Canon Law and marriage

[MikeBrummond]

Is it legitimate for a Catholic parish to refuse to marry otherwise well disposed/prepared individuals simply because they are not “registered parishioners?” I have a young lady in RCIA who is hoping for a “destination wedding” in an east-coast parish (Yes, I know….I cringed too). They have been told that the church will not marry non-parishioners.
Are canons 213 or 843 applicable? What kind of recourse could be had in such a situation?
(I did tell her it was preferable to receive the sacrament in her home parish, but she’s also a typical bride…)

 

[Sarabande]

I’m not sure about legitimacy, and would like to know as well. I do know it is common at parishes. That said, many of the historical churches in my area which used to have a rule that you had to be an active member for at least 6 months, have done away with it. They are in cities where the Catholic population has dwindled and moved out to the suburbs, yet are being kept open because of their important historical significance, and if they close, the diocese cannot afford to pay taxes on them. One of the only ways they can keep afloat is to allow non parishioners marry in these churches. In fact, where I currently work as a musician, most of the weddings are non-parishioners and we get quite a large amount of weddings there.

 

[1ke]

Is it legitimate for a Catholic parish to refuse to marry otherwise well disposed/prepared individuals simply because they are not “registered parishioners?” I have a young lady in RCIA who is hoping for a “destination wedding” in an east-coast parish (Yes, I know….I cringed too). They have been told that the church will not marry non-parishioners.
Are canons 213 or 843 applicable? What kind of recourse could be had in such a situation?
(I did tell her it was preferable to receive the sacrament in her home parish, but she’s also a typical bride…)

A Catholic is to be married in their parish and must have permission to be married elsewhere (Can 1115)

A parish in which the parties do not have a domicile or quasi-domicile as defined in Can 1115 are under NO obligation to witness marriages for such persons.

No Can 213 and 843 are not applicable. And no, the bride does not have “recourse” anywhere.

 

[joanofarc2008]

1ke - this is a little off topic - but let I think you are the person to ask. Lets say bride and groom live in a location away from one set of parents and they wish to marry closer to a set of parents because the parents are not well enough to travel - would this be considered quasi-domicile or would this be the type of reason that is usually considered when requesting permission?

 

[Oneofthewomen]

1ke - this is a little off topic - but let I think you are the person to ask. Lets say bride and groom live in a location away from one set of parents and they wish to marry closer to a set of parents because the parents are not well enough to travel - would this be considered quasi-domicile or would this be the type of reason that is usually considered when requesting permission?

Canon Law is a bit of a hobby for me, and I am lucky that my boss is a priest and a canon lawyer, so I get to ask lots of questions.

The case which you describe, at least in my opinion, would be a valid reason to grant the request to marry outside of one’s regular parish.

One thing my boss has impressed upon me, is that while the law is the law, it must be enforced in a very pastoral way.
One should never use the law as a weapon to harm people spiritually,
it is there to protect us.

Hope this helps!

 

[FrDavid96]

Is it legitimate for a Catholic parish to refuse to marry otherwise well disposed/prepared individuals simply because they are not “registered parishioners?” I have a young lady in RCIA who is hoping for a “destination wedding” in an east-coast parish (Yes, I know….I cringed too). They have been told that the church will not marry non-parishioners.
Are canons 213 or 843 applicable? What kind of recourse could be had in such a situation?
(I did tell her it was preferable to receive the sacrament in her home parish, but she’s also a typical bride…)

Making a parish church building available for non-parishioners is a courtesy. Since they are not members of that parish–in other words, since neither of them actually has a residence in the parish territory, they do not have any “right” to use the building for the wedding.

She does have the right to be married in her own parish church, but not anywhere else (other than the groom’s parish).

The pastor at the east coast parish probably has a very good reason for his policy, yet it really doesn’t matter. He is under no obligation at all to make the building available for non-parishioner weddings.

 

[FrDavid96]

Canon Law is a bit of a hobby for me, and I am lucky that my boss is a priest and a canon lawyer, so I get to ask lots of questions.

The case which you describe, at least in my opinion, would be a valid reason to grant the request to marry outside of one’s regular parish.

One thing my boss has impressed upon me, is that while the law is the law, it must be enforced in a very pastoral way.
One should never use the law as a weapon to harm people spiritually,
it is there to protect us.

Hope this helps!

Yes, and the law is also there to protect the parishioners and the pastor of that parish from people who have no legitimate reason to be married there.

 

[FrDavid96]

1ke - this is a little off topic - but let I think you are the person to ask. Lets say bride and groom live in a location away from one set of parents and they wish to marry closer to a set of parents because the parents are not well enough to travel - would this be considered quasi-domicile or would this be the type of reason that is usually considered when requesting permission?

In order to have quasi-domicile, one has to actually live in a place for at least 3 months, or be in a situation where one “expects” to be there for at least 3 months. An example would be a college student who lives at school for about 9 months, but who still has “home” as a primary residence. See canon 102.

So, in order to claim quasi-domicile “back home” one would have to actually live there for 3 months (not in the past, but currently). The parents’ residence (in the case of adult children) has no bearing on the adult-child’s residence.

So, no it would not be considered quasi-domicile.

However, the last part of your question gets a yes. The type of situation you describe would usually be considered a valid reason for requesting permission to be married at that parish where the bride and groom do not live.

 

[joanofarc2008]

In order to have quasi-domicile, one has to actually live in a place for at least 3 months, or be in a situation where one “expects” to be there for at least 3 months. An example would be a college student who lives at school for about 9 months, but who still has “home” as a primary residence. See canon 102.

So, in order to claim quasi-domicile “back home” one would have to actually live there for 3 months (not in the past, but currently). The parents’ residence (in the case of adult children) has no bearing on the adult-child’s residence.

So, no it would not be considered quasi-domicile.

However, the last part of your question gets a yes. The type of situation you describe would usually be considered a valid reason for requesting permission to be married at that parish where the bride and groom do not live.

Thank you the situation does not apply to me personally but I have friend from another Christian faith who is doing this type of thing in her faith while attending engagement counseling with her fiance at her home parish and marrying at a parish close to her mother. She often asks me questions of how the Catholic Church would handle this since we are good friends and discuss religion (in a non-confrontational way) and I like to be able to give her a well-informed answer.

 

[puzzleannie]

Is it legitimate for a Catholic parish to refuse to marry otherwise well disposed/prepared individuals simply because they are not “registered parishioners?” I have a young lady in RCIA who is hoping for a “destination wedding” in an east-coast parish (Yes, I know….I cringed too). They have been told that the church will not marry non-parishioners.
Are canons 213 or 843 applicable? What kind of recourse could be had in such a situation?
(I did tell her it was preferable to receive the sacrament in her home parish, but she’s also a typical bride…)

the pastor has custody of the souls in his jurisdiction, that is, within his parish boundaries and that includes the sacraments. If in this diocese people are allowed to choose any parish, and that is most places, he also has similar authority over those residing elsewhere who register or otherwise join his parish. Yes he can give permission for one of his parishioners to receive sacraments from another priest but it must be requested. He may marry someone who is not a parishioner if that person’s pastor permits. No it is not likely that if they just show up in another town in another state that the local Catholic pastor will marry them without seeking that permission, nor without knowing anything about them or their state of preparation for marriage. The priest who witnesses the marriage is responsible for seeing to their marriage preparation. yes again with permission that can take place elsewhere, but he is not going to marry them without assuring himself they are entering into a valid marriage.

 

[FrDavid96]

the pastor has custody of the souls in his jurisdiction, that is, within his parish boundaries and that includes the sacraments. If in this diocese people are allowed to choose any parish, and that is most places, he also has similar authority over those residing elsewhere who register or otherwise join his parish. Yes he can give permission for one of his parishioners to receive sacraments from another priest but it must be requested. He may marry someone who is not a parishioner if that person’s pastor permits. No it is not likely that if they just show up in another town in another state that the local Catholic pastor will marry them without seeking that permission, nor without knowing anything about them or their state of preparation for marriage. The priest who witnesses the marriage is responsible for seeing to their marriage preparation. yes again with permission that can take place elsewhere, but he is not going to marry them without assuring himself they are entering into a valid marriage.

He’s not going to marry them at all. As the OP stated, the pastor of that place has already said that the church-building is not made available to non-parishioners.

People have a right to receive the Sacraments from their own proper pastors and in their own proper parish church-buildings–ie the pastor and the parish where they have a residence. No one has any “right” to expect to use a parish church for a wedding unless that peson actually resides within the boundaries of that parish–in other words, unless the person is actually a proper parishioner, not “registered” but an actual bona fide parishioner as defined by canon law.

Catholics may certainly request the permission of the host-pastor to have a wedding in another church. The host pastor (or another priest or deacon) can certainly request permission of the proper pastor to officiate at the wedding. Nothing guarantees that either will seek this permission, and nothing guarantees that such permission will be granted.

The OPs question was whether there is any recourse to canon law when a pastor of a place other-than the proper parish of either party requests to have a wedding at that church…

The answer is no.

 

[joanofarc2008]

Of course my only suggestion would be if the bride is completely enamoured with doing this whole “wedding in another area” idea is that she contact other parishes and see if there is a priest that will coordinate the marriage prep with her home parish? She may also want to keep in mind that she may not get this permission either. Why not have the cermony and then have the “destination party” which would be cheaper and easier to pack for.

 

[Sarabande]

Of course my only suggestion would be if the bride is completely enamoured with doing this whole “wedding in another area” idea is that she contact other parishes and see if there is a priest that will coordinate the marriage prep with her home parish? She may also want to keep in mind that she may not get this permission either. Why not have the cermony and then have the “destination party” which would be cheaper and easier to pack for.

That is true. I live on the east coast and I could tell her of the churches I know of which allows non-parishioners to marry in my area. All of those historical churches I mentioned, for instance. But, like you said, she would still need to get permission from her home parish which may not be granted.

 

[NewEnglandPriest]

I have a young lady in RCIA who is hoping for a “destination wedding” in an east-coast parish (Yes, I know….I cringed too). They have been told that the church will not marry non-parishioners.

Others have answered the canonical question as well as it can be answered. I’ll just throw 2 cents in here as to the why they probably won’t marry non-parishioners.
The issue is that she’s not the only one probably seeking a destination wedding at that particular church or area. Some areas are “hot spots” for destination weddings. Thus if the parish allowed non-parishioners to get married there it would severely limit the options for parishioners to be able to get married in their own parish.

However, they could call around and perhaps a parish a little further away might accommodate them.