It's official: The religious right is calling it quits

  • Thread starter Thread starter rossum
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rossum

Guest
My apologies for posting this before in the wrong forum. My bad. Hopefully it is more appropriate here.

From The Week:

And now First Things, the intellectually formidable monthly magazine that played a decisively important role in formulating the interdenominational and interreligious ideology that once galvanized the religious right, has decided to pick up its marbles and go home.

Maybe I’m overstating the significance of a brief article published on the First Things website earlier this week, but I don’t think so. Authored by editor R.R. Reno, “A Time to Rend” appears to put the magazine’s moral and intellectual weight (which remains considerable on the religious right) behind a movement that calls on churches to cease administering civil marriages.

Source: theweek.com/article/index/272387/its-official-the-religious-right-is-calling-it-quits

I have seen this idea discussed here before, and it is already the case in a number of European countries, France for example.

rossum
 
Scottgun said:
Yes. Catholic and Canon Lawyer Dr. Ed Peters thinks it’s a bad idea:

canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/rusty-renos-bad-penny/
Click to expand...
Thank you for an interesting link.

It would be useful to know how Dr. Peters’ approaches the situation in European countries, where the separation between religious and civil ceremonies is more complete. I assume that the Catholic Church in those countries has an established approach to the situation.

rossum
 
The church won’t give in to Secular bullying and aggression.
 
From Dr. Peter’s article: " I’m not terribly upset with wedding forms that now read “Spouse A” or “Spouse B”. It’s stupid language, I grant, but it’s not evil. At the very least, it’s no more evil than, say an IRS 1040 form that calls for the signature of “Spouse” on joint returns. Or should we suddenly scratch that word “Spouse” out and write “Wife” or “Husband”, lest we cooperate with the advance of “same-sex marriage”? Balderdash."

If I recall the Reno article correctly, the changing of marriage forms was one of the things to which he objected. He suggested the priest might indeed cross out the phrase “Spouse A” and Spouse B" and write in the correct terms “husband” and “wife.”

I kind of like the idea of such alteration. But would the State respond by refusing to accept the forms?

Or the newly married wife could gaze into her husband’s eyes and say, “I’m so happy to have you as my Spouse B!”
 
Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote up a very good analysis of the issue.
Here’s what Bishop Chaput said:
“A friend recently suggested that the Church should get out of the civil marriage business altogether,” Bishop Chaput said. “In a way, it makes sense. It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies spouse A and spouse B.… Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet.”
Here’s the link: aleteia.org/en/society/ar…75876423680000

Basically, The Church has no obligation to server as an agent of The State. The Church administers The Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, including the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

There is no reason that it be involved in the administration of State sanctioned civil contracts regarding licensing of sexual activity and cohabitation between people of the same sex.
 
In truth, we are largely irrelevant to the majority of people, who either don’t understand us, or reject our principles.

Evangelization is our mission. We can most definitely evangelize, by indicating that what we do is not what the currently commonly held world does; and that is that we celebrate a sacrament and covenant; they, in largest part, celebrate a contract. And there is a vast difference between the two.

Elsewhere in threads there has been discussion that all too many couples who come to the Church to be married have no real clue as to what the Church teaches about marriage; they are cultural Catholics only and it is a ceremony about dresses, and flowers, and music, and pleasing an adult who really things differently from them, but is family and so… Too many priests (and I would include with them too many deacons) are faced with couples who simply have no clue and are not seeking one.

Separating off the civil side of the issue and leaving that to the courthouse is not an abandonment of marriage; but it makes clear that what the State presumes is not what the Church does.

This is not meant as a means of shoving people away; rather, it is a means of clarifying what the Church is about. All too many Catholics already are not marrying in the Church; I don’t see it likely to cause more to do so. Certainly people can worry that point to death, positing that if we made such a change, those who married civilly or in some other church would have not done so had the Church not changed its position - and not one of those worriers can prove the point. Rather, such a separation should make clear to all that approaching the Church is approaching for something other than what the courthouse provides, which gives at least an equal footing to the discussion of sacrament, compared to what we have now.

I consider the bit about what the boxes on the civil form identify (“Spouse A”) to be essentially irrelevant.

However, anyone paying any attention to national news and international news (such as from Canada) should be aware that attacks on both the Catholic Church and other denominations are becoming both more frequent and more vicious. A husband and wife team in Idaho was recently threatened with legal action when they refused to perform homosexual weddings; ministers were threatened with subpoenas and legal action by a city in the South over sermons/homilies; the Federal government is attempting to force not only churches, but church related organizations as well as private businesses to provide abortion and contraception coverage in their insurance policies; and the list is growing.

The threats from government, whether it be local, state or national are increasing, and doing so rapidly, and much of it centers around faith and morals as it relates to family, marriage, and sexual morals. Separating church from state in the matter of the civil recognition of a marriage may not change the direction governmental entities are currently pursuing, but it does give witness to individuals that the Church has a very different position on these matters.

And who is it we primarily give witness to - a largely faceless bureaucracy, or people - those in the pews, and in our communities?
 
“First Things?”

I never heard of them. I’ve never heard any of my friends talk about them. I really want to say, “Who cares what they throw their weight behind?”

I’m sure they are really nice people but do they really impact anything the Church says or does?

-Tim-
 
TimothyH said:
“First Things?”

I never heard of them. I’ve never heard any of my friends talk about them. I really want to say, “Who cares what they throw their weight behind?”

I’m sure they are really nice people but do they really impact anything the Church says or does?

-Tim-
Click to expand...
They are well worth a bit of research.
 
I went to a wedding in a small town in France about 15 years ago and the bride and groom were married in a Catholic church and then everyone proceeded to the town hall where the civil marriage was performed by the mayor. So I don’t see any problem with separating the religious ceremony from the civil one.
 
TimothyH said:
“First Things?” I never heard of them. I’ve never heard any of my friends talk about them. I really want to say, “Who cares what they throw their weight behind?” I’m sure they are really nice people but do they really impact anything the Church says or does?
Click to expand...
First Things has a lot of weight in the more orthodox parts of the Church. I and several of my friends read it regularly. It’s good stuff, well worth looking into.
otjm said:
However, anyone paying any attention to national news and international news (such as from Canada) should be aware that attacks on both the Catholic Church and other denominations are becoming both more frequent and more vicious. A husband and wife team in Idaho was recently threatened with legal action when they refused to perform homosexual weddings; ministers were threatened with subpoenas and legal action by a city in the South over sermons/homilies; the Federal government is attempting to force not only churches, but church related organizations as well as private businesses to provide abortion and contraception coverage in their insurance policies; and the list is growing.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t much mentioned in the First Things article (I agree the Spouse A/B thing is largely irreverent), but you’ve touched on the bigger issue IMO. The day is coming when they will attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriages. The kind of disengagement suggested might just protect us from being swallowed up.

Right after same-sex marriage became law in my state, a priest told me that my diocese was already having being-the-scenes discussions on whether or not we need to separate civil and religious marriage completely so that we can at least maintain our marriages. I think it’s a serious threat, though most will dismiss it as impossible.
 
Thorolfr said:
I went to a wedding in a small town in France about 15 years ago and the bride and groom were married in a Catholic church and then everyone proceeded to the town hall where the civil marriage was performed by the mayor. So I don’t see any problem with separating the religious ceremony from the civil one.
Click to expand...
Exactly, Archbishop Charles Chaput wrote up a very good analysis of the issue.
Here’s what Bishop Chaput said:
“A friend recently suggested that the Church should get out of the civil marriage business altogether,” Bishop Chaput said. “In a way, it makes sense. It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies spouse A and spouse B.… Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet.”
Here’s the link: aleteia.org/en/society/ar…75876423680000

Basically, The Church has no obligation to server as an agent of The State. The Church administers The Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, including the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

There is no reason that it be involved in the administration of State sanctioned civil contracts regarding licensing of sexual activity and cohabitation between people of the same sex.
 
Wampa said:
The day is coming when they will attempt to force the Church to perform same-sex marriages.
Click to expand...
I don’t see how that could happen, at least not in the United States (Canada or some other place is a different matter). According to the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Of course, organizations that are affiliated with a Church and are not fulfilling a specifically religious function are a different matter.
 
Thorolfr said:
I don’t see how that could happen, at least not in the United States (Canada or some other place is a different matter). According to the 1st Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”. Of course, organizations that are affiliated with a Church and are not fulfilling a specifically religious function are a different matter.
Click to expand...
An as attorney who has followed the legal developments of gay marriage quite closely, I don’t think the First Amendment will be a hindrance in the long run. Whether or not they succeed, we will see, but at the very least they will try. We are heading to a legal regime where discrimination concerns trump religious liberty.
 
The First Things article makes reference to a pledge originated by several ministers wherein they seek signatures of other Christian ministers to disengage from acting as agents of the state when it comes to marriage. Part of it reads as follows:

“Therefore, in our roles as Christian ministers, we, the undersigned, commit ourselves to disengaging civil and Christian marriage in the performance of our pastoral duties. We will no longer serve as agents of the state in marriage. We will no longer sign government-provided marriage certificates.”

It does occur to me that such a pledge would make more of an impact if signed by a majority of county clerks and justices of the peace in the nation.
 
Ignatius said:
Basically, The Church has no obligation to server as an agent of The State. The Church administers The Sacraments instituted by Jesus Christ, including the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony.

There is no reason that it be involved in the administration of State sanctioned civil contracts regarding licensing of sexual activity and cohabitation between people of the same sex.
Click to expand...
This is an interesting point.

It is convenient for a Catholic couple to be married in the Church and go off on their honeymoon after receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony AND a civll “certificate”. Because the priest/minister is authorized by the state to perform marriages.

What problems would arise if the Church was not authorized (or refused) to perform legal secular marriages?

Currently, I see no problems. The Catholic couple would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and the state could care less…
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
This is an interesting point.

It is convenient for a Catholic couple to be married in the Church and go off on their honeymoon after receiving the Sacrament of Matrimony AND a civll “certificate”. Because the priest/minister is authorized by the state to perform marriages.

What problems would arise if the Church was not authorized (or refused) to perform legal secular marriages?

Currently, I see no problems. The Catholic couple would be married in the eyes of the Church and God and the state could care less…
Click to expand...
It would be about as stupid a decision as they could make. It would have ramifications for health (one gets sick; the other is a “stranger”), tax problems, potentially credit problems, problems in purchasing real estate, and probate problems just to name a few issues.

There are a multitude of legal issues that a civil marriage would avoid, and there is no moral reason to not go through the civil ceremony, should the Church stop taking care of the civil part. France and Germany both have such a separation, so this isn’t exactly a world shaking first.
 
otjm said:
It would be about as stupid a decision as they could make. It would have ramifications for health (one gets sick; the other is a “stranger”), tax problems, potentially credit problems, problems in purchasing real estate, and probate problems just to name a few issues.

There are a multitude of legal issues that a civil marriage would avoid, and there is no moral reason to not go through the civil ceremony, should the Church stop taking care of the civil part. France and Germany both have such a separation, so this isn’t exactly a world shaking first.
Click to expand...
I know about France, but I understand that Germany began authorizing Catholic priests to conduct civil marriages a few years ago. Now German Catholics do not have to have two separate ceremonies.

Of course the legal issues of marriage would be a concern. But that brings up the question of why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place.
 
Fr Dwight Longnecker wrote in an article last year:
It is now time for the Catholic Church to distance itself from civil marriage. The best thing we can do is withdraw from every aspect of civil marriage. I would be in favor of the situation which exists in France and other countries–where two people who want to be married go to the local registrar to be married civilly and then go on to the church for the Christian ceremony. This will give us a clarity. It will also allow us as pastors, to restrict church weddings to those who really intend to enter into a Catholic marriage. To do this we need to clarify what Holy Matrimony is. Here is a discussion.
Click to expand...
I would also advocate a change in terminology. From now on I will refer to a Catholic marriage as “Holy Matrimony”. If “marriage” can be between two men or two women or multiple people or whatever other definitions people wish to put on it, then that term is no good to us. Terminology matters and I suggest that those who wish to maintain the truth of marriage now use the term “Holy Matrimony”. It may be somewhat cumbersome at first, but we will know where we stand.
Click to expand...
patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/07/marriage-or-holy-matrimony.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top