Expert: Griff Ruby - 3/28/2008

Question
Hi Father, I am Catholic and am about to get married in December. My fiance is Catholic as well, and we have both been raised in the Catholic faith and have our sacraments up to this point. Due to health care, life insurance and legal matters such as me taking on his name, we would like to take part in a civil union in June. I should say we both know and only acknowledge the Catholic church as sealing our union as husband and wife. We would like to know if the church is opposed civil marriage before the actual wedding ceremony, even though nothing would change except for paperwork?

Thank you

Answer
A "civil marriage" between Catholics is simply no marriage at all.  I can however envision certain highly exceptional circumstances in which such a move would be warranted, but key to bear in mind here is that since no actual marriage will have yet taken place (whatever the civil law says), the couple must not enter the married life, cannot live together as husband and wife, cannot avail themselves of any of the usual marital prerogatives.
Common reasons for such "civil marriages" between Catholics might be to accelerate immigration, inheritance, tax purposes, insurance, and so forth.  Since you are talking about really getting married in December (and only the "civil marriage" in June for something of these other purposes), the best way to view that event would be as a legal betrothal.  In the ancient Biblical culture, they did not have engagement as we know it today.  The couple would first be betrothed, and then after some time (similar to the typical length of engagements, except where children are betrothed in which case it is obviously much longer), they would be fully married and at that point would enter into their married life.  But betrothal differs from engagement in that it can only be broken with the legal procedure of a divorce, much like a civil marriage today.
So, if you go ahead and have this civil ceremony in June to start whatever legal paperwork you need, but completely refrain from exercising any marital prerogatives (living together, intimate embraces, passionate kissing, etc.) until after your wedding in December (treat it like a stronger part of the engagement, but otherwise no different), then I see no sin in that procedure.
One other consideration would be that you do the civil ceremony quietly, the two of you (and the Judge) just quietly sign some papers in an office somewhere and walk away, no flowers, no music, no speeches, no reception, no public (apart from legal witnesses who should agree to keep quiet about it), and then don't go around to all your friends and neighbors and relatives telling them that you are married.  (You can say you are "betrothed" however.)  This would be to avoid the issue of public scandal.  You don't want people thinking you are married when you are not, or worse still thinking that a mere "civil marriage" would be enough for Catholics (that would be heretical), for scandal is really "bad example" which if others follow incurs guilt also on the one first doing it as well as the one following it.
It also doesn't hurt to clear this with a priest, ideally the priest you intend to have marry you.  He may advise against it (or not, if he thinks your paperwork reasons are sufficient, and if he can really believe that you two won't at some point weaken and begin treating this mere legal proceeding as a license to live as married), but if you can come to your wedding in December having lived as you said you would, your wedding will be as holy as if this whole other series of events just never occurred.  The only reason not to recommend it would be the concern that the couple might think it OK to press ahead since they are already "married," certainly legally committed to each other, and this could pose a temptation.  To "cross that line" while only "legally," but not sacramentally married would be exactly as sinful as to cross that line right now.
I guess the real question would have to be just how strong the paperwork reasons are for doing this.  And that is something the two of you and Fr. will have to sort out together.
In any case he would not refuse to marry you in December regardless of this, though you may see the phrase "church regularization" or suchlike on the marriage forms, and he will need to know that this is taking place so as to not redundantly report the marriage to the State, which would already think you are married.