Catholic Justice of the Peace

[Listener]

I am having a bit of a problem with the answer to the question today about which marriages a Catholic Justice of the Peace could perform. I agree with your answer about gay marriages. It would be a no-brainer to see that the couple was gay.

Please keep in mind that I am completely unfamiliar with the process that a Catholic Justice of the Peace would have to go through to decide whether or not to perform a particular marriage. Here is where the problem comes in. According to the Catholic Answers Live radio show, a Catholic who has completely renounced the Faith doesn’t have to get married in the Church.

My question is this: The Justice of the Peace is working for the state. How would the Catholic Justice of the Peace even have the right to ask the prospective bride and groom about their religion? How would he or she know so much about the religion of the bride and groom? Wouldn’t this be an example of the state getting into the Church’s business? How would the Justice of the Peace investigate whether or not this couple had an annulment? It seems to me that this person would almost have to marry anyone who asked, as long as they were legally divorced.

I’m just curious if anyone here performs such marriages.

 

[iserve]

I am not too sure whether your state allows you to abstain as a sort of conscientious objector, but if not, would the “ceremony” necessariily be a religious one? After all, one needn’t insert religion where it is not desired nor is it necessary.
Also, even in a Church wedding, the preist is only the presider. I believe that he is not the one who confers the Sacrament, but one who blesses the Sacrament after it has been delivered to one another by the couple. It is conferred through the vows themselves, and then their unity is blessed by the priest. This may be what actually occurs in civil marriage, as well, which is why there has been no outcry against Catholic justices of the peace presiding over them.

 

[Brendan]

Are you talking about a Justice, as in a sitting Judge, or a state certified “Justice of the Peace” who is a non governmental person who performs weddings.

If a person is a Judge, they are under no obligation to perform weddings for the general public.

However, if they choose to do so perform weddings at all, they would probably need to follow state law.

If I was a Catholic Justice, I would not perform weddings at all.

 

[otm]

Brendan:

Are you talking about a Justice, as in a sitting Judge, or a state certified “Justice of the Peace” who is a non governmental person who performs weddings.

If a person is a Judge, they are under no obligation to perform weddings for the general public.

However, if they choose to do so perform weddings at all, they would probably need to follow state law.

If I was a Catholic Justice, I would not perform weddings at all.

Why not? People who have no religion at all are not bound by religious strictures, and those who have a Christian faith that does not recognize marriage as a sacrament have only the possible strictures of their Church to follow, which may not require that one be an ordained minister. How would your act be not premitted?

 

[vern_humphrey]

otm:

Why not? People who have no religion at all are not bound by religious strictures, and those who have a Christian faith that does not recognize marriage as a sacrament have only the possible strictures of their Church to follow, which may not require that one be an ordained minister. How would your act be not premitted?

People who have no religion are not bound by religious strictures. But ***I ***am bound by religious strictures. I would not perform a civil marriage, any more than I would incarcerate an innocent man, or kill a prisoner.

 

[otm]

vern humphrey:

People who have no religion are not bound by religious strictures. But ***I ***am bound by religious strictures. I would not perform a civil marriage, any more than I would incarcerate an innocent man, or kill a prisoner.

So what religious strictures do you have that would prevent you from marrying someone who had none?

 

[Fred_1]

otm:

So what religious strictures do you have that would prevent you from marrying someone who had none?

I think what he’s saying is that he wouldn’t do it, simply as a matter of principle. It isn’t moraly wrong to do so, but if you can make the choice, there are some people who would rather not (which is fine).

 

[otm]

Fred?:

I think what he’s saying is that he wouldn’t do it, simply as a matter of principle. It isn’t moraly wrong to do so, but if you can make the choice, there are some people who would rather not (which is fine).

Possibly, but he used a term which generally means that there are rules. I am curious to see what he is taking as a stricture against it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

otm:

So what religious strictures do you have that would prevent you from marrying someone who had none?

First of all, right and wrong is not subjective. A person may have no strictures against stealing, for example, but that doesn’t mean I can licitly help him steal.

Secondly, a civil marriage is not a marriage.

 

[BioCatholic]

My oldest brother was married by a captain of the 2nd battle group on a beach in front of 300 Marines in his division. from what i understand, he got a dispensation from the church because the captain and my father served together in vietnam, and its considered a huge honor to be able to marry a fellow corpsman’s son. they also wanted to do it on a beach, because my sis in law wanted, and also have a moment of silence for the Marines of Iwo Jima and float a wreath out in the ocean.

they had a FULL military ceremony, with a priest giving the blessing and sacrement. basically, the captin did what the military required for the ceremony, and the priest did what the CC church required.

the naval captin is basically a JOP, given authority by the federal govenment. im sure the CAPT would have married them anyway without a priest even though hes catholic too. i guess its just up to each individuals discretion.

i know alot of military officials used to REFUSE to marry an enlisted-officer couple on the basis of personal views, that is before the military outlawed it.

 

[Fred_1]

vern humphrey:

Secondly, a civil marriage is not a marriage.

And yet the Church recognises it as a marriage? Now I understand your view that everyone should get married in a Catholic church by a priest, and I totally agree! But are you saying that all those poor atheists out there aren’t married? That them getting divorce is NOT wrong? I’m a little confused.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Fred?:

And yet the Church recognises it as a marriage? Now I understand your view that everyone should get married in a Catholic church by a priest, and I totally agree! But are you saying that all those poor atheists out there aren’t married? That them getting divorce is NOT wrong? I’m a little confused.

The Church does not recognize civil marriage as a valid marriage, but at the same time, the individuals in the union remain bound by their vows. To be properly married, they must have their union sanctified and regularized.

 

[otm]

vern humphrey:

First of all, right and wrong is not subjective. A person may have no strictures against stealing, for example, but that doesn’t mean I can licitly help him steal.

Secondly, a civil marriage is not a marriage.

I don’t recall using the word “subjective” anywhere. I am asking him what he feels would keep him from doing it.

The word strictures genereally is used to imply rules; I am asking him if he feels there are rules which would prevent him form marrying someone if he was a JP. that’s all.

Further, a civil marriage most certainly is a marriage.

It is not a sacramental marriage; it is a natural marriage. What do you think Adam and Eve had, or Abraham and Sarah? They were married, but there were no Sacraments, as Christ had not instituted them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

otm:

I don’t recall using the word “subjective” anywhere. I am asking him what he feels would keep him from doing it.

This question:

So what religious strictures do you have that would prevent you from marrying someone who had none?

makes it a subjective issue – as if right and wrong are defined by how someone feels about the issue.

otm:

The word strictures genereally is used to imply rules; I am asking him if he feels there are rules which would prevent him form marrying someone if he was a JP. that’s all.

There’s that word “feels” again.

otm:

Further, a civil marriage most certainly is a marriage.

Legally, it may be.

Would you call a marriage between two gay men “most certainly a marriage?”

otm:

It is not a sacramental marriage; it is a natural marriage. What do you think Adam and Eve had, or Abraham and Sarah? They were married, but there were no Sacraments, as Christ had not instituted them.

If I lived in the time of Adam and Eve, my position would be different.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[otm]

vern humphrey:

This question:

makes it a subjective issue – as if right and wrong are defined by how someone feels about the issue.

I think you will see, if you go back and read the thread, that I am asking him (using his word - stricture)what rule he feels there is against marrying someone in a civil ceremony who has no religious requirements that marriage be performed only by a minister. That is not a subjective question if you substitute the word “thinks” for the word “feels”. He seems te be saying that he has rules, or thinks he has rules, or feels he has rules, which would not permit him to perform such a marriage.

I am not aware of such rules, but am not saying they don’t exist; I am asking him on what he is basing the statement about strictures, a word that is defined, inter alia as restriction.
vern humphrey:

Legally, it may be.

Would you call a marriage between two gay men “most certainly a marriage?”

There is no maybe; the code of law of each of the 50 states, as well as most countries in the world so define it.

The issue of gay marriage is a red herring to the discussion as it was not the topic. However, if you watch national news, you would know that Multnomah County (which is pretty much defined by the city of Portland, Oregon) decided that they were going to challenge state law by performing what they called “gay marriage”. That triggered a referendum on marrige as a state constitutional issue which was passed in this state. Wonders will never cease…

The topic, however, is whether or not a Catholic JP could perform marriage ceremonies between men and women, not between homosexuals; so let’s stick to the topic.
vern humphrey:

If I lived in the time of Adam and Eve, my position would be different.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

I am curious why. I don’t know of any rules that would prohibit a Catholic JP from performing a civil marriage to any couple who present themselves to be married, and of whom the JP has no knowledge that they would be required to perform the ceremony with a priest or deacon as the official witness. Do you?

I am not asking a subjective question. Do you know of any rules prohibiting the proposed action by the JP?

 

[vern_humphrey]

otm:

I think you will see, if you go back and read the thread, that I am asking him (using his word - stricture)what rule he feels there is against marrying someone in a civil ceremony who has no religious requirements that marriage be performed only by a minister. That is not a subjective question if you substitute the word “thinks” for the word “feels”. He seems te be saying that he has rules, or thinks he has rules, or feels he has rules, which would not permit him to perform such a marriage.

Both what one “thinks” and what one “feels” are subjective.

otm:

I am not aware of such rules, but am not saying they don’t exist; I am asking him on what he is basing the statement about strictures, a word that is defined, inter alia as restriction.

There is no maybe; the code of law of each of the 50 states, as well as most countries in the world so define it.

There are laws which make it legal to abort a baby – but as a Catholic I would not participate in such an action.

otm:

The issue of gay marriage is a red herring to the discussion as it was not the topic. However, if you watch national news, you would know that Multnomah County (which is pretty much defined by the city of Portland, Oregon) decided that they were going to challenge state law by performing what they called “gay marriage”. That triggered a referendum on marrige as a state constitutional issue which was passed in this state. Wonders will never cease…

Several states now have such constitutional amendments.

otm:

The topic, however, is whether or not a Catholic JP could perform marriage ceremonies between men and women, not between homosexuals; so let’s stick to the topic.

A Catholic must adhere to his beliefs.

otm:

I am curious why. I don’t know of any rules that would prohibit a Catholic JP from performing a civil marriage to any couple who present themselves to be married, and of whom the JP has no knowledge that they would be required to perform the ceremony with a priest or deacon as the official witness. Do you?

I am not asking a subjective question. Do you know of any rules prohibiting the proposed action by the JP?

Why should a Catholic perform a marriage not in accord with Canon Law?

 

[Listener]

I’m the one who started this thread. It was because of an answer given in the “Ask and Apologist” section. Basically, they said that a Catholic Justice of the Peace could perform marriages in general, but it would be wrong for him/her to perform marriages for Catholics who should be getting married in the Church.

Even though the Church may have a rule like this, I still don’t understand how this Catholic Justice of the Peace would have enough information to know :

1. Are either of these people who want me to marry them Catholics?
2. If so, and there has been a divorce, is there a valid annulment?
3. Has this Catholic rejected the Church so fully that they shouldn’t be getting married in the Catholic Church?

Since this Catholic Justice of the Peace would presumably be working for the government, couldn’t he/she be disciplined for inquiring into the couple’s personal religious beliefs? I was just wondering how enough information would be available to make a decision about whether or not to marry a couple.

In other words, it sounded good in theory, but how would it be put into practice? I assume that if you are licensed to perform marriages, you would be doing this for strangers and not always for friends and relatives.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Listener:

Since this Catholic Justice of the Peace would presumably be working for the government, couldn’t he/she be disciplined for inquiring into the couple’s personal religious beliefs? I was just wondering how enough information would be available to make a decision about whether or not to marry a couple.

Short answer, no.

There are basically two flavors of Justices of the Peace. One flavor is an official charged with dealing judicially with petty offenses (such as traffic tickets.) A good example would be JPs in North Carolina.

The other is a member of the county legislative body – not really a member of the judiciary at all, but retaining some vestigal powers. A good example would be JPs in Arkansas.

No JP or Judge has a duty to marry anyone. In fact, my neighbors were living together and decided to get married. They asked the bride’s aunt – who is a judge on the Arkansas Court of Appeals – to perform the ceremony, and she refused. And there is no way to make her do it (should they be so foolish as to try.)

 

[otm]

vern humphrey:

Both what one “thinks” and what one “feels” are subjective.

Are you trying to make a point, or are you just being obstinate? I was asking the poster what rules were that he felt controlled his conduct. It has nothing to do with subjectivity; I am asking for information. Specifically, he seemd to be saying that the Church would not allow him to perfomr the ceremony. I know of no such rules. I was asking him what the rules were that he felt, interpreted, understood, or what ever terminology you want, controlled the situation such that in following such strictures, he would not be able to perform the marriage.
vern humphrey:

There are laws which make it legal to abort a baby – but as a Catholic I would not participate in such an action.

That is a non sequitur, since he implied that there were rules in the Church that would prevent him from performing the marriage; and I was asking him what those rules were.
vern humphrey:

A Catholic must adhere to his beliefs.

Actually, since you seem inclined to split hairs, a Catholic must adhere to the beliefs of his Church, not his beliefs.

But the discussion isn’t about beliefs, but about rules.
vern humphrey:

Why should a Catholic perform a marriage not in accord with Canon Law?

Well, for starters, Canon Law only applies to Catholics. Baptists are not bound by Canon Law, and neither are those who believe in God but have no particular faith, nor those who belong to a non Christian faith, or are agnostic or atheist.

People have a legal right to be married, according to the laws of most countries; at least, I know of no country on the face of the earht that does not reccognize a marriage between a husband and wife, and that has nothing to do with Canon Law.

If one is a Justice of the Peace and has jurisdictional authority to marry a man and a woman, then it would seem to be that the question is, is there any rule in the Catholic Church that would prohibit marrying a man and woman when the JP has no knowledge that they are bound by Canon Law?

I would not suggest that one simply appeal to the issue of conscience, as the Church insists that in forming our conscience, we must act to conform it to the Church’s teachings (which include the disciplinary laws). Appealing to the issue of conscience does not answer the question I am asking if, in fact, there are no strictures, no laws, in the Church whih would prohibit the JP from performing the ceremony.

I am not, by that, suggesting that the JP would be required to perform the ceremony (although there appears to be a move afoot in Canada to require them to perform a ceremony of a homosexual couple, based on a perceived unlawful discrimination based on sexual preference; but that is not germane to the discussion here). One may not like the couple, or may not like marriage, or may not like marriage ceremonies. But if one is going to say that their consicence would not allow it, then one needs at the same time to show that one has a correctly formed conscience according to the rules and teaching of the Church.

All of which brings us back full circle to the question I addressed to Brendan: why not?

And since you say that you would not, on what do you base that? Personal preference is fine, I have no problem with that.
From what I read of your posts, it seems to me that you feel that the Church says you can’t. However, the Church only requires Catholics to follow it’s laws concerning marriage ceremonies, and the Church does recognize natural marriages.

 

[Fred_1]

Listener:

I’m the one who started this thread. It was because of an answer given in the “Ask and Apologist” section. Basically, they said that a Catholic Justice of the Peace could perform marriages in general, but it would be wrong for him/her to perform marriages for Catholics who should be getting married in the Church.

Even though the Church may have a rule like this, I still don’t understand how this Catholic Justice of the Peace would have enough information to know :

1. Are either of these people who want me to marry them Catholics?
2. If so, and there has been a divorce, is there a valid annulment?
3. Has this Catholic rejected the Church so fully that they shouldn’t be getting married in the Catholic Church?

Since this Catholic Justice of the Peace would presumably be working for the government, couldn’t he/she be disciplined for inquiring into the couple’s personal religious beliefs? I was just wondering how enough information would be available to make a decision about whether or not to marry a couple.

In other words, it sounded good in theory, but how would it be put into practice? I assume that if you are licensed to perform marriages, you would be doing this for strangers and not always for friends and relatives.

Um… well apparantly this thread has gone off on a tangent and no one is even trying to bother to answer the opening question. Tough luck I guess… :ehh:

I can’t really give an ‘official’ answer of any sort, but I would say that, as long as you’re tactful about your inquiries, no one will mind.