Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Outdoor Wedding Now Permitted in Catholic Archdiocese ??
CITI-l ^ | August 10, 2008 | Fr. John Shuster

Posted on 08/10/2008 11:27:43 AM PDT by VidMihi

Until yesterday, outdoor weddings were forbidden in the Archdiocese of Seattle. If a couple wanted an official church marriage, a priest had to perform the ceremony in a parish church building - never outside under the blue skies of the Pacific Northwest with beautiful snow capped mountains in the background.

Christine Gregoire is the governor of Washington State. Her daughter Courtney wanted an outdoor wedding at the governor's mansion in Olympia. Yesterday, the Archdiocese of Seattle gave Courtney and Scott the outdoor Roman Catholic wedding they wanted. I am very happy for them and for the precedent this sets for all Catholic couples in the future.

Archbishop Brunett changed the policy forbidding outdoor weddings by sending one of his top priests, The Rev. Michael J. Ryan - pastor of Seattle's St. James Cathedral, to officiate at the ceremony at the governor's mansion in Olympia - outside on the lawn under a white latticed arch in front of over 250 guests .

While the influence of money and power certainly has everything to do with this departure from established policy, I welcome this new precedent set by the archbishop. In accommodating the wishes of the governor's daughter, he has officially changed church policy requiring indoor church-bassed wedding ceremonies for all Catholics.

We married priests in the Seattle archdiocese have been officiating at outdoor weddings for years. It is refreshing to see the archbishop following our lead in accommodating married couples on one of the most special days in their lives.

Over the past 25 years, the ministries of over 100 married Roman Catholic priests in the Seattle Archdiocese have been regarded with a mix of derision and amusement by the majority of church officials and those clerics who find their personal needs more readily met in the corporate priesthood.

This the first of many more examples where our predominantly gay clergy has much more to learn from the married clergy in our Roman Catholic Church.

Father John Shuster, - Married Roman Catholic Priest - Port Orchard, WA


TOPICS: Catholic; General Discusssion; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholicceremony; weddings
It seems to me that the Church ought to take into consideration that it is the couple's wedding and be more willing to accomodate them rather than acting like "father Knows best" and you will be married inside a church' especially when dictated by those who never were married and are never likelty to be ( well, except in some states )
1 posted on 08/10/2008 11:28:10 AM PDT by VidMihi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

bad link.


2 posted on 08/10/2008 11:39:03 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

Special dispensations CAN be granted. The *matter* of the sacrament cannot be changed....but the place is not the matter. The Church, in her wisdom, has reasons for safeguarding the sacramental tradition.


3 posted on 08/10/2008 11:47:14 AM PDT by SumProVita ("Cogito ergo sum pro vita." .....updated Descartes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

John Shuster is a married man who at one time was a priest but is now a Rentapriest.

“”I checked out of the institution. I left the system. But I never left the church,” said Shuster, 54, who lives in Port Orchard. To him, the “church” is the faithful, not the authority in Rome.”

I checked out of the USA and now have a Duchy in Virginia. I am a Dutchess.


4 posted on 08/10/2008 11:56:06 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

You are not allowed to be a priest without affiliation with a diocese or an order. There is no place for a rent-a-priest. Geeesh, one more non-Catholic pretender.


5 posted on 08/10/2008 12:03:58 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tiki

Please, didn’t you see my title? I’ve decided to be a Royal Dutchess.

It’s Your Royal Highness, thank you very much.
( -;

(If you want, you can be the Queen.)


6 posted on 08/10/2008 12:07:42 PM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR; tiki
Sorry, I must be mis-informed - seems I learned in the
catechism ( Baltimore, that is ) that “once a priest, always a priest”
7 posted on 08/10/2008 12:24:07 PM PDT by VidMihi ("In fide, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

He does not have the permission of the bishop or approval of the Church, and while he technically has the ability to consecrate, etc., his masses are illicit.

Furthermore, anybody can marry people. The sacrament is actually performed by the bride and groom, and the priest is just the witness. However, for the norms of the Church to be met so that it can be recorded as a valid wedding, the couple is supposed to be married in a church by a validly operating Catholic priest.

In other words, “Courtney” and “Scott” (what happened to taking a saint’s name for baptism?) are married, assuming there are no other impediments, but it’s still not a Church wedding, no matter where they have the ceremony.


8 posted on 08/10/2008 12:42:43 PM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

I don’t want to be Queen, too much responsibility, maybe Princess.


9 posted on 08/10/2008 12:58:15 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

While that is true one cannot remain unaffiliated. I guess they could be forced to retire from active priesthood but they cannot go independent. They can have a Leave of Absence with permission from their superior and during that leave can celebrate Mass outside of their area but they cannot be independent.

IOWs, independent priests become Protestant. They have separated themselves from the authority of the Church.


10 posted on 08/10/2008 1:02:28 PM PDT by tiki (True Christians will not deliberately slander or misrepresent others or their beliefs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Well hello Duchess.

I’m the king of Siam. I also invented the internet.


11 posted on 08/10/2008 1:41:04 PM PDT by vladimir998 (Ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ. St. Jerome)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

VidMihi:

Ontologically, once ordained a priest, one is a priest. However, a priest is ordained for the service of the Church, i.e. to correctly adminster the sacraments, which in Catholic Theology, is the normative means through which God gives us Grace.

Once a priest is in the laicized state, while ontologically a priest, he has no faculties to admininster the sacraments.

Regards


12 posted on 08/10/2008 1:49:55 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Your Royal Highness, have you considered distributing some largesse to the deserving populace? And have I mentioned how deserving I am?


13 posted on 08/10/2008 2:00:45 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("And the rum is for all your good vices.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi
This the first of many more examples where our predominantly gay clergy has much more to learn from the married clergy in our Roman Catholic Church.

Right from the horse's mouth...

14 posted on 08/10/2008 5:08:07 PM PDT by Iscool (If Obama becomes the President, it will be an Obama-nation)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: livius

Actually that is not true.

Catholics have the obligation under Canon law to follow proper form. A marriage without Canonical form is not a valid wedding. If they did not indeed receive a dispensation from the Bishop then in fact they are not married. Annulments are granted from time to time precisely for this reason.

A priest who does not have the faculties to perform a marriage from a local bishop is not able to witness the sacrament and the weeding is invalid. For example wedding that have occurred in SSPX chapels are invalid since they do not have the faculties. Canon 1108.


15 posted on 08/10/2008 5:15:51 PM PDT by Atheist2Theist (http://www.splendoroftruth.com/curtjester/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

Can someone explain to me why Catholic weddings can’t take place outdoors?

I am not Catholic, and I had an outdoor wedding, my kids all had outdoor weddings, even my daughter who was married in February during a blizzard. (For the comfort of the guests, chairs were lined up in front of a picture window)


16 posted on 08/10/2008 5:38:03 PM PDT by Alouette (Vicious Babushka)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Atheist2Theist
a local bishop is not able to witness the sacrament and the weeding is invalid.

I never show Bishops my weeding.

They want to bogart all the weed for their culty-incense-swinging-smoker-dealie.

17 posted on 08/10/2008 5:44:33 PM PDT by humblegunner (I'm voting for McCain because he's white.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

**Christine Gregoire is the governor of Washington State. Her daughter Courtney wanted an outdoor wedding at the governor’s mansion in Olympia. Yesterday, the Archdiocese of Seattle gave Courtney and Scott the outdoor Roman Catholic wedding they wanted.**

Another CINO.


18 posted on 08/10/2008 7:11:47 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi
Marriage in the Catholic Church is a privilege based on membership. It is not a "right" that one can dictate the form of, at least beyond certain bounds. The Church has always wanted to emphasize the sacred nature of the Sacrament of Matrimony, and, in Her wisdom, has considered that things like outdoor weddings can trivialize the solemn nature of what is taking place. "It's all about me, Me, ME" is a symptom of our times, and is embodied these days in couples demanding such things as outdoor weddings to "celebrate our togetherness" or "commune with nature while we commune with each other," or some other nonsense. The church building, according to older perceptions, is the Domus Dei, the House of God. What good reason, not rooted in self-absorption, would a believing Catholic have for not wanting to be married in the House of God?

Catholic matrimony is not about the warm-fuzzies. That can be saved for the reception. Marriage is a life-long commitment, and the Church has a right to prescribe to its members how it is to be celebrated, just like the ruling authorities have the right to prescribe the activities of anyone in voluntary societies. Perhaps if marriage weren't so trivialized theses days, in ways like this, among Catholics, subsequent divorce wouldn't be nearly so frequent, and better choices might be made to begin with.

19 posted on 08/10/2008 8:27:25 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi
A priest may always be a priest, but he needs faculties, supplied by the diocese, in order to publicly perform his ministry. This priest's faculties, as part of his laicization, have been revoked. He cannot function as a priest, except to hear the confession of someone who is dying. And that is a concession for the benefit of the dying penitent, not the laicized priest.

I'm surprised you don't know these things. Or do you just refuse to acknowledge the reality? As much as you might be a fan of them (and other things you've said imply this to me, at least), rent-a-priests who have been laicized do not, and will not, have sanction to perform ministerially in the Catholic Church. As in the question of venue for a marriage, the Church has the right here to set the standards for actions performed within its purview. It therefore can determine when, and under what circumstances, its priests can exercise priestly function, especially after the priests themselves indicate that they "want out'! Don't like it? Too bad.

20 posted on 08/10/2008 8:39:46 PM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

Being a minister in a denomination that sets no restrictions on the location of weddings (or funerals), my personal opinion is that those conducted outside of the church building are always weaker. It’s simply not possible for most couples (families) to come up with all the support that’s already in place in a church building. Whether organs, pianos, sound systems, seating, decorations, atmosphere, changing rooms, staff musicians, fellowship halls, etc., etc., all of it is in place, requires no extra planning or cost, and enables the couple to focus on more important things.

I think a couple/family ends up with a lesser ceremony — and one requiring a whole lot more work — when they go elsewhere.


21 posted on 08/11/2008 3:07:55 AM PDT by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain -- Those denying the War was Necessary Do NOT Support the Troops!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

>> Sorry, I must be mis-informed - seems I learned in the
catechism ( Baltimore, that is ) that “once a priest, always a priest” <<

True... he’s a priest, just not a Catholic priest. Under certain conditions, the Catholic Church has recognized even the Holy Orders of Anglican priests to be valid.


22 posted on 08/11/2008 6:42:15 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: tiki
>> I don’t want to be Queen, <<

Niether did he; that's why he didn't just become an Episcopalian. (IT'S A JOKE!!!)

And another one's gone, another one's gone... Another one bites the dust...

23 posted on 08/11/2008 6:45:39 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

There is no policy change: one can ask for a dispensation from the bishop to be married, even in a non-Catholic church. A Catholic priest must be present, though.

That a dissenter presents it as a policy change is nothing more than dishonest spin.


24 posted on 08/11/2008 6:51:07 AM PDT by B Knotts (Calvin Coolidge Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dangus
Respectfully sorry, but IMHO - wrong on both counts. If he was ordained by a Roman Catholic Cardinal, for example - what kind of priest do you think he is? Cardinals don't usually ordain priests for other religions - like wiccan, for example.

Anglican Orders are not accepted as valid by the Holy See.

25 posted on 08/11/2008 8:25:08 AM PDT by VidMihi ("In fide, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: B Knotts

Maybe we ought to get clarification from the Archbishop’s office. If Joe and future Mary Sixpack, both Catholics, wanted a outdoor wedding would a priest of the Archdiocese be be sent?


26 posted on 08/11/2008 8:33:16 AM PDT by VidMihi ("In fide, unitas; in dubiis, libertas; in omnibus, caritas.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: VidMihi

Sorry, but YOU’re wrong on both counts:

1. He WAS ordained by a Catholic bishop, but he is no longer Catholic. He is in schism. Hence, he is not Catholic.

2. Although the window seems to have closed, due to the increasing severity of the errors of the Episcopalian Church and the Church of England, there have indeed been Episcopalian priests accepted as Catholic priests without having to receive Holy Orders in the Catholic Church. I know one. The process, however, is extremely difficult, and requires establishing valid apostolic succession, which requires that no-one in the line of succession be invalidly ordained or apostate. (All Anglican preists are illicitly ordained, but illicit doesn’t necessarily mean invalid. All Anglican priests are schismatic, but schismatic doesn’t necessarily mean apostate.)


27 posted on 08/11/2008 10:19:15 AM PDT by dangus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

Dutchess, are you from Holland? I think you mean Duchess. ;)


28 posted on 08/11/2008 10:28:16 AM PDT by kalee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: kalee

LOL! You know, you are right!


29 posted on 08/11/2008 11:04:15 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson