Saying that one’s child might be hurt by their parents not attending their marriage—valid or not—is not a threat. It’s stating a fact. Same as saying, “If you walk out into the street without looking, there’s a real chance you will get hit by a car.” If you don’t attend the wedding of your children—valid or not—there’s a real chance they’re going to be hurt.
- Status
A
Ammi
Guest
No, the accusations have been that not attending is mean, ruining the relationship, unloving, initiating the aggression, etc.
The article from canonlawmadeeasy actually expresses it well. To attend means certain efforts and intentions should accompany. But refraining is not wrong or should be conceived as damaging the relationship. We need to recognize when those who reject the faith are the cause of harming themselves and the Church.
I am also against supporting invalid marriages because many end up relying on that to find a new lover and leave the relationship that started a family.
The article from canonlawmadeeasy actually expresses it well. To attend means certain efforts and intentions should accompany. But refraining is not wrong or should be conceived as damaging the relationship. We need to recognize when those who reject the faith are the cause of harming themselves and the Church.
I am also against supporting invalid marriages because many end up relying on that to find a new lover and leave the relationship that started a family.
I’m not sure what part of “it’s very possible that an adult child is going to see it that way” you don’t understand. It’s not a threat or accusation—it’s a fact.
No, not attending isn’t objectively wrong. But once again, I’m not sure why you can’t see/accept the fact that not attending may be conceived as damaging the relationship. No Church laws are going to stop a child whose parents are not with them on their wedding day—valid or not—from perceiving it as damaging the relationship. This isn’t a threat. It’s a fact.
And now that you yourself admit that there may be an acceptable way to attend, I really think you need to reel in the angry tone and accusations of some of your posts. And possibly apologize.
As @TC3033 said, you are insinuating these relationships won’t last, when in reality, there are ones that have lasted for 40 years or more, are loving relationships, and have provided loving homes for children. The only thing that is lacking is the technical rule. Jesus has a lot to say about the letter of the law vs. the spirit of the law.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
You don’t know if that happened or not.
As I said, there were many extenuating circumstances.
Yes, the counsel of other priest’s and even the Bishop’s office were requested.
So, as many have tried to point out, this issue is not as “black & white” as you would like to make it.
A
Ammi
Guest
So even the Bishop abused the right for you to marry?
Ya know, you still haven’t answered my question:
L
Legend
Guest
Sorry…I haven’t followed this thread as closely as I would have liked to.
It does kind of sound as if the parents are ‘reaping what they’ve sown’. Yes, church is important. But part of a Catholic marriage is raising the children one is given, right? It sounds as if there was too much preaching, too little practicing!
I’m not going to join the general debate at this time, but I will say…these parents will probably not have much of a relationship with their daughter. Very sad business. I feel for you, OP.
God Bless!
It does kind of sound as if the parents are ‘reaping what they’ve sown’. Yes, church is important. But part of a Catholic marriage is raising the children one is given, right? It sounds as if there was too much preaching, too little practicing!
I’m not going to join the general debate at this time, but I will say…these parents will probably not have much of a relationship with their daughter. Very sad business. I feel for you, OP.
God Bless!
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
The Bishop’s office referred us back to the Pastor.
I don’t know if the Bishop even got the message or not, at the time. The Vicar General is who answered our inquiry. It was the same Bishop who sanated my marriage years later, so there must have been some idea the Pastor was not doing things correctly.
I don’t know if the Bishop even got the message or not, at the time. The Vicar General is who answered our inquiry. It was the same Bishop who sanated my marriage years later, so there must have been some idea the Pastor was not doing things correctly.
A
Ammi
Guest
Forgive me for thinking this seems very strange. Why would the Vicar General refer you back to the pastor? That’s ridiculous. Your complaint (as you related) was that the pastor refused to allow you to marry on the grounds that you were from different parishes. That’s the lamest thing I’ve ever heard. Why would the Vicar refer you back to him, when he was doing that?
A
Ammi
Guest
Ok. First of all, I agree that the relationship was already bad before the wedding plans. Yet, marrying in the Church isnt to appease parents. The couple are of age to make their own choice to accept the faith of the Church or not. An adult can see if the parents are not being good examples of the faith. Marrying in the Church should not depend on our relationship with our parents.
Secondly, I am not like this to my children. Though I do not permit my child to skip Mass or substitute it for my family’s protestant services. I allow her to attend their service with two conditions. She does not skip Mass and she does not take their Communion. I spend tons of time with my kids, and I explain the faith to them.
So it’s hard for me to put myself in a situation where I feel so ashamed for not having a decent relationship with them or raising them with firmness and gentleness.
If my children married outside the Church, they would know the significance of the action. They would be formally leaving the Church. I would never approve of that, or the marriage they entered.
That being said, I would be having heart to heart talks about everything. If they felt I was hindering them from growing in true faith, I would be extremely sorrowful over this. It would be gut wrenching! I would struggle to restore their relatioship with me, and they would be welcome into my home.
Would I call their secular spouse my son in law? That would depend on some things. Most likely I would in the civil sense. But they would know it is only in the civil sense, according to the Catholic faith. Not my laws, but the Catholic Church’s law.
I wonder if anyone here protests these annulment decrees being afforded couples who marry outside the Church? Do you think that’s a scam? You cannot have it both ways, is my point. You cannot rely on nullity for marrying outside the Church, and yet accept a marriage outside the Church. I find this behavior to be unstable and placing people’s choice over what God binds.
The proposition that invalid marriages sometimes last 40 plus yrs, and until death, so they should be respected as righteous is rather moot, when many dont last and are nullified so one or both can abandon the relationship. I’m not for abandoning the relationship at all! I’m for convalidating if possible. The Church considers it a very serious matter, but many Catholics are treating it very lightly, and even accepting it without resistance, but celebrating it.
I will love my children, and refrain from a potential marriage outside the Church, because I know that they are not at peace with Jesus and His Church. I will never judge them or refuse them to come to my home, and I will visit them if they want me to visit them. My love is with them.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
I agree it was lame. The term used was “Pastor’s perrogative” meaning that as Pastor, he had the choice of what happened in his parish.
This also happened over 30 years ago.
The reason for the Sanatian was on the grounds that our rights were violated under Canon Law. However, at the time, the new Code of Canon Law had just been promulgated 4 years earlier. The priest in question was very “old school” and in the old Canon, it was a rule that you married in the Bride’s parish. He was also relieved of his duties a few years later due to dementia.
Which, yet again, just proves that your "“black & white” stance on the whole issue can be so detrimental to relationships.
This also happened over 30 years ago.
The reason for the Sanatian was on the grounds that our rights were violated under Canon Law. However, at the time, the new Code of Canon Law had just been promulgated 4 years earlier. The priest in question was very “old school” and in the old Canon, it was a rule that you married in the Bride’s parish. He was also relieved of his duties a few years later due to dementia.
Which, yet again, just proves that your "“black & white” stance on the whole issue can be so detrimental to relationships.
Without any rleation with the original topic
I don’t think question 1 will be asked. At least when we married this question was not asked dircetly by the priest nor the question of our beliefs was not asked in group. It is obvious that in many couple one or maybe both are not believers even if they are baptized. That’s does not prevent a Church marriage.
- Not asked anymore. The vast majorityof people who marry in the Church does not practiced their faith. Maybe nt even on Christmas. Does not prevent the Chuch to baptized them. In an pulpit our pastor said that one time that the next sunday we will welome fiancees during the mass. He precised that they do not attend their community at all but we should welcomed them because they have ask for a Church weedind despite their lack of engagement in the Church.
- Usually all that are requiered is to be agree that the children would be enrolled in catechism lessons when the time come… No more.
A
Ammi
Guest
You are pounding me for holding to canon law, and yet canon law supported your ability to receive sanitation. The Church Vicar had followed canon law (although dropped the ball initially), which afforded you the right to have your marriage declared valid. And because your priest violated the law. I dont care about his culpability. I am not interested in judging. He went against the law.
The current law, also says a marriage outside of the Church is invalid. It is never afforded the favor of the law.
So if my daughter went to the Church to seek marriage, and was denied the right. You can bet I will make sure there is justification in that! But I wont be like alot of CAF posters, who say to trust your pastor! No! He needs to earn trust! Respect? Yes, always respect. But I only trust Jesus and His Church. Even though I am a wretched sinner. At times. By His grace I am a repentant sinner.
He helps me talk to my children as I ought to.
The current law, also says a marriage outside of the Church is invalid. It is never afforded the favor of the law.
So if my daughter went to the Church to seek marriage, and was denied the right. You can bet I will make sure there is justification in that! But I wont be like alot of CAF posters, who say to trust your pastor! No! He needs to earn trust! Respect? Yes, always respect. But I only trust Jesus and His Church. Even though I am a wretched sinner. At times. By His grace I am a repentant sinner.
He helps me talk to my children as I ought to.
Last edited:
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
If that’s how you interpret what I am trying to say, there is no reason to say anything more.
Last edited:
L
Lara
Guest
I think we really have to look at who the person is who is getting married. Ammi’s children would likely be very level-headed and thoroughly educated about their faith. So the likelihood of them getting angry at her for not attending their wedding is greatly reduced.They would have had many discussions before they even started dating. And many afterwards.
The OP is referring to a daughter who is very wounded and likely a person who acts from the heart rather than the head. Older children in a large family normally do not resent having helped their younger siblings; nor do younger children, as in this case, resent time spent with their older siblings. If they do, there was something wrong in the communication between the parents and the younger children.
Some people are very soft inside, and emotionally like mush from my perspective, and it’s best to attend their weddings because their emotions run like syrup in all directions. They just can’t see things from a very rational view. CilladeRoma’s husband is likely in that category. Why can’t he put himself in his father’s shoes and the priest’s shoes? Because some people do not have that gift. They nurse hurts more than the rest of us, for longer than the rest of us. They are very sensitive people so they need to be treated very gently with kid gloves.
The OP is referring to a daughter who is very wounded and likely a person who acts from the heart rather than the head. Older children in a large family normally do not resent having helped their younger siblings; nor do younger children, as in this case, resent time spent with their older siblings. If they do, there was something wrong in the communication between the parents and the younger children.
Some people are very soft inside, and emotionally like mush from my perspective, and it’s best to attend their weddings because their emotions run like syrup in all directions. They just can’t see things from a very rational view. CilladeRoma’s husband is likely in that category. Why can’t he put himself in his father’s shoes and the priest’s shoes? Because some people do not have that gift. They nurse hurts more than the rest of us, for longer than the rest of us. They are very sensitive people so they need to be treated very gently with kid gloves.
Last edited:
Wow. Just wow. It goes both ways, you know. Why can’t you put yourself in @CilladeRoma ‘s husbands shoes and the OP’s friend’s daughter’s shoes and then make such statements? Very insulting, un-Christian statements.
Last edited:
Over and over again, you miss the point. Throughout this thread, you insinuate that marriages aren’t going to last if they don’t happen in the Church and according to Church law. It’s true that some of them don’t. But some of them do. And marrying in the Church doesn’t automatically ensure a marriage will last. I know many invalidity married people whose marriages are loving and strong. I also know many people who married in the Church and were divorced within one or two years. All these laws you speak of aren’t magically going to make a good marriage that lasts. Yes, of course people who marry in the Church stay married! But it involves more than the law. It involves intentions of both bride and groom to stay together through thick and thin, and that can happen both in the Church and outside of it. The bottom line is it’s not fair to insinuate that a marriage isn’t going to last unless it happens according to Church laws. And, once again, Jesus had a lot to say about letter of the law vs. spirit of the law.
A
Ammi
Guest
Maybe you haven’t been one, but many posts addressed to me and the decision to refrain from a wedding of a Catholic marrying outside the Church in general, have claimed it is focussing on the “rules” rather than the heart. While I certainly agree that we can fall into that trap of violating the heart of the law, while strictly following the external/letter of the law, this doesnt support acting lawless, however.
My stance, in this matter, is to refrain from an invalid wedding, WHILE reaching out to the couple with love and compassion by explaining WHY it is harmful to marry outside the Church and WHY it is harmful to support such a wedding. This should be done in a way that expresses a desire to be friends without any contempt for them at all! It is a simple refrain/protest from the ceremony, and NOT the couple themselves.
My stance, in this matter, is to refrain from an invalid wedding, WHILE reaching out to the couple with love and compassion by explaining WHY it is harmful to marry outside the Church and WHY it is harmful to support such a wedding. This should be done in a way that expresses a desire to be friends without any contempt for them at all! It is a simple refrain/protest from the ceremony, and NOT the couple themselves.
C
CilladeRoma
Guest
Not quite sure what world you live in, but I am pretty sure in the real world, the couple in question would not make this subtle distinction.
A
Ammi
Guest
I didnt say all invalid marriages won’t last. I said I hope the relationship does last, but the marriage be convalidated. I also keep saying invalid marriages can and often are dismissed by the Church without any necessary investigation.
Furthermore, one who is married outside the Church is separating themselves from His Eucharist! This act should be protested by fellow Chatholics. They should be encouraged to marry in the Church by all Catholics. I would reassure them I would pray and anticipate their choice to marry in the Church or a future decision to convalidate, and receive Holy Communion.
Let’s not forget that a large portion of these marriages happen because there was a divorce by one or both of the couple.
Furthermore, one who is married outside the Church is separating themselves from His Eucharist! This act should be protested by fellow Chatholics. They should be encouraged to marry in the Church by all Catholics. I would reassure them I would pray and anticipate their choice to marry in the Church or a future decision to convalidate, and receive Holy Communion.
Let’s not forget that a large portion of these marriages happen because there was a divorce by one or both of the couple.
Last edited:
- Status