FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IT IS MY GREAT HONOR TO INTRODUCE TO YOU FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME

Except for some clean up, we’ve pretty much married our couple now.  There is not much official left save for the consummatum est.  (Terrible pun there.  I apologize.)  There is one rubric, however, that confounds me and I’ve not heard it addressed.  If there is a liturgist out there I would love to hear from you.

Everything about a rubric is there on purpose; the order of the wording, the inclusion, the detail of the word chosen (may vs must etc.)  So why does it state that, at a matrimonial Mass, “The bride and bridegroom, their parents, witnesses, and relatives may receive Communion under both kinds”?  Why not say all Catholics present may receive Communion under both kinds?  Is it truly limited (I bet not - or at least nobody is saying that.)  I doubt we will have people check their category against the program to make sure they fit into one of the privileged ranks.  Curious.

Thus we bring to an end this series on Friday Potpourri.  Nothing has come across my radar screen to start new as of yet.  Perhaps by next Friday God will provide something - but just in case, if you have an idea . . . pass it along!

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THERE ARE NOT ENOUGH WORDS TO SAY I LOVE YOU. OH WAIT. THERE ARE.

Let’s say that it is your vacation.  It is one thing to interrupt your vacation to answer a short text, it is another to be interrupted by a three hour video conference call.  Secretly you are dying a slow and terrible death.

So it is one thing to have little ceremonies added to the nuptial Mass.  But the part of the Catholic brain that has not shut down at Mass, that is at least aware of the flow that should be happening, and that is looking forward to Communion, is suddenly thrown off track by a long, long nuptial blessing.  You know who loves this prayer?  The moms and the priest.  Everyone else has just run into a brick wall and is too concerned about why they are no longer moving forward.  

Well, I am exaggerating.  Maybe I just don’t know how to do it well.  And often I have a couple looking at me with dreamy looks in their eyes over what is being said about them.  Maybe it is my attitude.  About half way through I am thinking, “Gads, am I still talking?”

But it is a beautiful prayer.  And though now it is better translated, even ICEL did not strip it down in length during the post Vatican II translation and they were not adverse to slashing and burning.  AND AS IS OFTEN THE MISTAKE it should be remembered (even by me!) that the people present are not the ones being addressed at this point - it is our Father.  We are going to our Father and asking for a very specific blessing on two of His children who are being united.  Other than to remind us of what is going on and to agree, the job of those who are there is to offer with the celebrant the words being spoken to our common Father.  He is certainly the cause of the day in so many ways, the King present and begged for a blessing, the eternal Father Who loves and blesses His children.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THE AWFUL CONSEQUENCE OF CONSISTENCY

So I made the mistake of saying that I would talk about presenting a flower to Mary during a wedding ceremony.  Probably should not have.  But here we go . . . 

For those who do not know what I am talking about, (I thought everybody knew what this was since it has been such a common experience in my Catholic life,) during the wedding ceremony, a bride, with a particular devotion to the Blessed Virgin, will process to the shrine (statue) of Mary at some point during the nuptial Mass, offer a prayer of petition, and as a devotion, leave a flower (usually a single, white rose) which would be much the same thing as lighting a candle.  The only more recent change that I have noticed is that almost without fail, the groom now attends to this devotion also.  (When I was a kid, it seemed that only the bride went.)

There does not seem to be an allowance for this practice in either the new or the old rubrics for the nuptial ceremonies.  This is a private devotion being done in a public forum and as such is “stuck on” to the Mass. 

99.99% of the time I am adamantly opposed to sticking things on to the Mass.  The requests received for private things to be done at Mass come in often.  Private devotions, talks, presentations, other ceremonies, blessings, many of which are not not only not mentioned but expressly forbidden by the rubrics are often presented as something needed to be done at Mass.  The two most pressing reasons given for the necessity of doing such a thing is 1) it would be beneficial/meaningful to everybody and 2) it concerns the whole community and this is when the whole community is gathered.  As for the first concern, having it Mass often makes more people angry than happy and the second is a bait and switch.  The people are there for the Mass.  If whatever else is going on is really important, then you don’t win them over by forcing them to sit through it.  (How happy are you to turn on Public Radio during a fund drive?)

ALL THAT BEING SAID, my liturgical heart says that this devotional as it is often practiced during the Mass should go the same way as the unity candle - that is - snuffed out!  But I am weak where Mary is concerned and unlike a unity candle ceremony, this devotion to Mary is something that the bride and groom can (and should if they are going to subject the congregation to this private devotion at their wedding) continue throughout their lives.  It is also something in which the congregation can at least tangentially participate.  

Further, it can take place in a way that doesn’t really interfere with the rubrics of the Mass.  For example, while the music continues after the reception of Communion, what is to stop the bride and her groom from walking over to Mary, placing a rose, and asking for her intercession in their married lives?  

What do you think?

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: LET ME MAKE THIS PERFECTLY CLEAR . . . AGAIN.

If you have been reading this blog for awhile, you know I have difficulties with the unity candle.  (We do not use it at St. Sebastian.)  Among other things, as we have been discovering over these few months, we have spent so much time and care making sure that everybody is aware, informed, and is consenting to what is taking place.  To whit:

1. Before the ceremony, the couple is catechized and asked both verbally and through written statement that they are knowledgable about what is going on and that they freely choose to do it.
2. Banns are published to the community for three weeks informing them of what is about to happen (and giving them a chance to weigh in if they feel so inclined.)
3. The wedding bells are rung.
4. It is announced that this couple is about to marry.
5. They publicly state their intentions to get married with knowledge and freedom.
6. They exchange their vows.
7. It is announced that they exchanged their vows.
8. If people still don’t get it they exchange rings.
9. Often they kiss now as a further sign.

Then, for some inexplicable reason, some people feel a need to put on a piece of theater whereby, just incase somebody didn’t quite get what was going on, they take two candles, light one candle together with them, and then obliterate the light from the original candles.  (I have lots of problems with the symbolism, particularly at the Mass, with this.)

NOW, isn’t interesting that the new rite for marriage has new options for those entering into matrimony, but the unity candle is conspicuously absent?  Actually, I am so happy that they Church did not make it an official rite.  There would just be a ton of verbiage added to it.  “Now, bride and groom take the candle of their single selves, a light that has burned since their baptism, symbolizing the life of BLAH BLAH BLAH. . .

Read more HERE.

But there are some newly codified options but I doubt, unless our neighborhood changes dramatically, they will be of much use at this parish.  The first option takes the place of the exchange of rings.  It is the rite of the blessing and exchange of arras or coins.  These are used primarily with those of a heritage and practice from Spain, Latin American countries, and the Philippines.

Another addition is the blessing of the wedding veil or the lazo.  The lazo is a decorative chain placed around the bride and groom’s shoulder.  The veil would be placed on the bride’s head with part of it placed on the groom’s shoulder.  This would take place just prior to the nuptial blessing in those places where this is custom.

"Of course," some of my liturgist friends would say, "what does this say about taking a rose to Mary?"  

*sigh*  More on that in two weeks.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: DO YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING AND STILL WANT TO DO IT?

The evil prince absconds with a fair maiden from the village and forces her, against her will to marry him.  Is this a valid and licit marriage in the Catholic Church?

No.

Marriage is true when the couple, knowing what they are getting themselves into, freely chooses to do it just the same.  So at their first meeting with me, I ask them if they are here freely and without reservation.  At their last meeting with me I am required to read to them a statement that asks much the same question, invite them to discuss it, and then have them sign it.  THEN, just before they exchange their vows, they are asked once again, publicly, “Have you come here to enter into Marriage without coercion, freely and wholeheartedly?” to which they must answer, “I have,” before we can move on to the binding stuff.

This is another section that has been slightly rewritten.  “Have you come here freely and without reservation to give yourselves to each other in holy matrimony?”  It seems there has been an emphasis on the free will aspect in the new question.

The next pre-vow question has been re-written also.  The original way really ticked off my sister.  She did not approve of the way it was stated.  Here we go:  “Will you love each other as man and wife for the rest of your lives?”  She though “man” should be “husband.”  That is no longer an issue.  “Are you prepared, as you follow the path of Marriage, to love and honor each other for as long as you both shall live?”  Notice the little change of clause?  This was re-written by lawyers.  (Joking)  The first part makes no mention of being married whilst loving each other as “man and wife.”  I guess we want to be very clear.

The last pre-vow question is changed the least.

“Will you accept children loving from God and bring them up according the law of Christ and His Church?” vs. “Are you prepared to accept children lovingly from God and bring them up according to the law of Chris and His Church?”  The first is kind of theoretical.  “Sure.  I suppose.  One day I’d be willing.”  The second is slightly more pressing.  “Are you prepared?  Because that is part of what Christian marriage is and it may happen more quickly than you anticipated.”

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: WARNING: TRAFFIC PATTERNS HAVE CHANGED

The other day I was walking Sebastian.  He is getting older and a bit more docile and also seemingly more obedient.  For a couple of years now he has been this way.  People comment how wonderful he is in that he just seems to walk by my side.  I was lulled into a false sense of security.

It’s “spring like” outside.  He’s getting a little randy and I should have picked up on that.  A couple of days ago while he was off of his leash he decided that he wanted to go say hello to somebody and no amount of me calling him back would do the trick.

Grrrrr.

So it is with this Rite of Matrimony we have been following.  Since last we posted, nothing has really changed.  We enter into the Liturgy of the Word per usual and then slip into the homily just as we always have.  Then we hit the actual marriage rite.  Like most priests, I think, after awhile you pretty much have the wording of the rites memorized.  This is nice since, although you have the book in front of you for reference if you get distracted (I’ve seen it happen with disastrous results when a guy would completely rely on his memory and then blank) you can make eye contact with the blushing couple.

But the wording has changed now.  And it isn’t completely re-written, it is re-focused; a reconstructed sentence, a clarifying word used - all to make it better understood exactly what is going on.  Because it is just “sort of” different, one cannot be lulled into thinking they know the rite.  One must pay close attention for fear of slipping into old verbiage.

FOR EXAMPLE

OLD:  You have come together in this church . . .

NEW: You have come together in the house of the church . . . 

I suppose that is to emphasize that, in general, Catholics don’t get married at ball games or on the beach.

OLD:  He has already consecrated in baptism and now He enriches and strengthens you by a special sacrament so that you may assume the duties of marriage in mutual and lasting fidelity.

NEW: Through a special Sacrament, He enriches and strengthens those He has already consecrated by Holy Baptism, that they may be faithful to each other for ever and assume all the responsibilities of married life.

The first somewhat sounds like a manual I suppose.  “When this screen pops up, click on the button at the bottom of the screen.”  And in our modern era, responsibilities are a little easier to swallow that duties.  (And how is special?  Is it just more focused for this particular lifestyle like a special wrench meant only for plumbing?)

This changes will continue next week . . .  Stay tuned.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: A STEP (DOWN THE AISLE) IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

“How long is this going to take?”

I try to take that question in the best possible light whenever a wedding couple poses this question concerning their up and coming nuptial ceremony  “Well, that highly depends if you want every option in the book or not,” is my usual answer.  “I can marry you in about 15 minutes in a simple ceremony if you want.”

They usually don’t.

In a shocking development, one of the options for celebrating matrimony was actually shortened.  Long time readers of Adam’s Ale know that I think that there is just WAY too much exposition on the part of the priest in our matrimonial ceremonies.  But that is what we have so there you go.  But in the case of a wedding being celebrated outside of Mass, there is neither a Gloria nor a Penitential Rite called for.  There is an opening exposition, which may be one of two options or “in similar words” and then right into the collect (opening prayer - with the “Let us pray.”)

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: IF YOU DON'T KNOW, PRETEND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING

A few Advents ago the new Missal came out.  Prior to that point, a typical wedding would begin with the Penitential Rite, which, quite honestly, though probably a good thing to do, was always a bit awkward especially when there were a lot of non-Catholics present.  (Personal opinion.)  In its stead, when there is a nuptial Mass, we begin with the Gloria - which I like better, but is difficult when there are few (practicing) Catholics in the congregation and it is just me and soloist belting out God’s praises.  But it is amazing when it is a bunch of Catholics.

So think back to that first advent of the new Missal.  I’m about to concelebrate a wedding at our cathedral and the question comes up, “Do we sing the Gloria?”  After all, it is not prayed all during the Advent season.  Right?  But the new rite calls for it.  This was not one of the topics covered when we went to all of the workshops on the new Missal.  So, the other clergy, the musicians and I huddled together to make a decision.  Although it went against our instincts, it seemed that that the rubrics clearly called for the Gloria to be sung.  So we did.

When I got home I called the liturgy office for a response.  Nobody was in so the person who was the liturgist for the diocese at the time called back a few days later.  We had a pleasant conversation and then got down to discussing the wedding Gloria.  The person was very honest and said, “I am not entirely positive but I can tell you this:  There was a wedding at the cathedral earlier this week and they sang the Gloria so I would use that as your example until we can confirm so.”

HA!

As it turns out, singing the Gloria is the correct thing to do.  It is part of the ritual for this particular type of liturgy and therefor when a nuptial Mass is said, the Gloria is always prayed even when otherwise it would not be.

And that is why we now sing the Gloria at nuptial Masses.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HERE COMES THE BRIDE AGAIN

The Church really, really wants the soon-to-be-newlyweds warmly greeted.  Last week we read about them being met at the door warmly greeted.  This week, the priest, properly vested for Mass, goes to his chair OR to the place where the bride and groom will be to better carry out the warm greetings and waits.  The next thing that is said is, “When the bride and groom arrive in their place,” which means, I suppose, just about anything.  If it is an extremely simple wedding, they may just take their respective places when we are ready to get started.  (Honestly, a Catholic wedding can be quite a simple affair.  I have had people say they didn’t want to get married in the Church because of all the fuss and grandeur.  But there doesn’t HAVE to be.)  One other option being, I suppose, what we are accustomed to in the United States with some form of the traditional bridal pageantry.  

When they get there however, THEN the priest warmly greets them.  Perhaps it is a good thing that we are so insistent on greeting and showing that they Church shares in their joy since so many people opt not to get married in Church let alone at Mass.  BUT THEN, after the greeting, an entrance chant is to be sung at which point the priest does his customary reverences before beginning Mass.

Now, what constitutes a chant?  It could be anything from the simple introit for the Mass to a typical song from the parish hymnal.  This gets all of the bodies into the church and in their proper places and we are ready to begin, “In the name of the Father . . .  

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: HERE COMES THE BRIDE

The liturgical rubrics and books for weddings have been updated.  Some of it is rather mundane, just having a word here or there changed or added.  Some interesting things have been added.   I have found that some people love these changes and some look like a cat sulking in a tub of water.

For the next little while on Friday Potpourri we will be looking at the wedding rite.  (Ha!  I just remembered that I had a dream last night that I was getting married.  How ironic.  So I guess everybody can find some interest in this whether you are getting ready for the wedding OF your dreams or IN your dreams.)

As with all sacraments, one of the first things that needs to be done is get the ministers into the sanctuary.  So we have rubrics on how to get the priest, ministers, bride and groom, servers etc. into the church.  Paragraphs 45-47 give the FIRST, (preferred) but not only option and it looks like this:

(Hold on to your veil.)

It seems to me that the rite somewhat assumes that the bridal party arrives at the church kind of like a casket at a funeral - just in time to get things started.  Of the places with which I have been associated this is not the case.  They have been here for hours getting dressed, having pictures taken, and trying to do breathing exercises.  But imagine for a moment that we are in some quaint European town and the cars containing the wedding party pull up in front of some ancient, grand, ecclesial edifice (that most likely does not have a lobby or bride’s room - or large modern bathroom for that matter) then this first option might sound intriguing:

The priest and servers, fully vested, meet the arriving party at the doors of the church.  The party is to be “warmly greeted” and shown that the Church shares in their joy.  The procession down the aisle then begins “in the customary manner.”  What the bishops were hoping was that this would look a bit like a Sunday Mass; the ministers and wedding party going down the aisle with the presider coming at the end like Santa in the Christmas parade.  This was something I was not looking forward to telling brides.  Rome intervened however and said that the procession should take place “in the customary manner.”  This provides acres of leeway.  If you want what is most often seen in the United States with the priest standing in the sanctuary and the bride being accompanied by her father, you can still do it.

The priest, in the meantime, is instructed to do what he would normally do at the beginning of Mass, ending up at his chair.

FEAR OF PRAYER

One of THE most intimate things two people can do with each other, even over and above anything physical that they might do, is to pray together.  During wedding prep I have had couples who were well versed in all of the things that should be put off until after their wedding day and are not the least bit shy about it, but ask them to pray together - alone - and more than just gra

ce or a Hail Mary (though I would be excited about that too) and many of them freak out - and I don’t use that phrase lightly.

Often, with these couples that I prompt to go home and try a prayer night, what I hear, when they report back, is, “It was so difficult!  Prayer is such a personal thing!”  These are with people who are about to become ONE and have done just about everything two people can do with each other (often including the man asking his partner to put poison in her body so that it cannot fulfill its mission to procreate) yet prayer is a wall that is almost too high for some to climb.

Why might this be?  In prayer you are exposing yourself at an incredible depth to another person - especially if at least some of the prayer is free flowing.  “What should we lift up to the Lord?”  Generally, in this type of open prayer, what we are bringing forth are the things that scare us, the future that we hope for, what we want on the deepest level and what we want to avoid, our vision is expressed, we expose the depth of our love, the strength of our faith, and perhaps what we assume about the other with whom we are one.  And all of this we invite the other to petition God with us that it might be realized or faced.  That means that we need to be on the same page.

Being a Catholic Christian is not something we tack on to who we are like “scrapbooker” or “Indians fan.”  These you can even despise and still love the other wholly - maybe even more so.  But being Christian is essential to us like being male or female.  If you cannot share or appreciate this, there is some serious discernment that needs to take place.

WHOSE WEDDING IS IT ANYWAY?

AS IT WAS SAID BY ONE LADY:

“You know what the problem is Father?  From the time a little girl has any concept of what a wedding is, she has been daydreaming about it.  She imagines it and catalogues everything that she likes from movies and such.  And then you come along and say, ‘Sorry, I can’t do that.’  But they do it on T.V. and at the Brand New Jesus Church so you look like a jerk.”

That may be true.  It may also be true that we do not preach and teach enough about marriage and weddings to firmly ground people in what they are and what they do.  So two different philosophical boats collide on Lake Erie and it is rare in these situations that both sides go, “Oooops, my bad,” and then motor along.  Dreams and law collide and someone is invariably upset that there is a scratch on their boat.

One of the biggest philosophical barriers to overcome is figuring out to whom the wedding and the marriage belong.  Much of the world would say that the wedding day belongs primarily to the couple.  It is a consumer mentality.  I want to get married, I am hiring you to do it, and this is how I want it done.  It is my dream day, my life, and my commitment, and therefore it should go the way that I want it to go.

That sounds reasonable.  Aunt Judy and Ranger Rick who will be in attendance are not exchanging vows, are not going on the honeymoon, will not be living with the new couple and didn’t pay for a lick of anything.  The Church (typically) receives some fees for services rendered.  So if someone wants to get married on the beach at noon on Sunday at a destination wedding in bathing suits with “Pretty Woman” playing as the bride walks down the sandy aisle, why should we not cater to the consumer?  It is just good business practice.

But what if the wedding does not belong only to the couple?  What if it belongs to the whole community?  What if marriage is a public thing in which everyone has a stake?  What if the reason the Church is involved is to bring support for the day, the marriage, and the family through example, prayer, and assistance in good times and bad, sickness and health?  What if the reason the bells are rung before the wedding Mass is not just because it is pretty but that a wedding belongs to the greater family of Church and they are invited and the bells are the general invitation?  If it is not all of these things, why not just get married in private and then have a blowout party?  

Like the Mass does not belong to the priest meaning he can’t play around with it because it belongs to the whole Church and they have a right to the Church’s Mass, so too does a wedding ceremony belong to the whole Church, the Church in Akron, the United States, the Americas, the world, and therefore we do what belongs to our common union.  Those in attendance, those expected to facilitate, and those marrying all have a right to that.  It is not a purchasing of a service, it is a joining in the life of Jesus’ Church and the life of generations of Catholics who pray for marriage every day.

Ah, well.

FRIDAY POTPOURRI: THERE'S BREAKFAST AND THEN THERE'S BREAKFAST

Things are wonderfully hectic here at the parish as we prepare for the organ dedication.  They are so busy that one would think that Christmas was this weekend (save that there are no decorations in the house.)  So rather than say anything lengthy or useful, I thought I would share this humorous little tidbit under the category “Nuptial Entertaining.”  It concerns what should be served for breakfast to your guests the day after the wedding.

 

To quote Mrs. Fenner:  “To serve more than four courses for a wedding breakfast is almost unheard of nowadays.  (You can say that again.)  For such a breakfast as we have been describing, four might be served, in which case a possible menu would be:

 

“Consume Madrilene

Lobster Newberg * Toast Points

Cold Ham in Aspic * Endive Salad

Pineapple Ice

 

“The following three course menus are also elaborate enough for a lavish breakfast:

 

“Vichyssoise

Roast Duck with oranges * endive salad

Fruits refraische au rhum

 

or

 

“Melon

Roast Squab with Wild Rice * Russian Salad

Chocolate Ice Cream

 

or

 

“Minted Fresh Pineapple

Chicken Eugene * Asparagus, butter sauce

Strawberry Mousse”

 

Hmmmmm.

 

The traditional post nuptials breakfast in our family is potica and coffee.

 

Now to be fair she does offer other menus for less formal weddings but none of them include potica and coffee.

 

Only a couple times in my life have I had a breakfast like the ones mentioned above.  They were fun but I admit to rather a fan of “Farm Breakfasts” with a heavy emphasis on dairy and meat products. 

IN THIS SAND, I THEE WED

Occasionally a phone call will come into the parish that goes something like this:

“Hello. Am I talking to the priest?”

“Yes, how may I help you?”

“I’m planning in getting married on June 3rd and I would like to get married (INSERT ONE OF THE FOLLOWING: ON THE BEACH, IN THE BACKYARD, PARK, PARTY CENTER, ON A BOAT, WHILE SKY DIVING . . .) and I was wondering if you would do the service.”

The next question out of my mouth will be, “Are you both Catholic?” If they say yes, chances are that I will not be able to assist them in the matter. After initial sounds of disappointment the question will arise, “Why can’t we get married in the (wherever)?”

Of course the Church (or the bishop or the parish or the pastor) comes off as the party spoiler who wants things their way. I understand the concept. Part of this is due to the “service” paradigm in existence in many other Churches. This sees “Church” as something akin to the banquet facility. I want a banquet and so I call a caterer to give me the reception of my dreams. Similarly, a bride (usually) has been dreaming of a certain wedding “since I was a little girl” and so assumes, logically enough, that I call my parish and for a modest sum, they will provide me with it.

Unfortunately, or fortunately depending on what you believe, this runs counter to how the Church envisions the marriage ceremony. It is a public event. It is not too different at all from ordination. We could not say to the bishop, “We have a dream of being ordained in Forest Lodge Park. It is the center of our community and plus we will be in the middle of nature that we love so much.” The bishop would rightly answer, “Boys, it’s not about you. This is not a private ceremony. It belongs to the Church. And we will have it at the cathedral, the central worship placed of our local Church, and throw open the doors to any who wish to attend.”

Marriage, too, is a public event and it belongs to the whole community. It is a sacred event and thus has a special connection to the faith life of the Church. This is exemplified by the banns being published the three weeks leading up to the wedding. The public has a right to know about and have a right to voice objections should there be any true impediments to this marriage. The ceremony belongs to the Church (and by Church I mean all the people) and most technically there would be no such thing as a “private” wedding. (There may be some legitimate reasons for it to be that way in practice, but not in ideology.) The bells ring 5 minutes before the wedding Mass not to call your guests in but anyone in the community who wishes to be a witness. A wedding is an event of the Church, not simply a perfect day for the wedding couple, though if properly catechized, the two should really be one – an event for the Church and a perfect day for the couple.

So almost all weddings between two Catholics take place in a church, the place of the community, the sacred space where sacraments are performed. As a general rule, the show is not taken on the road.

MONDAY DIARY: HOW MOM AND DAD MET

Sometimes people will say that they are glad that they are not a priest because of the sad stories we must hear all the time in the confessional or during difficult moments of people’s lives. But those stories are balanced out by the great ones told about the highlights from people’s lives.

For example during my wedding preps I always ask the question, “How did the engagement take place?” Though enjoyable, it also says something about the people involved. At least a quarter of the time the guys tries to plan something memorable and romantic and his soon-to-be-finance is not interested in doing whatever activity he has planned. One guy buried the ring in the beach where they liked to go building sand castles. The plan was to go out and start digging and say, “Oh my! What is this?” Of course for the first time in her life she did not want to go sand castle building that day. “But we HAVE to!” “No! I don’t want to go! I’m tired and hungry.” Of course he has to find away to go out and get that ring worth thousands of dollars out of the sand without giving away the surprise.

Much more of the time it works out. One of my favorites was a guy who brought his girl to the Christmas concert at St. Sebastian knowing how important her parish was to her. At the end they went over to one of the side shrines and he proposed to here there. It nice to know that chivalry is not completely dead. 99.5% of the time the guy still talks to Dad and Mom and still goes down on one knee when he asks.

There are the stories about how they met also. Online social network stories are popping up more but “met at the bar” stories seem to be waning. Perhaps my all time favorite “How We Met Story” was when the couple was very young and she beat him up in karate class at first making him cry and later solidifying their friendship until this coming year when they shall be known as Mr. and Mrs.

Do you have a story to share?  For those who got married or are engaged take the poll to the right.

MONSIGNOR MANNERS WEDDING TIP

It is my day away and Fr. Pfeiffer is on vacation but it is terrible outside and so I’m not going anywhere and it appears nobody is coming here! FUN DAY!

Here is a short one for today since nobody will be at work to read today’s post I suspect.

This is Monsignor Manners tip number #35 for really enjoying your wedding reception if I might be so bold.

There was a time in this diocese that ordination receptions were a bit over the top. I had three dinner receptions – two of them with a band and all. It was not that I actually planned it that way – it just sort of happened and I am very grateful for it provided many great memories.

One of the receptions I actually planned. As I was starting the process Mother Valencheck took me aside and gave me this bit of information: Don’t throw a party for yourself, throw it for your family and friends. Don’t make it about being THE perfect event for you, make it an enjoyable event for everyone else.

IMHO she was absolutely right. There was no need to freak out when everything was not going completely the way wanted it to in the set up or while it was taking place so it was easier just to enjoy the events as everyone else did in the way they wished, and then after we just talk about how great it was and not how the table arrangements were not exactly what they were intended to be.
(How many times have I heard about couples [brides mostly] not enjoying their wedding receptions or who were so stressed out that it was not a positive, memorable experience for them?!)

A couple of months later my sisters and I then threw Mom and Dad and 50th wedding anniversary party using Mom’s maxim. Now, there were things that needed managing (it’s time for the toast etc . . .) but that too we were able to enjoy turning the focus of the party to others. I dare say a good time was had by all. (I will admit there was stressful part when we found out that what we wanted to do was illegal [shock!] and so had to hurry at the last minute to change our plans. Who knew?)

So young couples I pass on Mother Valencheck’s advice to you: Throw a party for others and enjoy it. Don’t throw one for yourself. It’s not party to do that.

THE VOW - PART DEUX

Jerry heard the words but they seemed not to make sense. He sputtered for a few moments and then, still on his knee and a bit dazed said, “No Mary. You’re wrong! I’m sick in love for you and there’s nothing for it. You are stuck in my heart like an indelible mark. I want you in my life forever Mary. I’ll do anything. Just say that you will be mine or I think I’ll die!”

They stayed mute, staring at each other for what seemed like eternity, the only sound was the rumbling of bowling balls and pins in the back ground. Finally Mary sighed deeply and said, “I’ll tell you what. I’ll say yes under one condition.”

“Whatever it is Mary, I’ll gladly endure it.”

“Oh, I know you believe dearest.” She paused for a few more moments. “Here it is. We will continue from this day forth as if I said yes. But at some point before I say, ‘I do’ I will subject you to a test of your undying love and if you pass, I will choose you and love you for the rest of our lives.”

Jerry positively beamed! He knew quite instinctively that he could pass any test his sweetest could devise and so over the next six months they went about the process of planning their wedding. Every day Jerry would wake and wonder if that day would be the day that Mary would try her test of his love till finally it was days before the wedding ceremony and he had begun to think that perhaps the test had already occurred and he had passed it so easily that he had not even noticed it.

The wedding day was a glorious fall spectacular and even the trees were in their finest form. Not to be outdone the attendees came to the wedding Mass dressed in their Sunday best and packed the beautiful old gothic Sacred Heart Parish church. The magic moment came for the bride to walk down the aisle and the mighty pipe organ, roused from its too long slumber of inept players by the finest organist money could persuade to play for the marriage rites, began the bride’s fanfare. Mary appeared at the end of aisle. Jerry’s breath escaped him and tears filled his eyes. The congregation gasped. As she passed each pew the people’s hearts were moved in love by her beauty. She placed her hand into her intended’s and electricity shot through his body. Everything was a blur to him until it came time to exchange their vows.

They stood holding right hands before the priest in front of the high altar and the priest began, “Do you Jerome Waverly take Mary Malloy as your lawfully wedded wife? Do you promise to be true to her in good times and in bad, in sickness and in health, will you love her an honor her all the days of your life?”

With great emotion Jerry responded, “I do!”

The priest then turned to Mary. “Do you . . .”

“Wait,” she interrupted him. Jerry’s heart began to beat wildly. Turning her eyes to the man who had just publically declared his undying love for her she asked, “Do you mean that Jerry?”

“This must be the test!” he thought to himself. So mustering all of his will he definitively declared, “Yes, Mary. Absolutely.”

“In good times and in bad? Sickness and health? All the days of your life no matter what?”

There was a certain amount of trembling in his heart and with just a slightly less assured voice responded, “But of course Mary.”

“Then remember our deal.” And with that she left. Well, she didn’t exactly walk out as much as it seemed she faded away - or perhaps back. In any event she was gone. Oddly enough nobody seemed to think it terribly strange. Mary was, after all, different.