A problem I have with the Catholic perspective on civil marriage

[Luke_K]

I have no problem with the Church’s teachings on sacramental marriage and sexuality. In fact, I embrace them.

However, I have recently fallen in personal conflict with the Church’s position on civil marriage.

Why is the Church so against gay civil marriage up to the point that civil law should outlaw it, but it doesn’t seek to publicly outlaw civil marriage without receiving the sacrament through the Church? Isn’t a same-sex couple that gets a civil marriage license just as unmarried in the eyes of the Church as a man and woman who get a civil marriage license but do not receive the sacrament? And wouldn’t both couples be committing an equally grave sin by having sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage?

Also, why doesn’t the Church advocate outlawing divorce (or maybe it does? Please let me know)? Surely divorce is as harmful to marriage and society as gay marriage is. And they are both totally contrary to the way God made marriage.

Or what about civil marriage between impotent couples?

I guess my main question is, how far should/can civil law reflect divine law concerning marriage? Should we Catholics be fighting to outlaw divorce in civil marriage along with gay marriage?

 

[Sillara]

Isn’t a same-sex couple that gets a civil marriage license just as unmarried in the eyes of the Church as a man and woman who get a civil marriage license but do not receive the sacrament?

The snag is here. The Church recognizes civil marriages between a man and a woman as valid. They are not sacramental unless the man and woman in question are baptized, but they are certainly valid. Marriage pre-dates the Church; it was Christ who elevated marriage to a Sacrament, but it is perfectly possible for a man and woman to be married outside the Church.

(Note: this is not addressing Catholics who wish to marry outside the Church; they are also bound by canon law, requiring marriage in the Church or a dispensation to marry out of it.)

That said, I despise the no-fault divorce laws. They are terribly wrong.

 

[chain]

I suspect the reason the Church does not attempt to outlaw divorce is that sometimes civil divorce is necessary to protect the innocent. While divorce in general is bad, civil divorce is not always a moral evil.

 

[Dr_Paul]

The problem with civil “gay marriage” is that it distorts an appreciation for what marriage is. The church would say that such a civil arrangement in which a gay couple decides to live together and enjoy privileges and protections under the law, whatever you want to call it, is not marriage. A civil union perhaps, but it is not marriage.

By fighting the introduction of gay marriage, the church is upholding legitimate marriage (i.e. that which can only occur between one human male and one human female.

I

 

[1ke]

Isn’t a same-sex couple that gets a civil marriage license just as unmarried in the eyes of the Church as a man and woman who get a civil marriage license but do not receive the sacrament?

No. You have an inaccurate understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage.

Two non-Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly. If they are baptized, they also confer the Sacrament upon one another. If one or both are not baptized, they have what the Church terms a natural marriage.

Two persons of the same sex cannot contract a marriage at all. It’s not possible in the same way it is not possible for a woman to be ordained or a donkey to fly.

And wouldn’t both couples be committing an equally grave sin by having sexual relations outside of sacramental marriage?

See above. Non-Catholics married civilly marry validly (presuming no impediments such as prior marriages).

Also, why doesn’t the Church advocate outlawing divorce (or maybe it does? Surely divorce is as harmful to marriage and society as gay marriage is. And they are both totally contrary to the way God made marriage.

Certainly the Church does support this position. The Church does not advocate divorce, nor support the ease by which it can be come by. The Church does support the physical separation of spouses when required for safety-- and there is a canon law procedure for this.

And, perhaps you are unaware that divorce was illegal in this country-- in most countries-- until within the last 100 years or so, and “no fault” divorce is an invention less than 50 years old.

Or what about civil marriage between impotent couples?

Impotence is an impediment to a valid marriage.

I guess my main question is, how far should/can civil law reflect divine law concerning marriage? Should we Catholics be fighting to outlaw divorce in civil marriage along with gay marriage?

Of course Catholics should be opposed to divorce, particularly “no fault divorce.”

 

[Luke_K]

No. You have an inaccurate understanding of the Church’s teaching on marriage.

Two non-Catholics marry validly when they marry civilly. If they are baptized, they also confer the Sacrament upon one another. If one or both are not baptized, they have what the Church terms a natural marriage.

Two persons of the same sex cannot contract a marriage at all. It’s not possible in the same way it is not possible for a woman to be ordained or a donkey to fly.

See above. Non-Catholics married civilly marry validly (presuming no impediments such as prior marriages).

Okay that makes sense to me, thanks.

 

[phoage]

As 1ke said, marrage has been around a longer than the Church. Before Jesus made it a sacrament it still had a function to fill. When you understand that function, you understand why “gay marriage” is a meaningless term.

Human children, unlike most other animals, are helpless for years after birth. Pregnant women are, if not helpless, vulnerable.

Marriage is an intitution that provides support and protection for the children and pregnant women and gives the man a reason to provide that support.

As you can see, this is all based on the bare essentials of propogating the species.

 

[sandpiper49]

I have never been one to get in the way of other peoples happiness as longs as no one is being hurt. So on the surface if they wanted to extent Marriage to gays. I think it is a little weird. This is America and it was built on the idea of Freedom and that one group should not push their morality on others. For something to become law, it should be good for the community and society.

Not sure what the effects of allowing gay marriages would be to society. What did it do to the Roman Empire?

The main arguments against that seem to stick with me, is that it changes the meaning of Marriage. Also, would a church be that did marriages would be required not to discriminate against performing such marriage. The hospital here gave up their maternity ward because if the delivered babys, they must also allow abortions. To force doctors to kill something just does not seem right? Anyway… Would the same thing happen to churches who did not support such marriages?

A thought hit me… Think butter. I guess the Milk industry has better lobbies. Same for motorcyclists… they do not need to wear helmets but cars must use seat belts. Anyway think butter… They would not allow this new way of making butter be called butter, so they came up with margarine.

I can see why some couples would want some of the same benefits as married couples. See no problem sharing the marriage tax penalties. But the union should probably not be called a marriages. Or is this some foot in the door maneuver?

 

[The_Old_Medic]

The church in no way considers Civil Marriage to be a “grave sin” for everyone. It considers civil marriage to be a valid marriage in the eyes of the law, and also as a valid marriage for anyone that is not a Catholic.

The church takes the position that any marriage is primarily for the purpose of propagation. Homosexuals, by definition, can not propagate with each other. Therefore, in the eyes of the church, they can not marry, because it is utterly impossible for either of them to become pregnant in the normal course of a marriage.

Since homosexual relations are specifically prohibited in the Bible (in both the Old and the New Testaments), the Church can not take a stand that they are all right. The Church teaches that being a homosexual is not sinful, but engaging in homosexual relations is sinful. It can not support the concept of marriage for homosexuals, it would be contradictory if it did.

An infertile couple CAN become pregnant. It does indeed happen, therefore such a marriage is not, on the face of it, illicit. God made Sarah pregnant at the age of 90, so the possibility always exists (however remote that possibility may be).

The church is NOT against divorce per se. In fact, Catholics are allowed to obtain a divorce, without penalty. They are simply not allowed to remarry, unless their previous marriage has been declared to be invalid.

The church encourages civil marriage between people that civil marriage is appropriate for. It also recognizes that a divorce is absolutely necessary, to disolve the legal bonds of matrimony, and to set any financial arrangements that are necessary. Therefore, it would be silly to even consider attempting to outlaw divorce.

I would encourage you to learn a LOT more about the churches teachings about marriage and divorce.

 

[Luke_K]

This thread is from almost 2 years ago, just so everyone knows.

 

[sandpiper49]

Wow 2 years!

I have been hearing different states proposing gay marriages. Personally, I never really thought about it. Don’t really want to get in the way of other peoples happiness. Why should I care if gays want to have a union and have some same benefits as Married couples? What about to old friends that just live together, no sex involved?

I am not trying to say it is right or wrong, moral or immoral, that is up to the theology of each religion. An of course being Catholic (probably not a very good one) it would be considered immoral. The question I have is should I care and interfere with other types of unions that differ from my beliefs.

Should I just vote my belief and whether it passes (allowed) or not it just a function of those who vote. Do allowing gay marriages (or some other name - not pollute the traditional meaning of marriage) be an issue (give an inch and they take a mile).

I had the same thoughts about abortion or choice. A true Catholic would never choose to have an abortion. Should I interfere with ‘rights’ (Supreme court view) of non-Catholic women to choose differently? Do I force my Catholic views onto a non-Catholic populace and let people have the free will to go to hell or not? People will do what they do regardless of the law; women were dying using knitting needles for bathroom abortions. The result of this thinking is… now my wife could not go to our local Catholic hospital to deliver our children. The state is now interfering with Catholic institutions. So much with separation of church and state, boy scouts and letting girls join (discrimination against women).

Do I oppose such legislation based only because I think it is wrong and impose my beliefs on non-Catholics (seems so un-American). Are there other consequences in allowing such unions? This line of thinking is what I am wrestling with. Should a person care what people do in there own privacy? Don’t get me wrong… you can care; we are talking about their soul. I also think that a society that forces its people to behave a properly just eliminates free will and the ability to chose heaven or hell. You can not really love anyone or God if there is no choice to not love (free will). Of course being human with wants sometimes it nice to not have the choice (your at the store and the money is in your pocket).

Sorry about this, the question I am asking is should I care if the government wants to extend benefits to a group of people or not. Do I care what they call it, if allowed? Do I worry about any backlashes the government might force on Catholics to not discriminate against the new union? And do not just say it is wrong and therefore you don’t allow it, I know it is wrong for me.

Maybe this is the wrong place to seek an answer, but I really want a Catholic perspective and also look for a social perspective.

 

[chain]

When should we impose our views on others…

Normally we should love all people, respect all people, and out of love evangelize to all people (by our prayers, actions, and sometimes even words).

The main time I think we should impose our views on other is to protect innocents. We have no problem imposing our opinions about killing on serial killers. We have no problem enforcing our views on sexuality against child molesters. We feel a mother killing a 18 month old child is something we must prevent - then why don’t we protect that child at 6 months of age, while it is still in the womb?

If a mother believes her child will be best raised in Catholic family, and places their child in a Catholic adoption agency - is it ok for the state to demand otherwise? If the state uses civil union as their excuse - is there now victims? Is there now a reason why civil unions must be opposed?