The Church does recognize civil marriages except in the case one or both were Catholic and married outside the Church without dispensation. But even that could be regularized whereas a s/s one could not be.
I stand corrected - I’m not sure where I had my understanding from. I vaguely remember some priest saying something of the sort, but it could be he simply meant it is not recognized if one or both parties is Catholic. I also know some baptized couples who were married in a civil ceremony and later converted were asked to convalidate their marriage, though I don’t know for what reason.
But still, the Church does definitely not approve of civil marriage, even if they are seen as valid - pp. Leo XIII’s reaction being one example.
What do you mean by love when you say about marrying about love instead of children? I can’t see how you could agree to those vows without loving something, if love means ordered to the good of the other. Has Walt Disney taken over our understanding of love?(…)
I mean what most people mean when they say “to marry out of love”. It is a marriage based most of all on intense feelings. Love, in the traditional sense, is a determination, not a feeling. Note that Scripture tells us to “love our spouse” (paraphrase, no time to look it up), not to “marry the one we love”. This is why the Church never frowned upon (on the contrary, She supported it!) the notion of arranged marriage, and there was never a requirement that the future spouses had to be “in love”. If they were, then great. If they weren’t, but love flourished as they got to know each other as husband and wife, then great. If that didn’t happen, they still had a
duty to love each other, in the meaning of being ordered to the good of the other, as you say. Of course, some couples today get married with the traditional determination to love each other, but it is
rare. Even among Catholics.
As for the cartoons, Walt Disney did not take over our understanding of love - he simply adopted the understanding we had already introduced. Of course more people subscribed to “traditional love” back then, but love had already been long since redefined. Modern media culture is a symptom, not a cause.
(…)Carle Zimmerman wrote a book(…)
I wasn’t aware of that book, thank you for the tip
I do think, though, that the destruction of marriage and family took a dramatic turn for the worse with the sexual revolution, which was enabled by the widespread acceptance of contraception(…)
I agree with this - it accelerated the development.
But I think the sexual revolution was close to unavoidable - it was simply a result of the hypocrisy of earlier generations, who combined traditional sexual morality with a watered-out understanding of love, and, to be honest, a certain amount of hypocrisy, loopholes and not living up to one’s often rather harsh ideals. And, as you say, contraception did absolutely play a role.
You say that your parents “married out of love like everyone else,” but note that they also “entered marriage with a determination to love each other until separated by death, not simply because they were “in love.”" This was once pretty much the norm. Now, people seem to see marrying “for love” as somehow opposed to lifelong commitment. But(…)
Indeed, it was once the norm. But not at the time my parents became married - a bit depending on location. The area my father comes from was more traditional (I can’t even count my second cousins, I gave up when I came to 50), and the divorce rate is also a lot lower in that generation. Sadly, it has “normalized” since then.
As to civil marriage, the Church actually does recognize most civil marriages—at least among non-Catholics who are not bound by Church law. It really treats all marriages as valid until proven otherwise. It takes an interest in civil marriage because civil marriage affects all of society. It may also affect our own religious liberty. In any case, all of this sexual dysfunction was begun chiefly by heterosexuals, as you and Joie de Vivre have noted, so blaming homosexuality for the results of the sexual revolution is sort of a reversal.
As above, I stand corrected regarding civil marriage.
I’ve heard the reasons for opposing same-sex unions you cite above before, I’m just not sure I agree. Gay unions don’t really affect society - they’re simply a sign that society already accepts them. As for religious liberty, my only worry is if lawmakers try to force religious groups to perform such ceremonies, but this can be easily solved by simply renouncing the authority to witness legal marriages. This is already the situation in Holland - people sort their legal business in court, and are married sacramentally in the Church. It works well (not that Holland is an ideal on other matters, though…). No ties to the State also means no meddling from the State. I think we are witnessing the completion of separation of State and Church, and I think this is good - the Church should not take on positions that effectively make Her a representative of a secular state, which is exactly what happens when legal marriages are witnessed by the Church.
I’m glad you agree regarding where to place the “blame” - I think many LGB people are very aware of this, and see people who try to blame them for the status of the family as hypocrites.
I tend to agree that we may not be able to go back without a societal collapse. Zimmerman predicts pretty much the same thing in his 1940’s book.
The thing I’m wondering is whether such a collapse will ever occur - sometimes, I think it will, sometimes, I don’t. As I said, though, I think that if it happens, it’ll rather be caused by abortion, which is far more serious than any amount of non-standard sexual relationships and unions.
