Son's Secular Wedding

[sanctamaria17]

I know this is an old thread, but I agree with the people who say you should go.

Regardless of whether the kids are still deemed Catholic or not, THEY don’t consider themselves Catholic and for them to marry in the Church would be hypocritical (at least, in their eyes). I honestly have respect for them for choosing to marry in a neutral setting, it’s better than a couple expecting to marry in the CC but then not follow the Church’s teachings on marriage or throw a fit because the priest calls them on it.

And if you refuse to go to your kid’s wedding (regardless of it’s status in the Church), there’s a very good chance that your child will never speak to you again. How can you witness the faith, not only to your kids, but to your grandkids if they aren’t even allowed to know you?

 

[jstreets]

I could never attend an invalid wedding.QUOTE]

It’s still VALID , but extremely ILLICIT

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

kage_ar;3591523:

I could never attend an invalid wedding.QUOTE]

It’s still VALID , but extremely ILLICIT

off topic, but it is invalid. A Catholic is not marrying front of a priest or deacon and two witnesses according to the Rite of the Church. This guy is getting married in a hotel, with either a judge or a non-Catholic minister.

That doesn’t mean his mother should not organize her prayer group (which I hope she did).

 

[onetimeposter]

Yeah, but the young lad’s getting married…be happy for him and share in his joy!

I’m fairly certain that any Christian wedding is valid, just not licit.

 

[Nanny_PK]

I think it’s important to support the marriage. The OP said that the young lady, her future DIL, had been to mass with them several times and was open to attending. If the OP were to shun the marriage, she’d (or he) would be missing a huge opportunity to bring her son back into the fold and to bring her DIL to the fold. While in an idea world they’d be getting married in the Church, that’s not the case. So you wait for your opportunity to get them into the Church,

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Yeah, but the young lad’s getting married…be happy for him and share in his joy!

I’m fairly certain that any Christian wedding is valid, just not licit.

One more time: A Catholic must marry in front of a priest or deacon and two witnesses, according to the Rite of the Church. Not to do so without first requesting a dispensation makes the marriage invalid. It might be legal in a civil court, but it is invalid in the eyes of the Church. He would need to rectify it with a convalidations should he choose to do so.

This is an older thread, and the majority have said the mom should go ahead with her prayer group, but if she feels the need to attend the wedding, should do so. She said she was going to attend.

But the mother’s attendance does not make the marriage valid in the eyes of the Church. It is the priest or deacon present with two witnesses, and using the Church’s Rite of Marriage, or getting a dispensation to get married before another ecclesial community’s minister or a judge.

If you don’t believe me, I suggest you search invalid marriage" on CAF, or go to www.vatican.va, where the Code of Canon Law for 1983 clearly states what the Church expects in the matter of the Sacrament of Marriage.

Here ya go: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P40.HTM

Can. 1108 §1. Only those marriages are valid which are contracted before the local ordinary, pastor, or a priest or deacon delegated by either of them, who assist, and before two witnesses according to the rules expressed in the following canons and without prejudice to the exceptions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 144, ⇒ 1112, §1, ⇒ 1116, and ⇒ 1127, §§1-2.

Can. 1118 §1. A marriage between Catholics or between a Catholic party and a non-Catholic baptized party is to be celebrated in a parish church. It can be celebrated in another church or oratory with the permission of the local ordinary or pastor.

Can. 1119 Outside the case of necessity, the rites prescribed in the liturgical books approved by the Church or received by legitimate customs are to be observed in the celebration of a marriage.

 

[Phemie]

I was in that parent’s shoes almost 2 years ago – my former altar-server daughter married outside the Church. She made it clear that the Church meant absolutely nothing to either of them, he had been brought up with no religion whatsoever, so it would be hypocritical to go through the rigamarole just because I practice my religion.

I spoke my piece and then held my peace. I attended the wedding, smiled at her happiness and, at their request, offered Grace before the meal. I still hope that one day she’ll decide that Church DOES mean something to her and return to it. I don’t think there would be any chance of that happening if I had ruined her wedding day by refusing to be there.

It had often enraged me to see brides use the Church because the pictures were prettier than those taken at the courthouse and not care a whit what the Church taught about the faith and about marriage – could I now be enraged by a daughter who did just the opposite??

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

…I spoke my piece and then held my peace. I attended the wedding, smiled at her happiness and, at their request, offered Grace before the meal. I still hope that one day she’ll decide that Church DOES mean something to her and return to it. I don’t think there would be any chance of that happening if I had ruined her wedding day by refusing to be there. Agreed. Like Midrath’s dad.

It had often enraged me to see brides use the Church because the pictures were prettier than those taken at the courthouse and not care a whit what the Church taught about the faith and about marriage – could I now be enraged by a daughter who did just the opposite?? True enough.

 

[onetimeposter]

One more time: A Catholic must marry in front of a priest or deacon and two witnesses, according to the Rite of the Church. Not to do so without first requesting a dispensation makes the marriage invalid.

It seems that your right. I have a big problem with this. All of these rules seem like quite the bureaucracy. I didn’t know it was a mortal sin for a Catholic to get married happily in a non-Catholic Church.

Odd, that the mortal sin of doing this, is not a mortal sin, so long as the Bishop says it’s ok.??? So, is it a sin or isn’t it? Why does the A-Ok from a Bishop make it all right, but a mortal sin condemning you to all eternity in Hell if he doesn’t say Ok?

A Catholic and a Protestant get married in a United Church, they have lots of kids, live a good Christian life and when they die, the Catholic is sent straight to hell for the mortal sin of getting married outside of the Church.

A Catholic gets married, divorces, gets an annulment, gets married a 2nd time, gets another annulment, gets married a third time and then dies. He gets to go to heaven because the Church bureauchracy kept granting him annulments? .

Sounds to me like a bureaucracy. I would like to know where it is written in the Bible that only an Ordained Roman Catholic Priest can make a marriage valid in the eyes of God for a Roman Catholic.

In relation to these rules that the Church as made, who made these rules, how do they know that they made correct rules?

A really skeptical person could argue that this rule keeps money in the Catholic coffers and Catholics in the fold.

I cannot see how a Christian marriage would be a sin in the eyes of God.

Bishop says Ok, get married in a Protestant church - I’m safe, I get to go to heaven.

Bishop says no, but I go ahead and marry in a Protestant Church anyway, now I’m sent straight to hell.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

…then what about this:

The Church teaches that marriage is an intimate partnership of life and love, established by the Creator and endowed by Him with its own proper laws; it is rooted in the contract of its partners, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership for the whole of life, is by its nature, ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. This covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (Luke 16:38, Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 5:32-32 and 19:3-9). Through the sacrament of marriage the grace of God allows the individuals who have freely gifted themselves to each other to be transformed and sanctified; the two become one. In a sacramental union, the love the two share manifests the love of Christ to the larger community. While not every marriage is a sacrament, each and every marriage (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, non-believer, etc.) Is presumed to be a valid or binding marriage.

The Catholic Church has requirements for its recognition of the religious bond of marriage. These are based on the Gospel and sacred tradition. Not every external expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage, as it is understood by the Church. However, the presumption as to the creation of the bond and validity of a marriage is upheld until the contrary is proven. (Canon 1060)

 

[Phemie]

…then what about this:

The Church teaches that marriage is an intimate partnership of life and love, established by the Creator and endowed by Him with its own proper laws; it is rooted in the contract of its partners, that is, in their irrevocable personal consent. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership for the whole of life, is by its nature, ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of children. This covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament. (Luke 16:38, Mark 10:1-12, Matthew 5:32-32 and 19:3-9). Through the sacrament of marriage the grace of God allows the individuals who have freely gifted themselves to each other to be transformed and sanctified; the two become one. In a sacramental union, the love the two share manifests the love of Christ to the larger community. While not every marriage is a sacrament, each and every marriage (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, non-believer, etc.) Is presumed to be a valid or binding marriage.

The Catholic Church has requirements for its recognition of the religious bond of marriage. These are based on the Gospel and sacred tradition. Not every external expression of consent uniting the partners gives rise to the sacred bond of marriage, as it is understood by the Church. However, the presumption as to the creation of the bond and validity of a marriage is upheld until the contrary is proven. (Canon 1060)

There is no presumption of validity in the case of a Catholic who marries outside the Church without a dispensation for lack of canonical form.

 

[onetimeposter]

There is no presumption of validity in the case of a Catholic who marries outside the Church without a dispensation for lack of canonical form.

…I’m gonna dumb it down…this is what my Church is telling me:

I cannot see how a Christian marriage would be a sin in the eyes of God.

Bishop says Ok, get married in a Protestant church - I’m safe, I get to go to heaven, because a Bishop said it was cool.

Bishop says no, but I go ahead and marry in a Protestant Church anyway, now I’m sent straight to hell for all of eternity.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I’d like to know who made that rule up.

 

[Phemie]

…I’m gonna dumb it down…this is what my Church is telling me:

I cannot see how a Christian marriage would be a sin in the eyes of God.

Bishop says Ok, get married in a Protestant church - I’m safe, I get to go to heaven, because a Bishop said it was cool.

Bishop says no, but I go ahead and marry in a Protestant Church anyway, now I’m sent straight to hell for all of eternity.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

I’d like to know who made that rule up.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

There is no presumption of validity in the case of a Catholic who marries outside the Church without a dispensation for lack of canonical form.

You are correct Phemie!

What onetimeposter quoted is not exactly out of canon law, but somebody else’s interpretation of canon law. Here’s canon1060:

Can. 1060 Marriage possesses the favor of law; therefore, in a case of doubt, the validity of a marriage must be upheld until the contrary is proven.

And here’s canon 1059, which supercedes 1060 in the case of at least one party being Catholic.

Can. 1059 Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage.

It’s law, onetimposter, and it can’t be pulled out of context as a piece of scripture might.

It’s further supported by:

Can. 1086 §1. A marriage between two persons, one of whom has been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is not baptized, is invalid.

§2. A person is not to be dispensed from this impediment unless the conditions mentioned in cann. ⇒ 1125 and ⇒ 1126 have been fulfilled.

Which means that the following must occur:
Can. 1124 Without express permission of the competent authority, a marriage is prohibited between two baptized persons of whom one is baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act and the other of whom is enrolled in a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Can. 1125 The local ordinary can grant a permission of this kind if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions have been fulfilled:
1/ the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church;
2/ the other party is to be informed at an appropriate time about the promises which the Catholic party is to make, in such a way that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and obligation of the Catholic party;
3/ both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage which neither of the contracting parties is to exclude.

Can. 1126 It is for the conference of bishops to establish the method in which these declarations and promises, which are always required, must be made and to define the manner in which they are to be established in the external forum and the non-Catholic party informed about them.

I recommend the book, onetimeposter, Annulment: The Wedding That Was. You can pick it up cheap on eBay. The case in question does not deal with the decree of nullity, but a valid marriage for a Catholic and a non-Catholic. As you can see by canon law, there is a reason why the Church requires a dispensation; ie, because certain things need to be ensure in order to achieve a valid marriage. The book I mentioned explains it quite well, and why a Catholic party contracting marriage outside of a dispensation is considered invalid. The Catholic has certain promises that need to be made. The non-Catholic has to be aware of those promises. They both need to know that there are certain obligations in a Catholic marriage, such as acceptance of children and not holding back on the marital embrace. It is the Church’s purview to ensure that everybody is on the same page before the marriage occurs.

 

[fix]

Bishop says no, but I go ahead and marry in a Protestant Church anyway, now I’m sent straight to hell for all of eternity.

Why would one disobey the bishop? Who is the authority in these matters? The bishop or the person rejecting his authority?

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

…I’m gonna dumb it down…

No need. Phemie is quite intelligent. She also has experience in these matters, as she processes all (almost anyway) the paperwork for her parish.

When one becomes a Catholic, onetimeposter, whether as a little baby at baptism, or as an adult from another ecclesial community, one places oneself under canon law. That’s why the bishop gets to decide the when and how of getting married.

 

[onetimeposter]

I’m just now beginning to understand why Protestants challenge Catholicism…the man made rules…rules, so many rules found outside the Bible and created centuries after Jesus walked the earth…for instance, a Bishop has power to determine if someones non-Catholic marriage is Ok or not Ok…

Therefor, the Bishop has the power to determine whether a persons non-Catholic wedding will result in their going to heaven or hell.

That, quite frankly is a hard pill to swallow.

 

[onetimeposter]

No need. Phemie is quite intelligent. She also has experience in these matters, as she processes all (almost anyway) the paperwork for her parish.

When one becomes a Catholic, onetimeposter, whether as a little baby at baptism, or as an adult from another ecclesial community, one places oneself under canon law. That’s why the bishop gets to decide the when and how of getting married.

Dumbing it down for me…putting it into very simple terms, in order to highlight that it is quite absurd that Bishop saying yes or no about your marriage determines whether or not your marriage will send you to hell.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

I’m just now beginning to understand why Protestants challenge Catholicism…the man made rules…rules, so many rules found outside the Bible and created centuries after Jesus walked the earthearthThis is turning into a discussion for Apologetics, but do you know who put together the Bible and how? It didn’t fall to Earth in a black-bound volume, with “Authorized Version of 1611” written on the frontpiece

…for instance, a Bishop has power to determine if someones non-Catholic marriage is Ok or not Ok…The bishop has the power to determine if a Catholic’s marriage is valid. He is to assume, until given evidence otherwise, that a non-Catholic’s marriage IS valid.

Therefor, the Bishop has the power to determine whether a persons non-Catholic wedding will result in their going to heaven or hell.

That, quite frankly is a hard pill to swallow. Well, when one becomes a Catholic, one is bound by canon law. Just that simple. I think you are somehow confusing yourself when you say the bishop has the power to determine if a non-Catholic’s marriage is valid. It doesn’t say that.

 

[OutinChgoburbs]

Dumbing it down for me…putting it into very simple terms, in order to highlight that it is quite absurd that Bishop saying yes or no about your marriage determines whether or not your marriage will send you to hell.

I am trying to put it in as simple terms as possible. I don’t think you want to hear what I have to say, though, or what Phemie has to say. If I’m reading you correctly, you want all of us to chuck canon law in the bucket and become Protestants.

 

[onetimeposter]

OutinChgoburbs:
I have been misunderstood…I am only talking about catholics marrying outside the church.

The Bishop has the power to say Yay or Nay to a Catholic marrying outside of the Church…

Therefor the Bishop has the power to decide if a Catholic marrying outside the Church is destined for heaven or hell. It is said clearly that without proper dispensation, a catholic marrying outside the church is committing a mortal sin.

So if the Bishop says Ok, the person goes to heaven, if the Bishop says NO and the person gets married, we are too assume, with the mortal sin stained on his / her soul, they are destined for hell…because the Bishop didn’t say yes to the marriage?

Like I said, that man made rule is a tough pill to swallow.