The Purpose of Marriage

[PRmerger]

Well Jesus certainly wasn’t upset with his people because they couldn’t recite the 10 commandments by heart.

All you have to do is look at Abortion, could you be a good Catholic without being learned in such an issue? Absolutely. Could you be a good Catholic by advocating or partaking in such evil? Absolutely not.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

Egg-zactly.

No one needs to be able to recite the Summa in order to be a good Catholic. However, one cannot propose things contrary to the teachings of the Church and be a good Catholic.

As I have previously discussed with inocente, there is a young man with Down syndrome in my parish who receives Him in the Eucharist with such reverence and joyful anticipation, that it chokes me up every time. Chokes. me. up.

He gets it. Even if he has never read a single treatise on transubstantiation, he gets it.

Better than I do.

Better than all of those dum dum lump-in-the-pew Catholics.

 

[PRmerger]

The CCC contains what Catholics are thought. Whether those thoughts are right or wrong there are people that identify as Catholics that have thoughts and conclusions that don’t conform with Catholicism. There’s variance from the teachings of Catholicism and what some Catholics think.

When Catholics are at variance with the teachings of the CC, then they are not being good Catholics. It is at odds with the Catholic paradigm to divorce oneself from the teachings of the Church. We are bound to follow the laws as proposed by the Church.

However, in the Protestant world, when a Christian is at variance with the teachings of his pastor, he can say, “Well, this is certainly permissible! This is, after all, one of the pillars of Protestantism–that I am permitted to read the Bible and decide for myself what is true!”

So when a Protestant is at variance with the teachings of his church, he is being a good Protestant. When a Catholic is at variance with the teachings of the CC, he is NOT being a good Catholic.

Interestingly, it seems that materialists/atheists seem to be following the Catholic model. When a materialist is at variance with the teachings of empiricism, he is not being a good materialist. Rather, he is bound to follow the laws as proposed by the material world.

Curious, that, no? To think that materialists are more compatible with the Catholic model than the Protestant one.

 

[inocente]

On the meek inheriting the earth, we are agreed!

Now, where you conclude that dum dum lump in the pew Catholics are meek, well, that’s a peculiar conflation.

Rather, I think Jesus said he’d spit them out.

Nope, Jesus never said anything about those who are lukewarm to the Catechism (2nd Edition). For starters it was only published twenty years ago.

*Are you certain Jesus said this, inocente? How do you know?
M
I like to point out that you are submitting to the authority of the CC here. *

Thanks for your kind offer to change the subject, but I’m happy to carry on discussing the purpose of marriage.

*We are commanded to love God with our entire MINDS, inocente.

But we are certainly agreed that you can be a good catholic without ever having read a book.

But be a good Catholic who inherits the earth while disagreeing with the Catholic understanding of the purpose of marriage? Not so much.*

But the other 6 in 10 good Catholics would say the same except they have a different Catholic understanding of the purpose of marriage.

Seriously now, unless laity have to sign a contract that they will only hold with one purpose of marriage or else, what has their view of the purpose of marriage got to do with being a good Catholic?

 

[inocente]

Find another group of Catholics who have read the CCC and know what the Immaculate conception actually is (my personal shibboleth for weeding out dum dum Catholics ) and then see if 6 out of 10 of them disagree with the church on marriage.

Sounds like a very academic approach. Neither that nor any putative purpose of marriage is mentioned in the Apostle’s Creed.

*I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. *

 

[inocente]

No one needs to be able to recite the Summa in order to be a good Catholic. However, one cannot propose things contrary to the teachings of the Church and be a good Catholic.

As I have previously discussed with inocente, there is a young man with Down syndrome in my parish who receives Him in the Eucharist with such reverence and joyful anticipation, that it chokes me up every time. Chokes. me. up.

He gets it. Even if he has never read a single treatise on transubstantiation, he gets it.

Better than I do.

Better than all of those dum dum lump-in-the-pew Catholics.

Are we agree then that views on the purpose of marriage have nothing to do with who is a good Catholic?

 

[josh987654321]

Thanks for your kind offer to change the subject, but I’m happy to carry on discussing the purpose of marriage.

What about with me?

I don’t understand why your avoiding and dancing around the issue, the issue is same sex marriage, whether it’s right/wrong. How could anyone who believes in God justify same sex marriage as morally right? (not being sarcastic or anything, I seriously want to know)

And please don’t say I’m stalking you again, your on a Catholic forum advocating same sex marriage, so if you don’t want to discuss it with Catholics like me, than what are you doing here?

Are we agree then that views on the purpose of marriage have nothing to do with who is a good Catholic?

Well a Catholic could believe in no-fault divorce, but try remarrying without an annulment in the Catholic Church and see how you go.

I mean, oh, inocente, you got me. I guess if the majority of Catholics believe in no-fault divorce, it suddenly makes it right and what Jesus said and the Church’s teachings on divorce suddenly become irrelevant.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

When Catholics are at variance with the teachings of the CC, then they are not being good Catholics. It is at odds with the Catholic paradigm to divorce oneself from the teachings of the Church. We are bound to follow the laws as proposed by the Church.

If your judgement is that such a Catholic is a bad Catholic that is fine with me. I may be missing the overall point that you wish to communicate.

Cant say I know how how evaluations of other positions is relevant.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

 

[PRmerger]

If your judgement is that such a Catholic is a bad Catholic that is fine with me.

I may be missing the overall point that you wish to communicate.

It pertains to inocente’s comment that 6 out of 10 US Catholics support homosexual marriage.

My response: these folks are ill-informed. If you asked them, “Why is the Church opposed to homosexual unions?” this would be their response:



It would be like saying, “6 out of 10 pre-kindergartners support banning immunizations”. Ask the pre-k, “Why are immunizations important?” and maybe the most erudite of them would say, “Because they help stop me from getting sick, but I still don’t want them!”

 

[PRmerger]

Are we agree then that views on the purpose of marriage have nothing to do with who is a good Catholic?

Contrary views on the purpose of marriage have everything to do with being a bad Catholic.

NB: please note, folks, that my reference to being “good” Catholics and “bad” Catholics has nothing to do with sanctity, salvation or the state of their soul.

It is simply nomenclature that is being used to discuss whether a person who identifies as a Catholic can actually articulate Catholic teaching. Bad Catholics can not.

 

[PRmerger]

Sounds like a very academic approach. Neither that nor any putative purpose of marriage is mentioned in the Apostle’s Creed.

*I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary.
Under Pontius Pilate, He was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended to the dead. On the third day he rose again.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. *

That’s why the Catechism is called the sure norm for the Faith.

While all Christians ought to give assent to the Apostles Creed (brought to you and me by, again, the Catholic Church ) no one ought to say, “If it’s not mentioned in the Apostles Creed I need not assent to it!”

 

[PRmerger]

Nope, Jesus never said anything about those who are lukewarm to the Catechism (2nd Edition). For starters it was only published twenty years ago.

Lukewarm to the Faith, inocente. Lukewarm to loving God with their entire MINDS.

Thanks for your kind offer to change the subject, but I’m happy to carry on discussing the purpose of marriage.

It’s just one of my favorite things to point out.

There is no cogent response that can ever be made. Which is why sarcasm is being presented here.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, inocente.

I rarely use it.

Again, no rejoinder is ever offered to the point that each and every time a non-Catholic states, “The Bible says…” or “Jesus wouldn’t…” he is giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

From Mark Shea:
“The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.”

But the other 6 in 10 good Catholics would say the same except they have a different Catholic understanding of the purpose of marriage.

They have a different understanding of the purpose of marriage. But not a different Catholic understanding of it.

They will say, “I know the Church says it’s against homosexual marriage, but I believe that it’s just fine.”

At least, the ones that are even aware that the Church has a teaching on homosexual marriage.

And if you can find 5 of these folks who can articulate what the teaching actually is, and where the Church gets this idea from, and why she proclaims that she cannot change what marriage is…you will be in Fantasyland.

Seriously now, unless laity have to sign a contract that they will only hold with one purpose of marriage or else, what has their view of the purpose of marriage got to do with being a good Catholic?

It has everything to do with knowing your faith, loving God with your entire MIND.

It has everything to do with conforming oneself to Truth.

 

[inocente]

Contrary views on the purpose of marriage have everything to do with being a bad Catholic.

NB: please note, folks, that my reference to being “good” Catholics and “bad” Catholics has nothing to do with sanctity, salvation or the state of their soul.

It is simply nomenclature that is being used to discuss whether a person who identifies as a Catholic can actually articulate Catholic teaching. Bad Catholics can not.

Ah, I for one misunderstood your terminology. For instance, the guy with Downs Syndrome you mentioned is probably unable to articulate much Catholic teaching and so by your definition is a bad Catholic, but he sounds like a good Catholic to me.

I mean, he’s doing his best, that’s good not bad isn’t it?

 

[inocente]

That’s why the Catechism is called the sure norm for the Faith.

While all Christians ought to give assent to the Apostles Creed (brought to you and me by, again, the Catholic Church ) no one ought to say, “If it’s not mentioned in the Apostles Creed I need not assent to it!”

Baptists have no creed, so excuse my lack of knowledge but I thought the only thing good Catholics must affirm is the creed.

Do good Catholics also have to sign a 2,865 clause contract, that being the number of paragraphs in the Catechism (2nd Edition)?

Whatever, it would seem that the majority of good Catholics haven’t signed your contract

Incidentally, as well as the Catechism only being 20 year’s old, it says “12. This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops … It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.”

So even the Catechism says it’s no more than “useful reading” to laity, hardly a contract then.

 

[inocente]

Lukewarm to the Faith, inocente. Lukewarm to loving God with their entire MINDS.

You’ll have to explain in some detail how knowing 2,865 paragraphs in the 20 year-old Catechism (2nd Edition) relates to loving God, sorry but that one flew straight over my head, what did the peasants do before 1992, what’s literacy got to do with loving God, etc., etc.?

*It’s just one of my favorite things to point out.

There is no cogent response that can ever be made. Which is why sarcasm is being presented here.

Sarcasm is the protest of the weak, inocente.

I rarely use it.

Again, no rejoinder is ever offered to the point that each and every time a non-Catholic states, “The Bible says…” or “Jesus wouldn’t…” he is giving tacit submission to the authority of the CC.

From Mark Shea:
“The original 16th-century revolutionaries had the mysterious conviction that you could attack a procession of Catholic worshippers, knock the miter off the priest’s head, dash the Eucharist to the ground, burn the vestments, smash the images, and overturn the altar – yet inexplicably seize their Holy Book and declare it an infallible oracle.*”

Though we still didn’t join the thread to discuss such ye olde matters.

They have a different understanding of the purpose of marriage. But not a different Catholic understanding of it.

They will say, “I know the Church says it’s against homosexual marriage, but I believe that it’s just fine.”

At least, the ones that are even aware that the Church has a teaching on homosexual marriage.

And if you can find 5 of these folks who can articulate what the teaching actually is, and where the Church gets this idea from, and why she proclaims that she cannot change what marriage is…you will be in Fantasyland.

You keep saying that, but with no one from the other side of the fence commenting it’s not possible to draw a conclusion.

inocente;11061153:

Seriously now, unless laity have to sign a contract that they will only hold with one purpose of marriage or else, what has their view of the purpose of marriage got to do with being a good Catholic?

It has everything to do with knowing your faith, loving God with your entire MIND.

It has everything to do with conforming oneself to Truth.

Shirley not, next you’ll be saying it’s necessary to vote Republican and watch Fox News to love God and conform to truth.

Incidentally, it’s “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”. So heart, soul and strength come before mind, mind comes last, mind is least important.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, I for one misunderstood your terminology. For instance, the guy with Downs Syndrome you mentioned is probably unable to articulate much Catholic teaching and so by your definition is a bad Catholic, but he sounds like a good Catholic to me.

I mean, he’s doing his best, that’s good not bad isn’t it?

This is all I am going to say about this young man with Down syndrome, as discussion of him is on the verge of taking him in vain and being disrespectful to his deep, true, profound faith.

From his demeanor, he has a true understanding of the Eucharist. ** He articulates it with every breath of his being. ** He accepts what the Church has told him, and, when asked, “Is this the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ?” he will answer serenely, “Amen!”

Not a single fiber of his being would even dream of saying, “The CC says [A] but I don’t believe that. I believe [not-A]”

And that’s what makes him a good Catholic, as it applies to this discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

Baptists have no creed, so excuse my lack of knowledge but I thought the only thing good Catholics must affirm is the creed.

No, inocente.

Catholics are bound to give religious assent to ALL of the faith, given once for all, to the saints.

Incidentally, as well as the Catechism only being 20 year’s old, it says “12. This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops … It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.”

If by the Catechism you mean a textbook, then you are correct–it is only 20 years old.

But I am talking about the Catechism, which is the faith, given once for all, to the saints, which was whole and entire 2000 years ago.

So even the Catechism says it’s no more than “useful reading” to laity, hardly a contract then.

Yes, it is certainly not a contract. We are agreed on that.

As far as it being “no more than” anything, well, that is like saying that Shakespeare’s sonnets are “no more than” a bunch of pretty sounding words.

No Church document has ever stated that the Catechism is “no more than” anything.

 

[PRmerger]

You’ll have to explain in some detail how knowing 2,865 paragraphs in the 20 year-old Catechism (2nd Edition) relates to loving God, sorry but that one flew straight over my head, what did the peasants do before 1992, what’s literacy got to do with loving God, etc., etc.?

I will simply refer you to Matthew 22:37.

(Which, we know Jesus said ONLY through the authority of the Catholic Church, BTW. )

 

[PRmerger]

Incidentally, it’s “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind”. So heart, soul and strength come before mind, mind comes last, mind is least important.

I don’t have a problem with that paradigm, inocente.

 

[levinas12]

I know that Inocente, in a posting on this thread, cited academic articles regarding the benefits of homosexuality in terms of evolutionary “adaptation”. But, in all honesty, these articles were somewhat daunting.

Would someone be kind enough to unpack them, even just a little bit?

I know that Inocente has provided a few cursory remarks.

But I can’t get a clear fix.

Maybe there’s an “introductory” primer on these issues.

 

[PRmerger]

I know that Inocente, in a posting on this thread, cited academic articles regarding the benefits of homosexuality in terms of evolutionary “adaptation”. But, in all honesty, these articles were somewhat daunting.

Would someone be kind enough to unpack them, even just a little bit?

I know that Inocente has provided a few cursory remarks.

But I can’t get a clear fix.

Maybe there’s an “introductory” primer on these issues.

I find it interesting that my husband just came in and told me about one of the geese that is outside our house that is missing a foot. His mama and siblings are all very protective of him, but the rest of the flock is trying to shun the maimed goose.

Adaptive behavior at its finest. It makes sense, does it not, for the flock to remove the maimed goose from their midst, right?

It’s also quite cruel.

My point: I think that the paradigm "It must be moral and good if it’s beneficial for evolutionary ‘adaptation’ " is an untenable position for any moral person to espouse.