Eva Longoria/Tony Parker & France's marriage laws

[Listener]

This is interesting about the requirement of two ceremonies. Sometimes I think that in the USA it should be possible to get married in the Church without being married in the eyes of the State. Why do I think this way? Well, suppose you lost your husband in your sixties, and then you met a widower who was the same age. You fell in love and wanted to get married. If both parties had grown children who would worry about losing their inheritance, it would really be simpler for all concerned just to live together. Since the Church considers living together immoral, wouldn’t it be nice to be able to get married in the Church without being married in the eyes of the State? The woman could even keep her Social Security Widow’s benefit!

 

[Amaris]

Belgium also requires 2 ceremonies - they’re often done the same day, but because of my health and energy issues, we’re doing the civil on August 18th and the Church on September 1st. I’m American and FH is Belgian. We’re viewing the civil as getting the license, obviously, and won’t consummate until after the Church. I have a simple pale blue dress to wear, it’s immediate family only, and his Grandmother is treating us to dinner.

Because we thought we’d need an interview by the state, and had heard they liked to push them back, and have the church/reception hall booked for the 1st, we inquired about having the civil wedding after the religious ceremony, if I wasn’t approved by the state. Luckily we got our approval letter the other day, since both the district house and the priest informed us the church was forbidden to marry us unless we presented ‘our booklet’ at the church ceremony, which is something we don’t receive until we are married in a civil ceremony.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that on legal forms, August 18th will be our marriage date. We picked September 1st for many reasons, and don’t feel any connection to the 18th.

It also didn’t seem odd to me, even though, as an American, I hadn’t been expecting it. What did through me for a loop is that not only is 6 months prep/counselling/pre Cana not required by the Catholic Church here(not just this parish, the whole country), the priests have never heard of it and seem baffled by the logic. We had one 2 hour meeting with the priest who will witnessing our ceremony, he spoke and questioned us, and we had to sign forms stating we believed marriage was for life, we were open to having children, and would raise them in a Christian way, with respect for Jesus Christ.

Also, women never change their names in Belgium when marrying - you need an official Royal Decree (and they’re very rarely granted) to do so.

 

[lak611]

Belgium also requires 2 ceremonies - they’re often done the same day, but because of my health and energy issues, we’re doing the civil on August 18th and the Church on September 1st. I’m American and FH is Belgian. We’re viewing the civil as getting the license, obviously, and won’t consummate until after the Church. I have a simple pale blue dress to wear, it’s immediate family only, and his Grandmother is treating us to dinner.

Because we thought we’d need an interview by the state, and had heard they liked to push them back, and have the church/reception hall booked for the 1st, we inquired about having the civil wedding after the religious ceremony, if I wasn’t approved by the state. Luckily we got our approval letter the other day, since both the district house and the priest informed us the church was forbidden to marry us unless we presented ‘our booklet’ at the church ceremony, which is something we don’t receive until we are married in a civil ceremony.

The only thing that bothers me about it is that on legal forms, August 18th will be our marriage date. We picked September 1st for many reasons, and don’t feel any connection to the 18th.

It also didn’t seem odd to me, even though, as an American, I hadn’t been expecting it. What did through me for a loop is that not only is 6 months prep/counselling/pre Cana not required by the Catholic Church here(not just this parish, the whole country), the priests have never heard of it and seem baffled by the logic. We had one 2 hour meeting with the priest who will witnessing our ceremony, he spoke and questioned us, and we had to sign forms stating we believed marriage was for life, we were open to having children, and would raise them in a Christian way, with respect for Jesus Christ.

Also, women never change their names in Belgium when marrying - you need an official Royal Decree (and they’re very rarely granted) to do so.

Interesting. I never knew the procedure in Europe. It seems like France is obviously not the only country that requires the civil ceremony first.

 

[PapaSquash]

Interesting. I would have zero loyalty to any state that didn’t recognize my sacramental marriage.

Any any state that can forbid the Church to marry someone is no friend of mine.

 

[lak611]

Interesting. I would have zero loyalty to any state that didn’t recognize my sacramental marriage.

Any any state that can forbid the Church to marry someone is no friend of mine.

I can understand the state requiring a civil marriage, though. Would you like it better to have a civil marriage first, then a church marriage in any church you saw fit; or would you prefer the state to tell you which church you could get married in to fulfill the civil obligation? The separate civil ceremony actually protects the right of a church by not saying that only Catholic churches are allowed to perform marriages, or only Lutheran churches, or only Baptist churches, etc.

 

[PapaSquash]

Would you like it better to have a civil marriage first, then a church marriage in any church you saw fit; or would you prefer the state to tell you which church you could get married in to fulfill the civil obligation?

Both are unacceptable to me. Marriage is not a civil contract. It is a covenant between a man and a woman, instituted by God, that pre-dates the secular consititutions of every state in the world. I am a good citizen and I am prepared to render under to Caesar all that is his. My marriage does not fall into that category.

If the state I lived in regulated marriage as described, I would not be governed by consent, but by coercion. I wouldn’t turn into a bomb-chucking terrorist, but the government of that state should expect that, when the chips are down, I will not be on their side.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Interesting. I would have zero loyalty to any state that didn’t recognize my sacramental marriage.

Any any state that can forbid the Church to marry someone is no friend of mine.

And yet the Church submits herself to the legitmate authority of the state in this matter:

Can. 1071 §1 Except in a case of necessity, no one is to assist without the permission of the local Ordinary at:
…
2° a marriage which cannot be recognised by the civil law or celebrated in accordance with it;

So, eg, if the state has already married Miss A to Mr B, it essentially forbids the Church from marrying Miss C to Mr B, does it not?

And while I am pleased, in the US, that the state recognizes the civil aspects of my Church-witnessed marriage, I for one am glad that the state does not exercise judgment over the sacramentality of it.

:twocents:
tee

 

[LilyM]

And yet the Church submits herself to the legitmate authority of the state in this matter:

So, eg, if the state has already married Miss A to Mr B, it essentially forbids the Church from marrying Miss C to Mr B, does it not?

And while I am pleased, in the US, that the state recognizes the civil aspects of my Church-witnessed marriage, I for one am glad that the state does not exercise judgment over the sacramentality of it.

:twocents:
tee

Exactly. Whatever jurisdiction the Church has in this area it has partially ceded to the civil authorities, so we need to respect that.

And you’re wrong, marriage IS at least in part a civil contractual matter - it affects all society’s citizens and institutions.

The state needs to regulate against, for example, polygamy or incestuous marriages on purely secular and practical grounds. So it is legitimately a matter for Caesar as well as God.

 

[manualman]

This isn’t really a cultural difference as much as a bureacratic difference. My US wedding was in a catholic church and the priest pronounced us man and wife. Very shortly afterwards in the narthex, we signed our civil marriage license along with our witnesses and the priest as the licensed state witness.

So the only real difference is that our government is OK with licensing outside agents whereas the more socialist countries believe that only a genuine state issued bureacrat is up to the job! Naturally, any good bureacrat is going to need to witness vows and consent himself, so the ceremony must be done twice.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Exactly. Whatever jurisdiction the Church has in this area it has partially ceded to the civil authorities, so we need to respect that.

I would not even say the Church cedes anything to the civil authority – The civil authorities rightly administrate marriage. Even Canon Law [post=2449925]quoted above[/post] attests to the “merely civil” effects of marriage. Marriage is part of Natural Law, which among the baptized is reckoned as a sacrament.

And you’re wrong, …

Were these latter paragraphs addressed to me? I do not believe I’d asserted anything contrary?

tee

 

[PapaSquash]

I’m pretty sure they were addressed to me.

I still think that states that enforce their version of civil marriage as having primacy over God’s version of natural marriage have fouled up the conerstone of human society.

And I agree with you the Curch hasn’t ceded anything. Note that in case of necessity, or with permission of the Ordinary (or one is the Ordinary) the Church reserves the right to assist in any marriage that She deems appropriate, regardless of civil legality.

This is an insitution of God, not of men. The State has rights to keep track of who is married and I’m ok with a state saying that if you have a sacramental marriage that you are automatically legally married. Because that reflects reality; by the real, actual law of the universe, you are.

Any state that maintains that the civil contract is the real thing and that the religious ceremony is merely play-acting or some cultural norm, has it exactly backwards and is simply wrong.

 

[tee_eff_em]

I’m pretty sure they were addressed to me.

I still think that states that enforce their version of civil marriage as having primacy over God’s version of natural marriage have fouled up the conerstone of human society.

And I agree with you the Curch hasn’t ceded anything. Note that in case of necessity, or with permission of the Ordinary (or one is the Ordinary) the Church reserves the right to assist in any marriage that She deems appropriate, regardless of civil legality.

Indeed, though I, for one, am hard-pressed to imagine what circumstances might give rise to such necessity.

This is an insitution of God, not of men. The State has rights to keep track of who is married and I’m ok with a state saying that if you have a sacramental marriage that you are automatically legally married. Because that reflects reality; by the real, actual law of the universe, you are.

Any state that maintains that the civil contract is the real thing and that the religious ceremony is merely play-acting or some cultural norm, has it exactly backwards and is simply wrong.

I believe it is likewise mistaken to go too far the other way. The civil contract is a real thing, when it is otherwise valid, and is sacramental when otherwise valid and between baptized persons.

Whether the state itself recognizes so or not, it derives its authority from God, even if it may exercise that authority in corruption and error (eg in the case of marriage, by allowing divorce and remarriage).

I wonder, in those countries that do require a separate civil ceremony: Is the religious ceremony then essentially a convalidation?

tee

 

[lak611]

I wonder, in those countries that do require a separate civil ceremony: Is the religious ceremony then essentially a convalidation?

tee

It sure sounds that way.