Episcopal Diocese may quit marriages

[angli_fan]

(from the Boston Globe)

In a novel approach to the tensions that have accompanied the same-sex marriage debate in many religious denominations, the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts this month will consider getting out of the marriage business.

A group of local Episcopal priests, saying that the gay marriage debate has intensified their longtime concern about acting as agents of the state by officiating at marriages, is proposing that the Episcopal Church adopt a new approach. Any couples qualified to get married under state law could be married by a justice of the peace, and then, if they want a religious imprimatur for their marriage, they could come to the Episcopal Church seeking a blessing from a priest.

www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/10/08/episcopal_diocese_may_quit_marriages/

[Sojourner]

Putting the gay issue aside, this approach seems to be theologically sound. The state curerently establishes the marriage contract with specified rights and responsibilities. Since the state establishes these contracts unrelated to the religious status of the parties involved, this action provides a sound distinction between that which belongs to Caesar and that which belongs to God. I see no downside to such an arrangement. As I view this plan, there is no requirement that a priest participate in any marriage blessing which means that if a priest believed that blessing a same sex marriage was morally repugnant, there would be nothing that would require him to do so. Nor would it require priestly involvement in the remarriage of persons divorced unscripturally. This plan seems perfect for everyone.

[srigdon]

Go to diomass.org to read the full resolution. It is brief. An interesting excerpt:

"The Church and its clergy are in the ministry of blessing, and not in the vocation of conducting, marriage ceremonies."

If this is the case, the diocese needs to change the liturgy for blessing of a civil marriage. On p. 434 in the BCP where it says "Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder," it needs to say "those whom the state has joined together let no one put asunder." After all, that's what scripture says, right?

Neither the article nor the resolution text makes clear precisely what the liturgy will be in church. If the idea is that the marriage liturgy on p. 423 in the BCP will no longer be used, but only the blessing of civil marriage liturgy on p. 433, then the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts will send itself on the course to extinction with such a move. Sorry, but most Christians don't regard marriage as just a state contract. They regard it as a contract endowed with certain moral obligations.

What's sort of funny about the article is that it talks about the various 'mainline' denominations as though they mattered much any more. The truth is that independents are ruling the Christian scene nowadays.

Don't priests already have the option of refusing to marry anybody they don't want to? So why does the diocese need to do anything? Because they want to force conservative parishes to go along with them. This is inclusive?

It will be breathtaking if this resolution passes. In the whole saga of the last three years, I have yet to see anything that would drive me out of ECUSA. It is shocking to me how incredibly close this one would come, if only I lived in Massachusetts.

Doesn't the left know when to savor its victories, let the dust settle and show some grace to the opposition?

[Canadian Phil]

Actually, this kind of proposal was floated up here in Canada by conservatives as a way to deal with the civil decision to permit gay marriages. By removing themselves from performing civil ceremonies, conservative clergy would not find themselves compelled to perform gay marriages which, in a certain reading of the law up here, they very well could have been as agents of the state. If they were not agents of the state, but were performing ceremonies peculiar to the church, they would have rather less pressure put on them. So far, this hasn't gone past the talking stage and, with the new Conservative government making noise about protecting religious dissent about homosexuality, it may not prove necessary.

I think Sojourner is right here. There really isn't much of a down-side. Indeed, this procedure is the norm in Europe without any detrimental effects to the church there. Indeed, I think it might be wise to keep that division with Caesar good and clear.

Peace,
Phil

[srigdon]

I'm totally okay with the civil contract/marriage license being officially signed by somebody other than a priest. Couldn't care less about that. I agree there is no need for a priest to act as an agent of the state.

But it seems to me that Massachusetts is proposing to go much further than that.

[Swick]

The Diocese of Massachusetts is responding to the fact that same sex marriage is legal here; our Bishop Tom Shaw has told clergy not to legally marry gay couples-that is, sign the marriage certificate as an agent of the state- in an effort to comply with the canons of the Episcopal church. Gay couples currently must get married by a JP, and can then have a regular church ceremony; the resolution would make this the same procedure for everyone.

The question of what liturgy will be used is a red herring-the BCP liturgy. And why would the liturgy to bless a civil marriage on page 434 of the BCP need to be changed?-it says those whom *God* has joined to together, not the priest or the church. In catholic theology it's the couple joined together by God who marry each other, with the priest representing the Christian community.

[Sojourner]

"If this is the case, the diocese needs to change the liturgy for blessing of a civil marriage. On p. 434 in the BCP where it says "Those whom God has joined together let no one put asunder," it needs to say "those whom the state has joined together let no one put asunder." After all, that's what scripture says, right?"

The reality is that whatever God joins together has no standing unless validated by the state. Try having a marriage ceremony without a state license (expcepting in those states which allow Quakers a very specific exemption). Then try claiming a tax status of married. That, without a good lawyer, might get you ten in Leavenworth.

The question is, in my mind, not a theological question. Whatever happens in a church ceremony, whether it be a sacrament, sacramental act, or a blessing is completely separate from the requirements of the state. If a couple were married in the church, without the proper government documents, they could have sexual intercourse without being fornicators. However, they would not have special inheritance rights and other benefits granted by the state. Unfortunately, God does not administer tax codes, inheritance laws, property rights, etc.

All marriages are not religious marriages. There are scores of people who wish to marry without benefit of clergy. They do so by requesting and receiving a license from the state and having someone who is authorized by the state say some words and sign the license. That does raise a theological question. Why does the state have the right to regulate the actions of Christian clergy to perform a God-delegated duty. In other words, a clergyperson must, essentially, have the approval of the state to perform a religious duty.

Another practical consideration is that, generally, the couple meets with the officiant immediately prior to the religious ceremony. At that time, the officiant, bride, groom and witnesses sign the license. At that time a marriage exists in the eyes of the state. Should the priest drop dead and the ceremony be postponed, the happy couple could still check into a hotel and not be arrested by the authorities (although, ostensibly, in the eyes of God, they would not be married).

It seems to me that although state and religious marriages intersect, they are different. And being different, it does no damage to separate them.

[alan1803]

It seems to me that two very different things are getting confused here.

One is the "blessing" of a civil marriage. This occurs in England when a couple can't be married in church because one or both are divorced with the previous spouse still living. (I think this is a cop-out, personally, but I won't waste time talking about that.) It seems that what the Diocese of Massachussetts is proposing is doing this for all marriages, and extending it to homosexual relationships, while CEASING TO CELEBRATE HOLY MATRIMONY.

The second, which happens in France, but is passed off by the Diocese of Mass. as a general European practice, and misrepresented as the "blessing", is entirely different. Residents of France of any religion or none MUST have a civil ceremony at the Mairie if they are to be regarded as married by the state. If they are religious believers, they MAY choose also to have a religious ceremony, but the priest, rabbi, imam, etcetera who officiates at the latter does NOT regard himself as "blessing" a marriage which has already taken place. If the secular ceremony preceded the religious one, an act of sexual intercourse in the meantime would be regarded by a French priest as fornication.

Elsewhere in Europe, at least some religious marriage ceremonies will be recognised by the state. For instance, here in England, all C of E priests are automatically regarded as registrars. Protestant ministers, RC priests and (I think) rabbis generally opt to be registrars, while Sikh, Hindu and Muslim ceremonies either have a civil registrar present at the religious ceremony, or have a separate civil ceremony. Adherents of all three religions would regard the religious ceremony as that which inititiates the marriage.

[Sojourner]

Anglo-catholic theology regarding marriage cannot be universally applied to all Protestant views of marriage.

[alan1803]

Sojourner wrote: "Anglo-catholic theology regarding marriage cannot be universally applied to all Protestant views of marriage. "



Where has "Anglo-Catholic theology" been discussed? I'm not sure if Sojourner's intending to reply to my post, which is immediately before his, but the very clear distinction between the solemnization of matrimony and the blessing of a civil wedding is recognised throughout the Anglican spectrum and beyond.

Massachussetts' proposal to cease solemnizing matrimony is radical and, as I have said, is NOT what happens under the French system (which I think the cited article ws attempting to describe).