Q. Recently I was informed that a Catholic consecrated person who is a member of an ecclesial movement officiated at a wedding on the streets of New York City. There were no clergy present. The event became a public spectacle and one that, in my opinion, should not have taken place. I’m very concerned because I think not only that it is an invalid marriage, but also that it brings scandal to the Church through mocking the sacrament. I would like to speak with both the couple and the consecrated person about this event, but I am not sure what to tell them. Do you have any advice? — Tom 

A. Before I answer your question, I need to clarify a point. According to canon law, only those who are ordained — bishops, priests and deacons — can officiate validly at weddings except in circumstances carefully circumscribed by canon law itself. Those circumstances provide for the possibility of laypeople — i.e., non-ordained people — validly officiating. The fact that an officiant is a consecrated person and/or a member of an ecclesial movement is irrelevant to our consideration of whether the marriage was valid. When I use the expression “layperson,” I am referring to those who are not ordained, whether or not they are consecrated or members of an ecclesial movement. 

Before we move to the question of speaking to the couple and the officiant, we need to address two relevant questions: First, what are the conditions under which a layperson may witness a marriage? Second, is it licit to celebrate a marriage ceremony on the streets of New York City

When May Laypeople Officiate at Weddings?

To answer this question, we must distinguish between marriages between a Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian, a Catholic and a non-Christian, and two Catholics.

In each of these cases, canonical form must be followed unless the local ordinary (bishop) dispenses from it. Canonical form refers to the requirement that a bishop, priest or deacon receive the consent from both parties with two witnesses present (Canon 1108 §1). 

With marriages of the first and second type, the local ordinary sometimes gives a dispensation from the requirement of canonical form, which makes it possible for a non-Catholic Christian minister or even a non-Christian minister to officiate. Without that dispensation, the marriage would be invalid. The reason for granting the dispensation is to accommodate the situation of the non-Catholic party.

What about marriages of the third type? A layperson can witness a valid marriage between two Catholics only if the following four conditions are met:

• There must be a lack of priests or deacons to carry out the responsibility; 
• the local bishop must delegate the layperson to assist at the marriage; 
• the conference of bishops — in this case, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops — must give approval to the bishop to delegate laypersons to witness marriages; and 
• the bishop must obtain permission from the Holy See for such delegation (see Canon 1112 §1). 

If the couple you refer to are Catholics, their attempted marriage would be valid only in the unlikely event that an ordinary, e.g., Cardinal Timothy Dolan, with due permission from the USCCB and the Holy See, delegated laypersons to officiate at marriages because he judged that there is a lack of priests and deacons to render the service. I say “unlikely event” because the Archdiocese of New York’s 2.5 million Catholics are served by hundreds of priests and deacons, and so the need for laypeople to be authorized to assist at marriages seems slender.

May a Wedding Be Held on the Streets of New York City?

Regarding the second question, Church law requires that marriages between Catholics or between a Catholic and another baptized person be celebrated in a parish church. But exceptions can be made by the local ordinary or pastor to celebrate the marriage in another church or oratory. 

If, however, permission is being sought to hold the wedding in a place other than a church or oratory, then only a local ordinary can grant it: “The local ordinary can permit a marriage to be celebrated in another suitable place” (Canon 1118 §1-2). If no permission is sought, the marriage would still be valid, but it would be illicit. 

So, the archbishop of New York may authorize a wedding if he judges the streets of New York City to be a suitable place for the wedding to be celebrated. But since the archbishop would surely know that the event could easily become a public spectacle (as you noted it did in fact become) and so draw attention away from the holiness of marriage and detract from the proper solemnity of the celebration, it is unlikely that he’d grant such permission.

How to Reply to the Couple and Consecrated Person 

You asked how you might appropriately reply to the couple and the consecrated person. I presume you have some kind of relationship with at least one of them. If you do not, then you will have to make a judgment call as to whether speaking with them will do any good. 

Although it seems very unlikely that the dispensation from canonical form or proper delegation and the permission for marriage outside of a church or oratory was granted, it will be important for you to be certain that the couple acted improperly before you speak with them. 

First, find out what kind of marriage was attempted. If it was between a Catholic and either a non-Catholic Christian or a non-Christian, find out whether the local ordinary gave a dispensation from canonical form — i.e., from the requirement that a bishop, priest or deacon receive the vows. If the attempted marriage was between two Catholics, find out whether the officiant was properly delegated by the Cardinal to witness this couple’s marriage. 

If a dispensation from canonical form or a proper delegation was secured, ask whether the couple had permission to marry on the streets of New York. If you can confirm that both the dispensation or delegation and the permission were granted by the bishop, then the couple followed these Church norms for properly celebrating a wedding, and — in that regard — deserve no blame. 

If the officiant was neither granted a dispensation from form nor delegated by the local ordinary, then, as I have stated, you likely are dealing with a couple who did not bring into existence a valid marriage. If this is the case, then although in the eyes of the Empire State, the couple might be civilly married, in the eyes of God, the Church and the natural law, the couple is not, in fact, married. Consequently, even if they are both Christians, their union is not a marriage and not a sacrament. 

At the same time, the couple likely believe they really got married and were doing something good. So, telling them they are not married and speaking with them about invalidating deficiencies in their wedding ceremony is likely to elicit defensiveness. So be sure to avoid all harshness and condescension and be careful to explain clearly the reasons for your concerns. 

Ask them first if they are willing to speak with you about their wedding. Acknowledge that they probably did not know the things that you are about to tell them. And let them know that you are willing — presuming you are indeed willing — to help them in any way you can. 

Then let them know that the Catholic Church requires, for good reasons, certain conditions to be met for a marriage to come into existence. Emphasize that the conditions are necessary and not merely optional. 

Tell them that one of the requirements is that, in the absence of a dispensation from canonical form or delegation by a local ordinary, an ordained minister must officiate at the wedding. Tell the couple that although you presume that the consecrated person was sincere and trying to do them right, he wasn’t properly authorized to witness their marriage. Explain that because authorization was necessary for a true marriage to come into existence, in its absence, an obstacle arose that blocked the marriage. 

Assure them (assuming they were free to marry in the first place) that their marriage can be validated (i.e., recognized in the Church). And advise them to contact their parish priest or their diocesan marriage tribunal for guidance as to how to proceed.  

In addition, since there are reasons to doubt that the couple have been well prepared for marriage, you should recommend that they undergo serious marriage preparation to ensure that they better understand the marital relationship they desire to begin and to avoid problems such as the ones they encountered in this painful situation. 

As for speaking to the officiant, he should be informed of his grievous error in agreeing to undertake such a grave responsibility without proper knowledge of what it entailed. And he should be admonished to repent for subjecting this couple to spiritual danger by leading them to believe they are validly married when in fact they are not. 

Finally, since the archbishop of New York may be unaware that this ceremony took place, I recommend that you inform him of what happened.