Get updates from Catholic and Enjoying It! delivered straight to your inbox
Now *that’s* the way to start a marriage.
How humbling, not for this amazing husband, but for those of us who did the “garter thing” without thought at our own weddings. The more contact I have with this younger generation of Christians the more I am impressed. They are a spiritual powder keg that in 10 years or so the world won’t know how to handle.
I really doubt her feet smelled THAT bad.
I don’t like it. It strikes me as too much of a showy and theatrical “gesture.”
“I don’t like it. It strikes me as too much of a showy and theatrical ‘gesture.’”
I would assume, then, that the showy and theatrical (and bulesque-y) removal and tossing of the brides’ garter by the groom doesn’t sit well with you, either.
It sure doesn’t sit well with me. I’d rather see the washing of feet, though, than that louche garter routine.
I didn’t even have a garter. Or cake smashing in the face. I didn’t even have an engagement ring!
Without being too harsh to differences in taste and there are many things in weddings that are a matter of taste, I would say this:
Much of a wedding IS SUPPOSED TO BE ‘showy and theatrical “gesture.”’ What are wedding rings but a “showy gesture”? What is the first dance (something I hated doing, dancing in front of a crowd)? Or the sharing of cake? It’s a special day of showing to the world through gestures mentioned above how they promise to love one another.
Ken raises an interesting point. Perhaps it would make sense to speak of showing what is fitting to share with family and friends on so public an occasion, while at the same time, recalling that many things that take place between the couple at the time of their wedding would be more fitting to keep private.
@ Marion — I agree with you completely about the privacy aspect!
Um, well, we didn’t do the dance thing, either. Or that candle thing that everyone seems to do. No video cameras either. We kept it very, very simple.
I just think the foot washing thing calls too much attention to the groom himself. The gesture seems too contrived and self-conscious to me — I get the impression that he’s saying “Look at me!” I’m not saying that was his intention, that’s just how I perceive it.
Just my two cents. Your milage may vary.
We didn’t do a garter toss–I honestly don’t remember if I tossed the bouquet either. The photo reminds me of something my husband always says, “Men are the head of the household, and that means they are the head servant.” I sometimes watch wedding dress or wedding shows, and the meaning of everything seem to be so gone. The veil and white dress that used to symbolize purity and innocence for the bride are just a chance for many women to play dress-up with a huge budget.
Beccolina, I agree. I had a friend who wasn’t a virgin when she married, and I deeply respect the fact that she didn’t wear a veil because of that. In fact, she got annoyed at a mutual friend who DID marry as a virgin for NOT wearing a veil. I remember the words “But veils are AWESOME, and you can actually wear one!” getting tossed around at the bachelorette party.
Anything that is so showy that it is for eyes other than the recipient of the gesture isn’t chivalry. And ordinary folks didn’t practice it in the Middle ages.
There seems to be a buried assumption here. I’m going to ask a few questions to see if I can dig it up? What makes chivalry christian? What makes this notably chivalric as descriptor as opposed to calling it authentic christianity?
Man, call me unromantic, but that picture hit a 9.8 on my cheesy-chill-0-meter. Yuck. I agree the garter thing is a little low-class, but I’d infinitely rather have a gesture that publicly and jokingly acknowledges the sexual relationship that is now integrally important to this new family than this overly-earnest display. It’s the reception: you’re supposed to be having a big ol’ party, not sending a message.