If all else fails how should we protect marriage?

[JimG]

From the most recent e-letter from Deal Hudson (concerning Canada):
Church officials are concerned that they will be vulnerable to lawsuits when priests refuse to marry homosexuals. There’s already been a lawsuit against the Knights of Columbus in British Columbia in which a lesbian couple accused the Knights of discrimination because the local KOC chapter refused to rent them a hall for their wedding reception.

Indeed, several weeks ago Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler said that he cannot guarantee full protection to religious organizations that refuse to marry homosexuals.

Some gay activists in Canada are promoting the idea that the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status.

You don’t have to commit an act of violence in Canada to be guilty of a hate crime. You only have to be guilty of publicly inciting hatred (Section 319). The law states further that if you make statements in a public place which incite hatred against an identifiable group in such a way that there will likely be a breach of the peace, you can be arrested.

Take the case of Bill Whatcott, a Canadian pro-life activist who heads a group called Christian Truth Activists. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal told him to stop distributing literature describing gay marriage as sodomite marriage, and he refused. Whatcott’s flyers were termed “offensive” and an “affront on the basic tenets of our society, which is about multiculturalism, tolerance and peaceful co- existence”, according to Steve Camp of the Edmonton police hate crimes unit.

 

[iserve]

I find it soooo sad that Catholics have to be made to look like “bad” people in order to preserve the sanctity of marriage, but that is just the way it is. The “diversity groups” both from within and outside the Church will accuse us of being hateful, but it is not possible to go any other way. Let them pull out the money, the government funding, etc, we must answer to a higher law, and cannot be seen doing otherwise. All I can think of in this situation is the shocking scene in *The Passion of Christ *where Satan mockingly carries a child in simulation of the holy family. Yes, it looks like a mother and child, but we all know it is a lie. The truth cannot be hidden, and Catholics must prepare to be bearers of the light.

 

[LSK]

BobCatholic:

I would say:

1. Use the “seperation of church and state” clause to rule government done marriages unconstitutional. Hey, marriage is a religious ceremony/sacrament, so what business does the government have in doing them? Marriage courts and marriages done by government officials of any kid, including Naval Ship’s captains, is unconstitutional. Hey, we don’t do government done baptisms, government done ordinations, government done circumcisions, etc. So government done marriages are out of bounds.
2. Once government done marriages are unconstitutional, use “seperation of church and state” again to declare secular marriages unconstitutional, as it is an encroachment on the real things. Fake marriages cannot be substituted for the real thing.
   (OK, this argument needs help,but hey, it is an idea)

 

[LSK]

I think Bob’s idea is a good one - I have been yelling this for a long time.

Marriage is a sacrament and the government has no business licensing sacraments. They can, however, require that all civil unions be licensed and that all civil unions be subject to the same laws, i.e. tax laws, medical stuff blah blah blah…
This would mean that Christians and other religious who do not believe in homosexual marriages would get a license from the state that sanctioned their ‘civil unions’ but receive the sacrament of MARRIAGE from their respective churches. This way if there are churches that want to ‘marry’ homosexuals to each other, men to dogs or little boys or women to a lamp post or a cat they can do it. It is separate from the state and it certainly is not Catholic.

In parts of Europe people were required to get a marriage license from the government AND get married in their respective churches. Just rename the license to “Civil Union Contract” or whatever…

This is all about rights of recognition, correct? This would solve the problem as the homosexual union would be granted the same status by the government as the heterosexual union.

 

[YinYangMom]

LSK:

I think Bob’s idea is a good one - I have been yelling this for a long time.

Marriage is a sacrament and the government has no business licensing sacraments. They can, however, require that all civil unions be licensed and that all civil unions be subject to the same laws, i.e. tax laws, medical stuff blah blah blah…
This would mean that Christians and other religious who do not believe in homosexual marriages would get a license from the state that sanctioned their ‘civil unions’ but receive the sacrament of MARRIAGE from their respective churches. This way if there are churches that want to ‘marry’ homosexuals to each other, men to dogs or little boys or women to a lamp post or a cat they can do it. It is separate from the state and it certainly is not Catholic.

In parts of Europe people were required to get a marriage license from the government AND get married in their respective churches. Just rename the license to “Civil Union Contract” or whatever…

This is all about rights of recognition, correct? This would solve the problem as the homosexual union would be granted the same status by the government as the heterosexual union.

Is marriage a sacrament only for Catholics though?
Don’t other religions consider it a commitment and ritual but not forever binding like we do? I was under the impression other religions/denominations view it as a ceremony of an agreement between two parties - and if it doesn’t work out it’s between the two of them. Whereas Catholics consider it a covenant between God and those two people who become one and therefore can never walk away from that covenant.

 

[poonis]

I don’t understand. Is the sanctity of marriage in such dire straits that god himself cannot save it? Why must the defense of marriage be left up to mankind?

I see no reason for mankind to defend marriage; let god handle it.

 

[MikeinSD]

Marriage is a sacrament and the government has no business licensing sacraments. They can, however, require that all civil unions be licensed and that all civil unions be subject to the same laws, i.e. tax laws, medical stuff blah blah blah…
This would mean that Christians and other religious who do not believe in homosexual marriages would get a license from the state that sanctioned their ‘civil unions’ but receive the sacrament of MARRIAGE from their respective churches. This way if there are churches that want to ‘marry’ homosexuals to each other, men to dogs or little boys or women to a lamp post or a cat they can do it. It is separate from the state and it certainly is not Catholic.

I agree. Secular marriage should be a secular matter. One can get a business license regardless of race, religion, or sex. US citizens should be able to get married in civil ceremony regardless of race, religion, or sex. Catholics can also get married in their church in a religious ceremony, as can the Baptists, the Mormons, the Jews, the Wiccans, the Hindus, etc.

I think also a secular definition of marriage will, in time, increase mutual respect across the religious/political battle lines. Imagine a Catholic man calling a Mormon mother of 5 a whore because she wasn’t married in the Catholic church. It wouldn’t be done. Nor would a Baptist man spit on a Catholic mother of 6 because he believed only Baptist marriages are “real.” If you read your history, all three faiths thought marriages outside their particular religions were not legitimate. But time passed and no one seriously thinks someone married outside their particular sect is not valid.

Hopefully, the same thing will happen between gays and straights. I’m hopeful because I saw how in Virginia, a state that banned marriage between white and blacks, gradually respected marriages between folks of different colors. And for those who believe that their bigotry against gays isn’t the same as bigotry against other races, pls read yr history again. People, Christian, decent people, Catholic people, in Virginia, and in the US, in 1970 did not call black women “ladies” or black men “gentlemen” and thought laws against “race-mixing” were all that stood against mass rapes. They hated the Supreme Court for integration rulings. Sounds real familiar today. Subsitute “gay” for “Negro” and the words are exactly alike.

 

[sweetchuck]

kev7:

If all the efforts of the church fail to prevent the onslaught of homosexual marriage, what strategies does the church have to protect our sacred sacrament?

I’m very concerned that society is in a rapid state of moral decline and there is nothing that can be done about it.

The day will soon come when the homosexuals try to force the church to perform a Gay marriage. When the church refuses they will threaten to deny the church its status as a charitable organization.

They will claim that the church must perform the marriage because they are offering it as a public service. The ‘Gay friendly’ judge will of course allow this to occur.

They already tried this with a catholic school in Toronto a few years back. The school wouldn’t allow two gay graduates to attend the graduation dance. It wasn’t long and the school was forced to capitulate or have its status as a charitable organization taken away.

What can be done to prevent this?

Could the church simply rename the term marriage to something else and promote it as something different then marriage? The reality is it already is different then a civil marriage. In fact, most people don’t even know that there is a difference. Most people who want to get married only think of it as a contract (that can be broken).

I think it would do the church wonders to rename marriage to something else. That way only people who want to go through with holy matrimony will. There will be less people getting married for the fantasy of it. It would be about God from the beginning.

It would be great to say to someone. No I am not married I am “X”. Such a statement would imply a whole different set of values.

I guess what I’m trying to say is this. If the name of marriage is going to be ruined by the homosexuals then let it. Why should the church try to stop evil if all it has to do is move to the side and let it fall?

Protecting marriage by renaming it would be a bold move in the face of evil.

Until it happens, we must fight with all our political might to stop such a law in the U.S. and fight all the harder the spiritual battle for souls in this country with fasting, prayer and love for our enemies.

But when our political efforts fail, we should endure the coming persecution with grace, faith and ultimate trust in God’s divine Justice. Let us not respond with violence or hatred. Let us not flee or changes names for marriage or apologize for who we are. We must remain firm in our Tradition and speak even when our “hate” words will condemn us. God will give meaning to our suffering. We must give thanks for our persecution and bless our persecutors so that they too may be saved, that they may be like the vineyard workers who are paid the same daily wage by our Heavenly Father as those of us who have been working since morning. And let us not forget our savior’s words.

Matt: 5:10-12 “Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when they insult you and persecute you and utter every kind of evil against you (falsely) because of me. Rejoice and be glad, for your reward will be great in heaven. Thus they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

 

[sweetchuck]

poonis:

I don’t understand. Is the sanctity of marriage in such dire straits that god himself cannot save it? Why must the defense of marriage be left up to mankind?

I see no reason for mankind to defend marriage; let god handle it.

Be careful with your words, friend: They are rank with the mockery Jesus endured on the Cross.

Matt: 27:39-43: Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, (and) come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

 

[YinYangMom]

MikeinSD:

Marriage is a sacrament and the government has no business licensing sacraments.

Is it a sacrament for ALL people or just Catholics, though?

What the government has been licensing all along has reallly been civil unions…legalizing committed relationships so that property ownership, etc. can be established, isn’t it?

Marriage, on the other hand, is a religious institution, isn’t it?
As such, do all religious view/define ‘marriage’ the same way Catholics do?

If I were to look up the definition of marriage would the word ‘sacrament’ be in there anywhere?

For me, the call to protect “marriage” moves me to focus on Catholic marriage - which means start with cleaning our own house. Until we Catholics get good at staying married ourselves, I don’t believe we’re in the position to tell everyone else we’ve got the only TRUE definition of marriage, and the secret to a successful one, at that.

I’m a firm believer of leading by example instead of imposing by law. The proof is in the pudding. When we Catholics live happy, fullfilling lives in praise of and witness to God (and there are a whole heck of a lot of us Catholics) the rest of the world will want to know our secret and we can invite them to join us. Right now we don’t have the conviction to back up our claim. Yes, I know it’s not just a claim but universal Truth - but the rest of the world doesn’t know that - and to look at us from their perspective we’d be talking out of our hats.

 

[YinYangMom]

poonis:

I don’t understand. Is the sanctity of marriage in such dire straits that god himself cannot save it? Why must the defense of marriage be left up to mankind?

I see no reason for mankind to defend marriage; let god handle it.

G-d did all the saving He needed when he sent us His only Son to be the sacrificial Lamb by which humanity was redeemed.

The rest is up to us. Christ made that clear after His resurrection and before his ascension.

In confirmation we became soldiers of Christ…we must defend that which G-d left in our care and that includes the seven sacraments - one of which, is marriage.

 

[sweetchuck]

YinYangMom:

Is it a sacrament for ALL people or just Catholics, though?

You cannot participate in the sacraments unless you are baptized. Marriage is a valid sacrament - even if they are in a state of mortal sin (though this prevents God’s grace from flowing through the marriage) - between two baptized Christians, they don’t even have to be Catholic, but they do have to be baptized. If you have a marriage in which one or both parties is not baptized, it is still a valid marriage, but it is not a sacrament.

Marriage is marriage though. You don’t have to be a Christian to be married, but you do have to be a Christian to be married sacramentally.

 

[poonis]

sweetchuck:

Be careful with your words, friend: They are rank with the mockery Jesus endured on the Cross.

Matt: 27:39-43: Those passing by reviled him, shaking their heads and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself, if you are the Son of God, (and) come down from the cross!” Likewise the chief priests with the scribes and elders mocked him and said, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. So he is the king of Israel! Let him come down from the cross now, and we will believe in him. He trusted in God; let him deliver him now if he wants him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’”

But why must we perform god’s work for him? Can he not save marriage himself, without the necessity for weak and fallible human intervention, of whom he created in the first place?

 

[poonis]

YinYangMom:

G-d did all the saving He needed when he sent us His only Son to be the sacrificial Lamb by which humanity was redeemed.

The rest is up to us. Christ made that clear after His resurrection and before his ascension.

In confirmation we became soldiers of Christ…we must defend that which G-d left in our care and that includes the seven sacraments - one of which, is marriage.

Why not just abolish marriage once and for all; who’s wrath would we suffer, God’s or his followers?

 

[YinYangMom]

poonis:

Why not just abolish marriage once and for all; who’s wrath would we suffer, God’s or his followers?

Sacramental marriage is not ours to abolish.
You are missing the point:

G-d instituted the state of marriage.
Not man. Therefore man cannot abolish it.

G-d intentionally designed woman to complement man in a state of marriage as a way for humanity to share in G-d’s glory - to become co-creators of life with Him.

Wrath or the fear of it has nothing to do with the argument.
It simply isn’t an option.

 

[YinYangMom]

sweetchuck:

You cannot participate in the sacraments unless you are baptized. Marriage is a valid sacrament - even if they are in a state of mortal sin (though this prevents God’s grace from flowing through the marriage) - between two baptized Christians, they don’t even have to be Catholic, but they do have to be baptized. If you have a marriage in which one or both parties is not baptized, it is still a valid marriage, but it is not a sacrament.

Marriage is marriage though. You don’t have to be a Christian to be married, but you do have to be a Christian to be married sacramentally.

Marriage is a valid sacrament for all baptized Christians, Catholic or not? I’m really clueless here, be patient with me. We have seven sacraments. Other denominations have sacraments too? Somehow I was under the impression they were symbolic rituals for them stemming from our sacraments but for them they aren’t permanently binding covenants. Plus I thought sacraments were administered by ordained priests…since they use pastors not ordained priests tied to Rome how could what they participate in the sacraments? Maybe my question should be are Catholics the only ones who have valid sacraments? Or are sacraments directly tied to Rome and the line of Peter?

Where I get mixed up with this ‘protect marriage’ debate is in defining ‘marriage’.

For Catholics it is sacramental and permanent.
But if one is not a Catholic, I don’t understand why they should be held to our standards.
While I completely understand why Catholics hold marriage so dearly because it was instituted by G-d Himself, it hasn’t been my impression that civil marriages were ever designed upon that same Truth.
Civil marriages (meaning, instituted by governments for the people as a social institution) are legal contracts between two consenting parties.
Catholic marriage is a covenant between the two consenting parties and G-d.
How does a government’s definition of marriage affect the Catholic definition if it does not override the Catholic definition and Catholics adhere to their own covenant?
If Catholics continue to marry covenentally (real word???) - male and female - and remain married until death do them part where’s the threat if governments allow non-Catholics to marry contractually? Nothing the government does will get a Catholic to abadon the covenant. So where’s the threat?

I see the real threat to Catholic marriage coming from our own divorce/annulment rates.

I do not understand how an engaged couple in the Catholic church can go through the FOCCUS preparation, engagement encounter, NFP training, and consultations with the priest prior to the wedding can - in the long run - turn around and have the marriage annulled because one or the other party wants a divorce. How can 25% of catholic marriages end in divorce - and of those what percentage gets annulled?

I just think we need to clean our own house first so that everyone around us will look at us and want to join us.

 

[sweetchuck]

YinYangMom:

Marriage is a valid sacrament for all baptized Christians, Catholic or not? I’m really clueless here, be patient with me. We have seven sacraments. Other denominations have sacraments too? Somehow I was under the impression they were symbolic rituals for them stemming from our sacraments but for them they aren’t permanently binding covenants. Plus I thought sacraments were administered by ordained priests…since they use pastors not ordained priests tied to Rome how could what they participate in the sacraments? Maybe my question should be are Catholics the only ones who have valid sacraments? Or are sacraments directly tied to Rome and the line of Peter?

Where I get mixed up with this ‘protect marriage’ debate is in defining ‘marriage’.

For Catholics it is sacramental and permanent.
But if one is not a Catholic, I don’t understand why they should be held to our standards.

They are being held to our standards. But we hold Jesus’ standards. Marriage for two baptized Christians is sacramental, even if they don’t know it. If not, there would be no indissoluable bond among Protestant marriages. There is. And that bond is sacramental. And that sacrament is brought about by the couple themselves, not the priest or the pastor. Necessary for the marriage sacrament are the exchanging of vows and consummation. A sacrament is a sacrament not because we say it’s a sacrament, but because the Holy Spirit says it is a sacrament. This is the same principal as to why Protestants are not re-baptized when they convert to the Catholic Church. Protestants validly participate in the sacrament of baptism in their own churches.

Marriage must be protected because it is at the core of society. The family is the cornerstone of a society. If gays marry, the family is in danger. Children are in danger. Children will be adopted by gay parents. It tears away at the very fabric of society.

 

[iserve]

I visualize this " new marriage" as akin to the portrayal of Satan in The Passion of the Christ. The use of the Satan character carrying a “child” in a mockery of the *holy mother and child *image is a poweful reminder of the truth. Isn’t it always so that sin imitates some good, and then flaunts itself in the face of the just, who are often persecuted for their faith?
The only answer, as someone here said, is to clean up our own act, and show proper respect for the sacramental nature of marriage. Just a few weeks ago, my pastor and I witnessed a most disgusting wedding, where the groom and all his ushers showed up at the last minute drunk and disrespectful. After they had the nerve to come up for Communion, they went outside for a cigarette break! Even the altar servers were apalled, and we are all certain that not only is this marriage in serious trouble, already, but also, it is a total mockery of the sanctity of the act. I pray they will someday realize this, and feel God’s sorrow at seeing this played out in His house.

 

[YinYangMom]

sweetchuck:

Marriage for two baptized Christians is sacramental, even if they don’t know it.

If gays marry, the family is in danger. Children are in danger. Children will be adopted by gay parents. It tears away at the very fabric of society.

And what is marriage for two non-baptized citizens of the United States?

That ceratinly isn’t sacramental and the civil law is in no position to make it so because we legislate it to take on sacramental properties.

That ‘marriage’ is a matter of civil law, not G-d’s law…
though, yes, the ideal would be to have civil law equal to G-d’s law…
but it wasn’t the case in Jesus’ time and it isn’t the case now…
Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…
A marriage between two citizens of a governmental system belongs to Caesar…
A marriage between two baptized Christians belong to G-d.

Why are we mixing the two types of marriage together?

As for the argument that allowing gays to marry will break down the institute of family, I just don’t see that…in the long run. (I tend to look at the big picture)…

A) marriage is one thing, adoption is another. Two separate legal battles, but yes, I certainly see where once marriage is allowed, adoption is not far behind.

B) in the short run, perhaps family will be compromised, though it’s not certain to be - that is a fear, a hypothesis, yet to be proven and won’t be proven unless we run the experiment.

C) family is already compromised through divorce/annulments - and shamefully from within the Catholic community and worse so from the Protestants. Who are we to demand non-Christians adopt the sacramental nature of marriage when we don’t take it seriously ourselves? I propose we fix our own problems before we try to fix everyone else’s.

D) in the long run, the Truth will survive the tests rendered. Have faith that in the long run, these gay marriages will not hold, the families they raise will revert to ‘conventional’ marriages in their own time, etc. Just look at what happened to the hippy generation…the very same kids who rebelled and revelled in absolute ‘freedom’ turned out to be conservative yuppies pursuing the mighty dollar, the house with the white picket fences, the 2.5 children, etc. Also look at the children of divorce…they long for and work harder toward long-term marriages. Not all, of course, but a good number of them do.

Family, as G-d designed it is ingrained into our souls. We can not deny its validity and our souls will gravitate back to it no matter what.

 

[sweetchuck]

YinYangMom:

Jesus said to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s…
A marriage between two citizens of a governmental system belongs to Caesar…
A marriage between two baptized Christians belong to G-d.

You are leaving out an oh-so-important part of that teaching of Christ. He said render to God what is God’s.

Matt. 12:16-17 They brought one [a coin] to him and he said to them, “Whose image and inscription is this?” They replied to him, “Caesar’s.” So Jesus said to them, "Repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.’ They were utterly amazed at him.

But! Whose image is on Caesar? God’s! Caesar is made in the image and likeness of the living God, whether he likes it, knows it, denies it, proclaims it, or not. Caesar owes God. Jesus does not announce Caesar’s independence from God, Jesus announces Caesar’s DEBT to God. We, as citizens of the United States, have nothing. This land belongs to God, whether or not our coins say “In God We Trust” or not. We are free because of God. Horrendous evil will come upon us if we lead our homosexual brothers and sisters to go astray.

Like homosexual “marriage,” there’s no way to argue that abortion should be illegal without acknowledging God, either. If there is no God, abortion is fine. But there is a God, and he counts every drop of blood we spill. And we should hide our faces in fear if our country ever legalizes same-sex marriage, as should the nations that have done so.

Lev. 18:22-30 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; such a thing is an abomination. You shall not have carnal relations with an animal, defiling yourself with it; nor shall a woman set herself in front of an animal to mate with it; such things are abhorrent. “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things by which the nations whom I am driving out of your way have defiled themselves. Because their land has become defiled, I am punishing it for its wickedness, by making it vomit out its inhabitants. You, however, whether natives or resident aliens, must keep my statutes and decrees forbidding all such abominations by which the previous inhabitants defiled the land; otherwise the land will vomit you out also for having defiled it, just as it vomited out the nations before you. Everyone who does any of these abominations shall be cut off from among his people. Heed my charge, then, not to defile yourselves by observing the abominable customs that have been observed before you. I, the LORD, am your God.”