Back in June, 2011, I wrote “Rights vs. Rites” in these pages as a response to the celebrated mockery of a sacrament committed in New York on the previous day when that state legislature legalized homosexual “marriage.” I suggested that marriage ceremonies performed by religious clerics should have no binding legal authority. Such authority violates church and state separation—and (a very important and)—places the religious cleric under obligation to the government to follow its laws in regard to the performance those rites. In other words, if homosexual marriage is legal, priests will be forced to perform those ceremonies. I suggested that no religion have that legal authority.
At the time, if I remember correctly, comments to the post disagreed, saying that the Church should not give up that right, and implying that I might be an alarmist. I felt, however—and still do—that hanging on to that right will cost the Church (and any other religious group) a far more important one—the right to religious liberty. With the legalization of homosexual “marriage,” priests will be forced to perform those ceremonies.
A year and a half later, I’m in good company. George Weigel has suggested that the Church give up its involvement in civil marriage:
He’s getting some flack, of course, but he’s right. His concern is that the Church should take such action as a preemptive measure, lest its surrender of the right after it’s forced to commit sacrilege be seen as the action of a “sore loser.” I’m less concerned with how things are seen and more concerned with the government forcing our priests to choose between obedience to the government and the commission of a grave sin—not just by passive default, as in the HHS mandate, but by direct and personal blasphemous action.
I know the Church seeks always to involve itself in public life, but some self-protective withdrawal maneuvers might be worthy of consideration during dark times such as these. When bad weather threatens, it’s advisable to seek shelter.
That’s funny, my argument has long been that the civil authorities should get out of the marriage business!
Kate,
There is a view of marriage as a sacrament, and an entirely religious concern, and there is a view of marriage as an entirely legal concern. Just as the Church doesn’t accept civil divorce as a sundering of the sacramental covenant of marriage, there is no reason for it to accept civil marriage as a binding sacrament.
Manny,
Civil law and canon law already differ on the subject of marriage. Neither affects the perceived validity of the other.
Marriage itself is a religious concern–period. Outside its religious meaning, marriage is strictly a legal matter.
To withdraw from participation in civil marriage does not diminish the religious significance of it. And a religious ceremony would not be legally binding.
Quite apart from the looming governmental threat to the sacrament, and NOT as a preemptive move, I think civil and religious marriage should be divorced.
It may be the best course of action (I personally can’t make up my mind) but his justification strikes me as weak. Preemptive strike so as to not be seen as a sore loser? Seen as a sore loser is the least of our problems. The central question on this for me is whether giving up the civil marriage element strengthens the notion of marriage. On the one hand as you argue Dena it does. On the other hand I can see it weakening it, suggesting that anything that lawyers propose and establish can constitute a marriage. In a way we would be surrendering the marriage point. Now we may have lost that battle. But I would not preemptively give up. The cards must be played out and sometimes the fight itself turns into a longer term win after a short term defeat.
By the way, I think very highly of George Weigel.
They do already differ Dena. I just don’t know if it’s for the general good and if further divergence makes it worse. Like I said, I can’t make up my mind, but I hear you loud and clear. 😉