Should all Christian Churches no longer seek state's recognition of marriages?

[zaffiroborant]

A couple of thoughts…

1. If Churches were to opt out of civil marriages would they still view those married only civilly as married?

Catholics married by civic officials are not considered validly married in the Catholic Church and have to have their marriage convalidated by the church.

 

[mlz]

yes, marriage started with adam and eve. It’s a big part of jp2’s theology of the body. A lot of the questions you posit are answered there, or in such encyclicals as arcanum and humana vitae, or by apologists such as dr. Jennifer roback morse or jimmy akin, or frequently on radio shows like catholic answers, sheila liaugminas, teresa tomeo, al kresta, et al. Catholic sources and rationale for marriage are in no shortage, and the reasoning is quite sound and powerful. It is simply ignored.

But the crux of this discussion is that the church has a particular understanding of marriage at present, which is contradictory to that which the state labels. The state’s new definition is even alien to that marriage founded in the natural law from the beginning. So the question is, what are the pros and cons for dissociating with the state’s dogma on this matter.

amen, i agree! We must now define marraige within the Church and hold to this as being a Sacramental Marriage indifference to the marriage the government now preposes. We MUST seek legal protection for this NOW!!! (although always understood…)
Mlz

 

[Vanny]

I have been thinking for some time that the only way to preserve the sanctity of marriage would be for churches to stop participating in state marriage, and perform sacramental marriage only. State marriage would effectively be a “civil union” and True Marriage, as a sacrament, would only be performed by churches.

This would necessitate people of faith to have it done twice, once by the Church and once by the state, but it would offer more protections to churches that refuse to be involved in gay marriage.

this is what I’ve been thinking-and thus only biblical unions would be recognized by the church. I think it’s a great idea

 

[Vanny]

Why would children only belong to the mother? Both names would still be on the birth certificate.

Beyond that, Couples married in the Church could still seek the civil union if they so chose, for the tax and other benefits.

One thing I think Christians should demand as citizens is that the state in which they reside cease to recognize marriage at all, and simply have civil unions available for adult couples who want them.

Jon

quite agree. You have to go get your license anyway so in DH’s and my case, we would have had the JOP perform our civil union then had our Lutheran church perform the religious wedding. I think most Christian couples would have both done as the first confers tax and other legal benefits.
That way a church can hopefully refuse to perform a religious ceremony that as not in line with Biblical marriage without getting sued.

 

[mek42]

Instead of getting all lathered up about the codification of a freedom in a free society, why not start improving relations with the ACLU to ensure they are on your side in a First Amendment issue in case the remote possibility of someone seeking to compel a religious organization to marry outside their religious rules?

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If the churches are to do this they cannot allow easy divorce, they must take great pains to have the marriage mean something in the religious context and not merely be the secular equivelent of the state “marriage.”

 

[DelsonJacobs]

Yes, marriage started with Adam and Eve. It’s a big part of JP2’s Theology of the Body. A lot of the questions you posit are answered there, or in such encyclicals as Arcanum and Humana Vitae, or by apologists such as Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse or Jimmy Akin, or frequently on radio shows like Catholic Answers, Sheila Liaugminas, Teresa Tomeo, Al Kresta, et al. Catholic sources and rationale for Marriage are in no shortage, and the reasoning is quite sound and powerful. It is simply ignored.

But the crux of this discussion is that the Church has a particular understanding of marriage at present, which is contradictory to that which the State labels. The State’s new definition is even alien to that marriage founded in the natural law from the Beginning. So the question is, what are the pros and cons for dissociating with the State’s dogma on this matter.

My comments were not meant to be understood as if answers haven’t been supplied by many Catholics. The fine efforts of the very spiritual persons you mention are stellar examples of an apologetic approach. And what is a Catholic who argues with the validity of encyclicals?

I am not claiming that these are not enough, but I am warning against the view that these are just being ignored. Are all these sources accessible to all peoples, the poor, those who cannot read, those who speak various languages, etc.? Of course not. Some are ignoring them, true, but others have yet to be exposed to them is what I am saying. We must not be blind to the fact that we are often in denial when we are blind.

Because of this I am suggesting that definitive catechesis dealing with this matter is what we need now. And we also need to watch our attitude in the process lest we become persecutors of or play the judge over those who do not agree with us who are Catholic.

Who are the Waldensians of today? To believe we as Catholics are perfect in the way we are handling all matters and in treatment of those with different convictions is to not learn from history. We may not agree with the latest ruling on same-sex marriage in our land, true, but how we deal with those who oppose the healthful teachings of the Gospel are just as important as the stand we take.

We are never more ignorant when we believe we aren’t capable of being ignorant. And we cannot claim that people are ignoring what messages the Church and her adherents offer when we cannot prove ignorance in all people. Are those who never heard the message ignoring it? Is it not written: “How will the hear unless someone preaches?”

But I have no argument against you. Just begging for caution in proceeding forward in truth, that is all.

 

[MarcoPolo]

Christians should demand as citizens is that the state in which they reside cease to recognize marriage at all

I think this is another option that deserves food for thought. The question is: Is the current government too immature and incapable, at this time in history, of handling any matter related to marriage? And, if the State cannot tell the difference between two men and a man + a woman, to what degree does the State suffer from systemic Agnosia?

 

[MarcoPolo]

I am suggesting that definitive catechesis dealing with this matter is what we need now.

I think good Catholics agree with this and are doing this, hopefully with proper temperance, as you caution.

 

[JonNC]

I think this is another option that deserves food for thought. The question is: Is the current government too immature and incapable, at this time in history, of handling any matter related to marriage? And, if the State cannot tell the difference between two men and a man + a woman, to what degree does the State suffer from systemic Agnosia?

I think it depends on the state. Some will recognize that this SCOTUS decision opens a door for those who wish to destroy Christianity, starting with the tax exemption, and that not recognizing marriage of any type may provide insulation to protect us.

Jon