Time to Quit?

[Muzhik]

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.

Not necessarily. In most states it’s possible to get your self licensed as a “Justice of the Peace”, empowered to perform civil marriages. If my aforementioned “Wedding Club” idea were adopted, the member churches could have parishioners empowered as JoP and under contract to the club. For Catholics, these JoP could perform the civil ceremony after the religious ceremony in front of just the witnesses and then issue the marriage certificates. Everything done on the same day, easy peasy.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

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.”
.

Yes. And not just the Roman rite either. All of them.

Partly for the reasons you pointed out.
Much like with Mormon baptisms the Church uses s completely different definition of marriage than the state does.

The Church defines it as a permanent bond, unbreakable, between a man and a woman. The state cannot define it in any way close to that. They are trying to mesh two completely different definitions and concepts.

The Church cannot bend. And the last time the Church had to choose between marriage and the state, the reformation happened…,

It’s a bad pairing and should end.

 

[exnihilo]

I don’t think the U.S. Constitution is a laughing matter. I’m sorry if you do.

It is a dead letter.

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.”

It might not be able to get out completely. If marriage is something the state regulates then it could regulate marriages performed by the Church. In fact I would think it does now. I believe my state law makes it illegal to solemnize a marriage without a license. As it stands the Church would violate the law if it married without a license.

I’ve heard of the two weddings in Europe. But what is really going on here? What is the theology? Is the ‘civil marriage’ not a full marriage? If between two baptized persons is it not sacramental? What is the second marriage in the Church? What does it accomplish that didn’t already happen?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

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.

I don’t see your proposal as a precaution so much as I see it as a surrender.

Priests don’t marry divorced couples either, unless they have had an annulment. On what grounds would they make a complaint to a Federal court; isn’t it a state issue anyway? Given the Church’s stance on marriage being between a man and a woman, I think the divorced couple would have a better shot at a case. Discrimination is discrimination.

 

[Elf01]

I’ve heard of the two weddings in Europe. But what is really going on here? What is the theology? Is the ‘civil marriage’ not a full marriage? If between two baptized persons is it not sacramental? What is the second marriage in the Church? What does it accomplish that didn’t already happen?

The Catholic Church requires Catholics to marry in the Church or receive a dispensation to marry outside in in order for the marriage to be valid/sacramental.

 

[OraLabora]

I’ve heard of the two weddings in Europe. But what is really going on here? What is the theology? Is the ‘civil marriage’ not a full marriage? If between two baptized persons is it not sacramental? What is the second marriage in the Church? What does it accomplish that didn’t already happen?

There is no “theology”. The civil marriage is a requirement to be legally married, and the religious ceremony is strictly religious.

And no a civil marriage between two baptized persons is not sacramental unless they weren’t Catholic when they were married. Catholics are bound to marry validly, in a valid form or with dispensation from form.

So in many European countries, for instance France, a Catholic couple must undergo the civil marriage first before the Church will witness the marriage to make it valid.

The Church will always remain in the business of witnessing sacramental marriages because marriage is one of the seven sacraments and the Church is God’s agent in making the sacraments available to Her people.

 

[exnihilo]

There is no “theology”. The civil marriage is a requirement to be legally married, and the religious ceremony is strictly religious.

And no a civil marriage between two baptized persons is not sacramental unless they weren’t Catholic when they were married. Catholics are bound to marry validly, in a valid form or with dispensation from form.

So in many European countries, for instance France, a Catholic couple must undergo the civil marriage first before the Church will witness the marriage to make it valid.

The Church will always remain in the business of witnessing sacramental marriages because marriage is one of the seven sacraments and the Church is God’s agent in making the sacraments available to Her people.

I think there is a theology. And it doesn’t actually make sense to me. If I understand the theology marriage is contracted between a man and woman. This can be done in the absence of a priest because the priest isn’t ‘marrying’ the couple but only witnessing the marriage. This must be because non Catholics can get married. Correct?

At the same time the Catholic Church requires that Catholics have their marriages witnessed by a clergyman. Correct? If a Catholic does not follow the Church then they do not have a valid sacramental marriage. I assume the view is they don’t have a natural marriage either. I would think this because the sacramentality of the marriage flows from a natural marriage entered into by baptized people. So is the Catholic Church claiming no marriage took place if a Catholic entered into marriage contrary to the rules of the Church?

So, for a Catholic who marries in Europe ‘civilly’ they have entered into marriage. Or at least they have done everything required for a natural marriage. So at that point are they married? If not married what are they after the civil marriage? If a priest is required to marry and yet they have attempted to marry without a priest then isn’t attempting a marriage wrong? Or is the Church saying you enter into a pseudo civil marriage first and then we will allow you to actually get married?

It all seems very confused to me.

• edit - What you say about a ‘civil’ marriage between two baptized people not being valid is true, but only because the current law is this. I believe in the past there was not the same requirements about marriage. So this is a changeable church rule.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Currious how Catholics in states hostile to Christianity marry. How does it hr Church handle marriages in Iraq for example. Must they marry with the state. I find it hard to believe in many countries that perhaps are Islamic or atheistic that marriage is not common. How does this work in China?

 

[joeybaggz]

I don’t see your proposal as a precaution so much as I see it as a surrender. .

Priests don’t marry divorced couples either, unless they have had an annulment. On what grounds would they make a complaint to a Federal court; isn’t it a state issue anyway? Given the Church’s stance on marriage being between a man and a woman, I think the divorced couple would have a better shot at a case. Discrimination is discrimination.

Odd, I see it as as a proactive move to protect the church from damaging legal action by people who do not have a right to an RCC marriage because of their proclaimed sexual orientation.

My question has nothing to do with divorced couples. I am referring to the possibility of homosexual couples demanding marriage in the RCC and subsequently suing the Church for violation of their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights Given the judicial activism rampant in society, I see it as a possibility.

Yes, marriage is a state issue, but a lawsuit on the grounds of a violation of civil rights, even if the RCC position is upheld by the state courts, could be referred to a federal level and possibly the SCOTUS.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

I’m not sure that the “wedding club” idea offers any protections.

If the state wanted to come in and tell St Something that they must perform a certain flavor of marriage, then it could just as well come in and tell the ‘wedding club’ the same thing.

 

[ColdComfort]

I don’t think the U.S. Constitution is a laughing matter. I’m sorry if you do.

I’m Canadian and I think the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is laughable. We’ve only had this kind of thing since the 1980’s. Why can’t a good citizen want to change the constitution?

 

[Phemie]

I think there is a theology. And it doesn’t actually make sense to me. If I understand the theology marriage is contracted between a man and woman. This can be done in the absence of a priest because the priest isn’t ‘marrying’ the couple but only witnessing the marriage. This must be because non Catholics can get married. Correct?

At the same time the Catholic Church requires that Catholics have their marriages witnessed by a clergyman. Correct? If a Catholic does not follow the Church then they do not have a valid sacramental marriage. I assume the view is they don’t have a natural marriage either. I would think this because the sacramentality of the marriage flows from a natural marriage entered into by baptized people. So is the Catholic Church claiming no marriage took place if a Catholic entered into marriage contrary to the rules of the Church?

So, for a Catholic who marries in Europe ‘civilly’ they have entered into marriage. Or at least they have done everything required for a natural marriage. So at that point are they married? If not married what are they after the civil marriage? If a priest is required to marry and yet they have attempted to marry without a priest then isn’t attempting a marriage wrong? Or is the Church saying you enter into a pseudo civil marriage first and then we will allow you to actually get married?

It all seems very confused to me.

• edit - What you say about a ‘civil’ marriage between two baptized people not being valid is true, but only because the current law is this. I believe in the past there was not the same requirements about marriage. So this is a changeable church rule.

Non-Catholics (Orthodox excepted, and perhaps others) enter into valid marriages in those European countries when they marry civilly. If they’re both baptized they also enter into sacramental marriages. That’s because there is no requirement that they marry in a specific religious way. Many don’t bother with a religious ceremony at all.

Catholics, on the other hand must marry according to canonical form to have a valid marriage - or get a dispensation. It has not always been this way but that’s what we have to deal with now. Some canonists wish the Church would drop this requirement of canonical form and allow Catholics to choose how they get married. I don’t think I’ll see that in my lifetime, but, who knows?

 

[Muzhik]

I’m not sure that the “wedding club” idea offers any protections.

If the state wanted to come in and tell St Something that they must perform a certain flavor of marriage, then it could just as well come in and tell the ‘wedding club’ the same thing.

This “club” thing is also to protect the churches from having to rent out their locations to groups opposed to Christianity. I recall a case a few years ago where a parish would rent out the parish hall to use for community events. Since they allowed non-Catholics to rent their facilities, the courts ruled that they had to allow the local Wiccans to rent the hall for their ceremonies.

 

[joeybaggz]

It is a dead letter.

It might not be able to get out completely. If marriage is something the state regulates then it could regulate marriages performed by the Church.

Can the state by law regulate a sacrament? NO. And that is my point. As long as the priest/deacon only witnesses the sacrament on behalf of the Church, they have no civil responsibility unless assumed. Matrimony is a sacred/sacramental union of a man and a woman before God, not man, not the government of the county of Allegheny, not the state of Pennsylvania, or anywhere. Take the word 'marriage’out of the church’s lexicon. The constitution affirms that the government has no authority in the affairs of Church, save matters of services provided to a church and the rest of the community, i.e. provision of water, sewer, police protection, etc.

 

[exnihilo]

Can the state by law regulate a sacrament? NO. And that is my point. As long as the priest/deacon only witnesses the sacrament on behalf of the Church, they have no civil responsibility unless assumed. Matrimony is a sacred/sacramental union of a man and a woman before God, not man, not the government of the county of Allegheny, not the state of Pennsylvania, or anywhere. Take the word 'marriage’out of the church’s lexicon. The constitution affirms that the government has no authority in the affairs of Church, save matters of services provided to a church and the rest of the community, i.e. provision of water, sewer, police protection, etc.

Yes, a state law can regulate a sacrament. A sacrament is just a religious act. While it might be unlikely a state law would regulate most religious acts it can. For instance it is not inconceivable that the state may prohibit immersion baptism below a certain age. It is not inconceivable that the state may prohibit receiving the chalice below a certain age.

Freedom of religion was never freedom to do anything so long as you claim it is a religious act. For instance you couldn’t sacrifice a child to a god. First amendment protection is limited by the culture. Since our culture is going down surprising changes in regards to this could occur.

 

[joeybaggz]

Freedom of religion was never freedom to do anything so long as you claim it is a religious act. For instance you couldn’t sacrifice a child to a god. First amendment protection is limited by the culture. Since our culture is going down surprising changes in regards to this could occur.

Good Point. So I ask, can a state demand that a couple marry civilly, if they have confected the sacrament of matrimony only as a religious and not civil construct? If so, why has the state not demanded that all who cohabit, marry in accordance with civil law?
Demand they marry, not simply recognize a union as common law. And in practicality, the state really could care less about cohabiting couples, provided they file their taxes properly.

Shalom