Marriage in just four weeks?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Discerning-Spirit
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Of course, this is all ultimately about opinions, and you know what they say about opinions — everybody has one. (There’s a stronger way of phrasing that.)

I think it most certainly is possible for two people to know that they would make good spouses for one another “right off the bat”, and that it is also possible for one of those people to know that they could have a good, successful marriage, even if the other person can’t or won’t see it. Many times the latter scenario takes place when that other person wants to see if they can do any better, or as a country song says, “you had to see if the world was round”.

Perfect case in point: Richard and Pat Nixon. Richard knew probably from the get-go that they would one day marry, but Pat felt like she needed some time and space. He gave this to her, and they ended up with a very happy, lasting marriage. He didn’t give up — if that were today, they’d call it “stalking”.
 
Unlikely, not impossible. I know a couple who were engaged three days after they met. They’ve now been married for over 40 years (possibly nearer 50 come to think of it) and have four children and a number of grandchildren.
 
Why do you ask this question?

Simple curiosity, or something you consider?

Well, in real world, it is unlikely now, but yes, it happened that some people ask someone to marry only after knowing her for one month. And yes, it happened that things turn out well for 40 or 60 years together.

But in all circunstances, it is not smart. You can’t knowing someone really after 1 month. You are at real risk for marital crisis and divorce. We should not trust our love feeling after only one month. A few yearz is better.

Yet happened that some people marry very quickly because of many life circustances, such as a “surprise” pregnancy. They will be more at risk of problems, so they should be aware of it when they discern marriage.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
Unlikely, not impossible. I know a couple who were engaged three days after they met.
Click to expand...
My wife’s stepfather was engaged within a week or so, right after he returned from WWII, and married a couple of weeks later (I want to say three weeks total, but I’m not sure).

Somewhere along the way she converted to RC, and after forty-something years she died of cancer.
Anicette said:
Yet happened that some people marry very quickly because of many life circustances, such as a “surprise” pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Pregnancy is currently considered an impediment to consent, at least by the RCC in the USA
 
I have learned one thing through observations over the years. Beware of the person in a hurry to marry. The bigger the rush, the more major character flaws they are trying to hide. I hate how this sounds but I’ve seen it proven true too many times, sad to say.

If it is real in 4 weeks it will still be real in a year and 4 weeks. Heard my Mom say many times, “Marry in haste, repent at leisure.”
 
Last edited:
VeryBlessed said:
Beware of the person in a hurry to marry. The bigger the rush, the more major character flaws they are trying to hide.
Click to expand...
Time for an old saying, which seems to have been forgotten in this era of easy divorce, where if you don’t like your marriage you end it.

“Marry in haste, repent at leisure”. 😁

On the topic, I agree with all the advice that it’s possible, but unlikely. But only in the same way that, say, every new business idea is, statistically, unlikely to succeed. That doesn’t mean that your business idea is unlikely to succeed. Just apply due thought to the particulars of each situation.

Pay a lot of attention to any “red flags”, such as: either of the partners pushing for physical intimacy, elaborate protestations of “love you forever”, the person’s record in other areas of their life.

One of my brothers got engaged to a woman after he had known her for a week. They were both travelling at the time and “clicked”. They separated, due to travel, for another six weeks and arranged to meet up again. On their second meeting they confirmed the engagement, and married six months after the first meeting. Both of them at the time were in their late twenties and already had long resumes of academic and career success, as well as leisure interests, which pointed to their compatibility.

Thirty years later they are still happily married, and have endured some testing times, particularly childlessness and then difficulties with adopted children.

My brother’s marital advice is “1. Marry the right person. 2. Both of you must treat it as a commitment from which there is no escape”. The second is really the most important.
 
Last edited:
Unusual circumstances (time restraints, another country,LDR) can rush decisions during the initial stages of attraction and heartfelt sentiments …take it from someone who has been in that situation twice ,and has finally learnt …two annulments later 🤔
Being in the midst of a pandemic just adds to what sounds a little dramatic in ways ?
Four weeks doesn’t give enough time to know someone without a mask (?) …(joke 😅)
 
Anicette said:
It can be, but not always. I know at least one woman who marry recently in the Church while she was pregnant.
Click to expand...
if they’re already in the process, i don’t think it’s an issue.

I came across it in the context that it was not grounds to shorten the normal weighting period, but instead an impediment.
 
Discerning-Spirit said:
Do you believe it’s possible (under ideal circumstances) to know a person for just four weeks before asking them?

(and have things turn out well)
Click to expand...
I’ll be married 45 years in 2 months. Hubby proposed 2 weeks after we met. Granted we did not rush into marriage right away because we had both decided to do something different with our careers and pursued that before we eventually married.
 
Pregnancy is not an impediment. The impediments to marriage are specified in Canon Law, and the RCC in the USA can’t make up their own.
 
Edmundus1581 said:
  1. Both of you must treat it as a commitment from which there is no escape”. The second is really the most important.
Click to expand...
Yes. Loyalty. I think that is one of the two things you must have.

The other thing is kindness. You can see this soon enough. See if the other person is kind to animals, kind to waitresses and clerks, kind to other people who “don’t matter.” And kind to you, of course.

My thought is, with loyalty and kindness, you can work around just about all other problems.
 
EmilyAlexandra said:
Unlikely, not impossible. I know a couple who were engaged three days after they met. They’ve now been married for over 40 years (possibly nearer 50 come to think of it) and have four children and a number of grandchildren.
Click to expand...
Bravo for them!

As I said, I think there are couples who “just know right off the bat”. Maybe the exception rather than the rule, but it does happen.

At the other extreme, there are so many couples these days who insist upon waiting forever, making sure they’ve accomplished everything in life that they could possibly want to “get out of the way” before marrying, making sure that everything is “just so”, absolutely perfect. I have every expectation that these couples who take pride in waiting several years, are living in perfect continence and chastity until the wedding day, but the Church traditionally warned against overly long engagements precisely for that reason. And who these days marries without having first lived together for awhile — living in mortal sin? (“They may have a very good reason for doing that” and “you don’t know that they’re not living chastely”, you say? Please. Let’s be real.)
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
And who these days marries without having first lived together for awhile
Click to expand...
Well, I did. Twice.
Click to expand...
Good for you, but nowadays, that is the exception rather than the norm:


I am all in favor of engaged couples spending as much time together as possible before marriage — I didn’t have that luxury (trans-Atlantic relationship) — and if they want to start setting up housekeeping, getting their home in shape, that is great, but one or the other needs to retire elsewhere before bedtime. It would be chivalrous to allow the bride-to-be to stay in the home, possibly with a female relative or friend, while the groom-to-be finds other accommodations (parents’ basement?). I have even thought that, if there is a case where the engaged couple feels like they absolutely have to live together, for financial or other temporal reasons (and why didn’t these reasons exist 50 years ago?), they could have perhaps an older female relative to come and stay with them, and maintain separate sleeping arrangements, kind of like a “housemother”.

And, yes, I know, people can be unchaste during the day too. Common-sense safeguards against unchastity — not being alone together during moments of temptation — are the order of the day in that case. This is nothing new.
 
HomeschoolDad said:
nowadays, that is the exception
Click to expand...
Looked at a certain way, yes. The latest info I have seen indicated that cohabitation precedes first marriage in around (somewhat over) 60 percent of couples. So “most”, but not really close to universal or even overwhelming. How that affects divorce rates, etc. is a different question, and it appears that, if nothing else, the “trial period” justification is faulty; one could say unjustified by results.

It might be of interest that at the beginning of each of my marriages I was decidedly agnostic, so the choice to not cohabitate was made for reasons other than religion, at least on my part (and those reasons will remain private).
 
otjm said:
It is also released when a woman is nursing, which is why she can deal with mewling, fussing, crying, diaper filling self-centered little monster with as much equanimity as women muster. It basically blinds one to the objectionable things
Click to expand...
This is one of my favourite things I’ve ever read online 🤣🤣🤣
 
whatistrue said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
nowadays, that is the exception
Click to expand...
Looked at a certain way, yes. The latest info I have seen indicated that cohabitation precedes first marriage in around (somewhat over) 60 percent of couples. So “most”, but not really close to universal or even overwhelming. How that affects divorce rates, etc. is a different question, and it appears that, if nothing else, the “trial period” justification is faulty; one could say unjustified by results.

It might be of interest that at the beginning of each of my marriages I was decidedly agnostic, so the choice to not cohabitate was made for reasons other than religion, at least on my part (and those reasons will remain private).
Click to expand...
As I (somewhat) alluded to above, unchastity is possible even if there is no overnight cohabitation. I don’t have any statistics on how many couples remain continent with one another until after marriage, but I have to think it is fairly low. Even during times when traditional morality was honored and presented as the expected norm, many people yielded to temptation. But if they did, they didn’t broadcast it, or treat it as a matter of course, unlike today. The paradigm today is “sex by (at the latest) the third date, if they have ‘good morals’, they might wait until six dates or longer, but total chastity until marriage, no way”. “Hookup culture” gets the sex out of the way right up front, then a relationship either develops or it does not.

Needless to say, this is not the Mind of Christ, nor of His Church.
 
I wasn’t (and am not) speaking of chastity in general, just cohabitation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top