Catholic and Civil Ceremony - Same Day?

simcal18 · November 2014

First: don't lie to a priest. Ever. If nothing else, that's just bad karma.

Second: only have a Catholic ceremony if it is what YOU and your FI want. Don't do it just to appease your family.

Third: don't have a big secular ceremony just for show. Inviting people to witness a fake/re-do ceremony is tacky.

ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Canon law prohibits a separate religious ceremony, not a separate secular ceremony. There is also a concept in Catholicism called a convalidation, where an already-existing marriage is blessed as being valid within the Catholic church. I am Catholic. My FI is Jewish--emphasis on the "ish"--and is not comfortable getting married in a full-on Catholic mass in front of 180 of our closest family and friends. He is comfortable having our marriage blessed by the church though, and he knows that having a church-approved marriage is important to me. So we are having a JP-officiated ceremony on a Saturday in front of all of our family and friends, with a reception immediately following. That is our marriage ceremony, our wedding, our legally binding ceremony. The next Monday, we are having a ceremony in the Catholic church with immediate family only, to validate our marriage within the Catholic church.

This was the solution that worked for us, but it worked because it felt right for FI and I--not because there was parental pressure there. I should also note that while Canon law allows for this, some priests are stricter than others. I know in the Northeast, where interfaith marriages are fairly common, most priests won't blink an eye at this, but I cant speak to stricter parishes in other areas of the country. But separating your legal and spiritual ceremonies can be done in a church and etiquette-approved manner. We're doing it, FI's Jewish sister and Catholic brother-in-law did it, and others in our circle have done it as well. Only do it if it's that you and your FI want, though.

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

@bostonbride2015 - good points. I definitely agree that how priests apply Canon Law can vary (actually, most priests aren't canon lawyers). I'm glad to hear the Convalidation route is working for you. I think the willingness to witness that would vary from priest to priest, though.

lyndausvi · November 2014

bostonbride2015 said:

First: don't lie to a priest. Ever. If nothing else, that's just bad karma.

Second: only have a Catholic ceremony if it is what YOU and your FI want. Don't do it just to appease your family.

Third: don't have a big secular ceremony just for show. Inviting people to witness a fake/re-do ceremony is tacky.

ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Canon law prohibits a separate religious ceremony, not a separate secular ceremony. There is also a concept in Catholicism called a convalidation, where an already-existing marriage is blessed as being valid within the Catholic church. I am Catholic. My FI is Jewish--emphasis on the "ish"--and is not comfortable getting married in a full-on Catholic mass in front of 180 of our closest family and friends. He is comfortable having our marriage blessed by the church though, and he knows that having a church-approved marriage is important to me. So we are having a JP-officiated ceremony on a Saturday in front of all of our family and friends, with a reception immediately following. That is our marriage ceremony, our wedding, our legally binding ceremony. The next Monday, we are having a ceremony in the Catholic church with immediate family only, to validate our marriage within the Catholic church.

This was the solution that worked for us, but it worked because it felt right for FI and I--not because there was parental pressure there. I should also note that while Canon law allows for this, some priests are stricter than others. I know in the Northeast, where interfaith marriages are fairly common, most priests won't blink an eye at this, but I cant speak to stricter parishes in other areas of the country. But separating your legal and spiritual ceremonies can be done in a church and etiquette-approved manner. We're doing it, FI's Jewish sister and Catholic brother-in-law did it, and others in our circle have done it as well. Only do it if it's that you and your FI want, though.

I knew there was a way to make it work without all the lying and being secretive.

simcal18 · November 2014

lyndausvi said:

bostonbride2015 said:

First: don't lie to a priest. Ever. If nothing else, that's just bad karma.

Second: only have a Catholic ceremony if it is what YOU and your FI want. Don't do it just to appease your family.

Third: don't have a big secular ceremony just for show. Inviting people to witness a fake/re-do ceremony is tacky.

ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Canon law prohibits a separate religious ceremony, not a separate secular ceremony. There is also a concept in Catholicism called a convalidation, where an already-existing marriage is blessed as being valid within the Catholic church. I am Catholic. My FI is Jewish--emphasis on the "ish"--and is not comfortable getting married in a full-on Catholic mass in front of 180 of our closest family and friends. He is comfortable having our marriage blessed by the church though, and he knows that having a church-approved marriage is important to me. So we are having a JP-officiated ceremony on a Saturday in front of all of our family and friends, with a reception immediately following. That is our marriage ceremony, our wedding, our legally binding ceremony. The next Monday, we are having a ceremony in the Catholic church with immediate family only, to validate our marriage within the Catholic church.

This was the solution that worked for us, but it worked because it felt right for FI and I--not because there was parental pressure there. I should also note that while Canon law allows for this, some priests are stricter than others. I know in the Northeast, where interfaith marriages are fairly common, most priests won't blink an eye at this, but I cant speak to stricter parishes in other areas of the country. But separating your legal and spiritual ceremonies can be done in a church and etiquette-approved manner. We're doing it, FI's Jewish sister and Catholic brother-in-law did it, and others in our circle have done it as well. Only do it if it's that you and your FI want, though.

I knew there was a way to make it work without all the lying and being secretive.

Imagine that! We don't have to lie to a priest, we don't have to lie to our guests (who get to witness our actual wedding ceremony), and both FI and I are totally comfortable with our wedding plan legally, socially, and spiritually. All it takes is a bit of honesty, ingenuity, and flexibility. It also helps if you have an older sibling who's gone through the exact same thing a few years before you and has already figured it out. :-) And per holyguacamole's comment, yes, I think it helps if you live in the northeast too--I do think that some stricter parishes would see what we're doing as a bit subversive and would either refuse or try to pressure us into just doing a church wedding, but up in this deep blue territory the priests are generally just glad that you want your marriage to be valid in the Catholic church at all.

lyndausvi · November 2014

bostonbride2015 said:

lyndausvi said:

bostonbride2015 said:

First: don't lie to a priest. Ever. If nothing else, that's just bad karma.

Second: only have a Catholic ceremony if it is what YOU and your FI want. Don't do it just to appease your family.

Third: don't have a big secular ceremony just for show. Inviting people to witness a fake/re-do ceremony is tacky.

ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Canon law prohibits a separate religious ceremony, not a separate secular ceremony. There is also a concept in Catholicism called a convalidation, where an already-existing marriage is blessed as being valid within the Catholic church. I am Catholic. My FI is Jewish--emphasis on the "ish"--and is not comfortable getting married in a full-on Catholic mass in front of 180 of our closest family and friends. He is comfortable having our marriage blessed by the church though, and he knows that having a church-approved marriage is important to me. So we are having a JP-officiated ceremony on a Saturday in front of all of our family and friends, with a reception immediately following. That is our marriage ceremony, our wedding, our legally binding ceremony. The next Monday, we are having a ceremony in the Catholic church with immediate family only, to validate our marriage within the Catholic church.

This was the solution that worked for us, but it worked because it felt right for FI and I--not because there was parental pressure there. I should also note that while Canon law allows for this, some priests are stricter than others. I know in the Northeast, where interfaith marriages are fairly common, most priests won't blink an eye at this, but I cant speak to stricter parishes in other areas of the country. But separating your legal and spiritual ceremonies can be done in a church and etiquette-approved manner. We're doing it, FI's Jewish sister and Catholic brother-in-law did it, and others in our circle have done it as well. Only do it if it's that you and your FI want, though.

I knew there was a way to make it work without all the lying and being secretive.

Imagine that! We don't have to lie to a priest, we don't have to lie to our guests (who get to witness our actual wedding ceremony), and both FI and I are totally comfortable with our wedding plan legally, socially, and spiritually. All it takes is a bit of honesty, ingenuity, and flexibility. It also helps if you have an older sibling who's gone through the exact same thing a few years before you and has already figured it out. :-) And per holyguacamole's comment, yes, I think it helps if you live in the northeast too--I do think that some stricter parishes would see what we're doing as a bit subversive and would either refuse or try to pressure us into just doing a church wedding, but up in this deep blue territory the priests are generally just glad that you want your marriage to be valid in the Catholic church at all.

In this case the OP said "they do not consistently" attend mass. Which means they do attend mass. Unlike us who never do.

So if their priests are on board this could be an option if they want. Of course, only if they want. As I said before, forget about the parents if they plan on raising kids in the church they really should consider this option.

simcal18 · November 2014

lyndausvi said:

bostonbride2015 said:

lyndausvi said:

bostonbride2015 said:

First: don't lie to a priest. Ever. If nothing else, that's just bad karma.

Second: only have a Catholic ceremony if it is what YOU and your FI want. Don't do it just to appease your family.

Third: don't have a big secular ceremony just for show. Inviting people to witness a fake/re-do ceremony is tacky.

ALL THAT HAVING BEEN SAID: Canon law prohibits a separate religious ceremony, not a separate secular ceremony. There is also a concept in Catholicism called a convalidation, where an already-existing marriage is blessed as being valid within the Catholic church. I am Catholic. My FI is Jewish--emphasis on the "ish"--and is not comfortable getting married in a full-on Catholic mass in front of 180 of our closest family and friends. He is comfortable having our marriage blessed by the church though, and he knows that having a church-approved marriage is important to me. So we are having a JP-officiated ceremony on a Saturday in front of all of our family and friends, with a reception immediately following. That is our marriage ceremony, our wedding, our legally binding ceremony. The next Monday, we are having a ceremony in the Catholic church with immediate family only, to validate our marriage within the Catholic church.

This was the solution that worked for us, but it worked because it felt right for FI and I--not because there was parental pressure there. I should also note that while Canon law allows for this, some priests are stricter than others. I know in the Northeast, where interfaith marriages are fairly common, most priests won't blink an eye at this, but I cant speak to stricter parishes in other areas of the country. But separating your legal and spiritual ceremonies can be done in a church and etiquette-approved manner. We're doing it, FI's Jewish sister and Catholic brother-in-law did it, and others in our circle have done it as well. Only do it if it's that you and your FI want, though.

I knew there was a way to make it work without all the lying and being secretive.

Imagine that! We don't have to lie to a priest, we don't have to lie to our guests (who get to witness our actual wedding ceremony), and both FI and I are totally comfortable with our wedding plan legally, socially, and spiritually. All it takes is a bit of honesty, ingenuity, and flexibility. It also helps if you have an older sibling who's gone through the exact same thing a few years before you and has already figured it out. :-) And per holyguacamole's comment, yes, I think it helps if you live in the northeast too--I do think that some stricter parishes would see what we're doing as a bit subversive and would either refuse or try to pressure us into just doing a church wedding, but up in this deep blue territory the priests are generally just glad that you want your marriage to be valid in the Catholic church at all.

In this case the OP said "they do not consistently" attend mass. Which means they do attend mass. Unlike us who never do.

So if their priests are on board this could be an option if they want. Of course, only if they want. As I said before, forget about the parents if they plan on raising kids in the church they really should consider this option.

Agreed. If OP and her FI want to continue to be active in church life after they are married, they should seriously consider getting married in a manner that makes their marriage valid in the church. And the post-secular Catholic ceremony/convalidation option that I proposed has the added benefit of making the secular ceremony that they really want their legally binding marriage.

agapecarrie · November 2014

Actually, there is an option to marry within the church's rules and not have a mass-- in fact, when the catholic is marrying someone who isn't baptized, a mass is normally not allowed.

As I commented before, the canon law is global-- which means it includes locations that a priest doesn't have the power to marry people legally. Where they do have the power, then they are expected to.

The convalidation route is not for what is suggested here-- the action of civilly marrying outside the church (in places where the priest can marry legally) is considered a serious public statement against the church. It pulls one out of communion.

An option for a catholic marrying a non-Catholic is to get a dispensation from form. That means they still go through marriage prep, and their intent has to be what the church intends for marriage, but they get married in a different location, and it's still valid.

lyndausvi · November 2014

agapecarrie said:

Actually, there is an option to marry within the church's rules and not have a mass-- in fact, when the catholic is marrying someone who isn't baptized, a mass is normally not allowed. As I commented before, the canon law is global-- which means it includes locations that a priest doesn't have the power to marry people legally. Where they do have the power, then they are expected to. The convalidation route is not for what is suggested here-- the action of civilly marrying outside the church (in places where the priest can marry legally) is considered a serious public statement against the church. It pulls one out of communion. An option for a catholic marrying a non-Catholic is to get a dispensation from form. That means they still go through marriage prep, and their intent has to be what the church intends for marriage, but they get married in a different location, and it's still valid.

I had forgotten that both of them are baptized Catholics. Which will be treated differently then if one was non-Catholic.

It's all confusing. But one thing is for sure, it's not right to lie (even by omission) to the church,

beethery · November 2014

If anyone has an interest in staying with their church, it would serve them well not to lie or omit information to their church.

I am not a religious person but the shit is pretty fucking simple to comprehend.

jdluvr06 · November 2014

How can anyone say it is ok to lie to a priest? A lot of Catholic doctrine actually infuriates me and I still wouldn't lie to a priest. I'm going to take that a step further and say I wouldn't lie to any religions "clergy"" (for lack of a better word). That is just so disrespectful.

beethery · November 2014

jdluvr06 said:

How can anyone say it is ok to lie to a priest? A lot of Catholic doctrine actually infuriates me and I still wouldn't lie to a priest. I'm going to take that a step further and say I wouldn't lie to any religions "clergy"" (for lack of a better word). That is just so disrespectful.

The only people who are going to be cool with lying to their priest/religious guideperson/etc are the people who probably shouldn't be participating in that religion or religious sect if they think the rules do not apply to them.

VulgarGirl · November 2014

As far as the Catholic church is concerned I'm on the express train to hell and when I get there I get a penthouse, and even I wouldn't lie to a priest. He's a fucking priest yo. Not cool.

mrs4everhart · November 2014

Y'all crack me the fuck up. Who even said anything about lying? If it's not against church rules to have a secular ceremony (that's also not legally binding) what's the BFD? They can tell their priest or not. Their afternoon plans after their catholic ceremony isn't actually his business per se, but they could tell him if that's their prerogative because it's not against the rules.

I know it's assumed I get some big thrill in life lying when it suits me. But I think y'all have it imagined a whole lot grander than it really is. Which effects me not at all one way or the other.

The OP can have her cake and eat it too and still be good with her priest, if she cares about that.

It's so damn simple.

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

@mrs4everhart, here's the thing:

I had a Catholic wedding - full Mass, five priests in attendance. It was awesome. I had ZERO desire or need to have another wedding. I realize that your first wedding wasn't "good enough" for you, so you had to have another wedding to make sure this one sticks. What you are suggesting - a second wedding ceremony - is HIGHLY offensive to me. It directly implies that any Catholic wedding isn't "good enough".

And apparently I'm not alone:

Along similar lines, the same canon [1127.3] forbids a Catholic to have two separate wedding ceremonies, one Catholic and one non-Catholic, regardless of which one takes place first. There are theological reasons for this. The Church wishes to avoid the appearance that it is just as acceptable for a Catholic to have a non-Catholic wedding as a Catholic one, or that the two ceremonies are equally sufficient for the marriage’s validity—they’re not.

source: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/08/23/can-a-catholic-ever-get-married-in-a-non-catholic-churc/

This is from a Canon Lawyer, someone who is much more well-versed in Canon Law than any of us are. This exerpt from Canon Law isn't saying "a secular wedding is okay, but a religious one is not okay". What it is saying is that ANY additional wedding gives an impression that a Catholic wedding is not "good enough".

Your suggestioin that the OP proceed with a Catholic wedding and conveniently forget to tell her priest that she is doing this is, in fact, a sin of omission. Assuming she is still reading (which I can tell she is, as she is for some reason liking your posts), the OP now knows that a second wedding ceremony would be contrary to Catholic law. Purposefully not disclosing this to the priest / deacon preparing the couple for marriage is, in fact, a sin of omission.

But you're right - it IS so damn simple. She can have the wedding that she & her FI desire, or she can have a Catholic wedding (if it turns out that is what they want). Just not both.

beethery · November 2014

mrs4everhart said:

Y'all crack me the fuck up. Who even said anything about lying? If it's not against church rules to have a secular ceremony (that's also not legally binding) what's the BFD? They can tell their priest or not. Their afternoon plans after their catholic ceremony isn't actually his business per se, but they could tell him if that's their prerogative because it's not against the rules. I know it's assumed I get some big thrill in life lying when it suits me. But I think y'all have it imagined a whole lot grander than it really is. Which effects me not at all one way or the other. The OP can have her cake and eat it too and still be good with her priest, if she cares about that. It's so damn simple.

I don't think your thrill is from lying, but obviously you get a giggle from stirring the pot.

mrs4everhart · November 2014

holyguacamole79 said:
@mrs4everhart, here's the thing:

I had a Catholic wedding - full Mass, five priests in attendance. It was awesome. I had ZERO desire or need to have another wedding. I realize that your first wedding wasn't "good enough" for you, so you had to have another wedding to make sure this one sticks. What you are suggesting - a second wedding ceremony - is HIGHLY offensive to me. It directly implies that any Catholic wedding isn't "good enough".

And apparently I'm not alone:
Along similar lines, the same canon [1127.3] forbids a Catholic to have two separate wedding ceremonies, one Catholic and one non-Catholic, regardless of which one takes place first. There are theological reasons for this. The Church wishes to avoid the appearance that it is just as acceptable for a Catholic to have a non-Catholic wedding as a Catholic one, or that the two ceremonies are equally sufficient for the marriage’s validity—they’re not.
source: http://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/08/23/can-a-catholic-ever-get-married-in-a-non-catholic-churc/

This is from a Canon Lawyer, someone who is much more well-versed in Canon Law than any of us are. This exerpt from Canon Law isn't saying "a secular wedding is okay, but a religious one is not okay". What it is saying is that ANY additional wedding gives an impression that a Catholic wedding is not "good enough".

Your suggestioin that the OP proceed with a Catholic wedding and conveniently forget to tell her priest that she is doing this is, in fact, a sin of omission. Assuming she is still reading (which I can tell she is, as she is for some reason liking your posts), the OP now knows that a second wedding ceremony would be contrary to Catholic law. Purposefully not disclosing this to the priest / deacon preparing the couple for marriage is, in fact, a sin of omission.

But you're right - it IS so damn simple. She can have the wedding that she & her FI desire, or she can have a Catholic wedding (if it turns out that is what they want). Just not both.

1. I'M not suggesting anything. The OP did. I'm not running amuck trying to scandalize good, God fearing Catholics. Although it does sound like fun.

2. Because you had a catholic ceremony and are now offended that the OP wants to find a way to make herself and her FIL's happy isn't her problem, it's yours. Just like it is the problem of anyone who chooses to be offended because someone else isn't satisfied in doing things the way others have. That's great your church service was "good enough" for you. Be happy about that. But why does it have to be "good enough" for anyone else?

3. I didn't need multiple ceremonies. I had one. It was secular and not legally binding. We self solemnized our marriage license to cover the legalities. No different than anyone having a church wedding then signing their license for example. Except we didn't do both on the same day. We did however have multiple receptions. And that shit was awesome. If anyone is offended by what was good enough for me, that's their problem, not mine. Because what I do has nothing at all to do with anyone else's wedding/marriage.

4. The OP is probably liking my posts because I'm reasonable. And I never advised her to lie to anyone. I don't think anyone owes their clergy person a play by play of every moment subsequent to their legally-binding religious wedding ceremony. If standing in a garden reciting some secular vows is against her religion, I reckon she's got some soul searching to do.

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

mrs4everhart · November 2014

holyguacamole79 said:

You're the offended one, not me.

But I do love me some J. Law, keep her commin'!

mrs4everhart · November 2014

beethery said:

mrs4everhart said:

Y'all crack me the fuck up. Who even said anything about lying? If it's not against church rules to have a secular ceremony (that's also not legally binding) what's the BFD? They can tell their priest or not. Their afternoon plans after their catholic ceremony isn't actually his business per se, but they could tell him if that's their prerogative because it's not against the rules.

I know it's assumed I get some big thrill in life lying when it suits me. But I think y'all have it imagined a whole lot grander than it really is. Which effects me not at all one way or the other.

The OP can have her cake and eat it too and still be good with her priest, if she cares about that.

It's so damn simple.

I don't think your thrill is from lying, but obviously you get a giggle from stirring the pot.

I don't care one way or the other. I'm just here to help folks like the OP.

On occasion y'all's responses to make me chuckle. But I'm sure the amusement is mutual.

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

@mrs4everhart, here's how Catholicism works:

When a couple marries in the Catholic faith, the priest / deacon is there as a witness. He is invested in the couple and is acting as a representative of the Church to vouch that the wedding is sacramentally valid. THAT is why it would be the priest's business to know about this additional ceremony. IF the couple goes down that route, the second ceremony implies that the Catholic wedding is not "enough", which indicates tha the couple is not entering into a sacramentally valid wedding.

Here's what you don't get about being Catholic - We take this stuff seriously. THAT is why we don't believe in divorce and remarriage without an annulment. A Catholic marriage is a symbol, a foreshadowing of the eternal, life-giving love of the Trinity. So, yes - it should be "good enough" for anyone discerning this sacrament.

And I still stand by the fact that you are encouraging lying by omission. You don't get that apparently, but others here do.

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

mrs4everhart said:

If standing in a garden reciting some secular vows is against her religion, I reckon she's got some soul searching to do.

Honey, I search my soul on a regular basis.

agapecarrie · November 2014

"A Catholic marriage is a symbol, a foreshadowing of the eternal, life-giving love of the Trinity. So, yes - it should be "good enough" for anyone discerning this sacrament. "

That's Holyguac going all TOB. (Catholic insiders unite)

holyguacamole79 · November 2014

agapecarrie said:

"A Catholic marriage is a symbol, a foreshadowing of the eternal, life-giving love of the Trinity. So, yes - it should be "good enough" for anyone discerning this sacrament. " That's Holyguac going all TOB. (Catholic insiders unite)

You know it, sister.

Catholic marriage is pretty stinkin amazing, especially when you know what we truly believe.

mrs4everhart · November 2014

holyguacamole79 said:
@mrs4everhart, here's how Catholicism works:

When a couple marries in the Catholic faith, the priest / deacon is there as a witness. He is invested in the couple and is acting as a representative of the Church to vouch that the wedding is sacramentally valid. THAT is why it would be the priest's business to know about this additional ceremony. IF the couple goes down that route, the second ceremony implies that the Catholic wedding is not "enough", which indicates tha the couple is not entering into a sacramentally valid wedding.

Here's what you don't get about being Catholic - We take this stuff seriously. THAT is why we don't believe in divorce and remarriage without an annulment. A Catholic marriage is a symbol, a foreshadowing of the eternal, life-giving love of the Trinity. So, yes - it should be "good enough" for anyone discerning this sacrament.

And I still stand by the fact that you are encouraging lying by omission. You don't get that apparently, but others here do.

I'm pretty sure there are plenty of Catholics marrying that don't take this sacrament seriously. Lots of people engage in religious wedding ceremonies while not believing a word of what's being said. Sad but true. I went down that road with my first wedding. It was torture. And not at all what I wanted. But I digress, young, stupid and easily manipulated I was.

In the OP's case if she was absolutely devout, she wouldn't be considering a wedding anywhere else, would she? Maybe she is and she'll decide she wants the church ceremony after all.

As for soul searching, I was referring to the OP. But that's great you search yours I guess.

Catholic and Civil Ceremony - Same Day?

Re: Catholic and Civil Ceremony - Same Day?

Choose Another Board

Search Boards