Catholics and marriage licenses

  • Thread starter Thread starter ByWhatAuthority
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Xanthippe_Voorhees said:
40.png
ByWhatAuthority:
I don’t think they have a problem with the marriage becoming legal or recognized by the state. The problem lies with them being required to contract with the state before the sacrament can take place.
Click to expand...
Or…

…the Church chooses to USE the state to gather all necessary documents regarding age, identity, and citizenship, agreeing to unilaterally apply this decision so as to ensure the marital sacrament is as open as possible.

Becuase I’m sure if they changed the rules tomorrow (as both of the priests on here allude to) they would still want to verify basic identity. This would be much more time-consuming and costly…but they could do it. Yet there is no reason to at this point in history because the burdan would be immense.
Click to expand...
On the one hand, the Church could theoretically abolish the specific canon about not performing a marriage unless it is recognized by civil law.

HOWEVER that would then violate other canons. A priest would still be in violation of canon 22, for example.

It also raises the philosophical question of what authority does the Church have? The Church claims no real secular authority (outside of Vatican City State, of course). The Church cannot pass canon law releasing clergy from the requirements of civil law. Canon law can’t make a priest immune from getting a speeding ticket, for example (much as I tried to argue the point with that state trooper a few months back…but I digress). Canon law cannot make the Church immune from safety codes. Unless a civil law actually violates Divine Law, the Church recognizes and respects civil law.

Marriage licenses should not be the exception. There is no sensible reason why they ever should be.
 
From what I understand. Her legal status has to do with her family’s political status. Her family has successfully removed themselves from the US jurisdiction. So she doesn’t qualify for a ML, or any other state sanctioned documentation.
Click to expand...
I wondering if this is a case – where the family in question —renounced their US citizenship.
 
Last edited:
It is very, very difficult to renounce your US citizenship. And if you are residing in US territory, I would think almost impossible. I have known a Canadian who found out as an adult, never living in the US, that he was considered a US citizen because his mother went into labor while visting the US (IIRC). It was very difficult for him to renounce his citizenship.
And even if the family in question is not a US citizen, if they are residing (or even visiting) the US, they are under our government’s jurisdiction. Period, end of story.

As to the whole, bogus, issue of the Church’s require marriage licenses somehow letting the state “control” our sacraments: the Church, no more than ourselves, can remove itself from the government’s jurisdiction, and since the Church says it is a moral obligation to follow all just civil laws, is the OP of the opinion that marriage license requirements by the state are not moral? The Church cannot live in a vacuum to the world around us and yes, that fact affects the sacraments. Canon law says that the normal place for the Eucharist to be celebrated is in a church building on a dedicated altar. Guess what, to do so you have to have an occupancy permit from the local government. And to build that church building, you have to go get building permits, and designs signed off. Alll by the local government. Oh, the horror!!! The Church is actually letting the government control where it can have masses said. What’s next? We will all be sent to a gulag somewhere for making the sign of the cross. This has to be stopped.

Seriously, to the OP, either you have a big misunderstanding of your friend’s situation (perhaps they are not quite honest) or your friend’s family is literally trying to live a fantasy.
 
Last edited:
BTW, you do not have to have a US citizenship, or even be a legal resident, to obtain a marriage license. Someone travelling here on a visa can do so.
If the marriage license is being refused, something very strange is going on. Perhaps not even having a legal birth certificate for a child born?

And I have to notice this quote from the OP about the friend’s family
“you can only imagine the many benefits to having done that.” pertaining to them supposedly removing them the government’s jurisdiction. The OP wonders why people are responding negatively about them. Well, they are enjoying many, many benefits the government provides: roads/infrastructure, property rights, education, etc. And they are not willing to cooperate in regards to these benefits. And the OP thinks we should only imagine how great that is. Sorry, not buying into it at all.
 
BlackFriar said:
Did Jesus pay taxes?
Click to expand...
He said we must respect and follow the authority of the ruler. The roman tax system was not that easy, so, to answer your question, as he lived as a travelling, poor man, he would not have been forced to pay.
check out also Romans 13:1-7
 
Last edited:
You are right, my answer was wrong, we do know he did (Mathew 17:24) Certainly is the correct answer.
 
But given that He wanted us to follow His example, He made sure to always pay His taxes. And don’t forget the famous red letter line " give unto Cesar". Where Our Lord clearly told us to always pay our taxes no matter what.
 
Did Our Lord pay the tax once so as not to offend or all the time to show us a good example of civic duty?
 
ByWhatAuthority said:
But given that He wanted us to follow His example, He made sure to always pay His taxes. And don’t forget the famous red letter line " give unto Cesar". Where Our Lord clearly told us to always pay our taxes no matter what.
Click to expand...
As you
“tafan2 said:
You are right, my answer was wrong, we do know he did (Mathew 17:24) Certainly is the correct answer.
Click to expand...

Ah thanks. It´s not a state tax, but this would be hypocritical. I think the meaning is clear 🙂
 
Lest us never forget the 11th commandment! “Thou shalt pay your taxes.”
 
alice24 said:
as he lived as a travelling, poor man, he would not have been forced to pay.
Click to expand...
Leaving Nazareth, He went and lived in Capernaum…
After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came…
 
Last edited:
BlackFriar said:
as he lived as a travelling, poor man, he would not have been forced to pay.

Leaving Nazareth, He went and lived in Capernaum…

After Jesus and his disciples arrived in Capernaum, the collectors of the two-drachma temple tax came…
Click to expand...
You´re right, I didn´t meant temple tax, but state tax, which is a difference in the roman system (you must paid your tax for the state in some classes, but the temple tax depended on your religion, it was not the same for everyone. I qouted Romans as I thought the OP would discuss like “temple tax is charity for the church today, so it is ok to not pay state taxes” or something like this.
 
My point was that Jesus was neither without money nor homeless as you stated.
 
Last edited:
He was a wanderer, not homeless (I never said that) and for roman tax criteria, he was poor. This has nothing to do with modern criteria.
 
Perhaps you better quote the tax criteria you speak of so we can see for ourselves what it is you are attempting to prove?
 
alice24 said:
with
Click to expand...
I doubt if we know this for sure. He certainly had a home, it was in Capernuum (Mark 2:1). He likely had a trade at some point before he started his public ministry. I don’t know the details of all of the Roman taxes, but I suppose that some of them applied to him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top