Sorry, your best man is gay

13468911

Comments

  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    It's not that I disrespect those who think the religious blessing is the big deal. I just think they're wrong. :tongue:

    FWIW it's not just Catholics who think the religious blessing is the important bit. Plenty of Evangelicals of my acquaintance think this way as well. I disagree strongly. Thus my earlier comment about who's going to marry you / the mayor.

    The civil ceremony is the bit that actually made me married and I if wanted to undo it (for the sake of argument- rest assured I don't) I would have to get a divorce. It matters.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I don't know that anyone ever checks whether someone is already married.
    Are you sure about that? If so, that seems insane. I would be very surprised if a marriage application process did not include a check of martial status, even if Vegas is an exception.

    And do we actually know that Vegas is an exception? Are we positive that they do not have access to some database in order to check if the persons in question are eligible to marry?
    Forthview wrote: »
    I understand that in England non consummation of a marriage is a legal ground for annulment of a marriage,not for divorce from a legally contracted marriage (though I may be wrong ).
    The problem I have with that is, how could they possibly validate that as true?
    Forthview wrote: »
    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.
    Yes, but as marriage is a legal category, it is presumed to be valid until proven otherwise. So in a sense one could say that an annulled marriage was null and void from the beginning, but that would be impossible to know, legally, until the application of nullity (in certain cases such as non-consummation). So the category is not so much about reality but about legal status.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Golden Key wrote: »
    I don't know that anyone ever checks whether someone is already married.
    Are you sure about that? If so, that seems insane. I would be very surprised if a marriage application process did not include a check of martial status, even if Vegas is an exception.
    It depends on what is meant by "check." Here, when applying for a marriage license, the parties must answer (I believe under penalty of perjury) whether or not they have been previously married. If either answers that they have been, they must provide a certified copy of the divorce decree. But no one in the register of deeds' office is going to go behind the couple and check.
    And do we actually know that Vegas is an exception? Are we positive that they do not have access to some database in order to check if the persons in question are eligible to marry?
    I'm pretty positive there is no such database in the U.S.

  • Antisocial AltoAntisocial Alto Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    And do we actually know that Vegas is an exception? Are we positive that they do not have access to some database in order to check if the persons in question are eligible to marry?
    I'm pretty positive there is no such database in the U.S.

    Yeah, this is another area where our federalist setup makes it difficult. Every state has different marriage laws and different systems for recording marriages. We aren't even very good at making information on violent crimes available to police departments nationwide because of different state laws and computer systems, tracking a little nonviolent bigamy is probably a low priority.
  • We have to remember that Christians of all sorts are usually citizens of particular states and are enjoined to be loyal to the state (unless there are major clashes between the religious teachings and state's. )Marriage ideas should not be such a clash. Catholics in France , are citizens who ,like others, pay taxes and abide by the laws of the land. Civil marriage brings certain benefits and Catholics, like others, who wish to avail themselves of these benefits, would of course commit themselves to this contract of marriage, but believers would wish to have on a personal spiritual level their marriage solemnized in church and for some, on a personal spiritual level the marriage ceremony in church would be considered as the more important.

    I have been reading today quite a lot about non-Catholic religious marriage in France - and respect the various ideas which religious people who are not Catholic have. According to what I have read (no guarantee that this is 100% correct) a civil marriage is sufficient for a Protestant wedding ceremony. There is no obligation for the parties to be married in church. (I liked the sentence I read: Dieu est omnipresent,meme a la mairie -God is everywhere present,even at the town hall) While I concur with this statement, we have to say that God is not mentioned at a civil ceremony and ,to my mind we should respect the wishes of the Catholic Church to have a ceremony in church where the couple make their vows before God. And we should understand why they make a 'big deal' of it.

    While no proof of baptism is required for a Protestant service I would imagine that most couples asking for a marriage blessing in a Protestant church would be Christians. The actual nuptial blessing would seem to be virtually the same as the Catholic one. Readings from the Word of God, the exchange of vows and of rings, as well as God's blessing being called down on the couple. A copy of the Bible is then given to the married couple.


    One difference is that the registers are signed at the beginning of the ceremony in the Protestant ceremony while the registers are signed at the end in the Catholic ceremony.
    For some reason this seemed to displease Eutychus. Is it possible that the registers are signed at the beginning of the religious ceremony in a Protestant building as a sign that the marriage has already taken place ? They would be signed at the end in a Catholic marriage ceremony as the Catholic marriage would not be considered to have taken place until the end of the ceremony.
    I agree that citizens of a state should contract marriage according to the laws of the state,but citizens should have the right to consider more important the religious requirements of whatever faith they espouse. Protestant marriages in France have been juridically recognised as valid sine 1786.

    Whilst I have no competence to make a comment on the situation as described in the OP it does seem to me somewhat a bizarre situation.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It depends on what is meant by "check." Here, when applying for a marriage license, the parties must answer (I believe under penalty of perjury) whether or not they have been previously married. If either answers that they have been, they must provide a certified copy of the divorce decree. But no one in the register of deeds' office is going to go behind the couple and check
    Ok, that's weird. In Norway if you apply, it takes at least a few days, maybe even a few weeks, and they check everything. If you are married, they will know, and you will be denied a marriage certificate.
  • kmann wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    It depends on what is meant by "check." Here, when applying for a marriage license, the parties must answer (I believe under penalty of perjury) whether or not they have been previously married. If either answers that they have been, they must provide a certified copy of the divorce decree. But no one in the register of deeds' office is going to go behind the couple and check
    Ok, that's weird.
    Eh. Weird to you. Totally normal and sufficient to me. Problems with married people getting marriage licenses seem to be very rare.
    In Norway if you apply, it takes at least a few days, maybe even a few weeks, and they check everything.
    See, this seems like overkill to me. It has me wondering if fraudulent marriages are really that much more of a problem elsewhere than they seem to be here.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    Forthview wrote: »
    I understand that in England non consummation of a marriage is a legal ground for annulment of a marriage,not for divorce from a legally contracted marriage (though I may be wrong ).
    The problem I have with that is, how could they possibly validate that as true?

    The usual way, with sworn evidence from at least one of the parties.
  • kmann wrote: »
    If you are married, they will know, and you will be denied a marriage certificate.

    If you married outside Norway, how do they know?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    I just discovered there's a character limit on posts! (So many were needed to counter what @Forthview is saying...)

    PART ONE
    Forthview wrote: »
    believers would wish to have on a personal spiritual level their marriage solemnized in church and for some, on a personal spiritual level the marriage ceremony in church would be considered as the more important.

    Once again, I invite you to point to evidence on this thread of anybody thinking otherwise.

    However, the fact is that a church marriage in France does not make you married in the legal sense and has not meant that since at least 1905 and the separation of Church and state [ETA or, apparently, 1792, see later on].

    The real dividing issues are a) that Catholics believe marriage is a sacrament; protestants don't b) Catholicism in France is still largely in the mindset that it is a territorial church and the reason not everybody in that territory does things the Catholic way is a reflection on the dissenters, not a reflection on the Catholic church. For Catholics, secularity (laïcité) is largely an aberration and a step backwards, not a step forwards. The higher up the hierarchy you go, the truer this is.
    According to what I have read (no guarantee that this is 100% correct) a civil marriage is sufficient for a Protestant wedding ceremony. There is no obligation for the parties to be married in church.
    No, because unlike the Catholics, for reasons b) and a) above, we recognise marriage as being a civil institution available to all, of all faiths and none, and we don't believe it's a sacrament, therefore it doesn't require the presence of a priest.
    to my mind we should respect the wishes of the Catholic Church to have a ceremony in church where the couple make their vows before God. And we should understand why they make a 'big deal' of it.

    Once again this is a straw man. Nobody here has said anything to the contrary. But the fact is that no "ceremony in church" makes the couple married in the eyes of the law. Indeed it is illegal (maxium penalty of 6 months in prison and €7,500 fine) to conduct a religious wedding if a civil wedding has not been held first (although it would normally be Muslims who fall foul of this).

    (To take a contrary example, Travellers, including Christians, often get married according to their community customs, often very young, but never go anywhere near a town hall. This is partly because of Travellers' aversion to institutions of all kinds, but also because not getting married and living in a bunch of caravans (as many, although a fast-decreasing number, still do) conveniently makes it difficult for social security inspectors to find evidence of living as man and wife means the wife can and does continue to claim single parent benefits. They are thus demonstrably not "married in the eyes of the law", and reap the financial benefits of not being so - but of course are not afforded the protections of marriage law either).
    While no proof of baptism is required for a Protestant service

    No, because we don't function as a parallel state bureaucracy or believe in the sacramental nature of marriage. I had a close call last summer when a person baptised as a protestant when a teenager needed proof for his wedding with a Catholic in a Catholic church. Fortunately he knew when it was, I found my diary of 20 years ago, and I could concoct an affidavit.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    PART TWO
    I would imagine that most couples asking for a marriage blessing in a Protestant church would be Christians.

    Yes, but some might not be, or more often, one of the spouses is not. Rather than cut-and-paste a liturgy as you fondly seem to imagine all protestants do, I personally do something bespoke which is meaningful and not hypocritical for both the participants. What makes this possible is a) not seeing marriage as a sacrament b) not having to fulfil the role of a state registrar. So we can do what we like, within reason.
    A copy of the Bible is then given to the married couple.
    I've lost count of the number of marriage blessings I've done in church and I can think of only one occasion on which this happened, and it happened because some hidebound relative insisted, aggressively, that it wouldn't be a "proper" wedding unless this happened. He then produced something that looked more like a white leather Gucci handbag than a Bible and which will probably sit on a shelf along with the wedding album for ever after.
    One difference is that the registers are signed at the beginning of the ceremony in the Protestant ceremony while the registers are signed at the end in the Catholic ceremony.
    For some reason this seemed to displease Eutychus.

    It displeases me when you spout bullshit. What you describe may be practice in the historic protestant church but it certainly doesn't reflect the practice where I am. While a church may keep a register of its actions (baptisms, weddings, funerals) there is absolutely no requirement for it to do so because it is not obliged to think of itself as a controlling bureaucracy and what it does has no legal value.

    (I've lost count of the number of people I've buried, too, and what counts for me is not some entry in a moth-eaten church register to say that I've done so but having, beforehand, a copy of the civil death certificate so I'm reasonably sure I'm actually burying the person claimed to be dead and not participating in an insurance scam or some such (and yes I do actually ask for this if I'm responsible for the funeral)).
    Is it possible that the registers are signed at the beginning of the religious ceremony in a Protestant building as a sign that the marriage has already taken place ?
    I have never ever heard of this but I imagine the thinking would be precisely the same as mine above. They want to be sure they are not usurping the actual, legal marriage. The Catholic system as it is in place here is, so far as I can see, is designed to minimise the actual legal marriage and make it look as if the religious marriage is what counts - including legally.
    Protestant marriages in France have been juridically recognised as valid sine 1786.

    Citation needed. The Decree of September 20 1792 section VI explains how, in the months following this decree, state registrars must perform an inventory of all religious registers and transfer them to the municipality, and states (Article 5) that
    les municipalités seules recevront les actes de naissances, mariages et décès, et conserveront les registres.

    Only municipalities shall establish birth, marriage, and death certificates, and shall keep registers thereof

    Again, nothing stops churches keeping their own registers, but they have no legal value. To my mind, the reach of Catholic bureaucracy in this respect reflects its basic refusal to acknowledge the prerogative of the secular state in this respect.

    It can be convincingly argued that the état civil (civil state) is a power grab by the state to gain control over inhabitants of its territory (mostly for the purposes of conscription and taxation) and that this is A Bad Thing, but as @la vie en rouge has argued, from a non-Catholic point of view it was a huge step in creating the space for religious freedom which you claim to hold dear.
    Whilst I have no competence to make a comment on the situation as described in the OP it does seem to me somewhat a bizarre situation.

    It is a bizarre situation because of their irrational fear of the blast radius of an evangelical marriage blessing and their blatant homophobia.

    But it is made more bizarre by an order of magnitude due to the priest also acting as registrar, imposing on them a legal obligation to marry people with a qualifying connection to the parish.

    If the OP had happened in France I would still decry the homophobia and the hypocrisy and abuse of dressing it up as an objection to one of the spouse's previous marriage history, but there would not be the added confusion of having a legal entitlement to a legal wedding in a church.

    [ETA a URL]
  • Thank you, Eutychus, for your very full explanations. I should have remembered, of course, that not all non-Catholic Christians are the same. I used the word 'Protestant' but was referring to the traditional versions of the Reformed and Protestant churches in France and not to the more independent evangelical churches, where I think that you are situated. I have never said that a Catholic marriage is or should be a legally recognised civil marriage. I am glad that you are happy to give blessings to civilly contracted marriages.
    I think that it is a good practice to give a copy of the Bible to newly married couples, but like yourself,I don't believe the ceremony to be complete if it is not done.
  • For the purposes of the divide in this discussion (and for the sake of my own curiosity) is the Diocese in Europe considered Protestant or Catholic? Presumably conducting weddings according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England would include the signing of the registers. I know that in my CofE upbringing the priest celebrating was always clear in stating after the vows that "x and y are now married, but there are one or two legal formalities..." before the registers were signed. It's also worth noting that, even in Catholic tradition, the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament (hence why defect of intent on either part is relevant for seeking an annulment) and the priest is blessing the marriage, not administering the sacrament.
  • Sorry,Eutychus, Protestant marriages have been juridically recognised since 1787 (not 1786 !) by the Edict of Versailles ,an edict of tolerance signed by Louis XVI on 7th Nov.1787
    My mistake to put it forward by one year.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Forthview wrote: »
    I should have remembered, of course, that not all non-Catholic Christians are the same.
    Where's the rolleyes smiley when you need it?

    In my experience, from the Catholic perspective in France, ecumenism is very often a trip by Catholics to the zoo to eye, with varying degrees of fear, distate, and benevolence, various cages in which "non-Catholic Christians" are housed, before retreating to the comfort of home, tea, and biscuits. This is a caricature and there are many exceptions, but it's one worth bearing in mind.
    I know that in my CofE upbringing the priest celebrating was always clear in stating after the vows that "x and y are now married, but there are one or two legal formalities before the registers were signed...."
    As explained above, I think this order of proceedings would be technically illegal in France and it would be a brave officiating individual who declared the religious marriage to be the one that really counted. Certainly I have never heard any such thing asserted in any religious celebration of any confession, and often heard the contrary in protestant celebrations.
    For the purposes of the divide in this discussion (and for the sake of my own curiosity) is the Diocese in Europe considered Protestant or Catholic?
    As far as I know the Diocese in Europe is an Anglican animal and thus Protestant (unless one takes the line that the CoE is not really Protestant, as some do...). From where I'm sitting your question about registers serves to highlight the muddle between civil status and religious ceremony. I will ask my local Diocese in Europe vicar next time I see him, though.

    I'm coming to think that all this talk of registers is at the end of the day about control. I have few illusions about the ends to which state control might be put (not least taxation and conscription) but on balance I prefer to have my civil affairs controlled by the state and freedom of conscience than be told I can't exist civilly because of my religious beliefs (which certainly was the case in France before the Revolution and in Europe before the Reformation).
    Forthview wrote: »
    Sorry,Eutychus, Protestant marriages have been juridically recognised since 1787 (not 1786 !) by the Edict of Versailles ,an edict of tolerance signed by Louis XVI on 7th Nov.1787
    My mistake to put it forward by one year.

    Citation needed. What this means as far as I can see is that they were recognised prior to the decree of 1792 which by my reckoning comes after both 1786 and 1787. Prior to the Reformation, in Europe the only form of registry of any kind was in churches which de facto served as a legal benchmark. The Edict finally allowed French protestants to exist officially (the end of the désert), which was a step forward, but the French 1792 decree established civil registry, putting the whole thing on a secular footing.

    There is no such thing as a "juridically recognised" protestant marriage today in France, any more then there is any such thing as a "juridically recognised" Catholic marriage.

    In fact it's occurred to me that the Catholic register I had to sign in the ecumenical wedding I co-celebrated was very probably in a format that has remained unchanged since 1792. The Catholics simply haven't admitted to themselves that they have lost this "juridically recongised" prerogative. They have continued, as has their bureaucracy, just as if the civil state had never been established.
  • Surely the idea that the religious bit is the important bit is in itself something of an innovation, in Catholic terms?

    AIUI, a Medieval marriage merely required a declaration of consent (verbum) by the couple - it didn't even require witnesses, much less priests. This led to all sorts of abuses, and the requirement to get registered in a church was introduced around the time of the Counter-Reformation, but it was a pragmatic necessity rather than a theological one.

    Obviously Medieval people may well have got their marriages blessed by a priest, but it was like blessing a boat - it's a good and pious thing to do, but the boat is still seaworthy if you don't.
  • Is the allegiance of the French to the French state the other half of the process that Eutychus describes? In my experience, even those who dislike it define their Frenchness in terms of their ties to the French state. It therefore makes perfect sense that issues such as marriage should be fundamentally, even exclusively, defined by the state.

    My observation is that mileage on this point will vary enormously in the US, and that it will not mostly purtain in the UK. The state exists, and we do with it what we need to and accept services from it without thought, but would not define ourselves or our status, in other than purely bureaucratic terms, by reference to it.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    France is certainly particular, and different to "Anglo-Saxon" countries, in that national identity is a deliberate, abstract construct: the "Republican ideal".

    This monolithic abstract construct mean that concepts such as "communitarianism" are not just odd, they are anathema. It can be criticised as being literally soulless, and as hindering the integration of minorities.

    However, right now, to me at least the 'secularity' model that comes with it doesn't look any worse than any other as a way of organising society. At least for as long as we have nation states.
  • In the CofE, the church registers, which are legal documents and have to be completed properly and accurately and mistakes have to be corrected obviously, are duplicated on yellow forms sent to the registrar's office, at least monthly. The books are numbered with columns for all the required information (fathers, not mothers of the participants, and all).

    The two records have to be checked one against the other and the church gets into trouble if the paperwork is not correctly completed and in a timely fashion.
  • A state of affairs unknown in France (see especially the 1792 Decree referenced above).
  • In the CofE, the church registers, which are legal documents and have to be completed properly and accurately and mistakes have to be corrected obviously, are duplicated on yellow forms sent to the registrar's office, at least monthly. The books are numbered with columns for all the required information (fathers, not mothers of the participants, and all).

    The two records have to be checked one against the other and the church gets into trouble if the paperwork is not correctly completed and in a timely fashion.

    As you say, and I forgot to, the Church of England, as an established church (unknown in post-revolutionary France) has a relationship with the state which is one of apparent incorporation, denied or repressed within its ordinary life. It feels to me like we try to be in the state but not of it. How successful we are in this, I'm not sure, and our inscription into the state's bureaucratic pulse is a part of that picture.
  • GracieGracie Shipmate, 8th Day Host Posts: 21
    For the purposes of the divide in this discussion (and for the sake of my own curiosity) is the Diocese in Europe considered Protestant or Catholic? Presumably conducting weddings according to the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England would include the signing of the registers. I know that in my CofE upbringing the priest celebrating was always clear in stating after the vows that "x and y are now married, but there are one or two legal formalities..." before the registers were signed. It's also worth noting that, even in Catholic tradition, the couple themselves are the ministers of the sacrament (hence why defect of intent on either part is relevant for seeking an annulment) and the priest is blessing the marriage, not administering the sacrament.
    Eutychus wrote: »
    From where I'm sitting your question about registers serves to highlight the muddle between civil status and religious ceremony. I will ask my local Diocese in Europe vicar next time I see him, though.

    A point of information would be that priests in the Diocese in Europe are not known as vicars but as chaplains, as was recently pointed out to me by one of their number. This is presumably because they don't have a parish and minister to people who are not living in a Church of England parish. So I'm also supposing that signing of any register at a wedding performed in the Diocese in Europe would not have the same meaning or import as at a wedding in a parish within the UK.

  • In the CofE, the church registers, which are legal documents and have to be completed properly and accurately and mistakes have to be corrected obviously, are duplicated on yellow forms sent to the registrar's office, at least monthly. The books are numbered with columns for all the required information (fathers, not mothers of the participants, and all).

    The two records have to be checked one against the other and the church gets into trouble if the paperwork is not correctly completed and in a timely fashion.

    Those aren't the church registers, those are the registers issued by the General Register Office that have to be filled in, together with the Certificate Book. I know some churches have dispensed with their own registers for weddings, but most will still have a marriages register over-and-above the green ones issued by the GRO in which they may also choose to record blessings of marriages of parishioners who have married elsewhere.
  • It seems to me that I am not spouting bullshit when I say that registers are signed in the older 'established' Protestant communities in France. If the older churches see the civil marriage as the definitive marriage then there is no need to wait till the end of the nuptial blessing ceremony before signing the registers. I don't need any rolleye smileys to say that there are many different types of Protestants, even in France. There are a number of different types of Protestants, including ,I would think, the independent evangelical churches.

    If you don't need registers, then why does the state have them. ? They probably also have some mouldy old books. The keeping of registers by the Catholic Church is not something which is limited to France. The Church is a global organisation and has these registers all over the world. Rightly or wrongly it is not something which is limited to France and not set up in opposition to the state. The state records are a more modern phenomenon than the ecclesiastical ones.

    It is true that the Catholic Church in France is sometimes known as 'la fille ainee de l'Eglise de Rome' (the eldest daughter of the Roman Church ) In spite of the' laicite' which I think has been a good thing for the Church, the influence of the French Church has been immense over the whole Catholic world over the centuries - men of learning like Blaise Pascal and Louis Pasteur, orators like Bossuet and Lacordaire, saints like Vincent de Paul and Therese de Lisieux, theologians like Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac and Teilhard de Chardin, as well as popular piety like the shrine of Lourdes, the 'miraculous' medal of Catherine de Laboure and the devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus are known over the world and in the realm of popular piety by the simplest of Catholics.

    However every country has its own cultural baggage and in my country the ideas of Calvinism are in the DNA of virtually every Scot, including the Scottish Catholics.
  • la vie en rougela vie en rouge Circus Host, 8th Day Host
    Forthview, I don't think you're listening.

    The State registers marriages because it grants a considerable number of advantages to married couples, notably in relation to inheritance and tax. I don't particularly care if a church wants to keep a record of marriage ceremonies it conducts, but the point is that this had no legal validity. And French Catholics know it perfectly well. When they want to prove they're entitled to a tax break they don't point to the Catholic register. They hand over a civil marriage certificate or their livret de famille.

    Observe the traditional form of a French wedding procession: unlike an Anglo-Saxon affair where the groom waits at the altar and the bride is escorted by her father, in France it goes

    Little kids looking cute
    Groom's witness(es) escorting bride's witness(es)
    Groom's father escorting bride's mother
    Bride's father escorting groom's mother
    Bride and groom together

    The whole point of arriving together is that you're already married by time you get there. These days you do see some brides arriving on their father's arm, but I think that's mostly because they've seen it in the movies. It looks less absurd if the two bits are a couple of days apart, as they often are these days for logistical reasons, but traditionally you go straight from the Town Hall to the church. Being together at the Town Hall, y'know, getting married and then splitting up and walking down the aisle separately looks kind of ridiculous.

    TBH my beef is not that the religious take their religious marriage seriously. It's that they don't take their civil marriage anywhere near seriously enough.
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    Forthview wrote: »
    In spite of the' laicite' which I think has been a good thing for the Church, the influence of the French Church has been immense over the whole Catholic world

    This perfectly sums up my perception that the French Catholic church sees laïcité as a threat. It doesn't think it's been a good thing for the Church. My local RC Bishop sees laïcité as a terrible thing, and I know this because he told me in conversation in a vestry prior to an ecumenical prayer event.

    He doesn't really recognise the prerogatives of the secular state at all. In an ideal world he would probably tear up the 1905 separation of Church and State, restore Catholicism as the state religion, and put the rest of us back in the zoo.

    When the diocese here sells real estate property, it will sell to anyone and anything - apart from any other religious organisation of any kind. They'd rather derelict Catholic churches became loft apartments and sports clubs than places of worship of any kind. The message is clear.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Eutychus wrote: »
    When the diocese here sells real estate property, it will sell to anyone and anything - apart from any other religious organisation of any kind. They'd rather derelict Catholic churches became loft apartments and sports clubs than places of worship of any kind. The message is clear.

    Wait, what? All the other secular-resisting aspects align with my (shallow) understanding of Catholicism, but the preference of secular use of previously church property over other not-quite-Catholic spiritual use is surprising.

    But I guess it shouldn't be. Religion is so very obviously a human construct of the least good kind.
  • As far as I can see, Catholicism in France, instead of coming to terms with the fact that it is in a post-Christian, multi-faith society and embracing that landscape, is in all but token ways fighting a prolonged rearguard action. Institutional churches are not fast-moving organisations at the best of times, and when one has as many assets and connections as the Catholic church here has, including among France's military officer corps, this rearguard action could be measured in centuries. But that is what it is.
  • I am listening to you, only too well, Eutychus and you must surely have seen that I have never suggested that the Catholic marriage ceremony has legal validity in France. I have constantly tried to point out that it is an important ceremony for Catholics. I am willing to take your point that some Catholics may not take the state ceremony seriously enough though I have never personally known people like that.

    Since the state at the moment of separation took possession of virtually all the religious buildings in use at that time, the Catholic church is only responsible for the new churches built since then. I know the difficulty that some parishes have in financing 'new' buildings built since the separation, but it certainly saves a lot of worry about the upkeep of religious buildings which are not the responsibility of the Church.
  • Forthview wrote: »
    I am listening to you, only too well, Eutychus (...) I am willing to take your point that some Catholics may not take the state ceremony seriously enough

    It was @la vie en rouge who said that, not me...

  • I am sorry again Eutychus. I am glad that you are reading carefully and helping me out. Undoubtedly the Church is fighting a rearguard action but that doesn't mean that it doesn't have something valuable to say. I like the idea of the 'spirit' and the 'form' needing one another. Like a bottle of wine. The wine is the 'spirit' which needs the bottle to contain it,so that it can be poured out in the right measure. Without the bottle (the outer form) the wine (the spirit) would be dissipated. We need the outer forms to contain and let out the spirit. I accept that sometimes and possibly too often the Catholic Church has stifled the spirit and refused to uncork it. It can happen when one has centuries of cultural baggage to deal with,but, believe me, the spirit is there and we need to try to meet it and recognise it in all we come across.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    If you are married, they will know, and you will be denied a marriage certificate.

    If you married outside Norway, how do they know?
    I assume that they take contact with the country in question. And if they cannot corroborate, you don't get a licence.
  • kmannkmann Shipmate
    The whole point of arriving together is that you're already married by time you get there. These days you do see some brides arriving on their father's arm, but I think that's mostly because they've seen it in the movies. It looks less absurd if the two bits are a couple of days apart, as they often are these days for logistical reasons, but traditionally you go straight from the Town Hall to the church. Being together at the Town Hall, y'know, getting married and then splitting up and walking down the aisle separately looks kind of ridiculous.
    It only looks ‘kind of ridiculous’ if you regard the marriage in the Town Hall to be the most important part. And legally it is, of course, the most important part. But for many Catholics, the ceremony in the Church is the most important part, precisely because they do not see marriage as a legal structure first and foremost. Marriage is a sacrament of the Catholic Church, after all. I presume that in England and in the Nordic churches, where there are established churches and state churches, there will come a time when the French model will be introduced. But I would presume that many, if not most, will still regard the religious ceremony (or perhaps humanist, nonreligous ceremony) to be the most important one – not legally but personally and/or spiritually.

    As a priest I have conducted a few ceremonies for people who are already legally married. They all wanted a full ceremony, and all the brides walked down the aisle with their fathers. (I have to say that I am not a fan of this American thing. It looks like the father ‘owns’ the daughter and is ‘giving her away.’ In the liturgy of the Church of Norway the standard is that the couple walk up together, and that includes before they are legally married. And that was the standard until 20-30 years ago, when people started copying the Hollywood style. Before that it was only common among the so-called ‘elite.’)
    TBH my beef is not that the religious take their religious marriage seriously. It's that they don't take their civil marriage anywhere near seriously enough.
    I’m thinking that you confuse the category of legality with personal importance. The papers are, of course, important. But I’m guessing that many Catholics actually regard their status before God to be of greater importance. And I’m guessing that many secular humanists believe that a ceremony with their fellow humanists and friends is more important for them, on a personal level, then the paper. That does not mean that they "don't take their civil marriage anywhere near seriously enough."
  • kmann wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    If you are married, they will know, and you will be denied a marriage certificate.

    If you married outside Norway, how do they know?
    I assume that they take contact with the country in question. And if they cannot corroborate, you don't get a licence.

    You have a person claiming to be single but doesn't mention they got a quickie marriage in Las Vegas. If he or she doesn't mention that in Norway, how are the authorities to know? Now if they mention and also state they got a divorce or the first spouse is deceased, that can be checked (barring let us say a refugee from Yemen or Somalia whose spouse's death wasn't exactly recorded by the authorities).
  • Thank you shipmates for sharing what goes on around the world re marriage. Exceptionally informative.
  • LydaLyda Shipmate
    kmann wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    If you are married, they will know, and you will be denied a marriage certificate.

    If you married outside Norway, how do they know?
    I assume that they take contact with the country in question. And if they cannot corroborate, you don't get a licence.

    You have a person claiming to be single but doesn't mention they got a quickie marriage in Las Vegas. If he or she doesn't mention that in Norway, how are the authorities to know? Now if they mention and also state they got a divorce or the first spouse is deceased, that can be checked (barring let us say a refugee from Yemen or Somalia whose spouse's death wasn't exactly recorded by the authorities).

    There isn't exactly a national directory of marriage licenses issued in the US. Verifying that someone hasn't been married anywhere in the land without knowing a state name and the likely county where the hypothetical wedding would be registered would be needle-and-haystack territory. There are 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia. Them's a bunch of marriage bureaus to contact just to prove a negative.
  • Lyda wrote: »
    There are 3,142 counties and county-equivalents in the 50 states and District of Columbia. Them's a bunch of marriage bureaus to contact just to prove a negative.

    The practical point that we're all dancing round here is that until quite recently - maybe some time in the nineteenth century - people lived locally and married locally. So a local check was sufficient to avoid too many cases of bigamy. The English way of doing this check was through banns of marriage - announcing the wedding for three successive Sundays and inviting objections. Assuming everyone remains in their home community and goes to church, this is a perfectly good system.

    When national and international travel came along, this ceased to be adequate. But (in England at least) this level of local checking is sufficiently well-embedded into our culture that to extend to something more effective (National? Global?) seems to be unimaginable. So we retain a system of checking people's rights to get married that is no longer fit for purpose.

    More recently - maybe since WW2? - there has been decreasing concern about the necessity of marriage. So it is, I suppose, possible that the perfunctory checks that survive from earlier times are (or will become once more) adequate, in that marriage itself is becoming less important.
  • Full disclosure: grandson of a convicted bigamist here.
  • I think that we all agree that in France the only legally recognised marriage ceremony is that which is conducted by the state official.
    I think that we all agree that the Church and other religious bodies have the right in France to be concerned with the marriage of those who claim to be their followers and members.
    I think that we all agree that the Catholic Church has played a major part in the history of the country and that it still has a significant presence in that country.
    I think we all agree that the Catholic Church and other religious bodies as well as secular bodies have the right to retain registers of events which took place at particular times..
    We should all recognise that the word 'marriage' does not refer only to the ceremony but to the working out of the relationship between two people throughout their earthly lives.
    Whether they choose to count the beginning of that marriage relationship at the time of the marriage contract in the town Hall or at the moment when they took their public vows before God I think we should leave those views to the individuals and respect their rights so to do.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    AIUI in the Roman Catholic Church a person’s baptismal parish keeps a record of certain significant life events, so the home parish will be asked to confirm that a person is not married before they can have a Roman Catholic marriage, and presumably is notified when a Roman Catholic marriage takes place. AFAICT if they get married elsewhere, and their home parish knows nothing of it, and they are subsequently divorced, and their home parish knows nothing of it, then there is no way of tracking that, and they could be issued with the appropriate paperwork for a Roman Catholic marriage. Some kind of offence would be committed in relation to false information going into the legal register (‘single’ rather than ‘previous marriage dissolved’), but the marriage wouldn’t be invalidated.

    As for the couple in the OP, their situation wouldn’t be improved if the Church of England couldn’t perform marriages. Like many other committed Christian couples, and probably less committed couples too, they would be looking for a church ceremony to follow and celebrate their legal wedding, and the same attitude which would seek to deny them a wedding on account of a gay best man would also refuse them a service of celebration/blessing if a gay best man were involved.

    Of course if the separation of the legal part of the ceremony from the church meant that no best man was involved, then the issue wouldn’t arise. I suspect, however, that even if that were to happen tomorrow it would take a decade or more for the role of best man (whose role in the service even now is wholly peripheral and unnecessary) to disappear.
  • kmann wrote: »
    (I have to say that I am not a fan of this American thing. It looks like the father ‘owns’ the daughter and is ‘giving her away.’ In the liturgy of the Church of Norway the standard is that the couple walk up together, and that includes before they are legally married. And that was the standard until 20-30 years ago, when people started copying the Hollywood style. Before that it was only common among the so-called ‘elite.’)
    I’ve always liked the Jewish tradition—the groom walks in with his parents, and bride walks in with her parents.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    kmann wrote: »
    (I have to say that I am not a fan of this American thing. It looks like the father ‘owns’ the daughter and is ‘giving her away.’ In the liturgy of the Church of Norway the standard is that the couple walk up together, and that includes before they are legally married. And that was the standard until 20-30 years ago, when people started copying the Hollywood style. Before that it was only common among the so-called ‘elite.’)
    I’ve always liked the Jewish tradition—the groom walks in with his parents, and bride walks in with her parents.

    That is now very common here. The question then becomes "who brings this couple to be married" with all parents answering together.
  • kmann wrote: »
    I assume that they take contact with the country in question. And if they cannot corroborate, you don't get a licence.

    But what is the country in question? You're asking to prove a negative. Do I have to try to prove that I didn't get married in any of the countries you think I've visited?

    I'm a Brit living in the US. I recently got summoned for jury service (they use the drivers license database to feed their pool of potential jurors). I told them I wasn't eligible, because I'm not American. They asked me to prove it.

    I can't do that. I don't have any kind of document that says that I am not currently American. I can easily prove that I am British (which satisfied them, as it happens), and I have several documents (US visas) that prove that I wasn't American at certain times in the past, but the only people that can prove that I have not since acquired US citizenship are the US immigration service.
  • TBH my beef is not that the religious take their religious marriage seriously. It's that they don't take their civil marriage anywhere near seriously enough.

    There is only one marriage. The spouses make promises to each other, and have a marriage.

    There are various different formalities associated with the marriage that a couple has. One of those formalities is the registration of their marriage with the local bureaucracy. One of those is the public making of promises to each other in front of their friends and family. One of those may be a religious solemnization of those promises, or a blessing of the relationship.

    These formalities don't have to all take place in the same place or at the same time. Any one of these steps may be done with lots of pomp or with none at all.

    The French state, I learn, insists that a couple makes promises to each other in the Town Hall, and apparently insists that couples may not make mutual promises outside a Town Hall beforehand.

    Standard American practice, as I understand it, is to acquire a license from one's local bureaucrat beforehand, make the promises (with or without religious anything) in front of some authorized person, and then return the signed license to the bureaucrats affirming that the promises have been made.

    In the standard C of E wedding, everything happens in the same place. You make the promises and them fill out the paperwork.

    There's still one marriage - one lifelong commitment between a couple. That's the important bit - the actual marriage. Why should you or I care about the importance that people attach to various parts of the process surrounding transitioning from a non-married to a married state?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    The French state, I learn, insists that a couple makes promises to each other in the Town Hall, and apparently insists that couples may not make mutual promises outside a Town Hall beforehand.

    Not quite.

    No promises are made in a French marriage ceremony. The spouses simply agree to take the other party as spouse. The only word you need to say is "yes". They do so after the various relevant articles of the Civil Code about spouses' respective commitments have been read out.

    (Once again, here are these articles, and here are the other words used. A civil ceremony takes about ten minutes; at my city hall on Saturday, it's a veritable assembly line of marriages, one every ten minutes. You need to make sure you don't attend the wrong one by mistake).

    And the prohibition is not against mutual promises but against a religious ceremony prior to the civil one. The criminal sanction is against the celebrant, not the spouses, article 433-21 of the Criminal Code:
    Tout ministre d'un culte qui procédera, de manière habituelle, aux cérémonies religieuses de mariage sans que ne lui ait été justifié l'acte de mariage préalablement reçu par les officiers de l'état civil sera puni de six mois d'emprisonnement et de 7 500 euros d'amende.

    Any minister of religion who habitually carries out religious wedding ceremonies without having seen proof of a previously established marriage certificate drawn up by civil state officers shall be punished by six months of imprisonment and a €7500 fine.


    This reflects the significance in France of taking control out of the hands of religion, historically Catholicism, and putting it into the hands of the secular state.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Eutychus wrote: »
    The French state, I learn, insists that a couple makes promises to each other in the Town Hall, and apparently insists that couples may not make mutual promises outside a Town Hall beforehand.

    Not quite.

    No promises are made in a French marriage ceremony. The spouses simply agree to take the other party as spouse. The only word you need to say is "yes". They do so after the various relevant articles of the Civil Code about spouses' respective commitments have been read out.

    (Once again, here are these articles, and here are the other words used. A civil ceremony takes about ten minutes; at my city hall on Saturday, it's a veritable assembly line of marriages, one every ten minutes. You need to make sure you don't attend the wrong one by mistake).

    I'd say that although the word itself is not mentioned, the parties are making a promise, each to the other, in their taking the other as their spouse.
  • I think they're making a commitment, not a promise. Which might actually be healthier.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Yes, the word is commitment but does that not include a promise of fidelity?
  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited February 2019
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    It says that spouses have a 'duty of respect, faithfulness, help and assistance' to each other (article 212).

    So.. in France infidelity presumably can't be a reason for divorce..?
This discussion has been closed.