Children throwing Rocks at the Sun : Supreme Court VS. Sacrament of Marriage

[freerf]

Although the Sacrament is safe in the teaching of the Church, there is yet “grave detriment to the common good”. The state has failed “in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good”.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003), 8, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2003, p. 9.:“If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties”.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons:III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I agree entirely. Though in times like this it is good to take comfort in our Church as a safe-haven for Truth, one that “all the powers of hell will not conquer”.

 

[Julianna]

You’re right in so far as the decision doesn’t force the Church two marry two persons of the same sex, nor does it claim to. The Church remains free to set its own rules for who it will and will not marry. If anything, it’s civil marriage celebrants who face the greatest difficulty when it comes to reconciling their religious beliefs with their civil obligations since what they do arguably goes beyond simply providing a service.

The thornier issue which is yet to emerge is the provision of benefits (such as on campus housing for example) to married couples and it’s here that Church and state are likely to come into conflict.

Why would civil celebrants face great difficulty?

 

[InThePew]

Why would civil celebrants face great difficulty?

Basically because they won’t be able to refuse to provide marriage services to same sex couples since to do so would be unlawful discrimination. There’s no general “religious belief” exception when it comes to refusing to provide good or services in a way which unlawfully discriminates - be it making a wedding cake, DJ’ing or officiating at a wedding. This puts civil celebrants in a difficult position if they don’t believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry and also don’t want to be sued!

 

[Julianna]

Basically because they won’t be able to refuse to provide marriage services to same sex couples since to do so would be unlawful discrimination. There’s no general “religious belief” exception when it comes to refusing to provide good or services in a way which unlawfully discriminates - be it making a wedding cake, DJ’ing or officiating at a wedding. This puts civil celebrants in a difficult position if they don’t believe that same sex couples should be allowed to marry and also don’t want to be sued!

You are correct. …the reason is because they are civil servants of the court. I find it so odd that there haven’t been any objections of religious jop…refusing to marry divorced couples…couples who are married two and three or four times…a person who has served time and is a registered sex offender…a drug addict. …an abusive person…someone who presents themselves as divorced and they are not… where is the objection? When a jop is paid by tax dollars then he or she is a civil servant who serves all the people. I am a civil servant…in customer service. I cannot refuse service to any American who asks. If 8 have a religious objection…I guess I need to find another line of work. I have a prayer to St Michael on my wall in my office. I was told by my manager that if one person objected I would have to take it down. It has been over 12 years…no one has objected. I have received complimentsome from all Marines who come see me…and 8 don’t inquire 8f they are gay or straight…because it’s none of my business. I am there to support.

 

[Yeoman]

This is false.

Secular divorce and secular marriage does affect the Church. Greatly. Ever sit in an RCIA class? Ever talk to a grieving man or woman who cannot get Married in a Catholic Church because of a previous marriage outside the church? Or because the Church won’t recognize their secular divorce from 20 years prior?

I have.

It is very sad.

Divorce certainly does given that the victims of divorce tend heavily to be children. That causes a long lasting harm to our society at large, which of course includes the Church. Indeed, marriage existed originally as a civil institution out of concern for children, which was poorly understood when no fault divorce gained ground.

 

[Beircheart]

Although the Sacrament is safe in the teaching of the Church, there is yet “grave detriment to the common good”. The state has failed “in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good”.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons (3 June 2003), 8, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City 2003, p. 9.:“If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties”.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons:III. ARGUMENTS FROM REASON AGAINST LEGAL RECOGNITION OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
6. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration.

From the order of right reason

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law,(11) but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.(12) Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.(13) Laws in favour of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

The thorny question is how is this a binding philosophy for people who do not believe it? A growing majority view Natural Law as being whatever the progression of evolution has produced. Where is the well reasoned, secularily palatable, refutation? Many Popes, Francis most recently, has declared Genesis’ account of creation a story, siding with evolution. This position is so heavily supported by science it is indisputable; only debate on how it took place remains, not if. The church, however, remains contradictory in making statements in support of evolution while continuing to base its theology and moral teachings on an instantaneous perspective of creation.

While the United States is undeniably founded on Christian belief, it is not a theocracy. Christian philosophy and theology is not binding. In order to stay relevant, the Church must pick up the pace of keeping abreast with a much higher educated and informed world population that is still desperately seeking answers. Just as, “because I said so” may work for parents of a 4 year old, it really is inappropriate for a 16 year old.

 

[Julianna]

Your last paragraph hit it out of the park.

 

[Michael1978]

But it’s not being attacked, beaten, and mocked.
The decision by the Supreme Court is very separate from the sacramental marriages in the Catholic church, and never the twain shall meet.
Their decision and these marriages don’t touch the church at all…they are two different worlds and dimensions.
In the same way that secular divorce is does not involve the church at all…neither do secular marriages.

.

So for you, religious practice is something a person keeps in a box and takes out on Sunday and puts it away after Mass. We are not guaranteed freedom of worship, as our president likes to say, we are guaranteed freedom of religion. Every aspect of the Church will be “touched” as you say by ss “marriage”—schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, orphanages, etc. People of religious faith will have to choose between their livelihood and their conscience—a choice that many have shed blood to avoid. It is utter fantasy to think that this will have no impact on the Church. Read the dissents of the four justices in the decision. They see it coming.

 

[Julianna]

So for you, religious practice is something a person keeps in a box and takes out on Sunday and puts it away after Mass. We are not guaranteed freedom of worship, as our president likes to say, we are guaranteed freedom of religion. Every aspect of the Church will be “touched” as you say by ss “marriage”—schools, hospitals, adoption agencies, orphanages, etc. People of religious faith will have to choose between their livelihood and their conscience—a choice that many have shed blood to avoid. It is utter fantasy to think that this will have no impact on the Church. Read the dissents of the four justices in the decision. They see it coming.

The military hasn’t seen a dent in recruits…college professors…cosmetologists…accountants…restaurant and retail seem to be doing fine…and gas have worked in many if these professions right along side straight people. The fact they now can make it legal…doesn’t change a thing…it’s just that some are out of work today and on their honeymoon.