Sacramental Marriage Solution to 'Gay Marriage'?

[Leo7219]

I was speaking with an ethics professor about the cultural debate on homosexuality and gay marriage and he pointed out that the fight against ‘gay marriage’ is destined to fail. The free will democracy culture of the USA, especially since the proponents have cleverly tried to disguise it as a civil rights issue, will eventually make gay marriage available.

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

I didn’t lay that out eloquently, but I think you get the picture.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

 

[runningdude]

Marriage is a natural institution, at the very cornerstone of civilization and the only appropriate context for sexual expression. Marriage exists as the cornerstone of Christian and non-Christian societies.

The church’s mission is to get people to heaven, kicking and screaming if necessary. The church has no desire to invalidate all future heterosexual marriages for the simple fact that they were celebrated before a judge of justice of the peace. This would be a blatant crime against salvation. It would force those who actually go through the motions to live in a technical state of sin.

By natural law, only an unmarried man and woman can marry. The state’s intervention in creating divorce, or otherwise attempting exceptions to this rule does not change that only men and women can marry.

By current Canon Law, only Catholics must marry according to Catholic Church norms. This could theoretically be changed to bind all of humanity to being married before a priest, but this benefits nobody. All it would do is create invalid heterosexual unions, invalid marriages, which do not benefit those who are marrying.

Creating a special “class” of marriage only valid if celebrated before a priest would the same as entering an valid remarriage following divorce, except it would be an invalid FIRST marriage. This is not an ethical solution. This is not a moral solution.

 

[1ke]

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

Except that is not what the Church teaches about marriage. Your ethics professor lacks the requisite knowledge of the Catholic faith to be making such suggestions.

The Church does not “only” recognize sacramental marriages between the baptized. Valid natural unions occur between the unbaptized when they marry according to civil laws, even common law marriages can be valid.

The Church already teaches some of the other items you mentioned, such as the fidelity, perpetuity, and fecundy.

Of course the Church cannot recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex because that cannot exist.

The Church need change nothing in her current teaching. In fact, she cannot.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

It cannot do so, because the natural right to marriage among the unbaptized (opposite sex individuals) exists.

 

[fix]

I was speaking with an ethics professor about the cultural debate on homosexuality and gay marriage and he pointed out that the fight against ‘gay marriage’ is destined to fail. The free will democracy culture of the USA, especially since the proponents have cleverly tried to disguise it as a civil rights issue, will eventually make gay marriage available.

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

I didn’t lay that out eloquently, but I think you get the picture.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

The Church is interested in all people not just Catholics. The premise you present here is flawed. The State is obligated to protect and promote the common good. They have no authority to redefine reality.

 

[Razanir]

I think the opposite should be done. Instead of creating a special theocratic class of marriages, separate the church and state completely. Call the governmental unions “civil unions” and don’t let priests serve as justice of the peace. You go to a courthouse and enter a government-recognized civil union, then go to the church for your sacramental marriage

 

[SpeSalvi]

I don’t believe I understand- in the Catholic Church, your civil union already isn’t recognized. If you’re married civilly but not in the church (or have had your marriage convalidated) then you’re living in mortal sin.

The problem isn’t necessarily in the marriage of homosexuals- they have been living as married people for a long time now- it is in the idea that a homosexual union is equal to a natural marriage. That there is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ way to form a family; that children don’t really NEED both a father and mother to have the best chance of growing up to be a mentally healthy adult.

It’s much like saying that one religion is not better than the other- that Christianity, Islam, Wicca, etc is all equal- which we know to be false. In the same way, a nuclear family has been shown to give the child the best chance of growing into a well-balanced adult.

I think that our widespread acceptance of no-fault divorce and birth control has done more to damn the chances of marriage as it should be surviving than the prospect of homosexual unions being legal. Marriage has been under attack for centuries, and only because of our modern-day condoning of these things has gay marriage even become conceivable.

 

[Corki]

I think the opposite should be done. Instead of creating a special theocratic class of marriages, separate the church and state completely. Call the governmental unions “civil unions” and don’t let priests serve as justice of the peace. You go to a courthouse and enter a government-recognized civil union, then go to the church for your sacramental marriage

Same problem as discussed in posts #2 and #3. There is a natural relationship called marriage which is not limited to Sacramental marriage. To do what you recommend is to block a large portion of humanity - those who aren’t Christian - from marriage. Since they don’t have access to Sacramental marriage, they would be limited to only a civil union.

 

[1ke]

I don’t believe I understand- in the Catholic Church, your civil union already isn’t recognized. If you’re married civilly but not in the church (or have had your marriage convalidated) then you’re living in mortal sin.

Only in the case of Catholics who marry outside of Catholic form without a dispensation or the non-Catholic party to such a marriage.

Two non-Catholics validly marry civilly and the Church certainly recognizes those marriages.

 

[edwest2]

I think the opposite should be done. Instead of creating a special theocratic class of marriages, separate the church and state completely. Call the governmental unions “civil unions” and don’t let priests serve as justice of the peace. You go to a courthouse and enter a government-recognized civil union, then go to the church for your sacramental marriage

That is the goal, isn’t it? The priest who performs the wedding in a Church needs to see a valid marriage license. So, the priest acts as an agent of the State and the Church.

Civil unions are a fiction created to get a benefits package.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I was speaking with an ethics professor about the cultural debate on homosexuality and gay marriage and he pointed out that the fight against ‘gay marriage’ is destined to fail. The free will democracy culture of the USA, especially since the proponents have cleverly tried to disguise it as a civil rights issue, will eventually make gay marriage available.

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

I didn’t lay that out eloquently, but I think you get the picture.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

First, to quote a non-review at amazon,com: “Keep your Bible out of my government.” The agents of tolerance and diversity claim ownership of the State. That is a dictatorship. It is not a democracy that represents everyone anymore. Obviously, that is what some want.

Regarding “gay marriage.”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Opinions don’t mean anything. Facts and reality do.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Razanir]

That is the goal, isn’t it? The priest who performs the wedding in a Church needs to see a valid marriage license. So, the priest acts as an agent of the State and the Church.

Civil unions are a fiction created to get a benefits package.

Peace,
Ed

The idea is to borrow Europe’s system.

 

[Corki]

The idea is to borrow Europe’s system.

Not really. In Europe, at least most of it, the state still recognizes and formalizes marriage. It may also have a construct for civil unions. The difference is that the state does not recognize many religious marriages nor allow religious clergy to preside over civil marriages.

 

[edwest2]

catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2262/An_atheist_identifies_the_central_problem_with_the_gay_marriage_agenda.aspx?utm_source=feedly#.UZUEUcr-7Co

Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

I was speaking with an ethics professor about the cultural debate on homosexuality and gay marriage and he pointed out that the fight against ‘gay marriage’ is destined to fail. The free will democracy culture of the USA, especially since the proponents have cleverly tried to disguise it as a civil rights issue, will eventually make gay marriage available.

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

I didn’t lay that out eloquently, but I think you get the picture.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

We’re already doing that. I agree that this is a battle we will lose. In the Roman Empire, so many illicit acts were rampant and prevalent. Yet Christianity endured. People back then don’t get married at all, they just go with however many men and women they want to go with. And there were same sex relations back then too. They didn’t ask for marriage because there were no government benefits to it. At some point we have to focus on ourselves and make sure those who want to be true Christians know what the teaching is and follow it, and let the world do what they will. We shouldn’t be concerned about it as much. Smoking is legal, it doesn’t mean we all should smoke.

 

[edwest2]

We’re already doing that. I agree that this is a battle we will lose. In the Roman Empire, so many illicit acts were rampant and prevalent. Yet Christianity endured. People back then don’t get married at all, they just go with however many men and women they want to go with. And there were same sex relations back then too. They didn’t ask for marriage because there were no government benefits to it. At some point we have to focus on ourselves and make sure those who want to be true Christians know what the teaching is and follow it, and let the world do what they will. We shouldn’t be concerned about it as much. Smoking is legal, it doesn’t mean we all should smoke.

“We shouldn’t be concerned about it as much.” ?

freep.com/article/20130408/NEWS05/304080041/Detroit-area-Catholic-leaders-urge-gay-marriage-supporters-to-skip-Communion

Peace,
Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

“We shouldn’t be concerned about it as much.” ?

freep.com/article/20130408/NEWS05/304080041/Detroit-area-Catholic-leaders-urge-gay-marriage-supporters-to-skip-Communion

Peace,
Ed

We shouldn’t be concerned about what happens outside our respective Churches. I mean, we’re wasting a lot of time and effort fighting with people who don’t even believe in what we believe in. Let us preach the Gospel with our lives than our mouths and make sure our own people are properly catechized. When asked for our opinion we shouldn’t side with them, but at the same time we should focus more on growing our own spirituality so that those inside the Church can withstand this moral onslaught. Just look at history, the victory of Christians is not in the influence we have on secular powers, but rather us living the good Christian life that Christ has called us to live.

 

[edwest2]

We shouldn’t be concerned about what happens outside our respective Churches. I mean, we’re wasting a lot of time and effort fighting with people who don’t even believe in what we believe in. Let us preach the Gospel with our lives than our mouths and make sure our own people are properly catechized. When asked for our opinion we shouldn’t side with them, but at the same time we should focus more on growing our own spirituality so that those inside the Church can withstand this moral onslaught. Just look at history, the victory of Christians is not in the influence we have on secular powers, but rather us living the good Christian life that Christ has called us to live.

We are not limited to the Church building. We cannot remain silent in public.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html?_r=0

Peace,
Ed

 

[ConstantineTG]

We are not limited to the Church building. We cannot remain silent in public.

nytimes.com/2012/03/04/nyregion/cardinal-timothy-m-dolan-urges-catholics-to-become-more-politically-active.html?_r=0

Peace,
Ed

I disagree with the good Cardinal. There are more important things we need to focus our attention on, like loving our neighbor, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and suffering, etc.

You do not look at the secular government seeking for a cure to the spiritual ills of society. Making something illegal will not spiritually uplift people. They will only break the law or go somewhere they can get what they want. If we want people to stop sinning, we need to preach the Gospel and feed them spiritually, not slap them with government laws.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

I disagree with the good Cardinal. There are more important things we need to focus our attention on, like loving our neighbor, feeding the hungry, caring for the sick and suffering, etc.

You do not look at the secular government seeking for a cure to the spiritual ills of society. Making something illegal will not spiritually uplift people. They will only break the law or go somewhere they can get what they want. If we want people to stop sinning, we need to preach the Gospel and feed them spiritually, not slap them with government laws.

But we also cannot cause scandal by tacitly approving these government laws, otherwise all our work in feeding them spiritually goes to waste.

 

[russet1]

I was speaking with an ethics professor about the cultural debate on homosexuality and gay marriage and he pointed out that the fight against ‘gay marriage’ is destined to fail. The free will democracy culture of the USA, especially since the proponents have cleverly tried to disguise it as a civil rights issue, will eventually make gay marriage available.

However, he said that the problem is that the Church is letting the government define what marriage is. He suggested that the Church should instate and only recognize a special category of marriage as “Sacramental Marriage” which designates that a it occurred in a Catholic (or valid Christian) Church, that the appropriate pre-marital courses were followed, and that divorce/separation will not dissolve the union only annulment in rare and special cases, and other conditions like this. It would be a way of the Church to reclaim the sanctity of marriage, dis-tangling it from the homosexuality, no-fault divorce, las vegas shotgun wedding culture that can corrupted the Church’s traditional view of marriage.

I didn’t lay that out eloquently, but I think you get the picture.

Instead of safeguarding marriage by stopping secular redefinition in the governmental sphere, maintain a specific definition of marriage within the church and separate it from civil marriages.

What are your opinions?

What your professor is doing while cleverly making the issue complicated is rather simple. He is advocating for the Church to change it’s definition.