Civil Marriage

[SMGS127]

So I was trying to find a relevant thread on the forum, and I didn’t see one, so I figured I would pose a question I’ve been wondering for awhile now. I apologize if this has already been asked, but I was wondering if my position on civil marriage was against Church teaching in any way.

As a Catholic, I can’t support same-sex “marriage” in any way; the marriages are clearly bastardizations of a Sacrament. However, with that said, I do realize that from the secular court’s perspective, Relationship A is losing out on $X in tax benefits to Relationship B entirely because of the gender status of the members, and that the likely effect is going to be a downhill cascade of courts legalizing gay ‘marriage’ in many states based on financial or legal differentiation for a so-called protected class. As a result, I believe that we should do away with civil marriages entirely, calling them “bondships” or something else significantly better-sounding to the ear, and allowing the Church to define their Sacrament of Marriage appropriately and with light to the Truth of the Lord far away from the political world.

Simply put, I wanted to know if this position violated the apostolic defense of marriage. I have tried to compare it to situations in the past where the Church has had to deal with political situations in the U.S. and made pragmatic decisions as a result (e.g. Griswald v. Connecticut or the legalization of no-fault divorce), but there really is no comparable situation. I am concerned that my position is not entirely faithful, though I believe it to be. If we don’t eliminate legal marriages in general, my fear is that we will end up being forced to identify societal unions as ‘marriages’ that clearly aren’t.

Clearly the optimist’s answer is that a secular argument could be made that would convince judges that society needs to value one group of people over another for a valid marriage, but I believe that this, while clearly maintaining merit as a moral argument, will ultimately fail as a legal argument. And therefore, I think we as Catholics need to make a choice between: a) defending our legal encoding of our Sacrament and being trampled by courts, or b) my option. The eighth mode of responsibility guides us to never commit a sin in search of a greater good, so I guess my real question is whether supporting the banning of the word marriage from being used in a legal context would be a sin.

Any thoughts on this issue are greatly appreciated, as we live in a very tough moral age for Catholics in the U.S. God bless everyone as well .

 

[Mount_Carmel]

My thoughts on ‘Civil Marriage’ - well it is not ‘legitimate’ for Christians, but is never-the-less legally recognised by civil law.

As a statement of commitment by those who are not religiously inclined/committed, it is perhaps better than no committment at all - especially if children are or will become involved in the family context.

 

[thomasemmanuel]

If I understand you correctly, what you’re proposing is for “marriage” to be an entirely religious affair, to be governed by religious organisations. Legally, then, there is no such thing as a marriage, merely a “civil union” or something of that sort.

If that is what you are proposing, then I don’t see any problem with it!

Marriage has always been a religious matter to Catholics, Muslims and many other faiths. For us, it is a Sacrament which we may choose to undergo or not to undergo. To remove all reference to “marriage” in the law books would in fact purify the institution of marriage, by reserving it for religions.

To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. Let the rest of the world use the word “union”, and let us use the word “marriage” in its truest sense. If doing so can help us deal with the headaches we face when dealing with homosexual rights, then so much the better!

 

[SMGS127]

If I understand you correctly, what you’re proposing is for “marriage” to be an entirely religious affair, to be governed by religious organisations. Legally, then, there is no such thing as a marriage, merely a “civil union” or something of that sort.

If that is what you are proposing, then I don’t see any problem with it!

Marriage has always been a religious matter to Catholics, Muslims and many other faiths. For us, it is a Sacrament which we may choose to undergo or not to undergo. To remove all reference to “marriage” in the law books would in fact purify the institution of marriage, by reserving it for religions.

To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. Let the rest of the world use the word “union”, and let us use the word “marriage” in its truest sense. If doing so can help us deal with the headaches we face when dealing with homosexual rights, then so much the better!

^ this is exactly what I’m proposing. I agree with your assessment that elimination of the word ‘marriage’ from legal discourse indeed purifies it as it accentuates the religious calling behind the vocation.

However, I am sympathetic with the arguments I’ve been presented from fellow Catholics that by doing so, we present the image of a surrender, even if in actuality we are making a tactical retreat from the proverbial battle in order to win the war. I can just imagine the press hounding the religious for so-called ‘bigotry’ (not that that’s anything new) for doing everything we could to make sure homosexuals were not granted access to the Sacrament. I could also then see those in the atheist/agnostic and what I like to call the ‘permissive Protestant’ tents trying to convince others that they should not be part of our Church.

[Note that this also would reveal that the gay ‘marriage’ push isn’t entirely about benefit differences.]

I guess I’m stuck between my wish to maintain the integrity of the Sacrament and my wish to do so without creating a PR nightmare for the Church that could lead to the dropping off of some of our more lost outskirt members over media confusion of the event.

Mostly, though, I am just ensuring that my position in the matter does not run counter to the Church. I know what I logically reason up is not infallible, and so I seek to make sure that I am not dissenting from doctrine.

 

[Corki]

The problem with this rationale is that you would, in effect, be saying that there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage. That is contrary to Church teaching. Marriage is a human institution, not just a religious one. Even two atheists who marry civilly are considered, by the Church, to have a valid marriage. Two non-Catholic Christians who marry in a non-religious ceremony have not only a valid but a Sacramental marriage.
Your version, while protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings, would downgrade perfectly valid and Sacramental marriages.

 

[BettyBoop416]

I read an interesting opinion piece on just this topic this morning. I have to say, I agree.

fromaharrop.com/?p=2552

*The problem with this rationale is that you would, in effect, be saying that there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage. *

Not necessarily. It would simply take the state out of the equation. A state sanctioned civil partnership would govern the legal aspects of the relationship. The partners could stop at that point, or they could choose to have their relationship formalized by another, possibly religious, organization.

*That is contrary to Church teaching. *

Maybe so, but not everyone is concerned about Church teaching. It’s a futile exercise to try to impose Catholic teaching on non-Catholics.

Your version, while protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings, would downgrade perfectly valid and Sacramental marriages.

Again, this is a strictly Catholic viewpoint. One that has no meaning to a majority of people in the U.S. Given the way our society is evolving, “protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings” is about the best we can hope for.

 

[Corki]

Maybe so, but not everyone is concerned about Church teaching. It’s a futile exercise to try to impose Catholic teaching on non-Catholics.

Again, this is a strictly Catholic viewpoint. One that has no meaning to a majority of people in the U.S. Given the way our society is evolving, “protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings” is about the best we can hope for.

But Church teaching is at the heart of this thread.

… but I was wondering if my position on civil marriage was against Church teaching in any way.

Simply put, I wanted to know if this position violated the apostolic defense of marriage.

This is the Moral Theology section of the Apologetics forum. A discussion that ignores Church teaching belongs in a different forum.

 

[SMGS127]

The problem with this rationale is that you would, in effect, be saying that there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage. That is contrary to Church teaching. Marriage is a human institution, not just a religious one. Even two atheists who marry civilly are considered, by the Church, to have a valid marriage. Two non-Catholic Christians who marry in a non-religious ceremony have not only a valid but a Sacramental marriage.
Your version, while protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings, would downgrade perfectly valid and Sacramental marriages.

But in this case, the absence of the word does not make the human marriage any less real, whereas it would for the Sacramental side right? Either way, doesn’t the choice between watching SS’M’ be legalized nationwide and making sure religions can maintain their opinions on the Sacramental states of marriage provide a directly comparable situation that would be exempt from the eighth mode of responsibility?

On a side note, I am genuinely curious why the Church does not fight for the banning of so-called "remarriages"of non-widow(er)s or marriages of the permanently impotent, as they are invalid marriages. I feel like my solution would provide for this allowance as well, a case we aren’t even remotely fighting for on a political level.

 

[thomasemmanuel]

A marriage between two non-Catholics (in other words, a secular or civil marriage) is NOT Sacramental.

You may refer to this page, which states very clearly the Church’s stand:
catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament

The Code of Canon Law recognizes that, “a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament” (CIC 1055 §2). So there are two requirements for a marriage to be a sacramental marriage: (1) the marriage must be valid; and (2) both parties must be baptized.

Therefore, in accordance with the teaching and law of the Church, secular marriages are non-sacramental, and there should be no problems with removing the word “marriage”. It should be fine to call them “civil unions” or something like that.

 

[Corki]

A marriage between two non-Catholics (in other words, a secular or civil marriage) is NOT Sacramental.

You may refer to this page, which states very clearly the Church’s stand:
catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament

Therefore, in accordance with the teaching and law of the Church, secular marriages are non-sacramental, and there should be no problems with removing the word “marriage”. It should be fine to call them “civil unions” or something like that.

If two non-Catholic Christians marry in a civil ceremony it is Sacramental providing they are both baptized Christians. Which is exactly what your quote from Canon Law states and what I was saying.

 

[edwest2]

If I understand you correctly, what you’re proposing is for “marriage” to be an entirely religious affair, to be governed by religious organisations. Legally, then, there is no such thing as a marriage, merely a “civil union” or something of that sort.

If that is what you are proposing, then I don’t see any problem with it!

Marriage has always been a religious matter to Catholics, Muslims and many other faiths. For us, it is a Sacrament which we may choose to undergo or not to undergo. To remove all reference to “marriage” in the law books would in fact purify the institution of marriage, by reserving it for religions.

To Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and to God what belongs to God. Let the rest of the world use the word “union”, and let us use the word “marriage” in its truest sense. If doing so can help us deal with the headaches we face when dealing with homosexual rights, then so much the better!

That doesn’t solve anything. We have not created a legal fiction. Catholics had better get it straight.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[Brigid34]

SMGS127,some countries separate the legal part of the ceremony from the Sacramental, so it would seem that that it is not against church doctrine.

 

[edwest2]

SMGS127,some countries separate the legal part of the ceremony from the Sacramental, so it would seem that that it is not against church doctrine.

It most certainly is against Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

 

[SMGS127]

It most certainly is against Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

Can you give me a more detailed explanation why banning governments from being able to decide what marriage is at all is against Church doctrine? Again, I think the direct comparison exemption to the eighth mode of responsibility allows us to compare the outcomes of both cases and make the choice that is more protective of the Sacrament. I would think the Church would gladly take no civil marriage over legalized “marriage” for gay couples.

 

[thomasemmanuel]

If two non-Catholic Christians marry in a civil ceremony it is Sacramental providing they are both baptized Christians. Which is exactly what your quote from Canon Law states and what I was saying.

Yes yes precisely. So, a marriage between two non-baptised persons is not sacramental!

To reiterate: the Code of Canon Law indicates that a marriage must be between two baptised persons or it is NOT sacramental. This is very clear from the source that I have provided: catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament

Again, my argument remains that it would not be against Church doctrine to remove the word “marriage” from any marriage that is not sacramental.

 

[SMGS127]

Yes yes precisely. So, a marriage between two non-baptised persons is not sacramental!

To reiterate: the Code of Canon Law indicates that a marriage must be between two baptised persons or it is NOT sacramental. This is very clear from the source that I have provided: catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament

Again, my argument remains that it would not be against Church doctrine to remove the word “marriage” from any marriage that is not sacramental.

You’re making an illogical jump though. Just because a marriage is not sacramental does not mean it is not a valid marriage. One can enter into a valid, non-sacramental marriage if one is not baptized. One cannot enter into a valid marriage if one is permanently impotent, or attempting to marry one of the same sex.

My solution was not to remove the term “marriage” from non-sacramental marriages but rather to put a bill in place that clearly stated that the government had no right to claim what a marriage is or isn’t by banning the legal usage of the term itself.

 

[edwest2]

Can you give me a more detailed explanation why banning governments from being able to decide what marriage is at all is against Church doctrine? Again, I think the direct comparison exemption to the eighth mode of responsibility allows us to compare the outcomes of both cases and make the choice that is more protective of the Sacrament. I would think the Church would gladly take no civil marriage over legalized “marriage” for gay couples.

Here is the complete explanation:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Biology decides what has been known in all human societies for millenia.

Peace,
Ed

 

[marymary1975]

The problem with this rationale is that you would, in effect, be saying that there is no such thing as a non-religious marriage. That is contrary to Church teaching. Marriage is a human institution, not just a religious one. Even two atheists who marry civilly are considered, by the Church, to have a valid marriage. Two non-Catholic Christians who marry in a non-religious ceremony have not only a valid but a Sacramental marriage.
Your version, while protecting the integrity of marriages performed in religious settings, would downgrade perfectly valid and Sacramental marriages.

besides the point made by Corky there are legal reasons why you can’t eliminate civil marriage and turn it into a mere union. Civil marriage didn’t appear because someone though it was pretty or because some religious person though it should have been taken to the State. Civil marriage was create at a government level because its unexistant creates severe problems from areas ranging from inheritance, paternity, etc. to property. So besides the religious reasoning, if you were to apply the OP suggestion you would have complete anarchical chaos which is one of the reasons why governments exists.

 

[marymary1975]

It most certainly is against Church teaching.

Peace,
Ed

Ed I don’t think you are understanding what Brigid is referring to (granted I haven’t read your link) but what brigid is saying is correct and I don’t think this goes against church teaching as this is the way it is in all Catholic countries in latinoamerica and Europe and the church abides by this. What we are referring Here is that for example, in the US where legal and sacramental marriage are together, the priest literally become a government agent which means that the priest would not be bound as a catholic but as governmental agent. This is the reason why all latinoamerican countries separate sacramental marriage from legal marriage and the church stands by it because in case of any complication then the priest is bound not by catholic teaching but by the government. This is actually the fear many have with the current situation, while the government can’t force the church to perform SSM the government can force its agent to follow certain rules and follow its requirements, so the government very well may mandate all agents of the government to perform certain and if that act is contrary to the church the priest has to do it, otherwise it would be illegal which would not happen if the priest doesn’t take the role of government agent.

 

[Corki]

Yes yes precisely. So, a marriage between two non-baptised persons is not sacramental!

To reiterate: the Code of Canon Law indicates that a marriage must be between two baptised persons or it is NOT sacramental. This is very clear from the source that I have provided: catholic.com/quickquestions/when-is-marriage-a-sacrament

Again, my argument remains that it would not be against Church doctrine to remove the word “marriage” from any marriage that is not sacramental.

Still no. Even a non-sacramental marriage can be valid in the Church. For example, a Catholic who marries a Jewish person can have a fully Church approved, valid, non-Sacramental marriage. It would go against Church teaching to declare that that was not a real marriage deserving of the title “marriage”. The Church also recognizes the marriages of two non-baptized persons as valid.