When Legal Recognition MATTERS

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Exactly so. I agree with you entirely. We have not quite reached total atomism yet but that is where we are headed. And that is why society will not hold together.

You have pretty much summed up the thesis of Carle Zimmerman’s lengthy book “Family and Civilization.”

I don’t think it is going to destroy society, but it will make it more fragile, like a brick house without proper mortar or structural reinforcements.

 

[JimG]

I don’t think it is going to destroy society, but it will make it more fragile, like a brick house without proper mortar or structural reinforcements.

Yes, a lot more fragile. The breakdown of the family has been ongoing for awhile now, beginning with the widespread acceptance of contraception. It has led to social and sexual chaos, which will continue. If not reversed, the culture, the society, and the civilization will fall.

I’m older than most here, so I probably won’t have to live through the worst effects of it. I feel sorry for the young who are going to have to live through this. Ultimately society will be rebuilt, with the help of the Church, but it will be hard going.

 

[Cojuanco]

No, the US’s Protestant roots don’t recognize it as a sacrament, see common law marriages.

Notice that line break, it refers Jim’s second paragraph

Actually, common law marriages did not deny the sacramentality of marriages when first instituted.

Before the Council of Trent, one did not require a priest or witnesses, merely an expressed desire to take the other as a spouse (subject to the usual proper intentions naturally), to be valid. It would thus prior to Trent have been a sacrament conferred under unideal circumstances, but a sacrament nonetheless. The Council, seeing the confusion this caused, required the presence of a priest and two witnesses. Now England at that time, having fallen into heresy, did not recognize the decrees of Trent, so common law marriage remained until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act. But this law applied only to England, not in, for example, the colonies. Through sheer inertia and the problems of a lack of clergy, at the time of independence the United States did not require witnesses until in most states much later.

 

[Cojuanco]

Yes, a lot more fragile. The breakdown of the family has been ongoing for awhile now, beginning with the widespread acceptance of contraception. It has led to social and sexual chaos, which will continue. If not reversed, the culture, the society, and the civilization will fall.

I’m older than most here, so I probably won’t have to live through the worst effects of it. I feel sorry for the young who are going to have to live through this. Ultimately society will be rebuilt, with the help of the Church, but it will be hard going.

Actually, it has gone on before that, with the first round of the liberalization of divorce laws. You have to remember that before the War, Europe ridiculed us for our eagerness to divorce, and no-fault divorce was de facto occuring in many urban areas despite the law saying otherwise (in California, for example, divorce was only allowed in cases of intolerable cruelty and adultery until the Reagan Laws. But couples who wanted to divorce got around that by hiring someone to be in bed with one of the parties, leading to the other spouse pro forma catching them in the act of adultery. No adultery actually happened, but they could provide somewhat convincing evidence. Theoretically the law forbade this practice, too, but a lot of judges (particularly non-Catholics) would look the other way.)

 

[JimG]

Actually, it has gone on before that, with the first round of the liberalization of divorce laws. You have to remember that before the War, Europe ridiculed us for our eagerness to divorce, and no-fault divorce was de facto occuring in many urban areas despite the law saying otherwise (in California, for example, divorce was only allowed in cases of intolerable cruelty and adultery until the Reagan Laws. But couples who wanted to divorce got around that by hiring someone to be in bed with one of the parties, leading to the other spouse pro forma catching them in the act of adultery. No adultery actually happened, but they could provide somewhat convincing evidence. Theoretically the law forbade this practice, too, but a lot of judges (particularly non-Catholics) would look the other way.)

Yes, that’s true. While my own experience of family breakdown sort of begins with the rejection of Humanae Vitae and all that followed, Carle Zimmerman in his book “Family & Civilization,” traces the beginnings of the most recent family disintegration, back farther. (He was writing in the 1940’s, and viewed the process as already well underway.)

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

Actually, common law marriages did not deny the sacramentality of marriages when first instituted.

Before the Council of Trent, one did not require a priest or witnesses, merely an expressed desire to take the other as a spouse (subject to the usual proper intentions naturally), to be valid. It would thus prior to Trent have been a sacrament conferred under unideal circumstances, but a sacrament nonetheless. The Council, seeing the confusion this caused, required the presence of a priest and two witnesses. Now England at that time, having fallen into heresy, did not recognize the decrees of Trent, so common law marriage remained until the passage of Lord Hardwicke’s Act. But this law applied only to England, not in, for example, the colonies. Through sheer inertia and the problems of a lack of clergy, at the time of independence the United States did not require witnesses until in most states much later.

1. Clandestine marriages forbidden

Since the prohibition against marriage in the three remotest degrees has been revoked, we wish it to be strictly observed in the other degrees. Following in the footsteps of our predecessors, we altogether forbid clandestine marriages and we forbid any priest to presume to be present at such a marriage. Extending the special custom of certain regions to other regions generally, we decree that when marriages are to be contracted they shall be publicly announced in the churches by priests, with a suitable time being fixed beforehand within which whoever wishes and is able to may adduce a lawful impediment. The priests themselves shall also investigate whether there is any impediment. When there appears a credible reason why the marriage should not be contracted, the contract shall be expressly forbidden until there has been established from clear documents what ought to be done in the matter. If any persons presume to enter into clandestine marriages of this kind, or forbidden marriages within a prohibited degree, even if done in ignorance, the offspring of the union shall be deemed illegitimate and shall have no help from their parents’ ignorance, since the parents in contracting the marriage could be considered as not devoid of knowledge, or even as affecters of ignorance. Likewise the offspring shall be deemed illegitimate if both parents know of a legitimate impediment and yet dare to contract a marriage in the presence of the church, contrary to every prohibition. Moreover the parish priest who refuses to forbid such unions, or even any member of the regular clergy who dares to attend them, shall be suspended from office for three years and shall be punished even more severely if the nature of the fault requires it. Those who presume to be united in this way, even if it is within a permitted degree, are to be given a suitable penance. Anybody who maliciously proposes an impediment, to prevent a legitimate marriage, will not escape the church’s vengeance.

ewtn.com/library/councils/lateran4.htm

That is from the Fourth Lateran Council that occurred in 1215 which I believe precedes the Reformation by at least a couple of years.

 

[djames99]

A marriage is one only because it is instituted by God who has the sole right of defining it. Any human legislation that concerns marriage can only find sanction for it through it’s Owner’s permission. God’s principles sets the guidelines.

Marriage to a civil authority then only permits it to act as a mouthpiece, facilitating the principles of marriage given to it by that Authority. It’s first priority would be to send an engaged couple to the only ministers permitted to preside.

What you are witnessing is a display of authoritarianism which only incurs the wrath of God cumulatively. No person is bound to obey unjust laws, these included.

“other religions”

No such thing has of 2000 years ago. Only one true Church exists. All of these problems are the compounding effects of a centuries old error.