Church's Double Standard with Gay Marriage and Divorce and Remarriage

[Elizabeth502]

Not quite. I simply wonder why the Church needs to be involved in the secular legalities of marriage at all…

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops can put a halt to your “wondering.” Please read their documents on homosexual “marriage” and homosexual “unions.” Their statements about why the Church is rightfully involved, and does need to be involved, are downloadable from their website. They are your moral leaders, who have definitive answers to your “I simply wonder” queries.

 

[kalwein]

The very notion of ‘Gay Marriage’ is an affront to all of humanity. Homosexuality is disordered and has been outside the norm of accepted human behaviour ever since whenever. If you are a Catholic, as you say you are, you will accept and promulgate the Catechism and what it says about homosexuality and you will voice your disapproval at the notion of ‘gay marriage’.

I doubt you mean that first sentence literally. It is clearly inaccurate, since some people espouse it. Perhaps you meant something like “It is an affront to the dignity of all humanity,” which would make a statement about humanity, without implying that it is a universally held belief. Regardless,

Catechism 2357 … homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
OK, no problem. I don’t approve of homosexual acts. I also disapprove of people who divorce and re-marry, etc. Where is the public rhetoric campaign against them?

Catechism 2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided…

I question whether or not these issues have been handled with “acceptance, respect, compassion, sensitivity and without sign of unjust discrimination, by the majority of Catholics. It seems like “unjust discrimination” to single homosexuals out and not, for example, divorced people who are remarrying. There is nowhere near the same level of uproar over this.

The documents at: usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexeng.shtml go into some details on these topics, but I suspect you’ll agree (hopefully) that the most relevant to this discussion is this:

“Marriage is a basic human and social institution. Though it is regulated by civil laws and church laws, it did not originate either from the church or the state, but from God. Therefore, neither church nor state can alter the basic meaning and structure of marriage.” ( U.S. Catholic Bishops, Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions)

I don’t actually disagree with this. My government, however, does. It defines marriage as a wholly secular contractual agreement between two people and the state, and God as an afterthought, if present at all. These directly contradict.

So … given that I MUST agree with the Catholic Church (obsequium religiosum doctine - Latin for "religious submission of will and intellect”), the government MUST be wrong. Even when it proceeds to enforce its version of marriage. How do I resolve this? How about this:

If the government is excluding God, and allowing things that God does not, then the government must be enforcing some other contract, other than the Marriage concept God has defined! I use the term Secular Marriage for that, but it could just as easily be Civil Marriage, Civil Ceremony, etc. I agree that another term should be used… seems difficult. Those other terms are being shot down, too.

Frankly, the secondary way to resolve this is for the government to stop granting married couples any extra perks. There is no religious or natural requirement to do so.

Resolved. Either scenario is not in conflict with doctrine.

And of course, this applies to you too?

Yes, of course. If you (or anyone else) see me start to disrupt religious services, you should firmly escort me out. LOL.

—Quote—
It’s seems entirely unreasonable and possibly against some of Jesus’ teachings for Catholics to start breaking people in mortal sin into different categories of acceptability based on the type of fornication in question. It seems … judgemental… at the very least. Possibly hateful, too. (Quoting Kalwein).
—End Quote—
Now you are questioning Church Doctrine. Worse, you are denegrating it. See above paragraph.

Not at all. Which Church doctrine did you have in mind? I am already acknowledging that they are all in a state of mortal sin. I can find no place in the Catechism, nor the USCCB docs, nor the Bible, where homosexuality is ranked as a greater mortal sin than adultery. Theologically speaking, however, Jesus does in fact talk to us about the problems of divorce and adultery. Therefore, pursuing action against one and not the other seems uneven. That goes back to the “double standard” question that started this thread.

The Church is a teacher and guardian of morality. Morality is the glue which holds societies together. Once that ‘glue’ begins to melt, societies fracture. History is full of such examples. I suggest you go forth and continue your ‘ponderings’, because they, so far, have seriously compromised your Catholicism.

The first four sentences are a great, great topic for discussion. It is perhaps one of the great questions of religion and philosophy. It almost makes me want to go back to grab my Plato and Aristotle, as I’m certain that it’s handled in there somewhere. Perhaps another thread… let’s continue this one for now…

That last sentence makes me wonder if you are a priest, since really, only a priest would be qualified to start that discussion, and I assume my confessor would be the one best able to handle that (or God, of course).

 

[Ender]

I don’t approve of homosexual acts. I also disapprove of people who divorce and re-marry, etc. Where is the public rhetoric campaign against them?

First, I reject the notion that it isn’t valid to complain about one problem at a time. Second, there is no movement afoot to change the status quo regarding divorce so there is no immediacy regarding that topic.

It seems like “unjust discrimination” to single homosexuals out and not, for example, divorced people who are remarrying. There is nowhere near the same level of uproar over this.

It is hardly discrimination - unjust or otherwise - to defend a position that is being challenged. The idea that the legality of divorce is any part of the discussion of the definition of marriage is not only preposterous but, more significantly, irrelevant. Either the Church’s position on marriage is valid or it is not. Whether or not she is exhibiting a “double standard” with regard to divorce doesn’t change that. This argument exists not to challenge the Church’s definition of marriage but to provide an excuse for ignoring it.

I don’t actually disagree with this. My government, however, does. It defines marriage as a wholly secular contractual agreement between two people and the state, and God as an afterthought, if present at all.

And this is what the debate is - or should be - about: is marriage a term that describes an actual thing (viz. the union of a man and a woman) or is it a totally legal construction that means whatever the law says it means? We should be wary of the second option since it would allow quite literally anything at all, such as a man marrying his refrigerator or, more likely, marrying several women. Losing the battle over homosexual “marriage” means emptying the term of any real meaning whatever.

Ender

 

[Phemie]

Marriage between non-Christians is not a sacrament. Presumably not recognized as a marriage at all. Please see Catholic Encyclopedia below:

newadvent.org/cathen/09707a.htm —“As we have several times emphasized, not every marriage is a true sacrament, but only marriages between Christians. One becomes and remains a Christian in the sense recognized here through valid baptism.”

Priests who function as an agent of the state are performing dual roles. This does not change that there are other agents of the state performing non-sacramental marriage, that theoretically is not recognized by the Church.

Of course marriage between non-Christians is recognized as a marriage; a natural marriage, but marriage nonetheless.

You are aware that it’s possible for a Catholic to marry a baptized Christian in a civil ceremony and have it be a valid, sacramental marriage, aren’t you? All it requires is a dispensation from canonical form from the Bishop.

 

[kalwein]

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops can put a halt to your “wondering.” Please read their documents on homosexual “marriage” and homosexual “unions.” Their statements about why the Church is rightfully involved, and does need to be involved, are downloadable from their website. They are your moral leaders, who have definitive answers to your “I simply wonder” queries.

Thanks, I’ve read those documents. While that clears up the stance for Catholics, it does not clear up the legal stance. what the bishops define as marriage is NOT what the government is doing, or has been doing in a really long time, if ever. Given that definition, I don’t think that the government has actually been marrying people, as Catholics understand it, in quite some time. I’m talking male-female marriage here. By the given definition of marriage, the government is simply not doing that. The discrepancy is large enough that one can very reasonably say that what the government has always been doing simply does not fit the definition of marriage as defined by Catholics.

 

[TMC]

Thanks, I’ve read those documents. While that clears up the stance for Catholics, it does not clear up the legal stance. what the bishops define as marriage is NOT what the government is doing, or has been doing in a really long time, if ever. Given that definition, I don’t think that the government has actually been marrying people, as Catholics understand it, in quite some time. I’m talking male-female marriage here. By the given definition of marriage, the government is simply not doing that. The discrepancy is large enough that one can very reasonably say that what the government has always been doing simply does not fit the definition of marriage as defined by Catholics.

I agree, except that I would say that civil marriage and Catholic sacramental marriage have never been the same thing in the US, and in most other countries. Catholics believe in getting civilly married coincident with their sacramental marriage, so at best Catholic marriages are a small sub-set of civil marriage. The vast majority of civil marriages are not recognized as marriages by the Church, and a great many of them (if not most) could not qualify to be a marriage in the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Thanks, I’ve read those documents. While that clears up the stance for Catholics, it does not clear up the legal stance. what the bishops define as marriage is NOT what the government is doing, or has been doing in a really long time, if ever.

The Bishops have defined for you what your responsibility is as a Catholic: to inform your voting decisions according to the moral principles for which the Church, instituted by your Savior, stands.

Given that definition, I don’t think that the government has actually been marrying people, as Catholics understand it, in quite some time. I’m talking male-female marriage here…

Wow. Where have you been? What, pray tell, do you believe a (secular) Justice of the Peace is? He is an agent of your local government.

 

[Phemie]

I agree, except that I would say that civil marriage and Catholic sacramental marriage have never been the same thing in the US, and in most other countries. Catholics believe in getting civilly married coincident with their sacramental marriage, so at best Catholic marriages are a small sub-set of civil marriage. The vast majority of civil marriages are not recognized as marriages by the Church, and a great many of them (if not most) could not qualify to be a marriage in the Church.

The vast majority??

 

[TMC]

The vast majority??

Yes, absolutely the vast majority. The Church does not recognize non-religous civil services as marriages and does not recognize the marriages of most other faiths. The majority of Amercians that are married are not married in Catholic sacramental marriages. Some of those marriages could theoretically be regularized in the Church, but many could not.

 

[Ender]

The vast majority of civil marriages are not recognized as marriages by the Church…

This cannot be true. The Church surely distinguishes between marriages that are valid in the Church and those that are not but she most definitely recognizes all of them as marriages.

The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. (CCC 1603)

Ender

 

[TMC]

This cannot be true. The Church surely distinguishes between marriages that are valid in the Church and those that are not but she most definitely recognizes all of them as marriages.

*The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, *some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. (CCC 1603)

Ender

If you are saying that the Church recognizes the state’s power to civilly marry individuals, and that colloquially Church officials would refer to those folks as “married”, I agree. But that is not the same as saying that the Church recognizes those individuals to be married in the Catholic (sacramental) sense of the word. The vast majority of civil marriages are not recognized as marriages in the Catholic Church. The Church’s rules on what it takes to qualify to be married, what it takes to get married and what it means to be married are all very different than the civil marriage laws.

 

[Phemie]

If you are saying that the Church recognizes the state’s power to civilly marry individuals, and that colloquially Church officials would refer to those folks as “married”, I agree. But that is not the same as saying that the Church recognizes those individuals to be married in the Catholic (sacramental) sense of the word. The vast majority of civil marriages are not recognized as marriages in the Catholic Church. The Church’s rules on what it takes to qualify to be married, what it takes to get married and what it means to be married are all very different than the civil marriage laws.

You’re making up your own rules here. The Catholic Church presumes that the civil marriage of non-Catholics (or their religious marriage in a Church other than Catholic) is valid, unless there was an obvious impediment such as a previous marriage or close kinship. If both are baptized, those marriages are sacramental.

With a dispensation from canonical form, a Catholic can contract a civil marriage to a baptized Christian and it is considered valid and sacramental.

 

[Ender]

If you are saying that the Church recognizes the state’s power to civilly marry individuals, and that colloquially Church officials would refer to those folks as “married”, I agree. But that is not the same as saying that the Church recognizes those individuals to be married in the Catholic (sacramental) sense of the word.

It is a truism to say the Church recognizes that marriages outside of the Church lack the sacramental sense of marriages within the Church, but that is a long way from saying she doesn’t recognize them as marriages in the common sense of the word. She would no more hold that position than claim Lutherans and Baptists are not Christian because they lack the fullness of understanding that the Catholic Church offers. Marriage pre-existed the Church - or are you suggesting the Church believes that Joseph and Mary were not validly married?

Ender

 

[Phemie]

It is a truism to say the Church recognizes that marriages outside of the Church lack the sacramental sense of marriages within the Church, but that is a long way from saying she doesn’t recognize them as marriages in the common sense of the word. She would no more hold that position than claim Lutherans and Baptists are not Christian because they lack the fullness of understanding that the Catholic Church offers. Marriage pre-existed the Church - or are you suggesting the Church believes that Joseph and Mary were not validly married?

Ender

The Church teaches that the valid marriage of any 2 baptized persons is a sacrament, regardless of where it took place.

 

[Eugenius]

Homosexuals seeking “gay marriage” are trying to just take only the good things from the Church while constantly screaming that the Church “hates” them.

I’m curious, exactly which “good things” do you think homosexuals are trying to “take” from the church when the rights that come with marriage are granted by the state? Secular, not religious.

Catholics seem to be more concerned about preventing people from acquiring secular financial and social rights (survivorship, inheritance, hospital visitation, etc.) than they are really protecting religious Holy Matrimony. The Church donates large sums of money to overturn gay legislation, but what is it doing to overturn no-fault divorce that affects 50% of our marriages? The Church is disappointingly silent on this issue at a national political level.

Not long ago women couldn’t own property or have credit in their names. If the church advocated for a return to this type of “traditional” marriage, homosexuals wouldn’t want to be married. Problem solved! Of course I am joking about this last part, but I think you see my point. For a long time Society has been changing what it means to be married to the point where secular entitlements and religious Holiness are confused. Unfortunately the Church does nothing to clarify the difference.

 

[razredge]

If society wants to legislate gay marriage, then i’m ok with it as long as they also allow people to marry their cousins or have more than one wife/husband.

I mean if society wants to get rid of our taboos on relationships - it should be fair about - I mean i’m sure there are a lot more Muslims and Mormons than homosexuals, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice polygamy if they want to?

Rejecting other ‘non-traditional’ forms of marriage but calling for same-sex marriage is just special pleading.

People also seem to forget that fair does not mean equal.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

razr

I mean if society wants to get rid of our taboos on relationships - it should be fair about - I mean i’m sure there are a lot more Muslims and Mormons than homosexuals, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice polygamy if they want to?

I agree!

Brothers and sisters should also be allowed to get married. Also mothers and sons, fathers and daughters.

If we are going to get silly, we might as well get silly all the way.

Then, of course, it will come time to break the last taboo: sex with children.

NAMBLA is already paving the way.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Man/Boy_Love_Association

 

[Soldier_Of_God]

If society wants to legislate gay marriage, then i’m ok with it as long as they also allow people to marry their cousins or have more than one wife/husband.

I mean if society wants to get rid of our taboos on relationships - it should be fair about - I mean i’m sure there are a lot more Muslims and Mormons than homosexuals, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice polygamy if they want to?

Rejecting other ‘non-traditional’ forms of marriage but calling for same-sex marriage is just special pleading.

People also seem to forget that fair does not mean equal.

Yes, I would agree. It seems gay marriage arguments stems from polemics rather than outright fairness in practicing marital rights. Polygamy has a far greater degree of historical credence and acceptance. Even incest has more credibility in that regard than homosexual marriage.

Note: I’m not advocating any of the above marriage arrangements!

 

[benidict]

Yes, I would agree. It seems gay marriage arguments stems from polemics rather than outright fairness in practicing marital rights. Polygamy has a far greater degree of historical credence and acceptance. Even incest has more credibility in that regard than homosexual marriage.

Note: I’m not advocating any of the above marriage arrangements!

Good point. Wasnt Lot considered righteous? You think they would have at least taken a walk to see if there were any other people around! Goodness! Also, wasnt Sarah a close relative of Abraham? I can see why God had to clarify some things in the law of Moses. things were pretty controversial back then too.


Oh and for the record, Im not advocating these either. I do however believe that Homosexuals DO have a constitutional right to join in civil unions. This leaves the Church out of it, and They are able to have a say in their partners health care and such. Marriage is a Religious sacrement. By civil unions we protect our Church and The Homosexual community. Our Priest should NEVER be forced by law to perform such unions. that would be a violation of OUR religious rights.

 

[John21652]

If society wants to legislate gay marriage, then i’m ok with it as long as they also allow people to marry their cousins or have more than one wife/husband.

I mean if society wants to get rid of our taboos on relationships - it should be fair about - I mean i’m sure there are a lot more Muslims and Mormons than homosexuals, so why shouldn’t they be allowed to practice polygamy if they want to?

Rejecting other ‘non-traditional’ forms of marriage but calling for same-sex marriage is just special pleading.

People also seem to forget that fair does not mean equal.

Indeed, well said.

I have argued here before that the homosexual lobby wants special privelidges and that they are actually wishing for more than non-discrimination. I have argued that if homosexuals are able to marry, then I should be free to marry one of my dogs. Alas, I am being discriminated against. You’ve given me the confidence to demand that I can marry all my dogs.