Fiancé wants a church wedding

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A priest might not even marry you if you are not catholic and you will have to do pre cana classes.

You can find a priest who will do a wedding even outside of a church. Married twice (haha) by Catholic priest at wedding venue. I'm not Catholic, just keep marrying them.....well ok, twice.

Is this one of those "rent a priest" who is not really a priest anymore situations? Because this is not typically done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

NP: PP was clearly commenting that "should" in that sentence needed to be "must." One party must already be Catholic. There is a difference between non-practicing and not at all Catholic. Your scenario likely involved the non-practicing Catholic having evidence of Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation, and being willing to take the vows of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sure, you could fudge your way through that, even if they don't mean it, though dishonesty is truly a terrible way to start a marriage. But, two people, neither of whom has ever had any of the Catholic sacraments will not be able to have parents "pull strings," even if the parents sign the document avowing that the child was not fully catechized through no fault of their own but due to the fault of the parent (that's a thing). There would be some steps before that sacrament was conferred.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A priest might not even marry you if you are not catholic and you will have to do pre cana classes.

You can find a priest who will do a wedding even outside of a church. Married twice (haha) by Catholic priest at wedding venue. I'm not Catholic, just keep marrying them.....well ok, twice.

Is this one of those "rent a priest" who is not really a priest anymore situations? Because this is not typically done.

In PP's situation, the spouse is Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTDT. Clearly you have some options- (1) roll over. They will demand to baptize the kids too, first communion, the whole nine yards. Are you going to be able to stand aside & let them do this, when it is your baby/kid? Try to imagine. Some people can, some can’t. For me, it was out of the question. 2) hold very firm. Will cause problems with the family and your DH will resent you.

As a non religious person who has BTDT with the Catholic relatives and been harped on about religion my whole life I present option 3: take “cover” in some type of liberal church or “church”. A lot of people do this. Find some excuse that you need to be married there and attend there- it is close to your house, you have friends who go there, you love the music program or community service or want to send future kid to their school. Think of something- Literally anything. Get married there, attend services maybe 2 times a year or participate in the volunteer program or whatever. When you have kids do whatever baby blessings or baptism ritual they offer. It provides cover and face saving on the ILs end “welllll at least grand baby is being raised Christian blah blah blah” “wellll at least they are being married in a church” blah blah and your future DH will see it is a compromise. He clearly does not care about religion. Not saying your ILs will exactly love this (they won’t- they want Catholic)- but they will grudgingly accept it.

That is your best choice here…take it from someone who has btdt

Why not just do the Catholic in this case? Why go out of your way to be more difficult, if you don't care anyway, to avoid the Catholic rituals? The husband won't want to go along with this farce when he's Catholic and there is a better alternative.

OP *does* care. She wants her dream venue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

Apocryphal misinformation. It isn’t the parents getting married and even the most loosey-goosey priest will need the bases covered.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTDT. Clearly you have some options- (1) roll over. They will demand to baptize the kids too, first communion, the whole nine yards. Are you going to be able to stand aside & let them do this, when it is your baby/kid? Try to imagine. Some people can, some can’t. For me, it was out of the question. 2) hold very firm. Will cause problems with the family and your DH will resent you.

As a non religious person who has BTDT with the Catholic relatives and been harped on about religion my whole life I present option 3: take “cover” in some type of liberal church or “church”. A lot of people do this. Find some excuse that you need to be married there and attend there- it is close to your house, you have friends who go there, you love the music program or community service or want to send future kid to their school. Think of something- Literally anything. Get married there, attend services maybe 2 times a year or participate in the volunteer program or whatever. When you have kids do whatever baby blessings or baptism ritual they offer. It provides cover and face saving on the ILs end “welllll at least grand baby is being raised Christian blah blah blah” “wellll at least they are being married in a church” blah blah and your future DH will see it is a compromise. He clearly does not care about religion. Not saying your ILs will exactly love this (they won’t- they want Catholic)- but they will grudgingly accept it.

That is your best choice here…take it from someone who has btdt

Why not just do the Catholic in this case? Why go out of your way to be more difficult, if you don't care anyway, to avoid the Catholic rituals? The husband won't want to go along with this farce when he's Catholic and there is a better alternative.

Because Catholicism is a LOT and will require her do a lot, and she will have future ILS dictating everything if she caves on this now. Her future DH doesn’t care about religion and just wants to avoid problems with his family.This is a way to do that long term.

How so? You're still saying do the baptism, go once or twice a year, volunteer, put on the show. How is that different? Nobody is asking her to convert. Why is that better if it's at the Presbyterian church? And it seems pretty obvious her DH DOES care since he's shocked she doesn't want a church wedding, like he does. Apparently OP has not really talked to him about what he wants at all.

No- OP states on page 2 of the thread that “he said we can do a nondenominational church” “wants to appease his family” etc. If that is offered she should most certainly run with it. If it is just for show, it is way easier to do that in a more relaxed church. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Catholicism could tell you this- the Catholic Church does not make things easy.

Please. OP is full of it. Says her husband went to Catholic school and also church "here and there". As if kids in Catholic school don't go to mass weekly or more. And weird that they talked about raising the kids nonreligious but never talked about having a church wedding until after the venue was booked when suddenly he was "shocked" that she didn't want one. Troll.

Nothing surprising or unusual about her story actually. The guy isn’t actually religious but doesn’t want to upset his religious family. Same for most everyone I know? And I don’t think I am unusual in that respect. It is pretty common.

It is common. But marriage should always start with honestly.

If OP's fiance really does not intend to fulfill the vow of the sacrament, then better to be an adult and admit to your family that you respect the sacrament and do not want to take a vow you know you and your fiance have no intention of upholding. Tell them you will not start your marriage by lying to the whole community assembled. It will hurt them, no doubt, but if they are honest and serious about their own faith, they will have to acknowledge that the sacrament is not appropriate. This is what one of my siblings did, and yes, it was hard on the grandparents, but everyone respected their honesty and integrity.

If on the other hand, he does intend to uphold the vow and raise the children Catholic, OP has a serious discussion ahead of her if she is not at all open to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op, does your fiance want to raise kids to be Catholic?

OP here. No. He went to church here and there growing up and went to catholic school but he’s not religious. He hasn’t been to church except with in years. We do not plan to raise our kids in any religion.

You are in for a long road if he won't tell his family that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Find a simple chapel that isn’t affiliated with the Catholic Church (or any church). It is unethical for your fiancé’s family to ask you to lie about being a Catholic. I wouldn’t even consider that as an option.

I don't think they are asking her to lie about being Catholic, as they know that is not required. PP is assuming that.

However, OP does need to appreciate that this isn't just a wedding; it is a religious sacrament. One of the marriage vows OP will have to make to marry in the Catholic church is the vow before God, the Church and all present at the sacrament that she WILL raise the children Catholic. She should not lie about this. She does not want to make this vow, and so this is the most basic conversation she has to have with her fiance. Because it sounds like he wants to make this vow.

As previously noted, this is not required, and it never was part of the vows. It is the Catholic party who must promises to do their best to raise Catholic children, and that is not in the vows either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here. I think we have to get a special pass or something from a higher up and lie and say I’m catholic and will raise our kids catholic. It seems like a huge task for nothing.

I’m not sure you have to do that. I grew up catholic but was never confirmed. My dh grew up very catholic but in another country so had no proof he was confirmed. It was important to our families to get married in a church so we did. It didn’t seem a mockery bc we weren’t lying or anything - we had a lovely dinner with the priest and were open about not being practicing Catholics at that point even though we have both been baptized catholic. He just talked about how we should try to live and raise children with good morals. It was quite pleasant. The wedding ceremony was actually lovely and quite relaxed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A priest might not even marry you if you are not catholic and you will have to do pre cana classes.

You can find a priest who will do a wedding even outside of a church. Married twice (haha) by Catholic priest at wedding venue. I'm not Catholic, just keep marrying them.....well ok, twice.

Is this one of those "rent a priest" who is not really a priest anymore situations? Because this is not typically done.

“Rent a priests” typically *are* priests, because the priesthood once conferred is eternal. However, they have no canonical faculties to perform marriage, so the dog treeyesee/9 Church would consider the union invalid, if not a mere simulation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

NP: PP was clearly commenting that "should" in that sentence needed to be "must." One party must already be Catholic. There is a difference between non-practicing and not at all Catholic. Your scenario likely involved the non-practicing Catholic having evidence of Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation, and being willing to take the vows of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sure, you could fudge your way through that, even if they don't mean it, though dishonesty is truly a terrible way to start a marriage. But, two people, neither of whom has ever had any of the Catholic sacraments will not be able to have parents "pull strings," even if the parents sign the document avowing that the child was not fully catechized through no fault of their own but due to the fault of the parent (that's a thing). There would be some steps before that sacrament was conferred.

Devout parents would obviously have a kid who has had the sacraments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

Bolded the part you failed to read. Parents can’t set up a wedding if the kid wasn’t Catholic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

NP: PP was clearly commenting that "should" in that sentence needed to be "must." One party must already be Catholic. There is a difference between non-practicing and not at all Catholic. Your scenario likely involved the non-practicing Catholic having evidence of Baptism, First Communion, and Confirmation, and being willing to take the vows of the Sacrament of Matrimony. Sure, you could fudge your way through that, even if they don't mean it, though dishonesty is truly a terrible way to start a marriage. But, two people, neither of whom has ever had any of the Catholic sacraments will not be able to have parents "pull strings," even if the parents sign the document avowing that the child was not fully catechized through no fault of their own but due to the fault of the parent (that's a thing). There would be some steps before that sacrament was conferred.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You both don't need to be Catholic. One of you should be and also registered at the church or a church that his family is registered at. You can't just waltz into any church and demand a wedding ceremony. You will need to be registered parishioners, or use his family church, and complete the wedding prep (Pre-Cana), and just jump through all the hoops.

But your post is very off putting all about you, and what you want. You're supposed to be getting married, it's not all about you.

No. One of them must be Catholic to be married in a Catholic church.

Well, the fiancé is. But the point in this case is that the fiancé is Catholic enough to meet the criteria. But he is not practicing and might say he's not Catholic. But if he was raised Catholic he's been baptized, had his Communion and is confirmed. As far as the Church is concerned, he's Catholic.

Yes, the fiancé is Catholic. The point you’re ignoring is the first pp said one should be Catholic. There’s no should about it with the Catholic church. That’s a must.

I said that. Then I clarified. I said "should" because most people getting married in the Church are there because they want to be, they are in good standing. The fiancé is Catholic, being born and raised, but seems now to be lapsed. If you're lapsed should you still consider yourself Catholic?

You are making zero sense. There is no should about it with a Catholic wedding. It’s a must or there’s no Catholic wedding.

He is a Catholic in the eyes of the church. We know this. But, how he identifies is another thing. Which goes back to OP's point that should they just go along with it for appeasement or is it a mockery? They can have the Catholic wedding, but should they?

That’s all that matters if he wants to be married in a Catholic church. What’s a mockery is OP’s suggestion of lying.

You act as if it's so easy to get married in the church. An indifferent, non-practicing couple still has to meet certain criteria. Maybe it's church attendance, pre-cana, meetings with the priest, good standing, before they will be allowed to book their date. It varies. It's not just "does the one person meet the basic criteria". Sounds like they already have a date and venue for their non religious wedding. Trying to plan a Catholic ceremony into an existing timeline might be a huge hurdle.

Nope. You’re inventing something never said. I only commented that 1 person must be Catholic not should be Catholic. If you don’t meet the minimum of one person being Catholic, the rest of what you wrote is irrelevant because there is no chance of a Catholic wedding.

No chance? Hardly. A non practicing Catholic who has no intention of raising their kids Catholic can still have one if their parents set it all up.

Bolded the part you failed to read. Parents can’t set up a wedding if the kid wasn’t Catholic.

Obviously the parents would be doing this at their church. Do you now how any of this works? If fiancé had never set foot in that church the parents could still set it up. That's the point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:BTDT. Clearly you have some options- (1) roll over. They will demand to baptize the kids too, first communion, the whole nine yards. Are you going to be able to stand aside & let them do this, when it is your baby/kid? Try to imagine. Some people can, some can’t. For me, it was out of the question. 2) hold very firm. Will cause problems with the family and your DH will resent you.

As a non religious person who has BTDT with the Catholic relatives and been harped on about religion my whole life I present option 3: take “cover” in some type of liberal church or “church”. A lot of people do this. Find some excuse that you need to be married there and attend there- it is close to your house, you have friends who go there, you love the music program or community service or want to send future kid to their school. Think of something- Literally anything. Get married there, attend services maybe 2 times a year or participate in the volunteer program or whatever. When you have kids do whatever baby blessings or baptism ritual they offer. It provides cover and face saving on the ILs end “welllll at least grand baby is being raised Christian blah blah blah” “wellll at least they are being married in a church” blah blah and your future DH will see it is a compromise. He clearly does not care about religion. Not saying your ILs will exactly love this (they won’t- they want Catholic)- but they will grudgingly accept it.

That is your best choice here…take it from someone who has btdt

Why not just do the Catholic in this case? Why go out of your way to be more difficult, if you don't care anyway, to avoid the Catholic rituals? The husband won't want to go along with this farce when he's Catholic and there is a better alternative.

Because Catholicism is a LOT and will require her do a lot, and she will have future ILS dictating everything if she caves on this now. Her future DH doesn’t care about religion and just wants to avoid problems with his family.This is a way to do that long term.

How so? You're still saying do the baptism, go once or twice a year, volunteer, put on the show. How is that different? Nobody is asking her to convert. Why is that better if it's at the Presbyterian church? And it seems pretty obvious her DH DOES care since he's shocked she doesn't want a church wedding, like he does. Apparently OP has not really talked to him about what he wants at all.

No- OP states on page 2 of the thread that “he said we can do a nondenominational church” “wants to appease his family” etc. If that is offered she should most certainly run with it. If it is just for show, it is way easier to do that in a more relaxed church. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Catholicism could tell you this- the Catholic Church does not make things easy.

Please. OP is full of it. Says her husband went to Catholic school and also church "here and there". As if kids in Catholic school don't go to mass weekly or more. And weird that they talked about raising the kids nonreligious but never talked about having a church wedding until after the venue was booked when suddenly he was "shocked" that she didn't want one. Troll.

Nothing surprising or unusual about her story actually. The guy isn’t actually religious but doesn’t want to upset his religious family. Same for most everyone I know? And I don’t think I am unusual in that respect. It is pretty common.

The thing about being Catholic is, it’s like being Jewish. He might say he’s not actually religious, but it’s not something that just goes away, it’s ingrained in you for life (even if in the negative aspect).

And grown adults disregard what their family wishes *all* the time. This guy wants to get married in church, ultimately, because HE wants to. This is his quietly wrapped up Catholic conscience rearing its head—this will not be the last time this happens in their marriage.

This is VERY true. My DH of 20 yrs, who was raised Catholic, but never went (our kids aren't even Catholic) has suddenly started going to mass every week. WTF, really.

My raised Catholic DH who has local parents who still attend mass multiple times per week thankfully has zero interest in religion. I’m the one that says we should occasionally dress the kids up for Easter and take them to mass with his family as a nice gesture.

But I’m only willing to do this because his parents thankfully didn’t guilt us about not getting married in a church. My BIL knocked his now wife up in college and had a courthouse shotgun wedding so I guess in comparison they were just glad we were having a wedding. But I absolutely would not have given an inch if they tried to guilt us about it.

I grew up down south around religious people who like to bully others about their beliefs. The thing about really religious people is that they are convinced they are right and everyone else is wrong (I mean that is the essence of genuinely believing your God is the one and only correct God and that your duty is to spread the word to others and make them believe). It’s obnoxious and turned me off of religion in a huge way (thanks friends’ parents who invited me for a sleepover and then prayed for my soul at bedtime because I was going to go to hell because my parents didn’t take me to church and baptize me, way to traumatize a 9 year old child).

When there is a divide between believers and non-believers it is always “oh you have to respect their religious beliefs” but why isn’t the reverse true?

Sorry for the digression, but I think OP really needs to figure this out before she is married with a couple kids and has a DH and in laws guilting her as a mother.