Case LXXXVI: Misconduct Before Marriage

Case.—In our diocese the rule is established to have marriages celebrated with nuptial Mass. A certain pastor is troubled at the frequency of pre-nuptial misconduct and consequent scandals in his parish, and is exercised about stopping them; so he decides upon having no nuptial Mass in future if any such misconduct has preceded the proposed marriage. He announces this publicly in church, and adds that a written assurance must be given him that no misconduct has taken place (meaning, of course, fornication) between the parties wishing to be married; otherwise there will be no nuptial Mass, and everyone will then understand (he adds) the reason why. The nuptial Mass is, of course, very much prized in the parish, and the non-celebration of it at any marriage would be looked upon as a degradation. The pastor finds this his last resource in the matter and holds’ that the end justifies this means.

Solution.—The principle that the end justifies the means is a pernicious one, when the means are evil, unjust, etc. In the present case we cannot see any justification for the use of the means employed. It is the wish of the Church that all her children receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony should have a nuptial Mass. She desires that they be encouraged, not discouraged, in so holy a practice. In these days when worldliness is on the increase and our young people show a tendency to follow the fashions of a worldly society, it is all the more imperative upon the clergy to insist upon a nuptial Mass, and not to make it more difficult or even impossible for the people to obtain this special blessing of God upon their marriage. The action of the pastor in question does make it more difficult for all, and impossible for some, to submit to the wishes of the Church in this respect. Moreover, such a decree will tend to create a habit of marrying without a nuptial Mass, which sooner or later will spring into a deep-rooted custom. When his people see many such marriages celebrated, they will lose their desire for nuptial Masses and content themselves with the simpler and less expensive ceremony. The fact that sin has been committed can never deprive a couple of the right that is theirs of receiving the nuptial blessing. They can confess their sins and receive absolution and thus receive the Sacrament of Matrimony in the state of grace. Surely no one in the state of grace should be driven away from the special blessings of God; and who stand more in need of these blessings than those who, through weakness, have fallen into pre-matrimonial sin? Their difficulties in married life are usually greater, and hence they have more need of God’s blessing. Again, we must not forget that their sin is a secret one, which does not necessarily cost them their reputation. They have a strict right to that reputation, and no one, not even their pastor, is justified in ruining that reputation. But this is the inevitable result of the pastor’s attitude. His action proclaims their sin and the ultimate consequence of this is scandal to the parishioners, and a hatred of the Church and of her laws is engendered in the hearts of those who are refused the nuptial Mass. The day would soon come when his people would seek marriage outside the church, if possible. The Church obliges us to confess our sins privately; this pastor obliges his people to confess publicly. Moreover, innocent people are compelled to make a statement that must be most humiliating, and that in their case serves no purpose whatever. Sinners are driven to make lying statements to save their reputation. Dissatisfaction and more intolerable evils can only come from this practice. We hold that the attitude of the pastor is unjustifiable.