Church fights same-sex 'marriage' in Spain

[Trelow]

JKirkLVNV:

This is just a question, not a statement of opinion. I oppose same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexuals. If the statement I highlighted is correct, though, doesn’t that mean that we as Catholics must believe that the civil authorities must uphold Catholic faith, morals, and discipline? Wouldn’t they have to close all the Protestant churches in the country, either force Protestants to convert or prosecute them, remove their children from their homes, etc.? Wouldn’t dissent be illegal under civil law in this circumstance?

God has written the moral law on everyones heart.
Everyone is required to obey it.

 

[Trelow]

Werner:

I believe there is an absolut truth, and of course i believe i know it.

But i also accept that others might think that “their truth” is the absolut one.

And as i don’t want them to urge “their truth” onto me i do not urge mine onto them.

So of course the bishops in Spain are fully entitled to say that they don’t like the plans of the government.

But to “declare war” as the article says and to say the state cannot give a right to citizens (that the Catholic church doesn’t like) as a bishop said is by far over the limit, this could come back onto the church sooner as the bishops might think!

The communists who persecuted the church also believed they had the absolute truth, and they also wanted everybody else to accept their truth.

The church has to convince by living the truth, not by forcing the truth onto others with civil laws.

Werner

Nobody has the authority to give a “right” which contradicts moral law.

 

[Brad]

JKirkLVNV:

This is just a question, not a statement of opinion. I oppose same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexuals. If the statement I highlighted is correct, though, doesn’t that mean that we as Catholics must believe that the civil authorities must uphold Catholic faith, morals, and discipline? Wouldn’t they have to close all the Protestant churches in the country, either force Protestants to convert or prosecute them, remove their children from their homes, etc.? Wouldn’t dissent be illegal under civil law in this circumstance?

Nope. You are confusing our rights as citizens of a Democracy with our obligations as Cathlolics.

These are 2 separate viewpoints. I oppose homosexual unions/marriage because I have a Catholic worldview and I understand the negative ramifications to society if society institutionalizes and benefits that which is abnormal. I do not oppose homosexual unions/marriage because I believe everyone must be Catholic. As a member of government (We the People), I have a right to oppose that which is harmful to society.

 

[fix]

JKirkLVNV:

This is just a question, not a statement of opinion. I oppose same-sex marriage and the adoption of children by homosexuals. If the statement I highlighted is correct, though, doesn’t that mean that we as Catholics must believe that the civil authorities must uphold Catholic faith, morals, and discipline? Wouldn’t they have to close all the Protestant churches in the country, either force Protestants to convert or prosecute them, remove their children from their homes, etc.? Wouldn’t dissent be illegal under civil law in this circumstance?

Homosexual conduct can be known as wrong from the natural law. We are not talking about Church disciplines. BTW, Werner, I believe has identified himself as Catholic, yet supports homosexual unions, right? Error having no rights is a true statement no matter one’s understanding of God or truth. I used that phrase as one Catholic to another Catholic.

If one claims privacy as an all encompassing “right”, then abortion is a “right”. The founding father’s understood all rights come from the creator. Man does not make them up.

 

[fix]

Werner:

I believe there is an absolut truth, and of course i believe i know it.

But i also accept that others might think that “their truth” is the absolut one.

So there is one truth, but all may not know it? And if some, or many, reject the truth we must accept that even if it means condoning evil?

And as i don’t want them to urge “their truth” onto me i do not urge mine onto them.[/quoye]

It depends on the moral matter. If it is murder, then you have no problem forcing people to comply with those proscriptions?

But to “declare war” as the article says and to say the state cannot give a right to citizens (that the Catholic church doesn’t like) as a bishop said is by far over the limit, this could come back onto the church sooner as the bishops might think!

The state can’t fabricate a right. That is why we have legal baby murder in the USA. Rights come from the creator.

The communists who persecuted the church also believed they had the absolute truth, and they also wanted everybody else to accept their truth.

Again, you seem to embrace relativism.

The church has to convince by living the truth, not by forcing the truth onto others with civil laws.

Really? So murder and rape should not be illegal?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

Homosexual conduct can be known as wrong from the natural law. We are not talking about Church disciplines.

As is divorce, legal in both Spain and the USA.

Error having no rights is a true statement

Error has no rights. But People in error do have rights.

 

[Brad]

Werner:

I believe there is an absolut truth, and of course i believe i know it.

But i also accept that others might think that “their truth” is the absolut one.

And as i don’t want them to urge “their truth” onto me i do not urge mine onto them.

So of course the bishops in Spain are fully entitled to say that they don’t like the plans of the government.

But to “declare war” as the article says and to say the state cannot give a right to citizens (that the Catholic church doesn’t like) as a bishop said is by far over the limit, this could come back onto the church sooner as the bishops might think!

The communists who persecuted the church also believed they had the absolute truth, and they also wanted everybody else to accept their truth.

The church has to convince by living the truth, not by forcing the truth onto others with civil laws.

Werner

You have a misconception of truth here. Truth prevails. If you are a Christian, you understand that Truth is not somebody’s opinion but actually a person - namely Jesus Christ. He is the Word (Scripture) and His Body is the Church (Tradition, Magisterial Teaching). Jesus said that you shall know the truth and, as a result, you will be set free. He also said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church and that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. He said that evil will flee in the face of truth.

The Communists believe they had truth but they did not. How do we know? Communist philosphy promoted great acts of evil. It failed in the Soviet Union because it was confronted with Truth. The leaders of the Soviet Union feared Pope John Paul II because they knew he came from a country being denied the truth and that he would bring the truth to it - and the foundation of Communism (evil) would crumble. They were right.

It is when we do not stand for truth that evil is allowed to flourish. It is because too many people in Germany did not oppose Hitler from the beginning that he was allowed to rise to power.

If we are ashamed of Jesus and we do not REALY believe He is the Truth and we do not proclaim this Truth - then you can guarantee that someone (communists, terrorists, secularlists, dissenters) will institutionalize their version of the truth over top what you believe and they will ultimately force you to say that their truth is, in fact, true. They will be wrong - but our families and future generations will suffer because we were too shy about what is really true.

We cannot run away when they come and ask whether we know Jesus (as Peter did). We must be bold in proclaiming the truth even unto death (as Peter did after he received the Holy Spirit).

 

[fix]

katherine2:

As is divorce, legal in both Spain and the USA.

Error has no rights. But People in error do have rights.

Actually people in error have no right to error. They have no right to lead others into error. They are free to believe in error, but have no right to sin.

 

[Trelow]

katherine2:

As is divorce, legal in both Spain and the USA.

Divorce is not always evil. Homosexual acts are.

Error has no rights. But People in error do have rights.

No one has the “right” to sin against God. They have the license to do so, but is license should be fought every chance we get. Standing by while someone murders their soul isn’t very charitable.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Brad:

Nope. You are confusing our rights as citizens of a Democracy with our obligations as Cathlolics.

These are 2 separate viewpoints. I oppose homosexual unions/marriage because I have a Catholic worldview and I understand the negative ramifications to society if society institutionalizes and benefits that which is abnormal. I do not oppose homosexual unions/marriage because I believe everyone must be Catholic. As a member of government (We the People), I have a right to oppose that which is harmful to society.

And that is what I believe, Brad. I was trying to make sure that I understood what fix was saying (potentially, though he very graciously further clarified it) about the responsibility of civil authority.

 

[Franze]

Like an spanish and catholic I am fighting against this picking up signals against it, for presenting in the parliament a legislative iniciative 500 thousand signals, respect that spanish died 100 ago, well someone yes, but we are a lot the people who are proud of our past, I know that only 20% of people goes to mass but well, it´s our cross now, greetings

 

[katherine2]

Trelow:

Divorce is not always evil. Homosexual acts are.

Marriage is life long. This is the moral law of the church.

No one has the “right” to sin against God. They have the license to do so, but is license should be fought every chance we get. Standing by while someone murders their soul isn’t very charitable.

Limiting our options to “standing by” and using the full power of the civil authorites is not very charitable either.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Marriage is life long. This is the moral law of the church.

The Church allows civil divorce. Remarriage is the issue.

Limiting our options to “standing by” and using the full power of the civil authorites is not very charitable either.

What is more charitable then preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

The Church allows civil divorce. Remarriage is the issue.

Ahh. The church allows a civil action but not a moral action. My point exactly.

What is more charitable then preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe?

Exactly the point the Spanish Inqusition made.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

Ahh. The church allows a civil action but not a moral action. My point exactly.

The Church “allows” it because it is not immoral. Remarriage is immoral, unless a decree of nullity was issued.

Exactly the point the Spanish Inqusition made.

Are you implying the various inquistions were all bad?

Having a civil law that prohibits perversion is a good idea for many reasons. You seem to take an anti Catholic stance? You think allowing others to make a mockery of marriage and cause public scandal is good for our society and our neighbor’s souls?

 

[katherine2]

fix:

The Church “allows” it because it is not immoral. Remarriage is immoral, unless a decree of nullity was issued.

The Church teaches marriage is life-long. The state holds that marriage can be dissolved and says so in a particular case when a divorce is granted. The church permits this because she sees a distriction between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. She can accept a legal action which dissolves the legal aspects of marriage but does not accept the moral right to dissolve the sacramental aspects. Hence, legal arrangements can exist distinct from sacramental.

Are you implying the various inquistions were all bad?

If you want to defend the Spanish Inquistion’s actions which it claimed were preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe, let’s go at it.

Having a civil law that prohibits perversion is a good idea for many reasons. You seem to take an anti Catholic stance? You think allowing others to make a mockery of marriage and cause public scandal is good for our society and our neighbor’s souls?

I’m happy to uphold the conservative position on this based on reason and civil order. I think not allowing same sex marriage is a good idea. I’m not sure its an article of faith.

 

[fix]

katherine2:

The Church teaches marriage is life-long. The state holds that marriage can be dissolved and says so in a particular case when a divorce is granted. The church permits this because she sees a distriction between sacramental marriage and civil marriage. She can accept a legal action which dissolves the legal aspects of marriage but does not accept the moral right to dissolve the sacramental aspects. Hence, legal arrangements can exist distinct from sacramental.

A civil divorce does not change an authentic marriage in God’s eyes. The couple are still married. The Church allows this. How is this related to allowing homosexuals to form a faux union? The civil law must be based on just principles. Justice does not allow same sex individuals to pretend they can be married.

If you want to defend the Spanish Inquistion’s actions which it claimed were preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe, let’s go at it.

That can be for another thread., I have debated it so many times before that it has become worn out. If you want to accpet revisionist history by anti Catholics you are free to do so.

I’m happy to uphold the conservative position on this based on reason and civil order. I think not allowing same sex marriage is a good idea. I’m not sure its an article of faith.

The Pope has said homosexual unions are wrong. This is more than his prudential judgment. The constant teaching of the Church shows us that homosexual conduct is evil. Anything that promotes evil is wrong.

 

[Brad]

katherine2:

As is divorce, legal in both Spain and the USA.

Correct. But divorce laws do not grant special benefit - they attempt to make the best of a bad situation. Irregardless, having laws considered bad does not justify making more bad laws.

katherine2:

Error has no rights. But People in error do have rights.

People in error do have rights but they do not have the right to do wrong.

 

[Brad]

JKirkLVNV:

And that is what I believe, Brad. I was trying to make sure that I understood what fix was saying (potentially, though he very graciously further clarified it) about the responsibility of civil authority.

Gotcha! Thanks.

 

[Brad]

fix:

The Church allows civil divorce. Remarriage is the issue.

Actually, the Church does not recognize the divorce. It “allows” civil divorce by not interfering with it. But it does not consider the “divorced” couple actually divorced. That is why an annulment is required subsequent to another marriage. The marital bond is considered permanent and only by determining the original marriage to be invalid would it be not sinful to have marital relations with another.