Can you marry without a priest in extreme circumstances?

[Caname]

While some sacraments necessitate a priest to be administered, some sacraments such as baptism and marriage can be administered without a priest present. Because of this, could the sacrament of marriage still be validly administered the same way baptism can if there is no priest readily available?

Historically, there have been instances of certain Catholic communities being cut off from the wider Church (due to politics, war, etc.) and then being stranded without a priest because all of their priests have died or been killed off. In such circumstances, could Catholics still validly marry in absence of a priest, or is marriage not possible in such circumstances because the usual requirements for a valid Catholic marriage cannot be fulfilled?

 

[MorEphrem]

According to the Latin Church, yes:

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law (bishop/priest/deacon) cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

 

[Edmundus1581]

According to the Latin Church, yes:

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law (bishop/priest/deacon) cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

Thankyou.

Just expanding on this, witnesses are always required for a marriage to be valid, which means an ardent couple cannot contract a valid marriage by themselves, in any circumstance.

Normally, a priest is required for the marriage to be licit, however, as the OP suggests, this is analogous to baptism where the Church is able relax that requirement in particular situations. I would assume that such situations have arisen regularly in history, as you suggest, eg. of a local church which is cut off from ordained priests. They can’t stop breeding!

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Note that a deacon is always an option, even with a priest available.

 

[truetofaith]

If the couple is stranded on an island, they can’t have priest or witnesses.

 

[dans0622]

If the couple is stranded on an island, they can’t have priest or witnesses.

Hello,

Yes, that’s the textbook example of “extreme circumstances.” I wonder if it has ever actually happened. It seems so utterly impossible that it may not even be worthwhile to consider it…

Dan

 

[phil19034]

If the couple is stranded on an island, they can’t have priest or witnesses.

While that scenario is highly unlikely, and perhaps hasn’t happened since Adam & Eve; I would imagine that such an extreme scenario would allow for a dispensation from witnesses.

After all, Adam & Eve were married without human witnesses too.

I’m not even sure if canon law would address this since the likelihood of it is extremely rare.

 

[JurisPrudens]

While that scenario is highly unlikely, and perhaps hasn’t happened since Adam & Eve; I would imagine that such an extreme scenario would allow for a dispensation from witnesses.

After all, Adam & Eve were married without human witnesses too.

I’m not even sure if canon law would address this since the likelihood of it is extremely rare.

You can never prove such “marriage”, and it is not contracted before the Church as the people of God. If one of the “spouses” turns back on the vow, the other cannot prove the marriage. It would be extremely unjust to force the innocent party to keep up with the vow.

Thus, I think such “marriage” can never be sacramental, only “natural”. It is only valid as a vow to celebrate a valid marriage after opportunity arises. Such vow can be dispensed against.

 

[phil19034]

You can never prove such “marriage”, and it is not contracted before the Church as the people of God. If one of the “spouses” turns back on the vow, the other cannot prove the marriage. It would be extremely unjust to force the innocent party to keep up with the vow.

Thus, I think such “marriage” can never be sacramental, only “natural”. It is only valid as a vow to celebrate a valid marriage after opportunity arises. Such vow can be dispensed against.

I agree.

In such an extreme example, if the couple were to be rescued from the deserted island, I would image they would need to be married in the Church or at least have a Radical Sanation so the Church can witness it.

Where as, the couple who married with witnesses would simply have to be entered into the parish records.

 

[Bookcat]

After all, Adam & Eve were married without human witnesses too.

One can say they were “created” in a state of marriage.

 

[Mintaka]

“Secret marriages” are one of the things canon law exists to protect Catholics from suffering. It used to be very common for men of wealth, or their families, to deny the existence of a marriage they didn’t like. Clergy were pressured to deny that marriages had taken place, because they were the only witnesses (except the couple). Women, and sometimes their kids too, were left with nothing.

Secret marriages affected the history of several European countries. Not in a good way.

That’s why we have witnesses, parish registers, diocesan marriage registers, and people attending the wedding. That’s also why civil governments eventually started recording marriages too.

It’s not romantic to not have witnesses. It’s a grave misfortune.

 

[Vico]

While some sacraments necessitate a priest to be administered, some sacraments such as baptism and marriage can be administered without a priest present. Because of this, could the sacrament of marriage still be validly administered the same way baptism can if there is no priest readily available?

Historically, there have been instances of certain Catholic communities being cut off from the wider Church (due to politics, war, etc.) and then being stranded without a priest because all of their priests have died or been killed off. In such circumstances, could Catholics still validly marry in absence of a priest, or is marriage not possible in such circumstances because the usual requirements for a valid Catholic marriage cannot be fulfilled?

Also according to eastern Catholic canon law:

CCEO Canon 832 – §1. If one cannot have present or have access to a priest who is competent according to the norm of law without grave inconvenience, those intending to celebrate a true marriage can validly and licitly celebrate it before witnesses alone:

1° in danger of death;
2° outside the danger of death, as long as it is prudently foreseen that such circumstances will continue for a month.
§2. In either case, if another priest, even a non-Catholic one, is able to be present, inasmuch as it is possible he is to be called so that he can bless the marriage, without prejudice for the validity of a marriage in the presence only of the witnesses.

§3. If a marriage was celebrated in the presence only of witnesses, the spouses shall not neglect to receive the blessing of the marriage from a priest as soon as possible.​

 

[drforjc]

Hello,

Yes, that’s the textbook example of “extreme circumstances.” I wonder if it has ever actually happened. It seems so utterly impossible that it may not even be worthwhile to consider it…

Dan

Historically, I believe there were areas in Asia where the Faith was preached, converts baptized, and then the missionary clergy exiled or killed.
What were the Christian converts to do after that?

 

[kdbueno]

It is *absolutely *not sacramental

 

[dans0622]

Historically, I believe there were areas in Asia where the Faith was preached, converts baptized, and then the missionary clergy exiled or killed.
What were the Christian converts to do after that?

Hello,

Such persons would not have been bound by the regulations of the Council of Trent concerning the “canonical form” for marriage. I say this because there was the continual issue of whether or not these regulations were “promulgated” in a given locale. In mission territories, they weren’t and so the law did not apply there.

So, the people you mention would have married in whatever way they tended to do so in that place.

Dan

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Woman: Not if you were the last man on earth!
Man: Well, according to my interpretation of canon law and the sacramental nature of marriage, along with the entirety of salvation history rom Adam and Eve up to and including now, I urge you to reconsider that statement…honey.

 

[Phemie]

It is *absolutely *not sacramental

In extreme circumstances, two Catholics who marry in front of witnesses only because there is no priest or other Church representative available to witness their exchange of consent, contract a valid marriage. If it’s valid, it’s sacramental.

 

[Phemie]

It is *absolutely *not sacramental

In extreme circumstances, two Catholics who marry in front of witnesses only, because there is no priest or other Church representative available to witness their exchange of consent, contract a valid marriage. If it’s valid, it’s sacramental.

 

[Edmundus1581]

Woman: Not if you were the last man on earth!
Man: Well, according to my interpretation of canon law and the sacramental nature of marriage, along with the entirety of salvation history rom Adam and Eve up to and including now, I urge you to reconsider that statement…honey.

And, I don’t know whether this was intended or not, but it underscores that the essence of the sacrament is the mutual consent of the man and the woman. (before witnesses).

A couple can contract a sacramental marriage without a priest, but a priest cannot contract a sacramental marriage without the mutual consent of the couple.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

And, I don’t know whether this was intended or not, but it underscores that the essence of the sacrament is the mutual consent of the man and the woman. (before witnesses).

A couple can contract a sacramental marriage without a priest, but a priest cannot contract a sacramental marriage without the mutual consent of the couple.

If it was funny, clever, insightful, brilliant, or just plain right, then it was definately intended…