Is it possible for a priest to declare civil but not religious unions?

[inocente]

I was wondering about this possibility regarding the new law in Denmark about marriage.
Somehow they have to go around it.

*"The country’s parliament voted through the new law on same-sex marriage by a large majority, making it mandatory for all churches to conduct gay marriages.

…] Under the law, individual priests can refuse to carry out the ceremony, but the local bishop must arrange a replacement for their church." - telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/denmark/9317447/Gay-Danish-couples-win-right-to-marry-in-church.html*

 

[Amandil]

What is not laughable, but sad, is that you will continue to argue when the facts have turned against you. This situation is in the real world…the facts are there. If you choose not to accept them…oh well.

What “facts”?

The only “facts” that he demonstrated in his editorializing is that the Church is full of sinners (never even a subject of debate), and that many of them not only think but admittedly act contrary to the Catholic Faith which they claim to profess.

You ever hear of the parable of the wheat and the tares? Apparently not.

Thank God that the Catholic Church and the Deposit of the Faith is not a democracy, it’d be impossible to follow.

So, dissenting people who profess to be Catholic mentioned in an editorial piece by a layperson who confirms your biases.

Those are the only “facts” that you have put forth.

I would think that a researcher of your caliber would know how to distinguish fact from opinion.

 

[oldcelt]

What “facts”?

The only “facts” that he demonstrated in his editorializing is that the Church is full of sinners (never even a subject of debate), and that many of them not only think but admittedly act contrary to the Catholic Faith which they claim to profess.

You ever hear of the parable of the wheat and the tares? Apparently not.

Thank God that the Catholic Church and the Deposit of the Faith is not a democracy, it’d be impossible to follow.

So, dissenting people who profess to be Catholic mentioned in an editorial piece by a layperson who confirms your biases.

Those are the only “facts” that you have put forth.

I would think that a researcher of your caliber would know how to distinguish fact from opinion.

Thankfully, there are people here who know that I was making no statement about the Church. Just adding a piece that shows its current function in marriage in the US. I understand that you disagree with my spiritual philosophy, but you have now become incomprehensible in an attempt to disprove everything I say about anything.
For the sake of the board, it may be best if you ignore me. You have made this into something personal and I’m not going away any time soon…I hope.

 

[Amandil]

Thankfully, there are people here who know that I was making no statement about the Church. Just adding a piece that shows its current function in marriage in the US. I understand that you disagree with my spiritual philosophy, but you have now become incomprehensible in an attempt to disprove everything I say about anything.
For the sake of the board, it may be best if you ignore me. You have made this into something personal and I’m not going away any time soon…I hope.

Personal on my end? Hardly. I can distinguish debate from other forms of discussion and I’m not so self-interested that I take every imagined slight personally…

You apparently have some vested interest in making Christianity, and specifically the Catholic Church, look absurd and ridiculous by attacking strawmen that you’ve built.

I’m pointing out, for the benefit of others who may read your nonsense, precisely what it true from what you’re misrepresenting.

You’ll do what you will. But you can’t think that you can run roughshod over Catholic theology and think that you’re going to get a free pass.