If the idea of marriage till death parts you is scary, some couples have come up with an Idea. Vow to stay married for "as long as we both shall love":
"Vows like ‘For as long as we continue to love each other,’ ‘For as long as our love shall last’ and ‘Until our time together is over’ are increasingly replacing the traditional to-the-grave vow — a switch that some call realistic and others call a recipe for failure.
"’We’re hearing that a lot — "as long as our love shall last." I personally think it’s quite a statement on today’s times — people know the odds of divorce," said New Jersey wedding expert Sharon Naylor, author of Your Special Wedding Vows, who adds that the rephrasing is also part of a more general trend toward personalizing vows.
"Naylor said killing the ‘death vow’ doesn’t mean that people don’t take their marriage promises seriously. Quite the contrary.
"’People understand that anything can happen in life, and you don’t make a promise you can’t keep. When people get divorced, they mourn the fact that they said ’til death do us part’ — you didn’t keep your word in church (if they had a church wedding). Some people are in therapy because they promised ’til death do us part’ — it is the sticking point in the healing of a broken marriage. The wording can give you a stigma of personal failure.’"
Well, for those worried about the "stigma of personal failure," it can always be rephrased to "deferred success at marriage." I had intended to comment on this story earlier, back when I first saw it, but Dale of Dyspeptic Mutterings beat me to it. For more commentary, go there.
Yeah, let’s change the wording to save folk’s feelings…never mind that “’til death do us part” reflects the REALITY of mariage. Reality can be so hurtful.
And while we’re at it, we should change all those “thou shalt nots” in the Commandments to “Would you please consider not [INSERT SIN]. I mean, if it’s not too much trouble and you find it consistant with your life journey to do so. It’s no biggie, though.”
Sure, it won’t fit on plaque, but IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN.
This reminds me of what Chesterton said:
“The old ideals have not been tried and found wanting, they have been found difficult and left untried.”
Another example of the modernist solution to every difficulty – lower the bar!
So sad really.
It’s basically a guarantee for failure. Tim J., Chesterton is right (as usual). If couples would “tough it out” through trying times they would find unforeseen benefits that usually lead to strong marriages and a deeper love. But that presumes a knowledge of what marriage is which, also sadly, is also being lost today.
One more thing. My advice to any of my sons or daughter if they should get engaged to someone who wanted to do this new “vow” would be…
RUN, don’t walk away from this relationship.
“For as long as love lasts”, the wedding vow of cowards.
Actually what they really are saying is not, “for as long as our love shall last,” if it truly was the Christian charitable love it would last forever. No, what they really mean is “for as long as you make me feel good.”
For an interesting article that reveals the pope’s view on a closely related topic see: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504311.htm
One of the questions on the prenuptial questionnaire for Catholics desiring to enter marriage is “Do you agree to the nature and obligations of marriage, namely, to enter a marriage that is for life” I can’t really forsee someone of substantial maturity, at least one who approaches the Church for marriage, answering negatively. However, there’s a lot that can happen in a relationship in a short period of time. Adequate preparation aims at preventing failure in marriage but the sources of it are societal.
The post-modern, Generation X, no longer connects to the values of the past. We live in a world tempered by immediate fixes and relative truths, if any. Couples today perfer to purchase the “time-limited” marriage as the psychologically healthier route. I see the big successful evangelical churches in my neighborhood aiming their message at the Gen-Xer’s offering an exciting payoff for their time and effort.
The article that I reference above mentions that often marriage can be a “sacrament celebrated without faith.” For me this points directly to placing the responsibility on the Church, on all of us, whether clergy or lay, to be effective evangelizers enriching the world with the life-giving proclamation of our savior’s love.
There’s a high calling also for currently married people to be at the service of those preparing for marriage by participation in any number of programs throughout most dioceses. It’s astonishing how many couples approach the Church for marriage that are cohabiting, or how many will answer that they do not participate in the practice of their faith. That’s also one of the pre-nup questions where eye contact often fails when they do answer affirmatively.
As a final word on the vows, the dioceses of the United States do offer the option of the “until death do us part” language in the exchange of consent. You might guess that it’s not the most popular option. However, the other option says a lot more about what a marriage really is: “I will love you and honor you all the days of my life.”
I see your Chesterton quote and raise you one:
“Marriage is a duel to the death which no man of honour should decline.”
I don’t like pre-nuptial aggreements either. People get what they plan for and a pre-nup is planning for divorce.
While Chesterton may have said something like this, lots of other people have too — but Chesterton is ALSO supposed to made a much wittier remark, most apropos in this connection, about Christianity (or the Gospel, or the Ten Commandments, etc.) having “not been tried and found wanting, but found trying and not wanted”!!!
(At least, I’ve always believed this was Chesterton, yet a Google search now turns up no corroboration — only me attributing this quote to Chesterton on another site, and a similar remark not attributed to Chesterton. Does anyone know for sure? Help!)
This is the precise quote:
“The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.” – Chapter 5, What’s Wrong With The World, 1910
http://www.chesterton.org – For all your Chesterton needs. I just did a search for “untried” and it came right up.
Pre-nups, per se, are not wrong. When my aunt (by marriage)’s father married a widow, they were old, they both had children, they both had a fair amount of property.
They wrote a pre-nup so that their children would, in each case, get their parent’s property. (And he was widowed ago, so pre-nups do not guarantee divorce.)
Indeed, in Victorian times, “marriage articles” were the usual practice among the well-to-do.
It’s not writing up agreements about money that’s the problem. It’s writing them with an eye to give yourself an escape route.
Like I say for people cohabitating before marriage, having pre-marital intercourse before marriage, and now this.
Why bother getting married. Its obviously not important to you at all if you are looking for a CONSTANT way out. Makes me sick and angry.
I’m of the opinion that these not til death do part vows are not marriage vows at all, but contracts for concubinage.
MP3 download, Music CD, Online music
Download the sheet music for your current favorites and explore our … Download sheet music for Grammy®-winning and related titles, composers, and artists…