Outdoor Wedding Now Permitted in Catholic Archdiocese ??

CITI-l ^ | August 10, 2008 | Fr. John Shuster

[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

[VidMihi]

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 )

[OpusatFR]

bad link.

[SumProVita]

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.

[OpusatFR]

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.

[tiki]

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.

[OpusatFR]

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.)

[VidMihi]

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

[livius]

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.

[tiki]

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

[tiki]

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.

[vladimir998]

Well hello Duchess.

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

[CTrent1564]

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

[Tax-chick]

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

[Iscool]

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...

[Atheist2Theist]

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.

[Alouette]

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)

[humblegunner]

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.

[Salvation]

**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.

[magisterium]

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.

[magisterium]

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.