Semi-Hypothetical Question Re: Marriage

[BettyBoop416]

I say semi-hypothetical because a friend of mine framed the question as a hypothetical, but I know very well that she is personally considering this course of action.

A bit of background-

This friend is originally from another country. She immigrated to the U.S about 10 years ago and is now a U.S. citizen. She has been living with her boyfriend for the past five years. They were both raised Catholic and have received all the sacraments but they both drifted away from the Church in college and have not practiced as adults. They are starting to think about having children and have decided that they want to get married. They are gradually starting to attend Mass on Sunday and they have approached the priest about marriage. In addition to the required marriage preparation, the priest told them that, since they are not married, they had to separate for six months before he would marry them. Well, neither of them has any interest in doing that, so they are looking for other alternatives.

One of the alternatives she is considering is returning to her homeland for a vacation and while there, getting married by a close relative who is a priest. This priest originally told her that he would be happy to preside at her wedding, but she would need to complete the required marriage prep and get permission from her parish priest (which would not be forthcoming due to the previously mentioned issues.) When she told him that, rather than jumping through all the hoops they would just get married in a non-Catholic church, and after a bunch of family pressure, he agreed to marry them “and sort out the paperwork later.”

To the best of my knowledge, there are no impediments that would preclude this couple from entering into a valid marriage.

So, my question is: Given that this couple will not have received the required marriage prep nor permission from her parish priest, what would the status of this marriage be? Invalid? Valid but illicit? Valid and licit?

 

[lerapt78]

I say this without authority, but. . . . .

I believe the marriage would be both valid and licit, if performed by a priest.

Preparatory courses can change from place to place, but the sacrament of marriage is universally accepted.

 

[Usige]

Canon 1063 requires that pastors provide catechesis on the sacrament of marriage and the roles of Christian parents. This is the basis for marriage prep requirements.

That being said, lack of marriage prep does not itself constitute an impediment to marriage and therefore does not have a de facto impact on it’s validity or licitness.

The biggest concerns I would have are:

1. 
   *]The couple is living in a sinful relationship and refuse to acknowledge that fornication is a sin.
   *]They are rejecting the words of wisdom from their priest.
   *]They are willing to do anything to just get married their way.
   
   Essentially they appear to be treating marriage as something that is a right and not as a sacrament. They are willing to coerce a priest to get what they want? Also if they enter their marriage without having confessed and repented of their fornication they will be starting their marriage off with an act of sacrilege.
   
   All in all I would be less concerned with the validity or licitness and more with the fact that they are using the church as something like a sacramental vending machine. That in of itself shows how much they are in need of not just marriage catechesis, but in catechesis into some of the most basic parts of their faith.

 

[maryjk]

We had no sacramental prep. Our priest didn’t offer any. Our local prep team, a married couple, were in the process of a divorce.

Now, we had been married civilly for many years, so maybe the priest wasn’t worried about it?

So no, sacramental prep has nothing to do with the validity of the marriage.

You say they have no interest in living apart for 6 months. Do you know why? Could it be that they can’t afford another rent payment? Of course people would assume that it is because they want to sleep together and have relations. But it could be because they just can’t afford the 6k it would cost them to rent an apartment and pay for the gas and electric for it for 6 months.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Preparatory courses can change from place to place, but the sacrament of marriage is universally accepted.

True. I was really wondering more about how the lack of permission from their parish priest in the U.S. would affect the status of their marriage.

You say they have no interest in living apart for 6 months. Do you know why? Could it be that they can’t afford another rent payment? Of course people would assume that it is because they want to sleep together and have relations. But it could be because they just can’t afford the 6k it would cost them to rent an apartment and pay for the gas and electric for it for 6 months.

Well, I would imagine that finances are at least part of the equation. They already own their house together, and they live in one of the most expensive rental markets in the U.S. Finding a short term rental would be a rather pricy proposition. Plus, after living together for five years, they probably see no practical reason to live apart for six months.

 

[Chatter163]

ell, I would imagine that finances are at least part of the equation. They already own their house together, and they live in one of the most expensive rental markets in the U.S. Finding a short term rental would be a rather pricy proposition. Plus, after living together for five years, they probably see no practical reason to live apart for six months.

This evidences a materialistic view of marriage, emphasizing what someone considers “practical.” But Catholic marriage is, first and foremost, a spiritual bond, and that is what the Church teaches us. The practical affairs don’t get one to heaven.

 

[1ke]

So, my question is: Given that this couple will not have received the required marriage prep nor permission from her parish priest, what would the status of this marriage be? Invalid? Valid but illicit? Valid and licit?

Without pemission from the pastor, I think validity is in question based on Canon 1108:

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.

 

[maryjk]

Well, I would imagine that finances are at least part of the equation. They already own their house together, and they live in one of the most expensive rental markets in the U.S. Finding a short term rental would be a rather pricy proposition. Plus, after living together for five years, they probably see no practical reason to live apart for six months.

If finances are an issue, they could speak to the priest about it.

My husband and I had been married civilly for 11 years before we were married in the Church. We had a school aged child. It would have been unreasonable to ask that one of us move out. Not only would it have been cost prohibitive, one of us moving out would have caused more scandal than us staying in the same home.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Without pemission from the pastor, I think validity is in question based on Canon 1108:

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.

Thanks for directly addressing my question.

Yes, my concern was the lack of permission from her pastor. The priest with whom she originally spoke about marriage is the pastor of a nearby church. For the past five years she and her boyfriend have resided within the boundaries of that parish. My guess is that would make the pastor of this church her “local pastor.” On the other hand, she and her boyfriend have only recently (and sporadically) been attending Mass there. I guess one could argue that the last time she had any kind of pastoral relationship with a priest was when she was living in her homeland, and that the priest there is her “local pastor.” (The priest who has reluctantly agreed to officiate at their wedding is the pastor of the parish were she grew up and where her family currently lives. He was not, however, the pastor at the time she lived there.) So, I guess it all boils down to, who is the local pastor for the purposes of applying Cannon 1108?

Assume they went ahead with this plan and got married in her homeland without permission from her local pastor in the U.S. Since the wedding would take place in the parish where the bride had been baptized, the marriage would be recorded in the Sacramental Records of that parish. I assume that paperwork would also be sent to the parish where the groom had been baptized so that the marriage could be recorded in the Sacramental Records of that parish too. In that case, the “local pastor” in the U.S. would be completely out of the loop. So, who is going to question the validity of this marriage and, as a practical matter, what could/would be done about it? I’ve read many times on this board that a marriage is assumed valid unless proven otherwise. In a situation like this, who is going to go to the trouble of trying to prove the invalidity of a marriage that took place in the Church, in front of a priest, and is recorded in the Sacramental Records of two parishes?

Please understand that I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just find this situation interesting.

 

[BettyBoop416]

All in all I would be less concerned with the validity or licitness and more with the fact that they are using the church as something like a sacramental vending machine. That in of itself shows how much they are in need of not just marriage catechesis, but in catechesis into some of the most basic parts of their faith.

This evidences a materialistic view of marriage, emphasizing what someone considers “practical.” But Catholic marriage is, first and foremost, a spiritual bond, and that is what the Church teaches us. The practical affairs don’t get one to heaven.

These two people are probably what most folks on this forum would refer to as “cultural Catholics.” They really are not that “into” the Church, and were it not for pressure from their respective families, they probably wouldn’t bother with a Church wedding. When I suggested to my friend that she might find herself in an invalid marriage if she took this course of action, she was indifferent.

I have presented this question only as an attempt to satisfy my own curiosity.

 

[BettyBoop416]

Plus, after living together for five years, they probably see no practical reason to live apart for six months.

This evidences a materialistic view of marriage, emphasizing what someone considers “practical.” But Catholic marriage is, first and foremost, a spiritual bond, and that is what the Church teaches us. The practical affairs don’t get one to heaven.

I thought I would comment on this separately.

Although I can understand the priest’s reasoning in wanting them to separate for six months before marrying them, I can also understand my friend’s reluctance to do this. Although not adhering to the standards of the Church, they have, as a practical matter, formed their own little family unit. And, their desire to stay together is more than just their desire to sweat-up some sheets. I’m sure they get a great deal of comfort and security from each other - just like any family. My guess is that the statement “practical affairs don’t get one to heaven” doesn’t carry much weight in the face of breaking up their “family.”

 

[1ke]

I guess one could argue that the last time she had any kind of pastoral relationship with a priest was when she was living in her homeland, and that the priest there is her “local pastor.”

No, one cannot make that argument. Your pastor is a territorial matter, not a “relationship” matter. Her pastor is the pastor of her territorial parish. This also is established as a matter of Chuch law.

The priest who has reluctantly agreed to officiate at their wedding is the pastor of the parish were she grew up and where her family currently lives. He was not, however, the pastor at the time she lived there.)

While she may not care about the laws of the Church, if she cares about her priest relative she will not ask him to do this. He can be censured by his own bishop for violating canon law. She should not put him in such a position.

So, I guess it all boils down to, who is the local pastor for the purposes of applying Cannon 1108?

The pastor in her territorial parish here in the US.

So, who is going to question the validity of this marriage and, as a practical matter, what could/would be done about it? I’ve read many times on this board that a marriage is assumed valid unless proven otherwise.

In a situation like this, who is going to go to the trouble of trying to prove the invalidity of a marriage that took place in the Church, in front of a priest, and is recorded in the Sacramental Records of two parishes?

Please understand that I’m not trying to be argumentative. I just find this situation interesting.

[edited]

As for her pastor being none the wiser, you are actually obligated to tell him.

Can.* 1069 All the faithful are obliged to reveal any impediments they know about to the pastor or local ordinary before the celebration of the marriage

 

[BettyBoop416]

I hope you are not assisting her in trying to circumvent church law and the direction of her pastor.

What??? Where is this coming from???

I hope that in real life you don’t display the priggish, self-rightous attitude that you display on this forum. You really need to get over yourself!

 

[Gorgias]

No, one cannot make that argument. Your pastor is a territorial matter, not a “relationship” matter. Her pastor is the pastor of her territorial parish. This also is established as a matter of Chuch law.

Unless she’s planning on establishing a quasi-domicile in her homeland, in which case she will have an ordinary and a pastor there…

(The OP didn’t mention what her friend’s relative, the priest, meant by “sorting out the paperwork”. Perhaps that he’d claim she established a quasi-domicile there by living there for three months? Or asserting that she had that intent, but was “called away?”)

The pastor in her territorial parish here in the US.

If she hasn’t established a quasi-domicile elsewhere, right?