More same-sex marriage, but with a twist this time!

[Caesar517]

I think the OP, along with many here, are suffering from a complete lack of respect for civil marriage. Consider this: The Church considers a civil marriage between two non-Catholics to be a valid, sacramental marriage. A civil marriage is not merely a legal matter, it is a social matter. In other words, it is about society and the couple’s relationship to society. It’s not merely something in an abandoned file cabinet in the basement of some government building.

The Church considers a civil marriage between Catholics a sin because it is rejecting the authority of God’s Church in that it bypasses the systems the Church has set in place. This is one reason why the potential arrangement would cause scandal.

Next is the issue of cohabitation. This is acceptable for college roommates of the same gender, but not as a life situation. In this case, there would be a strong implication of sexual relations between the two women. This is another cause of scandal. As a previous poster mentioned, scandal does not require one’s catholicity to be known; they (society) should know our beliefs by our actions (this is one of the most fundamental teachings of the Church).

Furthermore, the Church does not allow false civil marriages because it is a lie. The issue of a false civil marriage for tax benefits or other potential gain comes up every once and a while. The answer is always a firm “no, the Church will not support your efforts at deception.”

The next issue is same-sex-attraction. I believe the OP mentioned that she suffers from this and that her friend is not entirely stable in this department. For these reasons, this potential arrangement would also be an occasion of sin. Do not flirt with temptation (recall the end of the Act of Contrition)!

For these reasons, it would be sinful to pursue the previously mentioned course of action. One who did so would be unworthy to present one’s self for Communion until the issue had been resolved.

 

[Wowbagger]

I think the OP, along with many here, are suffering from a complete lack of respect for civil marriage. Consider this: The Church considers a civil marriage between two non-Catholics to be a valid, sacramental marriage.

This is not necessarily true, which illustrates my point. If two homosexuals are legally married, the Church does not recognize it. The Church recognizes civil marriages *only/] when they are male-female unions that involve the exchange of vows and at least one consummation through sexual intercourse after the vows are made. If it lacks any one of those three vital characters, then it is not a marriage and it has nothing to do with marriage. In the hypothetical example of the OP, the “union” would lack all three vital characters. Not being recognized by the Church as a marriage, the civil “marriage” is treated as a mere contract. The parties are bound to continue to follow the moral law, being recognized by God and the Church as unmarried parties, and the making of the contract is subject to all the standard admonishments regarding the virtue of prudence (i.e. scandal, occasion of sin, etc.). It may be imprudent and therefore sinful, or it may be sinful for other reasons, but it is not an inherently immoral act to join another in a legal marriage if said union has nothing to do with the natural institution of marriage.

Next is the issue of cohabitation. This is acceptable for college roommates of the same gender, but not as a life situation.

The convents of the world would be astonished to hear this. So would hundreds of societies throughout history that have been given to communal living or gender-separated households. In fact, I just have to come out and say that this claim is absurd. It goes against American Puritan custom, but it’s not inherently even in the same neighborhood as sin.

The issue of a false civil marriage for tax benefits or other potential gain comes up every once and a while. The answer is always a firm “no, the Church will not support your efforts at deception.”

Cite a source; I’d love to read it. I asked a couple of deeply Thomistic, Church-document-spewing philosophers about this out of curiousity at a dinner last night, and they saw no problem with the hypothetical so long as the couple doesn’t cause scandal.

I believe the OP mentioned that she suffers from this and that her friend is not entirely stable in this department.

She did, actually, and, if you read my original post, you’ll notice that I expressly and emphatically enjoined her not to do this, because it would be an occasion of sin. But you’re saying that the act is inherently evil, even if you have two strongly heterosexual same-sex platonic friends heading down to the courthouse. I don’t think that’s right.

One who did so would be unworthy to present one’s self for Communion until the issue had been resolved.

Hooey. Even if there’s an occasion of sin here, merely exposing oneself to temptation is never a grave sin in and of itself.

The anger being directed against the OP is utterly disproportionate, even if this were a case of proper correction (which, I argue, it is not). I understand that we’re all jumpy and defensive of marriage, because it is under attack all over the country. But that doesn’t give us the right to construe Catholic teaching to coddle our defensiveness–and, ultimately, it’s unhelpful, because it only confuses the issue and makes it harder for us to win the fight for human sexuality.

…except gardens, who is quite calm.

How sad that you have lost respect for civil marriage. It is in society’s interest that we promote stable marriages, if not for the sake of the couple than for the sake of their children. Rather than promoting society to do better than it is currently doing, you have given up and are willing to allow our culture to do worse.

It’s not that I’ve lost respect for civil marriage. It’s that civil marriage has lost respect for natural marriage, for the natural law that stands behind natural marriage, for the divine law that stands behind natural law, and, ultimately, for the One Who stands behind divine law. Civil marriage, in and of itself, has never had the respect of the Church. There was a time, not so long ago, when civil marriage and the Church were united in respect for natural marriage, and that is where we found alliance. Now that those days have, for now, gone away, it’s time we stopped acting as if civil marriage in this country is still our ally.

We should, of course, fight to restore the alliance, because it is in the interest of social stability, of children’s well-being, of the virtue of men and women… not to mention truth itself. We must fight to restore sight to the eyes of civil marriage, that it might see the greatness of natural marriage and begin to follow it again. It is a sadness–a great tragedy–that we have to fight this fight. But it doesn’t do anybody any favors to falsely act as if civil marriage were still our ally.

I haven’t given up at all; I’ve merely recognized our position on the battlefield and reinforced my vulnerable flanks in preparation for the counter-attack.

daughteroftruth:

The wickedness of giving the occasion (or appearance of) sin in order to “serve mammon” is obvious, or it should be to a practicing

Catholic.

Cute one, daughteroftruth. I love the really subtle way you worked in that implication about my orthodoxy, which you apparently posted at the exact same time that I was in the confession booth for my weekly cleaning.

Of course, a practicing Catholic would also be aware of the distinction between civil, natural, and divine institutions. Take that as you may.

And, for Nevarlander, one more time, in case you missed it the first time: if you’re a lesbian, I strongly urge you not to do this, because, as a lesbian, it would be an occasion of sin. Even if you don’t think it would be a problem for you right now, thousands upon thousands who have gone before you in screwing up their lives with their roommates can attest that things can change once you’re actually living with another person. Don’t risk it.

If you were both heterosexual women, though, I’d say go for it.*

 

[nmoerbeek]

Wowbagger the general premise of your arguement is that this marriage can happen without it causing a scandal.

I assert that it is impossible.

By the very fact of participation in this civil union between 2 baptized catholic it would be showing approval of these civil unions.

The clerk, the tax collector, the auditor, the co workers and any subsequent men who may want to marry these women would have to be provided with an explanation for why two catholic women were married. If they were not it would be acceptable for these people to assume that two civil joined people also shared sexual relations. It damages the reputation of these women and holy mother church.

Your argument is that if it is kept in darkness it will not cause a scandal. So the women would have to be deceptive to avoid causing scandal? This violates the virtue of honesty. If they disclose it to everyone would it be wrong for others to correctly assume that they were not having sexual relations with one another? All to save a few bucks on your taxes?

 

[nmoerbeek]

Cite a source; I’d love to read it. I asked a couple of deeply Thomistic, Church-document-spewing philosophers about this out of curiousity at a dinner last night, and they saw no problem with the hypothetical so long as the couple doesn’t cause scandal.
f to temptation is never a grave sin in and of itself.

How about Summa Theologica on lying

Here is Summa Theologica on Scandal

I took out the part that is relevant

From St Thomas Aquinas

I answer that, As already said (1, ad 4), scandal is of two kinds, passive scandal in the person scandalized, and active scandal in the person who gives scandal, and so occasions a spiritual downfall. Accordingly passive scandal is always a sin in the person scandalized; for he is not scandalized except in so far as he succumbs to a spiritual downfall, and that is a sin.

Yet there can be passive scandal, without sin on the part of the person whose action has occasioned the scandal, as for instance, when a person is scandalized at another’s good deed. **On like manner active scandal is always a sin in the person who gives scandal, since either what he does is a sin, or if it only have the appearance of sin, it should always be left undone out of that love for our neighbor which binds each one to be solicitous for his neighbor’s spiritual welfare; so that if he persist in doing it he acts against charity.
**

 

[daughteroftruth]

Cute one, daughteroftruth. I love the really subtle way you worked in that implication about my orthodoxy, which you apparently posted at the exact same time that I was in the confession booth for my weekly cleaning.

Good, so I assume that you confessed justifying scandal?

Of course, a practicing Catholic would also be aware of the distinction between civil, natural, and divine institutions. Take that as you may.

What’s your point? Scandal is scandal. Period.

 

[Wowbagger]

What’s your point? Scandal is scandal. Period.

And this isn’t. Exclamation point.

Flannery O’Connor observed that the great Catholic sin is smugness. Smugness consists in an intellectual certainty that one is correct simply by being a member of the Church that has put out the greatest ethical minds in history, from Augustine to Aquinas, even if one does not understand what they are saying. It consists further in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of an honest theological inquiry by shutting down all possibility of dissent by labelling it heresy, without the legitimate authority or sound argument to do so.

You might want to have that looked at.

Indeed, I think the person who is committing scandal here is neither Nevarland nor myself. It is you who are so unfairly and unjustly undermining my charity. (See what I did there? Turned the tables? Good times.)

I turn now to nmoerbeek, who, while deeply suspicious of what he sees as something dangerously close to heterodoxy, is at least making a sincere effort to reason with me. In this reasoning, we find truth, and it’s a joy to participate in the search.

nmoerbeek:

Wowbagger the general premise of your arguement is that this marriage can happen without it causing a scandal. I assert that it is impossible.

That is one of several assumptions made by my argument. If your assertion is correct, then you’re quite right: my whole argument falls down on itself. So let’s talk about this.

First, I think we can dismiss the charge of lying outright. Civil marriages no longer require vows or claims of any kind. Indeed, if our hypothetical all-heterosexual female couple wanted to, they could go before a judge with a witness and a marriage license and explicitly promise never to have sex, never to exchange vows, and never to have and hold one another… and it would still be a valid legal marriage. There is neither lie there nor even an omission of truth, but an explicit and arguably unnecessary repudiation of the judge’s unfounded assumptions about the legal arrangement.

In order to be an act of active scandal, the legal marriage would have to be either (A) an inherently evil act that can be reasonably expected (or intended) to lead others into sin, or (B) an indifferent or good act that can be reasonably expected to lead others into sin without just reason for doing so. (I here reference the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on scandal.)

It seems that we agree that this is not case (A): nothing about forming this contract is inherently evil, nor does either party intend to cause scandal. Indeed, our hypothetical couple is taking positive steps to minimize the possibility of leading others into sin. So, in order to be scandal, this act must (1) be reasonably likely to lead others into sin (through passive scandal), and (2) have no just and sufficient reason for allowing the passive scandal.

I maintain that (1) need not be conceded. First, I note that no one can be thought to be at serious risk of scandal except those in the county clerk’s office, the IRS, the judge, and the witness; any suitor close enough to the women to learn of their legal arrangement can be reasonably expected to learn the story behind their arrangement within seconds of first hearing the story, especially since our hypothetical women aren’t telling anyone of their arrangement unless they absolutely have to. No friends or family other than very close suitors will ever be exposed to the knowledge. Thus, we need only concern ourselves with the potential scandal given to the government officials involved. These officials will, for one, not be aware of their Catholic religious identification. More importantly, all the women need to do is mention to the clerk, the judge, etc., that they’re heterosexuals “getting married for tax reasons.” They can write the same thing on their income tax return, if they are seriously concerned that someone at our largely automated tax processing bureaucracy is going to get a hold of their tax return, rifle through it, and go to all the trouble of finding out that both “spouses” are female–but I do not think this is a reasonable expectation. If the involved persons maliciously refuse to accept, in charity, this truthful explanation of the legal arrangement, then they are only deliberately scandalizing themselves like the Pharisees; no evil can be attributed to the couple. In short, if the couple behaves as we have postulated, I do not believe there is a reasonable expectation of scandal.

However, if I concede for the sake of argument that there is a reasonable expectation of scandal, then I think I must concede that you’re correct in this circumstance. Although Thomas does say that temporal goods should not necessarily be foregone simply because of the risk of scandal, he is quite clear that there needs to be a pretty good reason to risk another’s spiritual well-being. I think you’re quite right that this is, ultimately, an arrangement made for the sake of a few tax dollars. I don’t think a few tax dollars would meet the standard of just and sufficient reason.

This being said, I think that we can agree in all events that the passive scandal caused would largely be a result of the dying myth that Catholics have some inherent respect for the institution of civil marriage. As that misunderstanding continues to fade, the risk of scandal will decrease accordingly, and, within perhaps as little as a decade, the hypothetical situation here proposed will be unambiguously non-scandalous.

What do you think?

 

[nmoerbeek]

What do you think?

Wowbagger,

I am glad that we could have this discussion and not result to name calling and I must admit you have exercised my thinking. You most certainly put a great deal of thought into your posts. But perhaps we are both thinking about it too much, we would both benefit from looking at this situation as children (children of god) As an eternal optimist I would like to think that Catholicism will be on the rise due to vigilant defense of the faith, charity, love and hope.

Personally Wowbagger we should really be encouraging these women to either become wives to make more children for the greater glory of god or if they feel called to a life of living in a community with other women to become nuns or sisters. This arrangement really cannot bear any good fruit for the lord.

I do believe God is constant and that this arrangement or subsequent civil unions (which introduces tons of interesting questions for polygamy) will work to pervert society further and further away from Holy Mother Church. So in that regard I am always against civil unions because they do not give greater glory to god. Which I believe we can both agree on.

 

[daughteroftruth]

And this isn’t. Exclamation point.

Says you, with no Saint to back you up.

Flannery O’Connor observed that the great Catholic sin is smugness.

Now *this *is an example of an opinion.

Smugness consists in an intellectual certainty that one is correct simply by being a member of the Church that has put out the greatest ethical minds in history, from Augustine to Aquinas, even if one does not understand what they are saying. It consists further in refusing to acknowledge the legitimacy of an honest theological inquiry by shutting down all possibility of dissent by labelling it heresy, without the legitimate authority or sound argument to do so.

This relates to what we’re debating how…?

You might want to have that looked at.

Indeed, I think the person who is committing scandal here is neither Nevarland nor myself. It is you who are so unfairly and unjustly undermining my charity.

That’s called *false *charity because you’re going against Christ and His Church. You support scandalizing the Church by approving the sin (even if you view it as only the appearance of sin) of another.

You cannot serve God and mammon. The words of Christ - GOD. This same Christ - again - said woe to him who scandals…better for him to be cast into the sea… What an uncharitable fool If that’s you’re view of Christ…I don’t know what to say to you, except find a better priest.

(Turned the tables? )

Actually, you didn’t. Your argument has boiled down to essentially this: You’re wrong because I’m right (even though the Church says I’m wrong, the Saints say I’m wrong, and Christ says I’m wrong). I and others here are uncharitable? Fine, hold that opinion if you like, but keep in mind that opinion would thus be directed to God Almighty as well.

PAX.

 

[gardenswithkids]

…Civil marriage, in and of itself, has never had the respect of the Church. There was a time, not so long ago, when civil marriage and the Church were united in respect for natural marriage, and that is where we found alliance. Now that those days have, for now, gone away, it’s time we stopped acting as if civil marriage in this country is still our ally.

We should, of course, fight to restore the alliance, because it is in the interest of social stability, of children’s well-being, of the virtue of men and women… not to mention truth itself. We must fight to restore sight to the eyes of civil marriage, that it might see the greatness of natural marriage and begin to follow it again. It is a sadness–a great tragedy–that we have to fight this fight. But it doesn’t do anybody any favors to falsely act as if civil marriage were still our ally…

…This being said, I think that we can agree in all events that the passive scandal caused would largely be a result of the dying myth that Catholics have some inherent respect for the institution of civil marriage. As that misunderstanding continues to fade, the risk of scandal will decrease accordingly, and, within perhaps as little as a decade, the hypothetical situation here proposed will be unambiguously non-scandalous.

What do you think?

I disagree with your assertion that the Church has no respect for civil marriage.

The Catechism says 2360 “marriage bonds between two baptised persons are sanctified by the sacrament”. That statement applies to baptised Protestants as well as Catholics. Catholics are required to marry within the Church (or obtain dispensation), but not everyone is Catholic. The Church does not expect two non-Catholics to marry within the Catholic Church, yet the Church doesn’t go about declaring non-Catholics “un-married” if they have a civil marriage.

The high divorce in civil marriage is something that has done much harm to our culture. The Catholic Church does not permit re-marriage following divorce. Annulments are required if someone who once had a civil marriage (and whose first spouse still lives) seeks to marry another person within the Church. If the first marriage involved to baptised Christians who were Protestants, there is no assurance that an annulment will be granted. The annulment process examines to see if a *sacramental *marriage took place. While not all civil marriages are Sacramental marriages, the Church presumes a Sacramental marriage took place until shown otherwise.

I suspect that it would be rather easy for two persons of the same-sex to obtain a Church annulment if they had a change of heart and desired to marry a person of the opposite sex within the Church, but if they signed civil marriage papers, I suspect the Church would still make them go through the annulment process.

 

[JimG]

I suspect that it would be rather easy for two persons of the same-sex to obtain a Church annulment if they had a change of heart and desired to marry a person of the opposite sex within the Church, but if they signed civil marriage papers, I suspect the Church would still make them go through the annulment process.

Not to get off topic, but the Church would have no reason even to accept a “same-sex marriage” for consideration for declaration of nullity, since the marriage is null on its face. A Catholic same-sex marriage would have about the same meaning as a Catholic atheist.

 

[fix]

Sounds like a question for a moral theologian to dissect.

I am no expert but I have read this:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

Now, if such a law is really unjust then does it not seem that participation in it would be a form of illicit cooperation with evil?

 

[nordskoven]

Nah, a real Boston marriage is one in which you don’t have any particular affection or patience for your spouse or for kids but for the love of God you marry and procreate and spend the rest of your life yelling at all the principles but going to confession once a year and the required Easter service to please God out of that tiny remnant of the heart that is still miraculously alive after generations of this legalistic Boston behavior.

Lord, I pray to God that you will hear Your sheep bleating loudly to you, Good Shepherd. Inspire Your shepherds on earth to bring relief to the poor and not let Your shepherds, in their negligence, fail to mobilize the mighty Catholic, tax-free economic clout. Let not such scandals as living together in profane marriage be the only viable option. Lord, hear our prayer! We beg You to bring Your mightiest miracles of the corporal works of mercy to the Body of Christ, and an unprecedented flowering of the spiritual works of mercy. AMEN

 

[cazayoux]

So one of my friends and I (we’re both women) are close enough that we’d be glad to live together for the rest of our lives once I’m finished with school. I suppose you could call it a “Boston marriage”, if they called it that these days

Imagining we settled down in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages or “domestic partnerships”, would it be all right that we get married to take advantage of the legal conveniences? We wouldn’t be going out and trying to pretend we had a sacramental marriage (we’re both Catholic), just having our “live in the same house, each other’s legal primary point of contact etc.” arrangement down on legal papers for our own safety.

Is it still legal if it is not consummated? (even in secular law)

michel

 

[Wowbagger]

So in that regard I am always against civil unions because they do not give greater glory to god. Which I believe we can both agree on.

In this case, I would agree. I’m not certain that it would always necessarily be the case. There have been cases where long-term roommates, lifelong virgins, have brought forth great fruit for Christ and the Church, and in those cases there may be sufficient cause to enter into a legal arrangement like this one.

I do think fix brings an interesting point up, though. We haven’t really treated the question of material cooperation in the evil of same-sex marriage. I don’t think this could be construed as formal cooperation, but the act of supporting the perverted institution of civil marriage in these jurisdictions may be material cooperation in grave evil. However, if that’s the case, then all Catholics in Vermont, Massachusetts, and any other states that enact gay marriage would be required to refrain from having their marriages legally recognized by the civil authority. That is to say, Catholics in those states would still have to get a marriage in a Church ceremony, but they could not get it certified by the state, so they’d miss out on all those nice state-provided marriage benefits and they’d still have to file taxes separately. That understanding of material cooperation goes against my gut instinct, and no bishop has suggested it to date, but it might still possibly be true.

gardenswithkids:

Annulments are required if someone who once had a civil marriage (and whose first spouse still lives) seeks to marry another person within the Church. If the first marriage involved to baptised Christians who were Protestants, there is no assurance that an annulment will be granted. The annulment process examines to see if a sacramental marriage took place. While not all civil marriages are Sacramental marriages, the Church presumes a Sacramental marriage took place until shown otherwise.

I suspect that it would be rather easy for two persons of the same-sex to obtain a Church annulment if they had a change of heart and desired to marry a person of the opposite sex within the Church, but if they signed civil marriage papers, I suspect the Church would still make them go through the annulment process.

JimG stole my thunder here, but I’ll expand on his point. Annulments, as you say, examine to see whether a sacramental marriage took place for the purposes of recognition by the institutional Church Militant (operating in its fallible capacity). They do not and can not alter the actual, true status of the marriage recognized by the Universal Church headed by Christ. The annulment process examines, but it does not change. (“What God has joined together let no man put asunder.”)

Because of the long alliance between civil marriage and natural marriage, the Church does generally assume a sacramental marriage until shown otherwise. This is not because of any special character inherent to civil marriage, but because of the overwhelmingly typical use of the institution throughout history and even today to form exactly the sort of sacramental union. Now, in most cases, the exploration is somewhat difficult: the couple has to demonstrate that its union is putative on some internal grounds, such as duress or clear insincerity in the wedding vows. We have annulment tribunals to investigate that sort of thing and come to a fair but fallible ruling for the purposes of Church government. These investigations can, at times, be very easy: if, at the time of the marriage, the male knowingly lacked all his sexual organs, making consummation utterly impossible, the tribunal will have an easy time deciding, and the couple, while awaiting the ruling of the Church Militant, can rest assured that, in the eyes of the Church Universal, the marriage never happened. More extremely: if there’s a clear case where the marriage cannot be valid–for instance, if both parties are of the same sex–no tribunal is necessary, because no investigation is necessary. It is utterly impossible for the marital act to have taken place, and no amount of questioning will change that.

In short: no, the Church would not require a homosexual couple, “married” civilly, to go through the annulment process. The “marriage” simply does not exist, sacramentally speaking, and any pretense that it does is a purely civil fiction.

Civil marriages, then, frequently receive coincidental respect from the Church, because the overwhelming majority of them represent either valid unions or at least putative unions that demand investigation before a declaration of nullity by the institutional Church, but this respect is directed at the union only insofar as it appears to be a natural marriage, and has nothing to do with its civil character.

So, I think that, having talked it out, we all agree here: there are lots of secondary and prudential reasons to question the idea of getting a same-sex civil “marriage” in Vermont, and, at present, there’s not really a good reason to get one. But there’s nothing about the act of participating in a sacramentally invalid, legally valid civil marriage that is inherently wrong, so long as neither party to the legal arrangement pretends that it is a true marriage and neither party makes any marriage vows, participates in sexual acts with the other, or gives scandal to neighbors.

Either way, this has been a much productive conversation for me. Thanks to all for the opportunity for heavy thinking.

daughteroftruth:

even though the Church says I’m wrong, the Saints say I’m wrong, and Christ says I’m wrong

You’re right! They do say that you’re wrong. Why are you opposing them so harshly? And when are you casting yourself into the sea for proclaiming a teaching that is you claim to be taught by Mother Church, even when it is not taught by the Church and you have failed to cite even one sentence of relevant teaching that opposes my theological opinion on the matter?

Though sometimes necessary, there is always great risk in condemning a fellow Catholic. To falsely call another a heretic does great damage to the unity, charity, and influence of the Church. It must be considered carefully, and launched upon only when there is clear and compelling reason to do so. You, daughteroftruth, give the impression of one lazily condemning others without serious prayer or understanding of Church teaching for the mere sport of it. It’s dispiriting and deadly, and I urge you to think more deeply about the proper bounds of legitimate differences of opinion between men of good, informed, and obedient consciences before issuing your next personal order of excommunication.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

As I understand my marriage to my wife of 34 years, we married each other and that marriage is between a man and a woman as ordained by G_D.

I see no point in debating the point if same sex people can marry, or someone marry their horse or dog, or someone marry two people, or whatever.

Just because you put a rock in the oven and turn on the heat and call it a biscuit, that does not make it a biscuit.

Two same sex people can’t marry. You might think you are, the secular state might say you are, the courts might say you are.G_D will not.

I am tired of the sacrament of marriage being debased.

Calling same sex couples bonding or whatever as marriage is the same as calling Purina dog chow Holy Communion (G_D please forgive me).

Finally, this charade is not in the slightest and will never ever be Catholic no matter how many ovens you put it in. Catholics do not act in this manner.

Eddie Mac

 

[nmoerbeek]

You’re right! They do say that you’re wrong. Why are you opposing them so harshly? And when are you casting yourself into the sea for proclaiming a teaching that is you claim to be taught by Mother Church, even when it is not taught by the Church and you have failed to cite even one sentence of relevant teaching that opposes my theological opinion on the matter?

Though sometimes necessary, there is always great risk in condemning a fellow Catholic. To falsely call another a heretic does great damage to the unity, charity, and influence of the Church. It must be considered carefully, and launched upon only when there is clear and compelling reason to do so. You, daughteroftruth, give the impression of one lazily condemning others without serious prayer or understanding of Church teaching for the mere sport of it. It’s dispiriting and deadly, and I urge you to think more deeply about the proper bounds of legitimate differences of opinion between men of good, informed, and obedient consciences before issuing your next personal order of excommunication.

Wowbagger if you are going to take parts of another posters statement do not take it out of context. It serves only to confuse others on what daughteroftruth says. She was personifying your argument when she made that statement.

Furthermore now several documents have been cited for the opposition to your argument including the vatican document and summa theologica. Do you really want her to bore you by citing these documents again?

What she was saying is that you must live on earth as a servant to God you can’t love God with half of your heart, you can’t silently approve of evil. We must be servants first and foremost of God at all times. Your opinion appears to advocate something different.

I have heard from homosexuals becoming belligerent that homosexuality is okay because Jesus did not directly say “No sex with people of the same gender”. They dismiss what the Apostle Paul and the old testament because they are trying to come up with something to justify a sinful action. Your arguement at this point appears to hold a similar tone.

Please these actions are important for us to not advocate evil. I do not believe you are intentionally doing this but we are hear to correct one another with fraternally love. Sometimes calling someone a heretic can make them examine their point of view.

 

[tm30]

So one of my friends and I (we’re both women) are close enough that we’d be glad to live together for the rest of our lives once I’m finished with school. I suppose you could call it a “Boston marriage”, if they called it that these days

Imagining we settled down in a state that recognizes same-sex marriages or “domestic partnerships”, would it be all right that we get married to take advantage of the legal conveniences? We wouldn’t be going out and trying to pretend we had a sacramental marriage (we’re both Catholic), just having our “live in the same house, each other’s legal primary point of contact etc.” arrangement down on legal papers for our own safety.

By participating in a system that was built specifically to benefit those committing grave sin, even though you are not of the same identity as those it was built to serve, you are contributing to scandal. By becoming a willing statistic on the state rolls, you are helping to validate their policy.

 

[tm30]

This is why I support civil unions and not same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage makes a mockery of the meaning of the sacrament and creates huge confusion. Civil unions allow people who want to share their lives with each other to set up legal and financial arrangements to facilitate this. Legalizing such unions does not imply that sex is (or is not) going on. That is not the government’s business. People like you and your friend would benefit from such unions (as of course would gay couples), and by not calling them “marriage” we avoid the embarrassing (to you) and false (in your case) implication that you are having sex with each other, which is what marriage usually (though not always) involves.

Edwin

Civil unions are contrary to the family unit upon which society is built. If a man and a woman want to have a civil union, and have a deep enough relationship that they need to set up legal and financial arrangements, then they should get married or live separately. End of story. If two people of the same sex want to live a celibate lifestyle and make financial/legal agreements, they can assign power of attorney to one another and make each other beneficiaries of their financial accounts and in their respective wills. They don’t need to live together in a civil union. The biggest burden is health insurance coverage through employers, but, it’s hardly worth the destruction of the societal understanding of what a family should be (spouses or spouses + children) just so someone can share health insurance benefits. That seems a lot like the worship of mammon…

In the end. All this amounts to is the continuing slouch of society towards Gomorrah (if I may paraphrase Judge Bork). We’ve decided we can’t beat 'em, so now we’re going to join them. How noble.

 

[daughteroftruth]

You’re right! They do say that you’re wrong.

Don’t twist my words just because I pointed out the painfully obvious. Maybe you should stop being lazy by spewing antiChristian opinion and reveal to me how my words have contradicted the words of Christ, His Church, or His Saints. *again, use their words, not your opinion.

Why are you opposing them so harshly?

Why are you opposing Christ and His Church with such vigor?

And when are you casting yourself into the sea for proclaiming a teaching that is you claim to be taught by Mother Church, even when it is not taught by the Church and you have failed to cite even one sentence of relevant teaching that opposes my theological opinion on the matter?

Need I point it out again?! You’re the one that has yet to back up your opinion with anything besides personal opinion.

Though sometimes necessary, there is always great risk in condemning a fellow Catholic.

Remember that.

To falsely call another a heretic does great damage to the unity, charity, and influence of the Church.

Your twisting of God’s love and opposition to the Church condemns you (and not falsely).

It must be considered carefully, and launched upon only when there is clear and compelling reason to do so. You, daughteroftruth, give the impression of one lazily condemning others without serious prayer or understanding of Church teaching for the mere sport of it.

Lazily condemning others without serious prayer or understanding of the Church teaching? Sounds like, once again, you have nothing to back up your (personal) opinion, and so you have to resort to ignorant, presumptuous, and convenient criticism. Typical reaction of someone who knows they’re wrong but will refuse to admit it. shakes head

It’s dispiriting and deadly,

It is

and I urge you to think more deeply about the proper bounds of legitimate differences of opinion between men of good, informed, and obedient consciences before issuing your next personal order of excommunication.

I will, the next time I disguss a matter with a man who has an informed and obedient conscience.

***The Scriptures (with *Catholic *commentary) and Roman Catechism are excellent places to start if one is looking for information

 

[Wowbagger]

Furthermore now several documents have been cited for the opposition to your argument including the vatican document and summa theologica. Do you really want her to bore you by citing these documents again?

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.

What she was saying is that you must live on earth as a servant to God you can’t love God with half of your heart, you can’t silently approve of evil. We must be servants first and foremost of God at all times. Your opinion appears to advocate something different.

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.

I have heard from homosexuals becoming belligerent that homosexuality is okay because Jesus did not directly say “No sex with people of the same gender”. They dismiss what the Apostle Paul and the old testament because they are trying to come up with something to justify a sinful action. Your arguement at this point appears to hold a similar tone.

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 do not believe you are intentionally doing this but we are hear to correct one another with fraternally love. Sometimes calling someone a heretic can make them examine their point of view.

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.