1
1Evangeliser123
Guest
Is it permisable to for 2 heterosexual men or women to “Marry” solely for financial reasons (inheritance tax).
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
Tulitas
Guest
No. A lie is a lie is a lie.
C
Cruciferi
Guest
A scandalous lie at that!
P
Princess
Guest
Would be null, no?
A
Arkansan
Guest
No. Such an action is a sacrilege.
L
lilypadrees
Guest
No. Absolutely NOT.
G
guanophore
Guest
There are probably other legal alternatives, but since civil marriage does not require “consummation”, it is possible that such a legal arrangement could be made that did not involve any physical participation in sinful behavior.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Sacrilege is a sin, independent of sexual vice.
G
guanophore
Guest
I am not sure that is relevant here, tho I agree with you. I did not think we were talking about a sacrament, but a civil union. The Church teaches that there is no such thing as a “gay marriage”, since two people of the same sex cannot “marry”. So one would properly assume that the participants are not Catholics in good standing with the Church, so where is the sacrilege?Sacrilege is a sin, independent of sexual vice.
If two people of the same sex engage in a civil union for financial reasons, how is that a sacrilege?
H
heidi_storage
Guest
It’d be a fraudulent marriage; government officials don’t look kindly on fake marriages contracted for benefits. Hard to see how God would approve such a thing. What kind of witness would this be to the world?
A
Arkansan
Guest
The simulation of a sacrament is sacrilege. Just like taking “communion” in a Protestant service, just because you don’t believe it’s real doesn’t excuse participating in a fake sacrament.
The sacramentality of marriage does not depend on whether the parties are Catholics in good standing.
The sacramentality of marriage does not depend on whether the parties are Catholics in good standing.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, since we don’t know if the persons are Catholic (I am assuming they are not, since the CC does not recognize that “marriage” is possible between two persons of the same sex) it is more likely a civil matter. A civil marriage is not a sacrilege, especially when it involves non - catholics or non-believers.The simulation of a sacrament is sacrilege. Just like taking “communion” in a Protestant service, just because you don’t believe it’s real doesn’t excuse participating in a fake sacrament.
The sacramentality of marriage does not depend on whether the parties are Catholics in good standing.
I am confused about your statement that the sacramentality of marriage does not depend upon the disposition of the participants.
Are you saying that all people who enter into a marriage contract in front of a person who is civilly authorized to preide over their marriage are committing a sacrilege?
A
Arkansan
Guest
I’m saying that all people who willfully enter simulate the sacrament of marriage (or any other sacrament) commit sacrilege. If a man and a woman enter a valid marriage in the presence of a civil official (which non-Catholics usually can), that is a marriage, and if they are both baptized, a sacrament. If two people pretend to enter marriage, that’s sacrilege.
There’s no such thing as “civil marriage”. A marriage can be sacramental or natural (depending on whether the spouses are baptized or not), or it can be invalid. Who the witnesses are doesn’t matter, unless it affects the validity of the marriage.
There’s no such thing as “civil marriage”. A marriage can be sacramental or natural (depending on whether the spouses are baptized or not), or it can be invalid. Who the witnesses are doesn’t matter, unless it affects the validity of the marriage.
G
guanophore
Guest
Well, that is the point, is it not? These people do not believe in the sacrament of marriage, do not know what it is, and are not attempting to “simulate” it.I’m saying that all people who willfully enter simulate the sacrament of marriage (or any other sacrament) commit sacrilege.
A civil union in front of a justice of the peace or any other non-Catholic official is NOT a sacramental marriage. Such a marriage is presumed valid if the persons are baptized Christians.If a man and a woman enter a valid marriage in the presence of a civil official (which non-Catholics usually can), that is a marriage, and if they are both baptized, a sacrament. If two people pretend to enter marriage, that’s sacrilege.
The others are not “pretending to enter marriage”. They believe they are legally joined in a civil union.
Ok, a “natural marriage”, then, but it is not sacramental. If a couple elopes and goes to Las Vegas to get married, they may meet the legal requirements that have been defined for civil marriage.There’s no such thing as “civil marriage”. A marriage can be sacramental or natural (depending on whether the spouses are baptized or not), or it can be invalid. Who the witnesses are doesn’t matter, unless it affects the validity of the marriage.
It is not religious, and the people participating don’t have any spiritual or sacramental intentions.
A
Arkansan
Guest
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.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Any valid marriage contracted between two baptized people is a sacrament, whether they’re aware of it or not.
The OP asked a question about whether or not a specific type of action is objectively licit. Whether two hypothetical individuals are subjectively culpable for their hypothetical actions has nothing to do with anything.
§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Any valid marriage contracted between two baptized people is a sacrament, whether they’re aware of it or not.
The OP asked a question about whether or not a specific type of action is objectively licit. Whether two hypothetical individuals are subjectively culpable for their hypothetical actions has nothing to do with anything.
G
guanophore
Guest
it seems we are understanding this differently. First of all, Canon law applies to Catholics. Secondly, the topic is about “gay marriage” (which I think we will agree cannot exist). A “gay” union (while allowed civilly (legally) cannot be sacramental because it is not validly contracted. Sacraments require proper form and substance. For example, a proper Eucharist must begin with bread and wine, not grape juice and crackers. Proper baptism would involve water (generally). The valid materials for a sacramental marriage are a man and a woman, therefore, the persons cited in the thread title do not fall under this category.§2. For this reason, a valid matrimonial contract cannot exist between the baptized without it being by that fact a sacrament.
Any valid marriage contracted between two baptized people is a sacrament, whether they’re aware of it or not.
As for the other references I made (non-baptized persons entering a civil marriage) this does not apply to them either. We must face facts, there are “legal” (civil) unions occurring that are not sacramental.
"Real sacrilege is the irreverent treatment of sacred things as distinguished from places and persons. This can happen first of all by the administration or reception of the sacraments (or in the case of the Holy Eucharist by celebration) in the state of mortal sin, as also by advertently doing any of those things invalidly. Indeed deliberate and notable irreverence towards the Holy Eucharist is reputed the worst of all sacrileges… Sometimes the guilt of sacrilege may be incurred by omitting what is required for the proper administration of the sacraments or celebration of the sacrifice, as for example, if one were to say Mass without the sacred vestments.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13321a.htm
I think what you are trying to say is that these people who are entering “gay marriage” are committing a sarilege because they are omitting the required proper administration and celebration of the sacrament. I don’t see how this term can be applied to persons who are outside the family of faith.
A
Arkansan
Guest
Whether or not a sacrament is invalid doesn’t depend on whether or not a person is a Catholic. This isn’t that complicated.
G
guanophore
Guest
Then I guess we are in agreement that a sacramental union is not possible between persons of the same sex?Whether or not a sacrament is invalid doesn’t depend on whether or not a person is a Catholic. This isn’t that complicated.
Where we may not be in agreement is that this behavior/ceremony meets the criteria to be “sacriligious”. Can people commit sacrilgee who do not know or understand the sanctity of marriage?
N
NiceIsAsNiceDoes
Guest
“It is not religious, and the people participating don’t have any spiritual or sacramental intentions.”
Careful with that. Plenty of those who are civilly married so do with spiritual intentions. Just not Catholic ones.
Careful with that. Plenty of those who are civilly married so do with spiritual intentions. Just not Catholic ones.
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, ilt is true. In fact, I know some Catholics who have done this also. I think for a baptized Catholic it would be a sacrilege, though the two people I have in mind were very poorly churched and catechized, and I think honestly don’t know any better.Plenty of those who are civilly married so do with spiritual intentions. Just not Catholic ones.
The OP has a “double whammy”. One is “gay marriag”(which is not possible) and the other “for financial reasons”, as a motive for marriage quite inappropriate.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.