Should civil marriage be abolished?

[Cake_or_Death]

I don’t see how it can, not on a legal level (that just simply isn’t going to happen anywhere in Europe or Canada, I couldn’t speak for the US) but by the Catholic Church’s own understanding of marriage.

While not sacramental the Catholic Church does acknowledge the marriages of non-Catholics as valid provided a set of criteria are met. Remove marriage, and the Catholic Church will be complicit in encouraging fornication as the non-religious (who do form the majority in the western world) will become unable to contract non-sacramental marriages of a form valid to the Catholic Church.

Also while I don’t know about Lebanon the Israeli lack of truly secular civil marriage has been a considerable point of controversy more or less since the very foundation of the state. There are many issues involved but the main problem is the Orthodox state rabbinate are responsible for granting permission to marry to Jews, and without their permission one cannot be validly married in Israel.

All applications made by non-Orthodox Jews are automatically rejected. The equivalent elsewhere would be a Greek Orthodox government refusing to grant marriage licences to Catholics for being heretics (this is why the State Rabbinate refuses to grant permission to Conservative/Liberal Jews).

In a Protestant dominated country like the US where several denominations teach Catholicism to be false I don’t see this boding too well.

 

[bmonk]

I would dispute the presumption that religious bodies cannot be forced to officiate at same-sex unions–in Europe, there are some politicians working towards the idea that, if a church or denomination can act as an agent of the state in performing marriages, they should be required to perform any marriage allowed by the state–that is, if same-sex marriages are legal, the churches should be required to witness them, if they want to continue to witness any marriages.

But I cannot see abolishing civil marriage–the state simply has too much interest in regulating it and knowing who is able to use the rights of marriage.

 

[marymary1975]

In most countries where the Church does not act as an agent of the State, the State decrees that the Church(es) can only celebrate a religious marriage AFTER a civil marriage has been celebrated. The Church sees no problem with that because of the civil ramifications that come with marriage so that’s why it requires a certificate of marriage before it celebrates a religious marriage.

Actually in most of the countries (at least in Latin america) where the church does not act as state agent, the State has not decree that churches can celebrate marriages after a civil marriage. It is a policy of the catholic church. If it is up to the state churches can marry people before a civil marriage (in fact some religions do that). The catholic church has decided in those countries that they won’t marry unless a civil marriage has occurred first.

 

[Phemie]

Actually in most of the countries (at least in Latin america) where the church does not act as state agent, the State has not decree that churches can celebrate marriages after a civil marriage. It is a policy of the catholic church. If it is up to the state churches can marry people before a civil marriage (in fact some religions do that). The catholic church has decided in those countries that they won’t marry unless a civil marriage has occurred first.

I don’t know about Latin America but it is the law in Germany, France, etc.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The Church in the US and Canada has agreed to act for the State. That’s why a marriage license is required to have a Church wedding.

The Church could declare that it will no longer be involved in civil marriage. In fact, Canada’s bishops did threaten that during the discussions leading up to the passing of Bill C-38 on same-sex marriage.

In most countries where the Church does not act as an agent of the State, the State decrees that the Church(es) can only celebrate a religious marriage AFTER a civil marriage has been celebrated. The Church sees no problem with that because of the civil ramifications that come with marriage so that’s why it requires a certificate of marriage before it celebrates a religious marriage.

But what the Church calls marriage and what non Catholics call marriage are vastly different. SSM aside, civil marriage only seems to be marginally compatible.

 

[Phemie]

But what the Church calls marriage and what non Catholics call marriage are vastly different. SSM aside, civil marriage only seems to be marginally compatible.

That’s beside the point. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, a civil marriage between two non-Catholics with no impediments is a valid marriage, as long as their own Church recognizes it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

That’s beside the point. As far as the Catholic Church is concerned, a civil marriage between two non-Catholics with no impediments is a valid marriage, as long as their own Church recognizes it.

SSM? What if their church recognizes that? Or polygamy, what the their Church (FLDS) recognizes that?

 

[Phemie]

SSM? What if their church recognizes that? Or polygamy, what the their Church (FLDS) recognizes that?

Note that I did say “without impediment.”

Having a previous spouse (whether you’ve divorced that spouse or not) or a same-sex spouse would be an impediment to a valid marriage.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Note that I did say “without impediment.”

Having a previous spouse (whether you’ve divorced that spouse or not) or a same-sex spouse would be an impediment to a valid marriage.

So a polygamous marriage would have 1 valid spouse correct? And the Church would be ok with that?

You say without impediment like it is something that can be reconciled with other faiths and with governments. It can’t. It wont. The Church would do well to only deal with “in house” marriages. Going out of Her members for authority on marraiges is the Church’s real mistake here. When She gave authority to other Churches but ESPECIALLY other governments on the matter of marriage She gave up power. ANd now that will be a problem. For there will be Churches that marry people the Church would “approve” of and ones they won’t (SSM) So why not just have a Catholic marriage be something the Church has sole power over?

 

[Phemie]

So a polygamous marriage would have 1 valid spouse correct? And the Church would be ok with that?

The original marriage might, or might not be valid.

If the first marriage was celebrated with the intent to have more spouses, therefore not to be faithful, then it wouldn’t be valid, but the Tribunal would have to rule on it. Subsequent marriages would obviously not be valid.

Not that someone in a polygamous marriage gives a hoot about what the Catholic Church believes.

You say without impediment like it is something that can be reconciled with other faiths and with governments. It can’t. It wont. The Church would do well to only deal with “in house” marriages. Going out of Her members for authority on marriages is the Church’s real mistake here. When She gave authority to other Churches but ESPECIALLY other governments on the matter of marriage She gave up power. ANd now that will be a problem. For there will be Churches that marry people the Church would “approve” of and ones they won’t (SSM) So why not just have a Catholic marriage be something the Church has sole power over?

Not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that nobody but a Catholic can get married? The Church recognizes that marriage is a right of natural law and that anyone who is free from impediments (close kinship, previous marriage, wrong gender, etc) is entitled to be married. Marriage existed before the Catholic Church.

As for having sole power over Catholic marriage, the Church already has sole power over that.

 

[HerCrazierHalf]

The original marriage might, or might not be valid.

If the first marriage was celebrated with the intent to have more spouses, therefore not to be faithful, then it wouldn’t be valid, but the Tribunal would have to rule on it. Subsequent marriages would obviously not be valid.

So we are back to square one then? Some civil marriages are valid, some are “automatically” invalid (even today), and some of the former require a tribunal to make such a finding.

Wouldn’t this mean that so many civil marriages are invalid that it is almost unrelated to marriage as the Church defines it?

Not trying to be difficult, but as a non-Catholic this seems to be the logical conclusion of “Catholic marriage” vs “civil marriage”.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The original marriage might, or might not be valid.

If the first marriage was celebrated with the intent to have more spouses, therefore not to be faithful, then it wouldn’t be valid, but the Tribunal would have to rule on it. Subsequent marriages would obviously not be valid.

Not that someone in a polygamous marriage gives a hoot about what the Catholic Church believes.

Not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that nobody but a Catholic can get married? The Church recognizes that marriage is a right of natural law and that anyone who is free from impediments (close kinship, previous marriage, wrong gender, etc) is entitled to be married. Marriage existed before the Catholic Church.

As for having sole power over Catholic marriage, the Church already has sole power over that.

Not that someone in a polygamous marriage gives a hoot about what the Catholic Church believes.

I am quite sure that at some point someone who practices polygamy has converted.

Not sure what you’re trying to say. Are you saying that nobody but a Catholic can get married?

In a way kind of. The Church should exercise full and complete authority over its members in marriage. And it should have nothing to do with non Catholic marriages. Neither is the case at the moment.

Marriage existed before the Catholic Church.

kind of. Marriage was elevated to a Sacrament through Jesus, and in so doing He changed marriage. This is in part why Jesus took away the “indult” of divorce. The Catholic Church should require a sacramental marriage for each and ever Catholic. And the only marriage the Church should view as a valid marriage is a sacramental one. This is simple. And it was done with baptism. Baptism is a tad different because it is so necessary, and because it is uniform (for the most part) among denominations But the Church does not routinely baptism people who wish to be part of another faith or even another denomination. Not all sacraments are the same as baptism. I would argue that marriage can be handled completely In- house. Now, this is going to be unpopular here because there are quite a few posters who are in mixed marriages but it used to be less common. It would be nice if the Church (for the most part) was more strict with the idea that Catholics should marry Catholics. While yes, there are non sacramental marriages involving a Catholic spouse. There should not be. A Catholic should be required to be in a Sacramental marriage.

The Church has given the state power in many instances. When She requires a state ruling of divorce to investigate a marriage She is passively give authority to the state. When the state requires certification from clergy to marry people, She is giving power to the state. That is historical a bad move and honestly I have a hard time understanding how the Church would allow things to move down this road given the History of Kings, States and Marriages. Particularly England. It is just a bad move, and the Church is finding out that She is in bed (pardon the pun) with an unholy partner…

 

[Phemie]

I am quite sure that at some point someone who practices polygamy has converted.

In a way kind of. The Church should exercise full and complete authority over its members in marriage. And it should have nothing to do with non Catholic marriages. Neither is the case at the moment.

So you’re saying that nobody but a Catholic has a right to marry?

kind of. Marriage was elevated to a Sacrament through Jesus, and in so doing He changed marriage. This is in part why Jesus took away the “indult” of divorce. The Catholic Church should require a sacramental marriage for each and ever Catholic. And the only marriage the Church should view as a valid marriage is a sacramental one.

So in your world Jews can’t marry validly. Hindus can’t marry validly. Nobody can marry validly unless they’re Catholic even though they may meet all the requirements that the Catholic Church requires.

This is simple. And it was done with baptism. Baptism is a tad different because it is so necessary, and because it is uniform (for the most part) among denominations. But the Church does not routinely baptism people who wish to be part of another faith or even another denomination. Not all sacraments are the same as baptism. I would argue that marriage can be handled completely In- house. Now, this is going to be unpopular here because there are quite a few posters who are in mixed marriages but it used to be less common. It would be nice if the Church (for the most part) was more strict with the idea that Catholics should marry Catholics. While yes, there are non sacramental marriages involving a Catholic spouse. There should not be. A Catholic should be required to be in a Sacramental marriage.

Well, you’re correct. I don’t agree. And I’m in a sacramental marriage with my non-Catholic husband.

The Church has given the state power in many instances. When She requires a state ruling of divorce to investigate a marriage She is passively give authority to the state.

Not really. What she is doing is making sure that there is no hope of reconciliation. That’s usually a given when a divorce has already happened.

When the state requires certification from clergy to marry people, She is giving power to the state. That is historical a bad move and honestly I have a hard time understanding how the Church would allow things to move down this road given the History of Kings, States and Marriages. Particularly England. It is just a bad move, and the Church is finding out that She is in bed (pardon the pun) with an unholy partner…

Not sure what you mean by this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

So you’re saying that nobody but a Catholic has a right to marry?
So in your world Jews can’t marry validly. Hindus can’t marry validly. Nobody can marry validly unless they’re Catholic even though they may meet all the requirements that the Catholic Church requires.
Well, you’re correct. I don’t agree. And I’m in a sacramental marriage with my non-Catholic husband.

Not really. What she is doing is making sure that there is no hope of reconciliation. That’s usually a given when a divorce has already happened.

Not sure what you mean by this.

So you’re saying that nobody but a Catholic has a right to marry?
So in your world Jews can’t marry validly. Hindus can’t marry validly. Nobody can marry validly unless they’re Catholic even though they may meet all the requirements that the Catholic Church requires.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I don’t understand where you get that from. Jew can marry a or a jedi or a hobbit can marry a Muslim I don’t care. My point is, neither should the Church. I think it is quite odd that you say that they meet all the Church requires why would a Muslim or the Church find any authority in the marriage at all from a religion they do not believe!?

Well, you’re correct. I don’t agree. And I’m in a sacramental marriage with my non-Catholic husband.

So your husband is baptized in the Christian faith then, That is a plus. But why does the Church even allow marriage to a non baptized spouse at all? Then she must make the messy and confusing distinction of sacramental vs non sacramental. The Church would not allow a Catholic, to receive a non Christian baptism right? I think given the state of many Churches today, the CHurch should probaly take away the idea that any BAPTIZED person can be in a sacramental marriage as some “Churches” that have baptism are hardly visible as any sort of Christianity. This was not the case back in the day where you had the Orthodox and the Anglicans as the main Churches that set up in opposition to the CC. My wife works with a person who has a home church. They baptize, perhaps with the trinitarian formula. But their beliefs are not recognizable as “Christian”

This is interesting to me because the Church has declared the LDS baptisms void. So one could not enter a sacramental marriage with an LDS person, though that person views themselves a Christian… Perhaps the CHurch should make a list of approved denominations.

But ultimately, the idea of a non sacramental marriage should not exist in the Church. If a hindu marries a Catholic, how does the Church sanction any part of that?

And yes, it would be a lot cleaner a century from now if the Church just said, to have a sacramental marriage you must marry a Catholic, and the only marriage we recognize as a Church for our members is a sacramental one. I understand why that cannot be done to those currently married, but the Church has brought this problem on Herself. And there have been historical warnings.
At the very least the Church should say that to be considered a married Catholic you need to be in a sacramental marriage. To me it is obvious that Jesus changed marriage, and it has been obvious to the CHurch too. The problem is that the Church got in the business of trying to create two marriages, one sacramental and one natural. You are seeing a similair solution being pushed by some advocates of gay marriage even on the conservative side. "Ok, let them have a legal or spiritual ceremony and call it a “civil union”

It does not matter what you call it. The Church should view things from the Catholic perspective and only with Catholics…

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

A Jewish person can marry and be governed by the Jewish faith. A Muslim can marry and be governed by the rules of the Muslim faith and a secular atheist can marry and be governed by whatever, the state maybe. But if we as Catholic truly believe that marriage is a sacrament and that that sacrament has rules and guidelines and we really believe that God said for the “two to become one” then how in the world can the “one” have two different faiths? That is not a marriage… That is a partnership.

 

[Phemie]

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I don’t understand where you get that from. Jew can marry a or a jedi or a hobbit can marry a Muslim I don’t care. My point is, neither should the Church. I think it is quite odd that you say that they meet all the Church requires why would a Muslim or the Church find any authority in the marriage at all from a religion they do not believe!?

They don’t care. The Catholic Church does. What she is saying is that anyone with the proper disposition and no impediments can marry validly and should they ever decide to become Catholic they would not need to have their marriage convalidated. If their marriage was not valid it would mean that they are fornicating.

So your husband is baptized in the Christian faith then, That is a plus. But why does the Church even allow marriage to a non baptized spouse at all? Then she must make the messy and confusing distinction of sacramental vs non sacramental. The Church would not allow a Catholic, to receive a non Christian baptism right? I think given the state of many Churches today, the Church should probably take away the idea that any BAPTIZED person can be in a sacramental marriage as some “Churches” that have baptism are hardly visible as any sort of Christianity. This was not the case back in the day where you had the Orthodox and the Anglicans as the main Churches that set up in opposition to the CC. My wife works with a person who has a home church. They baptize, perhaps with the trinitarian formula. But their beliefs are not recognizable as “Christian”

This is interesting to me because the Church has declared the LDS baptisms void. So one could not enter a sacramental marriage with an LDS person, though that person views themselves a Christian… Perhaps the CHurch should make a list of approved denominations.

Here’s one such (http://dioceseofbmt.org/lifelong/content/resources/ValidNon-ValidBaptisms(Rev09).pdf).

But ultimately, the idea of a non sacramental marriage should not exist in the Church. If a Hindu marries a Catholic, how does the Church sanction any part of that?

And yes, it would be a lot cleaner a century from now if the Church just said, to have a sacramental marriage you must marry a Catholic, and the only marriage we recognize as a Church for our members is a sacramental one. I understand why that cannot be done to those currently married, but the Church has brought this problem on Herself. And there have been historical warnings.
At the very least the Church should say that to be considered a married Catholic you need to be in a sacramental marriage. To me it is obvious that Jesus changed marriage, and it has been obvious to the CHurch too. The problem is that the Church got in the business of trying to create two marriages, one sacramental and one natural. You are seeing a similair solution being pushed by some advocates of gay marriage even on the conservative side. "Ok, let them have a legal or spiritual ceremony and call it a “civil union”

It does not matter what you call it. The Church should view things from the Catholic perspective and only with Catholics…

You are still saying that only Catholics should be able to marry validly. You’re also suggesting that only Catholics baptize validly.

Not sure, would you agree to a marriage between a Catholic and an Orthodox?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

A Jewish person can marry and be governed by the Jewish faith. A Muslim can marry and be governed by the rules of the Muslim faith and a secular atheist can marry and be governed by whatever, the state maybe. But if we as Catholic truly believe that marriage is a sacrament and that that sacrament has rules and guidelines and we really believe that God said for the “two to become one” then how in the world can the “one” have two different faiths? That is not a marriage… That is a partnership.

What happens if one spouse wants to become Catholic and the other does not? You say they can’t have different faiths, so I guess either both would have to become Catholic or neither would be eligible. One spouse following the other into the Church couldn’t happen.

Marriage preparation would have to become part of the RCIA process since all those not-quite-married non-Catholics would have to get married in the Church.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

How can “one flesh” have two different faiths?

 

[bmonk]

. . . The Church would do well to only deal with “in house” marriages. Going out of Her members for authority on marraiges is the Church’s real mistake here. When She gave authority to other Churches but ESPECIALLY other governments on the matter of marriage She gave up power. ANd now that will be a problem. For there will be Churches that marry people the Church would “approve” of and ones they won’t (SSM) So why not just have a Catholic marriage be something the Church has sole power over?

In fact, this is the situation today–the Church only exerts control over Catholic marriages as such. The problem comes when one or both partners who seek a Catholic marriage have been in a previous marriage. Then the Church, desiring to grant the right to marry when it in fact exists, has to rule on those prior marriage attempts to determine which (if any) are valid, and whether the person is free to marry or not. In turn, this requires that we have rules regarding what is and what is not a valid marriage, even if the persons in that marriage are not Catholic, and possibly not baptized.

I find this whole situation interesting on several accounts. First, the Protestants generally have access to two sacraments, having given up Holy Orders, which is required for Confirmation, the Eucharist, Orders, Anointing of the Sick, and Reconciliation. This leaves them only Baptism and Marriage, of which the latter creates the most problems for us.

Second, same sex marriages are not a problem as such–since we do not see them as a valid marriage. Any such attempt would automatically be invalid. Whether or not a civil marriage exists is immaterial, just as it would be for a Catholic in a civil marriage: we might require a divorce to keep the civil legal matters straight, but it would not affect the validity either way.

 

[bmonk]

How can “one flesh” have two different faiths?

I know many such couples who are validly married. Yes, there are difficulties–but what marriage does not have difficulties?