Posted on 07/13/2015 3:32:18 AM PDT by markomalley
Months ago, I watched as some Christians took to the internet opposing R. R. Reno’s position in “A Time to Rend,” in which he calls for a separation of sacramental marriage from civil marriage. Much of the criticism made accusations of disengagement with, and abandonment of, the culture. One Protestant even went so far as to say, “church weddings detached from the civil sphere are worthless.”
Leo XIII’s encyclical, Arcanum, lays out a solid argument for why the Church is the guardian of marriage, and what happens when that authority of hers is usurped. In light of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Obergefell, we need a reminder of Pope Leo XIII’s reasoning. We also need to seriously consider Reno’s suggestion; Untethering sacramental marriage from civil marriage may be one of our best options, we should take it now before it is taken out of our hands.
Using Scripture, Pope Leo XIII shows God’s creation of the marriage covenant, how it degenerated among the heathen and even among the Israelites. Due to their hardened hearts, “Moses indulgently permitted them to put away their wives, the way was open to divorce.” Again, using Scripture, Pope Leo XIII lays out how Christ restores our human dignity, renews marriage and raises it to the level of sacrament. After spending a few paragraphs discussing Christian marriage, relying on Scripture, he makes it clear that Christ gave the Church the guardianship of marriage. She is to protect and preserve the sanctity of marriage.
Men, with a false philosophy and corrupt in morals, Pope Leo XIII says, “judge nothing so unbearable as submission and obedience and strive with all their might to bring about that not only individual men, but families, also—indeed, human society itself—may in haughty pride despise the sovereignty of God.” And it is this despising of submission and obedience that then becomes the basis for men to usurp the authority of the Church over marriage.
These prophetic words from over a century ago should give us a long pause:
Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.
Hence are owing civil marriages, commonly so called; hence laws are framed which impose impediments to marriage; hence arise judicial sentences affecting the marriage contract, as to whether or not it have been rightly made. Lastly, all power of prescribing and passing judgment in this class of cases is, as we see, of set purpose denied to the Catholic Church, so that no regard is paid either to her divine power or to her prudent laws. Yet, under these, for so many centuries, have the nations lived on whom the light of civilization shone bright with the wisdom of Christ Jesus.
The civil magistrate, Pope Leo XIII goes on to say, is delusional because, “Marriage has God for its Author, and was from the very beginning a kind of foreshadowing of the Incarnation of His Son; and therefore there abides in it a something holy and religious; not extraneous, but innate; not derived from men, but implanted by nature.” And because the kernel of holiness is there from the beginning, “implanted by nature,” natural law will show its fruit, for even heathen cultures in antiquity marriage was tethered to religion and holiness and thus was celebrated with religious ceremonies. And so, “even in the souls ignorant of heavenly doctrine, was the force of nature, of the remembrance of their origin, and of the conscience of the human race.”
Therefore:
Marriage is holy by its own power, in its own nature, and of itself, it ought not to be regulated and administered by the will of civil rulers, but by the divine authority of the Church.
One might ask: Why? The answer is that the Church is under obligation to Christ to guard and protect this institution which links earthly reality to heavenly reality. Pope Leo XIII, again:
But to decree and ordain concerning the sacrament is, by the will of Christ Himself, so much a part of the power and duty of the Church that it is plainly absurd to maintain that even the very smallest fraction of such power has been transferred to the civil ruler.
This good prophetic pope goes on to show that it would be absurd to think that Christ received delegated authority from the rulers to condemn polygamy and divorce, or that “when the Apostle Paul taught that divorces and incestuous marriages were not lawful, it was because Tiberius, Caligula, and Nero agreed with him or secretly commanded him so to teach.” No, Christ had authority, as God. He gave that authority to his Apostles and to his Church. Up and down the ages the Church has kept guard over marriage and acted independently and at times her laws where indeed divergent from the civil law, yet they were always held in obedience to her Lord.
It is on these grounds that Pope Leo XIII speaks against the severing of the matrimonial contract from the sacrament. But in our day, this has already been done. The matrimonial contract has already been severed from the sacrament. And so for the Church to get out of the government marriage business is severing nothing. To the contrary, it is through this that the Church will regain authority and guardianship of marriage as contract and sacrament—because they are inseparable. The “contract cannot be true and legitimate without being a sacrament as well,” contra the critic’s quote above that: “church weddings detached from the civil sphere are worthless.”
This has been the position of the Church from the beginning and in no way has it been a stumbling block to cultural engagement. Christianity grew with the marriage laws of the Church in variance from Roman Imperial law. Through the beautiful example upheld distinctly by the Church, the nations were evangelized, Christendom was born and flourished, yet as Pope Leo XIII says, the Church always kept her independence on marriage.
Much has been smuggled into Christian culture under the guise of cultural engagement—much of this in direct opposition to Christ and the sacred Scriptures. The untethering of sacramental marriage from the long arm of the state, the ceasing of priests and pastors to act in persona state, is not disengagement and isolationist. To the contrary, it is the Church being salt and light—it will be the lighthouse which will weather the chaotic storms of a debauched culture—a post-Obergefell culture—a beacon for man after he tires of his prodigal ways.
In order to prevent invalid marriages, forthcoming marriages were to be publicly announced in the parishes of the goom / bride. This practice was made universal in Lateran Council IV, Canon 51:
…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…
Licenses were initially an alternative to the process of reading the banns and started to enter in the 14th Century. They essentially were a dispensation by the Ordinary that there were no impediments to the marriage and were based upon the attestation of the groom and bride accompanied by some investigation. This process was formally permitted by the Council of Trent, 24th Session:
…Then, before the consummation thereof, the banns shall be published in the church; that so, if there be any secret impediments, they may be the more easily discovered: unless the Ordinary shall himself judge it expedient, that the publications aforesaid be dispensed with, which the holy Synod leaves to his prudence and judgment…
The relevant civil law history, as I understand it, separates from ecclesial law starting with Lord Hardwicke's Law in 1753. This formalized the requirement for the reading of the banns or, as an alternative, paying for a license. As I understand it, with the exception of Jews and Quakers, marriage still needed to be solemnized by an Anglican priest. At the time of the US Revolution, this was the law in force.
Prior to the advent of the Church of England, where the Head of State was also the Head of Church, marriages, including the requirement for banns or license was strictly a matter for the Church. Then it was one in the same. With the emergence of enlightenment states in the late 18th and 19th centuries, the Church was kicked out of the process (for licensing). I believe that this is the context within which we need to read Arcanum.
The question then is, in this apostatized post-Christian western world we find ourselves in, do we just retreat in an effort to stem the further dilution of Christian teaching? Or do we fight for a restoration of marriage to the dignity given it by Christ?
Several priests I’ve spoken with say that if forced to perform gay “marriages”, they’ll turn in their license from the state and perform only the religious ceremony. People will have to go though two services to get married: one civil, one religious.
“People will have to go though two services to get married: one civil, one religious.”
Nope - Christians should only go through the religious ceremony. They should refuse to get a license for a blasphemous secular cerimony
“Or do we fight for a restoration of marriage to the dignity given it by Christ? “
When times are really good and peaceful people tend to fight to the death over trivialities. In World War II a general fighting in the jungles of Burma was named in a divorce proceeding by his wife. Accordingly, as had been the requirement in peacetime he got a letter from his command asking for his immediate resignation. He handed it off to his superior who had the rules changed. Between the wars the English army spent more on Polo then on airplanes. Then came the war and everything changed.
When next our nation enters a crisis all the trivial stupidity will change suddenly. We can be assured this crisis is coming because we’ve repeatedly elected people to high office who think only about the trivial and nothing about keeping the culture safe.
After the next crisis expect a huge reset of all the dumb things we’ve done in the last decade or so. Unfortunately, due to technology, many of us who would like to see that day will have been incinerated or starved to death. But, a reset is coming and the pendulum will swing back the other way. Frankly, I am to the degree possible, ignoring the small stuff and enjoying cilization’s dying embers.
Exactly. Churches never should have cut a deal with Caesar to administer those civil licenses in the first place. Who the hell is anyone in government to demand a license for a marriage anyway?
And that's just this year.
Marriage is not a triviality - because family is not a triviality. The crypto-marxists must break the concept of family in order to fully asset-rape society. Remember the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.
I did not mean to imply that in today’s context marriage is trivial. But when society breaks down entirely and we face war, disease and famine, which is where we could easily go, marriage is just one more bucket of water in a flooding torrent. If you’re hungry, sick and threatened it is lower on the list of concerns.
Wondering why bishops in the US haven’t announced they have ordered the end to signing licenses. I don’t think Europe has.
If they’re waiting for the gay-stapo hammer to come down first, ok, but they are far better off getting ahead of them.
The Catholic Church in America has been busy doing government suck-up for decades. It ought to reclaim its divine authority not only in the arena of marriage, but in providing health care and education, too. Jesus’ ministry was teaching and healing. When the American Catholic Church decided to trade its ministries for government dollars, the Church’s authority was lost. #freethechurch
Fair enough.
And on that subject: another QE (or maybe a step-wise devaluation of the Federal Reserve Note) can’t be far off now.
The only way out for the Fed is to start a shooting war as a distraction.
So the torrent is coming, one way or another. May it wash America clean.
So maybe, as in all things, the Body of Christ should focus upon rending that which lives in The Word from that which lives in The World?
Get a Christian marriage in a church and then sign the book for a civil marriage. When I have been to weddings in England and Canada the wedding party walked from one to the other.
Churches will restrict themselves to religious weddings of their actual members - as they should have the entire time. No more feel good weddings for non-members that may not be taking it seriously or get divorced.
Here’s a pretty in depth blog from a guy who has come around to this way of thinking. He blames the French revolution a lot, if I recall.
http://www.jamesjheaney.com/2015/06/26/civil-marriage-is-dead-it-deserved-to-die/
“The question then is, in this apostatized post-Christian western world we find ourselves in, do we just retreat in an effort to stem the further dilution of Christian teaching? Or do we fight for a restoration of marriage to the dignity given it by Christ?”
Choosing to not sign marriage licenses for a state that can’t even get the simple definition right isn’t a retreat, in my opinion. I don’t know if it’s the right thing or not, but it seems like it is way more proactive than anything that has been done up to now.
‘I will sign your license like we have been doing all along even though your version has warped even waaaay beyond no-fault divorce into ‘gay marriage and many are now conditioned to accept any marriage as long as the state first defines it as marriage. But just know we are still upset and will continue to fight like we have been all along.’
vs.
A true change in policy that concretely demonstrates that the Church’s version is the one that really matters, not the civil version that will obviously keep changing just like it always has when the secular authorities define it. But we will continue to fight. Maybe in the future there will be good judges, pols, or voting majorities that can conform the civil side of marriage to reality, and we should work for that, but for now it looks pretty bad and really has been for decades if we are honest.’
Freegards
There is no such thing as “civil marriage.” There is only marriage.
All valid marriages of two baptized persons are the sacrament of Matrimony. (Whether they believe it or not, e.g., many Protestants.) Valid marriages between unbaptized persons (or one baptized and one unbaptized person) are not the sacrament of Matrimony.
But there is only marriage. There are not two marriages, or “two kinds” of marriage.
There is no reason for Catholic priests to refuse to sign a form saying, “I have married the following two people...” if in fact they have done so. Such a refusal is not required by the moral law, and it will accomplish nothing in the defense of the Church or the Faith.
Any Catholic priest who pretends to marry two men or two women must be suspended immediately, and should, after due process, be laicized.
Any politician who supports “gay marriage” MUST be denied Communion. It is a mortal sin for any bishop or priest to give Communion to any supporter of gay marriage—just as it is a mortal sin to give Communion to supporters of abortion.
Unfortunately, only about ten American bishops currently DO NOT give Communion to supporters of abortion. This means that almost all American bishops are habitually in the state of mortal sin. This means that the Church is indescribably feeble.
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.