catholic.com/quickquestions/do-i-need-to-be-confirmed-to-be-married-in-the-churchCan. 1065 §1 Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.
Generally, yes. One should be Confirmed before marriage. However, if one (or even both) party is not confirmed, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the marriage.Hi CAF,
Does a person need to get confirmed before getting married? I mean a sacramental marriage.
Thanks,
Ben
Hi Father. Isn’t it the case that in the months before a marriage that documents are required to be produced showing that both are baptised and confirmed. If one or both are not confirmed would the priest not arrange for a confirmation program so that they get confirmed before the marriage?Generally, yes. One should be Confirmed before marriage. However, if one (or even both) party is not confirmed, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the marriage.
Not necessarily so. My wife was a fallen away Catholic when we were married. She had not been Confirmed at time of our marriage. (that came three years later after her reversion)Hi Father. Isn’t it the case that in the months before a marriage that documents are required to be produced showing that both are baptised and confirmed. If one or both are not confirmed would the priest not arrange for a confirmation program so that they get confirmed before the marriage?
It’s just as the words of the canon describe:Hi Father. Isn’t it the case that in the months before a marriage that documents are required to be produced showing that both are baptised and confirmed. If one or both are not confirmed would the priest not arrange for a confirmation program so that they get confirmed before the marriage?
Thanks Father.It’s just as the words of the canon describe:
Can. 1065 §1 Catholics who have not yet received the sacrament of confirmation are to receive it before being admitted to marriage, if this can be done without grave inconvenience.
So the answer to your question is yes. That’s what should/would happen–the priest would make arrangements for the person to be confirmed. But the point is that it is not a “must.” He must make an effort. But if this cannot be done (or for whatever reason it is not done), that does not affect the validity of the marriage–the marriage can occur and it would be valid and even licit.
Confirmations, while usually performed by the Bishop, are often delegated to the priest depending on circumstances.Not necessarily so. My wife was a fallen away Catholic when we were married. She had not been Confirmed at time of our marriage. (that came three years later after her reversion)
And no mention was made about bringing the bishop in for a special Confirmation. I suppose that the priest could have applied for faculties to do so, but again, no mention was made of doing so.
I understand that, the priest would have to request faculties, or have them assigned by the bishop.Confirmations, while usually performed by the Bishop, are often delegated to the priest depending on circumstances…
No! In fact, it is precisely the opposite! A priest may not refuse to marry a couple based on whether or not they’re both confirmed!Is it the case that a priest may refuse to marry a couple if one/both are not confirmed prior to the marriage?
However, if the priest believes confirmation can occur before the marriage without “grave inconvenience” (which he is the arbiter of), he can certainly look at dates for the wedding after confirmation can place, even if that date is not the couple’s first choice.No! In fact, it is precisely the opposite! A priest may not refuse to marry a couple based on whether or not they’re both confirmed!
But every Sacrament requires a consent. If the person indicates that they do not consent to Confirmation…what then?However, if the priest believes confirmation can occur before the marriage without “grave inconvenience” (which he is the arbiter of), he can certainly look at dates for the wedding after confirmation can place, even if that date is not the couple’s first choice.
Delaying is not the same as refusing.
No. He cannot.Thanks Father.
Is it the case that a priest may refuse to marry a couple if one/both are not confirmed prior to the marriage?
No. He cannot do that. A priest cannot delay a Sacrament beyond what the Church requires.However, if the priest believes confirmation can occur before the marriage without “grave inconvenience” (which he is the arbiter of), he can certainly look at dates for the wedding after confirmation can place, even if that date is not the couple’s first choice.
Delaying is not the same as refusing.
But they do THIS all the time, with the sacrament of reconciliation. I also know in the local diocese the bishop delays confirmations because of the amount of teens/adults and his insistence on being the only one that confers confirmation. The scheduling alone is bizarre.No. He cannot do that. A priest cannot delay a Sacrament beyond what the Church requires.
The Church does not require confirmation before marriage, therefore a priest cannot delay the marriage merely because he wants to delay it.
By all means, he can work with the couple and if there is an opportunity for Confirmation he can suggest that they wait. He can explore all kinds of options to get the person(s) confirmed before the wedding. But what he cannot do is to impose a burden on the couple that the Church does not require.
In the case of Confirmation, there ARE time limits, set by the local bishop’s conference.But they do THIS all the time, with the sacrament of reconciliation. I also know in the local diocese the bishop delays confirmations because of the amount of teens/adults and his insistence on being the only one that confers confirmation. The scheduling alone is bizarre.
The couple are no longer under any prohibition of law from receiving the Sacrament.Can. 843 §1. Sacred ministers cannot deny the sacraments to those who seek them at appropriate times, are properly disposed, and are not prohibited by law from receiving them.
I don’t know what you mean by that, but a priest cannot delay the Sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation by adding his own requirements.But they do THIS all the time, with the sacrament of reconciliation.
To start with, the bishop doesn’t just insist on being the one to Confirm. It is his proper role to Confirm. Just because priests might be extraordinary ministers of Confirmation, doesn’t mean that any bishop necessarily should be doing that.I also know in the local diocese the bishop delays confirmations because of the amount of teens/adults and his insistence on being the only one that confers confirmation. The scheduling alone is bizarre.
If a Catholic refuses the sacrament of confirmation, a pastor should counsel that Catholic to help them understand the sacraments of initiation and why it is required that they receive it.But every Sacrament requires a consent. If the person indicates that they do not consent to Confirmation…what then?
The couple are not barred by Canon law from reciving the Sacrament of Marriage, so the priest cannot bar them.
if you mean the sense that it is required to be fully imitated into the Church, then such conseling is superiority, if you mean required in the senses that it is required to get married in the Church, you are mistaken. As Fr. David pointed out, it not a Canonical requirement.If a Catholic refuses the sacrament of confirmation, a pastor should counsel that Catholic to help them understand the sacraments of initiation and why it is required that they receive it.
Actually, no. A refusal to give consent to a Sacrament, nor being a fallen away Catholic constitute a notorious rejection of the Faith.In the case of a fallen away Catholic who refuses confirmation and does not practice the faith, then Canons 1071.1.4 and 1071.2 apply and the pastor needs permission of the bishop to proceed with the marriage. The marriage is treated like a mixed marriage and the marriage may not move forward unless the norms of Canon 1125 are followed.
The faithful are obliged to receive confirmation (I did not say required before marriage. I said required.). If a practicing Catholic expresses the sentiment they do not want to be confirmed, the pastor has some additional catechesis to do with that individual.if you mean the sense that it is required to be fully imitated into the Church, then such conseling is superiority, if you mean required in the senses that it is required to get married in the Church, you are mistaken. As Fr. David pointed out, it not a Canonical requirement.
Yes, being a fallen away Catholic does constitute notorious defection.Actually, no. A refusal to give consent to a Sacrament, nor being a fallen away Catholic constitute a notorious rejection of the Faith.
Canon 1071 applies to marriage.If it was, a seminarian who discerned that Holy Orders was not his calling and declined to be Ordained would likewise fall under Canon 1071. Is that you assertion?
It applies to a Catholic who has notoriously defected from the faith, whether confirmed or not and whether no longer practicing or practicing some other religion, who seeks to marry in the Church.And why would 1071-2 Enter in at all?