Can a priest refuse matrimony?

[NewEnglandPriest]

The priest is the guardian of sacraments.

Absolutely incorrect. A priest is not the guardian or gatekeeper of sacraments. Canon Law spells out when a sacrament can be refused or delayed. It is not a private personal judgment by inidvidual priests. 1000 priests can’t each make up their own standards and hoops for people to jump through.

This isn’t “messing with people’s lives”. This is helping their salvation.

It is indeed “messing with people’s lives” to deny or delay their rights without canonical justification…

 

[agapewolf]

Absolutely incorrect. A priest is not the guardian or gatekeeper of sacraments. Canon Law spells out when a sacrament can be refused or delayed. It is not a private personal judgment by inidvidual priests. 1000 priests can’t each make up their own standards and hoops for people to jump through.

It is indeed “messing with people’s lives” to deny or delay their rights without canonical justification…

Again, I didn’t say “deny”. While he may not be able to deny, there is no deadline and delaying a sacrament may be the best decision. A couple should not be able to set a date anyway without first the pre-nup investigation and discernment portion, so nothing is really even “delayed” either.

Here is the canon on it:

Can. 1063 Pastors of souls are **obliged **to take care that their ecclesiastical community offers the Christian faithful the assistance by which the matrimonial state is preserved in a Christian spirit and advances in perfection. This assistance must be offered especially by:

1/ preaching, catechesis adapted to minors, youth, and adults, and even the use of instruments of social communication, by which the Christian faithful are instructed about the meaning of Christian marriage and about the function of Christian spouses and parents;

2/ personal preparation to enter marriage, which disposes the spouses to the holiness and duties of their new state;

3/ a fruitful liturgical celebration of marriage which is to show that the spouses signify and share in the mystery of the unity and fruitful love between Christ and the Church;

4/ help offered to those who are married, so that faithfully preserving and protecting the conjugal covenant, they daily come to lead holier and fuller lives in their family.

 

[Miss_Linda]

I am utterly mystified by the prevailing sentiment being expressed on this thread.

The whole duty of man is to love God and to keep His commandments–not just when it’s easy and convenient, but at all times. The sense I get when reading through these posts is that the primary concern is to avoid inconveniencing the couple who are intentionally and openly violating God’s law.

I respectfully submit that AgapeWolf’s statement bears repeating: *It is not a “violation of rights” when a priest can see that the couple has no idea what the sacrament they are trying to get is. The priest is the guardian of sacraments. This isn’t “messing with people’s lives”. This is helping their salvation. *

“Be not deceived: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows, because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit. Let us not grow tired of doing good, for in due time we shall reap our harvest, if we do not give up” (Gal. 6:7-9).

 

[dans0622]

I am utterly mystified by the prevailing sentiment being expressed on this thread.

The whole duty of man is to love God and to keep His commandments–not just when it’s easy and convenient, but at all times. The sense I get when reading through these posts is that the primary concern is to avoid inconveniencing the couple who are intentionally and openly violating God’s law.

I respectfully submit that AgapeWolf’s statement bears repeating: *It is not a “violation of rights” when a priest can see that the couple has no idea what the sacrament they are trying to get is. The priest is the guardian of sacraments. This isn’t “messing with people’s lives”. This is helping their salvation. *

Hi Miss Linda,

I can’t presume to speak for others but I would not think anyone posting here has, as a “primary concern,” the aviodance of inconveniencing a cohabiting couple.

The bottom line is this: people have a right to marry. Of course, this right can be limited by impediments and the couple might impede themselves by having an understanding of marriage which is at odds with what marriage really is.

So, a cohabiting couple comes to the pastor and says “We want to get married.” If this couple is not impeded and has proper intentions regarding marriage, the priest can surely tell them to separate and spiritually prepare themselves for marriage. But, if they say “No. We can’t (or won’t) do that.” and they are adamant, then the priest has two options: leave them “in sin” for the foreseeable future or regularize their situation by witnessing their marriage. In other words, this priest, by “marrying” this couple, will enable them to love God and obey his commandments and the precepts of the Church. You are right, that should be our primary concern. I think that is the primary concern of others who are posting here.

Certainly, if a couple has “no idea” what marriage is and/or do not intend to enter a true marriage, the priest can not witness their “marriage” since it will not be a marriage at all.

Thanks for your time.
Dan

 

[FrDavid96]

I personally know of just such a thing.
A Priest at my old parish in AZ refused to marry a couple on the day of the wedding! The groom showed up still drunk and an announcement was made that the wedding would not take place that day.
What a faithful Priest!! I so admired him for that decision though he caught plenty of grief from the families involved. Hopefully, they ALL learned a lesson.

Oh sure. That’s a matter of “properly disposed” After all, one who is drunk is hardly in a position to give consent to marry for life.

 

[Miss_Linda]

I can’t presume to speak for others but I would not think anyone posting here has, as a “primary concern,” the aviodance of inconveniencing a cohabiting couple.

Thank you for your polite response and especially for your patience with my fretting. I am just concerned, deeply concerned, that we accept sinful lifestyles far too easily.

I just wish so very much that we would focus a bit more on growing in holiness and not giving concessions to sinful lifestyles. I don’t want to ‘hijack’ this thread and my intention now is to quietly go back to reading the posts rather than participating here. There are people here who are more educated, more eloquent, and infinitely more qualified than I to speak on this issue. I just had to vent a little bit, and I do appreciate the indulgence of this group for permitting me to do so.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

The whole duty of man is to love God and to keep His commandments–not just when it’s easy and convenient, but at all times. The sense I get when reading through these posts is that the primary concern is to avoid inconveniencing the couple who are intentionally and openly violating God’s law.

Absolutely not. This is a discussion about the natural and canonical rights of individuals within the Church.

I respectfully submit that AgapeWolf’s statement bears repeating: *It is not a “violation of rights” when a priest can see that the couple has no idea what the sacrament they are trying to get is. The priest is the guardian of sacraments. This isn’t “messing with people’s lives”. This is helping their salvation. *

I respectfully disagree. A priest is not the “guardian of sacraments.” That’s what canon law is. Couples need to satisfy canon law not the whims of whatever priest they happened to draw.
Helping their salvation is the primary concern of the priest indeed. That’s why priests tend to be careful about trying to help rather than drive away.

 

[CarrieH]

Well, it’s not so much the financial issues as, in the case mentioned, the man having difficulty keeping a steady job. Quite frankly, that points to issues with that man which may very well prove an impediment to marriage (not the inability to hold a job, but the reason why he cannot remain employed).

You hit the nail on the head, Melissa. It wasn’t so much about his lack of steady work, but rather some character issues that put him in the position of not being able to keep a job. This wasn’t about a young couple trying to get started in life, either; we were in our 40’s, and he had a long history of under- and unemployment. Father did me a favor!

 

[agapewolf]

I am doing some reading as prep for a class I’m taking next week at the TOB institute.

This is from Familaris Consortio:

However, when in spite of all efforts, engaged couples show that they reject explicitly and formally what the Church intends to do when the marriage of baptized persons is celebrated, the pastor of souls cannot admit them to the celebration of marriage. In spite of his reluctance to do so, he has the duty to take note of the situation and to make it clear to those concerned that, in these circumstances, it is not the Church that is placing an obstacle in the way of the celebration that they are asking for, but themselves.

 

[FrDavid96]

I am doing some reading as prep for a class I’m taking next week at the TOB institute.

This is from Familaris Consortio:

Yes. And that’s what we’ve been saying all along.

The other point from the quote that needs to be highlighted is this “…that they reject explicitly and formally what the Church intends to do…”
That’s still an issue of a requirement for marriage that the Church defines in canon law; the priest cannot add his own impediments nor his own requirements above and beyond what is in the canons.