It's Official: Outdoor Catholic Weddings Approved

[Allegra]

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.

Yes. Taking the attitude that you would rather have an invalid marriage than have the ceremony in the church represents someone who has compromised faith. Furthermore, a non-Catholic potential spouse who requires that, knowing that would make the marriage invalid is not respecting the Catholic spouse. If he or she is unwilling to bend on something as superficial as the location of the marriage ceremony, it is highly unlikely that they will be respectful regarding the much more important issues such as obligatory Mass attendance, NFP, raising the children Catholic, etc.

 

[Padres1969]

Yes. Taking the attitude that you would rather have an invalid marriage than have the ceremony in the church represents someone who has compromised faith. Furthermore, a non-Catholic potential spouse who requires that, knowing that would make the marriage invalid is not respecting the Catholic spouse. If he or she is unwilling to bend on something as superficial as the location of the marriage ceremony, it is highly unlikely that they will be respectful regarding the much more important issues such as obligatory Mass attendance, NFP, raising the children Catholic, etc.

But the non-Catholic spouse doesn’t have an obligation to attend mass. Or to practice NFP. And it’s not the non-Catholic spouse who raises the children Catholic…

 

[Allegra]

But the non-Catholic spouse doesn’t have an obligation to attend mass. Or to practice NFP. And it’s not the non-Catholic spouse who raises the children Catholic…

How do you propose that one party raise children or practice NFP without the cooperation of their spouse? And a non-Catholic spouse, or even a non-practicing or lazy Catholic spouse can easily make it darn near impossible for the faithful spouse to attend Mass if they want to.

 

[Padres1969]

How do you propose that one party raise children or practice NFP without the cooperation of their spouse? And a non-Catholic spouse, or even a non-practicing or lazy Catholic spouse can easily make it darn near impossible for the faithful spouse to attend Mass if they want to.

Raising children and raising children in the faith are not the same thing. If one spouse isn’t Christian, then they don’t participate in raising their children Christian (nor would you expect them to since they aren’t Christian and don’t know about it themselves). However if they do respect their Catholic spouse’s beliefs and support that the other spouse is doing so that meets their obligation does it not?

With regard to NFP, I’ve always viewed it as primarily the wife’s bailiwick seeing as they’d be aware of their cycle, tracking it, etc… That is unless most husbands you know intimately track their wife’s menstrual cycles? Because the next man I know that does so would be the first. And by the same token if the woman is the non-Catholic and wants to use the pill or IUD, that’s her choice, no?

And with regard to going to mass, the non-Catholic spouse can make going to mass darn near impossible, but that has nothing to do with not having an obligation to go to mass themselves. It has to do with not having respect for their spouse’s beliefs, and by extension their spouse. A non-Catholic spouse can easily respect their spouse and support their spouse going to mass while not doing so themselves as they are not obligated to do so.

 

[DoGodsBidding]

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.

Beautiful post Clare.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

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.

This permission is hardly unique to this one bishop in the United States.

I also fail to understand the use of the term “princely power” which would be understood as actually derogatory, where I am. It is an exercise of the bishop’s authority to moderate the liturgy in his diocese.

 

[Allegra]

Raising children and raising children in the faith are not the same thing.

It is if a person is truly faithful. I don’t know if you have children or not, but my kids are still babies and our faith has been part of many if not most of the majoring parenting decisions we’ve made. As kids get older, one’s faith or philosophy of life is going to determine where they go to school, how to discipline them, what behaviors and language is appropriate for the home, what activities the kids may or may not do, what they may wear in public, how to handle “the talk”, and all sorts of major things. Saying that the Catholic spouse is responsible for the “faith” part of their child-rearing is basically declaring them a single parent. Except they aren’t a single parent and if the non-Catholic is not on board with what raising Catholic children entails there’s going to be a disaster!

 

[Allegra]

With regard to NFP, I’ve always viewed it as primarily the wife’s bailiwick seeing as they’d be aware of their cycle, tracking it, etc… That is unless most husbands you know intimately track their wife’s menstrual cycles? Because the next man I know that does so would be the first. And by the same token if the woman is the non-Catholic and wants to use the pill or IUD, that’s her choice, no?

You can only view it that way because you’ve never practiced it. Even if the man is one of those rare ducks who is completely indifferent as to how many children he fathers, he’s still going to be interested in what nights he gets to have sex with his spouse. NFP is really difficult to practice without the consent and participation of both parties and becomes a major issue in many marriages where both partners are not invested in it. When both partners cooperate, it can really bring them closer. And no faithful Catholic man is going to knowingly marry a woman who intends to use abortifacients. Most men who find themselves in that situation do so after one or both parties has had a considerable change of heart.

 

[on_the_hill]

This is a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they’ll start talking about allowing…[fill in the blank].

 

[Allegra]

A non-Catholic spouse can easily respect their spouse and support their spouse going to mass while not doing so themselves as they are not obligated to do so.

Do you think so? Even practicing Catholic couples have disagreements over what is an appropriate reason to miss Mass. Allowing your spouse to attend Mass can be very inconvenient. What if your best friend want to go on a float trip next Sunday and can’t wait until after Mass to leave? What if you want to put your son in baseball, but the practices and games make it impossible to attend any Masses? What if you are on vacation? What if you don’t feel well? What if your parents want you to attend their barbeque and its a four hour drive and you’ll have to miss half of it? Have you heard of the Triduum? You’re going to have a pretty lonely Easter weekend. And that’s not even bringing into account what it says to the children when their other parent doesn’t attend Mass with them!

 

[Padres1969]

It is if a person is truly faithful. I don’t know if you have children or not, but my kids are still babies and our faith has been part of many if not most of the majoring parenting decisions we’ve made. As kids get older, one’s faith or philosophy of life is going to determine where they go to school, how to discipline them, what behaviors and language is appropriate for the home, what activities the kids may or may not do, what they may wear in public, how to handle “the talk”, and all sorts of major things. Saying that the Catholic spouse is responsible for the “faith” part of their child-rearing is basically declaring them a single parent. Except they aren’t a single parent and if the non-Catholic is not on board with what raising Catholic children entails there’s going to be a disaster!

I have a child yes and while I’m Christian, my wife is not. Yet my faith, and my wife’s lack of, don’t really factor into our decisions regarding most parenting directly. I mean obviously my faith is one thing helps form my views on how certain situations are handled, though it’s not the only thing by any stretch. But we always come to an accord before proceeding on parental decisions. So far I’ve not found my wife’s POV on most parenting decisions to differ much from my own despite her not having been raised in or currently being a member of a faith group. And on the occasions we do differ we always proceed after we’ve come to an accord or compromise on how to proceed. But for your examples on where to go to school, what language is appropriate, how to discipline etc… those aren’t religious issues in my house. They’re common sense ones.

The one partial exception being direct religious instruction. In our house I am primarily responsible for religious instruction seeing as my wife is a “nothing in particular” and doesn’t have a religion to convey. But even then we discuss and agree on what I’ll be instructing her on and thus far that’s worked well for us as my wife has no objection to Christianity or Christian ideals for the most part. My daughter’s baptism for example was attended by my wife and she wholeheartedly approved of us doing so, not because she believes in Christ or that it was anything but a priest sprinkling some water on my daughter’s forehead, but rather because it was important to me and part of my beliefs.

Do you think so? Even practicing Catholic couples have disagreements over what is an appropriate reason to miss Mass. Allowing your spouse to attend Mass can be very inconvenient. What if your best friend want to go on a float trip next Sunday and can’t wait until after Mass to leave? What if you want to put your son in baseball, but the practices and games make it impossible to attend any Masses? What if you are on vacation? What if you don’t feel well? What if your parents want you to attend their barbeque and its a four hour drive and you’ll have to miss half of it? Have you heard of the Triduum? You’re going to have a pretty lonely Easter weekend. And that’s not even bringing into account what it says to the children when their other parent doesn’t attend Mass with them!

Same with going to mass. We’ve compromised in that she knows it’s important to me so we always ensure one of the 4 mass times at my parish each weekend is there for me to utilize be it 5pm Sat, 10:30am Sun, 5pm Sun or most typically the 8am Mass Sunday (which typically doesn’t conflict with anything else going on).

 

[J_Peterson]

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.

In other words: things change.

 

[pianistclare]

In other words: things change.

Or better, things change, and some are not hills worth dying on.

 

[J_Peterson]

Or better, things change, and some are not hills worth dying on.

Haha, yeah. That too.

I would have gotten married in the church (building) even if an outdoor wedding was allowed. My parish at the time is a beautiful Italian church with columns, a dome, lots of marble, and it still has the communion rail. It’d be foolish to get married elsewhere just because of the pictures alone. Besides, our reception was garden party style at a nature reserve so we had the best of both worlds.

Truth be told, I’m not a fan of outdoor weddings or “destination weddings”. Not that there’s anything wrong with others doing it, I just like the idea of getting married in a church better.

 

[pianistclare]

Haha, yeah. That too.

I would have gotten married in the church (building) even if an outdoor wedding was allowed. My parish at the time is a beautiful Italian church with columns, a dome, lots of marble, and it still has the communion rail. It’d be foolish to get married elsewhere just because of the pictures alone. Besides, our reception was garden party style at a nature reserve so we had the best of both worlds.

Truth be told, I’m not a fan of outdoor weddings or “destination weddings”. Not that there’s anything wrong with others doing it, I just like the idea of getting married in a church better.

Me too.

 

[Havard]

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.

Certainly the presence of God is far and away the most important element of a Church. All material things will pass away eventually. However I would encourage you to consider another value of the sacred aesthetics beyond simply beauty: consider them also as powerful, important sacramentals. E.g., consider the Pope Emeritus’ exhortation:

Dear Brothers and Sisters, Today I would like to reflect briefly on one of these channels that can lead to God and can also be of help in the encounter with him. It is the way of artistic expression, part of that “via pulchritudinis” — the “way of beauty”, of which I have spoken several times and whose deepest meaning must be recovered by men and women today. A work of art is a product of the creative capacity of the human being who in questioning visible reality, seeks to discover its deep meaning and to communicate it through the language of forms, colour and sound. Art is able to manifest and make visible the human need to surpass the visible, it expresses the thirst and the quest for the infinite. Some artistic expressions are real highways to God, the supreme Beauty; indeed, they help us to grow in our relationship with him, in prayer. These are works that were born from faith and express faith. We can see an example of this when we visit a Gothic cathedral: we are enraptured by the vertical lines that soar skywards and uplift our gaze and our spirit, while at the same time we feel small yet long for fullness…. Or when we enter a Romanesque church we are spontaneously prompted to meditate and to pray. We perceive that these splendid buildings contain, as it were, the faith of generations. Or when we listen to a piece of sacred music that plucks at our heartstrings, our mind, as it were, expands and turns naturally to God. Dear friends, I ask you to rediscover the importance of this path also for prayer, for our living relationship with God. Towns and villages throughout the world contain treasures of art that express faith and beckon to us to return to our relationship with God. May the visits to places filled with art, then, not only be opportunities for cultural enrichment — that too — but may they become above all moments of grace, incentives to strengthen our bond and our dialogue with the Lord so that — in switching from simple external reality to the more profound reality it expresses — we may pause to contemplate the ray of beauty that strikes us to the quick, that almost “wounds” us, and that invites us to rise toward God.

-Pope Benedict XVI, 31 August 2011
Excerpt from the General Audience Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI at Castel Gandolfo, 31 August 2011

 

[InLight247]

The biggest problem of an outdoor wedding is the absence of the tabernacle where Jesus’ Real Presence resides. If the couple loves the Lord enough they would want the real presence of the Beloved in their wedding for sure. The Real Presence could not be replaced by any beauty of the nature. Nature is created by the Creator. Jesus is the Creator. He has given us his real presence in the consecrated Host. The beauty of the created could never match the beauty of the Creator Himself.

 

[Padres1969]

The biggest problem of an outdoor wedding is the absence of the tabernacle where Jesus’ Real Presence resides. If the couple loves the Lord enough they would want the real presence of the Beloved in their wedding for sure. The Real Presence could not be replaced by any beauty of the nature. Nature is created by the Creator. Jesus is the Creator. He has given us his real presence in the consecrated Host. The beauty of the created could never match the beauty of the Creator Himself.

Except Christ is present when them if they’re gathered in his name as they would be in a Catholic wedding, even performed outside. Matthew 18:20 assures us of that.

 

[JimG]

This is a slippery slope. Next thing you know, they’ll start talking about allowing…[fill in the blank].

–allowing old folks to say the rosary during Mass?

 

[deaconjohnO]

In Butte, Montana couples are now able to have their Catholic wedding in the great outdoors.

mtstandard.com/news/local/it-s-official-outdoor-catholic-weddings-a-go-in-butte/article_d844fecd-0b4c-5e6d-95a6-1832b8740d9a.html

Interesting my particular parish constitution mandates all weddings (from our parish) are to be inside in the parish church building.

This is a constitution assembled by the parish council who are elected by their peers to be on the council. Sensus Fidelium.