News from the front: the couple have been asked to complete a form for the attention of the Bishop explaining how the previous marriages of one of them ended. Their impression seems to be that the immediately concerned clergy have had their hands slapped and that the recent meeting was a positive development. Escalating via the archdeacon (plus, possibly, one or two well-placed phone calls, and who knows? perhaps even this thread) seems to have been the right move.
The questions now being asked are, to my mind, relevant and appropriate pastorally and ethically, instead of pertaining to the best man, the blast radius of the wedding blessing, and its potential impact on any bystanders. (If it were me, pastorally, I think the answers to the questions now being asked would not constitute grounds for refusing the marriage).
It seems to me that by taking this course of action the local clergy have also insulated themselves against any potential anti-gay backlash from any quarters by passing the responsibility up the hierarchy ('we had no choice, it was the Bishop's decision') and probably satisfied their own consciences as a result. Why this couldn't have been done without abusing the couple in the first place is another question, but at least things seem to be moving in the right direction now - and without any media involvement.
I think they might need to be prepared to be disappointed. The CofE heirarchy often takes a dim view of multiple previous marriage/divorces. The bishop might feel he has precedence and little choice but to deny.
That's always a possibility, of course (I think there are good extenuating circumstances here but I'm obviously not going to go into them). At least the reasons could be legitimate ones, which is a far cry from the initial reaction which was clearly homophobic and nothing else. And I'm pretty confident the bishop is not going to have a gun held to their heads by the particular clergy in question.
That's always a possibility, of course (I think there are good extenuating circumstances here but I'm obviously not going to go into them). At least the reasons could be legitimate ones, which is a far cry from the initial reaction which was clearly homophobic and nothing else. And I'm pretty confident the bishop is not going to have a gun held to their heads by the particular clergy in question.
I dunno what to say - this is going to a difficult thing all round. Even if the bishop allows it, there are going to be a bunch of annoyed people who think that the top of the heirarchy is forcing them to do something.
From what I understand of the situation the annoyed people are likely to be the immediate clergy only.
From my perspective the best-case outcome would be that the local clergy actually properly repented, reconciliation broke out all round, the wedding was approved, and one of them celebrated it.
The next-best outcome would be that the bishop appointed a replacement priest to officiate, which I understand is standard practice if there are issues of conscience, which would be an acceptable compromise.
Of course one can cynically expect the worst outcome and they are not home and dry yet, but objectively, I think there is more room for better outcomes now than there was when I started this thread.
I think they might need to be prepared to be disappointed. The CofE heirarchy often takes a dim view of multiple previous marriage/divorces. The bishop might feel he has precedence and little choice but to deny.
This highlights beautifully the hypocrisy of the CofE.
It sets itself up as judge and jury in deciding which party in a divorce is "guilty", while only speaking to one party - and in any case with irretrievable breakdown we effectively have no-fault divorce. The civil law decides (wisely IMO) that it takes two to tango but a bishop/ other clergyperson knows better and can make a snap judgment based on a set of fatuous and impertinent questions with no way of knowing if the responses are true.
Second, if a bishop or PP decides a couple are not worthy of having a church wedding, they'll offer the alternative of a blessing - we don't approve of you getting married so go and have a civil ceremony but we'll be happy to bless it anyway. This gives a bad enough taste to non-churchgoers but in the case of regular, faithful members of the congregation it can be disastrous as they can see any Tom, Dick or Harry roll up and get married but they themselves are offered what they, as believers, will feel is second-rate.
Either have the ba**s to re-marry the divorced or stop doing church weddings altogether: the current situation is unfair and indefensible.
I think if the House of Bishops’ guidelines (PDF) are consistently and fairly followed, then the situation you describe, TheOrganist, shouldn’t arise.
The enquiry of the person with a dissolved marriage is not supposed to be an enquiry about who was at fault. The guidelines note that the reasons for refusing a marriage service to a couple might also mean not being able to offer them a service of prayer and blessing following a civil marriage.
I think if the House of Bishops’ guidelines (PDF) are consistently and fairly followed, then the situation you describe, TheOrganist, shouldn’t arise.
The enquiry of the person with a dissolved marriage is not supposed to be an enquiry about who was at fault. The guidelines note that the reasons for refusing a marriage service to a couple might also mean not being able to offer them a service of prayer and blessing following a civil marriage.
With due respect, I've been through this process and I can tell you that the nature of the suggested questions boils down neatly to whether or not the person seeking remarriage is "guilty" or not; the Guidelines can dress it up in as many yards of flannel as they wish, the bottom line is that the church, in the person of the PP, is setting itself up as judge and jury (and executioner if they decide you are not "worthy" of remarrying in church.
My PP at the time was mightily embarrassed at the tone of the questions he was expected to ask, puerile and prurient by turn. In the end, because no one wants to be accused of lying do they, he ticked off the requisite answers that would "pass" and then we all had a glass of sherry.
But I was lucky: a mate was told by her PP that her first husband's decision to come out as gay was evidence that she hadn't been sufficiently "committed" to working for a successful marriage, and her acceptance of divorce showed that she had "given up" too easily. Her decision to have children before seeking remarriage was also used as "evidence" of her not being committed to the idea of a faithful marriage (although it was the father of those children she wished to marry) and that even if they had a civil marriage, the church would consider the children born out-of-wedlock to be problematic - he even expressed surprise that the children had been baptised.
Do explain how God's love is anywhere in all of that.
Nevertheless this seems to me to be the fault of the authorities involved and not the process. Hopefully the authorities involved this time are reading this thread and have a conscience.
I can understand the difference between' void 'and' voidable' but doesn't the word 'annulment' suggest that the marriage,at least to the parties who grant the 'annulment', is considered as having been null and void from the beginning.
That,at least,is as far as I know,the view of RC marriage tribunals which grant annulments.
Yes. The distinction is this: if the marriage is void, it automatically never happened. There's no choice.
If the marriage is voidable, one of the couple must ask for it to be declared a nullity. A man and woman can marry, not have sex, and remain married to each other for life, if they like. But if one of them objects, then the marriage is declared void, and so didn't happen...
It's not surprising that annulments for non-consummation rarely happen in the case of civil marriages as people have the option of divorce.They do not have that option within some religious communities.
I suspect non-consummated marriages are quite rare.
Part of the difference between a void marriage and a voidable one, is that although in both cases there has been a ceremony, with a void marriage, it's a complete dud. It never worked at all. With a voidable one, it has never been completed.
There's an additional difference between them. Only one of the parties can apply for a voidable marriage to be annulled. Anyone can seek to annul a void one, even after the parties are dead.
@Forthview you will doubtless know more about this than me, but I think RC marriage tribunals grant annulments for causes that the law would class as voidable. I think RC tribunals will annul for non-consummation, whether through physical impediment, inability or refusal.
I'm under the impression they also do so for 'psychological non-consummation' which is that although sexual intercourse has taken place, one or the other party either lacked the psychological ability to enter into a faithful and permanent monogamous union, or else went through the marriage ceremony with no intention of committing themself to such a faithful and permanent monogamous union.
The law doesn't recognise either of these as grounds for an annulment, but under some circumstances it can enable a divorced Catholic to remarry without being barred from the sacraments. I believe this was the case with the famous writer Evelyn Waugh.
Nevertheless this seems to me to be the fault of the authorities involved and not the process. Hopefully the authorities involved this time are reading this thread and have a conscience.
You can't cop-out like that: I and my friend were both put through "the process": it was that process that was dreadful. Granted in her case the PP added to the dreadfulness but they didn't initiate it, it was already dreadful, unloving, judgemental and prurient because that is the way it has been designed. Anyway who argues different is deluding themselves.
Part of the difference between a void marriage and a voidable one, is that although in both cases there has been a ceremony, with a void marriage, it's a complete dud. It never worked at all. With a voidable one, it has never been completed.
There's an additional difference between them. Only one of the parties can apply for a voidable marriage to be annulled. Anyone can seek to annul a void one, even after the parties are dead.
@Forthview you will doubtless know more about this than me, but I think RC marriage tribunals grant annulments for causes that the law would class as voidable. I think RC tribunals will annul for non-consummation, whether through physical impediment, inability or refusal.
I'm under the impression they also do so for 'psychological non-consummation' which is that although sexual intercourse has taken place, one or the other party either lacked the psychological ability to enter into a faithful and permanent monogamous union, or else went through the marriage ceremony with no intention of committing themself to such a faithful and permanent monogamous union.
The law doesn't recognise either of these as grounds for an annulment, but under some circumstances it can enable a divorced Catholic to remarry without being barred from the sacraments. I believe this was the case with the famous writer Evelyn Waugh.
Perhaps the most famous anulment of modern(ish) times was that of the Marlboroughs. Having married in 1895, Consuelo Vanderbilt and "Sunny" Marlborough had 2 children before she left him in 1906. Consuelo filed for divorce in 1921 but was then persuaded to support Sunny's application for an RC anulment five years later - perhaps because Sunny was then considering becoming an RC (which he did in 1927). An anulment was given on the basis that the bride had been coerced into the marriage, thus true consent hadn't been given. It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the anulment, John Spencer-Churchill was considered sufficiently legitimate to inherit the dukedom on his father's death ...
Nevertheless this seems to me to be the fault of the authorities involved and not the process. Hopefully the authorities involved this time are reading this thread and have a conscience.
You can't cop-out like that: I and my friend were both put through "the process": it was that process that was dreadful. Granted in her case the PP added to the dreadfulness but they didn't initiate it, it was already dreadful, unloving, judgemental and prurient because that is the way it has been designed. Anyway who argues different is deluding themselves.
I am sure your experience was crappy but however crappy it was, it is not right to generalise from your experience in advance.
As already stated in this thread, I'm not a fan of institutional churches, and still less of established ones, and I have the courage of my convictions by not being part of either. But my friends are, and so far are content to remain that way. So long as some form of due process is being followed (and I can't see a better form than the one in place) I'm willing to encourage them to seek resolution that way rather than going straight to the Guardian.
... Perhaps the most famous anulment of modern(ish) times was that of the Marlboroughs. Having married in 1895, Consuelo Vanderbilt and "Sunny" Marlborough had 2 children before she left him in 1906. Consuelo filed for divorce in 1921 but was then persuaded to support Sunny's application for an RC anulment five years later - perhaps because Sunny was then considering becoming an RC (which he did in 1927). An anulment was given on the basis that the bride had been coerced into the marriage, thus true consent hadn't been given. It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the anulment, John Spencer-Churchill was considered sufficiently legitimate to inherit the dukedom on his father's death ...
An RC annulment would have no bearing at all on succession to a peerage. It's a private matter entirely internal to the disciplines of the RCC. It's presence or absence and the reasons why it was granted or refused would be irrelevant and not cognisable so far as the law of the land is concerned.
Thank you, Enoch, for your very clear explanation of the difference between 'void' and 'voidable'
Obviously (though perhaps not obvious to all) that an RC annulment of marriage refers to a sacramental marriage ,generally contracted within the RC Church. As Enoch rightly says it does not have any force in English (state) law,but it would allow a Catholic to marry in a Catholic ceremony in church, since the first 'marriage' would not be considered by the Church as a proper marriage.
The children born of a marriage which has been annulled are ,as far as I know,not considered to be 'illegitimate' as long as they were born during the period when the marriage was thought to have been a proper marriage
I’m really sorry, @TheOrganist, that the experience was so bad for you and for your friend.
It needn’t be that way, and the guidance does not prescribe questions to ask the couple, but considerations which the priest ought to have in mind.
Sensitively done it need not be a painful process, and I have met couples (not interviewed by me - yes, I have also administered the process) for whom it was not painful, and even one couple who were grateful for the first opportunity they had each had simply to tell the story of what had happened to them.
Since I have also once been approached for marriage by a couple whose secret relationship was when discovered, as was known to me, the direct and proximate cause of the break-up of the marriage of one of them, I consider that some process of enquiry is necessary.
I’m really sorry, @TheOrganist, that the experience was so bad for you and for your friend.
<snip>
Since I have also once been approached for marriage by a couple whose secret relationship was when discovered, as was known to me, the direct and proximate cause of the break-up of the marriage of one of them, I consider that some process of enquiry is necessary.
Well, there we have to differ because I'd say that it would make more sense to look at why a straying husband or wife felt the need to go outside the marriage for companionship: its easy to work out why someone would go outside their marriage for sex, but the other bits of a marriage - the mutual society, help and comfort bit - are generally why people go elsewhere. And the party left/ bereft frequently gets the sympathy because they don't know why it happened which probably says more about the state of a relationship than anything else, yet the church would say they were the "innocent" party.
The church needs to decide whether or not it is going to remarry the divorced, period: the rest is far too murky/ open to interpretation for amateurs to try to decide on guilt or innocence.
The church needs to decide whether or not it is going to remarry the divorced, period: the rest is far too murky/ open to interpretation for amateurs to try to decide on guilt or innocence.
I think the first step is actually for the Church to stop mixing up civil and religious marriage.
Exactly. A marriage here is valid if it complies with the legislation. That compliance may take place in a civil ceremony (as it does in more than 3 cases out of 4) or religious; the state is not concerned.
For most of us here in the discussions about the particular marriage ceremony mentioned in the OP,we have little real knowledge about the background to the case. Were the CofE to be completely separate from the state then it wouldn't change at all the right or otherwise of the CofE to conduct the wedding ,or not,according to the rites of the CofE .In fact it might have more power to determine exactly what the conditions are for a valid CofE marriage.
In a more general sense we have been discussing here what constitutes a legally recognised marriage ceremony.It is clear that most states have their own laws about that.
We also have to decide whether 'marriage' is simply a legal concept. Most religions have their own ideas about marriage and the RC church has its own canon law which determines what a 'marriage' which will be recognised by the Church is. These conditions may or may not mirror whatever the state laws and understandings are. For many religious people ,and not only Christians, the 'marriage ceremony' is the one which is acknowledged as such by their religious community and this whatever the state may say about its conditions for such recognition..
Perhaps because in the UK there is often an overlap between the civil and religious components of a legally recognised marriage there are sometimes misunderstandings about what is meant by an annulment of a marriage granted by the RC authorities. Such an annulment only means that the person affected by it is free to marry in an RC ceremony and has nothing to do with state law or understanding of marriage.
I think the first step is actually for the Church to stop mixing up civil and religious marriage.
I really don't agree with that view. I suspect that hidden inside it, is a notion that a civil marriage and a religious marriage are in some fundamental way completely different, rather than the same, but with extra levels of commitment involved in a religious marriage. What all too easily follows on from that are some other notions which I think are very seriously wrong, such as:-
1. 'We' don't recognise people who haven't had the right sort of ceremony as being married to each other at all,
2. 'We' think that people who have entered into what 'we' regard as a lesser form of marriage are entitled to treat one another in ways 'we' (often rightly) disapprove of. So
3. Those who have lesser forms of marriage have no grounds for complaint if their spouses cheat on them. And possibly the worst one of all,
4. Although A & B are legally married to each other, in 'our' eyes one, or even both of them are really married to other people. Sometime this is because 'we' don't recognise that earlier marriages have ended. Other times, this is because 'we' take the line that sexual intercourse has created a marriage which 'we', with 'our' privileged understanding' can see but nobody else can. And so
5. Therefore, if 'we' can break up A&B's legally binding marriage, that must be a good thing.
And, yes, I recognise there are shipmates who will be appalled by what I've just said.
I think the first step is actually for the Church to stop mixing up civil and religious marriage.
I really don't agree with that view. I suspect that hidden inside it, is a notion that a civil marriage and a religious marriage are in some fundamental way completely different
I agree with you up to there - and no further. I have a non-sacramental view of marriage.
I think that marriage in its modern form is a legal and civil institution, designed first and foremost to protect the rights of the spouses and clarify issues of filiation and inheritance. I think that's a good thing.
Marriage as seen in the Bible is above all an expression of mutual commitment to faithfulness. Exchanging vows is a way of formalising that commitment and offers an opportunity to invite God's blessing on the marriage. But I certainly don't consider somebody civilly married to be less married than somebody married in church, and I wouldn't consider somebody 'married' in some religious ceremony outside city hall to be legally married, simply because they wouldn't be.
Having the legal status of marriage as a benchmark also has the advantage of not having to be prurient about people's private lives unless they ask.
I think the first step is actually for the Church to stop mixing up civil and religious marriage.
I really don't agree with that view. I suspect that hidden inside it, is a notion that a civil marriage and a religious marriage are in some fundamental way completely different, rather than the same, but with extra levels of commitment involved in a religious marriage. What all too easily follows on from that are some other notions which I think are very seriously wrong, such as:-
1. 'We' don't recognise people who haven't had the right sort of ceremony as being married to each other at all,
2. 'We' think that people who have entered into what 'we' regard as a lesser form of marriage are entitled to treat one another in ways 'we' (often rightly) disapprove of. So
3. Those who have lesser forms of marriage have no grounds for complaint if their spouses cheat on them. And possibly the worst one of all,
4. Although A & B are legally married to each other, in 'our' eyes one, or even both of them are really married to other people. Sometime this is because 'we' don't recognise that earlier marriages have ended. Other times, this is because 'we' take the line that sexual intercourse has created a marriage which 'we', with 'our' privileged understanding' can see but nobody else can. And so
5. Therefore, if 'we' can break up A&B's legally binding marriage, that must be a good thing.
And, yes, I recognise there are shipmates who will be appalled by what I've just said.
I think religious groups should be free to set any boundaries they like to marriages in "their" buildings. If the Jehovah's Witnesses want to say that a certain understanding of theology is necessary and Orthodox Jews want to specify something (sorry, running out of steam there, I'm not sure what those requirements might be) - that's all fine and dandy. The State should treat them all fairly, and it is a tragedy that some groups do not enjoy full rights and protections of the law.
If Anglicans within that understanding what to state that marriage is for such-and-such people and that these-other-people are excluded, that's also fine.
But what they can't do is use the latter rules at the same time as acting as functionaries of the state.
I certainly don't consider somebody civilly married to be less married than somebody married in church, and I wouldn't consider somebody 'married' in some religious ceremony outside city hall to be legally married, simply because they wouldn't be.
Exactly. I simply can't see where Enoch is coming from - I'm not at all appalled by his comments but I am a bit puzzled by them.
In my personal experience, I've certainly seen people who had church weddings who were considerably "less married" - as it were - than those I've seen married in register offices.
Exactly. I simply can't see where Enoch is coming from - I'm not at all appalled by his comments but I am a bit puzzled by them.
There is at least one major ecclesiastical household which would take the following lines (inter alia).
1. Members of its own ecclesiastical household who marry according to another household's rites or in a civil marriage are not married at all, and living in sin.
2. Members of other household or no household at all who marry, are married
3. Such peoples' marriages can't be dissolved, irrespective of what the law courts may say.
4. Members of its own household who get divorced through the courts, remain nevertheless married to their ex-spouses even though they think they aren't.
5. This remains so, even if one of the ex-spouses marries someone else. So a person who the law regards as unmarried, is in the sight of that household, still married to someone who is in every other respect married to someone else.
There are some even more bizarre permutations that can arise in that particular household, but those five will do for now.
Most of the problems arise through doctrinal idealism, a failure to recognise that there is a difference between what should not happen and what cannot, and not appreciating quite what some of the implications are of Incarnation.
All this really came home to me when I co-celebrated an ecumenical wedding with an RC priest in France. I was rather shocked to discover there was a whole registry-signing ceremony which looked suspiciously like what is legally binding in the UK.
In France at least, the RC church seems to labour under the impression that the 1905 separation of church and state was merely a passing aberration, and is continuing to function to all intents and purposes as a state within a state. The sooner it gets out of that frame of mind the better as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to be intent on fighting a long and drawn-out reaguard action to the benefit of nobody but its power-brokers.
I am sure, Eutychus, that what would have been signed would have been the church registers, recording the marriage in the church registers. Registers are also kept of baptisms. Perhaps your own church does not keep such records,but I cannot see that the keeping of such records for Church purposes violates the separation of Church and State.
The Church, and not just the RC Church has kept registers of baptisms and marriages for centuries, long before civil marriage came into being.
I think that I know which household Enoch is referring to. Each religious community has the right to determine its own norms and understanding of what marriage is. When the RC church talks about marriage it talks about it within the context of the RC church. The Church has no right to interfere with the state and secular understanding of marriage and has no jurisdiction over the marriages of anyone who is not part of the community.
On the other hand it has every right as part of its Gospel proclamation to explain to its devotees what its understanding of marriage is. No-one can be forced to agree with it, but at the same time the Church cannot be forced to celebrate a marriage ceremony for those who do not fulfil the requirements for a Catholic marriage.
Members of the Catholic Church who wish to remain in good standing with the Catholic Church cannot contract a Catholic marriage with another person (of the opposite sex) unless both are free in canon law so to do. This in no way inhibits their right to a civil divorce nor to a marriage ceremony outwith the Catholic Church.
It would seem that the CofE must at times see things the same way, as that is the whole thrust of the OP - namely that the couple in question would be free to marry in a civil ceremony but that the CofE,or at least its local representative, rightly or wrongly, is disagreeing with state policy.
I am sure, Eutychus, that what would have been signed would have been the church registers, recording the marriage in the church registers. Registers are also kept of baptisms. Perhaps your own church does not keep such records,but I cannot see that the keeping of such records for Church purposes violates the separation of Church and State.
It's not the actual record-keeping, it's the mentality. The signing doesn't come across as a formality, it comes across as a big deal. For baptisms, it's even worse. In one prison I know I suspect the RC chaplain of going through baptismal records through what intelligence service I dare not guess, and offering non-RC-baptised inmates baptism classes. One non-conformist church in my city has received several letters from the state security services - forwarded from an administrative department of the RC diocesan office for return - to them. There's a whole parallel organ of state in there.
I am sure, Eutychus, that what would have been signed would have been the church registers, recording the marriage in the church registers. Registers are also kept of baptisms. Perhaps your own church does not keep such records,but I cannot see that the keeping of such records for Church purposes violates the separation of Church and State.
It's not the actual record-keeping, it's the mentality. The signing doesn't come across as a formality, it comes across as a big deal. For baptisms, it's even worse. In one prison I know I suspect the RC chaplain of going through baptismal records through what intelligence service I dare not guess, and offering non-RC-baptised inmates baptism classes. One non-conformist church in my city has received several letters from the state security services - forwarded from an administrative department of the RC diocesan office for return - to them. There's a whole parallel organ of state in there.
But I certainly don't consider somebody civilly married to be less married than somebody married in church, and I wouldn't consider somebody 'married' in some religious ceremony outside city hall to be legally married, simply because they wouldn't be.
I don't, in general, care at all about the legal status of someone's marriage. Unless I am dealing with their estate after death, or dealing with joint property and mutual obligations if they split up, it's not relevant to me.
I agree with you that people who don't have legal marriages don't have legal marriages, but the state's role in a marriage is one of registration - no more. Two people go along to a bureaucrat and say "we're married" and the bureaucrat makes the appropriate record. In a similar way, we registered the birth of our children with the state, but that's just administration. The state does not create our children or their citizenship - it just records the facts.
The thing I care about is that two people have made a mutual commitment to each other. Perhaps they did it in a church, perhaps they did it in the town hall, perhaps they did it in private. Perhaps it has the sanction of the local authorities, or perhaps it doesn't. There's no reason for me, qua private citizen, to care.
@mr cheesy Because, as already explained, at some level they think 1905 is an aberration and that eventually, normality, ie a RC state, will be restored.
(This doesn't stop me getting on famously with lots of Catholics and indeed with our local bishop, but the mindset is there in the institution nonetheless).
The thing I care about is that two people have made a mutual commitment to each other. Perhaps they did it in a church, perhaps they did it in the town hall, perhaps they did it in private. Perhaps it has the sanction of the local authorities, or perhaps it doesn't. There's no reason for me, qua private citizen, to care.
Well I agree with that too, although it doesn't always go down too well even in my church. I do however think a formal marriage is a good thing, for several reasons.
Eutychus, we all have our own ideas of what constitutes normality. There cannot be any 'nonconformism' in France, since there is no state church to conform to ,or from which to dissent. Even in Alsace and Lorraine where the church is officially recognised, there is no state church as there is in England. Of course there will be some Catholics in France who would like to see the Church restored to the position which it had before the French Revolution.I accept also that there is a certain number of 'integristes' in France amongst those who regularly attend Mass, but in my experience which is different to yours that is not the viewpoint of the generality of the Catholic church in France.
Surely Catholics, just as much as 'non-conformists' must have the right to evangelise unless this is forbidden by the state. I don't really understand at all what it is that you think you suspect a certain RC prison chaplain is doing.
As a Catholic in what was until recently a vigorously anti-Catholic country I understand only too well in what ways you obviously feel that you are discriminated against by the Catholics who assume that they are superior. It used to be the same for Catholics in England vis a vis the CofE and in Scotland vis a vis the Church of Scotland. Fortunately these days are long past, certainly as far as I am concerned. Much of it comes from a general indifference on the part of the populationwhich has led here to greater acceptance though not always understanding.
...It would seem that the CofE must at times see things the same way, as that is the whole thrust of the OP - namely that the couple in question would be free to marry in a civil ceremony but that the CofE,or at least its local representative, rightly or wrongly, is disagreeing with state policy.
Not quite. There will be some CofE clergy who will agree with you. But the more general view (I think) would be that all marriages are valid, but there are some that it might be wiser, or even better, if they did not take place, and others that it might be a scandal for the couple to expect the church's representative to invoke God's blessing upon.
Marriage may be their right, but the marriage blessing is not.
Checking up on this would have been the background to the inquisition that @TheOrganist describes as having been handled badly. @BroJames describes when approached for marriage by a couple whose secret relationship had been 'the direct and proximate cause of the break-up of the marriage of one of them'. By then, they might have become free to marry one another, but is it pastorally good for them to say 'that's all right then; God will bless your union', or to expect someone else to confer that blessing upon them, rather than insist that if under such circumstances they are going to get married, they must be expected to take their own moral responsibility for that, rather than ask someone else to do so?
Besides, the cheated and let-down former spouse has a legitimate view to be taken account of.
Surely Catholics, just as much as 'non-conformists' must have the right to evangelise unless this is forbidden by the state. I don't really understand at all what it is that you think you suspect a certain RC prison chaplain is doing.
I never said they didn't. What I find a bit alarming is the appaent marshalling of bureaucratic intelligence to do so.
As a Catholic in what was until recently a vigorously anti-Catholic country
As I say I have no problem working with Catholics at a grassroots level and serve on an international committee alongside several, one of whom is my best ally on that committee. My perspective is however that Catholicism in a country in which it is the historic majority and/or state religion is a very different kettle of fish to those in which it is not.
As a Catholic in what was until recently a vigorously anti-Catholic country I understand only too well in what ways you obviously feel that you are discriminated against by the Catholics who assume that they are superior. It used to be the same for Catholics in England vis a vis the CofE and in Scotland vis a vis the Church of Scotland. Fortunately these days are long past, certainly as far as I am concerned.
Alas anti-Catholic sentiments are still there below the surface in the CofS. Even as a wee piskie I occasionally get caught by the shrapnel
Enoch,the situation which you describe would be the same for any Catholic in England as for a member of the CofE. If a Catholic fulfils the state's conditions then state registration of their marriage is their right, but the Church's blessing is not unless they fulfil the conditions set by the Church.
It is interesting that in France the state is just as jealous about its rights and rites as the Church sometimes is. The marriage of a French citizen, certainly as far as males are concerned, is simply not recognised in French law unless it has been conducted in a suitable place ,with suitable words about the state, by a recognised official of the French state.
The marriage of a French citizen, certainly as far as males are concerned, is simply not recognised in French law unless it has been conducted in a suitable place ,with suitable words about the state, by a recognised official of the French state.
Here are the words said at a French civil wedding; here are the relevant parts of the law that are read out.
Please point to the "suitable words about the state" that the French state jealously requires its official to use.
Otherwise, as pointed out earlier, civil marriage is above all a legal contract, designed to protect the interested parties. It's hardly surprising some law applies.
The marriage of a French citizen, certainly as far as males are concerned, is simply not recognised in French law unless it has been conducted in a suitable place ,with suitable words about the state, by a recognised official of the French state.
Here, on your wording, the position is even stricter. If a marriage takes place in England or Wales, then irrespective of sex, nationality or who either party is, no marriage is recognised in law unless it takes place in accordance with the law of England and Wales. Otherwise, it is treated as legally a non-event.
Church weddings, to have any legal effect, must comply with that.
To be recognised as valid here, a marriage celebrated in another jurisdiction must comply with whatever the law is in the place where it took place.
@Eutychus my French is too rusty fully to grasp all the subtleties of the links you provided, but I can't follow your reference to "suitable words about the state". By 'state' do you mean, 'suitable words about France' which I can't see anywhere, or 'the state of marriage, it's incidents, duties and rights' which is what Articles 212-15 and 371.1 seem to be about.
Incidentally, are "A-t-il été fait un contrat de mariage ?" and "les conventions matrimoniales" Art 214) a reference to recording which form of community the couples have elected for, and whether there has been a dos?
For the peculiar historical reason that the equivalents here all formed part of the law of property, not family law, modern English law has been very hostile to the notion of marital regime. On that, at least, French law strikes me as much more sensible. English law would benefit greatly from encouraging something corresponding to community of acquests, with the possibility of some other options.
Eutychus, I quite accept that Catholicism has a different public aspect in a country in which the Church has played a major part in the life of the nation, often since its beginning. It is, of course, different from the public aspect of the Church in a country in which it has not had or not had for several centuries such a public role. This is perhaps not due so much to Catholicism per se as rather to the part that the Catholic Church has played over the centuries. Were you to be in England I think you would find that the Church of England would have much the same role as the default form of Christianity with Anglican clergy expecting to play the same role that Catholic priests may at times play in France, perhaps even more so since the Church of England is THE state church.
Yes, at times (though not very often) the French will take refuge in the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, just as in England at times the generality of the population will take solace in the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. In both cases one should not naively believe that all those present are regular churchgoers or even believers and I am sure you will agree with me on that.
It is when one is the minority that one realises at times that one is being looked upon with a certain disdain by those in the majority. Often the majority, secure in the knowledge of being the majority ,are unaware of being seen as arrogant by the 'underdog' I would think that this happens in may ways and in many fields, not just in religion.
In talking about civil weddings I am merely stating a fact that the marriage takes place in an institution of the state and is conducted by a servant of the state where the consenting parties are informed of what the state would ideally expect of those contracting marriage and where the 'livret de famille' (family register I see it translated as) is delivered to the newly married couple where they have a legal obligation to keep it up to date. I am not objecting to any of these things but it is as you say simply a legal contract.I would plead for respect for those who wish that 'legal contract' to be enhanced with a Christian marriage ceremony.
@Eutychus my French is too rusty fully to grasp all the subtleties of the links you provided, but I can't follow your reference to "suitable words about the state". By 'state' do you mean, 'suitable words about France' which I can't see anywhere, or 'the state of marriage, it's incidents, duties and rights' which is what Articles 212-15 and 371.1 seem to be about.
I was referring to Forthview's assertion that French weddings required "suitable words about the state" to be said, of which there are none that I can see.
Incidentally, are "A-t-il été fait un contrat de mariage ?" and "les conventions matrimoniales" Art 214) a reference to recording which form of community the couples have elected for, and whether there has been a dos?
If a 'dos' is a pre-nuptial agreement, yes. (Although often, in response to this question in the civil ceremony, the spouses look at each other blankly and say 'huh?').
I would plead for respect for those who wish that 'legal contract' to be enhanced with a Christian marriage ceremony.
I have absolutely no problem with that, but I think it's a mistake to confuse the two.
Were you to be in England I think you would find that the Church of England would have much the same role as the default form of Christianity with Anglican clergy expecting to play the same role that Catholic priests may at times play in France, perhaps even more so since the Church of England is THE state church.
And that is precisely the problem. To return to the OP, the initial attitude of the clergy strikes me as even more egregious in that the couple have a legal right to be legally married in their regular parish church. To my way of thinking that is utterly confused.
I got married in France with civil ceremony plus religious blessing and didn't feel at all disrespected in my religious sentiments. If there's a criticism to be had, to me it's that for something so important the civil ceremony can feel rather perfunctory (although in my case the mayor's deputy hadn't conducted a lot of weddings before and was taking the whole thing very much to heart - it was rather touching).
The separation of the legal and religious elements actually was intended as a mark of respect for religious minorities at it's inception because it meant that religious minorities could get married without offending their conscience. Prior to that the Catholic church had a monopoly. The purpose isn't to disrespect the religious, but to ensure that people of all religious persuasions get equal treatment.
I have no grouse with the state insisting on civil marriage ceremony for legal recognition of the marriage. I would simply ask for respect for those who consider that the religious 'benediction nuptiale 'is for them the 'big deal'. I have no grouse whatsoever with the total separation of Church and State.
I have no grouse with the state insisting on civil marriage ceremony for legal recognition of the marriage. I would simply ask for respect for those who consider that the religious 'benediction nuptiale 'is for them the 'big deal'. I have no grouse whatsoever with the total separation of Church and State.
How does that work though?
In the UK there is a problem with some Islamic clergy - who reject the right of the state to have any input into marriage.
So they conduct their own marriages and, if necessary, divorces.
Unfortunately an unintended consequence of these unregulated religious authorities is that the participants are not legally married and have consequently no state legal protections.
It seems to me that there is a responsibility on the state to treat all fairly with respect to marriage (which is certainly not the case with some groups in the UK) and to give fairly short shrift to religious groups who think that their religious profession and rites trump the state's requirements. Respect can therefore only be as far as those groups meet the state requirements - providing once again that they are fair.
Comments
The questions now being asked are, to my mind, relevant and appropriate pastorally and ethically, instead of pertaining to the best man, the blast radius of the wedding blessing, and its potential impact on any bystanders. (If it were me, pastorally, I think the answers to the questions now being asked would not constitute grounds for refusing the marriage).
It seems to me that by taking this course of action the local clergy have also insulated themselves against any potential anti-gay backlash from any quarters by passing the responsibility up the hierarchy ('we had no choice, it was the Bishop's decision') and probably satisfied their own consciences as a result. Why this couldn't have been done without abusing the couple in the first place is another question, but at least things seem to be moving in the right direction now - and without any media involvement.
I dunno what to say - this is going to a difficult thing all round. Even if the bishop allows it, there are going to be a bunch of annoyed people who think that the top of the heirarchy is forcing them to do something.
From my perspective the best-case outcome would be that the local clergy actually properly repented, reconciliation broke out all round, the wedding was approved, and one of them celebrated it.
The next-best outcome would be that the bishop appointed a replacement priest to officiate, which I understand is standard practice if there are issues of conscience, which would be an acceptable compromise.
Of course one can cynically expect the worst outcome and they are not home and dry yet, but objectively, I think there is more room for better outcomes now than there was when I started this thread.
(X-posted)
This highlights beautifully the hypocrisy of the CofE.
It sets itself up as judge and jury in deciding which party in a divorce is "guilty", while only speaking to one party - and in any case with irretrievable breakdown we effectively have no-fault divorce. The civil law decides (wisely IMO) that it takes two to tango but a bishop/ other clergyperson knows better and can make a snap judgment based on a set of fatuous and impertinent questions with no way of knowing if the responses are true.
Second, if a bishop or PP decides a couple are not worthy of having a church wedding, they'll offer the alternative of a blessing - we don't approve of you getting married so go and have a civil ceremony but we'll be happy to bless it anyway. This gives a bad enough taste to non-churchgoers but in the case of regular, faithful members of the congregation it can be disastrous as they can see any Tom, Dick or Harry roll up and get married but they themselves are offered what they, as believers, will feel is second-rate.
Either have the ba**s to re-marry the divorced or stop doing church weddings altogether: the current situation is unfair and indefensible.
The enquiry of the person with a dissolved marriage is not supposed to be an enquiry about who was at fault. The guidelines note that the reasons for refusing a marriage service to a couple might also mean not being able to offer them a service of prayer and blessing following a civil marriage.
With due respect, I've been through this process and I can tell you that the nature of the suggested questions boils down neatly to whether or not the person seeking remarriage is "guilty" or not; the Guidelines can dress it up in as many yards of flannel as they wish, the bottom line is that the church, in the person of the PP, is setting itself up as judge and jury (and executioner if they decide you are not "worthy" of remarrying in church.
My PP at the time was mightily embarrassed at the tone of the questions he was expected to ask, puerile and prurient by turn. In the end, because no one wants to be accused of lying do they, he ticked off the requisite answers that would "pass" and then we all had a glass of sherry.
But I was lucky: a mate was told by her PP that her first husband's decision to come out as gay was evidence that she hadn't been sufficiently "committed" to working for a successful marriage, and her acceptance of divorce showed that she had "given up" too easily. Her decision to have children before seeking remarriage was also used as "evidence" of her not being committed to the idea of a faithful marriage (although it was the father of those children she wished to marry) and that even if they had a civil marriage, the church would consider the children born out-of-wedlock to be problematic - he even expressed surprise that the children had been baptised.
Do explain how God's love is anywhere in all of that.
Yes. The distinction is this: if the marriage is void, it automatically never happened. There's no choice.
If the marriage is voidable, one of the couple must ask for it to be declared a nullity. A man and woman can marry, not have sex, and remain married to each other for life, if they like. But if one of them objects, then the marriage is declared void, and so didn't happen...
I suspect non-consummated marriages are quite rare.
There's an additional difference between them. Only one of the parties can apply for a voidable marriage to be annulled. Anyone can seek to annul a void one, even after the parties are dead.
@Forthview you will doubtless know more about this than me, but I think RC marriage tribunals grant annulments for causes that the law would class as voidable. I think RC tribunals will annul for non-consummation, whether through physical impediment, inability or refusal.
I'm under the impression they also do so for 'psychological non-consummation' which is that although sexual intercourse has taken place, one or the other party either lacked the psychological ability to enter into a faithful and permanent monogamous union, or else went through the marriage ceremony with no intention of committing themself to such a faithful and permanent monogamous union.
The law doesn't recognise either of these as grounds for an annulment, but under some circumstances it can enable a divorced Catholic to remarry without being barred from the sacraments. I believe this was the case with the famous writer Evelyn Waugh.
You can't cop-out like that: I and my friend were both put through "the process": it was that process that was dreadful. Granted in her case the PP added to the dreadfulness but they didn't initiate it, it was already dreadful, unloving, judgemental and prurient because that is the way it has been designed. Anyway who argues different is deluding themselves.
Perhaps the most famous anulment of modern(ish) times was that of the Marlboroughs. Having married in 1895, Consuelo Vanderbilt and "Sunny" Marlborough had 2 children before she left him in 1906. Consuelo filed for divorce in 1921 but was then persuaded to support Sunny's application for an RC anulment five years later - perhaps because Sunny was then considering becoming an RC (which he did in 1927). An anulment was given on the basis that the bride had been coerced into the marriage, thus true consent hadn't been given. It is interesting to note that notwithstanding the anulment, John Spencer-Churchill was considered sufficiently legitimate to inherit the dukedom on his father's death ...
I am sure your experience was crappy but however crappy it was, it is not right to generalise from your experience in advance.
As already stated in this thread, I'm not a fan of institutional churches, and still less of established ones, and I have the courage of my convictions by not being part of either. But my friends are, and so far are content to remain that way. So long as some form of due process is being followed (and I can't see a better form than the one in place) I'm willing to encourage them to seek resolution that way rather than going straight to the Guardian.
Obviously (though perhaps not obvious to all) that an RC annulment of marriage refers to a sacramental marriage ,generally contracted within the RC Church. As Enoch rightly says it does not have any force in English (state) law,but it would allow a Catholic to marry in a Catholic ceremony in church, since the first 'marriage' would not be considered by the Church as a proper marriage.
The children born of a marriage which has been annulled are ,as far as I know,not considered to be 'illegitimate' as long as they were born during the period when the marriage was thought to have been a proper marriage
It needn’t be that way, and the guidance does not prescribe questions to ask the couple, but considerations which the priest ought to have in mind.
Sensitively done it need not be a painful process, and I have met couples (not interviewed by me - yes, I have also administered the process) for whom it was not painful, and even one couple who were grateful for the first opportunity they had each had simply to tell the story of what had happened to them.
Since I have also once been approached for marriage by a couple whose secret relationship was when discovered, as was known to me, the direct and proximate cause of the break-up of the marriage of one of them, I consider that some process of enquiry is necessary.
Well, there we have to differ because I'd say that it would make more sense to look at why a straying husband or wife felt the need to go outside the marriage for companionship: its easy to work out why someone would go outside their marriage for sex, but the other bits of a marriage - the mutual society, help and comfort bit - are generally why people go elsewhere. And the party left/ bereft frequently gets the sympathy because they don't know why it happened which probably says more about the state of a relationship than anything else, yet the church would say they were the "innocent" party.
The church needs to decide whether or not it is going to remarry the divorced, period: the rest is far too murky/ open to interpretation for amateurs to try to decide on guilt or innocence.
In a more general sense we have been discussing here what constitutes a legally recognised marriage ceremony.It is clear that most states have their own laws about that.
We also have to decide whether 'marriage' is simply a legal concept. Most religions have their own ideas about marriage and the RC church has its own canon law which determines what a 'marriage' which will be recognised by the Church is. These conditions may or may not mirror whatever the state laws and understandings are. For many religious people ,and not only Christians, the 'marriage ceremony' is the one which is acknowledged as such by their religious community and this whatever the state may say about its conditions for such recognition..
Perhaps because in the UK there is often an overlap between the civil and religious components of a legally recognised marriage there are sometimes misunderstandings about what is meant by an annulment of a marriage granted by the RC authorities. Such an annulment only means that the person affected by it is free to marry in an RC ceremony and has nothing to do with state law or understanding of marriage.
1. 'We' don't recognise people who haven't had the right sort of ceremony as being married to each other at all,
2. 'We' think that people who have entered into what 'we' regard as a lesser form of marriage are entitled to treat one another in ways 'we' (often rightly) disapprove of. So
3. Those who have lesser forms of marriage have no grounds for complaint if their spouses cheat on them. And possibly the worst one of all,
4. Although A & B are legally married to each other, in 'our' eyes one, or even both of them are really married to other people. Sometime this is because 'we' don't recognise that earlier marriages have ended. Other times, this is because 'we' take the line that sexual intercourse has created a marriage which 'we', with 'our' privileged understanding' can see but nobody else can. And so
5. Therefore, if 'we' can break up A&B's legally binding marriage, that must be a good thing.
And, yes, I recognise there are shipmates who will be appalled by what I've just said.
I think that marriage in its modern form is a legal and civil institution, designed first and foremost to protect the rights of the spouses and clarify issues of filiation and inheritance. I think that's a good thing.
Marriage as seen in the Bible is above all an expression of mutual commitment to faithfulness. Exchanging vows is a way of formalising that commitment and offers an opportunity to invite God's blessing on the marriage. But I certainly don't consider somebody civilly married to be less married than somebody married in church, and I wouldn't consider somebody 'married' in some religious ceremony outside city hall to be legally married, simply because they wouldn't be.
Having the legal status of marriage as a benchmark also has the advantage of not having to be prurient about people's private lives unless they ask.
I think religious groups should be free to set any boundaries they like to marriages in "their" buildings. If the Jehovah's Witnesses want to say that a certain understanding of theology is necessary and Orthodox Jews want to specify something (sorry, running out of steam there, I'm not sure what those requirements might be) - that's all fine and dandy. The State should treat them all fairly, and it is a tragedy that some groups do not enjoy full rights and protections of the law.
If Anglicans within that understanding what to state that marriage is for such-and-such people and that these-other-people are excluded, that's also fine.
But what they can't do is use the latter rules at the same time as acting as functionaries of the state.
Because that's blatantly unfair.
1. Members of its own ecclesiastical household who marry according to another household's rites or in a civil marriage are not married at all, and living in sin.
2. Members of other household or no household at all who marry, are married
3. Such peoples' marriages can't be dissolved, irrespective of what the law courts may say.
4. Members of its own household who get divorced through the courts, remain nevertheless married to their ex-spouses even though they think they aren't.
5. This remains so, even if one of the ex-spouses marries someone else. So a person who the law regards as unmarried, is in the sight of that household, still married to someone who is in every other respect married to someone else.
There are some even more bizarre permutations that can arise in that particular household, but those five will do for now.
Most of the problems arise through doctrinal idealism, a failure to recognise that there is a difference between what should not happen and what cannot, and not appreciating quite what some of the implications are of Incarnation.
In France at least, the RC church seems to labour under the impression that the 1905 separation of church and state was merely a passing aberration, and is continuing to function to all intents and purposes as a state within a state. The sooner it gets out of that frame of mind the better as far as I'm concerned, but it seems to be intent on fighting a long and drawn-out reaguard action to the benefit of nobody but its power-brokers.
The Church, and not just the RC Church has kept registers of baptisms and marriages for centuries, long before civil marriage came into being.
I think that I know which household Enoch is referring to. Each religious community has the right to determine its own norms and understanding of what marriage is. When the RC church talks about marriage it talks about it within the context of the RC church. The Church has no right to interfere with the state and secular understanding of marriage and has no jurisdiction over the marriages of anyone who is not part of the community.
On the other hand it has every right as part of its Gospel proclamation to explain to its devotees what its understanding of marriage is. No-one can be forced to agree with it, but at the same time the Church cannot be forced to celebrate a marriage ceremony for those who do not fulfil the requirements for a Catholic marriage.
Members of the Catholic Church who wish to remain in good standing with the Catholic Church cannot contract a Catholic marriage with another person (of the opposite sex) unless both are free in canon law so to do. This in no way inhibits their right to a civil divorce nor to a marriage ceremony outwith the Catholic Church.
It would seem that the CofE must at times see things the same way, as that is the whole thrust of the OP - namely that the couple in question would be free to marry in a civil ceremony but that the CofE,or at least its local representative, rightly or wrongly, is disagreeing with state policy.
It's not the actual record-keeping, it's the mentality. The signing doesn't come across as a formality, it comes across as a big deal. For baptisms, it's even worse. In one prison I know I suspect the RC chaplain of going through baptismal records through what intelligence service I dare not guess, and offering non-RC-baptised inmates baptism classes. One non-conformist church in my city has received several letters from the state security services - forwarded from an administrative department of the RC diocesan office for return - to them. There's a whole parallel organ of state in there.
Why? What a weird thing to do.
I don't, in general, care at all about the legal status of someone's marriage. Unless I am dealing with their estate after death, or dealing with joint property and mutual obligations if they split up, it's not relevant to me.
I agree with you that people who don't have legal marriages don't have legal marriages, but the state's role in a marriage is one of registration - no more. Two people go along to a bureaucrat and say "we're married" and the bureaucrat makes the appropriate record. In a similar way, we registered the birth of our children with the state, but that's just administration. The state does not create our children or their citizenship - it just records the facts.
The thing I care about is that two people have made a mutual commitment to each other. Perhaps they did it in a church, perhaps they did it in the town hall, perhaps they did it in private. Perhaps it has the sanction of the local authorities, or perhaps it doesn't. There's no reason for me, qua private citizen, to care.
(This doesn't stop me getting on famously with lots of Catholics and indeed with our local bishop, but the mindset is there in the institution nonetheless).
Surely Catholics, just as much as 'non-conformists' must have the right to evangelise unless this is forbidden by the state. I don't really understand at all what it is that you think you suspect a certain RC prison chaplain is doing.
As a Catholic in what was until recently a vigorously anti-Catholic country I understand only too well in what ways you obviously feel that you are discriminated against by the Catholics who assume that they are superior. It used to be the same for Catholics in England vis a vis the CofE and in Scotland vis a vis the Church of Scotland. Fortunately these days are long past, certainly as far as I am concerned. Much of it comes from a general indifference on the part of the populationwhich has led here to greater acceptance though not always understanding.
Marriage may be their right, but the marriage blessing is not.
Checking up on this would have been the background to the inquisition that @TheOrganist describes as having been handled badly. @BroJames describes when approached for marriage by a couple whose secret relationship had been 'the direct and proximate cause of the break-up of the marriage of one of them'. By then, they might have become free to marry one another, but is it pastorally good for them to say 'that's all right then; God will bless your union', or to expect someone else to confer that blessing upon them, rather than insist that if under such circumstances they are going to get married, they must be expected to take their own moral responsibility for that, rather than ask someone else to do so?
Besides, the cheated and let-down former spouse has a legitimate view to be taken account of.
As I say I have no problem working with Catholics at a grassroots level and serve on an international committee alongside several, one of whom is my best ally on that committee. My perspective is however that Catholicism in a country in which it is the historic majority and/or state religion is a very different kettle of fish to those in which it is not.
Alas anti-Catholic sentiments are still there below the surface in the CofS. Even as a wee piskie I occasionally get caught by the shrapnel
It is interesting that in France the state is just as jealous about its rights and rites as the Church sometimes is. The marriage of a French citizen, certainly as far as males are concerned, is simply not recognised in French law unless it has been conducted in a suitable place ,with suitable words about the state, by a recognised official of the French state.
Please point to the "suitable words about the state" that the French state jealously requires its official to use.
Otherwise, as pointed out earlier, civil marriage is above all a legal contract, designed to protect the interested parties. It's hardly surprising some law applies.
Church weddings, to have any legal effect, must comply with that.
To be recognised as valid here, a marriage celebrated in another jurisdiction must comply with whatever the law is in the place where it took place.
@Eutychus my French is too rusty fully to grasp all the subtleties of the links you provided, but I can't follow your reference to "suitable words about the state". By 'state' do you mean, 'suitable words about France' which I can't see anywhere, or 'the state of marriage, it's incidents, duties and rights' which is what Articles 212-15 and 371.1 seem to be about.
Incidentally, are "A-t-il été fait un contrat de mariage ?" and "les conventions matrimoniales" Art 214) a reference to recording which form of community the couples have elected for, and whether there has been a dos?
For the peculiar historical reason that the equivalents here all formed part of the law of property, not family law, modern English law has been very hostile to the notion of marital regime. On that, at least, French law strikes me as much more sensible. English law would benefit greatly from encouraging something corresponding to community of acquests, with the possibility of some other options.
Yes, at times (though not very often) the French will take refuge in the rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, just as in England at times the generality of the population will take solace in the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. In both cases one should not naively believe that all those present are regular churchgoers or even believers and I am sure you will agree with me on that.
It is when one is the minority that one realises at times that one is being looked upon with a certain disdain by those in the majority. Often the majority, secure in the knowledge of being the majority ,are unaware of being seen as arrogant by the 'underdog' I would think that this happens in may ways and in many fields, not just in religion.
In talking about civil weddings I am merely stating a fact that the marriage takes place in an institution of the state and is conducted by a servant of the state where the consenting parties are informed of what the state would ideally expect of those contracting marriage and where the 'livret de famille' (family register I see it translated as) is delivered to the newly married couple where they have a legal obligation to keep it up to date. I am not objecting to any of these things but it is as you say simply a legal contract.I would plead for respect for those who wish that 'legal contract' to be enhanced with a Christian marriage ceremony.
If a 'dos' is a pre-nuptial agreement, yes. (Although often, in response to this question in the civil ceremony, the spouses look at each other blankly and say 'huh?').
I have absolutely no problem with that, but I think it's a mistake to confuse the two.
And that is precisely the problem. To return to the OP, the initial attitude of the clergy strikes me as even more egregious in that the couple have a legal right to be legally married in their regular parish church. To my way of thinking that is utterly confused.
The separation of the legal and religious elements actually was intended as a mark of respect for religious minorities at it's inception because it meant that religious minorities could get married without offending their conscience. Prior to that the Catholic church had a monopoly. The purpose isn't to disrespect the religious, but to ensure that people of all religious persuasions get equal treatment.
How does that work though?
In the UK there is a problem with some Islamic clergy - who reject the right of the state to have any input into marriage.
So they conduct their own marriages and, if necessary, divorces.
Unfortunately an unintended consequence of these unregulated religious authorities is that the participants are not legally married and have consequently no state legal protections.
It seems to me that there is a responsibility on the state to treat all fairly with respect to marriage (which is certainly not the case with some groups in the UK) and to give fairly short shrift to religious groups who think that their religious profession and rites trump the state's requirements. Respect can therefore only be as far as those groups meet the state requirements - providing once again that they are fair.