A reader writes:
I’ve been looking for a really solid explanation of why Catholic weddings are ordinarily required to be in a Church. I have many friends that often ask me this question, but sadly I think my answers are not as good as they could be. Obviously, having a wedding in a Church emphasizes the sacramentality thereof, and it is a testimony to the faith community’s part in the couple’s life.
Thank you for your assistance.
There are two ways to approach the answer to this question. The first is the canonical approach. Catholic weddings are ordinarily celebrated in a church because the Code of Canon Law provides the following:
Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.
§2. The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place.
§3. A marriage between a Catholic party and a non-baptized party can be celebrated in a church or in another suitable place.
Since most Catholics are either marrying other Catholics or baptized non-Catholics, section 1 applies, which indicates that the marriage is to be celebrated in a parish church unless the local ordinary (typically the bishop) or the pastor gives permission for it to be celebrated in another church or oratory (meaning, due to another canon we won’t go into, another Catholic church or oratory).
At first glance, the canonical answer may not seem that enlightening: "Catholic weddings are normally held in Catholic churches because that’s what the law says." Big deal. We probably could have guessed that, and the reader is likely wanting an answer from the other perspective, which is why does the law say this? What’s the reason for the law?
Here is where a close reading of the canon is helpful. It’s always at least a little risky to speculate on the motives behind the law, but the structure of this canon gives us a pretty clear indication of the reason for the law, and it indicates that the reader is on the right track.
If one party is Catholic and the other is either Catholic or another Christian then section 1 wants to locate the ceremony in a Catholic church or oratory, though with permission of the local ordinary it can be celebrated in another suitable place (such as a Protestant’s home church if the Catholic is marrying a Protestant), according to section 2.
The permission of the local ordinary goes out the window, though, if the Catholic is marrying a non-baptized (i.e., non-Christian) person. In that case it can happen in a Catholic church or in any suitable place, no permissions needed.
This suggests that there is a difference between the marriages of Catholics to other baptized people (Catholic or not) and the marriages of Catholics to non-baptized people. In the former case, sections 1 and 2 apply. In the latter case, section 3 applies.
Since all Catholics are baptized, that means that this canon draws a distinction between marriages that occur between two baptized people (sections 1 and 2) and marriages that don’t occur between two baptized people (section 3).
Now: What’s the big difference between marriages between two baptized people and marriages that aren’t between two baptized people?
That’s right: The former are sacramental and the latter are not.
So the reader is on the right track in identifying the sacramentality of the marriage as the key issue.
I’d be inclined to put it like this: Marriage between baptized persons is a sacrament, and sacraments are normally performed in church. To a significant extent, that’s what churches are for. They’re the places we (ordinarily) perform our sacraments.The reasons for this seem to be twofold:
1) Churches are places specially consecrated to God, making them sacred, and sacraments are sacred actions, making it natural to perform them in churches.
2) Sacraments are also ecclesial (church-related) acts, and it is thus natural to perform them in the presence of the church when possible. Churches (considered as buildings) are places where the church (considred as people) meets, and so it is natural to perform ecclesial acts in the presence of the members of the church in the house in which they meet.
There are exceptions to this. In some cases there is a good reason to vary from the practice. For example, sick people often can’t get to church, so the anointing of the sick is often administered to them where they are. But in the main, the two above reasons are good reasons why sacraments–including marriage–are normally performed in churches.
It doesn’t have to be that way, which is why canon law allows exceptions, but it is fitting that it be this way, which is why canon law establishes this preference.
As the green CLSA commentary on the Code of Canon Law puts it:
Since the marriages of two baptized persons are sacraments, they are not merely private or familial celebrations, they are ecclesial events. The spouses declare their consent "before God and the Church" and live out that commitment in and with the support of the local ecclesial community. It is, therefore, fitting that this celebration should take place in the parish church. It is here that the local community is "gathered together by the preaching of the Gospel of Christ, and the mystery of the Lord’s supper is celebrated, ‘so that the whole fellowship is joined together by the flesh and blood of the Lord’s body’"[p. 1337].
Hi Jimmy,
Your post generated a question about my own marriage. I was not baptized before my marriage but we were married by a priest in a Catholic Church. From what you’ve said – this means my marriage was not sacramental. I can understand that, but since then I have converted and been baptized as an adult through the RCIA. Is my marriage sacramental now? I believe it is – but my intuition is a poor substitute for the canon.
David
The standard teaching is that natural marriages automatically become sacramental ones as soon as the second party is baptized. Your marriage thus would be sacramental.
My recollection is that for a catholic to marry a non-christian in a church, the Bishop needs to give a dispensation. Is this what the dispensation is really for? Can.1118.3 seems to imply the opposite. Am I readiing this correctly.
Jimmy’s post seems to imply that there is no dispensation required in a non-sacramental marriage. Or…. that the dispensation is only required when the baptised and non-baptised request a church wedding or perhaps a wedding within a mass.
Can somebody sort this out??
I’ve been looking for a really solid explanation of why Catholic weddings are ordinarily required to be in a Church.
The Catholic marriage ceremony was designed before the invention of television.
Related question to the one David posed, but with a different take – my fiance is Jewish, but is currently a catechumen. We’ll be getting married next week, thus before she is baptized. Is the marriage sacramental if she is a catechumen, or will that not happen until she is fully baptized?
As for the quesiton asked by anon at 7:22, I can answer that we needed a dispensation for disparity of cult, though that was handled by the Priest. And that probably answers my own question above.
The green CLSA commentary. 🙂
Once upon a time, there was no requirement that weddings be celebrated in churches. In fact, there was no requirement that they be celebrated in the presence of witnesses.
The consequence of that was a lot of wrangling about whether given couples were or were not married. This is one reason why the Church began writing such canon law to cover weddings.
Even before weddings had to be in churches, they were often celebrated on the front steps of the church — visibility to the public and sacred ground! (But at the mercy of the weather.)
Speaking as a Catholic married to a non-Christian… As I read his post, Jimmy was talking about permission (not the same as a dispensation) to marry in a place other than a Catholic Church. The Catholic still needs a dispensation just to marry a non-baptized person, as the absence of baptism is an impediment to marriage for a Catholic (“Disparity of Cult”).
I did get the necessary dispensation from my bishop, but I was interested to hear the priest who married us comment that priests are able to give an “emergency dispensation” in emergency situations, which he said are usually given when the wedding day has arrived but some bureaucratic snafu has prevented the dispensation from being issued yet. I gather there must be some sort of conditionality on the marriage in those circumstances.
Invalid or illicit?
If a Catholic party (assume no formal act of defect) fails to obtain a dispensation and attempts to marry another baptised party without following the form defined by Canon 1108, the marriage is invalid (with certain exceptions) for failing to follow the canonical form of marriage.
Canon 1127 makes an exception where the other baptised party is of an Eastern rite, in which case the marriage is not valid, but only illicit.
Moroever, as implied above, the Catholic party may obtain a dispensation from the local ordinary from the canonical form.
It seems, therefore, that the failure to follow canonical form does not intristically invalidate the Sacrament. Indeed, the form can be dispensed, and in the case of an Eastern rite party, the marriage is rendered illicit, but not invalid.
I’m wondering whether, perhaps, there is a distinction between canoncial form (affecting leceity) and sacramental form (affecting validity)?
Why does failure to follow the canonical norm affect validity, rather than mere liceity, under the circumstances? There must be another rationale for rendering the Sacrament invalid that I’m missing.
I heard on the weekend that a sacramental marriage between two Catholics must have been performed in a Catholic church or else with a dispensation in another church. But, marriage in a park is not considered a valid marriage.
What about a sacramental marriage between two baptized non-Catholics? I came into full communion with the Catholic Church in 2004 and I am filling out annulment papers for my previous marriage. We were both baptized when married but we were married on the beach.
Is this considered an invalid marriage? I understand that if this is so, then I do not need to go through the entire annulment process, but rather, there are some forms to be filled out and submitted about a non-valid location.
Can you please give me some guidance on this? I don’t know who else to ask?
I was not baptised, and am getting married to a baptised Christian in the fall. He is Baptist. We both desire to become Catholic and have began the RCIA program. I know that every parish is different, but do you think the Catholic church will let us be married in the church itself??
A friend of mine wants to have his Catholic ceremony outside the physical building of the church but on the church grounds. He was told the Pope would have to approve his request. I always beleived that God was everywhere. What difference should it make where the ceremony is held. Man made the rule about the cannon, not God.
What difference should it make where the ceremony is held.
What difference does it make to you?
God gave authority to the Church.