When it comes to the Church, it is also all about sex. If you don’t have the capability to have sex, then the Church, by default, prohibits these people from having families. The capability of having sex trumps the needs of the children in these cases.When offered this kind of solution in Oregon, *gay advocates did not want it! *It is approval for their sexual relationship that they want, a status equivalent to marriage, not a status that might be made available to any adults living together for mutual benefit.
I’m not talking about the fight against marriage. I’m referring to those Catholics that want to have families and are prohibited, by default, from having them.In other words, the fight being waged against marriage is not about fairness or support for “non-traditional” living arrangements that can benefit children. Don’t believe that. It is not true.
And to complete:Easter Joy has an very good post. I just present some rules:
Those that are not validly married are not to live together as husband and wife. (There is a problem of scandal given, not avoiding the occassion of sin for oneself or others, lustful desires that may occur, not being able to fulfill the covenant, etc.)
All Catholics are bound to be married with approval of the Church.
Those that are already and irreversibly impotent (man or woman) cannot be married, by divine law.
One who is validly married and later becomes impotent remains married.
Check out this linkI really don’t see how a civil marriage between sacramentally unmarried Christians could possibly be considered a “fraud” or any other sin, especially in the modern world where a civil marriage is an easily dissoluble union which may even be open to same-sex couples. God doesn’t care what legal contracts you make - He cares when you “become one flesh”.
Where did that come from? That people make legal contracts without caring how God might see the transaction does not imply that there is a sphere of life in which we can do whatever we like, and “God won’t care.”God doesn’t care what legal contracts you make - He cares when you “become one flesh”.
If that inability (physical or psychological) is preexisting and perpetual, yes, because it goes aganist divine law of what a marriage is: they cannot make a valid covenant.And to complete:
Those that do not have the capability of having sex are prohibited from from raising children in need in a father/mother relationship.
When faith causes the innocent so suffer, and that suffering is caused by intellectual hyperbole, rather than some Christ said, that is beyond where my faith can go. There is something inherently offensive about it, and for most people it cannot be trained out of them.If that inability (physical or psychological) is preexisting and perpetual, yes, because it goes aganist divine law of what a marriage is: they cannot make a valid covenant.
The Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit unmarried people from raising children. Convents and monasteries have run orphanages for centuries.When it comes to the Church, it is also all about sex. If you don’t have the capability to have sex, then the Church, by default, prohibits these people from having families. The capability of having sex trumps the needs of the children in these cases.
I’m not talking about the fight against marriage. I’m referring to those Catholics that want to have families and are prohibited, by default, from having them.
It’s not prohibited, nor is it ideal.The Catholic Church doesn’t prohibit unmarried people from raising children. Convents and monasteries have run orphanages for centuries.
This would be a place–that is, legal provision for mutual care by adults who cannot marry each other–where the Church finds a legitimate use for civil unions. In fact, the condition the Church places on legitimate civil unions is that these do not imply a sexual relationship: that is, for instance, that it would be open to siblings or two other adults who cannot have a sexual relationship. I don’t know how that fits into Church teaching with regards to avoiding a scandal or a near occasion of sin (that is, with regards to sex outside the marital act), but I would guess that would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.It’s not prohibited, nor is it ideal.
But you have made an interesting point. Raising children is not about having sex. My issue is with disallowing a man and a woman from raising a child in a mother father relationship solely because they can’t have sex. In this case, the needs of the child are placed secondary to sex. A civil marriage could easily take care of this situation.
No.This would be a place–that is, legal provision for mutual care by adults who cannot marry each other–where the Church finds a legitimate use for civil unions. In fact, the condition the Church places on legitimate civil unions is that these do not imply a sexual relationship: that is, for instance, that it would be open to siblings or two other adults who cannot have a sexual relationship. I don’t know how that fits into Church teaching with regards to avoiding a scandal or a near occasion of sin (that is, with regards to sex outside the marital act), but I would guess that would need to be addressed on a case-by-case basis.
No, I don’t mean civil marriages. I mean civil unions. On the West Coast, at least, that is a term for a legal union that is NOT a marriage but that confers some of the benefits of marriage, such as automatic inheritance, medical power of attorney, access to mutual medical and state retirement benefits, and so on.No.
The Church sees no “legitimate use for civil unions” (I’m speaking here about purely civil marriages between 2 Catholics).
I don’t know what the source for your information might be, but it’s certainly not the teaching of the Church.
See Familiaris Consortio
c) Catholics in Civil Marriages
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html
- There are increasing cases of Catholics who for ideological or practical reasons, prefer to contract a merely civil marriage, and who reject or at least defer religious marriage. Their situation cannot of course be likened to that of people simply living together without any bond at all, because in the present case there is at least a certain commitment to a properly-defined and probably stable state of life, even though the possibility of a future divorce is often present in the minds of those entering a civil marriage. By seeking public recognition of their bond on the part of the State, such couples show that they are ready to accept not only its advantages but also its obligations. Nevertheless, not even this situation is acceptable to the Church.
OK. I see what you’re getting at.No, I don’t mean civil marriages. I mean civil unions. On the West Coast, at least, that is a term for a legal union that is NOT a marriage but that confers some of the benefits of marriage, such as automatic inheritance, medical power of attorney, access to mutual medical and state retirement benefits, and so on.
When homosexual rights activists were lobbying for civil unions for homosexuals in Oregon, based on the argument that adults who could not marry were being denied legitimate opportunity for mutual care, the Archdiocese of Portland opined that the Church would not be opposed to making such legal arrangments available provided that no sexual relationship was implied. In other words, the Church would only accept civil unions if these were legally be open to family members too closely related to enter into marriage (as an example) and if the unions did not explicitly or implicitly include any right to sexual consort or require a sexual relationship. The civil unions, in other words, had to be reserved for people who were NOT free to marry each other but who could legitimately be in a relationship of mutual care.
What I don’t know is whether this meant that the Church is unopposed to such a civil contract between heterosexual couples who could not enter into a valid civil marriage because they were incapable of sexual consort. (I don’t know if the State of Oregon even considers lack of consumation grounds for an annulment. Not all states do.)
I’m curious as to why the principle of double-effect does not apply in the specific example I cited. Let’s say an impotent man wants to adopt a child from China. Currently, only married people can adopt from that country. The impotent man obtains a civil marriage with a woman in order to adopt this child.The bottom line though is that the Church is opposed to 2 Catholics entering into a civil marriage by itself, unless that marriage is also a sacrament. The reasons behind it don’t make a difference; so there is “no excuse” for 2 Catholics to enter into a civil-only marriage or a civil union. It’s unacceptable no matter what the reasoning or justification.
In the principle of double-effect, one cannot intentionally commit an evil act just to bring about a good end. It has to be unintended even though it’s foreseen.I’m curious as to why the principle of double-effect does not apply in the specific example I cited. Let’s say an impotent man wants to adopt a child from China. Currently, only married people can adopt from that country. The impotent man obtains a civil marriage with a woman in order to adopt this child.
The act, intention, effect, etc. are all morally good. The means, i.e., obtaining the civil marriage, is neutral, at least the way I see it. In fact, I’d argue that it is more morally neutral than, say, using birth control pills for medicinal purposes if one believes they are abortifacient.
Where is my logic incorrect?
Respectfully,
Again, that’s just not the case.For clarification, I did not mean the act of obtaining a civil marriage was morally good, but rather morally neutral; the act of adopting is morally good. I’m viewing the civil marriage simply as part of the legal matter necessary to perform the adoption. Naturally, the Church wouldn’t recognize it as a marriage, but neither would the couple be fornicating since that is not physically possible.
If memory serves, what the Church was saying is that there exists a legitimate need for adults to be able to care for each other, especially considering the difficulty in obtaining affordable health care and retirement benefits, and that the good to be achieved by making cooperative legal arrangements available where they are legitimately needed by those who cannot marry outweighs the obvious danger that someone is going to misuse the law in order to obtain the benefits of marriage for inappropriate sexual arrangements.OK. I see what you’re getting at.
What the diocese was saying was that they would not “oppose” the passage of those laws which created legal, quasi-marriages. That’s not at all to say that the Church accepted those arrangements. In other words, it was a political compromise. I’m sure that given the option, the Church would have said an absolute “no” to any kind of “civil union” but the political climate did not leave that option open.
To put it another way: The Church is opposed to so-called “civil unions” on moral grounds. That much is an absolute. HOWEVER as a matter of politics the Church will “not oppose” the laws that allow these to be recognized by the state because they know that if they try, they’ll likely loose the legal battle in the courts.
The bottom line though is that the Church is opposed to 2 Catholics entering into a civil marriage by itself, unless that marriage is also a sacrament. The reasons behind it don’t make a difference; so there is “no excuse” for 2 Catholics to enter into a civil-only marriage or a civil union. It’s unacceptable no matter what the reasoning or justification.
I rather doubt the Church would have said that. There are just too many problems with what I read above. The Church would never support any kind of quasi-marriage situation, no matter what the motivation. Expanding the definition of “household”? Sure. But a situation that mimics marriage is always a falsehood and always to be condemned.If memory serves, what the Church was saying is that there exists a legitimate need for adults to be able to care for each other, especially considering the difficulty in obtaining affordable health care and retirement benefits, and that the good to be achieved by making cooperative legal arrangements available where they are legitimately needed by those who cannot marry outweighs the obvious danger that someone is going to misuse the law in order to obtain the benefits of marriage for inappropriate sexual arrangements.
In other words, the gay marriage lobby was saying, “This situation exists, and it isn’t right” and the Church said, “You’re right, but the problem isn’t that homosexuals can’t marry. The legitimate problem is the barriers to mutual care posed to all who can’t marry. That, we can agree with you about. Let’s address that.”
But yes: These were arrangements that would be specifically be for those excluded from marrying each other. (This is not what Oregon’s domestic partnership law wound up being, however. It has the same requirements as for marriage, excepting that the parties must be of the same sex. The Church was adamantly opposed to it, but it passed, anyway.)