Delayed Marriages

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m glad that worked for you, but neither I nor my mother would have wanted that fast/ rushed/ simple of a wedding. Doesn’t sound appealing to me at all.
Different strokes for different folks.
There are a lot of factors, emotions, and family considerations that go into a wedding, so it’s best to just have the type you and your spouse want, and let others do the same.

 

[1ke]

If a Catholic couple exchanged vows with two witnesses but no priest present, would that marriage be valid but illicit, or invalid?

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.

 

[sealabeag]

So a marriage with no witnesses or clergy is just totally invalid?
And getting married with no priest when there’s a priest available would be illicit but valid?

 

[MikeInVA]

I nor my mother would have wanted that fast/ rushed/ simple of a wedding.

A couple of years ago I went to 2 family weddings. The first was a friend of our daughter. She was married in a small rural chapel with a reception in the adjoining hall. It was a small affair arranged by the couple, with their friends serving the food and playing music on a portable stereo. The other was an extravagant wedding at a hotel with a blow out reception at a different hotel, with a soloist, a live band and a DJ. I thought the small wedding was focused on the love of the couple, and I thoroughly enjoyed it. The other was focused on the party aspect, and I couldn’t wait to leave.

Kids today see these fairy tale weddings on TV and think that’s what theirs should be like (proms have also gotten out of control). I wish more people thought about keeping it simple and focused on the couple rather than the depths of their (parents’) checkbooks.

 

[1ke]

So a marriage with no witnesses or clergy is just totally invalid?

Yes. Even in your “desert island” scenario.

And getting married with no priest when there’s a priest available would be illicit but valid?

No, not when one is available.

And it definitely wouldn’t be legal in the US, except in common law marriage states (and that itself if complicated).

Can. 1116 §1. If a person competent to assist according to the norm of law cannot be present or approached without grave inconvenience, those who intend to enter into a true marriage can contract it validly and licitly before witnesses only:

1/ in danger of death;

2/ outside the danger of death provided that it is prudently foreseen that the situation will continue for a month.

§2. In either case, if some other priest or deacon who can be present is available, he must be called and be present at the celebration of the marriage together with the witnesses, without prejudice to the validity of the marriage before witnesses only.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[BartholomewB]

considering that most churches in the US require 6 months or 12 months of preparation.

I don’t know whether anyone has conducted any surveys about it, but this has always looked to me like a contributing factor helping to drive people away from the Church.

 

[sealabeag]

Yes. Even in your “desert island” scenario

Better not get stuck on a desert island with a beautiful woman then!
I’d have thought the most extreme circumstances would make an exchange of vows valid so long as re-done with witnesses and clergy when able.

 

[babochka]

I never understood those long preparations before a wedding. We managed to plan everything in about 4 months, what could possibly take a year to prepare?

Different people have been different needs.

When we met with the priest, we had all of our paperwork in order and had already scheduled a marriage prep class. We had no out of town guests to consider. We proposed a date (4 months out) to the priest; he checked his calendar and agreed, even though the parishes official policy stated 6 months notice is required. We are pretty low-key people and were flexible with non essentials, like reception venue, etc. We just wanted to be married.

Sometimes people have issues with paperwork, out of town guests, logistical issues, etc.

 

[whatistrue]

My understanding is that the preparation requirements have little to nothing to do with the logistics of the ceremony (other than booking the church and arranging for musician/cantor/etc.) but is rather to make sure there is plenty of time to be properly prepared for the marriage itself, such as understanding the nature of marriage, NFP education if necessary, and the other items the Church requires. we had several meetings with the priest spaced over several months and the pre-Cana session required by the Diocese, all of which had to be scheduled way in advance. In contrast, the amount of time spent arranging the ceremony and reception was minor, but there was still a bit of lead time required for certain things such as the reception venue.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

To avoid hasty elopements

 

[tuffsmurf]

We had no pre-cana classes nor any nfp education. We just met with the priest a few times.

 

[Phemie]

Well everyone is different I guess…

We got engaged in March. Met with the parish priest in April and set a date for August. We took the church that was available for that date and we had the reception in my parents’ house.
In May I bought my dress and we met with the priest again to talk about the Sacrament, married life and personal expectations, etc. Send out invitations.
In June we ordered the food and cake that we wanted. We booked the honey moon.
In July we met with the priest to do paperwork and to go through the ceremony. We bought rings.
In the last two weeks before the wedding we had a rehearsal, I ordered one bouquet of flowers. We decorated the house with our own flowers (wild and from the garden) and set up the tables.
Done.

We’d been engaged for 2 years when, in early July 1975, the Padre at the Base where my fiancé was posted called me to say we were getting married. Told me to go see my priest.

When he put my fiancé on the line I asked when this was taking place. He said he could get leave at the end of October so October 24th looked good.

Met with Father by myself once to secure the date and do the paperwork (it was my baptismal parish so that simplified things); my fiancé, a non-Catholic, met with the Catholic Chaplain. He came home a week before the wedding. Those 7 days brought to 30 the total number of days I’d seen him in the 2 years before the wedding. Marriage happened without a hitch on Oct. 24, 1975. We’ll celebrate our 45th this fall.

 

[whatistrue]

Obviously not every marriage is the same, and things tend to change over time and with location. Was this perhaps some years (or decades) ago? I know that the “prep” for my wife’s first (since annulled) marriage was very sparse, and I understand that similar types of procedures were rather common for a significant time, at least in the US. But what I was speaking to was the current process in the US and some of the reasons for the timeline.

 

[tuffsmurf]

No it was recent, but in a small diocese in a mainly non-catholic country in Europe. Only a few couples get married in our parish every year so I guess it wouldn’t be possible to have a class.

 

[whatistrue]

Makes sense for the environment you are in. Most of the group classes here are run by the Diocese, and each Diocese has its own set of accepted programs, but the officiating priest or deacon still meets with each couple several times over the course of the process to take care of everything that is specific to the couple, and for individualized discussion and counseling where needed.

 

[Phemie]

Makes sense for the environment you are in. Most of the group classes here are run by the Diocese, and each Diocese has its own set of accepted programs, but the officiating priest or deacon still meets with each couple several times over the course of the process to take care of everything that is specific to the couple, and for individualized discussion and counseling where needed.

In our parish we haven’t run a “marriage preparation course” in 20 years. The priest meets with the couple as often as necessary to do what needs to be done. One of our pastors used FOCCUS as his means of preparation. The others sent the couple home with a workbook and met with them after each section. I always thought the workbook approach was too lax. Nobody who completes the book in the same week as they are getting married has had any time to consider whether or not what they are doing is the right thing.

I wish couples could do a marriage preparation course before they set the date and then they wouldn’t feel they can’t back out if they really want to. Doing marriage prep after you’ve set the date and spent piles of money on the reception and other things is not conducive to good reflection.

 

[poche]

The issue is with church closings and where weddings have been cancelled or deferred for what appears to be an indefinite period of time.

 

[Gorgias]

The issue is with church closings and where weddings have been cancelled or deferred for what appears to be an indefinite period of time.

To be fair, they’re being ‘cancelled or deferred’ not because the ceremony cannot take place, but because folks want to have ceremonies with guests present. If they were willing to be married before a priest or deacon, with only two witnesses present, then the wedding could take place.

So, this isn’t about “OMG! They won’t celebrate my wedding!”, so much as it’s about “OMG! They won’t let me have my wedding day as I’ve always dreamt of it!” (At least, that’s my sense of this issue…)

 

[babochka]

poche:

The issue is with church closings and where weddings have been cancelled or deferred for what appears to be an indefinite period of time.

To be fair, they’re being ‘cancelled or deferred’ not because the ceremony cannot take place, but because folks want to have ceremonies with guests present. If they were willing to be married before a priest or deacon, with only two witnesses present, then the wedding could take place.

So, this isn’t about “OMG! They won’t celebrate my wedding!”, so much as it’s about “OMG! They won’t let me have my wedding day as I’ve always dreamt of it!” (At least, that’s my sense of this issue…)

I don’t know the current status, but in a diocese where even confession and anointing of the sick are (were?) not allowed, I don’t imagine that the bishop permitted weddings, either, no matter how small.

 

[Phemie]

In our diocese weddings with no more than 5 people were allowed.