Wedding Bell Blues…
Weddings - bah-humbug! (Kidding!)
The wedding season is upon us. I know some priests who hate to do weddings, there is so much they have to put up with it seems. People are very specific about how the Church and the ceremony absolutely must be - and the priest just better be on board with that. When I was young, one of our pastors would not allow pictures in the Church during Mass - that wouldn’t go well today with cell phones and video cameras. Weddings are a big production nowadays.
This is not my topic however. This summer, many of us will be invited to a relative’s wedding that is not Catholic. Some kids want to get married in a Country Club or a restaurant, and not by a priest. Other’s who have already been divorced, want to remarry the love of their life, but cannot have a Catholic wedding. What is a Catholic to do? I’ve always had the understanding Catholics should not participate in invalid marriage ceremonies.
A convenient truth.
For someone like me, who kinda, sorta, hates weddings, it can be a good way out of attending. If a baptized Catholic is getting married outside of the Church in a non-Catholic or irreligious ceremony, for me, as a Catholic, I have no obligation to attend. All the participants at a wedding are witnesses to a sacrament, if no sacrament takes place - well it’s like a “no-wedding” in as much as it is not a sacramental wedding.
For instance, if my God-Daughter were to get married in a Country Club, I believe it would be a sin for me to be part of it, since I would be condoning the fact she was marrying outside of the Church. (To be sure I wouldn’t be faithful to the baptismal promises I made in her regard as God-Father.) I couldn’t do so even out of love for her, nor to respect her “feelings”, it would be misplaced charity on my part - loving her to hell, as it were.
I know a Catholic attorney who painfully refused to attend her own daughter’s wedding because it was a civil ceremony. She acted thus on advice from her confessor. Is she a mean mom? Just the opposite, she loves her daughter and wants only what is best for her. Yes, she wants her to be happy - not just for now, but for eternity. Weddings, despite all the sentiment and grand extravagance, as well as the most fashionable dress, cake, flowers, etc. - weddings are simply not a fashion event. Rather, it is a solemn occasion in the lives of two people whose love brings them together sacramentally in Christ. Their union is to image the union of Christ with the Church, even the very life of the Blessed Trinity.
Playing the Catholic card.
Sometimes people can just use the “Catholic thing” for less than honorable reasons however. I know a fellow who would not go to his brother’s wedding because he was divorced and getting married again, outside the Church. Nothing wrong with that. It was a courageous witness to the faith.
Although, when it came time for his brother’s daughter to get married, and his niece opted for a non-Church, non-Catholic wedding, he and his entire family attended, as if nothing was wrong with it.
If that was wrong?
Was that hypocrisy? Was it setting a double standard? Did it scandalize anyone? Or maybe he got permission to attend the ceremony - which he hadn’t bothered to get for his brother’s wedding? How about the people who love to hate the Church and Catholics for all the hard rules? How does that affect them, already angry because they are not supposed to use the pill or condoms, and are expected to go to Mass on Sundays?
You see, I’m pretty sure a wedding is way more than one big party to show off to family and friends with a big reception. It really is a sacred occasion, a sacrament. The bride and groom and their family, as well as every Catholic who attends, are thereby witnessing the sacrament and therefore witnessing to the faith of the Church.
Whatever! But who would want to get married in a restaurant anyway? (Well, maybe if it was at a really posh one…)
[Editor's note: If anyone, priest or lay person determines this notion regarding a Catholic attending non-Catholic nuptials, contracted by baptised Catholics, as I have expressed it above, is in error, please correct me in the comments section. Thank you.]
May 20th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
What about the wedding of non-Catholics in a non-Catholic setting? I don’t think (although I’m not positive) that I’ve ever been to an illicit wedding of Catholics but I know I’ve been to non-Catholic ceremonies (I went to many weddings as a child).
May 20th, 2007 at 2:02 pm
Terry, thank you for this timely post. I have a few questions:
1-Can you direct me to some Church authority for these rules? I don’t remember having seen anything in the Catechism.
2-I assume there is no problem with going to a non-Catholic wedding involving non-Catholics. I live in the Southeast, and I get invited to a lot of Protestant weddings. My understanding is that these tough rules apply when a Catholic (or ex-Catholic) has a non-Catholic wedding - is that right?
May 20th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
RE: Weddings,Very interesting but I and some of my fellow retirees all Catholic find it very confusing as now (in our families) There so many grandkids who are NOT gettimg married and living together with their mates as husband and wife and not even a civil ceremony.Is this a new trend? when I UNBITE my tongue they say maybe in the future we might get married.Also the Parents of these grand kids are either divorced going through a divorce or also living with thier new mate.I sometimes want to say something but most of the time I dont.When I asked a priest about this(A Franciscon) He told me “They are old enough to make thier own decisions.I agree but I thought we as Catholics are supposed to help our loved stay ouy of or get out of sin.I am glad I am 68 and not young anymore I dont think I could resist the temptations of todays world.Thank you,God Bless!
May 20th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
Robin - I will do some checking - wow! maybe I’m wrong. Except, this has always been my understanding concerning divorced and remarried Catholics and baptised Catholics who marry outside the Church. Hopefully someone will correct me if I’m wrong.
As for non-Catholic weddings - I’m not sure - I would just go to the reception. I’ll correct this if I’m wrong however.
Maybe with the decline of faith and morals, everything is okay?
May 20th, 2007 at 4:50 pm
I looked in canon law as well, I could not find a direct prohibition.
I know the Church refers to a non-sacramental marriage as a putative marriage when it comes time to validate it, so the Civil ceremony has recognition.
I’ll just skip all weddings in general - I don’t mind at all.
May 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
Terry, are you saying that if I ever do get married (big IF), you won’t come to my wedding???
I’m offended at the though, especially because I want a simple wedding with a Mass (I won’t get married anywhere but in Heaven on earth, because I want to give my Vows before God, and I want ALL the Saints in attendance).
And of course, you’d be on the guest list.
Of course, I may never get married because there doesn’t seem to be anyone on the horizon, so you may be off the hook anyway…
May 20th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
Terry,
Thanks for this post. A few points:
First, there is no problem attending the marriages of non Catholics. Non Catholics are not obliged to follow the “canonical form” prescribed for Catholics. The Church recognizes the marriage of two Protestants before a minister or even justice of the peace as presumably valid (assuming there are no other impediments). But a Catholic is bound to follow the proper canonical form for his or her marriage to be deemed valid.
Second, if a Catholic has formally left the Church (for, by example, joining another church), then he or she is no longer bound by Church law, and can marry validly outside the Church. Now, obviously, a Catholic leaving the Church is a sad and serious situation — even moreso than an invalid marriage. Still: if a loved one has formally left the Church, and not just lapsed, it is possible for the loved one to validly marry outside the Church.
Third, there is no official teaching that I know of that forbids Catholics from attending the invalid marriage of a loved one. I’m sure some confessors advise against attending such events. But it’s not certain, imo, that attendance at an invalid ceremony equates to approving the invalid marriage.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Rick, thanks for your clarifications - they supply what my knowledge lacks and prevents my views from leading others astray. Much appreciated!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Adoro - I’ll attend if Cathy is maid of honor!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:24 pm
Scary thought! What if it is okay for a Catholic to attend a non-Catholic wedding? Does that mean I have to go to my god-daughter’s wedding? Oh please make me right on this!
May 20th, 2007 at 7:46 pm
I have read several priests say that to assist at the wedding of a Catholic being married outside the church is to give public scandal. Here is what Fr Saunders of Arlington says:
http://www.catholicherald.com/
saunders/00ws/ws000302.htm
“Some relatives fear alienating the relative getting married invalidly, and so they attend the wedding. The rationale here is that by attending the wedding, they hope to persuade the couple to have it later “validated” in the Church. The tragedy here is that the couple is entering into a state of mortal sin and depriving themselves of Holy Communion. If by chance this couple died and were deprived eternal salvation, what then would the relatives think and how liable would they be for their complicity? This language might sound stern or old fashioned, but it is gospel reality.”
Terry, I am still looking for some official teaching on this but I know I have read it somewhere.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:51 pm
Thank you Elena. I am certain this has been the consitent stance of the Church on the subject, hence it is part of the traditional thought, so to speak, if nothing else.
May 20th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
I knew I had seen it in canon law. See #4:
Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:
1/ a marriage of transients;
2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;
3/ a marriage of a person who is bound by natural obligations toward another party or children arising from a previous union;
4/ a marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith;
5/ a marriage of a person who is under a censure;
6/ a marriage of a minor child when the parents are unaware or reasonably opposed;
7/ a marriage to be entered into through a proxy as mentioned in ⇒ can. 1105.
§2. The local ordinary is not to grant permission to assist at the marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith unless the norms mentioned in ⇒ can. 1125 have been observed with necessary adaptation.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/
ENG1104/__P3W.HTM
May 20th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
There’s no black and white, but this is my approach:
(1) either or both the bride and groom are baptized Catholic and getting married outside of the Church - don’t attend.
(2) both bride and groom are not baptized Catholic and are getting married outside of the Church (obviously, if they’re not Catholic) - free to attend.
Easier said than done though when your siblings fall into category (1). That’s something my family has restled with and we chose not to attend after seeking direction from a priest.
With regards to a valid marriage for a baptized Catholic who has rejected the Faith, I don’t know how formal the rejection has to be. Furthermore, I’m hesitant to attend these weddings because essentially you’re witnessing your friend / family member fomally cut themselves off from the sacraments by marrying outside of the Church. Until they get married outside the Church, though it may seem unlikely in many cases, they’re free to return to full communion with the Christ and His Church through the Sacrament of Confession on any day at any time. Once they’ve married outside the Church returning to the Faith is not so easy. This is not something I want to be a witness to.
The situations that really complicate things in my mind are those who are cohabitating and getting married in the Church. I understand that we should be celebrating the fact that they’re rectifying an immoral situation and by the grace of God enabled to return to the sacramental life of the Church, however, the question I’m always tempted to ask is “Why didn’t you get married two or three years ago when you decided to move in together!”
May 21st, 2007 at 6:55 am
Elena,
Interesting. Thanks for the canon law cite.
If I recall correctly, though, Germain Grisez in his book “Difficult Moral Questions” actually suggests that lapsed Catholics formally declare they have left the Church (by, for example, writing a declaration to their bishop), before marrying outside the Church. Grisez suggests that this would allow their Catholic relatives to attend their ceremonies in good conscience, since after formally leaving the Church their marriages would not be invalid.
Perhaps there is a difference in canon law between “formally leaving” and “notoriously rejecting” the Church? Maybe we can get Ed Peters or Pete Vere to comment on this?
Also, thank you for Father Saunders’ comments. Certainly one must be concerned to not give scandal. This Faith Fact from CUF, however, suggests that attendance at an invalid wedding ceremony is not necessarily immoral in all cases.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:04 am
Terry, I strongly dislike attending weddings, as well. At the reception, when it’s time for all the single men to gather on the dance floor for the garter toss, I grab a cocktail & head for the parking lot. Bleck. One of my nieces who quit practicing her faith moved to Washington State & shacked up w/her boyfriend. Three years later they got married with a Catholic wedding. Her parents (my brother & sister-in-law) anguished over this. They knew my niece just wanted a Church to get married in (deep down I think she was scared NOT to get married in a Church for the implications of that for her future) so they met w/the local priest. I think my niece had to promise to return to the practice of her faith. Her boyfriend/new husband isn’t a Catholic, so no promises from him other than to help raise any children as Catholics. They were married in the Church (both the structure and and the institution) but the ceremony was without Communion. So what’s that called when you have a Nuptial ceremony without Communion? Anyway, I didn’t go for other reasons. Now I have a lesbian co-worker whose lover of 18 years just asked her to “marry” her. This is a grand
woman with a good heart & she knows I’m a practicing Catholic, but I’ve been holding my breath for the impending invitation that I know I’m gonna have to decline.
May 21st, 2007 at 7:07 am
I agree with DilexitPrior. It just seems that there could no more formal denial of the Catholic faith than when a baptized Catholic chooses a minister from another religion, or a civil authority, to witness their wedding vows. And for other Catholics to be present is to acknowledge and ratify the formal denial.
May 21st, 2007 at 9:01 am
After reading the Annotated Code of Canon Law, it seems to me that the fellow who avoided his brother’s wedding, but attended his niece’s wedding may have been acting in good conscience.
In the case of his brother, to attend would cause harm.scandal to the former wife and her children, thus it would be necessary to refrain from participating in his brothers second wedding.
As for the niece, that would be an entirely different matter, and circumstances may have allowed his attending. I’m sure that a priest had been consulted and the family would have been counseled to attend.
I’m no canon lawyer to be sure, but it seems to me best that when in doubt, consult a good priest.
For myself, I agree with DilexitPrior and Elena’s opinion, which accords with what I have always been taught.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:33 am
I read in Catholic Answers that attending an illicit wedding is to give public scandal. When faced with attending my husband’s best friend’s wedding (both baptized Catholic, neither practicing, married by a protestant rent-a-minister) we sought “official” direction from our Bishop’s office. We called, asked for a priest stating we had a question and needed to inform our consciences on a matter. A priest came right to the phone and we put the above dilemma to him. Since my husband was to be best man, could we not only attend the illicit wedding, but could he act as official witness?? We even cited Catholic Answers - this priest disagreed and stated we could attend the wedding with the condition we made it known to the bride and groom that to be married regularly within the Church is preferred.
We did speak with them both on two occasions about the Church’s teaching on marriage, they were not interested, but listened politely. We attended the wedding, with permission from this priest. I’ve hoped since we made the right choice.
These situations are such terrible dilemmas for those wishing to be good Catholics.
May 21st, 2007 at 10:43 am
Hi, Rick, yes, as canon law says: “The local ordinary is not to grant permission to assist at the marriage of a person who has notoriously rejected the Catholic faith unless the norms mentioned in ⇒ can. 1125 have been observed with necessary adaptation.” So as there are some instances in which it may be permissible but my understanding of canon law is not sophisticated enough for the details. I will contact a friend in Rome who is studying canon law.
May 21st, 2007 at 11:53 am
Terry,
This post seems to have inspired much research and further reading! At least, it has for me.
A few things I’ve found which I’d like to share.
1. Elena, regarding the canon law that forbids assisting at a various marriages, I believe “assisting” does not equate to “attending.”See Canon Can. 1108 §2. “The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.”
Thus I understand that while your canon law cite forbids priests or deacons from officiating at various wedding ceremonies, it does not specifically address whether Catholics may attend such ceremonies.
2. Regarding the validity of marriages of baptized Catholics who have “defected from the Church by a formal act”: This is something that the Code of Canon Law itself addresses, as here:
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.
So, for example: Suppose that your cousin, a baptized Catholic, stops attending Mass and joins an Episcopalian church.
If your cousin then married according to Episcopalian norms, without the permission of the local Catholic bishop, would he marry validly?
For many years, I think most canonists would have answered “yes.” By joining an Episcopalian church, your cousin would have been deemed to have left the Church by a formal act — and would therefore marry validly without observing the proper canonical form.
The advice from most canonists: You could attend such a wedding in good conscience. The wedding was seen as likely valid and not sinful itself (though of course defecting from the Church is a very grave matter).
However: Since the new Code of Canon law was promulgated in 1983, there was always a bit of ambiguity over what precisely qualified as a “formal act” sufficient to defect from the Church. I was unaware until today that last year, the Pontifical Commission for the Interpretation of Legislative Texts clarified what is meant be a “formal act.” Jimmy Akin explains more here:
Suffice it to say that the requirements are very strict; and
it now appears that the wedding of the Catholic-turned-Episcopalian in my example above would likely be deemed invalid. So moralists (like Germain Grisez, if I recall correctly) who earlier saw attending such a marriage as acceptable, might now have different advice.
May 21st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Terry: There is a demon no one has talked about yet and that is: Mother of the Bride. I used to be dragged into helping at weddings at my former parish and the Mother of the Bride may have been the nicest person ever but the minute her daughter was getting married she suddenly felt like the Altar needed to be moved and that statues put someplace else etc. etc. I’ve known priests that look upon putting up with the relatives of the married couple as a penance and a mortification. There’s a reason why Associate Pastors usually get “stuck” with the duty.
That rant ended: you are correct in your blog post.
If Catholics are going to take a stand at one wedding by not attending they better be consistent or else there will be familial heck to contend with down the line.
If either Adoro and I get married it should be designated as a miraculous event and indulgences should be granted for attending! LOL!
May 21st, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Mercutio, It has inspired greater research and more reading for me as well. I came across what you found and it seems to me the prohibitiob is more for clerics than laity.
Thanks for your input on this - and thanks to all - I’m still waiting for a priest or a canon lawyer to come forward.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:04 am
Mercutio, I disagree. “Assist” and “attend” mean the same thing. It is a traditional usage to say that one “assists at Mass” even if one does not even receive Communion, but is merely present. We all “assist” at Mass with our prayers and presence. It does not necessarily mean officiating on the altar.
May 22nd, 2007 at 9:23 am
” For all who devoutly assist at Holy Mass are made one with the priest, and along with him present to heaven the adorable sacrifice.”
-St. Leonard of Port Maurice
“A Catholic is bound by the law of the Church to assist at the Celebration of the Eucharist on every Sunday and Holy Day of Obligation. ” -NBCC
http://www.nbccongress.org/
features/print/is-your-
communion-holy.asp
May 22nd, 2007 at 11:56 am
“If either Adoro and I get married it should be designated as a miraculous event and indulgences should be granted for attending! LOL! ”
sweet, I want in this too. If I get married, know that fire arms will be welcomed.
May 22nd, 2007 at 1:54 pm
Elena,
Yes, I agree that “assist” can mean “attend,” as it does in the example you cite. The whole congregation assists at Mass. But in the Code of Canon law, in the sections on marriage, “assist” has a more specific meaning:
Can. 1108 §2.”The person who assists at a marriage is understood to be only that person who is present, asks for the manifestation of the consent of the contracting parties, and receives it in the name of the Church.”
May 22nd, 2007 at 8:06 pm
Oh, OK, now I see what you mean. Yes, we really need a canon lawyer to figure out the technicalities! I still think that common sense dictates that it would be wrong to show approval of a Catholic marrying outside the Church.