Catholics and marriage licenses

[CilladeRoma]

I have read through this thread, and I am confused.

If the couple in question has no problem with the state recognizing their marriage after it happens in a Church, why such concern over having to get a license first? It seems as though this whole situation is a little ridiculous.
In the US, this is how it is done, I don’t understand the problem. What am I missing?

 

[Horton]

And you are not receiving a sacrament when you get a marriage license. You receive the sacrament when you stand before God and witnesses to exchange your vows (all other conditions for a sacramental marriage having been met).

I don’t get what your objection to this is. Why do you object so much to getting a marriage license? You’ve been told clearly, from many sources, why the Catholic Church won’t marry you without a license, so why the continued objection? Are you not a faithful Catholic?

 

[Gertabelle]

Hi bluerose,

I am not sure of the civil practises in your neck of the woods. It is a ritual here to stand before a state registrar and pledge your commitment in accordance with and with respect to the secular understanding of marriage.

The “neck of the woods” where the OP’s friends live is the United States.

In this neck of the woods (the US), a couple fills out some paperwork and takes the license with them. There is no standing (or sitting for that matter) before any civil authority and pledging anything.

The pledge takes place in front of the witnesses of the couple’s choosing – for faithful Catholics that would be a priest or deacon.

 

[Gertabelle]

I have read through this thread, and I am confused.

If the couple in question has no problem with the state recognizing their marriage after it happens in a Church, why such concern over having to get a license first? It seems as though this whole situation is a little ridiculous.
In the US, this is how it is done, I don’t understand the problem. What am I missing?

You’re not missing anything.

But a few people on this thread seem to think it’s time the people in the pews make signs and march on the archbishop’s residence with demands to have the Church follow their well-reasoned-and-insightful advice on Church practices – because obviously no Bishop, Cardinal, or Pope could possibly understand things as clearly as they do.

Sheesh.

 

[casslean]

You’re not receiving a sacrament when you receive a marriage license. You are completing the process required to prove to both the state AND the Church that there are no impediments to your marriage.

I have a question - what do you imagine would happen if the Church said, “Sure, let’s go ahead without the license,” and then it turns out one of the two parties wasn’t being entirely truthful and they HAD been married in the past and were, in fact, still married?

Or, if these two people wanted to end their marriage? The Church has no process for a divorce, so how do we determine what each person’s rights and obligations are at the end of the marriage? How do we even prove they were ever married? Absent a marriage license, the church record alone isn’t sufficient.

What happens if one of the parties is critically injured and their spouse has to prove they are married to be able to make medical decisions for that person? How do we deal with that situation?

What if one person dies without a will? How dies the surviving spouse prove that they are entitled to a share of the estate?

There are reasons we decided to institute a system of marriage licenses. It is because ALL of these situation have arisen, and they create chaos.

 

[Xantippe]

We are not receiving a sacrament when we receive a drivers license. Or any other state issued document for that matter.

Would you be offended by a church requirement to present a birth certificate in order to baptize a baby?

 

[Xantippe]

You’ve been told clearly, from many sources, why the Catholic Church won’t marry you without a license, so why the continued objection? Are you not a faithful Catholic?

Right.

Part of being a faithful Catholic is being obedient. If your bishop wants you to get a state marriage license in order to have a church wedding, get a state marriage license.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Obedience and humility. Two things that are lacking in most political “movements”.

 

[abucs]

Hello CiladeRoma,

reading the OP’s post it is part of the changing views on citizens relationship with regards to the state.

Perhaps he can correct me if my understanding of his post is incorrect.

There are some who do their religion through the state (and many who get workers wealth transferred to them for doing it, including Catholics). There is an increasingly large group of people who are rejecting that hypothesis as government over reach and something not to be associated with and do not want to be made to pay for it. This movement is both religious and secular and government marriage is a small microcosm of a larger issue.

People who do their religion through the state believe they are doing a good thing (even Christ’s work) but what is happening is a severe fracture of politics and a lack of respect and association with the state. So Trump’s election under the banner of ‘drain the swamp’ symbolises a much bigger, and worldwide movement against the role of the state. The ‘not my President’ people is the other side of the coin who see the state as their religious vehicle. There are some Catholics who sympathise with the second group, especially if they are receiving tax payers money. This fracture is causing government to be more and more paralysed and disrespected and criticised as the ‘other’ guy (Trump or Obama) is ‘resisted’ by those who don’t want them to have the power of the state. The only solution in the long term is to lesson the power of the state, especially in regards to social and cultural powers.

In short, the more power the state has, the more heightened the political division in society, the more people lose faith in government and identify less with it.

So for example, the OP (and myself) feel this way and see no reason why the secular state needs to validate a religious wedding. We are exploring ways in which the state validation of marriage can be bypassed.

As I mentioned earlier, secular people in Australia are also seeing less reason why the secular state needs to validate their union/marriage and they are choosing to bypass this by not bothering with any state (name removed by moderator)ut at all.

These views are the way society is moving and some people are fearful of this, especially if they are being paid by the state (others wealth) or who still see the state as their religious vehicle.
Regards.

 

[Augustinian]

I remember learning in French class in high school that priests in France have no authority to officiate at a civil marriage. People that want to marry in the church there have two ceremonies: a sacramental marriage ceremony in a church and a civil marriage ceremony at the courthouse.

I didn’t take French in school, but I learned that in 1971. Mick Jagger was a resident of France when he got married to Bianca- and they had 2 ceremonies - a civil one as well as a church wedding- and that was the explanation.

 

[FrDavid96]

I have read through this thread, and I am confused.

If the couple in question has no problem with the state recognizing their marriage after it happens in a Church, why such concern over having to get a license first? It seems as though this whole situation is a little ridiculous.
In the US, this is how it is done, I don’t understand the problem. What am I missing?

It is simple. It is a criminal scam to avoid paying taxes. People stay “under the radar” by not having any government paperwork or record of them. A marriage license is a legal document, which is exactly what they want to avoid–any legal record of their identity.

They want the Church to participate in this scam by performing illegal weddings for them.

 

[abucs]

It is simple. It is a criminal scam to avoid paying taxes. People stay “under the radar” by not having any government paperwork or record of them. A marriage license is a legal document, which is exactly what they want to avoid–any legal record of their identity.

They want the Church to participate in this scam by performing illegal weddings for them

So are you saying there are people (perhaps criminals) on this thread whose wish is to hide from any and all government documentation so that they can avoid paying taxes?

If so, can you point to their specific posts which led you to believe this?

Thanks.

 

[Katie777]

For a person to ask where they can find a priest that goes against the church authority, and commit a crime for thier friends personal benefit is a red flag. The word “benefits” was used.

If the op cannot distinguish how wrong this is, indicates to me that the reasons for this are not noble either.

All authority is being questioned on this thread or twisted to support thier thinking whether it’s government or church, priest, or scripture.

That is what is being asserted. They cannot see the big picture of how this rebellious nature and refusal to submit to any authority can negatively affect others who are obedient. There is no justification for this.

 

[abucs]

For a person to ask where they can find a priest that goes against the church authority, and commit a crime for thier friends personal benefit is a red flag. The word “benefits” was used.

If the op cannot distinguish how wrong this is, indicates to me that the reasons for this are not noble either.

All authority is being questioned on this thread or twisted to support thier thinking whether it’s government or church, priest, or scripture.

That is what is being asserted. They cannot see the big picture of how this rebellious nature and refusal to submit to any authority can negatively affect others who are obedient. There is no justification for this.

Hi Katie,

Could you please tell me what you think the crime is that a priest is being asked to commit on this thread?

And could you please point to the specific post(s) that did this?

Thank you.

 

[Katie777]

Post 13.

Abucs, can you point to posts that mention in crystal clear terms the reason the op’s friends cannot get a marriage license?

Thank you

 

[casslean]

I would refer to each of the OP’s posts in which he attempts to justify why his friends do not want a marriage license and how they have “withdrawn” from the control of the government.

I would then refer you to any of the voluminous materials written on either “sovereign citizens” or “Freemen-of-the-land” which use the same language and clearly explain the intent of these individuals.

Of course, I could refer to you to God himself if I thought it would help, but nothing I refer you to will make you believe what you choose not to believe.

 

[abucs]

I would refer to each of the OP’s posts in which he attempts to justify why his friends do not want a marriage license and how they have “withdrawn” from the control of the government.

I would then refer you to any of the voluminous materials written on either “sovereign citizens” or “Freemen-of-the-land” which use the same language and clearly explain the intent of these individuals.

Of course, I could refer to you to God himself if I thought it would help, but nothing I refer you to will make you believe what you choose not to believe.

Hi casslean,

I am not sure about your comment implicitly suggesting somehow my beliefs are standing in the way. I am reading through all the posts now and I can’t find anyone so far who is asking for a priest to deliberately break the law for taxation purposes. This seems to be assumed by people responding to the OP rather than the OP stating this (or anyone else). I’ll keep reading through the posts but if you or Katie have an exact example of this then I would appreciate it. Perhaps you are ultimately correct in the motives although i think the OP seems to have denied this. My beliefs are not going to get in the way of a hardcopy example of someone stating that on the forum that they wish a priest to deliberately break the law for taxation purposes.

I am writing on this thread because I do sympathise very much with the OP. I do not want a priest to break civil law and risk imprisonment. I also don’t want to avoid a secular marriage because of taxation considerations. I am well and truly in the system and pay taxes each year in two countries (at least).

I stand by my comments regarding the relationship between the state and the church and where I think it is going.

That being said, perhaps people wanting certain marriage arrangements to avoid taxation is a problem in some jurisdictions that I am unfamiliar with. I will have to look into this further.

Thank you.

 

[casslean]

Hi abucs,

As a lawyer, I can assure you that people very rarely explicitly state that it is their intent to break laws, but nonetheless, they very clearly do intend to break them.

I can also tell you that even if they don’t feel that is their intent, if that is the EFFECT of their actions, it has the exact same impact.

So please stop splitting hairs on this issue. What the OP is asking for is not permitted under US law. Therefore, his friends are asking a priest to break US law. Whether or not they believe they have valid reasons for doing so, they do not. The law is not unjust or inappropriate, as has been proven time and time again. It is a legitimate use of civil authority.

 

[abucs]

Well leaving aside the last paragraph where we are going to have disagreements, thank you for your post. The laws seem to be different in Australia and as far as I know there is no tax consideration regarding if one is legally married or not. As far as I know in Australia, the religious sacrament is performed first and then the participants are encouraged to have a short civil ceremony with the state.

I do not know if there is any legal obligation to do so. I honestly don’t think that there is, but someone may correct me on this. As I said, the state here treats two people living together as a de facto marriage anyway with regards to taxation.

 

[abucs]

ok thanks Katie, post 13 can be read the way you suggest although post 20 seems to deny this. Neither posts are crystal clear so perhaps the OP can specifically address the question of taxation with respect to the question.