Simply because the Chuch refrains from interfering with a civil law does not mean that people in the Church should not stand up against a potentially bad civil law. In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and the Pope have implored Catholics to stand up against any laws that would recognize homosexual unions or marriage.
Ridiculous analogy.
Yes they can. However, grave moral damage is done to those that think they have a “marriage” while participating in homosexual activity. Futher grave moral damage is done to children that witness such a “marriage.” There are serious moral issues at stake here with such potential legal arrangements that the Church implores us to take a stand against.
The Church was very merciful during the government-run inquisition. The Church attempted to balance saving souls with preventing undue punishment. In the process, the Church saved many lives and souls.
That is good. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith practically requires Catholics to oppose it and certainly restricts Catholics from any supportive action - direct or indirect.
In the same way a same sex civil marriage does not change anything in God’s eyes.
But the civil law allows heterosexuals to terminate their marriage and contract a new one, pretending they are married.
The pope says divorce is wrong.
yes they do grant a special benefit and no divorce does not always make the best of a bad situation.
Exaclty my point. Nor does or should the church recognize civil marriages that do not meet the church’s definition of marriage, same sex or opposite sex.
these are social and psychological observations that do have merit. thank you. the chruch certain should implore the faithful on this matter and take a strong stand.
The church was mericiful and the Spanish Inquistion was state run. Still, the Spanish state Inquistion’s claimed it actions were preventing more sin and scandal and keeping other souls safe. I would reaffirm those making such a claim can still be abusive.
Rather than spend a week on the meaning of “practically requires”, let agree that we have only minor differences on thsi matter.
My goodness. Please stop ignoring key words. I said the laws “attempt” to make the best of a bad situation - not that the laws are effective nor that divorce itself is good.
I believe that is what I said in my post. An authentic marriage is not ended by a civil divorce. The Church does not say it is a sin to civilly divorce and in many dioceses one must be civilly divorced before the marriage can be investigated to see if a decree of nullity may be granted.
Amen.
And we should always oppose abusive state laws and actions.
Careful Katherine - you are bordering on Christian fellowship.
No one is arguing there should be more civil divorces or more annullments. The Church has not done a good job in preaching the truth on these matters. That does not mean She should not stand up and say homosexual unions are wrong.
Yes - the slippery slope theory applies and the sliding must stop here or else we may very well fall into oblivion as a society.
I will agree that the Church has been too “soft” on divorce, remarriage and all that goes with it. I can see why some make the argument that homosexual unions are no worse than the current stae of marraige in our society. The Church has been too co opted by the culture. That does not mean She is not correct. It only mean we have too many weak Shepherds.
The church does not at all allow civil divorce.
Yes.
I’m awake, are you?
The Church recognizes it is necessary in certain cases. She does not ignore it. To be investigated for a decree of nullity one usually needs to be divorced for one year. A civil divorce is not prohibited in any Church law as far as I know.
Yes, we all agree with that.
Because it is not a fair comparison.
This is not accuarate. A civil divorce does not end a marriage.
Yes, they can read that and the entire bible and ALL the teachings of the Church. Christ founded a Church, not a book.
I do not know that the apology said the inquistions were evil in every case. He may have apologized for the way certain people acted, but that does not mean the entire enterprise was wrong. BTW, the Roman inquisition exists to this day under a different name. Ratzinger heads it.
Fact is we are not sola scriptura heretics. We do not take out one part of the bible, privately interpret it, and claim our interpretation is more correct than the Church’s even when our interpretation contradicts Church teaching.