The Church And Civil Marriage

[VeniteAdoremus]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1633482' date='Aug 21 2008, 05:07 PM']The civil ceremony is simply the execution of a contract, similar to buying a car or signing a mortgage. I hate to put it in those crude terms but that's really the bottom line. What the civil contract gives a couple is legal standing in issues such as property ownership, inheritance rights, medical decisions, insurance coverage, etc. It's really a "sign here, here and here" type situation. How they choose to celebrate that afterwards is really a matter of preference.

From the Catholic perspective, of course, we recognize marriage as a mystery and sacrament reflecting the union between Christ and His Church. For Catholics, therefore, a couple wouldn't *really* be married until the "church wedding."[/quote]

I agree. But that's exactly why I wouldn't want a distinct civil "ceremony". There is a point in our ceremonies where the couple signs the church wedding register, they could just as easily sign the civil form at that point, too.

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1633492' date='Aug 21 2008, 05:51 PM']I used to think that the church should separate itself from the public/civil idea of marriage, but then I realized that by doing that marriage becomes a "Christian" thing, only applicable to people who are Christians. I think it's important for the Church to continue fighting to preserve the definition of marriage in the public square, but it should not be the watered down version so prevalent these days-- it should be the real deal.[/quote]

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Barbarus' post='1633492' date='Aug 21 2008, 09:51 AM']I used to think that the church should separate itself from the public/civil idea of marriage, but then I realized that by doing that marriage becomes a "Christian" thing, only applicable to people who are Christians. I think it's important for the Church to continue fighting to preserve the definition of marriage in the public square, but it should not be the watered down version so prevalent these days-- it should be the real deal.[/quote]
I have the opposite view. I think that we want to clearly define "marriage" as a sacrament as opposed to a civil contract. "Marriage" should only be used with reference to religious ceremonies. Otherwise, the term "civil union" should apply. In that case, "marriage" would clearly mean a union between a man and woman, while "civil union" would be elastic based on whatever contractual arrangements the state allows. This approach has the effect of preserving the true meaning of "marriage" and providing a witness of what "marriage" is supposed to be. Currently, the term and idea of "marriage" is being hijacked in a variety of ways.

[quote name='VeniteAdoremus' post='1633514' date='Aug 21 2008, 10:21 AM']I agree. But that's exactly why I wouldn't want a distinct civil "ceremony". There is a point in our ceremonies where the couple signs the church wedding register, they could just as easily sign the civil form at that point, too.[/quote]
Whatever is done civilly is neither here nor there from the Church's perspective. The Church doesn't care if I sign a mortgage contract specifying my wife as the co-owner of our home. If I want a tax benefit, for example, I should partake of a civil contract. If I want to be "married," I should go to Church.

[puellapaschalis]

It's the separation of the ecclesiastical and civil understandings of marriage that has in part led to an acceptance of the "marriage" of same-sex couples, I believe.