Refusal to participate in civil marriage

[Oscarthecat]

As Catholics, we are to comply with those secular laws unless they conflict with our conscience.

So, in the event that the federal government expands the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples over the next 4-8 years, would it be possible and/or morally acceptable, as form of civil disobedience, for a Catholic married couple to remain married in the Church, but to obtain a civil divorce for the purpose of refusing to participate in a system that accepts gay marriage? Or, similarly, for a Catholic couple to be married in the Church, but not file for a government marriage license?

 

[Publisher]

As Catholics, we are to comply with those secular laws unless they conflict with our conscience.

So, in the event that the federal government expands the definition of civil marriage to include homosexual couples over the next 4-8 years, would it be possible and/or morally acceptable, as form of civil disobedience, for a Catholic married couple to remain married in the Church, but to obtain a civil divorce for the purpose of refusing to participate in a system that accepts gay marriage? Or, similarly, for a Catholic couple to be married in the Church, but not file for a government marriage license?

I think that’s an excellent idea…of course the “marriage benefits” would not be extended to religious couples who only have a religious marriage ceremonies that are not also licensed by the state…but I think this is a wonderful idea. Gay and lesbian couples have been having religious ceremonies only for decades without civil benfits.

 

[fancyfrancie]

I suppose you could, but you have to remember that you would forfeit any legal marriage rights as well. Those include making medical decisions when your spouse cannot, the right to their property in the event of their death (unless they leave a will) and the right to keep you correspondence with one another “private” from the US court system (meaning you would not be exempt from testifying against your spouse). You would also have to file separately on your taxes, etc. Only the church and your family would recognize that you are married. Legally, you would be recognized as “roommates”.

As for obtaining a civil divorce…doesn’t that seem a little spiteful?

I was always taught that the sanctity of a sacrament comes from the sincerity of the person receiving it. Those who wish uphold that, should uphold it in all ways, not only the ways that appeal to them. In other words, get married and accept what that means spiritually and legally or don’t get married at all. There is no in-between.

 

[tee_eff_em]

Or, similarly, for a Catholic couple to be married in the Church, but not file for a government marriage license?

Canon 1071 may preclude this

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;

tee

 

[puzzleannie]

no government has the power or right, no matter what it attempts, to legislate marriage as other than a union between one man and one woman. Insofar as the civil law, as applied to the Catholic couple in question, does not invalidate their own marriage, they should comply with it. When the time comes (and it will IMO) that this is no longer possible the bishops will undoubtedly instruct the faithful on how to proceed.

 

[manualman]

Whatever happened to the “covenant marriage” idea talked about a few years back. Maybe its an idea that needs to be looked at anew and could be reserved for the traditional definition of marriage.

 

[Publisher]

puzzleannie;4394178**:

no government has the power or right, no matter what it attempts, to legislate marriage as other

than a union between one man and one woman. Insofar as the civil law, as applied to the Catholic couple in question, does not invalidate their own marriage, they should comply with it. When the time comes (and it will IMO) that this is no longer possible the bishops will undoubtedly instruct the faithful on how to proceed.

It does have the power…and is free to exercise that power…and will. Maybe the government has no “power” in religious terms…but in secular terms…it certainly has the power and rule of law behind it.

 

[puzzleannie]

It does have the power…and is free to exercise that power…and will. Maybe the government has no “power” in religious terms…but in secular terms…it certainly has the power and rule of law behind it.

it may have the might, but not the power and the right, there is a difference. that there will be an attempt to make it the law of the land I have no doubt.

 

[Publisher]

it may have the might, but not the power and the right, there is a difference. that there will be an attempt to make it the law of the land I have no doubt.

'might" provided by authority in government or “power” provided by authority in government…if “might” makes you feel comfortable…wonderful.

“power” as a religious right…that has never been an issue…the government is not involved in relgious definitions…so if you wish to define “power” in the light of your religious beliefs…wonderful too…the government isn’t bound by your religious definitions…and they WILL exercise full civil and governmental POWER.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Canon 1071 may preclude this

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;
tee

That’s kind of the point of my question- notice the condition in c.1071 makes a general concession for “exception in a case of necessity.”

The “case of necessity” would be that we, as Catholics, cannot, in good conscience, participate in a civil union that regards homosexual unions as essentially identical to heterosexual unions.

 

[Corki]

I suppose you could, but you have to remember that you would forfeit any legal marriage rights as well. Those include making medical decisions when your spouse cannot, the right to their property in the event of their death (unless they leave a will) and the right to keep you correspondence with one another “private” from the US court system (meaning you would not be exempt from testifying against your spouse). You would also have to file separately on your taxes, etc. Only the church and your family would recognize that you are married. Legally, you would be recognized as “roommates”.

Not necessarily. The OP lists Texas as one (?) of his locations. Texas recognizes common law marriage. So except for the federal tax return, all of the privaleges of marriage including property rights would be available.

edit: I just realized the irony of a Catholic couple being Sacrmentally married but living as common law spouses.

 

[LilyM]

That’s kind of the point of my question- notice the condition in c.1071 makes a general concession for “exception in a case of necessity.”

The “case of necessity” would be that we, as Catholics, cannot, in good conscience, participate in a civil union that regards homosexual unions as essentially identical to heterosexual unions.

Don’t be ridiculous. Of course you can ‘in good conscience’ have your marriage recognised by the state, if they require you to do so. And are obligated to do no less.

Why aren’t you refusing to marry in a civilly recognised way out of moral disgust at the fact that remarriages after divorce with no annulment (which surely should also be offensive to your oh-so-delicate conscience) are recognised by the state and have been for decades now?

Your individual conscience is not relevant to whether a canon law requirement of necessity has been fulfilled, or a canon law exemption from sacramental ritual applies. Any more than your private opinion of what constitutes self defence is relevant to whether you are guilty of murder or not.

The guidance of your pastor or bishop is the arbiter of whether necessity exists in the first case, just like the legal definition and decision of judge and jury is in the latter.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Don’t be ridiculous. Of course you can ‘in good conscience’ have your marriage recognised by the state, if they require you to do so. And are obligated to do no less.

Why aren’t you refusing to marry in a civilly recognised way out of moral disgust at the fact that remarriages after divorce with no annulment (which surely should also be offensive to your oh-so-delicate conscience) are recognised by the state and have been for decades now?

I don’t know why you’ve taken such an angry tone (my "oh-so-delicate conscience???), but to answer your question-

The problem arises when the civil definition of marriage no longer resembles the Catholic definition of marriage such that the two concepts are contradictory. The Church teaches that valid marriage requires 3 conditions- proper form, proper matter, and proper ministers. The form and matter of the sacrament of marriage are the free consent of the individuals to be married, the proper ministers of the Sacrament, according to Canon Law, are the man and the woman to be married, and the proper minister of the Rite is the local ordinary.

There are provisions in Canon Law which recognize valid marriage of non-catholics and even non-baptised Christians, so long as they have the proper matter, form, and ministers- meaning civil marriages are recognized in the Church so long as they are freely consented to, and they are between a man and a woman. The Church does not consider civil marriages to be invalid on the basis of the possibility that civil marriages can end in divorce.

But it would consider them invalid if they were to allow for improper ministers, such as those in homosexual unions. Including homosexual unions in the civil definition of marriage would change the very nature and meaning of all civil marriages.

it would be as though society simply stopped recognizing civil marriage at all, because what they’d be offering would not be marriage as the Church understands it.

Therefore, while society would have something it calls “marriage,” that institution would no longer be compatible with a valid, licit civil marriage according to the conditions laid out in Canon Law.

 

[rwoehmke]

In some countries concordats stipulate what is to transpire. In Germany, for example, marriage in the Church is not recognized, but only marriage before a civil authority. Couples who want a valid Catholic union get married before a magistrate and then in their Church. As far as the state cares, the Church wedding, has no legal standing. It would seem the Church conforms to whatever the civil government demands. To not do so leads to civil chaos.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know why you’ve taken such an angry tone (my "oh-so-delicate conscience???), but to answer your question-

The problem arises when the civil definition of marriage no longer resembles the Catholic definition of marriage such that the two concepts are contradictory. The Church teaches that valid marriage requires 3 conditions- proper form, proper matter, and proper ministers. The form and matter of the sacrament of marriage are the free consent of the individuals to be married, the proper ministers of the Sacrament, according to Canon Law, are the man and the woman to be married, and the proper minister of the Rite is the local ordinary.

There are provisions in Canon Law which recognize valid marriage of non-catholics and even non-baptised Christians, so long as they have the proper matter, form, and ministers- meaning civil marriages are recognized in the Church so long as they are freely consented to, and they are between a man and a woman. The Church does not consider civil marriages to be invalid on the basis of the possibility that civil marriages can end in divorce.

But it would consider them invalid if they were to allow for improper ministers, such as those in homosexual unions. Including homosexual unions in the civil definition of marriage would change the very nature and meaning of all civil marriages.

it would be as though society simply stopped recognizing civil marriage at all, because what they’d be offering would not be marriage as the Church understands it.

Therefore, while society would have something it calls “marriage,” that institution would no longer be compatible with a valid, licit civil marriage according to the conditions laid out in Canon Law.

So. The Church reckons it’s OK for civil governments to allow remarriage after civil divorce without annulment. Betwen baptised Catholics whose previous marriages occurred in Catholic ceremonies and are thus presumptively sacramental.

Which, to use your own words, means in such cases the civil governments are NOT at all offering marriage as the Church understands it! Marriage as the Church understands it is only annullable, and is otherwise, properly speaking dissolved only on the death of one of the parties. The church recognises no such thing under its definition of marriage as dissolution of a valid and sacramental marriage by divorce, and hence does not recognise remarriage following same. But the state certainly does.

Moving on, and more relevantly to your argument. There are quite a few countries - Canada, the Netherlands and so on, where gay marriage has been legal for years. In those countries Catholics aren’t exempted from the Canon Law provisions regarding the requirement to marry in a civilly-recognised fashion. IF such an exemption were possible under Canon Law, the bishops of those countries would have outright said so, or at least we’d see Catholics in those countries marrying in church-only ceremonies, not legally-binding ones.

I’m angry as you put it (not really so, but I grant it may seem that way) because, unless you’re a priest, bishop or canon lawyer and haven’t told us that you are, you’re very dangerously suggesting that you or any layperson can simply interpret canon law by their own lights. In a manner directly contrary to how the same bishops, priests and canon lawyers, whose job it is and not yours, to determine interpretation and application of Canon Law, CURRENTLY interpret and apply it in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.

You’re suggesting that ‘necessity’ in the above canon means whatever you or any other private individual reckons it to mean. It’s doesn’t, any more than any other legal term means what a private individual reckons it to mean.

Again, unless you are a priest, bishop or canon lawyer, seek the opinion of those who are qualified to judge in such matters. Let THEY, whose job and not yours, guide you as to what that canon means and whether it applies as you say.

And don’t confuse the good people here by spouting opinion which you, apparently, have neither the authority nor expertise to offer.

 

[Oscarthecat]

So. The Church reckons it’s OK for civil governments to allow remarriage after civil divorce without annulment. Betwen baptised Catholics whose previous marriages occurred in Catholic ceremonies and are thus presumptively sacramental.

Which, to use your own words, means in such cases the civil governments are NOT at all offering marriage as the Church understands it! Marriage as the Church understands it is only annullable, and is otherwise, properly speaking dissolved only on the death of one of the parties. The church recognises no such thing under its definition of marriage as dissolution of a valid and sacramental marriage by divorce, and hence does not recognise remarriage following same. But the state certainly does.

Moving on, and more relevantly to your argument. There are quite a few countries - Canada, the Netherlands and so on, where gay marriage has been legal for years. In those countries Catholics aren’t exempted from the Canon Law provisions regarding the requirement to marry in a civilly-recognised fashion. IF such an exemption were possible under Canon Law, the bishops of those countries would have outright said so, or at least we’d see Catholics in those countries marrying in church-only ceremonies, not legally-binding ones.

I’m angry as you put it (not really so, but I grant it may seem that way) because, unless you’re a priest, bishop or canon lawyer and haven’t told us that you are, you’re very dangerously suggesting that you or any layperson can simply interpret canon law by their own lights. In a manner directly contrary to how the same bishops, priests and canon lawyers, whose job it is and not yours, to determine interpretation and application of Canon Law, CURRENTLY interpret and apply it in jurisdictions where gay marriage is legal.

You’re suggesting that ‘necessity’ in the above canon means whatever you or any other private individual reckons it to mean. It’s doesn’t, any more than any other legal term means what a private individual reckons it to mean.

Again, unless you are a priest, bishop or canon lawyer, seek the opinion of those who are qualified to judge in such matters. Let THEY, whose job and not yours, guide you as to what that canon means and whether it applies as you say.

And don’t confuse the good people here by spouting opinion which you, apparently, have neither the authority nor expertise to offer.

I don’t know what you’ve been reading in this thread, but you have clearly misunderstood my question and my comments.

Please re-read my original post, and notice that I am not “spouting” anything- I am ASKING A QUESTION about whether a particular form of civil disobedience would be permissible under Canon Law.

I am not interested in pushing the limits of Church Law- i am not challenging Canon Law in any way whatsoever, and have no desire to do so.

I am interested, however, in challenging civil law in the event that it conflicts with my “oh so delicate conscience.” I can’t get over that “delicate conscience” comment- as if I have a “delicate conscience” because I don’t want to be a party to a civil institution that validates something like homosexual unions, which the Church correctly teaches are offensive to God.

I have nothing more to say to you on this until you are able to calm down and assume a more charitable tone.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t know what you’ve been reading in this thread, but you have clearly misunderstood my question and my comments.

Please re-read my original post, and notice that I am not “spouting” anything- I am ASKING A QUESTION about whether a particular form of civil disobedience would be permissible under Canon Law.

I am not interested in pushing the limits of Church Law- i am not challenging Canon Law in any way whatsoever, and have no desire to do so.

I am interested, however, in challenging civil law in the event that it conflicts with my “oh so delicate conscience.” I can’t get over that “delicate conscience” comment- as if I have a “delicate conscience” because I don’t want to be a party to a civil institution that validates something like homosexual unions, which the Church correctly teaches are offensive to God.

I have nothing more to say to you on this until you are able to calm down and assume a more charitable tone.

Let’s go over this again.

Firstly, you’ve been told what Canon law says - Canon 1071 states that, unless exempted by the local bishop, no priest or other minister is to marry anyone in a way which is not in accordance with the civil law.

You’ve also been told how that law is currently applied in situations where gay marriage IS civilly recognised. Catholics who have been for years now living in countries where gay marriage IS recognised (Canada, the Netherlands and others) are NOT exempt from their Canon-law obligation to marry in a civilly-recognised fashion.

Now you just said in the above post that you have a definite position on this. You’ve said outright what has been obvious all along, that you don’t want to have to go through or remain in a civil marriage if gay unions are recognised civilly in the US. Which means that you’re basically asking the question because you’re interested in getting a ‘yes’ answer. Hence your getting upset when I said ‘no’.

In other words you do want to change the application of Canon Law, inasmuch as your fellow Catholics in Canada or Holland etc don’t have an exemption but you want that to be reversed.

Look, I’m a soon-to-be-lawyer. I know a bit about challenging the law. And what you’re trying to do here, my friend, is a textbook case.

And if the good bishops of Canada and the Netherlands and other countries, successors to the Apostles and our moral arbiters, can collectively stomach something that you can’t, then I’d suggest that yes, your conscience might just be a tad delicate.

We’re not talking about something that is a legitimate case of simple preference here, like communion on the tongue or TLM Masses. We’re talking about you wanting a particular interpretation of Canon Law to prevail when it’s already reasonably clear how it is and will be interpreted.