Skip to comments.Future of Catholic weddings in Britain in doubt, MPs and Peers told
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 Camerons gay marriage bill, the churchs 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 problem, he said, is that under a system in place since 1895, Catholic priests act as an authorised person to marry couples in place of a registrar.
Given the decline in church weddings, this may be the path to reinvigorating the Sacrament of Matrimony. People often gravitate towards an event that separates them from the masses. Essentially, adopting the French model may prove to be a blessing.
I have seen this approach peddled before.
I am 100 percent opposed to it.
If the state has control, they can very simply say that Catholic marriages will no longer be recognized, and deny recognition of anyone who is married in the Catholic church.
Is that really what I want. I am despairing here. I am an unmarried Catholic, seriously considering marrying. :(
It makes me very, very sad to see good and well meaning Catholics coming forward and saying that this is something that they want, when it has no affect on their marriage, but destroys ours. :(
That is why in France the weddings is done in front of the JP than once that is done, the church wedding can take place. Both are seperate ceromonies.
Why not have God-approved covenant marriages performed by the church, and ungodly marriages performed by the godless state?
I think having a state wedding and then a private religios ceramony is the answer
The government is now turning on the Christian churches. Catholic hospitals are being forced to supply birth control, soon ministers and priests who refuse to conduct weddings according to state mandates will face “hate” speech laws.
It’s coming and it’s coming fast. Fascism.
Disagree with that - the understanding under the common (and not civil), is that the priests do have the right to marry under the state and such marriages are recognised as legitimate under the government.
I don’t want the French system here.
Why have the government interpose? It’s not the government that creates marriage - marriage predates the government.
Really? You want your children to have something different then you yourself had?
This is bad. No. I don’t want a civil marriage. I want a real church wedding. If I wanted a civil marraige I’d just go down to Vegas.
It is costing me a lot of time and money to do things right the first time. Now you’re telling me that it counts for nothing. :(
Exactly. This is bait and switch. Make it so that church weddings are no longer recognized, then quietly shut the door.
.....And so is revolt.
But the sad reality is that the French way of practice could very well come here.
Well, then, have a real Church wedding.
This changes nothing in that regard. In the eyes of the Church, you are married with the real Church wedding.
You can consider going to the JP just a licensing thing. To get the State to acknowledge what has already happened in truth.
You married Mark?
If if was good enough for you - why are you changing it for us?
Why isn’t it good enough that we get the *exact* same thing you had?
“But the sad reality is that the French way of practice could very well come here.”
This is a fatal compromise that will sell everything away with a stroke. :(
No. and Hell No.
Apparently it’s not a real marriage when only the priest does it!
You need to get with the times, Dr. Sivana.
If if was good enough for you - why are you changing it for us?
Actually, I was married in Turkey (to another American btw).
The religious sacrament is completely separated from the state procedure (for the state procedure, we went into a magistrate's office and signed some papers and got the license).
And, btw, that's the way anybody who was stationed in Turkey got married. American, Brit, or otherwise.
It seems to have worked well for my wife and myself for the past 24 years.
And, btw, my previous wife (who passed away) and I also had separate State and religious (sacramental) ceremonies, as well.
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.
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.
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?
Yep, execute a legal marriage contract at a state office.
Let me explain.IMO the central issue is an effort by the forces of depravity to damage the Church (or any faith that acknowledges God's word on the subject of marriage).In that effort they hope (it would seem to me) to get all such churches out of the marriage "business" or force them to join twelve men,fifteen women and three goats in "Holy Matrimony".IMO there's a relatively easy way around that effort,as I've already described.Yes,you are correct to call for decent people to stand up for marriage...as it's been known since the dawn of civilization because,apart from God's teachings,it's simply the reasonable,decent thing to do.That's a "philosophical" position.It's the practical aspects of this issue that I'm addressing.
I think the practical aspects can’t be divorced from the philosophical here. It may be practical - but that’s far from saying it’s the correct move here.
What reason would we have for supporting the state in such a division?
What advantage would we gain from such? Absolutely nothing. The argument, “but the state would force us to do something we hate” is bullocks.
Let them sue the Church into oblivion.
Let them try. They will stir up the hurricane if they try to impede the sacraments. We will fight it and we will win.
Why, please explain. Thank-you.
The State can only recognize marriage. The State cannot deny something that they did not give in the first place.
Let homosexuals ‘invent’ a word to describe their actions, but the word “marriage” has already been defined.
Just like the Boy Scouts, homosexuals want to redefine something already existing instead of creating their own.
There'd be no support whatsoever involved here.Speak out for *real* marriage as a matter of common decency while,at the same time,recognizing that this legislation is likely to be enacted.Remember,a few years back a law was passed in Britain saying that *all* adoption agencies must place kids into homosexual "families".When the Catholic Church (and,I assume,others as well) demanded an exemption they were turned down.The result was that the Catholic Church shut down all their agencies in the country.That's how far ahead of us Britain is in the race toward Sodom and Gomorrah.
It would help if the protestants fought with us instead of against us, btw. We are few and you are many, but that will change and rather quickly.
They can attempt to impede the sacraments, it will fail. Even the last time they did this.
Marriage predates the state. It predates ‘America’. It even predates ‘England’.
There were dioceses, bishops and priests all performing marriage.
Arguing that marriage depends on the state creates the wrong relation - the ‘infrastructure’ as it can be put was there before, sometimes long before the state, and long before the nation state concept of Westphalia.
Long before separation doctrines under Locke came about. It was revolutionary in the 18th century.
In other words, the state does not ‘define’ marriage, nor does it ‘create’ marriage. The state merely recognizes marriage.
At present, the relationship is marriage -> state. The priests marry someone and the state recognises it. This leads to conflict with gay marriage, which is attempting to invert the relationship to:
State -> marriage.
So rather than fight this battle over rightly ordered priorities, the fight is to
State || Marriage.
What that leaves is a vacuum. The State needs marraige, so if we divorce sacramental marriage from the state, the state will fill that void with ‘something else’.
When it does - it will also eventually demand recognition of said ‘marriage’, which is the same boat we are in.
Except then - the state just has to bar recognition of Catholic marriage. Since you’ve conceded that the state can do whatever it wants wrt marriage - it can do just this.
It won’t take very long. The real battle is the first one. Gay marriage proponents want to divorce the state from sacramental marriage. They can’t do that unless they get this separation doctrine to divide us.
When it comes to the sacrement of marriage, the clergy are a WITNESS to the couple who is getting married. The couple peform the marriage.
I wonder if Muslim clerics will be performing gay Muslim weddings?