- Status
W
waanju
Guest
I actually think that might be a good idea for bishops everywhere. Just perform the sacrament, and leave the civil union stuff to the courthouse. It protects from being sued for not performing illicit weddings/
R
Rence
Guest
I agree. Since the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics and the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage, I really don’t understand why they got involved in a State matter anyway. Catholics can just produce their civil marriage certificate for the priest before the Sacramental marriage. No more problems or dramas. Solved. 
L
lilelvispresley
Guest
-edited
P
Publisher
Guest
A wise move on their part. That way the can remove the church from the equation and leave civil marriage between gay and straight couples alone.
L
lilelvispresley
Guest
-edited
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Isnt it likely that any government which wants to legally impose a same-sex marriage obligation on the Church (as a matter of universal civil rights,) will resort to two measures;
- Revocation of the right to marry anyone - including catholics. (If you dont perform marriage ceremonies for gay people we will take away your accreditation as a legally recognized marriage celebrant until you do..)
- Revocation of Church tax exemption. If liberal politicians dont care what the church thinks about SSM, they arent going to balk at threatening this. Especially if a bishop or diocese is violating the civil ‘‘rights’’ of ordinary gay people who just want to get ‘‘married’’ in a church.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
And before you say…"yabbut, what about my right to freedom of religion?’’ dont forget that the same government which creates civil rights for gay marriage can also take rights away.
B
Borealis
Guest
I can claim to be Chinese, but that doesn’t make it true. Gays can claim to be married, but that doesn’t make it true, either. I hope the bishops stay true to God’s truth and tell the government to go hang.
E
Elizium23
Guest
Incorrect. Rights are granted to us by our Creator (a word which Obama always leaves out of his quotes). The Constitution, and the Amendments, are enumerations of Rights which existed at the Creation, and must be protected by the government.
Some rights are granted to us by government - such as the right to an attorney. That is the sort of thing that makes no sense to be Divinely instituted. But the right to freedom of religion is God-given, inalienable, and inviolable; a government which attempts to “take it away” begins to bring into question its legitimacy and right to rule.
Furthermore, there is no “right to marry”. Not even God has given this to people. Marriage is a privilege. Marriage is a divinely created institution, given to us for men and women to come together in love and raise families. Marital love reflects the perfect love of the Holy Trinity. But it is a privilege and a vocation, and not everyone retains the privilege to marry. The ordained have no ability to marry. Brothers and sisters have no ability to marry. People and animals have no ability to marry.
If the government tries to take away the marriage privilege for straight couples, then the Church will marry people in secret. If the government attempts to compel churches to perform “marriages” of homosexual persons, then the churches will refuse. Priests could be jailed for it. But blessed are they who are persecuted for Jesus’ sake.
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
What about the temporary rights exercised by those who reject God and institute their own earthly, atheistic, free will self-government? Are such people permitted by God to refer to same-sex ‘‘marriage’’ as a civil right in defiance of God?
This seems to contradict the claim in your first paragraph that God grants rights not governments.
So you admit that man-made governments can claim a legitimate ‘‘right to rule’’? Saying that freedom of religion is a right, is just another way of saying people have the right to be atheists and vote for politicians who support SSM.
As I said, the same government which creates the right for two men to ‘‘marry’’ can also take away that right. The legal right to freedom of religion is purely secular insofar as it is a man-made law and it comes from the same human beings who make artificial laws proclaiming separation of church and state. Human law makers change their minds over time.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Deacon Nick Donnely has written an article on the need for Bishops to seperate the sacrament of marriage from civil marriage:
protectthepope.com/?p=6653
protectthepope.com/?p=6653
F
fix
Guest
It will simply make marriage even more meaningless. Catholics will be in a ghetto. It is as if some Catholics think the Church only cares about Catholics.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
It is already done this way in several countries. I completely agree that it really is the best solution. I think it also highlights the sacramental character of marriage to the church.I agree. Since the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics and the State doesn’t recognize Sacramental marriage, I really don’t understand why they got involved in a State matter anyway. Catholics can just produce their civil marriage certificate for the priest before the Sacramental marriage. No more problems or dramas. Solved.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
But Catholic clergy doesn’t perform the civil marriage in several countries already. Is marriage more meaningless there than it is in Ireland or the US?
It is the state that is redefining marriage - no the Church. By performing sacramental marriages but not civil ones, the Church is continuing to say the same things about marriage that it does now. And even today where the Church performs civil marriages it does so only for Catholics and not everyone anyway.
F
fix
Guest
It is not our history. So, yes it will make marriage more meaningless.
It says that marriage is simply a private sectarian matter, which it is not.
M
Mrs_Sally
Guest
The church does not look at just one country when making decisions, although individual conferences of bishops can make specific decisions for their own country as needed.
Marriage is NOT just a private sectarian matter, that is exactly what the church is teaching. But if civil law in a country tries to force the Church, she will move to avoid being forced. Sometimes that means that the faithful must also sacrifice.
If a Catholic couple has to get a civil certificate and then have the sacramental marriage rite, that is a small sacrifice to pay to avoid having the Church forced to officiate at non-marriage civil “marriages”.
Since there is already precident for this in other countries, the bishops in Ireland or the US (or wherever else) can look to those places for examples of what has worked and what hasn’t.
R
rossum
Guest
I very much doubt if anything like this will happen. The Catholic Church already refuses to marry divorced people. Has any government enforced these measures on the Catholic Church because of that refusal? I am not aware of any.
rossum
O
oldcelt
Guest
The Deacon makes a sound argument. I know that a professor of mine who was married in Germany had to go through both a civil and sacramental marriage.
T
tafan
Guest
No, but this will be different. I will predict that the Church will quit doing civil weddings, as the state will try to enforce doing same-sex weddings on any institution licensed to do civil weddings. It will be just like Catholic adoption services already: you want to do adoptions, you have to allow gay-couples to adopt.
But it will go a step further (and I would watch Canada for the first signs of this), even when the Church quits doing civil weddings, the state will then persecute the Church for hate crimes for not performing same-sex religious weddings. Give it 10-15 years to get this far, but it will.
- Status