Catholics and marriage licenses

[abucs]

The Church did not invent marriage. Civil marriage came first. The idea of “Christian marriage” as something separate or unique from plain-old-marriage is a newly invented idea.

Christ elevated natural marriage to a sacrament between the baptized by virtue of baptism. The Church has never had a concept of marriage apart from the state or civil aspects of marriage. Baptism elevates marriage to a sacrament, not the location or witnesses to the marriage.

If we look at the west the Dark Ages smashed Roman law as the German pagans conquered much of western Europe. These people did not have a developed written language and no law beyond clan allegiances.

Migration Period - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The church converted these pagans after many years and worked to develop and consolidate law. I understand that much of what was to become civil law in future nation states was based on church canon law.

From this time the two went together. Over the years churchmen worked to make canon law consistent and secular law followed suit and of course it developed separately due to civil influences.

Raymond of Penyafort - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

They clearly have moved apart as would be expected and are likely to move further apart.

Regards.

 

[abucs]

The first amendment and the case law on non interference in Church matters makes this scenario not applicable in the US. Perhaps not in other places.

There have been judges arguing to put discrimination laws above religious freedom.

If the Supreme Court can decide that the constitution mandates gay marriage as a right then I do not share your confidence. A few more liberals on the bench can change things drastically.

If I remember correctly Clinton is on record of saying that “Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will. And deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

and she was nearly President with the ability to affect law and appoint judges that are sympathetic to her stated visions.

Clinton’s revolution against the Catholic Church - The Boston Globe

Regards.

 

[sunandstars]

Oh wait…
On the way into work this morning, I’ve just thought of another possible 3 circumstances where a family could have severed ties with the government for reasons not related to tax fraud. That makes 5… so far.

Sacramental or civil… civil of course. They marry then get a convalidation.
I had mine done in a cathedral near Christmas time. It was beautiful. And not a bit less wonderful than if it had done all in one fell swoop.

 

[alice24]

The church converted these pagans after many years and worked to develop and consolidate law. I understand that much of what was to become civil law in future nation states was based on church canon law.

this is half right - depending on the area in the migration era. In Britannia, the chruch set rules for marriage first as there was not much left from the roman law, even the latin language disappeared earlier than in other former-roman areas. in the central european region we have roman marriage forms left before christian chruch rules for marriage for the upper citizen class. So, civil marriage was the base for the legal side of the chruch marriage (codex justinianus for example has many aspect taken from from the roman law in marriage cases) but the special christian components were added, of course. There was a hand-in hand development in many areas of civil and church rules and processes for marriage, and this leads me to the OP - working with the state, not against it, was one of the earliest features of the early church.

 

[abucs]

Yes the original phrase that we are commenting on was “The state no longer underpins Christian concepts of marriage” as once it did giving the whole 300 - 1200 history of Europe.

 

[alice24]

But exactly this war of institutions, state against church, church against state, has never happened after christianity was a state religion.

 

[abucs]

But exactly this war of institutions, state against church, church against state, has never happened after christianity was a state religion.

Well we have the French and Russian revolutions and lots of other cases besides such as Portugal and Mexico. (if I am understanding you correctly).

 

[alice24]

But exactly this war of institutions, state against church, church against state, has never happened after christianity was a state religion.

Edit_ state hasn´t existed before the early modern time, not in the way we think it today. There was administrative power, more or less, and the chruch was always glad to use this structures.

 

[alice24]

Well we have the French and Russian revolutions and lots of other cases besides such as Portugal and Mexico. (if I am understanding you correctly).

You misunderstood state and gouvernment. An actual gouvernment against the church happens and happened often in history. But the state as institution was never an enemy of the church

 

[abucs]

I am not sure I am understanding you. The institution of the state has been against the Church. In China and North Korea today it is against the law to be Catholic outside the states authorisation. Catholic clergy have been imprisoned there for not being sanctioned by the state. The Russian state institution killed 200,000 priests in cold blood and destroyed 43,000 churches. The German National Socialists used the institution of the state to close down Catholic schools etc etc.

I am obviously not understanding you. Please help

 

[alice24]

The state is a construct of institutions given power over infrastructure, military, jurisdication, sometimes charity and education of a territory, depends on the era , system and region. A state is a conclusion of people and depends on the people.
A gouvernment is one way to make a state happen, and it can make it good or bad. Most modern places of the world developed state systems, but nor all established good gouvernments.

You may read Aristotle´s politeia for the basics.

 

[abucs]

I think I understand now.

A bit like guns in themselves have never been against the Catholic church but guns have been used against the Catholic church.

 

[alice24]

Well, the difference is a maion point here, I think. If someone sees the value of the state, taking responsibility as a citizen is a consequence. If you misunderstand state and gouvernment and your gouvernment is bad, one consequence could be this upcoming groups of people thinking they can declare independence, which has no benefit for the society anymore.

 

[abucs]

Well I think sometimes independence from one state is a good thing such as BREXIT or the American Revolution but of course that just means another state has to be formed.

I don’t think anyone is arguing for independence from all states except anarchists. That being said the question is how much power should the state have in relationship to other powers and personal freedoms.

 

[alice24]

a good thing such as BREXIT

I hope you are only bad informed…Have you an idea how great the economic and educational loss for england is?

Beside this, I think the “how much power should the state have” question is well answered by the bible and by the church history - we should accept and work with the state even in religious affairs. I don´t get why one is catholic and doesn´t agree on this.

 

[abucs]

I hope you are only bad informed…Have you an idea how great the economic and educational loss for england is?

Well people say a lot of things about BREXIT, most of it is self serving. I am in favour of smaller. more responsible and accountable government so that is why I am wanting to see it succeed.

Beside this, I think the “how much power should the state have” question is well answered by the bible and by the church history - we should accept and work with the state even in religious affairs. I don´t get why one is catholic and doesn´t agree on this.

Well then we have to define what accepting and working with the state means. We can work with the state in further clarifying and codifying the differences between civil and religious marriage so that it benefits and protects both parties. I don’t see why that is such a problem. It may go against some people’s idea of church and state but of course people have different views on that.

 

[alice24]

Well people say a lot of things about BREXIT, most of it is self serving. I am in favour of smaller. more responsible and accountable government so that is why I am wanting to see it succeed.

Well then we have to define what accepting and working with the state means. We can work with the state in further clarifying the differences between civil and religious marriage so that it benefits and protects both parties. I don’t see why that is such a problem. It may go against some people’s idea of church and state but of course people have different views on that.

Well, I work with english people. We have a co-op with Cambridge University and I have friends in a mixed english-german marriage living there and it´s a huge catastrophy in both areas. There´s a reason the modern worl gave up those little fancy proud territories with mercantilistic haunts in their economy. It´s a globalized world, even if you won´t see it. And trust me, research without globalization, trade without globalization but with closes little states doesn´t work well.

To the chruch thing…there is already a consens. It is defined, as you see it in the acting of the leaders of the church. Saying “we as catholics should define the influence of the state” and then don´t accepting when the chruch itself says “hey, we have defined about the influence of the state, please order a marriage licence” is a bit funny, isn´t it?

 

[abucs]

To the chruch thing…there is already a consens. It is defined, as you see it in the acting of the leaders of the church. Saying “we as catholics should define the influence of the state” and then don´t accepting when the chruch itself says “hey, we have defined about the influence of the state, please order a marriage licence” is a bit funny, isn´t it?

Not really funny. People are discussing in an intelligent way a changing world and how best to cope with it. Tasmanian Bishops being taken to court and moves to use the state to control what is taught in Catholic schools are certainly red flags. History shows not to ignore red flags.

And it is not a matter of the church defining the influence of the state. Influence is constant and changing and people should be aware of that which is why they are on forums like this one.

 

[alice24]

Not really funny. People are discussing in an intelligent way a changing world and how best to cope with it. Tasmanian Bishops being taken to court and moves to use the state to control what is taught in Catholic schools are certainly red flags. History shows not to ignore red flags.

Ok so how would you guarant me a person is not already married without this license for example?

There´s a huge difference between red flag situations and a piece of paper giving you security on your spouse´s commitment.

 

[abucs]

Ok so how would you guarant me a person is not already married without this license for example?

There´s a huge difference between red flag situations and a piece of paper giving you security on your spouse´s commitment.

Well these are the things which would need to be discussed. Posters above spoke in the American context of people being wed where one of them was already married. I think the poster mentioned that both marriages took part in the same state.

I gave a likely scenario of the state allowing multiple marriages in accordance with Islam and pointed to the breakdown of secular marriage which might then follow. The way things are going people will be pushing for their right to be in multiple marriages. If this happens then no one can cast iron guarantee you what you like.

If you look at the Muslim community today in the west there are multiple marriages. The first is registered by the state and the others are religious marriages not registered. No one can guarantee that the man you marry has not had a Muslim religious wedding and already has 2 other wives. This thing has happened before. There have even been cases where a bride marries a man and then travels to Iran to discover she is wife number 3.

What I have suggested above is that we should explore these changing times to see how we can deal with such situations.

If secular marriage continues to be loosened then the state will be in even a weaker position to give you your guarantee.

These are exactly the issues that can be discussed here. If we don’t and secular marriage disintegrates and is completely unrecognisable then we will find ourselves in a position of wishing we had.

Similarly if the improper conflation between secular and religious marriage continues then there are people who would wish to control the church in some ways through secular law of this overlapping of ‘marriages’.

We have to be prepared for changing times because as Mr Dylan once said, they certainly are.