Since the Catholic faith teaches us that Jesus raised the natural institution of matrimony to the dignity of a sacrament, his Church has always been concerned that the marriages of Christian believers be celebrated in a way that promotes and safeguards that dignity. We find evidence of this pastoral concern from early on among Christian authors. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch recommends that Christian couples consult with their bishop before entering holy wedlock. A hundred years later, Tertullian would describe the beauty of Christian marriage and give us some hints of how believers ritually solemnized their nuptials.¹ Although no ritual texts from the earliest period have come down to us, it is clear that by the fourth century Christians celebrated their marriage in a religious way with the blessing of the Church’s minister.

Marriage, West and East

There is no indication, though, that the Church’s ritual, varied as it was from place to place, was considered a necessary condition for the marital bond to be established. As the theology of marriage developed in Western Catholicism under the influence of Roman law, it was gradually asserted that what created the spousal union was the consent of the parties. Hence the maxim consensus facit nuptias (“Consent makes the marriage”). Since it was the bride and groom themselves who gave and received each other’s marital consent, they were seen as the true ministers of the sacrament, but at the time no set formula was required to express that consent. The Church’s rites and the priest’s blessing were considered a great spiritual benefit, but they were not necessary for the sacramental bond to be realized.

The situation was different in the Christian East, where the priest’s crowning and blessing of the couple were considered essential for validity—as it is to this day. Emperor Leo VI made the observance of the liturgical rite obligatory. In the West, however, if a baptized couple chose to be married secretly, without any public celebration, ecclesiastical or otherwise, they would be considered truly married, but there was no way of proving or disproving the fact of marriage. It is not too hard to see the many problems that could result from these so-called clandestine marriages. The most authoritative attempt to suppress secret marriages was made in 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council, which prohibited priests from being involved in any clandestine marriage and decreed that before a marriage was contracted it should be publicly announced in the church (DS 817). Nevertheless, “many folk simply lived together and did not think it necessary to come to church.”²

Over three centuries later the Fathers of the Council of Trent addressed this issue at their 24th session (November 11, 1563). After asserting the Church’s authority to establish and dispense from diriment (i.e., nullifying) impediments to marriage (DS 1803-04), they issued a decree on the reform of matrimonial practice known by its opening Latin word Tametsi. The decree stated that before a given marriage was celebrated, the pastor of the contracting parties had to announce at Mass on three successive feast days their intention to marry. These announcements became known as the “banns of marriage.” Afterwards, the celebration of marriage was to be held publicly in the church (in facie Ecclesiae), during which the pastor questioned the man and woman regarding their consent before joining them in marriage (DS 1814). On the other hand, a couple would attempt marriage invalidly if they did not celebrate marriage in the presence of the pastor (or another priest with the permission of the pastor or the Ordinary) and at least two witnesses (DS 1816). The requirement that marriage could be contracted validly only in the presence of the parish priest and two witnesses became known as the “canonical form of marriage.”

Although Tametsi was a great advance, it did not solve every problem because the decree was binding only in those territories where it was promulgated, nor did it adequately spell out the priest’s role as the Church’s “qualified witness” to the parties’ consent. These difficulties were remedied in 1907 by the decree Ne temere, which required the canonical form for all Catholics or those who wished to marry a Catholic and stipulated that the priest must ask for and receive the consent of the parties. His mere presence at the wedding was not sufficient for validity. The requirement that this canonical form be observed for the validity of any marriage attempted by a Catholic became part of regular catechetical instruction. Thus, the Baltimore Catechism stated: “The ordinary law of the Church to be observed at the wedding of a Catholic is this: A Catholic can contract a true marriage only in the presence of an authorized priest and two witnesses” (Q. 298). A similar statement is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (Nos. 1630-31).

Current Law

The current law of the Church (1983 Code of Canon Law) lays down several general principles for the sacraments:

• The ordering and guidance of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church (can. 838, §1).
• Since the sacraments are the same throughout the universal Church and belong to the deposit of faith, only the supreme authority of the Church can approve and define what is needed for their validity (can. 841).
• The marriage of Catholics, even if only one party is a Catholic, is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law (can. 1059).

Everything that Church law stipulates concerning the necessary requirements for the valid and lawful celebration of Catholic marriage is based on these underlying principles.

Given the effect that matrimony has on the spouses themselves, their future children, and the wider ecclesial community, and in order to safeguard its sacramental nature, the Church has decreed the following based on her centuries-old experience: “Only those marriages are valid which are contracted in the presence of the local Ordinary, or pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who, in the presence of two witnesses, assists in accordance with the rules set out in the following canons” (can. 1108, §1; the canon also mentions several exceptions, which will be considered later). This canonical form of marriage “must be observed if at least one of the parties contracting the marriage was baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it” (can. 1117).

The first point to be noted is that we are dealing with a condition for validity. In other words, if the requirements of the canon are not met, then a marital bond is not considered to exist. Secondly, two categories of witnesses are required to be present. There must be a “qualified witness,” that is, an authorized minister, who is either the local Ordinary (e.g., diocesan bishop, vicar general), or the pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either the Ordinary or the pastor. Only the local Ordinary or the pastor of the place where the wedding takes place assists ex officio at the marriage. Any other minister must be delegated (i.e., authorized) by either of the above. Otherwise, he assists invalidly at the marriage.³ This authorized minister cannot be merely present but must “assist” in the way described in the next section of the canon. In addition, there must be two other witnesses capable of attesting to what has taken place.

The next section of the canon defines what the qualified witness must to do to assist validly: “Only that person who, being present, asks the contracting parties to manifest their consent and in the name of the Church receives it, is understood to assist at a marriage” (can. 1108, §2). The authorized minister must not be only physically present, he also has an active role to play: he must ask for and receive the consent of the couple in the name of the Church. In the current Order of Celebrating Matrimony (OCM), the minister asks the couple three questions and then says: “Since it is your intention to enter the covenant of Holy Matrimony, join your right hands and declare your consent before God and his Church” (OCM, 61, 95, 126). After they have expressed their consent, the minister accepts their consent in one of two forms which end, “what God joins together, let no one [may no one] put asunder” (OCM, 64, 98, 129; cf. Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9). If the minister does not ask for and receive the parties’ consent, the marriage is invalid.

Pope Francis’s motu proprio De Concordia inter Codices (May 31, 2016) adds a third section to this canon, which states: “Only the priest assists validly at the marriage between two Eastern parties or between a Latin party and Eastern Catholic or non-Catholic party” (can. 1108, §3). In Eastern theology and canon law, both Catholic and non-Catholic (i.e., Orthodox), the priest’s blessing of the couple is necessary for the validity of the sacrament. Therefore, an Eastern-rite wedding can never be celebrated by a deacon, and a Latin-rite marriage must be solemnized by a priest ad validitatem if one of the parties is an Eastern Christian.

Some Exceptions

We should now consider some exceptions or variations to the canonical form described above. Ordinarily, the canonical form must be observed for the validity of a marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic. However, if a Catholic marries an Eastern non-Catholic in an Eastern rite, the canonical form is required solely for lawfulness (ad liceitatem) not validity, provided that the ceremony is conducted by a priest and the other requirements of law are observed (can. 1127, §1).

In a mixed marriage between a Catholic and non-Catholic, sometimes a serious problem can arise in celebrating the wedding according to the canonical form. For instance, family members of the non-Catholic party may be so opposed to the Catholic faith that they would refuse to attend the wedding if it took place in a Catholic church or was celebrated by a Catholic priest. In these situations, “the local Ordinary of the Catholic party has the right to dispense from [the canonical form] in individual cases, having however consulted the Ordinary of the place of the celebration; for validity, some public form of celebration is required” (can. 1127, §2).⁴ In any mixed marriage, however, it is forbidden to have more than one religious celebration, or for the Catholic and non-Catholic minister to jointly ask for the couple’s consent: “It is forbidden to have, either before or after the canonical celebration in accordance with §1, another religious celebration of the same marriage for the purpose of giving consent. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic assistant and non-Catholic minister, each performing their own rite, together ask for the consent of the parties” (can. 1127, §3). Since it is the mutual consent of the parties that creates the marriage bond, once that consent has been given the couple is married. Giving consent a second time would be simulating the sacrament.

Another exception to the usual canonical form can occur where there are neither priests nor deacons who can assist at marriage. In that case, “the diocesan Bishop can delegate lay persons to assist at marriages, if the Bishops’ Conference has given its prior approval and the permission of the Holy See has been obtained” (can. 1112, §1). These lay people should be “capable of giving instruction to those who are getting married, and able to conduct the marriage liturgy properly” (can. 1112, §2). The Canadian Bishops’ Conference has allowed lay people to witness marriages in all the dioceses of Canada. In the United States, the Bishops’ Conference has given its approval and the Holy See’s permission has been obtained. However, to the best of this author’s knowledge, the practice has been implemented solely in the Ecclesiastical Province of Anchorage-Juneau (i.e., the Archdiocese of Anchorage-Juneau and the Diocese of Fairbanks, AK). It must be remembered that this permission does not apply if one of the parties is an Eastern Christian, either Catholic or non-Catholic. In that case, the priestly blessing is always required ad validitatem.

The last exception is the so-called “extraordinary form of marriage.” If a couple intends to enter into a true marriage, and a person who is competent to assist according to law cannot be present or cannot be reached without grave inconvenience, that couple can contract marriage in the presence of witnesses alone: 1) in danger of death; or 2) if it is prudently foreseen that the absence of a competent minister will continue for a month (can. 1116, §1). However, if a sacred minister, although lacking the proper faculty, can be present, he should be called upon to witness the marriage along with the other witnesses (can.1116, §2). Nevertheless, the marriage is still valid even if he is not present. This “extraordinary form” for certain urgent circumstances “attempts to honor the natural right to marry while preserving the public character of marriage.”⁵

Reasons—Law and Liturgy

To conclude this summary treatment of the necessary form of Catholic marriage, it would be good to consider the reasons for this law given in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Although the scourge of clandestine marriages was the original motive for requiring a canonical form, the greater reason is that the “presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality” (No. 1630). More particularly:

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the “I do” once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it. (No. 1631)

Since her earliest days, the Church has accompanied couples who wish to enter the sacred covenant of Matrimony. The canonical form of marriage is an essential element of the Church’s pastoral care for those who seek to live this holy vocation.

1. See the discussion in Kenneth Stevenson, Nuptial Blessing: A Study of Christian Marriage Rites (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), 13-19.
2. Kenneth W. Stevenson, To Join Together: The Rite of Marriage (New York: Pueblo Publishing, 1987), 28.
3. Canon 1111 stipulates to whom the Ordinary or pastor may grant this delegation and how the delegating is to be done. It should be kept in mind that a deacon may never be delegated to assist at a marriage in which one of the parties is an Eastern Catholic or an Eastern non-Catholic. Moreover, canon 144 makes provision for situations in which there may be error or doubt about the minister’s authorization. Space does not allow us to consider those situations here.
4. The local Ordinary can dispense from the canonical form only if one of the parties is non-Catholic. The one exception is danger of death. In that case the local Ordinary, or the sacred minister authorized to celebrate the marriage if the Ordinary cannot be reached, may dispense two Catholics from observing the canonical form (can. 1079, §§1, 2.)
5. John P. Beal et al., New Commentary of the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), 1334.