I cannot understand how any moral person could justify a priest getting married under any circuмstances whether for immigration, financial or pragmatic reasons.

It is an outright fraud and a complete abuse and scandal.

I cannot understand how any moral person could justify a priest getting married under any circuмstances whether for immigration, financial or pragmatic reasons.

It is an outright fraud and a complete abuse and scandal.

We know that a Catholic's marriage status is determined by the Church and not by the state.  So, for instance, the state considers as "married" lots of people who are in fact living in sin.  Because we do not live in a Catholic state, there's a disconnect.  And married couples are punished financially by this ungodly state as well.

So, for instance, if a married couple has $22,000 in itemized deductions, you can't itemize it due to the $24,000 standard deduction (unless you want to lose money).  But, if you were to divorce on paper, the husband could itemize the $22,000 while the wife takes the $12,000 standard deduction, yielding $34,000 in deductions ... vs. $24,000 if they filed as a couple.  Even if you do not file jointly, the tax code forbids one spouse from itemizing while the other takes the standard deduction.

We had a couple next door who had no children and who were renting.  So they effectively got $0 in itemized deductions and only took the small standard deduction.  Thanks to Trump, they suddenly got $24,000 in deductions (due to the standard).  Meanwhile, I got like a $50 break on my taxes ... since they took away that tax deductions for children (although they increased the credit ... leading to it being a wash for me, while this DINC couple next door got an extra $12,000 or so in deductions).  These scuм that run and control the government have been trying to destroy the family for generations now.

If you don't agree with +Fulham getting a paper marriage, that's fine, but to jump to the conclusion that he's in hell and that it's some horribly grave sin ... you absolutely cannot do that without knowing the facts.  If he had been kicked out of the U.S., then his flock wold have been abandoned.  After his death, they closed the church down, sold it, and gave many of the religious items to Bishop Sanborn's group.  So that kind of spiritual need could justify the civil fiction.  I have no problems with perpetrating a legal fiction to this ungodly Judaeo-Masonic state that is actively trying to destroy families and souls.  In fact, all the fake marriages that are considered real by the state are also nothing more than legal fictions.  So the state's approach to marriage is a fraud, and there's no requirement to be honest with a fraudulent system like that.

Is it possible that something really bad was going on here?  Perhaps.  But, even then, if there were some immoral relations taking place, why bother to get a civil marriage paper ... since you can fornicate just fine without that.  In any case, if +Fulham did commit some sins, let us pity him and pray for his soul ... instead of spewing judgmental venom that serves no other purposes.  As Our Lord said, we need to avoid being poisoned by the leaven of the Pharisees.

Uhm, you answered your own question.  MOST Traditional priests either operate in their country of birth/citizenship ... or else belong to some organization.  Bishop Fulham was not a native U.S. citizen (was from the UK) AND he was not operating as part of an organization.  As for whether he should have done this or not, that's open to debate of course ... but to suggest that the mere existence of this docuмent proves mortal sin of some kind, that's reaching beyond what this proves.  There have been several priests I know who were forced out of the U.S. after they broke ties with their organization.

You haven't answered this question. How many other foreign priests have done this for the sake of immigration? How many other independent priests have done this for the sake of health care? If Bishop Fulham is the first or only, then why? Probably because it's scandalous, fraud, and therefore immoral. Because let's face it, we're focused on the morality of a priest getting a civil marriage for pragmatic reasons, but a lot of people are still going to wonder if he was enjoying other benefits of marriage as well. It's a legitimate concern, when it comes to light that a priest is married. That's precisely why priests shouldn't pretend to get married to any extent, on paper or in reality.

Isn't that what some liberals on Fisheaters said a few years ago? It became public that the divorced owner and a divorced member of her forum got civilly married. Some said "oh, but we shouldn't assume they're sleeping together or living like married people." What about the scandal of two divorced people being civilly married to someone who is not their true spouse? That's scandalous enough.
A priest shouldn't be married to anyone. Civilly, inside or outside the True Church. Any level of marriage for a priest is an absolute scandal. That's what Martin Luther did, married a nun, remember? And this was in Florida. There is no obscure law or pragmatic reason why a priest would need to get married, on the books, technically, or otherwise.
Please suggest a law or circuмstance that would morally allow a priest in America to get married, even a sham or civil marriage, so I can verify if it might be true.

Eastern rite priests are allowed to be married, if they are married before their ordination.
Not commenting on the case in the OP

In the East, though, it's not permitted for bishops still, I think.

That's correct.I was'nt trying to really defend this situation.  Just responding to what somebody said

He was married to the CMRI Sister from Mount Saint Michael's?????  She's the one that left with him when he went to Florida.

I have to say, this doesn't sound good.  However, as others have noted here, this may have been an exceptional case where they entered into a legal marriage for temporal benefits, and did not live as husband and wife.  I would certainly hope not.  However, one thing that is getting lost in all this --- did +Bishop Fulham ever tell anyone about this?  Did he or the sister make any effort to keep it hidden?

We will all probably do well to give them the benefit of the doubt, think the best of both of them, and be done with the matter.  I never knew +Bishop Fulham and never visited that particular chapel --- I did visit SMA in Jacksonville when, IIRC, Fr Roberts served there, I took a road trip to Florida one long weekend --- but I have no reason to think badly of him.

I can't believe  people  are  trying to  defend  him but it has solidified  my decision  to  avoid  resistence  chapels 

Are you high? Bishop Fulham wasn't connected with the resistance at all. He was ordained by a South American bishop, probably sedevacantist and or thuc line. He was an independent priest. Resistance priests were all formed at a professional seminary and ordained by a Lefebvre line bishop. Completely different.
Yes, the resistance is a small group. But they're not really in the same category as the typical independent priest. We know the background of every last one of the resistance priests. They are not mystery meat.

Well, Bishop Fulham did get part of his training at SSPX seminary and part at CMRI.  So, he was professionally trained.  But you are correct that there's some fog around his Orders ... I thought that there was some Duarte Costa connection.  But, no, not even close to being Resistance.

I was at SSPX seminary at the same time he was, and his departure from this life reminds me of my own mortality and impending judgment.