Time to Quit?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joeybaggz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joeybaggz

Guest
Should the RCC get out of the marriage business?

As it stands today, a Roman Catholic Priest or Ordained Deacon is both a representative of the church, and a bonded agent of the civil government. At some time in the future, should that change?

In some parts of the country, particularly where there are a proliferation of seniors, I have heard of “clandestine marriages.” In this instance, a man and woman, both of retirement age, with no children to care for, and both living month to month on a small social security check, meet and wish to marry. Now civil law states that in such a case, one of the two parties has to surrender their social security check. Which results in two people, each barely making it on two checks, now having to make it one one. In this instance, it is my understanding that, they have been married in the church, confecting the sacrament, without going through the civil/legal procedure.

Given the inevitability of a lawsuit by same sex couples demanding that they be married in the RCC (or at least in an RCC church building), based on civil rights/human rights bases, insofar that the average Catholic Church avails itself of the same things provided to a regular business (i/e. water, sewer, police protection, etc.) is it time to consider the possibility of RCC clergy surrendering their bonding by the state and only concern themselves with administering the sacrament?

Yes, I understand, “render unto Caesar” and please don’t ask for actual cases (clandestine or secret means just that - no record) And based on civil rights grounds, there would be no guarantee that the Supreme Court would hear a challenge (based on separation of church and state) to a lower federal court ruling, especially one composed of liberal judges.

While I am not advocating something like this at this time, seeing how religion is being thrown under the bus by contemporary society, is it something that might need to be discussed or considered? After all, no one thought one woman could take prayer out of the public schools.

Thoughts, opinions?
 
The Church should abandon revealed truth?

Methinks you have this backward: marriage took a hit when the government asserted authority over a Sacrament of the Church.
 
I don’t think it’s a good idea to drop one of the sacraments just because there is a little social misunderstanding of marriage.
 
OP, your understanding of Social Security benefits is in error. There is sometimes a ‘marriage penalty’ in tax and benefit laws. Can the Church conduct secret marriages? Only in very extreme cases. The purpose of defrauding the government does not seem like a just cause.

No court can ever force the Church to perform same sex marriages. The Church can never stop performing marriages. The Church requires civil marriage law be followed regarding a marriage license. This does not make the Church a “bonded agent” of the government.
 
I presume you meant to say, “Is it time for US priests to stop acting as agents of the State?” Priests will never be out of “the Marriage business.”

I don’t know how it is in the US but in Canada whenever a priest or deacon is ordained the Bishop must submit his name to the province for a licence for him to be able to legally witness a marriage. If the priest moves to another province he loses the legal faculty to witness a marriage in the first province and must be licensed in the new province. One of our Pastors learned that the hard way when he went back to his province of origin to witness his niece’s wedding and later was advised that the marriage wasn’t recognized since he wasn’t licensed to celebrate marriages there.

Now if the CCCB wanted to it could unilaterally declare that priests will no longer seek authority to celebrate legal marriages and will limit themselves to celebrating religious marriages. In fact, when same-sex marriage was being discussed in parliament the CCCB did threaten to do exactly that. It didn’t stop ssm from becoming legal and they haven’t followed through on their threat.

I’m sure if they did it wouldn’t take long for Canada to impose the same requirement on the Church that is in place in many European countries “the civil marriage must take place before the religious marriage.” The Church doesn’t view this as unreasonable since the State has a vested interest in marriage.

It would be interesting to see how many couples would bother with the second ceremony.
 
joeybaggz said:
Given the inevitability of a lawsuit by same sex couples demanding that they be married in the RCC (or at least in an RCC church building), based on civil rights/human rights bases, insofar that the average Catholic Church avails itself of the same things provided to a regular business (i/e. water, sewer, police protection, etc.) is it time to consider the possibility of RCC clergy surrendering their bonding by the state and only concern themselves with administering the sacrament?
Click to expand...
A bit off topic, but:
If “The State” ever decrees that the Church must accommodate the demands of same-sex couples, the best move would be for the entire Church hierarchy in that nation to publicly defy the law. Yeah…
The Henry VIII tactics in England wouldn’t have won if all of the bishops had had the backbone and integrity that St John Fisher had.
 
I’m sorry, I somehow missed that last paragraph of your post and responded more to the “get out of the marriage business” than to the entire post. Having reread it I see that we are saying the same thing.
 
First we ought to be clear on the Church’s role. As I understand it marriage from both the Church’s point of view and even the states’, at least maybe in the English tradition, is that marriage is something that a man and a woman do to each other. This is true for both the sacrament and a natural marriage. The priest, minister or judge simply serves as an official witness.

In my state marriage is licensed so you have to get permission from the state to marry. Likewise a Catholic has to get permission from the Church. A brief aside that it is funny people are often outraged only about the Church’s claim to regulate marriage. In my state a marriage can only be solemnized by a state official or ordained clergy. So a Catholic priest or deacon merely serves as an official witness which makes the marriage legally valid.

If the Church gets out of the marriage business what does that mean? Does that mean her clergy no longer acts as official witnesses? If so then I don’t see the point of that. I really don’t think the state will force the Church any time soon to perform same sex ‘marriage’. That would be too heavy handed and unnecessary. The Church is no real threat to the modern political order. It hasn’t stopped abortion or SSM. Forcing her to ‘marry’ people might garner sympathy for her. It is better to attack her on things like forcing her to hire employees who live lives at odds with the faith because most people think that is justice. If the day comes when the Church is forced to ‘marry’ two men then it will not be an option but something that is forced on her.
 
Concur with [user]Phemie[/user] that this is the meat of your question. FTR, I would have no problem with the separation of the civil and religious ceremonies. The state not only *has a vested interest *in marriage, but also legitimately enacts marriages between men & women – Recall: Marriage pre-existed the Church.
joeybaggz said:
is it time to consider the possibility of RCC clergy surrendering their bonding by the state and only concern themselves with administering the sacrament?
Click to expand...
However
joeybaggz said:
In some parts of the country, particularly where there are a proliferation of seniors, I have heard of “clandestine marriages.” … In this instance, it is my understanding that, they have been married in the church, confecting the sacrament, without going through the civil/legal procedure.
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that priests are generally forbidden to do this, and I would be surprised if it is at all common (indeed, if it happens at all).
:twocents:

tee
 
Civil marriage is almost dead in Western countries. It has economic consequences if the marriage is long term and, of course, where children are involved separated couples have legal issues. And we shouldn’t blame same sex marriage. As soon as you have Divorce on demand marriage becomes meaningless. I actually discovered something while browsing recently called sologamy. You marry yourself!

I would also add that where I live living together while unmarried carries the same economic consequences after three years as a civil marriage and immediately if children are born.

There is no law against living in a situation that amounts to polygamy.

For the Church to get out of civil marriages would be a disaster. The Church is the only way back to sanity in marriage although in human terms it’s hard to see it succeeding at least in the near future. Is the Church to stop proclaiming the words of Our Lord? Is it to stop warning poor deluded folks that they are committing sin?
 
ColdComfort said:
For the Church to get out of civil marriages would be a disaster. The Church is the only way back to sanity in marriage although in human terms it’s hard to see it succeeding at least in the near future. Is the Church to stop proclaiming the words of Our Lord? Is it to stop warning poor deluded folks that they are committing sin?
Click to expand...
Why? There are many a country where the Church is not involved in civil marriage: France, Germany, Austria, Mexico, etc. Has that made a difference? Would those that believe in the Sacrament of Matrimony, or at least in what the Church teaches, be affected if the Church said, “From now on we only solemnize marriages that already legally exist.”?

Or would those who couldn’t care less about the sacrament, and who may even lie to have a wedding in a picturesque church, bother with it if they had to marry at the court house first?
 
joeybaggz said:
Should the RCC get out of the marriage business?

As it stands today, a Roman Catholic Priest or Ordained Deacon is both a representative of the church, and a bonded agent of the civil government. At some time in the future, should that change?

In some parts of the country, particularly where there are a proliferation of seniors, I have heard of “clandestine marriages.” In this instance, a man and woman, both of retirement age, with no children to care for, and both living month to month on a small social security check, meet and wish to marry. Now civil law states that in such a case, one of the two parties has to surrender their social security check. Which results in two people, each barely making it on two checks, now having to make it one one. In this instance, it is my understanding that, they have been married in the church, confecting the sacrament, without going through the civil/legal procedure.

Given the inevitability of a lawsuit by same sex couples demanding that they be married in the RCC (or at least in an RCC church building), based on civil rights/human rights bases, insofar that the average Catholic Church avails itself of the same things provided to a regular business (i/e. water, sewer, police protection, etc.) is it time to consider the possibility of RCC clergy surrendering their bonding by the state and only concern themselves with administering the sacrament?

Yes, I understand, “render unto Caesar” and please don’t ask for actual cases (clandestine or secret means just that - no record) And based on civil rights grounds, there would be no guarantee that the Supreme Court would hear a challenge (based on separation of church and state) to a lower federal court ruling, especially one composed of liberal judges.

While I am not advocating something like this at this time, seeing how religion is being thrown under the bus by contemporary society, is it something that might need to be discussed or considered? After all, no one thought one woman could take prayer out of the public schools.

Thoughts, opinions?
Click to expand...
What makes you feel this is inevitable?
 
Under the current US Constitution, it is highly unlikely that the US government will ever force a religion to perform particular legal marriages. Prayer in the schools was a totally different set of Constitutional principles.
 
joeybaggz said:
Should the RCC get out of the marriage business?

As it stands today, a Roman Catholic Priest or Ordained Deacon is both a representative of the church, and a bonded agent of the civil government. At some time in the future, should that change?

In some parts of the country, particularly where there are a proliferation of seniors, I have heard of “clandestine marriages.” In this instance, a man and woman, both of retirement age, with no children to care for, and both living month to month on a small social security check, meet and wish to marry. Now civil law states that in such a case, one of the two parties has to surrender their social security check. Which results in two people, each barely making it on two checks, now having to make it one one. In this instance, it is my understanding that, they have been married in the church, confecting the sacrament, without going through the civil/legal procedure.

Given the inevitability of a lawsuit by same sex couples demanding that they be married in the RCC (or at least in an RCC church building), based on civil rights/human rights bases, insofar that the average Catholic Church avails itself of the same things provided to a regular business (i/e. water, sewer, police protection, etc.) is it time to consider the possibility of RCC clergy surrendering their bonding by the state and only concern themselves with administering the sacrament?

Yes, I understand, “render unto Caesar” and please don’t ask for actual cases (clandestine or secret means just that - no record) And based on civil rights grounds, there would be no guarantee that the Supreme Court would hear a challenge (based on separation of church and state) to a lower federal court ruling, especially one composed of liberal judges.

While I am not advocating something like this at this time, seeing how religion is being thrown under the bus by contemporary society, is it something that might need to be discussed or considered? After all, no one thought one woman could take prayer out of the public schools.

Thoughts, opinions?
Click to expand...
I have held the position for years that the Church should completely “divorce” itself from the state when it comes to its sacraments. The Church has given the state way too much power over her sacrament. This was tolerable but not preferable when they at least had the same idea of the definition. Then came no fault divorce, then came SSM…
That one must obtain a certificate from the state “divorce” to investigate the validity of one of its sacraments is a scary thought.
The Church worldwide should run its sacrament separate from any government that can rule over the Church. Which has now happened.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
Under the current US Constitution, it is highly unlikely that the US government will ever force a religion to perform particular legal marriages. Prayer in the schools was a totally different set of Constitutional principles.
Click to expand...
The constitution? Lol!
 
Here is an idea I’ve floated on CAF before, that I think will pass legal muster – if not, no one has told me so or told me why not.

Local churches – Catholic and Protestant – who are opposed to SSM come together to form “Wedding Clubs”. A set of bylaws are enacted, and each church or parish pays a token fee to belong. The bylaws include things like forbidding the use of any church property by any group or individual who wish to use it for ceremonies involving SSM or non-Judaeo-Christian deities. So, for example, if St. Something’s parish owned a parish hall and was a member of this Wedding Club, a group of Wiccans could not rent the hall for use in their ceremonies. However, if the First Evangelical Church of Mycity was a member and wanted to rent St. Something’s parish hall for a wedding reception, that would be allowed.

People who wanted to use the facilities to perform marriages would have to be members in good standing in one of the member churches. So, someone could not just come in and use the church for their wedding without having first joined that church and been a member in good standing for a reasonable length of time.

If the State should ever want to come in and force these churches to perform SSM, these churches have prior business contracts that would prohibit their use by members not in good standing. I’m sure the State would find SOME overwhelming public need that can only be filled by forcing these churches to capitulate, but I’m pretty sure business contracts would override religious liberty.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t think the U.S. Constitution is a laughing matter. I’m sorry if you do.
Click to expand...
I believe the poster was expressing his belief that Constitutional Law has entered an Alice-In-Wonderland universe, where words mean what I say they mean, no more and no less.
 
Tis_Bearself said:
I don’t think the U.S. Constitution is a laughing matter. I’m sorry if you do.
Click to expand...
While no laughing matter, it is the punchline to a joke.
Our government does not govern with any thought to the constitution. Nor does the voice of the constitution, SCOTUS, rule by it.
 
joeybaggz said:
Thoughts, opinions?
Click to expand...
I appreciate the replies. To clarity my question and point:

I think the RCC should stay in the matrimony/sacramental marriage business. I think it is a possibility that it might be wise to remove itself from any civil responsibility. “Render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.”

Catholic couples would confect the sacrament. As to the civil responsibility, the church would inform them that they had to present themselves to the state for a civil bond to be established. Whether they did or not, is up to them.

I believe that sooner or later, some gay couple will demand that they be married in the church and that the RCC denying them this privilege is a violation of their civil rights as currently defined by the legal system. The church cannot violate the rights of minorities based on race for instance. The legal argument against the church would be on the same constitutional civil rights basis. Given that, it is plausible to think that the courts, including the Supreme Court (depending on its makeup) would rule in favor of the gay couple. Let a Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton pick the supreme court, and a court of that makeup would very likely rule that the RCC cannot deny SSC’s the right to “matrimony” I really don’t want to see Saturdays in June resemble a gay pride march at your local parish…

Defining itself as an institution only concerned with the sacrament and not the civil aspect of marriage positions the church to better defend itself in a separation of church and state argument. The RCC states matrimony is the union of one man and one woman. If that is the doctrine/definition of the sacrament, arguments of the plaintive (the gay couple in this instance) would be moot, and not considered. The state will not override a religious belief, it has no right to by the constitution, but when the church is an agent of the state, the water gets muddied.

The priest or deacon is a bonded agent of the state, not the church itself.

From my understanding, clandestine marriage is not common, but it has occurred.

Given the state of today’s culture and society, I am only concerned with the couple’s standing in the sight of God. Secular society is doing it best to kick religion under the bus. I think it might be wise to take precautions.

Oh, and it is not out of the realm of possibility that the RCC would be sued by gays for emotional distress and defamation of character and look for a cash settlement. Not possible? To think so might well be whistling past the graveyard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top