Delayed Marriages

  • Thread starter Thread starter poche
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not a conspiracy theory when bars, restaurants and theaters can open but the Church must remain closed or they can open but with an occupancy requirement that is much more strict than others have to comply with.
 
EnglishTeacher said:
40.png
NevermoreLenore:
I always disliked the idea of long engagements in general, but maintaining six months to a year of sexual purity seems…daunting.
Click to expand...
Requiring a year of marriage preparation as the standard is kind of harsh in my opinion, and unnecessary in most cases. But I think six months is very reasonable. When my husband and I got engaged, we set our wedding date almost exactly six months out. A few people expressed surprise at such a short engagement, so I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. :woman_shrugging:t2:
Click to expand...
When my husband and I met with the priest, we proposed a wedding date 4 months out and hoped the priest wouldn’t notice. He checked his calendar and said that the date worked for him. I’m sure it helped that we came with all of our paperwork in order and our classes already scheduled.
 
I agree; I said we married ‘a few months later’ but I should’ve been more precise. We had our first date 01 December 1999 and married 22 July 2000, so six months after the engagement. Yesterday was our 20th anniversary and whilst I’m so grateful for our marriage, it was disappointing because we wanted to go away (in state) for a few days and we couldn’t even go out to dinner, so it kind of felt like a normal day. Anyhow…I agree that six months is a decent engagement period but it always depends on the couple’s circumstances.

Question: we were married as evangelicals, in a simple church wedding. We became Catholic 7-8 years ago and subsequently had our marriage convalidated (I think that’s the term) at the Mass we normally attend. It was a brief, no frills event but had very deep meaning for my husband and I, both because we understood what real, Catholic marriage means and because our family found our spiritual home after a lifetime of wandering. My question is as follows: because we are in the midst of very unusual circumstances and Catholic Church weddings are on hold for the foreseeable future, would it be permissible for a couple to get married by a Justice of the Peace and later do as we did and have a Catholic ceremony? Obviously, cohabitating is not permissible. But when you have two adults ready for marriage how long can they reasonably be expected to wait when there are two rents to pay, two household utilities, etc and, as mentioned above, couples in their late thirties have a limited window during which to have children. I don’t see anything wrong with a courthouse wedding, followed by a Catholic Church wedding/validation when we aren’t on lockdown. As I said, I’m a newer Catholic so I am open to being corrected, knowing there are many things that I missed growing up evangelical.
 
I think it is wacko that people can get married before a justice of peace but can’t have a church wedding with just the priest and two witnesses
 
NevermoreLenore said:
My question is as follows: because we are in the midst of very unusual circumstances and Catholic Church weddings are on hold for the foreseeable future, would it be permissible for a couple to get married by a Justice of the Peace and later do as we did and have a Catholic ceremony? Obviously, cohabitating is not permissible.
Click to expand...
I think most dioceses are permitting very small weddings. Ours is back to having Mass with an attendance cap of 30% capacity and with spacing and sanitizing precautions in place. So I think weddings are allowed with the same precautions.

If nothing else, a couple at least ought to be able to get married in the Church by a priest or deacon with two witness present, and everyone can wear masks, etc. If dioceses aren’t at least allowing this, then I think that’s wrong.

Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., it is not permissible to get married by a Justice of the Peace, because it doesn’t not count as marriage in the Catholic Church, so a couple that does this is basically cohabitating unless and until they convalidate the marriage in the Church.
 
EnglishTeacher said:
Unfortunately, at least in the U.S., it is not permissible to get married by a Justice of the Peace, because it doesn’t not count as marriage in the Catholic Church, so a couple that does this is basically cohabitating unless and until they convalidate the marriage in the Church.
Click to expand...
Is the JP invalid, or any marriage taken outside of the Catholic Church? We were married by a family friend (an ordained evangelical pastor) but during the time before we received confession, Eucharist, and convalidation we weren’t told we weren’t validly married. My understanding was that our marriage was valid and indissoluble, even before our convalidation. Is that because we were married by a pastor, or would it also be valid if we were originally married by the JP?

Thanks for answering my questions–I’m always eager to understand our faith better. The marriage issue is moot for me now, but having teenagers, it mightn’t be too far off… hopefully it’ll be awhile, though!
 
Were you catholics at the time of the wedding (were you baptized as catholics)? Or did you convert?
 
In the Catholic Church in order for a sacrament (in this case marriage) to be valid it has to follow a form that is recognized by the Catholic Church. Without a dispensation a marriage outside of the Catholic Church would be invalid.
 
Convalidation is the ceremony by which an invalid marriage is made valid. If neither of you were a baptized Catholic prior to your marriage and both of you were free to marry then your marriage by a minister would have been valid in the eyes of the Church (likewise if by a JP, mayor, judge, or any other licensed officiant) and if you both were previously baptized in another faith prior to the marriage it would also have been recognized as sacramental. The fact that you were expected/required to have it convalidated would indicate that your marriage was considered invalid for some reason.

HOWEVER, and it is a big however, there are times when validly married non-Catholic couples coming into the Church erroneously are told their marriage “must” be convalidated. I would not be surprised that unfortunately this happens with some degree of frequency. In fact there is a thread here on CAF in which a gentleman in that very circumstance describes the rather lengthy ordeal he had to go through to convince officials at both his parish and the diocese that their insistence on convalidation was incorrect.
 
It really depends upon the couple, priest/deacon, how booked up the church building is and what the diocese requires for marriage preparations.
 
I think you are thinking of the ancient practice of marriage when all a couple had to do was exchange vows privately and consummate the marriage. I believe that changed in the 13 century however.

But prior to that no witnesses nor clergy were required.
 
We were married in an evangelical church over a decade before we converted to Catholicism. My husband, one child, and I were baptised by an evangelical minister. Our other kids were baptised Catholic when we converted (after RCIA), we all were subsequently confirmed, then our marriage was convalidated.
 
Then your marriage was absolutely valid even before your conversion!
 
That practice was changed with the Council of Trent.
I am wondering if it could be returned to if the churches will be closed indefinitely. It is one thing to be closed for one or two months. Some dioceses have opened only to be closing again. Some dioceses have cancelled confessions. If they are cancelling mass and confessions then at some point there has to be a recognition of the legitimacy of a return to this practice if they make themselves unavailable for marriage preparation and the celebration of marriages for an time period that is indefinite and long.
 
Phemie said:
Had either one of you been married previously?
Click to expand...
My husband was previously married; no children. Out of charity I will simply say an annulment was granted. Another topic for another time, but the annulment process was highly invasive for a past left behind long ago, one in which he was the wronged party (abuse and adultery–her, not him), and one that happened before we even thought about being Catholic (we were still evangelical…thinking the Catholic Church was the Whore of Babylon… :woman_facepalming:t2:). But we wanted to be obedient to the church and went through the proper channels to become confirmed and have our marriage convalidated.
 
Phemie said:
Thank you. It just clarifies why a convalidation was done.
Click to expand...
Regardless of an annulment or lack thereof, we were married as evangelicals so we had to have a convalidation either way. This is what our parish and priests told us.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top