Married by Priest / No Annulment

[Micki]

So, a co-worker and I are discussing annulments. Her best friend had applied for an annulment while at the same time planning her next marriage. The annulment was taking quite a while and the marriage date was rapidly approaching. So, the priest, a good friend of the family, said he would marry the couple without the annulment. When the annulment came through, he would then bless the marriage. The ceremony was in the church. There were no gospel readings and no blessing. It appears that the priest acted as a Justice of the Peace.

I told my co-worker that legally the priest could act in this manner. My concern is that morally he permitted this couple to live in sin. When I asked my co-worker why this priest married the couple, she stated, “Well, all the wedding arrangements has been made.” My co-worker further stated that this type of thing was done years ago but couples were married in the back of the church.

Anyone heard of such an arrangement?

 

[tcraig]

Well, this is certainly putting the cart before the horse. What if her annullment isn’t granted?

 

[Micki]

Then I guess the couple continue to live in sin.

 

[puzzleannie]

you don’t know that they are living in sin and you don’t know what counsel the priest gave them about their living arrangement in the meanwhile, so don’t jump to conclusions.

if the annulment does not come through they will have heartache enough, at the hands of a priest who thought he was being pastoral by bending the rules, in order to salvage his own feelings. No, I don’t know his motives, so I should not presume, this is just speculation. It is never beneficial to the spiritual health of the Catholic when the priest teaches them something against the commandments and law.

 

[love4mary]

Unless an annulment is granted, they are still married in the eyes of God, even IF there is a civil divorce.

 

[Micki]

you don’t know that they are living in sin and you don’t know what counsel the priest gave them about their living arrangement in the meanwhile, so don’t jump to conclusions.

My co-worker stated that the annulment was eventually granted. The couple’s marriage was blessed the same day their infant was baptized.

 

[ljprevo]

My co-worker stated that the annulment was eventually granted. The couple’s marriage was blessed the same day their infant was baptized.

That is GREAT news!

However I still think the priest jumped the gun and honestly they could have waited for the annulment to be completed.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

So, a co-worker and I are discussing annulments. Her best friend had applied for an annulment while at the same time planning her next marriage. The annulment was taking quite a while and the marriage date was rapidly approaching. So, the priest, a good friend of the family, said he would marry the couple without the annulment. When the annulment came through, he would then bless the marriage. The ceremony was in the church. There were no gospel readings and no blessing. It appears that the priest acted as a Justice of the Peace.

I told my co-worker that legally the priest could act in this manner. My concern is that morally he permitted this couple to live in sin. When I asked my co-worker why this priest married the couple, she stated, “Well, all the wedding arrangements has been made.” My co-worker further stated that this type of thing was done years ago but couples were married in the back of the church.

Anyone heard of such an arrangement?

No, the priest acted very imprudently and outside of his authority,actually violating Canon Law at the time he witnessed the Marriage. He most likely didn’t record the
Marriage at that time either.

Can. 1060 Marriage enjoys the favor of law. Consequently, in doubt the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

Can. 1066 Before a marriage takes place, it must be established that nothing stands in the way of its valid and lawful celebration.

 

[puzzleannie]

that is good news, thanks for the follow up

 

[Micki]

Can. 1066 Before a marriage takes place, it must be established that nothing stands in the way of its valid and lawful celebration.

I’m assuming that this canon law applies to a sacramental marriage. In this case the priest was not performing a sacramental marriage so therefore technically didn’t break canon law. Kinda of loop hole!

 

[Joe_Kelley]

. . . So, the priest, a good friend of the family, said he would marry the couple without the annulment. When the annulment came through, he would then bless the marriage. The ceremony was in the church. There were no gospel readings and no blessing. It appears that the priest acted as a Justice of the Peace.

I told my co-worker that legally the priest could act in this manner. My concern is that morally he permitted this couple to live in sin. . . .?

It sounds to me as though the priest needs to review the problem of working for two masters. He has chosen the wrong one.

 

[lizaanne]

Our Archdiocese does not allow anyone to even set a date with a parish without having a decree in their hands. I’m sure there are some priests out there who do what ever they want (surprise surprise ) - but here anyway, a couple is not even allowed to talk dates or arrangements until they are absolutely determined to be free to marry.

Takes out all the issues like this from ever happening.

~Liza

 

[rpp]

Then I guess the couple continue to live in sin.

you don’t know that they are living in sin and you don’t know what counsel the priest gave them about their living arrangement in the meanwhile, so don’t jump to conclusions.

if the annulment does not come through they will have heartache enough, at the hands of a priest who thought he was being pastoral by bending the rules, in order to salvage his own feelings. No, I don’t know his motives, so I should not presume, this is just speculation. It is never beneficial to the spiritual health of the Catholic when the priest teaches them something against the commandments and law.

PuzzleAnnie, I am afraid you are incorrect. When one is married, one cannot enter marriage vows with another person as long as the first spouse if alive.

Without a declaration of nullity, one is presumed to be married.

Without a declaration of nullity, it does not matter if the couple is celibate. They were not able to enter marriage vows when they took them and THAT is what constitutes adultery. Since marriage vows are done publicly, the sin of adultery was done publicly.

Arguably, since it was a priest who did this publicly, it could constitute a scandal. It appears to me that the all three people here, and perhaps others, are potentially parties to grave sin. But no one more so than the priest.

 

[rpp]

Our Archdiocese does not allow anyone to even set a date with a parish without having a decree in their hands. I’m sure there are some priests out there who do what ever they want (surprise surprise ) - but here anyway, a couple is not even allowed to talk dates or arrangements until they are absolutely determined to be free to marry.

Takes out all the issues like this from ever happening.

~Liza

I have received my first instance which declared my marriage to be invalid. I await the second instance. (I think that is the last step. ) So that is the position that I am responding to this post from.

I think this is a wonderful approach that is motivated out of love for the immortal souls of all involved.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I’m assuming that this canon law applies to a sacramental marriage. In this case the priest was not performing a sacramental marriage so therefore technically didn’t break canon law. Kinda of loop hole!

I don’t recall the OP mentioning the Baptismal status of either party. So my assumption was that they were both validly Baptized and he was attempting to witness the Sacrament of Marriage.