Friday, December 07, 2012

Letter dated...

...April 19th 2012, from 10 Downing Street London SW1, to Mrs Joanna Bogle:

"We are proposing no changes to how religious organisations define and solemnise religious marriages and we are very clear that a marriage through a religious ceremony and on religious premises will continue to be only legally possible between a man and a woman." (emphasis original)

Now read the latest  statement from David Cameron, of 10 Downing Street London SW1.

That April letter went on "We recognise  the vital role that religious organisations have in our society, and we are clear on the importance of religious freedom.  That is why the Government are listening and working with all religious organisations tht have concerns about this. I hope you will find that reassurring."

No, I did not find it reassurring. And I was right.

Nothing that Cameron could now say - ever - would reassure me.


Rabies Theologorum said...

So how will a priest be able to be also a registrar. The church will have to say NO. Its Ne Temere again.

Joanna Bogle said...

The simplest thing will simply be to de-register churches for marriages, so that, as in some European countries, civil marriage will be separate from the Sacrament of Matrimony celebrated in church.

This could be relatively straightforward and could be the best option. Catholics might still decide to go through some legal form too if they wished (eg for any tax or legal advantages that this might bring), but - as now - only the sacrament, validly celebrated in the presence of a priest and witnesses etc, would be what mattered.

It is not really the Church saying NO. It is the church being free to get on with its YES to marriage, free from involvement with a State which no longer defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. See my earlier post on this subject.

Ne Temere was a decree relating to a rather different situation and not relevant here.

Ronald Crane said...

The trouble will still be that we shall have two quite distinct institutions called "marriage". One that has the three fold meaning of i) being open to the possibility of children, ii) sex and iii) the relationship of the couple at its heart; the other will be devoid of any possibility of children. This second meaning will only relate to the inner desires of the couple and have little or no community aspect to it. Confusion reigns.

Rabies Theologorum said...

Thanks for the reply. Yes I understand about priests no longer registering a civil marriage. Might there not be a problem in Catholics going through a civil registration of marriage. I presume the government are not going to have separate marriage certs for gay and hetero marriage. It will be the same document if you are gay or striaght. So what you envisage is that after a marrige before a priest there will be a civil ceremony which legally contracts a legal marriage. Some Catholics will have a problem with this - they will not want to sign a document of marriage which has the equivalence to a gay marriage even before the law. You could try and go to a solicitor and draw up contracts to try and get the rights ect that you need re next of kin, wills, ect. Mortgages? Ne Temere -I was a bit obscure about this - it obliged where there was a Catholic partner to marry before a priest and witnesses thus replacing tamestsi from Trent. But it recognised the validity of non catholics who had married even in a civil fashion. Dare I mention the nature of consummation? In the recusant period Tamesti had to be published in parishes, clearly the decree could not be published in the uk as there was not an existing parish or diocese. So what you find is marriage in secret and then sometimes validated by a priest. Yes Ne Temere was a different issue but not so different if you think about the point of it. I suspect the Holy See will have to make a new statement about Catholic marriage in such circumstances.

Anyway, tell me what your new book is about?