...is the lifelong union of a man and a woman. The Church knows that marriage between baptised Christians is a sacrament - Holy Matrimony - a source of grace, a rich and living reality linked to Christ's union with his Church, a mystery at the heart of our Faith.
If the Government wants to impose on Britain the notion of marriage as a union between two people of the same sex, it is going to be neccesary to explain that there can be no question of this ever involving any sort of event or ceremony linked to the Church. The most efficient way to do this would be simply to break the link of the Church with any form of legal marriage: the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in Church would be unconnected with any civil ceremony taking place in a local registry office. A Catholic man and woman marrying in church might or might not choose to go through a legal ceremony too: as far as the Church is concerned, only the Church's sacramental marriage is valid anyway.
Until now, the Church has sought to co-operate with the civil authorities because it makes sense for the Church to act as legal registrar for marriages that take place in church. But this will change if the civil authorities redefine marriage.
There are a number of practical advantages in simply de-registering churches, and it will of course also save the clergy the bother of extra paperwork. The Church's own paperwork already neccesarily keeps them busy: each bride and groom have to show evidence of baptism, of being free to marry (ie not married already, not under a vow of celibacy etc), and so on.
In the past, some people sought to marry in church who were not eligible to do so - eg people who were divorced and whose previous spouse was still living. But when the Church gently explained that this was not possible, they did not sue. Under planned legislation, and in the current climate, the Church could be vulnerable to legal challenges unless it is made clear that there can never be any offer of any form of legal marriage in a Catholic church, and that all that the Church can offer is Holy Matrimony, on the terms God offers.
A Church-married-but-not-state-married couple might feedl they had some legal need to consolidate their status by going through a legal procedure, eg for tax purposes, and the Church would not prevent them from doing this. If they wanted to divorce, that would not alter their being married in the eyes of God. With today's divorce practices, which are often unjust (fathers denied the right to see their children, etc) , the Church does well to remain unconnected with the tangles of it all.
Freedom for the Church is going to be a major issue in the years ahead, both in Britain and in other Western nations. For a useful comment on the position in the USA, read here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
When you write "as far as the Church is concerned, only the Church's sacramental marriage is valid anyway", are you sure this is true? Would it not suggest that only those married in a Catholic church would be validly married? I distinctly remember ++Vincent state quite recently that the Church recognises civil marriage.
Good idea. Simply break the link. There's no particular reason a husband and wife should be forced to be civilly married if they can claim better tax and benefits as civilly single.
When my husband and I married over 20 years ago, we actually asked our priest whether we could have a sacramental marriage without the legal component, as this reflected our priorities and our beliefs about what marrying meant, and we wanted to be able to witness to that.
I think this separation would be an excellent step...and a positive one. It would provide clarity on the distinction between legal and sacramental marriage for the couple, their friends/family, and the wider community, and be a wonderful opportunity to witness to faithful intent for believers.
I do not think this would get round the problem of a same-sex couple demanding a religious ceremony in a Catholic church. They would still be able to claim discrimination.
Nicholas: well, they could try. But since they couldn't get any form of legal marriage in a Cath church, they would be trying to force a clergyman by law to carry out a church service to their particular specification, and there is no option in law for that. It would be like trying to take a cafe to court to insist on its offering a particular recipe for cupcakes on the grounds that the customer felt offended by that recipe being unavailable.
But I think the problem would be that the Church offers to marry people and this would be seen as a service in the secular sense. It would be discriminatory not to provide it to a same-sex couple as the law would not see the difference between a heterosexual couple and a same-sex couple.
Dear Anonymous (top comment): you need to read the whole sentence. For baptised Catholics, the only valid marriage is a sacramental one, conducted in a Catholic Church (or w. the permission of the Church, elsewhere, eg in an Anglican church). The position is different for non-Catholics, and the Church of course honours that: but in this context, the issue is what the Church recognises for her own children.
Nicholas: as I said, people could try to test this in the courts. But the law does not see church worship as providing a service in the secular sense: that is why, for example, an attempt to force a priest to baptise a favourite pet, or use a particular form of cake for the Eucharist in lieue of bread, or whatever, doesn't work. Things could be different in the case of hiring out a church hall for a same-sex celebration party: that is the sort of area where difficulties are likely to arise.
If I may change the topic somewhat: Cardinal Dolan has proposed reintroducing meatless Fridays for the US. England reintroduced it for just over a year already. May I ask if it has been well received, and has it borne any fruit so far?
I do think it is important not to get into a muddle here. The legislation (we are told) will contain a clause which will forbid churches to conduct same-sex marriages. Lawyers I heard commenting said that it is most unlikely that the ECHR would overturn this. What may be overturned is the the ban on churches conducting these ceremonies: some churches will want to conduct them and may be able to get the ban overturned. In practice there may be no real threat to the mainstream Christian concept of marriage being between a man and a woman.
Where have we been told that The legislation ... will contain a clause which will forbid churches to conduct same-sex marriages.?
In ordere to be "valid" a marriage has to be consumated. What does this mean if the couple are of the same sax?
Ronald
Even if provisions were put in place to safeguard churches who do not wish to host and conduct same-sex marriage, it will not take long for a gay-affirming Parliamentarian to table an amendment to revoke/amend that provision simply because the 2004 CPA gives rise to an obligation of consistency. What is currently proposed as same-sex civil "marriage" will eventually change into a religious "marriage". Then of course, we do have dissent within our ranks and it will not take long for them to plea "equal choice". Notwithstanding the fact that it will still be invalid.
God bless
Sonia
According to friends of mine in a civil union, the only difference between a civil union and marriage in law is that a civil union does not have to be consummated and it cannot be dissolved on grounds of adultery. They don't particularly want the law changed so they can say they are married officially, as they regard themselves as married already. I think changing the law to allow marriage between same sex couples will only give work to lawyers and gossip to newspapers as the first divorces on the grounds of adultery hit the headlines.
I never gave up Friday fish day Combine it with the Our Lady of Sorrows Rosary And you will feel the benifit . Moya
Post a Comment