Ship of Fools: Unequally yoked

Thread: Unequally yoked Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025013

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

It was a toss up between here and purg. So I hope this is the correct board.

I'll try to keep this short and necessarily vague.

This year I'll be getting married to a very wonderful woman. I'm very keen on having a church based wedding - not merely for the ritual but because I am of the opinion that a declaration before God the correct thing to do. She is happy to go along with the formality because it means quite a but to me.

The problem is that I'm a Christian and she is an atheist.

So on a practical level I'm wondering what our options are for a CoI based service? How exactly does this work? Can I say the God stuff and she say some non-God stuff?

I have briefly spoken to the Rev. who will be conducting the service (we don't know him personally as the wedding will be happening in another part of the country) and he didn't seem overly concerned when I said that she was a non-practising Catholic, which to me is code for someone who is "not really into all this God business". Trut be told, I'm both confused about what our options are and also worried.

Apart from the practicalities of how we best conduct the service, I'm wondering how others have dealt with such a situation in their personal and spiritual life? I'm sure there are more than a few Christians who have ignored the advice of Paul in this matter.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I can't imagine a Christian minister from any well-known denomination allowing one half of a couple to opt out of the 'God stuff' in their wedding service. You need to speak openly to the minister that you've picked, and quickly, because there's no point in planning the wedding around this person if he's not able to provide what you want. Only he knows what is permitted in his church.

If you want to create entirely new wedding vows that allow for one partner being an atheist, you might need to go for an alternative wedding ceremony. I googled 'spiritual non-religious wedding, and came up with this organisation:
http://www.interfaithfoundation.org/unique-wedding-ceremony

If you live in Ireland it doesn't look as though an alternative wedding would be legally binding, but in that case you could have a civil ceremony, and then follow it with something more alternative.

I don't know about the everyday realities of living in an interfaith marriage, but it wouldn't be for me. (Some people say it's best to discuss the upbringing of the children well before you marry, because it might turn out that your fiancee doesn't want them to have any religious education/be baptised, etc., but you do....)

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Sounds like a Unitarian wedding would be appropriate.

Seriously, have you thought through your commitment to each other especially when it comes to raising children, should you have some?

Posted by AngloCatholicGirl (# 16435) on :

As has been said you need to speak to the officiating priest - and please speak plainly as I have to say that if a couple said to me that one member was a non practicing catholic, then I would assume that they were not an active christian nor went to church but it would never cross my mind that this was code for 'not bothered with all this God stuff' and in fact an atheist.

I can't speak for your officiant and the CoI official policy (I am in the CoE) but I would never permit one member of a wedding couple to opt out of the God bits. As far as I am concerned that is the whole point of marrying in a church. I would however be happy to spend time with the objecting person, talk through the service explain the implications and beliefs behind the words and hopefully then the service would go ahead, I would however also be fully aware that this may result in the person saying that they can't say the vows etc... And therefore they will go for a secular ceremony. I would be fine with this, making vows publicly before God is a serious matter and if a person can't reconcile their conscience with what is being required of them, then I would rather not go ahead.

Please do speak to your officiant and do spell out clearly any issues your fiancé may have with the service, the above are my views as a priest (I thought it might be helpful to show what your officiant may be thinking) and your officiant may have a different view, but I'm sure they will want to talk through the issues.

[ 12. January 2013, 07:49: Message edited by: AngloCatholicGirl ]

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

Discuss the actual words of the service with your intended and see whether there is anything she does not feel that she can in all conscience say. If there isn't anything, you have no problem. If there is, then at least you have a starting point for discussion with your officiant.

I don't know CofI liturgy. In some wedding services the God talk is from the priest and the bride and groom commit to one another in that Godly context but don't make any specific God commitment.

I wish you both well. It can and does work for lots of people.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

I don't know about the CofI but the CofE service there are parts of the service that aer 'non negotiable' and you would not be able to leave out.

SO you may very well not be able to get out of all that 'God stuff' at all.

best have a talk with your intended and the clergy to see just what you can/can't do.

They may not be happy to change anything at all..

As for getting along together in your life - it will take a lot of tolerance and understanding of the others position. To make sure that she doesn't get annoyed that you keep going to church on Sundays and you can't do things toghether. and that you don't get upset and come to resent that she never joins in in what is important to you.

And as has been said you should talk about what's going to happen with thei children before you have any.

Posted by cross eyed bear (# 13977) on :

We got married last year; Mr Bear is, in the words of an acquaintance ' the most Christian atheist' he had met. He comes to church with me, I learn from him and his behaviour, he just doesn't 'do' anything spiritual.

We got married at my church - a 'Free' church, more liberal than the term may suggest. We both knew the pastor. As in our country, church weddings aren't legal ceremonies, I guess it could be more compared to a blessing. The paperwork had been done three days beforehand at the town hall, as is normal here.

The pastor checked that Mr Bear was aware that it was a ceremony before God, and that he and others would be praying God's blessing on us. However, we changed his vow to 'with all my Heart', whilst mine remained 'with God's help, I do'.

We both made long promises to support each other, etc.

I chose the bible texts and verses, we went for things where Mr Bear also agreed with the sentiment. I was responsible for the words of the songs sung, Mr Bear had input in the music.

It worked for us. I think it helped that we knew the pastor, and he knew us both personally. We had also discussed amongst ourselves how to make our differences work. We have also discussed any potential children.

All the best for your marriage.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Thanks for the responses.

We have discussed what we will do when it comes to kids. But perhaps we need to revisit the topic again and flesh out exactly what this means in practice. So that is a point taken.

I would call her more of a de-facto cultural atheist rather than an atheist who has put serious thought into the God question and decided against. When we do talk about God the conversation can often become strained - and this is probably as much my fault because her knowledge on the matter is lacking and I'm not a very good communicator on such matters. Still, despite this she is generally supportive of my faith, and is often the one to get me out of bed on a Sunday. Indeed, I've even managed to get her to come with me occasionally. She doesn't mind the idea of a church based service but she is clear that she is consenting to this because of me.

We can conduct a civil ceremony on the premises but I have no idea how I should even approach this option. To be perfectly honest I don't like it and it poses some really big questions for me. For example, what exactly is a marriage ceremony that is designed to remove God from the equation? Though in saying this I'm not sure whet a marriage ceremony between a believer and a non believer is either.

All in all it seems that we are damned if we do and damned if we don't.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cross eyed bear:
We got married last year; Mr Bear is, in the words of an acquaintance ' the most Christian atheist' he had met. He comes to church with me, I learn from him and his behaviour, he just doesn't 'do' anything spiritual.

We got married at my church - a 'Free' church, more liberal than the term may suggest. We both knew the pastor. As in our country, church weddings aren't legal ceremonies, I guess it could be more compared to a blessing. The paperwork had been done three days beforehand at the town hall, as is normal here.

The pastor checked that Mr Bear was aware that it was a ceremony before God, and that he and others would be praying God's blessing on us. However, we changed his vow to 'with all my Heart', whilst mine remained 'with God's help, I do'.

We both made long promises to support each other, etc.

I chose the bible texts and verses, we went for things where Mr Bear also agreed with the sentiment. I was responsible for the words of the songs sung, Mr Bear had input in the music.

It worked for us. I think it helped that we knew the pastor, and he knew us both personally. We had also discussed amongst ourselves how to make our differences work. We have also discussed any potential children.

All the best for your marriage.

This is more or less exactly what I was hoping for.

Thanks.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

Then you need to talk to your vicar as soon as, because you may find the CofI clergy have less option to change services than the free churches have.

If it is like the CofE then it is a case of being able to add extras to, but not to take anything away from, the service

And you want ot get this sorted to both your satisfactions as soon as you can..

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

This is the Church of Ireland Marriage Service if you decide to go down that route. In addition to the liturgy - which is pretty much non-negotiable you would be required to have at least one Bible reading, but most ministers I know allow secular readings as well, as well as personal choices of music.

If your fiancee is a lapsed Catholic, but wishes to continue 'in good standing' with the RCC, there are various permissions she would be expected by her Church to seek from it, to be married to a Protestant and then married in a Protestant Church. But that's up to her. In respect of you marrying a Catholic, you don't need these permissions.

What you don't say is if you are a CofI person or go to a particular church already? If there is another church which would be as flexible as you would wish in your area, I'm sure that would be the way forward. But I'm guessing the CofI is probably your best bet for a church wedding, otherwise.

Use the liturgy to discuss with your fiancee (and if you decide to go that way, with your rector) if these are things she could in all conscience subscribe to - as someone suggested in a post above, despite her personal belief. It may be that while culturally atheism is her experience of life, she feels it wouldn't harm her principles to allow for the 'possibilities' of a god.

The other option, despite your own wish for a church wedding, may be to have a civil ceremony in respect of your fiancee's views, if she thinks that in all conscience it wouldn't mean that much saying the things in the liturgy. A church blessing could come later perhaps.

Congratulations on meeting your very wonderful woman. However you get spliced, God bless, and all the happiness in the world!

Posted by Codepoet (# 5964) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:
I don't know about the CofI but the CofE service there are parts of the service that aer 'non negotiable' and you would not be able to leave out.

More than that - there are parts that if you do not say on the day, then you are simply not married. In the CofE it is not a matter of saying some prayers around a legal ceremony, the "God bit" is the legal ceremony.
He church offers its wedding ministry to all comers, but I am afraid does not offer the option of allowing you to redefine what marriage is (where have I heard that before recently?). It sounds like the OP is perhaps not wanting a church wedding, but something else.
Having said that, I marry many people, and during our preparation course we get people to look at the vows etc and to think about "what the words mean for you" - which helps the couple to attach some significance to the ceremony. I should imagine that such a wollie approach would allow all but the most militant atheist to reconcile the wording of the service with their own views.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Congratulations on meeting your very wonderful woman. However you get spliced, God bless, and all the happiness in the world!

Hear, hear.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

Many years ago I attended a wedding of an Episcopal priest and his Jewish bride. The Bishop officiated, using the 1928 BCP but removing all references to "Jesus" or "Christ." It was very odd. (The wedding was in a garden on the Cathedral grounds.)

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

Posted by Squibs:

quote:

We can conduct a civil ceremony on the premises but I have no idea how I should even approach this option.

If by 'premises' you mean the church, I'm afraid you can't. Irish marriage law is complex and I'm afraid that in the CofI, civil ceremonies are not permitted within the church building. If your priest has informed you that this can be done, I'm afraid he is wrong and the marriage will not be valid in law. It's also worth noting that - even though your partner is a lapsed/non-practicing/Roman Catholic/atheist - the Roman Catholic church will not recognise your marriage if done within the CofI.

Vows are not interchangeable in the CofI either. You must use the form prescribed in order to have a legal marriage, and these vows are taken within the context of the faith of the church you have chosen, so if one partner doesn't hold to that faith it would make your marriage pretty meaningless. In order to be married in the CofI one of you must be Anglican and be able to produce a baptismal certificate. You may also be asked for a Letter of Freedom from the Roman Catholic church, but this is not a legal requirement.

I think your best option is to go for a civil ceremony and then after discussion with your partner, possibly opt for a blessing on your marriage in the church in recognition of what that would mean to you.

Posted by Ceremoniar (# 13596) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
Many years ago I attended a wedding of an Episcopal priest and his Jewish bride. The Bishop officiated, using the 1928 BCP but removing all references to "Jesus" or "Christ." It was very odd. (The wedding was in a garden on the Cathedral grounds.)

Floored beyond belief. [Projectile]

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Again, thanks for the replies and the well wishes.

@Anselmina
I don't think that remaining in good standing with the RCC is a factor for her. Bar an intervention form the Holy Spirit I suppose she will stay permanently lapsed.

I attend a CoI church with evangelical leanings. I suppose that if we could actually agree on what orthodox means I would define myself as holding to orthodox Christian beliefs. In other words, I believe that Jesus actually lived, died and was resurrected and so on.

@ Codepoet
Ideally I would want the formalised liturgy.
What care about, apart from my personal vows to my future wife of course, is the actual Godly focus of the ceremony and here I look with good faith towards the Anglican tradition. But perhaps I am trying to mash together two exclusivist understanding of marriage - the religious and the secular. If this is the case then I'm wondering what option is left open to us?

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
If by 'premises' you mean the church, I'm afraid you can't. Irish marriage law is complex and I'm afraid that in the CofI, civil ceremonies are not permitted within the church building. If your priest has informed you that this can be done, I'm afraid he is wrong and the marriage will not be valid in law. It's also worth noting that - even though your partner is a lapsed/non-practicing/Roman Catholic/atheist - the Roman Catholic church will not recognise your marriage if done within the CofI.

By "premises" I actually meant the house that the meal will be held in.

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Vows are not interchangeable in the CofI either. You must use the form prescribed in order to have a legal marriage, and these vows are taken within the context of the faith of the church you have chosen, so if one partner doesn't hold to that faith it would make your marriage pretty meaningless. In order to be married in the CofI one of you must be Anglican and be able to produce a baptismal certificate. You may also be asked for a Letter of Freedom from the Roman Catholic church, but this is not a legal requirement.

I think your best option is to go for a civil ceremony and then after discussion with your partner, possibly opt for a blessing on your marriage in the church in recognition of what that would mean to you.

I guess I'm not officially an Anglican. I'll have to discuss this with the priest further.

Also, maybe the blessing is the best option given there doesn't seem to be any others.

Cheers

[ 12. January 2013, 14:34: Message edited by: Squibs ]

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I attended a wedding between a Roman Catholic and a Hindu, held in a RC cathedral. As I'm not RC I'm not familiar with the "normal" wedding service, but at this one at one point there was a little fence between bride and groom, with all those on one side of the little fence (bride and bridesmaids, who were her sisters) taking Communion, and those on the other side of the little fence (groom and his best man/ brother) not.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Squibs:
Perhaps I am trying to mash together two exclusivist understanding of marriage - the religious and the secular. If this is the case then I'm wondering what option is left open to us?

I suppose you are trying to have your cake and eat it! However, you have been given a reasonable option, which is to have a civil ceremony and then to find a fairly liberal clergyman or woman to provide you with a personalised blessing afterwards. Perhaps a retired minister or a minister without appointment (as the Methodists would call an ordained minister who's not currently leading a church) would be willing to take on this role.

It's a bit awkward that you attend an evangelical church, because the folk there probably won't have any congenial advice for you on this. (Consider that in the future they might not be able to sympathise with you should any issues arise in the marriage.) Do you have any friends or contacts among more liberal congregations? They might be able to put you in touch with someone who might be willing to preform a blessing of the type that you want.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

No way am I an evangelical, but that is a negative stereotype. The loveliest lesbian couple I know (I contributed to a book they edited) are thorough evangelicals.

A wedding isn't a special lovely day. It is first of all a legal contract.

The person you should be discussing this with is not us lot, but your future wife, and asking what she would find acceptable.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
No way am I an evangelical, but that is a negative stereotype. The loveliest lesbian couple I know (I contributed to a book they edited) are thorough evangelicals.

It depends on what one means by 'evangelical'. Perhaps the term is now so broad as to be relatively unhelpful. Describing a church as having 'evangelical leanings' could mean any number of things, certainly.

quote:

The person you should be discussing this with is not us lot, but your future wife, and asking what she would find acceptable.

I agree.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

The 'little fence' which NEQ refers to is probably a communion rail. In olden days there was usually a separation wall between the nave and the choir of a church.
The choir or sanctuary was where the choral offices took place.This separation wall still exists generally in the Orthodox church and can be seen in some Anglican,Lutheran and even Presbyterian churches such as the old Glasgow cathedral.
The council of Trent at the time of the Counter Reformation wanted these walls removed so that the faithful could see more clearly what was going on.It was reduced to a small wall or even wooden'fence' which separated the nave from the sanctuary.This was where people would go to receive communion.
Since Vatican 2 most RC churches have removed the 'communion rail' but you will occasioanlly find them still.
Many Presbyterian churches have a sort of 'fence 'around the pulpit and Holy Table area as indeed some Anglican churches do.I understand that this was to keep out dogs.
At a marriage between a Christian and someone of another religion it is difficult to introduce the idea of Holy Communion.I imagine,although I was not at the wedding, that the couple would have been on the nave side of the communion rail for the wedding ceremony obviously involving them both whilst the Catholic party would move beyond the communion rail for the reception of Communion.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

posted by Squibs:

quote:

By "premises" I actually meant the house that the meal will be held in.

Ah, ok. You should also note that a priest in the CofI is neither licensed by his/her diocese or lawfully permitted by the State to conduct a wedding outside of a church.

Posted by Svitlana:

quote:

I suppose you are trying to have your cake and eat it! However, you have been given a reasonable option, which is to have a civil ceremony and then to find a fairly liberal clergyman or woman to provide you with a personalised blessing afterwards.

Why on earth would they be required to be 'liberal' in order to give a blessing on their marriage?

quote:

It's a bit awkward that you attend an evangelical church, because the folk there probably won't have any congenial advice for you on this. (Consider that in the future they might not be able to sympathise with you should any issues arise in the marriage.)

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
No way am I an evangelical, but that is a negative stereotype. The loveliest lesbian couple I know (I contributed to a book they edited) are thorough evangelicals.

A wedding isn't a special lovely day. It is first of all a legal contract.

The person you should be discussing this with is not us lot, but your future wife, and asking what she would find acceptable.

What makes you think I haven't? I wont be keeping it a surprise from her. This is as much form myself as it is her. Think of this thread as a fact finding mission.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

fletcher christian:

Posted by Svitlana:

quote:

I suppose you are trying to have your cake and eat it! However, you have been given a reasonable option, which is to have a civil ceremony and then to find a fairly liberal clergyman or woman to provide you with a personalised blessing afterwards.

quote:
Why on earth would they be required to be 'liberal' in order to give a blessing on their marriage?

My understanding was that Squibs wanted a ceremony where he would be allowed to make religious vows, while the bride's vows would avoid 'God stuff' (his words) entirely. It seemed to me that an evangelical officiant might have problems with this. As I said above, I realise that evangelicals come in all varieties, but I can't envisage this scenario with an evangelical minister.

quote:

It's a bit awkward that you attend an evangelical church, because the folk there probably won't have any congenial advice for you on this. (Consider that in the future they might not be able to sympathise with you should any issues arise in the marriage.)

quote:

Again, evangelicals come in different varieties, but isn't it to be assumed that they wouldn't generally be too enthusiastic or encouraging about a believer and an unbeliever being 'unequally yoked'? After all, if this were no problem, then why would Squibs even be asking about it? More liberal Christians (who also come in different varieties) are generally more tolerant about these things - that's what the word 'liberal' means!

On the other hand, as I hinted above, perhaps this terminology is now outdated. One day, someone should start a thread about that.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
It's also worth noting that - even though your partner is a lapsed/non-practicing/Roman Catholic/atheist - the Roman Catholic church will not recognise your marriage if done within the CofI.

I'm sure this is wrong, you know. Why else do Catholics have to go through all that rigmarole to get episcopal permission to get married to Protestants and/or in a Protestant church, if not to remain in 'good standing' with their church? Without these permissions, technically the Catholic has broken off the relationship with his church - I believe. But so long as all the permissions on the Catholic Church side have been properly sought and granted, of course the RCC recognizes the marriage. It even (give or take the odd soft phrase) obtains promises that the couple will bring their kids up as Catholics.

I'm quite sure, too, that the RCC is obliged to recognize civil weddings, too. Though it may have other rules for re-marriages wherevever they take place.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

It's not a question of not recognising the civil nature and even the possible sacramental nature of a marriage.
Should however a person who has been baptised a Catholic marry outside of the Church then that marriage woulsd not be recognised by the Catholic church as a sacramental marriageFOR THE CATHOLIC.
Should that person who had been baptised a Catholic at some time wish to return to the Church and should they wish to marry in a Catholic church then that would be possible.
Should it not be the same partner as they married in a non-Catholic ceremony of any sort tthe Catholic church would only marry them,once a civil divorce from the previous partner had been obtained.
Should they marry the same partner as they previously had married outside of the church then I think that the ceremony is called convalidation of a marriage.
If you think of the example of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent.The Princess,who was baptised a Catholic,had married outside of the Church and then divorced. She was,I think,technically free to marry in a Catholic church,since her first marriage was not considered valid FOR A CATHOLIC.Due to paperwork the Prince and Princess married in a civil ceremony in Vienna (which is the law in Austria anyway) and then several years later had a convalidation of the marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church.

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :

I think what you say is true, as long as they are both in good standing with their church. I might be wrong, but I was certainly under the impression that if this wasn't the case that the marriage wouldn't be recognised.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

I wonder whether starting with a humanist wedding ceremony and modifying it to add vows before God for you might be an option. I note that humanist weddings are likely to be recognized in Ireland shortly (the law allowing them has just passed and it only needs the official registration of the Humanist Associate of Ireland and its celebrants for them to be performed as a legal ceremony). Humanist celebrants may have more leeway than religious celebrants in modifying the ceremony.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

A Roman Catholic can marry a Protestant in a non-Catholic service, but it requires a dispensation from the bishop. If this dispensation is not obtained, the Roman Church does not recognize the validity of the marriage. Whatever the government and other denominations might say, it says there is not a marriage in that situation, and the couple are filthy fornicators and all that.

Since Roman Catholic Canon Law does not apply to non-Catholics, non-Catholics can validly contract marriage according to their own rites.

[ 13. January 2013, 12:38: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I'm not sure if the Church would say that they are 'filthy fornicators and all that' It's imply that the RC party has not married with a Catholic ceremony which would be recognuised as a Catholic marriage by the Church

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I'm not sure if the Church would say that they are 'filthy fornicators and all that' It's imply that the RC party has not married with a Catholic ceremony which would be recognuised as a Catholic marriage by the Church

The keyword here is "valid." I just sat through a whole semester of RC Canon Law for my degree, and I am quite certain of it. Without that dispensation, a Roman Catholic cannot validly contract marriage, any marriage, in the eyes of the RC Church. This rule changed in 2009.

I doubt that the Catholic party would be forced to explicitly admit that he or she had never been married, and the marriage ceremony would be given a neutral term like "a blessing" or "convalidation." But it would be, in technical sense of Church canons, as simple marriage, where none had been before, and I personally don't think the Church is doing anyone any favors by not making such couples swallow their bitter pills in those sorts of situations.

But, I don't suppose imposing penance for fornication will draw a lot of people back to the Church, so pastoral sensitivity and what not.

[ 13. January 2013, 13:08: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Hart (# 4991) on :

For a Catholic to validly and licitly marry a non-Catholic Christian in a non-Catholic non-Orthodox Christian ceremony, two things are required:

1) Permission from the local bishop to marry a non-Catholic (for liceity only);

2) Dispensation from form, required for validity, for the service not being according to the Roman Rite.

Convalidation can be a full wedding service, but need not be. In cases were vows were properly exchanged (but there was some other problem for validity, eg. form), no service at all is required, it can all be done by paperwork.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Convalidation can be a full wedding service, but need not be. In cases were vows were properly exchanged (but there was some other problem for validity, eg. form), no service at all is required, it can all be done by paperwork.

There's still that word "valid" in there. There is no such thing as a "Invalid marriage." Either it's a valid marriage, or there is no marriage at all. At least so far as the Roman Church is concerned. That paperwork is necessary because the couple in such a situation are not married.

If a Protestant couple decided to convert together, then no such paperwork is necessary. Since they were Protestants when married, they could validly contract marriage according to their own rites.

[ 13. January 2013, 13:38: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I wonder whether starting with a humanist wedding ceremony and modifying it to add vows before God for you might be an option. I note that humanist weddings are likely to be recognized in Ireland shortly (the law allowing them has just passed and it only needs the official registration of the Humanist Associate of Ireland and its celebrants for them to be performed as a legal ceremony). Humanist celebrants may have more leeway than religious celebrants in modifying the ceremony.

I may be wrong, but isn't the point of having a humanist service in order to avoid God-type things?

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:
I wonder whether starting with a humanist wedding ceremony and modifying it to add vows before God for you might be an option. I note that humanist weddings are likely to be recognized in Ireland shortly (the law allowing them has just passed and it only needs the official registration of the Humanist Associate of Ireland and its celebrants for them to be performed as a legal ceremony). Humanist celebrants may have more leeway than religious celebrants in modifying the ceremony.
I may be wrong, but isn't the point of having a humanist service in order to avoid God-type things?

Well yes but this is a case of one half the couple wanting the God-type things and one half not. I suspect the humanists may be a bit more yielding than some Christian groups; unitarians might also be an option [certainly true in the US and probably in Ireland]. Unitarians also have some actual church buildings (at least in Dublin).

Posted by Olaf (# 11804) on :

This is just me being naive, perhaps, but if the financee of Squibs is an atheist, then why can't she just say the vows as normally appointed by the C of E? Since she doesn't believe the religious lines anyway, why should they cause her undue stress?

I believe it would only come up twice that she would have to utter anything religious: at the vow and at the rings. Even then, it's only part of what she says, so she will still be offering a commitment to her spouse, and with all her heart she can confidently say those parts.

Net Spinster: My local Universalist-Unitarians meet in a former bank, of the 1970s suburban America variety, with a flat roof, brown bricks, and several floor-to-ceiling windows on the corner of the building. They even had the drive-thru canopy up for years, but have finally taken it down. Somehow, it just seems to look appropriate.

[ 13. January 2013, 16:00: Message edited by: Olaf ]

Posted by Jade Constable (# 17175) on :

A couple of years ago, some friends of mine got married in a CoE church - she an atheist, he nominally Anglican (church primary school, scouts etc but not religious per se). She had absolutely no problem with 'the God stuff'. Many non-believers get married in their parish churches. Is it really a big issue for your fiancee? If so, could you not have a civil ceremony? Speaking as a Christian, while I would prefer a religious ceremony I would not consider a civil ceremony to be invalid or wrong in any way.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Zach what you say about a valid Catholic marriage is correct as indeed also is what Hart has said.
It is however surely pastorally insensitive to call a Catholic who has contracted a marriage without the blessing of the Church a 'filthy fornicator'
While the Catholic church does not recognise as a Catholic marriage such as are contracted by CATHOLICS outside of the Church the Church authorities would not marry a person who claimed to be Catholic and wanted a Catholic marriage,if that person was still married in the eyes of the law or indeed in the eyes of another Christian community.
We need to remember here also on this thread that we are talking about the marriage of a Christian (non Catholic) and an atheist (baptised Catholic)
Whilst it can be useful for them to know about what difficulties there might be in contracting a marriage with a ceremony which will have some meaning for both of them,it is doubtful that the teachings of the Catholic church on marriage,nor indeed the marriage rites of the Church will play a significant part.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
It is however surely pastorally insensitive to call a Catholic who has contracted a marriage without the blessing of the Church a 'filthy fornicator'

That's precisely what I said, if'n you'll give my posts a read.

quote:
While the Catholic church does not recognise as a Catholic marriage such as are contracted by CATHOLICS outside of the Church the Church.

You are slightly off. The Catholic Church does not recognize a marriage, of any rite, contracted by Catholics outside of the Church without a dispensation. It isn't merely saying there isn't a Catholic marriage.

quote:
...authorities would not marry a person who claimed to be Catholic and wanted a Catholic marriage,if that person was still married in the eyes of the law or indeed in the eyes of another Christian community.

Not because it recognizes such a person as married.

quote:
We need to remember here also on this thread that we are talking about the marriage of a Christian (non Catholic) and an atheist (baptised Catholic)

I take a rigorist approach, personally. According to the canons, once a Catholic, always a Catholic, and Roman Catholic canons will always apply to Catholics. A lapsed Catholic at least ought to know the Church will not recognize his or her marriage, and consciously decide to ignore Church canons. If only for the sake of intellectual consistency. If he or she decides it doesn't matter, then that's that- I sure don't recognize the pope's right to declare non-Catholic marriages invalid.

[ 13. January 2013, 18:24: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

O what a tangled web we weave.

The wisest words on the subject were said to me by a former (C of E) parish priest: the church ought to have nothing whatever to do with people's sexual relationships beyond telling them not to be unkind to each other.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

Zach is again right but also wrong. The RC church does not recognise as a valid marriage (a marriage,if you prefer it) one contracted outside of the Church by children of the Church i.e. baptised Catholics.
The Catholic church,however,only concerns itself with what constitutes a Catholic marriage.The church will not marry those who are already married in the eyes of the state although they may not have contracted a Catholic marriage.

I am sure for the right of the pope as chief pastor of the Church to determine the laws of the Church as they affect those who claim to be the children of the Church.I can't see how the pope can affect in any way the rights of those who marry according to other rites.It's only if the person claims to be a Catholic that the pope's word could have any effect. Note please that I say 'be' and not 'have been'

I accept also that the baptised Catholic in one sense always remains a Catholic as the effect of baptism is not undone.A person who abandons the Church is indeed an apostate but you have to remember also the rights of the informed conscience.That person may have looked at things closely and decided that she simply cannot believe.Okay in technical terms she may be an apostate but in pastoral terms this is insensitive terminology.While I agree that there may be some Catholics who would call those who marry outside of the Church 'filthy fornicators' I would hope that no official representative of the Church would use these terms in describing Canon law to students or indeed to anyone else.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Zach is again right but also wrong... While I agree that there may be some Catholics who would call those who marry outside of the Church 'filthy fornicators' I would hope that no official representative of the Church would use these terms in describing Canon law to students or indeed to anyone else.

You don't make the case that I am wrong, you make the case that I am mean.

But since I am not a pastor, and not even a representative of the Roman Catholic Church, I have no obligation to pastoral sensitivity. I am merely stating the bald, unadorned case of Roman Catholic Canon law. A Catholic that contracts marriage outside of the Church without a dispensation is, in the eyes of the Church, NOT married, and therefore a fornicator in his or her relationship with his or her spouse.

And I think a Roman Catholic, lapsed or converted out or what have you, ought to be aware of that and come to terms with it. Pastors do no service to such people by hiding the facts from them.

None of that applies to people who have never been Catholic. Two cradle Anglicans can validly contract marriage according to their own rites, according to the Canon. Though naturally this only matters in the Canon if one of them becomes Catholic.

Again, the refusal to marry Catholics already married to other people in civil marriages is NOT because the Roman Church recognizes that they are married, though they have one heck of an impediment to a "real deal" marriage.

[ 14. January 2013, 00:01: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Olaf:
This is just me being naive, perhaps, but if the financee of Squibs is an atheist, then why can't she just say the vows as normally appointed by the C of E? Since she doesn't believe the religious lines anyway, why should they cause her undue stress?

I believe it would only come up twice that she would have to utter anything religious: at the vow and at the rings. Even then, it's only part of what she says, so she will still be offering a commitment to her spouse, and with all her heart she can confidently say those parts.

Net Spinster: My local Universalist-Unitarians meet in a former bank, of the 1970s suburban America variety, with a flat roof, brown bricks, and several floor-to-ceiling windows on the corner of the building. They even had the drive-thru canopy up for years, but have finally taken it down. Somehow, it just seems to look appropriate.

I would say whether she is uncomfortable or not depends on her (just as what is comfortable or not to the husband to be depends on him). Plenty of atheists (and other non-Anglicans) have gone through Anglican wedding services (my parents for instance though only one of them is Christian). At one time (mid-1700s until about 1830) all, Anglican or non-Anglican, (except Jews and Quakers) had to have Anglican weddings for their marriages to be recognized in England/Wales; I'm sure plenty of Catholics, Unitarians, etc endured it. Given that nowadays they may find a method that fulfills the legal requirements and their own consciences, should they not take it?

I suspect the important part of any congregation is the members not the building; however, Unitarian buildings vary. Perhaps your local UUs are careful stewards not to expend money on special buildings if what they have is sufficient for their needs and the money better spent elsewhere. However Unitarians have built. The Dublin Unitarian church seems to be a fairly impressive mid-19th century church. The Cork building apparently is the oldest still extant place of worship in the city (dating to the early 18th century) though not elaborate.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I thought that Unitarians believed in God,even although they might not be able to accept the doctrine iof the Trinity.
Why would a Unitarian servic ethen benefit an atheist ?

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I thought that Unitarians believed in God,even although they might not be able to accept the doctrine iof the Trinity.
Why would a Unitarian servic ethen benefit an atheist ?

I think the benefit would be the flexibility of their liturgy, a flexibility that the CofI doesn't Have. Which might mean that they can use different vows..

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I thought that Unitarians believed in God,even although they might not be able to accept the doctrine iof the Trinity.
Why would a Unitarian servic ethen benefit an atheist ?
I think the benefit would be the flexibility of their liturgy, a flexibility that the CofI doesn't Have. Which might mean that they can use different vows..

I would have thought that an orthodox Christian might have objections in conscience to a Unitarian marriage service that they would not have to a plain Registry Office marriage, whether in the Registry Office or an hotel.

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

I am really glad to hear that Zach is not a representative of the Roman Catholic church and that he feels no need to observe pastoral sensitivity as indeed he shows none.
I have to agree with him that a Catholic who contracts a marriage outside of the Church is not considered as married by the Church.Any sexual relations might be considered in a technical way as 'fornication' It is however most definitely not the way to talk,particularly if one wants to add the word 'filthy'But what if one has already abandoned the Church,that Catholic would not believe at that moment that their marriage was not a valid marriage.Should for some reason they might want to come back to the Church then they would have the opportunity to 'validate' the marriage.
In the same way Catholics and indeed other Christians,particularly those who are firm believers, might classify other Christians as 'heretics' or 'pagans' or 'infidel'These words do still have a technical meaning but they are not used in ordinary speech of Christians nowadays.In the past they might have been used frequently but now most of us try to recognise that those who have other beliefs from Christians have ,have had a different upbringing or whose consience and understanding leads them to a different point of view.
Several years ago I accompanied my elderly and forgetful mother to look round a possible new facility where she might be better cared for.We were in the company of the manager of the home where my mother was at that time. The supervisor of the possible new home showed us a room filled with old ladies and said in an offhand way,'They're all demented in there' She was technically speaking correct and believed that she was speaking to another specialist in the field,but it was decidedly not the way to speak of those old ladies.Personally I was glad as the manager of the home where my mother was at that time decided to keep my mother and looked after her well until the day my mother died.

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Zacchaeus:

quote:
Originally posted by Forthview:
I thought that Unitarians believed in God,even although they might not be able to accept the doctrine iof the Trinity.
Why would a Unitarian servic ethen benefit an atheist ?
I think the benefit would be the flexibility of their liturgy, a flexibility that the CofI doesn't Have. Which might mean that they can use different vows..
I would have thought that an orthodox Christian might have objections in conscience to a Unitarian marriage service that they would not have to a plain Registry Office marriage, whether in the Registry Office or an hotel.

Well maybe it would but they might be able to pick and choose their vows to suit both of them.

The unitarians that I met have been tolerant of many views - and might well allow trinitairian vows and non Christian ones in the same service.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
O what a tangled web we weave.

The wisest words on the subject were said to me by a former (C of E) parish priest: the church ought to have nothing whatever to do with people's sexual relationships beyond telling them not to be unkind to each other.

It should be written into the 39 articles. And made a tenet of the creed.

Did I say I couldn't agree more? [Big Grin]

Posted by Zacchaeus (# 14454) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
O what a tangled web we weave.

The wisest words on the subject were said to me by a former (C of E) parish priest: the church ought to have nothing whatever to do with people's sexual relationships beyond telling them not to be unkind to each other.
It should be written into the 39 articles. And made a tenet of the creed.

Did I say I couldn't agree more?

An elderly priest once told me that he had been taught that you should preach once a year, on on each of:- money death and sex.
[Eek!]

fortunately I haven't had a vicar who followed this.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
I am really glad to hear that Zach is not a representative of the Roman Catholic church and that he feels no need to observe pastoral sensitivity as indeed he shows none.

You might want to drop the pompous little speech about pastoral sensitivity, since I am speaking as a person personally affected by these canons.

But call me insensitive, I am more offended by being classified as a fornicator in the Canon than the word fornicator. [Roll Eyes]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
O what a tangled web we weave.

The wisest words on the subject were said to me by a former (C of E) parish priest: the church ought to have nothing whatever to do with people's sexual relationships beyond telling them not to be unkind to each other.
It should be written into the 39 articles. And made a tenet of the creed.

Did I say I couldn't agree more?

I disagree. Sex creates children, children create families, and families create tribes, then nations; since religions thrives or withers in these contexts it would be odd for the church to have no interest in the foundational act that starts it all!

Children are first introduced to religion in families, so it's unsurprising that churches take an interest in how people are 'getting together', and whether or not the circumstances are propitious for the transmission of faith. In Western culture, the children of mixed-faith, or faith+no faith couples tend not to be so likely to follow the Christian religion. Some parents (and some priests) won't be too concerned about that, which is fair enough. But churches that are keen to thrive and be viable in the future should be at least a little reflective about the realities that will face them later when they decide to relax their teachings on this issue....

Posted by dj_ordinaire (# 4643) on :

Hostly cappa magna ON:

Zach82 and Forthview. I appreciate that this is an Ecclesiantics thread, and therefore appropriate for robust discussion. BUT, it is also a thread for discussing the OP'er's wedding arrangements so I think some sensitivity in ones posting would be in order. If this were to continue, I could see it falling under what the Ten Commandments speak of as 'jerkish behaviour'. If there is a personal issue to be threshed out, then please feel free to continue doing so, but in Hell where it is appropriate.

I might particularly say that this is hardly the place to throw around accusations of 'filthy fornication', and claiming to be "quoting" the Roman Catholic church (again) hardly helps matters. I'm sure that our RC Shipmates do not appreciate being told what they believe, any more than the rest of us.

To everyone else, thanks for keeping a good discussion going on this somewhat delicate topic.

Hostly cappa magna OFF

[ 14. January 2013, 16:53: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

Posted by Forthview (# 12376) on :

My apologies.You can be sure that I do more than appreciate the difficulties which some people have in finding themselves unequally yoked and trying to maintain contact with the Roman Catholic church.
You can be sure that I also appreciate that these difficulties do not simply vanish if one decides to abandon either formal or indeed any contact at all with the Church.

Posted by Squibs (# 14408) on :

Thanks for the advice folks. The advice has been appreciated. There has been some interesting developments so I'll post an update when I know a little more.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In Western culture, the children of mixed-faith, or faith+no faith couples tend not to be so likely to follow the Christian religion.

Can you cite the evidence for this? It is not necessarily the case in my experience.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Morgan:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
In Western culture, the children of mixed-faith, or faith+no faith couples tend not to be so likely to follow the Christian religion.
Can you cite the evidence for this? It is not necessarily the case in my experience.

Obviously, it's not necessarily the case. It's a question of percentages.

My refs come from the work of Dr David Voas, who's a scholar in the sociology of religion. There are several of his articles available online, and many more that reference his work.

This is his most publicised finding:

“Two non-religious parents successfully transmit their lack of religion. Two religious parents have roughly a 50/50 chance of passing on the faith. One religious parent does only half as well as two together.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/6818004/Just-half-of-Britons-now-call-themselves-Christian-after-a-sharp-decline-in- faith-over-past-25-years.html

The original research by Voas and Crockett, 'Neither Believing Nor Belonging' is available online:

http://www.sagepub.com/ballantine2study/articles/Chapter%2012/Voas.pdf

The Guardian and other sources reference this research as well.

This is another article that mentions faith transmission regarding mixed marriages:

See p. 142
http://tapir.pdc.no/pdf/NJRS/2012/2012-02-2.pdf

Posted by Nenuphar (# 16057) on :

As Squibs' fiancée does not seem vehemently anti-Christian, it may well be the case that, after reading and discussing the vows, she feels able to make them.

What I feel you should be aware of, however, is that were she not to get the Catholic church's formal permission now, should she return to the Catholic faith and wish to marry in the Catholic church, she would have valid grounds for an annulment (and therefore a subsequent church marriage to someone else) - since, as others have said, she would not have a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the Catholic church. Heaven forbid this should happen, of course, but I think you should both be aware of the (Catholic) church law..

However, if she were formally to obtain church permission for her marriage outside the Catholic Church now, I don't think she would automatically qualify for a church annulment.

This has no effect on the civil validity of the marriage, of course, nor on the permanence of the vows of the non-catholic party.

Posted by Morgan (# 15372) on :

Thanks SvitlanaV2, particularly for the link to the original research. Many interesting points made. These 'extras' are a great reason why I love it when people cite primary sources rather than secondary ones which can vary enormously in their quality and comprehensiveness.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
O what a tangled web we weave.

The wisest words on the subject were said to me by a former (C of E) parish priest: the church ought to have nothing whatever to do with people's sexual relationships beyond telling them not to be unkind to each other.
It should be written into the 39 articles. And made a tenet of the creed.

Did I say I couldn't agree more?
I disagree. Sex creates children, children create families, and families create tribes, then nations; since religions thrives or withers in these contexts it would be odd for the church to have no interest in the foundational act that starts it all!

Children are first introduced to religion in families, so it's unsurprising that churches take an interest in how people are 'getting together', and whether or not the circumstances are propitious for the transmission of faith. In Western culture, the children of mixed-faith, or faith+no faith couples tend not to be so likely to follow the Christian religion. Some parents (and some priests) won't be too concerned about that, which is fair enough. But churches that are keen to thrive and be viable in the future should be at least a little reflective about the realities that will face them later when they decide to relax their teachings on this issue....

I think the Church should teach us how to love one another non-abusively, unselfishly and kindly. Wedding prep should certainly not shy away from the more personal issues.

However, I personally don't think the church should be directing ordinary, decent consenting people of same-sex persuasion what not to do with their genitals and other body parts. I can only speak for myself when I say I've done a lot of reflecting on this. And the reflection that both the CofE and the CofI have done on this issue seems to be endless and not particularly helpful to date.

I know the 'let's keep sex straight for the sake of popping out more babies' argument. I'm just not terribly convinced that heterosexualism is so much under threat that the Church needs to panic about it quite yet!

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I personally don't think the church should be directing ordinary, decent consenting people of same-sex persuasion what not to do with their genitals and other body parts. I can only speak for myself when I say I've done a lot of reflecting on this. And the reflection that both the CofE and the CofI have done on this issue seems to be endless and not particularly helpful to date.

I suppose a lot of people will agree with your last sentence!

If most Anglican clergy are okay about interfaith marriages, then perhaps it should follow that they should be okay about gay relationships. The former surely involves far more people than the latter, and probably has far more practical consequences for the Church.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

All of the C of E clergy at churches I've attended for the last thirty years have been accepting of my same sex relationship.

I've never heard of any opposing interfaith marriage. Most of them gladly (and sentimentally to my mind) conduct weddings for straight couples who haven't the remotest intention of church commitment and only want a nice church as the setting for their sentimental "special day".

A happy marriage is far more important than a happy wedding.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
I personally don't think the church should be directing ordinary, decent consenting people of same-sex persuasion what not to do with their genitals and other body parts. I can only speak for myself when I say I've done a lot of reflecting on this. And the reflection that both the CofE and the CofI have done on this issue seems to be endless and not particularly helpful to date.
I suppose a lot of people will agree with your last sentence!

If most Anglican clergy are okay about interfaith marriages, then perhaps it should follow that they should be okay about gay relationships. The former surely involves far more people than the latter, and probably has far more practical consequences for the Church.

As a minor quibble, Svitlana2, about your last sentence. It would depend where you are: I would think that my personal circle (western Québec and eastern Ontario) features roughly as many interfaith marriages as it does gay partnerships. As only a minority of gay partnerships will raise children, and a majority of the interfaith marriages will, these marriages will have greater practical consequences for churches are greater. Two footnotes: 1) a quick roladex survey gives me twelve gay partnerships, of which two have produced children and two-three more likely will; and ten interfaith marriages, five of which have produced spawn to date, and I think another two will); 2) terminologically, I used partnerships as four of the twelve gay partnerships are married (as takes place under Canadian law) but not all are, and all of the interfaith pairings are married. As a sub-footnote, one of the gay partnerships has three individuals involved (and they're not Mormon).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Augustine

I expressed myself rather clumsily, but I was actually agreeing with you; I think that interfaith marriages have had and will have more immediate practical consequences for the church than SSM. The impact of SSM will be more insiduous and probably less immediate, primarily because it's simply a later development, and also, of course, because gay couples are less likely to have children. Speaking personally, interfaith marriages are far more a part of my world than same sex couples. (In the UK, of course, we don't have SSM, but civil partnerships.)

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

Let's steer clear of the Dead Horse. You can reference same-sex marriages as an example, but debate of the merits of same-sex marriage as such is off-limits.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is a ruling made in my hostly discretion for the purposes of this thread only.

seasick, Eccles host

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

Seasick-- Quite so, and I agree. I was only intending to reference in passing, rather than to delve into it, otherwise I would have headed to the Dead Horses swamp. My digression into details was perhaps not the best.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As a sub-footnote, one of the gay partnerships has three individuals involved (and they're not Mormon).

!!?? Does Canadian law allow polygamy. That's a step towards multiculturalism that ours hasn't taken and I suspect isn't likely to. It occasionally gives some recognition to the financial obligations people may have incurred in multiple marriages entered into elsewhere, but whatever your culture or religion may allow you in your home culture, it's bigamy plain and simple if you do it here.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As a sub-footnote, one of the gay partnerships has three individuals involved (and they're not Mormon).
!!?? Does Canadian law allow polygamy. That's a step towards multiculturalism that ours hasn't taken and I suspect isn't likely to. It occasionally gives some recognition to the financial obligations people may have incurred in multiple marriages entered into elsewhere, but whatever your culture or religion may allow you in your home culture, it's bigamy plain and simple if you do it here.

I suspect this isn't about multiculturalism in a religious minority sense, but about polyandry, which is more to do with sexual freedom.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
As a sub-footnote, one of the gay partnerships has three individuals involved (and they're not Mormon).
!!?? Does Canadian law allow polygamy. That's a step towards multiculturalism that ours hasn't taken and I suspect isn't likely to. It occasionally gives some recognition to the financial obligations people may have incurred in multiple marriages entered into elsewhere, but whatever your culture or religion may allow you in your home culture, it's bigamy plain and simple if you do it here.
I suspect this isn't about multiculturalism in a religious minority sense, but about polyandry, which is more to do with sexual freedom.

SvitlanaV2 is correct-- it is a matter of polyandry, not polygamy or bigamy (the latter two of which are against Canadian law-- the former is an informal arrangement of which the law takes no notice). I should not have thrown in the Mormon reference -- it was more a sign of my spiritual immaturity at taking a crack at the Mormons than a serious contribution to the discussion. One of the three, in case anybody is interested, is a practising RC and I have no idea what her confessor says about her situation.

Enoch's point is also valid. As with English law dealing with the aftermath of empire, Canadian courts have occasionally recognized judicially some obligations stemming from marriages legal elsewhere but not in Canada. One of my swimming buddies has a legal practice which occupies itself with such questions from time to time.

Posted by bib (# 13074) on :

I think there can be real difficulties in marrying someone with different faith practices. I am a very strongly practising Christian and when I married my nominally Christian husband, I did not realise how significant differences in beliefs can become. As the years go by, differences become more important. My husband tends to look on church as only to be used for weddings and funerals whereas regular worship is a significant part of my life. He finds this odd and isn't very supportive of my worship practices. Although it is fine for partners to have differences, it creates problems in a marriage when these are in fundamental beliefs and practices. These differences should be talked over and resolved before marriage, not down the track as I discovered too late.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Bib

This is usually a problem faced by Christian women, isn't it? My own mother has found it difficult to be in a marriage with a man who seems distant from Christian spirituality. The alternative is faced by many Christian women who are waiting to find a committed Christian man to marry, and will probably never find one. Some go against the teachings of their churches to 'marry out', but then have to face the problems that we've mentioned.

I've heard that at some churches, there's a lot of pressure on Christian men to pick a wife from the many women available. In such a situation, I suppose it must happen that some of the men decide to turn their backs on the pressure and look elsewhere instead. It reminds me of John Wesley, who deliberately chose a non-Methodist wife. (It didn't work out too well, though!)

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

Funnily enough, we have more men in the church choir whose partners don't come to church, than women.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

That is our experience here, too.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

A little background on my part. I was still single when I was finishing my fourth year at a conservative Lutheran Seminary and about to be ordained in a conservative Lutheran Synod (LCMS). I was single. That Easter I was invited to a dinner at one of my friend's uncles, and I met a woman who just flipped me head over hills. We had such an entertaining dinner and afternoon. I found out she liked the out of doors as did I, and before the day was out I invited her on a canoe trip.

My friend's uncle's mother in law was also there. She kept talking about her Roman Catholic faith, so I assumed everyone there, other than my friend and I, were Roman Catholic. It was not until late in the afternoon, when my new interest was about to leave, that she mentioned she was Christian Scientist.

This threw quite a wrench in ordination plans. The LCMS would not allow anyone to become ordained if the spouse was not LCMS too. While we had just met, I did not want to pass up the opportunity to see where this relationship might go.

After four dates, I popped the question. And it surprised me she did not hesitate to say yes. But I had to tell her there was just one problem, she would have to convert. She agreed to taking Christian instruction. Six months later she was baptized into the Christian faith. Six months later we were married and I placed my name onto the call process.

I actually learned a number of things from her as we came together. She introduced me to the feminine side of God. She also introduced me to a form of positivism that she still exudes today.

After she became Lutheran she became Lutheran all the way. We have raised four children in Lutheranism. One is about to start the seminary process himself, but it will be under the ELCA. We became ELCA about 20 years ago.

I really think having been married 30 years to each other, having the common connection through our shared faith helped us get through some very difficult times.

I know she has developed some close friendships with people in our Lutheran community that have become like an extended family for her.

This is very important to consider. Marriages need support of family, church and community. It is like a three legged stool. But if one of those legs is not fully developed, it can be a very tough go for the couple. IMHO

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0