Civil Marriage in itself Sinful?

[Warrior1979]

Catholics who get married in a civil-only ceremony are not committing a morally neutral act. It’s a morally evil act. That’s the piece of the puzzle that you’re still missing.

I actually understand it quite well. The issue I have with many of these rules (doctrine, dogma, etc.) is that the aren’t specific enough.

For example, if the Church stated the following, I would actually understand the position:

“Catholics who get married in a civil-only ceremony, including those for which an inability to consummate the marriage exists, even for the benefit of raising children, are committing a morally evil act.”

The Church actually reads and states things in a very legalistic manner. But so do I.

 

[EasterJoy]

Expanding the definition of “household”? Sure.

Yes, in effect: That.

 

[FrDavid96]

I actually understand it quite well. The issue I have with many of these rules (doctrine, dogma, etc.) is that the aren’t specific enough.

For example, if the Church stated the following, I would actually understand the position:

“Catholics who get married in a civil-only ceremony, including those for which an inability to consummate the marriage exists, even for the benefit of raising children, are committing a morally evil act.”

The Church actually reads and states things in a very legalistic manner. But so do I.

That’s not what you said in your earlier post:

I’m curious as to why the principle of double-effect does not apply …

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. …

As I read the posts, you first said that the act was morally neutral, or even good. Then you say that you understand it quite well. There is a disconnect. That’s why I was trying to explain (in answer to your earlier question) just why “double effect” doesn’t apply here.

On the other hand, if the question is changing to “why should we see the civil-only marriage as morally evil rather than good or neutral?” We go back to Familiaris Consortio which I quoted earlier.

Here it is again:

1. 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.

That’s about as clear as it gets. When Catholics engage in a civil-only marriage it is “not acceptable to the Church” That means that we eliminate “morally good” and eliminate “morally neutral.” The only option left is “morally wrong”

 

[FrDavid96]

Yes, in effect: That.

OK. But please understand that the state expanding the definition of “household” to include households other-than-marriages, and this being supported (or at least tolerated) by the Church, is one thing. While saying that a Catholic (or 2 Catholics) can find some acceptable reason to engage in a civil-only marriage based on that is quite another thing.

We cannot say that if A is true then B is true.

 

[Warrior1979]

Here it is again:

1. 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.

The above is clearly and authoritatively written for those that have the ability to contract a religious marriage, which is entirely different from those that can’t, which is the situation I brought.

I can see the Church taking the position that if one can’t contract a religious marriage in the first place, then civil marriage is forbidden. But I cringe thinking that civil marriage between homosexuals, close family members, etc. is the same as an impotent man and/or woman desiring to raise adopted children in a mother/father situation. It gives the appearance of primacy of sex over the needs of children.

I apologize if I across thick-headed with regard to this matter, but being an adoptive parent myself, I am extremely sensitive to the needs of “unwanted” children.

 

[FrDavid96]

The above is clearly and authoritatively written for those that have the ability to contract a religious marriage, which is entirely different from those that can’t, which is the situation I brought.

I can see the Church taking the position that if one can’t contract a religious marriage in the first place, then civil marriage is forbidden. But I cringe thinking that civil marriage between homosexuals, close family members, etc. is the same as an impotent man and/or woman desiring to raise adopted children in a mother/father situation. It gives the appearance of primacy of sex over the needs of children.

I apologize if I across thick-headed with regard to this matter, but being an adoptive parent myself, I am extremely sensitive to the needs of “unwanted” children.

You’re trying to draw a connection that simply isn’t there. The Church is by no means giving the appearance of primacy of sex over the needs of children. This line of reasoning is pure fallacy.

It does nothing to change the fact that 2 Catholics entering into a purely-civil marriage is an unacceptable situation. Nothing will change that. The fact that such a couple is ineligible for a valid, sacramental marriage does not, in any way, make it acceptable for the couple to contract a civil-only marriage.

The Church is not at all saying that a homosexual so-called-marriage is “the same as” a situation where the man is impotent (absolute & antecedent). See your 2nd paragraph above. There’s no such connection. The Church simply says that both situations are not valid marriages–not that they are in any way related to each other.

I assure you that the Church is VERY sensitive indeed to the needs of children. Nothing changes that either.

From the Church’s perspective, single people can still adopt children. However, just because a certain government (like China) puts limits on adoption, does not mean that the Church should change her position with regard to marriages only to allow adoptions which the state would otherwise reject. That line of reasoning simply makes no sense.

Should countries like China change their policies? That’s certainly debatable but it’s not germain to the topic at hand. It does not mean the Church should change her stance on what is morally right or wrong.

You’re trying to draw connections which simply aren’t there.