How to deal with dissent?

[CutlerB]

Hello there everyone!

Now that SCOTUS has given its ruling, it’s of course making the news, even here in Germany. The German Catholic Church’s official news site has of course also reported on the events. On Facebook, they posted the link to an article of theirs. I didn’t see any problem with the article itself, but in the comments section, dissent from Church teaching abounds. Germans love dissent.

One of the comments read, translated of course, like this:

“Oh, how nice it would be if the hierarchy could finally distinguish between civil and sacramental marriage. And if they understood that sacramental marriage is not the norm, but rather the optimum, to which one must be called just as one must be called to Holy Orders or to be a consecrated religious.”

To me, that sounds judgemental and dissenting. First question: Do you read it that way?

So, I posted a comment saying that we should leave the understanding of sacramental marriage to those to whom it has been entrusted, namely the bishops.

Another comment, from a different person, promptly followed:

The first comment is logical in itself and can’t be disputed even by Natural Law. Whether bishops are the persons to ask on civil unions… I shall leave that open with a blink of the eye. …] and one more thing. Cast stones at me, but: Rather have a happy child in a same-sex marriage than thousands of unhappy children in all of the broken normal marriages. Reality of life, and so forth. And I am saying this as a conservative Catholic."

How do you deal with these sorts of people?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Matrimony is a rather unique Sacrament. It pre-dates Moses, going back to the very beginning of humanity. As such, it is not a Judeo-Christian institution, but is practiced worldwide. By those who recognize “natural law,” marriage is a part of that. In the USA, in many states, a couple who cohabitate for a certain length of time are considered legally married (“common law” marriage). In states which now recognize homosexual “marriage,” it is unclear whether two hetrosexual men or women who share housing as roommates would somehow find themselves “married” after a certain time.

In the USA, we don’t have a Standesamt, as you have in Germany (and similarly in many other EU countries). We have something somewhat similar - a judge (or a judicial authority called a Justice of the Peace) can perform a marriage ceremony, but any minister of any faith can do likewise and sign the marriage certificate, making the marriage recognized by the state.

My brother is a priest (Fr. Eric Filmer of the Ask an Apologist forum). He does not know how he became “authorized” to sign marriage certificates in the state of Georgia. He never filled out any paperwork.(though someone in the chancery office might have done so on his behalf, without his knowledge or signature). He never attended any state training, and nobody has ever given him a state instruction guide. As far as he knows, anyone who calls himself a “minister” of any kind can sign a marriage certificate in Georgia.

Germany (and many countries) completely separates the legal and spiritual aspects of matrimony. A religious ceremony is not recognized by the state. A couple must present themselves to the Standesamt for legal recognition. Whether they then undergo a religious ceremony is up to them.

It is odd that Americans tolerate our current system. We have traditionally insisted on a separation of church and state, yet many of us insist that the government regulate this particular Sacrament (and none other!). We would never tolerate the government regulating Baptism.

I find the German system appealing.

 

[CutlerB]

Matrimony is a rather unique Sacrament. It pre-dates Moses, going back to the very beginning of humanity. As such, it is not a Judeo-Christian institution, but is practiced worldwide. By those who recognize “natural law,” marriage is a part of that. In the USA, in many states, a couple who cohabitate for a certain length of time are considered legally married (“common law” marriage). In states which now recognize homosexual “marriage,” it is unclear whether two hetrosexual men or women who share housing as roommates would somehow find themselves “married” after a certain time.

In the USA, we don’t have a Standesamt, as you have in Germany (and similarly in many other EU countries). We have something somewhat similar - a judge (or a judicial authority called a Justice of the Peace) can perform a marriage ceremony, but any minister of any faith can do likewise and sign the marriage certificate, making the marriage recognized by the state.

My brother is a priest (Fr. Eric Filmer of the Ask an Apologist forum). He does not know how he became “authorized” to sign marriage certificates in the state of Georgia. He never filled out any paperwork.(though someone in the chancery office might have done so on his behalf, without his knowledge or signature). He never attended any state training, and nobody has ever given him a state instruction guide. As far as he knows, anyone who calls himself a “minister” of any kind can sign a marriage certificate in Georgia.

Germany (and many countries) completely separates the legal and spiritual aspects of matrimony. A religious ceremony is not recognized by the state. A couple must present themselves to the Standesamt for legal recognition. Whether they then undergo a religious ceremony is up to them.

It is odd that Americans tolerate our current system. We have traditionally insisted on a separation of church and state, yet many of us insist that the government regulate this particular Sacrament (and none other!). We would never tolerate the government regulating Baptism.

I find the German system appealing.

All you say is true, I just fail to quite see the relation to my question. No offence intended.

 

[DavidFilmer]

All you say is true, I just fail to quite see the relation to my question. No offence intended.

None taken. I thought my reply related to the person you quoted:

Oh, how nice it would be if the hierarchy could finally distinguish between civil and sacramental marriage.

This person’s comments might sound judgemental, but I think that judgement might be appropriate in this instance. I think this person has a valid point.

 

[CutlerB]

None taken. I thought my reply related to the person you quoted:

It might sound judgemental, but I think that judgement might be appropriate in this instance. I think this person has a valid point.

Oh, now I understand. Well, the hierarchy does completely recognise the Standesamt thingy that you describe. That’s no issue in the country here. What this guy means is that the Catholic Church should be in favour of same-sex civil unions. I believe she is opposed to that though.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

It is odd that Americans tolerate our current system. We have traditionally insisted on a separation of church and state, yet many of us insist that the government regulate this particular Sacrament (and none other!). We would never tolerate the government regulating Baptism.

I find the German system appealing.

Most Americans do not insist that the govt regulate any of the sacraments. In fact many of us can hardly tolerate what the govt is doing at all. If the govt could find a way to regulate baptism, confirmation, even the last rites, I am quite sure they would impose some regulation or other upon it. We deal with dissent each in our own way. As a faithful Catholic, I will never agree nor acquiesce with evil no matter how many civil laws are passed to put some stamp of approval on evil. Living life as a God fearing Catholic may come to mean persecution and/or incarceration. Come what may, I will stand with Christ in all things in so far as I am able.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Oh, now I understand. Well, the hierarchy does completely recognise the Standesamt thingy that you describe. That’s no issue in the country here. What this guy means is that the Catholic Church should be in favour of same-sex civil unions. I believe she is opposed to that though.

Oh, now I understand as well. I thought the comment about the “hierarchy” meant the legal hierarchy of the government (in the USA, since the thread concerns our Supreme Court), not of the hierarchy of the Church.

Obviously, the Catholic Church (in the USA, Germany, and everywhere else) does not recognize the Sacramental validity of homosexual “marriage,” and never will.

I also doubt that the Southern Baptists ever will (they are our second-largest religious faith, and would be larger than the Catholic Church if they numbered children in their membership rolls).

 

[CutlerB]

Oh, now I understand as well. I thought the comment about the “hierarchy” meant the legal hierarchy of the government (in the USA, since the thread concerns our Supreme Court), not of the hierarchy of the Church.

Obviously, the Catholic Church (in the USA, Germany, and everywhere else) does not recognize the Sacramental validity of homosexual “marriage,” and never will.

I also doubt that the Southern Baptists ever will (they are our second-largest religious faith, and would be larger than the Catholic Church if they numbered children in their membership rolls).

Good. Do you think the Church could or would condone civil unions though, that is legally recognised, non-religious and thus non-sacramental “marriage”?

 

[St_Francis]

Good. Do you think the Church could or would condone civil unions though, that is legally recognised, non-religious and thus non-sacramental “marriage”?

It would seem that the Church could tolerate–in the proper sense of the word–civil unions of homosexuals to each other. The proper sense of tolerate is to recognize the wrong but not to fight against it due to resulting social disruption.

I say this because Catholic bishops, including the Pope before his election–have suggested it as a compromise position. I may be wrong because it might depend on the local laws. And of course, before either is a reality, Catholic citizens have a perfect right to fight against the imposition of such a law.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Do you think the Church could or would condone civil unions though, that is legally recognised, non-religious and thus non-sacramental “marriage”?

The Church is not bound by civil law, and may recognize (or not recognize) marriages which are recognized (or not recognized) by the state.

 

[St_Francis]

Hello there everyone!

Now that SCOTUS has given its ruling, it’s of course making the news, even here in Germany. The German Catholic Church’s official news site has of course also reported on the events. On Facebook, they posted the link to an article of theirs. I didn’t see any problem with the article itself, but in the comments section, dissent from Church teaching abounds. Germans love dissent.

One of the comments read, translated of course, like this:

To me, that sounds judgemental and dissenting. First question: Do you read it that way?

So, I posted a comment saying that we should leave the understanding of sacramental marriage to those to whom it has been entrusted, namely the bishops.

Another comment, from a different person, promptly followed:

How do you deal with these sorts of people?

You don’t have to do anything more than pray for them. The problem is they are far down another philosophical worldview–there are those who are basically Catholic but ignorant about certain points and there are people whose mental grounding rests on falsehood. Without getting to the root of their error, there is no possibility of changing their minds.

I would suggest that one not engage them in argument unless one is strong in the topic under debate, and even then only in a limited way, but do write your comments in comment sections of articles, just not in response to theirs. We need all the good Catholic comments we can get!

 

[Joe_5859]

I think that trying to carry on a fruitful theological discussion in the comments section of a news article is a bit like picking a fight with a windmill. Good luck getting anywhere.

 

[CutlerB]

I think that trying to carry on a fruitful theological discussion in the comments section of a news article is a bit like picking a fight with a windmill. Good luck getting anywhere.

There’s truth to that. But sometimes, I just have to get some things off my chest.