C
Claire_from_DE
Guest
Sure, go. It’s commendable that they want to be legally married rather than just live together. Since neither is Catholic, there’s no problem.
- Status
N
Newbie2
Guest
I thought it was hilarious. Illustrating absurdity by being absurd. Where have I heard that before?
C
cjd
Guest
Thanks for so many response and thoughts.
I just wanted to clarify a couple of points:
I just wanted to clarify a couple of points:
- My OP wasn’t clear in saying that only ordained ministers can marry someone in my state. With respect to ministers, they must be ordained. Judges/justices of the peace can certainly marry. Which is where my hesitation comes in- see #2. I wholeheartedly agree that there is nothing illegal about this wedding. But that is not a reason to attend.
- If you aren’t religious, then why not have a justice of the peace marry you? In this instance, if that was the case between two non-religious, I would have no second thoughts. The possibility for mockery comes in in that they are choosing to have a minister rather than a justice of the peace officiate their wedding. Moreover, that ‘minister’ went online to obtain his ordination in a two minute, $5 process. It seems to cheapen ordinations, the idea of ministers, and the civil institution of marriage all together, no?
F
FastLearner
Guest
First of all, I really think you can assume that they’re making a mockery of the ULC. That organization’s sole purpose for existence is the belief that everyone is inherently ordained, regardless of that person’s beliefs, and should have the ability to perform “sacraments” for whatever incarnation of a supreme being that person believes in. The “online registration” is just a formality in their eyes to allow the person to perform the legal acts that they believe the person is already entitled to (and the last time I checked, registration is free).
Have you ever heard someone say “I believe in God, but not in organized religion” or “I believe in a central unifying being that is really the basis for all the religions of the world”? The ULC is made for that type of person. For all you know, this may be the opinion of the couple and/or the “minister” and that’s why the are choosing a “religious” ceremony (albeit probably their personal religion) instead of a civil ceremony.
The argument of those posters is that you shouldn’t attend an invalid wedding. However, if neither person was previously married or is Catholic, you can reasonably assume that the wedding is a valid natural wedding. What I mean by that is if these two people decided to later convert to Catholicism, their wedding would probably be seen as valid and accepted by the Church. In such a case, there is nothing wrong with attending the wedding.
A same-sex wedding is a different situation. That wedding is obviously invalid in the eyes of the Catholic Church, and thus supporting (via attendance) an invalid wedding would be scandalous. The litmus test: if the two homosexuals converted to Catholicism, their marriage would not be accepted by the Church. The same can be said if the wedding included a divorced individual without an annulment, two close blood relatives, a minor not of legal age, etc.
However, just because your religion allows you to attend doesn’t mean you should attend. If you’re uncomfortable, you can certainly skip the ceremony citing your feeling about the situation. It’s perfectly acceptable to skip the ceremony and arrive for the reception.
C
cjd
Guest
Great points Fastlearner. That was a very good point about making a mockery of the ULC and about it being a valid wedding. We can always hold out hope that they will convert to Catholicism!
F
FastLearner
Guest
I meant to say that you CAN’T assume… hopefully that was clear from the rest of the post. Basically, how can you mock an organization by following their rules and doing what they intend you to do?
And is the ULC mocking religion for having the belief than any person of faith is inherently ordained? Not any more so than a protestant that opens up his or her own non-denominational church and starts to preach (for example, John and Joel Osteen).
F
flower1
Guest
Because I look at marriage as something sacred that is blessed by God. I do not think this marriage will be valid in God’s eyes. These people don’t even practice their religion, is this a big joke or what. In my Catholic religion, Marriage is a Sacrament. Something that couples must prepare for in a spiritual sense. Without God being the center of this commitment it is bound to fail. Sorry. I wouldn’t attend, and I wouldn’t support such nonsense.
M
mtnutt
Guest
Flower,
You are correct that in our Catholic world, marriage is a sacrament - when involving two baptised persons. In this case, since it appears that neither party is baptised it is a non-sacramental marriage, a natural marriage, which the Catholic Church recognizes as valid. If the parties involved eventually get baptised, Catholic or non-catholic, then the marriage will be both valid and sacramental.
As such, I personally see no problem with attending, but you, and the OP, are entitled to disagree and make your own choice, as are we all.
God Bless You All.
S
Seatuck
Guest
And yet the church would see it as a valid marriage.
T
Talevita
Guest
I never thought a couple’s religion (or lack of) could cause a problem with a Catholic’s attendance. A friend of mine married a couple a few years ago, I don’t know if that was called a license but it was legal in this state of Utah; she hasn’t married a couple since. So let’s pretend gay marriage is legal in Utah and a homosexual good friend of mine was going to marry, would it be a sin for me to attend? That’s not a real situation, just a curious thought that I got while reading this thread.
S
Seatuck
Guest
A Catholic should not go to a homosexual “wedding”. We should not go to what is obviously an invalid wedding. Or in this case no marriage at all.I never thought a couple’s religion (or lack of) could cause a problem with a Catholic’s attendance. A friend of mine married a couple a few years ago, I don’t know if that was called a license but it was legal in this state of Utah; she hasn’t married a couple since. So let’s pretend gay marriage is legal in Utah and a homosexual good friend of mine was going to marry, would it be a sin for me to attend? That’s not a real situation, just a curious thought that I got while reading this thread.
F
FastLearner
Guest
I don’t think I’m qualified to say what is definitely a sin or not, but my understand is that attending an invalid wedding can cause scandal, which is a sin. What is an invalid wedding? I don’t think I’m an expert by any means, but personally I classify them into two types: invalid weddings involving a Catholic and an invalid wedding not involving a Catholic.I never thought a couple’s religion (or lack of) could cause a problem with a Catholic’s attendance. A friend of mine married a couple a few years ago, I don’t know if that was called a license but it was legal in this state of Utah; she hasn’t married a couple since. So let’s pretend gay marriage is legal in Utah and a homosexual good friend of mine was going to marry, would it be a sin for me to attend? That’s not a real situation, just a curious thought that I got while reading this thread.
If a Catholic is not involved, I assess the validity of the wedding based on whether or not the Catholic Church would recognize the marriage were they to convert to Catholicism. The big issues to watch out for are:
- a person who doesn’t know who they are marrying (Can. 1098),
- a person forced or threatened into the wedding (Can. 1103),
- an underage wedding (16 for man, 14 for woman) (Can. 1083),
- a person bound by a prior marriage, i.e. divorced without annulment (Can. 1085),
- a person in a sacred order or with a public vow of chastity (Can. 1087-1088),
- a marriage between close relatives - see canon for how close (Can. 1091),
- a homosexual marriage (Can. 1055)
If a Catholic is involved, all of the above apply, but there are some additional requirements, since the Catholic is bound by specific canon law (Can. 1059). Two issues that come up the most is that a Catholic cannot marry a non-baptized person without a dispensation (Can. 1086) and cannot marry outside of a Catholic church without dispensation (Can. 1118). In general, though, any wedding inside of a Catholic church is probably valid.
So what if you don’t know if something above holds? For instance, if you’re attending a beach wedding where one person is Catholic, but you’re not sure if they have a dispensation from a bishop to be married outside of a church. Do you ask? No (well, some people might). The basic assumption you always make is that the marriage is valid, unless it’s proven invalid. The only exception has to do with an annulment/divorce. In that case, you always assume this new wedding is invalid unless you know that they have a decree of nullity from the Catholic Church. So if your two protestant friends, one of whom is divorced, want to get married, you should not attend unless you know your divorced friend has a decree of nullity, even if her religion doesn’t require it.
Confusing enough or does that make sense? You can read the canon law here: vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM just keep hitting “next” and reading until you get out of the marriage section.
J
Jenny_Z
Guest
I think that’s a pretty decent summary, FL.
I
IrishAm
Guest
You must go. We want to hear all about it afterwards . . . 
T
Thomas63116
Guest
Probably because they don’t know anyone who is a justice of the peace, while they do know someone who was willing/able to go online and get an ordination that would allow them to preside at the wedding. They also probably found the idea of a friend presiding at their wedding more appealing than a stranger presiding at the wedding.
They also may not know a judge or JP who would marry them at a location other than a courthouse. And, if they looked through the phone book for a wedding presider, they are more likely than not to find someone with an ordination from the ULC, or a similar lack of formal training. So why not have a friend do it instead?
If your state offered a purely secular designation to allow their friend to preside at the wedding, then they may have prefered that. Or maybe not. You describe them as basically non-religious, but as another poster pointed out there are a lot of people who do not belong to any organized religion, but do believe in “something.” The very loose theology of the ULC’s ordination may fit them perfectly.
Yes it is possible that by having this marriage presided over by a friend who got an online ordination they intend to mock the concept of ordination, the sacrament of marriage, and really all organized religion. It is also possible (and in my opinion more likely) that they simly wanted an easy and legally recognized way for their friend to preside at thier marriage. You and your wife are in a far better position to judge the likelihood of each, but if this is someone who really holds religion in that such contempt, how has your wife sustained a friendship with her for so many years?
This seems to me to be a situation where there are multiple possible interpretations of another’s actions, and in general it is better to choose the more charitable interpretation.
C
cjd
Guest
Great point. We are going to discuss it tonight, but I believe we will be going, in charity.
J
JaMc
Guest
This raises another question - in my county, our Magistrate Judge is Catholic, and attends Mass every Sunday. In my State, Judges, Mayors, and, I think even the Governor are authorized to perform civil marriages (our Governor is a Catholic too, by the way, but I am sure it is very rare for the Governor to officiate at a marriage, if he can, in fact, do so). Would it be sinful for him to perform a civil marriage? Or is it fine, since the Church does not consider a civil marriage to be sacramental, so long as the Judge does not consider himself to be offering a sacrament?
L
ljubim
Guest
I once attended my aunt’s wedding, to a man who refused to get his first marriage annulled, in a Lutheran church with a woman “co-celebrating” 
It was very comical during communion, as we were all Catholics simply humoring our conflicted relative, and maybe four people total actually went up there.
It’s your duty to your friends to attend, and your duty to yourself and to God to not participate when you’re there
It was very comical during communion, as we were all Catholics simply humoring our conflicted relative, and maybe four people total actually went up there.
It’s your duty to your friends to attend, and your duty to yourself and to God to not participate when you’re there
J
Jenny_Z
Guest
I think it depends on whether or not the people getting married are Catholic…
F
FastLearner
Guest
Is it that you disagree with the Church’s teachings on adultery or that you support adultery? If your married friend asked you to “cover for him” while he’s at his mistress’ house, would you support adultery in that case by lying to his wife? Participating in a wedding involving someone already married is no different.
Attending the ceremony is participation. It’s not on the same level as being the celebrant or being in the wedding party, but by attending, you’re acknowledging acceptance of the marriage.
As I mentioned above, I would argue that attending an invalid wedding is a sin (scandal), and not a “duty to you friends”. By attending, you’re condoning the marriage, which is known to be false. That has two implications: 1. since others know you are Catholic, if gives the impression that the Catholic Church condones the wedding, which is not true and harms the Church and 2. you’re implicitly authorizing your “friends” to engage in an act that you know is adultery and will exclude them from Heaven, which harms your friends.
- Status