Emergency weddings?

[sugarmouse]

Out of curiosity, does the Church allow weddings in an emergency? I’m thinking specifically of a case where one or both partners are in danger of death.

Say for example, if a man was taken suddenly into hospital after an accident and is not expected to live, would the hospital priest marry him and his girlfriend at the hospital?

Would it make a difference depending on whether the couple were already engaged, had gone through pre-marital counselling etc. or if they were just boyfriend/girlfriend and made the decision to get married when they realised the boyfriend was going to die?

Just wondering. I tried searching the forums already, but I can’t seem to find anything.

 

[slh3016]

Out of curiosity, does the Church allow weddings in an emergency? I’m thinking specifically of a case where one or both partners are in danger of death.

Say for example, if a man was taken suddenly into hospital after an accident and is not expected to live, would the hospital priest marry him and his girlfriend at the hospital?

Would it make a difference depending on whether the couple were already engaged, had gone through pre-marital counselling etc. or if they were just boyfriend/girlfriend and made the decision to get married when they realised the boyfriend was going to die?

Just wondering. I tried searching the forums already, but I can’t seem to find anything.

In my understand, the Church tries VERY hard to make sure that both parties are entering into a sacramental marriage with full consent and no impediments in order to do its very best to only perform valid marriage ceremonies. I’m thinking that in this case, neither of the parties would be entering the marriage in the right mindset and therefore, the Church would not approve.

What benefit would there be to doing an emergency wedding ceremony anyway if one of the parties is about to die?

 

[Gorgias]

Out of curiosity, does the Church allow weddings in an emergency? I’m thinking specifically of a case where one or both partners are in danger of death.

Yes, there are provisions in canon law that cover the case of “in danger of death”:

Can. 1079 §1. In urgent danger of death, the local ordinary can dispense his own subjects residing anywhere and all actually present in his territory both from the form to be observed in the celebration of marriage and from each and every impediment of ecclesiastical law, whether public or occult, except the impediment arising from the sacred order of presbyterate.

§2. In the same circumstances mentioned in §1, but only for cases in which the local ordinary cannot be reached, the pastor, the properly delegated sacred minister, and the priest or deacon who assists at marriage according to the norm of can. 1116, §2 possess the same power of dispensing.

sugarmouse:

Would it make a difference depending on whether the couple were already engaged, had gone through pre-marital counselling etc. or if they were just boyfriend/girlfriend and made the decision to get married when they realised the boyfriend was going to die?

It would seem that the canons don’t anticipate that a sudden decision to marry might justify an application of c.1079. After all, that would seem to indicate that the decision to marry was based on the circumstance of the ‘danger of death’, not from actual consent.

 

[Antegin]

In my understand, the Church tries VERY hard to make sure that both parties are entering into a sacramental marriage with full consent and no impediments in order to do its very best to only perform valid marriage ceremonies. I’m thinking that in this case, neither of the parties would be entering the marriage in the right mindset and therefore, the Church would not approve.

What benefit would there be to doing an emergency wedding ceremony anyway if one of the parties is about to die?

The benefit would be widow and orphan benefits, establishing next of kin and beneficiary status and other legal rights, particularly when military deploy or employees accept hazardous assignments outside of the country.

 

[Isca]

This is the kind of touching story that we occasionally see in the papers here in the UK. Not necessarily Catholic marriages, but some couples will decide to marry when one is not expected to live very much longer. Often, they already have children.

It makes a great deal of sense both emotionally and practically. If you are just co-habiting, the deceased’s half of any shared home will be liable to death duties if it’s inherited by the surviving partner - the only exception is property passing between married couples, which is tax-free. This only applies to property, savings and assets worth more than £325,000 - however, in the capital, even quite ordinary homes can be worth close on £1,000,000, so many families there would find themselves in that type of asset bracket.

Apart from that, as Antegin has pointed out the surviving spouse would be able to benefit from things like the deceased spouse’s pension (usually 50% of the pension for the rest of their lives, which would be payable immediately). Also, if you die without making a will, a widow, widower or surviving civil partner automatically inherits your estate, in normal circumstances. This doesn’t happen if you aren’t married.

 

[slh3016]

The benefit would be widow and orphan benefits, establishing next of kin and beneficiary status and other legal rights, particularly when military deploy or employees accept hazardous assignments outside of the country.

Yes, I can understand this but military employments are not generally “last minute” are they? The OP asked about situations along the lines of hospital bedside weddings. That was what I was referring to. In that case, I would think a civil wedding would be most expedient to establish those benefits (since it would also seem unlikely that consummation would be occurring in a life or death situation). If the party is miraculously healed, then a Catholic convalidation service could be held, right?

 

[Antegin]

Yes, I can understand this but military employments are not generally “last minute” are they? The OP asked about situations along the lines of hospital bedside weddings. That was what I was referring to. In that case, I would think a civil wedding would be most expedient to establish those benefits (since it would also seem unlikely that consummation would be occurring in a life or death situation). If the party is miraculously healed, then a Catholic convalidation service could be held, right?

During the last few wars, not so much. The casualties have been lower (but not low enough) so we have not resorted to the draft. But according to my parents and grandparents, during WWII, Korea and Vietnam military personnel were pulled up from the draft and in basic training in two weeks or less. This was how my great aunt and uncle married in WWII. They were married 52 years.

A civil ceremony can be quick and easy but it would be both invalid (the marriage never took place) and illicit (wrong to do).

 

[EasterJoy]

The benefit would be widow and orphan benefits, establishing next of kin and beneficiary status and other legal rights, particularly when military deploy or employees accept hazardous assignments outside of the country.

Yes, I would think it offers several benefits. First off, it is an expression of hope and commitment by the healthy party that a) the patient has some hope of survival and b) the healthy party is willing to stick with the patient through the challenges of recovery and whatever impairments may follow him or her through life. Second, it is an expression of solidarity, that the healthy party is willing to be the foremost person to support the patient through the process of dying, one of the most meaningful parts of one’s life, with all the self-gift that implies. Finally, it gives the healthy party the rights of the surviving spouse: the right to plan the funeral, the right to decide where and how the body of the patient is to be buried after death, the right to take the position beside them after death as their spouse (at the funeral and on the burial marker, I mean, not in heaven where we all shall be as the angels), the right to inherit, the right to be given the full dignity in bereavement of a widow or widower rather than merely that of a disappointed fiance, and so on.

 

[slh3016]

This was how my great aunt and uncle married in WWII. They were married 52 years.

Which is a great testimony to the seriousness of marriage in those days. Honestly, I’ve struggled with this issue in this conversion because it seems that the Church says that such grounds (being sent to war, death bed weddings, etc.) are a strong indicator of invalid consent and/or coercion and that such situations would be highly suspect in producing valid sacramental marriages and could thus be grounds for later annulment.

But, as you noted, your great-aunt and uncle did exactly that same thing and were married for 52 years. I would hate to assume that their marriage was not sacramental even though they married in a manner that the Church today most likely wouldn’t approve or be so willing to expedite

 

[slh3016]

Yes, I would think it offers several benefits. First off, it is an expression of hope and commitment by the healthy party that a) the patient has some hope of survival and b) the healthy party is willing to stick with the patient through the challenges of recovery and whatever impairments may follow him or her through life. Second, it is an expression of solidarity, that the healthy party is willing to be the foremost person to support the patient through the process of dying, one of the most meaningful parts of one’s life, with all the self-gift that implies. Finally, it gives the healthy party the rights of the surviving spouse: the right to plan the funeral, the right to decide where and how the body of the patient is to be buried after death, the right to take the position beside them after death as their spouse (at the funeral and on the burial marker, I mean, not in heaven where we all shall be as the angels), the right to inherit, the right to be given the full dignity in bereavement of a widow or widower rather than merely that of a disappointed fiance, and so on.

But the OP asked if the Church allows it? I find it hard to believe that it would. There is another post going right now with a question of whether or not the OP could have a civil ceremony this summer so she could get health insurance and then wait until next summer for the Church wedding and ceremony. Several there have commented that the validity of her marriage (even if she were to get married in the Church as quickly as possible) would be suspect since the goal is to gain health insurance coverage. I would think that the same logic would apply here. But, please correct me if I’m wrong

 

[Gorgias]

it gives the healthy party the rights of the surviving spouse: the right to plan the funeral, the right to decide where and how the body of the patient is to be buried after death, the right to take the position beside them after death as their spouse (at the funeral and on the burial marker,

Well, but one doesn’t need a religious ceremony for that, right? I mean, a civil ceremony would be sufficient.

the right to be given the full dignity in bereavement of a widow or widower rather than merely that of a disappointed fiance, and so on.

Ahh… hold on! By saying “disappointed fiance”, you’ve explicitly set a condition: the marriage had already been planned, but the plans were interrupted by the ill fiance’s medical condition. That’s quite the significant condition! Part of sugarmouse’s question was whether the couple was already engaged…

 

[Gorgias]

I would think that the same logic would apply here. But, please correct me if I’m wrong

It would seem to me that there might be more room for a pastoral accommodation in this case.

 

[Phemie]

But the OP asked if the Church allows it? I find it hard to believe that it would. There is another post going right now with a question of whether or not the OP could have a civil ceremony this summer so she could get health insurance and then wait until next summer for the Church wedding and ceremony. Several there have commented that the validity of her marriage (even if she were to get married in the Church as quickly as possible) would be suspect since the goal is to gain health insurance coverage. I would think that the same logic would apply here. But, please correct me if I’m wrong

The Church obviously does allow it since the canon quoted above gives the priest the right to dispense the Catholic from any church law impediment (except the law that forbids priests from marrying) and from form if there is danger of death something that is normally reserved to the bishop.

 

[DJJG]

Other than for legal purposes (a will, custody of children etc.), I can’t think of why a Catholic (or sacramental) wedding would be needed - since at the moment one of the parties dies the marriage ends - marriage does not continue after death.

There have been times that a man has been ordained a priest, just prior to death; but ordination is forever, as is baptism and confirmation.

 

[Phemie]

Other than for legal purposes (a will, custody of children etc.), I can’t think of why a Catholic (or sacramental) wedding would be needed - since at the moment one of the parties dies the marriage ends - marriage does not continue after death.

There have been times that a man has been ordained a priest, just prior to death; but ordination is forever, as is baptism and confirmation.

I guess the idea is that should the person not die you don’t want to be in an invalid marriage and have to do it all over again.

 

[JDee]

A high school friend of my husband was diagnosed with cancer in his early 20’s. He went downhill very quickly. His girlfriend (dated all through high school) wanted to get married. She had said that she would rather mourn him as his wife than his girlfriend. She loved him so much she wanted to be married no matter what the outcome. They were married in his hospital room and he did pass shortly after.

That was over 25 years ago and it still makes an impression that marriage is for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. We never know how each day will be or what waits for us.

 

[Filioque]

What benefit would there be to doing an emergency wedding ceremony anyway if one of the parties is about to die?

The benefit is that it is a Sacrament, which our Lord instituted as a channel for His Graces. Sadly sometimes we all forget that it is just as much a Sacrament as any other. and that the persons who enter into a holy marriage, sanctify each other and the Church by living their vocation within the Sacrament. Even if only for a short period of time, because of the death of one or both parties. The Sacrament also Glorifies God and instructs others of the importance of Sacramental Grace and the Moral teachings of the Church.

While there are special dispensations for an emergency, the salvation of souls is the primary mission of the Church, so she does all she can to protect the souls of her children and ensure the proper reception of the Sacraments, even in unusual circumstances.

 

[slh3016]

The benefit is that it is a Sacrament, which our Lord instituted as a channel for His Graces. Sadly sometimes we all forget that it is just as much a Sacrament as any other. and that the persons who enter into a holy marriage, sanctify each other and the Church by living their vocation within the Sacrament. Even if only for a short period of time, because of the death of one or both parties. The Sacrament also Glorifies God and instructs others of the importance of Sacramental Grace and the Moral teachings of the Church.

While there are special dispensations for an emergency, the salvation of souls is the primary mission of the Church, so she does all she can to protect the souls of her children and ensure the proper reception of the Sacraments, even in unusual circumstances.

This is the part that made me question it. It seems that the Church does indeed go to great lengths to make sure that couples validly enter into sacramental marriages (or phrased differently, that they enter into marriage in such a way that it is indeed sacramental). Therefore, I would most likely assume that a deathbed wedding entered into under duress might indeed cause the marriage to not be sacramental and therefore the priest would therefore most likely be very apprehensive about performing such a ceremony. So, I guess the answer to the OP’s questions is that although the Church has provisions for such a wedding ceremony, it would be under intense scrutiny as to whether it should take place or not and the priest would have to decide.

 

[slh3016]

A high school friend of my husband was diagnosed with cancer in his early 20’s. He went downhill very quickly. His girlfriend (dated all through high school) wanted to get married. She had said that she would rather mourn him as his wife than his girlfriend. She loved him so much she wanted to be married no matter what the outcome. They were married in his hospital room and he did pass shortly after.

That was over 25 years ago and it still makes an impression that marriage is for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. We never know how each day will be or what waits for us.

This makes sense to me. They had a longstanding relationship already and most likely already considered themselves engaged. I could see a priest consenting to perform this type of ceremony.