All this week I’ve been thinking about weddings. My husband and I recently celebrated our anniversary, and then Hallie Lord is hosting a little online party where bloggers are writing about their honeymoons. Reading through the stories of all these Catholic weddings and the ensuing celebrations reminded me of something I haven’t thought about much since my own nuptials: Many of our cherished wedding traditions make no sense with the new, secular understanding of marriage.
I was an atheist when I got married, and I held a common secular view of marriage: It’s simply a public statement that two people are going to stay together for the long term. That’s it. Quite a few of my friends got married around the same time I did, and we all shared this view. I don’t think any of us thought that our understanding of the institution of marriage was that much of a departure from that of the millenia-old Judeo-Christian tradition. Sure, some of us were atheists, but it was basically the same old thing, just without the God stuff. However, when we actually sat down to plan our big days, and started asking ourselves why we were doing all of this stuff, we were startled by what we found: Almost none of the time-honored traditions, practiced for generations by our forebearers, made sense anymore.
As the new, secular understanding of marriage sweeps through society, I think that couples who buy into this view will find that many of the traditions that they most look forward to incorporating into their weddings are either on shaky ground, or have been rendered entirely obsolete. For many young people, it’ll a wakeup call as to just how very different this institution is from the marriages of their grandparents. To name just a few of these now-irrelevant practices:
1. Honeymoons: The honeymoon, which originated back in the early 19th century, has traditionally been thought of as a chance for a newly married couple to spend quality time together, to help them bond and get their new, shared life off to a good start. This may still make sense for couples who live apart up until the day of the wedding, but that’s increasingly rare. For the 60 - 85% of people who cohabitate before their wedding day, the post-marriage trip has lost the mystique that we traditionally associate with honeymoons, and is simply another vacation.
2. Bachelor/Bachelorette Parties: Bachelor parties are usually thought of as a campy celebration of a man’s (or woman’s, in the case of bachelorette parties) “last night of freedom.” But this all falls flat with most secular understandings of relationships and marriage. It makes no sense at all for couples who cohabitate, since nothing about the couple’s lifestyle will be different after the wedding. Even for couples who live apart during their engagement, the view that marriage is a path to each spouse’s personal self-fulfillment takes away the energy behind the bachelor party. The concept that makes the “last night of freedom” meaningful is that a single person is about to enter a life of sacrifice, where his or her personal amusement will no longer come first, and thus there will be less time for recreation. When we reject these ideas about marriage and sacrifice going hand-in-hand, we lose any need for bachelor/bachelorette parties.
3. Wedding Registries: When my husband and I got engaged and began planning our life together, one of our biggest challenges was figuring out what to do with all the extra stuff. We’d each been living on our own for years, and so both of us had complete sets of everything you need for a home. Upon our marriage, we found ourselves with two microwaves, two couches, two blenders, four televisions, and more silverware and plates than we knew what to do with—and since we’d both been somewhat successful in our careers, it was all nice stuff! Instead of wedding gifts, I felt like we desperately needed a new tradition where the engaged couple has a garage sale, and all friends and family members are obliged to buy something.
The idea of a wedding registry is that young people who go from their parents’ households or college dorm rooms to a home of their own need more household supplies than they could ever afford themselves, so they indicate which items they’re in need of through a registry, and friends and family members help them out. But in these days when young people are actively encouraged to put off marriage for years in favor of career and personal pursuits, there is usually no need for a registry.
4. Dad Walking the Daughter Down the Aisle: This beloved tradition can be repurposed to fit into secular weddings, but our anti-family society has taken a lot of the meaning out of it. In more family-oriented cultures, a wedding is not the joining of two people, but the joining of two families. Along with traditions like the groom’s family hosting the rehearsal dinner, a father walking his daughter down the aisle has long been an outgrowth of the fact that the parents were intimately involved in the engagement and wedding planning process in the first place. This may still be the case for some couples, but as a hyperfocus on personal autonomy continues to sweep through the culture, any roles of the parents in weddings will be rendered purely symbolic.
5. “‘Til Death Do Us Part”: When my husband and I were writing our wedding vows (yes, we wrote our own), we were surprised by how many of the romantic ideals we wanted to throw in there really didn’t work in light of the secular understanding of marriage. For example, if marriage is a contract, and not a covenant, and if the contract can be broken by either party at any time and for any reason, then statements like “‘til death do us part” aren’t all that meaningful. When I thought about what kind of statement would be more accurate, I imagined the little old ladies in the audience getting their Kleenex out for the big final moment, only to see us gaze into one another’s eyes and say, “‘til death—or until one of us feels like breaching the contract—do us part.”
In theory, my friends and I should have had no problem doing away with these stodgy old traditions, since it would simply be a matter of following our views about marriage to their logical conclusions. And yet I think all of us felt sadness at that prospect. There was a sense that whatever sparked these time-honored customs was something good, something worth preserving. As our culture’s respect for traditional marriage erodes further and further and there becomes less and less need for honeymoons, wedding registries, and all the other things we immediately think of when we hear the word “wedding,” I hope it will give people pause. Maybe the next generation of brides will take a hard look at their own views about this institution when they consider that you cannot hold to the modern view of marriage and have all the trappings of a fairy tale wedding; one or the other must go.
Comments
Post a Comment
Throwing rice no longer makes sense either, does it? The two brides probably have a donor lined up already.
Nor the publication of the Banns. Adam & Steve have no legal impediment anymore.
I don’t know if you’ve ever read One Perfect Day: The Selling of the American Wedding by Rebecca Mead. But one of the points that she makes is that for something like the Honeymoon, say, that would be “just another vacation” for a cohabiting couple, that’s why the thing has to cost more and be very extravagant. Same thing with the exorbitant cost of so many weddings—because the hype has to come from somewhere.
Posted by WSquared on Wednesday, Oct 12, 2011 9:04 AM
“. . . the hype has to come from somewhere.”
That is an excellent observation. Marriage used to mean a big change in the lives of the bride and groom. Now it is usually just public acknowledgment of their already established relationship and living arrangements. Meh. But those who sell goods and services have gone all out to create the demand for a wedding industry based on nothing more than conspicuous consumption.
The white dress doesn’t make sense anymore either.
“In theory, my friends and I should have had no problem doing away with these stodgy old traditions, since it would simply be a matter of following our views about marriage to their logical conclusions. “
Only one of those traditions are based in religion or at least *your* version of religion, even then there were exceptions to that rule.
Honeymoons? Early 19th Century Indian Subcontinent post marriage tour for rich folks then spreading to Europe. It’s one of the earliest examples of mass tourism becoming mainstream.
Bachelor Party? Circa 500BC Spartans.
Wedding Registry? Marshall Field’s in 1924, very handy in the case of couples living together prior to marriage. They list what they need, duh.
Dad Walking the Daughter Down the Aisle: I.E. In them there olden days daughters were considered property and arranged marriages the norm, it was the fathers right to give the daughter away to the groom, for a price…..
Til Death Do Us Part: Because there has always been a path to annulment? Honest officer, she fell down the stairs?
Marriage has evolved over time in accord with the ever changing social political structure of society. It will continue to evolve.
The newest studies have concluded that the odds are actually 28% lower for divorce for those who live together prior to marriage.
Reading this, it made me really happy to realize that all these things had their original, intended meaning for my husband and I when we got married last year! I can’t imagine our wedding meaning much if these (and other) traditions didn’t were just thrown in without any true meaning. We both lived on our own (separately!) before getting married, but we lived with college roommates, so we didn’t have many nice things to bring into the marriage, just college odds and ends that got us by until that point. Great article, I realized when we got married how most of wedding traditions didn’t make sense to people who cohabitated.
@Yeah, right:
I know you can’t muster the charity to respond nicely to someone you disagree with, but afford me the ability to answer so.
It is not her version of religion. We are not Protestants, we cannot interpret things as we see fit, as Catholics. We have to submit with our free will to the teachings of good willed men of the past 2000 years. I’ll repeat, as Catholics, we submit ourselves to the teaching of good willed men of the past 2000 years. That would mean that you cannot - with intellectual honesty - declare that according to “your” version of religion. Since it is by far not her version, but 2000 years of historical religion (I would say even farther).
You write as if loosing these “traditions” is a bad thing.
I thought the Catholic tradition was to have the bride and groom both walk towards the altar together (two free individuals)?
Loved this article, Jennifer. Just went to a cousin’s completely secular wedding this summer, the wording for the ceremony was a 25 minute Hallmark card. Another cousin from Canada just sent me an invitation to his wedding which will be held in a resort in Cuba (no, we are not Cuban). I am at a loss as to how to respond to the invitation, he was raised Catholic and seems to have no idea that he is having a wedding in an island prison. The spiritual meaning of wedding is beyond lost here.
“It is not her version of religion. We are not Protestants, we cannot interpret things as we see fit, as Catholics.”
There are how many different religions in the world? Whereas Catholics are just one of a myriad of many.
It’s ignorant to suggest that those without faith should ignore tradition, for that lack of faith. Considering faith had a play in only 20% of the instances cited.
“As the new, secular understanding of marriage sweeps through society…”
Clue phone… Marriage was secular before the church dug into it around 110CE. That is if you really want to be traditionalist.
In Chinese culture, it’s the groom who’s responsible for paying for the wedding.
You forgot to mention the white dress. It was meant to symbolize purity and virginity. Obviously, the co-habitating couple getting married is being intellectually dishonest when they wear white dresses at their weddings… and so are lesbian couples at their so-called “weddings”. Homosexuals can’t reproduce anyway, so, even though some marriage traditions have evolved over time, one recent evolution that makes no sense at all is homosexual “marriage”. How do you “wed” two people that it is biologically impossible for them to procreate? Sorry, “Yeah, Right”. I know where you are going with your comments.
Thank you for reminding me of traditions that seemed ancient and set in stone at the time I got married 49 years ago, so we followed suit. I don’t regret for an instance any of these traditions. We were married with a Latin High Mass (sung), a simple reception (my family was rather poor) and a 10 day honeymoon to northern California, where family now live. Life has not always been easy, but relying on the grace of God every day (and praying the rosary together from the beginning of our honeymoon) has gotten us through many rough times in life. I pity the young couples who don’t know and don’t value each other as images of God to each other, and pray that their eyes will be opened to truth, goodness & beauty in life. Perhaps we older folks looked at the world with rose-colored glasses…what do they see?
“You forgot to mention the white dress.”
White dresses as a tradition originated in the 1860’s a bit after Queen Victoria was wed in a white dress… and really took root sometime after the industrial revolution when it became possible for *every* women to wear white.
Prior to that..well it was the colour of the day and the ceremony was usually held in the bride’s place of residence….
“Obviously, the co-habitating couple getting married is being intellectually dishonest when they wear white dresses at their weddings.”
LOL, and it’s intellectually dishonest when they don’t live together and didn’t have the court physicians check to see if the lady in question was intact? Clue phone: 30% and upwards of Christians aren’t virgins when they get married…
“Homosexuals can’t reproduce anyway, so, even though some marriage traditions have evolved over time, one recent evolution that makes no sense at all is homosexual “marriage”. How do you “wed” two people that it is biologically impossible for them to procreate?”
So now your ruling out marriage for sterile women and men? How barbaric.
Lady Cygnus is right - the father giving away the bride was a Protestant custom; that the father walks the bride up the aisle in most Catholic weddings is just a concession to the prevailing Anglo-Saxon custom (and he still doesn’t “give her away”). Even in the middle ages, the Catholic Church insisted only the couple themselves could give the necessary consent for marriage. In fact, there was some church-state tension on this point, with the Church objecting to forced marriage, and secular interests pushing for more parental control - e.g., it’s the priest in Romeo and Juliet who is willing to marry the couple despite parental opposition.
Well, I’m not so young anymore but I’m still idealistic -
I’ve never been a fan of the registry…. I’m torn between seeing it as useful to those who might not share your taste or know what you need… but ideally, I’d rather receive gifts that are what my loved ones want to give us… a crocheted blanket? beautiful. Grandmother’s gravy boat? Awesome. as compared to a place setting of china i’m going to be afraid to use? you bet.
.
Here’s what is funny… my parents got me an inexpensive set of pots and pans when I was in college - the idea that they would be sufficient until I got married and someone would give me a ‘good’ set. Well, 20 years later…. one of the pots broke… handle came right off…. and it wasn’t until then that I realized they were only intended to last until I got married… and I’ve had them for 20 years… still no wedding.
Let me tell you.. THAT’s depressing!
.
even so… if can find the right man in the next few years - the honeymoon will be REAL, setting up house will be necessary… and the Sacramental Covenant will be serious!! (this is why I’m single… there are no men willing to wait for these privileges - haven’t’ found one in 20 years!)
So you can all feel free to replace my 20 year old pots…. and the 17-inch TV that I’ve had since 1988 - and have been too poor to replace with an HD!!!
.
SOME people do live a pure and simple single life. Don’t lump us all in with the co-habitating, wild partying secular brides and grooms!
Yeah, right, Yeah Right.
Once we stopped thinking of daughters as their fathers’ property, what happened? They became common property and were treated as such.
Once we stopped requiring a bride-price to be paid by the boyfriend to the girlfriend’s father, what happened? Every lovesick loser felt himself entitled to marry the girl of his dreams without having to publicly demonstrate his financial stability before bringing children into poverty. But no matter, just toss the kids into daycare and put the wife to work.
No, marriage has not evolved over time. Social decadence has dragged it down. That’s why we have gay marriage: the institution is now, in practice, nothing more than a revokable contract whose essence consists of liking the other person.
“when we redefine marriage these five traditions make no sense”
What came to mind immediately upon reading your title was “the marriage act”. LIke when two people of the same sex marry like how do they consumate with .. er.. the marriage act?!?!?!
Yeah, Right…
Whether or not the practice of wearing a white dress originated with Princess Diana or whomever, it is symbolic as the purity and maintained virginity of the bride.
And no, moron, no one is discriminating against men and women who cannot naturally procreate. Here’s the skinny for those a little less intellegent like yourself. If you haven’t had sex before marriage, you probably wouldn’t know if you were infertile or not. So, the couple getting married would still have the potential of having children at the point of thier marriage… as far as they knew.
And for those secular atheist tards like yourself, Christians and Jews also believe in miracles, and ,historically, barren couples were given the ability to naturally procreate as recorded in the Scriptures. The Blessed Virgin Mary, in fact, was borne of barren parents until, by a miracle, they were able to conceive.
So, to a normal person of reason (who realizes that, biologically speaking, it is always impossible for two homosexuals to naturally procreate vs. the fact that it is always a potential for two members of complementary sexes to procreate) and faith (that even people who are medically declared sterile can possibly procreate), for a married man and a married woman, the potential for natural procreation is always a possibility. It’s absolutely impossible for two people of the same sex.
Thanks for playing.
@Yeah, Right - You may, in fact, be correct with your historical references. I haven’t taken the time to check them. But, regadless, there is an undertone of sarcasm in your postings that leads me to believe that you’re a rather sad and bitter person. We can play this sort of game all day. The ring ceremony at a wedding has roots in paganism. And why stop here? Christmas trees have their roots in paganism as well. So, by your line of reasoning maybe they don’t have much value either and getting rid of them is no major loss. I guess the bigger question to me is why you seem to take such joy at tearing down tradition. I’m going to guess that somehwere in your life you have encountered a bad marriage experience. So, now you have to take it out on all of us in a smug, know-it-all kind of way. I will pray for you, my friend.
Yeah Right. Thanks for being here. You are an excellent well researched source of information. I’ve yet to disagree with your POV.
Even as an Athiest, Jen apparently did these 5 traditions. I’m confused why she thinks these things shouldn’t be done since she did them and they ment nothing to her emotionally (apparently).
I actually thought the Honeymoon was the full month the couple wouldn’t work, one FULL moon (month).
Yeah Right, you’re right, now go away and stop twisting words and otherwise being a pain. Regardless of anything that you state, Jennifer’s main point is still correct. In the secular view of marriage, weddings themselves are pointless. Getting married in front of all of ones relatives, friends, and members of the community, and publicly saying vows is pointless if we aren’t asking them to hold us to the commitment anyway. What we, as Catholics, believe about Marriage is different than natural marriage or even the non-sacramental marriage of other Christian denominations. Since you obviously don’t believe in any that, you have no basis to make further comment other than for your own joy at seeing chaos ensue. Who’s being barbaric now? This shows who your father is.
For anyone else who cares to actually hear what Catholics believe, we believe that we are a “hospital for sinners and not a museum for saints.” Thus there is no expectation that opeople within the Church will live perfect lives. In fact, I will go so far as to say the statistic above should be reversed. I would guess that less than 30% of Christians marry as virgins. Those who do should be held in high regard. Our culture does not make this easy and they have often won their crown at great price. This is why we have ample opportunity for reconcilliation for those who cannot live perfect lives (yes that means all of us).
Two males cannot procreate by reason of their being. Infertility is a mere defect. Any child can see the distinction… but you would have to believe in reality first.
@ Joseph,
I agree with Jen F’s post but found your calling Yeah,Right a “moron” and “tard” hurtful and offensive. I wish we could all be more civil and loving in our discourse.
Thanks,
Jen
Jen,
Not sure if anyone’s mentioned this but…I wanted my father to walk me down the aisle, but the priest wouldn’t let me. He said it’s an archaic tradition which makes the woman property to be handed over to their spouse. I wasn’t to happy about that. We ended deciding that I would be escorted with both my parents and my now husband was to be escorted by his parents as well.
I’m not sure if this is just this priest’s particular rule of weddings or it’s something that’s being discouraged by the Church (father escorting daughter). So while you make valid points about a number of things, I think this one is a little sketchy (especially since it was a priest who said no to me).
Jen,
Yeah, I apologize. I was just reacting to the obvious tone in “Yeah, Right’s” comment which essentially was saying the same thing about everyone else. I should turn the other cheek.
So, “Yeah, Right”, if you’re reading, I’m sorry for calling you a “tard” and a “moron”. I should have restrained myself and just called you an abnoxious @ss.
Deltaflute,
The father walking the bride to the altar isn’t a Catholic tradition, as far as I know.
Traditionally, the bride and groom walk in together, as it is still done in the Eastern Catholic churches. This is something that sadly, the Latin church abandoned. If you truly study this, it’s such a beautiful thing. I am a life-long Roman Catholic that married a Eastern Catholic convert and we were married in a Byzantine Catholic church. My dream was always to have my father walk my down the aisle, and our priest was willing to work with us on this, but after much prayer, I opted for a traditionally Byzantine wedding and am so glad I did.
The thing is that many of these traditions pre-date the Church, and many more are really recent inventions. Claiming that secularist shouldn’t do them or shouldn’t enjoy them is a farce.
What are traditions after all? Webster’s defines it as: “an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behaviour (as a religious practice or a social custom)”. 80% of those customs outlined are not related to Catholicism, or religion in general.
“As the new, secular understanding of marriage sweeps through society, I think that couples who buy into this view will find that many of the traditions that they most look forward to incorporating into their weddings are either on shaky ground, or have been rendered entirely obsolete.
How would *new, secular* understanding of marriage (btw, it was secular long before it was the domains of religion) change the understanding of secular traditions? It doesn’t.
Then on top of it, there are the average posters here with hum dingers like:
“In the secular view of marriage, weddings themselves are pointless”
Any other straw men you’d like to erect so that you can knock them down?
“I guess the bigger question to me is why you seem to take such joy at tearing down tradition.”
Who is tearing down tradition? Revealing basis for traditions isn’t *tearing* them down, but putting them into perspective. Especially when in context of the original article.
“Two males cannot procreate by reason of their being.”
And neither can a sterile couple by reason of their being. In any event, it does you no disservice nor picks your pocket when same sex couples get married. They deserve the same protection and benefits of marriage as any other two people. What was that about judging? I seem to recall a pretty prominent fable that had something about it as the core of the story….just can’t place it.
“You are an excellent well researched source of information.”
Thanks, however it’s all to the glory of the internet/wikipedia. I’m very curious by nature and the internet feeds my obsession:)
Lastly on the point of walking a daughter down the aisle, someone pointed out it’s a *Protestant* thing, although I’m not able to source that one it kind of fails the sniff test. The protestant reformation was circa 16th century and it seems to me that the custom of pre-arranged marriages pre-date that.
Great thoughts, Jen! Symbols mean something, and they become a bit ridiculous when they are no longer connected to the truths they are representing.
I do agree with others who mentioned that the father escorting the bride down the aisle to “give her away” is not a Catholic tradition. As others mentioned, traditionally it has been for bride and groom to walk down together. This is because it is not a “walk down the aisle” but the entrance procession to the celebration of a Sacrament. Because both the bride and the groom are the ministers of the Sacrament of Marriage, they are both properly to participate in the entrance procession.
Moreover, the custom of the bride alone being escorted down has really become an opportunity for the bride to have a “princess moment” when all the attention is on her on “her day.” I believe one diocese tried several years ago to move back to the traditional bride-groom entrance, only to have a HUGE backlash from brides. I’ve recently seen the compromise - and a more accurate symbol of the joining of two families - of the bride and groom each being escorted down by both of their parents. This is what we did at my wedding in 2008 and it was really lovely.
“And neither can a sterile couple by reason of their being.”
Yes, they can. There are miracles of this sort recorded in Scripture. Male and Female always have the “potential” to create, whether some medical impediment gets in the way is irrelevant to the “potentiality”. Two members of the same sex have no potential at all, it is totally impossible.
“In any event, it does you no disservice nor picks your pocket when same sex couples get married.”
That’s not what this is about. It’s the fact that they can never get married. Marriage can only exist between a man and a woman because of their biological potential to procreate. What you are referring to is a state-accepted license swap that means absolutely nothing aside from a sort of self-affirmation for a pair of people that desire something that can never be, no matter which Notary Public stamps their government certificate. And no, it doesn’t do me a disservice when same sex couples engage in the state recognized title swap, but it does when they attempt to force the title “marraige” onto this process then force me and everyone else to agree with it, despite the fact it totally contradicts the term in the first place.
“They deserve the same protection and benefits of marriage as any other two people. What was that about judging?”
Here’s the typical secular atheist come-back to anything a Christian says, “Judge not lest you be judged”. It’s not a judgment, honey, it’s a reality. People who decide to reach sexual climax with objects or beings that aren’t going to reach the intended result determined in nature and science, absolutely deserve to be treated with love and respect. But that doesn’t mean that their sexual activities, which are objective offenses against nature, need to be accepted as normal by people who actually understand what science and nature tell us about them. You’re basically asking us to be intellectually dishonest about what is clear in nature and science!
Nobody “deserves” marraige. Marriage is not a “right”. It has a specific purpose and always has… a primary goal of which is a family unit where the children begotten can be raised by their biological mother and father.
If you follow your line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, you need to start defending the right for people to marry their pets that they like to rub up against, pedophiles to marry children, necrophiliacs to marry corpses, etc. Because “homosexuality” itself is identified solely by what or whom a person likes to reach sexual climax with. To a properly married man and woman (who actually respect the sacrament), sex is something that naturally occurs from the marraige, but it isn’t what identifies it.
@Yeah, Right - “In any event, it does you no disservice nor picks your pocket when same sex couples get married. They deserve the same protection and benefits of marriage as any other two people. What was that about judging?” Yes, now your postings all make sense. You’re probably an angry person with a same sex attraction that has an axe to grind. From your comments is is obvious that you have not thought this through. What you are failing to see is the down stream ramifications. First once same sex marriage is granted, the next step will be to “improve education” for young children because we don’t want them to grow up thinking same sex couples are odd in any way. This has already happened in Massachusetts. Second, you’ll see Catholic Adoption Agencies shut down because they refuse to place children in homes with same sex couples because of the threat of a lawsuit. This has happened already in MA and Washington, DC (as well as over in the UK). Third, If marriage is no longer legally defined as between one man and one woman, the door is open to court challenges where plaintiffs argue that the definition should not be limited to two people. Why can’t other permutations and combinations be eligible for marriage as well? Polygamists can claim discrimination as well because their civil rights are being violated. There was a court case in Canada not long ago regarding this. Expect more such challenges. Fourth, it would not surprise me in the least if we see a movement to reduce the age of sexual consent because “kids are more sophisticated these days”. Groups like NAMBLA are already advocating this. Fifth, by your logic we should not “judge” anything. So, then we should just accept anything and everything as OK, right? What utter nonsense and a complete misuse of scripture! Lastly, just because a person is opposed to same sex marriage does not mean he/she hates homosexuals or wants to “force” Catholic values on them. It simply means we don’t want to leave a society to our children where everything is turned upside down just so a small minority can TRY to gain some legitimacy.
Good thoughts, Jen, but I have to say that with regard to the first three, i’m not that worried. None of them is that important to the nuptial ceremony OR to the marriage. It’s true that they don’t make much sense in the current cultural climate, but what does? And in particular, the wedding registry never made sense to me—I would argue that historically (as a relatively new development) that’s where it all started to go downhill… Before that, it was customary to let the giver do the choosing, and not everything was about what the bride wanted.
I do, however, find it interesting and a bit puzzling that among my peers (in the 30-40 y.o. range), the die-hard secularists are those who take pains to ‘ceremonialize’ their nuptials. And some have had no small difficulty with it—after all, it’s pretty hard to make something sacrosanct when one believes nothing is sacred…
Screw all this marriage stuff. If a man in India can marry his cow (happened) and homosexuals can marry each other, and if now there is this renewed push for polygamy (there is). What is it, then? Why have marriage at all?
Then we see the Youtube video of those Communist/homosexual/drug users (AKA hippies) protesting in Boston (or wherever) saying that now you can do whatever you want, “now you can have sex with animals!” Hurray! ISn’t is great?
Marriage was special. Militant Homosexuals don’t want people to see them as special, too, they just want to destroy marriage, so that NO ONE is special. They are not trying to elevate themselves to a married state, they are trying to lower the rest of the world - and are succeeding. You know, I feel sympathy for anyone who suffers from same sex attraction, I really do. But when they need to destroy something else in order to build themselves up, rather than face reality, well I have no time for anyone who behaves that way.
I would write more but I am going to seduce that squirrel before he gets run over.
@Yeah,right ~
So, you are right about alot of these customs not being rooted in religion. I don’t think that was the author’s point, she didn’t make that claim. But there are at least 2 obvious traditions that are the foundation of marriage or holy matrimony as I like to call it.
“Clue phone…(how kitschy :P) Marriage was secular before the church dug into it around 110CE. (common era. btw, what made it ‘common’?)
Sorry, wrong. The first covenant of one man/one woman was established between God and the Jewish people. It set them apart from the pagan cultures around them and lifted the dignity of women within the culture. It wasn’t ‘set up’ by a society and usurped by a religion. When it became evident that men who married took on the responsibility of the care of his women and children, and that marriage set up structure and stabilized society, it was motivating for governments to promote marriage not only because of stability, but in later years it could profit by having the newly married pay “fees and taxes” to the state. Mooola!
And walking the bride down the aisle? Good heavens, my dear… you have some archaic ideas! Two families on opposite sides + an altar to God front and center = 2 parties become one by professing vows before God and witnesses. The men (dad and groom) were not transferring “ownership” but responsibility. The aisle was used to walk between the sacrifice,(usually animal, in the case of marriage it is an offering of self)to the altar to offer God worship, thanksgiving and seal the covenant.
May God grant you grace and understanding.
Joseph: I was enjoying your piece until “If you follow your line of thinking to it’s logical conclusion, you need to start defending the right for people to marry their pets that they like to rub up against, pedophiles to marry children, necrophiliacs to marry corpses, etc.”
I agree that people should be able to marry dead people and pets IF they can get the pet or dead person to agree (without coersion) in front of a witness. If the child is an adult, that should be allowed also. I also think people should be able to marry the saxiphone if they can get the sax to agree (you ever see what they do to those things?).
Once you brought up kids, dead and pets, you went sillyness too far.
No, Rover… that’s because you aren’t tracing the logic. A homosexual defines him or herself as a homosexual based on their object of sexual pleasure. You only become a homosexual once you’ve decided to reach sexual climax with a person of the same sex. In the same way a necrophiliac receives his or her definition based on their object of sexual pleasure. Same with the pedophiliac, same with the beastophiliac.
That is what defines homosexuality, it doesn’t go beyond a form of sexual behavior that perverts nature and science itself. It is nothing more, nothing less. The when homosexuals want to join together in matrimony, it is not the same as when heterosexuals (who actually honor the sacrament, mind you) want to do it, because the proper heterosexual couple doesn’t not base their whole identity on who or what they like to achieve orgasm with. Not to mention, so long as they don’t partake of contraception, they would be engaging in normal sexual behavior according to nature and science. That is why homosexual marriage can never be marriage at all… it’s defined completely on impossibly fruitless sex, driven by an unnatural desire, not one of self-sacrifice with the intention of natural procreation and raising biological children to do the same.
So, if a homosexual can marry the object of his or her sexual desire (since that is really the only thing that defines the relationship), then so should a man who has sex with his dog, and a man who has sex with a boy or little girl, or a man or woman who has sex with a corpse. It really has nothing to do with two parties agreeing, it’s pretending to eternally join with one’s object of sexual desire.
“If the child is an adult, that should be allowed also.”
Aha. NAMBLA anyone? I get from this you fall into the class of individuals seeking to reduce the legal limit for sexual consent so that homosexual males who pursue the natural derivative of their sexual habits by molesting young boys so that they can get away with it without “breaking the law”. If that’s so, then you’re in the camp who thinks that natural law, science, and reason can all be ignored and that profane secular “ethics” are relative based on time and space. That the “law of the land” determines wrong or right. Well, then, I fail to see how you find my presentation of the inevitable as silly. This will result from the folly of those who betray nature, science, and reason itself in order to somehow justify their sexual deviance to the world… though it can never happen, because natural law and biology are objective.
The tradition of the father walking the bride down the aisle is one that is very strongly discouraged, at least in the Canadian Rite of Marriage. The theology behind it just doesn’t make sense. More appropriate is the man and woman walking down the aisle together because it signifies how they are both freely approaching the sacrament. As the Rite of Marriage (Canadian edition) teaches, the whole father/daughter thing is a throwback of the time when the daughter was seen as a property to be given away by the father.
Don’t get mad at me… look it up if you disagree!
This absurd fixation of “fathers considered their daughter property” must end. Has no one read St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters? Cannot a woman walk with her father, a man she respects and honors, to another man to whom she will vow to respect and honor? Why do you all think women were doormats?
Jennifer Fulwiler: You wrote, regarding the listed traditions: “There was a sense that whatever sparked these time-honored customs was something good, something worth preserving.” That is a very acute observation on your part. It is sad common opinion views our ancestors but as petty, grasping, wretched souls devoid of familial love or compassion.
Thank you for the article.
Dean you wrote, “Every lovesick loser felt himself entitled to marry the girl of his dreams without having to publicly demonstrate his financial stability before bringing children into poverty. But no matter, just toss the kids into daycare and put the wife to work.”
I thought it would be more appropriate to say “but no matter, just live off the government” instead of toss the kids into daycare. That is a popular option as well. At times the theology I hear is everyone is entitled to marry and have as many children as they can. The concept of waiting to get married so you can support a family really is not present anymore. I hear stories of how men used to save for years “in the olden days” to get married so they could support a family. Times are different now in many ways.
Thank you, Steve P! Couldn’t agree more. My father walked me down the aisle 14 years ago and it was such a touching loving moment for us. He wasn’t handing over his property; he was acknowledging his joy that I found another loving, supportive man who would love me unconditionally. He was right!
If you decide that those marriage traditions have those specific meanings and no other, sure. That’s a big “if”. Those traditions have multiple meanings; those traditions have more potential readings. The people making use of these traditions will do just fine.
As others have pointed out, I am pretty sure that the “Father Walking the Daughter Down the Aisle” tradition is a Protestant tradition whose meaning is that the father is giving his daughter to her future husband. This is in complete and absolute contradiction to the Catholic understanding of marriage which is that a *free* woman and a *free* man are giving *themselves* to *each other* (if a woman was “getting married” not of her own will but because of the will of her father, it would be, of course, a cause of annulment for the Catholic Church).
You probably thought this was a “non-denominational marriage tradition” as opposed to a “strictly Protestant, completely non-Catholic tradition” because you’re living in a country with a Protestant history. I live in a country with a Catholic history and “Father Walking the Daughter Down the Aisle” has never been a marriage tradition. I have seen it done in recent years, but I think it is just the negative influence of Hollywood and US sitcoms.
(BTW, the “Bachelor Party” was also never a tradition in my country, though it has also began to appear recently (once again, toxic Hollywood influence). I’m pretty sure it was originally a strictly US tradition and I will not elaborate on what I think it’s real origins are because I don’t want to be rude).
Thanks, Thibaud.
I totally agree that not all of the traditions Jen has brought up are Christian wedding traditions (aside from the symbolism of the white dress that I brought up, when it was introduced is irrelevant). I threw my hat in the ring when “Yeah, Right” started piping up because of his/her tone and I knew exactly where he/she was going with their complaint… I was right.
Again, for those stating the beauty of the father/daughter walking down the aisle: the sacraments are signs. What is done in the Rite of Marriage must symbolize deeper realities (even deeper than a daughter respecting her father). The man and woman approach the altar together as a sign of their freely undertaking this sacrament, and as a sign that they are approaching together. As I said earlier, the Rite of Marriage (I can only speak for the Canadian edition) very strongly states that the man and woman should walk down the aisle together.
TRS - couldn’t agree with you more. :o)
I would have loved to get married young but it didn’t happen. Was I supposed to go for some dead end job just waiting to find a man that could get me out of working? I choose the career route, which I actually think was a calling. Maybe that alone is what I’m supposed to do and I’ll never get married, wish I could hear God’s will for me louder and more clearly but I’ll keep trying. Anyways, I still wish I had a rice cooker. I’m probably gonna cave and get one myself. I’m not cooking for a family, but sometimes I have friends over.
Dan – thank you for backing off the property bit. If I recall, a father may process with his daughter to the foot of the sanctuary. The bride then enters the sanctuary with the groom. After the bride and groom enter the sanctuary the priest offers the greeting which begins the liturgy. With that sequence I find it a difficult argument that a bride is not entering freely into the sacrament.
What I do find difficult is an assumption of patriarchal oppression in a walk rather than, say, a daughter’s expression of adherence to the fifth commandment. However it is overall amusing as, in my experience, there have been more jokes and innuendo about grooms needing to be “dragged to the altar” by the bride than vice versa.
Wait a minute, now we LIKE bachlor/bachlorette parties? I thought all activities taking place at said parties are sinful, impure and all around wrong?
@deltaflute: I go into further detail in my blog post on the Catholic wedding here - http://brandy-miller.blogspot.com/2011/06/catholic-weddings.html - but in the Catholic faith, the reason Catholics are required to hold their weddings inside a Church is that the Church is representative of the Garden of Eden. The man waits for his bride to be presented to him - symbolic of Adam awaiting God’s presentation of Eve; and then her father (representing God the Father) walks the bride in and presents her to her groom. It is then that the couple must agree to freely enter into the marriage union - if the bride doesn’t agree or the groom doesn’t agree, then the wedding stops.
FYI: The historical purpose of a dowry was not to “sell” your daughter to the highest bidder. It’s actual purpose was twofold: first, that it was meant to help get the couple off to a good start. The man’s responsibility was to provide a home and land for their new family and the woman’s responsibility was to provide the furnishings for the home and some of the livestock that was needed to make the land prosper; and second, it was intended to help protect the bride from a husband who might later desire to divorce her. Her dowry was a portion of her inheritance, so if the husband were to divorce her he was required to return it to her.
Fulwiler hasn’t done adequate research on the history behind the traditions (superstitions and odd practices). I don’t wanna sound cocky, and I ? that the article in the least notes the frivolity of a registry and honeymoon for a cohabitating couple… but honeymoons have a lot more history than “getting used to life together.” http://www.markandmel.org/ click on Superstitions, then click on honeymoon. and it bothered me that she said about bachelor/ette parties “‘last night of freedom.’ But this all falls flat with most secular understandings of relationships and marriage. It makes no sense at all for couples who cohabitate, since nothing about the couple’s lifestyle will be different after the wedding.” Cohabitating is not the only part of lifestyle that changes after a couple gets married. There is an element of commitment that wasn’t there before. There is an element of accountability higher than before. I don’t know for sure, I never lived w/ a man b4 marrying, but once a cohabitating couple is married, family obligations and pressure from family to procreate I would assume would increase. I’m not at all defending cohabitation, but it seems that Fulwiler makes marriage “no big deal” to cohabitating couples… and it still is a big deal, even to cohabitating couples… which is why many don’t get hitched.
“As others have pointed out, I am pretty sure that the “Father Walking the Daughter Down the Aisle” tradition is a Protestant tradition whose meaning is that the father is giving his daughter to her future husband.”
Hello? People. Protestant Reformation 31 October 1517, in Wittenberg, Saxony. Queen Isabella I was setup for several arranged marriage attempts prior to her sneaking off and getting hitched to Ferdinand future king of Aragon…in the 1469.
Arranged Marriages and Marriage Contracts were common place even in the Plantagenent Period, 1154-11485 long before the Church of England succeed the Roman Catholic Church circa 1534.
“?????? is a Protestant tradition” is bunk when the tradition pre-dates the Reformation.
SteveP, I’m not backing off the property bit at all. The Rite of Marriage doesn’t. Again, I only ask that people read this document. I know that I was first shocked when I read it, but that I had to admit it all made perfect sense.
Bride price is often confused with the dowry. Two different things.
Hincmar archbishop of Reims circa 850 CE formalized many of the marriage traditions coalescing many Germanic and Roman ideas.
Prior to the Lateran Council circa 1100 CE the church had little involvement in marriage rites.
Lots of interesting information out there only begging to be consumed.
Any society which has lessened the sanctity of marriage has perished, whereas those that have upheld the sanctity of marriage have endured. It has been argued that Ancient Rome’s decline and its eventual fall in A.D. 476 were due in no small part to a growing tolerance of extramarital sex, particularly of homosexual acts, beginning in the Late Republic period ending in 27 B.C.[6]
In the Judeo-Christian tradition, there is no approval of sexual intercourse other than between man and wife. Anything which tolerates or permits promiscuity weakens society.
Since the middle of the 20th century, Liberalism has sought to dismantle the societal pressures that dissuade people from engaging in extramarital and premarital sex. Removing the stigma from these behaviors, creating no-fault divorce laws, exalting adultery as liberating, rejuvenating, and “stimulating”, and especially the de-stigmatizing of homosexuality all weaken the institution of marriage.
A recent Newsweek article complained that Biblical figures have not provided good historical examples of marriage, noting that Abraham begat Ishmael by a maidservant and Jacob had two wives and had sons with both of their servants. The article also criticizes Jesus and St. Paul for remaining single. [7]
To the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife. But to the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he must not divorce her. And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
“You forgot to mention the white dress. It was meant to symbolize purity and virginity.”
## In Japan, white is the colour of mourning. There is nothing universal or essential about the symbolism of white for purity - only a certain culturally-constructed appropriateness. That’s why there have been debates as to whether the Eucharist should be confected from bread and wine, in cultures for which bread is not the staple diet as it was in Palestine. Behind this is the larger question of how far missionary adaptation to cultures should go - it’s an issue as old as Christianity.
*
None of the first four and a half conventions (which is all the first four and a half items are) is essential to the Faith or its practice. They are comparable in importance to the practice of having chocolate eggs at Easter. BTW, marriage, as Pius IX teaches, *is* a contract - covenants are, by their very definition & nature. If the Church’s mission is hindered by conventional practices, those practices need to be revised or abolished. Otherwise the Church is being unfaithful to its commission.
Can we get a round of applause for “Yeah, Right,” who is a veritable Wikipedia of information!
...
“Almost none of the time-honored traditions, practiced for generations by our forebearers, made sense anymore.”
_
## So give them new meanings, in order for them to “made sense”. The Church took over the association of roses with the goddess Venus, and gave them a new association, with the BVM. Cultures are always giving new meanings to old practices, especially if the practices have associations of which the new culture disapproves. There are many example of this in the Bible. There is absolutely no reason why people cannot or should not or must not take practices current among Catholics, and give them associations and meanings that Catholics may not like, but that the takers do.
*
So the associations that practices X & Y have among us, are not the only possible ones. And there is no reason why people cannot invent traditions using Catholic things as ingredients. Nor, as a general principle, is there any reason why we cannot give things currently “outside” Catholicism a Christian & Catholic meaning (unless in a given instance something is beyond redemption; as, say, human sacrifice is).
The white dress was made popular by Queen Victoria when she married Prince Albert. She wore white not as sign of virginity, but as a sign of her royalty—white fabric was rare and expensive. The lace on the gown popularized lace and gave an economic boost to England’s lace industry.
The expectation of a “fairy tale wedding” and all the other unrealistic expectations that go along with it play no little part in high divorce rates. I spent 10 yrs as a divorce attorney. I represented both men and women. And I have heard it all. Let’s skip all these “wonderful traditions” which have nothing to do with what marriage is and let’s be certain that when we marry, we are ready, mature, committed. And none of that happens because of a weeding registry, a honeymoon. Many many many generations of people from all over the world have entered into marriage without all these so-called “traditions”.
Joseph, above mentioned that hereosexual people honor marriage. Not so. I made a wonderful living as a divorce attorney and many other people make great livings as divorce attorneys—because heterosexual people do NOT honor marriage. Heterosexual people are horrible at marriage—the divorce stats in the US and around the world bear this out. And the so-called “traditions” mentioned in the article will not solve the problem or do anything to reduce the divorce rate.
I just want to slap people who use the designation “our anti-family society”. I have yet to meet a single human being who does not in some way value family, let alone who is “anti-family”.
I agree with Evid3nc. I have neve met anyone who is anti-family or who does not value family in some way.
As for Joseph’s comments about marriage being only for those who reproduce—good grief. Not every couple can reproduce for a variety of biological reasons. What about people who are older when they marry? Are you saying that we should not let older people get married because they cannot have children???? Marriage is about more than reproduction.
And Joseph you are incorrect about marriage not being a right. A number of decisions by the US Supreme Court define marriage as a fundamental right under the US Constitution. And like it or not, it is unconstiutional to deny two people of the same sex the right to marry and it is equally unconstitutional to deny that right based on religious grounds. If the Catholic church does not want to marry gay couples—-that’s fine. but the right of gay couples to marry in our civil society needs to be recognized and put into action.
Why is it not enough for you all to live the way you want and leave the reat of us alone?
I agree, Robert. I wish the gay community would mind its own business and stop trying to force their culture on us.
A necessary ingredient for a compatible union, in spite of the abuses that occur when men are wrongly taught about their headship, is that women submit to their husbands. What does God expect of women in this area? First of all, we must understand that submission is an attitude and not just an action. Submission begins in the heart.
Many times women who claim to be submissive are only outwardly going through the motions of submission while inwardly they are still resenting their position in life. A prayer of submission would be in order: “Father, help me to be content in the role you created me for and give me a submissive spirit, not only toward my mate, but also toward each member in the body of Christ. Let me serve and not expect to be served. Create within me a lamb-like spirit even as Christ our Lord had. Amen.”
Some results that can occur when women are not in a right relationship with men are divorce, rebellious children, emotional problems and sexual frigidity.
When we start getting our lives under Biblical principals, only then can God bless. We can truly be the light of the world that He wants us to be. When children see that Mom and Dad are committed to each other and they can come home to a mother who is there to make them the best that they can be, then they will rise up and call her blessed.
We as Christians need to stop following after the things of the world and start following the things of God.
New York Archbishop and United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) president Timothy Dolan recently wrote to Barak Obama asking the president to sign the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): “We cannot be silent, however, when federal steps harmful to marriage, the laws defending it, and religious freedom continue apace.”
Can the marriages of some really “harm” those of others? Does Dolan not recognize how much support there is among active, practicing Roman Catholics for same-sex marriage? Does he really not know that scores of LGBT Catholics on the Communion lines at his own masses at St. Patrick’s Cathedral are married? That many work in Catholic ministry? That some are raising their children in the church? Dolan’s diocesan schools are filled with families in which there are only one or two children? Can he be naïve enough to imagine that this is accomplished through Natural Family Planning (NFP) alone? (NFP is the method of birth control the Vatican recommends and which its parishes often teach.)
@Evid3nc3
> “I just want to slap people who use the designation “our anti-family society”. I have yet to meet a single human being who does not in some way value family, let alone who is “anti-family”.”
I have met many, many people who don’t support family values. People who support no-fault divorce, people who don’t respect their parents (or children), people who support government intrusion into family lives. You must be living in another planet.
“When we start getting our lives under Biblical principals, only then can God bless.”
Yeah, we should all take after Lot.
@Joseph Oh yes, the marriages of some really do harm those of others. Bad marriages send the message that a bad marriage is what we can all reasonably hope for in life. It’s logical for a girl to think, “My parents were divorced and I turned out ok; therefore it’s ok to divorce the father of my children, they won’t be harmed”. But Catholics who support same-sex marriage evidently don’t realize same-sex marriage sends the message that what a man and woman have is nothing more than what two men or two women have. It’s an insult that can only be attributed to ignorance.
@Yeah, Right
Are you really that incapable of making distinctions?
“Are you really that incapable of making distinctions?”
A distinction? About what? I was only point out righteous man of God and the kind of biblical principals that should be lived up to.
Besides the bible is choke-full of good marriage advice.
King Solomon, Righteous Prophet and King and husband to 700 wives and keeper of 300 Concubines. Is that traditional biblical principles?
King David, 7 wives and a bit on the side:)
Abraham and Sara, what’s the deal there?
Jim Kalb has an excellent series of articles about tradition called ‘Liberalism, Tradition and the Church’ on the side bar at his ‘Turnabout’ website.
@yeahright ~ chock full
Otherwise, as you are well aware, arranged marriages involve 2 families deciding proper life partners for their children. The young man is at the mercy of his parents to the same degree as is the young woman. It still has nothing to do with property rights. In the case of Isabella, it was based in the structure of the society (nobility vs commoner) not the church.
But, you knew that. Quite sure you were hoping others did not, as your target is the Church not the truth.
I’ve always seen the father walking the bride down the aile as a passing over of the fathers responsibility to protect this young woman’s purity and caring for her for her entire life to her fiance. These important obligations now belong to this new man in her life.
With women’s lib, we have become women who no longer thinks that we need men…or their protection, but women are the ones who become pregnant and then have tiny human beings to care for. They do need protection and are dependant on a man to help provide for the family at least in the early stages of the childs life. Idealy, I think it would be great if every mother could stay home and care for her children. I was given that opportunity. We did without things we could have had if I’d worked, but we enjoyed our life and our kids and I think they enjoyed their childhood.
I’m 65, and when my Dad walked me down the aisle, I felt like he was giving me into the care of my fiance. We didn’t live together before we were married and so the symbolism of the white dress was perfectly appropriate.
My face was covered by a light veil and only uncovered just as my Dad handed me to my future husband. So old fashioned, but this too symbolized the sense of purity that we’ve lost.
I think many kids today want what we had, but just don’t know how to get there anymore. They seem to be stubling around looking for the richness of longterm married life, but the culture confuses them and keeps them from finding their way. It’s very sad to witness and I am seeing it in a few of my own children. I do a lot of praying…
I’m pagan. Marriage still means something to me. Don’t you dare assume marriage means nothing to me because I’m “secular.” I grew up catholic I am well aware of these so called “christian/catholic traditions,” and it’s bullshit. Does no one realize that Marriage with some of these traditions started well before the first christians and jews had them. Humans didn’t just start when God said, “okay I’m bored I think I’ll make some people to play with.” It’s scientifically proven. Oh and the whole people can only have sex to procreate is bullshit. Humans and Dolphins are the only species who have sex for recreation. And this whole miracles do happen bs, they also don’t happen. And also the “gays shouldn’t marry because they can’t produce children,” that’s what adoption is for. I would rather see a child grow up in a loving home that teaching you acceptance of others and not to judge rather than seeing a child grow up in a judgmental home teaching them that anyone who is different than them is bad. I’m sure the author feels they way she does because it’s her opinion. And it’s her right to have that, and you can all have your opinions on this too, but don’t go around bashing other peoples opinions because they’re different, and don’t assume what they are like. You don’t know them personally. Do not judge unless you want to be judged.
@Anon
Did you try hard to vomit all politically correct platitudes, without thinking at all?
No not at all. :)
As I said before this is my opinion. People have a right to one. I was just stating mine.
A religious brother I know gets mad when girls who have no right to wear white on their wedding day.
Even if I was a virgin, I wouldn’t wear white anyway. white makes me look terrible. haha
Reading through the posts from Yeah Right, it appears you are only really here to stir up. You mentioned a straw man. It appears that you are only here to criticize Jen and the point she was making is about our culture and how tradition (while nice) unfortunately doesn’t fit which is sad. I would note for your information that Wikipedia is not the end all be all of documentation…specifically because it is able to be edited by anyone. Just because something is there does not necessarily make it gospel. Also, I’m surprised noone called you on your absolutely patently false observation that couples who cohabitate have a lower rate of divorce. Find that information somewhere other than Wikipedia. I have heard and read many studies on that subject and they all show the opposite statistic. Lastly, you mentioned that homosexuals should have the same rights as heterosexuals with regard to marriage. They do. They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have all the same rights that I do. They just choose not to. Why should we redefine because of someone’s choice? The problem with this in the Catholic Church is that Christ is the person who defined marriage between one man and one woman. Who are we to change his definition? You will throw out a granade about that statement I’m sure, but understand this IS a Catholic blog. Many of us do follow the Catholic Catechism. I understand you don’t. I pray that someday you will see the light. It’s there for you.
“Yeah Right, it appears you are only really here to stir up.”.
And your point? Having a differing opinion is and expressing it is now *stirring it up?*
“You mentioned a straw man.”.
Yeah, you know… telling us how atheist(s) think and then presenting evidence to degenerate that fake position. For example, see above.
“I would note for your information that Wikipedia is not the end all be all of documentation…specifically because it is able to be edited by anyone. Just because something is there does not necessarily make it gospel.”
Yeah, that is why I only use the portion that is referenced:) That or I could just make crap up like most of the posters here.
“They do. They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have all the same rights that I do. They just choose not to.”
Really? They don’t have the same rights. They can’t marry the person who they choose to. Something that heterosexual couples have no problem doing.
“Why should we redefine because of someone’s choice?”
Why did Christians choose to *define* it at all? After all there is a much longer history of polygamous, homosexual and non-standard (by today’s definition) marriages than there is in the last 800 or so years that the *church* has been involved with.
“Also, I’m surprised noone called you on your absolutely patently false observation that couples who cohabitate have a lower rate of divorce.”
“We showed women who only cohabited with their husband had lower rates of divorce than women who didn’t cohabit and went straight to marriage,” sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
“http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm”
“The problem with this in the Catholic Church is that Christ is the person who defined marriage between one man and one woman.”
I’ll wait for the quote. I suspect though your just making this part up, or perhaps just twisting some thing to suit your needs.
In any event marriage in this context is secular so it really doesn’t matter what the bible says. What matters is that there is equal protection for all citizens and that the government should stay out of the private lives of it’s citizens to the largest extent possible.
Are going to parse? Ok…“cracking knuckles”
“Yeah Right, it appears you are only really here to stir up.”.
And your point? Having a differing opinion is and expressing it is now *stirring it up?*
++My point is that to show up on a Catholic website to argue Catholicism is indeed stirring it up. You’re looking for arguments are you not? And I don’t see you posting as your mind is open. You are here for one reason and one reason alone, to try and tear apart the beliefs of Christians or in this case, specifically Catholics.
“You mentioned a straw man.”.
Yeah, you know… telling us how atheist(s) think and then presenting evidence to degenerate that fake position. For example, see above.
+++Apparently, you miss the point of what Jen is saying. I don’t get the impression she is speaking for all atheists. She is speaking to her own experience with atheism and how her conversion has affected her. Her posts are meant to be uplifting because that’s how her faith has affected her. Taking it as an insult is something that seems to be reflexively defensive. If you’re aiming your comment at me, I did not speak for any atheists.
“I would note for your information that Wikipedia is not the end all be all of documentation…specifically because it is able to be edited by anyone. Just because something is there does not necessarily make it gospel.”
Yeah, that is why I only use the portion that is referenced:) That or I could just make crap up like most of the posters here.
+++Most of the commentary here is opinion. As far as making things up…you can spin data any way you want. Obviously everyone is trying to bolster their own argument…more on that later.
“They do. They can marry a person of the opposite sex and have all the same rights that I do. They just choose not to.”
Really? They don’t have the same rights. They can’t marry the person who they choose to. Something that heterosexual couples have no problem doing.
+++So if I choose to marry a child, should I have the right to do that? Or to marry more than one person? Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean you should, does it?
“Why should we redefine because of someone’s choice?”
Why did Christians choose to *define* it at all?
+++We didn’t define Marriage. God defined marriage.
After all there is a much longer history of polygamous, homosexual and non-standard (by today’s definition) marriages than there is in the last 800 or so years that the *church* has been involved with.
+++Are you really arguing that debauchery should be the standard we should strive for? There is lots of things that have been around since the dawn of time. That doesn’t make it right, does it?
“Also, I’m surprised noone called you on your absolutely patently false observation that couples who cohabitate have a lower rate of divorce.”
“We showed women who only cohabited with their husband had lower rates of divorce than women who didn’t cohabit and went straight to marriage,” sociologist Daniel Lichter of Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y.
“http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2008-07-28-cohabitation-research_N.htm”
+++Here’s one study I found very quickly: http://resources.metapress.com/pdf-preview.axd?code=103288680u1m8015&size=largest
+++The point of this is that most couples who don’t cohabitate, typically are from religious, conservative backgrounds and/or are against divorce. Specifically, they tend to have less because they are against it. The big problem here is that traditional marriage has taken a beating and divorce has gotten too easy. People just say…let’s just split up, it’s too hard. I’m sure you can find plenty of articles that agree with you and disagree with me…as can I. I don’t buy that cohabitation is good for Marriage. Good try though.
“The problem with this in the Catholic Church is that Christ is the person who defined marriage between one man and one woman.”
I’ll wait for the quote. I suspect though your just making this part up, or perhaps just twisting some thing to suit your needs.
+++Will find the quote from Christ himself, but the bible teaches it and He enforces it:
+++Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
+++Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave His father and His mother, and shall cleave unto His wife: and they shall be one flesh.” And Jesus said in Matthew 19:6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
In any event marriage in this context is secular so it really doesn’t matter what the bible says. What matters is that there is equal protection for all citizens and that the government should stay out of the private lives of it’s citizens to the largest extent possible.
+++As I said, everyone has the right to marry. They just don’t have the right to marry anything they want. They have the right to marry the opposite sex. I guess with regard to the government staying out of our private lives, it depends on what it is that you are doing? If someone is distributing kiddie porn to their friends, shouldn’t the government be involved? That’s someone’s private life. You cannot have an absolute.
@Anon
Humans didn’t just start when God said, “okay I’m bored I think I’ll make some people to play with.” It’s scientifically proven.
The attempts have been made to scientifically prove it, but they haven’t yet found the “missing” link. If indeed humans evolved from apes…why are there still apes?
“The attempts have been made to scientifically prove it, but they haven’t yet found the “missing” link. If indeed humans evolved from apes…why are there still apes?”
LOL, you missed that day in biology huh?
If you think Ida is your ancestor, then I salute you Professor Lemur. That is a reach longer than Shaq.
“My point is that to show up on a Catholic website to argue Catholicism is indeed stirring it up.”.
Clue phone. It’s the internet, and published to the public. If a dissenting voice was not wanted, then registration would be required…duh.
“So if I choose to marry a child, should I have the right to do that? Or to marry more than one person? Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean you should, does it?”
While that would be biblically acceptable (and would be an easy shot at the clergy), nope. The age of majority still stands and there is an injured party involved. Pretty bad analogy.
“Are you really arguing that debauchery should be the standard we should strive for? There is lots of things that have been around since the dawn of time. That doesn’t make it right, does it?”
As long as that debauchery does not infringe on the rights of others, I fail to see how it’s a governmental matter.
“I don’t buy that cohabitation is good for Marriage. Good try though.”
To each his own. It has worked for me, and many thousands of other people. You’ll also note that the decrease in divorce rates are happen to coincidence with the acceptance of co-habitation. Of course want to preserve marriages? Take up atheism, after all they have a statistically lower rate of divorce:)
+++Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
+++Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave His father and His mother, and shall cleave unto His wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
++++ 19:6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
If Christians/Catholics choose to define marriage that way, you can. Just don’t pretend that it’s the correct choice for every other person in the country.
“I guess with regard to the government staying out of our private lives, it depends on what it is that you are doing? If someone is distributing kiddie porn to their friends, shouldn’t the government be involved? That’s someone’s private life. You cannot have an absolute. “
Right, because two people engaged in a relationship is equivalent to kiddie porn:). No one’s rights are being infringed with homosexual marriage, it neither picks my/your pocket nor breaks my leg. You might want to pick your analogies better.
Being homosexual is not a choice, they were born that way. that’s like saying a person with depression chose to be depressed. the thing that sucks about you people is there is a beautiful world out there with all different types of religions and opinions and thoughts and ideas, and you all would rather just live in your sheltered lives where being different is a sin. being different is what makes the world beautiful. and if there is a so called god. i highly doubt that there is one true religion.
“My point is that to show up on a Catholic website to argue Catholicism is indeed stirring it up.”.
Clue phone. It’s the internet, and published to the public. If a dissenting voice was not wanted, then registration would be required…duh.
“I rest my initial case”
“So if I choose to marry a child, should I have the right to do that? Or to marry more than one person? Just because you want to do something doesn’t mean you should, does it?”
While that would be biblically acceptable (and would be an easy shot at the clergy), nope. The age of majority still stands and there is an injured party involved. Pretty bad analogy.
“Yep…it’s a cheap shot and can I just point out that the instance of child abuse is much more prevalent in the lay public. It just isn’t covered by the media. My point being, it cannot be an anything goes situation. And for you Anon…I’ll accept the fact that homosexuals may have a proclivaty (sp?) towards same sex attraction, but it is indeed a choice to act on it. Same as an alcoholic. They choose to drink. Yes it sucks. It’s a cross that people have to bear. We all have them. Some are worse than others. There are Catholics who have same sex attraction and don’t act on it because…well are Catechism says it’s wrong.”
“Are you really arguing that debauchery should be the standard we should strive for? There is lots of things that have been around since the dawn of time. That doesn’t make it right, does it?”
As long as that debauchery does not infringe on the rights of others, I fail to see how it’s a governmental matter.
“Wait…were we at the government yet? Your comment was that marriages of all kinds and sexual partners of all kinds have been around since before marriage was defined as a man and woman. My point was…essentially so what? Does that make the anything goes mentality right? I say no. God said no.”
“I don’t buy that cohabitation is good for Marriage. Good try though.”
To each his own. It has worked for me, and many thousands of other people. You’ll also note that the decrease in divorce rates are happen to coincidence with the acceptance of co-habitation. Of course want to preserve marriages? Take up atheism, after all they have a statistically lower rate of divorce:)
“Thats a bad example. The incidence of marriage has declined too, thus it would follow that divorce has gone down. If homosexual marriage is allowed, the incidence will go up again…more marriages, more divorces. As far as taking up atheism, no thanks my friend. I’m very fulfilled and God and I are good. He’ll be good with you too someday and that’s the beauty, it’s never too late for you…well until you’re dead that is.” I encourage you to read an article by an atheist (Howard Storm) who died in France and was brought back, though I’m pretty sure you’ll scoff at it. But who knows?
+++Genesis 1:27 says, “So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
Considering Christ IS God, he did.
+++Genesis 2:24, “Therefore shall a man leave His father and His mother, and shall cleave unto His wife: and they shall be one flesh.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
See above.
++++ 19:6, “Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder.”
Yep. Christ still didn’t define marriage between one man and one woman.
See above.
If Christians/Catholics choose to define marriage that way, you can. Just don’t pretend that it’s the correct choice for every other person in the country.
The problem we have is that it’s God’s law, not Christian’s law. Who are we to argue with God? I realize we won’t agree on this, but I still have to state it for the record.
“I guess with regard to the government staying out of our private lives, it depends on what it is that you are doing? If someone is distributing kiddie porn to their friends, shouldn’t the government be involved? That’s someone’s private life. You cannot have an absolute. “
Right, because two people engaged in a relationship is equivalent to kiddie porn:). No one’s rights are being infringed with homosexual marriage, it neither picks my/your pocket nor breaks my leg. You might want to pick your analogies better.
We have a difference of philosophy. I don’t go along with anything’s ok as long as it doesn’t directly affect me. I’m not judging homosexuals either. I’m judging the behavior. The alcoholic example is a good one. I don’t assume they are bad people, they just have a monkey on their back that is getting the best of them.
I really wish you people would see the beauty in other people’s differences. You know back in the day, you were considered damn to hell if you married outside of the church? Society changes, because people change. It was also okay for priest and popes to have children and a family at one point. The church is corrupt, because it’s made by man, that same thing that makes the bible fallible. It is written by man NOT by God. And as I said before how do you know it is Christianity that is the real religion? By a few bogus accounts of people saying they saw God? I’m sorry but a dude telling me to destroy an entire city because they are sinners or to run away and don’t look back or I will be killed along with my friends. I don’t think so. If there is a God I highly doubt he is that mean. You saying God doesn’t like Homosexuals is like Hitler saying God didn’t like Jews, because they killed his only son. Stupid.
Oh at @Barry, did you even finish an english class? You grammar is atrocious. Oh and all you seemed to of notice about my post was the fact that I put Homosexuals were born that way. And you still seem to think it’s a choice, because in many cases becoming an alcoholic is a choice. It’s not because it’s in there genes and there ancestors were alcoholic. (sarcasm) It’s people like you that cause all of these teen suicides. You people and your homophobia. It sickens me that you can’t see the beauty in God’s differences. And you think that this world is better of without “those types of people” in it.
I really wish you people would see the beauty in other people’s differences.
“There’s nothing wrong with differences. I didn’t say there was. Homosexuality is a life choice. The choice is to act on it. It’s not a difference, it’s a sexual preference.”
You know back in the day, you were considered damn to hell if you married outside of the church? Society changes, because people change. It was also okay for priest and popes to have children and a family at one point. The church is corrupt, because it’s made by man,
“The Catholic Church was established by Christ. He created the doctrine. He established the Pope and He established the first Priests.
that same thing that makes the bible fallible. It is written by man NOT by God.
“The Bible was written by the Holy Spirit through men.
And as I said before how do you know it is Christianity that is the real religion?
“Considering it was established by Christ, I’ll assume it’s the real magilla.
By a few bogus accounts of people saying they saw God?
“This is ludicrous. Because you say it’s bogus, it is? Christ’s life is a matter of history. Noone negates the fact that he existed. People who saw Jesus Christ, saw God.”
I’m sorry but a dude telling me to destroy an entire city because they are sinners or to run away and don’t look back or I will be killed along with my friends. I don’t think so.
“That’s a granade. Unless you understand the context of Sodom and Gamhorra, it’s difficult to understand the reasoning and meaning behind God’s will.”
If there is a God
“There is.”
I highly doubt he is that mean. You saying God doesn’t like Homosexuals
“God hates the sin, not the sinner. I NEVER said He hates homosexuals. I said that God established marriage between one man and one woman. That’s not according to me. That’s in Christ’s teachings and it’s in the Bible.”
is like Hitler saying God didn’t like Jews, because they killed his only son. Stupid.
“I agree that your analogy is stupid.
Oh at @Barry, did you even finish an english class? You grammar is atrocious.
“Stop it…I’ll bruise.
Oh and all you seemed to of notice about my post was the fact that I put Homosexuals were born that way. And you still seem to think it’s a choice,
“How do you know what I responded to if you didn’t read what I said? I said it’s a choice to ACT on homosexual proclivities. It is…do they not have the choice NOT to act on it? Are you inferring that homosexuals have no self control? I’m not.
because in many cases becoming an alcoholic is a choice. It’s not because it’s in there genes and there ancestors were alcoholic. (sarcasm)
“Again…you always have the choice to stop. Maybe one needs help and can choose to go to AA. It’s still a choice in that context. Homosexuals have the choice to not act on their same sex attraction. The beauty of the Church is that if they decide to go ahead and stop their activity, they can go to confession and then live a chaste life and they are forgiven.”
It’s people like you that cause all of these teen suicides.
“You’re really going to argue that I cause teen suicides? Really? I get that you don’t agree with the Church’s teachings on this. Hey…whatever dude. Go live your life. But if you expect to hop on the Catholic Register and start spouting off about how horrible the Catholic Church’s teachings are and how misguided Catholics are, what in the world did you expect was going to be the response? You’re arguing faith here, not some misguided belief. I may not like the rules the Church has laid out, but I have to follow them if I want to be in communion with the Church. It’s like anything else. I am certain you wouldn’t yell fire in a crowded theater just becuase you thought it was a stupid rule. ”
You people and your homophobia.
“Name calling huh? Strong argument. I’m not going to dignify that with a response other than to say I’m Catholic and my position on the subject is in line with the position of the Catechism. What was that about different people being beautiful? I assume you mean different as long as they agree with you?
It sickens me that you can’t see the beauty in God’s differences. And you think that this world is better of without “those types of people” in it.
“You have absolutely know idea what I think. Who are “those type of people”? The only person here who has made statements about how “the world would be better without…” is you. I was pretty clear. God hates the sin, not the sinner. Judge the sin…not the sinner. I’m judging behavior only, not people. The person sitting in judgement here…is you.”
One I didn’t say Christ, I said God. Okay yeah Christ was a real person. I’ll give you that, and he was a pretty cool dude. I don’t have a problem with him.
Oh I wasn’t meaning Catholic People I was meaning Christians in general. And the only reason I started the name calling was probably because I was getting frustrated with how people are so rude to gays and make them feel so unwanted. (I’m saying this not because I’m assuming, but because I talked my best friend out of committing suicide because of people telling him God hates him)
I had more to say but I’m not going to. I didn’t come here to be judgmental, and I’m sorry if I sounded like it. I just got irritated, by the end of it.
We can just agree to have our different opinions.
I agree with the list in general but it’s a bit silly to claim that it’s not meaningful for brides to be walked down the aisle by their dads. Good grief, people who aren’t Catholic are still human. They still love their parents and families and find a gesture like that meaningful.
Besides, there are a lot of Catholic couples who go through the whole song and dance of getting married, spending money they don’t have, and trying to have as “modern” a wedding as possible. I feel like the entire wedding industry needs to implode on itself. It’s nothing but a huge scam.
Ok Anon…I also apologize for getting snippy. If indeed you are here because you are trying to understand WHY Catholics believe what they believe…I salute you. Christ was a cool dude…he still is. And Catholic’s believe that he is/was and will always be God. It’s one of the mysteries that we reflect on and learn in our catechism. So to me, when God says something…Christ says something. They are one in the same to Catholics. The homosexual situation is complex. My daughter actually asked me last year why God would make someone with same sex attraction if homosexuality is a sin. I had to ask a Priest that question to get an answer that made sense. The comment I gave you was what I got from the Priest and I have since investigated the catechism myself. Please remember that for “this” Catholic…I stand by the judge the sin and not the sinner. I realize there are bad examples of Christians out there who are EXTREMELY judgemental. One need only site the Westboro Baptist Church to see that. Just as I’m sure there are many Pagens out there who give a bad name to the word. If you talked a friend off a ledge, then in my opinion (again…my opinion) God was working through you and good for you. I get and understand your frustration. I share it. But the situation for Catholics is homosexual marriage and abortion (for that matter) are against our Catechism and we believe they are a sin. However, we also believe in reconciliation and redemption.
Yes we have differing opinions. But hopefully you get that not all Christians are like those who would tell your friend that God hates him. God loves him. We’re all sinners dude.
Peace my friend.
B
as a latecomer; for any late readers, many studies show that cohabitators have a 60-70% rate of divorce if they marry…just because one sociologist shows this or that defending living together,the study itself must be analyzed to see if there is bias or if the study was poorly set-up, etcetera. The reason there is higher divorce is because the man and woman often continue to live the singles lifestyle they have gotten used to with: this is “my body” and this is “my money” and these are “my friends” and this is “my time” ; this does not work well within marriage when the 2 must become one in All areas.
What most middle-class Americans consider a “traditional” wedding really isn’t all that traditional. The white dress, the gaggle of bridesmaids and attendants in tuxedos and formal gowns, the fancy engraved or printed invitations, the big reception with a receiving line, the gift registry, etc.—most of those “traditions”, prior to World War II, were mainly restricted to high society brides with lots of money. These brides were accustomed to attending formal events and well acquainted with the etiquette involved (they didn’t have to run out and buy books on the subject) plus, they and their mothers didn’t work outside the home and could devote all their waking moments to preparing for the wedding.
In contrast, most middle- and working-class weddings prior to, say, 1950 were fairly simple and couples who were not wealthy didn’t try to pretend they were wealthy on their wedding day. Catholic weddings usually took place in the morning (in the days when you had to fast from midnight in order to receive Communion, the earlier the better) and were followed by a wedding breakfast at the bride’s home. Mixed Catholic-Protestant weddings would be performed in the rectory, and many Protestant couples would have their minister perform the wedding in the home of the bride’s parents. The couple had their two best friends “stand up” for them as best man and maid of honor, invited only close family and friends, and the bride’s family usually made most of the food themselves. The festivities were usually over by noon-ish and the honeymoon, if any, usually consisted of one weekend at a hotel or other resort within driving distance. At least that’s how it was for most of my ancestors, including my own parents.
The real problem with the modern wedding industry is that they have persuaded several generations of women that they have an inalienable right, if not a duty, to pretend to be rich high society dames on their wedding day. In past generations, among working or middle class Catholics, a wedding would be celebrated with about the same level of solemnity and expense as would a baptism or First Communion.
And by the way, many perfectly chaste brides of past generations got married in colors OTHER than white so the color of the dress has nothing to do with one’s personal history.
“The reason there is higher divorce is because the man and woman often continue to live the singles lifestyle they have gotten used to with: this is “my body” and this is “my money” and these are “my friends” and this is “my time” ; this does not work well within marriage when the 2 must become one in All areas.”
just because one poster shows this or that defending living together,the study itself must be analysed to see if there is bias or if the opinion was poorly set-up, etcetera.
Some very good points here. I do want to point out, though, that for single people to buy nice things to use before marriage is not necessarily a terrible thing. Some of us will never get married, even some of us who want marriage. How is it inherently righteous for us to make do with odds and ends for the rest of our lives because we weren’t granted that privilege?
I do like the garage sale idea, though! :-)
My answer to the last paragraph is, “well, let’s do away with the fairy-tale trappings, then.”
Has anyone noticed a change in the liturgy for Catholic Weddings? We went to a wedding a few months ago, and after the exchange of vows, the priest said “They have declared their consent before God”. And that was it - on with the mass. At the end, my wife and I looked at each other and said “Are they married or not?” I checked on line and that seems to be the correct words, although at new advent encyclopedia it says the priest is supposed to say “Ego conjungo vos in matrimonium in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti. Amen” (I unite you in wedlock in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen).
Now thats what I’m used to hearing. Does anyone know when, why and by whom this was changed?
I was not aware that the Catholic Church is ok with people living to gether before marriage. This used to be refered to as “living in sin”. If we still have a sixth commandment, then isn’t this still true? But here it is, right from the USCCB web site: Denial of marriage—Since cohabitation is not in itself a canonical impediment to marriage, the couple may not be refused marriage solely on the basis of cohabitation. Marriage preparation may continue even if the couple refuses to separate. Pastoral ministers can be assured that to assist couples in regularizing their situation is not to approve of cohabitation.
It appears that “free love” is alive and well in the Catholic church.
I’m not sure if the Bishops have ever read teh Catechism, which says this:
2391 Some today claim a “right to a trial marriage” where there is an intention of getting married later. However firm the purpose of those who engage in premature sexual relations may be, “the fact is that such liaisons can scarcely ensure mutual sincerity and fidelity in a relationship between a man and a woman, nor, especially, can they protect it from inconstancy of desires or whim.“183 Carnal union is morally legitimate only when a definitive community of life between a man and woman has been established. Human love does not tolerate “trial marriages.” It demands a total and definitive gift of persons to one another.
Did you know that the most religious states have the highest divorce rates?
Swej: Not when adjusted for other relevant variables, such as income and education.
MOST traditions no longer make sense—and haven’t for decades or centuries, even. So what? Who are you to say that simply because we’re secular and cohabitated, my honeymoon had no special meaning to me just because it didn’t have the identical purpose as someone else’s a long time ago? And who are you to claim that my wife’s father walking her down the aisle was merely symbolic and that our families haven’t joined as well as ourselves?
Did you also worry about wearing white because white dresses weren’t popular marriage attire until Queen Victoria wore one and older traditions differed? Did you whine about having a wedding party since the point of those was originally protection against the bride or groom’s being kidnapped? Were you also upset about standing on your groom’s left side so that his sword arm was left free to fight should he have to defend you? Did you not want cars decorated since the original point was disguise the couple and create a clatter to scare of bad luck and demons? Or not let your husband carry you over the threshold since the point of that was to avoid being tripped by a demon and thus causing bad luck in the wedding home?
Or are you viewing only specific examples through now-biased eyes to try to make some esoteric point about the fact that secular couples still engage in some traditions just for the sake of enjoying said traditions and not in an actual effort to scare away demons?
Should I also not enjoy Santa Claus or putting out stockings at Christmas time because those traditions were “originally” trace back to beliefs in Odin and his solstice hunt? Or should I not celebrate Christmas at all because secular people should be banned from doing so if they aren’t do so to your specification of “right?”
I’m sorry if your being secular at the time also meant your seriously overthinking your marriage vows and being sad that the traditions you wanted to enjoy no longer worked in their specific, original context, but don’t seek to spread your gloom onto the rest of us.
Great Quinn: Jan 9
wedding means union of 2 soul…..love the article.nice
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.