Same sex unions, divorce/remarriage, contraception

[D0UBTFIRE]

I was wondering, are we morally obliged to oppose the legal/political recognition of same sex civil unions? If no, then okay, no more questions. If yes, then are we also morally obliged to pursue (politically) that divorce and remarriage be illegal? Are we morally obliged to insist that contraception be illegal? I assume that at some point throughout the sexual revolution, the Church fought the legalization of divorce/remarriage(adultery) and that also at some point the Church fought the widespread availability of contraception, but it seems that in today’s day in age, the Church doesn’t care about those issues anymore - in a political sense. Sure, as Catholics we are taught not to divorce and not to contracept, but it’s only a matter of catechizes, and it isn’t really talked about as a social issue that needs to be opposed - or atleast it seems that way, to me. I don’t hear anyone talking about making contraception or divorce illegal the way I do hear people talking about making abortion illegal, for instance. Is that the future of same sex unions? Is the Church up in arms about it now - only in vain? Because the culture will continue to decay morally, and at some point homosexuality will be celebrated by the grand majority - like contraception is today - and so the Church will just ignore it for the most part? Is it uncatholic of me to say that contraception or divorce should be legal - despite the fact that I don’t personally use it or agree with it - others should have the choice? Is that my American liberal education taking over my (converted) Catholic faith? (Still learning here, I appreciate the patience.) Or is that the norm/acceptable way of thinking in a democratic/pluralistic society - afterall, we don’t live in a Catholic monarchy, so I shouldn’t expect the country to act as if we do? I find it strange that there are such strong efforts to prevent same sex marriage but no one cares about making divorce/remarriage illegal…anyone else perplexed?

 

[waanju]

This probably isn’t the correct answer, but the way I see it, you can only fight in a battle that’s going on.

The legalization of divorce and remarriage is not a battle that is currently being fought, therefore, we cannot fight in it.
Was it imprudent to accept loss and stop fighting in the first place? Maybe. Would it be more imprudent to re-engage in such a difficult battle now, at the climax of other battles that are already currently being fought? I think so.
There is currently no battle about legal divorce —> the church cannot take a side.
There IS a battle about same sex marriage. It is not legal everywhere yet. The church certainly can, and must, take a side now to try and get the most moral outcome possible. Later, (if ever) when there are no new moral battles, the church might restart the battle over divorce and fight to make it illegal. Or, we might determine that the best course o action to end divorce is something else, then make it illegal when demand disappears.

Getting rid of an existing law is MUCH more difficult and complicated than preventing a new one from passing. The more time that goes by and the less grave (though still grave) the immoral law, the less likely it is that we would prudently prioritize it (which is why we still fight abortion, though it is legal).

 

[vames]

Or is that the norm/acceptable way of thinking in a democratic/pluralistic society - afterall, we don’t live in a Catholic monarchy, so I shouldn’t expect the country to act as if we do?

This. Should every teaching of the Catholic Church regarding mortal sin became law? Then people could go to jail or be fined if they don’t attend the Sunday mass, regardless of their religion. Or if they don’t observe the current Catholic rules regarding fast and abstinence. Or if they deny in public the Immaculate Conception. OK, it’s absurd, but where does one draw the line?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I was wondering, are we morally obliged to oppose the legal/political recognition of same sex civil unions?

Again, documents from both the Vatican and the US Bishops have been abundantly clear on this. The answer is, Yes. We are in fact obliged to oppose even “civil unions” for same-sex “couples.” I’ve linked these documents before, no many previous CAF threads.

I can’t imagine why you think that the other issues you mention, also, are not of serious concern to orthodox Catholics and orthodox clergy. They are. They speak about them often. Now, it’s quite possible that your average lay Catholic “doesn’t care,” given that a minority of practicing Catholics faithfully and consistently espouse the Church’s core moral beliefs. It’s also possible that many parish priests are not terribly vocal about these topics, for various reasons, some of which may pertain to Mass attendance and parish collections.

The Church cares morally, practically, and politically about all of these issues, including the sanctity of marriage, the importance of civil heterosexual marriage in society, the strengthening of heterosexual marriage, the discouragement of casual divorce, etc. And as for contraception, it’s difficult to have been following the secular news media over the last 2 years and not noticed the Church’s opposition to the ACA.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Yeah its obvious they oppose the hhs mandate and they dont want to provide contraception but i also remember hearing “no one is trying to take away anyones contraception”. Why not? Why isnt anyone trying to make contraception illegal? Obviously the church teaches catholics not to get divorced and not to contracept but it seems they dont make a fuss about the rest of the country doing it the way they make a fuss about fellow noncatholic americans wanting gay marriage. Anyway, i understand some church documents talk about not supporting the legalization of same sex unions… but are those documents ones we have to agree with? Thats a serious question. Im not talking about the morality of it just legality. Are we obliged to oppose the legality of contraception? What about like one poster said, are we obliged to support mandatory sunday church attendance by the state? Hypothetically, if it was on the ballot. Again, im talking legality not morality. I encourage my friends to attend mass on sundays, not to contracept and not divorce nor have a same sex relationship/civil union/marriage …but do i as a catholic haveto encourage the state to make laws about this stuff? If i HAVE to i will i try my best to be the best catholic i can be…but its not clear to me right now. Also, how much does the church support religious freedom and how does that affect these issues? For example, some christian groups believe same sex marriage, divorce, contraception, are not sins and they support these things. Should we, or could we support their right to practice their faith this way? Based on religios freedom, not on agreeing with them. Thanks in advance …sorry for my bad typing im using a touchscreen.

 

[JimG]

Catholics ought to oppose same sex unions, and also work for greater restrictions on divorce. There is probably not much chance of contraception being the subject of legal prohibitions, but Catholics should oppose it and make their reasons known. All these things are an attack on marriage, and marriage is the basis of family, and family is the basis of civilization.

Opposing same sex unions, divorce, and contraception is not simply something to benefit Catholics. It’s an attempt to preserve civilization from further collapse.

No fault divorce has rendered marriage vows null and void. Either party can elect to simply cancel the marriage for any reason or no reason.

Same sex marriage makes marriage itself void of meaning, denying the nature of man and woman and the nature of human persons.

Contraception renders sex meaningless.

Here’s an article with some comments about "Divorce, a Widely Ignored Self-Inflicted Tragedy."

 

[edwest2]

I was wondering, are we morally obliged to oppose the legal/political recognition of same sex civil unions? If no, then okay, no more questions. If yes, then are we also morally obliged to pursue (politically) that divorce and remarriage be illegal? Are we morally obliged to insist that contraception be illegal? I assume that at some point throughout the sexual revolution, the Church fought the legalization of divorce/remarriage(adultery) and that also at some point the Church fought the widespread availability of contraception, but it seems that in today’s day in age, the Church doesn’t care about those issues anymore - in a political sense. Sure, as Catholics we are taught not to divorce and not to contracept, but it’s only a matter of catechizes, and it isn’t really talked about as a social issue that needs to be opposed - or atleast it seems that way, to me. I don’t hear anyone talking about making contraception or divorce illegal the way I do hear people talking about making abortion illegal, for instance. Is that the future of same sex unions? Is the Church up in arms about it now - only in vain? Because the culture will continue to decay morally, and at some point homosexuality will be celebrated by the grand majority - like contraception is today - and so the Church will just ignore it for the most part? Is it uncatholic of me to say that contraception or divorce should be legal - despite the fact that I don’t personally use it or agree with it - others should have the choice? Is that my American liberal education taking over my (converted) Catholic faith? (Still learning here, I appreciate the patience.) Or is that the norm/acceptable way of thinking in a democratic/pluralistic society - afterall, we don’t live in a Catholic monarchy, so I shouldn’t expect the country to act as if we do? I find it strange that there are such strong efforts to prevent same sex marriage but no one cares about making divorce/remarriage illegal…anyone else perplexed?

Nope. Nothing strange going on. The Church has always opposed all of the above, but same-sex marriage is getting special attention. Why? Because advocates have spent millions of dollars trying to convince people it’s OK.

“no one cares”? Like who? Please don’t make blanket accusations without facts to support it.

A little history.

Prior to 1973, Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. They had years and years of interviews and direct patient contact to make this determination.

In 1973, due to pressure from gays in the APA and outside radical gay activists, what was a disorder yesterday became not a disorder the day after. Got that?

Turning gay sex into a legal fiction called gay marriage will be opposed. Here’s what the Church tells us:

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

Why put this on the ballot? Who needs my permission to do what they want?

Peace,
Ed

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Catholics ought to oppose same sex unions, and also work for greater restrictions on divorce. There is probably not much chance of contraception being the subject of legal prohibitions, but Catholics should oppose it and make their reasons known. All these things are an attack on marriage, and marriage is the basis of family, and family is the basis of civilization.

Opposing same sex unions, divorce, and contraception is not simply something to benefit Catholics. It’s an attempt to preserve civilization from further collapse.

No fault divorce has rendered marriage vows null and void. Either party can elect to simply cancel the marriage for any reason or no reason.

Same sex marriage makes marriage itself void of meaning, denying the nature of man and woman and the nature of human persons.

Contraception renders sex meaningless.

Here’s an article with some comments about "Divorce, a Widely Ignored Self-Inflicted Tragedy."

Thanks, that was an good article.
So, the reason we have to oppose these things is because of the way they affect society, not necesarily because they are sinful? So for example missing mass on sundays is sinful but it doesnt necesarily cause the breakdown of marriage and the family so we wouldnt have to support legalizing mandatory sunday church attendnce?

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Nope. Nothing strange going on. The Church has always opposed all of the above, but same-sex marriage is getting special attention. Why? Because advocates have spent millions of dollars trying to convince people it’s OK.

“no one cares”? Like who? Please don’t make blanket accusations without facts to support it.

A little history.

Prior to 1973, Homosexuality was classified as a disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. They had years and years of interviews and direct patient contact to make this determination.

In 1973, due to pressure from gays in the APA and outside radical gay activists, what was a disorder yesterday became not a disorder the day after. Got that?

Turning gay sex into a legal fiction called gay marriage will be opposed. Here’s what the Church tells us:

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

Why put this on the ballot? Who needs my permission to do what they want?

Peace,
Ed

Okay, so its just a matter of ssm getting special attention b/c it hasnt been completely accepted everywhere yet so there is hope it could be prevented. But legalization of abortion wasnt prevented and it gets extra special attention. I guess i just dont get why there is such a strong effort to overturn abortion rights but an effort to overturn divorce and contraception laws doesnt exist … thats what i meant by no one cares. Unless there is an organization you could point me towards that is actively pursueing this politically, i remain convinced that atleast noone cares enough to take any political action on the matters.

 

[waanju]

Thanks, that was an good article.
So, the reason we have to oppose these things is because of the way they affect society, not necesarily because they are sinful? So for example missing mass on sundays is sinful but it doesnt necesarily cause the breakdown of marriage and the family so we wouldnt have to support legalizing mandatory sunday church attendnce?

ALMOST. It’s more that some things are natural law, wile some aren’t.

Some things are sin because they violate natural law (like not murdering). Marriage is dictated by natural law. Breakdowns of natural law cause the breakdown of society. God calls us to obey natural law, but this law is not explicitly religious, so it is a suitable basis or civil law.

Other things are sin because the violate more specific laws of God- ie missing mass. These might not be appropriate to contain in civil law.

This is where the line is drawn. All situations in the initial post, however, where within the realm of natural law. Which ones to focus on pursuing at the present time must be guided by prudence.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

ALMOST. It’s more that some things are natural law, wile some aren’t.

Some things are sin because they violate natural law (like not murdering). Marriage is dictated by natural law. Breakdowns of natural law cause the breakdown of society. God calls us to obey natural law, but this law is not explicitly religious, so it is a suitable basis or civil law.

Other things are sin because the violate more specific laws of God- ie missing mass. These might not be appropriate to contain in civil law.

This is where the line is drawn. All situations in the initial post, however, where within the realm of natural law. Which ones to focus on pursuing at the present time must be guided by prudence.

Thanks, that actually makes some sense! So, does the church or anyone spell out what is encompassed by natural law?

 

[waanju]

Thanks, that actually makes some sense! So, does the church or anyone spell out what is encompassed by natural law?

I’m glad to hear that.
I believe so, but I have to look it up. Perhaps in the Catechism? But I think it’s actually fairly spread out (ie in things about each law, it mentions what type)

 

[JimG]

Thanks, that was an good article.
So, the reason we have to oppose these things is because of the way they affect society, not necesarily because they are sinful? So for example missing mass on sundays is sinful but it doesnt necesarily cause the breakdown of marriage and the family so we wouldnt have to support legalizing mandatory sunday church attendnce?

All sin affects society adversely. There’s really no such thing as purely private sin. Some sin affects society more immediately than other sin, but since we are all interconnected, when I sin I drag others down with me just by becoming less disposed to the good, and it’s the same for everybody.

We don’t propose laws for mandatory church attendance on Sunday, but amazingly enough, in my youth, the law in my state required most retail stores to close on Sunday. My brother worked in a state with such “blue laws” and he liked it, because it meant he got Sundays off. If he worked in the same store across the state line, he had to work on Sundays.

But Sunday closings are now among the least of our problems. We face a disintegrating society because families are disintegrating.

 

[Elizabeth502]

All sin affects society adversely. There’s really no such thing as purely private sin.

And this is not opinion, everybody. This is Catholic doctirne.

 

[choose_to_love]

@doubtfire, you may want to look up some books by Charle Rice, I think, and Ed Feser, both of whom have works that have been recommended here on CAF previously. Or, look up poster sw85, who frequently posts explanations and links to natural law articles/books.

 

[MilesVitae]

Just a few thoughts.

As others have pointed out, there is not much of a political battle to be had at this point over contraception - perhaps not over divorce either, but I haven’t thought about that one as much. Of course, this is not to say there should not be a cultural battle, and a battle for hearts concerning these matters. Even if we don’t fight legally (right now) on contraception or even on divorce, this is not to say that we are or ought to be indifferent to the actual practice of these by non-Catholics in our society. We ought to work to get others to see the evil of these practices.

Also, I would point out that there is a very important difference between the legalization of gay-marriage and a legal toleration of contraception (or of private sodomy, for that matter). It is one thing to not issue a legal ban on a particular behavior such as contraception and sodomy - to simply tolerate it, legally speaking. It is quite another, however, to institutionalize a moral evil, which is what is being fought over in the gay-marriage battle. Gay-marriage goes beyond merely permitting people to do act as they wish privately - it grants a legal approval of the union. It makes it part of the social, legal structure of our society.

Now, as to the question of legally tolerating practices like contraception and sodomy - it is not necessary for the state to forbid every moral evil. The gravity of the evil and the harm it inflicts, worse negative consequences which might result from legally forbidding it, and the moral condition of the people and their ability of the people to abstain from the evil are all some of the factors to consider. For instance, St. Thomas Aquinas argues that laws be framed with the condition of the people in mind - so that only those behaviors which most people, and not just the particularly virtuous, are able to abstain from, and particularly those which cause harm to others, should be illegal (another thought: we continue to fight over abortion, not only because there is still a battle to be fought, but also because it is a far more serious issue than contraception, such it actually kills another person). He points out, furthermore, that illegalizing a practice which most would not be able to abstain from might have a worse consequences of provoking them to greater evil.

My thoughts - should we fight for stricter divorce laws? Possibly - I haven’t thought about it much. Ideally, yes, we ought to have such laws, though. As for contraception, we shouldn’t be concerned with fighting a legal battle over forbidding contraception right now. Even if we had a chance of illegalizing the practice…well, I’m not sure if we ought to or not…it might probably depend on various circumstances…

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is one thing to not issue a legal ban on a particular behavior such as contraception and sodomy - to simply tolerate it, legally speaking. It is quite another, however, to institutionalize a moral evil, which is what is being fought over in the gay-marriage battle. Gay-marriage goes beyond merely permitting people to do act as they wish privately - it grants a legal approval of the union. It makes it part of the social, legal structure of our society.

Totally. That is the point – a point massively missed by those looking at the issue from a narrow or shallow perspective, not to mention from a perspective which assumes that cells within a society have no impact on one another, that a society has no joint purpose in its institutions and no fundamental interrelatedness. We’re all just a bunch of independent units who "shouldn’t care’ what is and is not defined, what is and is not institutionalized, what is and is not in the common good. We’re all merely autonomous and impervious to the larger society. (Absurd.)

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Okay, so its just a matter of ssm getting special attention b/c it hasnt been completely accepted everywhere yet so there is hope it could be prevented. But legalization of abortion wasnt prevented and it gets extra special attention. I guess i just dont get why there is such a strong effort to overturn abortion rights but an effort to overturn divorce and contraception laws doesnt exist … thats what i meant by no one cares. Unless there is an organization you could point me towards that is actively pursueing this politically, i remain convinced that atleast noone cares enough to take any political action on the matters.

Catholics believe that life begins at conception thus abortion is murder; it would be crazy to not try to prevent murder