My understanding--and this is how Michael Sheehan explained it in his
classes--was that the vows were exchanged outside the church before mass and
thus at a time when all (or many) parishioners were waiting to enter the
church. The exchange of vows at the door kept them all waiting, so whether
they had come to the church expecting to witness the exchange or not, they had
to, willy-nilly. Presto: most of the community now knew that the couple were
lawfully joined in matrimony; there would be no room for speculation that they
might be cohabiting without benefit of clergy and, if necessary, all those
witnesses could testify at a later date that the marriage had indeed taken
place in proper form. After the exchange, of course, everybody could go inside
the church for mass.
As Michael expounded this, what was at issue was the notion of public
honesty. The Church was concerned that the community at large knew that a
couple had been legitimately joined in matrimony and that the union had
been properly blessed. This also explains the medieval church's very
grudging acceptance of clandestine marriages, which could offer fodder for
public scandal if rumors got round that a couple were cohabiting without a
proper exchange of vows--and might, of course, lead others to do the same
thing. (While most R.C. marriages are now solemnized within the church
building, it remains a requirement in canon law that the doors of the church
be left open throughout the ceremony so that there are no possible arguments
that the marriage was contracted secretly.)
John Parsons
On Mon, 24 Nov 1997, Claire Labrecque wrote:
> Dear all.
>
> I would like to know more on the marriage outside th church. The only
> information I've got from the "Medieval/Renaissance Information Site"
> (http://paul.spu.edu./~kst/bib/bib.html) is that : "during the Middle Age
> (at large !?!), weddings would be place outside the church, at the door,
> rather than inside where only a few people could view it". It would be a
> question of visibility ... I'm not very satisfied of that argument. Could
> someone comment on that subject?
>
> Thank you.
> Claire Labrecque
> Un.Laval, Quebec.
> [log in to unmask]
>
>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|