Are they considered valid?
By whom? From what perspective?
i think the poster means by the Catholic church.
The Catholic church does not recognize them. I remember reading that when Nicole Kidman married Tom Cruise they were married “in the Church of Scientology”. Well when she married Keith Urban she wanted to get married in the Catholic Church (because she is Catholic). It was said there was no problem or need for annulment from her first marriage with Cruise because the Catholic Church does not recognize the Church of Scientology or her marriage in that Church as a Christian marriage.
The Church of Scientology wouldn’t have a sacramental marriage since they are not baptized. However, the Catholic Church recognizes noon-Catholic and non-Christian marriages assuming they are otherwise valid. If some celebrities had problems with this it might be due to their prior marriages or the fact that they were baptized Catholic but not married according to Catholic form.
In short, they would have a valid natural marriage just like other non-baptized people.
As far as I know, none of their “sacraments”, if any, are valid.
What does that mean in terms of a natural marriage? Marriage exists outside the sacraments.
I’ve heard of that before, but I never thought it to be true. The more you learn.
A Scientology marriage would be presumed valid for non-Catholics, or for a Catholic who received the proper dispensation from form. Scientology is non-Christian, but non-Christians still marry validly.
Do you know if that had more to do with her having married sans dispensation to marry outside a church or with Scientology itself?
If neither of the parties were ever Catholic, assuming also they are both free to marry, and the minister presumably has civil faculties, the marriage is presumed valid. Further, if both parties were baptized, say, in a Protestant denomination and were subsequently lured into Scientology prior to getting married, their marriage would be both valid AND sacramental. Presumably.
The Nicole Kidman case does not apply here because she is Catholic. Therefore, the Scientology marriage was invalid from the get-go. It was an easy case for her Catholic marriage to Karl Urban.
Assuming no impediment to marrying they would be valid just like two atheists marrying or two Buddhists etc. Of course the marriages would not be sacramental.
I’m not sure, but I thought Nicole Kidman had her first marriage annulled as Tom Cruise was a divorcee?
Thanks for the information.
Cruise also grew up Catholic. Even considered the priesthood when he was a young man/teen
No, her marriage was not recognized as valid because she, as a Catholic, did not observe the Catholic form in her marriage to Tom Cruise.
It was what would be canonically called, a no-brainer.
If’s that’s true, then that too would automatically make his marriage(s) in the Church of Scientology invalid.
It is not true because of that. It’s true there was no problem because Kidman is Catholic. Had Cruise and Kidman been previously unbaptized and free to marry, their Scientology marriage would have been completely valid.
Considering Scientology is a Ponzi scheme invented by a science fiction and fantasy writer, why is anything they do considered valid?
Assuming that the state has given them a license to officiate at weddings, their marriages are legal and (for non-Catholics and non-Orthodox) therefore valid.
Because the Church rules that for anyone not bound to the Catholic form of marriage, marriages conducted by a duly licensed civil authority (judge, mayor, religious minister [even a Scientologist]) is enjoys the favour of law, and is presumed valid.
For Scientologists free to marry, the marriage is considered valid by virtue of the minister’s civil authority. Nothing to do with Scientology itself.