From the Canonical Defender, Prof. Ed Peters at his excellent blog In The Light Of The Law:
Seattle’s got it right
by Dr. Edward Peters
That we even have to go over this is . . . well . . . we have to go over it, so let’s.
The Archdiocese of Seattle has published four ‘policy refresher’ points regarding Catholic ministration in regard to “gay weddings”. [I object to the use of “gay” like this. “Unnatural”… “same-sex”… “fake”… these will fit, however.] Here are Seattle’s policies in bold and my suggestions as to underlying rationales for same in regular print.
1. No priest or deacon or lay minister may officiate at a same-sex “marriage.”
Before a wedding is conducted, “it must be evident that nothing stands in the way of its valid or licit celebration” (c. 1066). Canon law defines marriage as the union of a man and a women (c. 1055 § 1). [Mean old backward Church!] Because marriage cannot arise between two men or two women, something obviously “stands in the way” of the valid and licit performing a “gay wedding”. QED. By the way, Catholic officials who attempt nevertheless to perform such “weddings” are liable to punishment under Canon 1389 § 1 for abuse of office. [Get that?]
2. No church facility or school facility may be offered for such an event, even if it is to be witnessed by a non-Catholic minister or civil official.
This seems a sound application of, among other strictures, the moral prohibition against doing evil (CCC 1707), here, by rendering proximate material cooperation to objectively evil acts (by providing a venue for same sex couples specifically to hold themselves out as marrying).
3. No church facility or school facility may be used for a reception after such an event. [I wonder if this isn’t how the activists are going to attack. They’ll sue when they are denied hall rental.]
This seems to fall under, among other strictures, the moral prohibition against doing evil (CCC 1707), here, by rendering at-least remote, if not proximate, material cooperation to objectively evil acts (by providing a venue for same sex couples to celebrate specifically their holding themselves out as having married).
4. No church ministers, ordained or lay, may offer “wedding preparation” for such couples.
This seems to fall under, among other strictures, the moral prohibition against doing evil (CCC 1707), here, by rendering formal cooperation with objectively evil acts (namely, by instructing couples precisely in how to assume a status in the Church that they cannot assume, this by, in most instances moreover, their simulating a sacrament contrary to c. 1379).
Quid putatis, lectores?
I will take up what Peters (wrong about some things, right about this thing) said at the top. It is nearly unthinkable that a diocese would have to clarify these things… but for the fact that it in entirely thinkable that a diocese would have to clarify these things. And clarify them not only ad extra but also ad intra.