Weddings and disparity of cult

[codesmith]

I have a question about an upcoming wedding. A niece of mine was raised Catholic, though I suspect (no certainty here) she has been agnostic or indifferent on the matter of religion (and her cradle Catholicism) for most of her college years and after. She will soon be marrying a gentleman from India, whom she met while working on her doctoral studies. His family and him are Hindu, though he too may actually be agnostic for all I know. So they are having two separate weddings. One a Hindu ceremony, the other Catholic (though presumably not a Mass). The Catholic ceremony is actually being held at the archdiocesan cathedral. There will also be the “painting” of the bride at a Hindu henna/Mehndi party.

Fromm the CCC its appears this is called a “disparity of cult”.

catholicculture.org/culture/library/catechism/index.cfm?recnum=4802

It seems that not only was this granted, but the Hindu wedding will still occur (with full participation by the bride), soon to be followed by the Catholic wedding at the archdiocesan Cathedral.

Apparently all is well. Or am I mistaken?

 

[1ke]

Yes, disparity of cult is the term used to describe the impediment to valid marriage between a Catholic and an unbaptized person. The impediment can be dispensed by the bishop.

Regarding two ceremonies, here is what the canons say:

Canon 1127 §3. It is forbidden to have another religious celebration of the same marriage to give or renew matrimonial consent before or after the canonical celebration according to the norm of §1. Likewise, there is not to be a religious celebration in which the Catholic who is assisting and a non-Catholic minister together, using their own rites, ask for the consent of the parties.

 

[BoomBoomMancini]

If she has received the appropriate dispensation, then it’s all good. The marriage will be valid even if it’s done according to the Hindu rite.

 

[Phemie]

If she has received the appropriate dispensation, then it’s all good. The marriage will be valid even if it’s done according to the Hindu rite.

But the question was about having both a Hindu and a Catholic ceremony. That would appear to violate canon law.

 

[FrDavid96]

But the question was about having both a Hindu and a Catholic ceremony. That would appear to violate canon law.

This is subtle.

The canon forbids a second religious exchange of vows.

So, the question is what is involved in a Hindu wedding? Is there even an exchange of vows?

hinduwedding.info/marriage-ceremony.html
says that there are 8 different ways of getting married

Maybe one or more of these doesn’t involve vows. Or maybe the vows are not the same concept as the canonical “exchange of consent.” There can be a difference. Just because a couple makes public promises to each other, that doesn’t necessarily translate into the equivalent of an exchange of consent as described in the canons.

In any case, although doing something like this would indeed be a violation of canon law, the law does not assign any consequences to violating this canon. It doesn’t invalidate the attempt at marriage.

 

[codesmith]

…although doing something like this would indeed be a violation of canon law, the law does not assign any consequences to violating this canon.

Can that line of reasoning be applied to any and all aspects of canon law? If no consequences (for a violation or deviation) explicitly spelled out, no worries?

Or is it more like the canon “suggestions”?

 

[FrDavid96]

Can that line of reasoning be applied to any and all aspects of canon law? If no consequences (for a violation or deviation) explicitly spelled out, no worries?

Or is it more like the canon “suggestions”?

I did not say “no worries.” I merely said that there are no canonical consequences. A simple statement of fact, and nothing more. It is not one of the reasons that makes an attempt at marriage objectively invalid.

 

[codesmith]

I did not say “no worries.” I merely said that there are no canonical consequences. A simple statement of fact, and nothing more.

OK, thanks. I understand your point. And I assume the graces of the sacrament are there if the two involved are genuinely sincere.

I’m just trying to understand the reason behind the clearly, IMO, spelled out canon law, consequences or not. But I am not suggesting marriage prep be an interrogation.

 

[SMHW]

OK, thanks. I understand your point. And I assume the graces of the sacrament are there if the two involved are genuinely sincere.

I’m just trying to understand the reason behind the clearly, IMO, spelled out canon law, consequences or not. But I am not suggesting marriage prep be an interrogation.

In the case of disparity of cult the marriage would be natural rather than sacramental.
But of course natural marriages can still be a way for God to share his goodness with us.

 

[1ke]

OK, thanks. I understand your point. And I assume the graces of the sacrament are there if the two involved are genuinely sincere.

If both parties are baptized, Catholic or otherwise, then their valid marriage is also a sacrament.

If one or both parties is unbaptized, it is a natural marriage. Baptism is the gateway to all other sacraments.

 

[FrDavid96]

OK, thanks. I understand your point. And I assume the graces of the sacrament are there if the two involved are genuinely sincere.

I’m just trying to understand the reason behind the clearly, IMO, spelled out canon law, consequences or not. But I am not suggesting marriage prep be an interrogation.

The way canon law works most of the time is that the code describes how things are done. There is a penal section, but it’s rather small.

Yes, canon law imposes obligations. I am not suggesting that anyone apply the criteria of “if there’s no canonical penalty, ignore the law.”

All I meant by the comment (and frankly, I’m surprised it’s generated even this much in response) is that having a second marriage ceremony does not make the marriage itself (the exchange of consent accepted by the Church’s minister) into an invalid attempt. There are other acts, or other conditions that make such an invalid attempt, but that isn’t one of them. I intended nothing more than that, and certainly not a suggestion to do it anyway.

 

[IrishAm]

Would the sequence of the events come into play? I’m wondering if the Hindu ceremony is first, then (in the eyes of the Church) the Catholic ceremony “corrects” any questions of validity?

 

[FrDavid96]

Would the sequence of the events come into play? I’m wondering if the Hindu ceremony is first, then (in the eyes of the Church) the Catholic ceremony “corrects” any questions of validity?

Actually, it doesn’t matter which ceremony comes first. This is not comparable to places where a couple always has a civil ceremony first, then a Catholic one, because that’s what civil law requires.

In response to the OPs question, yes, this is what we call disparity of cult (or the synonym disparity of worship). There is going to be a Catholic ceremony, which shows that whatever dispensations or permissions are needed have been granted.

 

[FrDavid96]

What all of us participating here need to keep in mind is that there will be a Catholic marriage ceremony. Therefore, we must trust that whatever dispensations or permissions were needed have been granted, and whatever other issues might be involved have been (or will be) resolved by the Catholic pastor.

None of us should be speculating that something might make this an invalid attempt at marriage–precisely because there will be a Catholic marriage ceremony. Marriage enjoys the favor of the law.

We must be cautious not to cause the couple themselves, or their family, any unnecessary (indeed unjust) anxiety about this marriage.

So before posting something that says “I think this is invalid” realize that if you thought of it, then the pastor (or cathedral rector, etc.) surely thought about it, and is doing whatever is necessary to resolve it.