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 ...
Just another problem brought to you by the rug munchers and butt bangers,
Be sure to thank them.
No, the idea is that folks would get a civil marriage certificate from the government but they could then get “truly married” in the church by having a religious ceremony before God. A SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. That way, the pastor or priest doesn’t act as an agent of the state.
Disgraceful but not surprising.However I think that,in practice,this would be easily overcome.The Catholic couple would be married in a church by a priest but the priest makes it a point to structure the ceremony in such a way as that it’s recognized by *God* as a marriage but not by the Government.Then,at some point they go down to the nearest justice of the peace (one who has the authority to conduct ceremonies recognized by the State) and have a 3 minute ceremony there.
The only thing that matters is whether or not the Church recognizes it as a valid marriage.You know...render unto Caesar.Two ceremonies...one recognized by God (but not the State) and the other being the reverse.Or,if you have no desire to have your marriage recognized by the State you skip the civil ceremony.
But, if you don't want it, we need to stop "gay marriage," now.
“observing” is all the Priest does in a Catholic wedding. He witnesses the couple who has come to the Church to give the Sacrament to each other in Marriage.
Maybe folks will just do the Sacramental marriage and skip the license? The way it was before the license was invented.
George Weigal has already called for this. I think father Z has mentioned it before as well. The state’s definition of marriage is just going to keep changing further by including new impossibilities, long after ‘gay marriage’ becomes accepted.
Doesn’t help as far the state punishing the Church for not buying into ‘gay marriage’, but maybe it would help teach that what the Church means by marriage and the state means is different.
Freegards
You are confusing what counts in Gods eyes and what counts in mans eyes. You wedding is a covenant between three people - the bride, the groom, and Christ, meant to demonstrate Christs love for His Church. What the state does matters not. A civil marriage is a piece of paper and means nothing. If you have to do that before your religious marriage, it in no way diminishes what takes place at the altar later. (true for all Christians, I’m not catholic)
Yeah, I’m fighting that, been fighting that for going on close to a decade here.
The Godless state ‘grants’ nothing. The Church has been perfoming marriages long before the United States of America was formed.
The tail does not wag the dog. There is no need for a division, because the Church still possesses the same powers she had previous. The state has no right to take away what it never granted.
“What the state does matters not.”
What the state does or does not do matters considerably. Why should we strip powers away from the priest which he has always possessed voluntarily?
That the state recognizes the actions of the priest to marry a man and a woman is a crucial part of marriage. Giving it up because the ‘fight is too hard’, is bad. Why should we give up what marriage means?
Truth must be fought for. Truth not defended is no longer Truth.
You are not giving up what marriage means. You are confusing power given to clergy by God with power given by the state. Let me ask it a different way - why would you want your clergy participating in an evil debauched state ritual that includes same sex “marriage”? The depraved state of society is forcing us to separate the things of God and the things of man. And that is ultimately a good thing. As society goes down the toilet we can choose to be a part of it or separate ourselves from it.
The problem is, it’s not just about me. What you are saying is that the state should have no control over marriage. This is bad.
You are captitulating a significant (and defensible) position, for a tenuous and ephemeral one.
If, as you assert, the state has no defense of traditional marraige - the void will fill with Gay marriage. Guarantee it.
We need folks willing to stand up and defend marriage on the grounds that it is a crucial part of Western Society and that the state doesn’t get to choose. Marriage is marriage. It will outlast the state, far longer than the state will exist without it.
Too many conservatives have bought into the libertarian ideal that we can have a society without marriage. No, we simply cannot. Society needs marriage, and we need to fight from this position here, right in the firing line. Why? Because we can win here.
If we go back and say, “this isn’t our fight”, then it will be that much harder to set things right again. Maybe that doesn’t mean much to you, but it means a lot to me.
I especially don’t appreciate those folks who are already married picking up a position like that. It hurts young folks, especially those who are trying to do the right thing in the face of considerable opposition. Yes, when I get married it will be in the Church - by a priest and no one else.
If you’re going to toss away the state recognition of that marriage because that’s not a fight you want - then yes, that is going to anger me. Maybe you don’t value that - but look at the opposition. They want to take this away and you are giving it to them. For nothing.
“You are not giving up what marriage means.”
Yes, yes, it amounts to the same thing.
“You are confusing power given to clergy by God with power given by the state.”
Let me speak to you very clearly. You are not a Catholic. You are a protestant. Your beliefs of marriage as a sacrament are not the same as ours.
Your faith implicitly attacks the authority of the priest, as well as the unity of the sacraments, the indissolubility of marriage, the licitness of contraception. Ours holds to all of these things and always has.
That our priests have the ability to marry and that this is recognized by the government without question - is a significant civil power.
This power has always rested with Catholic priests in America. This is not so in the United Kingdom - when for a very long time, your brethren in faith killed priests who performed the sacraments, including marriage. Who, for a long time, barred Catholics from voting and from holding office.
We are not going to give back something you took away from us. Certainly not so that we can go back to our quiet little ghetto in faith you had put us in many years before.
“As society goes down the toilet we can choose to be a part of it or separate ourselves from it.”
We lived once in a society that hunted us down. In the United Kingdom no less. We’ll still be there long after you’ve faded away down whatever gay marriage quarrel has been taken up.
No - we won’t cede something won with the blood of the martyrs. Many who shed their lives so that we had the freedom to marry.
Will you?
First, there is no such thing as a same-sex marriage. The very definition of marriage makes this impossible.
Second, marriage is religious. Its origin is religious. Government saw what a great idea marriage is so it was recognized and codified in law.
If the people demanding ‘separation of church and state’ were honest then all marriage licenses would have to be voided, since marriage is originally a religious covenant.
Government can recognize marriage. Government cannot define marriage.
Ahh, ok. Turkey has some bad historical precedent with that under Ataturk and from long ago.
It’s an important bulwark of the Faith to keep this connection between the Church and the sacraments with the state. Separation between Church and state never covered this, nor was it intended to mean this.
Then you should be able to find a document saying this is what was intended by it. Wall of separation isn’t in the constitution btw.
If this doesn’t get people to rise up and to some civil disobedience, nothing will. I can’t imagine Muslems tolerating this so why should Christins?
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.