An officer of the court?
George Weigel posits a question in a column from The Pilot: CAMPAIGN 2008: Marriage, civility, persecution
Will the Catholic Church have to get out of the civil marriage business (i.e., priests no longer serving as officers of the court for purposes of validating a marriage)? Will Catholic marriages in the United States eventually resemble marriages in, say, communist-era Poland: a sad joke of a civil ceremony, followed by the liturgical ceremony?
At least in Poland people were honest enough to stop at the civil step if that was all they wanted.
Frankly I hope that such a turn of events does occur. Clergy should not be “officers of the court” for any purpose. We do not represent earthly government, nor should we align ourselves, or encumber ourselves, with the requirements governments put upon us. We should use great care in not equating the sacrament of marriage with a legal contract between two people (which is all a civil marriage is)
Such a move, getting the government out of the Church’s sacrament and the Church out of the government’s business of contract oversight, would only serve to bring a greater level of honesty to the whole process. The Church and couples should be free from the hypocrisy of it all — freedom from the notion that the Church is only a way point for marriage, later for the baby naming ceremony, later for the funeral.
I have seen faith filled couples come to church because that’s where they want to be. I have also seen people go through the motions, lying to themselves and to the Church for months, just for the pretty ceremony — the one grandma wants. Tens of thousands of dollars for lies and shame. Money that could be saved if only they had stopped by the local court, put down $10, and signed a contract. That was all they really wanted. If the word ‘sacrament’ passed through their minds for more than a millisecond I’d be surprised.
Let’s not make churches “officers of the court” as part of an elaborate faí§ade – filled with pretense and business opportunities for wedding consultants. Let’s not make the Church a party to corruption. Let those who come to Church come freely. When they come they will find the doors open to them, doors that open to a lifetime of faith.
As an aside, no Mr. Weigel, you don’t need a government ‘ceremony.’ It can be as simple as putting pen to paper, signing off on a legal agreement as it were. Why play make believe?
Frankly I think Mr. Weigel is full of beans. He cannot see beyond John Paul/Poland shrine he has built to the stuff John Paul really believed in. God’s Kingdom and His Church are greater than human folly.
I’m sure this isn’t where you intended to go with this but it is very timely since Ken and I were just talking about something similar to this the other day. We have to vote yay or nay this November on Florida Marriage Protection Amendment # 2 (of course these amendments always have implications beyond what the summary on the ballot indicates so this would have an effect on straight couples, companions living together, etc…). Anyway, we wondered why this has become such an issue – anyone who wants to get married has to apply for a marriage license from the state whether you are getting married in a church or in a civil ceremony. If same sex couples are allowed to marry legally there is nothing to force any church to perform a ceremony or recognize the marriage, just as the Catholic Church doesn’t recognize remarriage of divorced couples. Marriage as a Sacrament is a choice made by people based on their beliefs (or as you said, what grandma expects)- why should people who don’t hold those beliefs and prefer just a legal contract of marriage be bound to a religous standard? Maybe this is an oversimplification but isn’t this what separation of Church and State is all about?