Outdoor wedding in New York City

They’re both vegan… and both conservative. He is Jewish, and by the end of the article, you gather that she is Roman Catholic. A priest performed the wedding… outdoors. Lots of pictures of the wedding in the NYTimes story: “Conservative and a Vegan in New York. Wait! You Are Too?

Share:

8 comments

  1. Biretta and all…..

    I may have missed something but might it be the other way around: she is Catholic and he is Jewish?

    1. I agree. “Mr. Loigman’s parents did not attend because of religious differences. “My parents felt strongly about me marrying someone Jewish and having a Jewish wedding,” Mr. Loigman said.” (Pure speculation here: I wonder if parental opposition of this kind may be the basis for a bishop’s approval of an exchange of vows outside of a church in similar situations, to lower the temperature, as it were.)

      The coped priest (no Mass, one would assume) from across the Hudson in Poughkeepsie was duly hatted mit biretta. One would hope the reception would not end up in a reprise of an old Woody Allen line: “There’s an old joke – um… two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of ’em says, “Boy, the food at this place is really terrible.” The other one says, “Yeah, I know; and such small portions.”

  2. Interesting, given that marrying a non-christian requires a dispensation from the bishop, so paperwork would have to go through the Chancery. And the website for the Archdiocese of New York says this about outdoor weddings, “Please note that permission will not be granted to have a wedding outdoors. Permission may be granted for a wedding in a non-religious building like a catering hall or restaurant, only if the circumstances merit special permission, reserved to the judgment of the Chancery.”
    And given that the bride lives in Manhattan and is from New Jersey, and the priest is a pastor in Poughkeepsie, neither have canonical standing for a wedding in New Paltz. So there had to be two other pastors and parishes involved.
    Having done my brother’s wedding at his parish in Manhattan as visiting clergy, that paperwork with the Chancery was complicated enough. That leads me to believe that the story of how this wedding came about would probably be much more interesting than the story of the couple’s courtship and nuptials.

    1. “That leads me to believe that the story of how this wedding came about would probably be much more interesting than the story of the couple’s courtship and nuptials.”

      My thinking exactly….

  3. First, New Paltz isn’t New York City, although it is within the Archdiocese of New York.

    Second, the claim to being conservative apparently applies to their political views rather than their ideas about weddings. What exactly is conservative about this wedding? The couple is violating the rules of the church about outdoor weddings. Doesn’t obeying church rules count as conservative anymore? The Jewish groom is violating his parents’ convictions about marrying outside the religion of their ancestors, and they objected so strongly that they did not come to the wedding. Is his behavior conservative? I don’t think so. The garb of the priest suggests he is following the 1962 rite. But I rather doubt it, given the setting. Is it now “conservative” for a priest to mix and match, getting togged up for one kind of liturgy and performing another?

    I’d call this wedding “postmodern faux-conservative.”

    1. As to the general observation that very little conservatism is detectable here: quite right.
      But despite my own experiences with chancery officials who want nothing less than to mire themselves in dispensation requests by approving even a single outdoor wedding (“and why not in MY very special circumstances?”), I don’t think it right to leap to conclusions that the location of the ceremony violated “rules about outdoor weddings” when one of those rules is (simply put): the local ordinary can permit outdoor weddings. Granted, this is complicated by the archdiocesan warning that it won’t grant permission; I just think I’d stop myself at “looks pretty fishy” rather than stating with confidence rules had been broken.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *