Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[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!

[Nihil Obstat]

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!

I appreciate your agreement, but since I cannot prop your post I have to take the time to write and say thank you.  

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

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!

 

I appreciate your agreement, but since I cannot prop your post I have to take the time to write and say thank you.  

My way of propping.  

Edit: This takes me back to my Catholic Answer forum days, lol.

Edited September 11, 2015 by Oremus Pro Invicem

[Lilllabettt]

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.

 

No, YOU want to change cannon law so that should these people wake up and get their house and order, their previous marriage is an impediment to getting them into Church. THAT is not the effective response.

Instead of an easy-peasy lack of form way out, which is what we have now, they will have to prove it. You're just making it harder.

This is what I'm trying to say:  Catholics who think its cooler to get married at the library or the zoo instead of church, and do not care enough to bother with the paperwork for a dispensation (its like, one form) most likely do not have the ingredients for a valid marriage. Your changing the cannon so that the form is OK will not change the reality that they do not have the ingredients for a valid marriage. You are just making it less clear and harder for them to fix it down the road.

 

 

Edited September 11, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Lilllabettt]

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. 

 

some people who think it is better to be a Catholic-in-name-only than an honest non-Catholic. I don't think God sees it that way. 

Arranging for your children to be baptized and not doing everything in your power to raise them with the tools needed to meet the obligation you are putting on them strikes me as a fairly heinous mortal sin. We should not be worried that these parents won't bring their kids in for baptism. We should be worried that when they do bring them in for baptism, they are doing so with no intention of helping their children meet the burden that is being placed on them.

IDK but I feel confident God does not send people to hell simply for being unbaptized. People who are obligated by baptism to lead a Christian life and do not do so? MMmmm distinctly less certain.

[Era Might]

We should just deport the Millennials, the're a blight on our nation.

[little2add]

We should just deport the Millennials, the're a blight on our nation.

like 

[truthfinder]

We should just deport the Millennials, the're a blight on our nation.

Just so we're clear - millenials were born between 1980 and early 2000s - ish.  Isn't that most of phatmass? Or maybe that's the point. 

[Peace]

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.

The canonical form requirement originated during the reformation, did it not?

It seems a bit odd to me that the requirements for a sacrament would vary with time. If all of the sacraments were created by God - how is it that only A and B are required at point X in time, but A, B and C become required at point Y in time?

I mean - what is stopping the Church from saying "Starting in the year 2016 for a couple to get married they must send the Pope a pint of his favorite flavor of ice cream?"

[Nunsense]

The canonical form requirement originated during the reformation, did it not?

It seems a bit odd to me that the requirements for a sacrament would vary with time. If all of the sacraments were created by God - how is it that only A and B are required at point X in time, but A, B and C become required at point Y in time?

I mean - what is stopping the Church from saying "Starting in the year 2016 for a couple to get married they must send the Pope a pint of his favorite flavor of ice cream?"

Once again, a truly brilliant post!  

See, isn't this much better than props?  

[Norseman82]

This is one area where we really need reform. While a church setting is important, losing tens of thousands of souls in invalid marriages simply because of a logistical preference is not acceptable. This is a canonical form that can and should be altered.

What type of reform are you proposing?