In view of the size of the majority in the House of Commons voting for same-sex marriage it would be prudent for the Bishops of England and Wales to put plans in place to protect the sacrament of marriage from legal actions by homosexual activists attempting to coerce the Church to conduct pseudo-’marriages’.
The first stage of planning this separation would be to examine the implications of separating the sacrament of marriage from registration of the marriage with the State. At present a number of priests, deacons and lay people are official registrars and state marriage registers are kept on church premises.
The second stage would be to discuss with the government the process of separating the Catholic church’s conduct of weddings from the registration of marriage with the State.
The third stage would be for all Catholic parishes to hand back the civil registers on the same day as a public demonstration that the Church is separating the sacrament of marriage from the UK State’s provision of civil marriage.
From this point onward couples marrying in the Catholic Church would, like some other countries in Europe, have to arrange a separate civil marriage and separate reception of the sacrament of marriage.
Of course other plans should also be put in place if the European Court of Human Rights ruled that Churches in the UK had to conduct pseudo-homosexual marriage.
The Bishops of England and Wales need to begin putting plans in place as a matter of urgency because it takes them years to sort anything out. It takes them years just to agree drafts of documents.
There should also be new instruction to Catholic schools on the importance of forming pupils on the correct form of marriage
What happened in parliament today is no doubt disappointing but we shouldn’t be skulking in sadness for long. This is time for Catholics, for all Christians to recommit ourselves to religious freedom, marriage and life
In politics nothing is permanent, what was decided today can be changed and can be undone
I think it will be difficult to undo this, at least for the forseeable. Mrs (X)MCCLXIII and I were discussing this earlier; I’m afraid I don’t see any likelihood for change unless there is a strong persecution, enough to turn the opinion of our political “elite” against the new intolerance. But I doubt that will happen – the persecution will be subtle; Catholics and other men of good will won’t go to gaol, we’ll just have our livelihoods taken away and our children corrupted.
God have mercy on us.
I suppose there’s no point any longer in a faithful Catholics“` being “married” in the state’s eyes. Perhaps it makes sense to opt out of state-controlled “marriage”. After all, if its foundation can be whipped out like this …
Bad news, Nick.
What you are suggesting is illegal. Fake marriages are illegal, but the law isn’t enforced.
Furthermore, not all people (especially foreigners) will realise that they will not be legally married.
Point of information: my mother couldn’t speak a word of English when she married in this country.
So much for same-sex unions strengthening marriage, eh?
British Parliament Redefines Marriage by Fr Dwight Longnecker
‘The implications of the British Parliament’s re-definition of marriage are very ominous indeed, and the ignorant arrogance of their lawmakers is breath taking.
Think about it for a moment. Nowhere, not in any time or any place, not in any culture or civilization from the most primitive jungle dwelling tribe to the most sophisticated society has marriage between two people of the same gender ever been contemplated. Some societies have accepted homosexuality or been lenient toward such practices, but no one has ever suggested that marriage could ever be between two men or between two women.
The idea that British lawmakers can take it upon themselves to change such a fundamental understanding of what it means to be human is simply incredible. I realize that they believe they are simply voting on an “equality issue”. This is not so. They have voted on a historic and fundamentally different definition of marriage. They have not voted to open marriage up. They have voted to destroy marriage.
Already “marriage” in our society is practically meaningless. Easy no fault divorce and multiple marriages, marriages that take place most anywhere with people writing their own ‘vows’ with their own ‘ministers’. The whole thing is a charade–a grotesque and hideous mockery of marriage, and the result will be that marriage will be meaningless. Weddings will be nothing but a sentimental display of self indulgence and the marriage itself will be a sham.
It is time now for the Catholic Church to withdraw completely from the civil side of marriage. A man and woman who wish to be married should go to the civil authority to sign necessary papers, then if they want to have a sacramental marriage let them come to the priest.
Most of the Protestant churches have caved on divorce and re-marriage long ago. They will also cave on homosexual marriage. Within a very short time now, the Catholic Church will be the only place to receive a truly Christian wedding.
When the time comes to stand up for marriage as God intended, what I fear is not so much the attacks from those outside the church, but the attacks from those within. Already there are numerous voices among the Catholic clergy who are quietly in favor of homosexual “marriage”–and they will turn their ruthless guns of kindness on all who stand firm.
I can hear them now with their weasly words and their sickly smiles of artificial kindness, “We really must offer a warm welcome to all of God’s children and grant them the love and acceptance of the sacrament…”
It makes me want to puke.’
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2013/02/british-parliament-redefines-marriage.html
He seems to be calling for the same thing that you are Deacon Nick, on separating civil marriage and sacramental marriage
The real question is when will our Bishops and Cardinals wake up and EXCOMMUNICATE the “Catholic”politicians who support and promote this abomination.
Since there appear to be no appreciable benefits from being married in the eyes of the state these days there would seem to be a clear case for couples ignoring the whole civil registration business and simply marrying in the Church.
Deacon Nick
Will it be safe to do that though in view of the Call to Action lot?
Marriage as recognised and provided for in civil statute law built on the common law recognition of the union of one man’s and one woman for life as solemnised, inter alia, by the Catholic Church. It is the civil law which is purporting to alter the natural and ancient meaning of marriage, by providing for its dissolution, and now by purporting to recognise unions between two men or two women as marriage. It is the civil law that has moved away from natural, family-based marriage to something wholly other, something necessarily opposed to the true, universal meaning of marriage. For quite a long time, the “marriage” as described by the civil law has deviated from natural marriage as recognised and solemnised by the Catholic Church (along with the supernatural, holy dimension). The Catholic Church does not solemnise the altered view of marriage now provided for under civil law, but true, natural marriage as it has always existed. The Carholic Church has not changed what it recognises and solemnises, and marriages so solemnised by the Church are unchanged. However, the Church does cooperate with registration of those marriages for the purposes of their recognition under civil law. I think the civil law ought to continue to recognise Catholic marriages as also constituting marriage for civil purposes. Otherwise, Catholics married according to the rite of the Church will not be recognised as married under the civil law, and many faithful Carholics who uphold the true, objective nature of marriage, will not (rightly) want to get “married” by the secular means provided by the civil law, which has a wrong, severely distorted definition of marriage. This would leave such married Catholic couples without the civil recognition and ancillary rights and protections which ought rightfully flow from marriage.
“From this point onward couples marrying in the Catholic Church would, like some other countries in Europe, have to arrange a separate civil marriage and separate reception of the sacrament of marriage.”
I was discussing this with the Vicar General the other day. My question to him was whether the same-sex marriage legislation would have the effect of so changing the statutory meaning of the term ‘marriage’ that the requirements of the civil law as to formalities – and the invalidating effects of failure to observe them – applied no longer to true marriage, but only to a civil union of a different description. He didn’t seem to think so. The Bishops, though, probably do think so judging by the briefing they submitted to Parliament.
If I am correct, then it seems that, once the Bill becomes law, the failure to observe civil formalities in the UK will not prevent a marriage from being valid in the eyes of God. In that case, the Church can offer a service to the wider community in recognising and registering true marriages whether contracted in Church or between non-Catholics in a private ceremony before witnesses.
As Marriage will no longer be legally defined as having anything to do with love, a relationship of mutual reciprocity, sexual consummation, sexual fidelity, cohabitation etc – let alone the rearing of children.
marriage is being abolished.
Replaced with an eidolon which contains neither the intention nor the form of any heretofore understanding of marriage.
To the extent that what were once recognised as valid marriages among non-Catholic baptised baptised couples – will not be validated by this ‘new marriage’ ‘non-contract’
So is this disastrous new legislation merely an unust law – or an intrinsically unjust law?
If it is intrinsically unjust [and I have yet to hear or see any informed Catholic argue it isn't] – we have major problems.
Because we may be forbidden from engaging in the civil marriage process in any way.
It might get to the farcical situation where Catholics marrying in a Church are forbidden from going through a civil marriage ceremony as it scandalises and conspires against the very vows they’d made in the Nuptial Mass
Catholics being deprived of/proscribed from civil marriage with all its legal/socio-economic benefits/safeguards…
http://onthesideoftheangels.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/can-catholics-in-full-conscience-enter.html
What we’re looking at is a future in which couples (whether or not Catholics are involved) are married in fact and in the eyes of divine and ecclesiastical law, but not in the eyes of the State. In that case, these couples would be classified for civil purposes as “living together as though they were married”.
The most important practical difference it would make is that the civil judiciary would have no jurisdiction over true marriages any more.
Practical difficulties would arrise as soon as things like inhertitance became an issue. I wouldn’t want the Church to be encouraging couples to go without the protections that civil marriage entails. Look at the problems some Muslim women face when they discover that their Sharia marriage isn’t recognised by the state.
We could have our own Catholic law. After all, the courts are now referring divorce cases to Jewish and Sharia courts.
First we should never vote for any of the major parties again but keep voting for Independants so that our so called representatives feel the pressure of opinion.
Secondly – why do the Bishops not quote from Scripture on this issue and warn people they are endangering their souls – surely their main task!
Third – we must withdraw from co-operation with the state as the Church is clearly under attack from it and our rights and freedoms are being actively undermind.
In Domino,
I have a better idea. The term ‘ekklesia’ was used to refer to the assembly of the people of a Greek city state for public purposes. Christians ought in their several places to assemble in the Holy Spirit and in their own right independently of the civil authorities to impeach those MPs who walked through the Aye lobby yesterday. Namely, that they are guilty of the high crime and misdemeanour of sedition against the institution of marriage and disloyalty to Her Majesty, and are unfit to serve Her on their oath. Wherefore it is lawful for Her Majesty to remove them from the Privy Council and to appoint them to an office disqualifying them from membership of the House of Commons.
Under s75 Marriage Act 1949 it is a criminal offence for anyone to solemnise a Marriage otherwise than in accordance with the Act. Therefore there would be legal problems with a Catholic Church solemnising a Religious Wedding for a couple without a Civil Legaly registered Marriage. It is fair to say this is done frequently with Muslim Marriages (a subject I have frequently Blogged about) without there being any prosecution however I would not be so sure that the Catholic Church would not be prosecuted in those circumstances.
If however the Church were to say that the couple can only have a Church marriage after they have been through a Civil Marriage ceremony in the Registry Office then that would be legal because the ceremony would be regarded in law as simply a private religious blessing. This, as Deacon Nick has mentioned, is what happens in much of Europe where couples go to the Town Hall for the legal registration of Marriage and then go to the Church for the “proper” marriage ceremony.
If anyone went to trial under s75 Marriage Act 1949, then a ruling would be required on a point of law. The statutory definition of a marriage is ‘a union for life between two persons to the exclusion of two others’. The true definition of marriage is ‘a union for life between a man and a woman to the exclusion of two others, established only by the exchange of the right to the body for the marital act’. ‘Marital act’ means the act of bodily union by which a child could be conceived. Either the statutory definion of ‘marriage’ includes this, or it excludes it.
Michael. The Same Sex marriage Bill if it becomes law will change this definition of marriage. No doubt if a Prosecution was brought under s75 there would be numerous possible defences to put forward. However nobody wants to see a Priest up in the Dock on such a charge hence the suggestion that Church Marriages might be held after the Civil Registration in a Registry Office which would avoid the danger. It is always best to try to avoid a legal danger rather than thinking up clever defences after a case has been brought.
Neil, permanent deacons and transitory deacons also face possible prosecution as they also officiate at the celebration of the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Deacon Nick
Dear Deacon Nick I do not want to see either a Catholic Deacon or a Priest in the Dock which is why I make the point that if a Civil Marriage has already been carried out in the Registry Office then there will be no criminal legal problems under the Marriage Act with regard to a subsequent Catholic Religious wedding
Neil, let’s go ahead with Nick’s idea and call the State’s bluff. It has consistently been stated that Sacremental Marriage won’t be affected.
A few priests (and imams) going to jail should start a few fires going!
What about the principle concerning the negation of mens rea? If I commit a criminal act while honestly believing in the existence of a fact which, if true, would negative the mental element of a crime, then I am entitled to an acquital. If I honestly believe that, in officiating at a heterobonding ceremony (true marriage), I am witnessing the establishment of a union which can be executed only by the exchange of the ius in corpus, then I am contemplating something other than marriage as civil law defines it to be.
Ok Neil but this is where we have a problem – in most countries there is a civil contract of mutual exclusive, spousal fidelity – even when they just affirm a presumptive contract.[i.e. nothing is directly stated to the contrary of presumed 'traditional' exclusive fidelity]
That won’t exist here. Because our government has made sure that any ‘assumptions for conformity’ with other understandings of marriage [e.g. among diverse faiths/cultures in their actuations of beng husband/wife/life partner/significant other/uncle tom cobley] – can’t exist. They’ve made it perfectly clear what constitutes marriage by excising the ‘unnecessary exigents’ like fidelity, sexual intimacy, cohabitation, even mutual recognition or interaction outside a brief signing ‘ceremony’.
‘Marriage’ – will have virtually no criteria at all – to the extent that SSM is diminished to the level of an automatic joint parent licence and a public oath of fidelity to one’s sexual orientation – not one’s spouse. There’s no marriage there!!
As such a ‘contract’ will include none of the corresponding canonical provisions to conform for validation among the baptised
[previously marriages among baptised non-Catholics going through a civil ceremony were automatically validated - this will cease to occur and lead to thousands who would have been heretofore married - living in sin]
- and as it intrinsically contravenes the very nature and end of marriage itself – it makes it an intrinsically unjust law
- we can’t get away with merely equivocating it away as an unjust law we have to deal with
- we’re not allowed to formally or proximately materially co-operate with it at all.
But now you’re saying that under this 1949 Act you can’t have a religious marriage without its State-recognised civil validity?
But The Catholic Church in this country does this every day through Radical Sanation – Convalidation of ‘marriages’ where two unmarried baptised confirmed their life-long relationship by being together until a spousal death.
We declare marriages as valid [irrespective of any civil contract] all the time.
Surely you must have known this?
So – let me get this straight:
If Catholics are forbidden from co-operating with an intrinsically unjust law [e.g. participating in a civil marriage which directly contravenes and negates and is further diammetrically opposed to one's prospective nuptial vows]…and in full conscience could not conspire with such a scandalous intrinsically unjust law..
…they would be forbidden by law to have a sacramental marriage in Church?!!!
You’re now telling us that if we follow a strict moral adherence of CDF & Papal directives…
Catholics are about to be banned from getting married in any way at all?
Their consciences preventing them conspiring with an anti-matrimonial marriage law which they must undergo to legally go through a sacramental ceremony?
You’re a legal advisor to Catholic Voices yes?
Surely in their position paper research into marriage they must have discovered this massive technicality?
Why haven’t we heard anything about this from them? Or from any Church leader or the CCN?
Forgive me – but there are potential earth-shattering ramifications to all this…
there are questions about the grounds for divorce which will hopefully be answered in the later stages of the bill. I don’t think you can be quite right though in regarding removal of adultry by heterosexual penetration as resulting in the abolition of infidelity as a requirement for marriage. I imagine that if I participated in anal or oral sex with a woman who was not my wife, my wife would have grounds for divorce under the current law even though under the current law I might not have committed adultary. Not that I plan on doing such things – I can’t even spell adultery.
Sorry Paul but I think you are engaged in ridiculous semantic gymnastics about Catholics not being able to enter Civil Marriages under the revised Marriage Act. This would not be co-operating in a unjust law merely ensuring Civil Legal rights for the individuals concerned.
As for Radical Sanation involves the Church recognising a Civil but not Catholic Marriage so it has no relevance to this debate.
I humbly suggest that Holy Mother Church, that is Rome, could inform the Bishop’s Conference that the Sacrament of Marriage must be saved in England and Wales, in such a way that the man and woman taking vows in a Catholic Chuch will be able to say that we received the Sacrament of Matrimony, in the Catholic Church of —- on —– date. The Sacrament of Matrimony is what is says it is. Good title, easily understood and distinguishable that this Sacrament took place in a Catholic Church. The legal part of the marriage may take place at the Register Office involving the Approved Person for the said Church, a few days before or even on the day itself.
My concern is how many couples who were intending to take their vows in a Catholic Church may now ask
DOES MARRIAGE MEAN WHAT IT MEANT BEFORE 5TH FEBRUARY 2013?
Valentine’s Day is a traditional day for proposing – I ask myself will yesterday’s result in the Parliament have a detrimental effect on many people?
That is the question posed to me by my son who is a law student. ‘This country has gone upside down, I will not vote Conservative again’. He is right and I am proud of him.
Kinga Grzeczynska LLB
Please explain how being forced to sign a contract which affirms and endorses the exact opposite of the principles of one’s faith to the point of contravention – in order to be permitted to marry – is not a crucial issue which might give us recourse to ask the CDF ‘Are we still allowed to get married?’ ? Far from semantic gymnastics this is about being a potential accessary to a canonical crime. Glib dismissals won’t wash. Good cogent reasons with citations which answer the CDF considerations and tells us how we can do what Cardinal Ratzinger says we can’t – might! Over to you
Paul. Life being short and I being busy I do not intend to continue this discussion with you however try to think for a minute about the implications of what you are suggesting
According to you
(1) Catholics cannot live together without being married because that is a sin
(2) Catholics cannot enter a Civil Marriage because (according to you) this would be a sin
(3) Catholics cannot marry in Church without a Civil Marriage because that would be a crime
Ergo: According to you Catholics can neither live together nor marry and must all remain celibate until the Catholic population of Britain dies out
Well if you want to tell people that is the position go ahead but I am sorry you are talking nonsense.
“Please explain how being forced to sign a contract which affirms and endorses the exact opposite of the principles of one’s faith to the point of contravention”
The contract is not with the state, it is with your marriage partner. The civil declaration and vows (ie the contract) in England are:
“I do solemnly declare that I know not of any lawful impediment why I, __may not be joined in matrimony to __
I call upon these persons here present to witness that I, __do take thee, __, to be my lawful wedded husband/wife. ”
I fail see how any Catholic can be committing a sin making those promises to their partner. They may not capture the whole Catholic understanding of marriage but they do not contradict it.
Paul, if I may add my comment.
Convalidation can take place in the Catholic Church after or many years after of the original cermony of marriage which included all the legal necessities ie: declarations which are audible to the Registrar or Approved Person and are in English, not being drunk, no daft comments during the declarations, from relatives who think they are John Bishop in disguise etc.
The crux of the matter is that at the time of Convalidation, the Catholic Church is not making a marriage legal by the Law of England and Wales, because it is already legal in the first instance. The aim of the Convalidation is to bless the couple – husband and wife – with their vows, infront of the Lord God in the church.
They may have already been married for years and years but not in a Catholic Church with a Catholic Priest, Deacon or a licensed lay catechist, authorised by the Ordinary, performing the cermony.
Every Cathoilc is bound to contract marriage in the canonical forms. Convalidation is not a Sacrament.
There is God’s Law and there is the Law of England and Wales. Today, very much on the opposite sides, I am sad to say.
Kinga Grzeczynska
In the Holy Bible Marriage is a Union between a Man and a Woman
Mothing Else and the Machinations of Anti Christians and Anti Catholics
will Not Change that
The Sacrament of Marriage is Something God Linked and Not to be Secularized