In Brief
Over at the Commonweal blog, they are discussing the need to be more accommodating to couples who wish to receive the Sacrament of Marriage if the Church is going to continue to be a going concern, considering marriages authorized by the D. of Providence (RI) have plummeted 71% in a 40-year span whereas population increased about 5%. We are presently at a time and place where pastors are increasingly not surprised to have a true pagan seeking instruction on entering the Church. With the marriage rate in the Church where it is at, will the next generation of priests be surprised to find someone seeking instruction who isn’t a true pagan?
In contrast, the D. of Madison (WI) finds itself in the news. In this case, Bishop Morlino felt the need to exercise his authority and excise the demon of eulogies now. As is prone to happen in a Father Z combox, the usual insufferables are cheerleading the church getting smaller, because, as we all know by now, an empty church – due to people being pissed off with petty dictators – doing the red and saying the black is much more pleasing to God than a full church where a liturgical abuse has occurred. Of course what has already begun is that people are increasingly offering a polite “no” to the church funeral. I fully expect the church funeral to be a 50/50 proposition by the end of the decade.
A common thread to all of this is the difference between being the servant and being served. Ideally this is a reciprocal relationship, we serve and are served. A simple test to determine who is in what position is to ask whose interests are more served in the act? A time that is supposed to be a celebration of God’s Creation has become a penitential time for couples to atone for the sins other couples committed a generation ago. In the Commonweal combox, folks suggested a similar time around a child’s baptism to insure the parents have received their full penance. Of course these opportunities require more staff and more fees. For some inexplicable reason, the prohibition against simony isn’t one of those abuses people get excited about. The parish will subsidize private school tuition but will run its religious education program at net zero cost to the parish. In the face of this, we get the usual cultish response: the people just don’t love us God enough.
Comments are closed.
What do you mean when you say that the Church needs to be more “accommodating”?
Accommodating means removing impediments that keep people from marrying in the Church. Waiting periods, classes, and extraneous nonsense are impediments.
Fair enough.
I think that waiting periods are stupid. Classes are pointless; if you don’t know what the Church teaching is on a given issue that relates to marriage, the mandatory classes probably aren’t going to change your mind. What the Church ought to do is refuse to marry people who don’t subscribe to Catholic teaching on issues that are relevant to marriage and the family. Imagine how much time could be saved!
What’s interesting about Father Z’s commentary is that he is proven wrong by someone (PghCath,
26 March 2011 at 3:17) who quotes from Bishop Morlino’s letter of February 25th, 2011, setting out his position on eulogies. Bishop Morlino said:
Father Z says, “The Church’s liturgical law, which the bishop cannot change or disobey or ignore, says that eulogies at funerals are not permitted.” However, Bishop Morlino himself makes it perfectly clear that he is prohibiting something that is permitted, not upholding an existing prohibition.
So Fr. Z lied, asserting his private opinion as church law. What else is new?
Fr Z is correct:
“The Order of Christian Funerals states, “A brief homily based on the readings should always be given at the funeral liturgy, but never any kind of eulogy. The homilist should dwell on God’s compassionate love and on the paschal mystery of the Lord as proclaimed in the Scripture readings.” (#27, #141)”
But:
“the Church certainly recognizes the more personal consequences of death. For that reason, the funeral liturgy provides an option for the conclusion of Mass: “A member or a friend of the family may speak in remembrance of the deceased before the final commendation begins.” (#170)”
Note this is – as Bp Morlino wrote – AFTER the Liturgy of the Eucharist, at the conclusion of the Mass. NOT during the homily at the end of the Liturgy of the Word, which would be implied by the term “eulogy”.
One can easily imagine the perversion of the Funeral Mass – the Mass of the Resurrection, which should focus on the birth to eternal life of the deceased – descending into the worldly concern of a pagan “Celebration of Life”. If there is one place where the opportunity to reach people regarding the necessity to “be prepared”, it is the Funeral Mass. To allow it to be trivialized into a mere remembrance of the deceased would be a spiritual travesty.
The pastoral approach is for the eulogy and personal remembrances to be invited and celebrated at length during the Vigil Service (the “Rosary”, here in the American Southwest and other places). One wonders why Ms. Hesselbein was not offered the opportunity to speak there, or why she was not satisfied with that.
I don’t know how to say this without sounding condescending, but I have to presume from the comments above that neither of you has counseled couples preparing for marriage. People are genuinely helped by having a chance to enter into marriage knowing better who they are as a couple, what the marriage commitment will mean in practical terms, preparing themselves spiritually so that they can make a real choice in freedom, etc. These are not minor points. Even people not deeply religious can be and have been helped by the process. Likewise, I would be highly suspicious of a couple unwilling to meet a few times with a priest and attend perhaps a one-day seminar provided by the diocese. They are committing themselves to one another for life, and yet this is a burden?
In short, much of what goes on in this time before marriage is a kind of forcing the question, i.e. bringing up issues in an unavoidable way that many couples, in their youth and enthusiasm, do not think to ask or consider, but which they ought to. Does it always work out? No. Have there been couples who have been helped by the process? Absolutely.
This, at least, is my experience, and the experience of the priests I know.
In short, much of what goes on in this time before marriage is a kind of forcing the question, i.e. bringing up issues in an unavoidable way that many couples, in their youth and enthusiasm, do not think to ask or consider, but which they ought to. Does it always work out? No. Have there been couples who have been helped by the process? Absolutely.
Well said. The vast majority of couples I know who have gone through marriage preparation have deeply appreciated the process and came to know better not only how the Church understands marriage, but also one another and themselves.
Very true – those that can not be bothered certainly are of course always free to pursue speedier options to get married – in our parish here in the US one can not just show up and schedule a wedding – LOL back home in Germany certainly if a child was on the way for example a wedding could be scheduled rather swiftly.
My wife was a Seventh-Day Adventist when we married. We received a dispensation from the bishop. The priest teaching marriage prep was a heretic who said sex outside of marriage was okay. A friend of mine had been told that birth control was okay by another heretic priest, as had my mother. Everyone said masturbation was natural and okay. I sincerely wanted to know what the Church taught, and was misinformed by everyone I came into contact with, except the priest who married us. He is a good man, but he did what he was told and sent us to all of the heretical classes that completely misinformed us. He was from a religious order serving at the the Newman Center parish. No one could direct us to appropriate resources. Thank God for the Internet. We learned what the Church taught after being married for many years. My wife later became Catholic. Our marriage succeeded despite marriage prep, not because of it. On the other hand, proper marriage prep is no guarantee either.
I imagine your experience is that you’ve had couples be “thankful” or “appreciative”. When this topic has come up previously, the question always asked is “Did pre-Cana in and of itself lead to any couple deciding not to wed?” The answer previously was no.
M.Z., I can’t tell from the comment whether you think pre-Cana that leads to a couple deciding not to wed is a good thing or bad thing. I say, that’s a good thing! No marriage to begin with is better than a divorced couple.
I’ll echo everyone else who thinks that marriage prep is a good “impediment” to require before marriages in the Church. My wife and I were well-educated Catholics before we got married, so the marriage prep instruction on the meaning of the sacrament, on Catholic sexuality, etc., were all things we already knew (but good to review). I actually thought that one of the most useful things in the marriage prep were the questions about how we would organize our finances, which prompted us for the first time to talk about that topic. I think that’s a topic that the average engaged couple sitting on cloud nine hasn’t thought about at all, but which can be a significant source of stress once they’re married. Better to talk about it before the wedding!
It would be a good thing. The last priest who had the question addressed couldn’t think of a couple that shouldn’t have been married become convinced by pre-Cana that they shouldn’t have been. He’d known engagements broken off, but they weren’t due to anything discovered in pre-Cana.
There are any number of things that might be useful before getting married. Perhaps a reading from the Kama Sutra might help couples. That doesn’t mean they should be done. For all the talk of usefulness, we have no information that suggests pre-Cana helps reduce divorce rates as far as I’m aware.
While the Church is a servant, it nevertheless has an obligation to instruct those seeking a sacrament in the meaning of that sacrament. Marriage is no exception, especially as it is a state of life within the Church. Ideally, marriage preparation will be suited to the needs of the couple and not be a hoop through which they have to jump to get the sacrament.
I agree, Kyle.
“Accommodating means removing impediments that keep people from marrying in the Church. Waiting periods, classes, and extraneous nonsense are impediments.”
Extraneous nonsense? Marriage is held to be a sacrament, the ministers of which are the bride and groom. Asking the ministers of a sacrament to meet with a priest to discuss not only the sacrament itself but the details of married life (what follows the sacramental ceremony) is nothing less than reasonable (especially given the rate at which marriages fail)!
I would hope priests have a reasonable formation; I should want nothing less for the married.
I echo Fr. Dominic’s and also Kyle’s statements, in particular “While the Church is a servant, it nevertheless has an obligation to instruct those seeking a sacrament in the meaning of that sacrament.”
I really don’t care for funeral eulogies either in theory or how they are often carried out at the liturgy. The wake is a great place for them. When my brother died, I was given the opportunity to say a few words after Mass and I thought all that was need was on behalf of the family to thank the assembly for the kindess and support they had given us during a difficult time. (A pre-Morlino Diocese of Madison funeral).
But Morlino’s lack of pastoral sensitivity provides further evidence that the man is the south end of a northbound mule.
The required marriage preparation in the diocese I live in is a scandal. The program for engaged couples is a minimum of 12 months. Given that engaged couples are actual human beings, I have to say that any mandatory requirement that involves more than 3-6 months is functioning to encourage fornication.
It is my beleif that these programs are primarily designed for people in their 30s who have come back to the church after some time away durring which they might not have followed all of the rules. This is fine as far as it goes, but a requirement for the sacrament should be designed to accomodate the 21 year old who is in love and for whom it may be difficult to wait. I think that after engagement, a wait of more than 6 months requires heroic virture, especially in our modern society where the enganged couple typically spends a lot of time alone together.
NFP should be taught after a couple is married. There is no reason they should use it in the first year of marriage anyway.
Twelve months???
I double checked, and it appears I am a little mistaken. Marriage prep is 8-12 months in my diocese. I still think anything more than 6 tacitly encourages fornication.
http://www.archden.org/marriage/marriageprep.htm
I went through pre-marriage classes for both my first marriage and 29 years ago my second marriage last year. My late wife, my current wife and I agreed that what was needed was not fewer classes, but heavily recommended follow up classes (anniversary classes) to remind us of what we learned and to help deal with new problems. My son also went through the classes last year and deeply appreciated them. All of the reasons pointed out apply. Even having been married in the past, things were brought up that we needed to deal with. The group seminar and the individual meetings with the priest helped prepare us both spiritually and practically. Marriage remains a sacrament between a man a woman and God; the Church is God’s representative on earth. If God is not present in the marriage, it is not a sacramental marriage and has no place in the Church. Therefore the Church has a responsibility to ensure that God will be present in the marriage. The Church has also decided to use its pastoral role to help the new couple (they are not all young) to fully understand and openly address the problems of their new marriage.
That being said, the Church also has to remain flexible. A specific waiting period may make more sense in some cases than others. A young couple will spend that long planning their wedding, so it is not unreasonable for them to spend that long planning their marriage. On the other hand our priest related the story of a couple in their 80’s that wanted to marry and he married them in less than a month. Our marriage planning and classes were in the 3 month range, but again the wedding plans took that long so it was no problem.
I guess I am saying I always believe in flexibility and adjusting to the needs of the person being served. But the Church is required to set standards and to make sure that people receiving sacraments are properly prepared to receive them. She also has a responsibility to counsel the people in proper behavior toward each other and on how to live a Christian life. Marriage is hard, and also is a wonderful opportunity to walk together toward Christ. I encourage the Church to continue to use and refine the marriage class process. We as the people need follow Her direction and give input to areas of possible improvement.
There are any number of things that might be useful before getting married. Perhaps a reading from the Kama Sutra might help couples. That doesn’t mean they should be done. For all the talk of usefulness, we have no information that suggests pre-Cana helps reduce divorce rates as far as I’m aware.
And we have no information that suggests that having a few pre-Cana meetings discourages couples who want a Catholic wedding from getting married in the Church. To me, it seems self-evident that pre-Cana or similar meetings with a priest beforehand is useful, and sometimes necessary, to ensure that the couple has a better understanding of their marriage commitment, both practically and spiritually — while the burden on a couple of a few pre-Cana meetings is minimal compared to the size of the commitment they’re undertaking.
I went back to the main article, and here are all the possible reasons given for the drop of Catholic marriages in Rhode Island:
-couples no longer understand what Catholic marriage and sexuality are all about
-greater incidence of cohabitation
-couples previously leaving the Church due to Church teaching on same-sex marriage, contraception, etc.
-couples moving out of Rhode Island because of jobs and high cost of living
-the disparity with the state marriages numbers is skewed because the state marriages count those between previously-divorced, non-annulled people (marriages which the Church doesn’t do)
-greater number of destination weddings
-couples wanting to have an outdoor wedding, and not in a church
-presence of a waiting period
It is the last reason that I think M.Z. is highlighting and to some extent, I agree. I take the position of Paul DuBois: “flexibility and adjusting to the needs of the person being served” is key. In my personal experience, I’ve seen the waiting period waived or adjusted on several occasions, due to the personal circumstances of the couple — and I’ve never seen the waiting period enforced as rigidly as claimed in the article. But even where the waiting period or traditional pre-Cana meetings were waived, the priest and couple still met before the wedding so the purpose of pre-Cana was achieved. It makes me wonder whether the people who didn’t get married in the Church due to the waiting period mentioned in the article are people who had no real connection to the Church to begin with (ie, weren’t members of a parish and didn’t know a priest), and were unwilling to take the effort to establish such a relationship with the Church.
The bottom line: marriage is a life-long permanent commitment that should not be entered lightly, and the Church is right to have some minimal requirements before dispensing the sacrament.
Although not the most important reason, a not unimportant factor here is the moral obligation of the priest as the Church’s witness (whose witness is required not only for liceity but also for validity) to discern with moral certitude that the couple in fact means what the Church means them to mean in their wedding vows. Likewise, the Church needs to be sure there are no impediments, that the couple has received the sacraments of initiation, etc. These sorts of things cannot be done in short order, since not all impediments can be seen simply by looking in a file (which may be miles away, if not half the globe away!).
A friend from work just got engaged. Neither he nor his fiance are prepared for marriage. She’s Catholic, he’s not. I know they’re planning a church wedding, and will have to go through pre-Cana classes. That thought is the only thing keeping me sane. If he’s described their relationship accurately, they haven’t discussed anything (finances, family size) and they don’t have any communication or conflict resolution skills. I don’t want to pry, but I am keeping an eye out to make sure they don’t try to get around pre-Cana classes.
MZ you are a grumpy person
I still think anything more than 6 tacitly encourages fornication.
Is that a veiled insult to those of us who successfully made it through a longer engagement period? :) But seriously, when we were dating, my wife and I had an 10-month engagement period, which we didn’t find unbearable. Sure, there were temptations and difficulties, but since we had both agreed to the line set firmly in stone, we never crossed it. Truthfully, our engagement period didn’t feel that different from our “seriously-dating” period, which was for the previous 6 months. After the line was set during our dating, engagement didn’t really change things.
If you listen to the sillies of this world who say “a couple should hop into bed on the 3rd date”, simple dating, much less “serious dating” or even engagement, creates an expectation of fornication. I don’t want to minimize the temptations offered by the world, but let’s pray we can reject them.
Thales,
No insult intended at all, in fact if you made it through such a long engagement period, I have a great deal of admiration and respect for you. But the fact is that in my own family tree, which a relative has assembeled back to the 15th century, there were a number of births that followed 6-7 months after the wedding instead of 9-12. I think this was rather typical for most of human history. It used to be a common practice in the church as little as 50-60 years ago to make sure the wedding was scheduled within 3 months because once young people had decided to marry, they just couldn’t be expected to wait too long. It was almost as if a long engagement was seen as a near occaision of sin…something to be avoided. Of course back then weddings were not the hugely expensive and conplicated affairs they are today. Many people just wore thier best clothes, or altered the wedding dress that had been in the family, and had a smaller pot-luck style reception.
ben,
You’ve got a fair point about engagement lengths. To a certain extent I agree with you: I think long engagements are questionable. Of course, every particular couple has a unique set of circumstances, but I don’t see much good reason for an engagement that goes much longer than 12 or 14 months (and, there is, as you point out, a growing occasion of sin). In fact, setting aside exceptional circumstances, I don’t see any value at all at indefinite engagements (which are, too often, instances of a couple with commitment issues). If a couple is uncomfortable getting married within 2 years of engagement for example, I wonder whether they are ready for marriage yet — and if they’re not ready for marriage, they shouldn’t be engaged in the first place.
On the other hand, I don’t want to cede any ground to our libertine society; I want to reaffirm that, yes, it is possible for single adults to remain celibate before marriage, even while dating and getting engaged.
I don’t see any hard-and-fast rule for engagement length, because it depends on the particular circumstances of the couple, when they first met, how old and mature they are, how long have they been discerning marriage during their “serious-dating-pre-engagement” period, etc. But to me, a general baseline of 6 months to 12 months doesn’t seem overly-burdensome. And as I said above, I’ve seen waiting periods waived or modified by the couple with their priest based on their particular situation, including situations where there was going to be a birth coming soon and so the wedding was done before the baby arrived.
The reality is most couples getting married are already living together or at least sleeping together. The Church has an obligation to educate about the Sacrament, but waiting 6+ months is ridiculous.
So your argument that the waiting time for marriage should be shortened is because people are already sleeping together? Not compelling to me at all. It sounds like an instance of implicitly sanctioning bad behavior. As I’ve said above, I don’t have a problem with shortened waiting periods depending on the particular circumstances of a couple, but let’s not buy into the lie told us by society that it’s impossible for a dating couple to be celibate before marriage. Even if most people aren’t following it, it’s good for the Church to hold out the ideal of waiting until marriage.
Marriage is not a prize for not having sex. A person who holds off having sex until he is 30 and married versus a person who holds off sex until he is 20 and married is no more virtuous for having done so.
M.Z.,
I’m not sure if you’re responding to me or Sofia. But I agree with you — marriage is not a prize for not having sex. (But obviously the couple who holds off from sex before marriage has acted more virtuously than the couple who hasn’t. That’s not to say that the couple who had sex before marriage is lost — of course not: with the grace from the sacraments of reconciliation and marriage, that couple have a strong marriage.)
I’m saying that there is tremendous good in the Church setting out the ideal of “no sex before marriage”, even if people don’t follow it. Lowering the waiting period before marriage because it’s unrealistic to think that people can live the ideal is a terrible reason for lowering the waiting period, as it implies that the ideal is of not much value and can be ignored.
You have no lesser authorities than St. Augustine and St. Paul holding that abstaining from sex is not possible for most people. Where it is not possible, people are told to get married. This is why you have people today searching (mostly in vain) for support of the single life as vocation in tradition. There simply was no virtue attributed to the guy who gets married at 40, whether he was a virgin on his wedding day or not. Now this does relate to Victorian virtue, and American Catholicism has certainly embraced that.
So if a couple is already having sex they should be married for that very reason. It isn’t sanctioning bad behavior it is putting bad behavior in its place. Marriage is not some reward. It is something to aid people in living holy lives, particularly those who can’t control their sexual appetites.
In a subsequent post, I’m going to touch on what I see being flung about quite a bit: that it is better to live as married but not rather than be married if there is a risk that it won’t sustain until death. This very much parallels the thinking of those who advocated delaying baptism until a people were older and were better able to restrain their sinful natures.
MZ is right on this one. The church had a tradition of young marriages and short engagements because most people just can’t be expected to hold out for years and years.
Generally speaking catholics just can’t be expected to have the same lifestyle as the rest of society. We have to accept the fact that young catholics are going to have the same natural drives as other young people. The way to deal with living out the teaching on married life isn’t to expect our young people to exercise some sort of heroic virtue until they have completed college and are well established in their careers. To do this sets morality against nature and is unwise. Yet this is exactly what the church has done, and is likely the reason why so few people take the teachings on married life very seriously.
The correct solution is currently being ignored by the church. It is to prepare people to marry young, and have lots of children, and build up the social structures to help them through the difficulties they will face.
You have no lesser authorities than St. Augustine and St. Paul holding that abstaining from sex is not possible for most people.
And there is no lesser authority than Jesus holding that abstaining from sinning and living a holy life is not possible for all people. That doesn’t mean the ideal of “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” should be thrown out the window. It is a good thing to hold up Christian virtue as an ideal to strive for, even if most people can’t live it. Celibacy for those who aren’t married (because they haven’t found someone to marry yet or because they’ve taken a promise/vow) is an ideal that should be encouraged.
But, M.Z. and ben, you’re misunderstanding my position. You’re arguing against caricatures of my position that I don’t hold. I’m not in favor of long engagement periods. I agree with you that long dating/engagement periods are a bad thing and a potential occasion of sin. Most of all, I think long dating/engagement periods are harmful psychological crutches for immature couples who are too scared to make a commitment. To be honest, I tend to think that if you’re in a position to get married (for example, out of school and working a stable job), and you can’t figure out whether you should marry someone after 12 months of dating/engagement, then you should drop the relationship completely and move on. And I don’t see much good in an engagement period longer than about a year. (Of course, there are always particular exceptional circumstances. I’m talking in general terms.) I agree with you that couples should be encouraged to marry. I agree with you that marriage “is something to aid people in living holy lives, particularly those who can’t control their sexual appetites.”
Where I disagree with you is on the other extreme: your apparent belief that waiting times should be shortened or eliminated. As many other people have pointed out, waiting times are, in general, a good thing because there is time for the couple to be informed about the spiritual and practical aspects of marriage, for the couple to identify and address any problems or “red flags” between them before they take their permanent vows, and for the Church to ensure that there are no impediments to the marriage.
Moreover, sex makes a relationship complicated, so in those cases, there may be even greater reason for some kind of waiting period before the Church approves a marriage. I have personal experience of this: the 20-year-old who wants to marry the controlling 25-year-old man to whom she is devoted because she has been sexually active through highschool is not served by waiving a waiting period. (And for the nth time, I agree that in some particular situations, the waiting period should be waived. But this is a decision that should be made between the couple and the Church; I just don’t think that it’s a good general rule.)
What percentage of couples in general, and what percentage of Catholic couples, are not having sex when they decide to set a wedding date? If it is greater than 5% I would be surprised, and if it is greater than 10% I would be astounded.
David,
Great question. I’d love to know the answer. You can count me in your 5%, and I’ve got some friends that would be included in that group too.
Do couples that are half-Catholic count?
I run with a crowd that is far from representative, but the vast majority of the Catholics I know were not having sex at that point. Some had had sex in previous relationships before a kind of religious renewal, but most of my friends’ first times with their spouse was on the wedding night (or later depending on the charts).
I would say fewer than 20% make their engagement date and fewer than 10% make their wedding date.
If we are talking about couples using charting, we are talking about fewer than 3% of couples anyway.
I think it might be less than 3% of all Catholic couples. My gut tells me its more than 3% of young Catholics getting married today. Most of the young families I know in my parish (which would be representative, even if my circle of missionary and theologian friends is not) use NFP. At least, the ones who show up on Sunday are using it.