Fiancé wants a church wedding

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

[Anonymous]

My fiancée also wanted to get married in a church. I was not raised as a church goer. I kinda believe in God. When we spoke of marriage, I thought Justice of the Peace. So, when he said church, I was surprised. He is not particularly religious but he was baptized and grew up going to church but not on a regular basis.

I agreed to get married in the church and did pre marriage counseling with the Pastor before he would marry us. It was 3 sessions, 6 hours. It was actually really good and I’m glad we did it. We were married in the church and it was a good experience. We have been married for 25 years now. I go to church about a dozen times a year. Still not particularly religious but it’s about compromise.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

Gosh, why would anyone not want to be part of this exclusive religion with all sorts of rules and articles about who is allowed to partake in certain ceremonies.

[Anonymous]

*arguments about

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

Lol. Sorry you didn’t understand that “both don’t need to be” means one does. I will pray for you that God gives you the wisdom to be kind, caring, and compassionate. What would Jesus do?

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

Gosh, why would anyone not want to be part of this exclusive religion with all sorts of rules and articles about who is allowed to partake in certain ceremonies.

A religious person. I'm Orthodox Christian--it is even harder than being Catholic. I would not even consider getting married in a Catholic church (Catholics accept Orthodox marriages as valid but Orthodox do not accept Catholic sacraments. I am actually not super religious but I do believe in the sacraments (which are the same as Catholic sacraments). I got married in an Orthodox Church to a Catholic, which was difficult. He lied to me about believing in God and we are now divorced. I only go to church on holidays. My kids are my religion.

As an aside, these weddings where people make up their own stuff seem like a joke to me. Why anyone would want to do that is incomprehsible to me.
Oh wait: I understand people have different belief systems and may want to do something else--unlike the PP who posted: "Gosh, why would anyone not want to be part of this exclusive religion with all sorts of rules and articles about who is allowed to partake in certain ceremonies"--you just made a mockery of the sacrament of marriage, in my personal opinion. Newsflash: people are different...your comment was snarky.

OP--resolve religious stuff before you get married. It sounds to me that you will not be compatible (especially if kids are involved).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not Catholic but I can't imagine lying about being Catholic to get someone from the religion to perform my wedding ceremony and let me marry in their church, how does that feel right?

OP and her fiancé should meet with the priest and find out what would be involved instead of crowdsourcing here. None of us really care where they get married or know what the parish would require.

Agreed. Know that if this is truly a matter of faith one can have the marriage blessed by the priest outside of the wedding.

If this is just for appearances, I really think this is a good opportunity for the fiancé to stand up to his family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He's right though. It's tacky to get married at the reception venue.

Considering many people also host their reception at the church, you think that is tacky too? You must have two separate venues? Silly.

Many people do this?

I've been to a few of these. It's not uncommon in smaller more religious circles.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

Lol. Sorry you didn’t understand that “both don’t need to be” means one does. I will pray for you that God gives you the wisdom to be kind, caring, and compassionate. What would Jesus do?

That’s not what you originally wrote, and then followed up repeating. That is what this loooooong thread on this post is about. You said one should be Catholic and then continued to repeatedly double down. You were wrong. Repeatedly. We see it.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

You’re posts are all there to refer to. You consistently maintained one should be Catholic. It’s a must. You weirdly continued to dig in that should be Catholic is all that is needed. So the only thing you’ve been consistent with is being wrong. What you “meant” is irrelevant. What is factual is actually relevant. So odd it took you what 10 posts to finally get that?

And if you’re so bothered that you now need to call names, take a break.

Gosh, why would anyone not want to be part of this exclusive religion with all sorts of rules and articles about who is allowed to partake in certain ceremonies.

New poster, and not talking about Catholic weddings, but: Our church is part of a Protestant denomination, which doesn't require the couple to be members to have their wedding in the church. But our specific church location had to start requiring that the couple have some form of connection to our specific congregation (a close friend or relative who is a listed member, for instance; even a distant relation was fine) because we were so swamped with requests for "church weddings" by random couples who just liked the location. Close to big hotels, close to major highways, etc. While being open for almost all weddings was a good outreach and considered part of ministry to the community, the amount of "Can we have the ceremony there" requests became overwhelming. So some "rules about who was allowed" had to be created or our minister would have been doing multiple weddings every weekend from spring until fall ended, and the toll on the building would have been an issue.

I know, this is an aside to other debates here, but worth noting for any couples who just pick a church for its location or looks--you might find that you still need some connection in order to marry there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If OP were Jewish and said she and her DH had already agreed upon raising their kids with Jewish beliefs and traditions, but he wanted her to pretend not to be Jewish and that they were going to raise their kids Catholic and get married in a Catholic Church, would some of you PPs still be saying she should give in because it’s not that important and she should just make DH and his family happy?

I’m so tired of non-belief being treated as less than belief in religion.

My belief that religion is all made up because historically humans needed a way to explain things they don’t understand and to control people into acting in certain ways to proliferate our species is just as valid as belief in Catholicism. The main difference is I tend not to broadcast this belief to any and everyone because I respect that others believe differently and I have no desire to convert people to my way of thinking or have them plan events to cater to my beliefs. If some day my children decide to convert and have a full Catholic mass wedding, I will be there with a smile and bells on. I would never dream in a million years of telling (or silently guilting) my boys into thinking they couldn’t get married at the church they and their bride had chosen because I only want them married outside a church consistent with my non-belief.

That would be incredibly narcissistic and yet that is how so many aggressively religious people behave.

Agreed. I’m the pp who suggested “hiding” by loosely affiliating with a loose goosey church (many others there will also be non religious), and for this exact reason. For whatever reason, religious bully types will semi-respect this yet will not respect being altogether non-religious.

A family who cares about a canonically valid marriage (in so many terms! or put simply “a Catholic wedding) will not agree to such a farce either. Again, it’s a Catholic thing. If you don’t get it (and OP, and many PPs do not get it), you won’t get it. OP not getting it is why they should not get married. Calling it all off is in the best interest of both the Catholic and non-Catholic party.

This is a honking, glaring red flag of fundamental incompatibility that “counseling” will not magically wave away.

The family doesn’t need to “agree to” a thing here. The arrogance here lol…. They are not the ones getting married.

I guess if one family is Catholic that is supposed to supercede everything else. Including the wishes of the couple actually getting married. Maybe OP should run... if her future in laws might be inserting their beliefs and wishes into the marriage and her fiance has no back bone.

Op is a troll. She has changed her story. The title said the fiancé wanted a church wedding. Then no, just didn't want to get married at the reception venue. Then somehow there were 11 pages of people arguing about the intricacies of having a Catholic wedding which the fiancé doesn't even really care about because he's actually non religious. Except for he also wants to appease his Catholic family, but then OP comes back again to say no, he doesn't really care anyway. Just, all over the place.

OP here. I don’t think you know how to read. I haven’t changed my story. I stated in my first post that my fiancé was not a practicing catholic and that his family felt it was more appropriate to get married in a church, but that I’m not religious and don’t want to. I did say that he didn’t like the idea of a a wedding + reception at the same venue, but that isn’t as important as the tradition of his family getting married in a church.

We had discussions and decided it wasn’t right to lie. My fiancé initially said to just lie and say I was catholic because it’s not a big deal. I felt it was wrong. We talked to a friend of his and he agreed to marry us at the reception. We chose a venue yesterday and had it booked.

As for this site, I can’t control others. I didn’t think this site was at all religious - most liberals aren’t catholic or religious. I didn’t think it would turn into a bunch of grown adults fighting about a religion they likely don’t even partake in. I didn’t read any of those responses or fights because I don’t care.

[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:

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.

The entire point is being missed. If you have no intention of raising the kids, practicing, being religious, what is the point in the Catholic wedding? You have to actually meet with the priest and do marriage prep. I can't believe 2 adults who go through all that and tell the priest they are only doing it because his parents are making them. How ridiculous. So you should be or want to be Catholic to do all of this otherwise it is a farce. Just get married at the pretty venue.

Nope. You’re making things up again. There is no “should be” or “want to be” Catholic. At least one person MUST be. Not sure why you keep saying someone “should be” when that is factually wrong and you’ve been told by multiple PPs that you’re wrong. Saying you’ll raise your kids Catholic, practicing, and being a religious Catholic is completely irrelevant if at least one person isn’t Catholic. There’s no should about it.

I'm just going to keep saying it to piss you off. You should actually want to be a practicing Catholic if you want to have a Catholic wedding. It doesn't matter much if you come in waving your baptismal certificate. You're going to jump through a lot of hoops, meet the priest, attend marriage prep classes, just to be permitted to have your ceremony at the church. So, unless you're a moron you should actually be a practicing Catholic in good standing. This really bothers you for some reason.

Yay! You finally said something accurate! It’s only taken you what, 10 posts of being told you’re wrong, before you can post something accurate. ⭐️ for you!

I have said the same thing consistently. OPs husband is Catholic but it's not enough. The next question a church asks you is: are you a registered parishioner? And if the answer is "no" then you don't just get to plan your wedding. I said "you don't both need to be Catholic" and you have been freaking out about it ever since. This has always been true. When I said one "should be" I clearly meant a practicing one. Never ever did I say neither had to be Catholic. But carry on being a d!ck.

Being a “registered parishioner” is a canonical intricacy. If you live in the geographic bounds of the parish, they have to provide the sacraments if you are suitably disposed. If not they don’t.