Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[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?"

[AccountDeleted]

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?

[Nihil Obstat]

 

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?"

Matrimony is somewhat unique as far as sacraments go due to its legal, contractual, public nature.

[little2add]

source

 

LINK: http://www.americamagazine.org/issue/1/catholics-marry-just-not-church

[Maggyie]

What type of reform are you proposing?

My thought would be to leave the granting of a dispensation (for location at least) up to the priest or deacon who is witnessing the vows. Pushing it up to the bishop is just a  bureaucratic move - is a well formed bishop going to say no where a well formed priest would say yes? Probably not. Although I guess sometimes it allows the priest to avoid looking like the bad guy. 

We have some loony priests sure. But most of them would be able to apply common sense. 

It's not a stupid rule by any means, but ultimately if a couple approaches the church and fulfills the other requirements and prep, I don't think we should make the ceremony venue a sticking point unless it is truly scandalous or inappropriate. Plenty of church weddings result in failed marriages, and I don't think it's appropriate to make policy based on "how easy can we make the anullment down the road." That attitude strikes me as not just cynical but sinful. 

[Lilllabettt]

My thought would be to leave the granting of a dispensation (for location at least) up to the priest or deacon who is witnessing the vows. Pushing it up to the bishop is just a  bureaucratic move - is a well formed bishop going to say no where a well formed priest would say yes? Probably not. Although I guess sometimes it allows the priest to avoid looking like the bad guy. 

We have some loony priests sure. But most of them would be able to apply common sense. 

It's not a stupid rule by any means, but ultimately if a couple approaches the church and fulfills the other requirements and prep, I don't think we should make the ceremony venue a sticking point unless it is truly scandalous or inappropriate. Plenty of church weddings result in failed marriages, and I don't think it's appropriate to make policy based on "how easy can we make the anullment down the road." That attitude strikes me as not just cynical but sinful. 

Yeah, I'm not going to sit still for you suggesting my attitude is sinful. Oh, does it "strike" you that way? I think you've forgotten to check how much moral authority you have in the tank.  I can help you with that. but hmmm I would hate to fight with you in public. So don't make me. Check yourself before you wreck yourself girlfriend.

Couples who are approaching the Church and fulfilling the prep requirements are not going to balk at filling out one piece of paperwork. It is usually one form where you write a paragraph about why you want your wedding at the zoo instead of God's house. These requests range from the reasonable to the silly, but they are rarely ever denied.

The "tens of thousands of souls" you think are being lost because they went through marriage prep and failed to complete a 1 pager do not exist. 

The rule restricts valid marriage among Catholics  to those who get married in their church or take 20 minutes to ask for permission to get married somewhere else. It's a pretty fabulously low bar. The fact that a Catholic fails to meet it is a sign they don't feel strongly about following "God's Plan for Marriage" as far as the Church is concerned.

 

Edited September 12, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[truthfinder]

- is a well formed bishop going to say no where a well formed priest would say yes? Probably not. Although I guess sometimes it allows the priest to avoid looking like the bad guy. 

 

I'm pretty sure my bishop turns down most of these requests.  I'd say he is well formed.  He wants to couple to understand the nature of the sacrament and not that it's just a day for pretty pictures etc.