Case XXXV: May a Catholic Girl Act as Bridesmaid at a Non-Catholic Marriage?

Bertha in Confession asks her confessor if it would be sinful for her to act as bridesmaid for her friend Stella, who is a Protestant, about to marry a Protestant, and in a Protestant church. The confessor replies that in his opinion Bertha would not sin, inasmuch as the contracting parties' action is not sinful, scl., marrying coram ministro; and, since the contracting parties are the ministri, Bertha is only a witness to the contract, and, strictly speaking, does not take part in heretical services any more than the other friends present to see Stella married. The witnesses take no part actively in the religious ceremony—they are only passive witnesses to it. However, the confessor advises Bertha that it is not expedient for her to act as bridesmaid, since it might possibly give scandal, and she promises not to do so.

Afterward, in discussing the case with some brother priests, the confessor is condemned for his opinion that Bertha would not sin; on the contrary, it is asserted that the confessor would have done wrong to give Bertha absolution in the event of her refusing to follow his advice. It was asserted that a case was referred to a certain seminary faculty, where a young lady wished to act as bridesmaid for Protestants; and it was alleged that a negative was given, and absolution forbidden if she did so.

It was also stated that in Germany, in some dioceses, it would be excommunication to act as witnesses to a Protestant marriage. The confessor still maintains his opinion that absolution is not to be denied if the penitent persists in her design of acting. And he maintains that as the other friends are not held in these parts to commit any sin in going to the church to witness the wedding in pews, so Bertha, a more prominent witness, is taking no more real part in heretical worship than they in the body of the church.

The principle which governs the solution of this case is the principle laid down by all theologians, that it is not lawful for Catholics to take part in a false worship. If acting as bridesmaid at a non- Catholic wedding in a non-Catholic church in this country is considered a "communicatio in divinis," then it is not lawful for a Catholic to act in such capacity. If, however, acting as bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding in a non-Catholic church—in the United States—is not generally considered a "communicatio in divinis," then it may be lawful for a Catholic to act as such, provided it does not become unlawful for some other reason, v. g., on account of the scandal it might occasion, or the danger of perversion, or because it has been forbidden by the statutes of the diocese.

About the principle that it is not lawful for a Catholic to take part in a false worship, there is no dispute. The difficulty lies in determining whether the case before us comes under the principle.

We do not deny that in a very special case it might be evidently unlawful for a Catholic to act as bridesmaid at a non-Catholic marriage, because such conduct could scarcely be viewed in any other light than as a "communicatio in divinis," owing to the distinctly religious coloring given to the ceremony by the religious opinions of the contracting parties and the officiating minister. But the case before us is this: Is the marriage of non-Catholics in this country, though performed by a minister and in a Protestant church, generally looked upon as a religious rite, or is it considered merely as a civil contract? The mere fact that a marriage is performed by a minister of the Gospel, or in a Protestant church, does not make it a religious rite. It is made a religious rite by the beliefs and intentions of the contracting parties and the minister, as well as of the religious denomination to which they belong, and the view that the public takes of it. If these perform it as a religious rite, and view it as such, then indeed it becomes a religious rite, and consequently a false worship. If, however, they do not consider it or perform it as a religious rite, then the mere fact that it is performed by a preacher, or in a non-Catholic church, does not constitute it a religious rite. The question, therefore, is reduced to this: Are non-Catholic marriages in this country looked upon, either by the parties contracting them or by the religious denomination to which such parties belong, or by the community generally, as a religious rite?

To this question American theologians answer in the negative. Non-Catholic marriages in the United States, although performed by a minister in a Protestant church, are not looked upon, as a general rule, as anything else than a civil proceeding, a serious social contract.

Archbishop Kenrick (Th. Mor. tr. XIII. n. 33) says: “To be present at the celebration of a wedding is generally regarded as a mark of courtesy toward the spouses without the heretical rite being approved.”

Father Konings (I. n. 254) says:

“Kenrick likewise says that it is not a sin to be present with others at the celebration of a wedding contracted before a heretical minister, since this is generally regarded not as approval of a heretical rite but as a mark of courtesy toward the spouses. Whether the same can be said of those who on this occasion perform the office of paranymph (groomsman or bridesmaid), I leave to wiser men to decide; much in this matter must be attributed to the common estimation prevailing among the people, for what is judged to be merely civil courtesy, with no participation whatever in a heretical rite, cannot be regarded as a profession of false religion.”

Father Sabetti, S.J., (Am. Eccl. Rev. June, 1890) says: “The same solution must be given concerning attendance at a marriage; for an action of this kind is regarded among us as a merely civil office and a sign of friendship. Nor should the circumstance that Veronica acted the part of the principal assisting girl (first bridesmaid) cause any difficulty; for those girls are ordinarily chosen for such an office who, on the one hand, are more suited to fulfill it by reason of age and civil condition, and, on the other, are borne toward the bride by greater friendship and a closer bond of goodwill. This shows that according to our customs an office of this kind is not regarded as religious and does not entail any participation in worship.”

That the vast majority of non-Catholics in the United States look upon the marriage contract as a purely civil contract, possessing no sacramental or religious character, is a statement that hardly admits of question. All legislation concerning it is handed over to the State, and the minister performing the ceremony considers himself as acting for and in the name of the State, and marries all persons, who are allowed by the State to contract marriage, whether they belong to his particular religious denomination or another, or to no denomination at all. He marries believers and unbelievers alike, baptized and unbaptized, only solicitous that they be authorized by the civil law to marry. "The fact that weddings are usually ratified in a church is due partially to a traditional instinct which retains the solemnity of a sacred function for an act regarded merely as a grave social and civil contract" (Am. Ecc. Rev., Vol. vi., p. 465).

European theologians take a somewhat stricter view of this question, influenced, no doubt, by conditions of society obtaining in Europe.

Thus Genicot, SJ. (I., n. 200), says: “Moreover, one must abstain from those functions which involve recognition of a sect, for example, the office of a witness who lends authority to the marriage contract.”

Lehmkuhl (I. 295) says: “But to attend the wedding or burial of a non-Catholic, since it is regarded merely as a civil honor, is commonly lawful.

Nevertheless, even in these actions attention must be paid to whether, because of the circumstances, scandal, danger of perversion, or a special prohibition is present.”

Ballerini-Palmieri (n. 96) says: “Is it lawful for Catholics to attend the weddings of heretics, which the heretics celebrate validly indeed, but before a heretical minister and with a heretical rite? A distinction must be made between those who are simply present and those who, performing the office of witnesses, lend authority to the contract. For the latter communicate with heretics in their sacred affair and implicitly recognize the authority of that sect and its ministers, which, as we have said, is not lawful.”

It may be interesting to quote an author of as long ago as Lugo, though times and conditions have undergone vast changes since his day. Lugo, in his tract on faith (no. 157), says about acting as groomsman or bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding:

“Thirdly, it may be doubted whether a Catholic may not only lawfully attend the weddings of heretics, but also in the same cases perform the office of paranymph, when paranymphs are used at the solemnities, who customarily conduct the spouses to the churches. I answer from what has been said that one must consider what the office of the paranymph is, who is called a pronubus by others and an auspex by the ancients. If it belongs to him only to hand the bride over to the groom, or conversely, after they have been lawfully joined, nothing unlawful appears in that office, since it is a merely civil action. But if his office is, as it were, to bring the spouses to the minister so that he may join them, then he seems to participate in the rites by which the heretical minister joins them, to have recourse to him as a minister of the Church, and to approve his ministry, which is unlawful.”

In the year 1719, the Propaganda laid down the general rule for missionaries, “that communication in sacred things with heretics and schismatics is regularly to be regarded in practice as unlawful, either because of the danger of perversion in the Catholic faith, or because of the danger of participation in a heretical and schismatic rite, or finally because of the danger and occasion of scandal.”

On May 10, 1770, the Congregation of the Holy Office answered, “His Holiness decreed that Catholics are not regularly permitted to attend the sermons, baptisms, or marriages of heretics or schismatics.”

We are inclined to think, therefore, that as far as the United States is concerned, non-Catholic weddings are not, as a rule, religious affairs, but rather mere civil contracts, and to assist at them or to act as groomsman or bridesmaid is not a "communicatio in divinis," and is not, therefore, on these grounds, unlawful for Catholics. In a given instance, as we have remarked above, a non-Catholic marriage may be a religious rite, and, in that case, it would not be lawful for Catholics to take part in them as groomsman or bridesmaid.

But on other grounds it may be unlawful for Catholics to act as groomsman or bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding, namely, where such conduct would give scandal or create danger for the Catholic's faith, or where it has been forbidden by the diocesan authorities. And as these dangers may exist in any given case, each case should be considered on its own individual merits.

Where there is a good reason for a Catholic girl, for instance, to act as bridesmaid at a non-Catholic wedding, and where the marriage ceremony can not be considered a sacred rite, and where no scandal is given and no risk taken for her faith, a priest in the United States is justified in permitting such a girl to take part in the wedding, and would scarcely act wisely in refusing her absolution, if she would not promise not to take part.

But where there is no serious reason for a Catholic girl to act as bridesmaid at such a marriage, and where she may decline without serious inconvenience to herself and to others, we think it the part of prudence for a confessor or pastor to induce her to decline.