Must we Catholics agree with the Church on the Government's role in society?

[Kevin_B]

From what I have always been taught, the Church is infallible in the areas of faith and morality. That seems pretty clear. However, recently I have been called “not a Catholic” (which is a fallacy in itself, we are Catholics until we die) for disagreeing with the Church in an entirely different aspect of life: The role Government should play in our society.

I believe that Government should play an absolutely minimal role in society. It should ensure that no person in that country is denied the basic requirements for life: food, shelter, education. Even doing these simple tasks our government is notoriously inefficient! I would like it even more if they could sub-contract these roles to private organizations who could do it much more efficiently than they can. And, of course, they need to defend their citizens from attack (not attack countries preemptively, as we have been prone to doing in the last 50 years)

I do not believe it is the job of government to preserve the definitions of words.
I do not believe it is the role of government to force people to be moral.
I do not believe it is the role of Government to make sure every child has a mom and a dad.
I do not believe it is the role of government to encourage people to have babies (or not to have babies, for that matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.” (from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter on the matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “[preserve]the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means. Of course, in an ideal world (to me), the government would not be involved in marriage at all, only Churches would. But since that obviously is not going to happen, the next best solution in my opinion is to let the government “marry” any two consenting people who want to get “married”.

Yet people will claim that I am out of communion with the Church, but how? I am agreeing with them on all matters of faith and morality. The only area I disagree with them is on what the responsibilities of government should be. Since when is that an area of infallibility in the Church?

P.S. By the way, I am fully aware of both the fictional and real threats to the Church as a result of this endeavor. There are real threats, such as forcing Churches to provide adoptions to same-sex couples, and I would oppose any government forcing a Church to do that. There are also imaginary threats, like forcing Churches to marry people. Since the government has always allowed people to get married who would not be allowed by the Church (divorced people, for instance), and not once has any one of these couples sued the Church to marry them, there is no chance of this ever happening. And, if the 1st Amendment is repealed and this does happen, I would oppose it as well.

 

[Newbie2]

The Catholic Church does not define what is and what is not a good or ideal governmental system, so it would seem difficult to determine whether or not you’re in agreement.

The Church is concerned with a just government and that the governing is done is a fair and just manner. Just how that is specifically accomplished, again, is not specified.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Yep.

 

[Kevin_B]

I agree with you, but the problem is that this is not the message coming from the Church. The message coming from them is " if you don’t agree with us that the government should be in charge of protecting marriage, you aren’t in full communion with the church"

Unfortunately this type of stand justmakes people question true papal infallibility in faith and morals.

 

[Corki]

I agree with you, but the problem is that this is not the message coming from the Church. The message coming from them is " if you don’t agree with us that the government should be in charge of protecting marriage, you aren’t in full communion with the church"

Unfortunately this type of stand justmakes people question true papal infallibility in faith and morals.

That’s not really what the Church has been saying. It’s not like we are starting with a blank slate and the government is going to define what marriage is or isn’t.

What the Church is saying is that some governments are making changes to existing models that are immoral. The actions of a government can be moral or immoral. When the government is making changes that are immoral, it is wrong to support that. That’s cooperation with evil.

And if you don’t want the government to define words such as marriage, you would have to say that the government can define words such as “organic”, “safety tested”, “ISO compliant”, “legal guardian”, “owner” or “eligible”. Part of what government does is to put a framework - which includes words - around actions and states of being.

 

[JimG]

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means. Of course, in an ideal world (to me), the government would not be involved in marriage at all, only Churches would. But since that obviously is not going to happen, the next best solution in my opinion is to let the government “marry” any two consenting people who want to get “married”.

Any two consenting people?

 

[Fairwinds]

…I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means. …

if marriage were a private arrangement that affected only the married couple, you might have a point. but marriage has a public side, the marriage vs. the world. this affects how real or personal property is bought, held, or sold, how estates are probated (or not), insurance, trusts, contracts, spousal and child rights in divorce, about a million other things.

so government has an interest in defining what marriage means.

 

[Corki]

if marriage were a private arrangement that affected only the married couple, you might have a point. but marriage has a public side, the marriage vs. the world. this affects how real or personal property is bought, held, or sold, how estates are probated (or not), insurance, trusts, contracts, spousal and child rights in divorce, about a million other things.

so government has an interest in defining what marriage means.

Not to mention taxes. Definitely part of what government has an interest in.

 

[Kevin_B]

What the Church is saying is that some governments are making changes to existing models that are immoral. The actions of a government can be moral or immoral. When the government is making changes that are immoral, it is wrong to support that.

But I do not believe God has given justices of the peace the power to perform sacraments. Therefore, there is nothing sacred about the legal contract known as civil marriage, and therefore changing it is not immoral. Civil marriages, or civil unions if you prefer that term, are a purely secular document. I contest your claim that changing their scope is immoral.

Part of what government does is to put a framework - which includes words - around actions and states of being.

Who said government should be doing this?

Any two consenting people?

Yes. However, since minors are not able to consent, it could also be stated as “two consenting adults”. Or more than two, if they want, although it would involve serious changes to the tax code

if marriage were a private arrangement that affected only the married couple, you might have a point. but marriage has a public side, the marriage vs. the world. this affects how real or personal property is bought, held, or sold, how estates are probated (or not), insurance, trusts, contracts, spousal and child rights in divorce, about a million other things.

But none of these are issues of faith or morals. Therefore, in all the matters you listed, I am allowed to disagree with the opinion of the Church as to who can or cannot receive them.

Is the Church really claiming divine authority on how estates are probated?

 

[Fairwinds]

…
But none of these are issues of faith or morals. Therefore, in all the matters you listed, I am allowed to disagree with the opinion of the Church as to who can or cannot receive them.

Is the Church really claiming divine authority on how estates are probated?

I don’t know how you managed to twist my comments so badly. you said:

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means.

I gave you a dozen reasons why it is the role of government to define marriage and Corki added another.

your point was thoroughly negated.

 

[livingwordunity]

But I do not believe God has given justices of the peace the power to perform sacraments. Therefore, there is nothing sacred about the legal contract known as civil marriage, and therefore changing it is not immoral. Civil marriages, or civil unions if you prefer that term, are a purely secular document. I contest your claim that changing their scope is immoral.

Marriage was marriage before it was a sacrament, before the Catholic Church, and before the existence of any government.

Marriage goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Natural marriage (between on man and one woman) is an institution that was created by God when He created Eve as Adam’s wife and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus (God the Son) took this natural union of one man and one woman, blessed it, and elevated it to the supernatural. That’s why the Church recognizes a natural non-sacramental marriage when it meets the conditions for being a valid natural marriage.

 

[Corki]

But I do not believe God has given justices of the peace the power to perform sacraments. Therefore, there is nothing sacred about the legal contract known as civil marriage, and therefore changing it is not immoral. **Civil marriages, or civil unions if you prefer that term, are a purely secular document. **I contest your claim that changing their scope is immoral.

Civil marriages do have secular recognition but may also be Sacramental. In the cases where a civil marriage is also Sacramental (as when two Protestants marry) or even in a natural marriage, there is absolutely something sacred that needs to be protected. If you want to make two categories - 1) Catholic Sacramental marriages and 2) purely civil marriages, where do you put all the Sacramental marriages that are not performed under the umbrella of the Chuch?

 

[Kevin_B]

I gave you a dozen reasons why it is the role of government to define marriage and Corki added another.

your point was thoroughly negated.

I’m sorry, I wasn’t very clear. You both gave very good reasons why you believe the government’s role is to define marriage. However, since neither you not the church is infallible in the aspect of “what the role of government should be”, I am free to disagree with your opinion.

Marriage was marriage before it was a sacrament, before the Catholic Church, and before the existence of any government.

Marriage goes all the way back to Adam and Eve. Natural marriage (between on man and one woman) is an institution that was created by God when He created Eve as Adam’s wife and told them to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus (God the Son) took this natural union of one man and one woman, blessed it, and elevated it to the supernatural. That’s why the Church recognizes a natural non-sacramental marriage when it meets the conditions for being a valid natural marriage.

Then why does the Church oppose civil union’s, which do not predate the church, do not go back to Adam and eve, and have absolutely no history before the last few decades?

Civil marriages do have secular recognition but may also be Sacramental. In the cases where a civil marriage is also Sacramental (as when two Protestants marry) or even in a natural marriage, there is absolutely something sacred that needs to be protected. If you want to make two categories - 1) Catholic Sacramental marriages and 2) purely civil marriages, where do you put all the Sacramental marriages that are not performed under the umbrella of the Chuch?

Good point! I guess that would mean there are 3 categories, not 2. Ill have to remember that in the future.

 

[TRH1292]

Adherence to Catholic Social Teaching is not optional.

 

[markomalley]

Adherence to Catholic Social Teaching is not optional.

And understanding what Catholic Social Teaching actually says is also not optional (sadly, a goodly number of diocesan “social justice” offices teach has only a passing resemblance to the Papal Magisterium)

 

[Corki]

Then why does the Church oppose civil union’s, which do not predate the church, do not go back to Adam and eve, and have absolutely no history before the last few decades?

The history of civil unions goes back much further than that. In the US, justices of the peace have been presiding over non-religious marriages for well over a hundred years.

The Church does not oppose civil unions categorically. She just opposes civil unions if one of the parties are Catholic or if the union is otherwise opposed to the natural order such as same-sex civil unions, multiple spouse civil unions. She also opposes civil unions that are an evasion of the law - for example, when someone seeks a civil marriage in oder to circumvent taxes or immigration law.

 

[edwest2]

From what I have always been taught, the Church is infallible in the areas of faith and morality. That seems pretty clear. However, recently I have been called “not a Catholic” (which is a fallacy in itself, we are Catholics until we die) for disagreeing with the Church in an entirely different aspect of life: The role Government should play in our society.

I believe that Government should play an absolutely minimal role in society. It should ensure that no person in that country is denied the basic requirements for life: food, shelter, education. Even doing these simple tasks our government is notoriously inefficient! I would like it even more if they could sub-contract these roles to private organizations who could do it much more efficiently than they can. And, of course, they need to defend their citizens from attack (not attack countries preemptively, as we have been prone to doing in the last 50 years)

I do not believe it is the job of government to preserve the definitions of words.
I do not believe it is the role of government to force people to be moral.
I do not believe it is the role of Government to make sure every child has a mom and a dad.
I do not believe it is the role of government to encourage people to have babies (or not to have babies, for that matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.” (from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter on the matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “[preserve]the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means. Of course, in an ideal world (to me), the government would not be involved in marriage at all, only Churches would. But since that obviously is not going to happen, the next best solution in my opinion is to let the government “marry” any two consenting people who want to get “married”.

Yet people will claim that I am out of communion with the Church, but how? I am agreeing with them on all matters of faith and morality. The only area I disagree with them is on what the responsibilities of government should be. Since when is that an area of infallibility in the Church?

P.S. By the way, I am fully aware of both the fictional and real threats to the Church as a result of this endeavor. There are real threats, such as forcing Churches to provide adoptions to same-sex couples, and I would oppose any government forcing a Church to do that. There are also imaginary threats, like forcing Churches to marry people. Since the government has always allowed people to get married who would not be allowed by the Church (divorced people, for instance), and not once has any one of these couples sued the Church to marry them, there is no chance of this ever happening. And, if the 1st Amendment is repealed and this does happen, I would oppose it as well.

The US government is clearly legislating immorality. Being neutral is not an option. If the First Amendment goes you will have no one to talk to.

Peace,
Ed

 

[exnihilo]

I do not believe it is the job of government to preserve the definitions of words.
I do not believe it is the role of government to force people to be moral.
I do not believe it is the role of Government to make sure every child has a mom and a dad.
I do not believe it is the role of government to encourage people to have babies (or not to have babies, for that matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.” (from then Cardinal Ratzinger’s letter on the matter)
I do not believe it is the role of government to “[preserve]the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour”

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means.

I would agree it is not the role of government to decide what marriage means. Government must however respect marriage. The fact that we have common law marriages tells us that at one time government understood that marriage is not something it defines but rather something the precedes the state. A person can be married without the state. Attempts to create something called same sex marriage is not really redefining marriage because the state has no such power. But there are practical implications to laws that claim to do this and the consequences are all bad. What exactly is the purpose of the state if not to preserve and protect the family, which is the smallest social unit? The state would not exists if it were not for the family. Undermining the family in any way is a grave moral evil.

It should ensure that no person in that country is denied the basic requirements for life: food, shelter, education. Even doing these simple tasks our government is notoriously inefficient!

I would question whether education is a basic requirement of life. But what do you mean that no person should be denied these things? It does not seem to me that it is much of a problem of people being denied any of those things. They often do not have the means to produce or purchase those things. Do you mean the government must provide those things to all people? If so we are not talking bout a minimalist government at all but a social welfare state.

I believe that Government should play an absolutely minimal role in society. I

In some ways you seem to be advocating a libertarian stance of minimal government. I actually am sympathetic to that. But the reality is in the US we have an all powerful police state. It will not be rolled back. But I see no reason to support legislated immorality on the principle of freedom when in all other ways freedom is lacking. It is like with abortion. The argument for abortion is women have a right to their body. But there is a long list of things the government prevents a woman from doing with her body including taking certain substances, prostituting, and traveling to certain places. Thus the freedom argument for abortion is in reality sophism. That is the same with the same sex marriage argument. If the goal was really marriage freedom than any type of marriage including to close relatives and multiple people would be the state purpose. But it isn’t. The goal is just same sex or ‘gay marriage’.

 

[sw85]

However, recently I have been called “not a Catholic” (which is a fallacy in itself, we are Catholics until we die) …

“Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.”

–Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 22​

… for disagreeing with the Church in an entirely different aspect of life: The role Government should play in our society.

Rulers of state are human beings who therefore have moral duties and responsibilities of their own. So, no, “the role government should play in our society” is in fact a question of morals.

In conclusion, I do not believe it is the role of government to decide what the word “marriage” means.

I agree. So does the Church. “Marriage” has a meaning independent of the state. The state can choose either to accept that meaning (i.e., to deal with reality the way it objectively is) or to reject it (i.e., to refusal to deal with reality on its own terms). The former is moral because it concerns truth. The latter isn’t because it’s psychotic.

Yet people will claim that I am out of communion with the Church, but how? I am agreeing with them on all matters of faith and morality. The only area I disagree with them is on what the responsibilities of government should be. Since when is that an area of infallibility in the Church?

Luckily for everyone, you don’t get to decide what are “matters of faith and morality,” much less what you are or aren’t allowed to believe about them.

I agree with you, but the problem is that this is not the message coming from the Church. The message coming from them is " if you don’t agree with us that the government should be in charge of protecting marriage, you aren’t in full communion with the church"

Unfortunately this type of stand justmakes people question true papal infallibility in faith and morals.

Reread Newbie2’s post. He is saying the Church concerns itself with the moral duties of government, not prudential questions like how best to accomplish those duties. e.g., we are allowed to believe that it might not be prudent for the government to impose this or that tax given these or those circumstances; we are not allowed to believe that it is immoral for the government to tax.

The Church’s declaration re: the duties of the state toward the common good are not prudential, they are moral. They concern the moral duties of men toward society and the state. Therefore you are not free to disagree with them and your refusal to assent to them does, in fact, put you out of communion with the Church.

 

[Kevin_B]

The history of civil unions goes back much further than that. In the US, justices of the peace have been presiding over non-religious marriages for well over a hundred years.

The Church does not oppose civil unions categorically. She just opposes civil unions if one of the parties are Catholic or if the union is otherwise opposed to the natural order such as same-sex civil unions, multiple spouse civil unions. She also opposes civil unions that are an evasion of the law - for example, when someone seeks a civil marriage in order to circumvent taxes or immigration law.

How is a same-sex civil union against the natural order? Civil unions are purely governmental constructs, they have no place in the natural order at all. Marriage exists outside of government, civil unions do not. How is it “against the natural order” to tell someone they can leave all their possessions to someone of the same sex when they die?

I would agree it is not the role of government to decide what marriage means. Government must however respect marriage. The fact that we have common law marriages tells us that at one time government understood that marriage is not something it defines but rather something the precedes the state. A person can be married without the state. Attempts to create something called same sex marriage is not really redefining marriage because the state has no such power. But there are practical implications to laws that claim to do this and the consequences are all bad. What exactly is the purpose of the state if not to preserve and protect the family, which is the smallest social unit? The state would not exists if it were not for the family. Undermining the family in any way is a grave moral evil.

I already said what I believe the role of government should be. You can believe the government should preserve the family if you want. I believe that is the role of religion.

I would question whether education is a basic requirement of life. But what do you mean that no person should be denied these things? It does not seem to me that it is much of a problem of people being denied any of those things. They often do not have the means to produce or purchase those things. Do you mean the government must provide those things to all people? If so we are not talking bout a minimalist government at all but a social welfare state.

It should provide these things to all people who are too poor or who otherwise cannot obtain them on their own. Are you honestly telling me that the government should preserve the family, but not give food to someone starving to death?

In some ways you seem to be advocating a libertarian stance of minimal government. I actually am sympathetic to that. But the reality is in the US we have an all powerful police state. It will not be rolled back. But I see no reason to support legislated immorality on the principle of freedom when in all other ways freedom is lacking. It is like with abortion. The argument for abortion is women have a right to their body. But there is a long list of things the government prevents a woman from doing with her body including taking certain substances, prostituting, and traveling to certain places. Thus the freedom argument for abortion is in reality sophism. That is the same with the same sex marriage argument. If the goal was really marriage freedom than any type of marriage including to close relatives and multiple people would be the state purpose. But it isn’t. The goal is just same sex or ‘gay marriage’.

What makes you think same-sex marriage is the only form of limited government I support? I do not believe the government should tell a woman what to do with her body, including taking drugs, traveling, or prostitution. I think these should be legal. The only reason I think abortion should be illegal is because the fetus has separate DNA, and therefore is an individual and has the aforementioned rights. Parents make decisions for their children, but if they make decisions which are detrimental to the children, they can be taken away. “Killing the child” is pretty detrimental.
I also don’t think the government should tell people how many people they can marry, either. If someone wants to “marry” 3 people, let them. Incest is tricky. I would tell the government to again butt out, but any children conceived through incest have a high likelihood of genetic disorders, and again that is detrimental to their well-being, so that law may have to stay.

I agree. So does the Church. “Marriage” has a meaning independent of the state. The state can choose either to accept that meaning (i.e., to deal with reality the way it objectively is) or to reject it (i.e., to refusal to deal with reality on its own terms). The former is moral because it concerns truth. The latter isn’t because it’s psychotic.

Does “civil union” have a meaning independent of the state? No, it is a construct created purely by the government. But yet the Church says I am supposed to oppose same-sex civil unions. Which means that, in the Church’s eyes, whether or not something has a meaning outside the government is irrelevant.