, the court has to rule that a marriage was void because of such things as a material mistake making the vows void or that it is void ab initio because of lack of capacity. An example of the first would be that the woman lied about having had children previously and that was important to the man and he would never have married her had he known. An example of the ab initio grounds is if one of the parties is mentally incompetent or already married. In all those cases, the parties have a piece of paper saying that they’re married and they need a piece of paper saying that they are not.
Interesting that those who advocate the non-celibacy of priests are not priests themselves.
Jesus wasn’t married. Also you are completely wrong about the bible. 1 Cor 7: 7-9 Is just one example.
Its not an impossible life. It is actually a means for opening gates of grace that would not be possible in a married state. There still are plenty of men willing to give up a family life for the sake of the people they serve.
“In all those cases, the parties have a piece of paper saying that they’re married and they need a piece of paper saying that they are not.”
A divorce is also a piece of paper saying your not married. That’s not good enough for the Catholic church, you need to have been never married. And in a situation where they never considered you married anyway, why would they need an annulment in addition to a divorce?
By the way, this was described in #25 above...
the church will not marry you........
You still don’t understand. An annulment is not a declaration that you’re not married. It’s a declaration that in spite of appearances, you were never married. Why is this of concern to you?
What does that mean? The Mosque and the gay churches, and cults, and everyone just makes up their own definition of marriage?
Can't they do that already, as long as they don't care about it being "legal" or state recognized?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.