B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Where have you gotten that from anything I’ve said about them??? They have found a way to exist with less government control. That is not a bad thing for a country that espouses freedom.
- Status
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
I don’t care a bit if you do/did that. My friend only wants the option. Why is it so bothersome to you that we feel we shouldn’t have to have a marriage license?
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
Oops! You did it again! My friends have never said that either…
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Because you want to drag a priest down into your sin.
That bothers us who understand the absolute depth of what you’re trying to do.
Your friend is accustomed to being fed a shovel full of lies. She cannot get married for “political” reasons. This is the crux of the issue. It has to do with politics and disobedience. It’s no wonder that she, and her family, will not follow the rules of the church. They hate the legal system so much that they can’t even obey the Church!
Last edited:
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Xanthippe_Voorhees:
Oops! You did it again! My friends have never said that either…
You’ve stated that they have separated from the US and made their land independent. What do you think that means?
G
graciew
Guest
Read your posts…
Please do not come and teach Americans freedom and order… They know it.
Please do not come and teach Americans freedom and order… They know it.
Last edited:
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
What sin??? This IS getting tiresome…
X
Xanthippe_Voorhees
Guest
Breaking just laws. Fr. David already explained that at length 200 posts ago. It sure is tiresome that —you–excuse me-- your friend feels entitled to act outside the rules.Xanthippe_Voorhees:
What sin??? This IS getting tiresome…
Last edited:
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
It obviously doesn’t mean what you think it means. They have only separated from the cooperation. Not the self evident truths and freedoms this country still gives to those who know how to grasp them. But that’s for another thread. This ones about whether or not the church should force Catholics to get permission from the state to receive the sacrament of matrimony.
T
TechieGuy
Guest
Wow, is this still going on?
Hey OP, your friend should explain her political views to her Bishop since he’s the only person in her Diocese with the authority to authorize what she wants done.
If the Bishop doesn’t agree, then she needs to decide if her beliefs are more important to her than getting married in The Church.
It really is that simple.
Hey OP, your friend should explain her political views to her Bishop since he’s the only person in her Diocese with the authority to authorize what she wants done.
If the Bishop doesn’t agree, then she needs to decide if her beliefs are more important to her than getting married in The Church.
It really is that simple.
A
abucs
Guest
I am not sure of the set up in America. In Australia there is no difference with regards to taxation whether married or not. Personally I believe our system is fairer and bypasses all of the problems that people have discussed here with regards to state marriage licences.
If what others have said is true over there then it seems the laws are an incentive for people not to get married. Perhaps the laws over there should be changed but of course that is up to Americans.
If what others have said is true over there then it seems the laws are an incentive for people not to get married. Perhaps the laws over there should be changed but of course that is up to Americans.
K
KathleenT
Guest
Winner, winner, chicken dinner.
That’s Sovereign State rhetoric, if I ever heard it.
Talk to your Bishop or get a marriage license.
I’m out.
That’s Sovereign State rhetoric, if I ever heard it.
Talk to your Bishop or get a marriage license.
I’m out.
A
abucs
Guest
Yes this is how I read your posts originally and I am very sympathetic with your cause.
I will just give a few caveats first:
(1) If there are tax considerations in a jurisdiction regarding state marriage licences then these have to be worked out first.
(2) If the church is on friendly terms with the government and works in a symbiotic fashion then there is no reason why this shouldn’t continue.
(3) The church should not be used against the state in a way that causes friction between the two or friction within faithful members of the church.
Now I agree with your views given all of the above caveats. I think we should look to distance ourselves from the secular state for our own good. Here in Australia there are many inside the church who are actively working to subsume Catholic identity within a secular identity and this is causing a tremendous catastrophe within the church with the vast majority of Catholics ending up walking away from their faith and community.
So to give a few examples, our Catholic University is filled with Militant Feminist atheists pretending to be Catholic. After a science degree in a secular University I attended this Catholic University to receive a teachers degree. This is where teachers who will teach in the Catholic education system go to learn how to teach. This sector is quite large here and teaches about a quarter of all students.
There are faculty professors here who basically try to discredit the church to prospective teachers. My particular militant feminist professor in Theology said many really unfair and derogatory things about the church. I even wrote a couple thousand word essay on the crazy things we were taught. So to give you one example for context we were told that Jesus probably had 12 women disciples as well but they were written out by the church fathers because they were all sexist and misogynistic. She even boasted in class that she and other professors knew how to get around the bishops ‘meddling’ and that they knew more than priests of the parish. After I graduated I spoke to someone connected to the dean of the university and I heard that she was replaced with two brothers rushed in to take her classes.
In my second Theology class, in the final assignment worth 40% we were asked to write an essay on why the syllabus of the Catholic education should be taken away from bishops and given to university professors. In a parallel class a friend of mine had the question of whether or not Jesus should be taken out of the Catholic religion syllabus because it separated students from those going to secular schools.
Once in the classroom my co-teacher (a diocese directive) and supervisor wanted to replace the Bible with the Harry Potter series because she thought it contained more ‘moral truth’ for the students. She prevented me from teaching religion to the students presumably because I was traditional. I had a talk to our parish priest and the next week I was allowed to teach religion before she pulled the plug again. Eventually I got to teach most of the last term in this subject but she was very anti church and she left the next year to become a religious co-ordinator at another school.
I will just give a few caveats first:
(1) If there are tax considerations in a jurisdiction regarding state marriage licences then these have to be worked out first.
(2) If the church is on friendly terms with the government and works in a symbiotic fashion then there is no reason why this shouldn’t continue.
(3) The church should not be used against the state in a way that causes friction between the two or friction within faithful members of the church.
Now I agree with your views given all of the above caveats. I think we should look to distance ourselves from the secular state for our own good. Here in Australia there are many inside the church who are actively working to subsume Catholic identity within a secular identity and this is causing a tremendous catastrophe within the church with the vast majority of Catholics ending up walking away from their faith and community.
So to give a few examples, our Catholic University is filled with Militant Feminist atheists pretending to be Catholic. After a science degree in a secular University I attended this Catholic University to receive a teachers degree. This is where teachers who will teach in the Catholic education system go to learn how to teach. This sector is quite large here and teaches about a quarter of all students.
There are faculty professors here who basically try to discredit the church to prospective teachers. My particular militant feminist professor in Theology said many really unfair and derogatory things about the church. I even wrote a couple thousand word essay on the crazy things we were taught. So to give you one example for context we were told that Jesus probably had 12 women disciples as well but they were written out by the church fathers because they were all sexist and misogynistic. She even boasted in class that she and other professors knew how to get around the bishops ‘meddling’ and that they knew more than priests of the parish. After I graduated I spoke to someone connected to the dean of the university and I heard that she was replaced with two brothers rushed in to take her classes.
In my second Theology class, in the final assignment worth 40% we were asked to write an essay on why the syllabus of the Catholic education should be taken away from bishops and given to university professors. In a parallel class a friend of mine had the question of whether or not Jesus should be taken out of the Catholic religion syllabus because it separated students from those going to secular schools.
Once in the classroom my co-teacher (a diocese directive) and supervisor wanted to replace the Bible with the Harry Potter series because she thought it contained more ‘moral truth’ for the students. She prevented me from teaching religion to the students presumably because I was traditional. I had a talk to our parish priest and the next week I was allowed to teach religion before she pulled the plug again. Eventually I got to teach most of the last term in this subject but she was very anti church and she left the next year to become a religious co-ordinator at another school.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
A friend who I went to school with works in the Catholic education office and she declared it as open warfare between on the one hand her office loyal to the bishop and on the other the pro secular professors and (some) teachers. The bishop very cleverly introduced an electronic testing system for religion. It was quite fancy with students answering a multiple question test on the internet but different students getting different questions so that discussing which questions they had didn’t give other students (or other schools) an advantage. In this way he could implicitly control what was being taught in the classroom because teachers will generally teach to the test. There were no Harry Potter questions for example and of course my co teacher (superior) criticised the bishops move.
The bishop also re-introduced the angelus for all students in the late morning. Something that had previously been done away with for decades. Of course my co-teacher complained it was ruining her English class and usually it was left to me to step in and lead the prayer with the students.
The school received funding from the secular government and many were happy to see them as the ultimate master rather than the bishop.
My mother worked for a Saint Francis Missionaries of Mary old age home as a receptionist. The nuns there were militant feminists also. When they were still gathering for morning prayers (as they are supposed to) they would change the words so that the Our Father became the ‘Our Mother’ and the Holy Spirit became ‘Sophia, the Goddess of wisdom’. Three of the original founding sisters were so disgusted that they went back to their original countries (I think two to Ireland and one to Canada). I have all manner of stories regarding that home and how they would do unscrupulous things in order to get more secular tax payers money.
Some on this forum were obviously upset by my remarks earlier regarding such practise but I stand by those words.
So these are some of the reasons why I am sympathetic to your cause (given the 3 caveats above) and believe the church should look to distance itself from the parallel of secular law and practice.
There are too many in my neck of the woods who look to phase out the Catholic identity and replace it with a secular one. When I look at the large number of people I went to school with who followed that course then here at least, it is the church who needs to assert it’s identity more.
The bishop also re-introduced the angelus for all students in the late morning. Something that had previously been done away with for decades. Of course my co-teacher complained it was ruining her English class and usually it was left to me to step in and lead the prayer with the students.
The school received funding from the secular government and many were happy to see them as the ultimate master rather than the bishop.
My mother worked for a Saint Francis Missionaries of Mary old age home as a receptionist. The nuns there were militant feminists also. When they were still gathering for morning prayers (as they are supposed to) they would change the words so that the Our Father became the ‘Our Mother’ and the Holy Spirit became ‘Sophia, the Goddess of wisdom’. Three of the original founding sisters were so disgusted that they went back to their original countries (I think two to Ireland and one to Canada). I have all manner of stories regarding that home and how they would do unscrupulous things in order to get more secular tax payers money.
Some on this forum were obviously upset by my remarks earlier regarding such practise but I stand by those words.
So these are some of the reasons why I am sympathetic to your cause (given the 3 caveats above) and believe the church should look to distance itself from the parallel of secular law and practice.
There are too many in my neck of the woods who look to phase out the Catholic identity and replace it with a secular one. When I look at the large number of people I went to school with who followed that course then here at least, it is the church who needs to assert it’s identity more.
Last edited:
L
LittleFlower
Guest
In Australia, religious clergy can (if they have the ability to) marry couples— and usually only lawfully and religiously at the same time.
The Catholic Church in Australia does not permit Catholic couples to marry only religiously and not secularly. This is for a variety of reasons—many of which seek to minimise the possibility of the couple to then marry someone other than their religious spouses secularly.
It’s in the best interest of the faithful and the Church to make sure that if you are married that this is also the case in the eyes of secular law.
In some countries such as Germany, you get married secularly first at the Standesamt and then take that marriage certificate to your parish priest and have a kirchliche Hochzeit (Church wedding). Again, even though the two are separate, the religious marriage is inherently linked to it being approved by the state.
Being married also means dealing with taxes, not defrauding the government, and also dealing with any repercussions that a marriage could have (like one spouse losing certain government benefits).
The Church shouldn’t change because you are getting your knickers in the knot about joint taxes. If that is the case, you shouldn’t get married in the first place.
The Catholic Church in Australia does not permit Catholic couples to marry only religiously and not secularly. This is for a variety of reasons—many of which seek to minimise the possibility of the couple to then marry someone other than their religious spouses secularly.
It’s in the best interest of the faithful and the Church to make sure that if you are married that this is also the case in the eyes of secular law.
In some countries such as Germany, you get married secularly first at the Standesamt and then take that marriage certificate to your parish priest and have a kirchliche Hochzeit (Church wedding). Again, even though the two are separate, the religious marriage is inherently linked to it being approved by the state.
Being married also means dealing with taxes, not defrauding the government, and also dealing with any repercussions that a marriage could have (like one spouse losing certain government benefits).
The Church shouldn’t change because you are getting your knickers in the knot about joint taxes. If that is the case, you shouldn’t get married in the first place.
A
abucs
Guest
I don’t think the OP is talking about taxes but rather the possibility of separating the two ‘marriages’…
There are calls with the recent plebiscite in Australia to remove the idea of marriage from the state altogether, It seems to be a left over from a time when the state was Christian.
Such thinking would instead move from the idea of ‘marriage’ to simply recognising what it has become, a secular contract that is really not so strong as it can be broken at virtually any time.
There are also complaints from men that the ending of the contract disfavours them unjustly so and they do not want the state to have power in this regards following secular philosophy.
The next evolution in secular marriage is also likely to be to allow Polygamy for a variety of reasons.
Political correctness will argue that it is religious discrimination to not put Islamic concepts of marriage on an equal basis with other faiths. I am sure you are aware that in Australia there are Muslims with multiple wives. The social security are aware of this and simply turn a blind eye, advising second and third wives of the best way to register for welfare. This goes to the question people have raised on this thread about avoiding marriage to avoid taxes. Second and third wives are being set up in separate houses and there is a lot of tax payers money going into paying for this because officially they are circumventing the traditional view of marriage. People are complaining that in not recognising Islamic multiple wives marriage it is unfair because in this situation people are avoiding paying taxes and getting benefits they should not be entitled to.
In these cases the same argument can be made with regards to children’s rights and wives rights and there will be moves to make such arrangements legal because of this also.
There is also the political correct argument that if adults love each other and are consensual in their relationship then who has the right to tell them their arrangement is not a marriage?
Because of equality the argument for wives to have multiple husbands will also have to be allowed.
To re-iterate, it is the secular philosophy and morals driving the redefinitions of marriage. This will affect the church unless it looks to put distance between the two in my opinion.
Last edited:
A
abucs
Guest
At some point secular marriage dissolves and the reasons for keeping track of who is married to who disappears. It is this likely development that has caused secular people here to seriously think about why the government is involved with the remnants of ‘traditional marriage’.
With the secular definition changing then checks such as if the person has been married before go by the way side and there is less reason for the state to be checking (or validating) this to the Catholic Church. Ideas of property rights for marriage participants start to become extremely messy to the point of being impossible, The state may have no choice but to totally change it’s current approach which may take away another reason for state marriage from the Catholic viewpoint.
I think this is the way it is going. The state no longer underpins Christian concepts of marriage and are likely to further distance itself, sometimes in an aggressively deliberate way.
There are pushes in the schools to teach secular ideas of marriage (which continue to change) and rule out traditional teachings of marriage as bigoted.
Already a Tasmanian bishop has been taken to court (by the Green party I believe) simply for producing a brochure stating the Catholic idea of marriage. The charge was much the same. The Catholic view of marriage differed from that of the state and therefore people saw this as illegal on discrimination and ‘offensive’ grounds. In Australia it is an offense to offend someone from a particular category (such as homosexuals) This law is nuts (18c I believe) but it is there and it underpins secular morality over the church.
This is another pressure on the church to distinguish between secular and Catholic marriage.
Still further we have the example that everyone has heard of regarding florists and bakers et cetera. While I make no comment on whether they should be allowed to not participate in homosexual weddings it does throw up problems for priests.
You will have the situation where two gay people go to a florist and ask for their services for their wedding and are refused. They then walk out of the florist and go to the church to see the Catholic priest to ask for his services for their wedding and he refuses. Yet in law the florist will be found guilty and perhaps lose his business but (at present) the Catholic priest is found to be acting properly.
Now at the moment people are adamant that the priest should not be forced to give his services but the florist must. In time this inconsistency in law will be challenged (at the most opportune time ) and under the secular concepts of equal rights, the church may lose. The time isn’t right now but in the future there will be pressure on priests.
I re-iterate that it is important for the church to at least think about putting distance between itself and the state when it comes to marriage. There are forces within the state that will put the church in an untenable and vulnerable position. I understand people not wanting to go to war with the state and I agree but the positon of the church with regards to being able to teach, preach and regulate it’s own concept of marriage is going to be challenged.
With the secular definition changing then checks such as if the person has been married before go by the way side and there is less reason for the state to be checking (or validating) this to the Catholic Church. Ideas of property rights for marriage participants start to become extremely messy to the point of being impossible, The state may have no choice but to totally change it’s current approach which may take away another reason for state marriage from the Catholic viewpoint.
I think this is the way it is going. The state no longer underpins Christian concepts of marriage and are likely to further distance itself, sometimes in an aggressively deliberate way.
There are pushes in the schools to teach secular ideas of marriage (which continue to change) and rule out traditional teachings of marriage as bigoted.
Already a Tasmanian bishop has been taken to court (by the Green party I believe) simply for producing a brochure stating the Catholic idea of marriage. The charge was much the same. The Catholic view of marriage differed from that of the state and therefore people saw this as illegal on discrimination and ‘offensive’ grounds. In Australia it is an offense to offend someone from a particular category (such as homosexuals) This law is nuts (18c I believe) but it is there and it underpins secular morality over the church.
This is another pressure on the church to distinguish between secular and Catholic marriage.
Still further we have the example that everyone has heard of regarding florists and bakers et cetera. While I make no comment on whether they should be allowed to not participate in homosexual weddings it does throw up problems for priests.
You will have the situation where two gay people go to a florist and ask for their services for their wedding and are refused. They then walk out of the florist and go to the church to see the Catholic priest to ask for his services for their wedding and he refuses. Yet in law the florist will be found guilty and perhaps lose his business but (at present) the Catholic priest is found to be acting properly.
Now at the moment people are adamant that the priest should not be forced to give his services but the florist must. In time this inconsistency in law will be challenged (at the most opportune time ) and under the secular concepts of equal rights, the church may lose. The time isn’t right now but in the future there will be pressure on priests.
I re-iterate that it is important for the church to at least think about putting distance between itself and the state when it comes to marriage. There are forces within the state that will put the church in an untenable and vulnerable position. I understand people not wanting to go to war with the state and I agree but the positon of the church with regards to being able to teach, preach and regulate it’s own concept of marriage is going to be challenged.
Last edited:
C
Crusaderbear
Guest
Thank you Father D! Amen !
B
ByWhatAuthority
Guest
^This is something every priest in the US should be thinking about!!! Thank you @abucs for your very thoughtful and articulate responses to this most pressing issue.
S
stinkcat_14
Guest
Which country do they live in? If they don’t live in the US, then why is what the US requires for marriage relevant?
- Status