Matters arising: Marriages outside the Church

Rev. Nicholas Mary, C.SS.R.

Fr. Nicholas Mary answers topical questions in the light of moral theology and canon law.

My son/daughter is a Catholic, but is getting married in a non-Catholic religious ceremony/at the civil registry office. May I attend his/her wedding?

This question is sadly common, and behind the few words in which it is posed lie unfathomable sorrow and disappointment. The fact that traditional and modern priests will often give opposing answers to it only adds to the tension caused within families by the heartbreaking situations that give rise to it.

Let us begin by citing a Catholic Truth Society pamphlet produced in 19601 to get a snapshot of the general convictions of Catholics in this country before the Council. Its author, Fr. John F. Macdonald, speaks first of the case of a Catholic who has validly married a non-Catholic (with the due dispensation) in a Catholic wedding, but who attempts to have an additional ceremony before a non-Catholic minister:

The question is sometimes asked, by the non-Catholic partner to a mixed marriage which has taken place in the Catholic church, whether the Catholic may accompany the non-Catholic partner to the non-Catholic church for the purpose of going through a similar religious ceremony there. This is gravely forbidden and the Catholic who would presume to do this would incur the penalty of excommunication mentioned in Canon 2319 §1.10 of the Code of Canon Law.2 The law of the Church is clear on this point. It states that even when a dispensation from the impediment of mixed religion has been given by the Church, the parties cannot, either before or after their marriage before the Church, go, whether in person or by proxy, to a non-Catholic minister acting as such, for the purpose of giving or renewing their matrimonial consent. The Catholic would be giving at least external approval to a purely non-Catholic religious rite as well as taking an active part in it. Such an action would be the cause of grave scandal to others. Catholics themselves, and this includes even the nearest relatives who may be strongly tempted to go, would not be allowed to attend the ceremony, even as spectators in a merely passive sense, because of the scandal that would result as well as the appearance of religious indifference that would be given. Their presence would also be taken as an apparent approval of such an action on the part of a fellow Catholic.

The author bases his condemnation of the practice on the imperative both to avoid active participation in non-Catholic worship (a sin against Faith) as well as the causing of scandal (a sin against Charity), as do all the moral theologians of the past. Writing in 1960 he does not even consider it necessary to examine in detail the case of the Catholic who attempts to marry solely before a non-Catholic minister, adding simply that “all that has been said above applies to any form of marriage which a Catholic may go through in a non-Catholic church.”

Fr. Macdonald then addresses the matter of Catholics attempting to marry civilly:

Since, in normal circumstances, Catholics are bound to be married before an authorised priest and two witnesses, the Church does not recognise as valid any merely civil union that may be entered into by a Catholic. Although Catholics are not thereby excommunicated, they are considered to be living in sin and they are forbidden to receive the sacraments until they have complied with the laws of the Church regarding the marriage of her subjects. The Church, however, is anxious that, wherever possible, these civil unions should be made valid in her eyes both for the spiritual good of the parties concerned as well as for that of the offspring. To this end the Church is always ready to give every assistance to any Catholic who has contracted a civil marriage and afterwards wishes to put the marriage right in the eyes of the Church so that he/she may be able to return to the full practice of the faith. It is a great sorrow to any Catholic parent when a son or daughter of theirs chooses to break the law of the Church by going through a form of marriage in the Register Office. It should also be a cause of sorrow for the parties themselves to know that, because the presence of their Catholic relatives and friends would be looked upon as a condonation of the violation of a serious law of the Church, they are depriving themselves of the company of those who normally would be there to rejoice with them on what ought to be one of the greatest occasions in their lives. Because of the scandal that would be caused by their presence, Catholics, no matter how close the relationship may be, are not allowed to attend the weddings of fellow Catholics in the Register Office. For the same reason a Catholic may not be present at the wedding of a non-Catholic to a divorced non-Catholic in the Register Office...3 The presence of a Catholic in such cases would be looked upon as a form of approval of a union which is invalid in the eyes of God.

If such clarity reigned in 1960, what can we say of the situation today? Capuchin author Fr. Regis Scanlon sums it up thus:

Traditionally, Catholics did not participate in invalid marriage celebrations because it was seen as approval to adultery or fornication.4 As invalid marriages increased among Catholics, however, moralists began to de-emphasise the danger of scandal from these celebrations... Reports of Catholics being ridiculed by family members for not attending invalid marriages of relatives indicate that a type of reverse legislation has taken root. The unwritten rule now seems to be that the Catholic must attend the invalid wedding of a loved one, and the exception, for which the Catholic will receive much flack, is to avoid these celebrations.4

And a similar view in 1993 from his fellow U.S. theologian Mgr. William B. Smith († 2009):

I doubt that there is any more painful family problem than this, which has only grown worse over the past 25 years. The most searing pain involves those Catholic parents who have truly lived and loved the faith as the very centre of their lives—and one or more of their grown children for whom the faith means little, or nothing; and in the most extreme cases deliberate defiance of the 'laws of the Church' is used as a tool to test or taunt the natural family love parents have for their own children.5

Since then the situation has only worsened further. He concludes that “presence means consent” and that in such cases:

The pained parent [is] correct in neither attending nor participating. Clearly, the primary wrongdoer is and remains the marrying adult who marries invalidly. This is doubly unfair since it will pain and hurt observant Catholics much more than nominal ones, who can hardly frame the question in religious terms at all. It seems to me that the same maxim—presence means consent—also holds for less blatant cases.

Fr. Scanlon examines the advice given by many priests today that, as long as their child is made clearly aware of their disapproval, then it is permissible for parents to attend their invalid weddings:

Obviously, the need for clarification implies that scandal will be caused. The explanation to the child by the parents is supposed to cancel or wipe out the scandal from parental attendance at the wedding celebrations. The problem here, however, is that it is impossible for parents to make the child clearly aware of parental disapproval of the invalid marriage when the child knows full well that the parents are attending the wedding celebrations... The only way for parents to convince their child that they seriously disapprove of the invalid marriage is to avoid the wedding celebrations altogether. If one follows [certain modern] pastoral advice, however, not only will actions supporting parental disapproval be lacking, but, instead, the parents' actions will contradict their words of disapproval. When words and actions collide, the best that can be hoped for is that the child will be confused, and the worst that can happen is that the child will be more influenced by the actions than by the words. The same must be said for [similarly modern] advice that the friends and relatives might avoid the wedding ceremony, but attend the wedding reception.

It should be noted that this latter course of action has defenders even amongst orthodox theologians who see the the reception merely as a family gathering. It is hard to imagine such a situation, for inasmuch as the gathering is in any way a celebration of a wedding that is null in the eyes of God, and, effectively, of two people choosing to live in sin, then there can be no cooperation in it by faithful Catholics. Any gifts given to the couple either singly or jointly must not be associated with either their empty ceremony or their state of life, and they may not be treated as being married until such time as they rectify their marital status before God.

We leave Fr. Scanlon to conclude:

The idea of a Christian cooperating in the evil act of adultery or fornication by attending an invalid marriage seems so contrary to correct reasoning and Sacred Scripture that one wonders why so many Catholics today attempt to justify it... Again, there is no way to clearly communicate this truth to an invalidly-marrying son or daughter other than by avoiding the wedding celebrations altogether. What must not be overlooked here is that it is the rejection of the Gospel by the invalidly-marrying son or daughter that is the primary cause of separation, not Christ or the parents. The claim on the part of pastoral moral theorists, therefore, that parental attendance at invalid weddings is justified on the grounds that the parents should not 'irretrievably cut off' their children must be rejected as false, and as bad psychology. The notion of parents 'irretrievably cutting off' their son or daughter merely by following their own conscience turns out to be a case of inverted logic. Who is cutting off whom? No one is demanding that the parents shun their invalidly-marrying child, but only that they shun the marriage. As long as Mom and Dad keep the lines of communication open from their side, no one is being irretrievably cut off. If a son or daughter, however, refuses to associate with the parents following the wedding, he or she is cutting off the parents, not vice versa. It is downright immoral to make the parents feel guilty for following their consciences, especially when their consciences are formed according to Christ and his Church. It is the children who are out of step with the Gospel, not the parents. Let us put the responsibility for the break-up where it belongs. The very justification offered by those who favour the new pastoral approach fosters immaturity in the young by stripping them of responsibility for their own actions... Rather, the pastors and moral theorists must adopt an approach which encourages adults to hope in the young by giving them the opportunity to be responsible for their own moral actions. But for this to be possible, both parents and children must be made clearly aware of the evil of invalid marriages and the immorality of formal cooperation in these celebrations.

Notes

1. Fr. John F. Macdonald, Attending Non-Catholic Services (CTS, London, 1960) pp. 8–12.

2. The 1917 Code of Canon Law is here referred to. The 1983 Code still forbids “either before or after the canonical celebration ... another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic assistant and a non-Catholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.” The penalty of excommunication was abrogated in 1966, however, and the new legislation is open to various exceptions incompatible with traditional discipline.

3. “On the other hand, a Catholic may attend the valid marriages of non-Catholics in the Register Office. The ceremony is not looked upon as a religious service and the Church recognises the validity of such marriages of non-Catholics provided no impediment exists which would make the marriage invalid in a particular case.”

4. ‘Participation in Invalid Marriages’ in Homiletic & Pastoral Review, February 1988, pp. 20–27.

5. As well as, in the case of attempted marriages before a non-Catholic minister, to heresy, schism or religious indifferentism.

6. Mgr William B. Smith, Modern Moral Problems (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2012) p. 127.

View all the articles from Ite Missa Est

• 1Fr. John F. Macdonald, Attending Non- Catholic Services (CTS, London, 1960) pp. 8–12.
• 2The 1917 Code of Canon Law is here referred to. The 1983 Code still forbids “either before or after the canonical celebration ... another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving or renewing matrimonial consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic assistant and a non-Catholic minister, each performing his own rite, ask for the consent of the parties.” The penalty of excommunication was abrogated in 1966, however, and the new legislation is open to various exceptions incompatible with traditional discipline.
• 3"On the other hand, a Catholic may attend the valid marriages of non-Catholics in the Register Office. The ceremony is not looked upon as a religious service and the Church recognises the validity of such marriages of non-Catholics provided no impediment exists which would make the marriage invalid in a particular case.”
• 4 a b As well as, in the case of attempted marriages before a non-Catholic minister, to heresy, schism or religious indifferentism.
• 5Mgr William B. Smith, Modern Moral Problems (Ignatius, San Francisco, 2012) p. 127.