What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

[mikekle]

With all the news about gay rights and the ground they seem to gain year after year, personally, I think at some point in the near future, a gay couple will fight to have their marriage in a traditional catholic church, probably will be done out spite, but legally, I think the US legal system would probably grant them this right.

So in this hypothetical scenario, lets say, they ‘win’ the legal right and the CC must marry them, as they would perform any other marriage…I have no idea, but I would assume the consequences would be severe and probably immediate as well, not sure if the actual churches foundation would suddenly crack, earthquake, some other kind of disaster, etc? I would assume God would send his wrath right away though.

Anyone care to guess what would happen?

 

[Usagi]

God’s wrath is rarely so immediate and noticeable. Most likely it would simply be that a ceremony is performed, but no actual marriage takes place. Much as when a woman attempts to become a Catholic priest.

Also, while it’s always possible that someone will eventually make the case, I would say there is a pretty good argument against forcing a religious organization to perform marriage ceremonies to which it objects.

Usagi

 

[cena]

With all the news about gay rights and the ground they seem to gain year after year, personally, I think at some point in the near future, a gay couple will fight to have their marriage in a traditional catholic church, probably will be done out spite, but legally, I think the US legal system would probably grant them this right.

So in this hypothetical scenario, lets say, they ‘win’ the legal right and the CC must marry them, as they would perform any other marriage…I have no idea, but I would assume the consequences would be severe and probably immediate as well, not sure if the actual churches foundation would suddenly crack, earthquake, some other kind of disaster, etc? I would assume God would send his wrath right away though.

Anyone care to guess what would happen?

Well the Catholic Church can’t really marry them just like how it can’t truly marry two close relatives, when one party is still married, when one party doesn’t consent, etc
People have done a lot worse in churches and God didn’t show his wrath seconds later as far as I know.

 

[MyNameIsDan]

If the Church married a gay couple, it would have very damaging consequences on the Church. It would call into question the Church’s teaching authority. People would say “So suddenly the Church changed its rules. See how they change just change sides that easily? The Church is obviously man made.” But the Church is based on reason and faith so it will not happen.

But “humoring” the “if”; if legally they were ordered to perform the ceremony, I think the Catholic Church would all the same deny them. Just as the seal of confession under the sacrament of reconciliation has been protected by priests for centuries, so it would apply to marriage I think. It would be a firm “NO” whatever the consequence may be. The rules of marriage isn’t made by the Church so they can’t change it.

Your other question is what would happen if a gay marriage happened in the Church. I’m guessing that the priest would be excommunicated and the marriage wouldn’t be valid anyway (this part isn’t a guess) because of the nature of marriage. I won’t even guess as to what God will do because I don’t have access to His mind.

 

[DrTaffy]

I can see a dissenting priest choosing to marry a gay couple in a Catholic Church. For that matter I know of at least one case where a Catholic priest allegedly married two other catholic priests, although where the ceremony took place was not stated. But I sincerely doubt any western country will force the Catholic Church to carry out SS weddings.

As to what would happen: two people will get married. Horribly overpriced cake and indifferent champagne will be consumed. Caterers will laugh all the way to the bank. The world will continue to turn.

 

[JRKH]

What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

Short answer? Nothing…absolutely nothing…No (sacramental) marriage would take place regardless of the actions taken within the building.

With all the news about gay rights and the ground they seem to gain year after year, personally, I think at some point in the near future, a gay couple will fight to have their marriage in a traditional catholic church, probably will be done out spite, but legally, I think the US legal system would probably grant them this right.

You might be right. In such a case, the courts could well rule that anyone who has the legal authority to perform weddings would be bound by law to marry anyone who may legally wed.

So in this hypothetical scenario, lets say, they ‘win’ the legal right and the CC must marry them, as they would perform any other marriage…I have no idea, but I would assume the consequences would be severe and probably immediate as well, not sure if the actual churches foundation would suddenly crack, earthquake, some other kind of disaster, etc? I would assume God would send his wrath right away though.

Anyone care to guess what would happen?

My guess is that the Church would choose to do what she does in other places. The priests would surrender their rights to perform ANY legal marriage at all. In Italy for example Catholic couples go through a very brief civil ceremony in addition to having a religious ceremony. Similar arrangements could be made here in the U.S. and I believe that this is the path that the Church would take should such a hypothetical occur.

Peace
James

 

[cjforJesus]

A marriage between two people of the same sex is impossible especially in A Catholic Church. If a priest were to actually attempt to join 2 people incapable of sacramental marriage it would not be valid anyway. I believe the conferers of the sacrament are the couple themselves which would make it even more obviously invalid and illicit.

 

[DrTaffy]

For that matter I know of at least one case where a Catholic priest allegedly married two other catholic priests, although where the ceremony took place was not stated.

Tracked down this reference. I seem to have misrembered - it was not two priests getting married, but Fr. Bernard Lynch was married to another man (not another priest) by another Catholic priest. Google has loads of references if you feed in his name, but here is one example.

 

[Origen52]

I think part of the whole separation of church and state precludes this from happening. A civil government has jurisdiction over civil unions. If you want to call these civil unions marriage and elevate them to the same level as the sacrament of marriage, I guess that’s your right. But the two are totally different. Civil unions are not sacramental.

 

[DrTaffy]

A civil government has jurisdiction over civil unions. If you want to call these civil unions marriage and elevate them to the same level as the sacrament of marriage, I guess that’s your right. But the two are totally different. Civil unions are not sacramental.

But the word marriage comes from a latin root describing a civil union, a word coined by the state to describe an institution instituted and regulated by the state. So while you are, of course, free to use the word ‘marriage’, I don’t see what justification you think you have to complain about others, especially the state, using it to describe a union of same sex couples.

If the two are totally different (and that bothers you) shouldn’t you come up with a different word?

 

[JRKH]

I think part of the whole separation of church and state precludes this from happening. A civil government has jurisdiction over civil unions.

As I expressed earlier, the way this could go is this.

1. Anyone duly licensed by the state to perform weddings - as defined by the state - would be duty bound to perform such weddings so long as those applying are leagally allowed to be wed under civil law.
2. The state would not be addressing the matter of “church” but only addressing the law - and those who are licensed by the state under that law.
3. The Church indeed all clergy of any communion - would then have to decide whether it will continue to maintain it’s license to perform civilly binding ceremonies or not.
4. The Church’s teaching on this matter will force her to drop this association. She is then free to marry only those who come to her for sacramental marriage. The civil wedding would need to occur elsewhere.

I can easily see this happening and indeed I expect it to eventually.

Peace
James

 

[Dorothy]

Out of spite?
It would probably be done out of wanting to be married to a person they love and hope to be their life partner…and wanting to stay Catholic, too.

I think if that ever happened, it would mean we’d lost most of our Freedom of Religion. And if religions like Catholicsm wanted to continue not performing SS-marriages, they’d have to go underground.

I support same-sex marriage, but I also support a religion’s right not to perform them.

I wish the religious, though, would give the same respect back…and not fight the right for non-religious people to have same-sex marriages in non-religious settings.

.

The Catholic Church stands up for the truth and that is why SS marriages are not performed.

With the grace of God chastity is possible to those with SS attraction. They need to hear the truth spoken in love. They need compassion and support in making right choices.

Chastity is also possible for widows and widowers who have lost their partners in marriage to death.

When we submit to the Lord all good things are possible, no matter what the circumstances are.

 

[JRKH]

Out of spite?
It would probably be done out of wanting to be married to a person they love and hope to be their life partner…and wanting to stay Catholic, too.

And if this is what they seek, they would need to be gently but firmly told by their pastor how and why those two things cannot be - if that life partner is of the same gender.

I think if that ever happened, it would mean we’d lost most of our Freedom of Religion. And if religions like Catholicsm wanted to continue not performing SS-marriages, they’d have to go underground.

I disagree. In other countries it is already the case that the Church does not perform legally binding ceremonies. This is done separately. The Church only performs sacramental marriages. No need to "go underground’.

I support same-sex marriage, but I also support a religion’s right not to perform them.

Good for you.

I wish the religious, though, would give the same respect back…and not fight the right for non-religious people to have same-sex marriages in non-religious settings.

In this case, the religious people are simply exercising their constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote.
We have to remember that the religious folks are not fighting to change anything. They wish to retain things as they have traditionally been.
Also - we have to remember that for the religious - the fight to keep souls out of sin (and hell) is just as important to them as the fight to keep people from driving drunk is to the vast majority of people of all walks.
Friends don’t let friends drive drunk is a great slogan.
Friends don’t let friends commit sin - could be another.

Just a thought.

Peace
James

 

[Hodegetria]

You must be Catholic in good standing to receive the sacrament of Matrimony, so I think that just might rule them out straight off, as the majority of priests would probably decline to do it, just as they do for any couple who just shows up expecting to be married when they aren’t actually practicing Catholics.

If they do find a sympathetic priest to do the ceremony, as others have stated, it would NOT be a marriage, no sacrament would be conferred, etc.

When so many other places would give them a “wedding” and completely accept and embrace them, I don’t know why such a couple would choose to antagonize the Church with their NONSENSE. In order to garner publicity or to create scandal or simply to promote their agenda, I guess…

And it IS nonsense, I’m sorry because I don’t mean to offend anyone. I have nothing against gay/lesbian people, and I know this is a hypothetical “couple” but specifically targeting an institution “they” know stands completely against what they’re trying to do is just being hostile and combative right off the bat. Such a couple would not try this at a Mosque, but Christians seem to be fair game.

 

[Allegra]

The same thing that happens any other place. People play dress up and no actual marriage occurs.

 

[Hodegetria]

Out of spite?
It would probably be done out of wanting to be married to a person they love and hope to be their life partner…and wanting to stay Catholic, too.

I think if that ever happened, it would mean we’d lost most of our Freedom of Religion. And if religions like Catholicsm wanted to continue not performing SS-marriages, they’d have to go **underground.

I support same-sex marriage, but I also support a religion’s right not to perform them.

I wish the religious, though, would give the same respect back…and not fight the right for non-religious people to have same-sex marriages in non-religious settings.
**
.

I agree, when a state legalizes gay marriage, I accept that it’s another law I may or may not agree with. I don’t have a problem with gay people marrying one another. Doesn’t the Bible say respect authority, God put those people in authority etc. Sorry, I’m going to be too late for church to look up the passages…

That being said, MANY Catholics online and in my real life are always telling me it’s practically my duty to HATE on these people…sorry, not going to hate on anyone.

I do have a big problem with people trying to impose their will on the Church or ANY institution that resists their desire to get married…if only getting married was TRULY what they wanted, they’d do it where they were welcomed, accepted and appreciated, like any other couple. Who would want to start off married life with chaos, strife and hatred?

 

[DrTaffy]

I support same-sex marriage, but I also support a religion’s right not to perform them.

I wish the religious, though, would give the same respect back…and not fight the right for non-religious people to have same-sex marriages in non-religious settings.

I am afraid that I see these two quotes as espousing a fundamentally hypocritical and inconsistent point of view.

You want others to respect your right to not perform same sex marriages, and applaud that, but when you are actively preventing others from engaging in same sex marriage that is just “exercising [your] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote”? :ehh:

If I push for you to be forced to carry out same sex marriage, or prevented from carrying out inter-racial marriage or going to communion, is that just “exercising [my] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote” or does it constitute an immoral interference in your religious life? You may as well argue that you didn’t ‘commit murder’, gosh no, you just pointed the gun at a person and pulled the trigger! You are focussing on irrelevant detail to distract from the relevant and immoral detail.

Which influences your life more: performing, or just going to, someone else’s marriage (or indeed merely allowing someone else to marry if you have the arrogance to assume that right) or being prevented yourself from ever marrying? (there is an oh-so-subtle hint in the formatting!)

We have to remember that the religious folks are not fighting to change anything. They wish to retain things as they have traditionally been.

As christians imposed on western society at the time of the Theodosian code. Or as Europeans (Christians) imposed on Native Americans far more recently. In other words, your idea of what is ‘traditional’ amounts to tunnel vision on western european judeo-christian culture.

Also - we have to remember that for the religious - the fight to keep souls out of sin (and hell) is just as important to them as the fight to keep people from driving drunk is to the vast majority of people of all walks.

That is just an assertion that your moral beliefs are somehow more important and more sincerely held that those of atheists - or, for that matter, of theists who happen to disagree with you. :nope:

 

[JRKH]

I agree, when a state legalizes gay marriage, I accept that it’s another law I may or may not agree with. I don’t have a problem with gay people marrying one another. Doesn’t the Bible say respect authority, God put those people in authority etc. Sorry, I’m going to be too late for church to look up the passages…

That being said, MANY Catholics online and in my real life are always telling me it’s practically my duty to HATE on these people…sorry, not going to hate on anyone.

Anytime any Catholic tells you to hate these people, point them to the catechism:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Hating is not an acceptable act.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

I am afraid that I see these two quotes as espousing a fundamentally hypocritical and inconsistent point of view.

You want others to respect your right to not perform same sex marriages, and applaud that, but when you are actively preventing others from engaging in same sex marriage that is just “exercising [your] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote”? :ehh:

This is quite correct - but I do not see how this is fundamentally hypocritical.
Society places all sorts of restrictions on us in a variety of ways - from making certain substances illegal to making certain behaviors illegal. Actively seeking to restrict or prevent something that I consider to be harmful to society is not a bad thing. Supporting your right to hold your opinion does not make me hypocritical…

If I push for you to be forced to carry out same sex marriage, or prevented from carrying out inter-racial marriage or going to communion, is that just “exercising [my] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote”

Yes it is.

or does it constitute an immoral interference in your religious life?

Under the U.S. Constitution it WOULD be an unconstitutional interference in our religious right. That doesn’t mean you can’t propose it.

You may as well argue that you didn’t ‘commit murder’, gosh no, you just pointed the gun at a person and pulled the trigger! You are focusing on irrelevant detail to distract from the relevant and immoral detail.

Quite the contrary my friend. What I seek to do, in my small way, is to remove the emotional from the argument and get down to the relevant details.
Too many times I see these things degenerate into the same old overly worn paths of discourse. Often times they revolve around “What right have you to…”. Well my right to is the same as your right to. If you wish to maintain your right to seek a change in the law, then you need to respect my right to seek to keep the law unchanged.

Which influences your life more: performing, or just going to, someone else’s marriage (or indeed merely allowing someone else to marry if you have the arrogance to assume that right) or being prevented yourself from ever marrying? (there is an oh-so-subtle hint in the formatting!)

Sorry - I do not follow you here…

As christians imposed on western society at the time of the Theodosian code. Or as Europeans (Christians) imposed on Native Americans far more recently. In other words, your idea of what is ‘traditional’ amounts to tunnel vision on western european judeo-christian culture.

Perhaps, but it is still the “traditional” view in the U.S. and has been since the founding of this country.

Originally Posted by JRKH
Also - we have to remember that for the religious - the fight to keep souls out of sin (and hell) is just as important to them as the fight to keep people from driving drunk is to the vast majority of people of all walks.

That is just an assertion that your moral beliefs are somehow more important and more sincerely held that those of atheists - or, for that matter, of theists who happen to disagree with you. :nope:

I honestly do not know how you got that from what I wrote. I said nothing about my views being more sincere than the views of anyone else. Let’s try to stick to what each other actually says

Everyone holds the beliefs they do because they believe them to be right and when they interact in society, in civil governance, in the voting booth etc, they will do so in a way that promotes the beliefs that they sincerely hold. Everyone has this right in a free society.

At the end of the day, the voters and the elected officials will determine what becomes law and whatever that determination is - well one side or the other will just have to “put up with it”…It is that way with many things.

Peace
James

 

[SuperLuigi]

That being said, MANY Catholics online and in my real life are always telling me it’s practically my duty to HATE on these people…sorry, not going to hate on anyone.

:YAWN:

Are you exaggerating for the sole point of trying to prove a point and get special recognition?