A reader writes:
I don’t know if you saw Dr. Phil tonight, but he was doing a show about liars. The first guy was incredible– he had absolutely no clue. He impersonated all kinds of things — including a Roman Catholic priest! He posed as a "visiting priest from Mexico," heard an engaged couple’s confessions, performed their wedding, and faked the mass. I can’t tell you how flabbergasted I was. It is obvious that this guy is completely unrepentant.
But, here is my question– Where does that leave the couple? Obviously, they were not legally married by this fraud, the mass cannot possibly be valid, and he violated the sanctity of the confessional as well.
But what about the couple who believed in good faith that they were married? The marriage can be convalidated, I guess. But am I correct in assuming that there was no sin of fornication in this instance? They did not know about this bogus "Fr. Fred" until they returned from their honeymoon.
I am so bowled over by the audacity and callousness of what he did to this couple and to other victims, my brain is fried. He actually terms himself "a benevolent con man" and doesn’t think it was wrong, because he "worked and earned a living" by impersonating everything from a psychiatrist to a orchestral conductor.
Like I keep saying, I don’t get it. I would appreciate your comments.
Reports of this type are, indeed, disturbing, and to do what this man did is clearly a grave sin against the people he deceived. If the gentleman was Catholic, he would be subject to multiple penalties under canon law.
In terms of where he left the couple that he purported to marry, you are correct that there is not a valid marriage between them and they would need to have that situation fixed in order to go on living together as husband and wife.
In terms of the moral character of their life as husband and wife prior to the point at which they learned the priest was a fake, they were acting in good conscience. This does not mean that they were not performing acts that were objectively immoral (having sexual relations with a person to whom you are not married) but the fact that they did not know that this was the case means that they are not culpable for engaging in those acts.
This illustrates why the man in question was not a "benevolent con man." He deceived a couple into engaging in objectively gravely immoral acts, and that is gravely sinful even if the couple was acting in good conscience.
Incidentally, this kind of thing–simulation of the sacraments by a fake priest–is precisely what makes me uncomfortable with the concept of movies like The Left Hand of God or TV shows like Father Murphy.
Jimmy,
Are you certain the marriage would not be valid? It isn’t as if the priest is the one who ‘marries’ them, but rather they do it. If the form and matter were valid (which it sounds like they were), then the only thing absent would be a specific type of witness (the cleric), but other witnesses were likely there. Can you explain further the reason you believe the wedding is de facto invalid?
The clerical witness is necessary for the marriage to be valid. This is a disciplinary matter, was not always in force, and can be dispensed by the bishop. Conceivably Canon Law could be amended to make an exception for cases like this where the couple think they have a real priest overseeing the wedding but don’t.
I am a bit confused by what Jimmy claims.
My impression has been that the two persons marrying each other are the ministers of the sacrament. According to the on-line Catholic Encyclopedia article on the sacrament of marriage, it has been established that the priest does not confer the sacrament, as the sacrament is inseparable from the contract between the married persons. So I suppose that Jimmy’s line of thought is that the contract cannot exist under the circumstances.
But is there really no possibility that the marriage is valid but illicit?
Catholics are bound by canon law to marry in a Catholic ceremony with a priest as witness unless a priest can not be obtained in a reasonable amount of time, and are not married unless this requirement has been dispensed.
Once upon a time, Catholics could marry without any witnesses at all, just by exchanging the words of marriage. Now, you must have them. That’s what regulation does.
I believe not. Publius (and Jimmy) are correct.
Canon law requires canonical form for validity, not just liceity, when a Catholic marries. An attempted marriage celebrated by an imposter posing as a priest does not satisfy canonical form requirements. Therefore, although the couple was in good faith and are not culpable, there is no marriage.
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.
§2. The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.
This Canon cites why such a “marriage” is not valid.
The marriage is valid…they can fight for it. It’s not their fault. (I would love to quote a lot of things, but I don’t have them ready right now). God bless!
J,
canonical form includes the requirement of someone authorized by the local bishop to officiate. Even a valid priest can not officiate at a ceremony without the jurisdiction of the bishop. This is the sad case of all the SSPX weddings (and confessions too).
God Bless,
Matt
I suppose another test might be if the couple sought an annulment and cited the fake priest as grounds.
Disclaimer: I do not have any expertise in marriage law.
It’s open and shut null.
“The marriage is valid…”
(Sigh!). It’s amazing to me that someone could post that in light of what had just been posted above. Is this an example of “Reality is whatever I say it is?”
This conman might really believe what he says about being “benevolent”. He could well be a sociopath, as many conmen are. They are completely amoral. Whatever they do is right.
Add Lost to the list of programs that have featured fake priests offering simulated sacraments (Mr. Eko).
Interesting, it appears from this layman’s view that the Canon Law in this matter is of questionable theology. Obviously, the couple should do whatever they can to remedy the problem canonically, but I can’t see why this marriage would be invalid “in God’s eyes.” I mean, if the theological position of the Church is that the minister of marriage is the couple, and they have made the necessary commitments required for a valid Christian marriage with the best intentions, then it should follow that they would receive sacramental grace, right?
Granted, I am no expert, and I am in no way saying that they should not comply with Canon Law – but it just seems that it would make more sense if the Canon Law was about licetity, not validity.
Mike,
This is one of those areas where I think the law prevails over logic.
Mike,
the theology behind is essentially found in Matthew 18:18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
The Church has authority to impose rules such as this and make them effective. I’m sure there are far more detailed answers, but this I ebelieve is the essence. The canon law complies with the sacramental theology.
God Bless,
Matt
Does the bishop have the authority to dispense with the requirement for an ordained minister to be present in this case?
Though in reality I would think it would be much easier to find a priest to marry them then get a bishop to issue a ruling, even if he has the authority.
Ed Peters wrote:
It’s open and shut null.
Coming from such a source, that’s good enough for me. The Church has the authority to set the rules for Catholics.
I suppose that it seems weird because a Protestant’s marriage outside the Church is presumed to be valid.
If a con-man pretending to be a Protestant minister assisted at a Protestant wedding ceremony in which Protestants were attempting marriage, then would the Church still presume validity? If there were any way in which something like this could happen, then it really seems to make the Church’s position look strange, at least on the surface.
That’s because non-Catholics are not bound by canonical form.
Certainly.
I dunno, no more so than the fact that Protestants can get hitched with a duly licensed Protestant clergyman (or a JP) officiating, and Catholics can’t.
One wonders why they didn’t ask their parish priest.
That question did occur to me too. Who up and gets married by a visiting priest they barely know?
My coworker, Episcopal and married for 20 years with 2 children divorced and due to the new code of canon law which does not recognize Protestant marriages and the new loopholes for granting annulments obtained his annulment and has now married a Catholic woman in the Catholic church
Another friend of mine married for 15 years to a Catholic with no children, just got his annulment last week (I have a copy in case anyone does not believe me) as he claimed his wife was not mentally stable and was able to get two good friends to sign off, and is now planning his next marriage next April in the church to a nice Catholic girl
The 1983 code of canon law should be thrown out
A hobby horse too far.
This was a post about people who aren’t priests pretending that they are; not the woes of the post-conciliar Church.
John is hereby disinvited from participation in the blog.
SDG wrote:
I dunno, no more so than the fact that Protestants can get hitched with a duly licensed Protestant clergyman (or a JP) officiating, and Catholics can’t.
The strangeness to which I refered is a superficial asymmetry. On the one hand, the lie of the con-man in the case of a Protestant wedding would seem not to remove the presumption of validity. On the other hand, the lie of the con-man in the case of a Catholic wedding not only removes the presumption of validity but actually makes the contract invalid.
Of course, this does not necessarily point to any illogic. I suspect that if the Protestants divorced, and if one of them decided to enter the Church and to marry a Catholic, then evidence for the lying nature of the minister at the Protestant wedding might enter appropriately into a finding of nullity in the original marriage.
Isn’t it amazing how some bitter people can manage to say, in virtually every post, some variation of:”Vatican II–bad!. Everything since Vatican II–bad!
Paul VI–bad! JP II–bad!”
I believe the clinical term for such behavior is “Obsession”.
What’s even more interesting is that Dateline did a story on this guy back in August and now he’s on Dr. Phil. Seems as if he’s getting validated and making money for being deceitful…feeding his ego and lies.
The Dateline story answers why he did the marriage, the intended priest was ill. The people have since re-married officially (at the cost of another $10k) which this guy promises to re-imburse from his (fake) book sales.
Still…this guy did how many Sunday masses and heard how many confessions…ugh
As a Catholic convert that was married by a (genuine! not con artist) protestant minister, it was my understand that what essentially happens when you come into the Church is that the Bishop grants a retro-active dispensation for the marriage.
My understanding of this may be skewed or way off altogether…anyone want to chime in on that?
Thomas,
evidence for the lying nature of the minister at the Protestant wedding might enter appropriately into a finding of nullity in the original marriage.
the protestant minister is not a required element for the Church to recognize a protestant marriage as valid. Since the Church does not recognize the ordinations of protestant ministers, a con-man, and “ordained” protestant ministor or a JP has the same standing.
Without commenting on the scandalous ease of obtaining a finding of nullity, the witness of a con-man would not constitute a defect to a Protestant marriage.
God Bless,
Matt
Non-Catholic marriages can be, and are presumed to be, valid.
A marriage of two baptized non-Catholic Christians, whether contracted in a non-Catholic house of worship or before a JP, is presumed to be a valid, sacramental union.
A marriage between two non-Christians (or a non-Christian and a non-Catholic Christian), whether contracted in any sort of house of worship (church, synagogue, mosque, temple, etc.) or in a civil forum, is presumed to be a valid natural marriage, though not an indissoluble sacramental union.
I can’t see that a union that is presumed to be valid needs a “dispensation,” retroactive or otherwise. I never heard of such a thing.
SDG,
Perhaps what the person meant was “convalidation”?
AFAIK, convalidation requires a ceremony, and is a requirement not usually (if ever) imposed on married Protestant converts.
A Protestant who marries a Catholic outside the Church and then converts needs a convalidation, but that is because their marriage is null due to the Catholic partner’s failure to observe canonical form. (Thus, the Catholic partner also needs the marriage convalidated in order to return to the sacraments.)
“If the gentleman was Catholic, he would be subject to multiple penalties under canon law.”
J.A.
I hope you don’t really think that Canon Law is enforced. Unless someone knows how to write up a petition or can afford a Canon Lawyer a complaint is never acted upon, regardless of how damaging an act is or was. None of mine were answered.
Please allow me to comment to John:
If you have certain knowledge regarding some sort of deception in an annulment case then you are morally bound to bring that to the tribunal, immediately, in writing. If this was a first decision in your “friend’s case” it is NOT AN ANNULMENT. Have you told your “friend’s” wife she has an appeal to the Roman Rota if she believes her marriage is valid, but her time is very limited to make that appeal? If she has not been adequately informed of her RIGHT to appeal to the Roman Rota, then, I believe her rights have been violated(Ed Peters would know instantly about this) and she may be able to file for a plaint of nullity against the first decision. I hope Ed reads this and comments.
Jimmy,
I don’t mean to encourage violation of your rules but you know well that the presumption of validity is not to be taken lightly and I believe as such my comments here are justified.
Thank you.
Beau said:
Beau might be referring to the fact that, upon baptism of both parties, a valid marriage becomes a sacramental marriage. If Beau wasn’t baptized until she became Catholic, then her marriage would have become a sacramental marriage upon her baptism.
I’ve never heard of ‘valid natural marriage’ as something different from ‘indissoluble sacramental union’. What’s that all about? If it’s not indissoluable, is it a marriage at all? How? Or is it just not sacramental?
I’ve never heard of ‘valid natural marriage’ as something different from ‘indissoluble sacramental union’. What’s that all about? If it’s not indissoluable, is it a marriage at all? How? Or is it just not sacramental?
A “valid natural marriage” occurs when the partners — or perhaps one of them — is not baptized. Not being baptized, they can not participiate in the sacrament.
Remember what Paul wrote about how a Christian spouse must live with a non-Christian spouse as long as the non-Christian is willing to live in peace? He added that the Christian is not bound if the non-Christian goes. This is the grounds for declaring such a marriage void. (Note that if a Christian marries a non-Christian after the baptism, the marriage can not be dissolved.)
Marriage as God created it at the dawn of human history is a natural institution. Within the context of the New Covenant, Jesus elevated marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, matrimony.
For baptized Christians, a valid marriage is always sacramental and always indissoluble. Within the New Covenant, there is no distinction between marriage and matrimony. They’re the same thing.
However, only baptized Christians can receive the other sacraments, which means that a wedding involving non-Christians (Jews, Muslims, Hindus, etc.) is not a sacrament, not matrimony. However, this does not mean that non-Christian couples are not really married, or that they are living in sin. They are married, but theirs is the marriage of the order of creation, rather than the sacrament of matrimony instituted by Christ.
As a natural union rather than a sacramental one, such a marriage can be dissolved. If a non-Christian divorces his or her spouse and marries another, the old union is abrogated and the new one is naturally valid. If a non-Christian who has been divorced and remarried to other non-Christians wants to convert to the Church, their first marriage will not pose the kind of impediment that it would for divorced and remarried Protestants. Ed or someone who knows something about law could step in here — I don’t know whether there wouldn’t be any annulment case at all, or whether it would be a documentary, open-and-shut procedure, but I presume it wouldn’t be the full-dress affair you would have with divorced and remarried Protestants.
This is what St. Paul is talking about in 1 Corinthians 7:10-15 when he says that a Christian convert should not separate from his or her unbelieving spouse, but “if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound,” i.e., he or she is free to remarry in the Church.
I don’t mean to drag it on further, but I find this a bit difficult to wrap my brain around. I understand, in principle, the argument from Matthew 18, that Jesus gives the Church authority to bind and loose, to make rules, binding on the faithful. But how does this relate to what has been my general understanding of the nature of a sacrament; that it works ex opere operato, by the very act, so long as the form (in this case, I believe, the exchange of vows) and matter (a baptized man and a woman) are valid. Provided all that is so…what stops matrimony from being an ex opere operato act in this case? Or am I misunderstanding something?
Been rereading and checking some things (Hooray for my library) and I think it’s starting to sink in a bit more. Though if anyone thinks they can make it clearer, I wouldn’t mind.
Mike,
In “Lost’s defense, Mr. Eko’s faking of the Sacraments is not condoned. In fact, Mr. Eko gets the heck beaten out of him later in the episode for refusing to confess his guilt for his past sins.
Karl,
I hope you don’t really think that Canon Law is enforced. Unless someone knows how to write up a petition or can afford a Canon Lawyer a complaint is never acted upon, regardless of how damaging an act is or was. None of mine were answered.
Many canonical penalties are automatic, even if they aren’t, the violation itself is a sinful act by nature and subject to the associated punishments if not forgiven.
God Bless,
Matt
Brian,
ex opere operato, by the very act, so long as the form (in this case, I believe, the exchange of vows) and matter (a baptized man and a woman) are valid
The Church defines the form for us, and for Catholics it requires a priest or deacon validly authorised by the local Bishop. No valid form, no valid sacrament.
God Bless,
Matt
Coming a bit late to the discussion, I have a question that doesn’t bear as much on Canon Law. I wonder if they were ever even civilly married, since there was no one present who could legitimately say “by the authority invested in me by [insert either the state or the church here], I now pronounce you…” Did (could) the signing of the marriage license suffice?
If they were not legally married, did this bozo cause them to commit fraud in changing of names on licenses, SS cards and other official documents? Does the Parish that allowed their facilities to be used for this event bear any responsibility?
I see that the couple has re-married (married?). Here’s hoping they get that $$ back.
It depends on what state they were married in. Different states have different laws about who can perform marriages. In some states, no special status is needed to perform a marriage.
The title of the post makes me a bit queasy. It reminds me of the title of a certain book by a certain man that the world has been longing to forget for some time now.
The post itself was still good. It did not, however, contain any pirate talk, Mr. Akin, and seeing as how this *is* September 19th, and seeing how September 19th *is* talk like a pirate day!, you should have really tried to work some of the ol’ Piratese into your blog. Maybe you should have said “Reports of this type arrrrrrgh, indeed, disturbing” instead? (Not to subtract from the seriousness and injustice of the subject matter, but I mean, that fake “priest” was kind of like a pirate. He probably wears an eye patch, too!)
Additionally, Elizabeth, I think you almost always have to intend to deceive people in order to commit fraud. Honest mistakes might cause administrative hassles, but they generally aren’t crimes.
BTW, I think that intentionally providing false information to the government might often be called perjury instead of fraud. Don’t know why, that just seems to be what they call it.
Not being an expert on Canon Law, I do know that under most state marriage laws, such a marriage would be invalid as well. The priest/minister is acting as a witness for the State verifying that the parties had the legal capacity to marry and suffered from no legal impediment (drunkeness, high on drugs, incest, fraud, etc…) and to verify the voluntariness of the parties’ act. Believe it or not, I had a criminal case a year or so ago where there was a question whether a minister’s license was valid and whether his witnessing marriages was valid after he moved from one denomination to a different one without paying a transfer fee. He had married 7-8 couples.
The simple fact is the fake minister committed a crime. In most states such a crime as this is a first degree misdemeanor punishable by both jail and fine.
Further, the couple has a civil action against this perpetrator that is worth alot of money. This man’s actions has tainted the parties’ legal standing pertaining to a number of issues: inheritance, legitimacy of issue, right to transfer property, payment of the correct amount of income and property taxes, the validity of joint debts, not to mention retirement benefits, health care, or God forbid, end of life decisions. Someone in authority on behalf of the Church should force the S-B to disclose who he married so that corrective and appropriate legal actions can be taken by the couple.
So, if in the Eastern Catholic Churches it is the priest or bishop who marries the couple, and in the Latin Catholic Church it is the couple who marries each other with the priest for a witness, do we have a contradiction?
Dr. Eric,
The Second edition (revised in accord with the official text) of the CCC 1623 states:
Both traditions expect the couple to express their consent before the Church.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Looking on the bright side for this couple: when it comes time for them to divorce, they don’t have to apply for an annulment.
Let’s dig a bit deeper: what about if this con man had disguised as an Eastern Orthodox priest in an Orthodox wedding? Would the Catholic Church presume it’s a valid marriage?
Phil, there’s this thing called a library. Also, this thing called a bookstore. If you’re really all that interested in canon law, those are the places to visit if you want to “dig a bit deeper”.
Or you could always find out where Ed Peters lives…. 🙂
You know, there could be a business opportunity for someone. “Canon Law Hotline. The legal advice we dispense is not binding in any tribunal, but is presented for entertainment purposes only. How may I help you?”
Great idea Maureen; you could advertise on late night TV and specify ‘for adults only’ and probably make a lot more money.
So, if in the Eastern Catholic Churches it is the priest or bishop who marries the couple, and in the Latin Catholic Church it is the couple who marries each other with the priest for a witness, do we have a contradiction?
We may. Apparently it has not become so problematic as to require a definition.
I thought Phil W asked an interesting question.
Hopefully someone (Ed?) is smart and informed enough to venture an answer.
Thanks Matt! Crystal clear now!
In the last episode of the first season of MacGiever, MacGiever impersonates a Priest in order to prevent a real Bishop from being assasinated by the bad guy who was dressed up as a nun. Nothing wrong with what MacGiever did, is there?
In the Scarlet and the Black (a totally sweet movie!!!) the priest impersonates dozens of people to out wit the Nazis.
And the Nuns at the end of the Sound of Music ripping apart the Nazi car to help the Von Trapp family escape — another cool movie moment.
Based on these three (albeit fictional) examples deception can be morally acceptable. I am new to Catholic Moral Theology. There are guidelines that would dictate the acceptability of deception/theft etc… Could some one run through these? for one of the examples I mention?
+PEACE!!!!
Excuse me, MacGiever is the only fictional example, the other two were real or maybe sensationalized examples.
In Eastern Theology, the priest (bishop) is the minister of the Sacrament, not the couple as in Latin Theology.
Based on these three (albeit fictional) examples deception can be morally acceptable. I am new to Catholic Moral Theology. There are guidelines that would dictate the acceptability of deception/theft etc…
Theft is the taking of goods against the reasonable will of the owner. Non-theft includes taking a gun from a person with a history of homicidal mania, or taking food needed to survive in a disaster area when the person who owns it does not need it to survive and you have no other way to get it.
Deceiving people is only morally permissible when the person involved is not entitled to the truth and providing it would bring about some proportionate evil.
Dr. Eric,
CCEO Canon 832 seems to imply that Eastern theology does acknowledge that a couple can validly celebrate a marriage without a priest but are expected normally to have one bless the marriage. It is definitely an exception but it does seems to recognize that the couple would be the ministers of the Sacrament in these exceptions.
When Can. 1108 is compared to CCEO 828 they are very similar in language to my untrained non-canonical lawyer eyes.
The Code of Canon Law (1983)
Code of canons of Oriental Churchs
Canon 828 1. Only those marriages are valid which are celebrated with a sacred rite, in the presence of the local hierarch, local pastor, or a priest who has been given the faculty of blessing the marriage by either of them, and at least two witnesses, according, however to the prescriptions of the following canons, with due regard for the exceptions mentioned in cann. 832 and 834, 2.
2. That rite which is considered a sacred rite is the intervention a priest assisting and blessing.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
Maureen,
I’m not sure how to interpret your message. I don’t seem to be the only one here speculating about canonical matters – why was I the one to earn a reply like that? Nobody is forced to read or answer any questions if they don’t want to.
Dr. Eric,
If I was interested in the Eastern understanding of the Mystery/Sacrament of Marriage what would you recommend I read?
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
1. Marriages are presumed to be valid, until canonically proven otherwise.
2. The marriage suffers from a defect of form. I don’t think it is any different from a case of two baptised (and/or confirmed) Catholics getting married by a protestant minister. There are thousands, perhaps millions of those running around and their marriages are presumed valid.
Actually, this happens not in frequently. The usual procedure is a sanatio in radice (healing at the root) which is a retroactive validation (different than a convalidation) which can be done without the knowledge of the couples. Usually, it is not because a fake priest marries but that a priest didn’t haver proper permission to witness the marriage in that particular jurisdiction (i.e. the permision from the pastor wasn’t properly asked for, the church was in a different parish than thought, etc).
If they got divorced, they would still have to petition to receive an annulment, just like everyone else because of the presumption of validity. A tribunal would have to take into consideration the special circumstances and decide whether to grant the annulment.
I believe Dr. Peters is correct to say “open and shut null” and it is incorrect to say that two Catholics married by a Protestant minister are “presumed valid.”
Zach,
If they got divorced, they would still have to petition to receive an annulment, just like everyone else because of the presumption of validity. A tribunal would have to take into consideration the special circumstances and decide whether to grant the annulment.
what SDG said, plus, when the marriage is invalid by defect of form there is no annulment, simply a question of demonstrating that the form was invalid, which is very easy to do and only takes a few weeks in most diocese. Because the defect is manifest it is not presumed valid if the facts are known, this is different from a defect of consent which is an internal state that requires investigation and serious consideration before a declaration can be made.
God Bless,
Matt
If there were witnesses at this wedding (Although the consecration would have been invalid). Then it is presumed to be valid unless proven otherwise.
Under which canon, Joe?
civilly they are married…
sacramentally….they aren’t.
their situation is no different than being married by a protestant pastor…which are fakes if you want to be mean about it…
to sacramentalize their marriage they would need to have another marriage ceremony in the catholic church…hey another celebration!!!!
or alternatively…they could get out of it…
either way…i’d say they need counseling after this doozie to make sure they feel good about their situation and re-evaluate…
they should get remarried in the catholic church and have it broadcast on tv. the whole thing… i think it would be romantic. best of all they get to have another big wedding party banquet afterwards…what a great way to renew one’s marriage vows.