Officiating at a Catholic Wedding

[1ke]

And, playing the part of the teenager: “But if the Bishop approves of the marriage, why couldn’t my friend or a relative perform the ceremony and witness the documents?”

And the answer is, if the bishop gives permission then the friend or relative could certainly be the witness of the Church, if the situation meets the canonical requirements.

The answer is that the Church establishes the canonical form, and has authority over the administration of the Sacraments for Catholics. The bishop can allow or not allow whatever is within his purview per the ecclesial law of the Church. And “why” is because he has the power of binding and loosing through Apostolic Succession.

 

[margaret42]

I’ve always believed that the Catholic priest/deacon is the representative of Christ, who makes the marriage sacramental.

 

[Phemie]

I’ve always believed that the Catholic priest/deacon is the representative of Christ, who makes the marriage sacramental.

No, what makes the marriage sacramental is that both the bride and groom are baptized. If one wasn’t Catholic and they had a dispensation to do so they could be married by a justice of the peace or a Marriage Commissioner and still be in a sacramental marriage.

 

[hcruz402]

A priest or a deacon is present to make sure that the legal requirements for marriage are met, and to give the couple a blessing. In normal circumstances, Catholics must be married in the presence of either a priest or a deacon.

 

[Phemie]

This may or may not work for the legal requirement of the US state governments though.
If the witness is not a government official such as a judge, they may require a clergy person. Granted, he could have a mail order “ordination” to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but he would still need to have it.

I don’t know about the US in general or specific states, but in my province you can’t witness a marriage just because you’re clergy. Every time a priest comes to our diocese from outside the province the Bishop needs to register them with the government so that they can witness marriages. I believe he would have done the same thing with the Sister whom he delegated to prepare and witness the marriage of a couple in the remote community where she was ministering.

In early 2000 we got a priest from Ontario. Eighteen months later he returned home to witness his niece’s wedding and that created a mess because he’d been removed from the priest registry in Ontario when he moved here and he was no longer legally allowed to witness marriages there, something he’d not been aware of until he was notified that his niece and her husband were not legally married (although they were in a valid Catholic marriage) and the ceremony had to be repeated in front of a civil authority.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

That’s interesting.
Here is a good article I found on “mail order ministers” in USA. I know at least one or two people who have gotten the certification to be a mail order minister and performed a few marriages, usually among their friends.

https://verdict.justia.com/2011/11/21/can-laypersons-ordained-online-as-universal-life-church-ministers-or-the-like-officiate-at-weddings

 

[PJM]

We’ve been studying the sacraments at our High school Life Teen meetings and one of the teens posed a question that I was unable to answer.

The statement was made that Marriage is the only sacrament not performed by a Priest or Deacon, but rather it is performed by the husband and the wife to each other.

The questions was raised, “Then why do you need a deacon or a priest to officiate?”

"ahhh… because… " crickets…

Comments?

GREAT question!

Because Christ Instituted and raised Marriage to the level of being a sacrament; a SOURCE of grace to make possible living this contractual-agreement faithfully; which is no easy thing {I’ve been married for 50 years}; the Church {an image of Christ Himself} acts as the witness of & for Christ Himself. This confirms the seriousness of this act and invites Jesus to be a party {participate} to and with it.

Thanks for asking,
May God continue to guide your path,
Patrick

 

[Gorgias]

Historically, the reason for this law was that clandestine marriages (those without witnesses) could leave a person in a situation where they were not morally free to marry (because they were already married), but where their spouse denied that the marriage had ever taken place.

@michaelhager: this.

The Church created the requirements of the form of marriage in order to protect the rights of its members who were being harmed by faithless spouses. So, the requirement became the means by which the Church could witness to the fact of the marriage and thus protect the most vulnerable in society. The nuts and bolts of the process included that the celebrant was required to ask for and receive the consent of the spouses, and witness the marriage, and then document it in the register of the church.

And, playing the part of the teenager: “But if the Bishop approves of the marriage, why couldn’t my friend or a relative perform the ceremony and witness the documents?”

Because the friend or relative doesn’t represent the Church. The Church’s minister does. It’s an important enough responsibility that the bishop doesn’t delegate it (unless, as some poster mentioned upthread – without mentioning the reasons why it might be delegated – namely, due to the prolonged lack of a minister available to do so) to anyone!

Does that not answer your question? If not, then why?

 

[Phemie]

We also shouldn’t forget that if there is no possibility of a priest or Catholic representative, and that condition is expected to persist, the couple marries validly as long as they do it in front of witnesses.

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law 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.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.

 

[FrDavid96]

I don’t know about the US in general or specific states, but in my province you can’t witness a marriage just because you’re clergy. …

Every state (and district and territory) is different.

In one extreme, some states just say something like “any member of the clergy authorized to solemnize a marriage” (the later part added to exclude someone from saying “I’m an altar boy, so I can do it”). No paperwork required. Nothing. Sometimes the clergy doesn’t even have to live or minister within that state.

In the other extreme, some states are very strict. The District of Columbia is probably the most strict. They require proof of ordination, sponsorship by an already-certified officiant, residence, and even posting a bond before allowing clergy to perform marriages.

Then there’s the middle. Some states do or do not have residence requirements for the clergy, or different procedures and requirements for guest clergy. Some states require an officiant’s license issued by the state or county. Some don’t.

 

[michaelhager]

I’m not sure why the person teaching the lesson was unable to give an explanation.

Because the person giving the lesson (Me) knew and conveyed in the lesson, all of the things you all have mentioned above about marriage including the fact that the Deacon or Priest was acting as a witness to the sacrament to receive it into the church and for the church and civil paperwork required,

The only question the teacher (Me) could not answer was why MUST a priest or deacon perform the ceremony. The answer seems to be that in extenuating circumstances when a priest or deacon is not available, a designated layperson may be appointed satisfies the question. Which means that if the couple simply wants a wedding on the beach officiated by cousin Bubba, it most likely would not be a marriage accepted by the church as a Catholic wedding.

Thank you all for your responses. God bless!

 

[Phemie]

The only question the teacher (Me) could not answer was why MUST a priest or deacon perform the ceremony. The answer seems to be that in extenuating circumstances when a priest or deacon is not available, a designated layperson may be appointed satisfies the question.

The simplest answer is that it’s because the Church has decided that that’s all she will accept and she decided that in response to a problem. It’s not divine law, it can be changed tomorrow if the Church decides to change it.

It’s really no different from the way each state decides who can perform weddings.