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

[otjm]

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.

I was not aware of the change in Germany, thank you for the update.

As to why the state is involved in marriage, that is no recent phenomenon. The state has historically been the keeper of records (and yes, the Catholic Church has also, but not records of property), the state has the court system, and issues of taxation, probate, distribution of property (even before no-fault divorce) and many other issues that are related to marriage have been decided by the state. The state is the political power, which in turn impacts marriage or non-marriage issues as they relate to the above noted categories.

Further, the state has many people who have no connection to any religious body, let alone the Catholic Church, so there is a legitimate interest in marriage from a non-religious or a-religious standpoint.

 

[Wampa]

First Things posted a reply to the conversation they started:

What Are the Objections to the Marriage Pledge?

“I wonder if those saying that the Marriage Pledge is a “retreat” know much about George Weigel, Charles J. Chaput, and others who have urged this idea’s consideration.”

 

[weller2]

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?

None. This was the situation in Poland between 1945 and 1997 and there were no problems. It was slightly less convenient because you had to do two ceremonies – but most people would schedule both on the same day anyway.

To avoid abuse (i.e. marrying different person civilly and in the Church) you were required to present the priest with a state marriage certificate.

 

[weller2]

But that brings up the question of why the state should be involved in marriage in the first place.

Taxes and property rights.

 

[Ignatius]

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.

It is a system that seems to work and removes the requirement of The Church to be an agent of The State. The Church being an agent of The State really is problematic in the first place.

 

[Pug]

I added the red coloring to the quote. I am rather astounded by the claim in red. I have witnessed numerous beautiful and clear presentations of a mathematical idea to an audience where many audience members left the presentation noticeably lacking a correspondingly clear and beautiful understanding of the idea presented. Often this is due to undispelled antecedent notions or burdens that inhibit full understanding or simple inattentiveness due to causes such as overwork, lack of sleep, or construction noise. This can happen even if the audience can parrot back certain defined correct responses prior to leaving. A weekend is better than a one hour presentation, but still, I see no way to make a real guarantee like you mention. Learners themselves must learn and you can’t make them do it. (Unless you have a special deal with the Holy Spirit there )

 

[otjm]

It is a system that seems to work and removes the requirement of The Church to be an agent of The State. The Church being an agent of The State really is problematic in the first place.

I am not in disagreement with you. I was responding to a question about getting married in the Church and just skipping the civil marriage.

as to why the Church ever got into it, there was no conflict until the State decided it had the power to re-define a multi-thousand year old understanding not only by Christians, and by Jews, but also by other religions.

 

[Francis1636]

Honestly, i would have to point the finger on our Protestant counterparts for this defeat, namely Evangelicals. While we have guys like Robert George who can use Natural Law theory and teleology to win the marriage arguments without even needing to use the words right or wrong, “Bible Christians” like Mike Huckabee are naive enough to think they can actually win a public policy debate by quoting scripture.

 

[otjm]

It is a system that seems to work and removes the requirement of The Church to be an agent of The State. The Church being an agent of The State really is problematic in the first place.

It really is only problematic now, because the State now has re-defined what marriage is. Prior to that, there was no inherent conflict.

 

[Ignatius]

It really is only problematic now, because the State now has re-defined what marriage is. Prior to that, there was no inherent conflict.

I completely agree with you.