daughteroftruth cited none of those documents. She has, to date, quoted one line of scripture: “You cannot serve God and mammon” and strained wildly to apply it to this context. Meanwhile, I’ve treated the Summa, the Vatican documents, closely examined the Catechism, and pulled out the trusty old Catholic Encyclopedia, both in response to other readings and in order to bring out new ideas. So have you. This is because you appear to be, for the most part (and this is all one can ask), an intellectually honest human being. DoT is not, instead throwing nothing but outraged screams and disconnected rants at me for two pages now, frequently peppered with patently (and obviously) false statements like, “You’re the one that has yet to back up your opinion with anything besides personal opinion.” I have fact, argument, a good education, and sound research. I may yet be wrong, but not on the grounds of her single Bible quote and her angry but fertile imagination.
My opinion does no such thing. I argue that civil “marriage,” qua civil marriage, is irrelevant to God, the Church, and every other entity except the State, and that to join into that legal contract has no bearing on matters religious except insofar as the qualities of civil marriage accidentally coincide with the qualities of a natural marriage (or, to use gardenoftruth’s word, “Sacramental” marriage). Any moral objection to such a union would have to come on related, largely prudential, grounds (scandal, cooperation in evil, fornication), and, I have argued, those evils do not follow of necessity from sacramentally invalid civil “marriage.” I have not yet seen any Church document which contradicts that opinion, nor have I seen any reasoned interpretations of Church docuemnts which sufficiently sustain any criticism of that opinion.
Now, I suppose one could apply the “God and Mammon” line to that position and accuse me of serving my tax returns instead of God. However, that principle is only consistent if one withdraws from all secular life and entirely stops making contracts or, indeed, paying taxes of any sort. This is, of course, absurd and entirely opposed to Catholic teaching. There are much stronger arguments against my position, some which have been made by you, but daughteroftruth’s position is simply outrageous from any Catholic perspective. (An extremist Protestant might be able to get away with it.)
In any case, I believe that a proper understanding of the relationship between Mother Church, natural, sacramental marriage, and civil, contractural marriage is vital to understanding how and when to use that contractural arrangement in order to more greatly glorify God. Proper understanding and proper use of mammon in service to the Lord is never a betrayal. DoT’s accusation to the contrary is unjust, unfounded, and un-Catholic.
This is not a criticism of my argument; it is a criticism of someone else’s argument that looks a little bit like mine, and, as such, your criticism is very disappointing. The critique works both ways: I have seen otherwise good Catholics argue that anyone who continues to own property or keep money is directly opposing Jesus’s words of Luke 18:22 (“Sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”) At this point, your argument has taken on a similar tone to theirs–you are reading what you want to be there into the texts of the Church, although what you want to be there (a Church teaching that civil marriage has an inherently binding character) is not there, particularly with a properly contexualized reading of the Scripture.
In fact, I think the Luke 18:22’ers have a much better argument that what has so far been presented on your behalf. You’ve taken a scrupulous reading, in my opinion, and that is at least as dangerous as the “liberal” reading you believe me to have adopted.
So can we talk about arguments instead of tone?
I am here for discussion and correction in fraternal love. I think you, I, and others have done an excellent job contributing to a conversation which–I hope–leads to the truth (which, I maintain, would result in your correction, not mine… but I remain open to further arguments). If, however, you believe that daughteroftruth’s contributions to this thread have had anything to do with correction or fraternity, then there is nothing more we can usefully say on the subject.
It has been my hope that turning DoT’s violent and irrational condemnations back on her with a bit of good humour and a healthy dose of Walker Percy’s irony would cause her to look at herself in a mirror and grasp what’s wrong with how she’s behaving. That hasn’t worked, and all I’ve done is multiply the amount of space she’s taking up with her beratements of me. Perhaps it was my fault for not making my humour clear. I am, of course, done responding to her now. I hope you can see why.
If there’s anything further to be said on the actual topic, I look forward to it. Otherwise, there is no reason to continue a conversation that has degenerated into a commentary on one poster’s bad behaviour. Thank you for the discussion and good day.
I was under the (apparently false
) impression that the eternal ways of God came before the changing ways of man…where did I go wrong?!