My husband and I were born and raised Catholic, practicing until early college when we began to have premarital sex and slipped from the teachings. When we found out that I was pregnant with our son, my husband (then boyfriend) was leaving for Iraq in four months, for a six month deployment. We both went to confession and righted ourselves with the Church. To insure I would have health insurance for myself and the baby, we got married by a Justice of the Peace, under the pretense that we would not act as a married couple and that it was purely a contract with the government so I would get health benefits. We have kept to our promise of not knowing each other as a married couple, though we do live together because we cannot afford other accomodations. We are now seeking to be married in the Catholic Church, as we orginally planned. The priest whom I wanted to marry us is hesitant upon letting me have the procession and music that goes with a traditional wedding. I have read Canon Law and done research on marriage convalidations. I have found that usually couples do not have the big ceremony, but that it is solely based on their choice. I have not read anywhere that it is against the Church's teachings, and I would like to know the truth of the matter. Would I be able to wear a wedding dress, have a maid of honor, etc, or is it against the Church's teachings?

It's not correct to say that it's solely the couple's choice. It is true that the Church does not expressly forbid it, but it is also true that the Church gives a priest considerable discretion over things like this--in other words, a couple does not have a canonical right to say, "Our wedding is going to look like this." A priest is answerable to God for the conduct of liturgies.

This does not mean he has a free hand to be arbitrary or capricious. It does mean that he has a right, and in fact an obligation, to consider whether what you want would be good for you and good for those around you.

Has he talked with you about why he is hesitant?

He is hesitant because although we are very close and have known one another for years, he is also thinking of the congregation's reaction. He has never allowed a convalidation ceremony to resemble anything of a wedding, and did not want to seem like he is playing favorites. Though we have been living according to the teachings, he cannot explain to every upset mother-of-the-bride that because we were not having sex we were allowed the elaborate ceremony. I had never intended to put him in this situation--it was never explained to me that a convalidation is highly different than a "wedding." I did not have the "wedding" ceremony and traditions when we were married by the Justice of the Peace because I had thought I would have that when I was truly married in the Church. I plan on having another priest marry us who is willing to let us have these traditions present so that I don't keep my priest in this awkward situation. I just wanted to be sure that I would not be going against the Church's teachings.

It seems that you have found a good solution; it is most unfortunate that no one explained it to you ahead of time. I very much appreciate your concern for your priest.

There may be regulations in some dioceses that encourage a simpler ceremony for convalidations.

Thank you, Father. I didn't know about that; I'm pretty sure we don't have them, and I wasn't aware that other places might.

Theo and I had something similar.

Since Theo is Canadian, there were visa considerations. Theo and I had a JoP marriage to finalize the visa, but neither of us considered it to be our real wedding.

And we had the full wedding Mass on our scheduled day. One difference was that the priest involved was kept appraised of the process and even consulted with the Chancellory office as we planned this all out.

This is not merely some personal foible of the priest. The Church historically has favored the priest's approach. Prior to Vatican II, convalidations were not even done in the church building, for precisely the reason he stated. There was great concern about public scandal. They were done in a small chapel in the rectory with just a handful in attendance. Shortly before the Council, permission was given to allow the ceremony in the church, but outside the sanctuary. This was seen as having Church sanction, but still clearly indicating that it was not the ideal and proper way for couples to approach the sacrament. Finally, after Vatican II, all such restrictions were left to the discretion of the pastor. Those who are concerned with scandal have various ways of handling it, typically in a chapel or with less public ritual.

Thus, the priest's concern is a valid one, and I tend to think that the possibility of scandal is often overlooked in our modern society, even though people are as surprised and/or critical, or more so, of situations where they do not know all of the facts. I would urge the bride to recognize that fact, and rather than church or priest-shopping, realize that the Church's long-standing custom and the priest's prudent both approach have great wisdom behind them. There were very poor decisions made by the couple in the past, ones that had very public ramifications, and rather than try to sweep them away, acknowledge that sometimes even when one is currently doing the right thing, the wrongs of the past may still have an impact.