Can it be that, as nuptial fidelity declines throughout society, Matrimonial Ritual becomes ever more complex?
I have recently read a newspapaer account of the 'wedding(s)' of a 54 year old woman and a 49 year old man. I will conceal them behind the names Jack and Jill.
They had their "legal ceremony" in a Town Hall; their "big wedding" later and in a "creative space".
Jill had twelve bridesmaids, "Three had been bridesmaids at her first wedding".
A friend "sewed a ribbon with the names of Jill's single friends on to the hem of her wedding dress. "Some people were newly single so I added their name in pen", says Jill.
I suspect that "newly single" may not necessarily mean widowed/widowered.
'The couple wrote their own vows' (I presume this refers not to the "legal ceremony" but to the "big wedding").
There were "six groomsmen". They made a formal musical entry.
I particularly invite elucidation of the following detail:
"In 2016, Jack gave Jill a commitment ring but marriage was not on his horizon until last year".
If marriage had been on Jack's "horizon" I suppose a 'traditional ' "Engagement Ring" would have been appropriate?
But what does a "commitment ring" symbolise? Is this now a common modern custom, a common piece of nomenclature?? Since when?
15 comments:
We live in an amoral swamp, sadly not addressed by the majority of 'Church Leaders'. Was it last year that the Government announced that the majority of babies in this country were now born out of wedlock? I try not to despair, but when I see young children dressed from head to foot in virginal white carrying the wedding train of their mother, also in virginal white, as she marries their father....
It is only to be expected that those living as if married de facto should mimic the rituals of marriage de jure, and exchange commitment rings, go through some dreadful rigmarole of a commitment ceremony, and otherwise signify their status as de facto partners, which the law, especially the tax man, treats the same as a de jure married couple.
I expect this is what is called here in US a 'promise ring'. Apparently it is given prior to an engagement ring - often because the couple are young and the future groom can't yet afford an engagement ring. It used to be a cheap ring with possibly a minuscule diamond 'chip' on it. But it has now become "a thing" for the glitterati who can spend more on it than the cost of some weddings and may be of the "his and hers" variety.
Where did this idea come from? I can't say for sure but my suspicion is that, like Hallmark cards for every day of the year, I suspect it originated from the jewelry industry.
The Catholic Church in America now encourages divorce with easy annulments, and a mentality has been created that an annulment is always possible. I can think of five acquaintances who have remarried after an annulment; heck, maybe all of these annulments were legitimate, but I doubt it. And fancy second weddings in a beautiful church -- good grief. Second marriages after an annulment should be done privately -- I wish a bishop had the courage to insist upon that. It is hard to have respect for Church authorities.
Yes, let's laugh at the silly pagans and their funny ideas about marriage.
But then let's suppose that Jack and Jill are not Catholic. And let's further suppose that Jill's ex-husband, we'll call him Joachim, was baptized by a Catholic priest in his infancy, but hasn't practised the faith in any way since primary school. He married Jill in a register office and they had five children before Jill walked out on him. According to the rules currently in force in the Catholic Church, it's Jill's marriage to Jack that is valid, and binding upon them until the death of one party; whereas the marriage that produced five children is absolutely null and utterly void.
On second thoughts, perhaps we Catholics are not in the best position to mock the marital practices of our neighbours.
I understand nothing of the abive wedding. Modernday weddings and funerals - if they take place at all - are so very different from their traditional counterparts - catholic and otherwise, that they no longer represent the same thing. Most couples donot bother marrying at all, or invent for themselves a new rite with new content and meaning. Many people, even against their own explicit wishes, are cremated without cetemony and their ashes strewn or tossed out. Several elderly parishioners here were recently so disposed of after death by their surviving family. I recently saw a video at youtube about the extinction of catholic funeral and burial rites in our time. A sad token of the apostatic [end?] times whetein we live.
Never was the header "No comments" so appropriate.
A ring-seller on the Isle of Wight says:
Commitment rings are popular for young couples—even more popular in 2023. As the name suggests, they symbolize a promise or dedication to another person.
Many couples in the UK will not be familiar with the term due to its popularity in the USA. However, this type of ring has gained popularity over recent years.
For young couples with little money, an engagement ring can be expensive. But, a commitment ring acts as a stand-in ring presented well before a future engagement.
https://www.serendipitydiamonds.com/blog/promise-rings-meaning-purpose/
As the next item on the page they offer “Abstinence and Purity Rings”
My wife and I spent about $100 on our wedding and reception 44 years ago, a good chunk of it for a large batch of Greek pastry for our self catered reception at my soon to be our apartment. The wedding was attended by family and a few friends. My wife made her own wedding dress and I bought a suit at a discount men's clothing store. I would not have had it any other way.
Yesterday's over-the-top farce is today's sad reality.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/x_H-3UfNbRE
Father,
You have put your finger on the ring... Or is it, the ring on your finger?
The Amish and the Mennonites, who are building lots of schoolhouses in these parts, have very clear marriage preparation rules and customs. Yes, they are nihilists, because they will not fight to defend their country, but... they still have a veneer of Christianity, and they THINK they are Christians... And their numbers are growing.
The Catholic Church used to have clear marriage customs. In certain countries, such as the Philippines, and some parts of Africa, the customs are still clear. Not so for the "West". How do we restore the Catholic Marriage Customs, leading successfully to the Sacrament of Matrimony, as from the Eighth Century England?
Write that book, and you'll be a millionaire. God bless you, Father.
Father,
You have put your finger on the ring... Or is it, the ring on your finger?
The Amish and the Mennonites, who are building lots of schoolhouses in these parts, have very clear marriage preparation rules and customs. Yes, they are nihilists, because they will not fight to defend their country, but... they still have a veneer of Christianity, and they THINK they are Christians... And their numbers are growing.
The Catholic Church used to have clear marriage customs. In certain countries, such as the Philippines, and some parts of Africa, the customs are still clear. Not so for the "West". How do we restore the Catholic Marriage Customs, leading successfully to the Sacrament of Matrimony, as from the Eighth Century England?
Write that book, and you'll be a millionaire. God bless you, Father.
"Single" in many cases now, means "currently without a boyfriend/girlfriend."
So "recently single" would just mean a non-marital breakup, in many cases.
While the Orthodox Churches do allow for "ecclesial divorces" (under very restrictive circumstances) the bishop imposes a period of penance and exclusion from Holy Communion.
A second marriage (even if both parties are widowed) takes on a penitential nature.
A third marriage may be allowed but under a much more severe time of penance and longer abstention from Holy Communion. Usually this ceremony is very simple, penitential in (missing celebratory parts) nature and done in the narthex.
While we might not agree with "ecclesial" divorces at least penance (and hopefully repenentance) is required and non participation in the reception of the Holy Gifts as part of the penance is imposed.
In RCC practice, even if a "monitum" ("warning" about remarriage) is issued no penance is required and no a time of fasting from the Holy Eucharist is even suggested before a second (or more) marriage(s).
No need for this...no one did anything wrong...the Marriage was annulled and simply never existed!
Seems odd to me.
Dear Fr Khouri,
what seems odd to me is penance before an allowed remarriage. They are doing something that is allowed. Why, among all things that are allowed, single out that to do penance? And for what? For the sins of the rest of one's life, but specifically not to choose to remarry after being widowed because you cannot do penance for something not a sin? I thought as general penance for all the sins of our previous life, we had Lent and stuff.
Ecclesial practice should follow natural and revealed truth, not prejudices, even if they are for a change not the prejudice of our day but those of the Roman Empire's day - when St. John Chrysostom said that while their heart rebelled against second marriages, they were forced by Holy Writ to allow them.
Also, they don't even let themselves be forced by Holy Writ enough. Even if they really are repulsed themselves by remarrying in widowhood, and not just keeping up old practice for the sake of keeping up old practice, then the same argument from Holy Writ that forces them to reluctantly allow second and third marriage would force them to allow fourth, fifth marriages and so forth, in the increasingly rare situations where that's possible without a divorce. What is it that makes them totally off bounds, when a third marriage is still permissible?
On the other hand, if a marriage is null and void, there's nothing illogical about treating it as not having existed.
Yes, in a perfect world we could think of a positive law imposing some penance for those former putative-spouses who were responsible for the defect that made it null, provided they were subjectively guilty about it - which without any experience in the matter at all I'd suspect is the case in the majority of cases, but not all of them, for at least one spouse -; but such a positive law does not now exist.
And it's not entirely nothing that 1. the whole process of subjecting oneself to the process of nullity is, I should guess, penitential in itself to begin with,
2. for those that had been practicing their religion before, they had had plenty of penance either in not marrying their new partner yet, or (perhaps more often) in abstaining from Holy Communion because of what when the nullity had not yet been declared was a divorced-and-remarried status,
3. for others the nullity might be their personal requirement that made them practice religion again and additional penance might quash that tiny flame right away (they are wrong, of course, but still their attitude might be a pastoral reality).
Post a Comment