Chaput: clergy might stop signing marriage licenses as “principled resistance”

October 21, 2014 by Deacon Greg Kandra

Strong words from the Archbishop of Philadelphia:

Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput says he was “very disturbed” by the debate over church teachings on gays and remarried Catholics at this month’s Vatican summit, saying it sent a confusing message, and “confusion is of the devil.”

In a lecture delivered Monday evening in Manhattan, Chaput also suggested that in the wake of the rapid series of court decisions legalizing same-sex marriage in more than 30 states, Catholic priests might consider opting out of certifying civil marriages as a sign of “principled resistance.”

Chaput is expected to host Pope Francis in Philadelphia in September 2015 for a global World Meeting of Families, and his criticisms tracked complaints by other conservatives who were upset with Francis for encouraging a freewheeling discussion among the 190 cardinals and bishops at the Vatican’s two-week Synod of Bishops on the family.

The 70-year-old archbishop, who was not part of the Rome summit, made his remarks in response to a question after a lecture event sponsored by the conservative journal First Things.

“I was very disturbed by what happened” at the synod, Chaput said. “I think confusion is of the devil, and I think the public image that came across was one of confusion.

…Chaput also raised eyebrows when he urged the nation’s Catholic bishops to consider stopping the signing of civil marriage licenses for all couples in response to what he called the “new marriage regime” of same-sex civil marriage. Pennsylvania, along with more than 30 other states, now allows same-sex marriage.

By long-standing U.S. practice, a Catholic priest, like any licensed clergy, acts as an agent of the state when signing a couple’s marriage certificate.

“It’s hard to see how a priest or bishop could, in good conscience, sign a marriage certificate that merely identifies ‘Spouse A’ and ‘Spouse B,’ ” Chaput said in his prepared remarks.

“Refusing to conduct civil marriages now, as a matter of principled resistance, has vastly more witness value than being kicked out of the marriage business later by the government, which is a likely bet,” he said.

Chaput said he wasn’t necessarily endorsing that move yet, but “in the spirit of candor encouraged by Pope Francis,” he said the American bishops should “discuss and consider it as a real course of action.”

I think the solution would be simple. If things get so bad that priests are no longer signing marriage licenses for anyone, get married in the church anyway (which is really the marriage that counts anyway) then simply go down to your local courthouse to make it “legal”. Two separate acts in other words.

My wife and I had to do that anyway since we got married in Italy and Italian weddings aren’t recognized as legal marriages here in the US. So we had to go to the courthouse for a seperate “ceremony”. And I certainly don’t regard my marriage any less valid simply because the religious ceremony wasn’t recognized as “legally married” in the US.

It’s the marriage in the eyes of God that counts not the state.

“If Chaput is right that a crisis such as that now raging over marriage “clarifies the character of the enemies who hate” the Church and the truth—and Chaput is right about that—how does the Church’s walking away from that crisis force the State to confront its current evil trajectory?”

By demonstrating that what the state means by marriage and what the Church means by it are two different things? I don’t understand how it would be ‘walking away’ from the crisis? Seems like it would be at least doing something.

In any case I think in some states there are actually laws preventing clergy from doing this. I think NC is one of those. I have never heard of anyone being fined or prosecuted, but that is the reason many pastors/clergy give when someone suggests that they be religiously married without the civil side being involved. For example widowers whose pension and benefits would be affected if they married again civilly.

FReegards

That might be the solution to the issue of the civil benefits of marriage.

But if priests stop signing civil marriage licenses, then there is no longer any pressure on the State to return to defining marriage as between a woman and a man. If we’ve given up on gay “marriage” (which I haven’t done), then I would agree that priest should stop signing civil marriage licenses.

If we’ve given up on gay “marriage”, then I think the next step would be to get the State out of the marriage business altogether and institute a “benefits buddy” system...one that doesn’t require a sexual relationship with another person. Then the term “married” would refer to a church ceremony and the “benefit buddy” would be a legal agreement.

Peters made two arguments: a tactical one (”a demand that has not been made”) and one on the merits (”very serious negative consequences for couples”). The matter of tactics indeed needs to be decided; possibly right now it is not a good time but perhaps at some future point that is, no doubt, coming nearer, it would be.

The argument on the merits is plain wrong. The Sacrament of Marriage confers grace on the married couple. That is not altered by the proposal. That the state also might have “tax liabilities, insurance coverage, property ownership and inheritance” altered by the marriage, the state originates them, not the Church. If the spouses see an advantage in being registered as married for those privileges and liabilities, they are free to go and sign the papers in the city hall.

Let’s not be fooled, the reason the homosexuals want in on the “marriage” game is for the money. The tax benefits specifically as well as control over their “partner”’s estate in the event of their death. And this is a shame.

It’s a shame because the precise reason that such benefits were given to married couples over single people is because it benefited (and still does benefit, they are just too blind to see it now) the State to have people married. Because married people have children which keeps the population growing or at least stabilizes the population.

Thus, to have this “benefit buddy” system would open up the door to not only all kinds of debauchery and Tom-foolery but worse, would dilute the benefit to truly married couples financially. And this would disincentivise people from marrying. Not all, but some. But enough to affect population growth.

Anyway, it’s not saying much I admit but it’s a point to consider. And really all have lost the debate of “gay marriage” if we start off thinking of pressuring the State to do anything. The State are the people. So it is people who must change for this and all societal evils to be abated. That’s not going to start until at least the majority of people start asking the fundamental question in every person’s heart (but so many surpress or allow to be surpassed by secularism).

“Who am I and what is my purpose for existing?” Very few ever examine that question for themselves, not settling for a guru’s answer or secularism’s salve. But only stopping when the truth is truly known.

This is the method by which we will be saved. It’s the method of Christianity really. “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his soul?”

Are we made for things or made for the infinite?

Ironically this is our salvation through Christ: not truncating our infinite desire for everything but embracing it and ordering it correctly towards Him. This is true morality.

Otherwise we will never “define marriage correctly”, or achieve any moral victory really, if we aren’t truly moral, which is what I describe in the sentence above.

Sorry, I went off on a rant there. But it does bug me sometimes to realize our problems are only solved through Christ, but so few realizing this self-evident fact in our world.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.