Marriage Witnessing Authority

The Witnessing Authority presiding over the contraction of a marriage is the only one that should have jurisdiction over it’s possible dissolution, whether such dissolution is canonically valid or not.

I see the following possible categories -
1 - Catholic marriage
2 - Protestant “
3 - Jewish “
4 - Moslem “
5 - Secular “
Various mixed marriages of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Moslems and Atheists would appear under one of the above headings.

Because of the interest of the State in the protection and continued welfare of the family as the fundamental unit of society, the State does have a legitimate function in matters relating to the stability of the family unit.
However, the State ordinarily should not have jurisdiction in the actual contracting of a marriage. It’s true role should be limited to recognising all marriages that are certified by a particular, legally-recognised religion, as valid according to the ‘canon’ law of that religion. The State’s role must be a permissive rather than a deterministic one.
Those persons, of any or no religion, who do not wish for a religious marriage could opt for a purely secular, civil marriage where the State, represented by a Registry Office, would be the Witnessing Authorising. The responsibility for any transgressions of the moral law should be attributable solely to the persons contracting such civil marriage.

It seems most desirable, on the grounds of logic and legal common-sense, that if one desires a change in the status of a marriage, appeals for that change should be made to the Witnessing Authority which authorised and certified the contraction of the marriage. This would require that all religious bodies sanctioning marriages must also provide the services of a Marriage Tribunal that could deal with any questions relating to the continuation or possible termination of the marriage state. The Marriage Tribunal should not be in any way influenced by pressure from secular or legal elements of the State but should adjudicate purely on the basis of it’s own Canon Law or equivalent. It’s judgment should be accepted as final by the State.

In proceeding according to this arrangement, those who have contracted a marriage under Catholic auspices, would be obliged to address their appeal to the Catholic Marriage Tribunal.
According to Catholic Canon Law, a validly contracted marriage cannot be annulled for any reason and the tribunal’s function would be limited to determining whether the marriage was valid in the first place, according to the same Canon Law.
If the decision was that the marriage was indeed valid, it would so advise the State and the marriage would continue to be legally binding.
Legal separation, of course, could be established for circumstances where co-habitation had become physically dangerous or mentally unbearable for one of the parties or the children and the necessary legal provisions for the upkeep of wife and children could be made.

If the marriage was under another religious Witnessing Authority than Catholic, a tribunal of that Church, synagogue or mosque would render a determination as to whether, according to it’s tenets, it was lawful to continue to bind or to loose the marriage bond. Such a ruling would be recognised as final by the State.

If the State was the Witnessing Authority, the State through it’s court system would determine whether the marriage should continue to be recognised as legal.

In all of these situations, at the time of appeal by a married person to a marriage tribunal, that tribunal should first pursue all possible efforts to bring about reconciliation between the parties and this initial period should be for a pre-fixed duration - perhaps 6 or 12 months.

In all situations where the Witnessing Authority’s Tribunal ruled in favour of releasing the parties from the married state, the State through it’s court system, would investigate and establish the provisions for the continued financial, physical and moral welfare of the children and their parents.

In the case of recognition of marriages contracted abroad, the same principles could be applied.

Were this system to be introduced into the U.S. it would prevent the divorce of validly-married Catholics and apostate, validly-married Catholics would not be able to go through a form of re-marriage ceremony in a Protestant Church, synagogue, mosque or Registry Office.
It also would place on the various Protestant Churches, the burden of facing up to their responsibilities and their portion of blame for the breakdown in marriage, they who presently appear to be getting the State to do their work for them while perhaps paying lip service to the sanctity of the marriage bond.