I hope readers have already taken note of George Weigel’s very striking suggestion in these pages yesterday that the Catholic Church should preemptively withdraw from involvement in civil marriage:
It seems important to accelerate a serious debate within American Catholicism on whether the Church ought not pre-emptively withdraw from the civil marriage business, its clergy declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law.
If the Church were to take this dramatic step now, it would be acting prophetically: it would be challenging the state (and the culture) by underscoring that what the state means by “marriage” and what Catholics mean by “marriage” are radically different, and that what the state means by “marriage” is wrong. If, however, the Church is forced to take this step after “gay marriage” is the law of the land, Catholics will be pilloried as bad losers who’ve picked up their marbles and fled the game—and any witness-value to the Church’s withdrawal from the civil marriage business will be lost. Many thoughtful young priests are discussing this dramatic option among themselves; it’s time for the rest of the Church to join the conversation.
It’s a considered but dramatic proposal from one of American Catholicism’s most prominent figures. Which is to say, big news.
Prominent canon lawyer Ed Peters, though, has doubts:
It is painful, of course, to watch the State’s definition of marriage careen toward something unrecognizable under natural or ecclesiastical law, but eliminating true marriages from the pool of unions treated as marriage by the State is not the solution to the State’s errors. Moreover, if the day arrives wherein State power is turned against a pastor who refuses a “gay wedding”, we must and will refuse cooperation with that simulation of a sacrament (e.g. 1983 CIC 841, 1379) as best we can (e.g. 1983 CIC 1370 § 3, 1373). But, that day has not arrived yet and I see no need to surrender societal goods (such as the convenience, and even meetness, of civil recognition of Catholic weddings) that have not yet been demanded of us.
For my part, I would hope that Catholics would be able to take any such step along with their evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters. The groundwork for such cooperation has already been laid by the Manhattan Declaration and Evangelicals and Catholics Together, which most recently issued “In Defense of Religious Freedom,” a call for Evangelicals and Catholics to stand shoulder-to-shoulder in resisting encroachments on religious liberty that received an enormous response when evangelical Protestant institutions filed suit alongside their Catholic counterparts against the HHS mandate.
November 15th, 2012 | 1:50 pm
I remember the client-side producer of a film I worked on telling me, sardonically, “Some people think “interfaith” means working with Catholics.”
I think you’re going to need a more expansive conception of religious liberty or you’re going to get crushed.
November 15th, 2012 | 1:57 pm
We are seeing some leadership. In Minnesota, the Church had stood up and told a 17 year old boy he cannot be confirmed because he opposed the Pro-Marriage Constitutional Amendment.
November 15th, 2012 | 2:10 pm
The day is simply not going to come in the United States when a priest will be in legal jeopardy for refusing to marry a same-sex couple. I understand the seriousness of the concerns Catholics have about the contraceptive mandate, but even should it be upheld unanimously in the Supreme Court, that would put the US government not one step closer to having the ability to tell a Catholic priest whom he must marry. I am sure there are many divorced Catholics who would like to remarry in the Church. Does anybody think they can use laws that bar discrimination based on marital status to force the Church to allow them to marry?
There may be many threats yet to come from what Weigel oddly calls the “gay insurgency,” but forcing Catholic priests to marry same-sex couples is not one of them.
November 15th, 2012 | 2:39 pm
“Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused. The Christian conception of marriage is one: the other is the quite different question – how far Christians, if they are voters or Members of Parliament, ought to try to force their views of marriage on the rest of the community by embodying them in the divorce laws. A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one. I do not think that. At least I know I should be very angry if the Mahommedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine. My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.” – C.S. Lewis, ‘Mere Christianity’
The application to SSM seems obvious to me.
November 15th, 2012 | 4:03 pm
“I would hope that Catholics would be able to take any such step along with their evangelical Protestant brothers and sisters.”
Matt your comments on George’s gulp-moment statement say it best, we need to get together with our Evangelical bros and sises on it. But I agree with him in that not to take this step right now would be to lose the teaching moment as it were and an advantage that will counter the culture…..but we can get together with the evangels pronto and get this on the move.
I disagree with Ed Peters that we would be acting imprudently ……. his echoes the voice of the politically correct, opportunist rather than the moral imperative the Church always sees the need for …and acts on ….even though many saw her as acting ‘imprudently,’ vis a vis the Humanae Vitae.
As for David’s comments that we’ll have to get a ‘more expansive view of what religious liberty is’….. surely he isn’t suggesting we need to finesse the gay marriage thing here?
November 15th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
Typically, David Nichol misconstrues the issue to make Weigel look bad. The contention is not that some federal agent will force Fr. O’Brien to marry Adam and Steve.
Rather, the potential problem is that Catholic priests will lose the ability to function as a civil official for the purposes of marriage, meaning that Catholic couples will have to obtain both a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.
This is already the practice in many countries, a legacy of state persecution of the church. It is not a precedent to follow.
November 15th, 2012 | 5:24 pm
On the substance of Weigel’s proposal I am wary.
Getting the Catholic church of the civil marriage business will mean that Catholic couples will have to obtain both a civil marriage and a sacramental one.
For some, those committed to the church, this will simply be an extra hassle. You already have to obtain a civil marriage license, so you would just stick around a little longer at the town hall/courthouse to make it a civil marriage (depending, of course, of individual state laws, some of which have waiting periods, which would necessitate an extra trip.)
For others, those marginally attached to the church, there will be a strong temptation simply to dispense with the Catholic ceremony altogether. Perhaps this is positive, in that people getting married in the church simply to please their families will no longer go through the motions. But it will mean that some couples will have even less contact with their church, even less of a chance to learn their faith.
In the long run, I would envision a further erosion of the Catholic sacramental vision of marriage if this plan came to fruition. It’s already one option among many; it will become the more difficult option among many in the future.
Since it is the practice in many countries already to require religious people to have a separate civil marriage, I wonder what evidence there is on the effect of this practice. Anecdotally, I’ve observed that it tends to produce an attitude that the civil wedding and church wedding are equal, and if you have one but not the other, that’s no big deal.
November 15th, 2012 | 6:27 pm
What is freedom of religion really about? Is it about the freedom to practice your religion, or is about freedom from any who would impose their religious beliefs on the rest of us?
Clearly the Bishops have lost on the subject of gay marriage when it comes to the public square. Like in the GOP there is a lot of howling going in conservative religious circles over this. But I would point out that the Church paid out about 2 million to defeat Gay Marriage in Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and Maryland. Could that money of not been put to better uses within the Church?
If the Church does not get out of the Civil Marriage business because of divorce what justification could it be when it comes to gay marriage?
Even the Vatican has recognized that they are now the lone voice in opposing gay marriage.
The days of the Evanglical Alliance is over. Evangelical will now have to respond to their youth who know LGBT people, and see nothing wrong with gay marriage, remember they don’t have a teaching magisterium.
What I find so ironic about this conversation is that you are blind to Uganda and the part that the Uganda Catholic Bishops are playing in supporting a new law to defend family, marriage, and children by calling for the death penality against homosexuals.
How can resonable people take your seriously?
November 15th, 2012 | 7:50 pm
Typically, David Nichol misconstrues the issue to make Weigel look bad. . . . Rather, the potential problem is that Catholic priests will lose the ability to function as a civil official for the purposes of marriage, meaning that Catholic couples will have to obtain both a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.
Dave (November 15th, 2012 | 5:14 pm),
I am confused. Are you the same person as Dave (November 15th, 2012 | 5:24 pm)? If so, then presumably you see that I did not misconstrue the issue. Clearly Weigel is saying the Catholic Church should consider, right now, voluntarily giving up its authority to perform civil and religious marriages simultaneously, lest at some time in the future it will be forced to give up the authority to perform civil weddings rather than face legal problems for refusing to perform same-sex weddings.
This is already the practice in many countries, a legacy of state persecution of the church. It is not a precedent to follow.
But Weigel is saying it should be followed (or at least seriously considered).
November 15th, 2012 | 10:48 pm
“But I would point out that the Church paid out about 2 million to defeat Gay Marriage in Minnesota, Maine, Washington, and Maryland. Could that money of not been put to better uses within the Church?”
No, and that’s a professional opinion.
November 16th, 2012 | 5:18 am
Perhaps, we should revert to the pre-Tridentine position, explained by Pope St Nicholas I in his well-known letter of Boris I of Bulgaria in 866.
After setting out the rituals customary in Rome, including the bestowal of a ring, the giving of dowry and dower by father and husband, a notary and priestly blessing, he explained that he was not saying that it was sinful (peccatum esse) to omit any of these customs, especially since some people could not afford them. “On this account,” Nicholas concluded, “according to the laws (leges), the consent of those whose union is arranged should be sufficient. If that alone is absent, all the other solemnities, even including coition, are in vain.” [PL 119, no. 97, pp. 978–1016 at 980]
As an eminent judge, Lord Stowell, once observed, “it is not unworthy of remark that amidst the manifold ritual provisions made by the Divine Lawgiver of the Jews for various offices and transactions of life there is no Ceremony prescribed for the celebration of marriage.”
In France, some have suggested the Church should recognize the civil ceremony, following it, if the couple so desire, with the Mass and Nuptial Blessing
November 16th, 2012 | 8:04 am
“Rather, the potential problem is that Catholic priests will lose the ability to function as a civil official for the purposes of marriage, meaning that Catholic couples will have to obtain both a civil marriage and a sacramental marriage.
This is already the practice in many countries, a legacy of state persecution of the church. It is not a precedent to follow.”
Excuse me, how is that some countries force couples to distinguish between civil and sacarmental marriage “a legacy of state persecution of the church”? I really fail to see the conection here.
November 16th, 2012 | 9:30 am
I would advise caution for folks saying “This will never happen” Most probably there were many millions of us who thought Abortion would never have been allowed by The Supremes and I know that I never, ever thought that our First Ammendment Right of Religious Freedom would ever be trashed! Just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it won’t!
November 16th, 2012 | 11:02 am
Hello Joe,
“The days of the Evangelical Alliance is over. Evangelical will now have to respond to their youth who know LGBT people, and see nothing wrong with gay marriage, remember they don’t have a teaching magisterium.”
Most evangelical churches are not going to change their teaching on sexual issues. The truly sola scriptura ones won’t be able to get around Romans 1:26-27.
They may adjust how they preach on it, but it’s just hard to see them ditching such a long standing, scripturally based teaching.
November 16th, 2012 | 11:23 am
Yesterday on facebook, people were ‘sharing’ a picture of a bumper sticker re: homosexual ‘marriage’: “If WE can’t marry, then YOU can’t divorce.’
At the end of the last century, a secular prophet spoke. ““Syndicated Columnist Geneva Overholser believes that churches will eventually approve of homosexual unions. Why? ‘I think in due time this thinking will change, just
as most churches’ opposition to divorce, for example, has changed,’”
http://tinyurl.com/ajnu5rr
So, until we evangelicals get back to a Christian definition of basics and explain them to our neighbors, don’t count on us.
November 16th, 2012 | 12:05 pm
@ Sergio: The ability or inability for church officers to perform a single ceremony that has both civil and eccesial effect is, clearly, tied to the church/state relations within that country.
In many countries where there was a history of a strong established church and a violent (or at least tumultuous) disestablishment, one of the effects has been to deny the formerly established church the powers it once had. One of these is marriage. State authorities wanted to take away as many powers of the church as possible, weakening a competitor for the people’s loyalty.
In the United States, where disestablishment was achieved peacefully, first at the federal level and then in the states, there has been less suspicion of religious officials and hence it’s no big deal that they act as civil officials for marriage purposes.
The problem is that many of the people who live in countries where it is common to have both a civil and eccesial wedding have gotten used to it and accept it as just another marriage tradition.
It is not a tradition, however, but an important aspect of religious freedom that has been taken away.
November 16th, 2012 | 12:36 pm
Here’s how it may come to pass that churches would be forced to give up their ability to perform marriages that have both religious and civil effects:
A state would pass a law saying that in order to be a legal officiant for marriage, you must marry any couple legally permitted to marry in that state. So if your state permits homosexuals to marry, then you must perform a civil ceremony for them.
It would also mean that you would have to marry people from other traditions or who your church does not consider eligible for marriage. In other words, by these means a priest could be forced to act as a regular civil officiant, who takes all comers as long as they satisfy the particular state’s eligibility requirements for marriage.
Nevertheless, the Catholic Church would not allow its priests and deacons to perform civil only weddings, a la a justice of the peace, and if such a law were passed, they would simply give up their status as civil officiants. Catholic (or any religious) couples would then have to have separate civil and church weddings.
So, for David Nichol above, the issue is only what to do about the priest’s role as civil officiant–no one is suggesting that priests will be forced to sacramentally marry homosexuals.
As for the likelihood of a state passing a law that would require civil officiants to marry all comers in order to be civil officiants, I don’t see this happening any time soon.
It would mean a governor/legislature would be picking a fight with the Catholic bishops and other religious groups to win the favor of gay rights activists.
Right now, the gay rights movement seems to be focused on for legal gay marriage. But were that to be achieved, who knows?
November 16th, 2012 | 12:41 pm
One more thought: does anyone know how a priest gets to be a civil officiant right now? I imagine there are forms you must file? Or is the position of religious leader recognized in the law as automatically a civil official for marriage purposes? I imagine it varies by state.
November 16th, 2012 | 3:02 pm
Dave,
It seems to me that Tom Peters answers all the questions. The Church is not in the civil marriage business. Catholic priests can perform only Catholic weddings (sacramental, or when one party is not baptized, natural). The state chooses to recognize marriages performed by priests (if properly registered with civil authorities) as civil marriages. Priests do not perform civil weddings. They perform religious weddings that the state chooses to recognize as civil.
November 16th, 2012 | 5:14 pm
Nichol,
I’m not sure your point is. It sounds like playing with terms to ensure you’re right. (This is why I hate arguing with people.)
The bottom line is:
1. right now in the United States a Catholic wedding has both civil and eccesial effects–it means you’re married both for the state and for the church.
2. This is not the only possible arrangement. Many countries require, by effect, Catholic couples to have separate civil and church ceremonies, conducted by separate officiants.
3. It is possible, though I believe unlikely at the moment, that the gay marriage movement may turn in such a way that Catholic priests will give up/be forced to give up their ability to perform marriages that have civil effects.
4. Weigel believes it is worth considering a preemptive move in the direction of giving up the power to perform marriages with civil effects as a way to make a statement about the Church’s view of marriage.
5. I believe such a move is unwarranted, because it is A. unfair to religious couples to force them to do an extra step and B. may weaken the connection of some Catholics to the Church.
6. I’m done. I don’t comment very often–too many people want to show off and win rather than try to understand.
November 16th, 2012 | 9:40 pm
I agree with Dave N. above. Right now, the state views weddings performed by ordained ministers as valid marriages from a civil perspective. That could always change and may well be the way the LGBT group fights.
I doubt priests will be ordered to perform any weddings outside that which they do now, however. After all, at present the Church can wholesale refuse to marry those who are divorced, those who have voluntarily sterilized themselves, couples who aren’t Catholic, or really for any reason that would appear to make the union invalid, such as immaturity of the couple, or one partner having serious emotional problems, etc…Priests decline to marry people for situations all the time. I don’t see how priests could be legally forced to marry same sex people when they aren’t forced to marry these other folks.
November 16th, 2012 | 11:35 pm
I’m not sure your point is. It sounds like playing with terms to ensure you’re right.
Dave,
You have basically stated what my own position is. The only thing I would do is state your third point more strongly. It’s just not going to happen that a Catholic priest would be legally required to perform marriages of same-sex couples or be in legal jeopardy for refusing to do so.
November 17th, 2012 | 3:40 am
“It’s just not going to happen that a Catholic priest would be legally required to perform marriages of same-sex couples or be in legal jeopardy for refusing to do so.”
Why not? They have tax exempt status. There are anti-discrimination laws. You sound like someone 40 years ago saying, “It’s just not going to happen that a…doctor would be legally allowed to help kill a patient…doctor would be required by law to refer patients to abortionists (and their supporters)….pharmacist must distribute “morning after” pills regardless of faith…teenager who wants to find therapy to curtail same-sex attraction would be prohibited by law”
The amazing thing is that you don’t see where all this is headed.
I don’t know if you are a believer, but I would caution you that persecution is coming for those whose public expression of faith doesn’t “conform” to socially appropriate norms. And perhaps, that’s what He desires after all.
November 17th, 2012 | 9:22 am
The Manhattan Declaration was a huge mistake
http://www.culturewars.com/2010/Manhattan.htm
November 17th, 2012 | 12:49 pm
Dave –
I don’t see it happening at all. As far as I can tell, every single law respecting gay marriage has specifically exempted clergy from any obligation to marry people not in accord with their church’s doctrine. I know of no one – no one – who’s proposing anything different.
Besides, Weigel isn’t talking about the priests ‘giving up the power to marry’. He’s talking about priests voluntarily refraining from exercising that power. As in, “declining to act as agents of government in witnessing marriages for purposes of state law.”
November 17th, 2012 | 5:54 pm
[...] the Church engage with society? How should it participate in the political processs? George Weigel urges priests to fight what he calls the gay insurgency by refusing to act as witnesses in civil marriages. Eric Pavlat [...]
November 18th, 2012 | 8:34 am
The Catholic Church should certainly continue to offer marriage services – as should other faiths. However, in places where the legal definition of marriage does not accord with the physical reality of marriage (a lifelong union of one man and one woman), the Church has a duty to not legally register the marriage. To do so would be to register it into a legal institution that contradicts the natural law.
November 18th, 2012 | 5:32 pm
Why not? They have tax exempt status. There are anti-discrimination laws.
Justin R,
Religious organizations are legally permitted to “discriminate” on the basis of religion. The unanimous decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a very clear signal from the Supreme Court that that is the case. The US Government (or state governments) will not and cannot tell the Catholic Church how and to whom to administer the sacraments. The issue is very simple. The government has never told the Catholic Church whom it may or not marry (or baptize, or administer communion to, or ordain) in the past, and it is not going to do so in the future.
I suppose some will bring up the old cliché about “never say never.” If you don’t want me to say with certainty that it will never happy, then allow me to say that it is as likely that the government will try to force the Catholic Church to perform same-sex weddings as it is that the Catholic Church will gain control over the US government, make Catholicism the state religion, and ban all other religions. Nobody can prove that won’t happen, but what are the odds? It is such an outlandish scenario that it is not worth talking about.
November 20th, 2012 | 11:01 am
I agree with much of what Mr. Nichol says, but somehow don’t find it all that comforting. Yes, it is highly unlikely that state or federal law will develop to prohibit Catholic priests from discriminating against gays in the administration of the sacrament of matrimony. What is quite likely is the eventual removal of governmental recognition of such sacraments as accomplishing a civil marriage. Polygamous marriages will be recognized though, even if not performed by Muslim clerics who refuse to perform gay marriages.
The real question is whether civil marriage is becoming so ontologically distinct from sacramental marriage that their connection is nothing more than a marriage of convenience. I’m not sure I agree with Weigel, but his point is a fair one. At some point our understanding of matrimony will become so different from civil marriage that the Church would be wise to separate the two in order to avoid confusion. This is especially true if the best argument against this separation is one of mere convenience.
November 21st, 2012 | 7:15 pm
While the government won’t directly require a Catholic priest to perform such a marriage (because of religious freedom) stripping away tax exempt status is not such an outlandish government response. Why give special tax benefits to invidious discriminators?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact