The very eminent canon lawyer Edward Peters has a response to Archbishop Chaput’s proposal:
http://canonlawblog.wordpress.com/2014/10/22/the-wrong-response-to-a-demand-not-made/
A well reasoned response. Although I note it does seem to make one big assumption: the continued existence of the State. Perhaps an assumption that can be reasonably held for now. I suppose it's all relative to one's time horizon: five years or 25?
However, If the accelerating downward trajectory of our moral decline is any indications these existential-type questions will require answers sooner rather than later.
That is, unless one is of the belief that we will survive as a state without a moral center.
Good opinion at the link.
Summary:
1. Chaput is right to be worried, but his suggestion is the wrong course of action at present
2. Refusing to sign civil marriage licenses, at present, would deny Catholic marriages the benefits of marriage
3. Refusing to sign civil marriage licenses would eliminate the pressure on the State to return to marriage as only between a man and a woman.
“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
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.