Posted on 04/27/2013 2:48:00 AM PDT by markomalley
THE future of Roman Catholic weddings in England and Wales is now in doubt because of David Cameron’s gay marriage bill, the church’s chief legal adviser on the issue has disclosed.
Prof Christopher McCrudden said that there are serious questions over whether the 120-year-old legal basis on which 8,500 Catholic weddings a year are performed can even “survive” the passage of the bill currently before Parliament.
He told MPs and peers that, unless urgent changes are made, Catholic bishops may have to reconsider whether priests can carry on performing weddings, in effect, on behalf of the state.
The barrister said his advice to senior bishops is that proposed protections for churches against legal challenges under human rights or equalities laws for refusing to marry gay couples completely overlook the position of Catholics and other denominations.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
The US does not recognize church only weddings from Mexico either.
In other words, if Mexico doesn’t recognize the marriage, then the US doesn’t.
Frankly, I am less and less interested in anything the state has to say on moral issues. If the Church says I’m married, that’s sufficient for me. When the state refuses to conform to Natural Law, it becomes illegitimate.
Good point.
Which is the direction everyone is calling for here. You want to be more like France and Mexico?
I’m aware of that. The Catholic church isn’t going to cave on this like the Methodists, Lutherans and Episcopalians who have already done so.
What they want, if they can’t get the Church to bless them is to remove the Church from the public sphere of influence. If Catholics can’t get married, legally, in the Church - then they’ve won their goal.
Why give them that? We’re willing to fight on this issue. Prots should just follow or get out of the way since they don’t want to lead...
I’m saying it’s worth it to fight for the first part and to preserve the already existing link between the two. If the state ends up taking this away, so be it. But we should at least fight for it.
Well, then, we need Priests who will fight for it. If they aren’t, then they need to follow or get out of the way.
The Church predates the state. That’s the point. Marriage came from the Church, not the state.
Everything I’ve posted is 100 percent factual. If you don’t like it then you need to read up on the history of Europe.
The state can no more dictate to the Church on this issue, since the state decided to recognise what the church was already doing.
The Church doesn’t need permission from the state to perform the sacrament. At the moment the state recognises the sacrament, but that may change.
Why let them sever this? What do we have to gain except perhaps some temporary comfort?
“The couple peform the marriage.”
You don’t understand the sacrament or how it works. :)
The priest performs the marraige.
Why on Earth do you want to give the State that kind of power over your life? Why in the Hell should you have to ask the government to approve of your marriage, or any marriage for that matter?
Don’t you see the trap you’re walking into?
“In the Latin Rite the celebration of marriage between two Catholic faithful normally takes place during Holy Mass, because of the connection of all the sacraments with the Paschal mystery of Christ.”
1621, CCC
*ahem*.
The priest confers the sacrament on the husband and wife.
“The priest (or deacon) who assists at the celebration of a marriage receives the consent of the spouses in the name of the Church and gives the blessing of the Church. the presence of the Church’s minister (and also of the witnesses) visibly expresses the fact that marriage is an ecclesial reality.”
1630, CCC
This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:132
- Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
1631.
I stick by what I said, as does the Catholic church. Three people need to be there. Husband, Wife and the Priest.
“Also, you spoke condescendingly and rudely to Mom MD.”
Erm, she posted an incorrect understanding of the sacrament. I’m sorry if you feel that correction = condescension. I’m sorry if you feel that the priest is an optional witness who has no actual role in the sacrament.
You need to read the entire section on matrimony. It’s very clear. Union of husband and wife = union of Christ and his church - marriage is a part of the mass, not intended to be apart from it.
Biggirl was incorrect in her understanding. I’m not sure what your problem is what I wrote to Mom MD. I wrote, and very clearly at that - my entire reasoning.
Are you sure you’ve got the right people and the right responses?
I didn’t say that the priest is an optional witness.
Please do not misquote me.
Then why are you attacking me? I quoted the whole passage, which includes the parts you left out, marriage being a part of the mass - the union of husband + wife being a sign of the union of Christ + church, which is why marriages should be done during mass.
I realize that a great many people do not do this - which is a real shame. In any case, I was correcting Biggirl.
Sorry it turns you off. I don’t post to turn people on.
The Catholics have already caved on this in Mexico and else where....what does Protestantism have anything to do with this argument.?
The 800 lb gorilla no one talks about concerns the culture hot and cold wars that are needing to be fought by people of faith everywhere to restore our Godly heritage. The psychopaths behind all this social engineering polarize the people of Faith by telling them they can’t object to sinful policies because that would prove that we aren’t the “loving” people that Christ tells us to be while the psychopaths themselves care not one whit about faith, hope and charity. Our women tend to be the most taken in by such arguments and thus vote in such numbers that the most hideous of social policies are being voted in. You can stuff your silly Catholic/Protestant antagonism memes....Christ wondered allowed “When the Son of Man returns, shall he find any faith upon the Earth?” It’s about Jesus Christ, God in flesh...”the faithful and true”!
“what does Protestantism have anything to do with this argument.?”
The fact that protestants in this thread are arguing for the same thing?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.