Six month wait to marry in Catholic Churchgreenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Does anyone know the rule of having to wait six months to marry in the church? We are trying to get married in three months. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Terry
-- Terry Bole (tjb3862@hotmail.com), May 21, 2003
Terry,A six month wait is not uncommon. The Catholic Church does not want to see people rushing into marriage unprepared, especially with the failure of so many marriages today. Marriage is a lifetime commitment, so having a six month preparation period isn't all that unreasonable.
On the other hand, it is not an absolute requirement. So if you are able to convince your priest that you and your betrothed are exceptionally mature and exceptionally prepared, he could marry you earlier if he chose to. But this would be a fairly atypical occurrence.
-- Mark (aujus_1066@yahoo.com), May 21, 2003.
Part of the reason for that is because of requirements to attend whatever your parish provides as regards "Engagement Encounter" or whatever they are calling it these days. In many parishes you don't get to talk to the priest except for the marriage itself--all of the "chats" and so on are conducted by married couples (good idea) and other laity. Some parishes are large enough to hold these get togethers regularly, others are so small that you go to some other parish for them.Another reason is the scheduling of the Church itself, the hall (if you're using that), which particular priest you want conducting the ceremony, and so forth. There are only certain days and times you can hold Catholic weddings, so that itself is an issue.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 21, 2003.
I would stop and look at what is rushing you to get married. Marriage is such an important step that I believe that you need to get your affairs in order and give it the time it needs.You'll never take this step ever again, stop and give it the time it deserves.
Perhaps, if you could share with us the nature of the importance in a three month deadline. It might help shed some light on the reasoning for the quick timeline.
-- Leon (vol@weblink2000.net), May 21, 2003.
Leon,We have talked and knew we were getting married in January(waited to get ring in May). I am 41 and she is 43 and we want children. We have a family friend who is a priest and will marry us and be in town in August. Will be meeting with Parish priest this afternoon so we'll see.
-- Terry (tjb3862@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.
I personally know a couple who took 10 years before they got married.After reading Scriptures, I learned that marriage would be best if avoided, but because of our nature.....well, then get married.
.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.
>After reading Scriptures, I learned that marriage would be best if avoided!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!????????????????????????? please explain
-- kiwi (csisherwood@hotmail.com), May 22, 2003.
In many parishes you don't get to talk to the priest except for the marriage itself--all of the "chats" and so on are conducted by married couples (good idea) and other laity.Is it a good idea? I don't know. Here's what happened to us... they sent us off with other engaged couples to the house of a married couple as part of this pre-cana deal to recieve some supposed PreCana instructions.
It was a joke. The couple doing the instruction were promoting birth control and said they had taken on the job because it would help them sort out their own marital problems.
So we quit and got them fired. It was a win/win situation... first, we rid the parish of a problem and secondly, the requirements weren't anything but an obstacle and an irritation to me anyways. We eventually found a way to get around the obstacles and to get married like we wanted to.
Marriage is a Sacrament in which the partners confer the Sacrament upon each other, mutually between themselves. It's a natural as it can be... for God's sake, let them do it without all the added obstacles.
-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), May 22, 2003.
Dear Rod,Paul's advice to the unmarried to remain unmarried has to be seen in light of the overall context of the passage. The context is that Paul thought the second coming of Christ was imminent, and would surely occur during his own lifetime. Consequently he advised the people not to be overly concerned about earthly matters, and not to put their focus on making major life changes, since it was all about to end, and we would all soon be in heaven, where marriage does not exist. In fact, Paul was wrong in this assumption, but many of his writings are flavored by that viewpoint of his. If Paul didn't hold that opinion, he certainly would not have advised against marriage, since doing so would virtually ensure that Christianity would die out, unless it survived solely by making new adult converts.
-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), May 22, 2003.
Thanks Paul.I've always wondered about that part of the Scriptures.
Marriage is no piece of cake and there are times when it would seem like it was a regrettable idea, to be honest. But, we can't have the good without the bad, or things would be boring and predictable.
Uh, then comes the kids..........you ain't seen nothing yet!
Oh, but I am very happy to be married with children.
rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.
Uh....hang on,I am married to my wife and we have children.
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.
Emerald, I'm sorry you had such a bad experience. I think it is a good idea for married couples to be involved in Pre-Cana for those couples who choose to attend. Actually, that couple probably had a good idea, to try to fix their marriage by seeing what it was to start from the beginning again, but they ought to have kept it to themselves.While a priest is concerned about the religious side of marriage, he is understandably clueless about little things that singly don't do much damage, but taken together, add up to divorce. Things like, if I may quote from "The Sidetracked Sisters' Happiness File" (1985) (out of print, but available in libraries and at used bookstores--a really good book that I wish were back in print again) by Pam Young and Peggy Jones (aka the "Sidetracked Home Executives"):
"He was right about that, but he forgot to mention the fights over my cooking and his driving, my housecleaning, our incompatible sleeping habits, and our different interests.
He didn't warn me that before getting married I should observe my future mate in a traffic jam, being put on hold by United Airlines, filling out a tax return, or changing a flat. Our kindly advisor didn't say that I should see my fiance through a year's worth of holidays, or try out what it would be like to stand with him at the end of a 'wait to be seated' line for a Mother's Day breakfast.
No warning was given to stay away from trying to drive his stick shift, help him back an RV into a camping slot, assist him in docking a thirty-foot boat on a roaring river, or read the map while he was fighting his way on an LA freeway."
The above are things only married couples can really speak to. The closest a priest comes is being someone's college roomie.
-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), May 22, 2003.
Uh huh.When a man speaks, he says what he means.
When a woman speaks, she doesn't mean what she says after a few nano seconds it leaves her tongue.
So, husbands really need to listen for what she really doesn't mean. She could mean just about anything, but you still won't get it right.
Bottom line? Listen.
rod. .
-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), May 22, 2003.