O
otjm
Guest
The government has a legitimate right to regulate some aspects of marriage (and by analogy, post-marrige).
- Status
C
crazzeto
Guest
Is this response directed at what I said? if so I’m really not sure where you got the idea that I am “questioning someone’s faith” in my very direct comments. As St. Paul says one can have faith as to move mountains, but unless you love on another as Chirist loves us then what do you have?
Rather my post is rather fair appraisal of where the attitude of “you have yours, I have mine. I have my beliefs you have yours. You do whatever you want no matter how much you harm your self, and I’ll do my thing” goes. It’s an attitude full of ambivolence, that doesn’t sound to me like “loving one another how Christ has loved us”. Christ wouldn’t sit back and let you break natural law (commit mortal sin in the process) with out comment. Despite today’s bizzar sense of “political correctness”, it’s not a good thing.
S
Secret_Square
Guest
I know C.S. Lewis was not a Catholic, but he did argue in “Mere Christianity” that religious and secular marriage ought to be totally separate institutions. His argument was in the context of whether or not Christians were obligated “to make divorce difficult for everyone” in civil law because Christian doctrine forbade divorce. He said not, and compared it to “Mohammedans trying to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine” because it was against THEIR religion.
He also argued (and this was back during World War II) that “the majority of the British people are not Christians, and therefore, cannot be expected to lead Christian lives.”
Now of course this point of view overlooks the interest that society, and therefore the state, have in promoting and protecting stable family life. That is why we have ANY kind of marriage or divorce law in the first place. The decline of marriage in our time has already lead to all sorts of societal havoc.
I personally oppose officially sanctioned same-sex marriage and do believe we have an obligation as Catholics to oppose it and make whatever effort we can to prevent it from being enacted. Same-sex couples already have means by which they can take care of inheritance, property ownership, health care decision making, the right to visit their sick partner, health insurance benefits, etc.
That being said… I also personally believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the nation is inevitable and short of a miracle there probably isn’t any way to stop it at this point, given the state of our current law and its emphasis on individual rights above all else. Traditional marriage has already been ripped to shreds by easy no-fault divorce and other measures so this is probably the next step.
I COULD envision a system under which the state simply abolishes civil marriage altogether and institutes civil unions or partnerships for ANY two adults who are not already each other’s next of kin by blood. The civil union makes the two people who enter it (who could be a traditionally married couple, a cohabiting couple, a gay couple, two platonic friends, two distant relatives, etc.) one another’s legal next of kin. Under this system, everyone would be treated equally before the law, and marriage would be governed and defined completely by religious and cultural instiutions. Couples would be free to marry in any fashion their faith or culture allowed, and the state would not be involved in it at all.
I do NOT think this system would be ideal or preferable to a proper legal system that gave traditional marriage its rightful place. But I could see it as a last resort to insure that traditional religious marriage is “disentangled” from state recognition or regulation that would eventually open the door to the government forcing religious recognition of same-sex marriage on the grounds that to do otherwise would be “discriminatory.”
There is already a complete separation between the Church’s annulment law and secular divorce law. One process does not get involved in the other and they do not overlap. The Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce and the State doesn’t recognize Church annulments. (Orthodox Jews also have their own system of religious divorce). Why not have a similar situation with regard to marriage law, if that turns out to be the best or only way to protect the identity of Catholic marriage?
He also argued (and this was back during World War II) that “the majority of the British people are not Christians, and therefore, cannot be expected to lead Christian lives.”
Now of course this point of view overlooks the interest that society, and therefore the state, have in promoting and protecting stable family life. That is why we have ANY kind of marriage or divorce law in the first place. The decline of marriage in our time has already lead to all sorts of societal havoc.
I personally oppose officially sanctioned same-sex marriage and do believe we have an obligation as Catholics to oppose it and make whatever effort we can to prevent it from being enacted. Same-sex couples already have means by which they can take care of inheritance, property ownership, health care decision making, the right to visit their sick partner, health insurance benefits, etc.
That being said… I also personally believe that the legalization of same-sex marriage throughout the nation is inevitable and short of a miracle there probably isn’t any way to stop it at this point, given the state of our current law and its emphasis on individual rights above all else. Traditional marriage has already been ripped to shreds by easy no-fault divorce and other measures so this is probably the next step.
I COULD envision a system under which the state simply abolishes civil marriage altogether and institutes civil unions or partnerships for ANY two adults who are not already each other’s next of kin by blood. The civil union makes the two people who enter it (who could be a traditionally married couple, a cohabiting couple, a gay couple, two platonic friends, two distant relatives, etc.) one another’s legal next of kin. Under this system, everyone would be treated equally before the law, and marriage would be governed and defined completely by religious and cultural instiutions. Couples would be free to marry in any fashion their faith or culture allowed, and the state would not be involved in it at all.
I do NOT think this system would be ideal or preferable to a proper legal system that gave traditional marriage its rightful place. But I could see it as a last resort to insure that traditional religious marriage is “disentangled” from state recognition or regulation that would eventually open the door to the government forcing religious recognition of same-sex marriage on the grounds that to do otherwise would be “discriminatory.”
There is already a complete separation between the Church’s annulment law and secular divorce law. One process does not get involved in the other and they do not overlap. The Church doesn’t recognize civil divorce and the State doesn’t recognize Church annulments. (Orthodox Jews also have their own system of religious divorce). Why not have a similar situation with regard to marriage law, if that turns out to be the best or only way to protect the identity of Catholic marriage?
J
joandarc2008
Guest
OK- I personally believe this-
- Marriage is a religious institution not a secular one
- It should be the Church’s right (whatever Church if someone is not Catholic then their Church, temple, synagogue whatever) to issue a marriage license not the States.
- If the state were not issuing marriage liscenses there would be no issue of people getting civil divorces and remarrying without anullments because it simply would not be able to happen without a full conversion to another church.
- Gay marriage - only those “churches” as they call themselves would be doing these ceremonies and would probably lose their popularity and extinguish themselves. The great Mother Church has survived longer than any other Christian church - I personally believe God would take care of us here.
- Free will- this would still give people the ability to make right or wrong decisions but be fully informed and not have that old excuse of “I was not properly catechized” because the only place a Catholic is going to get a marriage license in this type of system would be through the Church with proper marriage prep.
C
camerong
Guest
Yes, in part. As you wrote above to the OP:
His “attitude” is simply asking what people’s thoughts are on how the Church should interact with the secular world in terms of sacraments which span both worlds. You take his pretty wholly hypothetical question and extrapolate a conclusion that he is drifting from God? You presume an answer to his question and then accuse him of disobeying Christ by even considering an answer which is different than yours.
The OP is not sinning or erring by asking what the Church’s policy towards secular marriage is, and make a suggestion of a possible policy, for the genuine purpose (as the OP demonstrated) of hearing arguments for either side. You may think you are simply being righteously intolerant of sinful viewpoints, but there wasn’t any evidence of the OP’s actual view point, let alone that he or she had a sinful one.
I don’t wish to hijack this thread, and the interesting and useful discussion it has spawned. And I don’t wish to attack you. But I just want to show you that when someone genuinely asks “I wonder if X,” it is inappropriate to respond “You are sinful for even considering X.”
C
crazzeto
Guest
That is a misinterpetation of what I said, perhaps it wasn’t written clearly. What was said (or attempted to be said) is that by taking this attitude, and making it your center, making it what you judge your political support on, making it the center of how you interact with people you will in fact be walking down a path you ought not be walking down. Perhaps you disagree with that statement, but personally I believe it to be quite true. By taking the proposed step, you are making ambivilance your moral center.
That is in fact, quite problematic for the Catholic Christian. Our church teaches (rightly) saved through our response of God’s free gift of Grace, with our faith and works, or actions. If one makes moral ambivilance the core of how they interact with others, then what will your works, the basis on which you are judged gonig to end up being?
This is not a statement that the OP is there now, and really it’s not even a statement that it will definetly lead to the death (speaking spiritually). What it is, is a warning that it is in fact quite problematic. It will make difficult the task of having good works. That’s not a good thing, better to keep “love one another as I have loved you” as your moral center. This doesn’t mean getting in peoples faces about doing things you disagree with, this doesn’t mean supporting the implementation of rigid religious law. It does however include fundamentally upholding certain principals, like the natural law, for instance the sanctity of marriage and exorting others (in a positive, uplifting way) to a better moral standard.
J
Joe_5859
Guest
Okay, I found the authoritative answer to your specific question.
From the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith’s June 3, 2003, document, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons:I think what your question fundamentally boils down to is “What does separation of Church and State mean?”
We cannot cleanly and easily divide Church and State into two completely separate categories with absolutely no overlap whatsoever. That’s not what the Church means by drawing a distinction between their spheres of authority.
I can see why it’s easy to get confused. The Church teaches that murder is a sin. The State makes murder illegal and punishes those found guilty of it. And no one would argue that the State “shouldn’t be involved” in matters of murder. The Church also teaches that fornication is a sin. Yet, this is not illegal, and very few people would even argue that it should be illegal. So what’s the difference? Both are sins. Both are part of the natural moral law.
The CDF statement above presents why same-sex unions would be detrimental to society and should not be legal. I’ve heard the argument even from good Catholics that the State should “get out of the marriage business.” The fact is, though, that it simply is not possible for the State to do this. Marriage is the fundamental building block of society. The State has an obligation to enact laws and policies to protect the rights and duties of spouses toward each other and toward their children.
Some want to solve these legal necessities by relegating the State to performing generic “civil unions,” but I think such an idea is extremely short-sighted. All it is is a change in the name, not a change in reality. Fundamentally, marriage is simply the coming together of a man and a woman before witnesses and vowing their committment to each other. That is why two non-Catholics who go before a Justice of the Peace are still considered validly married by the Catholic Church.
Now, if those same two people came before that same Justice of the Peace and the only difference was the fact that the piece of paper said “Civil Union” instead of “Marriage”, guess what? The Church would still consider it a valid marriage because the form and matter are present. A rose by any other name is still a rose.
There is a reason that same-sex marriage advocates would be very happy with such a “compromise.” Because they know it will have exactly the same effect: the normalization of homosexual behavior.
T
Timbothefiveth
Guest
By seperation of church and state, they don’t mean it like the ACLU means it. What they mean is that the church and the government are distinct entities. This does not mean the state can embrace immoral policies.
M
milkbar
Guest
I have long held a personal opinion that the State should allow any two people to enter into a contract conferring special rights, or else if it prohibits some people from entering into such a contract for reasons other than compromising factors such as age and mental capacity, then such a contract should confer special rights on no one. …Or, those rights should be able to be conferred upon any two people in another manner.
There are legal benefits to what the State defines as marriage. Either the State ought to give those benefits to any two people, or to no one. No legal benefits to anyone–or everyone having to obtain those benefits in some way other than a marriage certificate–would level the playing field suitably for my tastes.
Please tell me if I should endeavor to change my opinion and why. I hope I’m not hijacking; I think this fits nicely within this thread…
There are legal benefits to what the State defines as marriage. Either the State ought to give those benefits to any two people, or to no one. No legal benefits to anyone–or everyone having to obtain those benefits in some way other than a marriage certificate–would level the playing field suitably for my tastes.
Please tell me if I should endeavor to change my opinion and why. I hope I’m not hijacking; I think this fits nicely within this thread…
J
Joe_5859
Guest
I already laid out my thoughts on the matter in post #27. I recommend reading through the CDF’s document Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.
I think it’s important that the State does reward marriage with certain benefits. It recognizes the importace of it. If we remove that, we’ll be left with an even more profound devaluation of marriage in our society.
The fact is, anyone can already enter into legal contract with any other party on many things. For example, if someone is concerned about the distribution of their assets when they die, they can make a will.
We have to ask ourselves why these benefits are in place and what difference they make. Does every person have a “right” to extend their health care plan to a person of their choosing regardless of the relationship between the two people or the level of responsibility each person has towards the other? Thus, I might opt to extend my “bonus person” health care coverage to the cute next door neighbor, or the homeless guy I see downtown. As my “bonus person”, they are exempt from the pre-existing condition qualification. Can you imagine the impact that would have on the price of health insurance?
But is the solution to say that no one (even if they are married) has a right to extend their health care plan to another person (their spouse and children)? Well, then health care suddenly becomes out of reach for an even larger portion of the population.
And this is just one example. I really think we need to think this through. Going for this compromise in an attempt to be “fair” or to “separate Church and State” will only have disastrous results.
C
chrysostim83
Guest
Hi CaptainDan,
Since nobody’s recommended it yet, you might be able to find some help for your question in the Pontifical Council for the Family’s document Family, Marriage, and “De facto” Unions. Although I haven’t read the thing all the way through, I think it gives an explanation of how marriage relates to the common good and how, consequently, the State has a duty to regulate marriage to some extent.
About gay “marriage”, the issue behind your question, at the moment we can only take it on faith that it ought to illegal, since nobody knows exactly how it will affect the common good. On that point, see the US Bishops’ FAQ on same sex marriage (question 7).
Since nobody’s recommended it yet, you might be able to find some help for your question in the Pontifical Council for the Family’s document Family, Marriage, and “De facto” Unions. Although I haven’t read the thing all the way through, I think it gives an explanation of how marriage relates to the common good and how, consequently, the State has a duty to regulate marriage to some extent.
About gay “marriage”, the issue behind your question, at the moment we can only take it on faith that it ought to illegal, since nobody knows exactly how it will affect the common good. On that point, see the US Bishops’ FAQ on same sex marriage (question 7).
M
milkbar
Guest
The assumption is always that two people are engaging in relations. Why? Would a “civil union” be acceptable to the Church if the two people wanted the benefits but felt no romantic love toward each other and lived chastely? The State recognizes any traditional union regardless of whether the two ever share a bed.
eta: See from your link:
What if no “homosexual acts” were ever involved? What if it were really about two good friends?
eta again:
Should the Church come down on any marriage involving contraception, since any contracepted acts are also unnatural (unholy?)?
M
milkbar
Guest
Also, would one be sinning in simply not saying anything either way, or not voting either way, on matters relating to the leglities of same-sex unions, given that to speak in a manner opposite to one’s belief would be to lie?
T
tjm190
Guest
The civil contract of marriage is related to the union of man and woman marriage the Church provides in name only, so I don’t believe the stance on one needs to be replicated in the other- I am personally ambivalent with respect to gay marriage.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Yes, you go to mass before each RCIA class right? Whats included in the Penatential right at the begining of every service? “…I have sinned, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do…”
M
milkbar
Guest
I have never heard that; I did some Googling and it seems my parish takes the “Option C” route: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penitential_Rite
I’ve been upset about this all day. I’m stuck sinning, then, until God helps me change my mind. I am praying.
M
milkbar
Guest
I can’t even ever complete RCIA and convert if I can’t say I agree with the Church’s teaching on this, can I? I’m actually bawling like a baby as I’m typing this. I don’t know what to do.
C
chrysostim83
Guest
Hi Milkbar,
These issues can be very upsetting. Give it time. As you continue in RCIA and as you begin to participate more in the sacraments, you will find that you opinions change over time and that it is easier to follow the Church where she leads us. Definitely don’t give up, and don’t be afraid. Everything will work out.
About marriage or civil unions between people of the same sex: genital actions are usually a small but important part of marriage considered as such. In other words, a kind of relationship in which sexual acts occurred only exceptionally would not really be a marriage. Since the kinds of actions involved in sexual acts between persons of the same sex are wrong-in-themselves, it follows that nobody would be well advised to enter a same sex marriage. The same considerations apply to civil unions, since “civil union” is intended to denote the same reality as marriage.
Now, all of this is a very difficult teaching. It is maybe a little easier to accept when it is remembered that the issue here is not really about the material benefits which are conferred by marriage. The city where I live, for example, uses a couples’ registry to extend many of these benefits to gay couples. This is morally acceptable because the registry is open not only to gay couples but also to mother-daughter households (where the daughter is taking care of her ailing mother, for instance) and many other kinds of relationships where sexual activity would not be expected.
I hope this is reassuring. I will pray for you.
These issues can be very upsetting. Give it time. As you continue in RCIA and as you begin to participate more in the sacraments, you will find that you opinions change over time and that it is easier to follow the Church where she leads us. Definitely don’t give up, and don’t be afraid. Everything will work out.
About marriage or civil unions between people of the same sex: genital actions are usually a small but important part of marriage considered as such. In other words, a kind of relationship in which sexual acts occurred only exceptionally would not really be a marriage. Since the kinds of actions involved in sexual acts between persons of the same sex are wrong-in-themselves, it follows that nobody would be well advised to enter a same sex marriage. The same considerations apply to civil unions, since “civil union” is intended to denote the same reality as marriage.
Now, all of this is a very difficult teaching. It is maybe a little easier to accept when it is remembered that the issue here is not really about the material benefits which are conferred by marriage. The city where I live, for example, uses a couples’ registry to extend many of these benefits to gay couples. This is morally acceptable because the registry is open not only to gay couples but also to mother-daughter households (where the daughter is taking care of her ailing mother, for instance) and many other kinds of relationships where sexual activity would not be expected.
I hope this is reassuring. I will pray for you.
M
milkbar
Guest
This would be perfectly acceptable to me on a national level.
I don’t think it’s morally acceptable for two people to have sex if they are not married, no matter their gender. I do believe two people are not truly married in the eyes of God if they are not of opposite genders.
But on a legal level, there are social issues, things I feel anyone should be able to do and have recognized. There was a news story recently about a homosexual couple, two women, one of whom was dying in the hospital. They had all their ducks in a row, they were prepared for such a situation, had all the necessary forms, but the hospital refused to allow the woman’s partner in to see her. The dying woman’s sister was allowed in immediately upon arriving, but the life partner was not. She got to see her partner for a few minutes at one point, but she was not allowed to be there when her partner died. The hospital’s excuse was that it was a trauma center, something about there not being enough room, but their actions don’t support that reasoning. It was discrimination, it was denying the dying woman’s wishes.
If someone, no matter their orientation or marital status, even an old woman who has never been married and has no children or family, wants to say “I want so-and-so to be allowed to see me in the hospital as if they were my spouse because I have none and no living or close family,” then that ought to happen no matter what. I know someone in this situation of having no family. There needs to be some way of irrefutably defining someone’s wishes and having them carried out, period. That’s what’s at the forefront of my mind. I don’t even care about taxes and possession and what have you. It’s issues relating to when one person considers another person like family.
R
rusty20
Guest
The attitude ends when you harm another human life. Hence why abortion is wrong in society, and gay marriage is not necessarily wrong in a pluralistic society.
It is dangerous to push Catholic beliefs as law. Are we to outlaw pornography? infidelity? contraception? Those these things are wrong for Catholics, are we to make sure nobody does them, regardless of their beliefs?
You claim the danger of legislation of gay marriage is a slippery slope. The use of Catholic faith as law is equally slippery…
- Status