The form of Catholic Marriage

[pianistclare]

Yup. I was responding to UpUp not the OP, Thanks Father.

 

[Phemie]

JetteZ:

Perhaps it’s the wording “civil ceremony” that’s throwing it out of context. There isn’t someone residing over round 2 that is there in any legal capacity.

As to it being permitted by canon; I’ll defer to your authority.

The problem with a second exchange of vows is that doing such implies that the first vows (made in the presence of the priest) somehow did not count. That’s what the Church forbids.

So what they had was a mock wedding with a party. Did their friends know it wasn’t a real wedding and that they’d actually been married the day before?

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m confused on the canon law question. Can 1ke or Fr. David clarify please? It seems like canon law is forbidding a second religious ceremony, so if the second wedding was Muslim, or any other religion, then it’s clearly forbidden.

But how is a civil ceremony forbidden? It’s not a religious ceremony. Does it appear to be religious because it appears to be an exchange of vows?

I would think the objection to the civil ceremony would be made by the judge or civil administrator, who normally is not going to conduct a wedding for some couple who does not have a marriage license, and if the priest has already married these folks he will have already signed the license so it can’t be used twice. However, if some judge was willing to conduct what amounted to either theater or a vow renewal, how is that a “religious ceremony”?

 

[1ke]

In what I was describing, the second event wasn’t a religious event. There wasn’t a priest or other religious leader (of any denomination) involved.

The canon says there may not be a second religious ceremony nor may there be another ceremony where they give or renew consent.

It’s not complicated. It’s black and white: may NOT be done.

 

[1ke]

But how is a civil ceremony forbidden?

It forbids both another religious ceremony and a ceremony where the couple “gives or renews consent” after the canonical celebration.

It can’t possibly be a “civil ceremony” in the US because they are already civilly married when the priest marries them.

 

[1ke]

I would think the objection to the civil ceremony would be made by the judge or civil administrator,

No,it calls into question valid consent entirely. After the canonical ceremony you are married. Having another ceremony where you exchange consent calls into question the state of mind of the couple— did they not acknowledge the canonical celebration as the valid exchange of consent, what is the purpose of this second ceremony, what is the intent of the couple. This is truly problematic.

 

[1ke]

So what they had was a mock wedding with a party. Did their friends know it wasn’t a real wedding and that they’d actually been married the day before

Phemie it calls valid consent into question entirely

 

[JetteZ]

The problem with a second exchange of vows is that doing such implies that the first vows (made in the presence of the priest) somehow did not count. That’s what the Church forbids.

I can appreciate that there may be that appearance and why that would be forbidden by the Church.

So what they had was a mock wedding with a party. Did their friends know it wasn’t a real wedding and that they’d actually been married the day before?

The Catholic ceremony was witnessed by family and attendants; whether or not others knew wasn’t something I considered or discussed. I didn’t find it especially odd having experienced similar 2 part affairs (going the other direction) with friends of other religious affiliations without issue.

I can appreciate the concerns that have been brought up here; but, my friends and the priest who married them were ok with the arrangement; so, I will defer to that priest’s authority in regards to the validity of their marriage.

 

[JimG]

I don’t understand why a couple would wish to have a fake wedding after they are already married. Certainly they could have a reception the next day or the day after or the week after, to invite a lot of people for a celebratory get together, but why a second exchange of vows? It’s already done.

 

[FrDavid96]

The canon says there may not be a second religious ceremony nor may there be another ceremony where they give or renew consent.

It’s not complicated. It’s black and white: may NOT be done.

I think the canon leaves open the possibility that there might be a civil law that does not recognize the Catholic ceremony. Hypothetically, there could be a country that requires that the religious ceremony happen first, followed by a civil one—in other words, the chronological opposite of what’s done in Mexico and Europe (et al).

However, that does not change the bottom line. As you said, it’s clear. What the OP posted is not permitted by the Church.

 

[FrDavid96]

I can appreciate the concerns that have been brought up here; but, my friends and the priest who married them were ok with the arrangement; so, I will defer to that priest’s authority in regards to the validity of their marriage.

The fact that some priest allowed something to happen does not make it right.

Canon law exists for a reason; and it’s not just a suggestion.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

So what are the Church rules on a vow renewal outside the Church? Like, let’s say I’m on vacation with husband and we decide it would be fun to renew our vows in an Elvis chapel in Vegas. What are we allowed to say? Obviously this is not a case of not consenting the first time as we’ve been married for decades, it would just be for fun.

 

[JetteZ]

The fact that some priest allowed something to happen does not make it right.

Canon law exists for a reason; and it’s not just a suggestion.

I didn’t say it made it right; other posters suggested that there was an issue of consent and I said I’d defer to his authority regarding the validity of their marriage.

 

[1ke]

So what are the Church rules on a vow renewal outside the Church?

It presents the same issue.

And there isn’t a vow renewal inside of the Church-- there are only blessings in the book of blessings not rite for vow renewal-- let alone outside the Church.

 

[Phemie]

And there isn’t a vow renewal inside of the Church-- there are only blessings in the book of blessings not rite for vow renewal-- let alone outside the Church.

The Rite of Marriage that was in effect in Canada until last September had a renewal of vows and while at some point in the ceremony the original marriage was mentioned, the “renewal” consisted of repeating the exact same vows, in fact, the Rite sent you back to the original vows.

I must say that I’m looking forward to having a look at the new “The Order of Celebrating Matrimony”.

 

[1ke]

at some point in the ceremony the original marriage was mentioned, the “renewal” consisted of repeating the exact same vows, in fact, the Rite sent you back to the original vows.

Well that is special.

 

[FrDavid96]

Tis_Bearself:

So what are the Church rules on a vow renewal outside the Church?

It presents the same issue.

And there isn’t a vow renewal inside of the Church-- there are only blessings in the book of blessings not rite for vow renewal-- let alone outside the Church.

Well, there is a renewal of sorts.

The Roman Ritual has a “Blessing for Wedding Anniversaries.” Although this isn’t called a “renewal of vows” there is a (kind of) renewal of vows within the ceremony.

Sacerdos: N., do you renew and confirm your taking of N. here present for your wedded wife?

Sponsus: I do.

The same is repeated for the wife (of course!, but no need to type it out)

It’s a very nice blessing.

 

[Phemie]

1ke:

Tis_Bearself:

So what are the Church rules on a vow renewal outside the Church?

It presents the same issue.

And there isn’t a vow renewal inside of the Church-- there are only blessings in the book of blessings not rite for vow renewal-- let alone outside the Church.

Well, there is a renewal of sorts.

The Roman Ritual has a “Blessing for Wedding Anniversaries.” Although this isn’t called a “renewal of vows” there is a (kind of) renewal of vows within the ceremony.

Sacerdos: N., do you renew and confirm your taking of N. here present for your wedded wife?

Sponsus: I do.

The same is repeated for the wife (of course!, but no need to type it out)

It’s a very nice blessing.

As far as I can tell from the outline, the new Canadian Rite has something similar, rather than the “Renewal of Vows” they had in the old Rite.

 

[Crocus]

Are we being trolled here? OP not chiming in anywhere to provide more information, clear up confusion.