If a transgender man and transgender woman marry in church, wearing the attire of their original gender, but are to live together as ‘man and wife’ in reversed roles, isn’t that something that could breach Canon Law, or could set a precedent’?
That question arises in light of the recent wedding of a transgender man and a transgender woman in Dapitan City, officiated by a Catholic priest, who reportedly agreed to wed them if they dress up in their original biological gender, i.e., the trans man (originally female) wears the wedding gown, and vice versa.
The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines’ (CBCP) Episcopal Commission on Canon Law said the reported church wedding of a transgender man and a transgender woman in Dapitan City does not set a precedent, stressing that only a proper canonical process can determine whether a marriage is valid.
The CBCP Commission clarified that it has neither conducted nor been asked to conduct a canonical investigation into the wedding at Saint James the Greater Parish in Dapitan City.
Executive Secretary Rev. Msgr. Raul T. Go, on behalf of Commission Chairman Bishop Nolly C. Buco, said their response was limited to explaining the applicable principles of the Code of Canon Law, the primary legal code of the Catholic Church, rather than judging the validity of the marriage.
‘Such a determination belongs to the competent ecclesiastical authority after a careful examination of the relevant facts and circumstances,’ the Commission told the BusinessMirror.
Tisha Marie Amal, who publicly identifies as a transgender man, and Ronnie Enderez, who publicly identifies as a transgender woman, were married at the parish in what church officials described as the first such wedding in its history.
The Canon Law defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman, and requires both parties to possess the canonical capacity to marry and freely exchange valid matrimonial consent.
The Catholic Church does not allow same-sex marriage.
Still, the Commission said publicly identifying as transgender does not, by itself, create a canonical impediment to marriage.
‘The Code of Canon Law does not establish a specific impediment merely because a person publicly identifies as transgender,’ it said.
‘If, in fact, the parties are a biological man and a biological woman, the requirement that marriage be between a man and a woman is, at least, prima facie satisfied,’ it said.
Rather than focusing on a person’s public self-identification, the Commission said the Catholic Church’s law examines whether either party has the legal capacity to contract marriage and assume its essential obligations.
It said questions involving a person’s capacity cannot be settled through media reports alone but requires evidence and, when appropriate, the assistance of qualified psychological or psychiatric experts.
The Commission also rejected the view that the Dapitan City wedding could serve as a precedent for similar marriages.
‘Unlike some civil legal systems, the Canon Law does not treat the celebration of one marriage as creating a binding precedent for future cases,’ the Commission said.
Instead, each proposed marriage is evaluated individually under the universal law of the Church and according to the circumstances of the parties involved.
While the Canon Law already provides the Church’s legal framework on marriage, the Commission said any future pastoral guidance would only help pastors apply existing norms consistently and ‘would not alter the Church’s doctrine on marriage.’