The way I asked my question the way I did, is because I noticed some actual Catholics seem to think it is justifiable in some cases to have a civil wedding first, while they save up all the money they seem to think they “have to” spend on a Catholic wedding.
**We did have a civil wedding first, for complicated family reasons that didn’t have anything to do with money. At least one prospective in-law was planning on boycotting our Catholic wedding so we were thinking about delaying the wedding, but then the Protestant side of the family started getting stroppy about the delays. So the idea was to have the civil wedding to shut up the Protestants, and then have a Catholic wedding for ourselves, on our schedule. That turned out to be one month after the civil wedding, still without the boycotting Catholic relative–thank goodness our Catholic pastor was flexible. There wasn’t any hanky panky until after our Catholic wedding.
I probably wouldn’t do it that way again, if I had it all to do over again, because of the issue of scandal, but we were very young, broke, and under HUGE pressure from both sides of the family–pressure to get married and pressure not to get married, plus I was in an incredibly stressful graduate program. My prospective in-laws were very negative about me and were all, “In the old country, two year engagements are traditional!” and “In the old country, very small weddings are traditional!” (Yeah, right.) You can imagine how those speeches went over with my American family…It would have been very stressful to put together a big hometown wedding and to have the in-laws (or some of them) boycott the wedding or to have both families in the same space, so it was a relief to skip that.
At the time, I intended to do some sort of thing in my hometown for family and friends, perhaps an anniversary party (as recommended by Judith Martin), but it never materialized. I survived without it, though.
**