It's Official: Outdoor Catholic Weddings Approved

  • Thread starter Thread starter lax16
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Good fro them.
I still think the safety of a wedding in a Parish not running the risk of inclement weather is a better choice.
Not doubting the beauty of the out=doors, but our parish, IMHO, is quite beautiful inside.
So long as the solemnity is retained…I doubt that will come to my Archdiocese tough.
I seriously doubt it.
 
Padres1969 said:
Definitely might lead to more Catholic couples choosing to marry sacramentally “in the church”.
Click to expand...
I’m thinking that a couple who would only have a sacramental wedding if it fit in with their choice of location probably aren’t properly disposed to have one in the first place. That’s probably not the reason they did this.
 
Allegra said:
I’m thinking that a couple who would only have a sacramental wedding if it fit in with their choice of location probably aren’t properly disposed to have one in the first place. That’s probably not the reason they did this.
Click to expand...
Don’t know about that, especially considering it’s not just the sacramental nature that’s in question here, but even validity according to the RCC that can be impacted.

I mean a friend of mind who is Catholic and who married a non-Christian I suspect would have married her in a Catholic ceremony had the option to marry Catholic outdoors at their chosen location (which would have seemingly fit this new rule) been available. It actually would have made a good compromise option for them and would have still allowed their marriage to be valid in the eyes of the church. The Catholic ceremony and other Catholic requirements were not the deal breaker for her, it was being forced to marry in the church building itself…

Instead they married outdoors in a non-Catholic ceremony and their marriage is not considered “invalid” by the church.
 
Padres1969 said:
Don’t know about that, especially considering it’s not just the sacramental nature that’s in question here, but even validity according to the RCC that can be impacted.

I mean a friend of mind who is Catholic and who married a non-Christian I suspect would have married her in a Catholic ceremony had the option to marry Catholic outdoors at their chosen location (which would have seemingly fit this new rule) been available. It actually would have made a good compromise option for them and would have still allowed their marriage to be valid in the eyes of the church. The Catholic ceremony and other Catholic requirements were not the deal breaker for her, it was being forced to marry in the church building itself…

Instead they married outdoors in a non-Catholic ceremony and their marriage is not considered “invalid” by the church.
Click to expand...
The great outdoors if beautiful. But many churches are as well.
I’m always get a giggle out of “being forced to marry indoors in a church”. No one’s being “forced”. Do they want the Church to witness their vows or not?
People confuse a marriage with a wedding. It’s a wedding when it’s all about the place.
It’s a marriage when properly disposed. The place ceases to matter.
When I got married after being widowed my daughters lamented that our home parish at the time was so ugly. It was. Tacky, ugly, old, smelly, you name it. But it was where my entire support community was. It was where I worked. It was where I worshiped.
They both wished I had married in my current parish. But…it’s only one hour on one day.
I tell them we can celebrate my anniversaries in the “pretty” church.
🙂
 
pianistclare said:
The great outdoors if beautiful. But many churches are as well.
I’m always get a giggle out of “being forced to marry indoors in a church”. No one’s being “forced”. Do they want the Church to witness their vows or not?
People confuse a marriage with a wedding. It’s a wedding when it’s all about the place.
It’s a marriage when properly disposed. The place ceases to matter.
When I got married after being widowed my daughters lamented that our home parish at the time was so ugly. It was. Tacky, ugly, old, smelly, you name it. But it was where my entire support community was. It was where I worked. It was where I worshiped.
They both wished I had married in my current parish. But…it’s only one hour on one day.
I tell them we can celebrate my anniversaries in the “pretty” church.
🙂
Click to expand...
Well again that’s where the non-Catholic compromise comes in. As they’re a mixed couple and an outdoorsy couple as well, their support structures and combined spiritual life exist in the outdoors, not in his Catholic parish. He would have liked the Catholic Church to witness his marriage at his wedding. But their marriage is not solely Catholic either. But it would have been their preference for the RCC to be part of their wedding and marriage had the option been available. Luckily it seems it now is at least in this particular diocese.
 
Padres1969 said:
Well again that’s where the non-Catholic compromise comes in. As they’re a mixed couple and an outdoorsy couple as well, their support structures and combined spiritual life exist in the outdoors, not in his Catholic parish. He would have liked the Catholic Church to witness his marriage at his wedding. But their marriage is not solely Catholic either. But it would have been their preference for the RCC to be part of their wedding and marriage had the option been available. Luckily it seems it now is at least in this particular diocese.
Click to expand...
Ah. practicing his faith as an option.
Love it. :o
We get ourselves all wound up don’t we?
I wish them well. But I see this as an attempt to appease non-practicing young people.
It’s likely very lovely. 🤷

God bless.
 
Padres1969 said:
Don’t know about that, especially considering it’s not just the sacramental nature that’s in question here, but even validity according to the RCC that can be impacted.

I mean a friend of mind who is Catholic and who married a non-Christian I suspect would have married her in a Catholic ceremony had the option to marry Catholic outdoors at their chosen location (which would have seemingly fit this new rule) been available. It actually would have made a good compromise option for them and would have still allowed their marriage to be valid in the eyes of the church. The Catholic ceremony and other Catholic requirements were not the deal breaker for her, it was being forced to marry in the church building itself…

Instead they married outdoors in a non-Catholic ceremony and their marriage is not considered “invalid” by the church.
Click to expand...
I will put it more bluntly. A faith that is compromised because of something as superficial as the location of a marriage ceremony was not faith in the first place.
 
It’s not the building that makes a church. It’s Christ and those in communion with him that comprises the church. In the early church, there were no buildings. People worshipped in homes, outdoors, or wherever a place was found. The ancient Jews placed great importance on “The Temple”. It was destroyed. Buildings crumble. Faith in God endures. Too many Catholics are attached to the material, the physical. Don’t misunderstand me, churches are wonderful. I love a beautiful church, but God makes a marriage valid, not the location of the ceremony.
 
glencora said:
It’s not the building that makes a church. It’s Christ and those in communion with him that comprises the church. In the early church, there were no buildings. People worshipped in homes, outdoors, or wherever a place was found. The ancient Jews placed great importance on “The Temple”. It was destroyed. Buildings crumble. Faith in God endures. Too many Catholics are attached to the material, the physical. Don’t misunderstand me, churches are wonderful. I love a beautiful church, but God makes a marriage valid, not the location of the ceremony.
Click to expand...
Hey, we don’t make up the rules.
 
It seems pretty strange to go against 2000 years of tradition (and all the Jewish tradition before that), of marrying indoors, even when indoors was a tent instead of a building. But… bishops have a lot of power, and apparently Bishop Thomas is pretty desperate to save well-meaning kids from doing something stupid, like marrying outside the Catholic fold.

Here’s a copy of the policy. It’s not on the diocesan website, but it is on this Butte parish website, if you keep scrolling down the page.
Diocese of Helena
Suitable Place for Wedding
Approved by Bishop George Leo Thomas
Interim Revision effective June 1, 2015
Click to expand...
The understanding of the Church is that the parish Church is the appropriate place for the celebration of marriage involving a Catholic party (whether this celebration is a wedding or a convalidation). However, there may be circumstances for which permission may be requested to utilize another “suitable place.” This document guides requests for such permission – which must always be requested in writing on a particular case basis.
Click to expand...
Fundamental: The nature of the place needs to be consistent with a religious celebration.
Click to expand...
The following are considered suitable places for which permission may be sought.
Click to expand...
This is not an exhaustive list – there may be other places for which a request for “suitability” may be made. The “Rite for celebrating marriage outside of Mass” or the “Rite for celebrating marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person” (from the Rite of Marriage) is used in these circumstances. The guidelines of Sing to the Lord are to be followed.
Click to expand...
♦️ Certain non-denominational chapels (such as Soldier’s Chapel at Big Sky – which also requires permission and delegation from St. Joseph Mission, Big Sky; and St. Timothy Chapel at Georgetown Lake – which also requires permission and delegation from the Anaconda Catholic Community).
Click to expand...
♦️ A non-Catholic Church building (when this is a Catholic wedding ceremony: the priest/deacon presides, uses the Catholic Rite for marriage outside of Mass or for a Catholic and an unbaptized person, receives vows, etc.)
Click to expand...
♦️ Appropriate outdoor sites, providing there is an approved indoor location available, in light of the temperamental weather in Montana.
Click to expand...
The following are examples of places which are not suitable for the celebration of a wedding. This is not an exhaustive list.
Click to expand...
♦️ The Our Lady of the Rockies statue near Butte; a former Catholic Church that no longer belongs to the Diocese; or the premises of Legendary Lodge.
Click to expand...
♦️ Any place where alcohol is served as a matter of course (such as night clubs, bars, casinos, dining establishments, and the like).
Click to expand...
Procedure to Obtain Permission:
Click to expand...
The priest/deacon who will officiate, or the parish priest/administrator, requests the permission in writing (usually directed to the Vicar for Canonical Services). The request includes: a letter from the couple making the request and giving reasons for it; a letter from the priest or deacon who will officiate outlining the pastoral reasons for the request, assuring that quality marriage preparation is being given, and making a recommendation regarding whether to grant the request; and a letter from the parish priest/administrator indicating concurrence with the request and giving permission/delegation for the wedding to take place in that parish. The “suitable place” permission will be granted or denied in writing; and this letter, along with a copy of the request, should be included in the pre-nuptial file.
Click to expand...
Obviously this policy is only in force in the Diocese of Helena. You will also note that permission does have to be sought, and not every place will do. The online article also notes that the ceremony and place has to stay dignified, with the attendees not doing anything that wouldn’t be suitable in a church ceremony.
 
The Earth, the out of doors, Creation. is the holiest of sacramentals. It is more of a Church than the finest of cathedrals.
 
Besides, what if the sanctuary is outdoors? Indian River, MI has a parish called “Cross in the Woods”, which has both outdoors and indoors sanctuaries. During the summer months, when weather permits, Mass is held in the outdoors sanctuary - which comes complete with a giant crucifix and several shrines.

crossinthewoods.com/
 
A parish church is the most suitable site for a wedding.

Look, guys, in the early Middle Ages and before, it used to be that (outside of emergencies), you couldn’t be baptized even in most parish churches! The preferred place for Baptism or any Mass was the Cathedral, of course, so you’d be all in union with the bishop. If a big town didn’t have a cathedral, there’d be just one baptizing church in that town’s whole area, the “matrix” or mother church. Why? Because clear knowledge of who was baptized, and unity of all the Catholics in an area, were more important than convenience. And this was in a time when they didn’t have cars.

Churches didn’t originally do weddings, although marriages were always regarded as sacred and inviolable (as per Jesus).Weddings were always supposed to take place with lots of people present, in public places in the middle of population centers, however, so that there would be lots of witnesses and no way for either party or their family to claim that the wedding never happened or the wedding contract was void. Frankish kings and lords were really bad about trying to back out or lie or have polygamous situations, so the Church started to get into the business of witnessing weddings. Weddings were held in the front porch of the town church, where everybody in town could watch and no shenanigans could take place, like people running off with the dowry or the bride’s betrothal gift from the groom, or kidnapping the bride. Eventually things moved inside church, and more prayers or a whole Mass were added. But it was still vital to have nothing secret or totally private; there had to be witnesses.

Nuptial Masses and the special Nuptial Blessing also became a really big thing. In a time when Communion was something you received once a year, it was also very special to be able to receive Communion with your spouse, and to come inside the sanctuary and onto the altar area to do it. All newlyweds who were married in the Church represented Christ and the Church in a special way, and tying that to Mass and their parish church building was also very deep.

Parish churches are now the places for weddings and baptisms, because the rights of the bride and groom still require witnesses that can be found, and good records at the parish level. (With good copies at the diocesan level, in case of fire or other mishaps.) Having a wedding “someplace pretty that is not near my town, my family’s town, or my spouse’s family’s town” or “someplace faraway in a nice vacation spot” is basically begging for records trouble and future injustice.

In this case, the bishop and the parishes are very kindly going to a lot of trouble for the sake of these couples, and I’m sure it’s to their credit. The records will be taken care of. Probably nobody is going to abduct any brides or steal the wedding gifts. But it’s still weird… and a little impoverished. Especially when nobody has ever been stopping anybody from having their receptions outdoors, or their honeymoons outdoors.
 
One bishop has used his princely power that way. One bishop in all the world, in something like 1200 years of church weddings. Maybe there are other examples elsewhere, like in Europe, but it doesn’t seem to be a widespread trend.

So it’s an experiment. If it doesn’t work, the policy will change back to normal. If it does, we may see more of this.

It’s a wait and see thing.
 
From a very practical point of view this sounds like a good thing.

According to statistics from CARA, the number of church marriages in the US has fallen off dramatically in recent years:

Marriages in previous year
1990: 326,079
1995: 294,144
2000: 261,626
2005: 207,112
2010: 168,400
2015: 148,134

Perhaps people don’t feel tied to the Church the way they once did, perhaps there’s an increase in mixed marriages, perhaps people simply want to do things their own way, but a halving of marriages in a 25-year span is noteworthy.

Perhaps giving couples the option of an outdoor wedding will keep some of these people “in the fold,” so to speak. They won’t be starting their married lives by turning their backs on the Church and entering into an invalid marriage. Maybe that will make it easier for them to return to the practice of their faith once children come along and the Church becomes more important in their lives.
 
Allegra said:
I will put it more bluntly. A faith that is compromised because of something as superficial as the location of a marriage ceremony was not faith in the first place.
Click to expand...
So you consider someone who wants to marry their spouse in God’s creation in respect for their non-Catholic spouse (who is respecting the Catholic spouse by participating in the Catholic ceremony despite not being Catholic) to have compromised faith? Seems to me marrying in a spirit of respect and compromise, traits which define marriage (at least ones that last) is honoring the institution quite nicely while forcing neither spouse to compromise their faith.
 
I had a cousin who got married here: mothersshrine.com/

There was a nice outside area where the wedding was, complete with outside altar.

This is in the Lake of the Ozarks, btw.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top