Marriage in Temporary Vows

When a nun or monk has advanced from the novice stage, they make what are called “first vows” or “temporary vows” – vows to continue to live according to the Rules and precepts of the community to which they belong, for a set amount of time – usually a couple of years. At the end of “first vows” the religious will then take their final vows, promising before God to remain in that life until their death.

Temporary vows are made, because a religious thinks of him or herself as one day being a “spouse” of Christ, but since the effort is undertaken within a community, the temporary vows are a way of making certain that the religious is in the right community, so to speak, to ascertain that the religious is both faithful and “fruitful” for the community, and not some lollygagging layabout who will not, ultimately, share in that communal life.

So, in religious life, Temporary Vows make sense.

Troublingly, Absinthe and Cookies brings us the news that some couples are inserting what amounts to Temporary Vows into their marriage ceremonies.

“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.”

Sharon Naylor author of “Your Special Wedding Vows,” …adds that the rephrasing is also part of a more general trend toward personalizing vows.

…

“People understand that anything can happen in life, and you don’t make a promise you can’t keep….The wording can give you a stigma of personal failure.”

This is why Naylor prefers vows like, “For as long as our marriage shall serve the greatest good.” “You will promise to be loyal as long as love shall last — you don’t want to promise ‘when you treat me like crap.'”

So, when the tough get’s going – and all marriages hit their rough patches, for a variety of reasons, your non-specific, relativistic temporary vows are kind of like a “get out of marriage guilt free” card, and nobody feels like they have “failed.”

Seems to me that making what amounts to Temporary Vows to each other is an invitation to instability. Marriage is a difficult enough undertaking in the best of circumstances. If you’re starting off unwilling to believe you’re going to make it to the finish line together…well…then you very likely won’t.

“For as long as our love shall last?” That could be three weeks! Why not say “’til the inevitable divorce does us part?”

That is utterly meaningless – it is the matrimonial loophole that’s not really a vow at all, it’s more like a compromise agreement. It is anticipating failure.

Yes, marriage is hard work, and sometimes a marriage can be broken beyond repair, but if you’re getting “married” with a conditional sort of vow which suggests that your love won’t last…well…ever heard of self-fulfilling prophecies?

Without getting into whole marriage-as-manifestation-of-Christ-and-the-church thing, I think this a bad idea. It’s not really a “marriage” It’s just an agreement to live together for a while and see how things go. It’s “shacking up with the license.” Sorry if that sounds harsh.

The article does sound some hopeful notes, though. William Donohue, from William Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (search), said to his knowledge, these new vows have yet to creep into the Catholic Church. And while an “innovative” priest might allow them, he said they “wouldn’t get a sanction from Rome.”

“It’s a change for the worse. The ‘death do us part’ vow is really unconditional. Once you change it to ‘as long as love shall last’ or something of that nature, it’s conditional. It’s almost analogous to a prenuptial agreement — simply saying ‘we hope it works out.’ It goes against the grain of marriage.”

Psychologist Diana Kirschner, author of “Opening Love’s Door: The Seven Lessons,” agreed with Ranawat and Donohue that promising forever lets the other person know that you’re in it for life — good times and bad —…”Over time your mate brings out the best in you, but also the worst in you. You have to have a contract that you’ll work together to help each other grow. A contract that is this kind of thing —as long as we feel good — there’s a guarantee that you’ll feel bad, hit a rocky point you don’t love anyone, you don’t love yourself — that’s where the rubber meets the road. That’s where active love comes through.”

Ed Morrissey has a very thoughtful and eloquent take on this story. And thru this story we learn that Michelle & Jesse Malkin are celebrating their 12th anniversary this weekend! Congrats!

Sigh. After that, who needs a laugh? I do! Speaking of weddings, this gut-buster was written by a priest who hates doing them. I laughed so hard my sides hurt! Enjoy! (h/t Happy Catholic.)

WELCOME: CQ and Michelle Malkin readers! While you’re here please feel free to nose around. Today we’re also discussing whether advanced degrees are wasted on stay-at-home mothers, whether affirmative action is good cheating, Democrats who have misidentified the enemy, how adept Chuck Schumer is getting at playing double dirty cards and…oh, yeah…I’m in the middle of a tin cup rattle! ;-)