Engagement - how long, historically in doctrine, or in modern studies

[chevalier]

Background: A bishop in my country, one possibly being a member of the body that will work on introducing some restrictions connected with entering into marriage, has expressed his opinion that an engagement should last “at least several years”. Needless to say, I have issues with that opinion and am losing sleeping because of it. I really can’t see my conference of bishops imposing, say, a mandatory five year engagement, but this isn’t helping my nerves really.

I cannot pretend to be well-versed (or any-versed, for that matter) in the fathers or doctors, nor do I know of any theologian whatsoever addressing the subject of how long an engagement should take (from engagement to wedding). In fact, I don’t really have a solid idea of how long engagements were supposed to be by societies throughout history, although I know several years did indeed happen in some situations.

The matter is made somewhat more difficult by the fact that, historically, in many Christian cultures up to probably the middle of the middle ages, betrothal was either not a separate ceremony or it constituted the whole of the necessary exchange of vows as long as consummation followed at some point.

However, I suppose there might still be some sources reflecting on how long it should take between a couple before they marry, even if not expressly dealing with the length of the state of engagement.

The way I see it, 2 years may be good for the couple to think if they really want and are suited for marriage and I acknowledge that some people think 3 years is the number. However, I believe that long engagements are trouble and I see no benefit in an engagement lasting more than 3 years, increasing exponentially with each year thereafter. Still less justification do I see for an opinion that engagements should generally last that long. In fact, this is a severe understatement of my opinion, but I’m trying my best to get myself more informed before finally making my mind on what the bishop said.

So please let me know if there has ever been any father, doctor, saint or any respectable theologian or even secular expert suggesting that an engagement should be several years long.

Naturally, please let me know if there are any stating the opposite, i.e. that engagements shouldn’t be too long.

 

[bnbkaine]

I’m no doctor of the Church, but I was engaged for five months give or take, and have been married for over twelve years. I love my husband more today than the day we got married, through the grace of God; and through the grace of God, we will grow in love until the end. I think it depends on the couple- especially their views of marriage as a vocation and their responsibilities fulfilling that role.

 

[puzzleannie]

I never heard any church teaching on how long an engagement should be, other than the injunction common in the US that a couple should visit the pastor to begin the marriage preparation process no later than 6 months before the selected wedding date.

 

[chevalier]

There’s certainly no direct church teaching on that but I was wondering, maybe there were some writings by individual theologians, given the kind of detail they sometimes go into. Can’t cease wondering where the bishop got it from.

 

[C27433]

Is this a joke? No bishop, priest, theologian, or even the Pope has any authority to impose a mandatory engagement period of 5 days, let alone 5 years. The injunction in the U.S. to speak with your parish priest at least 6 months before hand has to do more with logistics than it does morality or doctrine.

It’s no secret that marriage in the world today, especially among the Catholic population, is in trouble, but it doesn’t magically give the hierarchy authority to impose these regulations just because they think it will help preserve its integrity. It is just another example of the decrepit institutionalism that is taking over the Church.

Unfortunately for your bishop, the Sacrament of Marriage is not administered by the priesthood. As scandalous as it sounds, if you really wanted to, you can go grab a witness and perform the marriage yourself, as the Sacrament is administered by the man and woman to be wed, not the priest. It would be completely valid.

I am currently engaged, and had only known my fiance for 10 weeks before we became engaged. The engagement will last one and a half years, but this is only due to logistical issues, and some initial concerns from her family that we had not been “dating long enough.” Now that they know me better, they can’t wait to have me as a member of their family, but the alas the wedding date has already been scheduled and we can’t move it up without causing havoc, otherwise we’d have been married months ago.

I’m sorry, but I think you need to move to a different diocese if you have to be subject to that kind of tyranny. Easier said than done.

 

[ChiRho]

Is this a joke? No bishop, priest, theologian, or even the Pope has any authority to impose a mandatory engagement period of 5 days, let alone 5 years. The injunction in the U.S. to speak with your parish priest at least 6 months before hand has to do more with logistics than it does morality or doctrine.

It’s no secret that marriage in the world today, especially among the Catholic population, is in trouble, but it doesn’t magically give the hierarchy authority to impose these regulations just because they think it will help preserve its integrity. It is just another example of the decrepit institutionalism that is taking over the Church.

Unfortunately for your bishop, the Sacrament of Marriage is not administered by the priesthood. As scandalous as it sounds, if you really wanted to, you can go grab a witness and perform the marriage yourself, as the Sacrament is administered by the man and woman to be wed, not the priest. It would be completely valid.

I am currently engaged, and had only known my fiance for 10 weeks before we became engaged. The engagement will last one and a half years, but this is only due to logistical issues, and some initial concerns from her family that we had not been “dating long enough.” Now that they know me better, they can’t wait to have me as a member of their family, but the alas the wedding date has already been scheduled and we can’t move it up without causing havoc, otherwise we’d have been married months ago.

I’m sorry, but I think you need to move to a different diocese if you have to be subject to that kind of tyranny. Easier said than done.

I think you’re overreacting a tad. He said a bishop in his country has commented that he would prefer longer engagements, not that they would ever impose a mandatory length - in fact he explicitly said that would never happen. He’s simply asking if there are any recommendations by saints much holier than we about an optimal engagement length, if such a thing has ever been considered.

 

[chevalier]

I think you’re overreacting a tad. He said a bishop in his country has commented that he would prefer longer engagements, not that they would ever impose a mandatory length - in fact he explicitly said that would never happen. He’s simply asking if there are any recommendations by saints much holier than we about an optimal engagement length, if such a thing has ever been considered.

Actually, the bishop is a member of the commission of the Conference of Bishops that deals with those things. It depends on how he’s quoted, some quotations say “several years”, some “at least several years”, some talk in terms of “should”, some “shall”.

I believe a mandatory 4-5 years engagement will not happen, but to be honest, I’m not completely firm in this belief. I can’t get out of shock after hearing an interested bishop say something like that. I’m considering writing to him. In my view that would be the kind of legislation which makes moral theologians dismiss some of the secular legislation as inconsistent with natural law, which is what I believe a mandatory 4-5 years engagement would be. Before doing this, or before framing my mind finally on the subject, I would like to know if there is perhaps some theologian throughout centuries that has brought up a favourable argument or two.

 

[ChadS]

I think the Bishop is probably trying to think of a way to strengthen Catholic marriages. He looks out on a depressing landscape where Catholics getting divorced is almost as common as it is for other religions or nonbelievers. Perhaps in his experience he’s found that couples that had longer engagements have more successful marriages. Marriage, like religious life, is a vocation that requires discernment. You don’t see many men or women rushing into the religious life after a 6 or 8 month discernment, I think you see people that think and pray about it for quite a while.

I agree with the poster that said that the couples should contact their parish priest 6 months prior to the wedding has more to do with logistics than anything else. I’ll be getting married in May and by the time of the wedding our engagement will have been 17 months. Even with all that time there are still many things to do. Since I don’t live in the city where I’ll be getting married it’s been difficult to do all of our meetings with the priest. He wanted to have about four meetings prior to the wedding, right now we’re at 2 and the time for getting together with him is quickly diminishing. However, my fiancee feels were right on schedule since we did our pre-Cana class about 3 weeks ago and there were a few couples there that were getting married in only a few weeks after the class.

ChadS

 

[Fidelia]

Unfortunately for your bishop, the Sacrament of Marriage is not administered by the priesthood. As scandalous as it sounds, if you really wanted to, you can go grab a witness and perform the marriage yourself, as the Sacrament is administered by the man and woman to be wed, not the priest. It would be completely valid.
The sacrament is administered by the man and woman, but you do need a priest or deacon officiating as a witness. You need two witnesses, in addition to the priest, who is witnessing for the Church. I don’t think you can just have a secret marriage with one witness and have it be valid.

In response to the main topic, that’s ridiculous, and I really don’t see how it could help any situation. I have always thought it unwise to have an extended engagement. Too many couples get engaged as a “next step to the relationship” but then just let the relationship plateau there, with either no wedding in sight, or a wedding so far off, it makes you question why to get engaged so soon if you can’t get married yet.

Now, I am NOT saying that it is wise for anyone to rush into a marriage. There should, imo be a reasonably timed period of engagement in which the couple prepares for being married. This includes the necessary meetings with the priest, pre-cana, going over necessary issues like family stuff, finances, learning NFP before getting married, etc.

What I’m saying is that the engagement period should be a time of formation and preparation, but should not go on longer than necessary. IMHO, at least 6 months, 1 year max (generally speaking). That’s just my opinion. My fiance and I both did not agree with the idea of a long engagement. By the time we are married our engagement will be 11 months. We wish we were able to plan the wedding for a couple months sooner, but other circumstances would not permit (he’s traveling for research).

But seriously, even if they’re not talking about mandating it, I have no idea why anyone would think that a 5 year engagement would be a good idea.

… Marriage, like religious life, is a vocation that requires discernment. You don’t see many men or women rushing into the religious life after a 6 or 8 month discernment, I think you see people that think and pray about it for quite a while.
…
However, my fiancee feels were right on schedule since we did our pre-Cana class about 3 weeks ago and there were a few couples there that were getting married in only a few weeks after the class.

ChadS

I agree that marriage takes discernment. But i think that a lot of discernment should happen prior to getting engaged. By the time you get engaged, imo, you should be sure. The engagement period is for the formation and preparation specifically for getting married, not making sure.

ChadS, you sound fine schedule-wise. We have had two meetings with our priest so far, and will have one or two more when my fiance is back late April. Then we have one course in May, pre-cana course in June, wedding in July. So our pre-cana will end up being less than a month prior to the wedding, but it had to work out that way because of scheduling and fiance’s research.

 

[ChiRho]

I agree that marriage takes discernment. But i think that a lot of discernment should happen prior to getting engaged. By the time you get engaged, imo, you should be sure. The engagement period is for the formation and preparation specifically for getting married, not making sure.
.

I’ve heard the saying “the proposal should be a surprise, the engagement shouldn’t”. I think that pithily sums it up nicely

 

[Fidelia]

I’ve heard the saying “the proposal should be a surprise, the engagement shouldn’t”. I think that pithily sums it up nicely

I haven’t heard that, but it is a good one!

 

[ChadS]

I agree that marriage takes discernment. But i think that a lot of discernment should happen prior to getting engaged. By the time you get engaged, imo, you should be sure. The engagement period is for the formation and preparation specifically for getting married, not making sure.

ChadS, you sound fine schedule-wise. We have had two meetings with our priest so far, and will have one or two more when my fiance is back late April. Then we have one course in May, pre-cana course in June, wedding in July. So our pre-cana will end up being less than a month prior to the wedding, but it had to work out that way because of scheduling and fiance’s research.

Oh yes, I agree the discernment should begin when you first start dating. What I was just suggesting is that the engagement can be a period of discernment too since ideally you are spending more time together and starting to get things in order for the wedding etc. Plus, if you had a short dating period a longer engagement can help make up that time that was “missing” from the dating period.

I think you’re right on the meeting schedule too. The priest isn’t worried and he’s not pushing us. I didn’t mean to sound judgmental that people doing pre-Cana only a few weeks prior to the wedding are somehow “bad.” As my fiancee pointed out maybe they’re getting married in that church or knew the priest doing the pre-Cana classes and really wanted to go there or maybe it’s all that works with their schedules. She has a knack for seeing things in the best light possible.

ChadS