Requesting Help on a Marriage Debate Essay

[absentminded]

Hi, ive been put with the task of writing a formal essay on a topic discussed on the news this week and evidently foolishly choose one that turns out to be really complicated.

So i was hoping someone here who is good at theology could read through what ive got so far and tell me if its correct, or atleast in the same direction as correct. The structure and order and grammar and everything is still all rubbish but im not going to worry about that until im certain that what ive written is even half way right in its interpretation of Sacrament and siting of stuff. I mean its only for school so not really important but still as i thought i had a good idea of how this all worked until actually going through a couple books on it and now im completely lost especially as they all just assume you speak both latin and greek as well as english.

So it would be massively helpful if someone who knows about this sort of stuff could go through this and tell me whether it makes sense and hasnt gotten anything terribly backwards, wrong or anything like that.

Also though not really important, does anyone know what the Docretum pro Armenis is? Many books ive got reference it but never say what it is and i put it into google and nothing helpful came up.

Thank You!

Its too long for one post so ill post it in a reply and this

---

Marriage is not a physical object but a covenant and an idea, so if the words that define it in our language are twisted so as not to refer to it but to something else then our ability, our freedom and our right to access it are limited or even lost. This is the threat that the ‘Gay Marriage’ movement, propagated by minority interest and media profits, poses to our civilisation. Through the liberal and modernist redefinition of the word and common concept of Marriage there is a serious risk of the sundering of Holy Matrimony from this generation of humanity.

There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. If a marriage is gay then it isnt a marriage, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman in Grace, if it is between two men then it isnt a marriage but a mere ceremony in our of the love of two individuals, not the binding of two lives under God through the Miracle of Matrimony.
A Marriage is not the union between two people under the law, there are many institutions which do that, a Marriage is not a commitment between two lovers, there are hundreds of ways lovers commit to each other. Marriage is the contract of the Sacrament of Matrimony, as nothing else is.
You cannot have something which is both a Marriage and Homosexual. You might as well ask for something which is both bookshelf and gay. To do either you would have to redefine a word but then it would only be true as a lie. If you use the word Bookshelf for something that is capable of being gay then it no longer is applicable to Bookshelves. If you re-define the word marriage to be used for a union between people men then it is no longer applicable to Marriage.

Omne inter Christianos iustum congiugium in se et per se esse sacramentum * - that in Marriage the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be separated from the contract of marriage, and that on account of this every marriage is in itself and of itself a Sacrament.
Or in other words, The Marriage is Matrimony and the Matrimony is Marriage. And Matrimony is a Sacrament, or as it can also be translated into our clumsy and inaccurate tongue, a Mystery and a Miracle. A Marriage is a Matrimony and a Matrimony is a Miracle, a Sacrament, a presence of Grace. ** Every valid contract of marriage is in itself a Sacrament**. Valid is something important i’ll come back to in a later paragraph.
Marriage was not instituted by Man but by God and so is of Divine origin, its definition cannot be altered by Man but only by Divine action. The mere publishing of a dictionary with a new definition does not change the nature of the thing defined. If all the governments passed laws and universities issued statements saying the word rose was now identical to the word world, the World would not turn into a rose nor would all roses would not themselves turn into worlds and it was the Rose of the World, Christ who elevated natural Marriage to Holy Matrimony and nothing less than Christ can now extend or alter it.
If Marriage needed alteration to also include situations which are not Marriage then it coming from the Eternal would have already been so and this controversy and charge would have never existed. It should be stressed that Marriage and Holy Matrimony are Eternal, coming from an Immortal Truth, that is something which is always true. While the call for ‘Gay Marriage’ comes from a Generational [or Secular] truth, that is something defined by popularity, by fashion which is held to be true by one generation but not by the next.

 

[absentminded]

This is not an issue of Civil Rights, the legal treatment of a marriage couple is no longer dependent on marriage. Most western countries have an allowance for Civil Union, for two people to be treated as one, in some situations, in the eyes of the law. Which is open to anyone, couples, business partners, spinster sisters, best friends, anyone.

So there are no equality concerns when it comes to Marriage. The argument over Marriage is largely media controlled, militant ‘gay rights’ and ultra-conservative minority groups kick up enough fuss consistently enough, more to offend each other and raise publicity for their fundraising than any actual desire for change, to justify the Media to present the issue as a major talking point to use it to sell papers. But it is not an important issues, there are important points of legal inequality but this isnt one. What its becoming is plainly and obviously just a way for the media and extremist minority lobby groups to keep making money by offending and insulting people while adding nothing to the political debate but smear and violence, while doing nothing for the cause of equality of civil rights but cause division.
It is always right that all citizens of a nation should have equal rights and access to rights under the law. However on the issue of Marriage the only issue of Equal Rights is the exclusion of essential rights to Christians, as out modern society labels Christians as a majority and so makes the false assumption that there rights are not threatened so never considers them. Thus the Gay Marriage debate is not one over the extension of Rights but the repeal of rights. A loss without a gain, presented as a gain without a loss. ‘Gay Marriage’ would not give any civil or legal rights to anyone who does not already have access to them while at the same time it would deny essential rights to a majority of people.
Legally Marriage is obsolete in purely secular terms of civil law, its only role in law is as a special form of Civil Union with no special treatment other than officially honouring tradition and immortal sacrament.
And if the only current role of Marriage in our ‘tolerant’ Modern society is to honour the Christian Tradition of the Holy Sacrament and Miracle of Marriage, then the demand to nullify the convention of Marriage by applying the law and the word to a separate situation. Then the only way to preceive a demand to extend Marriage to non-marriages is as an attack on said tradition and a deliberate act to nullify both the tradition of Marriage and land a further strike on Christendom and the Church by effective banning Christian Marriage by calling false marriage Marriage and presenting nothing as being banned.
As i have already laid out, it is not an issue of Civil Rights or Equality so it is solely an issue of Anti-Clericalism. And this is an issue of Civil Rights, as it is the denial of the Rights of the Christian.

The redefinition of Marriage is the Abolition of Marriage and the implementation of False Marriage. Remember something from above, that every valid contract of marriage is a sacrament. Through the subjugation of marriage and its supplementation with the institution of False Marriage the liberal Modernist effectively denies the Christian access to valid marriage under law. Which is denying the Christian the right to the Sacrament of Marriage and thus denying marriage couples access to Grace.
Thus the ‘extension’ of Marriage to same sex couples can only be taken as an attack on the rights of heterosexual couples, an attack on natural and divine matrimony and an attack of the ‘freedom of religion’ on whose name it will be passed. It should be stressed at this point that there is no conspiracy or deliberate suppression or persecution but rather an ignorant society acting in ignorance on the orders of the baying winds of fashion without the understanding or even vaguest conception of the truth of the matter to even be able to understand why anyone would oppose it but for reasons of hate or ‘superstition’.

There has been a claim from the modernist liberal that Marriage has failed, that Divorce and infidelity has become the norm through the institution of Marriage having failed. Let us consider for a moment which institution of marriage we are dealing with. Since the birth of modern government it has sought to redefine in order to regulate. To simplify everything so as to understand everything without the benefit of actual education. To say that marriage has failed in the last half a century is to avoid the obvious question of if there has been any marriages at all. If it is only a valid Christian Marriage that is the contract to the Sacrament then is it no equally plausible that those marriages as have failed were without the Grace of Matrimony? Married love is fully human, married love is total, married love is faithful and married love is fruitful. But what if actual marriage isnt present?
If weddings have preceded false marriages then is it hardly a surprise that the family and as a consequence our society has had no foundation or heart? If a construct is empty is it any surprise that it should appear to crumble?
And this the threat of the challenge. If the ill informed and unthinking majority of our Generation abolish access to the institution of true marriage through the enforcement of false marriage then the vast majority of marriages will not be valid! Undermining our society by removing the family, its very heart.

 

[absentminded]

There may be no complete or easy solution. In the political and social bias of the secular protestant and modernist society which has dominated our civilisation for the last century and can be assumed to continue doing so for some time, it is reasonable to expect that there will be no civil defense of the true institution of Marriage and Holy Matrimony during out life time.
But there are possible solutions. According to the ‘Docretum pro Armenis’, it is the mutual declaration of will of the pair to be married, not the legal contract or priestly blessing that is the cause of the Sacrament of Matrimony and so it may be possible that Christian Marriage can continue outside of the legal False Marriages. If this is true then we can wait out the storm under Grace. If it is not then the solution may be for Christendom to turn its back on Civil Marriage altogether, to move marriage ‘into the catacombs’ as it were, have in public show meaningless weddings and in private, true contract under Christ and wait out the current fashion for false truths and false tolerance live under the laws and reason of the Church until wider secular ‘civilisation’ returns to them itself.

To redefine the common understanding and administration of marriage in order to allow for what is known as ‘Gay Marriage’ could limit access to valid, true Marriage and Holy Matrimony threatening the stability and future of our society and bring harm to our generation by cause cleaveage between the majority of families and the glory of the Grace of God. Though the uneducated and ill-informed authorities, media and government present the movement for ‘Gay Marriage’ as one fighting for Civil Rights and Equality it is in truth acting against it by calling for an action that will as an unintended consequence be a denial or severe restriction of essential rights and be a greater persecution than any that has come before.

• Leo XIII 1854

---

Thank You! I checked most of it with a catechism and a couple other books but i jumped to alot of ill-informed conclusions too so i just want to make sure theres nothing dreadfully wrong with it so please let me know if there is.
I think this was the right subforum to put it in as its discussion of issues in defense of faith but sorry if its in the wrong place.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I will try to help wherever I can.

Also though not really important, does anyone know what the Docretum pro Armenis is?

If I had to guess, I would say this is speaking of the Decree of Union with the Armenian Christians from the Council of Florence. In that Decree, an infallible summary of Christian doctrines (in this case the number of Sacraments) was given, and Marriage was one topic:The seventh is the sacrament of matrimony, which is a sign of the union of Christ and the church according to the words of the apostle: This sacrament is a great one, but I speak in Christ and in the church. The efficient cause of matrimony is usually mutual consent expressed in words about the present. A threefold good is attributed to matrimony. The first is the procreation and bringing up of children for the worship of God. The second is the mutual faithfulness of the spouses towards each other. The third is the indissolubility of marriage, since it signifies the indivisible union of Christ and the church. Although separation of bed is lawful on account of fornication, it is not lawful to contract another marriage, since the bond of a legitimately contracted marriage is perpetual.
This quote is directly drawing from texts like Ephesians 5 and Matthew 19.

Marriage is not a physical object but a covenant and an idea, so if the words that define it in our language are twisted so as not to refer to it but to something else then our ability, our freedom and our right to access it are limited or even lost.

I would chance the terminology of “physical object” to something like a “a mere social status”.

There is no such thing as Gay Marriage. If a marriage is gay then it isnt a marriage, the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman in Grace, if it is between two men then it isnt a marriage but a mere ceremony in our of the love of two individuals, not the binding of two lives under God through the Miracle of Matrimony.

I don’t think the part in blue is needed. The definition of marriage should be from some authority so it doesn’t look like you’re just stating your opinion. Here is a good quote from the Catechism:1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."84
The definition given here is the official catholic definition per the Catechism and Canon Law. Your essay should clarify there is a distinction between a ‘natural marriage’ (i.e. based on natural law, which everyone is bound to follow) and a super-natural (i.e. Sacramental, which gives grace, and only applies a baptized couple).

A Marriage is not the union between two people under the law, there are many institutions which do that, a Marriage is not a commitment between two lovers, there are hundreds of ways lovers commit to each other. Marriage is the contract of the Sacrament of Matrimony, as nothing else is.

Marriage involves union and commitment, so I think you should say it is “not merely a union” and “not a mere commitment,” because it is those things but more.

You cannot have something which is both a Marriage and Homosexual. You might as well ask for something which is both bookshelf and gay. To do either you would have to redefine a word but then it would only be true as a lie.

Is there a better example than a bookshelf? Just trying to brain storm here.

Omne inter Christianos iustum congiugium in se et per se esse sacramentum * - that in Marriage the Sacrament of Matrimony cannot be separated from the contract of marriage, and that on account of this every marriage is in itself and of itself a Sacrament. * Leo XIII 1854

I don’t think the Latin is needed, only the English translation. Also, Pope Leo XIII was not Pope in 1854, his predecessor Pius IX was Pope at that time. I’m not exactly sure what you are quoting from either, since not all marriages are Sacramental (i.e. only between to Christians).

Every valid contract of marriage is in itself a Sacrament. Valid is something important i’ll come back to in a later paragraph.

This is not quite accurate. In opposing “gay marriage” the focus is on the fact it violates Nature’s definition of marriage (i.e. a covenant by which children are brought into this world), not just the Church’s definition.

(continued 1 of 2)

 

[Catholic_Dude]

(2 of 2)

The mere publishing of a dictionary with a new definition does not change the nature of the thing defined.

Good.

This is not an issue of Civil Rights

Correct. Perhaps you could say a bit more on why this is so. Civil Rights is about treating people with the dignity due to them as humans (e.g. not discriminating based on color), but marriage is not a “right” in so far as discrimination is concerned, but an unalterable law of nature that keeps creation working, just as gravity is. Marriage isn’t about “fairness” but a societal duty. A father and mother have a moral duty to provide for their children, it isn’t an option for them.

The argument over Marriage is largely media controlled, militant ‘gay rights’ and ultra-conservative minority groups kick up enough fuss consistently enough, more to offend each other and raise publicity for their fundraising than any actual desire for change

There is truth to this. More importantly, the problem is one of people not knowing that marriage is nature’s way to continue humanity. Since people no longer link sex to children, now marriage has lost meaning for them. Now marriage is merely one of pleasure, not duty. But a child has a natural right for a mother and father dedicated to eachother, which means a safe and enriching environment to grow up and develop within.

But it is not an important issues, there are important points of legal inequality but this isnt one.

Marriage is an important issue, so the real problem is people messing around with it when really they should be focusing on actual problems we’re facing.

Thus the Gay Marriage debate is not one over the extension of Rights but the repeal of rights.

There is truth to this, which is why marriage isn’t about popular definitions, but rather objective truth, meaning the very laws of creation.

As i have already laid out, it is not an issue of Civil Rights or Equality so it is solely an issue of Anti-Clericalism.

The part in red needs to be re worded. The issue is not “anti-clericalism,” but rather solely an issue of Natural Law. In other words, the issue isn’t about Priests or Catholics or Christianity. Catholics have been identified with this issue because we are the only ones defending marriage and hold it in higher regard than literally everyone else.

There may be no complete or easy solution. In the political and social bias of the secular protestant and modernist society which has dominated our civilisation

It is correct to say Protestantism has some guilt here, for they are (more and more) leading the way for the perversion on marriage. In fact, Protestants never did consider marriage a sacrament.

But there are possible solutions. According to the ‘Docretum pro Armenis’, it is the mutual declaration of will of the pair to be married, not the legal contract or priestly blessing that is the cause of the Sacrament of Matrimony and so it may be possible that Christian Marriage can continue outside of the legal False Marriages.

I would quote the Catechism instead of the Decree of Union with the Armenians. But your point is correct: valid marriage (including Sacramental marriage) ultimately isn’t controlled by secular powers. They can make it hard by putting up various roadblocks, but they cannot make a law making Sacramental marriage impossible because all that is required is a priest and man and woman.

To redefine the common understanding and administration of marriage in order to allow for what is known as ‘Gay Marriage’ could limit access to valid, true Marriage and Holy Matrimony threatening the stability and future of our society and bring harm to our generation

Correct.

 

[absentminded]

That will help massively! Thank You