A lot depends on the pastor, for sure. We've been blessed, over and over wherever we lived, with pastors who are very willing to have a discussion about our needs and then help us get requirements waived, even when the bureaucratic hurdles originally appeared insurmountable.
Recent example: our daughter, age 15, has been having a rough time academically, and the not-at-all-onerous Confirmation prep (2hours once per month, and the only homework was to write a couple paragraphs about her patron saint) for some reason became an enormous area of stress and frustration for her as it took time away from studying. After a few months of battles with her about it, we gave her a deal - "If you are confident you know what you need to know in order to get confirmed, email Father and ask to talk to him about it." We were surprised that she went ahead and did it, as it was sort of a bluff in order to stop rehashing the same darn conversation. Upshot: Father and the faith formation team were impressed with her maturity, apparently she knew enough to satisfy them that the classes weren't necessary for her, and thus she was permitted to skip the classes and get confirmed as usual with her cohort. Faith formation leader privately informed me that the interview method is really how they'd prefer to identify those prepared for Confirmation, but that the headache of dealing with parents of those who "fail" the interview would be too much of a hassle to even try to implement such a system. But with our pastor, the option is available, if only for those who think outside the box enough to inquire after it.
Really hard to draw conclusions based on your data. for example, the multiple sexual partners and divorce stat, may be more correlation than causation. I worry (and I'm sure this will be the biggest complaint) is that if we put this wonderful tool before engaged couples, of a year of formation, many will choose not to do this but instead either just cohabitate or just get civilly married. That is not to say even if that happens, that this is a bad idea. But going down from 68% of married Catholics being married in the church, would certainly not be desirable. Very complicated situation. And of course you can't just take this in isolation. We need better formation in all areas in the Catholic life. Hopefully the current Eucharistic 3 year revival will help renew the excitement of the church.
did the Pillar RAP survey look at marriage issue and other questions, to see if there was a trend between those married in the church vs those cohabitating vs those married civilly, towards other questions? Might be interesting
It is honestly difficult to image a more effective way to push lukewarm Catholics away from marrying in the Church while outright antagonizing devout Catholics. It is sometimes necessary to wait more than a year to marry for various reasons, but indiscriminately forcing couples to wait so long is just obnoxious.
If some "devout" Catholics are going to be antagonized because they have to go through additional preparation to receive a sacrament which is so often received invalidly, I would question their devotion.
I think there's a reasonable worry being expressed here that the preparation on offer, because it would have to serve the full spectrum of couples seeking marriage in the church, would in fact serve almost nobody particularly well. The lukewarm Catholics would have to sit through a year of (possibly) earnest discussion of doctrines that they have no intention of living by, while many of the devout would have to spend a year hearing doctrines they know well (and fully acceded to when they decided to wed) taught in an introductory, perhaps frustratingly apologetic way. I'm with Stenny. It's hard to see a way to practically implement any sort of enhanced marriage prep (especially if it involves an inflexible long wait) without antagonizing nearly every hypothetical participant.
I don't think the intention is to "serve" those who do not have the proper disposition for marriage because they do not believe or want to live Catholic teaching with regards to marriage. Those people should not be attempting to marry anyway without a change in their understanding, so it is of no moment if that puts some off.
As to concerns about being inflexible, I think deciding that before reading the document would be rash.
I am in full agreement with your first paragraph, and I can only hope that those implementing the marriage catechumenate on a parish level would agree as well. And perhaps the implementation need not be inflexible (and perhaps the document will become available in English), but the translated sections in this article do seem to all but call for a longer time of preparation becoming the norm. Now, centralized decision-making has become a hallmark of this papacy, but perhaps that time period could still be dispensed with on a flexible basis responsive to the circumstances of individual couples.
As devil's advocate, I will argue that some hypothetical participants actually *should* be antagonized, and that (on grounds of human dignity) the enhanced marriage prep should begin with a lecture on relationship red flags and how to know that you should break up and move out and pursue individual therapy for some length of time (so that you do not immediately repeat the same error simply because it is how you are used to being treated) before dating again.
I was and am a devout Catholic, and I married a now converted Baptist. If I had suggested a years long catechumenate, I would not be validly married now.
I am a Millennial, and a convert to Catholicism (well, technically, a revert - baptized in the Church, raised in another faith community from then on). Permit me a couple of generational anecdotes.
(1) My husband's first attempted marriage was to a Catholic. As far as we can tell, she had no idea that as a Catholic, she had to follow special rules to get married.
(2) Most of my college friends are non-practicing Catholics - Christmas/Easter at most. Most of them aren't married yet. Those who are married, married outside the Church. We haven't kept in close touch, so I don't know whether they are innocently unaware of the Church's teachings about marriage for Catholics. However, based on previous conversations with them about the Church, I'd guess they do not in any case believe the Church has the moral authority to decide whether their marriage is valid in the eyes of God or not. (The one wedding I attended, their "Scripture Reading" was Kennedy's Obergefell decision. No, it wasn't a gay wedding. It was a statement wedding.)
(3) My brother, like me, was baptized Catholic as a small child and then raised in our mom's faith tradition. Apparently, neither Mom nor Dad knew that baptizing us into the Church gave us rights and responsibilities - I think they both were under the impression that it would be Confirmation that would place us under the Church's authority. So my brother's marriage is probably invalid, and he has no idea - and again, I don't think he would take it seriously if I told him, because he doesn't believe the Church has the authority to place that responsibility on him when he was never raised in the church.
So, out of the 6 baptized Catholics in my generation whose marriage situations I have personal knowledge of, I'm the only one who went through the proper channels, and I have good reason to believe I'm the only one who *knew/acknowledged that there was such a thing as a proper channel*.
Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem.
"Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem." You articulated my thoughts perfectly. I'm 30 and so few of my peers are even marrying to begin with that I can think of only one canonically married couple who might have benefited from this kind of thing. When my sister attempted marriage outside the Church, even I didn't completely realize it was invalid, and nobody was willing to set the record straight.
I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way.
(Edited because the post button is too close to my phone keyboard.)
"I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way." <-- Yes, and with yearly reinforcement in faith formation. Maybe the message will get through if there are 1-2 class hours each year (and 3-4 in the First Communion and Confirmation years) devoted to the rights and responsibilities of Kingdom Citizenship, so to speak.
I'm also curious whether, from a canonical perspective, the assumption of invalidity due to deficiency of form (did I word that correctly?) could be dispensed with. Like, could that just no longer be a qualification for validity? At least, if the wedding is between two baptized people and takes place in a Christian context (officiant is the pastor of an ecclesial community, for example), could the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic baptism be eliminated? It's troubling to think that my brother and his wife, who were committed Christians, without impediments, intending to do what the Church intends in a wedding, are not validly married due to sheer ignorance on our whole family's part.
Yes, the Church could just drop the requirements for canonical form, but I do not think that it is likely to anytime soon. It solves many problems, from one perspective. Many couples are getting married in the Church after a long civil marriage. Other couples are coming to their second marriage, but first one in the Church. It makes all those first weddings a kind of trial marriage situation that sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't.
It does raise important questions, as you mention in your brother's situation. Obviously he and his wife have a relationship. Because he is a Catholic, that relationship is not a marriage. So what is it? If it is a lifelong, faithful, relationship open to life, it sure seems like a marriage. It is easy to see how it is not the sacrament of Matrimony, but not easy to see how it is not a marriage. The problem is created because all of this is canon law stuff and not theology. Lawyers are constantly saying that things are other things. I think they recently declared that bees are a kind of fish in California.
So your brother is not in the Sacrament of Matrimony. He is not canonically married. But he is clearly married. And he probably does not care about the first two things. This is why common law marriage exists. If a man and a woman vow lifelong fidelity for the sake of procreation, they are married. They may or may not be: sacramentally married, legally married, canonically married, or some other sort of married, but they are married.
It comes down to a question of what words mean. If a Catholic is invalidly married, does he have a relationship with the mother of his children who lives in his house? Obviously. What would you call that relationship? Perhaps a natural marriage or a quasi-marriage but not no marriage.
Consider several other situations that clearly do not constitute a valid marriage:
1. A couple who has cohabited for 10 years with children but no wedding.
2. A homosexual couple who attempted marriage with an invalid ceremony in a Catholic church presided over by a Catholic priest.
3. A couple who married in the Church but the husband hid a previous Catholic marriage in his country of origin.
4. A man who has sex with a prostitute for money.
Now, these couples are clearly not married, but couple 2 is the most not married, followed by couple 3, then couple 4, and then couple 1. But they are all more married then you and a random woman you have never met. There are gradations of being not married. The law makes it binary, but St. Paul acknowledges the quasi-marriage of couple 4.
It is good for the law to draw a clear line, but the theology comes up with different answers. If all 5 couples approach me as a priest and ask what they should do to get right with God, couple 1 should get married, couple 2 should stop pretending to be married, couple 3 should break up, and couple 4 is not really a couple unless there is a child.
Meanwhile, couple 0, what would you think I should say to them? What should Clare say to her brother if the question ever came up? Obviously, be a Catholic and marry in the Church. But let us say that this is not going to happen yet. What should we say then? Abandon your wife and children? That is the legal answer, but is very obviously not the moral one. Love your wife and children and stay faithful? Technically, legally, a sin, but also what he should do, so not actually a sin. And if it would be a sin for him to abandon her, they are clearly mostly married.
Legally, lines should be very clear and marriage should be only marriage. Everyone who is not with us is against us. -Luke 11:23
Theologically, we recognize the seeds of goodness everywhere: ecclesial communities, invalid marriages, even the love of homosexual couples. Everyone who is not against us is for us. -Luke 9:50
Marriage is like pregnancy: you either are or you aren’t. You can’t be mostly married or mostly pregnant, sort of married or sort of pregnant. The question for the first would be, “Does a marriage bond exist? For the second, “Is there a baby?” It’s a yes or no question, not a scale.
A relationship that is not a marriage may have many positive features, but cannot appropriately include the marital act. Regarding couple #1 above, Christian morality does not say that a partner in parenthood should be abandoned. The tough requirement is that a non-married partner needs to say, “I can’t have sex with you,” even if they’re raising children together.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you at 1 Corinthians 6:16. He quotes the marriage language with reference to a man and a prostitute.
I don't see how marriage is like pregnancy at all in the way you describe. "Does a marriage bond exist?" is a legal question. "Is there a baby?" is a question of fact.
It seems to me that St Paul in I Cor 6:16 quotes the language of marriage to show the profanation of what should be a marital act. A sexual act with a prostitute does not bring about a quasi-marriage, but rather is an abomination precisely because it profanes what is sacred. Yes, the two are literally one flesh, but temporarily and in a manner that is sordid rather than beautiful, showing selfishness rather than love.
“Does a marriage bond exist?” is also a question of fact. Canon law recognizes the existence of the bond, but does not create it. The bond is created by the consent of the couple, but is then a fact that exists beyond their control. I can’t revoke my consent and end my marriage and a change in canon law cannot end it, either.
If a scientist wants to know whether a woman is pregnant, they can, without any information about her past, run various tests or do an ultrasound. That is a fact. There is no such similar test for marriage bonds. That is why pregnancy is not a good analogy.
You say that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple". But in the particular case under discussion, the couple did give their consent. So the bond was created. But canon law says that it was not, because the man did not have the Church's permission to give his consent. Someone who believed in the Church's authority in that matter would not have given their consent, since they would have given it while simultaneously believing that they did not have power to give it. But, in this case, since he does not believe in the Church's authority nor even know that the Church claims this authority, he gave his consent in good faith. Does that not create a marriage bond?
If it does, then they are at least a little bit married. If it does not, then your statement that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple" is incorrect. Perhaps you think that you could restate your statement until it included all the edge cases, but it has been proven by logicians that this is impossible. Language can never be that precise when it is about real life. Law can draw bright lines, but they are just lines on paper. Real life is too complicated.
So it is in St. Paul's example in Corinthians. The question is not why he quotes the language. You are right about the reason. The fact is that he does quote the language. Since he quotes the language, he must have thought it was applicable. If the marriage language is applicable to fornication, then fornication is at least a quasi-marriage.
This is only sordid rather than beautiful. Of course you are right. A sordid quasi-marriage.
"It profanes what is sacred." What is sacred? Marriage. It profanes marriage. It could not profane marriage without being a quasi-marriage.
"Yes, the two are literally one flesh" (this is marriage according to Jesus and Genesis) "but temporarily" No, the possibility of a child proves that no such act can ever be temporary. Even if the child is murdered, the two still have a child.
I know that the marital bond is formed by the consent of the spouses and I know that the Church has the power to regulate the sacraments; I would love to hear a full explanation of how those two premises fit together!
Physical analogies are useful, although limited, in understanding spiritual realities because we can grasp more easily that which is apparent to our senses, even if the spiritual is in a way even more real.
There is no provision in Catholic thought for “a little bit married” any more than a man may be “sort of a priest.” If you had attempted to say Mass the day before your ordination, it would have been a lie. In the same way, a couple engaging in intercourse the day before their wedding is engaged in a lie. Fornication is wrong not because the couple is only “a little bit married,” but because they are not married at all.
I will briefly imagine some alternate universe (with an appropriate numbering in the Marvel system) in which after confirmation *teenagers* are admitted to a program of formation which prepares them for courtship and marriage and which (waving my hands) is highly attractive to them and they voluntarily attend. This could be a backdrop for how different the lives of the X-Men or Avengers are in consequence since it would necessarily impact the whole of society to a greater degree than the mere existence of mutant superpowers (while being, admittedly, just as implausible).
If they actually impose this document. Catholic marriage will become like the Mormon superwedding ceremony; it will be something that couples do for their 10th wedding anniversary.
If they merely recommend it strongly but do not actually impose it, it will become a preface to every wedding prep first meeting:
"So technically we are supposed to meet weekly for the next three years, but I see that you are looking to get married in 6 months, so we'll just do that."
I've been thinking about this today. One of the recurring threads in Sacrament and Synod and liturgical discussions (and not just in this space) is - how on earth do we make this work for the different kinds of people who show up? What do we do in a Church that, ideally, encompasses *everybody*?
Well, traditionally speaking, as I understand it: diocesan governance, a high tolerance for diversity in local norms, and heavy reliance on the parish priest's judgment. Of course Trent came down hard on many of the liturgical spin-offs of the time; there have to be some limits. But it seems to me that you just can't impose lockstep unity on a global Church. Even at the parish level, the cracks show.
Is it even possible that we can move away from the top-down, one-size-fits-all rules and regulations that seem to be the new norm in Church governance, and toward a norm of subsidiarity, where decisions are made at the lowest level that's reasonable? I don't think this is a crazy idea. VII called for bishops to be respected as peers of the Pope and authorities in their own right.
However, it does seem to me that we've all started to see our bishops as middle management, and that has implications for everything that the bishops touch. Policies and procedures are what corporations do. The Church is a family. I don't set the same rules for my older and younger toddler, and those rulesets are both different from the rules my parents set for me. We all have the same non-negotiables, whether in the theology/morality realm or that of "children may not touch hot stoves"; but nobody's dying because I banned fashion dolls and let my 3yo mix the Play-Doh colors. Surely it's also not the end of the world if those with the 'care of souls' are allowed to decide what's best in individual situations.
(Yes, yes: there's a priest shortage; and they generally move every 7 years so how will they build relationships; and what will you do about accusations of favoritism or discrimination; and aren't you just giving power back to people who covered up abuse; and so on. But this doesn't seem like the kind of situation where we can get a perfect solution, just maybe a better one.)
This document comes across as more micromanaging of something that can and should be handled at the diocesan/parish level. Does marriage prep need some reform? Probably. But does every couple need what Pope Francis is asking? Maybe, maybe not.
Should a priest/deacon be looking at the FOCCUS questionnaire, etc. and be bringing up red flags/warning signs of problems with the couple? Yes. Should he be trying to form them spiritually? Absolutely. But a lot of marriage prep comes down to the couple. If they don't put the effort into it, they're not going to get much out of it.
To share my our story, My wife and I have been married almost 9 years. We met in adoration and got to know each other through our young adult group. We dated about a year and a half, but we approached dating with the perspective that it was vocational discernment. We read things like Bishop Sheen's "Three to Get Married," Art Bennett's "The Temperament God Gave You," Dr. Sri's "Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love," and books along those lines. When we got engaged, we got a book called "Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts" by Les and Leslie Parrott, which I highly recommend for engaged couples (we've given it as an engagement gift to friends and family).
We had the normal six month prep period. Our discussion over the FOCCUS results took maybe 30 minutes. The only answers our priest flagged for discussion, it turned out, my wife and I just interpreted the questions differently. Our monthly meetings with him were built around Christ's teaching on marriage the theology of the body. We had NFP classes. We did the weekend-long Engaged Encounter (the other option was a day long conference), which was good, but at the same time it repeated a lot of discussions we've had since were dating.
I honestly don't know what else we could have done to prepare for our marriage. I don't know how I would have felt about a longer prep period at the time. But looking back on it now, I don't see how it would have been helpful or would have prepared us any better. But for another couple, those extra months might have been useful.
Tl;dr: every couple is different and the church needs to recognize that.
In America, many couples do take about a year to plan their wedding. However, some (many??) don’t necessarily show up to the priest the day after they’re engaged to “start the clock”. Most parishes where I grew up (DC) had a 6 month minimum for wedding prep. I think extending things AFTER the wedding is a beautiful idea.
The other group this could hurt are faithful Catholics who plan a wedding for somewhere less than a year because they acknowledge the Church’s teaching & that chastity is difficult in that phase of life.
All that said, I guess we’ll have to wait for it to be promulgated.
I really don't understand why people are complaining about this.
Sure there might be some circumstances where a quick wedding might be needed. But the existence of emergency baptisms don't in anyway preclude the normal catechumenate as the normal way people are prepared for baptism.
I think most of the hesistancy to this comes from being accustomed to our modern, fast-paced lives, and our liberal, option-optimizing society. That the Church is encouraging us to slow down and reflect, and limit our choices sequentially, I think could be very fruitful.
Agree with James here. My hesitancy about this is not about the "you should wait a year to get married" part. I fully agree that we should slow down and reflect, and a one-year engagement seems totally reasonable. My concern (and I think the concern of most people in this thread) is that in practice, it will become not a fruitful time of vocational discernment and reflection, but an additional silly bureaucratic hoop; an exercise in box-checking that faithful couples don't need, and unfaithful couples **will not** take seriously no matter how hard we try, because the failure is way, way upstream. Maybe as far back as which children we baptize - see my comment above.
I agree - I wasn't thinking of an enforced rule when I wrote that a one-year engagement seems reasonable :) As a kid, I remember reading that "you should know someone in all four seasons before getting married" (maybe it was in Anne of Green Gables?) and I sort of took it as the accepted conventional wisdom that everyone followed!
I don't know why this mainly isn't perceived to a big problem. It is.
A lot depends on the pastor, for sure. We've been blessed, over and over wherever we lived, with pastors who are very willing to have a discussion about our needs and then help us get requirements waived, even when the bureaucratic hurdles originally appeared insurmountable.
Recent example: our daughter, age 15, has been having a rough time academically, and the not-at-all-onerous Confirmation prep (2hours once per month, and the only homework was to write a couple paragraphs about her patron saint) for some reason became an enormous area of stress and frustration for her as it took time away from studying. After a few months of battles with her about it, we gave her a deal - "If you are confident you know what you need to know in order to get confirmed, email Father and ask to talk to him about it." We were surprised that she went ahead and did it, as it was sort of a bluff in order to stop rehashing the same darn conversation. Upshot: Father and the faith formation team were impressed with her maturity, apparently she knew enough to satisfy them that the classes weren't necessary for her, and thus she was permitted to skip the classes and get confirmed as usual with her cohort. Faith formation leader privately informed me that the interview method is really how they'd prefer to identify those prepared for Confirmation, but that the headache of dealing with parents of those who "fail" the interview would be too much of a hassle to even try to implement such a system. But with our pastor, the option is available, if only for those who think outside the box enough to inquire after it.
Really hard to draw conclusions based on your data. for example, the multiple sexual partners and divorce stat, may be more correlation than causation. I worry (and I'm sure this will be the biggest complaint) is that if we put this wonderful tool before engaged couples, of a year of formation, many will choose not to do this but instead either just cohabitate or just get civilly married. That is not to say even if that happens, that this is a bad idea. But going down from 68% of married Catholics being married in the church, would certainly not be desirable. Very complicated situation. And of course you can't just take this in isolation. We need better formation in all areas in the Catholic life. Hopefully the current Eucharistic 3 year revival will help renew the excitement of the church.
did the Pillar RAP survey look at marriage issue and other questions, to see if there was a trend between those married in the church vs those cohabitating vs those married civilly, towards other questions? Might be interesting
It is honestly difficult to image a more effective way to push lukewarm Catholics away from marrying in the Church while outright antagonizing devout Catholics. It is sometimes necessary to wait more than a year to marry for various reasons, but indiscriminately forcing couples to wait so long is just obnoxious.
If some "devout" Catholics are going to be antagonized because they have to go through additional preparation to receive a sacrament which is so often received invalidly, I would question their devotion.
I think there's a reasonable worry being expressed here that the preparation on offer, because it would have to serve the full spectrum of couples seeking marriage in the church, would in fact serve almost nobody particularly well. The lukewarm Catholics would have to sit through a year of (possibly) earnest discussion of doctrines that they have no intention of living by, while many of the devout would have to spend a year hearing doctrines they know well (and fully acceded to when they decided to wed) taught in an introductory, perhaps frustratingly apologetic way. I'm with Stenny. It's hard to see a way to practically implement any sort of enhanced marriage prep (especially if it involves an inflexible long wait) without antagonizing nearly every hypothetical participant.
I don't think the intention is to "serve" those who do not have the proper disposition for marriage because they do not believe or want to live Catholic teaching with regards to marriage. Those people should not be attempting to marry anyway without a change in their understanding, so it is of no moment if that puts some off.
As to concerns about being inflexible, I think deciding that before reading the document would be rash.
I am in full agreement with your first paragraph, and I can only hope that those implementing the marriage catechumenate on a parish level would agree as well. And perhaps the implementation need not be inflexible (and perhaps the document will become available in English), but the translated sections in this article do seem to all but call for a longer time of preparation becoming the norm. Now, centralized decision-making has become a hallmark of this papacy, but perhaps that time period could still be dispensed with on a flexible basis responsive to the circumstances of individual couples.
As devil's advocate, I will argue that some hypothetical participants actually *should* be antagonized, and that (on grounds of human dignity) the enhanced marriage prep should begin with a lecture on relationship red flags and how to know that you should break up and move out and pursue individual therapy for some length of time (so that you do not immediately repeat the same error simply because it is how you are used to being treated) before dating again.
I wouldn't.
I was and am a devout Catholic, and I married a now converted Baptist. If I had suggested a years long catechumenate, I would not be validly married now.
I am a Millennial, and a convert to Catholicism (well, technically, a revert - baptized in the Church, raised in another faith community from then on). Permit me a couple of generational anecdotes.
(1) My husband's first attempted marriage was to a Catholic. As far as we can tell, she had no idea that as a Catholic, she had to follow special rules to get married.
(2) Most of my college friends are non-practicing Catholics - Christmas/Easter at most. Most of them aren't married yet. Those who are married, married outside the Church. We haven't kept in close touch, so I don't know whether they are innocently unaware of the Church's teachings about marriage for Catholics. However, based on previous conversations with them about the Church, I'd guess they do not in any case believe the Church has the moral authority to decide whether their marriage is valid in the eyes of God or not. (The one wedding I attended, their "Scripture Reading" was Kennedy's Obergefell decision. No, it wasn't a gay wedding. It was a statement wedding.)
(3) My brother, like me, was baptized Catholic as a small child and then raised in our mom's faith tradition. Apparently, neither Mom nor Dad knew that baptizing us into the Church gave us rights and responsibilities - I think they both were under the impression that it would be Confirmation that would place us under the Church's authority. So my brother's marriage is probably invalid, and he has no idea - and again, I don't think he would take it seriously if I told him, because he doesn't believe the Church has the authority to place that responsibility on him when he was never raised in the church.
So, out of the 6 baptized Catholics in my generation whose marriage situations I have personal knowledge of, I'm the only one who went through the proper channels, and I have good reason to believe I'm the only one who *knew/acknowledged that there was such a thing as a proper channel*.
Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem.
"Marriage catechumenate, for those already engaged, is a great idea that does not solve the actual problem." You articulated my thoughts perfectly. I'm 30 and so few of my peers are even marrying to begin with that I can think of only one canonically married couple who might have benefited from this kind of thing. When my sister attempted marriage outside the Church, even I didn't completely realize it was invalid, and nobody was willing to set the record straight.
I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way.
(Edited because the post button is too close to my phone keyboard.)
"I think the extended Baptism preparation, for all that I'm not a fan, is probably better than this. The lifelong responsibilities of Baptism might be slightly better understood that way." <-- Yes, and with yearly reinforcement in faith formation. Maybe the message will get through if there are 1-2 class hours each year (and 3-4 in the First Communion and Confirmation years) devoted to the rights and responsibilities of Kingdom Citizenship, so to speak.
I'm also curious whether, from a canonical perspective, the assumption of invalidity due to deficiency of form (did I word that correctly?) could be dispensed with. Like, could that just no longer be a qualification for validity? At least, if the wedding is between two baptized people and takes place in a Christian context (officiant is the pastor of an ecclesial community, for example), could the distinction between Catholic and non-Catholic baptism be eliminated? It's troubling to think that my brother and his wife, who were committed Christians, without impediments, intending to do what the Church intends in a wedding, are not validly married due to sheer ignorance on our whole family's part.
Yes, the Church could just drop the requirements for canonical form, but I do not think that it is likely to anytime soon. It solves many problems, from one perspective. Many couples are getting married in the Church after a long civil marriage. Other couples are coming to their second marriage, but first one in the Church. It makes all those first weddings a kind of trial marriage situation that sometimes works out and sometimes doesn't.
It does raise important questions, as you mention in your brother's situation. Obviously he and his wife have a relationship. Because he is a Catholic, that relationship is not a marriage. So what is it? If it is a lifelong, faithful, relationship open to life, it sure seems like a marriage. It is easy to see how it is not the sacrament of Matrimony, but not easy to see how it is not a marriage. The problem is created because all of this is canon law stuff and not theology. Lawyers are constantly saying that things are other things. I think they recently declared that bees are a kind of fish in California.
So your brother is not in the Sacrament of Matrimony. He is not canonically married. But he is clearly married. And he probably does not care about the first two things. This is why common law marriage exists. If a man and a woman vow lifelong fidelity for the sake of procreation, they are married. They may or may not be: sacramentally married, legally married, canonically married, or some other sort of married, but they are married.
It comes down to a question of what words mean. If a Catholic is invalidly married, does he have a relationship with the mother of his children who lives in his house? Obviously. What would you call that relationship? Perhaps a natural marriage or a quasi-marriage but not no marriage.
Consider several other situations that clearly do not constitute a valid marriage:
1. A couple who has cohabited for 10 years with children but no wedding.
2. A homosexual couple who attempted marriage with an invalid ceremony in a Catholic church presided over by a Catholic priest.
3. A couple who married in the Church but the husband hid a previous Catholic marriage in his country of origin.
4. A man who has sex with a prostitute for money.
Now, these couples are clearly not married, but couple 2 is the most not married, followed by couple 3, then couple 4, and then couple 1. But they are all more married then you and a random woman you have never met. There are gradations of being not married. The law makes it binary, but St. Paul acknowledges the quasi-marriage of couple 4.
It is good for the law to draw a clear line, but the theology comes up with different answers. If all 5 couples approach me as a priest and ask what they should do to get right with God, couple 1 should get married, couple 2 should stop pretending to be married, couple 3 should break up, and couple 4 is not really a couple unless there is a child.
Meanwhile, couple 0, what would you think I should say to them? What should Clare say to her brother if the question ever came up? Obviously, be a Catholic and marry in the Church. But let us say that this is not going to happen yet. What should we say then? Abandon your wife and children? That is the legal answer, but is very obviously not the moral one. Love your wife and children and stay faithful? Technically, legally, a sin, but also what he should do, so not actually a sin. And if it would be a sin for him to abandon her, they are clearly mostly married.
Yes, but also no. 🙂
Legally, lines should be very clear and marriage should be only marriage. Everyone who is not with us is against us. -Luke 11:23
Theologically, we recognize the seeds of goodness everywhere: ecclesial communities, invalid marriages, even the love of homosexual couples. Everyone who is not against us is for us. -Luke 9:50
Just have the marriage blessed.
Marriage is like pregnancy: you either are or you aren’t. You can’t be mostly married or mostly pregnant, sort of married or sort of pregnant. The question for the first would be, “Does a marriage bond exist? For the second, “Is there a baby?” It’s a yes or no question, not a scale.
A relationship that is not a marriage may have many positive features, but cannot appropriately include the marital act. Regarding couple #1 above, Christian morality does not say that a partner in parenthood should be abandoned. The tough requirement is that a non-married partner needs to say, “I can’t have sex with you,” even if they’re raising children together.
St. Paul seems to disagree with you at 1 Corinthians 6:16. He quotes the marriage language with reference to a man and a prostitute.
I don't see how marriage is like pregnancy at all in the way you describe. "Does a marriage bond exist?" is a legal question. "Is there a baby?" is a question of fact.
It seems to me that St Paul in I Cor 6:16 quotes the language of marriage to show the profanation of what should be a marital act. A sexual act with a prostitute does not bring about a quasi-marriage, but rather is an abomination precisely because it profanes what is sacred. Yes, the two are literally one flesh, but temporarily and in a manner that is sordid rather than beautiful, showing selfishness rather than love.
“Does a marriage bond exist?” is also a question of fact. Canon law recognizes the existence of the bond, but does not create it. The bond is created by the consent of the couple, but is then a fact that exists beyond their control. I can’t revoke my consent and end my marriage and a change in canon law cannot end it, either.
If a scientist wants to know whether a woman is pregnant, they can, without any information about her past, run various tests or do an ultrasound. That is a fact. There is no such similar test for marriage bonds. That is why pregnancy is not a good analogy.
You say that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple". But in the particular case under discussion, the couple did give their consent. So the bond was created. But canon law says that it was not, because the man did not have the Church's permission to give his consent. Someone who believed in the Church's authority in that matter would not have given their consent, since they would have given it while simultaneously believing that they did not have power to give it. But, in this case, since he does not believe in the Church's authority nor even know that the Church claims this authority, he gave his consent in good faith. Does that not create a marriage bond?
If it does, then they are at least a little bit married. If it does not, then your statement that "the bond is created by the consent of the couple" is incorrect. Perhaps you think that you could restate your statement until it included all the edge cases, but it has been proven by logicians that this is impossible. Language can never be that precise when it is about real life. Law can draw bright lines, but they are just lines on paper. Real life is too complicated.
So it is in St. Paul's example in Corinthians. The question is not why he quotes the language. You are right about the reason. The fact is that he does quote the language. Since he quotes the language, he must have thought it was applicable. If the marriage language is applicable to fornication, then fornication is at least a quasi-marriage.
This is only sordid rather than beautiful. Of course you are right. A sordid quasi-marriage.
"It profanes what is sacred." What is sacred? Marriage. It profanes marriage. It could not profane marriage without being a quasi-marriage.
"Yes, the two are literally one flesh" (this is marriage according to Jesus and Genesis) "but temporarily" No, the possibility of a child proves that no such act can ever be temporary. Even if the child is murdered, the two still have a child.
I know that the marital bond is formed by the consent of the spouses and I know that the Church has the power to regulate the sacraments; I would love to hear a full explanation of how those two premises fit together!
Physical analogies are useful, although limited, in understanding spiritual realities because we can grasp more easily that which is apparent to our senses, even if the spiritual is in a way even more real.
There is no provision in Catholic thought for “a little bit married” any more than a man may be “sort of a priest.” If you had attempted to say Mass the day before your ordination, it would have been a lie. In the same way, a couple engaging in intercourse the day before their wedding is engaged in a lie. Fornication is wrong not because the couple is only “a little bit married,” but because they are not married at all.
I will briefly imagine some alternate universe (with an appropriate numbering in the Marvel system) in which after confirmation *teenagers* are admitted to a program of formation which prepares them for courtship and marriage and which (waving my hands) is highly attractive to them and they voluntarily attend. This could be a backdrop for how different the lives of the X-Men or Avengers are in consequence since it would necessarily impact the whole of society to a greater degree than the mere existence of mutant superpowers (while being, admittedly, just as implausible).
If they actually impose this document. Catholic marriage will become like the Mormon superwedding ceremony; it will be something that couples do for their 10th wedding anniversary.
If they merely recommend it strongly but do not actually impose it, it will become a preface to every wedding prep first meeting:
"So technically we are supposed to meet weekly for the next three years, but I see that you are looking to get married in 6 months, so we'll just do that."
I've been thinking about this today. One of the recurring threads in Sacrament and Synod and liturgical discussions (and not just in this space) is - how on earth do we make this work for the different kinds of people who show up? What do we do in a Church that, ideally, encompasses *everybody*?
Well, traditionally speaking, as I understand it: diocesan governance, a high tolerance for diversity in local norms, and heavy reliance on the parish priest's judgment. Of course Trent came down hard on many of the liturgical spin-offs of the time; there have to be some limits. But it seems to me that you just can't impose lockstep unity on a global Church. Even at the parish level, the cracks show.
Is it even possible that we can move away from the top-down, one-size-fits-all rules and regulations that seem to be the new norm in Church governance, and toward a norm of subsidiarity, where decisions are made at the lowest level that's reasonable? I don't think this is a crazy idea. VII called for bishops to be respected as peers of the Pope and authorities in their own right.
However, it does seem to me that we've all started to see our bishops as middle management, and that has implications for everything that the bishops touch. Policies and procedures are what corporations do. The Church is a family. I don't set the same rules for my older and younger toddler, and those rulesets are both different from the rules my parents set for me. We all have the same non-negotiables, whether in the theology/morality realm or that of "children may not touch hot stoves"; but nobody's dying because I banned fashion dolls and let my 3yo mix the Play-Doh colors. Surely it's also not the end of the world if those with the 'care of souls' are allowed to decide what's best in individual situations.
(Yes, yes: there's a priest shortage; and they generally move every 7 years so how will they build relationships; and what will you do about accusations of favoritism or discrimination; and aren't you just giving power back to people who covered up abuse; and so on. But this doesn't seem like the kind of situation where we can get a perfect solution, just maybe a better one.)
This document comes across as more micromanaging of something that can and should be handled at the diocesan/parish level. Does marriage prep need some reform? Probably. But does every couple need what Pope Francis is asking? Maybe, maybe not.
Should a priest/deacon be looking at the FOCCUS questionnaire, etc. and be bringing up red flags/warning signs of problems with the couple? Yes. Should he be trying to form them spiritually? Absolutely. But a lot of marriage prep comes down to the couple. If they don't put the effort into it, they're not going to get much out of it.
To share my our story, My wife and I have been married almost 9 years. We met in adoration and got to know each other through our young adult group. We dated about a year and a half, but we approached dating with the perspective that it was vocational discernment. We read things like Bishop Sheen's "Three to Get Married," Art Bennett's "The Temperament God Gave You," Dr. Sri's "Men, Women, and the Mystery of Love," and books along those lines. When we got engaged, we got a book called "Saving Your Marriage Before It Starts" by Les and Leslie Parrott, which I highly recommend for engaged couples (we've given it as an engagement gift to friends and family).
We had the normal six month prep period. Our discussion over the FOCCUS results took maybe 30 minutes. The only answers our priest flagged for discussion, it turned out, my wife and I just interpreted the questions differently. Our monthly meetings with him were built around Christ's teaching on marriage the theology of the body. We had NFP classes. We did the weekend-long Engaged Encounter (the other option was a day long conference), which was good, but at the same time it repeated a lot of discussions we've had since were dating.
I honestly don't know what else we could have done to prepare for our marriage. I don't know how I would have felt about a longer prep period at the time. But looking back on it now, I don't see how it would have been helpful or would have prepared us any better. But for another couple, those extra months might have been useful.
Tl;dr: every couple is different and the church needs to recognize that.
In America, many couples do take about a year to plan their wedding. However, some (many??) don’t necessarily show up to the priest the day after they’re engaged to “start the clock”. Most parishes where I grew up (DC) had a 6 month minimum for wedding prep. I think extending things AFTER the wedding is a beautiful idea.
The other group this could hurt are faithful Catholics who plan a wedding for somewhere less than a year because they acknowledge the Church’s teaching & that chastity is difficult in that phase of life.
All that said, I guess we’ll have to wait for it to be promulgated.
Marriage Mystagogia sounds like a great idea. 6 months before, 6 months after.
Plus, in a larger Parish setting it could be a social event too for the couples cycling through. Akin to a “theology on tap”.
I really don't understand why people are complaining about this.
Sure there might be some circumstances where a quick wedding might be needed. But the existence of emergency baptisms don't in anyway preclude the normal catechumenate as the normal way people are prepared for baptism.
I think most of the hesistancy to this comes from being accustomed to our modern, fast-paced lives, and our liberal, option-optimizing society. That the Church is encouraging us to slow down and reflect, and limit our choices sequentially, I think could be very fruitful.
Agree with James here. My hesitancy about this is not about the "you should wait a year to get married" part. I fully agree that we should slow down and reflect, and a one-year engagement seems totally reasonable. My concern (and I think the concern of most people in this thread) is that in practice, it will become not a fruitful time of vocational discernment and reflection, but an additional silly bureaucratic hoop; an exercise in box-checking that faithful couples don't need, and unfaithful couples **will not** take seriously no matter how hard we try, because the failure is way, way upstream. Maybe as far back as which children we baptize - see my comment above.
I agree - I wasn't thinking of an enforced rule when I wrote that a one-year engagement seems reasonable :) As a kid, I remember reading that "you should know someone in all four seasons before getting married" (maybe it was in Anne of Green Gables?) and I sort of took it as the accepted conventional wisdom that everyone followed!