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.
“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.
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
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.