Catholic Church wedding rules

GDK_11

Hi,

I'm recently engaged and have started the planning stage. My girlfriend is catholic, I was baptised and did my communion as a catholic, however I never did my confirmation. Do I need to do this to be married in a Catholic Church?
I'd be lying if I said I was even close to being a practicing catholic but she would like to get married in a church if possible.
Thanks

lazygal

Why don't you ask the priest in the church you are getting married in?

GDK_11

lazygal wrote: »

Why don't you ask the priest in the church you are getting married in?

As I mentioned we are recently engaged and in the planning stage. We don't have a church, thought their would be a standardised rule for the church.
Thanks for your help though

Bacchus

Pretty sure (if I remember right) that we only needed to provide our baptism and communion certs as "proof" of our religion. As suggested above though, speak to your priest when you have one. Some are stricter than others. Our priest was practically horizontal when it came to the paperwork but the priest in our parish (technically due to borders in the city) made our life a right pain.

GDK_11

Bacchus wrote: »

Pretty sure (if I remember right) that we only needed to provide our baptism and communion certs as "proof" of our religion. As suggested above though, speak to your priest when you have one. Some are stricter than others. Our priest was practically horizontal when it came to the paperwork but the priest in our parish (technically due to borders in the city) made our life a right pain.

Thanks Bacchus.
Guess I will have to look for a priest first and then we can make arrangement. I really do not fancy being 30+ doing my confirmation with a load of kids,
not for me

livedadream

if you do have to do it and i think if i remember correctly it depends on the priest, you dont do it with a load of kids, more like a couple of nights and then a small ceremony.  a guy i worked with years ago had to do it and jsut did two or three evenings of ''education'' then a mass and was grand...

kal7

My wife wanted to get married in a church, i am atheist (even had my baptism cert amended before they stopped this)
and told the relevant priests this, they were fine with it so long as one of us was catholic.

the marriage is contract between couple anyway, as far as I was told.

solerina

I had to get both my baptism and confirmation cert before my wedding, no mention of anything about first communion. Was a bit of a hassle as there were two different church offices involved.

mcgiggles

I'm catholic and my fiance is protestant and he's okay to get married in the church without confirmation so I'm sure it'll be grand unless you get a reeeeally backwards priest :)

Zaph

I had to get a confirmation certificate before I got married a few years ago. Didn't know such a thing even existed. But whether it's a hard and fast rule or just something certain priests ask for wasn't explained to us, so you'd be better off clarifying it with a priest in the church you plan to get married in. As for making your confirmation with a load of kids if it's necessary, I know of someone who was able to be baptised and make her communion in the morning and confirmation in the afternoon in private ceremonies in the church about a week before she got married. Can't remember the exact circumstances behind why she did it though.

aj89

We are currently in the process meeting with the priest from her parish. They would not meet with us unless we had a baptismal & confirmation cert dated no more than six months before the wedding is due to take place.

GDK_11

Sounds like it's a bit of a 50/50 split then. I guess we will need to find the church first and then go from there. I honestly had not even considered it as a potential issue until someone mentioned it in passing the other day.
Hopefully we can find a slightly laid back more priest, or failing that get a quick ceremony done.

Jwacqui

I was only talking to my priest today. I'm meeting him Saturday to complete my pre-nuptial enquiry ( the forms in order to get married in the church)

They asked for Baptismal Cert, Confirmation Cert and Pre Marriage Course Cert. He wouldn't meet up until I had all 3 for each of us.
My baptismal cert is from UK and I had trouble getting it, he wouldn't meet till I had it. Also all documents must be within 6 months of the wedding.

Different priests have different rules to be honest so you really need to meet with the priest.

3 of the weddings I was at last year the brides was Irish and catholic and the gooms all English and never even baptised. All got married in churches without any difficulty from what I could see (two had the same priest alright though). I have on the other hand heard of other friends being asked for certs etc by the priest so it onviously varies from parish to parish or even priest to priest.

Peregrinus

There's generally no difficulty about a Catholic and a non-Catholic marrying in a Catholic ceremony. But, if you are a Catholic, then they generally prefer that you should be confirmed before you are married. It's not an absolute rule; a priest can celebrate the marriage of an unconfirmed Catholic if there is good reason, but expect at the very least to find yourself talking to the priest about why you haven't been confirmed and what can be done about it.

Mellor

Jwacqui wrote: »

They asked for Baptismal Cert, Confirmation Cert and Pre Marriage Course Cert. He wouldn't meet up until I had all 3 for each of us.

What's a pre-marriage course?
Sounds like something I'd find ridiculous

Peregrinus

Mellor wrote: »

What's a pre-marriage course?
Sounds like something I'd find ridiculous

A marriage preparation course, which a couple is generally required to complete before the Catholic church will celebrate their marriage. Will cover things like communications within the relationship, interactions with the spouses' families of origin, conflict management, setting shared expectations and goals, that kind of thing. I think there is also a session devoted to family planning with, no doubt, emphasis on natural family planning. I think there's also generally a session on financial issues within the relationship.

From memory, it was something originally required if either member of the couple was under a certain age (21?), based on studies which showed that early marriages had a high failure rate. But for a long time now it has been a general requirement.

Mellor

Sounds a bit ridiculous tbh.
I can see where they are coming from. But couples aren't "courting" at 18 and only living together in the real world for the first time when married at 20.

I'd expect that most, if not all young couples, would have dealt with all of that stuff long before they think about marriage. Maybe I'm bias due to my own situation.

Peregrinus

FWIW, my own view is that there's those who naturally have, or naturally develop, good communication, conflict resolution, etc skills, and there's those who would benefit from some guidance/direction/support in that department.

For the latter group, it would be better, obviously, if they had guidance before they come to the point of marrying, but the truth is that most of them won't have. We don't really cover this in school, at least not explicitly, and after that the opportunity just doesn't arise.

I never did one of these courses - I was married in the Anglican church - but my impression is that those who do them are divided into two camps. There's those who don't see the point - isn't all this stuff blindingly obvious? - and there's those who think, yeah, this was useful, there's stuff in there I never really thought about before. And they probably line up, more or less, with the two groups mentioned in my first paragraph.

As to whether there's any observable benefit from these courses, I don't know whether there has been any research into that. The hope is that if people are better prepared for marriage, their marriage is more likely to be successful and to endure (or, they will realise that they are marrying for the wrong reasons/aren't ready to marry/whatever, and change course, but this particular course is delivered much too late for that to happen very often). Plus, there are non-religious courses available which people do because they choose to, not because they have to tick a box in order to marry. So no doubt there's an interesting study to be done comparing (a) those who never do such a course, (b) those who choose to, and (c) those who are required to, and comparing outcomes for the three groups. But I have no idea whether anyone has done that study.

Mrs OBumble

Mellor wrote: »

Sounds a bit ridiculous tbh.
I can see where they are coming from. But couples aren't "courting" at 18 and only living together in the real world for the first time when married at 20.

I'd expect that most, if not all young couples, would have dealt with all of that stuff long before they think about marriage. Maybe I'm bias due to my own situation.

I'm a big fan of such courses, and believe that the state should insist on them, with the minimum content being the legal implications of marriage and an understanding of abusive relationships: huge numbers of people marry without understanding the consequences of doing so.

beechwood55

Tristen Obnoxious Applause wrote: »

3 of the weddings I was at last year the brides was Irish and catholic and the gooms all English and never even baptised. All got married in churches without any difficulty from what I could see (two had the same priest alright though). I have on the other hand heard of other friends being asked for certs etc by the priest so it onviously varies from parish to parish or even priest to priest.

The non-baptised grooms will have had to get a Dispensation from disparity of cult. It's not as simple as just arriving at the altar!

Peregrinus

beechwood55 wrote: »

The non-baptised grooms will have had to get a Dispensation from disparity of cult. It's not as simple as just arriving at the altar!

Actually it's the baptised brides who will have to get the dispensation, strictly speaking. But this is routinely available. It will be dealt with as part of the arrangements with the priest for the celebration of the wedding.

eviltwin

I was 13 years living with my partner before we got married, we already had a 12 yr old child so we knew how to make it work. I would consider a pre marriage course a waste of time and money but if I had wanted a church wedding I would have done what needed to be done. If you want a church wedding you have to follow the rules. There are other options for weddings without the course requirement.

Malari

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I'm a big fan of such courses, and believe that the state should insist on them, with the minimum content being the legal implications of marriage and an understanding of abusive relationships: huge numbers of people marry without understanding the consequences of doing so.

Why? If people are going into marriage not knowing the legal implications that's their own fault for not making themselves aware of the consequences.

Peregrinus

Malari wrote: »

Why? If people are going into marriage not knowing the legal implications that's their own fault for not making themselves aware of the consequences.

The fact that some mistake is the fault of person A doesn't mean that the mistake will have no consequences for persons B, C, D, E, F and G. Sometimes there's a societal interest in reducing the number of stupid mistakes made by thoughtless or uninformed people.

Malari

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that some mistake is the fault of person A doesn't mean that the mistake will have no consequences for persons B, C, D, E, F and G. Sometimes there's a societal interest in reducing the number of stupid mistakes made by thoughtless or uninformed people.

Well, persons A and B, surely. What consequences, for instance, would impact society in general?

Peregrinus

Malari wrote: »

Well, persons A and B, surely. What consequences, for instance, would impact society in general?

The whole point about marriage is that it changes the relationship between the couple concerned and their wider society. Marriage is a pre-eminent example of a decision that isn't purely private in its effects and consequences.

There's an obvious societal interest in reducing the number of marriages between people who shouldn't marry. There's a significant social cost to marriage breakdown.

Malari

Peregrinus wrote: »

The whole point about marriage is that it changes the relationship between the couple concerned and their wider society. Marriage is a pre-eminent example of a decision that isn't purely private in its effects and consequences.

There's an obvious societal interest in reducing the number of marriages between people who shouldn't marry. There's a significant social cost to marriage breakdown.

You mean in terms of tax, inheritance, benefits, that kind of thing?

I wonder what proportion of people who have engaged in pre-marital courses have decided against marriage though.

Peregrinus

Malari wrote: »

You mean in terms of tax, inheritance, benefits, that kind of thing?

I wonder what proportion of people who have engaged in pre-marital courses have decided against marriage though.

Very few, I'd imagine, which was a point I made earlier. By the time people find they have to do a pre-marriage course, they're pretty well committed to getting married, and they're that far down the road that they are unlikely to turn around at that point.

So, if the pre-marriage course has a value, it is more likely to lie in supporting them when, later on, issues start to emerge in their marriage. Instead of simply not understanding what is happening or what they can do about it, hopefully at least some of them, at least some of the time, will remember that, oh yes, something like this was discussed during the pre-marriage course, so I have some sense for what is going on and what strategies and/or supports might be available to help us deal with this.

As I said back in post #19, I don't know if there has been any studies to determine whether pre-marriage relationship education is in fact helpful to people in this way, but it certainly looks like a reasonable thing to aim for.

It can work both ways. Mrs O'Bumble suggests that relationship education should include material designed to enable people to recognise an abusive relationship, and to understand what is going on and how such relationships unfold. An ideal outcome would be that relationship education would equip couples to turn their abusive or potentially abusive relationships into functional healthy relationships, but that's perhaps not going to happen very often. A less ideal, but still good, outcome would be that people are equipped to recognise the difference between bumps in the marital road, on the one hand, and an abusive relationship on the other, and in the latter case to get the hell out sooner rather than later. Again, we don't know if the relationship education delivered in pre-marriage courses produces either result, but either would be good.

Malari

Yeah, I guess if people are really clueless about relationships and the legal consequences of marriage maybe it could help, but it just seems anathema to me.

Mrs OBumble

Malari wrote: »

I wonder what proportion of people who have engaged in pre-marital courses have decided against marriage though.

I have no statistics ( and no idea what studies have been done on course effectiveness here) but its not unheard of for people to change their minds.

Marriage is the most significant legal contract that most people ever make. Most people put huge effort into preparing for their wedding, but not nearly enough into preparing for their marriage.

Dolbert

I personally found the pre-marriage course great. We were together going on 9 years and had bought a house, and it still brought up discussions that we benefitted from having. It's one of the few parts of wedding preparation that actually invests in the marriage and not just the wedding day! It was also surprisingly emotional in parts. I'd recommend anyone to do it, Catholic wedding or not.

Malari

Dolbert wrote: »

I personally found the pre-marriage course great. We were together going on 9 years and had bought a house, and it still brought up discussions that we benefitted from having. It's one of the few parts of wedding preparation that actually invests in the marriage and not just the wedding day! It was also surprisingly emotional in parts. I'd recommend anyone to do it, Catholic wedding or not.

Currently, is it not only run by organisations associated with the church?

Sorry, if we are going off topic here...maybe we should have a separate thread

.......

This post has been deleted.

Dolbert

Malari wrote: »

Currently, is it not only run by organisations associated with the church?

Sorry, if we are going off topic here...maybe we should have a separate thread

I was thinking a session of relationship counselling really! Other friends of mine have done a course, of different Christian denominations so possibly run by their church too

Jwacqui

I found the course interesting - maybe not as beneficial as some others. We are together over five years, have lived together pretty much five years now.
We have discussed most of the topics on the agenda even fertility issues as we have already had some fertility tests done.
I still think it was beneficial as we realised we are normal and like other couples which was nice. For example we argue - as do other couples and many things we covered were relatable.

I wouldn't be traditionally regarded as very religious and I do find some church 'rules' annoying HOWEVER I am choosing to get married in the Catholic Church and therefore I need to follow their rules. As Eviltwin said -thats how it works.

Peregrinus

Malari wrote: »

Currently, is it not only run by organisations associated with the church?

Sorry, if we are going off topic here...maybe we should have a separate thread

The particular pre-marriage courses that you have to complete in order to be married in the Catholic church do have to be validated by the church, and they do contain a religious element. I don't know if they're all actually run by church organisations, but many of them are and it wouldn't surprise me if all of them are.

But secular, non-religious relationship education certainly exists, and it's offered in other countries. I don't know how much of it is offered or taken up in Ireland; I rather suspect demand is damped down by the availability of, and requirement for, the Catholic pre-marriage courses. If Mrs O'Bumble's suggestion that relationship education should be mandatory for all marriages were to be implemented, I have not doubt that secular and non-religious relationship advisory services would gear up to provide courses to meet the demand.

In the meantime, arguably relationship education which contains a religious element is better than no relationship education at all. I know lots of non-religious people who have completed the church-approved pre-marriage courses. Reactions vary, but it's fairly common for people to filter out the session on natural family planning and the theological elements and say, yes, the material on on goal-setting, problem-solving, conflict resolution, etc was useful and beneficial.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well, this doesn't have to be an either/or thing; you can do both. And of course we do already have relationships & sexuality education in schools.

The thing is, though, we don't really reach emotional maturity until about the age of 25, and there's a limited amount you can teach teenagers about how to navigate the issues that arise in mature conjugal relationships when, necessarily, they have never experienced mature conjugal relationships or the issues that arise in them. That's not to say there's nothing that can be done during the teenage years, but there will certainly remaing more that can be done at a more appropriate time.

This is not just a matter of imparting information; what you are trying to impart here are skills, and skills can only be learnt by practice. Hence you'd expect relationship education to be most beneficial when delivered to people at a time when they are actually in the kinds of relationships that the education addresses.

Plankton1

My fiance was really reluctant to do the course but I have to say I was pleasantly surprised. It was run by marriage counsellors who are all married themselves, and although a priest was there for some of it, there wasn't much religious content. I don't agree with it being 100euro per person (I have a right mind to call up and ask where that money goes, seeing as the counsellors said they are volunteers and all we got was tea and coffee) but I don't think it's a waste of time.