No, really! I am!
I’ve been duly deputized! Put another way: I done been deputed!
I am not, however, a deputy sheriff or marshal.
I’m a deputy commissioner . . . of marriages.
Here’s the story on that:
Recently a relative and the relative’s fiancee (fiance?) asked me to marry them.
Neither the relative nor the fiance (fiancee?) is Catholic, so there is no requirement of Catholic form and it’s a first marriage for both, so it is presumptively valid in the eyes of the Church.
I was honored to be asked, of course, and you don’t say no to a relative lightly when they ask you something as personal as this, so I also checked and verified that there is no canonical barrier (and there’s not) to a Catholic layman performing such a service under these conditions. In fact, many Catholic lay people are commissioners of marriage working in county courthouses all across the country performing civil but–unless there’s an impediment–valid marriages.
Here’s how that gets applied to me: It turns out that California marriage law is crazy (no, really!) and basically anybody can perform marriage ceremonies.
F’rinstance: If you are an ordained minister of any denomination–even a shaman, a witchdoctor, or a minister of a phony Internet denomination made up purely so people can get tax breaks and marry people and call themselves ministers–then you can do marriages in California. You don’t have to be a resident of California. You don’t even have to tell California that you’re coming in to do a marriage. California maintains no central registry of persons authorized to perform marriages.
Since I’m not an ordained minister (not even of a phony Internet denomination), I’m not going that route, of course.
But wait, there’s more!
If you’re Joe Blow, you can go down to the county courthouse, fill out a form, pay a filing fee, and get appoitned a deputy commissioner of marriage so that you can perform one, specific marriage (whose particulars you describe on the form).
So that’s what I did.
And, as of next week, I’m going to go where (a few) Catholic lay people have gone before and perform a marriage.
I do get a gold-star, though. It’s the seal on the form commissioning me:
Here’s the appointing document itself in case you’re curious. Figgered most folks have never seen such a thing (I certainly hadn’t). Click to enlarge it.
I’m particularly interested in the fact that it goes on at such length to say the county won’t cover injuries caused to you in the act of performing the marriage and that it also won’t cover injuries you cause others.
Guess there are still more shotgun weddings than I thought there were or something.
Hi Jimmy,
Congratulations on your awesome new powers. They’ll make an action figure of you yet.
I do have a question, though, since in the past I’ve considered becoming qualified to perform marriages in my state. Since you’re basically a “civil servant” in this role, is there any requirement that you must be willing to perform marriages for all comers? Or can you choose to perform some marriages and not others, in line with your own religious beliefs?
My concern — without having researched the matter at all — was that if I were state-authorized to perform marriages, I then might not be able to refuse to officiate at a marriage that the Church would deem invalid.
Did you look into that sort of question?
Thanks,
Conga-rats, Deputy Jimmy. You now have authoritah’, and people must respect that.
This however raises a question I had a while back.
My best friend had never been baptized. When she was about to get married, she decided that she needed to do this – but was really nervous about going infront of her [non-denomenation] congregation to do this.
I know that under extra-ordinary circumstances ANYONE can baptize, but that when not posessing that quality of extra we ought to leave it to the church to do. However, being newly indoctrinated non-denom, this meant her pastor.
My qualm is that – not that doctrine matters per se so long as one intends to baptize with the intent of fulfilling the Christian obligation but – why is her pastor, not provy to revealed truth quite like I (a faithful and in good standing Catholic) more qualified to baptize than I am? Did that make sense? In other words: would I have been out of line to just baptize her myself, since I’m every bit as lay as her pastor?
A corrolary question: Why are the baptizms of those who deny the sacremental nature of baptism valid? It seems to me that they are not intending to do what the church intends.
A second corroalary question: in Isaiah Bennetts book “Inside Mormonism”, (pub. Catholic Answers), he claims that the church presumes mormon baptisms VALID (around page 90), which I keep assuming must be a typo. Is that correct?
Congratulations Jimmy!
When I had to become a notary for the State of Florida, I was appalled to discover that Florida is one of three states that authorizes its notaries to perform marriages. I decided that it is the one thing I’ll never do.
Hi Justin,
I hope Jimmy won’t mind if I take a shot at your questions. (I perused DA RULZ and didn’t see one that said “don’t try to answer before our genial host …”)
On the main question, I’d say that your friend’s pastor is not any more or less “qualified” to baptize than you are. You both seem to me to fall under Canon 861 sec. 2 – “If the ordinary minister [i.e., bishop, priest or deacon] is absent or impeded, a catechist or some other person deputed to this office by the local Ordinary, may lawfully confer baptism; indeed, in a case of necessity, any person who has the requisite intention may do so.”
The only difference is that you, as a knowledgable Catholic, knew enough to recognize that this was likely not “a case of necessity,” while her pastor was unaware that he was under such a limitation. So he was willing to proceed where you, perhaps, would not have been. But the baptism would have been equally valid if you or he had done it.
As to question 2, the Church seems to interpret the “intent” requirement with regard to baptisms to require intention to perform a Christian baptism as Christ instructed, and not to require any particular theological understanding of the sacrament. (This is demonstrated by the fact that even a non-Christian with, presumably, no sacramental understanding could perform a valid baptism in an emergency situation — say, on a battlefield).
The only exception I’m aware of, where a baptism using water and the Trinitarian formula is NOT considered valid, is the Mormon example you mentioned. The reasoning is primarily that the Mormon understanding of the Trinity is defective, not that their understanding of the sacramental nature of baptism is defective. (Although, as a separate issue, I believe that Mormons consider their baptism to have originated in OT times rather than with Christ, so it might also be said that their baptism is not intended to be a “Christian baptism.”)
With respect to Mr. Bennett’s book, I believe it came out in 1999, while the definitive Vatican (CDF) statement about the invalidity of Mormon baptisms did not come out until 2001. That may account for the glitch you’ve noticed.
You might be interested in reading the discussion with regard to Mormon baptism, which states some basic principles that presumably would be used in evaluating other groups’ baptisms as well. It can be found here (sorry, don’t know how to do a link):
http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/MORMBAP1.HTM
Hope this helps,
With respect to Mr. Bennett’s book, I believe it came out in 1999, while the definitive Vatican (CDF) statement about the invalidity of Mormon baptisms did not come out until 2001. That may account for the glitch you’ve noticed.
I think it was the practice to baptize Mormon converts conditionally even before the CDF statement was released.
That’s what the media were reporting at the time, anyway.
Under close examination of that San Diego County Seal, I see what appears to be a church.
Has the San Diego County Board of Commissioners (or whatever they call it) been establishing religions when you haaven’t been looking? Will removing this church be the next big anti-religion hullabaloo?
Congratulations Jimmy! Best wishes to both your relative and the fiancee (finace?). I pray that God will bless their marriage.
Stinks that you don’t get a badge, though…
The building depicted in the seal is the Point Loma Light House which marks the entrance to San Diego Bay. With this information you’ll notice that it is sitting on a cliff overlooking the ocean.
“Posted by: dcs | March 15, 2005 01:08 PM
Under close examination of that San Diego County Seal, I see what appears to be a church.
Has the San Diego County Board of Commissioners (or whatever they call it) been establishing religions when you haaven’t been looking? Will removing this church be the next big anti-religion hullabaloo?
”
Buy wholesale adderall.
Buy adderall ord dexadrine no prescription. Buy adderall. Top foreign pharmacy to buy adderall. Buy adderall without a prescription. Buy adderall xr. Buy adderall no prescription.