R
Realist
Guest
So heterosexual, married couples without children and who ultimately don’t procreate aren’t really married either?
- Status
M
markomalley
Guest
If they don’t intend to procreate then no they aren’t.
(In fact, the intent to not procreate is a valid reason to have a marriage declared invalid)
Can. 1101 §1. The internal consent of the mind is presumed to conform to the words and signs used in celebrating the marriage.
§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
Canon 1055 says;§2. If, however, either or both of the parties by a positive act of the will exclude marriage itself, some essential element of marriage, or some essential property of marriage, the party contracts invalidly.
Can. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament between the baptized.
Therefore, the procreation and education of offspring is an essential good of marriage.
The New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law has the following to say (page 1315):
Whether a particular marriage gives rise to children is, in some measure, beyond the control of the spouses. the failure to have children, whether because of the sterility of the parties or because of their conscious intention, does not in itself invalidate consent, but exclusion of the right to potentially conjugal acts by a positive act of the will is invalidating. Exclusion of marriage’s ordination to the procreation and education of offspring occurs when a spouse reserves to himself or herself the right to determine whether, when, and under what circumstances conjugal relations will be open to the procreation of children. Thus, the good of offspring is excluded when:
*]The right to acts per se apt for the generation of children is excluded absolutely;
*]The right to such acts is limited, even for a time;
*]The exclusion of the right, even for a time, is made a condition of marriage;
*]the exclusion of the right is implicit in the exclusion of children from the marriage;
*]the right to conjugal acts is limited to contraceptive acts only, or to conjugal acts during the "safe time."
The point is that homosexual partnerships simulating marriage cannot, by their very definition, have that procreative capability. Technology might allow a counterfeit, particularly between two female homosexuals, but it will only ever be a counterfeit.
R
Realist
Guest
Counterfeit like all those couples with sterile men or the couples that adopt.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Realist
*So heterosexual, married couples without children and who ultimately don’t procreate aren’t really married either? *
Whether children are born or not, the relationship is sacramental. It is blessed by God. God does not bless homosexuality. Sodom & Gomorrha. God told the people following his will to leave and never look back. Hardly an endorsement.
Paul also makes clear the loathesome nature of the homosexual act.
Romans 1:26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
*So heterosexual, married couples without children and who ultimately don’t procreate aren’t really married either? *
Whether children are born or not, the relationship is sacramental. It is blessed by God. God does not bless homosexuality. Sodom & Gomorrha. God told the people following his will to leave and never look back. Hardly an endorsement.
Paul also makes clear the loathesome nature of the homosexual act.
Romans 1:26-27 “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
M
markomalley
Guest
First of all, if a couple lives their lives in accord with the teachings of Christ, there is no way that they would have knowledge beforehand that the male is sterile (because they would both be virgins at the time they were married). They would only be able to find this fact out after a period of time when they weren’t capable of having children, despite repeated attempts to do so. Despite the inability, they still perform the procreative conjugal act with a full openness to having children. Homosexuals are, by their anatomy, unable to perform the procreative conjugal act. Since this is a family forum, that is about as detailed a description as I think is appropriate to provide here.
Next, If a heterosexual couple are unable to perform the procreative conjugal act, due to impotence in either partner, then they are not in a valid marriage.
Further, if either party knows that he/she is unable to have children and does not disclose that fact beforehand, they are not in a valid marriage.
M
mangy_dog
Guest
Those are purely [civilian] or civil [marriages] sanctioned by the state, not the church and definitely not by God’s law.
This is more of the “we don’t need God’s law” mentality.
R
rossum
Guest
Just as all those divorced and remarried couples are married under state law but not recognised by the Catholic Church.
There are many different rules about marriage, which do not always match. A Muslim man can marry four wives in his mosque but only one in the courthouse. Gay marriage, where it exists, is similar. Adam can marry Steve in some courthouses and in the MCC church but not in the mosque or in the Catholic church.
Gay marriage is just a new variant of the existing situation.
As with remarrying divorcees I do not see the Catholic Church accepting it, but I do see the Church putting less emphasis on it in future than it does now.
rossum
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
Sorry, but I must say “baloney” to your comment. When you apply for a marriage license, there is a place for a man’s name and a place for the woman’s name. If the names are of the same gender, then it is a “gay” marriage that the couple is asking for.
Since the beginning of recorded time, marriage has always been between one man and one woman. While two-of-a-kind may be okay when you are playing poker, it is NOT okay for a real marriage!
And by the way, there ARE laws prohibiting two people of the same gender from marrying. For proof, where is it legal for two sisters or two brothers to marry one another?
M
mangy_dog
Guest
The simple answer is “no”.
Not in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now…if in the future there is a schism and the heretic splinter faction decides to elect their own [anti]-pope - then possibly they will choose to come on line with the “modern society”.
But the true Catholic Church will not.
Not in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
Now…if in the future there is a schism and the heretic splinter faction decides to elect their own [anti]-pope - then possibly they will choose to come on line with the “modern society”.
But the true Catholic Church will not.
R
ralphy
Guest
The RCC may eventually accept “gay marriages”, but God never will, and it’s Him that we must answer to. Amen
R
rossum
Guest
How many wives did Abraham have? How many wives did Jacob have? How many wives did Solomon have? How many wives are Moslems allowed?
Your use of the word “always” here is incorrect.
rossum
S
Sailor_Kenshin
Guest
There is nothing ‘gay’ about homosexuality, and I object to the use of the term.
It is a heavy cross to bear, but in this war of words, when the slaughter of the unborn is called ‘choice,’ and euthanasia is called ‘health care,’ the other side is apparently winning.
It is a heavy cross to bear, but in this war of words, when the slaughter of the unborn is called ‘choice,’ and euthanasia is called ‘health care,’ the other side is apparently winning.
K
Katrinka_Yobotz
Guest
No, the Catholic Church will never accept homosexual “marriage”. I do, however, see a crisis on the horizon.
The Church has always been the primary obstacle to the godless spread of licentiousness and sin, and this is especially true today. The push for homosexual “marriage” isn’t about individuals, it’s about spreading homosexuality and advancing their greater agenda.
As already pointed out here, when laws required homosexual adoptions, Catholic organizations ceased all adoptions. When laws required employee benefits to homosexual “partners”, the DC Archdiocese ceased all spousal benefits. When laws require all churches to perform homosexual “marriages”, the Church will obviously not cease performing all matrimony. I pray that our shepherds are prepared for this inevitable challenge to the Church.
The Church has always been the primary obstacle to the godless spread of licentiousness and sin, and this is especially true today. The push for homosexual “marriage” isn’t about individuals, it’s about spreading homosexuality and advancing their greater agenda.
As already pointed out here, when laws required homosexual adoptions, Catholic organizations ceased all adoptions. When laws required employee benefits to homosexual “partners”, the DC Archdiocese ceased all spousal benefits. When laws require all churches to perform homosexual “marriages”, the Church will obviously not cease performing all matrimony. I pray that our shepherds are prepared for this inevitable challenge to the Church.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
Katrinka
*When laws require all churches to perform homosexual “marriages”, the Church will obviously not cease performing all matrimony. I pray that our shepherds are prepared for this inevitable challenge to the Church. *
If and when that day comes, there are now five Catholics on the Supreme Court. Still no guarantee. One of the Justices who voted for Roe v Wade was a Catholic!
*When laws require all churches to perform homosexual “marriages”, the Church will obviously not cease performing all matrimony. I pray that our shepherds are prepared for this inevitable challenge to the Church. *
If and when that day comes, there are now five Catholics on the Supreme Court. Still no guarantee. One of the Justices who voted for Roe v Wade was a Catholic!
C
catharina
Guest
Will the Church ever accept marriage between homosexuals?
NO.
NO.
P
PastGrandKnight
Guest
Abraham, Jacob (Israel) and Solomon predated Moses, if my memory is correct. It was Moses to whom the Law was given by God. God did not engrave the stone tablets to Abraham or anyone else who came before Moses.
As far as I’m concerned, “recorded time” began with the giving of The Law. You wish to disagree? Go right ahead. When we all receive our eternal reward, we shall then KNOW exactly what God wants. Remember that what man wants is unimportant. All that really matters is what God sets down as laws for mankind to obey.
You may disagree, but God has the last word, and I’ll accept that over anyone else’s word!
Have a nice day.
S
sgt1133
Guest
The Truth is still the Truth even if no one believes it. And a lie is still a lie even if everyone believes it.(Fulton Sheen)
Jesus speaks His Truth through his Vicar and the Magisterium. The teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals are infallible. Christ, through his Church, teaches that the practice of homosexuality is a “grievous and mortal sin”. Pope Benedict, in his 2008 Christmas message, stated that if we ignore the “language of creation” and fail to respect God created role between a man and a woman, we would witness the “auto destruction of mankind”.
Pope John Paul II stated that the “inclination” towards homosexuality is an “objective disorder”, and that it’s practice is an “intrinsic moral evil”. In a directive to American bishops, he declared that homosexual marriage will have a “negative impact on the family and society” and that the “practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people.”
The teachings of Christ and His Church are stalwart and clear, and have been for two thousand years. The Church will never “change its mind” regarding homosexual marriage, and anyone who thinks otherwise understands nothing about the Catholic Church.
Jesus speaks His Truth through his Vicar and the Magisterium. The teachings of the Church regarding faith and morals are infallible. Christ, through his Church, teaches that the practice of homosexuality is a “grievous and mortal sin”. Pope Benedict, in his 2008 Christmas message, stated that if we ignore the “language of creation” and fail to respect God created role between a man and a woman, we would witness the “auto destruction of mankind”.
Pope John Paul II stated that the “inclination” towards homosexuality is an “objective disorder”, and that it’s practice is an “intrinsic moral evil”. In a directive to American bishops, he declared that homosexual marriage will have a “negative impact on the family and society” and that the “practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people.”
The teachings of Christ and His Church are stalwart and clear, and have been for two thousand years. The Church will never “change its mind” regarding homosexual marriage, and anyone who thinks otherwise understands nothing about the Catholic Church.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
My point on the fertility issue is that if infertile heterosexual couples are having sex that is “open to children,” then the phrase “open to children” is meaningless and homosexuals could claim that they too are “open to children.” Either way, the only way anyone could believe infertile heterosexual couples or homosexual couples are “open to children” is by a total ignorance about how procreation happens. Since I doubt that this is the case, it’s all just rhetoric when infertile Catholic couples do it and I’m sure the homosexuals will be quite willing to use rhetoric themselves and say that they are “open to children” who come as a result of their homosexual sex acts.
J
JEANNIEMAC
Guest
Human beings have reproductive organs. Only males and females can truly “mate” with each other. There is a pleasure attached to the reproductive act to induce participation in the act., otherwise no one would be bothered. That being said, why would homosexuals feel a sexual attraction for a person of the same sex, when they cannot mate?
That which they do with each other is a bastardization of the reproductive act. Put simply, homosexuality is a dysfunctional condition.
That which they do with each other is a bastardization of the reproductive act. Put simply, homosexuality is a dysfunctional condition.
S
SugarMagnolia
Guest
Then the OP question: will the Church ever accept gay marriage?–is all there really is to it. The Church will not accept it, but society will. If everyone’s okay with that, then we may as well all just give up now. End of debate. But this isn’t all there is to it; this is a political issue! People are voting on it. What we’re talking about on this thread will really only affect gay Catholics. Our country is currently deciding whether the very definition of marriage will change and whether you will have to accept gay marriage everywhere in society except within the four walls of your church.
- Status