Civil Ceremony now. Convalidation/reception next year?

[Gorgias]

My parents were married in the fifties.

To be fair, since the fifties, canon law has changed, the Church’s practice of the preparation for the sacrament of marriage has changed, and our cultural context with respect to relationships and marriage has changed.

With this in mind, simply comparing one situation from the fifties with any situation today isn’t really relevant.

it would be nice for the baby to have married parents.

It would be nice. But, marrying simply for the sake of being married parents would raise serious questions about the validity of the marriage…

 

[KS_Housewife]

Oh, ho, ho! My in-laws were married in a small ceremony in the forties. That’s TWO situations for you; one from the forties AND one from the fifties! Perhaps small religious wedding ceremony situations can appear more relevant to you now, in whatever era they occurred. You just got caught on my “pre-cana” comment, probably you assumed my comment was meant to poo-poo pre-cana training (which it was not meant to do), and so you decided to hold a condescending sneer session in your post (though why is not clear), which is of no benefit to the lady who posted the dilemma.

What supercilious balderdash! Of course a comparison of today’s wedding and marriage climate to a more traditional and family-friendly era like the fifties is relevant. Many average people managed to marry then without today’s burdensome expectations of lavish ceremonies and receptions. The post-er should know she can have a Catholic wedding, a beautiful one if that is important to her, even if it’s small and simple. In consultation with her priest, she and her fiancé may be able to speed up, individualize or forego some of the parish typical pre-marital preparation.

Marrying in order to provide a family environment for one’s children and mutual support are valid motivations for conferring the sacrament upon on another. That is what the post-er and her fiancé want to achieve with their situation. That is very mature and unselfish of them to marry, and it is absurd of you to suggest it would be invalid, with your dismissive patter about “marrying simply for the sake of being married parents” drivel. Pope Francis has married cohabiting couples, couples who already have children no less, and he encourages other unmarried cohabiting couples to regularize their situations. He’s not waiting until they are pure and perfect.

 

[Gorgias]

Oh, ho, ho! My in-laws were married in a small ceremony in the forties. That’s TWO situations for you; one from the forties AND one from the fifties!

Right… and both of which occurred in a different canon law context than any marriage since 1983. And hence, relatively irrelevant…

You just got caught on my “pre-cana” comment

Actually, no… I didn’t. Your assertions about marital preparation classes really don’t have a whole lot to do with the issues at hand.

However, I did notice your comment that “it would be nice for the baby to have married parents”, as you might have picked up on. That sentiment – if by it, you meant that having a baby de facto creates a valid marriage – is patently inaccurate. But hey – if you know what I’m thinking better than I know what I’m thinking, have at it…!

you decided to hold a condescending sneer session in your post (though why is not clear)

No, I didn’t. Although, to tell the truth, now that I’ve read your response…

What supercilious balderdash!

‘Supercilious’? No, of course not. I’m not saying that I’m any better than you. Apparently, though, I might just have a better grip on what issues the Church takes into consideration in determining what makes a valid marriage…

Marrying in order to provide a family environment for one’s children and mutual support are valid motivations for conferring the sacrament upon on another.

Actually… no. One marries in order to consent to Christian marriage – not to provide a family name for one’s children born out of wedlock, or in order to provide financial support for the parent of one’s child. Either of these considerations – if they’re the primary reason one got married – is sufficient to support a petition for nullity. But hey, what do I know? I’m supercilious.

it is absurd of you to suggest it would be invalid, with your dismissive patter about “marrying simply for the sake of being married parents” drivel.

Psst… ask a canon lawyer. You’ll be surprised at the answer you get.

Pope Francis has married cohabiting couples, couples who already have children no less, and he encourages other unmarried cohabiting couples to regularize their situations.

Certainly he does – and properly, at that! Of course, the suggestion to marry isn’t made simply in order to ‘regularize their situations’ – it must be because they want to enter into a Christian marriage, characterized by permanance, fidelity, and openness to procreation. Any other reason fails to meet the standard of ‘consent’, which is required for a valid marriage.

 

[Phemie]

Certainly he does – and properly, at that! Of course, the suggestion to marry isn’t made simply in order to ‘regularize their situations’ – it must be because they want to enter into a Christian marriage, characterized by permanance, fidelity, and openness to procreation. Any other reason fails to meet the standard of ‘consent’, which is required for a valid marriage.

As long as their intent is for the marriage to be permanent, to the exclusion of all others and open to children, it doesn’t matter “why” they opt to be married as long as they both do so willingly, without coercion.

 

[Gorgias]

As long as their intent is for the marriage to be permanent, to the exclusion of all others and open to children, it doesn’t matter “why” they opt to be married as long as they both do so willingly, without coercion.

Among the questions asked by the priest or deacon preparing the couple for marriage is whether there is any situation or circumstance forcing them into marriage. If so, and if ‘consent’ is conditional on that circumstance, then there’s not true ‘consent’. But, you’re saying the same thing that I am, I think: a situation in which one marries because of a pregnancy or because of children is ‘coercion’ to the exclusion of free consent.

(It’s possible that a priest might nevertheless marry the couple – but if the marriage fails, it’s likely a slam dunk for a nullity. :sad_yes

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Why not have a small ceremony in the Church, with close family and friends. Go out to dinner afterwards or have a small celebration at your residence. On your first anniversary, you could have a bigger reception for your both of your families, immediate and extended. Also, it could include friends, co-workers, etc.

 

[EasterJoy]

Going through a civil marriage now and waiting until later to marry in the Church legally amounts to a betrothal. The state does not require consummation, and moral law does not allow consummation prior to the Church wedding. If the intention is to exchange consent now and the exchange vows validly and consummate later, I suppose it is tolerable.

Why do that, though? Practically speaking, no one wants to be legally married but not morally free to act as husband and wife, do they? Better to have a small Church wedding from the beginning, be husband and wife from the beginning, and then have a Mass of thanksgiving and a reception large enough for everyone you want to include when the circumstances are better for a big celebration. There is no longer any prohibitions on getting the big dress and flowers when you’ve already been married awhile–that would be pretty rich, when people live together for years before going through the big-dress-big-venue thing. There is no reason not to be really married from the very beginning.

 

[HelenRose]

My fiance and I are considering having a courthouse wedding this summer for the sake of having health insurance. We have a 1 month old son together, the pregnancy was complicated, we had an emergency delivery. All is well now, but fiance has just graduated from school and is being offered a job that covers health insurance for the entire family at NO COST to the employee/family. I cannot afford health insurance at my job, and now that I am no longer pregnant, I will have to purchase it from somewhere.

I just graduated nursing school/got a job last year, and he has just graduated/got a job, so we are JUST STARTING to get on our feet financially after three years. We could not have done it without each other.

Our thought is to get married in the courthouse for insurance purposes this summer, and next summer when we can afford to invite guests to a celebration, have a convalidation/reception.

How we understand it, and how we would explain it to our guests, is something along the lines of: “We are married according to man, join us and help us celebrate as we marry before God.”

There is no feasible way to have an actual wedding this summer. This is the best we can do. It’s infuriating how much it costs to get married, and all of the expectations and traditions. If people put half the time into their marriage as they put into the wedding, the world would be a vastly different place.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have often thought that a quiet simple marriage in front of a priest and those closest and dearest to you, could be so beautiful. Start your life together without the huge debt of paying for a “WEDDING”. When you can afford a big party - let us say “Five Year Anniversary Party” - then go for it big time.

This is between God, you and your husband. It isn’t about pleasing your family and friends. A big wedding can and often brings with it family squabbles and hurt feelings. It is amazing how, when people get in the middle of wedding plans, common sense flies out the door.

 

[Angel_Bradford]

My fiance and I are considering having a courthouse wedding this summer for the sake of having health insurance. We have a 1 month old son together, the pregnancy was complicated, we had an emergency delivery. All is well now, but fiance has just graduated from school and is being offered a job that covers health insurance for the entire family at NO COST to the employee/family. I cannot afford health insurance at my job, and now that I am no longer pregnant, I will have to purchase it from somewhere.

I just graduated nursing school/got a job last year, and he has just graduated/got a job, so we are JUST STARTING to get on our feet financially after three years. We could not have done it without each other.

Our thought is to get married in the courthouse for insurance purposes this summer, and next summer when we can afford to invite guests to a celebration, have a convalidation/reception.

How we understand it, and how we would explain it to our guests, is something along the lines of: “We are married according to man, join us and help us celebrate as we marry before God.”

There is no feasible way to have an actual wedding this summer. This is the best we can do. It’s infuriating how much it costs to get married, and all of the expectations and traditions. If people put half the time into their marriage as they put into the wedding, the world would be a vastly different place.

What are your thoughts on this?

A friend of mine married about 6 weeks ago. Beautiful ceremony and the reception was pot luck where everyone brought a dish. They had a small wedding cake and then cupcakes for the guest. It was very nice!