Skip to comments.Catholics May Need Two Weddings, Says Archbishop [Scotland]
Posted on 09/30/2013 6:01:49 AM PDT by marshmallow
The introduction of gay marriage may mean Catholics in Scotland will have to exchange their vows twice, once in a registry office and once at the altar, the new Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh has said.
Leo Cushley said the Catholic Church may have to consider the radical move to avoid legal challenges over the Churchs opposition to gay weddings.
The Bishops Conference of Scotland believes the Church may one day have to adopt the French model whereby religious couples are married in the eyes of the state in town halls, then exchange rings and receive a blessing in church.
Archbishop Cushley said in an interview: We would always bless Christian marriages. Its whether or not we would bless them in conjunction with the state. You are rolling two things together into one ceremony, the blessing of the union and then the states recognition of that union.
There are Catholic countries like France, where they are two separate things and have been since the French Revolution and the separation of church and state.
Its not impossible to imagine such a thing here in the future.
There are concerns in the Church that, in future, priests could face legal action if they refuse to marry a gay couple.
The law currently says priests act as an authorised person, recognised by the state to marry a couple in place of a registrar and to sign and certify the marriage on an official document.
The prospect of such a radical change was raised with MPs and peers earlier this year.
Professor Christopher McCrudden, a barrister, told Westminsters joint committee on human rights that the same-sex marriage legislation could dismantle the legal basis on which 8,500 Catholic weddings are performed in Britain each year.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotsman.com ...
The state's goal is to destroy marriage.
Ours should be to destroy the state's say in the matter.
Better yet, take vows in the Church and forget the state license.
That is what Christians should do in the U.S. now. The state doesn’t recognize our definition of marriage, then why buy into theirs? Especially given the punitive tax laws against married couples.
I asked a priest in the US several years ago if the state license could be refused and he claimed he was legally forbidden from marrying anyone without a license.
food for thought there!
We could just call the civil licensing a ‘civil union’ and have it be similar to LLC formation.
Catholicism is no different than any other huge religious, social govt system i.e. Islam. The Catholics rounded up and burned, true born again children of God, at the stake hundreds of years ago, as the truth threatened their establishment. Muzzies doing the same thing, only difference is they are still doing it today.
so not a “marriage” but do a “blessing ceremony”
I doubt if the Lord would mind couples not having a state-issued “license”
I don't know that the victims of the Inquisition were by definition "true born again children of God"...rather, they were simply heretics, as defined by the authorities of the time.
Muzzies doing the same thing, only difference is they are still doing it today.
Similarly, as shown in the recent mall shooting in Nairobi, Muslim terrorists don't care what your religion (or lack thereof) is...if it's not Islam, you're to be killed.
Exactly. It will keep the state out of the family into which it has intruded far too much.
That is a Lutheran lie. The NAZI’s lover Martin Luther. Luther did “dissent” from the Church. He declared war on it.
If the state doesn't consider it marriage, then he's not performing a state marriage, just a church sacrament.
Priests aren't big on thinking outside the box.
So what to do? Get married in the Church, and then file for an annulment with the state (which will be immediately granted). Unless you get a Church annulment, you are still married in the Church, right? Yep.
We are not too far away from celebrating sacraments in the catacombs, again.
WRONG! Catholicism is not a system of state government. It has no system of government analogous to Sharia Law. Those people who were burned at the stake were burned at the hands of the government not burned by the Catholic church. States hated heretics so they killed them because they were perceived to be a threat.
Then "marriage entries" morphed into "marriage licenses" just to make money for the state.
viz= There never was any such thing as a "marriage license" in order to get married. It was an invention of the British state to change "marriage entries" to "marriage licenses" to get revenues.
Marriage entries recorded the date and place of marriage. Information included the ages of the two parties, their residences, marital status, occupations, fathers, and even their fathers' occupations.
Civil copies of marriage entries are duplicates of original church entries.
Thus, since it was the duty of the minister to forward copies of all of the marriages he performed, the vast majority have been recorded at the civil level, even in the early years of civil registration.
However, always be sure to check the original church record since there are often discrepancies between the civil and ecclesiastical copies of the same record. Clerical errors happen! We blogged about this recently."
Catholicism most certainly IS a system of state government. It has its own coins, flag, ambassadors, army, etc.. It IS a state. The smallest country in the world. Other world leaders sign concordants with Vatican. It IS a political system and a religious system.
Ome minor difference is any Catholic or Christian burning or otherwise killing and torturing another person for heresy is acting against the teaching of Jesus Christ;the follower of Mohammed who kills others for refusal to submit to islam is acting in concert with islamic teaching.
The disciples of Jeses were only to “shake the dust from their sandals” as they left a town which would not hear the Gospel.
I REALLY prefer the Jesus fellow !!!!!!
That’s indeed a major difference of authentic Christianity. Thereby you must willingly chose to ignore this obvious sign of the false church in history. The great harlot of Revelation has been plain to one and all for centuries. She attempted to do by the point of the spear, the martyrs pyre, and the Inquisition rack what only God can do. Only God can convert a human soul. Salvation doesn’t come by force. It doesn’t come by any action or decisions of men. It’s up to God to show mercy and He has mercy on whom He will. (See Exodus 33, Romans 9) Jonah 2:9 tells us that “salvation is of The Lord.” John 1:13 tells us men are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
WRONG! Where in the bible, specifically, the New Testament is a system of governance laid out. The koran has a system of governance defined. Just because there is Vatican City (or further back in history the Papal States) doesn’t mean that Catholicism is a system of governance.
Dead around 400 yrs before the NAZI's. Of course Luther 'dissented' from the Catholic church. The Catholics dissented themselves a few years later by reforming some of the practices that Luther had railed against.
Then you need to re-check your Vatican history. Why do you think other countries sign concordants with the POpe, if he doesn’t represent a COUNTRY/
Governments defiling society by putting queers on the same plane as Scripture defined marriage and the Catholic Church objecting and reacting like Bible believing Christians a reason to repeat garbage and known lies about the Catholic Church.
That's so Gay. Siding with Satan that way is something is a Christian would never do.
Of course we Christians have been warned about such falsehood in disuise,
II Corinthians 11:13 For such false apostles are deceitful workmen, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
II Corinthians 11:14 And no wonder : for Satan himself transformeth himself into an angel of light.
For the elderly in the US, this would work just fine.
A sacramental wedding instead of a civil one, would prevent the loss of pension benefits for widows.
Popes, being human, and also likewise priests and bishops, all are capable of error and sin.
The remedy is to clean up the house not destroy it.
The Bible tells us Jesus knew Peter would deny Him the night preceding the Crucifixion,yet the Son of God still chose Peter as the rock upon which to build His church.
Now it may well be that Peter’s successors have strayed from the Way and should be reminded of their duty .I think the Bible calls for righteous believers to admonish those in error and even to exclude them from the Church,but no corporal punishment or death sentence is mentioned.
It may even be that the Eastern Orthodox have hewed more closely to the original path.They at least didn’t have the Inquisition nor the problems with homosexual priests,as far as I know.
In over 2000 years mankind has spent lots of time on alternate and dangerous paths.
Jesus taught the parable of the prodigal son and the parable of the lost sheep;I am inclined to think Pope Francis has those in mind when he is reaching out to people caught up in homosexuality and other sins.Did not Jesus spend more of His time with the common people than with the wealthy and powerful?
Did Not Jesus also say”he who is without sin,let him cast the first stone” ?
Jesus also said to “go and sin no more” which is the really hard part for all of us.
Mosques and gay churches and whatever other religions exist or can be dreamed up would also get to define marriage.
Actually they can already, anyone can and always could, it just wasn’t legal when it came time for divorce or death, child custody, inheritance etc, or in the military for instance, one of the countless places where the government has to decide which soldiers are legally “married”.
The federal military started making such marriage law in 1780, and kept it up in 1794 and 1798 and 1802 and on, this year they recognized the states creation of “gay marriage” for it’s personnel who were legally married in those states.
People could always make up whatever they wanted to, but at some point, the question of whether that union had been legal, usually arises.
There has not really ever been a time when marriage wasn’t legally defined, whether by Roman law, Greek law, Apache law, or Sharia law, or some powerful state like church law.
They already do. Polygamy isn't prosecuted in the U.S. unless their is fraud involved.
There is no element of state marriage that cannot be adequately covered by a civil contract.
Read my post, I already said that individual people, clubs, cults and religions can already call whatever they want to “marriage”, it just doesn’t make it legal, try to collect widow benefits from the military when your marriage isn’t a legal marriage.
“Actually they can already, anyone can and always could, it just wasnt legal when it came time for divorce or death, child custody, inheritance etc, or in the military for instance, one of the countless places where the government has to decide which soldiers are legally married.”
Your position seems to be to end any definition of marriage and just let everyone define it for themselves.
Your position seems much more anti marriage than anyone else’s.
There has not really ever been a time when marriage wasnt legally defined, whether by Roman law, Greek law, Apache law, or Sharia law, or some powerful state like church law.
Do you think it will be that easy? If the IRS finds out you are cohabiting you will be "deemed married" and the extra taxes auto-deducted from your paycheck.
Christians gave away "marriage" to the Leviathan State a long time ago - returning to the traditional concept will require a new word.
“The Vatican City-State” isn’t “Catholicism,” though. The Vatican City-State didn’t even exist until 1929, and the Catholic Church could go on existing just fine if the Pope moved to Poughkeepsie.
But he won’t move to Poughkeepsie, will he? Because he believes that when Christ returns to set up His kingdom, it will be in Rome, not Jerusalem. That kingdom, BTW, will be both a religious kingdom and a political kingdom on this earth. You don’t find it strange that the Catholic Church is set up EXACTLY the same way?
You are aware, of course, that Protestants killed Catholics at every opportunity. That was one of the reasons they were unpopular with Catholics.
Very often, politics were involved in the early disputes between Protestants and Catholics. But be that as it may, great numbers of Catholics died at the hands of Protestants and Protestant rulers - often tortured to death.
The 10-times removed great uncle of our bishop here in the 1960s, after bring appointed Catholic bishop of Dublin in the 16th century, died when he was hanged outside the city gates of Dublin at the orders of Elizabeth I. This was after having had his legs boiled in oil in special leather boots made for that purpose.
Actually, a lot of the persecution of Catholics stopped after the French Revolution, when Protestants realized that they would be in the crosshairs of a secularist society as well. I suggest you bear that in mind.
Show me where they do that now.
I'm simply recognizing the facts currently in evidence. When was the last time that a couple was arrested in the U.S. for having intercourse without being married?
Those are the facts of state sanctioned marriage, i.e. its meaningless. Why get a license to do something that doesn't require a licencse.
The Church defines marriage differently, as a sacrament. As state marriage is meaningless, it is harmful to the sacrament to pretend that the two are the same.
Do you think it will be that easy? If the IRS finds out you are cohabiting you will be “deemed married” and the extra taxes auto-deducted from your paycheck.
So all male male and female female roommates will be deemed married in states that recognize homosexual marriage?