Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[Credo in Deum]

I can just see the outrage now; "What do you mean I can't get married at the zoo?!  Wasn't Jesus born in a stable?!  I doubt He would care if I was married next to the reptile cag...wait...primate park! Outrageous! Simply outrageous!" 

[Maggyie]

Well, news flash, they are already saying it's outrageous when they aren't allowed to marry in a rose garden or at home. Again read the OP, these thousands of souls do exist, they are real live people. It's pointless sticking fingers in ears and pretending this is not an issue. Or worse just washing our hands of them. They are precious to Jesus.

There is a school of thought that  it's most effective to make the sacraments as hard to get as possible; the sacrament is the "prize" you get once you've proven yourself worthy by checking off x,y,z. We see this with baptism (don't want to baptize the children of people shacking up, because clearly they will be brought up as heathens) confirmation (no service project completed? No sealing of the Holy Spirit for you) and marriage  . I remember at my pre-Cana one of the brides thought people who married in a Liturgy of the Word were "less married" somehow. 

Personally I view sacraments as potentially transformative encounters with the Lord and we should work (within limits) to make these graces as available as possible. The requirement to marry in a church setting doesn't impact the couple's ability to form a true bond the way immaturity or coercion does. Personally I have always thought such annulments on technical grounds often don't match the spirit of Jesus' teaching about the indissoluability of marriage.

 

 

[Credo in Deum]

Well, news flash, they are already saying it's outrageous when they aren't allowed to marry in a rose garden or at home. Again read the OP, these thousands of souls do exist, they are real live people. It's pointless sticking fingers in ears and pretending this is not an issue. Or worse just washing our hands of them. They are precious to Jesus.

There is a school of thought that  it's most effective to make the sacraments as hard to get as possible; the sacrament is the "prize" you get once you've proven yourself worthy by checking off x,y,z. We see this with baptism (don't want to baptize the children of people shacking up, because clearly they will be brought up as heathens) confirmation (no service project completed? No sealing of the Holy Spirit for you) and marriage  . I remember at my pre-Cana one of the brides thought people who married in a Liturgy of the Word were "less married" somehow. 

Personally I view sacraments as potentially transformative encounters with the Lord and we should work (within limits) to make these graces as available as possible. The requirement to marry in a church setting doesn't impact the couple's ability to form a true bond the way immaturity or coercion does. Personally I have always thought such annulments on technical grounds often don't match the spirit of Jesus' teaching about the indissoluability of marriage.

 

 

I also view them as personally transformative encounters with the Lord which is why having the sacrament done in front of the Blessed Sacrament, you know, the Lord, seems like the first and logical choice for any Catholic couple.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be exceptions made in the case of extremes, but they should not be the norm. 

But I guess me believing the importance of being in a Church, with Christ present in the tabernacle, is not inclusive enough? We better cater to everyone's want because heaven forbid we step on toes and be thought to be uncharitable. 

[Maggyie]

I also view them as personally transformative encounters with the Lord which is why having the sacrament done in front of the Blessed Sacrament, you know, the Lord, seems like the first and logical choice for any Catholic couple.  I'm not saying there shouldn't be exceptions made in the case of extremes, but they should not be the norm. 

But I guess me believing the importance of being in a Church, with Christ present in the tabernacle, is not inclusive enough? We better cater to everyone's want because heaven forbid we step on toes and be thought to be uncharitable. 

it's not about being charitable. It's about being wise as serpents and reading the signs of the times. For some reason Protestants always seem better at this than Catholics. Catholics are always like "but... Our club has ALWAYS had that rule."

[Lilllabettt]

um, not sure if you've been checking. protestants believe in divorce and don't think marriage is a sacrament.

guess that was them "reading the signs of the times"

geez get with it catholic church!!!

worst example ever.

Edited September 12, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Credo in Deum]

it's not about being charitable. It's about being wise as serpents and reading the signs of the times. For some reason Protestants always seem better at this than Catholics. Catholics are always like "but... Our club has ALWAYS had that rule."

Protestants cater to these "signs of the times" because there is nothing else they can do but stress community because that is all they have to offer and if they don't appease the community they do not have a church.  The Catholic Faith however stresses Eucharist! Eucharist! which is timeless because it is Christ himself who is suppose to be the focal point of every individual in the Catholic community!  We don't harp on Protestants for their ways because they don't know any better, however, for a Catholic to prefer a zoo or any other venue over where Christ resides in the Blessed Sacrament, especially if nothing extreme is demanding this to happen, is, IMO, ludicrous!    

Maybe Catholics are losing their faith in the true presence of Christ in the Eucharist which is why a church is being viewed as a venue just as good as any other rather than it being viewed as God's House where He waits 24/7 for us in the greatest gift since His Incarnation, Passion, Death, and Resurrection!.   If we understood what we have there would be waiting lines outside of churches and adoration chapels! 

 

[Norseman82]

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.

 

I agree with Liillabettt. 

NOW the forum will break!

Edited September 13, 2015 by Norseman82

[Norseman82]

I remember at my pre-Cana one of the brides thought people who married in a Liturgy of the Word were "less married" somehow.

 

I remember seeing an illustration in the old Baltimore Catechism stating that a Catholic marriage ceremony without a full Nuptial Mass confers less grace than one with a full Nuptial Mass.

[Maggyie]

I remember seeing an illustration in the old Baltimore Catechism stating that a Catholic marriage ceremony without a full Nuptial Mass confers less grace than one with a full Nuptial Mass.

that may be (not sure if that's the teaching now) but the point is to get people validly married and not living their whole lives in sin based on a single relatively minor canonical requirement. Think about all the graces God pours out on any validly married couple, even if it's not a sacramental marriage between 2 baptized people. We have a whole generation that is largely raising families without these graces, unlike their parents before them... How can we change this? How can we make it easier for couples to receive these graces? Obviously we can't change the nature of marriage, and we don't want to marry people willy nilly. But there are changes we can make.

what we have now is after the couple realizes their situation puts them in bad standing with the church, excluding them from communion, being godparents, all the consequences, they don't usually sanate. Instead they are offended and announce they are going to find a more "spiritual church" that doesn't put people's souls in the balance based on something petty like the wedding venue.

and we know it's not actually petty, the rule has meaning, but honestly telling people "you are going to hell because you got married in your backyard without the bishop's permission" is a hard sell nowadays.

Credo, the idea of being married in the presence of the Blessed Sacrament is a red herring introduced up-thread. There is not, nor has there ever been a canonical requirement to marry in front of the Blessed Sacrament. The Eucharist plays zero role in the validity or sacramentality of any marriage. So while that is a beautiful sentiment that I agree with, it's irrelevant. 

[Benedictus]

Couples married outside the church can go through the convalidation process afterwards though...

Many people entering marriages outside the church rely on that fact to get an annulment later. There would be more people complaining they can't get an annulment or have another marriage if the process was changed. They'd then probably accuse the church of recognizing their marriages too easily and making captives of them.  Either way they'll have some reason to complain.

The core problem seems that people fail to take personal responsibility for themselves to sort out their standing with the church and to challenge themselves to grow in spiritual discipline and maturity. Removing structures and easing disciplines doesn't solve that problem, it probably makes the situation worse.

[Maggyie]

Couples married outside the church can go through the convalidation process afterwards though...

Many people entering marriages outside the church rely on that fact to get an annulment later. There would be more people complaining they can't get an annulment or have another marriage if the process was changed. They'd then probably accuse the church of recognizing their marriages too easily and making captives of them.  Either way they'll have some reason to complain.

The core problem seems that people fail to take personal responsibility for themselves to sort out their standing with the church and to challenge themselves to grow in spiritual discipline and maturity. Removing structures and easing disciplines doesn't solve that problem, it probably makes the situation worse.

but the point is they don't go through con validation. They are offended by the idea that their choice of wedding venue means they are mortally sinning and damning themselves to hellfire. And voila their alienation is complete.  we already have a process to get an exception for this rule... Is delegating the decision from the bishop to the parish priest really "easing discipline" in a harmful way?? Really??

[Lilllabettt]

but the point is they don't go through con validation. They are offended by the idea that their choice of wedding venue means they are mortally sinning and damning themselves to hellfire. And voila their alienation is complete.  we already have a process to get an exception for this rule... Is delegating the decision from the bishop to the parish priest really "easing discipline" in a harmful way?? Really??

 

Yes. People see getting permission from a bishop as way more of a serious step than getting permission from a parish priest. It's also less easy to "bishop hop" as opposed to "priest hop." 

There is no practical pay-off for the change you are suggesting. It's a defensive step at best; one that involves the Church shooting itself in the foot.

You think its important for marriage to be a transformational  "touch point" of fallen-aways with the Church, and your "plan" for that is to make it easier for them to see the Church as an afterthought in their wedding plans.

IDGI.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[Maggyie]

 

Yes. People see getting permission from a bishop as way more of a serious step than getting permission from a parish priest. It's also less easy to "bishop hop" as opposed to "priest hop." 

There is no practical pay-off for the change you are suggesting. It's a defensive step at best; one that involves the Church shooting itself in the foot.

You think its important for marriage to be a transformational  "touch point" of fallen-aways with the Church, and your "plan" for that is to make it easier for them to see the Church as an afterthought in their wedding plans.

IDGI.

I don't think a couple that does pre-Cana and meets with their priest-celebrant to plan their Catholic wedding liturgy and get permission for a change in venue is making the Church an afterthought. Seems like the Church is pretty central to that process.

As opposed to the present situation where they just drop the church entirely and proceed with a secular ceremony. 

Don't worry though, when their family falls apart in a damaging train wreck, it's possible one of them might come back to the church (probably not, but maybe!) and it will be easier for that person to get an anullment and marry their side piece. That's the important thing. 

[Lilllabettt]

I don't think a couple that does pre-Cana and meets with their priest-celebrant to plan their Catholic wedding liturgy and get permission for a change in venue is making the Church an afterthought. Seems like the Church is pretty central to that process.

As opposed to the present situation where they just drop the church entirely and proceed with a secular ceremony. 

Don't worry though, when their family falls apart in a damaging train wreck, it's possible one of them might come back to the church (probably not, but maybe!) and it will be easier for that person to get an anullment and marry their side piece. That's the important thing. 

 

Do you know that viewing divorce as a possibility renders a marriage invalid? 

Do you know that not having the intention to be open to children renders a marriage invalid?

Do you know "fraud" invalidates a marriage? You know - lying or failing to tell the complete truth about an important factor. Surprise, I don't believe in God. Surprise, I am an ex-con. Surprise, I'm not open to adoption. Surprise, I'm infertile. Surprise, I have a drug addiction.

You are fooling yourself if you think people who 1.want to have their ceremony outside of a church and 2. are willing to give up their religion if they do not get their way, have the ingredients for a valid marriage.

They are not living in sin because they failed to follow canon law.They are living in sin because they do not understand what marriage is, and it does not matter what permission they have or where they have the ceremony -- they will be living in sin.

 There is no amount of canon law massaging you can do to make people 1. understand what marriage is and 2. want to do it.

God does not send people to hell because they accidentally didn't observe a technicality in the law. God may very well send people to hell for promising to be with someone no matter what and not really meaning it, objectifying a spouse and using them sexually, committing fraud against a partner, refusing to welcome children, etc. all those things that flow from having an invalid marriage.

These people are not saved by their observance of the law, but by what they believe in their hearts about marriage.

Making it easier for them to keep the law does not do anything to change their hearts.

There is no amount of lipstick you can put on the pig. None.

I think you are uncomfortable with the Church telling people to their face, you are living in sin. You think this alienates them. I am saying that people who are not Catholic in their hearts being alienated from the Church is not the worst thing in the world. It is better to be an honest non-Catholic than a luke warm Catholic.

Edited September 13, 2015 by Lilllabettt

[little2add]

however when a child is born to a unblessed couple the child is no less family, no less beautiful, not less innocent, no less than an offspring from a blessed union.

all this talk about the  invalidness of a wedding because the ceremony  wasn't held in church does not diminish a new life.  

true the parents are foolish, but the fact is they are getting married and having babies and that is a good thing none the less