|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Disestablishment
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
[tangent alert]
Question: if the CofE marries people who are not necessarily Christian, do the CofE use the same liturgy as it does for self-proclaimed Christians? Or does the CofE has a separate "secular" liturgy?
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
I vaguely remember a vicar getting into considerable trouble a while back because he had been conducting services without using the prescribed terms needed to wed people. I can't remember what happened.
Being someone who doesn't believe in sacraments, I suppose this will be obvious - but I don't really see what a 'Christian' wedding is. You stand at the front and make promises and sign in a book - whether it is in a registry office or a church. Presumably the same thing happens in Temples and Mosques and Synagogues, although I've not been to weddings in any of them.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
This is inhumane bullshit of the "kill them all, let God sort them out" kind.
I get it. When you say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “deontological ethics”. When I say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “inhumane bullshit”. This would be one of those irregular verb things, right?
quote:
An epic showdown between government and religion over relationship issues is entirely unnecessary and bound to come at massive human costs.
I agree that it's completely unnecessary. That's what I've been arguing, on this and other threads. I wish my church wasn't picking a fight over the secular definition of marriage. I wish your church wasn't. But, if they do, I want them to lose, because they are in the wrong.
quote:
This is mere revenge fantasy for supposed injuries suffered by the gays.
Where are you getting that from? I have no interest in revenge fantasies.
This was my fantasy – my naïve, hopeless dream of what I would love to see happen:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve
That's what I want. I want churches and individual Christians to have the freedom to decide whose marriages they celebrate, and everyone to have the freedom to have a civil or religious marriage with the person they love.
The sad thing is, we (Anglicans) could do that. Everyone knows that. We already do it for divorcees. It's easy. It's obvious. And it is so plainly fair, just and reasonable that there could be no sensible objection to it. We know we could manage it without disestablishment, schism or litigation. This is a dream that could come true. And we are probably going to fuck it up, and pick a fight we needn't and shouldn't, and lose, embarrassingly.
Your church isn't in the same position, I know that. But your lot are still picking a fight you don't need to, and if some of my frustration and anger at my church spills over to yours, then I'm sorry for that.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Eliab was talking about nothing less than the potential secular suppression of Catholicism (and other religions) in the UK over this issue. What else would the sky falling over defiance of the government and courts mean?
Whether that would result in the same body count as Béziers I do not know. But to call that "fiat justitia" is just the same sort of inhumane bullshit that was at work there.
No, no, no. You've misunderstood me.
The justice that should be done is marriage equality and religious freedom. And we should do justice “though the heavens fall”. We should not be put off being fair to gay people because of the hysterical screams of persecution and irrational prophecies of doom from the unjust.
Now, as a matter of fact, I think the doomsayers are wrong. They are wrong about the consequences for Anglicans (obviously) because we have a clear precedent in the case of remarriages proving that Anglicanism can (if it wants to) take this in its stride.
They are also wrong (I think) about the consequences for Catholicism, but that's not as obvious. And I didn't explain my reasons for that, so it's entirely my fault that you misunderstood me here.
What I think would happen (worst case) is that if the law says to the Catholic Church (as I hope it will not) “You must marry same sex couples”, the Catholics will simply refuse. No threat is at all likely to move them. And there's an excellent example of this already in English law – the seal of the confessional. There is no legal guarantee of confidentiality for priests, so, in theory, every time a Catholic is charged with an offence, the prosecution could subpoena his priest, and ask (with the threat of prison if he refuse to answer) whether the defendant had disclosed his guilt. How often does this happen? Never. There's no point. A Catholic priest would willingly go to jail (or the gallows) rather than break that confidence, and as a result no one fights them on the issue. I predict that if the sky falls, and the UK law ends up providing that all churches must marry gays (and really, I think there's next to no chance of that happening), that's a fight that in practice you will win, whatever the law says, because you are just too principled and fucking stubborn to lose it. I don't want to see that put to the test, but my point was that even if it was, I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Anglican Brat, the CofE doesn't have any secular liturgy. Whoever approaches the CofE for a wedding gets the same service (or the same range of services ie, Common Worship or Book of Common Prayer), the presumption being, I suppose, if one goes to a Christian church for a wedding ceremony, it will be a Christian wedding ceremony.
Just like any other faith, I suppose.
I vaguely remember a vicar getting into considerable trouble a while back because he had been conducting services without using the prescribed terms needed to wed people. I can't remember what happened.
Being someone who doesn't believe in sacraments, I suppose this will be obvious - but I don't really see what a 'Christian' wedding is. You stand at the front and make promises and sign in a book - whether it is in a registry office or a church. Presumably the same thing happens in Temples and Mosques and Synagogues, although I've not been to weddings in any of them.
I think the legal minimum is for the two partners to declare their vows in front of a minimum of two witnesses. The registrar isn't even obliged to do the famouts "speak now and forever hold your peace" bit, as your wedding license is displayed in the local registry office for x days beforehand, and it nobody objects to that then you can go ahead.
There was a query at a wedding I attended once because the happy couple signed the register using a Biro, and someone questioned whether it was all legitimate because it wasn't indelible ink. I think that "urban myths" like this are legion.
As a Methodist and not a CofE member, I think we are at liberty to decline to sanction any ceremony without the same obligations the CofE have.
Personally I think I favour the separation of the civil and religous parts of it - such that if people want to get married, the state will fulfil the legal requirements, but the church (of whatever flavour) should not have any obligation to bless that.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
otyetsfoma
Shipmate
# 12898
|
Posted
If "gay-marriage" goes through, I suppose that those of us who think it a blasphemy will just find a new word for real marriage. Will the gays then demand that word too for themselves?
Posts: 842 | From: Edgware UK | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by otyetsfoma:
If "gay-marriage" goes through, I suppose that those of us who think it a blasphemy will just find a new word for real marriage. Will the gays then demand that word too for themselves?
I imagine that people (of all sexual orientations) making promises of lifelong love and commitment, will want to use whatever the common word happens to be for "making promises of lifelong love and commitment". In English, at present, we usually call that "getting married". If some group or other manages to change the language so that we start to use a different word, I'll start using the new one for my relationship. Why should gay people do otherwise?
Gays are some different species, you know. They are ordinary people, doing what ordinary people do when they are in love, and using ordinary words for it.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I get it. When you say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “deontological ethics”. When I say that we should do the right thing, even though it may have unintended negative consequences, that's called “inhumane bullshit”. This would be one of those irregular verb things, right?
You don't get it at all. Beziers is an egregious example of somebody commanding evil to achieve good. Yes, I actually happen to think that the world is a better place without Carthars. However, mass murder to achieve sectarian cleansing is an unfathomable evil. To do the latter to achieve the former is morally illicit to the highest degree. Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose. You even think it appropriate to call this justice being done. Well, if you want to get away with the evil you are proposing, you have to go through the motions of feeling sorry for that, you have to pretend that the evil is not intended, but an unintended side effect. Your "whatever" attitude doesn't qualify you for "double effect" excuses.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
I wish my church wasn't picking a fight over the secular definition of marriage. I wish your church wasn't. But, if they do, I want them to lose, because they are in the wrong.
Except the churches aren't picking a fight, the government is. And it is in the wrong and should lose. Does the government have to call all civil unions "marriage" in order to guarantee their total equality before secular law? Of course not. It could simply pass a law that says that all civil unions are to be treated equally to marriages before all old law that only mentions marriages. That would leave the status quo intact concerning who is going to provide civil unions and marriages in the first place, respectively. But no, the government has to get into the word definition game and thereby raise the question whether churches will end up having to "marry" gays against their will.
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
No, no, no. You've misunderstood me. ... What I think would happen (worst case) is that if the law says to the Catholic Church (as I hope it will not) “You must marry same sex couples”, the Catholics will simply refuse. ... I predict that if the sky falls, and the UK law ends up providing that all churches must marry gays (and really, I think there's next to no chance of that happening), that's a fight that in practice you will win, whatever the law says, because you are just too principled and fucking stubborn to lose it. I don't want to see that put to the test, but my point was that even if it was, I don't think you have anything to be afraid of.
That's breathtakingly naive. If churches must marry same sex people by law, then at the very first refusal by a RC church to marry a gay couple litigation will start immediately. You will indeed see court case upon court case, probably class actions, priests and bishops going to jail and/or dioceses bankrupted by legal fees and damages, ... This is nothing like the seal of confession, where essentially the state decides to limit its powers because the state will have to deal with the fallout if it doesn't. This will be about individuals seeking their "rights" through the courts, at whatever cost to the common - or at least Catholic - good. It is proper for government to anticipate this disaster and avoid providing these "rights". But once they are out there, it's going to be a bloody mess.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
You don't get it at all. Beziers is an egregious example of somebody commanding evil to achieve good. Yes, I actually happen to think that the world is a better place without Carthars. However, mass murder to achieve sectarian cleansing is an unfathomable evil. To do the latter to achieve the former is morally illicit to the highest degree. Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose. You even think it appropriate to call this justice being done. Well, if you want to get away with the evil you are proposing, you have to go through the motions of feeling sorry for that, you have to pretend that the evil is not intended, but an unintended side effect. Your "whatever" attitude doesn't qualify you for "double effect" excuses.
What about the possibility that the Catholic Church's policy on contraception spreads AIDS? Your Church's view seems to be that, since discouraging condom use is a good thing, the unintended consequences are immaterial.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Now, you want to achieve a good, that gays can marry. I don't think that this is a good, but that's not the point. The point is rather that you are apparently quite happy with the clear evil of disrupting Catholic life in a serious manner if that serves this purpose.
Really, I'm not. I'm sorry to have given that impression. It was not intended.
I don't want to see Catholics forced by law to accommodate same sex weddings. Or Jews, or Muslims, or Quakers, or anyone else. The only church where I think there's even an argument that this should be considered is my own - because of Establishment. It is not as obviously intrusive to ask the state church to perform what the state calls marriage as it is to require the same of anyone else. Even then, I would rather it didn't. I am in favour of religious freedom.
My "whatever" attitude is the result of my assessment that this bad consequence won't happen. No one wants it. Gays who want church weddings don't want to bankrupt churches. The politicians don't want it. There might be a few intentionally hostile gay people to sue out of pure devilment, but the English Courts are perfectly capable of knocking that sort of nonsense on the head. It won't happen. If I'm dismissive (and I admit that I was, and it was probably a fault) it's only because I think the chance of the disaster happening at all is negligible, not because I think the scale of the disaster, if it happened, would be negligible.
And I also think, that if it did happen, you'd tough it out.
You are wrong, though, in thinking that I would consider forcing shurches to do anything "justice". For me, the justice of the case requires BOTH marriage equality AND religious freedom. And I think we can have both. I think scaremongering the threat to religious freedom that my church is engaged in as a way of denying justice to others is utterly shameful and wrong, but that doesn't mean that I don't think religious freedom is a basic human right.
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
That's breathtakingly naive. If churches must marry same sex people by law, then at the very first refusal by a RC church to marry a gay couple litigation will start immediately. You will indeed see court case upon court case, probably class actions, priests and bishops going to jail and/or dioceses bankrupted by legal fees and damages, ... This is nothing like the seal of confession, where essentially the state decides to limit its powers because the state will have to deal with the fallout if it doesn't. This will be about individuals seeking their "rights" through the courts, at whatever cost to the common - or at least Catholic - good. It is proper for government to anticipate this disaster and avoid providing these "rights". But once they are out there, it's going to be a bloody mess.
Who said that churches will be made to conduct SSM? Everyone I have seen specifically rules that out (Gov, Human Rights courts etc).
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
The case in Canada is instructive, in that, despite all the similar wailing before SSMs were made legal, there have been absolutely no appeals to the courts. Why would there be? No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them. They just want to commit themselves to each other in a public ceremony.
I cannot understand why someone living in Germany wants to upbraid the English government over something that just isn't going to happen...
unless he has no other argumment to advance, beyond "well, WE don't do it that way."
The point about religious freedom is not just that you are free to be religious in your manner, BUT ALSO so is everyone else, and those manners won't coincide.
The argument is about making everyone in a specific country able to commit to another person in the same way.
The existence of an established church muddies the waters somewhat, but even that is something that can be dealt with, as it was in the case of divorced persons.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
The case in Canada is instructive, in that, despite all the similar wailing before SSMs were made legal, there have been absolutely no appeals to the courts. Why would there be? No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them. They just want to commit themselves to each other in a public ceremony.
I cannot understand why someone living in Germany wants to upbraid the English government over something that just isn't going to happen...
unless he has no other argumment to advance, beyond "well, WE don't do it that way."
The point about religious freedom is not just that you are free to be religious in your manner, BUT ALSO so is everyone else, and those manners won't coincide.
The argument is about making everyone in a specific country able to commit to another person in the same way.
The existence of an established church muddies the waters somewhat, but even that is something that can be dealt with, as it was in the case of divorced persons.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Man with a Stick
Shipmate
# 12664
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Posts: 335 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
What about the possibility that the Catholic Church's policy on contraception spreads AIDS? Your Church's view seems to be that, since discouraging condom use is a good thing, the unintended consequences are immaterial.
The RCC consider the use of a condom (in marriage, by the way) to be an evil. Hence the good of preventing the spread of STDs, or for that matter the (potential) good (!) of limiting the number of children, must not be achieved by doing this evil. Whatever you may think of the premise that condom use is evil, this is entirely consistent with the general principle that one may not do evil to achieve good.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
The rather frantic statements about how the churches would eventually be forced to conduct SSMs, against their own wishes, and against what everyone else has said, indicate that there is no other argument against SSMs.
Actually (and I say this as someone who is quite liberal on The Issue) I think the likelihood of churches being penalised for refusing to conduct same sex marriages within the next few decades is actually very high. The opt outs granted to churches/mosques/synagogues etc are dependent on the willingness of the secular majority to allow minorities exemptions from the law on religious grounds. There is no reason to assume that that willingness will continue. It quite possibly won't.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Not unless running a B&B became a form of religious worship since I last looked. And if it is a form of worship then everything else one can possibly imagine is also, and is protected by the freedom of religious practice human rights legislation.
Of course most people would say it wasn't remotely the same thing.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
God can bless anything and anyone he chooses.
Anyway, this the fact that you and others do not believe in SSM is rather irrelevant. Other do, and the state has a responsibility to protect their interests as much as yours.
You keep doing your own little thing and let the state decide whether - and how to - let them do theirs.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships?
God certainly blessed Jacob and his marriage to two sisters. Why aren't you advocating we legalize polygamy to follow the Bible?
[ 14. June 2012, 12:58: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Man with a Stick:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
No-one wants to get married in a place that doesn't want them.
Yet the same does not hold true for staying in a B & B, or any other public service that a service provider makes available.
The chances of finding a single litigant would seem rather high to me (particularly if a number of charities/pressure groups/wealthy individuals assisted with funding).
I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, although the case law of Ladele would make be nervous if I were a Marriage Registrar with a conscientious objection to the proposed reforms.
Except that cl 14 of the SORs gives churches an opt-out, although Yerevan's warning about the longevity of this opt-out is a point taken.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
... The opt outs granted to churches/mosques/synagogues etc are dependent on the willingness of the secular majority to allow minorities exemptions from the law on religious grounds. ...
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
... There is no reason to assume that that willingness will continue. It quite possibly won't....
True, it possibly won't. However, it seems that the last three versions of the relevant UK law all had religious exemptions. The 2003 regulations had a religious exemption in clause 7(3). The 2007 regulations and the 2010 Equality Act both had religious exemptions (linked in my previous post).
I agree with Eliab that I'd like the law to allow that "everyone who wants to get married does, and none of the objectors are required to participate or approve". Of course, some Christians strongly disagree with SSM and wouldn't want their churches to be forced to carry them out - fair enough. If you don't want to be forced to carry out SSMs, can you reasonably expect that the law will forbid churches that do want to carry them out from doing so, without moral inconsistency? Don't they have the same right to religious freedom?
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
quote:
If you don't want to be forced to carry out SSMs, can you reasonably expect that the law will forbid churches that do want to carry them out from doing so, without moral inconsistency? Don't they have the same right to religious freedom?
Agreed completely. As others have said, the logical solution seems to be to a French style system, although its hard to see how this would fit with establishment in England and Scotland.
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Glad to hear that you will be disestablished. What's your prediction on the time frame for that?
More than five years, less than five hundred ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Actually disestabl;ishment is a low process because there is more than one thing to change. Some of it has already happens. There is so much legislation invovled that I doubt if any likely near future government could be bothered to wast their time on it. So I suspect we will slowly drift into disestablishment and one day look back and realise it has already happened.
Just as the English (and later United Kingdom) constitution slowly drifted from being a constitutional monarchy (as it was in the Middle Ages) into being a de facto republic with a hereditary but almost entirely powerless head of state (as it is now) with no sudden change. There were a couple of great leaps forward in the 17th century, and a large but in the end futile stumble or two backwards under the Tudors and early Stuarts whn they flirted with absolutism, but by Victoria's time we had in effect ceased to be a real monarchy. But when exactly that happened between about 1640 and 1800 is a hard question maybe with no precise answer.
quote:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead.
I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones:
- Marriage is a creation ordinance, available to all.
- Marriage is natural to the human species. and was not set up by either church or secular legislation, though it can be regulated by legislation in the interests of fairness or convenience - as for example by consent laws intended to prevent the exploitation of young women.
- it precedes Christianity, and it precedes our current legal system
- the Bible characters who had non-Christian or non-Jewish weddings (Esther) or no wedding at all (Eve) were in fact married.
- Jesus himself attended and blessed Jewish weddings
- a wedding is performed by the couple themselves. Its not something done to them by either church or state. Church and state and neighbours can register and witness what is done, they do not make it happen, it could be real and it could be valid without them
- people married under different legal systems than ours are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- Christians who wed outside church are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- non-Christians who have been valildly married (in church or elsewhere) are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- Christians validly married to non-Christians are in fact married and we do not ask them to remarry.
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
- weddings are a significant service we perform for the community as a whole.
- weddings are a real occasion for outreach
And no doubt others
The validity of weddings of non-Christians is not a significant source of argument in the Church of England - we'd be more likely to drop open infant baptism to be honest.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yerevan
Shipmate
# 10383
|
Posted
Judging by the numbers who still tune in to big royal occasions (a recent wedding springs to mind) a massively revamped coronation ceremony would probably be of interest to quite a few people, especially given the symbolic signifance of removing the Christian aspect. It would be an interesting break with many centuries of English history for one thing. Of course, that isn't necessarily an argument against it, but it would be fairly significant.
[ 14. June 2012, 14:37: Message edited by: Yerevan ]
Posts: 3758 | From: In the middle | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
Well, for one, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Another issue: if disestablishment does go ahead, who would crown Charles? Would we adopt a purely secular 'swearing in ceremony' or something similar and, if so, who would administer that?
who cares?
Well, for one, I do, otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question!
Other places survive with monarchs but without established churches, no?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
True. How do the Dutch, Belgians and Scandinavians do it?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
True. How do the Dutch, Belgians and Scandinavians do it?
IIRC, the Belgians and Swedes have a swearing-in, but no coronation. While the RCC has an official position in Belgium, and the Lutherans are the established church in Sweden, they have no crowning role. In any case, it is the anointment which is the sacramental and religious part; the crowning itself is of course more visual and more easily remembered.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
But who administers the oath and who anoints?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
God.
Or not.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
More practically...?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers. The Archbishop of Canterbury administers the oath at Westminster Abbey (although I think that there were mediaeval coronations where the oath was administered by the bishops of London or Winchester) and is also the minister of anointing.
For Spain, in case anybody's still reading, Juan Carlos was proclaimed King by a resolution of the Cortes, and five days later was anointed by the Cardinal Archbishop of Toledo (as Primate of Spain) at a Mass of the Holy Spirit. This took place under the previous constitution, and the RCC is no longer the state church, but I imagine that the same two-ceremonies approach will apply at the next succession.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Inger
Shipmate
# 15285
|
Posted
As far as I'm aware, there has been neither coronation nor anointing of any Danish monarch since the passing of the constitution in 1849. The prime minister proclaims the new king/queen in the immortal words, 'the King is dead, long live the King (or Queen).'
Posts: 332 | From: Newcastle, UK | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by the long ranger:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
For Sweden, I believe that the Chief Justice administers the oath but it is the speaker of the Belgian Senate who administers.
Wait - the Belgian speaker is involved in the kingmaking of the King of Sweden?!?
hmmm.... It made sense when I typed it out. I was trying to avoid being repetitious but ended up making no sense at all. The Speaker of the Belgian Senate administers the oath to the new King of Belgium-- I remember watching it on television when I was home sick one day, and couldn't find any good sitcom reruns.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead. I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones: ...
I would agree with practically all your points as well, except for making some distinctions about sacramental marriages. However, I see no argument for marrying non-Christians in church in this. Really, I come up with a total blank on that from what you have said so far. The only thing that seems remotely relevant is this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
In fact, we can see in their mind insofar at least that they are apparently not ready to become Christians yet. Given that they can get married easily apart from the church, and get their marriage recognised easily by the church if they become Christians later, all is well and we can politely explain to them that Christian rites are intended for Christians.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
IngoB - not under current Church of England canon law we can't. The presumption is that anyone who lives within a parish, whatever their religion or none, can get married in the local church, so long as they are over 18, British citizens and are not already married. There aren't a lot of other exceptions, and all the proof steps are to do with checking if they do live in the parish, their citizenship and marital status. They do not have to be baptised.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
They must, however, be willing to be married by a priest of the Church of England using the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. There is no legal objection to that priest requiring them to attend marriage preparation classes as a condition of their marriage taking place in the church. I have no problem with this. But then I'm one of these people who baptises the babies of people who aren't regular churchgoers.
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
As for marrying non-Christians in church, I would be interested in the reasoning for it.
Mostly already said here and on the other thead. I would guess most British Protestants would agree with all or most of the follwoing points, and most of the secular majority of the British people would agree with the non-theological ones: ...
I would agree with practically all your points as well, except for making some distinctions about sacramental marriages. However, I see no argument for marrying non-Christians in church in this. Really, I come up with a total blank on that from what you have said so far. The only thing that seems remotely relevant is this:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
- we cannot see into the minds of others. If someone is willing to stand up in church and make the explicitly Christian promises required by our liturgy at marriage, or at Baptism, who are we to say they don't mean it?
In fact, we can see in their mind insofar at least that they are apparently not ready to become Christians yet. Given that they can get married easily apart from the church, and get their marriage recognised easily by the church if they become Christians later, all is well and we can politely explain to them that Christian rites are intended for Christians.
Sorry, is it not the case that, according to RCC and Anglican dogma, anyone who was baptised is already a Christian? Seeing that I guess the majority of people were Christened as babies, is not this argument about marrying 'non-Christians' a red herring? Should you not rather be saying 'non-attenders at church'?
You can't believe in a sacrament of baptism and then accuse the baptised of not being Christians - what does that say about the sacrament?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 16. June 2012, 08:25: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
Also I'd dispute that a majority of babies are baptised.
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
They must, however, be willing to be married by a priest of the Church of England using the rites and ceremonies of the Church of England. There is no legal objection to that priest requiring them to attend marriage preparation classes as a condition of their marriage taking place in the church.
Actually I think the priest cannot make their attendance at marriage preparation classes a *requirement* for getting married in their parish church, although there may be some wriggle room around the minister's duty "to explain to the two persons who desire to be married the Church's doctrine of marriage"
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
But it is quite possible, and the usual practise around here, for the priest to say that he/she will not marry them unless they do some form of pre-marriage counselling.
He/she usually adds that a lot of the counselling is about how to live together, rather than being a totally-religious session, since there is no-one else who gets that opportunity.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
@Mudfrog - you do not have to be baptised to be married in a CofE church
That's not the point I was making.
I was saying - quite clearly, I thought - that these alleged 'non-Christians' who were turning up, horror of horrors, to be married in a church (and why??) were actually Christians by virtue of baptism.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
But actually, quite a few of them are not Christians by virtue of baptism, because they are not baptised. That's what I was saying. There is no requirement to be baptised to be married in a CofE church, just to live in the parish and meet the other requirements (over 18, not already married, British citizen or legal resident)
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If a marriage in a church is a 'threefold cord' (2 spouses and God), how can we ask God to bless what his word has clearly stated is not in his plan and purpose for human relationships? (emphasis added)
Mudfrog, my dear old chap, someone who has been on the Ship as long as you have ought to know that there are many Christians who do not think the Bible "clearly states" that homosexuality is against his will. Some things in the Bible are clear; that isn't.
[ 16. June 2012, 13:34: Message edited by: Robert Armin ]
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
Maybe (at least partly) what Mudfrog is asking is 'how are these non-Christians identified'?
Can other Christian officiants comment here on their experience of marrying people they know self-identified as non-Christians?
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
