Catholics and marriage licenses

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thank you for your thoughts frDavid96. I have to say that I am very ignorant of how the monetary system in Jerusalem in Jesus day worked. All this time, I was taking those words in that gospel at face value. I still think though that Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple could be used to support my argument. I’m sure you will agree that the most important lesson to take from that reading would have to be that we should all strive to make our churches houses of prayer and work to eliminate corruption in Gods house.
I suppose if there are some of you out there that think Jesus was driving away the money changers to defend Cesar who was being ripped off, I guess that’s your prerogative…To me that’s a bit of a stretch though. Anyway…

If you disagree with me, I don’t mind at all. I came here to express my thoughts. It is not wrong for me though to have these beliefs. Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license. And you know what? Families were stronger. Seems to me, the less government involvement, the better. But if you like things the way they are today, I’m not suggesting you stop getting your benefits. I am much happier though with as little “help” from the state as possible.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
I suppose if there are some of you out there that think Jesus was driving away the money changers to defend Cesar who was being ripped off, I guess that’s your prerogative
Click to expand...
I don’t think that that’s what FrDavid was saying.
ByWhatAuthority said:
Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license. And you know what? Families were stronger. Seems to me, the less government involvement, the better.
Click to expand...
Like it or not, there’s a civil dimension to marriage.

For example, let’s say a couple was living together with a “spiritual marriage” but no legal marriage and the man dies without a will. The woman might be left in a very unfavorable legal position vis a vis the house, their bank accounts, etc.–unless they did an amazing job of dealing with the legal issues.
ByWhatAuthority said:
But if you like things the way they are today, I’m not suggesting you stop getting your benefits. I am much happier though with as little “help” from the state as possible.
Click to expand...
Again, if a man dies in that situation, the woman would be in a much better situation if she had Social Security survivorship, which she would get through marriage. It’s all very well for him, but the widow and orphans are going to be up a creek when they could be doing much better.

Also, lack of legal marriage could easily cause awful problems with health insurance, unless the plan is to fob the woman and kids off on Medicaid or something. Tsk, tsk! But for a middle class family with good employer-provided health insurance, marriage is essential.

Basically, what you are describing causes endless inconvenience and pointless hardship for no benefit at all.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
Thank you for your thoughts frDavid96. I have to say that I am very ignorant of how the monetary system in Jerusalem in Jesus day worked. All this time, I was taking those words in that gospel at face value. I still think though that Jesus driving the money changers out of the temple could be used to support my argument. I’m sure you will agree that the most important lesson to take from that reading would have to be that we should all strive to make our churches houses of prayer and work to eliminate corruption in Gods house.
I suppose if there are some of you out there that think Jesus was driving away the money changers to defend Cesar who was being ripped off, I guess that’s your prerogative…To me that’s a bit of a stretch though. Anyway…

If you disagree with me, I don’t mind at all. I came here to express my thoughts. It is not wrong for me though to have these beliefs. Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license. And you know what? Families were stronger. Seems to me, the less government involvement, the better. But if you like things the way they are today, I’m not suggesting you stop getting your benefits. I am much happier though with as little “help” from the state as possible.
Click to expand...
Oh please.

Would you come down off that high horse of yours already!

Really, it’s quite pathetic how you keep trying to make yourself some kind of victim here You want us to believe that you are the only one who believes in the Gospel while everyone else just wants to be the tool of a big oppressive government and big oppressive corrupt Church. The Catholic Church won’t do as you demand: Well boo hoo. Cry me a river.

You are not trying to eliminate any kind of corruption. You are the one asking, no make that “demanding”, the Catholic Church to be a party to criminal fraud!

So please, spare us any more of your self-righteous indignation.
 
Wow! frdavid96! I am so sorry! I did not mean to upset you more than I already have. It’s okay. I don’t mind if you disagree with me. I never meant to insinuate that I was the “only one who believes in the gospel”! And I am not feeling victimized at all! Lol! I must say, I am upset to discover that priests can be charged with a felony for presiding over a sacrament. I do have faith that that issue will work itself out though. With things getting so bad, it probably won’t take long for the church to realize that there is a solution. Peace to you frdavid96
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
I do have faith that that issue will work itself out though. With things getting so bad, it probably won’t take long for the church to realize that there is a solution.
Click to expand...
There already is a solution, which is to be a contributing member of the legal system and not to declare your sovereign citizen. This isn’t really a ‘problem’ for the Church, this is a problem that your friends have brought upon themselves. Stop acting like they are somehow the injured party here - they’ve chosen to live outside the law, and they can’t throw a fit then when the Church will not bend to their will.

Incidentally, marriage licenses within the Church are predated by ‘banns’ in the Medival Period, which were announcements required by cannon law in order to check that there was no impediment to marriage, which is sort of the thing that they check for with a modern marriage licence. Now, granted, the state as we conceptualize it today didn’t even really exist until the end of the 17th century, so that’s not a direct comparison, but involving secular/community authority in confirming the legal legitimacy of a marriage has been going on for centuries around the world. It’s no new invention following the sixteenth amendment or anything.
 
Also, @ByWhatAuthority, if you are ever unsure regarding scripture interpretation, we as Catholics we have the benefit of the Church interpreting these for us.
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
If you disagree with me, I don’t mind at all. I came here to express my thoughts. It is not wrong for me though to have these beliefs. Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license. And you know what? Families were stronger. Seems to me, the less government involvement, the better.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting proposition. How do you support that assertion? Before the intervention of the state, husbands could walk away from marriages without any consequences and leave wives and children utterly destitute; England’s debtors’ prisons were filled with penniless mothers and their graveyards were filled with children unable to withstand the grueling conditions of the workhouses. The continuing feminization of poverty is, in large part, a holdover of the days prior to government intervention.

Before government intervention, there was no one looking out to make sure that children received a minimum level of care, or education, or housing. There was no one making sure that children were not exploited - and so they were. There was no social safety net if mom or dad fell on hard times.

Without the government to intervene, there was no way to ensure that wives and children received inheritances from husbands’ and fathers’ estates.

In my experience, people who decry government intervention have no idea what the world was actually like before government intervention. You are completely entitled to your opinion in this regard. But, if you’ll forgive me for saying so, your opinion is based in a fantasy and not in truth. Learn what life was like for the people who lived without the safety of government intervention before you start glorifying it.
 
DarkLight said:
This would be the term to look up. They’re all over youtube talking about how they exempted themselves from the authority of the government. A lot of them eventually end up in jail.
Click to expand...
Freemen on the Land is another useful term to look up for understanding the phenomenon that is being discussed here. We have some excellent court cases here in Canada that have thoroughly canvassed the topic from a judicial standpoint and completely eviscerated the arguments being made.
 
Last edited:
Winner winner chicken dinner. Deacons too. (most of the marriages in my area are witnessed by a deacon for some reason.)
 
DarkLight said:
This would be the term to look up. They’re all over youtube talking about how they exempted themselves from the authority of the government. A lot of them eventually end up in jail.
Click to expand...
And I am not going to risk being put into the next cell. Not for some crazy scam like this.
 
deacon3b said:
Winner winner chicken dinner. Deacons too. (most of the marriages in my area are witnessed by a deacon for some reason.)
Click to expand...
So tell me deacon, would YOU be willing to risk a felony conviction (or whatever it might be in your state) to play along with this this little “you aren’t my government” scheme?
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license
Click to expand...
Marriages were also valid before the invention of the Church.

You seem to be under the impression that church marriage came first and civil marriage came second. It is the other way around. And the Church has ALWAYS recognized the civil form of marriage. Christ elevated marriage among the baptized to a sacrament, but it is by virtue baptism that it is a sacrament. The Church recognizes marriage as a natural institution formed by consent of the parties.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
Marriages were valid before the invention of the marriage license. And you know what? Families were stronger.
Click to expand...
I think you really have to back this one up a little bit. State recognition/regulation of marriage has been going on a long time, across many, many cultures. I think one would be hard pressed to show that marriages were stronger when they were independent of any civil authority.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
I must say, I am upset to discover that priests can be charged with a felony for presiding over a sacrament.
Click to expand...
That is a complete misrepresentation of the situation. They would not be charged with a felony for presiding over a sacrament. They could be charged with a felony for violating the law regarding civil requirements for marriages.
 
I never implied that there should be no civil authority.

I think the state should recognize Catholic marriages whether there is a marriage license obtained beforehand or not. Before the invention of the marriage license, civil authorities recognized the validity of Catholics marriages.

What I meant was marriages were stronger before the mandating of the marriage license not civil authorities recognition of.
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
I never implied that there should be no civil authority.

I think the state should recognize Catholic marriages whether there is a marriage license obtained beforehand or not. Before the invention of the marriage license, civil authorities recognized the validity of Catholics marriages.

What I meant was marriages were stronger before the mandating of the marriage license not civil authorities recognition of.
Click to expand...
What data do you have back this up?

If, as you say, civil authorities should recognize Catholic marriage without a license, should they do that for all religions? Should getting a license to marry be optional for everyone in the US or just for you?
 
Marriage licenses have been around a long time. I think they became mandatory in the US in the 20s sometime. The problem I have with them is you can’t get married in the Catholic Church without one. That is s relatively new concept for the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
ByWhatAuthority said:
I think the state should recognize Catholic marriages whether there is a marriage license obtained beforehand or not. Before the invention of the marriage license, civil authorities recognized the validity of Catholics marriages.
Click to expand...
I am not a lawyer, but my understanding is that in common law marriage States such as Texas, the State would recognize a certificate stating that a Catholic Sacrament of Marriage had been performed as evidence that a common law marriage existed between the couple. In my county, such couples may register their common law marriage at the courthouse.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top