Can a priest deny marrying same sex couples post- marriage referendum???

Redpandrew

Sorry if this is common knowledge but I could not find a definite answer. I would imagine/hope the answer is yes they can.

As a gay guy I would not think it would be fair to force someone who doesnt believe in gay marriage to have to marry people of the same sex. I would like to hear from other people, especially if you disagree. Nothing beats a good ould debate.

L1011

They can refuse, and it is common knowledge. Religions are not compelled to perform civil marriages.

ShoulderChip

I would be surprised if they ever would, why would you want a priest to marry you outside of a church, it's nuts.

Rachiee

Theres a difference between civil and religious marriage. The referendum won the right to civil marriage and has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage. Thats was a key part of the campaign and Im actually disappointed that there are gay people who dont understand that.

AndrewJRenko

It is certainly standard practice that they would refuse.

If you have the appetite for a long battle, and a church marriage is particularly important to you, you could try taking an equality case for discrimination on grounds of sexual preference.

lifeandtimes

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

.

If you have the appetite for a long battle, and a church marriage is particularly important to you, you could try taking an equality case for discrimination on grounds of sexual preference.

Not sure that would get anywhere,it's noted in their religion about sexual preference regarding marriage and they don't have to do it....same as if you wanted to join an exclusive country club and the registration fees are 100k a year,you cant take a case out because they refuse to let you join because you are less well off than them

Their religion their rules which is why civil marriage is now passed for same sex couples to marry in the eyes of the law and not the church

Fleawuss

Dear dear dear

AndrewJRenko

lifeandtimes wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

.

If you have the appetite for a long battle, and a church marriage is particularly important to you, you could try taking an equality case for discrimination on grounds of sexual preference.

Not sure that would get anywhere,it's noted in their religion about sexual preference regarding marriage and they don't have to do it....same as if you wanted to join an exclusive country club and the registration fees are 100k a year,you cant take a case out because they refuse to let you join because you are less well off than them

Their religion their rules which is why civil marriage is now passed for same sex couples to marry in the eyes of the law and not the church

Lack of money is not one of the nine grounds in Equal Status Acts for which discrimination is made illegal. Gender and sexual preference are in the Acts.

So no, it's not the same as a €100k fee to join the country club. It would be somewhat similar to the ban on ladies joining the golf club, which went all the way to the Supreme Court - so not a simple issue.

Redpandrew

Grand! Thanks for clearing that up, someone tried convincing me otherwise and google did not help! Faith in common sense restored (kind of).

Fleawuss

There is no common sense in RCC church dogma. The original question was can state law force a cleric to carry out a religious ceremony that is in violation of his religious rules. The real answer is that nobody can discriminate in the provision of services to the public. Religion isn't a service to the public. It's a made up set of silly rules which some people think grant them magical powers. the can of worms you open by asking is that the church expects to be allowed to discriminate in health provision and education on the basis of its rules against rational people who regard them and their rules as absurd. And finally I don't understand how any gay person could even ask such a question as you did. It's pure bs.

JupiterKid

Of course a priest can refuse to marry a same-sex couple. The SSM referendum introduced civil marriage for gay couples, not church marriage.

If you want a church marriage, perhaps the Unitarian church or the Religious Society of Friends (aka Quakers) will be more accommodating. Don't hold your breath for a Catholic ceremony.

newacc2015

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you have the appetite for a long battle, and a church marriage is particularly important to you, you could try taking an equality case for discrimination on grounds of sexual preference.

Except you can't take a case for discrimination. The state allows discrimination under the bases of protecting religion. A Catholic school is allowed to only hire people who suit their values ie they could refuse an openly gay teacher working there as he doesn't follow the values of the church(AFAIK it has be changed since 2015?).

A religious institution is free to discriminate in the eyes of the state. If you arent happy with that, lobby for a referendum, as it is protected by the constitution.

AndrewJRenko

newacc2015 wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

If you have the appetite for a long battle, and a church marriage is particularly important to you, you could try taking an equality case for discrimination on grounds of sexual preference.

Except you can't take a case for discrimination. The state allows discrimination under the bases of protecting religion. A Catholic school is allowed to only hire people who suit their values ie they could refuse an openly gay teacher working there as he doesn't follow the values of the church(AFAIK it has be changed since 2015?).

A religious institution is free to discriminate in the eyes of the state. If you arent happy with that, lobby for a referendum, as it is protected by the constitution.

I understood that the exclusions of discrimination on grounds of religion only applied to schools, and specifically to employment of staff and selection of students in those schools. There certainly have been cases of discrimination on grounds of religion;

http://www.thejournal.ie/born-again-christian-tipperary-council-1583009-Jul2014/

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Peregrinus

Rachiee wrote: »

Theres a difference between civil and religious marriage. The referendum won the right to civil marriage and has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage. Thats was a key part of the campaign and Im actually disappointed that there are gay people who dont understand that.

Actually, there's no difference (in Irish law) between religious marriage and civil marriage; there's just marriage, the the public, permanent, exclusive conjugal relationship between two people. There are various different religious, civil and humanist ceremonies for solemnising marriage, but they all solemnise the same legal concept of marriage.

Churches aren't compelled to solemnise same-sex marriages if they don't want to, just like they aren't compelled to solemnise the marriage of divorced people if they don't want to, or the marriage of non-members if they don't want to, even though the denial of other services on the grounds of gender, or marital status, or religious belief, would be unlawful discrimination. The reason for this is that, as well as recognising same-sex marriage, the Irish constitution recognises religious freedom; people can't be compelled by law to celebrate or participate in religious ceremonies. Hence, priest can't be compelled to celebrate same-sex marriages/marriages of divorced people/etc.

Ireland isn't unique in this regard. The principle of separation of church and state is accepted in most liberal democracies, even if it plays out in slightly different ways in each of them. Mostly, though, people accept that it means that the state can't compel the church to celebrate particular ceremonies.

The one exception that I know of is Denmark, which has an established church. Danish law explicitly provides that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark will celebrate same-sex marriages. (This is in fact how same-sex marriage was introduced in Denmark.) But (a) this change was made at the request of the Church. And (b) the law contains an opt-out recognising the right of individual ministers to decline to celebrate same-sex marriage.

The position is the other way round in the UK, another country with a state church. The UK legislation which introduced same-sex marriages also provides that the Church of England may not celebrate same-sex marriages.

Annasopra

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Lack of money is not one of the nine grounds in Equal Status Acts for which discrimination is made illegal. Gender and sexual preference are in the Acts.

So no, it's not the same as a €100k fee to join the country club. It would be somewhat similar to the ban on ladies joining the golf club, which went all the way to the Supreme Court - so not a simple issue.

Are you aware of the actual Portmarnock Golf Club ruling? In the end the court held they could legally refuse members because the legislation allows clubs to be reserved specifically for club members.

So Portmarnock was held to be a mens club therefore it could legally discriminate against women just as a religious club specifically catering for people in certain religions could not be held to be discriminating.

El_Duderino 09

Rachiee wrote:

Theres a difference between civil and religious marriage. The referendum won the right to civil marriage and has absolutely nothing to do with religious marriage. Thats was a key part of the campaign and Im actually disappointed that there are gay people who dont understand that.

To be fair, the religious were always included in the debates as if it was anything to do with them. Religious grounds aside, the religious didn't want gay marriage because civil marriage is a threat to their business -religious marriage.

Peregrinus

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Are you aware of the actual Portmarnock Golf Club ruling? In the end the court held they could legally refuse members because the legislation allows clubs to be reserved specifically for club members.

So Portmarnock was held to be a mens club therefore it could legally discriminate against women just as a religious club specifically catering for people in certain religions could not be held to be discriminating.

Not quite on point, though. The Portmarnock case was decided on the basis of freedom of association. Freedom of assocation necessarily implies a freedom not to associate if you don't want to, and hence Portmarnock GC couldn't be compelled to admit to membership people whom the present members didn't wish to admit.

But you can only take that so far. Freedom of association might allow you to deny membership to (in the case) women, but it wouldn't necessarily allow you to discriminate against them in other ways. For example if a golf club offered one-day access to its course to non members in return for a daily payment of a green fee, I doubt that freedom of association would allow them to sell this service to men but not to women.

Providing the service of celebrating a marriage is not a long-term or enduring connection like club membership, and I doubt if you could defend a refusal to provide celebration for same-sex marriages by appealing to freedom of association. But I think a church can do so by appealing to freedom of religion/separation of church and state.

Fleawuss

Peregrinus wrote: »

Actually, there's no difference (in Irish law) between religious marriage and civil marriage; there's just marriage, the the public, permanent, exclusive conjugal relationship between two people. There are various different religious, civil and humanist ceremonies for solemnising marriage, but they all solemnise the same legal concept of marriage.

Churches aren't compelled to solemnise same-sex marriages if they don't want to, just like they aren't compelled to solemnise the marriage of divorced people if they don't want to, or the marriage of non-members if they don't want to, even though the denial of other services on the grounds of gender, or marital status, or religious belief, would be unlawful discrimination. The reason for this is that, as well as recognising same-sex marriage, the Irish constitution recognises religious freedom; people can't be compelled by law to celebrate or participate in religious ceremonies. Hence, priest can't be compelled to celebrate same-sex marriages/marriages of divorced people/etc.

Ireland isn't unique in this regard. The principle of separation of church and state is accepted in most liberal democracies, even if it plays out in slightly different ways in each of them. Mostly, though, people accept that it means that the state can't compel the church to celebrate particular ceremonies.

The one exception that I know of is Denmark, which has an established church. Danish law explicitly provides that the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Denmark will celebrate same-sex marriages. (This is in fact how same-sex marriage was introduced in Denmark.) But (a) this change was made at the request of the Church. And (b) the law contains an opt-out recognising the right of individual ministers to decline to celebrate same-sex marriage.

The position is the other way round in the UK, another country with a state church. The UK legislation which introduced same-sex marriages also provides that the Church of England may not celebrate same-sex marriages.

As usual I'm on a phone so I can't tackle all this but for now: if as you say in Irish law there is only one marriage and that marriage is available to same sex couples then does it follow that any one recognized as being able to "solemnize" such a marriage cannot lawfully refuse such a solemnization (other than for the extant legal barriers to marriage)? In other words a priest can refuse a religious marriage/sacrament for religious grounds but could they be forced, wearing their civil hat as recognized civil solemniser, to marry same sex couples. The Chirch did threaten to withdraw from acting as recorder of civil marriage too in the SSM debate but decided not to go ahead. In effect they do both but they have a status as civil solemniser.

Peregrinus

Fleawuss wrote: »

As usual I'm on a phone so I can't tackle all this but for now: if as you say in Irish law there is only one marriage and that marriage is available to same sex couples then does it follow that any one recognized as being able to "solemnize" such a marriage cannot lawfully refuse such a solemnization (other than for the extant legal barriers to marriage)? In other words a priest can refuse a religious marriage/sacrament for religious grounds but could they be forced, wearing their civil hat as recognized civil solemniser, to marry same sex couples. The Chirch did threaten to withdraw from acting as recorder of civil marriage too in the SSM debate but decided not to go ahead. In effect they do both but they have a status as civil solemniser.

A priest isn't a "recognised civil solemnizer". He's a religious solemnizer. The state recognises religious solemnizations as something that does create a legal marriage, just as it recognises humanist solemnizations and civil (i.e. celebrated by HSE employees) solemnizations.

The state can recognise religious solemnisations and attach legal consequences to them, or it can decline to recognise them and attach no legal consequences to them. But it can't compel anybody to participate in or celebrate a religious service. Hence, priests can't be compelled to celebrate weddings, or particular weddings

What the state could possibly do is say that if a church doesn't celebrate same-sex weddings, weddings for divorced couples, etc, then it won't recognise any of that church's wedding celebrations. But even that, I think, is sailing pretty close to the wind; it's attempting to impose a particular view of marriage on churches, and discriminating between churches which accept and implement that view and those which don't, and I think it would probably contravene the freedom of religion provisions of the constitutions of most liberal democracies, and of most international human rights treaties. So far as I know, no state has adopted this stance, which is probably telling.

What the state could definitely do is simply not recognise religious (or humanist) celebrations at all; require everyone to have a civil celebration. This is the rule in France, for example. (That, of course, wouldn't require churches to provide same-sex marriages, or create any incentive for them to do so, so it would be no help at all to a same-sex couple wanting a religious solemnisation of their marriage.)

Fleawuss

Peregrinus wrote: »

A priest isn't a "recognised civil solemnizer". He's a religious solemnizer. The state recognises religious solemnizations as something that does create a legal marriage, just as it recognises humanist solemnizations and civil (i.e. celebrated by HSE employees) solemnizations.

The state can recognise religious solemnisations and attach legal consequences to them, or it can decline to recognise them and attach no legal consequences to them. But it can't compel anybody to participate in or celebrate a religious service. Hence, priests can't be compelled to celebrate weddings, or particular weddings

What the state could possibly do is say that if a church doesn't celebrate same-sex weddings, weddings for divorced couples, etc, then it won't recognise any of that church's wedding celebrations. But even that, I think, is sailing pretty close to the wind; it's attempting to impose a particular view of marriage on churches, and discriminating between churches which accept and implement that view and those which don't, and I think it would probably contravene the freedom of religion provisions of the constitutions of most liberal democracies, and of most international human rights treaties. So far as I know, no state has adopted this stance, which is probably telling.

What the state could definitely do is simply not recognise religious (or humanist) celebrations at all; require everyone to have a civil celebration. This is the rule in France, for example. (That, of course, wouldn't require churches to provide same-sex marriages, or create any incentive for them to do so, so it would be no help at all to a same-sex couple wanting a religious solemnisation of their marriage.)

Well now we have a problem. If as you say there is only one marriage in Irish law we have mutually exclusive concepts of marriage. That seems legally untenable.

AerynSun

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, there definitely would be repercussions for any priest trying to 'marry' people of the same sex - he would be called into the bishop's office and asked to explain himself. If his explanation wasn't satisfactory, he would have his 'faculties' withdrawn (i.e. he could potentially be banned from officiating at Mass or having any other public role in the life of the Church). If he persisted in his 'erroneous theology', it's quite likely he would be called to the Vatican to answer a case in front of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - and if they found his theology to be 'heretical', he could be laicised (removed from the priesthood), and potentially even excommunicated from the Church altogether.

So yes, any priest who lets on that he is performing same sex marriages according to his conscience within the tradition and theology of the Catholic Church, is in for a very bumpy ride indeed, and he isn't likely to remain a priest for long.

That said... there might be some clerics who theoretically would consider performing a proper church marriage for a same sex couple... if all parties would agree to keep it very much under the radar (and while this is a lovely sentiment, it kinda defeats the point of the theology of marriage altogether - a religious marriage is supposed to be a public celebration of a couple's partnership in the arms of the broader worshipping community in the sight of a loving God who embraces us all, sinners and saints alike).

Context: I am not religious - but I used to be, so I know a fair amount about the inner workings of the Church. Since I cannot reconcile the theology that I sincerely held, with my real experience of the Church over the past 10 years, I cannot in good conscience continue to practice as a Catholic. (And part of me is quite sad about that... just not sad enough to try to 'fight the system' for my right to practice as an open and unapologetic member of the LGBTQIA+ community.)

AerynSun

Fleawuss wrote: »

Well now we have a problem. If as you say there is only one marriage in Irish law we have mutually exclusive concepts of marriage. That seems legally untenable.

As I understand it, there is civil marriage (according to the law of the land) and religious marriage (according to the law of the Church). In the instance of most religious wedding ceremonies, the priest primarily performs the sacramental religious marriage according to the law of the Church, and then afterwards has the bridal couple do the necessary civil legal bit according to the law of the land (the signing of the register, which is where the legal solemnnisation of the religious marriage normally happens).

Because both religious sacramental marriage and civil legal solemnisation usually happen on the same day (and for all intents and purposes, as part of the same 'event') people don't understand that the priest is doing two distinct things: performing the religious sacramental marriage, and following it up with the civil solemnisation of the now legal marriage.

In theory, priests may give a blessing to a same sex couple, and perform the legal solemnisation of a civil marriage... (although many would not want to do that, and would prefer to obfuscate the issue rather than clarify it - and many of their bishops would outright forbid them to do this) BUT a Catholic priest may NEVER, according to Church doctrine and law, perform a sacramental religious marriage between two people of the same sex (because it would not be sacramentally valid, in terms of Church law). ((Unless the priest has a very progressive theology whereby he might believe he can perform a sacramentally valid marriage... but that theology would not be sanctioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it certainly wouldn't hold up under Canon Law.))

I hope this helps?

Fleawuss

AerynSun wrote: »

As I understand it, there is civil marriage (according to the law of the land) and religious marriage (according to the law of the Church). In the instance of most religious wedding ceremonies, the priest primarily performs the sacramental religious marriage according to the law of the Church, and then afterwards has the bridal couple do the necessary civil legal bit according to the law of the land (the signing of the register, which is where the legal solemnnisation of the religious marriage normally happens).

Because both religious sacramental marriage and civil legal solemnisation usually happen on the same day (and for all intents and purposes, as part of the same 'event') people don't understand that the priest is doing two distinct things: performing the religious sacramental marriage, and following it up with the civil solemnisation of the now legal marriage.

In theory, priests may give a blessing to a same sex couple, and perform the legal solemnisation of a civil marriage... (although many would not want to do that, and would prefer to obfuscate the issue rather than clarify it - and many of their bishops would outright forbid them to do this) BUT a Catholic priest may NEVER, according to Church doctrine and law, perform a sacramental religious marriage between two people of the same sex (because it would not be sacramentally valid, in terms of Church law). ((Unless the priest has a very progressive theology whereby he might believe he can perform a sacramentally valid marriage... but that theology would not be sanctioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it certainly wouldn't hold up under Canon Law.))

I hope this helps?

Well that is essentially the understanding most people already had. Peregrines is saying that in Irish law there is only one marriage. So we need to clear this up.

AerynSun

Well that is essentially the understanding most people already had. Peregrines is saying that in Irish law there is only one marriage. So we need to clear this up.

Irish law = civil law / law of the land = only one marriage under Irish civil law, which is what I'm referring to as 'civil marriage' - it's the same legal arrangement no matter who the parties are (same sex or not).

Canon law = religious sacramental marriage = marriage (as defined by Catholic church law).

You're dealing with two different sets of law, basically. And church law, Canon law, is valid worldwide as the law of the Catholic Church, governed by the Vatican state, totally apart from any country's civil law. (This is why the Vatican has a papal nuncio who plays a diplomatic role.)

So Irish law allows for marriage, and the terms of that are clear: same sex couples can be admitted to legal marriage in Ireland.

However, Catholic laws for religious sacramental marriage worldwide are also clear: one man and one woman (at least one of whom has to be Catholic, and both of whom must agree that children would be raised Catholic). There are a bunch of other provisos under Canon law about what constitutes a valid sacramental marriage, too many to get into. This religious law marriage is a completely separate thing from any country's legal marriage, and is not governed by the country's law.

Under Irish equality law, you could try to take a case about Canon Law marriage, but the Irish law findings would not be binding on Canon Law, because Canon Law is not governed by Irish legal jurisdiction.

I don't understand enough international law to know how you would go about getting Canon Law outlawed in Ireland or any other country in which you find the Catholic Church and its members... but you would have to get Irish law to trump Canon law before you could legally prevent the Church from holding to its position about who may or may not enter into a sacramental religious church marriage.

Not sure if this is any clearer?

Peregrinus

AerynSun wrote: »

As I understand it, there is civil marriage (according to the law of the land) and religious marriage (according to the law of the Church). In the instance of most religious wedding ceremonies, the priest primarily performs the sacramental religious marriage according to the law of the Church, and then afterwards has the bridal couple do the necessary civil legal bit according to the law of the land (the signing of the register, which is where the legal solemnnisation of the religious marriage normally happens) . . .

This is a common belief, but it’s not correct.

Let’s start with what the church and the state agree on. Marriage is something that the couple do, by exchanging explicit promises of permanent, mutual, exclusive, conjugal commitment. Assuming they’re free to marry (i.e. they’re of age, not already married to someone else, etc.) and they do this freely and with full understanding and with the intention of marrying, then provided certain other conditions are satisfied (we’ll come back to this in a moment) that creates a valid marriage. The celebrant, strictly speaking, doesn’t marry them, although we do loosely speak of him doing so. In strict fact, he witnesses their marriage, or he celebrates their marriage, or he solemnises their marriage, but they marry one another. So marriage is something that the couple do, and the church and/or the state recognise (or don't recognise).

Right. The “certain other conditions” required for recognition vary somewhat between church and state (and, no doubt, between different churches, but for simplicity let’s just stick to the Catholic church). And the disparity between these conditions can result in a marriage recognised by the state but not by the church, or a marraige recognised by the church but not by the state.

For example, as far as the Catholic church is concerned, if you’re a Catholic one of the conditions is that you get married in a Catholic ceremony, or get a dispensation excusing you from this. (For obvious reasons, this condition doesn’t apply to non-Catholics.) So if two Catholics get married in, say, a Presbyterian service, or a registry office ceremony, and they haven’t got a dispensation, the Catholic church doesn’t recognise that as constituting a marriage. But the state, obviously, does, since “must have a Catholic ceremony” is not a condition the state imposes for recognition.

On the other hand, the state does impose a “must give three months’ notice to the registrar” condition. What happens if two people get married in a Catholic ceremony without having given the required three months’ notice to the registrar? The real-world answer is that this won’t happen; the church is reluctant to celebrate marriages that won’t engage state recognition. But, hypothetically, if it did happen then the Catholic church would regard the couple as married, but the state would not.

Right. Where the misunderstanding often arises is that people assume that filling out the civil registration paperwork (as done in the sacristy immediately after most church weddings) is one of the conditions that the state imposes for recognition of a marriage so that, if you never complete that paperwork, the state does not recognise your marriage, or considers you to be unmarried.

This is a mistake. There’s nothing in Irish marriage law which says that, for a marriage to be legally valid, you have to register it. It is in fact the other way around; you are not legally married because you have registered your marriage with the state. Rather, because you are legally married (as a result of the ceremony, exchange of vows, etc) you are obliged to register your marriage. Should you fail to do so, you commit the offence of not registering a marriage (and the celebrant also commits the non-registration offence, I think) and all kinds of practical difficulties can result from your inability to produce a marriage certificate. But you are, nevertheless, legally married. (So that, for instance, if you then go off and marry someone else you are committing the civil crime of bigamy.)

Registering a marriage is, legally, speaking not fundamentally different from registering a birth or a death. In each case the event has actually occurred, and the obligation to register arises because the event has occurred. If you fail to register you may be committing an offence and all kinds of practical difficulties may ensue, but the people concerned are still born, or married, or dead, as the case may be.

Registration is not, in Irish law, one of the conditions you have to comply with in order to make your marriage valid; rather, it’s one of the things you have do to after your marriage, because your (legal, valid, effective) marriage has happened

AerynSun wrote: »

In theory, priests may give a blessing to a same sex couple, and perform the legal solemnisation of a civil marriage... (although many would not want to do that, and would prefer to obfuscate the issue rather than clarify it - and many of their bishops would outright forbid them to do this) BUT a Catholic priest may NEVER, according to Church doctrine and law, perform a sacramental religious marriage between two people of the same sex (because it would not be sacramentally valid, in terms of Church law). ((Unless the priest has a very progressive theology whereby he might believe he can perform a sacramentally valid marriage... but that theology would not be sanctioned by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and it certainly wouldn't hold up under Canon Law.))

One of the conditions imposed by state law is that a marriage has to be solemnised by a registered solemniser. And, again as a condition of state law, a solemniser who is registered because he has been nominated by a religious body can only solemnise a marriage with “a form of ceremony which . . . is recognised by the religious body of which he or she is a member”.

In other words, marriages solemnised by Catholic priests are only recognised for state purposes if they are solemnised in a Catholic ceremony, one that the Catholic church recognises as constituting a valid marriage. Hypothetically, if a Catholic priest were to preside over (say) a Jewish wedding ceremony, or civil ceremony of the type performed by a HSE registrar, it’s likely that the Catholic church would say “this isn’t the canonical ceremony that, by church law, Catholics are required to have; we don’t recognise this”. And from a state point of view the Catholic priest solemniser’s authority only extends to celebrating Catholic-recognised ceremonies, so the state wouldn’t recognise that marriage either.

Which means that, if you want a same-sex marriage that is recognised by the state, you need to celebrate it before (a) a HSE solemniser, or (b) a humanist solemniser, or (c) a religious solemniser from a church/religious body which recognises same-sex marriage ceremonies.

So I think the correct position is if you could find a progressive Catholic priest who would celebrate your same-sex wedding, yes, you’d get him in hot water with his superiors, but you’d also end up without a state-recognised marriage. Filling out the registration paperwork and sending it off to the HSE wouldn’t cure this problem since it’s the solemnisation, not the registration paperwork, that is the condition for state recognition of the marriage.