Can a Catholic Attend an Invalid Marriage?
A common question among Catholics is whether they are permitted to attend invalid marriages (that is, weddings which result in an invalid marriage). Despite the prevalence of the question, there has been little formal explanation by Church authority. The following then is merely one canonist’s view on the topic.
The fundamental moral issues underlying this question relate to cooperation and scandal. That is, if one attends a wedding which celebrates an invalid union, is the person in attendance cooperating in the sins related to the invalid union? More directly, does attendance encourage and celebrate another’s sin? And further, would this attendance engender scandal, in that others may feel there is no issue with the wedding and intended union in light of the open encouragement?
Some Distinctions
Before we begin tackling these questions, we need to do a bit of canon law. This may seem tedious, but it is important for determining whether one may attend a particular wedding or not. To start, not all invalid marriages are invalid for the same reason. There are in fact a number of ways in which a marriage can be invalid.
At the most basic level, and for all people, marriage only requires two elements to exist: (1) one man and one woman; (2) the exchange of consent to be married. If either (1) or (2) is lacking, there is no marriage, even if it otherwise looks like a marriage.
Related to (1), there can be things which impede the man and woman from being capable of marrying. For example, if either the man or the woman has a previous marriage, that previous marriage impedes, or makes impossible, any new marriage. Or, for example, if the man and woman are siblings, this familial relationship impedes their ability to marry.
Related to (2), there can be something wrong with the consent exchanged. For example, if a person is forced to give consent (say, by violence), the consent is invalid and so too the marriage. Or, for example, if someone excludes an essential element or property of marriage at the time of marrying, like fidelity, the consent is invalid and so too the marriage.
But there is one more thing that can invalidate marriage, but only for Catholics: (3) Canonical Form. For Catholics (those baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it), marriage must be celebrated in a particular form. That is, there is a way in which the wedding must take place for Catholics to validly marry. Canon 1108 states that “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 . . . .”
This is usually what people say when they mean someone is getting married “in the Church.” Where the marriage actually takes place, in a physical church building or elsewhere, does not matter for validity; what matters is before whom the wedding is contracted: a bishop, priest, or deacon properly delegated. Note that this canon only binds when one of the parties in Catholic; if it is not followed by a Catholic party, the marriage is invalid. If neither party is Catholic, only (1) and (2) are required.
Some believe today that this (3) requirement is unnecessary, as the problem of clandestine marriages (the original impetus for canonical form) is not as pressing today, and in light of the large number of Protestants and other groups who freely marry without this requirement, it feels uneven and unfair to burden only Catholics in this way, especially when Catholics often have no idea it is required.
That aside, to summarize, we can say that the following makes marriage for Catholics. And that the absence of any one of the following makes marriage invalid:
1. One man and one woman who are eligible to marry (without invalidating impediments)
2. Valid consent
3. Valid canonical form
But this is not the end of distinctions. In particular, some of these elements are of divine and natural law while some are of merely ecclesiastical or Church law. For example, proper matter (a man and a woman) is required as a part of divine and natural law. This reality flows from the nature of man and woman themselves, tied directly to their procreative ends. No power can change this or dispense from it. The same goes for consent. Consent is integral to marriage itself and no power can supply it except the couple.
On the other hand, canonical form is a prudential ecclesiastical creation, and in fact it can be dispensed and is often dispensed. Catholics marry validly before Protestant, other non-Catholic ministers, and even civil authorities with this dispensation on a regular basis. It is also important to note that this element can also be dispensed after consent is exchanged. So, for example, if a couple marries without canonical form on January 1, canonical form can be dispensed on June 1, and on June 1 their marriage would become valid, provided that their consent has not been rescinded at that point. For Catholics, marriage occurs when all three of the above are simultaneously present in a single moment.
Similarly, within the impediments, there are some which impede as a matter of divine and natural law (for example, that one cannot marry multiple people at the same time) while some are merely ecclesiastical (for example, that a baptized Catholic cannot marry an unbaptized person). The former cannot be dispensed, whereas the latter can be (and regularly is).
Analysis
It must be emphasized that an “invalid marriage” is not a type of marriage or a sort of technicality. It is not a marriage at all. When a marriage is “invalid,” the couple is not married as a matter of objective reality, despite what they might want or despite what others (even civil authorities) might say. Read in the most negative terms, attendance at an invalid marriage could be construed as support for what amounts to cohabitation and fornication, objectively grave issues.
For this reason, as a general rule one should avoid attendance at invalid marriages (as well as related celebrations, such as after-wedding receptions, parties recognizing the intended union, etc.). It is quite common for others to misunderstand our reasons for acting (and so think we support the invalid marriage and its consequences), and no doubt Catholics continue to marry invalidly at least partially because of the casual and dismissive attitude others Catholics have to this issue.
This is also the reason why those who may invalidly marry outside of the Church should consider seriously why another might not attend. When people object and choose not to attend, they are in most cases not seeking to offend or condemn. They are instead trying to follow their consciences and walk according to a truth that they cannot simply push aside.
To even begin this analysis, then, one would need a serious reason to consider attendance, and generally speaking, the presumption should be non-attendance. Marriages of close family and friends are of course much more pressing than those of passing acquaintances. Some pressing reasons could be sincere concern over family unity (when non-attendance could be construed as rejection of that unity), a need to cultivate or maintain a relationship with a family member who is struggling in the faith, a need to support a close friend who otherwise lacks support, etc. Going because it may be fun, because it will be nice to meet up with people, because you have not seen someone in a long time, etc., are not pressing reasons to attend something that has the potential to encourage serious sin.
Once that threshold of serious reason can be crossed, one can begin a deeper analysis of the issue. To do that, we can return to the distinctions above, particularly those related to divine and natural law. Violating divine and natural law is always and everywhere wrong. For example, for the actors, it is always wrong to attempt to marry with improper matter (a man with a man or a woman with a woman), and it is always wrong to marry someone when one of the individuals already has a spouse, as this amounts to adultery.
Similarly, it is wrong to encourage or support someone else in doing these things. It is wrong because the object to which you are encouraging the person (an attempted union contrary to divine and natural law) is by its very nature wrong. For this reason, if attending a wedding celebrates an action which is contrary to the divine or natural law (two people of the same sex attempting marriage, a polygamous union, a marriage where one party is already married, etc.), the Catholic should abstain.
But what about invalidating factors that are not of the natural and divine law? In these cases, the analysis is more complex. Take the example of the couple that is entirely free to marry: a Catholic man and a woman who are of sound mind and body, who have never been married to anyone else before, etc. They choose to marry outside the Church without any permission, dispensation, or otherwise.
This sin here would not be seeking the intended marriage, as it would be in the case above. The object of their intent (marriage to this other person, which would otherwise be possible) is not contrary to the divine or natural law. Instead, it is incidentally sinful in light of the superadded form requirement by the Church.
Put another way, such a couple is fulfilling requirements (1) and (2) above, but is failing on (3). The couple in such a case is seeking a good, but simply failing to actualize that good in the moment because of a requirement placed on them from outside. This is entirely different than a couple that is seeking something that is bad by its nature.
To that end, when one attends the marriage of a Catholic without canonical form, the object (an intended marriage) that one is condoning by attendance is not an evil in itself, even if it is not properly a fully realized good. The attendees are in fact encouraging the couple to legitimately marry, even if it fails to materialize in that moment because of this external requirement (though could materialize later if the requirement is removed by dispensation).
The core distinction being made here then is that one can tolerate or even condone a thing that could be good when fully actualized or when that thing is only bad because of an external power that is not inherent to it, whereas one cannot condone something that is bad in itself. There may be similar inexact examples of this principle. For example, it could be permissible for a Catholic to attend an Anglican Mass or similar (which is otherwise invalid) with a pressing reason (ecumenical, familial, etc.). Similarly, it could be permissible to attend a baptism of a Protestant friend or family member, even though the baptism (even if valid) will not fully initiate the person into the Church as baptism should.
Would this then entail that it is always permissible to attend marriages that are invalid because of a lack of form? Unfortunately, it is not that simple either. It is only permissible to attend an invalid marriage as a result of form where (a) it does not encourage the intentional rejection of Church authority and (b) where it does not cause scandal.
In cases where the couple is aware of the Church’s requirements but simply rejects the Church’s authority (in conjunction with rejection of the Church or apostasy, for example), then attendance would not be appropriate, as this could amount to not merely support for the potentially good object but also support for the actually present evil of rejecting Church authority. But in cases where the couple is unaware of any form requirements or the couple does not fully comprehend that the lack of form in fact invalidates their marriage, attendance could be permissible.
An important side question may arise here: do we have an obligation to inform the couple that their intended marriage is going to be invalid? Yes, potentially, but it would depend on the relationship and circumstances. In many cases, attempts to explain this could rupture family unity or friendship more than non-attendance. And often attempts to do so do not result in the couple understanding that their marriage is invalid. In fact, it may cause them to dig deeper into any attempt at reconciliation with the truth or the Church.
That said, in cases where there could be a real value in informing the person, particularly in conjunction with actively helping them marry with form or with a dispensation from form, attempts should be made. As an aside, a guest does not have an obligation to determine if the person marrying was in fact baptized Catholic as a child; if it is generally unknown, there is no reason to dig deeper.
There is one important final consideration: scandal. Scandal can arise several ways. Scandal arises when we actively induce or encourage another to sin because we want the other person to commit the sin. This is always wrong, and sometimes gravely so. But it also arises when our example (how we live our lives) moves another to sin. If we act in a way such that our sinful behavior becomes an example for how to act, and this consequently induces another to act similarly, we have caused scandal.
But not only sinful examples give rise to scandal. Sometimes the mere appearance of sinful action or the appearance of support of sinful action can give rise to scandal, especially for those who do not understand the full meaning or context of the action. Often others do not understand our internal reasons or justifications for acting, as they usually can only evaluate our actions based on what they see or are told.
Therefore, it is never appropriate to encourage Catholics to marry without canonical form. It is also not appropriate to attend in cases where attendance causes others to believe rejection of Church authority is legitimate, permissible, or only a slight concern, or where the attendance causes others to believe that you view this clearly invalid marriage as valid. Evaluating scandal can be very difficult and depend on a number of factors, especially when it is not always clear how others are viewing your actions. One must use his or her best judgment, and sometimes the answer is not always clear.
Generally speaking, the larger role one has in a wedding or celebration, the more likely there is to be scandal. If one finds that attendance is permissible in the above noted circumstances, he or she should avoid roles in the actual wedding celebration, avoid statements or actions legitimizing the invalidity, and, if at all possible, work to make it clear that the purpose of attendance is not a capitulation on the validity of the marriage. If the attendee is a cleric or other representative of the Church, this concern for scandal is even more pressing, as guests may view attendance as approval from the Church.
Conclusion
The complexities of the modern world, combined with the strong antinomianism of society have caused people, including Catholics, to see formal requirements (of every sort) as irrational, unnecessary, and odious. No clearer is this than with canonical form, where many Catholics who even know of its existence think of it as silly or otherwise meaningless.
This does not mean that the Church or her faithful should somehow submit to this view. In fact, I would argue that much of the reason the rejection of natural and divine law occurs today is directly related to rejection of the authority of ecclesiastical law. Obedience (to anything) is a habit that we have to develop. When we are unable to develop that habit for simple things (the process of marrying), there is little chance we will be able to utilize it for more difficult things (the broader moral realities related to marriage).
Below is a decision flowchart that illustrates the above analysis. It of course cannot replace any person’s conscience, but it may be of help to some.
