Separation of Church and State and Marriage in the US

King Henry VIII wants a Divorce. The Church says “No.” King Henry VIII makes himself head of Church and State. All power is centralized under one man, and various abuses happen. The American Nation is born years later, and they have a separation of Church and State. The concept and its history assume that certain issues and authority over those issues belong to the State, and certain issues belong to the Church. Marriage and divorce is an issues that belongs to the Church. No secular judge is King Henry VIII. He has no authority to marry or divorce. God has law. The Church has law. Secular law is not higher.

Luciferianism is the belief that God of The Bible is basically evil, and that Lucifer is light. There is a religious and non-religious element to it. Secular Humanism is Luciferian. It is a belief that man can build a future and a better world outside of God. That man has a better way. It is man worshiping himself.

Most governments have adopted Secular Humanism as their religion and is the center of their value system. Religion has certain elements to it, and Secular Humanism has tenets that work to fill the void of religion. Decision making is governed by Values. A Christian law makers fruit and decision making should be good and reflect his Christian values and The Bible. Someone who is Luciferian you can tell by their fruit. They have different values and you can see it in their decision making.

The Catholic Church say there is no divorce. The Catholic Church has its own system of laws to govern the issues important to the Catholic Church. The Secular and Worldly State Government jumps across the wall of separation of Church and State. They start marrying people and creating rules for Divorce. The state creates a Luciferian Church. This creates problems and issues. Given the State is in its proper place, then there are no divorced Catholics. No secular judge has a right to rule on someone’s marriage. It doesn’t matter if they were Catholic or Protestant.

I am aware of God’s law. I met a divorced Catholic the other day. She attends Church and talks positively about her Faith, but she doesn’t seem to really know who God is, and seems to want to do what she wants. Faith to her is important as far as it is easy, and all she has to do is show up to Church on Sunday.

If the Catholic Church is a mother, and the state is like dad, she ran to dad, and uses that state to play against Church. Because of the state of sin she is in, she adopted false beliefs and idols. (Ezekiel 14:3) It blinds her to God and is a wall in her path to growing in Faith. This is an issue to me. I know who God is. He chastises and rebukes those he loves. He has a mighty thumos, and he does not like sin. Be angry and sin not.

This is something that has been on my mind and I wanted to see what other people see.

The state is not like dad. I am confused by your analogy.

It wasn’t a perfect analogy. The Church has authority. The State has Authority. They could be seen like parents. Child asks permission to do something. Dad says no. Child runs to mom and asks her knowing a different answer could happen.

:thumbsup:

The Church has law. Secular law is not higher.

Yup. See the first paragraph in Mater et Magistra (vatican encyclicals)

See my signature as well.

Your analogy implies the state should talk to the church before making a decision, they deliberately don’t based on their notion that separation of church and state means no discussions or compromise. That’s really all they need to do Christians (and several other religions with similar ideas on marriage) need to be listened to and taken into account, not locked out.

The US Government gives tax breaks to married couples to incentivize marriage and child bearing. The US government can do that. The US gives secular judges the power to marry and divorce individuals including declaring a sacramental marriage no longer valid. That is a violation of separation of Church and State. As you say, Church and State do not need to communicate on the issue. They stay on their side of the wall.

It is really not that the state needs to listen to Christians. The Church needs to push the state back to its side of the wall. Unfortunately, Luciferian Secular Humanism has been institutionalized in many areas, and in many Churches, not just the Catholic Church, and seems to be pulling people’s strings.

An Apocalypse is an opening of the eyes and tearing away of the veil from hidden things. Many “isms” are Luciferian in nature, and they have become institutionalized and accepted, and act as false idols and stumbling blocks to knowing God. (Ezekiel 14:3)

One problem here is that not everybody in the State recognizes the authority of your church–first off, the U.S. is predominantly Protestant, not Catholic. For that matter, not everybody in the U.S. is even Christian.

Tied into this is the simple fact that the state cannot really determine which individuals truly do and which truly do not accept the authority of a church. You can say that Johnny Murphy was baptized Catholic, confirmed in the church, and married in the church, so therefore, he at one point and time accepted its authority, but the tricky thing is this: In the U.S., Johnny Murphy is allowed to change his mind and say, “No, I don’t accept the Catholic church’s teachings as true, and I’m not going to live by them.” And requests the state for a divorce. It is not a case of the state overstepping its boundaries, it is a case of it is not the state’s concern to prove that Johnny Murphy should accept the Catholic church’s stances on marriage and therefore, deny him a divorce. The Catholic church can (and has) refuse to allow Johnny to remarry in their church. But the Catholic church cannot tell Johnny he cannot remarry elsewhere.

You may not like it, but it’s not really a case of the state overstepping. If anything, they’re just saying it’s not their concern what religion an individual seeking a divorce professes to practice or to have ever practiced.

A judge can declare a sacramental marriage no longer civilly valid in terms of tax, inheritance, custody, probate, and related civil matters. Such a decision does not affect the sacramentlality or validity of the marriage in the eyes of the competent religious authority, so the judge is not violating the Separation clause. Any subsequent civil or non-Catholic remarriage of such parties is not binding on the church (presumably Catholic) in which the original marriage was contracted.

It seems you are mixing the secular, sacramental and natural laws. Sort of like mixing metaphors.

  1. The Catholic Church is headed by a Head of State also (who also happens to be a Bishop and the vicar of Christ).

  2. A civil court cannot dissolve a sacramental marriage any more than the Church can. The Church declares a nullification, the State dissolves a civil marriage which has no bearing on the Sacrament.

  3. The state has an interest in marriage only because strong families make for a stable state.

  4. There is no “separation of church and state” in the U.S. Constitution, only a prohibition of the state making an official religion or denying the free practice of a religion. Known as The Establishment Clause. (at least there was until Chief Justice John Roberts did his thing…).

  5. The concept of the Establishment Clause had a lot to do with people losing their heads & homes every time the Monarch’s religion switched for the first few following Henry VIII, and the political unrest which followed.

King Henry wanted a decree of nullity, not a divorce.

However the grounds he cited, affinity, had been dispensed by the Pope at the time of his marriage.

Get-politics and religion of that time were much more complex than that.

That isn’t what the Church teaches. The opposite in fact, marriage is a natural institution that predates the Church.

Christ raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament.

No, it doesn’t.

What it does say is that there can be no remarriage after divorce for those in a valid, sacramental marriage. A sacramental marriage is a marriage between two baptized people.

Marriage and divorce predate the Church. The Church acknowledges this.

The Church doesn’t teach this.

I think it would be advisable to suggest she talk to the pastor about her situation.

Well that’s a big old assumption on your part.

What I see are some pretty substantial errors about marriage and divorce.

Bill joins the Catholic Church. He is baptized. Part of him joining said Church is submitting and accepting the rules of said Church. No one forced him to join. As part of his faith he willingly accepts said rules. Bill later gets married.

The State of California later makes “No Fault” divorce. No Fault Divorce is against God’s Law. Adulatory is the only excuse for divorce. (Mattiew 5:32) For there to be a Divorce there must be fault. No Protestant Church could be for “No Fault” Divorce on Biblical grounds and the Catholic Church is against it as well.

The State of California has jumped over wall of Separation. It has created a Luciferian definition of what constitute a marriage and divorce. This definition conflicts with every Christian Churches definition of marriage and divorce. This Luciferianism is hidden behind a mask of secularism, but secular humanism is an artificial religion that works to replace religion or phase out religion in its roles in public life.

Bill is married to Hellen. Hellen would like a divorce and the State has a definition of marriage and divorce outside of God’s law and Church law. Hellen chooses the Luciferian definition because it is the easiest thing to do. Because she accepted this Luciferian value system, her choices and perspectives on life and God have been corrupted, and she lives sinfully. Given the state was not involved with in marriage and divorce there would be no problem.

Marriage predates the Church. Marriage does not predate God.

First of all the Constitution nowhere guarantees separation of church and state.
It and other BOR items were written to limit the power of the National government .
In fact many colonies had state religions . Separation of Church and state was used in a letter by Thomas Jefferson in support of the Danbury Baptists. It was a private letter with zero authority. Congregationalism was the legal state religion of Ct into the 19th century.
The first time federal authority was exercised was against Morman Polygamy,w which was upheld on the grounds that a territory lack BOM protection.
So rather than a prohibiting the public exercise of religion it actually guaranteed it.

Actually, the bolded is not quite true. When you marry in a Catholic Church (Sacramental Marriage) the priest also has to sign a state marriage certificate. The state is only dissolving the state marriage not the Sacramental Marriage. The Sacramental Marriage is between you and the Church,

The words Separation of Church and State are not in the constitution. Neither is a right to a fair trial. The concept is there, and used in law.

Prior to the 14th Amendment and the Civil War, the State of Maryland could make Catholicism The State Religion. After the Civil War and 14th Amendment Maryland can no longer do that because the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

Why does the State need to be involved in marriage and divorce? What good does it serve? Why should a priest have to sign off on a state mandated certificate? The Church is capable of shepherding its flock on these things without The Government.

What are the exact words in the Constitution that give us this “separation of Church and State” concept? Those words are precise, and show clearly the intent of the law. That’s important, I believe. Can you provide those for us?

Prior to the 14th Amendment and the Civil War, the State of Maryland could make Catholicism The State Religion. After the Civil War and 14th Amendment Maryland can no longer do that because the Bill of Rights applies to the States.

Not sure why that is relevant?

Why does the State need to be involved in marriage and divorce? What good does it serve?

Great question!! I believe the answer is: because Marriage ensures the sustainability of a population, which ensures survival of a culture and provides taxpayers. Children in unbroken homes who know their father are less likely to end up in prison and be productive members of society. So, the State has a natural interest in Marriage and whether parents stay together.

Why should a priest have to sign off on a state mandated certificate? The Church is capable of shepherding its flock on these things without The Government.

My understanding is that the Church asks for a certificate of Marriage from those who wish to be Married, as a sign of the couple’s commitment to each other. In other words, they are serious about getting Married and not just being frivolous. (I may be wrong here.)
I’m not aware of the State requiring a certificate of Marriage from the Church, but if they do, it would be for the same reason…because [see the previous comment I made].

Amendment I: The federal government shall not establish a state religion, nor prohibit the free exercise thereof…

SCOTUS later determined that this set a “wall of separation between the Church and the State”

The Church and society should relate as grace relates to nature: not externally, but internally. The Church is the heart of society, and thus the government.

Now, just as nature doesn’t become grace, nor does grace reduce to nature, so too should the seperation of Church and state be.

the Church should relate to state like grace relates to the human heart: by encouragement and nourishment and perfecting from within.

The Church shouldn’t collapse the state into herself (which rarely happens), nor should the state collapse the Church into itself (which usually what tends to actually happen).

The Church should encourage and serve as witnesses to promote the common good, the moral life, and Christian values, from within the society, not by forcing herself on it.

Government wise, Bishops shouldn’t rule, but rather encourage and advise secular leaders to enact policies that promote the common good, the moral life, and Christian values.

disqus.com/home/channel/religion/discussion/channel-religion/capital_punishment/#comment-2717337663

I don’t think we can form many definite laws as to how the Church should in particular cases interact with the state and vice versa. Rather, I think we should contemplate and form general principles of the correct balance, and then allow our leaders to use prudence to apply these principles to concrete situations.

I don’t think that ridged laws will work, especially on their own: we need a spirit of humility, courage, faithfulness, prudence, and justice in our leaders too, in fact, in our the citizens. In the end, the biggest reasons why we have many of the problems we have in our country is because both leaders and citizens dance around the letter of the law to justify their sins rather than be empowered by the spirit of the law.

Maybe what I’m ultimately saying is that a society is best when it’s leaders and citizens are Saints, and so society should prudently encourage sanctity, faith, hope, charity, and the cardinal virtues.

disqus.com/home/channel/religion/discussion/channel-religion/capital_punishment/#comment-2717448653

I don’t intend to say that a perfect society is possible: it’s not. Utopia is impossible in this life.

However, my goal is to draw a sketch of what a perfect society would look like, so that we might attempt to approach it the best way we can, God willing. We will never obtain the perfect society in this life, just has we will never become perfect little statues of God in this life, but we should, by the Grace of God, try.

disqus.com/home/channel/religion/discussion/channel-religion/capital_punishment/#comment-2717461580

Christi pax,

Lucretius

The prohibition is in the federal constitution and the restriction applies to congress. At the founding of the current federal government there were state churches and religious tests for office. So the prohibition was limited to the federal government. An argument can be made that the fraudulently passed 14th amendment applies these restrictions to the states, but then there is the issue of the language which specifies congress.

I don’t think the people were all that worried about state religions. They probably mostly wanted their particular religion to be the state religion. This is understandable since I’m not sure it is possible to not have a state religion. In our times we’ve seen atheism and secular humanism become the religion of states with disastrous consequences.

So clear, decisive, and spot on, especially the last paragraph :thumbsup: Just because we refuse to call it a religion, doesn’t mean it’s not a religion.

Our current definition of religion is more or less an arbritrary list. And so the atheist can throw whatever view he doesn’t like under the category, and dismiss it from public consideration without arguments with a simple twist of the wrist.

Furthermore, the illusion of neutrality that many liberals have about their views encourages this nonsense. They aren’t neutral: the seperation of Church and state in the liberal view isn’t a neutral position, but rather a very positive position. If you believe that the Church should be removed from public policy or life, you are positively believing that, for one of many examples, that “God should not have to be obey on a societal level,” which is a very positive and heretical claim.

Liberal tolerance is a delusion: liberalism only tolerates views that accept liberalism, which is just another way of saying liberalism only tolerates itself.

Christi pax,

Lucretius

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.