Catholics Marry, Just Not at Church

[MarysLittleFlower]

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. 

I think what I'm struggling here with your argument is this... Do we want to help people have valid marriages by helping them to understand what a Catholic marriage is and why its best in a church? Or, do we want to change the Church rule to not deal with their ignorance and lack of faith formation? Because if we change the Church to make it easier for people to 'get away' with not knowing the faith... Then we are just lowering everything to the level of the uncatechized. Then we would have to change a lot of other things too just so that those who weren't taught about them can live 'validly' in their ignorance/disagreement. Why not just emphasize conversion and catechesis? 

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??

If they are offended by that idea the fault is not the idea but their ignorance or disagreement of the faith... The main problem is in the heart of a Catholic who doesn't value submission to the Church. The people need conversion, not validating their wishes just because these wishes exist. That would not help bring them more to the Church... It would just make them feel its OK to do the bare minimum or less. 

 

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. 

if faith is truly number one for a Catholic, why would they choose a secular venue over a nuptial Mass and obedience to their Bishop? Aren't those things more important to those who know the faith? So the problem is again within.

 

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.

i agree... Its deeper than observing a canon. Observance of a canon should be a sign of love for the Church. 

[Ice_nine]

Both sides have good points.

[MarysLittleFlower]

 

Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

We let the children come to Christ by helping them to be faithful to their Baptism. Baptising and never helping them live a Christian life is not a complete. Such parents are at fault for not helping children live out their Baptismal promises. 

Let's be real here.  In MOST of the cases those who aren't getting married in the church were not catechized.  Most of their parents abdicated their role in religious education long ago.  When I first was interested in the church I tried to speak to people my age who said they were Catholic in class.  They really didn't know anything.

I also tried to volunteer at a youth group.  I didn't teach but I was learning alot.  They had a month where they did quite a few important topics in the church.  Transubstantiation, weekly mass required, no sex before marriage,   Really simple stuff.  Parents called an emergency meeting with the priest for teaching their post confirmation teens (10th, 11th and 12th graders) because these were "wacky" ideas that "no one believed".    The priest did emergency catacetis that night and really handled the situation with grace.

The impression it gave me, looking at the few dozen adults, was that they truly didn't know, nor had ever been catechized themselves.  Some mentioned that they would be leaving for X parish across town where the priest openly contradicted church teachings.  The Bishop did nothing.

I don't think that we can entirely put the blame on my generation.  I don't think that it's the fault of most 20-30 something's that they were never taught and got married in a non sacramental way.  Heck, most of them can't even name the sacraments after 12 lame duck years of CCE where they learned that Jesus loved them but zero about doctrine.

As someone from the outside, I also don't think priests who are baptizing "hoping" the parents return to the church are doing the best job, either.  They are just continuing to perpetuate the cycle that someone with enough clout, money and squeaky wheel can get whatever they want out of the Church.  It is reasonable for Priests to require Baptism classes, for instance, that last atleast a few months and cover basic teachings.

I once heard a priest say there is no greater burden than the gift of baptism on a soul that is not taught to love the Church.  One of my co-worker's is a C&E catholic and her older son was Baptized.  She also put him in CCE and he received his first communion.  According to her he cried every Sunday for months because he wanted to go to church and she wanted to sleep in.  She found it really funny.  Eventually his passion wained, but I think that there is some damage to the relationship between them.  He no longer asked for cuddles and would often cry in the weeks after Christmas and Easter even years later.  His younger brother (who was never baptized) never seemed to feel this way even though he had the same exposure to Church.  I've always wondered if this passion was truly a gift from God that wound up being a curse to this poor little boy.

that is so sad about the boy I think his desire for the church and the Eucharist is definitely a gift, and even now not a curse but a gift that is opposed. The fact that its opposed by his mother must cause him much anguish... I hope that when he gets older he would come to the Church and fulfill that dream. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

I think with baptism, it makes sense to ask that the parents are willing to raise the child Catholic. That's not very much to ask if they are interested in Baptism. The bar is not placed so high that only few can be baptised. I do believe that God wants the children to be baptized. But the graces should also be allowed to bear fruit. Not be choked.

As for the link of this to marriage... Also I believe the Church wants all these couples to be validly married but also for the couple to be able to understand and accept what a Catholic marriage is. If they deny it all their marriage is already in danger even if they get married inside the Church.. I think the answer is more catechesis and personal conversion.Theres a deeper issue causing all this and addressing it could fix the problem more deeply 

Edited September 14, 2015 by MarysLittleFlower

[Maggyie]

I think what I'm struggling here with your argument is this... Do we want to help people have valid marriages by helping them to understand what a Catholic marriage is and why its best in a church? Or, do we want to change the Church rule to not deal with their ignorance and lack of faith formation? Because if we change the Church to make it easier for people to 'get away' with not knowing the faith... Then we are just lowering everything to the level of the uncatechized. Then we would have to change a lot of other things too just so that those who weren't taught about them can live 'validly' in their ignorance/disagreement. Why not just emphasize conversion and catechesis? 

If they are offended by that idea the fault is not the idea but their ignorance or disagreement of the faith... The main problem is in the heart of a Catholic who doesn't value submission to the Church. The people need conversion, not validating their wishes just because these wishes exist. That would not help bring them more to the Church... It would just make them feel its OK to do the bare minimum or less. 

 

 

if faith is truly number one for a Catholic, why would they choose a secular venue over a nuptial Mass and obedience to their Bishop? Aren't those things more important to those who know the faith? So the problem is again within.

 

i agree... Its deeper than observing a canon. Observance of a canon should be a sign of love for the Church. 

that's the thing. By simply saying "no" we ARE choosing to "not deal with their ignorance and lack of faith formation." How are you going to emphasize conversion and catechesis for a couple you just sent away to be married by one of their friends who got "ordained" online? Do you think it will be easier to evangelize them that way? 

[MarysLittleFlower]

that's the thing. By simply saying "no" we ARE choosing to "not deal with their ignorance and lack of faith formation." How are you going to emphasize conversion and catechesis for a couple you just sent away to be married by one of their friends who got "ordained" online? Do you think it will be easier to evangelize them that way? 

I see your point but let's say we let them just marry wherever and not emphasize that its better in the church. The couple will get married but their hearts are the same. Its not unlikely that they wouldn't continue going to church after that - their lives would remain the same. If later they want an annulment its likely it wouldnt be given in that case and their hearts are still not converted so they would leave the Church then. They might say, "the Church married us and now wouldnt give an annulment, how is that fair". But if someone helped them understand the faith maybe they would see why the Church has this rule... And later, other rules. 

[little2add]

Its cold hard fact that a lot couples today are intimate before they get married, use birth control, sometimes live together before tying the knot...

This doesn't necessarily make them bad Catholics.  

It's their loss if they don't get married in a church building, this act does not minimize the young couples promise to each other or too raise a family in the church.   It may be that one of the reasons that so many young couples today choose to marry not in a church building is because of the stigma or guilt of having premarital sex and not following church doctrine, etc (common practice now-a-days).  

 Our society has become so sick and perverted that I believe it is wrong to ostracize Young couples because they’re weak Catholics and don’t appreciate the meaning of a traditional Church wedding.

 

I’m not Suggesting the Catholic Church lower the Standards for holy matrimony or changing the principals.  If anything the bar should be raised to counter I’ll be evil children face in the world today

in my opinion

 

[Maggyie]

I see your point but let's say we let them just marry wherever and not emphasize that its better in the church. The couple will get married but their hearts are the same. Its not unlikely that they wouldn't continue going to church after that - their lives would remain the same. If later they want an annulment its likely it wouldnt be given in that case and their hearts are still not converted so they would leave the Church then. They might say, "the Church married us and now wouldnt give an annulment, how is that fair". But if someone helped them understand the faith maybe they would see why the Church has this rule... And later, other rules. 

why couldn't you still emphasize that it's better in the church? That's what I don't understand. You would still be giving them pre-Cana instruction. Sure it's possible they won't come back after the wedding. But wouldn't you say the chances of them returning are higher if they are validly married by the church than if we send them down the road without any Pre Cana? You will not have much of an opportunity to change their hearts then. The time to change their hearts is when you are counseling them, and you won't be able to counsel them if you send them away.

We truly gain nothing by alienating people over this small stuff.  Canon law already allows for exceptions on this. That's an acknowledgement that the rule is not a critical one. People keep bringing up the Blessed Sacrament, again that's a lovely sentiment but has zilch to do with being validly married. In the old days interfaith couples were routinely married in the rectory for instance, it was actually required that these ceremonies take place outside of the church itself. I have a feeling if people were familar with the history of the development of practice and canon law on marriage they would be very scandalized...

[Nihil Obstat]

 

Its cold hard fact that a lot couples today are intimate before they get married, use birth control, sometimes live together before tying the knot...

 

This doesn't necessarily make them bad Catholics.  

 

Well, it kind of does. It does not mean that they are necessarily bad people, but they are bad Catholics in that they have not properly formed their consciences, or have not lived according to it.

The precepts of the Catholic Church, the absolute bare minimum a person must do in order to be a Catholic in good standing are:

1. 2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.") requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.82
2. The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year.") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.83
3. The third precept (“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.84
4. 2043 The fourth precept (“You shall keep holy the holy days of obligation.") completes the Sunday observance by participation in the principal liturgical feasts which honor the mysteries of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, and the saints.85
5. The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.86

Catholics who fornicate, contracept, and cohabitate necessarily cannot fulfil several of these precepts unless and until they have stopped those sinful behaviours. The proper remedy of course would be to be contrite for those sins and fully intend not to commit those sins again, then to make a good and thorough confession as per the second precept. If the precepts of the Church must be followed as an absolute minimal condition to being a Catholic in good standing, and if a person as you described necessarily cannot fulfil several of those precepts, then such a person is not, by definition a 'good Catholic'.

They may have good intentions. They may intend to remedy their situations. They may be taking concrete steps to do so. And all of heaven rejoices when they repent and reject their sins. But if they do not repent, the consequences are clear.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[little2add]

Well, it kind of does. It does not mean that they are necessarily bad people, but they are bad Catholics in that they have not properly formed their consciences, or have not lived according to it.

The precepts of the Catholic Church, the absolute bare minimum a person must do in order to be a Catholic in good standing are:

1. 2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation.") requires the faithful to participate in the Eucharistic celebration when the Christian community gathers together on the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord.82
2. The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year.") ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism's work of conversion and forgiveness.83
3. The third precept (“You shall humbly receive your Creator in Holy Communion at least during the Easter season.") guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord's Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.84
4. 2043 The fourth precept (“You shall keep holy the holy days of obligation.") completes the Sunday observance by participation in the principal liturgical feasts which honor the mysteries of the Lord, the Virgin Mary, and the saints.85
5. The fifth precept (“You shall observe the prescribed days of fasting and abstinence.") ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts; they help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.86

Catholics who fornicate, contracept, and cohabitate necessarily cannot fulfil several of these precepts unless and until they have stopped those sinful behaviours. The proper remedy of course would be to be contrite for those sins and fully intend not to commit those sins again, then to make a good and thorough confession as per the second precept. If the precepts of the Church must be followed as an absolute minimal condition to being a Catholic in good standing, and if a person as you described necessarily cannot fulfil several of those precepts, then such a person is not, by definition a 'good Catholic'.

They may have good intentions. They may intend to remedy their situations. They may be taking concrete steps to do so. And all of heaven rejoices when they repent and reject their sins. But if they do not repent, the consequences are clear.

let he who is without sin...

[MarysLittleFlower]

why couldn't you still emphasize that it's better in the church? That's what I don't understand. You would still be giving them pre-Cana instruction. Sure it's possible they won't come back after the wedding. But wouldn't you say the chances of them returning are higher if they are validly married by the church than if we send them down the road without any Pre Cana? You will not have much of an opportunity to change their hearts then. The time to change their hearts is when you are counseling them, and you won't be able to counsel them if you send them away.

We truly gain nothing by alienating people over this small stuff.  Canon law already allows for exceptions on this. That's an acknowledgement that the rule is not a critical one. People keep bringing up the Blessed Sacrament, again that's a lovely sentiment but has zilch to do with being validly married. In the old days interfaith couples were routinely married in the rectory for instance, it was actually required that these ceremonies take place outside of the church itself. I have a feeling if people were familar with the history of the development of practice and canon law on marriage they would be very scandalized...

Maggyie, I don't understand what you mean because the Church doesn't send them away. They are asked to simply ask for a dispensation. If they walk away, they are not sent away... Do you mean if the dispensation form is not accepted? But in that case the Church isn't rejecting marrying them, rather it is not agreeing to change its conditions to their conditions. If they are placing conditions on staying with the Church that is a problem with their faith is it not?

I just think - it's not up to us to say what the Church position should be. It is what it is.. Our job is to submit with love for the Church. Just as it is the responsibility of the couples. I understand they may struggle with certain points. But I don't think its the Church sending people away. It is rather people insisting on their own way. There are Church teachings that are not convenient for me to follow... But I still have to follow them. I'm not trying to sound harsh but I just think its best to let the Church decide these things.

Yes in the past inter faith marriages were not done in the church but the couples who had these marriages accepted the Church's conditions. They accepted they couldn't have that beautiful Church wedding they maybe wanted. Now people don't want to marry in a church. What they see as controlling is a gift.  If someone wants a Catholic wedding for a spiritual motive...would they give it up just for a venue like a beach? But we see if they want this, a dispensation could be given for specific reasons maybe. I don't know when it would be given or not given. But that's not our decision and I don't believe it should be.

If a Bishop says no, he must have a reason...and from what I understand they are important reasons. The motive for seeking a dispensation probably needs to be serious enough. After all a dispensation is an exception to the rule not the rule. I don't think the rule should be changed to getting married anywhere because of the message that would give - that its not important for it to be in a church. The fact that a dispensation is necessary gives a message too. Its not just a meaningless law. 

In general I thought this article clarifies some points in this thread: http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/must-catholics-marry-in-a-church.html

 

let he who is without sin...

Its not judging to call sin as sin... Sin is serious. Living in unrepented sin means being in a state of sin, not grace. That is spiritual death. If im like that am i a good Catholic? what is a good Catholic? We are called to repent and amend our lives. If someone commits murder and refuses to repent are they a good Catholic? How is it different with fornication? Sin is a choice... We are responsible for it though we have weakness. Because its still a choice. God offers grace to help us. We can excuse motives of others but not ourselves. But even if we excuse motives, the actions are wrong - it's not judging to say that abortion or fornication is wrong. What is a good Catholic? I wouldn't even call myself a good Catholic - because i sin. However we can be faithful Catholics if we follow Church teaching. If we dont, we are not faithful Catholics. Saying we are faithful if we ignore Church teaching is like saying a husband is faithful though he is cheating. It makes no sense. But we can and should still treat them with compassion. Compassion is oriented to charity and helping a person improve - not encouraging an error. 

[Nihil Obstat]

let he who is without sin...

It has nothing to do with being without sin. These are the requirements of the Church. If you ignore them, you cannot call yourself "a good Catholic", period. When we call them minimal requirements, they really are minimal. If one cannot fulfil those precepts, it is either because they are seriously impeded by outside circumstances (in which case the law does not apply), or they simply do not care.

[Maggyie]

Yes MLF but I'm not saying they should just be able to get married anywhere.  I'm saying currently the decision lies with the bishop, and why not make it the decision of the priest who is doing the marriage prep. After all if he is doing his job correctly he will know the situation up and down! And if he has to say No he will be in a position to present the No in context of a relationship he already has with a couple, which softens the blow and prevents hardening of hearts. And he can offer to continue premarital counseling and try to convince them to complete pre Cana, which is valuable for any couple-to-be.

Do you think the bishop meets with the couple face to face to say No? Instead he sends a letter. It is a faceless No from above from a man they have never met or spoken with. For an unchurched person it is easy to see it as cold and legalistic, like a machine that has nothing to do with them as humans. Why not let the No come from the shepherd who is closest to the sheep?

[MarysLittleFlower]

Maggyie, i don't know why its the Bishop, - but I guess an advantage is that the same rules would be applied throughout the diocese, and to prevent people switching priests to get a certain answer? I don't know.. Maybe someone knows why its like that 

[little2add]

It has nothing to do with being without sin. These are the requirements of the Church. If you ignore them, you cannot call yourself "a good Catholic", period. When we call them minimal requirements, they really are minimal. If one cannot fulfil those precepts, it is either because they are seriously impeded by outside circumstances (in which case the law does not apply), or they simply do not care.

it kinda does.

is there anyone without sin among you, entirely free from sin, in heart, in the spoken word, and life;  there is no such person

i find it hard to believe that being married not in a church building is in any way as notorious or  scandalous as as adultery; abortion; divorce, lying, stealing, cheating, etc.

The number of good Catholics who follow the rules, get married in the church; end up divorcing and abandoning their children is staggering... just because you're married in the church does that guarantee a valid marriage