Sacramental Marriage Solution to 'Gay Marriage'?

[Rau]

For sake of discussion, we might identify the following types of “unions”:

1. Church Marriages: these incorporate what is required to establish the civil/legal requirements for marriage, hence governments recognise Church conducted marriages;
2. Civil Marriages: the Church accepts (opposite-sex couple) marriages conducted through civil procedures, and in so doing accepts that the parties to the marriage have acted with the intentions appropriate to a genuine marriage;
3. Same Sex Civil Marriages: the Church is not in a position to accept same-sex (civilly conducted) “marriages” since in the Church’s eyes, a same-sex couple is not eligible to be married (as the Church understands “Marriage”).
4. Hypothetically, society might decide to create a form of civil union to acknowledge mutual commitment within a same-sex couple and provide legal rights to members of the couple - eg. these rights might address social security, inheritance and such matters.

Regarding point (4), this may be reasonable, in so far as it goes. However, such an arrangement, if also called “Marriage”, implies an equivalence to heterosexual marriage (and in effect redefines Marriage) , and thereby amounts to a community consent to homosexual sex, child-raising, etc. to which many Catholics (and others) take exception.

Personally, I could cope with point 4 (civil union, not called marriage), but those seeking same-sex marriage are generally unwilling to accept anything different to “marriage”. “Marriage Equality” is the slogan which captures the “civil rights” argument that whatever heterosexual couples can have, so can same-sex couples. I can cope with that in so far as legal issues are concerned - but (as an example), I struggle with the notion that families built around a homosexual couple should become a perfectly “normal” arrangement.

 

[spunjalebi]

Unfortunately same sex marriage is a losing battle. More states continue to legalize it and we are labeled the intolerant bigots. Honestly, at this point the State has demonstrated that it does not care about natural institutions like marriage, or even the family. They welcome heaps of money from divorces, make money from alimony, child support laws, etc.

When the State makes it clear that they are concerned about the betterment of society and civilization, I will change my mind on the idea that there is a sacramental marriage difference. Although the Church recognizes the validity of natural marriages between non-Christians, non-Christians also have their own definitions and meanings with marriage which are between heterosexual couples. In many faiths, legal marriage is meaningless and they could care less if the government recognized their union.

 

[fix]

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.

The Church has a much more sophisticated and encompassing view. Natural marriage has always existed. The State is not far away authority that just happens to exist. We do not live in ghettos like it is the year 440 AD.

 

[otjm]

The battle over “gay marriage” is already lost; but I am inclined to think that few are paying attention.

About a year ago I heard, over about two weeks, two women interviewed on Public Radio. Both were advocating polyamory, and the second one was an attorney in Chicago who openly admitted that that they were doing was preparing to use the same method which the gay community had used: the courts. And they intended to do it as the gay community had done - civil rights.

We are farther along than most people, including a lot of orthodox Catholics, realize. There are already criminal laws on the books which can be applied; and if one thinks that some sort of “conscience clause” is going to be a defense, then pay attention to the new health care laws.

And while we are at it, take a look at the court actions which have been occurring for a number of years now in Canada against the Church for standing up against their gay rights laws.

IMHO, we are soon going to be looking at whether or not priests and bishops are going to go to jail over these issues. Think not? Start looking around a bit more.

Private businesses right now have no conscience clause to help them with the mandates of the heath care law, and the IRS will have the power to tax them right out of business.

 

[spunjalebi]

The battle over “gay marriage” is already lost; but I am inclined to think that few are paying attention.

About a year ago I heard, over about two weeks, two women interviewed on Public Radio. Both were advocating polyamory, and the second one was an attorney in Chicago who openly admitted that that they were doing was preparing to use the same method which the gay community had used: the courts. And they intended to do it as the gay community had done - civil rights.

We are farther along than most people, including a lot of orthodox Catholics, realize. There are already criminal laws on the books which can be applied; and if one thinks that some sort of “conscience clause” is going to be a defense, then pay attention to the new health care laws.

And while we are at it, take a look at the court actions which have been occurring for a number of years now in Canada against the Church for standing up against their gay rights laws.

IMHO, we are soon going to be looking at whether or not priests and bishops are going to go to jail over these issues. Think not? Start looking around a bit more.

Private businesses right now have no conscience clause to help them with the mandates of the heath care law, and the IRS will have the power to tax them right out of business.

Yup, and in California they’ve already made it legal for 3 people to claim parentage to children. There is momentum from anti-marriage folks to allow multiple people to claim parentage to children and develop policies irrespective of biological relation. It’s much further along than we thought.

I do feel bad for the private businesses. A baker was sued a couple months ago for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because he is Christian. How many more people will be sued or taken to the courts to be bankrupted? The way modern society works is you serve everyone even if you do not agree with their politics or their religion. All of this serves as a guise because it’s Christians who are being targeted. The couple could have gone to a different baker instead if they wanted to, but the truth is they’d rather force people to change their beliefs and behavior. I wonder…if the lesbian couple had gone to a Muslim baker instead and the baker said no, would they still have sued?

 

[Rau]

… 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. …

Constantine, in my country, “same sex couples” already enjoy almost all the same government benefits as would a married couple. However, the call for “marriage equality” (ie. same sex marriage) is no less vehement than in other jurisdictions where there is much less government recognition of same sex couples.

So I don’t believe the basis of the claim has anything much to do with seeking out government entitlements - they’ve already got that in many jurisdictions.

Rather, I believe many same sex couples feel the need for their relationship to be “validated”, to be regarded as normal and of no less merit than a heterosexual couple. Now personally, I don’t see it that way - I think it is a distorted and “inferior” (for want of a better word) relationship, but I understand why they might feel this way.

 

[Rau]

… A baker was sued a couple months ago for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because he is Christian. How many more people will be sued or taken to the courts to be bankrupted? The way modern society works is you serve everyone even if you do not agree with their politics or their religion.

This is interesting - it highlights how the legal system has to operate as a “whole”. If we have laws that prevent shopkeepers discriminating as to which customers they may serve AND if we have a law that enables Gay Marriage - then it will follow a shopkeeper can’t refuse to serve a gay couple. Personally, that particular example doesn’t concern me - I don’t see how the shopkeeper suffers a reasonably preventable harm by serving the gay couple. I don’t see how the bread-shop suffers by serving a prostitute, and so on. Serving (law-abiding) customers in shops says nothing about the morals, beliefs or character of the shop-keeper.

But nevertheless, this story does highlight that extending legal definitions (eg. of marriage) has implications outside the specific matter itself, and begs the question about further extensions (polygamy, complex family structures, etc).

 

[spunjalebi]

The shopkeeper didn’t want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I guess it would have been one thing if one of the women had said, “I’d just like to have a plain wedding cake for a wedding I’m having” and left it at that. But she made it clear it was for a gay wedding. I suppose in our lives when we serve people we have no idea what goes on in their private lives. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. But once you get hold of the fact that you could by extension be affiliated with a sinful act, it changes the story. A person who doesn’t know their friend is going to physically harm or kill someone else and gives them a ride to the place could be charged an an accessory, so I can understand why the affiliation alone can make one guilty.

 

[Rau]

The shopkeeper didn’t want to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. I guess it would have been one thing if one of the women had said, “I’d just like to have a plain wedding cake for a wedding I’m having” and left it at that. But she made it clear it was for a gay wedding. I suppose in our lives when we serve people we have no idea what goes on in their private lives. Ignorance is bliss, I guess. But once you get hold of the fact that you could by extension be affiliated with a sinful act, it changes the story. A person who doesn’t know their friend is going to physically harm or kill someone else and gives them a ride to the place could be charged an an accessory, so I can understand why the affiliation alone can make one guilty.

I too can understand the shopkeeper’s thinking - though his actions are most likely illegal, while that of the gay couple is legal. Your analogy at the end is not quite right - you cannot be an accessory if unaware of the crime (or likelihood of it). Or perhaps your point is that the shopkeeper might fear being seen to endorse the gay marriage (even if not the case), hence he declined to supply the cake.

Would the shopkeeper have had cause to maintain his objection were the gay couple entering into a civil relationship known by a term other than marriage?

 

[Abu]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003:
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
"9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

"10. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
Notes:
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Evangelium vitae *(March 25, 1995), 73.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Until more Catholics get serious about their faith including more bishops, priests, parents and teachers in Catholic schools the chaos in society will continue to get worse, and the irrational non-solutions offered will proliferate.

 

[Rau]

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 3, 2003:
Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons
"9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.
Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)

"10. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth. If it is not possible to repeal such a law completely, the Catholic politician, recalling the indications contained in the Encyclical Letter Evangelium vitae, “could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality”, on condition that his “absolute personal opposition” to such laws was clear and well known and that the danger of scandal was avoided.(18) This does not mean that a more restrictive law in this area could be considered just or even acceptable; rather, it is a question of the legitimate and dutiful attempt to obtain at least the partial repeal of an unjust law when its total abrogation is not possible at the moment.
Notes:
(17) It should not be forgotten that there is always “a danger that legislation which would make homosexuality a basis for entitlements could actually encourage a person with a homosexual orientation to declare his homosexuality or even to seek a partner in order to exploit the provisions of the law” (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Some considerations concerning the response to legislative proposals on the non-discrimination of homosexual persons [July 24, 1992], 14).
(18) John Paul II, Encyclical Letter *Evangelium vitae *(March 25, 1995), 73.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Until more Catholics get serious about their faith including more bishops, priests, parents and teachers in Catholic schools the chaos in society will continue to get worse, and the irrational non-solutions offered will proliferate.

Useful document. Point 10 raises interesting issue, eg. Instructing a catholic politician to vote a specific way, whereas politician may feel bound to vote according to his constituency’s position.

 

[fix]

Would the shopkeeper have had cause to maintain his objection were the gay couple entering into a civil relationship known by a term other than marriage?

yes, it is still wrong. Simply changing names does not change the essence of the act.

 

[Abu]

Rau #31
Point 10 raises interesting issue, eg. Instructing a catholic politician to vote a specific way, whereas politician may feel bound to vote according to his constituency’s position.

Rather than merely “interesting” this is vital for the CDF shows that:
"10. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.”

Thus a real Catholic politician, like any other real Catholic, is bound to form his conscience on Catholic principles and to follow that conscience in his decisions on faith and morals, and not necessarily according to the “position” of members of the electorate on matters of faith and morals, whatever that might be. As so clearly stated “it is his duty to witness to the truth.”

 

[Corki]

Useful document. Point 10 raises interesting issue, eg. Instructing a catholic politician to vote a specific way, whereas politician may feel bound to vote according to his constituency’s position.

The document doesn’t so much instruct a politician to vote in a specific way as to lay out the moral requirements for public service. To violate those moral requirements is to gravely err (sin) and it is important that that be clear to all politicians who identify themselves as Catholic. Of course, everyone, even politicians, will use thier own free will to sin or not to sin.

It is no different than saying that politicians have a moral duty to oppose abortion, child abuse, pornography or slavery. If a politician chooses to use his office to oppose the moral order, he is doing so at the risk of his eternal soul.

 

[Rau]

Rather than merely “interesting” this is vital for the CDF shows that:
"10. When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.
When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is already in force, the Catholic politician must oppose it in the ways that are possible for him and make his opposition known; it is his duty to witness to the truth.”

Thus a real Catholic politician, like any other real Catholic, is bound to form his conscience on Catholic principles and to follow that conscience in his decisions on faith and morals, and not necessarily according to the “position” of members of the electorate on matters of faith and morals, whatever that might be. As so clearly stated “it is his duty to witness to the truth.”

I follow your reasoning, but following the CDF may place the politician at odds with his duty to represent those he is appointed to represent, or at odds with his party position. (Not all votes are “permitted” to be conscience votes, though on agay marriage, i agree they often are.). A politician may hold to the duty you quote from CDF, but may find himself no longer a politician as a result. A difficult practical situation.

 

[runningdude]

I follow your reasoning, but following the CDF may place the politician at odds with his duty to represent those he is appointed to represent, or at odds with his party position. (Not all votes are “permitted” to be conscience votes, though on agay marriage, i agree they often are.). A politician may hold to the duty you quote from CDF, but may find himself no longer a politician as a result. A difficult practical situation.

A Catholic politician must make his opinions known, and if elected, follow through (actually, this is how all politicians should behave).

If he makes his values known, and is elected anyways, then there is no conflict.

 

[spunjalebi]

I too can understand the shopkeeper’s thinking - though his actions are most likely illegal, while that of the gay couple is legal. Your analogy at the end is not quite right - you cannot be an accessory if unaware of the crime (or likelihood of it). Or perhaps your point is that the shopkeeper might fear being seen to endorse the gay marriage (even if not the case), hence he declined to supply the cake.

Would the shopkeeper have had cause to maintain his objection were the gay couple entering into a civil relationship known by a term other than marriage?

My point was about the endorsement of gay marriage. Or even gay unions for that matter, as the shopkeeper did not believe in promoting same-sex sexual behavior. In this day and age, anti-discriminatory laws have gone to the point where people’s individual rights are being penalized in order to uphold the rights of the few. I guess in this case, people need to advertise that they are Christian in order to prevent any similar situations from happening but they will and have. Florists and photographers have already come under fire for refusing to serve gay unions. I know a lot of people say, “what’s the difference between two gays marrying and a white and a black person marrying?” There is a huge ocean of difference, notwithstanding the fact that the white person and black person is a heterosexual couple used to make the comparison.

 

[mackbrislawn]

I do feel bad for the private businesses. A baker was sued a couple months ago for refusing to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple because he is Christian. How many more people will be sued or taken to the courts to be bankrupted? The way modern society works is you serve everyone even if you do not agree with their politics or their religion. All of this serves as a guise because it’s Christians who are being targeted. The couple could have gone to a different baker instead if they wanted to, but the truth is they’d rather force people to change their beliefs and behavior. I wonder…if the lesbian couple had gone to a Muslim baker instead and the baker said no, would they still have sued?

I view this as government forcing its views upon people. Just about the same thing as government forcing its religion upon the people. Yes, it is a governmental religion, although it is not referred to as such. Where did the people’s freedom of choice go? I am pro-choice–I believe the shopkeeper should be allowed the choice of whom he should serve! If government does not allow him, that’s government coercing its morals upon the people.

 

[holyrood]

I too can understand the shopkeeper’s thinking - though his actions are most likely illegal, while that of the gay couple is legal. Your analogy at the end is not quite right - you cannot be an accessory if unaware of the crime (or likelihood of it). Or perhaps your point is that the shopkeeper might fear being seen to endorse the gay marriage (even if not the case), hence he declined to supply the cake.

Would the shopkeeper have had cause to maintain his objection were the gay couple entering into a civil relationship known by a term other than marriage?

Yes, to supply a cake, knowingly celebrating homosexual activity is to be complicit in that action, to publicly condone it, which is a sin in and of itself.

Another post mentioned selling bread to a prostitute. This isn’t the same because selling bread to a hungry person is never sinful. It’s not celebrating prostitution.

It should NOT be illegal to follow one’s conscience or to refuse to be part of sin. That the government can now FORCE people to take part in and support a sinful act is horrendous.

And these lawsuits against businesses prove that the OP’s professor’s suggestion is short-sighted at best. Whatever the Catholic church offers to men and women will be demanded by homosexual couples in the name of ‘equality.’ Even once they have gay marriage, they’ll move on to demand that they, too, must be given a ‘sacramental marriage’ if they want one.

 

[Rau]

Yes, to supply a cake, knowingly celebrating homosexual activity is to be complicit in that action, to publicly condone it, which is a sin in and of itself.

…

And these lawsuits against businesses prove that the OP’s professor’s suggestion is short-sighted at best. Whatever the Catholic church offers to men and women will be demanded by homosexual couples in the name of ‘equality.’ Even once they have gay marriage, they’ll move on to demand that they, too, must be given a ‘sacramental marriage’ if they want one.

I tend to think the shopkeeper is ok to supply the cake. To do so is to conduct the business he’s in, and to abide by the law. He’s not trumpeting his support for gay marriage. If two Catholics propose to marry in the garden with a civil celebrant, they also do wrong, but it is unrealistic to asert that all (catholic) service providers should refuse to deal with them.

I think we are far away from your last point, but I anticipate the various lobbies may try it on. But I think there is ample precedent to ensure they will lose.