A question arose this weekend in my family regarding an issue that was posted down below -- is it a sin to witness a non-Catholic marriage? In my family's case, the question is even more sensitive because both parties (my brother and his fiancée) are Catholic and they are planning a non-Catholic ceremony. So I emailed my parish priest and asked the following:

[b]I'm under the impression that witnessing the marriage of two Catholics outside of the Church is a sin ... is maintaining family harmony considered as an ameliorating circumstance of some sort for taking part in such a sin? My brother is considering a civil wedding ceremony to marry his fiancée, who is also Catholic, and I'll be honest: I don't have it in me to skip the wedding ... even if my insides are churning. Maintaining family harmony is very important to me, and my personality is such that I hate to rock the boat ... I want everyone to get along. I wish I could take firmer stances sometimes -- and I do when it's not family; I can be too righteous for my own good on occasion, believe it or not -- but family is my weakest point. I am concerned about appearing to "sanction" the event, but I fervently hope that the family bond takes priority. Please give me some guidance.

And this is the response I received:

Oh, there is no problem going to the reception (or even attending the non-Catholic ceremony). But you cannot take part as an official witness (signing anything). So maintain family harmony - go to the wedding - but remember, compromises work both ways - if you go - they should be thoughtful enough not to make you do anything that goes against your beliefs.

I am tremendously relieved and wanted to share this with the board in case the information can be of help someone else.

-- Tammy H. (resolve59@hotmail.com), April 12, 2003

Answers

Tammy - You done good!!

-- jean bouchard (jeanb@cwk.imag.net), April 13, 2003.

I'll mention that James Akin of catholic answers gives a different answer when asked on his radio program. He says that by attending a wedding of catholics not in the church (and w/o permission of bishop) you are "vouching" for the legitimacy of it.

-- Steve Jackson (stevej100@hotmail.com), April 14, 2003.

James Akin's advice is excellent. (I am pleasantly surprised to see you relaying it, Steve.)

Sorry to have to tell you, Tammy, but the priest you consulted made a major error. (This is not just my opinion, but that of every priest [that I have ever seen] who writes Q&A columns in orthodox Catholic publications.) It is so sad for me to know that you have a priest who is ready to give you improper guidance, perhaps on many other subjects too.

Your conscience was guiding you correctly, Tammy, when you said that you didn't want to "sanction" the false/invalid "union" that would be taking place before your eyes. You do realize that, by attending, you would be telling the couple, "Your sexual relationship is pure and good" -- while, in your heart, you would know that they are entering into adultery or fornication.

All folks in your situation, Tammy, should avoid the sham ceremony [and even, in my opinion, the reception]. God will reward you for this, and your relatives may some day thank you for this, because your action will "prick" their consciences constantly, forcing them (we hope) to make peace with God some day. If you fail to prick their consciences, they are far more likely to die in a state of mortal sin some day, never having repented.

God bless you.
John
PS: Jean, you done bad!

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 16, 2003.

Tammy, sounds to me like you have been blessed in your parish with a very wise priest. Nowhere, have I been able to find where it is a sin to attend an invalid ceremony. In showing love for the couple getting married by attending the ceremony under "loving protest", you emulate Jesus, which will go much further in getting the couple to think about their actions than boycotting the ceremony will. Of course, as a Catholic, the onus is on you to discreetly mention your concern for their decision. John, you can accomplish far more with loving someone than you can with “pricking” them.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 17, 2003.

I think John is correct (believe it or not...). j/k John.

In fact, I've done it twice, with extended family members. It was somewhat difficult to do, but no one faced me off on it to my surprise in either case.

That's the rules I've always heard; it sounds harsh, but hey, someone has to draw the line somewhere and of course someone is going to feel hurt. But whose problem that causes the getting hurt part of it? How can we hold to one thing and give our implied acceptance to another?

How can we condone an error, especially one that will only be so much more difficult to extract oneself from? The inertia to remain outside good graces in these illicit marriage situations makes for a real quandry for the soul. We cannot condone error, especially one that engenders an ongoing state outside of grace. If we indeed hold it to be such, we must follow our thoughts through with our actions.

If everyone was a Catholic, it wouldn't fly. If God were standing there, it wouldn't fly. We have to think in those terms... that these things that are not readily apparent in our current age, not obvious or no longer the visible norms have these immutable truths behind them, whether we see them or not; and we need to adhere to these truths.

It's tough to speak and act in the unpopular way, but we must; they are tests we must take from time to time, and we need to get through without backing down or compromising our principles.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 17, 2003.

Jmj

Thanks for the support, Emerald. I'm not accustomed to it!

Ed L, you wrote:
"John, you can accomplish far more with loving someone than you can with 'pricking' them."

Ed, you are wrong to make such a blanket statement. The example of Jesus, St. John the Baptist, and many other great Jews and Christians proves this.
To Paraphrase the book of Ecclesiastes ... "For everything there is a season, a time for loving, a time for pricking ... ."
Or, to look at it another way, "pricking" sometimes is the proper way to manifest "loving." You are going to get yourself into trouble (or you may have already done so) if you don't believe in "tough love."

Moreover, what I wrote didn't simply come from me, while what you wrote seems to have come only from your private thoughts. As I told Tammy:
"This is not just my opinion, but that of every priest [that I have ever seen] who writes Q&A columns in orthodox Catholic publications."
I have to stand by what I wrote until I see the contrary (i.e., your position) approved by the Vatican.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 18, 2003.

John, while I can appreciate what you are saying, I feel that it is far more important that in order to keep families together, we should love and support one another. While Steve’s contribution here is worthwhile it is limited to its effectiveness as we really haven’t seen the entire reply. This small bit of information could have been taken out of context.

It has also been my opinion that whenever “orthodox catholic publications” give opinions on matters such as these, they always tend to give you the “textbook” answer and not one that has been tempered by mitigating circumstances. What I have written here doesn’t come from “private thoughts” but from years of pastoral experience at watching good Catholic priests go about their ministry. I have never heard a parish priest tell anyone not to go to a family ceremony such as this. Invariably they have all agreed with Tammy’s priest that to show love and compassion in such instances will produce more fruitful benefits in the future.

Attending such a wedding no more sends the message that you are condoning it, than when members of others faiths, or even pagans, attend a Catholic wedding. By their attendance at a Catholic wedding, do we assume they are endorsing the Catholic faith? Of course not! In calling this wedding a “sham” are we not passing judgement on this couple? We have been given the fullness of truth by our Catholic upbringing, however, this couple who granted, is making a serious error may not be so well informed. Through lack of education and proper upbringing in the Catholic faith, they may be convinced that what they are doing is perfectly okay in the eyes of God. That is for them and God to sort out. Oh, we can provide our loving advice and try to point them in the right direction when given the opportunity, and in fact we should; but to categorically condemn all such unions by not attending and rupturing family ties in the process, in my opinion is over-kill, melodramatic and counter-productive.

John, you wrote, “I have to stand by what I wrote until I see the contrary (i.e., your position) approved by the Vatican.”. I wholeheartedly agree with you. While I can fully appreciate your position, until the Vatican declares that to attend such a wedding ceremony is a sin, then I shall remain steadfast in my conviction that the best way to the hearts and minds of those who need to discover Truth is to exercise love and compassion toward them.

-- Ed (catholic4444@yahoo.ca), April 19, 2003.

Ed, your post makes for a good case study. Your words reflect in a microcosmic way, a larger structure of ideas and concepts out there... structures of new ways of looking at things that are in fact deviations from objective truth. Bear with me here, ok? I'm not attacking you, I'm attempting to attack an idea. Here's what I mean:

"John, while I can appreciate what you are saying, I feel that it is far more important that in order to keep families together, we should love and support one another."

What I see in mini-form here is that there's a solid truth to be reconned with, in this case truths revolving around the existence of a Sacrament of the Catholic Church, marriage, and it's properly being adhered to. But instead, there seems to be a hidden, over-riding principle in the back of people's heads somewhere that seems to be called forth to trump the Sacramental rules.

What is that principle? It's the one where a peace and unity among people is a greater good than Sacramental truth. If forced into the position of upholding truth or upholding peace, many believe that peace is the greater good and the greater objective.

But in reality, that decision imho is most often taken not out of solid reasoning but simply because it is the practical path of least resistance. It's easier, and on the surface of it, the absence of discord and general all-around good feeling everyone has from not sparring with each other simply looks like truth has been adhered to. But it hasn't been.

So in that sense, the "keeping of families together" is only happening in appearance, but not reality; and the "love and support" you refer to is not really happening. It just looks like it is.

The reason why, imho, is because evident here:

"It has also been my opinion that whenever “orthodox catholic publications” give opinions on matters such as these, they always tend to give you the “textbook” answer and not one that has been tempered by mitigating circumstances."

Mitigating circumstances are just that. They mitigate, but they do not validate. Think about mitigation for what is is, similiar to the mathematical limit; for instance how a parabola perpetually draws closer and closer to a straight line throughout infinity without ever touching it. If that analogy doesn't work, try a more obvious example: walk towards an object in a room, but make each step one half the length of the last step; you will always get closer to the object, but you will never reach it through all eternity.

I know I'm coming in from a bizarre angle, but again bear with me; my point is this: mitigating circumstances may lessen culpability, but they will never, ever, ever, ever help somebody to obtain any level of validation, and they will never procure knowledge of truth and adherence to it.

But isn't that what you are kind of alluding to, really, that there's a deeper principle of peace and unity which over-rides other immutable truths? That it's ok to kind of let some things visibly slide a little for the sake of this supposed deeper principle of peace and unity; and also that based upon mitigating circumstances some degree of validity can be grasped at?

We've seen a lot of that kind of stuff lately, theologically... this sort of leap in logic, based on exception to the rule, where mitigation or exception can somehow still obtain for someone the status of validity.

What you will find, in practical application, is that if you allow an exception to the rule, that the truth behind the rule is immediately invalidated and found not to be necessary, and then everything in practical application becomes the rule of exception. How many times in every day life have you heard the admission "I'm sorry, sir, we can do that for you. If we do it for you, we will have to do it for everyone. We can't do that"? This should be our stance regarding the principles of our Faith.

This might sound like a load of getting nowhere fast, but it isn't. People need to get to the root of why the world thinks and acts like they do, and why the Church thinks and acts like it has throughout the ages.

Invariably they have all agreed with Tammy’s priest that to show love and compassion in such instances will produce more fruitful benefits in the future.

Again, the rule of limits and mitigation dissallows for the aquisition of truth through error. This is a species of the argument that the ends justifies the means when you really put it to the test. As a sidenote, those more fruitful benefits... they are speculations. We can't justify deviations from truth based upon speculations of future gains. Even the brokerages doods will tell you that past performance is no guarantee of future results.

Now I know, Ed, that you don't for one minute discount or deny the existence of, and the gravity of, the Sacrament of matrimony. What I am pointing out is that you are calling upon a hidden principle that you hold, imho... and that is, that peace and unity is more profound than all else, and trumps all other principles when principles begin to come into collision with each other.

This hidden principle is a false one that I believe infects our Church at this time, in so many different arenas. I'm just saying that's wrong, that's all... the one that has to do with the appearance of peace and unity in the face of immutable truths of Faith. I wonder if that was what Christ was referring to when He said He came to divide son against father, daughter against mother, etc.

John is surprised by my support; lol! Well, he's got it here. I only hope that he understands what I'm getting at about exceptions to the rules in other areas of doctrinal discussion, such as...

Oh well, never mind. =)

Point being this: true peace and unity can only be the result of the members of the mystical body of Christ being in conformity with the truths of the Church.

Happy Easter to you all!

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 20, 2003.

Jmj

Well, Emerald, I was just getting ready to compliment and thank you -- until I saw that you couldn't resist making that "smart remark" at the end.

As I was reading your well-reasoned reply to Ed L, I kept saying to myself, "I hope that Emerald isn't setting me up here, getting ready to claim wrongly that I and others are applying, to other parts of Catholicism, the same faulty approach that Ed L is using in this marriage-related situation. I hope instead that I can tell Emerald that, if he keeps if up like this (and avoids all the schismatic trash), I'll be his biggest fan."
Although you told Ed L the right things (and I hope that he is moved by them), Emerald, you put yourself back on "square one" with me.

Hello, Ed L. I'd like to reply to several things that you said in your last message.

----- "While Steve’s contribution here is worthwhile it is limited to its effectiveness as we really haven’t seen the entire reply. This small bit of information could have been taken out of context."

This was in reference to the following: "... James Akin of [C]atholic [A]nswers[, Inc.] gives a different answer when asked on his radio program. He says that by attending a wedding of [C]atholics not in the church (and w/o permission of bishop) you are 'vouching' for the legitimacy of it."

Ed L, I have heard apologist James Akin speak many times on the nightly "Catholic Answers Live" radio/Internet program. I do believe that Steve accurately relayed the standard Akin reply to questions on this topic. In other words, I believe that Akin joins with all the other orthodox authorities whom I have heard/read. Another is Fr. Peter Stravinskas, editor of "The Catholic Answer" (an "Our Sunday Visitor" periodical). I'm beginning to wonder if, perhaps, the Canadian seminaries have long been training priests wrongly on this subject, and it has thus "trickled" down to you.

----- "Attending such a wedding no more sends the message that you are condoning it, than when members of others faiths, or even pagans, attend a Catholic wedding. By their attendance at a Catholic wedding, do we assume they are endorsing the Catholic faith? Of course not!"

I completely disagree -- on two points:
(1) Catholics who attend sham weddings rarely, if ever, tell the couple (never mind the other congregants) that they disapprove of what is happening. Therefore they DO "send the message that [they] are condoning it."
(2) You are mixing apples and oranges. It is true that, when a pagan attends a Catholic wedding, he does not "endors[e] the Catholic faith." However, he does indicate his belief that the couple is entering into a real marriage. Likewise, the Catholic who attends does the same (unless he takes great pains, in advance, to inform everyone he knows that the opposite is true -- something rarely, if ever, done).

----- "In calling this wedding a 'sham' are we not passing judgement on this couple?"

No, we are not judging persons. We are judging their action as objectively sinful. It is for God to judge their subjective guilt (whether they may be free of guilt due to an ignorance that cannot be overcome, etc.).

----- "Oh, we can provide our loving advice and try to point them in the right direction when given the opportunity, and in fact we should; but to categorically condemn all such unions by not attending and rupturing family ties in the process, in my opinion is over-kill, melodramatic and counter-productive."

There is no better time "to point them in the right direction" than "when [we are] given the [first] opportunity" to show disapproval. If we are good Catholics, we should disapprove of the couple's attachment to one another long before marriage can even be proposed. This would not be "overkill" or "counter-productive," but rather an example of obedience to God, who told Ezekiel (3:18-19):
"If I say to the wicked man, 'You shall surely die,' and you do not warn him or speak out to dissuade him from his wicked conduct so that he may live: that wicked man shall die for his sin, but I will hold you responsible for his death. If, on the other hand, you have warned the wicked man, yet he has not turned away from his evil nor from his wicked conduct, then he shall die for his sin, but you shall save your life."
[It is these verses that make me comfortable to urge you to agree with me in this situation, even without formal confirmation in the form of a Vatican document.]

Now, if we don't find out about a couple's improper relationship until we receive their wedding invitation, it is in replying that we should firmly, but lovingly break the news to them. We shouldn't wait until the wedding day and "melodramatic[ally]" surprise the couple by unexpectedly not showing up.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik, (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 20, 2003.

What's going on here, John, is that you know I'm on to something. Enough so, that you can predict a couple sentences ahead of time which hammer is about to fall.

That's because there's truth in it.

God, protect me from being right. God, I don't want to be right.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 22, 2003.

"What's going on here, John, is that you know I'm on to something." [words of Emerald]

No, E. You are not "on to" something. You are "on" something. [Maryjane, mebbe.]

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

We're sorry, you have reached a number that is no longer in service. If you wish to make a call, please hang up and try again.

John, you are going to have to do better than that, my friend.

You liked what I said about standing up for truths touching on authenticity in marriage, and perhaps a bit to do with true loyalty in marriages, and among family members.

The way I figure it, this is a perfect place to start. After all, marriage is the Divine Analogy between Christ and His Church. If a principle can be found, in shadow form, in human marriage... perhaps the truths touching upon it can lend insight into the state of the Church as well.

Things about loyalty and truth, and things that are hard to do; things that are unpopular to do.

Things that only look rude but really aren't. Things that only look like harm to family members when they are really about the health and benefit of all it's members.

I am on to something.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.

Forget it, Emerald. It's all over. You had countless chances, but blew them all.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), April 23, 2003.

Who is giving the opportunities?

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), April 23, 2003.