Secret Marriage

[Matthew_Holford]

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.

My canon law commentary does not, as you allude, make any reference to widows avoiding fornication. I also fail to see how your sarcasm progresses this discussion.

 

[laszlo]

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.

The marriage is administered by the vow of the bridegroom and bride. Until the Tridentinum no witness was required for validity, after that (except extreme cases) only marriages witnessed by priest are valid if one of the parties are Catholic

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

(If no party is catholic no such witness is required

I never heard about extraordinary form of marriage , please elaborate ypur sources.

The question of the Original Poster was obviously about marriages hidden from the civil authorities… Either in Illinois or in Hungary (the two states are know the legislation) such marriage is not legal under the civil law. As far as I know the canon Law has no provision for or against that.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

The marriage is administered by the vow of the bridegroom and bride. Until the Tridentinum no witness was required for validity, after that (except extreme cases) only marriages witnessed by priest are valid if one of the parties are Catholic

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

(If no party is catholic no such witness is required

I do not know for sure whether marriages then had to have witnesses. From what I have read on CAF it is a novelty (in the true sense of this word) that the sacrament of matrimony in the Latin Catholic Church is administered by the couple to each other. I have read on CAF that at one time the priest was required, as he still is in the Eastern Churches.

I have also read in many sources that the reason why the Church made canonical form mandatory was for the very reason to prevent clandestine marriages.

I never heard about extraordinary form of marriage , please elaborate ypur sources.

Marriages celebrated in accordance with canon 1116 (1) are known as ‘extraordinary form’ marriages.

The question of the Original Poster was obviously about marriages hidden from the civil authorities… Either in Illinois or in Hungary (the two states are know the legislation) such marriage is not legal under the civil law. As far as I know the canon Law has no provision for or against that.

I am the OP. My question was not so much about marriages hidden from the civil authorities. It was related to secret marriages which are provided for by the current Code of Canon Law (cf. Cann. 1130-1133) (2). My actual question was, which most posters have not answered, was whether a reason proposed for secret marriages in a commentary on canon law was a valid reason, being as it meant committing a criminal act.

Sources:

1. “Code of Canon Law - IntraText" (vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_ P40.HTM) accessed: 11/12/2010 17:57
2. “Code of Canon Law - IntraText" (vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/_P42.HTM) accessed: 11/12/2010 17:57

 

[runningdude]

My canon law commentary does not, as you allude, make any reference to widows avoiding fornication. I also fail to see how your sarcasm progresses this discussion.

Well what the heck do you want? Serious question - how do you want this this “discussion” to progress?

I for one interpreted your question to be whether canon law commentary made sense, because it could appear to violate civil law. I answered that it did, and offered a scenario to explain it - that the church in its mercy would prefer a discrete and valid marriage to an unholy and sinful affair. In good faith, I attempted to answer your question and got totally shot down - so forgive me if I’m a little ticked off.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Well what the heck do you want? Serious question - how do you want this this “discussion” to progress?

I for one interpreted your question to be whether canon law commentary made sense, because it could appear to violate civil law. I answered that it did, and offered a scenario to explain it - that the church in its mercy would prefer a discrete and valid marriage to an unholy and sinful affair. In good faith, I attempted to answer your question and got totally shot down - so forgive me if I’m a little ticked off.

I didn’t shoot you down. Not my style. I tried to explain where our examples differ. You seem to have conveniently ignored that fact.

As you say you gave me an example. That wasn’t what my question posed. I wasn’t asking for other examples. I asked if people were in agreement with the example I posted or if they saw it in the same light as I did.

Let’s go back to your example. If I understood it correctly you say Italian policemen married widows with young children. This meant that these widows were not left financially destitute. That was I believe the crux of your example. OK you were saying the marriages happened in secret because they were breaching civil law over the age of marriage. Ultimately, there was good intent behind these marriages.

The example I gave was basically to conceal what amounts to a criminal fraud.

If you cannot see the difference between these two then I do not think I can assist you any further in this matter.

How would I like this discussion to progress? For posters to answer the question and in their answers to give a reason why they think a secret marriage should be allowed by the Church so that someone can commit an act of criminal fraud or that the Church should not grant a secret marriage for this reason.

 

[laszlo]

I am the OP. My question was not so much about marriages hidden from the civil authorities. It was related to secret marriages which are provided for by the current Code of Canon Law (cf. Cann. 1130-1133) (2). My actual question was, which most posters have not answered, was whether a reason proposed for secret marriages in a commentary on canon law was a valid reason, being as it meant committing a criminal act.

What is criminal act:

• to live together with someone?
• to receive a sacrament without the knowledge of the state?

Unless the state recognizes the sacrament of marriage (which would contradict the separation of the Church and State) the sacrament in itself has no legal consequences: no automatic inheritance, no right to decide the medical treatment of the spouse etc, consequently neither obligations, like loosing the benefits.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

What is criminal act

The one that I clearly outline in Post #1.

 

[runningdude]

I didn’t shoot you down. Not my style. I tried to explain where our examples differ. You seem to have conveniently ignored that fact.

It did rub me the wrong way

Let’s go back to your example. If I understood it correctly you say Italian policemen married widows with young children. This meant that these widows were not left financially destitute. That was I believe the crux of your example. OK you were saying the marriages happened in secret because they were breaching civil law over the age of marriage. Ultimately, there was good intent behind these marriages.

Fair enough. I was actually discussing two different examples: the Italian police example another poster gave, and your original about the widowers pensions. I think may not have made that clear , so may you accidentally conflated the two because of my vagueness.

The example I gave was basically to conceal what amounts to a criminal fraud.

Point of clarification: was your example about the widow’s insurance originally from the commentary? Just want to make sure.

I was trying to express my agreement with another poster, who said that such an arrangement would be acceptable in the eyes of the Church if, after the marriage, but the couple would be destitute without the insurance/pension payments.

It was simply my opinion that the church would permit the arraignment, if the alternative would be the couple turning away from the church and living in sin to avoid destitution.

…the difference between these two…

I don’t necessarily believe your commentary’s scenerio would constitute a moral fraud - they are being honest before God about their life long commitment to marriage. It may very well be a fraud according to the laws of the state, which necessitates discretion and secrecy. But I believe it is the Church’s prerogative to “by-pass” civil law in favor of the faith when mercy dictates.

Not my style… [examples weren’t] what my question posed

I think we might just have a difference in writing style . My examples were only meant to support my opinion about why I don’t think your commentary’s scenario would constitute a moral fraud, even if illegal by civil law. I wanted to present examples of how Church has defied civil law in favor of Sacramental Marriage; If the church defied civil marriage laws in the past when it had significantly grave reason, then I believe it would be the church’s right to do so in the future.

Preserving a widower’s pension through secret marriage when the future husband and wife would otherwise face destitution, I believe, would be a sufficiently grave reason for the Church to act. The logic isn’t totally perfect I admit (and my writing a bit sloppy perhaps), but I was trying to use past behavior to support why I think the Church would support your canon law commentary’s scenario.

Sorry for any confusion, and for being mean

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What is criminal act:

• to live together with someone?
• to receive a sacrament without the knowledge of the state?

Unless the state recognizes the sacrament of marriage (which would contradict the separation of the Church and State) the sacrament in itself has no legal consequences: no automatic inheritance, no right to decide the medical treatment of the spouse etc, consequently neither obligations, like loosing the benefits.

I agree, what criminal act?

This must be looked at by considering each jurisdiction. In the United States the government would view a Church only marriage as a couple living together with no civil legal protections. That is the State would not view them as married so there would be no right of inheritance, no right to having a say in the medical treatment of who they are living with, not right to file a joint tax return. No other benefits would come, that is if your work place offers spousal coverage for health and life insurance, a Church only marriage would not be able to take these benefits.

Also, as the State does not recognize any marriage, only a couple living together, then there would be no loss of benefits that could happen if one had a marriage that the State recognized.

There is also the possible cause of scandal. I used the term “Church only marriage” above but a “secret marriage” would entail the fact that not everyone would know about it so those who know the couple is living together but not know that they are “secretly” married could be scandalized.

In view of this canon,
Can. 1130 For a grave and urgent reason, the local Ordinary may permit that a marriage be celebrated in secret.

I do not see how any criminal act or circumvention of a just civil law can be a “grave” or “urgent” reason.

If the “secret marriage” was done for a criminal purpose then it would violate paragraph 1789 of the Catechism which (in part) states “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I agree, what criminal act?

The one I clearly set out in Post #1.

This must be looked at by considering each jurisdiction. In the United States the government would view a Church only marriage as a couple living together with no civil legal protections. That is the State would not view them as married so there would be no right of inheritance, no right to having a say in the medical treatment of who they are living with, not right to file a joint tax return. No other benefits would come, that is if your work place offers spousal coverage for health and life insurance, a Church only marriage would not be able to take these benefits.

Then there would be no need for a secret marriage in the circumstances described in Post #1.

Also, as the State does not recognize any marriage, only a couple living together, then there would be no loss of benefits that could happen if one had a marriage that the State recognized.

I cannot make sense of this paragraph.

I do not see how any criminal act or circumvention of a just civil law can be a “grave” or “urgent” reason.

If the “secret marriage” was done for a criminal purpose then it would violate paragraph 1789 of the Catechism which (in part) states “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”.

Which sort of supports what I was saying in Post #1.

 

[runningdude]

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.

I’d hate to start another tangent here , but since marriage in the United States is handled at the state level, and recorded at the local level (by town/city/county clerks), I don’t believe immigration status would even come into play. An “undocumented” couple could simply marry like anyone else. Whether they generally choose to do so out fear of attracting attention, I’m not sure.

I don’t want to get off topic or step on anyone’s feet, but I think this is an important clarification.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It did rub me the wrong way

Fair enough. I was actually discussing two different examples: the Italian police example another poster gave, and your original about the widowers pensions. I think may not have made that clear , so may you accidentally conflated the two because of my vagueness.

Point of clarification: was your example about the widow’s insurance originally from the commentary? Just want to make sure.

I was trying to express my agreement with another poster, who said that such an arrangement would be acceptable in the eyes of the Church if, after the marriage, but the couple would be destitute without the insurance/pension payments.

It was simply my opinion that the church would permit the arraignment, if the alternative would be the couple turning away from the church and living in sin to avoid destitution.

I don’t necessarily believe your commentary’s scenerio would constitute a moral fraud - they are being honest before God about their life long commitment to marriage. It may very well be a fraud according to the laws of the state, which necessitates discretion and secrecy. But I believe it is the Church’s prerogative to “by-pass” civil law in favor of the faith when mercy dictates.

I think we might just have a difference in writing style . My examples were only meant to support my opinion about why I don’t think your commentary’s scenario would constitute a moral fraud, even if illegal by civil law. I wanted to present examples of how Church has defied civil law in favor of Sacramental Marriage; If the church defied civil marriage laws in the past when it had significantly grave reason, then I believe it would be the church’s right to do so in the future.

Preserving a widower’s pension through secret marriage when the future husband and wife would otherwise face destitution, I believe, would be a sufficiently grave reason for the Church to act. The logic isn’t totally perfect I admit (and my writing a bit sloppy perhaps), but I was trying to use past behavior to support why I think the Church would support your canon law commentary’s scenario.

Sorry for any confusion, and for being mean

I want to respond to your post and I know I have already respond to a later post than yours. However, it’s late Saturday evening where I am and I’m tired. I’ll respond to you tomorrow afternoon when I am feeling more refreshed. I don’t want to cause any further potential issues and I don’t think I’m at my best right now to write a response your post deserves.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I’d hate to start another tangent here , but since marriage in the United States is handled at the state level, and recorded at the local level (by town/city/county clerks), I don’t believe immigration status would even come into play. An “undocumented” couple could simply marry like anyone else. Whether they generally choose to do so out fear of attracting attention, I’m not sure.

I don’t want to get off topic or step on anyone’s feet, but I think this is an important clarification.

To apply for a marriage license in most (if not all states) you need a legal ID which is a diver’s license (not many states will give these to undocumented aliens) and/or a birth certificate.

 

[5Loaves]

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.

I don’t believe immigration status would even come into play. An “undocumented” couple could simply marry like anyone else. Whether they generally choose to do so out fear of attracting attention, I’m not sure.

In the US the Church requires that the couple have a marriage license issued by the county etc. in order to proceed with a sacramental marriage. Some diocese will agree to offer the sacrament of marriage to those who cannot marry under civil law and some will not. Last I heard, in a canon law class a year ago, my diocese does not allow the sacrament of marriage in the absence of a marriage license.

Celebration of such marriages require permission of the local ordinary/hierarch:

CIC

Can. 1066 Before a marriage is celebrated, it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

CCEO.

Canon 7851 Pastors of souls are obliged according to the needs of the times and place to prevent with suitable means every danger of an invalid or illicit celebration of marriage, and thus, before the marriage is celebrated, it must be established that nothing stands in the way of its valid and licit celebration.

CIC

Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:
2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

CCEO

Canon 789 Although the marriage can be entered validly with regard to other matters, the priest, beyond the other cases defined by law,* without the permission of the local hierarch*, is not to bless: *(2) a marriage which cannot be recognized or entered into according to the norms of civil law; *

 

[5Loaves]

There is also the possible cause of scandal. I used the term “Church only marriage” above but a “secret marriage” would entail the fact that not everyone would know about it so those who know the couple is living together but not know that they are “secretly” married could be scandalized.

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.**

As indicated in my earlier post “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.” And 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."

So basically the marriage is a secret to everyone except the ordinary/hierarch, the priest, or in a RC marriage priest or deacon, the witnesses, and the recorder in the curia, and of course the couple… Potential for a situation as you describe which would cause “scandal” as understood in the Church? Sure seems like it, and then code 1132 comes into play which would bring the marriage out into the open…

I think the layers involved in this make is highly unlikely many of these are going on in first world countries… but it wouldn’t be the first time I’d be wrong!

 

[5Loaves]

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

Yes. You are quite right, Br. David. (I think there is something about having parents who are diplomats from other countries meaning one born here is not a US citizen, and also if the parents are notorious criminals from another country… something like that.) However, as it’s lived out there are plenty of times when children have been born in the US and their birth was not recorded out of fear regarding the status of the parents who are undocumented. In that case they are indeed technically citizens but may be unable to prove it. In the US at this time we have a very complex situation as far as those living in this country with family members who are undocumented…

 

[runningdude]

In the US the Church requires that the couple have a marriage license issued by the county etc. in order to proceed with a sacramental marriage. Some diocese will agree to offer the sacrament of marriage to those who cannot marry under civil law and some will not. Last I heard, in a canon law class a year ago, my diocese does not allow the sacrament of marriage in the absence of a marriage license.

Celebration of such marriages require permission of the local ordinary/hierarch:

CIC

CCEO.

CIC

CCEO

Ah, yes, the Church may be stricter than the state when coming to illegal immigrants. I have little no knowledge in this area, so won’t contradict a member of the clergy .

For civil marriage though (the context of this post), only proof of identity is generally needed, not strictly speaking, proof of citizenship or legal residency. Birth certificates/baptismal papers from their home country would be enough in most jurisdictions for a civil marriage license. Some places, such as New Haven here in Connecticut, issue city-based ID cards, with the intent of facilitating City services (presumably including marriage licensing) to all city residents, regardless of immigration status.

As it is, celebrating civil marriage would have no effect on immigration status, unless one party were a citizen, so immigration officials generally would not interfere. Only marrying a citizen or legal resident would make things more complicated.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

I had intended an earlier reply, But, my wife decided there were more constructive ways I could spend this Sunday afternoon rather than playing on my computer.

It did rub me the wrong way

I apologise for that; it wasn’t intentional.

Fair enough. I was actually discussing two different examples: the Italian police example another poster gave, and your original about the widowers pensions. I think may not have made that clear , so may you accidentally conflated the two because of my vagueness.

I have put the two together and assumed they were both from you. That is my fault and I apologise for that. Because of that it made my response inappropriate. I should have been more careful.

Point of clarification: was your example about the widow’s insurance originally from the commentary? Just want to make sure.

Yes, it is. To avoid any further confusion on this matter –

It is a commentary on the current (1983) Code of Canon Law published jointly for the Canon Law Society of Great Britain and Ireland and for the Canadian Canon Law Society:

Sheehy, G., Brown, R., Kelly, D., McGrath, A., and Morrisey, F. G. (eds) (1995) The Canon Law Letter and Spirit. London: Geoffrey Chapman. ISBN: 0-225-66702-9. It is out of print.

The relevant Canon is 1130. Quoted from the commentary, it states:

“For a grave and urgent reason, the local Ordinary may permit that a marriage be celebrated in secret.” (Page 638)

The commentary says:

“The Church established the canonical form of marriage in order to eliminate the abuses associated with clandestine marriages, i.e. marriages of which no proof exists in the external forum. A very different phenomenon is a marriage celebrated in secret, what was known in the 1917 Code as a ‘marriage of conscience’. Unlike the clandestine marriage, this marriage is celebrated according to the canonical form, but in secret, i.e. without the usual publicity. The law gives the power to the local Ordinary to permit such marriages: this term includes the Vicar general, something which c.1104 of the 1917 Code expressly excluded. Since the law does not specify, the one competent to give permission may be the local Ordinary of the domicile or quasi-domicile or residence of either party, or that of the place of marriage.

“Marriages celebrated in secret must always be understood to be very exceptional. Therefore, the law requires a grave and urgent reason, e.g. the marriage of a couple already living together and publicly accepted as husband and wife; the loss of pension benefits for a widow or widower should the marriage become known publicly; a civil law prohibiting the religious celebration of marriage. It is for the local Ordinary to determine whether or not a reason is grave and urgent enough to warrant such an exceptional celebration.” (Paragraphs 2284 and 2285, page 638)

[The *italic script is in the original; the bold is my emphasis of the part of the commentary that made me generate this thread.]

This part of the commentary was written by the Rev. Donal Kelly, J.C.L., Judge of Dublin Regional Marriage Tribunal, olim Professor of Canon Law, St. Patrick’s College, Carlow.

CONTINUED

 

[Matthew_Holford]

CONTINUED

I was trying to express my agreement with another poster, who said that such an arrangement would be acceptable in the eyes of the Church if, after the marriage, but the couple would be destitute without the insurance/pension payments.

I think this is where we run into conflict. I know about a situation like this. My mother was widowed when my father died when we were young children. Years later my mother remarried. When she remarried she ‘lost’ the widow’s pension that she’d been receiving from the state since my father’s death. It didn’t occur to her or my step-father to go for a secret marriage so she could keep this state benefit. Nor did the Church suggest they do this.

IMHO to do this would be a criminal act, plain and simple. May be I’m looking at this from a British point of view. Before this gets any one’s ire, I mean because I live in a welfare state; I’m not suggesting other nationalities are crooked. If this had left my mother and step-father in a poor financial situation there would probably have been other benefits they could have claimed.

Nevertheless, to conceal one’s status to obtain from the state a benefit that one is no longer entitled to is both a crime and is immoral. I do not think the Church should be complicit in such deception and I’m not convinced it would be. I would like to point out here that this example is the opinion of a canonist. It isn’t necessarily what the Church would do.

It was simply my opinion that the church would permit the arraignment, if the alternative would be the couple turning away from the church and living in sin to avoid destitution.

Again, we disagree here. I don’t think the Church would. By the nature of the secrecy of such marriages it would be difficult for any of use to obtain the evidence to support our views. Perhaps the Church could catechise the couple on chastity while they seek other means of financially supporting themselves.

I don’t necessarily believe your commentary’s scenerio would constitute a moral fraud - they are being honest before God about their life long commitment to marriage. It may very well be a fraud according to the laws of the state, which necessitates discretion and secrecy. But I believe it is the Church’s prerogative to “by-pass” civil law in favor of the faith when mercy dictates.

Again, a point of disagreement. I believe it would be immoral. If we take it in isolation I don’t think a confessor would agree that what amounts to stealing from the state is not sinful. They may be being honest about a lifelong commitment to marriage but it would seem that here the primary motive may be a financial one. Of course, that is necessary (I know from first-hand experience) but it isn’t a good foundation for marriage, IMHO. I agree the Church can bypass civil law and I certainly agree with the two other examples given in the commentary.

I think we might just have a difference in writing style . My examples were only meant to support my opinion about why I don’t think your commentary’s scenario would constitute a moral fraud, even if illegal by civil law. I wanted to present examples of how Church has defied civil law in favor of Sacramental Marriage; If the church defied civil marriage laws in the past when it had significantly grave reason, then I believe it would be the church’s right to do so in the future.

It was probably a case of different writing styles. The situation was made worse because I confused your post(s) with someone else and perhaps blamed you for things you didn’t even write.

Preserving a widower’s pension through secret marriage when the future husband and wife would otherwise face destitution, I believe, would be a sufficiently grave reason for the Church to act. The logic isn’t totally perfect I admit (and my writing a bit sloppy perhaps), but I was trying to use past behavior to support why I think the Church would support your canon law commentary’s scenario.

I think this is where we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

Sorry for any confusion, and for being mean

No need for apology. I created a good deal of the confusion.

 

[runningdude]

I actually do see your point of view on this matter, and don’t actually disagree particularly strongly. This is just an intellectual exorcise for me . My opinion is based mostly on the Church wishing to preserve the sanctity of marriage; I don’t believe the Church would necessarily condone the possible illegal activity the couple my be engaging.

Reflecting more on it, such behavior as defrauding the state and/or insurance company of the widowers pension may actually be a serious sin in and of itself. Hopefully the Church would indeed encourage the couple to seek legal and ethical means of support before going to the extremes. But fornication is a sin as well, so the Church may be willing to celebrate the marriage anyways to avoid this particular sin, especially if all other options fail. Its certainly not an ideal situation . This just my take on the matter.

You mention it was a joint publication by the Canonists in those countries, so was it specifically trying to address Canon Law as applied in the UK/Great Britain? I have only the most cursory knowledge of the civil laws and social benefits of England and Scotland, so I may not be comment accurately about certain aspects.

Its my take that Canon Law is meant to flexible enough to apply for different situations around the world. In the particular context of England, secret marriage is hopefully not necessary to avoid abject poverty. Here in the United States, I’m pretty sure that any public welfare (such as our Social Security program) is guaranteed regardless of remarriage, so its an unlikely scenario here as well. But in other countries, particularly third world countries, who knows when such a scenario may be needed.

I do agree that defrauding the state does offer involve serious moral issues and possibly sin. I guess I disagree only with the assertion that the Church would necessarily refuse a dispensation to celebrate a secret marriage on these regards. The Church hopefully would encourage other means of support, and make it clear that the dispensation is a last resort and not an endorsement of illegal activity.

Again, I’m not really trying to change your mind on the matter - I have no vested interest here, but just offering a friendly alternative opinion .