Secret Marriage

[Matthew_Holford]

In general the Church requires that marriage be celebrated publicly. However, the Church makes provision for marriage to be celebrated in secret (cf. Can. 1130). My commentary on the Code of Canon Law gives the following as a reason why permission for a secret marriage might be given.

One of the parties to the secret marriage may be a widow or widower. Because s/he is a widow(er) s/he may be in receipt of a widow(er)'s pension. If s/he marries then s/he is no longer a widow(er) and may lose their widow(er)'s pension. My commentary states a secret marriage may be allowed by the Church so that the change in the person’s circumstances does not become public knowledge and s/he does not lose their pension.

The first thing to remember is that a commentary is written by and, is therefore only the opinion of, those canon lawyers who authored the commentary. It is not necessarily the official position of the Church.

What do others think about this as a reason for permitting a secret marriage? I do not think it’s a valid reason for permitting a secret marriage. To conceal a change in one’s status in order to continue receiving a financial benefit one is no longer entitled to is criminal fraud.

 

[SonCatcher]

Another hypothetical. A legally married couple faces a situation where they cannot afford health insurance (though they are not destitute otherwise, purchasing it would cause them to become destitute) and one of them develops a condition that requires regular medical care. Government-paid insurance is available to the destitute uninsured, only. Should such a couple legally divorce and let one spouse slip into poverty so the other can maintain modest means?

I think that is more for the canon lawyers to debate and for the Bishop to decide on the circumstances of the couple.

 

[JHow]

I’m no lawyer, but both these examples seem dubious to me. I could see a secret marriage being done if there was some religious persecution that might happen if the arrangement were known. I have not heard of a “fake-a-divorce” scenario, but it too seems like fraud, particularly if the couple lived together, and particularly if one got all the property and the other got nothing, which I think the govt. could check very easily.

 

[lizaanne]

Fraud and deception are no reason for a secret marriage UNLESS it was for the purposes of saving a life. For example, if a person would likely be killed by a cruel government for marrying a Catholic, then I can see the use of a secret marriage. But to defraud the government or some business , that is unethical, illegal, and immoral.

~Liza

 

[Cristiano]

In Italy until the '70s it was illegal for members of the Carabinieri (Italian military police) and of the financial police to get married until they were past a certain age (I think 28). It was not unusual for some of them to be married in the Church before that age and then to go through a civil ceremony. The step father of a friend of mine did that. The mother of my friend was a widow with two children and this great guy from the financial police decided to marry her and to support her children.

 

[5Loaves]

My commentary on the Code of Canon Law gives the following as a reason why permission for a secret marriage might be given.

One of the parties to the secret marriage may be a widow or widower. Because s/he is a widow(er) s/he may be in receipt of a widow(er)'s pension…

What do others think about this as a reason for permitting a secret marriage? I do not think it’s a valid reason for permitting a secret marriage. To conceal a change in one’s status in order to continue receiving a financial benefit one is no longer entitled to is criminal fraud.

Just to be fair to the commentary it does have quite a bit more to say as do further canons, including:

The local ordinary may be sympathetic to the plight of couples who may suffer financial hardship as a result of a public marriage, but he should consider the possible consequences of permitting a secret celebration. This permission may render the local ordinary liable to a civil suit or criminal prosecution for conspiracy to defraud the government.
Laws providing for the cut-off of entitlements after marriage are not per se unjust… Nonetheless these laws can work disproportionate hardship on couple whose income is marginal. Before permitting a secret celebration of marriage in such a case local ordinary should determine whether loss of entitlements would leave the couple indigent or only render their lifestyle somewhat less comfortable.

(Emphasis mine)

Can. 1132 The obligation of observing the secrecy mentioned in can. 1131, n. 2 ceases on the part of the local ordinary if grave scandal or grave harm to the holiness of marriage is imminent due to the observance of the secret; this is to be made known to the parties before the celebration of the marriage.

It further goes on to say that the local ordinary must investigate if the couple is free to marriage and that the investigation “must be conducted secretly”, the pre-nuptial file must be destroyed after the marriage is properly recorded etc. Can. 1133 A marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted only in a special register to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.

All parties who participate in the marriage ceremony must keep it a secret. The couple enjoy the sacrament of marriage but no one must know they have married. Isn’t this a different picture?

The canons and the commentary do address the considerable burden placed on the local ordinary in making such a decision, and if carrying it out. I suspect that in the US there is rarely any use of this canon, but I can certainly imagine it in other countries for reasons other than, but including when loss of a benefit renders the party “indigent”.

The commentary mentions that the prior 1917 code suggested reasons for secret celebration of marriage included (#2)“radically unequal social status and their marriage would result in permanent alienation from family or disinheritance”, something which seems out of place at least in the first world now, and (#5) "the couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law (e.g., anti-miscegenation statues).

Certainly loss of pension benefits can render one “…indigent [vs] somewhat less comfortable…” But even in 2000, the Commentary’s copyright year, already we’ve seen that fewer and fewer workers even have pension plans in the US. I immediately think of a more pressing consideration they might has used as an example, of adults born in the US, who have lived here their entire lives who are nonetheless not citizens and are “sin papeles”, undocumented, and therefore are unable to marry. At this time in the US the number of these persons who are prevented from celebrating the sacrament of marriage is very considerable. There are surely other countries where "couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law ", as stated in the 1917 code, where secret marriages do take place.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Fraud and deception are no reason for a secret marriage UNLESS it was for the purposes of saving a life. For example, if a person would likely be killed by a cruel government for marrying a Catholic, then I can see the use of a secret marriage. But to defraud the government or some business , that is unethical, illegal, and immoral.

~Liza

There were other examples. I did not give them because I did not see any problems with them. One of them was similar to the one you cite: in a country where the law forbids Catholic marriage.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

In Italy until the '70s it was illegal for members of the Carabinieri (Italian military police) and of the financial police to get married until they were past a certain age (I think 28). It was not unusual for some of them to be married in the Church before that age and then to go through a civil ceremony. The step father of a friend of mine did that. The mother of my friend was a widow with two children and this great guy from the financial police decided to marry her and to support her children.

His intention seems eminent. But, from the facts you have given I am not sure how it relates to my OP.

I do not know what the Canon Law was in 1970 (the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code was in force then).

However, I currently see two potential problems with that under the current Code. The first is disobeying the civil law. The Church requires that we fulfil the state’s own laws on marriage unless they are contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law. I cannot see how sticking to this age limit would be contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law. At least the local ordinary must be consulted before a marriage takes place that is not consonant with local civil law. The other is having two marriage ceremonies. Italy may be a country where religious marriages are not married and a civil ceremony has to take place. In these circumstances I believe that the Church requires the civil marriage before the Church one.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Just to be fair to the commentary it does have quite a bit more to say as do further canons, including:

(Emphasis mine)

Can. 1132 The obligation of observing the secrecy mentioned in can. 1131, n. 2 ceases on the part of the local ordinary if grave scandal or grave harm to the holiness of marriage is imminent due to the observance of the secret; this is to be made known to the parties before the celebration of the marriage.

It further goes on to say that the local ordinary must investigate if the couple is free to marriage and that the investigation “must be conducted secretly”, the pre-nuptial file must be destroyed after the marriage is properly recorded etc. Can. 1133 A marriage celebrated secretly is to be noted only in a special register to be kept in the secret archive of the curia.

All parties who participate in the marriage ceremony must keep it a secret. The couple enjoy the sacrament of marriage but no one must know they have married. Isn’t this a different picture?

The canons and the commentary do address the considerable burden placed on the local ordinary in making such a decision, and if carrying it out. I suspect that in the US there is rarely any use of this canon, but I can certainly imagine it in other countries for reasons other than, but including when loss of a benefit renders the party “indigent”.

The commentary mentions that the prior 1917 code suggested reasons for secret celebration of marriage included (#2)“radically unequal social status and their marriage would result in permanent alienation from family or disinheritance”, something which seems out of place at least in the first world now, and (#5) "the couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law (e.g., anti-miscegenation statues).

Certainly loss of pension benefits can render one “…indigent [vs] somewhat less comfortable…” But even in 2000, the Commentary’s copyright year, already we’ve seen that fewer and fewer workers even have pension plans in the US. I immediately think of a more pressing consideration they might has used as an example, of adults born in the US, who have lived here their entire lives who are nonetheless not citizens and are “sin papeles”, undocumented, and therefore are unable to marry. At this time in the US the number of these persons who are prevented from celebrating the sacrament of marriage is very considerable. There are surely other countries where "couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law ", as stated in the 1917 code, where secret marriages do take place.

I am afraid that you have jumped to a conclusion. There is more than one commentary on the Code of Canon Law. From the quote in your post you have not quoted from the commentary I used. Secondly, the commentary that I used was published in 1995 not 2000.

I realise that some people may not be financially well off. However, that does not even begin to excuse criminal fraud. Taking money that you are not entitled to whether from the state or from a commercial entity is fraud, which is a crime. I do not believe the Church would participate in an act to conceal something which is illegal, immoral, and unethical.

It certainly does not cover the situation of an unjust civil law. I believe our Lord said that we should “… pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar - - and God what belongs to God.” Matt. 22:21 (New Jerusalem Bible).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I immediately think of a more pressing consideration they might has used as an example, of adults born in the US, who have lived here their entire lives who are nonetheless not citizens and are “sin papeles”, undocumented, and therefore are unable to marry. At this time in the US the number of these persons who are prevented from celebrating the sacrament of marriage is very considerable. There are surely other countries where "couple are barred from marriage by an unjust civil law ", as stated in the 1917 code, where secret marriages do take place.

If they are born in the US then they are citizens.

If they are undocumented aliens, that is in the US illegally they would not need to have a “secret” marriage, just a regular Church marriage without the accompanying paperwork from the State. Other countries might not recognize such a marriage though.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If they are born in the US then they are citizens.

If they are undocumented aliens, that is in the US illegally they would not need to have a “secret” marriage, just a regular Church marriage without the accompanying paperwork from the State. Other countries might not recognize such a marriage though.

But if they are in the US illegally, I don’t think they’ll be travelling to other countries any time soon

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

But if they are in the US illegally, I don’t think they’ll be travelling to other countries any time soon

But they may, and against their will at that. Also I do not think that ICE will recognize it either. Though they may.

 

[runningdude]

His intention seems eminent. But, from the facts you have given I am not sure how it relates to my OP.

I do not know what the Canon Law was in 1970 (the 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code was in force then).

However, I currently see two potential problems with that under the current Code. The first is disobeying the civil law. The Church requires that we fulfil the state’s own laws on marriage unless they are contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law. I cannot see how sticking to this age limit would be contrary to divine or ecclesiastical law. At least the local ordinary must be consulted before a marriage takes place that is not consonant with local civil law. The other is having two marriage ceremonies. Italy may be a country where religious marriages are not married and a civil ceremony has to take place. In these circumstances I believe that the Church requires the civil marriage before the Church one.

I think you may be underestimating the Church . In the past, the Church has gotten down and dirty defending the sanctity of marriage. Sacramental marriage is a fundamental human right that all couples honestly seeking God may receive.

Up until the 1920-30’s or so (when the concordat, etc were signed), Italy did not recognize Catholic marriage, or at the very least allow the Church to perform the civil requirements. The Church responded by utterly shunning Italian civil marriage as instituted in the newly formed Italian Kingdom (which had usurped the territory the Papal States), requiring only sacramental marriage of Catholics in Italy.

The Church’s primary concern is a couple’s salvation. In the case of the military/police being prohibited from marrying civilly until the late 20’s, or even for widowers risking destitution if their pension were lost, the church would rather witness a secret marriage than risk the couple gamble their souls with fornication! Such age limits and financial hardships artificially restrict the natural and sacramental graces of marriage. Here the Church choose to “loose” these particularly bindings

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I think you may be underestimating the Church .

I do not underestimate the Church. I had no intention of underestimating the Church. My OP was not even questioning the Church. The question in my OP was regarding the opinion of some canonists.

I know that getting married is a fundamental human right. I also agree with the Church’s position, which is that in each particular country She will follow local civil law unless that law is contrary to the Christian understanding of marriage.

It’s also important to remember that my OP is about secret marriage and that although the Church allows them in certain circumstances the Church is in general opposed to secret marriage.

It was Her very opposition to secret marriage that instigated the rules about canonical form. That is because the Church wanted to do away with clandestine marriage.

Even when the Church grants dispensation from canonical form She still requires that the marriage ceremony take on a public form.

The example that you gave does not equate to the situation in my OP. Marrying a widow to ensure that she and her children are well provided for is neither fraud nor a crime. As for the fornication issue you mention there is the alternative of the Church catechising the faithful on chastity and morality.

Even today many countries do not recognise Catholic, or in general religious, marriage and the Church recognises those states’ laws. For example, I believe in Austria one has a civil marriage before the Catholic one. In fact the current code of Canon Law provides for this. In England a civil registrar attends and witnesses the Catholic marriage. In many English parishes several parishioners are trained as civil registrars and then the local Superintendent Registrar appoints them as additional marriage registrars for his district and they witness the marriage for the state. The Catholic Church in England also follows the state’s other civil requirements.

 

[laszlo]

The clandestine marriage

newadvent.org/cathen/04001a.htm

is the one w/o witnessing by the parish priest, and that is invalid except special circumstances like unavailability of a priest.

One may try to marry (in the Church) to avoid legal consequences without marriage license from the State, contact a lawyer and the parish priest about the possibility.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The clandestine marriage

newadvent.org/cathen/04001a.htm

is the one w/o witnessing by the parish priest, and that is invalid except special circumstances like unavailability of a priest.

One may try to marry (in the Church) to avoid legal consequences without marriage license from the State, contact a lawyer and the parish priest about the possibility.

When I talked about clandestine marriages I was talking about marriages that often happened in Europe with no witnesses and no official record. The Council of Trent tried to do away with them but wasn’t completely successful. I think the alternative that you are talking about is what the current code of Canon Law provides for and which is generally referred to as the extraordinary form of marriage.

 

[runningdude]

I do not underestimate the Church. I had no intention of underestimating the Church. My OP was not even questioning the Church. The question in my OP was regarding the opinion of some canonists…

Oh, I’m so sorry, I meant to quote the post regarding the Italian marriage policy for police . My post probably comes off as gibberish now!

 

[graceandglory]

I am afraid that you have jumped to a conclusion. There is more than one commentary on the Code of Canon Law. From the quote in your post you have not quoted from the commentary I used. Secondly, the commentary that I used was published in 1995 not 2000.

I realise that some people may not be financially well off. However, that does not even begin to excuse criminal fraud. Taking money that you are not entitled to whether from the state or from a commercial entity is fraud, which is a crime. I do not believe the Church would participate in an act to conceal something which is illegal, immoral, and unethical.

It certainly does not cover the situation of an unjust civil law. I believe our Lord said that we should “… pay Caesar what belongs to Caesar - - and God what belongs to God.” Matt. 22:21 (New Jerusalem Bible).

It would be a good practice to cite your sources so that we could all be on the same page.

 

[runningdude]

I do not underestimate the Church. I had no intention of underestimating the Church. My OP was not even questioning the Church. The question in my OP was regarding the opinion of some canonists.

I know that getting married is a fundamental human right. I also agree with the Church’s position, which is that in each particular country She will follow local civil law unless that law is contrary to the Christian understanding of marriage.

It’s also important to remember that my OP is about secret marriage and that although the Church allows them in certain circumstances the Church is in general opposed to secret marriage.

It was Her very opposition to secret marriage that instigated the rules about canonical form. That is because the Church wanted to do away with clandestine marriage.

Even when the Church grants dispensation from canonical form She still requires that the marriage ceremony take on a public form.

The example that you gave does not equate to the situation in my OP. Marrying a widow to ensure that she and her children are well provided for is neither fraud nor a crime. As for the fornication issue you mention there is the alternative of the Church catechising the faithful on chastity and morality.

Even today many countries do not recognise Catholic, or in general religious, marriage and the Church recognises those states’ laws. For example, I believe in Austria one has a civil marriage before the Catholic one. In fact the current code of Canon Law provides for this. In England a civil registrar attends and witnesses the Catholic marriage. In many English parishes several parishioners are trained as civil registrars and then the local Superintendent Registrar appoints them as additional marriage registrars for his district and they witness the marriage for the state. The Catholic Church in England also follows the state’s other civil requirements.

Wow. Your OP is about a widow marrying secretly so she can keep her pension. My “example” discussing reasons why the church might allow a widow to marry secretly under such circumstance as predicted by your canon law commentary (so that she is not tempted to fornication) “does not equate” with your OP. Wow.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It would be a good practice to cite your sources so that we could all be on the same page.

It was simply the example given that I proposed the discussion on. That in itself did not need me to quote my exact source for the question I posed.

The fact that I did not quote my source does not mean that anyway should assume that it is from a particular source.