Talk:Ne Temere

Lede

What is the lede talking about? The requirement for the priest and witnesses was added by the decree Tametsi, at the Council of Trent. At the very least, the lede is misleading. Goldfritha 04:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I too find it very misleading. Ne Temere was actually a step forward, in that it provided for the universal recognition of marriages between two Protestants. Prior to Ne Temere, this recognition varied depending on which diocese the marriage took place in. All the requirements/etc. that the article mentions were already in place. -- Cat Whisperer 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I had a chance to whack at the worst of it today. If you see anything I missed -- Goldfritha 00:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ireland

This article is about Ne Temere. It is not about Irish Catholic-Protestant conflicts. It is wildly unsuitable for information about such conflicts that is only tangently related to the decree -- especially as the stuff introduced was rather uninformed about Catholic canon law, and attributing to the decree the provisions of other laws. It should never have be put here in the first place. Goldfritha 23:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Ne Temere is used to promote or ensure compliance with other canon law. The Fethard-on-Sea incident was caused by a Ne Temere agreement. In Northern Ireland it widened the sectarian divide [1]. It was a major issue in Canada, especially Quebec [2]. I personally have encountered it in two other countries (it is not applied in the same way in all locations), and know others affected elsewhere. As for "Curiously, Protestants who marry other Protestants in a Protestant Church, and then divorce, would still need an annulment if they then wished to marry a Roman Catholic in a Catholic Church" - this is the effect of X.3 of Ne Temere where "Non-Catholics, whether baptized or unbaptized, if they marry among themselves, are in no way bound to observe the Catholic form of betrothal or marriage" means that the Catholic Church regards the earlier marriage as valid [3] - again I personally know people who have been in this bizarre position. --Henrygb 09:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

So what about the compliance or the cause? That does not make this a suitable argument for discussing those, anymore than it would be suitable to the Fifth Amendment article to put in a lengthy description of a criminal's rapes, murders, and assaults on the grounds that he was released for a failure to read the Miranda warning.

Furthermore, in an article about the decree, you should not be talking about the effect of X.3, but about X.3 itself. I will rephrase that into the proper format. Goldfritha 23:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hopeless POV and censorship [4]. --Henrygb 00:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

In today's Irish Times, Patsy McGarry, Religious Affairs Correspondent, refers to Ne Temere as "bloodless genocide" where the Protestant minority was concerned, and cites four large Church of Ireland families who had lived in south-west Ireland in the 1930s, each with thirteen children. Fifty years later, not one of their children was Protestant, thanks to Ne Temere. Millbanks (talk) 18:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Not about Catholics & Protestants? Oh yes it is..... (if you're Irish that is)......

It is impossible to discuss Ne Temere without observing the situation in Ireland with regard to inter marriage between Catholics and Protestants. Quite simply between the effects of World War One and Ne Temere the Church of Ireland lost 50%+ of its population during the twentieth century. Many have argued that Ne Temere as it was practised in Ireland was a form of genocide because it guaranteed the erosion of the non-Catholic population. Others have described it as ethnic cleansing without the killing - a uniquely Christian version. The fact that Ne Temere was excused and tolerated in a court of law (see Tilson V. Tilson main article page) is more than adequate evidence of the absolute immaturity that existed in the Republic of Ireland until very recent times. This immaturity is epitomised by the willingness of De Valera to send one of his lackeys with a draft of the Irish constitution to The Pope seeking his approval. De Valera is being increasingly cited for anti-semitism, is notorious for signing the book of condolences for Hitler and it would seem that many Irish increasingly regard him with growing embarrassment and treated by many as something of a joke figure. Regrettably this man was at the centre of copper fastening the 'special position' of the Catholic church in the Irish constitution and in so doing giving comfort and enabling practices such as Ne Temere (see Tilson v Tilson again). Apparently (in another context) De Valera was worried about how he might be judged in history. He was right to be worried.

Imposing special conditions on a marriage between two different types of Christians is in fact a human rights issue and should never be tolerated or excused in any civilised mature society. I am told that Ne Temere marital conditions are not practised in the current times in Ireland. I would suggest that they are only practised where the RC church feels it can get away with it as evidenced by differing applications in differing jurisdictions. If a contemporary Irish couple were to meet with a requirement to 'sign forms' and make promises to bring up their children as Catholics in order for them to get permission from the Catholic church to get married I would encourage them to get a lawyer and go to the Supreme Court as this is clearly a case of supression of religious freedom guaranteed to them under the constitution. I suspect that knowing what the likely outcome of what such an action would be the Catholic church no longer insists on this oppression of other Christians. They also know that the Irish public won't tolerate it these days either. Whereas I do not believe the State should interfere in church matters I do believe that there are limits and oppressing the religious rights of one faith by another faith should never be tolerated and the right to issue marriage licences by that church should be withheld by the state if such practices exist. At the other end of the extreme it should never enable such practices but this is precisely what happened following the the enshrinement of the 'Special Position' of the Catholic church in the constitution (as proposed by De Valera) in 1937. Thankfully this was removed from the constitution in 1973.

Ironically these days when mixed marriages take place between Catholics and Anglicans in Ireland the majority of the resultant children are brought up as Anglicans (Church of Ireland). These decisions are in the main reached by parents out of informed conscience, fairness, mature decision and thankfully free of opportunistic coercion and interference. All Irish Roman Catholics should hold their heads in shame when they think of Ne Temere and the decimation it has caused to their brothers and sisters in the minority Christian churches. The Church of Ireland and others imposed no special conditions regarding children on its members or potential spouses and if the contemporary situation is anything to go by clearly they never needed them. Thankfully we have come out of the dark ages now and the Republic of Ireland is a very healthy place for all Christians to live. Unfortunately the exposure of the nasty secrets of those dark ages (paedophile priests, widespread violent abuse in religious institutions etc) has done so much damage and caused so much shame and revulsion that there are far fewer believing Roman Catholics now as it has hastened the decline of the church. This is a terrible outcome and is truly regretted by practicing Irish Christians of all traditions. Unlike the other scandals Ne Temere was never a secret but it certainly comes near the top when it comes to the shames of the RC church in Ireland. It caused enormous damage to the Irish Christian minorities and that should never be forgotten. It shouldn't be explained away by quoting Canon Law nonsense given the way it was exploited in Ireland. It was a tragic disgraceful practice which should never have been tolerated by the then immature Republic of Ireland and is nothing short of a scandal which was practiced in a most thoroughly un-Christian way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.168.34 (talk • contribs) - Tarfman

Are you suggesting the Catholic Church should be compelled at gunpoint - for this is what going to State courts means - to distribute her Sacraments on people she would otherwise refuse them? And why are you insisting on that "other Christians" stuff? There is a difference, yes, but from the "religious liberty"-standpoint from which you argue, how does that come into play here?

If Protestantism dies out because its adherents love Catholics and the Catholics love truth too much to compromise it, then so much the worse for Protestantism. It's not unbloody genocide. It's unbloody denominocide - which ever was the aim of missionary work, either way.--2001:A61:2110:AD01:901B:294E:1194:A659 (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The point remains that Ne Temere was only in force from 1908 to 1918, before it was superceded by the Code of Canon Law that was promulgated in 1917. So I fail to see why events in Ireland from 1950 and after are relevant to this article. -- Cat Whisperer 19:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Ne Temere was world-wide. To concentrate on one small section of the world is to distort the article. There are articles on Irish conflicts for such information. Goldfritha 00:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The Canon Law was in effect a codification of Ne Temere so it makes little difference. The article mentions at least five countries (Germany, Canada, Australia, Republic of Ireland, UK). There is little doubt that the Irish position is the most notable (see the incoming links) given the demographic changes which resulted: "polite genocide" as described by the (Catholic) Religious Affairs Correspondent for The Irish Times.[5]--Henrygb 08:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Ne Temere was not world wide. It did not apply in Germany, for example. In countries where it did apply, it remained in force until 1970. Millbanks (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

<<Comment redacted.>> -- Cat Whisperer 12:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC) After further research, it looks like the canon law prior to Ne Temere was a hodge-podge across various countries. If Ne Temere radically changed the law that was in effect for Ireland, then I have no problem with that fact being noted. However, it does seem as though Ne Temere was an improvement over Tametsi. -- Cat Whisperer 13:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

More on Catholics and Protestants and Ireland

I wrote the article above. As you will probably gather I am Irish and I am very aware of the effects of the power struggle between the Catholic church and the other churches as epitomised by the use of Ne Temere in Ireland. This struggle continues today and the oppression of other Christians still continues. Ne Temere may no longer be tenable in Ireland but we still have Apostolicae Curae which has never been rescinded and One Bread One Body which (despite the nice soft language of the document) humiliates the communion rites of other faith communities. As a person who is from a mixed faith family in Ireland I can confirm the damage and hurt that was caused when One Bread One Body was issued and it was zealously promoted here by a hard line Cardinal. It must be added that he was on his own pushing One Bread One Body as there was a deafening silence from the rest of the Catholic clergy in Ireland and from this I think you can work out their real views on inter-communion. I would suggest that most of them were quietly saddened and mortified but said nothing as it doesn't pay to speak out in Catholicism. The people and the press don't need to observe such restraint and the same individual is now largely held in contempt by the public here in Ireland and is seen as a throwback to De Valeras Ireland of the 1930s. Once upon a time the public in Ireland were craven to the Catholic clergy but things are different now and people will speak their minds and this particular gaffe prone and unsuitable Cardinal has received his well earned backlash. Although initially discouraged many multi-faith families have since quietly resumed the practice of receiving communion in each other’s churches and sharing their witness. Inter Christian relationships may be dead up the ladder but at grass roots level they are alive and well.

The Catholic church has many many good points but it is also a deeply flawed institution which at the hierarchical level seems to be obsessed with subsuming other faith communities and wagging the finger at others. At this point in time I believe it really should be looking at having another 'counter reformation' with a view to removing or down grading some of the 'new' faith altering practices and beliefs that are not reflected in scripture or not part of the early church and have the effect of keeping Christians apart. It also needs to stop slagging off other Christians by making humiliating observations about other branches of the overall Christian church. If this were achieved and the obsession with 'winning the war' against other Christian faiths could be dropped perhaps Christian unity could become a real possibility. Christians need to stand together and to stop the in-fighting. All we need to do is look at the rise of radical Islam to realise that we now need unity more than ever - Tarfman

Tarfman is about right on 'Ne Temere' - the perception looking back has made it a social marker of church control. Rather like the Penal Laws, it may even seem worse now than the reality then. We don't need a "Ne Temere (Ireland)" wiki page, but readers should know of its effects and outcomes. As an Irish Catholic I'm aware that, during the recent abuse scandals, when it came to compensation the legal status of the RC Church has been described as the same as a club (but with the rules made by a very small number of members!).JoxerD 15:32, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

You want to stop in-fighting? By inserting tangential related information into an encyclopedia article about a decree of the Catholic Church? May I suggest that what you are arguing for speaking volumes? Goldfritha 01:27, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

With regard to Goldfrithas last comment - I would have thought that a discussion page should be open to what I have written above - I have kept well away from the main article page. Ne Temere caused a lot of damage in the Republic of Ireland and we are still painfully aware of its effects. If it were still in operation our Irish minority Christian communities would be gone in a generation because most contemporary Protestants marry into mixed marriages these days. It is important to air what the effects of what Ne Temere have been and it is also important to observe the effects of other similar decrees on non RC Christians. In my view they can't be looked at in isolation as they are part of the same attitude. -Tarfman

A discussion page is for discussing improvements to this article. It is not a general forum for discussing the subject matter of the article. Goldfritha 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The linking of Tilson and ne temere has/had more to do with perceptions, especially north of the border than any direct application of Catholic Church doctrine. The Tilson judgement, based on the 1937 Constitution, overturned the Common Law practice of giving priority to the father's wishes in determining the religious upbringing of children in mixed marriages, essentially giving parity to the wishes of the mother. The convoluted construction in this article is nothing more than a repetition of a 1950's spurious synthesis and should be modified accordingly or removed. RashersTierney (talk) 09:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Present Situation

I was under the impression that Ne Temere had been repealed or revoked and replaced by a less authoritarian ruling. Is this so? It could be that I read this here and that the original article was changed. But certainly the article refers to it in most instances in the past tense. Millbanks (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I have now done some research and put an addition into the article. Millbanks (talk) 08:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a strong case for a seperate page for Ireland on Ne Temere given the damage it caused to the demographics of the country --Tarfman (talk) 12:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Germany

I read (possibly in an earlier version of the article: see above) that Ne Temere did not apply in Germany. Was this the case? Millbanks (talk) 09:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Ne Temere was practised where the Roman Catholic church could get away with it. As such it was practised in different ways in different countries on the basis of what would be tolerated locally. --Tarfman (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The article now mentions Germany (or perhaps I missed it before). I take the point you make, but presumably the Vatican must have attempted to justify its non-application in Germany. Millbanks (talk) 08:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic

Wow, I guess I should have expected it, but most of these comments and edits are fostered by Anti-Catholic bigotry. I do hope that the monitors of this site keep this kind of obvious and subtle bigotry out of the site. Sigh. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.137.186.90 (talk) 03:24, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree. And the article is rather poorly informed, confused and confusing.

Where do you even GET the notion that the Catholic Church can pronounce on the "validity" of marriages?

No pronouncement of the Catholic Church can in any way make any marriage "invalid". Marriages are affairs regulated by governments, not churches. The Catholic Church can say things like "In the eyes of God, you're not really married", but that doesn't render the marriage non-existent in real life. This article relentlessly blurs the distinction between saying that a marriage is "invalid" and saying that the Catholic Church considers that the husband and wife aren't "really married", and that makes it hard to follow. The opinions of the Catholic Church don't carry any weight on this issue in most countries.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 06:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson