RC marriage ceremonies in the Rectory
Forthview
Shipmate
When checking out BF's mention about the Virgin Mary being physically present in the eucharist I looked on the internet for the person who seemed to have written such an article.
He was, in the 1940s, pastor of St John's church in LaFargeville NY. On searching further for his name I saw two articles from local papers of the time stating that the pastor had conducted marriages in the Rectory.
Now at that time I imagine that most RCs would have wanted the marriage solemnised in church and indeed with a Nuptial Mass.
Would an RC marriage in a church rectory indicate a marriage where there was 'disparity of cult' (one of the parties was Catholic and the other was a baptised non-Catholic ).
At the same time in Scotland at least Presbyterian marriages would regularly have been contracted in the manse (residence of the minister) rather than in church which was simply a meeting place for the religious community . It seems from American films that many marriages including religious celebrations would be held not in church but in private homes or in hotels.
Strictly speaking a Catholic marriage ceremony does not have to take place in church. In the past - over 60 years ago Catholic marriages where there was disparity of cult would in Scotland take place in the sacristy but I have never heard of them being celebrated in the presbytery (Residence of the priest) This is not the case now, of course - except in the case of the marriage of a Christian with a non-Christian.
Can anyone enlighten me and possibly others how common 'marriage in the rectory' would have been ?
He was, in the 1940s, pastor of St John's church in LaFargeville NY. On searching further for his name I saw two articles from local papers of the time stating that the pastor had conducted marriages in the Rectory.
Now at that time I imagine that most RCs would have wanted the marriage solemnised in church and indeed with a Nuptial Mass.
Would an RC marriage in a church rectory indicate a marriage where there was 'disparity of cult' (one of the parties was Catholic and the other was a baptised non-Catholic ).
At the same time in Scotland at least Presbyterian marriages would regularly have been contracted in the manse (residence of the minister) rather than in church which was simply a meeting place for the religious community . It seems from American films that many marriages including religious celebrations would be held not in church but in private homes or in hotels.
Strictly speaking a Catholic marriage ceremony does not have to take place in church. In the past - over 60 years ago Catholic marriages where there was disparity of cult would in Scotland take place in the sacristy but I have never heard of them being celebrated in the presbytery (Residence of the priest) This is not the case now, of course - except in the case of the marriage of a Christian with a non-Christian.
Can anyone enlighten me and possibly others how common 'marriage in the rectory' would have been ?
Comments
*Sadly, because he felt forced to leave the Episcopal Church, where he had been active all of his life.
So no weddings on beaches, no weddings in private houses and no weddings in vicarages, rectories, presbyteries or whatever.
As a tangent, current rules are so determined to put barriers in the way of fake marriages designed to get round immigration controls, that it's become quite a performance jumping through all the necessary hoops if either of the couple are not resident or not UK nationals. So although weddings are big business here, unlike many other countries, there is no market in wedding tourism. If you and your beloved are from somewhere else in the world but you've always dreamt of a wedding in a pretty English country church, forget it.
I know of two churches in Somerset, one on an island in a little lake and the other in the grounds of a country house, which do quite a line in wedding tourism, but it's an opportunity that really is only available to indigenous tourists.
That's very limiting. What about non-religious ceremonies (said from a country where over 75% of weddings are non-religious).
Now they can also take place in an authorised place with a Registrar present to perform the ceremony. Quite a lot of hotels now have rooms authorised for weddings. The same room must not also be used for the reception.
Quite a few times we've been having a coffee on a Saturday afternoon at a café near us, and opposite an attractive park. There's been a wedding in the rotunda and the couple, the celebrant and others have wandered over the road for an afternoon coffee before heading off for more photographs or the formal reception. Relaxed and a happy time for all.
A civil celebrant performs the ceremony. There are courses available and those who qualify are registered. As to signing - a folding table works very well, and this particular rotunda is only a step or 2 from the ground. The parties and witnesses sign as does the celebrant. I'm not sure who gets the paperwork back, but it could easily be the happy couple.
There have been a lot of clampdowns on marriages, partly forced marriages but also marriages to regularise the situation for illegal immigrants, although that doesn't guarantee anyone can stay now.
One of the weddings I picked up on was an attempt to do that; the illegal immigrant didn't have any of the right paperwork, so we couldn't marry them in a CofE church. (Real mess that one - I had to grass up the minister who hadn't checked the paperwork properly, and she had to go back to the couple and tell them she couldn't perform the marriage she'd booked in, which she should have done in the first place. The couple actually wanted an orthodox wedding, but that would have meant the registrar checking in advance, and they'd have picked it up too.)
The original would go to the Registrar of Births, Deaths and Marriages but I don't know who gets it there. An oddity is that the Registrar is an official of the State Government but the Marriage Act is Federal. The Registrar is authorised by the relevant Federal minister. One of those things. I assume money flows to the State to cover the cost. Basically all ministers of religion are authorised celebrants; most celebrants though are those who've qualified by completing an authorised course.
What is disturbing is the ever-increasing proportion of civil marriages. Many churches would be lucky to get a wedding a month.
In the US, marriage laws are matters for the states, not the federal government, so there is no single way that things are done. In this state, there is no such thing as a register of people authorized by the state to officiate at a wedding. The law is that any ordained minister/priest or other person authorized by his or her religious body to officiate may officiate. On the secular side, magistrates (county judicial officials) may officiate. There is also provision for formalization of marriages “after the manner of Quakers.”
While most magistrate-officiated weddings are probably done at the courthouse, many magistrates are willing to do weddings elsewhere. I’ve been to outdoor weddings and weddings in homes that were officiated by magistrates.
And many ministers are very used to weddings in places other than the church, unless church law forbids or discourages it. Our wedding was on the front lawn of my wife’s college. Three Presbyterian ministers officiated. Two family members had (in-state) destination weddings that were outdoors. In each case, the minister from the family church (and his family) travelled the 2+ hours to officiate. In such cases, of course, the couple or family pay all expenses for the minister (and family), including lodging.
Before the wedding, the couple obtains a marriage license from the register of deeds of the county in which the wedding will occur. (Despite the name, the register of deeds also handles birth certificates, marriage licenses and death certificates.). Prior to the ceremony, they give the license to the officiant. After the wedding, the license is signed by the officiant and two witnesses, traditionally the best man and the maid/matron of honor. The officiant then returns the license to the register of deeds.
Done.
How does the procedure stop people either performing fake weddings, or issuing themselves with fake certificates of weddings that never happened?
And what is the requirement corresponding to our publication of banns or putting up a notice outside the Registrar's office that the wedding is to take place, so that somebody who claims they are already married to one of the parties can find out and object?
Mr Lola had some irregularities with some of his documents and his others, which were all perfectly legal, were somewhat unusual looking. He went to quite a trouble to correct the mistakes made by third parties in the most standard ID but I did have some sleepless nights convinced that someone was going to refuse to marry us!
My own paperwork was impeccable and I wanted to be married in the church I had been regularly worshipping at for over a decade, all the while flagrantly living in sin with my now husband who is not a Christian but was personally known to the person checking the paperwork.
I did sometimes want to ask what the chances were that we were planning a sham marriage as part of a highly elaborate and long term immigration fraud! But your comments seem to make me think it’s more common than I realised!
Criminal penalties. Frankly, I’ve never heard of such a thing happening.
There is no such requirement here, nor anywhere else in the US that I am aware of. It is a misdemeanor to provide false information when applying for the license, including information about whether one is already married. In some instances, proof that a previous marriage has been dissolved may be required before the license will issue.
BTW, I realized that one thing I said above has changed. A marriage license issued in any county is now good anywhere in the state, but it must be returned to the county register of deeds that issued it. Licenses are good for 60 days.
This particular marriage didn't sound as if was a sham, just an attempt to regularize the situation to prevent the groom, who was an illegal immigrant, from being deported away from his partner and child. Churches are not allowed to marry people without permission to stay or without a special licence. Even a wedding in a local church with the daughter of regulars coming home for the wedding and flying back out again afterwards needed a special licence.
With us the couple collect the schedule from the registrar and that is what is signed on the day. This has to be returned to the registrar within three working days or the whole thing is invalid, and then the certificate is posted out to the couple.
I believe these types of ceremonies have to be completely areligious. The couple can't have any song or words or rituals that are deemed religious. The British Humanists are trying to change this.
Note the no locked/closed doors means that full Mormon weddings which have to take place in a temple with only members of that faith who have a temple recommend present can't double as legal weddings in England.
I see the requirement that weddings in England/Wales have to take place between 8am and 6pm has been dropped in 2012 (before that I think only Quakers and Jews were allowed to have their weddings outside those hours since Quakers and Jews were specifically exempt from the 1750s law that set among other things that requirement). BTW why were they exempt?
Because the Quakers were stroppy but largely trustworthy and the Jews were non-Christian and the latter. Everyone else was suspected of being a Jacobite if they refused to conform to the established church. I may be oversimplifying a little.
When we filled out the fluffy version, we made certain to include sufficient contact information so that anyone investigating the marriage later and having only this piece of fluff would still be able to track down the legal and ecclesiastical records.
I had read of instances of this in (Canadian) Anglican churches in the 1920s when the local CoE in Canada (as it then was) cleric was of the ignore-the-existence-of-dissenters point of view-- the minority status of Anglicanism and the fury of parents made this an insupportable practice. I made an enquiry of a feminist legal historian of my acquaintance who tells me that pre-WWII weddings were often held in manses/rectories/private homes rather than churches. In rural areas, it was often in the church as no other adequate space was available but there were no churches in many dispersed areas, so any room would do in a pinch. In the Yukon during the gold rush period, NWMP offices served, even if the holding cells were within reach.
Until the mid-60s, mixed marriages (RC and non-RC) were usually held in the presbytery unless the bishop provided special permission to the contrary. In my part of the province, this was used to shame the (usually bride) for marrying outside the Franco-Ontarian population.
My parents were married in 1939, six months before the war. They had a mixed marriage, my mother beng Anglican and my father Presbyterian. Not all that common then.
Different countries, different customs. It sounds very odd to us not being given a marriage certificate on the spot.[/quote]
As US marriages are governed by state law, the official cetificates of marriage, issued after the marriage is performed, will often be printed on some form of paper watermarked, embossed, or debossed with state emblems and logos, as well as other barriers to counterfeit.
The marriage "certificate" can be hung on your wall or chucked in the round file, as you please. It's only for pretty. And it's not, particularly.
As I recall 30 years ago, California was much the same, except they didn't even provide a pretty certificate. The license was all we got, and certified copies of the license are all we need for legal purposes today.
Not difficult ... a small table with a white cloth to reduce the birdshit factor. The celebrant, witnesses and couple would sign before wandering off for coffee and more. (Edited to add that in NZ we follow the Missouri pattern as outlined by Lamb Chopped).