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 PetersThat 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.
Loading ...
May I admit I got a small chuckle out of the last one?
If you are going to have a pretend-that-we’re-marrying-though-the-Church-knows-better-and-won’t-recognize-it-anyway ceremony, which is clearly a non-church wedding, why on earth would they want to sit through the inane prep classes?
For the rest I agree, it will be a matter of time before they turn this into a claim of economic discrimination, and find a leftist judge who will uphold it, as religion is free, as long as it doesn’t cause you to discriminate on your rental business…
I wonder if this isn’t how the activists are going to attack.
Layman’s Broken Magic 8-Ball guess: Yes. I’ll guess that if a parish rents out its social halls to non-Catholic parties, the Usual Suspects can argue discrimination. The result being Catholics would have to use social halls exclusively to Catholic functions. My instinct is that this wouldn’t be the end of the world as some pretty weird stuff gets allowed not only into the social hall, but in the sanctuary as well and this might actually help us recover a sense of sacred space, meaning no one would have to endure a production of Guys and Dolls before the altar. :)
“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.]”
Sadly, being sued is likely. Innkeepers and landlords have already been sued and lost when they refused for religious reasons to rent to same-sex couples. Unbelievable!
clarification: the same-sex couples won their suits; the innkeepers and landlords lost.
I think the FAQ on the diocese’s website is useful for those unfamiliar to the new state laws. They basically state that a priest, parish, and school can refuse unnatural marriages or events relating to those acts and not be liable by law.
Also, they ban pot on all parish property.
A priest here says he will not renew his civil marriage celebrant license if this starts to happen. That way he can only marry couples sacramentally but not legally according to the law of the land.
And attack they will…let them. I can only hope that other dioceses follow suit and clarify, clarify, and clarify. I went to bed last night thinking about the tidal wave that is coming or better yet, the tsunami that is coming in hard, against the Church throughout the world.
I pondered how it might happen, how we might respond. I prayed for all the faithful and asked the Lord to give me the grace to pray for those who hate the Church, who seek to demonize and discredit her.
Grant us courage my Lord!
Grant us trust!
Be our shield, in all ages and in all moments now and forevermore.
Amen
Of course they’ll try to sue! It’s a convenient way to help subsidize their ‘wedding’ costs! I bet they’re all secretly hoping you’ll refuse!
kallman says: “A priest here says he will not renew his civil marriage celebrant license if this starts to happen. That way he can only marry couples sacramentally but not legally according to the law of the land.”
Oh, really? And when one of those spouses gets hits by a bus, and the survivor goes to collect the estate, and there’s no civil proof the wedding occurred, what exactly will be Fr. Go-it-Alone’s answer the impoverished survivor?
The civil registration of weddings enjoying the presumption of canonical validity are about the last thing in the world priests should refuse to verify to a State that recognizes them.
Dr. Peters, couldn’t Fr. “Go-it-Alone” conduct a sacramental marriage and then tell them to go to the Justice of the Peace (or equivalent) and get married civilly? Wouldn’t that work?
Why doesn’t the Church just ban all Catholics or at least all religious from attending such ceremonies?
Maybe the answer lies in only officiating at a sacramental wedding AFTER the civil wedding has been preformed. A couple must produce the civil marriage certificate before the wedding.
“Maybe the answer lies in only officiating at a sacramental wedding AFTER the civil wedding has been preformed. A couple must produce the civil marriage certificate before the wedding.”
aviva meriam, Yes,a couple must currently produce the civil marriage license/certificate to to the priest for HIS signature under current law because he has a licence from the state to marry people. But what kallman’s priest is arguing is that in order to avoid litigation, because he is refusing to marry a same-sex couple, the priest will refuse to get a license from the state to marry people. The priest can still perform the sacramental marriage ceremony; he just cannot sign the civil marriage certificate/license. So why not do that – conduct the sacramental marriage ritual. Then advise the heterosexual couple to go get married civilly at the court house after the sacramental marriage ceremony. (I am not sure it would be appropriate to do so before hand. I defer to a canon lawyer.)
Kallmar:
I don’t know about other dioceses, but the Archdiocese expects those ministers who witness marriages to have licenses; as a rule, we don’t officiate at marriages unless they are also recognized civilly.
Of course, if someone has already contracted marriage civilly, we can witness the sacrament. But in that case, we must–repeat, must–verify that the marriage has already been contracted civilly. Otherwise, we must–repeat, must–have a valid marriage license.
I’ve been asked to witness a marriage for a couple that did not intend to have recognized civilly. I was taught I can’t do that, and I refused, explaining to the party who called why that was a bad idea.
In theory, I could witness a marriage that couldn’t be recognized civilly, but that only comes into effect when the state was preventing a marriage that is otherwise legitimate. The example the comes to mind might be an interracial marriage, or an interfaith marriage. These are non-issues in the United States, but could be at issue elsewhere in the world.
When I prepare couples, I tell them they must bring their marriage license to the rehearsal–and if they fail to do so, “I will send you home to get it. I’m as serious as a heart attack.” And I explain that, if I don’t have it before the wedding, there will be NO wedding. Better to have that awkward moment the night before, rather than 30 minutes before.
Acardnal:
I think we’re talking about how it works in the U.S.–where a priest witnessing and receiving the consent of a couple is recognized, by the civil jurisdiction, so that there is no need for more than one ceremony. Thus I am both a religious and a civil minister of marriage, I guess; but I never witness marriages except as a Catholic priest. I haven’t thought much about it since I got my license 10 years ago (as a deacon), so I honestly can’t recall if the state of Ohio would even allow me to, say, witness a marriage competely outside a Catholic ceremony. It just never comes up so I don’t think about it.
But this could be changed; the Church in the U.S. could decide to refuse to seek civil licenses, and the government could require a second, civil ceremony. But I am pretty sure the priest mentioned cannot do this on his own.
Fr. Martin Fox, perhaps you can answer this not so far off into the future hypothetical.
You said, ” we don’t officiate at marriages unless they are also recognized civilly.” So, in Washington, Oregon, Maine, New York, and so on, the state recognizes same-sex “marriage”. A gay couple (both baptized Catholics) comes to you and wants you to “marry” them in the Church. If you don’t, they say they will take you to court and sue you. What do you do?
Acardnal:
I refuse all the same. Then after they leave, I write everything down and call the Archdiocese and give the Boss a heads up. Then I call a friend of mine who’s a lawyer and see what he advises–i.e., to find out what, if any, costs to a lawsuit would fall on me. Then, who knows, maybe I launch a website and start doing mailings to raise a defense fund. I don’t want to be too flip, but it sounds like a good fight.
As indicated above, I think the use of facilities is going to be the pressure-point for a lawsuit. But who knows?
Fr. Martin, I think our comments crossed.
“Then after they leave, I write everything down and call the Archdiocese and give the Boss a heads up. Then I call a friend of mine who’s a lawyer and see what he advises–i.e., to find out what, if any, costs to a lawsuit would fall on me.”
LOL. Anyway I support you. I hope the Supreme Court makes the right decision as I read they are taking up this issue of same-sex marriage. I hope they address religious freedom/liberty too.
It is just a matter of time, in a liberal area like Seattle, before a Priest, Deacon or “lay minister” violates the rules established by the Diocese. So the real question becomes one of what the consequences for disobedience will be. In far too many instances of clerical disobedience today thee are NO consequences.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in Spain since mid-2005, and they have been about 2% of all marriages in that country each year since. The Spanish bishops have spoke out against it. Have there been any legal actions by same-sex couples against the church in Spain?
In South Africa, same-sex marriage has been legal since mid-2007, with over 3,000 couples married. Any suits against churches? In South Africa there are different marriage laws for opposite-sex couples (“Marriage Act”) and same-sex couples (“Civil Union Act”). Religious officials recognized under the “Marriage Act” are not necessarily recognized under the “Civil Union Act” where the normal “solemnizing party” is a government official.
Surely there must be someone watching all the global developments over the past 10 or so years in order to wisely guide the Catholic Church in the US on these matters.
Yes, facilities are going the be the pressure point – but I doubt initially it will. Because the protection is entirely on the church as an institution itself, and not on members of the Church. Hence, the low hanging fruit is the catholic laity.
Owners of independent halls, caterers, restaurant owners, photographers, printers, limousine drivers, barbers, cosmetologists, seamstresses, etc… will be compelled to go along with these putative “weddings”. Only later will they go after the Archdiocese. All they have to do is to make it commonplace, then change the law in a few years.
I decided to check the marriage laws in my state in light of the debates going on above, and I found an interesting provision near the end of the entry (WV Code Chapter 48 Article 2):
PART VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.
§48-2-601. Belief of parties in lawful marriage validates certain defects.
If a marriage is solemnized by a person professing to be authorized to celebrate marriages when, in fact, the person is not authorized, or if a marriage is solemnized after the license is expired, the marriage is not void and subject to a judgment of nullity based on that fact alone if:
(1) The marriage is lawful in all other respects, and
(2) The marriage is consummated with a full belief on the part of either or both of the persons married that they have been lawfully joined in marriage.
———————–
This could make it possible for a Catholic priest who does not have a State license to officiate at marriages to in fact officiate at marriages that will be recognized as valid by the State – at least in West Virginia.
I think bishops and priests should brush up on the marriage laws in their states because I think the time will come soon when they will be forced to decide whether they will keep their State licenses and be forced by law to “marry” gay couples, or give up the State licenses and confine themselves to Church-approved, Sacramental, heterosexual marriages.
acardnal: ” Innkeepers and landlords have already been sued and lost when they refused for religious reasons to rent to same-sex couples.”
Not in all cases. In a nearby case a couple of years ago (Rhode Island, I think), the landlady’s position was upheld. The ruling of the court was that in a case where the rental unit is in the same building in which the owner lives, small enough such that there is proximity between the owner and tenants (basically, limiting it to no larger than a 6 or 8 unit property), the owner does have the right to set some limits on who lives under her roof.
Any larger property was not exempt.
How many parishes or parish schools actually rent out their facilities as, say, a banquet hall? I would be surprised if it were more than a small percentage. I doubt many have the licenses/insurance to do it on a business basis. They might let a parishioner use the hall or cafeteria or whatever for a donation, but that’s a “member”, who professes to believe as the Church teaches. The Church isn’t in that as a business, it’s doing it to further (in some manner) what it teaches.
For example, some years back, I arranged with one of our parish priests to use the basement hall for a surprise birthday party for my wife. Too many guests for our teeny apartment on a warm summer day. The priest was glad to do it, he said, because such a gathering of a family was just the type of thing the Church should be supporting.
Rather than banquet halls/catering, I think where parishes and schools get involved in this is meeting the community need for space – things like polling places, hosting community meetings and AA meetings and the like.
Where the banqueting angle is more likely to be involved, I think, is if a group like a Knights of Columbus council owns (or controls) a building or space – part of which they rent out.
Dr. Edward Peters –
Don’t worry… I’m sure the civil authorities themselves will start refusing granting licenses to priests and anyone who doesn’t tow teh same sex establishment’s line.
Frankly the Secular State has no business being in marriage anymore. They’ve shown they’re incompetent and willing to hand it out and break it down for just about anyone. They don’t value children nor their lives nor being responsible for the future stability of the country anymore.
And as someone said, couples can just go register for a civil one on their own. The Church doesn’t need the government telling them who they can or can’t marry. And couples don’t need the State to make their Covenental marriage valid.
Have there been any legal actions by same-sex couples against the church in Spain?
In South Africa, same-sex marriage has been legal since mid-2007, with over 3,000 couples married. Any suits against churches?
Good questions and I would certainly be interested if anyone knows.
But I’m not sure that a lack of legal challenges against the Church in those countries would prove anything in our case. I think one crucial factor is that Spain, South Africa, and virtually all Western democracies run on a “loser pays” legal system whereas the US doesn’t. That is, malcontents take less risk by bringing lawsuits. So even if the Church prevails, it can become a classic case of “the process is the punishment.”
Charivari Rob, I’m sure your right. Perhaps not in all cases but in some, and that is disturbing.
In my experience, KofC facilities and parish halls are often used for wedding and funeral receptions. But the aforementioned was Fr. Martin’s position not mine.
I am of the opinion that the priest and diocese is likely to be sued in the near future by homosexual activists if the priest declines to marry two baptized homosexual “catholics” in States which have legalized homosexual marriage. Priests are licensed by the State. We will see. As I said, the Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the constitutionality of same-sex marriage laws soon, and I hope they also includes an opinion on religious freedom/liberty, i.e. exempting religious institutions from state law regarding same-sex marriage.
A few thoughts, random. I think as an economist, a defense of a diverse market, etc.
1. Isn’t there already some ‘discrimination’ among wedding vendors? For example, some are Jewish, specializing in Jewish weddings, as they have different requirements than other weddings. Catholic weddings are different from Protestant weddings, Muslim, Indian (the country, eg), etc. Each subculture in the US has vendors that cater to it. There are of course vendors that cater to homosexuals. I am troubled that these new anti-discrimination provisions will mean that all providers must serve a certain class of customer in a non-monopoly market. I’d hope that Catholic laity (or other) vendors who seek to avoid serving homosexuals are not singled out. Why should all vendors have to serve homosexuals if they don’t typically serve all other segments of the nuptials market? Special treatment, not equal treatment will be sought.
2. A defense for the Church or clergy is that many Catholics are already barred from valid/licit marriage for some reason. Non-Catholics cannot be married by a Catholic clergy, except as approved to a baptized Catholic. Homosexuals are not be treated differently from other Catholics and non-Catholics ineligible for the sacrament of matrimony. Those same Catholics could obtain a civil marriage, likely, but not through Catholic clergy. It seems it will be important to note that there are restrictions to Catholic matrimony that exclude many people other than homosexuals. Homosexuals are not singled out for exclusion.
That’s how we’ll have to play it and respond.
acardinal, I think your state must do things differently than the state where I practice law (Texas) and the state in which I was married (Missouri).
In those states, clergy do not need to keep or obtain a license from the state to solemnize civil marriages generally. Instead, solemnization by a religious organization is recognized by statute as one of the two ways of solemnizing a marriage, the other being solemnization by a judge. See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 451.100; Tex. Fam. Code § 2.202. So clerics in those states could not simply decide to let their license expire because no such thing exists for them.
Besides, you should be aware that it is illegal for a priest or deacon, apart from a case of necessity, to officiate at a marriage that would not be valid under civil law or celebrated according to civil law unless the cleric first obtains the permission of the diocesan bishop, vicar general, or episcopal vicar. Can. 1071 § 1. So, Fr. “Go-it-Alone” could not lawfully do what you propose unless he had the backing of his local Ordinary.
Something to consider here is that if clergy do not also act as civil ministers of marriage, then you are likely to see a decrease in the number of couples getting married in the Church.
Pingback: 2012's Top Ten Manly Christmas Gifts | Big Pulpit
We have got to get out of the civil marriage business. People who want a sacramental marriage should have to go through extended and detailed sacramental preparation, get their civil marriage done downtown and then come back to the Church for the sacramental part.
I think the fear is that people will not come back to the Church for the sacramental part. If they can’t be bothered to come back for that, then they aren’t interested in it. If they’re not interested in it, should you be forcing it on them? NO.
And the party has to be someplace else. Sorry but we can’t be renting out halls for weddings. We’re going to get sued or worse. Can’t happen.
The reason why these clarifications are put into place is because there are priests who wish to “venture to the horizons” and perform “gay” weddings. It has been done in Seattle before. “Sub Rosa” instructions have been given to formerly venerable religious orders that one can perform these “weddings” however, they should not have their names printed in the “wedding” programs. Former leaders of the Archdiocese of Seattle have faced these fake marriages but they are “middle of the road” Catholics who were talked out of their tree by duplicitous religious order officials.
There are many “priests” who should have not been ordained who are waiting in the wings to officiate at these sham weddings. St. Ignatius would be spinning in his crypt.
If you doubt the veracity of the above information. Just Google St. Leo’s of Tacoma; St. Joseph’s of Seattle and the former provincials of the Jesuits of the Oregon Province who are players in the advocacy of gay marriage, but are cowards when it comes to exhibiting integrity when it comes to self-identification and identifying with these causes. Where is your courage, fellas?
Dear Fr. John Whitney, S.J.,
Meet Mt. 16:18.
Obey St. Peter for a change.
@Dan:
Now I fail to see how that’s a problem, to be honest. If you don’t think the Church is important enough to get married in, I very much doubt one would think it relevant at all.
Here in Europe, where religious marriages are never recognized by the state (so you need 2 ceremonies), loads of catholics (small c intented) visit on 3 occasions: baptisms, marriages and funerals; be it their own or others. If they even don’t bother to show up for their own marriage, one may wonder what kind of benefits a Church wedding would have.
And I agree with acardinal way up: let priests stop acting as agents of the state. There’s no problem with sending a couple to the justice of the peace afterwards to get their (civil) legal status sorted. [In fact, over here priests may not civilly marry, but are required to sent couples on, as they may not even marry religiously if a civil marriage isn’t conducted within a few days]
It seems it will be important to note that there are restrictions to Catholic matrimony that exclude many people other than homosexuals. Homosexuals are not singled out for exclusion.
That’s how we’ll have to play it and respond.
Good point.
One omission: the clergy shouldn’t even attend a same-sex “wedding”: you can be sure that a few soft-headed priests would be willing to be there and not preside, but bless the “couple” afterward.
I’ve used this example before-me demanding a ham sandwich from a Jewish deli or Muslim halal shop should rebound on my head as being a jackanape. Going further, if I went to one of these places to cater my wedding reception, demanding pulled pork, shrimp and catfish and then suing them when they refused-any sane person should recognize that I’m being a jerk and that I have probably 100 to 1 other options that do not follow those sorts of dietary laws.
The same should be obvious in these cases. The lavender mafia have their own support systems and “ally” groups/businesses that cater specifically to them or are certainly friendly to their enormities. In a sane world, any case of “discrimination” for not wanting part of their non-wedding should be immediately thrown out of court.
As to legal cases in other countries that allow same-sex “marriage”, it is wholly irrelevant if cases haven’t come up. That a situation has been created in which such a case is even conceivable is problematic in and of itself.
Dear Chonak,
At least one priest in the archdiocese of Boston has attended civil same-sex weddings and blessed the couples. This is known in certain catholic (small “c”) circles. One big part of the scandal is that this priest has not been turned in by his fellow priests, his deacon, or the parish staff. Of course — it being Boston — nothing would happen. (If you want to know about the church in Boston, look up a blog called Boston Catholic Insider.)
Phil_NL: “Here in Europe, where religious marriages are never recognized by the state (so you need 2 ceremonies)…
Nope, not in Ireland you don’t, and very probably the UK as well although I’m not sure about all of it but certainly not that bit that comprises the northern 6 counties of Ireland. A church marriage is valid in the eyes of the State and there is no necessity for a second ceremony (although you can of course just have a civil ceremony if you wish).
In relation to those who mentioned monitoring the situation in countries like Spain, remember that their codified legal system is very different to that in place for us who live under the common law system. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to see whether there have been any such legal challenges. I rather doubt there have been – surely it would have been all over the ‘net?
Chonak,
“Should” and $1.50 will get you a nice cup of coffee.
The trick to keeping things from happening is reducing their likelihood with good planning and management BEFORE the opportunity presents itself. OH, how I wish Catholics would learn this!
But only by keeping the couples under the impression that they were getting a valid State wedding — which wouldn’t last long before the cat got out of the bag, and which isn’t a virtuous way to go about it to begin with even if too many churchmen these days already are damnably good at obfuscating things to the point that you can’t even prove they’re aware of the obfuscation. [Note: I choose my words there quite specifically; I’m not thinking of anyone in particular nor do I know the fate of their souls, just trying to be accurate about a behavior that should be unheard of, not fairly common, yet seems to be the latter.]
PatriciusOenus says: “Why doesn’t the Church just ban all Catholics or at least all religious from attending such ceremonies?”
You mean like they banned them from using birth control? Like that?
Wow, how could I have missed this post from five days ago? I’m slowing down in my old age I guess.
(1). No argument. Marriages between couples of the same sex are not valid in the Catholic Church. No priest should ever preside over a marriage that would be invalid.
(2). Probably not an issue. I’ve never seen a request for a non-canonical marriage to take place in a Catholic Church. So, yeah, this is a non-issue. Seems like a rule against something that never happens and would never happen.
(3). I agree with our Reverend Host. This is the area most likely to invite litigation. I don’t think it’s a wise proscription for that reason. UNLESS; the church only rents to marriages that are valid marriages under church law. If, however, the church has rented a party hall to marriage that are not canonical marriages, I think it would be difficult to exclude receptions for same-sex couples. This could be a very expensive proscription. As a pastor my first question would be, will the bishop indemnify the pastor and parish of a church that refuses rental for a wedding reception? This is a very interesting legal question.
(4). Another non-issue.