THE Archbishop of Cashel and Emly has averted a political clash by insisting that guidelines to his priests on how to conduct weddings are "very much" a temporary measure.
Before Dr Dermot Clifford's explanation yesterday, a number of politicians in Leinster House had voiced grave disquiet at the guidelines circulated to 120, priests, advising them to conduct, wedding ceremonies even when" they knew the marriages were invalid in the eyes of the law.
Couples marrying on or since August 1st must under the Family Law Act, 1995, give three months notice to the district registrar of marriages. Failure to do so means the civil marriage is invalid unless a court exemption has been procured.
The pastoral guidelines issued in the Cashel and Emly archdiocese advise that the regulations on notification are in conflict with canon law.
According to the archbishop's advice, if it has proved impossible to get the necessary exemption priests may proceed with the church wedding, "assuring the couple that this is the real marriage, perfectly valid in the eyes of God and of the church, and see to remedying of the civil invalidity (civil convalidation) later on".
However, Dr Clifford told RTE Radio yesterday the guidelines were meant only to facilitate people who had come from abroad and did not know about the new law. It would be hard to deny them the sacraments.
He confirmed that the church would comply absolutely with the civil law, adding he was optimistic that the latest pastoral advice to his priests could be rescinded shortly.
Mr Alan Shatter of Fine Gael said that, while welcoming the news that the guidelines would be changed, he was worried that couples would continue to be wed in church if their civil marriages were not in order.
"It is legally very dangerous for the church to celebrate marriages that they know to be invalid. The archbishop seems to be of the view that there are circumstances where marriage should proceed irrespective of the civil law " Mr Shatter said.
He was "astonished" that no uniform guidelines were issued by the church, to be applied by all priests in relation to the prior notice provisions of the 1995 Act.
The leader of the Progressive Democrats, Ms Mary Harney, advised that the church and State authorities enter discussions to draw up "formal arrangements" on how the issue should be handled. The implications for the property and inheritance rights of couples who may be married in the eyes of the church but not of the State was a matter of major concern, she added.
Mr Joe Costello TD (Labour) said he was amazed that the arch bishop should offer advice to priests that could have a serious impact for couples in terms of loss of rights under the civil law.
Mr Shatter also called on the Minister for Equality and Law Reform, Mr Taylor, to amend the law to address other difficulties that had arisen, "including the possible invalidity of pre August 1st orders made granting exemptions from the three month prior notice requirement".
It is understood that up to 100 court exemptions were granted to couples during July, which allowed them to go ahead with their weddings without waiting for the three month notice period to pass.
However, senior sources in the Department of Equality and Law Reform insisted that the court exemptions would stand up to scrutiny. The Minister was advised by the Attorney General, Mr Dermot Gleeson, that while the Family Law Act did not come into effect until August 1st, a provision of the Interpretation Act, 1937, meant that the exemptions could be granted before that date.
Fianna Fail's equality and law reform spokesman, Dr Michael Woods, also called on the Government to accept an amendment proposed by his party to the Family Law Act. This measure would provide that the three months notice would not apply to marriages solemnised between August 1st and December.
. Couples seeking exemption from the three month notification requirement can apply to the Circuit Family Court office or the High Court office in the area where the marriage will take place.
The application must be mad by both parties and it is not necessary to retain a solicitor.