Sir - The guideline on the Family Law Act which I wrote, and which were circulated to the priests of the Archdiocese of Cashel and Emly, are all about implementing the regulations of the Family law Act, not about Flouting them. They explain, in detail, how the Act is to be implemented and forewarn the priests about possible pitfalls, stressing that they affect the civil validity of the marriage, that they apply to all marriages, even of those from abroad, and that notification must be sent to the correct registrar (who may be different for different churches within the same parish).
They go on to explain how, if the notice is not given in time, an exemption can be granted by the court. They explain in detail which court is the appropriate one, what is its address, phone and fax number, when the courts next sit, and supply a sample application form for a court exemption.
The guidelines also face the pastoral problem of what to do if the three months's notice was not given and no court is available, because they are in recess. You cannot, for practical reasons expect people to cancel the wedding at short notice, forfeit their hotel, photographer, honeymoon and travel costs, and rebook the whole lot three months later. Neither, for religious reasons, can you tell them to go ahead with the celebrations, have a sinful honeymoon and inaugurate a state of sinful concubinage.
The practical pastoral advice offered as to go ahead with the marriage as planned, which will be perfectly valid in the eyes of God and of the Church, send them on a happy and blessed honeymoon, and remedy the civil invalidity later. This can be done very simply by repeating a minimal "civil marriage", after the notice has been given or the court exemption obtained.
One should note that the Family Law Act does not prohibit or criminalise marriages where the three months' notice was not given: it simply says that "they shall not be valid in law".
My personal opposition to the new regulations, and my description of them as "stupid" and "tomfoolery", were not contained in the guidelines issued to the priests, only in my conversation with your reporter, but I shall be happy to debate them with any of your correspondents. In summary, my views are that the new laws are objectionble because, inter alia, they are penal laws, contrary to Articles 41 and 44 of the Irish Constitution, contrary to Article 12 of the European Convention on Human, Rights, an intrusion on the sovereignty of other states, in, violation of Canon Law in several points, and draconian, inflexible and purposeless. - Yours, etc.,
Loughmore,
Co Tipperary.