Catholics and marriage licenses

[SMHW]

In as much as that the Roman (and possibly other?) government(s) produced the secular currency.

The point is that many Church matters use resources that are the fruits of government. The Church recognizes marriage as a civil agreement that provides for the stability of the family and for society at large, which under certain conditions can be a sacrament, (if the parties to the marriage happen to both be baptized.)

In fact we Catholics have an interest in non-Christians having valid (civil) marriages. One of the purposes of marriage is to guarantee civil protection for spouses and children.

 

[FrDavid96]

It’s funny that you rarely hear anyone using the time Our Lord drove the money changers from the temple and accusing them of turning the house of God into a den of thieves; as an example of removing the government from our churches. Matt. 21 12-17

That’s a good point. A very very good point. So let’s talk about it, shall we?

The money changers were in the Temple (the Court of the Gentiles) because the Temple grounds were declared to be sovereign land independent of the Imperial government.

As such, no Imperial money could be brought into the Temple.

The purpose of the money changers was to exchange Imperial (regular government) money for special Temple money.

In making the exchanges, the money-changers used exorbitant exchange rates in giving their special Temple money and in accepting government coins. If there was any left over on the way out, the exchange rate likewise favored the money changers.

So, would you still like to see just how your friends’ situation of declaring themselves independent from the government compares to the cleansing of the Temple? Shall we go on?

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve heard so many people over the years use the “give unto Cesar” quote as an example of Christ telling us to pay taxes, it’s nauseating!

It’s funny that you rarely hear anyone using the time Our Lord drove the money changers from the temple and accusing them of turning the house of God into a den of thieves; as an example of removing the government from our churches. Matt. 21 12-17

For whatever reason; ( many here suggest it is for convenience sake) the Church has opened the doors and welcomed the government in and so doing has allowed it to redefine Marriage and made it illegal for a priest to perform a Catholic sacrament without a license. Just as the temple in the gospels opened its doors to the money changers…so to has our Church.

With all that is going on and the absolute corruption taking place in the government concerning marriage; maybe the time has come for Catholics to turn out the money changers and turn our churches back into a house of God.

Do you have any MORE baseless and uninformed insults you’d like to hurl at the Catholic Church???

 

[FrDavid96]

I believe you have set your mind to being absolutely correct with your “belief” you can back down. I have no idea what your friend’s legal situation is but if the state refused to issue a marriage license, then the Catholic Church will not allow the marriage in the Church. It really doesn’t matter what you “think” is right, it is what it is.

As I see it, your friend has two choices, get her legal situation fixed so she can marry in the Church or get married somewhere else.

Actually, there IS a third option.

If the bishop investigates this and he decides that there is indeed a legitimate reason for the couple to lack a marriage license, he can go forward with a Catholic marriage anyway.

That is what makes the OP’s rant so irrational.

 

[FrDavid96]

Do you honestly believe the money changers back then had nothing to do with government???

Yep. Nothing at all. Not one bit.

The money changers were an anti-government cartel.

 

[FrDavid96]

Maybe not but the money was not their own. The government had its hand in it.

Yes. It was their money. It was not government money. That was the whole point.

They minted their own coins, called “temple money” because they rejected using the Imperial coinage.

 

[TheLittleLady]

And about people defrauding worshipers.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The reaction seems that this has moved from asking to a friend into your personal beliefs.

Where are you getting the ideas that Christ was a political rebel?

 

[casslean]

Ah, those pesky facts, getting in the way of a good argument!

 

[Gingersnaps4]

Is your friend even baptized? I’m pretty sure you have to present a birth certificate for that. If your friend isn’t baptized he/she can’t be married by the church anyway.

I can’t understand this situation. To me the “benefits” of saving money from avoiding taxes would be greatly outweighed by the negative of not being able to do even the most basic things. No driving, no renting anything anywhere, no bank accounts etc etc.

 

[nodito]

If your friend isn’t baptized he/she can’t be married by the church anyway.

A non-baptized individual could be married in the Church to a baptized Catholic. It would be a valid, natural marriage but not a sacrament.

Some parishes accept alternate forms of identification in lieu of birth certificates for young babies who do not yet have birth certificates. I’m pregnant with baby number four, due any day. Our parish has already scheduled the baptism for mid-December even though likely won’t have baby’s birth certificate by then. The hospital provides temporary documentation of birth.

 

[Gingersnaps4]

The OP says her friend and the fiance are both Catholics in good standing. I suppose that means that they once had enough proof of identification for baptism, but now don’t.

I guess that even with all of these “benefits” to renouncing citizenship, they are now seeing the downside. If they want to get married, and want any potential children to be able to participate in society, they will have to get their citizenship back. You can’t just stroll up with no proof of who you even are, and expect things.

 

[ByWhatAuthority]

I haven’t been keeping up on this thread of mine. Sorry if I’ve neglected to answer anyone’s questions. Hopefully I get a chance to go back and catch up later on tonight. If I don’t get kicked off this forum that is. ( I just saw I have a warning message in my inbox so I may not be long for this world. )

I just had a thought/ question. If it’s a felony for a priest to marry a couple without a license; why isn’t it also a felony for a bishop ??? It doesn’t make sense that it would be breaking a law for a priest but not for the bishop.

 

[casslean]

I’ll defer to @FrDavid on this point, but I don’t think anyone actually said it wouldn’t be a felony for a bishop. I think they said a bishop could grant permission for the marriage to take place without the license, but was unlikely to.

If it is a felony, it is a felony for everyone.

 

[ByWhatAuthority]

Doesn’t the government make a profit every time someone applies for a marriage license? I don’t believe they are free of charge.

 

[CoffeeAndDonuts]

Governments don’t really make profit as a concept though, at least not in the way you are postulating. Governments receive income through taxes and fees, which then go to pay for goods and services to benefit the public good.

Whether or not this actually happens isn’t my point. However, should one wish to take advantage of publicly funded goods, such as roads, water/sewage/electrical infrastructure, CDC, and other public funded resources, then one cannot frame fees and taxes as “profit”.

Your friends do not wish to partake in this system, and as such have no right to complain when they are denied access to the elements of this system.

 

[TC3033]

Governments don’t really make profit as a concept though, at least not in the way you are postulating. Governments receive income through taxes and fees, which then go to pay for goods and services to benefit the public good.

Whether or not this actually happens isn’t my point. However, should one wish to take advantage of publicly funded goods, such as roads, water/sewage/electrical infrastructure, CDC, and other public funded resources, then one cannot frame fees and taxes as “profit”.

Your friends do not wish to partake in this system, and as such have no right to complain when they are denied access to the elements of this system.

^^This…and we’ve gotten WAYYYY more back in our tax returns for the “marriage credit” than the one time fee for the license cost.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ll defer to @FrDavid on this point, but I don’t think anyone actually said it wouldn’t be a felony for a bishop. I think they said a bishop could grant permission for the marriage to take place without the license, but was unlikely to.

If it is a felony, it is a felony for everyone.

It depends on the state. Every state law is different. In most states, including mine, it’s a felony. In all states, it is a crime of one sort or another to officiate at a marriage without a marriage license.

The states don’t just issue marriage licenses and say “these are optional.”

It won’t matter if the officiant is a bishop, or a priest who has permission under canon law from his bishop. What the officiant calls himself is irrelevant (except that it’s usually recorded somewhere on the form). The officiant might be a priest, minister, rabbi, bishop, parson, apostle, prophet, seer, etc. The title doesn’t matter.

If a bishop does allow a marriage that violates civil law, whether the officiant is the bishop or the parish priest, whoever officiates takes the risk of being caught and would have to answer for it.

 

[casslean]

If a bishop does allow a marriage that violates civil law, whether the officiant is the bishop or the parish priest, whoever officiates takes the risk of being caught and would have to answer for it.

Actually, if the bishop knew there was no marriage license, and knew that it was a criminal offense to perform the ceremony, and authorized it regardless, he too could be criminally charged. Vicarious liability can attach to criminal sanctions as well as civil.

 

[FrDavid96]

FrDavid96:

If a bishop does allow a marriage that violates civil law, whether the officiant is the bishop or the parish priest, whoever officiates takes the risk of being caught and would have to answer for it.

Actually, if the bishop knew there was no marriage license, and knew that it was a criminal offense to perform the ceremony, and authorized it regardless, he too could be criminally charged. Vicarious liability can attach to criminal sanctions as well as civil.

Well, yes, of course. That only makes things worse.