Marriage, question really regarding

[Hobbes42]

I’ve been discussing this idea with other persons and was wondering if someone could give an answer.

Does the Church teach that the state has a role in recognizing marriage?

I ask this as I’ve come to the conclusion that a simplistic way out of the current mess is to end state recognition of marriages.

 

[Della]

Yes, the state has a role to play in marriage due to property, inheritance, and child protection. Marriage has legal obligations not merely religious ones. Marriage is also a civil issue because stable marriages and families make for stable civil order.

 

[Hobbes42]

I am aware of all of the benefits of state involvement, but seeing as the situation is not currently ideal the question I’d like answered is whether the Church requires it.

 

[edarlitrix]

I looked about in the Catechism and see no comments about this issue… perhaps the silence of the Church implies that they do not require state recognition of marriages.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

I looked about in the Catechism and see no comments about this issue… perhaps the silence of the Church implies that they do not require state recognition of marriages.

Well, since the Church requires a civil divorce before applying for an annulment, it would seem that in that instance the Church certainly does require the state recognition that the marriage no longer exists in a civil sense. Presumably the reverse would also be true at the commencement of a marriage.

 

[fred_conty]

It is a requirement that we honor state law, that does not conflict with divine law and natural law. Jesus paid his tax, or Jesus paid to Ceasar what was Ceasar’s.

In the case of SSM, the church could not honor this if passed into law because it is in conflict with both the divine law and the natural law, namely marriage must be between a man and woman which would fulfill the purpose of God’s command…to multiply. And if we look at nature, we find the animals bear this out.

If this law were passed, God’s priests and other ministers of God could be in trouble if they were to refuse SSM if passed as law. It is important that SSM be opposed.

In the case of marriage, technically neither the state nor the church marries the couple, but the couple themselves, when they say “I do”. The state and church are there as witnesses to the marriage. Obviously if the couple were SS, the church could not be a witness to something that is contrary to what God says should happen in marriage.

I do not wish to leave anyone with the impression that I am hard hearted towards anyone. I am very sorry when anyone finds themselves hurting for understanding and love. Everyone is created by God and loved by God. Now the question is, to find a way to return our devotion to God and put our love to other ways.

Blessed be God who strengthens us in all our trials.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It can be said that marriage, as an institution, exists at least in part to protect the vulnerability that arises, especially for women, when a man and a woman have an intimate relationship that of its nature has the potential for children. What sets the sexual union between a man and a woman apart from any other union – sexual or non-sexual – is the potential to bring forth new human life or lives. This makes the relationship uniquely vulnerable for everyone involved and is why it is necessary for civil laws to protect marriage.

Legal parlance has also recognized this unique aspect and vulnerability by referring to the child as the “issue” of marriage. Consummation has traditionally been recognized by civil as well as religious authorities as an essential element of marriage. Pre-existing, incurable physical defects and incapacities which render a party unable to consummate the marriage, are, under most statutes, grounds for annulment.

The law, in its rules regarding consummation, embodies an important insight into the nature of marriage as a bodily – no less than spiritual and emotional – union that is actualized in reproductive-type acts.

Catholic teaching covers the protecting of the family and marriage…it applies to the faithful and is not forced on others (non-Catholics). Others, particularly non religious people need secular protection of their marriages. This is the main reason the state can, and should recognize legitimate marriage.

 

[weller2]

I ask this as I’ve come to the conclusion that a simplistic way out of the current mess is to end state recognition of marriages.

Look at France. The state does not recognize Church marriage as having legal implications.
The Church does not recognize state marriages (i.e. people with state marriages are treated as coahabitating under canon law).

It’s a very healthy system, because the state cannot dictate anything to the Church.

There is one downside, namely that you have to do two ceremonies.

 

[QuasiCatholic]

If this law were passed, God’s priests and other ministers of God could be in trouble if they were to refuse SSM if passed as law. It is important that SSM be opposed.
.

I hate when people say this. It suggests either paranoia, fear-mongering, or a lack of understanding of Constitutional law. Priests and other ministers already refuse to marry lots of people who are eligible to marry civilly. They don’t get in any trouble. That’s where that whole separation of church and state thing comes in, remember?

A judge who refused to marry someone would be a different story, however, because they’re a public official.

 

[1ke]

Well, since the Church requires a civil divorce before applying for an annulment

Canon law has no such requirement.

 

[1ke]

The Church does not recognize state marriages (i.e. people with state marriages are treated as coahabitating under canon law).

This is not accurate as it pertains to the marriage of non-Catholics. They marry validly when they marry civilly.

Catholics are required to marry in Catholic form. However, the Catholic Church does require such couples to marry civilly before they marry in the Church. Also, Canon Law states:

Can. 1071 §1. Except in a case of necessity, a person is not to assist without the permission of the local ordinary at:

2/ a marriage which cannot be recognized or celebrated according to the norm of civil law;

 

[Ignatius]

I’ve been discussing this idea with other persons and was wondering if someone could give an answer.

Does the Church teach that the state has a role in recognizing marriage?

I ask this as I’ve come to the conclusion that a simplistic way out of the current mess is to end state recognition of marriages.

Actually, Archbishop Chaput has proposed that The Church end it’s role in an agent of the State with regard to marriage. Then The Church would perform the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and would not be forced to comply with any regulations of The State with regard to it.

As far as secular law is concerned the people could then be a matter of going down to city hall and fill out the required contract paperwork.

 

[Hobbes42]

Actually, Archbishop Chaput has proposed that The Church end it’s role in an agent of the State with regard to marriage. Then The Church would perform the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony and would not be forced to comply with any regulations of The State with regard to it.

As far as secular law is concerned the people could then be a matter of going down to city hall and fill out the required contract paperwork.

This is the thrust of the argument that I like to make. The Church can simply avoid all of the Kulturkampf and just ignore the state. (Which isn’t to say it should disengage, simply that there’s a breathtakingly simple way) Granted, there’d be a lot of people upset because they’d lose all the benefits, but it is a great way to just go around the mess completely! Especially for areas that have already granted marital status to non-marriages.

 

[epan]

I’ve been discussing this idea with other persons and was wondering if someone could give an answer.

Does the Church teach that the state has a role in recognizing marriage?

I ask this as I’ve come to the conclusion that a simplistic way out of the current mess is to end state recognition of marriages.

This question is fundamental to the disagreement between those who advocate marriage equality, and those who oppose it based on religious grounds.

There are areas in civil law which are opposed to the religious beliefs of some groups, while supporting the religious beliefs of other groups. Also, there are those who prefer not to subscribe to any religious point of view. In a state which does not endorse any particular religion, these views must remain balanced.

The apparent confusion among some religious groups is that they believe that allowing others to live without subscribing to their own moral views is somehow religious persecution, which of course it is not.

So, society is free to define social benefit without endorsing the views of a particular religion, as long as this definition does not infringe on religious freedom. This calculus can vary from one person to another, and so we have courts to resolve these differences. We are observing the courts now, in their attempt to preserve the Constitution and protect the rights of gay people, regardless of the objections or one religious group, or the approbation of another.

Unlike other Christian denominations, Catholics view marriage as a sacrament. Of course, the State has no authority over such beliefs. There is no requirement of Church endorsement of any civil law, just as there is no requirement of State endorsement of any Catholic belief or tradition.

The balancing act where the two interests don’t intersect, is challenging to all concerned.

 

[MJJean]

This is the thrust of the argument that I like to make. The Church can simply avoid all of the Kulturkampf and just ignore the state. (Which isn’t to say it should disengage, simply that there’s a breathtakingly simple way) Granted, there’d be a lot of people upset because they’d lose all the benefits, but it is a great way to just go around the mess completely! Especially for areas that have already granted marital status to non-marriages.

Umm, the entire United States grants marriage status to “non-marriages” simply because a civil divorce allows for a civil remarriage. Meaning, those divorced can civilly validly marry while the Church considers them still married to their civil ex-spouse and considers the current marriage invalid. Every country on Earth that recognizes civil divorce and allows civil remarriage to the divorced is an area that has already granted marriage status to “non-marriages”.

I hate when people say this. It suggests either paranoia, fear-mongering, or a lack of understanding of Constitutional law. Priests and other ministers already refuse to marry lots of people who are eligible to marry civilly. They don’t get in any trouble. That’s where that whole separation of church and state thing comes in, remember?

A judge who refused to marry someone would be a different story, however, because they’re a public official.

Re-read this.