A very good reply. I rattled off a litany of my own shortcomings and sins, including sins of omission. Since I’m not perfect and aware of my sin and yet still continue to sin, should I have just not gotten married in the Church? I think not.
Does the groom self-identify as Catholic? Based on the information we’ve been given, that’s pretty unclear. I’m not criticizing the actions of getting married in the church. I wanted to know more about the intention.
The OP invited criticism when she made it clear that the couple has no desire to have children. What is a marriage without being open to procreation? If the couple tells the bishop “we would like to get married, but we have no plans or desire to have children. Also we plan on using contraception”, what do you think his response would be?
I think this is where the idea of sacrilege comes in. Look, when I got married my faith looked a whole lot different than it is now. I get that. We all deserve the chance to grow. But when I got married in the Church it was not to placate relatives. In fact since we were both converts it upset relatives. It was not a lie. I did not hold the Church to be untrue or something that mommy wanted me to do. And though I practiced things that I would not today, my intent was that the Church was the correct party in the relationship. It was I that failed and I confessed that. And I prayed for that. And my wife and I were committed not only to each other but to the Church. First off, dispensations are rare. And if the OP actually printed off the original post and submitted it to a Bishop I am not aware of a Bishop who would likely grant it.
If the couple has no intention of having children, then they are not “inclined to follow the law.” Getting married in the Catholic Church while knowingly planning to disobey such a basic tenet of Catholic teaching on marriage renders the marriage invalid.
I second this.I think this is where the idea of sacrilege comes in. Look, when I got married my faith looked a whole lot different than it is now. I get that. We all deserve the chance to grow. But when I got married in the Church it was not to placate relatives. In fact since we were both converts it upset relatives. It was not a lie. I did not hold the Church to be untrue or something that mommy wanted me to do. And though I practiced things that I would not today, my intent was that the Church was the correct party in the relationship. It was I that failed and I confessed that. And I prayed for that. And my wife and I were committed not only to each other but to the Church. First off, dispensations are rare. And if the OP actually printed off the original post and submitted it to a Bishop I am not aware of a Bishop who would likely grant it.
If you are getting a dispensation because mommy will be unhappy that you do not believe the faith anymore then that seems less like a serious reason to get a dispensation than “my dad is a baptist minister.”
As far as the whole issue of marriage, dispensation, and NFP are concerned, even my grade school children know that if you enter into a contract and lie or do not intend the terms of the contract, then you are committing a sham, a fraud, and you are disingenuous.
But who knows what information the Church has on this issue.
I don’t ask that every single cafeteria catholic believe what I believe when they get married. I just ask that they respect my faith and Church enough to not be sacrilegious. I fear that is where this has crossed over to.
You may not be reading this any more, but here are some thoughts that come to mind:
SOOO agree, it is none of her business, just like it will be none of your business when your son does this. Once you have a child it is between you and your husband and God, NO one else.
OK. I think you want to refer to the Motu Proprio Omnium in mentem issued by Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, which amended canon law with regards to which baptized Catholics are bound to follow canon law with regards to marriage.
Here’s what I meant about “intention” - the OP said that the in-laws would “shun” them. Shun was in quotes in the original post, I asked what shunning would look like. It seemed to me that the OP and her fiance were trying to avoid a “consequence” more than they were trying to maintain relationship. She didn’t say, “Fiance doesn’t want to disappoint his parents, GM, etc.”
)To avoid the consequence of shunning is to maintain the relationship, because to shun is to break off a relationship or to cool an intimate relationship to a polite but formal one–“treat them as you would a tax collector or a Gentile.”Here’s what I meant about “intention” - the OP said that the in-laws would “shun” them. Shun was in quotes in the original post, I asked what shunning would look like. It seemed to me that the OP and her fiance were trying to avoid a “consequence” more than they were trying to maintain relationship. She didn’t say, “Fiance doesn’t want to disappoint his parents, GM, etc.”
My hypothesis was (and is!) that the parents may be refusing to pay towards a wedding that wasn’t valid and that’s what they were labeling as “shunning.”
Hubby and I teach NFP and know a majority of the NFP teachers in our diocese. I can’t imagine a single one of them “shunning” (breaking off all relationship) if their child didn’t marry in the church. (You can take it to the bank that I’m taking a poll the next time we’re all together.) I can’t imagine a single one of them paying towards a marriage outside of the church. (Taking that poll, too.
Personally, there are a lot of things DH and I wouldn’t pay for for a child. If our child went to college and took a class on feminism in pornography - not paying for that class. We might not even pay for that entire semester. If our child went to Vegas and got married and then wanted us to pay for a reception back at home? No. Tarty clothes for a 14 year old? No. A destination wedding to get married on the beach? No. Would we sever all relationship? Never.
I don’t think refusing to pay is manipulative. I just refuse to spend money on things I don’t support. Here’s my rationale - DH and I used the talents God gave us to make the money. We used the wisdom good gave us to invest the money. God has entrusted us to manage those resources. It’s all His. Why would we spend money on something contrary to His teaching?
I could be entirely off-base in my hypothesis that the dispensation and the wedding funds are linked; but, my question about the shunning was never answered so I’m left to speculate.
Let me be clear, I’m not saying the OP’s wedding isn’t valid. There’s been speculation here that it may not be, but, given all the steps they’ve taken, it’s valid to form if they get the dispensation. I didn’t say I wouldn’t contribute to this wedding if I were the OP’s future MIL. If they got the dispensation, they’d get access to their wedding fund.
There is only reason to decide not to get the dispensation. It would be because the Catholic decided not to marry a non-Catholic. Otherwise, the Catholic is bound to act according to the laws placed upon us.
There is only reason to decide not to get the dispensation. It would be because the Catholic decided not to marry a non-Catholic. Otherwise, the Catholic is bound to act according to the laws placed upon us. If a Catholic says he doesn’t plan to marry validly, he shouldn’t be counselled to marry elsewhere. He ought to be counselled to rethink marriage altogether until he can switch his noodle and enter into marriage validly.
I completely agree with you. I have spun this off to a hypothetical and esoteric place. I wasn’t, nor would I, counsel the couple to proceed in a course of sin. I don’t know if I even addressed that in my posts because the OP isn’t Catholic and I don’t think she understands, respects, or values the Church position on these items.
)I know a lot of people who will jump through a hoop that means nothing to them but is not morally offensive to them, either, because it will please someone else. If your in-laws will view your marriage differently because you are willing to fill out the right paperwork, many people will do that. Family serenity raised, no skin off the nose–no brainer, they say. My husband is baptized, but had no proof of it. We went through the trouble to turn up the proof by contacting his childhood church, so that our marriage would be recognized as sacramental. We had a nuptial Mass. What difference did it make to him? He thought it worth it to go the extra mile for his new family. He still hasn’t become a Catholic, and he’d still handle it the same way all over again.I completely agree with you. I have spun this off to a hypothetical and esoteric place. I wasn’t, nor would I, counsel the couple to proceed in a course of sin. I don’t know if I even addressed that in my posts because the OP isn’t Catholic and I don’t think she understands, respects, or values the Church position on these items.
I really wanted to know why she was pursuing that which she didn’t value. They were going through a lot of effort and I wanted to know their intentions. I’ll be clear (or at least clearer, I hope) I think the couple is committing a fraudulent act. I just wanted to know if it was for cash or relationship. Fraud for relationship sits better with me. I have a less charitable perspective on fraud for cash.
As I said, the family was characterized as planning to “shun” and I have a hard time wrapping my head around that. I know NFP promoter and instructor couples (two different roles in our Diocese, although many couples have both roles) and I don’t think any would sever or even cool a relationship. Many would be conflicted about attending a wedding that wasn’t valid to form, and would express their disappointment privately, but the majority (I dare say all) would be at the wedding.
When it came time to pick up the check for a wedding that wasn’t valid to form (I agree that it’s impossible to know one’s true intentions - the heart of validity lies between the couple and God) I don’t think most would write the check. Again, this is completely hypothetical, but I can’t imagine that DH and I would write that check. – I wouldn’t spend $10 for my nephew to get his face painted when it was going to get washed off at bedtime (about 4 hours away.) Especially when he had spending money. (That’s definitely a different thread, though
I agree that it’s different if the husband-to-be was asking. Valid, non-valid both are likely meaningless to the OP. How to draw a reasonable boundary with the mother-in-law was answered early on. The OP acknowledged as much. Someone pointed out (maybe around p. 3) that there are theological discussions worth having especially if someone pulls this thread up in the future.