Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

 

There is a difference between "legal" and "valid." Assuming the couple got a marriage license, the marriage may be recognized by the various states and by the IRS when filing taxes, but that is different than "valid." Even I, as a non-Catholic, understand that principle.

 

Interesting. When I (a non-Catholic) was married to a Catholic in the LA Archdiocese, the priest explained the need for a dispensation, and presumably we got one. (I say presumably because I never saw any documents.) However, I was married at least a decade before you were.

 

For some reason, my multiple quotes got messed up. The first paragraph is my response to little2add's comment. The second comment was in response to jcorsetti's post. I have no clue why my comments showed up as quotes from little2add.

@dUSt  Am I breaking the phorum yet?  

Edited September 10, 2015 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[little2add]

There is no technically about it. If canonical form is violated by those bound to it, the marriage is invalid. Both naturally and sacramentally, no marriage exists, period.

Let me ask you something?

If your niece was getting married, not in a church building and you were invited to a nondenominational ceremony, would you attend?  Would you buy a gift for her baby shower when the couple start a family?

 

I believe Catholics should be married in a church, don’t get me wrong.   Practicing the sacrament of holy matrimony not only blesses the union if fulfills a covenant with the generations before you and generations yet to come.

 

In my opinion the young couple today are short changing themselves by denying they parents grandparents, extended family members, future generations and each other the lack of commitment.

 

To answer my question:  Yes I would attend the ceremony and would wish the couple well in their life together.   I would pray for them and their offspring too.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

Let me ask you something?

 

If your niece was getting married, not in a church building and you were invited to a nondenominational ceremony, would you attend?  Would you buy a gift for her baby shower when the couple start a family?

 

 

 

I believe Catholics should be married in a church, don’t get me wrong.   Practicing the sacrament of holy matrimony not only blesses the union if fulfills a covenant with the generations before you and generations yet to come.

 

 

 

In my opinion the young couple today are short changing themselves by denying they parents grandparents, extended family members, future generations and each other the lack of commitment.

 

 

 

To answer my question: 

Yes

I would attend the ceremony and would wish the couple well in their life together.   I would pray for them and their offspring too.

 

 

Is the neice or her fiance Catholic? If so, that marriage is invalid. Period. Whether or not I attend is immaterial.

[little2add]

The National Vital Statistics System estimates that there were 2,118,000 marriages celebrated in the United States in 2011. Only 163,775 marriages were celebrated in U.S. Catholic churches. That is just 7.7 percent of all marriages.  Catholics make up nearly a quarter of the population and are no less likely to marry than those of other affiliations. “This means “that Catholics marrying these days are just as likely...to celebrate their marriages at the beach or country club than in their parish.”

 

 

Is the neice or her fiance Catholic? If so, that marriage is invalid. Period. Whether or not I attend is immaterial.

so you condem 92.3 % of all marriages celebrated in the U.S. Or just the 25% who are catholic out of the 92.3

Edited September 11, 2015 by little2add

[Nihil Obstat]

 

 

so you condem 92.3 % of all marriages celebrated in the U.S. Or just the 25% who are catholic out of the 92.3

Only Catholics are bound to observe canonical form. Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages.

 

 

so you condem 92.3 % of all marriages celebrated in the U.S. Or just the 25% who are catholic out of the 92.3

Only Catholics are bound to observe canonical form. Non Catholics can and do contract valid natural marriages.

[Lilllabettt]

call me cynical. I think relatively few of the Catholics who want to marry at the zoo or wherever, instead of in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, actually have the ingredients between them necessary to confect a valid sacramental marriage to begin with. 

They end up divorced, and if they ever wise up, the invalid form is an automatic get-out-of-jail free card for that "marriage." Make it so marrying outside of a church isn't a no-no and these people will have to go through the long sweaty process of proving their marriage wasn't valid. Didn't we just do a thing about making annulments easier to get?

pick a lane, catholic church.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

call me cynical. I think relatively few of the Catholics who want to marry at the zoo or wherever, instead of in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, actually have the ingredients between them necessary to confect a valid sacramental marriage to begin with. 

They end up divorced, and if they ever wise up, the invalid form is an automatic get-out-of-jail free card for that "marriage." Make it so marrying outside of a church isn't a no-no and these people will have to go through the long sweaty process of proving their marriage wasn't valid. Didn't we just do a thing about making annulments easier to get?

pick a lane, catholic church.

Then their problems go far deeper than the putative marriage in question. The state of their souls becomes the far more pressing question, and no annulment 'reforms' or tweaking of canons is doing them any good.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

call me cynical. I think relatively few of the Catholics who want to marry at the zoo or wherever, instead of in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, actually have the ingredients between them necessary to confect a valid sacramental marriage to begin with. 

They end up divorced, and if they ever wise up, the invalid form is an automatic get-out-of-jail free card for that "marriage." Make it so marrying outside of a church isn't a no-no and these people will have to go through the long sweaty process of proving their marriage wasn't valid. Didn't we just do a thing about making annulments easier to get?

pick a lane, catholic church.

Then their problems go far deeper than the putative marriage in question. The state of their souls becomes the far more pressing question, and no annulment 'reforms' or tweaking of canons is doing them any good.

Basically, the problem is that most soi-disant Catholics have no faith. Not that the rules are too hard. They are not.

[Lilllabettt]

 

Then their problems go far deeper than the putative marriage in question. The state of their souls becomes the far more pressing question, and no annulment 'reforms' or tweaking of canons is doing them any good.

Basically, the problem is that most soi-disant Catholics have no faith. Not that the rules are too hard. They are not.

ding ding ding we have a winner.

my point exactly.

changing the rules in order to catch more people isn't productive. They're not following the rule because they don't give a care. Not because they don't know or its too hard.

[Nihil Obstat]

 

ding ding ding we have a winner.

my point exactly.

changing the rules in order to catch more people isn't productive. They're not following the rule because they don't give a care. Not because they don't know or its too hard.

Then we are in agreement.

[little2add]

there are a lot of "paper catholic", now-a-days.  

[Maggyie]

Well that's the thing, I don't think "they are going to get divorced any way so why bother tweaking canon law" is an effective response.

There are relatively few touch points where people who aren't religious turn to the church: when they are married, when their children are baptized, and when there is a death. Even if they are not properly formed Christians (and 9/10 times they won't be) the best way to correct the situation is to draw them closer at these touch points. A person who is essentially told "if you insist on getting married in a garden you probably don't have what it takes to attempt Catholic marriage anyway" is not going to bother bringing the children in for baptism. 

By the way it is not a canonical requirement to be married in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Weddings take place in chapels that don't have the sacrament reserved, all the time. In fact the canons specifically allow the marriage to take place "in another suitable place" besides the parish church with permission of the bishop. The canons are actually quite flexible but they are being applied inflexibly.

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

You can't bow before the king unless you meet him. Introduce the king to the so called paper catholics. Give them the time and there will be fruit, don't take the time to show them jesus and there will be no change, ever, no matter how much cannon law is changed or tweeked, stop leaving everything up to the magesterium and do the work yourself, this is vatican two, laymen rise up from your slumber.

"Arise sleeper awake from amongst the dead and christ will enlighten thee!"

God is good.

Jesus iz LORD!

[Benedictus]

Well that's the thing, I don't think "they are going to get divorced any way so why bother tweaking canon law" is an effective response.

There are relatively few touch points where people who aren't religious turn to the church: when they are married, when their children are baptized, and when there is a death. Even if they are not properly formed Christians (and 9/10 times they won't be) the best way to correct the situation is to draw them closer at these touch points. A person who is essentially told "if you insist on getting married in a garden you probably don't have what it takes to attempt Catholic marriage anyway" is not going to bother bringing the children in for baptism. 

By the way it is not a canonical requirement to be married in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament. Weddings take place in chapels that don't have the sacrament reserved, all the time. In fact the canons specifically allow the marriage to take place "in another suitable place" besides the parish church with permission of the bishop. The canons are actually quite flexible but they are being applied inflexibly.

 

Plus people don't bother to seek the required dispensation. If they did then there'd be less problems. Often couples don't want to do the prep before the marriage or give the notice. Some priests are simply treated like hired celebrants, as if they can be given a few days or weeks notice. I think the 'hatch, match and dispatch' idea (so loved by Anglicans to stay relevant) has always been a large failure and doesn't seem to bring the majority back, at least  until they seek a reference for a church school for their children. 

[vee]

I am in agreement with nihil and lillla but since I cant prop their posts I actually have to take the time to write and say I agree!