There have been a lot of suggestions going around that in the wake of the recent Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage nationally, the Catholic Church in the US should announce that priests will no longer perform civil marriages.
In order to be treated as married under the law in the United States, you need to file a witnessed marriage license in your state. The way it worked for us in California was: you go down to your city hall or other government building to pick the license up. The city clerk fills it out but then leaves the final signatures blank. You take the form with you and give it to the priest who is performing your marriage. After the ceremony, the priest signs the form, asserting that he has performed a marriage ceremony for you. It's then signed by husband, wife, and two witnesses and filed with the state. At that point, the man and woman are considered married in the eyes of the law. Obviously, it's not just priests that can process a marriage license for the state. Any kind of religious minister (Christian or non) can, as can "non denominational" ministers of their own religion. You can also have a strictly civil ceremony performed by a city official.
The theory among some Catholic circles seems to be that since the priest is performing a civil marriage by signing the marriage license, and since same sex couples can now get civilly married, if priests continue to sign marriage licenses they will set themselves up to be forced to perform same sex marriages.
Being penalized for not performing same sex marriages is not the first thing that Catholic organizations need to worry about in the wake of the Supreme Court ruling. The first step will be an uptick in suits against Catholic organizations demanding equal treatment of civilly married same sex couples. We've already seen this go down with Catholic-run adoption organizations being shut down in places like Massachusetts and Illinois for not placing children with same sex couples. That will increase. A lot. Expect Catholic organizations to be forced pretty quickly to provide spousal benefits to same sex partners, and expect a lot of Catholic charities that get government funds to help with their work to lose their funding in retaliation for not recognizing same sex marriage.
But I do think that there will come a point, though perhaps not for ten years or so, when penalties start to be imposed on churches that do not endorse same sex marriage. And I don't think that refusing to sign civil marriage certificates will help one bit.
Here's how I think it will go down: The test case will come at St. Wishy-Washy parish, in a state which has a ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation. There's that nice, older, same sex couple that everyone basically knows about, but no one ever says anything rude about -- except that nasty rules-obsessed fellow who objects when Father amends the creed to make it more gender inclusive. Pat is a Eucharistic minister. Sam leads the choir at the 5:30 mass and leads the inquiry sessions at RCIA. They're always there to help out in every big parish activity and everyone likes them. One day, they file paperwork for marriage prep and ask to reserve the church for their wedding and the hall for the reception. Maybe that new secretary accidentally books it and takes a deposit check before realizing. Maybe it's just believable at first that Fr. Trendy would celebrate the ceremony on his own authority. But of course, it's not worth the poor man's retirement to have the bishop find out about this one. He tell them he can't do it and he returns Pat and Sam's check to them.
That's when the lawsuit gets filed. Nothing against Fr. Trendy, of course. They know that he probably would agree with them if he was free to speak his mind. But Christ's message of love will be held captive by the institutional hierarchy until they're attacked the only place they understand: their wallets.
The argument: The church is a public accommodation providing marriage services to its members. There are few members of the parish more active than Pat and Sam. Neither has been married before. The only thing preventing St. Wishy Washy from performing the same service for Pat and Sam which it provides for any other couple that shows up wanting the same ceremony and the same reception in the hall is homophobic prejudice. Their lawyer cites scholarly books claiming that same sex marriages were celebrated in the early church, and brings up the cases of Catholic priests who celebrated weddings for same sex couples more recently. Sure, some of these letter were punished by bigoted bishops, but others were not. It is clearly the case that the Catholics can celebrate same sex marriages, they just choose not to because of bigotry.
The court professes itself unable to say what the nature of a sacrament is, and whether or not what the Church says it does when it marries a couple occurs when the same words are said over a same sex couple, but it is clear to the court that the parish is in the business of providing a certain ceremony to couples in the parish who get married, and that they are only refusing to do this for Pat and Sam because of prejudice. The court thus sides with Pat and Sam and imposes heavy financial damages.
A wave of copy-cat cases follow, and the church is slowly bled of resources. Some cases win, some lose, but in all too many cases the parishes have made clear that they have no real issue with people living in same sex relationships, and thus arguments that their stand is based on conviction fall flat. It is clear that the "we don't marry same sex couples" rule is being imposed based on nothing but dusty bigotry.
There's a group out there which is very, very determined to win cultural and moral legitimacy for homosexual relationships, and to punish those who do not share those beliefs. Currently that group is at the cultural helm. In time, it will crumble and lose its ascendancy simply because it is not compatible with the realities of human nature. However, until that happens, the marriage equality group will not be satisfied by seeing Catholic priests stop signing civil marriage licenses, while continuing to celebrate religious marriage ceremonies only for opposite sex couples. They're not stupid, and it's recognition they want, not getting priests to stop signing a form for straight couples. Nor would "separating" civil and religious marriage be coherent from a Catholic point of view. Indeed, a non-Catholic couple who get married in front of a city clerk are (absent obstacles such as already being married to someone else or being of the same sex) viewed by the Church as being married, since the Church does not recognize there as being two levels of marriage. So the idea of "getting out of the civil marriage business" fails to protect us from the looming threat, while at the same time abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage. There is no reason to do it.
FROM THE ILLUSTRATED EDITION.
7 hours ago
45 comments:
It is not meant as a defensive device; civil marriage has not actually been marriage for some time, but frankly, we are a bunch of weak, compromised people who don't want to put up with hardship in order to defend marriage. So, instead of doing this years ago- when no fault divorce showed up, or laws against adultery disappeared, or when the divorce industry became so predatory, anti-male, and ultimately, anti-family- we have to do it now. If we don't do it, we lie. Every time someone signs their names, they are invalidating the sacrament, making it equivalent to gmarriage.
The two must be separated.
The upside is that, in a few generations, if people go this route, you have a hardened church. You do notice we get sold out by people who are supposedly Christian, right? Well, here is a test. The people who choose to not get a marriage license will have to sacrifice. The Churchians won't. You end up with a tougher, smaller, Christianity, one that may actually be able to carve out some space for itself over and against the mainstream because it could act as one.
"Nor would "separating" civil and religious marriage be coherent from a Catholic point of view. Indeed, a non-Catholic couple who get married in front of a city clerk are (absent obstacles such as already being married to someone else or being of the same sex) viewed by the Church as being married, since the Church does not recognize there as being two levels of marriage."
In my country, Hungary, the two are already completely separated. The marriage performed by a church minister isn't acknowledged as a civil marriage. Those who want a religious marriage have their marriage performed separately from the legal marriage.
And if Catholics only have a civil mariage, they are not recognized as married, obviously. Since civil marriage doesn't carry the intent of commitment for life any more, I don't see a problem of viewing the civil marriage differently from sacramental marriage.
I recognize that because of my country's Communist past, we have lived for the second half of the 20th century with the fact that civil law doesn't concur with Christian morality (in fact, often contradicts it). It must be more difficult for people in the US where they are, or have been until recently, at least in a superficial way connected.
I have been thinking about this problem a lot. I think the Catholic Church should strongly voice its standpoint that regardless of what civil law is accepted, homosexual acts are considered sinful (and homosexual orientation a deviation rqather than an acceptable alternative) acccording to its teaching. It's against religious freedom to demand them not to express this opinion and to punish people for holding this belief. And it should have been done a lot earlier.
At the same time, it is a very difficult problem. I don't really see how we as Catholics could be accepting towards gay people (the document of the Synod on Family in 2014 does express this intention) if we wish them to change their lifestyle, live celibately and view their inclination as wrong instead as completely natural and acceptable as they do. We can of course stop calling them hurtful names and make rude jokes, but they won't be satisfied with that.
I'm afraid I think this only has a good political solution.
States themselves need to stop issuing marriage licenses, and all the benefits and laws connected to marriage need to be disconnected.
For example, I'd be very happy to be considered married in the eyes of the Church only. I actually thought briefly of getting a civil divorce.
But what happens when my husband is in the hospital and I want to see him? What happens in matter with the law and the kids? We are in a very overregulated society, and I'm afraid anyone who decides not to get civilly married is going to see some problems, and I'm not just talking about losing money through tax law, etc. I don't need the government to protect my marriage (it doesn't, anyway) but in areas where the government regulates, being unmarried makes me more subject to the whimsy of those laws.
If no one has a civil marriage, though, the laws can't do that.
Marie, couples will have to get power of attorney over each other, at the very least. Hopefully there are enough Christian lawyers out there who could help.
The sad thing is, if we were unscrupulous, we could probably extract stuff from the government; they just love giving stuff to single moms, so much so you'd think they want more of them, but I suspect what they really want to do is destroy any sense of inter-generational thinking.
But there are legal vehicles to protect wealth- usually things like partnerships or some corporations depending on the case.
So the idea of "getting out of the civil marriage business" fails to protect us from the looming threat, while at the same time abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage. There is no reason to do it.
I don't think getting out of the civil marriage business will protect us from the sort of threats you're talking about, no. But I think there are other reasons to get out of the game.
If I'm reading you right, you say that we're 'abandoning our Catholic principles as to the nature of marriage' by getting out of the civil marriage business, but I don't think that's true. Civil marriage has long been becoming a joke, but now it's finally a farce. It's just a glorified contract, wrongly name, the (civil) intent and purpose of which seems to be fundamentally at odds with the Catholic understanding. Pretending that civil marriage remains something important to respect, or something the Church appropriately has a role in, just seems like a bad idea that will create even more confusion than it did previously.
I hesitate to make suggestions about how to protect the Church in a climate like this, partly because I think it's possible, but would require moves too bold for many people. But one suggestion? Have it as policy that all marriage ceremonies in the Catholic church include a prayer / preamble during the ceremony, delivered by the priest.
"We gather here today for the purpose of performing a marriage in God's church, and in these trying times we offer this prayer. God, grant us strength in these trying times to resist the hateful acts imposed upon us by those seeking to pervert and twist the sacrament of marriage, instituted by God and unalterable in its nature, a union between one man and one woman until death do them part. All here positively join in the prayer that you deliver us from their hatred, oh Lord, who reject your message of Love, as all know in their hearts and minds that marriage is a lifelong bond between one man and one woman, and that alone. Amen."
I won't pretend to know the legality of such a preamble. I do know plenty of priests would scream bloody murder at being required to say that. Hence, I hesitate.
But I wonder how many problems that would solve.
Agnes,
There are a number of countries in which the state has forced a separation of civil and religious marriage. France, I know, is another major country which has had this (I know at least since the beginning of the Third Republic, but perhaps back to the Revolution.)
What I would see as a problem (and this is drawing on what I've read by canon lawyers like Ed Peters, it's not a novel insight I've come up with on my own) with having the Church announce the it is unilaterally refusing to have priests sign marriage licenses any more is that it gives the impression that there are two types of marriage: civil marriage and sacramental marriage, with the Church refusing to take part in civil marriage.
As you say, part of the problem is that in a country like the US we've had a gradual divergence between the general cultural understanding of marriage (which the law has been changed to reflect) and the Christian understanding of marriage.
August & Marie,
I don't think there'd be any benefit to Christians refusing to be married in the eyes of the state. It's not as if the benefits of civil marriage are just tax goodies (though it's entirely just, I think, to have a single income married household taxed on the basis of household income rather than taxing the one income earner as a single person and making the other person look someone someone out of work) but important things like defining the parternity and custody of children, joint ownership of property, inheritance, etc. Yes, most of these could be achieved by some set of legal agreements filed at much greater trouble and expense without entering into a civil marriage, but why? If the objection to civil marriage is that it is too easily dissolved and that it can be entered into by people who cannot really become married (say, two men) then what is the benefit of using partnership agreements and powers of attorney, which are also agreements which can be easily dissolved and entered into by people who could not really get married?
It's not as if a civil marriage license has become some sort of ritually impure thing that we need to not touch.
Again, marriage is not something which only exists among Catholics or among Christians. Natural marriage is something which the Church believes does exist among pagans, and there is still a wrong way to do it. In other words: it's not as if "nothing happens" in the eyes of the Church when a non-religious man and woman get married in a civil ceremony and then live together as husband and wife. In the eyes of the Church those people really are married, they commit a sin if they are unfaithful to each other or if they separate and then re-marry.
The problem is that the current statues around marriage in the US do not necessarily reflect natural marriage as it exists, prior to and more important than the state.
But there are still many aspects of civil marriage which are good and important (recognizing the parenthood and custody of children, the joint ownership of property by the couple, etc.) and we should use civil marriage because it is the duty of the state to recognize that families exist and to recognize their rights, even as we work to improve the statutes around marriage to better reflect an understanding of natural marriage.
Crude,
I think you're right that prayer is one of the things that we need to lean on much more in all this.
Darwin,
I still think that the civil "marriage" if it lacks the essential criteria of natural marriage (one of which is a lifelong commitment - to the best of my knowledge, lack of this is even a ground for annulment of a sacramental marriage) should ot be regarded as "marriage". It is a legally defined sort of partnership. It is unfortunate and misleading that it is still called by the same name. (and shows our fallen state that civil marriage in a state of strong Christian traditions could so degenerate from its origins). I am not knowledgeable enough, but surely the Church doesn't view marriage in a polygamous culture for example an equivalent of natural marriage... If civil marriage in the US is no longer a union between a man and a woman it may be better to make a clean break and define again (that is,confirm the original definition of :-)) marriage as a sacrament, and continue efforts that all who marry in the Catholic church understands and accepts the sacramental nature of it and the teaching of the Church about it. Maybe we need to sacrifice the tradition of the huge ceremony, big event etc. being closely connected to the marriage rite to avoid people choosing to marry in a church for the ceremonial and nostalgic value of it.
The Church still has to pronounce decidedly that in its teaching, marriage is between man and a woman, and(although I have no idea exactly how) while turning to your hypothetical Pat and Sam with understanding and love, never to give up trying to lead them towards God's will regarding people with homosexual orientation.
One must separate that which holy from that which is profane.
It isn't 'beneficial.' It is a sacrifice. There are a few things that can be done to minimize problems, but there will certainly be problems.
But this is what we see, whether Christian or more generally conservative, is this determination to play the American game, long after it is completely obvious the other side refuses to play fair.
Why not consider the marriage license as ritually impure? By signing it you tacitly approve their definitions. Also, there's one glaringly obvious thing you'd avoid- divorce.
August,
Why not consider the marriage license as ritually impure? By signing it you tacitly approve their definitions. Also, there's one glaringly obvious thing you'd avoid- divorce.
This is the view I'm coming around to. There may be faults with it - at the very least, I see people talking about the legal protections they don't want to give up.
It would be funny to see Christians demanding something akin to civil unions as they forgo marriage - reducing the state to a purely contractual role - with LGBT groups being absolutely furious about that.
Darwin,
It's not as if a civil marriage license has become some sort of ritually impure thing that we need to not touch.
I question that. I really do. Maybe 'ritually impure' is a bad way to put it, but put another way - as you said, rightly, the whole goal of the activists on this front is on trying to bully the culture into dissolving any and all distinctions between marriage as Christians understand it, and other relationships. At this point, civil marriage advances their cause - it's a hard fought for symbol that they've won in order to profane.
So why not recognize as much, let them have it, and let it burn? You mention that these other contracts people could conceivably get would just as easily be dissolved, but A) those contracts wouldn't be marriage, nor pretending to be one, and B) we would be culturally reacting against the idea that civil marriages were legitimate marriages.
Agnes,
It's true that (especially in the US, which is trigger happy on annulments) it's fairly easy to get an annulment for a marriage which two non-Catholic entered into on the basis that they didn't intend to enter into what the Church means by a marriage (permanent, open to children, etc.) However, at the same time, I think the Church has historically assumed that non-Catholics who appear to be married (and are capable of entering into a marriage) are married until proven otherwise. So while there may be a certain leniency in granting annulments to people who got married as non-Catholics, married non-Catholics are seen as married, not as fornicating.
FWIW, it's much the same approach the Church took to dealing with the ancient pagan world back in the early days of the Church, at which point, obviously, the pagan Roman notions of marriage were not the same as the Church's.
August,
I would disagree with you when you say of marriage licenses, "By signing it you tacitly approve their definitions."
By signing a marriage license one indicates to the state that one is married. Since the state does not create marriage, one in no way approves of the mistakes the state may make in pretending that some people are married who can't be (same sex marriage) or pretending that people have ceased to be married when they haven't (divorce).
Also, I'm unclear what you mean when you say that by not getting married one avoids divorce. Obviously, with no civil marriage there would not be a need for a civil divorce to end it, but that doesn't mean that people who had gone through a religious marriage but not filed a civil marriage license couldn't split up, nor that courts would decline to get involved in litigating the division of their property and children if they sued each other during the course of splitting up. Indeed, given that people pretty often live together and have children without getting married, the courts pretty frequently deal with and settle property and custody dispute between people who never had a civil marriage.
Crude,
It would be funny to see Christians demanding something akin to civil unions as they forgo marriage - reducing the state to a purely contractual role - with LGBT groups being absolutely furious about that.
I'm not sure why they would be furious. They might actually like it.
Darwin,
I understand that (the Church's approach to natural marriage). However, two Catholics married only in a civil marriage aren't considered married any more than those living together without any marriage. Also, how does the Church regard those who just move in together, live in one household long term and have children? I suppose this can also be regarded as a version of natural marriage.
What I'm getting at is, civil marriage regulates matters such as inheritance, child custody, tax benefits, who is considered a relation, ownership pf property acquired together etc. I see nothing wrong with Catholics who marry creating the family relationship in the eye of the law with the civil marriage.
Darwin,
I'm not sure why they would be furious. They might actually like it.
For the same reason that you acknowledge that they won't be satisfied merely getting churches to stop taking part in civil marriages, and will in fact go further and demand churches perform wedding ceremonies for them, or let them do so at the church: because they abhor any distinction between their unions and others'. If civil marriage comes to be regarded as a joke, while 'real' marriage is a religious ceremony which is at best optionally legally underwritten by contract, that distinction remains in one more way.
What I don't understand is what value you see in continuing a Christian entanglement with civil marriage at this point. What, really, is gained by it, other than anchoring Christians to what is now pretty clearly a mock version - accent on the 'mock' - of marriage? Should we also say that Rick and Steve are married, and are in fact each other's spouses? Do we pick up their vocabulary as well?
Since the state does not create marriage, one in no way approves of the mistakes the state may make in pretending that some people are married who can't be (same sex marriage) or pretending that people have ceased to be married when they haven't (divorce).
I think this kind of explanation is on the level of saying that the Pope didn't really make a mistake by saying 'Who am I to judge' and then refusing to bluntly clarify his words, because if we examine the intention behind his words in the context of tradition and put on all the right lenses from which to scry the meaning, we can see that what he said was entirely orthodox and right. As for the legion of people who have been quoting him over and over with the impression that he basically said 'Sodomy? Meh. It's okay as far as I know.', we're going to ignore them.
There are cultural effects of lending credence to civil marriages, however indirectly.
Darwin,
I thought on the issue of two types of marriage some more. I think that the present practice in the US carries the risk of a mistaken perception: that by administering civil marriage connected to the sacramental marriage, it is not that the Church recognizes civil marriage as the natural marriage, but that Church marriage becomes a version of civil marriage, celebrated in a religious building and presided by a member of the clergy making it more traditional, more solemn, more festive. Catholics need to find a way to emphasize the sacramental nature and the Catholic concept of marriage to make it recognized as different from the civil marriage - and because of that, people who do not accept the Catholic Church's teaching on marriage should not want it.
The Priest doesn't confect the Sacrament of marriage, the couple does - the priest blesses the marriage.
Maybe having a "Family book" issued from the Church should be established in the US. The French give each newly married couple a Livre de Famille, they use a proper stamp from the parish to authenticate the document showing the marriage has taken place in the Church. It is used for the sacraments- Marriage, baptisms, First Holy Communion. The document is kept by the family, and the parish registers the information as well. Perhaps, and I know legally it probably wouldn't be recognized as such, they could take the document to the clerk in the city hall to record the marriage. Who knows? It may be an option. The French do it the other way around- City Hall 1st then the church, but perhaps there is a solution with the family book.
The thing that strikes me about the steamroller analogy is that a steamroller, generally speaking, is slow moving. Presumably, one can get out of the way.
But people have not. There are medical professions in which the standard of care- which Catholic generally tend to follow because they don't want to be sued- is sinful. I suspect it is more widespread than we think, and a lot of doctors have some carefully designed rationality for the things that they do.
The steamroller is already here. There is less church and more consumer luxury good that looks like church if you have enough money and time to keep the illusion up.
Darwin,
Your article raises some important points and the reasoned comments from the field should convince us that we need to have a real (not virtual) meeting to discuss and plan for the future.
There is a banner/rallying flag that we all need to pray about.
Just do a Google image search on the words (you can copy and paste): rainbow flag religion jclll
What if the City of Brotherly Love, Philadelphia was blanketed with these flags this September?
What if these COVENANT flags were all furled at the Entrance Antiphon of an open air Mass that celebrated the Marriage Supper of the Lamb in heaven at the same time as the Papal visitation.
We must also stop using the rainbow in identifying graphics/articles that give it over to the other side.
Agnes brings up an interesting point:
However, two Catholics married only in a civil marriage aren't considered married any more than those living together without any marriage.
This is something which canon lawyer Ed Peters has written about a bit. It is definitely true that according to current canon law, if a Catholic gets married without using the proper form (the rite of marriage, witnessed by a priest) that Catholic is not considered to have entered into a marriage at all.
However, this rule has only been universal within the Church for the last hundred years, and has only existed at all for about four hundred. The reason it was put in place was to try to stamp out problems with clandestine marriage. Peters has argued several times on his canon law blog that since clandestine marriage doesn't tend to be a problem now, whereas the "get out of marriage free" aspect of the canonical form rules arguably are a scandal, it would be a good idea for the Church to consider dropping the penalty of automatic nullity from canon law, so that Catholics who entered into a civil marriage would be considered married in the eyes of the Church just like non-Catholics (though they would be guilty of performing an illicit, though not invalid, marriage.)
Crude,
For the same reason that you acknowledge that they won't be satisfied merely getting churches to stop taking part in civil marriages, and will in fact go further and demand churches perform wedding ceremonies for them, or let them do so at the church: because they abhor any distinction between their unions and others'. If civil marriage comes to be regarded as a joke, while 'real' marriage is a religious ceremony which is at best optionally legally underwritten by contract, that distinction remains in one more way.
I think that to the extent that Christians continue to have what are perceived as privileges denied gay couples, gay activists will seek to demand "equality".
If brigands break into a house, they do so because they want the benefits of what's inside. However, if the owner decides to abandon the house and go live in the shed, I don't think it's likely that the brigands will be fooled into abandoning what they've successfully wrested control of to go seek the shed. They'll laugh at the house owner and think themselves well off.
By the same token, if some small core of faithful Christians decided to stop using civil marriage and go live on the outskirts of society, abandoning the protections of civil marriage, I think that both gay activists and the mainstream culture would think it a good joke and envy those Christians no more than they do heretical Mormon polygamists living out in the hinterlands of Nevada.
What I don't understand is what value you see in continuing a Christian entanglement with civil marriage at this point. What, really, is gained by it, other than anchoring Christians to what is now pretty clearly a mock version - accent on the 'mock' - of marriage? Should we also say that Rick and Steve are married, and are in fact each other's spouses? Do we pick up their vocabulary as well?
I don't see it as "entanglement" with some foreign institution. I'd say that one of the most basic purposes of a state is to recognize and protect the existence of families, right up there with enforcing property rights, dealing with crime, and protecting the land from invasion. The way that families currently let the state know that they exist, and that they deserve the rights and protections of a family household, is by registering their marriage with the state. Abandoning the rights and protections of civil marriage because of the Obergefell decision strikes me as about as rational as deciding to squat in one's house without owning it because of the attack on property law in Kelo. That latter Supreme Court decision (that the city can use eminent domain to take away your house and give it to some big corporation like Walmart, because the city has an interest in bettering the economy) was a terrible decision, because it failed to acknowledge the property rights that we have as human being prior to the state, and which the state has a duty to protect. However, although that represented an attack on the natural right to property, and it should be remedied, I don't think that we therefore participate in mock property ownership when we buy a house, and I don't think it would be wise to refuse to own things as some sort of protest.
Darwin,
By the same token, if some small core of faithful Christians decided to stop using civil marriage and go live on the outskirts of society, abandoning the protections of civil marriage,
I nowhere said they should live on the outskirts of society, nor did I say they should abandon the protections - such as they are - of civil marriage. I said they should push to acquire those protections through an alternate means that has nothing to do with marriage.
I think that both gay activists and the mainstream culture would think it a good joke and envy those Christians no more than they do heretical Mormon polygamists living out in the hinterlands of Nevada.
Inform people who are celebrating the recent Supreme Court decision that legal recognition doesn't make same-sex marriages at all real, and that the only real marriage is that with the right underpinnings and understandings before a man and woman. Tell me how much they laugh.
I'm suggesting that there's arguably a problem with taking part in civil marriage as its definition gets changed, and this likely isn't the last change we're going to see. If marriage is seen first and foremost as 'something the state defines, even creates', that's a problem insofar as the state deviates from even the most basic Natural Law views of it.
I'd say that one of the most basic purposes of a state is to recognize and protect the existence of families, right up there with enforcing property rights, dealing with crime, and protecting the land from invasion. The way that families currently let the state know that they exist, and that they deserve the rights and protections of a family household, is by registering their marriage with the state.
Alright. At what point do the ever-dwindling protections associated with the state's recognition no longer compare to the cultural price of granting civil marriage explicit and/or implied respect by taking part in it? Is there such a point?
You bring up the Kelo position, but there's some pretty obvious differences. For one thing, Kelo exists at the absolute periphery of public and cultural thought. Whatever problems that exist with public acknowledgment and perception of property rights and the limits of state power, it's not like there's very much popular interaction with Kelo influencing them. With the gay marriage decision, the White House got lit up in rainbows, and people are still talking about it.
Kelo also deals with an act that, again, happens on the fringe of our awareness. I don't know where you live or what media you watch, but I can't recall the last time I even saw an eminent domain case come up, even in fictional media. Same-sex marriage is a bit more prominent.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this:
>>"get out of marriage free" aspect of the canonical form rules<<
That a Catholic, if he/she marries without the canonical form (civil ceremony), can later marry someone else without going through an annulment?
I also don't understand how Ed Peters can say a Catholic can enter into a non-canonical marriage "acting in good faith". Doesn't every Catholic know that sacramental marriages are celebrated in a church with a priest, even though of course the sacrament is administered by the couple to each other? The Catholics that don't marry in church (at least here in Hungary) either do it because they aren't practicing Catholics only christened in childhood, or because they actually don't want to be bound by an indissoluble marriage.
In any case, although I can see by the debate here that the implications and the message of the Catholic Church potentially making a break with civil marriage aren't at all clear, I suppose the fact that in other countries it is already done means it is not contrary to the Catholic teaching per se.
You wrote,
"I think that to the extent that Christians continue to have what are perceived as privileges denied gay couples, gay activists will seek to demand "equality". "
As I said, if the Catholics pretend there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships or do as your "wishy-washy" priest does, "amending the creed to make it more gender inclusive" (???) homosexuals have a basis of demanding "equality". (I don't think Catholic people in my country would be as accepting as in your example, allowing the gay man to be an Eucharistic minister etc.) I We need to work on making Catholic marriage not appear a privilege. If we lose "the big church celebration", it's not the essence of marriage.
The Catholic Church does not have to worry about being forced into performing "same sex marriages" in the U.S. That could not happen without a complete overhaul of our constitutional system. What is going to happen is that the peripheral institutions of the Church will be forced to comply with the new situation or close down. Example: a parish that rents the parish hall for wedding receptions of people who do not belong to the parish and/or are not Catholic. The parish will not be able to legally prohibit renting the hall to a "same sex" couple for their reception if the parish allows other couples to have their receptions in the hall. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other agencies of the Church are at risk.
DJR,
The Catholic Church does not have to worry about being forced into performing "same sex marriages" in the U.S. That could not happen without a complete overhaul of our constitutional system.
While I agree with you that the 'peripheral' issues are of more concern, I'm no longer willing to say things like the above with confidence, since the attitude is predicated on the SCOTUS ruling fairly and consistently. They've lost that presumption.
If the current trends continue, those seeking a civil marriage license will soon be made to sign a form which promises that they will not discriminate against any married (I almost wrote "couple," but we all know it's coming) group as a condition of their marriage license.
This would, of course, constitute an invalidating impediment to Christian marriage.
Except for canon law which requires compliance with civil law, one would think that cutting out the state altogether would be a good idea at this point; after all, "common law" marriages nowadays seem to have just as much of a "legal" status as state-licensed marriages.
And to the Anonymous person who posted that "the priest does not confer the sacrament," that is only the case in the Latin Church; in the Eastern Catholic Churches, the priest does indeed confer the sacrament.
One word missing from your otherwise excellent analysis: Sacrament.
Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church is a Sacrament, one of seven, that may only be received when certain other conditions are met. Those conditions are established by Canon Law and have been so established for near 2,000 years.
I don't think any court could invade the province of the Catholic Church by telling it how it must celebrate its Sacraments. I think even a liberal Supreme Court (much more liberal than today's) would resist getting that involved in religion.
DJR,
"Example: a parish that rents the parish hall for wedding receptions of people who do not belong to the parish and/or are not Catholic. The parish will not be able to legally prohibit renting the hall to a "same sex" couple for their reception if the parish allows other couples to have their receptions in the hall. Hospitals, schools, orphanages, and other agencies of the Church are at risk."
OK. The parish can either choose that they only rent the hall to Catholic couples that legitimately marry in the parish (and loses some of their income) or say that they don't worry who rents the celebration hall. I don't think it is the right thing to say they don't do business with homosexual people but it is probably right not to help celebrate something that is inherently sinful. It is not as impossible though as actually bless a homosexual union.
Emmayche,
"If the current trends continue, those seeking a civil marriage license will soon be made to sign a form which promises that they will not discriminate against any married (I almost wrote "couple," but we all know it's coming) group as a condition of their marriage license."
I don't see that happening that civil marriage should be dependent on a declaration to accept same sex marriages, but if that happens, one needs to carefully look at the actual text to see if it is really sinful to sign it. The question is, what "discriminate" in the actual setting means. The fact that the church I belong to doesn't accept homosexual inclination as natural and judges homosexual acts to be sinful doesn't equate to that I, personally discriminate against them. I personally do not deprive them of anything. I don't (I hope) behave unkindly or disrespecfully towards them. To not agree with some behavior doesn't mean discrimination.
Agnes,
I also don't understand how Ed Peters can say a Catholic can enter into a non-canonical marriage "acting in good faith". Doesn't every Catholic know that sacramental marriages are celebrated in a church with a priest, even though of course the sacrament is administered by the couple to each other? The Catholics that don't marry in church (at least here in Hungary) either do it because they aren't practicing Catholics only christened in childhood, or because they actually don't want to be bound by an indissoluble marriage.
It's something that comes up a lot with people who were baptized Catholic, have been out of the Church for a long time, and then return to the Church. A typical example would be: Immigrant family comes from Mexico to the US, has children baptized as Catholics but then starts attending a Protestant church. One of the children from this family gets married in a Protestant church or a civil ceremony. Years later he returns to the Catholic Church.
Due to the canonical rules about valid form, it would be ruled that he'd never actually been married. However, if he'd been baptized Protestant instead of Catholic and had been married in the same type of ceremony, he would be considered validly married until proven otherwise.
It comes up a lot because there are so many non-practicing Catholics in the US. As I recall, if you consider ex-Catholics to be a denomination, then Catholics are the largest religious group in the US and ex-Catholics are the next largest, larger than any single Protestant denomination.
As I said, if the Catholics pretend there is nothing wrong with homosexual relationships or do as your "wishy-washy" priest does, "amending the creed to make it more gender inclusive" (???) homosexuals have a basis of demanding "equality". (I don't think Catholic people in my country would be as accepting as in your example, allowing the gay man to be an Eucharistic minister etc.)
It varies a lot from parish to parish. Our parish is not like that. But I certainly have known of a few parishes that are. And they tend to be the ones where legal test cases come up. For instance, there was a recent legal case where a Catholic (but obviously not very good Catholic) school hired a woman in a same sex civil marriage as their head of religious education. Parents found out about it some years later and complained to the bishop, with the result that the woman was fired. But she's now suing the school and diocese for wrongful loss of employment (and based on similar cases in the past, she may well win since the school administration knew about her "marriage" when they hired her.)
Crude,
I'm suggesting that there's arguably a problem with taking part in civil marriage as its definition gets changed, and this likely isn't the last change we're going to see. If marriage is seen first and foremost as 'something the state defines, even creates', that's a problem insofar as the state deviates from even the most basic Natural Law views of it.
I guess what it comes down to is: I have basic disagreements with this. I think (and it's my belief that the Church generally holds this belief) that civil marriage is not something which the state defines and/or creates, but rather that civil marriage laws are an attempt (however imperfect) of the state to fulfill its job of recognizing the existence and rights of families.
I agree that some secular Americans see civil marriage as a state creation, but I don't think that's the right approach for us to take, so I don't think it would be appropriate for us to refuse to use civil marriage in order to protect the rights of actually married couples.
If there could be some sort of other form of civil marriage which better reflected Church teachings (as in some of the "covenant marriage" proposals that I've seen over the years) I would be fine with using that instead, but I would not be in favor of abandoning civil marriage and cobbling together ownership partnerships, powers of attorney, adoptions and joint trusts in order to try to replicate most of the functions of marriage while avoiding the actual legal registration of a marriage.
DJR and JohnG,
I very much hope that you're right.
At the moment, I can imagine a court throwing out freedom of religion in this instance and insisting that it's only enforcing non-discrimination, but I hope that I'm just being alarmist.
emmayche,
If the current trends continue, those seeking a civil marriage license will soon be made to sign a form which promises that they will not discriminate against any married (I almost wrote "couple," but we all know it's coming) group as a condition of their marriage license.
I don't think that's likely to happen.
This seems pretty accurate, but we simply don't have ten years to go. Our Lady of Fatima is about to celebrate her 100th anniversary and she is not happy.
Further, heaven is not going to let us destroy ourselves. We are so far in blood that sin will pluck on sin, but the Church will triumph no matter how much it is degraded. It already has.
There are far too many in the Church who argue that some form of "recognition" of same-sex civil partnerships is desirable, since it is an acknowldgement of current societal realities, and those in such relationships must nt continue to be marginalised by the Church. This is, of course, the thin end of the proverbial wedge. It is the same kind of agenda-advancement that we have witnessed in the (initially illicit) use of female altar servers, (aka known as "serviettes"), the use of female acolytes, and the call some years ago for the diaconate to be opened up to women. Only the terminally naive would fail to understand that the intention was, and remains, to create the disposition among the faithful for women's ordination.
The Holy Father pointed out even while still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires, that the call for "marriage equality" comes to us straight from the Father of Lies, and transmitted to us by the totally subverted mainstream media and many of our political leaders, (including, of course, Bill "Empty Suit" Shorten).
This demand for "marriage equality" is the work of the diabolic spirit of nihilism that was first unleashed upon the world by the French Revolution, and which came to full maturity with the Communist Manifesto and the Bolshevik Revolution. The purpose is the complete annihilation of Judeo-Christian civilisation, which the revolutionaries have always loathed and detested. And it is the demon's inspiration that reveals to them that the very bedrock, the solid foundation of this detested civilisation is marriage and the family. "Marriage equality" is a damned lie. The purpose is the complete destruction of marriage and the family. Accomplish this, and civilisation crumbles to dust.
Darwin,
"there was a recent legal case where a Catholic (but obviously not very good Catholic) school hired a woman in a same sex civil marriage as their head of religious education. Parents found out about it some years later and complained to the bishop, with the result that the woman was fired. But she's now suing the school and diocese for wrongful loss of employment (and based on similar cases in the past, she may well win since the school administration knew about her "marriage" when they hired her.)"
This made me realize I was wrong in saying I don't discriminate personally against homosexual people. If I am the person in charge for this Catholic school's administration, I can't hire/have to dismiss a homosexual person (acting on their inclination, living in a same sex relationship, obviously) and although it's because the Church's religious freedom I can't see how it would not be regarded as discrimination. The obvious other side is, a Catholic school ought to require some declaration of their employees that they support and act in concordance with the Catholic Church's teachings and such a person can't sigh that.
Sorry for commenting so many times, I'll stay back now - this topic is ahot one even without my many contributions.
Since language seems to be the key, the church needs to celebrate "HOLY MATRIMONY" not marriage. The government already allows shacking up, so the Matrimony certificate would only be acceptable to the church (and God) not the state. So people would be in a strictly religious union and living without a "legal marriage" certificate, as do single couples(shacking -up)already do today. This is the ultimate separation of church and state, when one does not officially recognize the other.
Right now it won't work, but as several Justices said we cannot count on the SCOTUS to uphold the traditional understanding of religious liberty. If you can change marriage you can change the interpretation of the 1st amendment. They will find a pretext.
They will find a pretext.
It's already been broadcasted.
You have a right to freedom of religion, in your church, during a service. Period. And whenever that right comes into conflict with any other right or desire of the state, the court must decide which right wins. And religion will always lose, all while the state talks about how it's protecting religious rights, just 'in their proper sphere'.
Remember that you have had atheists rumbling for years now that a religious upbringing is itself child abuse. Count on being told that child welfare rights trump religious rights, and religion - particularly horrible religious views that teach things like 'sodomy is immoral' - is something a child can choose to be exposed to at age 18/21. And then, only after some mandatory public schooling.
At which point, you will have some Christians saying that this is actually a good thing, because Christianity thrives under persecution, so in a way we should be thanking the state - and besides, we kind of deserved this from our sins in the past.
Unless, of course, they actually start fighting. And part of fighting is going to involve telling socially leftist Christians to get lost.
My suggested solution is this :all marriages performed in civil court then if the couple is Christian have your marriage "blessed "in your parish I know a couple who were married in a civil court and later had their marriage blessed in church .You can't get married twice to the same person so the priest or minister blesses the marriage makes sense to me !!
Actually, the Church only recognizes civil marriages of two unbaptized (opposite sex) people as being valid. My husband went through the annulment process 30 years ago. He wasn't Baptized at age 20 when he married his pregnant 17 yo girlfriend. She was Baptized Baptist. This was cause for invalidating the marriage, since a Baptized person would require a sacramental marriage. Baptists may not call marriage a sacrament, per se, but they do their weddings before God and the church. So someone who is Baptized (a sacrament which still belongs to the Catholic Church as a whole), is required to be married before God and the church.
So, in other words, the Catholic Church doesn't just say all non-Catholic weddings performed before a civil representative are valid.
Actually, the Church only recognizes civil marriages of two unbaptized (opposite sex) people as being valid. My husband went through the annulment process 30 years ago. He wasn't Baptized at age 20 when he married his pregnant 17 yo girlfriend. She was Baptized Baptist. This was cause for invalidating the marriage, since a Baptized person would require a sacramental marriage. Baptists may not call marriage a sacrament, per se, but they do their weddings before God and the church. So someone who is Baptized (a sacrament which still belongs to the Catholic Church as a whole), is required to be married before God and the church.
So, in other words, the Catholic Church doesn't just say all non-Catholic weddings performed before a civil representative are valid.
Actually, the Church only recognizes civil marriages of two unbaptized (opposite sex) people as being valid. My husband went through the annulment process 30 years ago. He wasn't Baptized at age 20 when he married his pregnant 17 yo girlfriend. She was Baptized Baptist. This was cause for invalidating the marriage, since a Baptized person would require a sacramental marriage. Baptists may not call marriage a sacrament, per se, but they do their weddings before God and the church. So someone who is Baptized (a sacrament which still belongs to the Catholic Church as a whole), is required to be married before God and the church.
So, in other words, the Catholic Church doesn't just say all non-Catholic weddings performed before a civil representative are valid.
(1) The gay steamroller really did begin attacking the Church before the Supreme Court's decision. As various states allowed gays to marry, gays targeted devout Christian (including Catholic) wedding services providers and ask for a single service -- e.g., a wedding cake. The devout Christian, who happily serves gays because he is NOT prejudiced, says, "I am sorry. I can't bake a cake for gay weddings, because for me that would be a sin." The gay couple sees a wonderful looting opportunity. Their lawyer files a Complaint saying that the gays felt abused and degraded at this statement. The liberal-television-programmed jury awards a jillion dollars. The wedding service provided is wiped out and homeless. A single request for a single cake makes the gays and their lawyer wealthy. Presto changeo, the Christian Kristallnacht.
(2) The churches won't be "gotten" on weddings. What will happen is that to survive they will all (except the Protestant turncoats who throw out God's inspired Word and marry gays) give up their licenses to "marry" people, require all applicants to go to City Hakll to get married there first, and then ask them to return for the sacramental service.
(3) Therefore, the Devil, disappointed, will next attack Scripture itself, such that gays and their friends will demand that the homosexuality verses and finally the Bible itself be banned from society as "terroristic" and ownership of the Bible be regarded as "possessing contraband," entailing massive, confiscatory fines. This is already beginning to happen in Canada.
What allowed all this to come to the forefront now was the election of Obama. Yet, I still hear conservatives talking about not getting behind a conservative candidate if s/he is not conservative enough! How often do we have to lose to far left candidates before we stop voting stupidly for people who have not chance of winning and take away votes from the imperfect but much less liberal moderate. If Romney or Macane had been elected there would not have been a president in office that supported and pushed gay marriage thus allowing it to take off.
In the end, "My Immaculate Heart will triumph." Mary, the Blessed Mother spoke these words. We will see the Church come under horrid attacks and the same with Israel, but God will allow only so much and then the 2nd Coming will show us the wrath of God upon those who mocked Him and His Word.
Post a Comment