Can a priest refuse matrimony?

[Spirithound]

There is a couple in my church who had their wedding stopped at the altar.

He is Byzantine Rite and she is Latin Rite. His priest came in and stopped the wedding because it was not taking place in the Byzantine church as it should have been.

After a quick consultation, the wedding was moved to the Byzantine church and they’ve been married for over 50 years.

That sounds odd. I thought a wedding could take place in either groom’s or bride’s church?

 

[Joe_Kelley]

That sounds odd. I thought a wedding could take place in either groom’s or bride’s church?

I think it has to be in the sui juris church of the groom, and the children must be raised in that church.

 

[FrDavid96]

That sounds odd. I thought a wedding could take place in either groom’s or bride’s church?

In the new Eastern Code, the marriage must take place in the groom’s church to be licit. In the old Eastern canon law (not code but canon law, because there was no “code” as such) for validity it had to be in the groom’s church, although a dispensation was possible beforehand.

See Eastern canon 831 It’s very vague “The marriage is to be celebrated before the pastor of the groom, unless either particular law determines otherwise or a just cause excuses.”

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

From the USCCB:

1. If a couple is cohabiting, can marriage be denied or delayed?

Denial of marriage – Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation. Marriage preparation may continue even if the couple refuses to separate. Pastoral ministers can be assured that to assist couples in regularizing their situation is not to approve of cohabitation.
usccb.org/laity/marriage/cohabiting.shtml

 

[Spirithound]

In the new Eastern Code, the marriage must take place in the groom’s church to be licit. In the old Eastern canon law (not code but canon law, because there was no “code” as such) for validity it had to be in the groom’s church, although a dispensation was possible beforehand.

See Eastern canon 831 It’s very vague “The marriage is to be celebrated before the pastor of the groom, unless either particular law determines otherwise or a just cause excuses.”

Isn’t “just cause” the same level required for a priest to say a private Mass? A very low threshold to meet? Although perhaps since their respective churches were in the same city, it could have just as reasonably been at the Eastern parish.

 

[FrDavid96]

Isn’t “just cause” the same level required for a priest to say a private Mass? A very low threshold to meet? Although perhaps since their respective churches were in the same city, it could have just as reasonably been at the Eastern parish.

Remember though, the event happened 50+ years ago and that was long before the new Eastern code. This issue of the marriage being required in the parish of the groom was something intentionally changed in the new code–exactly because of the sort of thing that was described in the post.

Yes, “just cause” is a very low threshold–in fact, the very lowest standard in canon law. That’s why, in my opinion, canon 831 is vague. It says “for a just cause” but it says nothing about who determines a “just cause.” We would typically expect a clause saying that the pastor makes the determination, or the bishop, for example, but such a qualification is not present. The canon also leaves the matter open for particular law of either the eparchy (diocese) or the Church sui iuris law. This is an example of how the Eastern code attempts to both consolidate (into a single code) and at the same time allow-for the differences and diversity of the Eastern traditions.

 

[Julianna]

From the USCCB:

Thanks…I will bronze this quote Good job!

 

[JHMB]

It was NOT a judgemental response…I in no way said you were going to hell for anything, nor did I question your hearts in the process. In fact, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt and being overly generous in suggesting that possibly you could have seen the truth earlier at the time. The hard facts is that you weren’t given any issues. If you were there could have/might have been a conversion sooner than 2 years of living together. Less sin, less scandal, less harm to souls.

I do not need your benefit of doubt, as you have no knowledge of my situation.

Your patent generosity is not required, nor is your negative judgement.

The only scandal and harm here does not belong to me.

You may put down your stones now.

 

[agapewolf]

I do not need your benefit of doubt, as you have no knowledge of my situation.

Your patent generosity is not required, nor is your negative judgement.

The only scandal and harm here does not belong to me.

You may put down your stones now.

There have been absolutely NO stones. I have not made any judgement on you. There is nothing wrong with what I’ve said, however, your take on the situation…that you were just fine living together, and glad you had no issues and denying that there was any harm done, and not regretting sinful behavior, well, that is a problem .No scandal with living together? No harm done? wow.

 

[CarrieH]

A few years ago, I was seriously dating a man who had trouble holding jobs…and this was before the economy went bad. My priest said that he wouldn’t even consider marrying us until this man found a steady job and showed that he could keep it. That never happened, and was one of the reasons we broke up in 2007. Whenever I think of my ex-bf, I am always thankful that Father took this stance and that I didn’t wind up “stuck” supporting this man!

This particular priest had first-hand experience of the challenges of married life – he entered the seminary at mid-life after his wife of many years died. So he is perhaps a bit more “tough” on engaged couples, but only out of concern for their souls and for their well-being.

 

[Melchior_1]

I didn’t know that about the USCCB saying that. Seems the CCCB also says something similar. I did notice though that it said in bold text “This paper is neither an official statement of the Committee on Marriage and Family nor of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops. It does not offer formal recommendations for action. It is intended as a resource paper, offering a compilation of resources and a reflection of the present “state of the question” regarding certain issues of cohabitation”.

Anyway, there’s a girl I know who wants to get confirmed but just moved in with her fiance. I told her that I can’t in good conscious proceed with the RCIA /Sacramental Prep process so long as she’s living with the guy and they aren’t married. I also told her we can’t proceed with Confirmation if they are being sexually active.

And I think that’s the issue. You want to avoid the “near occasion of sin”, and I think that in some cases Priests and Marriage Prep folks are erring on the side of caution in this case. Is it possible people could live together and not have sex? Of course it is. But it’s pretty hard not to be tempted when you love someone (especially when you’ve already had sex with them). And is this only applicable to people who have been cohabiting for a long period of time? And is this really fair to those who went through hardships because they refused to live together before marriage?

Of course, in some cases people have bought a house together. And maybe finances are an issue. Maybe there’s no place else for one of them to stay. Maybe THERE is and people are just being lazy. So many question.

It strikes me that it is for this reason that the Canon law is vague and the link provided earlier states “it does not offer formal recommendations for action”. Priests and Marriage Prep people need to have some leeway when it comes to this. There’s always different situations for different people. In the case of my friends, I did tell the girl and her fiance that it is very possible they will need to live separately leading up to the wedding for a few months. They’re both young, she’s leaving the city to go to school, and he can likely move back home if needed (they’re both young…19 and 20 I believe). It’s ultimately for the Priest to decide of course, but if a Priest says “you need to live separately” that’s their prerogative.

I certainly appreciate the information within this thread though. Crazy thing about being a Catechist; you never stop learning even though you’re a teacher.

 

[FrDavid96]

Allow me to explain why this situation is so difficult for priests. I’m going to over-simplify the scenario:

Priest: You’re living together but not married, therefore you’re living in sin.
Couple: We want to make things right, how can we do that?
Priest: Get married.
Couple: In that case, we’d like to get married.
Priest: I can’t marry you
Couple: Why not?
Priest: Because you’re living together and that’s a sin
Couple: How can we make things right?
Priest: Get married

See the problem?

There’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza… Well fix it dear Father Henry…

It’s easy for people to say “they shouldn’t have moved-in with each other in the first place.” That’s right. But what to do about the here and now?

 

[agapewolf]

Allow me to explain why this situation is so difficult for priests. I’m going to over-simplify the scenario:

Priest: You’re living together but not married, therefore you’re living in sin.
Couple: We want to make things right, how can we do that?
Priest: Get married.
Couple: In that case, we’d like to get married.
Priest: I can’t marry you
Couple: Why not?
Priest: Because you’re living together and that’s a sin
Couple: How can we make things right?
Priest: Get married

See the problem?

There’s a hole in the bucket dear Liza… Well fix it dear Father Henry…

It’s easy for people to say “they shouldn’t have moved-in with each other in the first place.” That’s right. But what to do about the here and now?

Stop living together. It’s simple.

 

[FrDavid96]

Stop living together. It’s simple.

Sure it’s simple. It’s real simple to type on a web forum. It’s not so easy to deal-with in real life.

I’m not by any means advocating approval for people who live together. Just to be clear about it: it is a sin. Period. No question mark.

I’m merely saying that it is not so easy to deal with the situation when it’s a real-life couple sitting in front of you who sincerely want to make things right, but who find themselves in a difficult situation–even if it is one of their own making.

 

[agapewolf]

Sure it’s simple. It’s real simple to type on a web forum. It’s not so easy to deal-with in real life.

I’m not by any means advocating approval for people who live together. Just to be clear about it: it is a sin. Period. No question mark.

I’m merely saying that it is not so easy to deal with the situation when it’s a real-life couple sitting in front of you who sincerely want to make things right, but who find themselves in a difficult situation–even if it is one of their own making.

Actually, it is quite simple. In every single couple that I have met, helped do marriage prep with, etc, NOT ONE of them had a too difficult situation that they couldn’t seperate. It was merely excuses, even in dire financial situations. One of them moves out to live in an extra room of a parish family. It is that simple.

THE ONLY reason that it might not be wise to separate is if there is a child involved, in extreme circumstances.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Sure it’s simple. It’s real simple to type on a web forum. It’s not so easy to deal-with in real life.

I’m not by any means advocating approval for people who live together. Just to be clear about it: it is a sin. Period. No question mark.

I’m merely saying that it is not so easy to deal with the situation when it’s a real-life couple sitting in front of you who sincerely want to make things right, but who find themselves in a difficult situation–even if it is one of their own making.

You remind me of something I saw someplace: “Every problem has a simple answer: Short, Simple, and Wrong”.

 

[Spirithound]

A few years ago, I was seriously dating a man who had trouble holding jobs…and this was before the economy went bad. My priest said that he wouldn’t even consider marrying us until this man found a steady job and showed that he could keep it. That never happened, and was one of the reasons we broke up in 2007. Whenever I think of my ex-bf, I am always thankful that Father took this stance and that I didn’t wind up “stuck” supporting this man!

This particular priest had first-hand experience of the challenges of married life – he entered the seminary at mid-life after his wife of many years died. So he is perhaps a bit more “tough” on engaged couples, but only out of concern for their souls and for their well-being.

A lot of married couples are quite poor… In fact, I’ve heard that there is no “good” financial time to get married… buy a house… have a child, etc. Maybe there was an underlying fault in your ex’s persona, but I would seriously question a priest’s judgement that financial issues are sufficient to deny marriage.

 

[Aramis]

Can a priest refuse (or delay) to witness a marriage? For example, if in his marriage-prep meetings with them he has come to the conclusion that they are not ready to make a permanent commitment to each other, or they would not be open to life?

Yes, the priest can. One can appeal to the bishop, but the bishop will seldom override.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Stop living together. It’s simple.

1. What if they have a child/ren together? Is it really wise to split up the parents?
2. What if they can’t afford to have 2 separate residences?
3. If its not a canonical impediment then its a violation of their rights to refuse to marry them.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

Yes, the priest can. One can appeal to the bishop, but the bishop will seldom override.

I disagree. Unless there’s a clear canonical impediment a bishop (or rather his office) will attempt to work something out so that the marriage takes place. I’ve seen it happen.