The Purpose of Marriage

[ThinkingSapien]

However, when Catholics diverge from the teachings of the Church, they have divorced themselves from the Catholic faith.

I’ve asked about Catholics that don’t conform to Catholicism in these forums before. The responses could be summarized by the phrase “Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic.” Though that doesn’t quite agree with what I’ve read about some other conclusions implied from CIC 205.

 

[mek42]

Are you a vegetarian, mek?

Are you against the killing of animals for food, as the beast is not capable of consent?

I considered veganism, but realized that without growing food myself, my existence would still cause death or at least the prevention of life (of plants). According to Christian theology, it is our fault that blameless plants and animals experience death. This is one of the first teachings in the Bible. How often do practicing Christians reflect on how their very existence is dependent upon death? I do not do this reflection myself often enough.

Do you not believe consent of all parties necessary for marriage?

 

[Rence]

Through out time, history, and cultures there have been many purposes or motivstions for marriage. Ensure the oaternity of a child, love, social status, protection, and more. Legal marriage allows one to more easily delagate some one for a number of purposes (property inheritance, medical benefits, fifth ammendment protections, tax benefits, and more). I conjecture you are more concerned with the “Sacrement of Marriage” or religious marriage. While there is dome overlap of concerns legal and religious marriage are not quite the same.

Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.

That pretty much sums it up, and I think a lot of people on this forum are having a hard time separating the two: civil marriage and Sacramental marriage are completely different. That’s why the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics, and the State doesn’t recognize anything but civil marriage, including Sacramental marriage.

I’ve seen a lot of Catholics on this forum who believe that one of the biggest purposes of marriage is to have kids and that if a couple doesn’t want to have kids, they shouldn’t get married. That’s just not the reality of it out there in the real world. At all. People get married for companionship, security, many civil benefits, and may or may not want to have kids.

 

[Rence]

There is no need to create a false dichotomy, inocente.

What makes Catholicism so formidable to argue against is that the paradigm is usually both/and. Not either/or.

That’s why the CCC declares that we need both Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture.

Catholicism is in no way formidable to argue against if the one arguing is not Catholic, or is a non practicing Catholic. The teachings can’t be proven and are a matter of faith, and without faith, there is no proof to argue in favor of the Church’s teachings.

 

[tonyrey]

That pretty much sums it up, and I think a lot of people on this forum are having a hard time separating the two: civil marriage and Sacramental marriage are completely different. That’s why the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriage for Catholics, and the State doesn’t recognize anything but civil marriage, including Sacramental marriage.

I’ve seen a lot of Catholics on this forum who believe that one of the biggest purposes of marriage is to have kids and that if a couple doesn’t want to have kids, they shouldn’t get married. That’s just not the reality of it out there in the real world. At all. People get married for companionship, security, many civil benefits, and may or may not want to have kids.

Is it ever possible that not wanting to have kids is due to selfishness?

 

[tonyrey]

Catholicism is in no way formidable to argue against if the one arguing is not Catholic, or is a non practicing Catholic. The teachings can’t be proven and are a matter of faith, and without faith, there is no proof to argue in favor of the Church’s teachings.

It is not a question of proof but the most adequate explanation. Do you believe faith is necessarily irrational?

 

[josh987654321]

**Ask An Apologist

Am I still a Catholic if I disagree with the Church? **

Caitriona67:

If I consider myself to be a Catholic yet am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage (and hold similar views on other social issues), does that mean I am no longer a Catholic?

Michelle Arnold:

No. A person’s status as a Catholic does not depend on how well or how poorly he understands what the Church teaches on matters of doctrine and morals. But if you deliberately reject the Church’s teaching on grave moral issues such as abortion and homosexuality, then you cannot be said to be fully in communion with the Church and therefore you should not present yourself to receive the sacrament of Communion.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=431166&highlight=homosexuality

Hope that answers it for you inocente

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Good, away with book learning. However, we’ve now drifted so far off-topic that we’ll need rescuing before we disappear off the edge of the thread.

I think u’ll find it was you that drifted us way off topic, the issue is of same sex marriage, whether it is right/wrong, especially from a God stand point.

All we can conclude from the repeated polls is that US Catholics are split on equal marriage and therefore on the purpose of marriage. Though one helpful aspect is that as they all use the same bible, this disproves the notion that it’s set in stone and only one interpretation is possible.

You are correct, not one interpretation is possible as evident by the many different denominations of Christianity, but I can assure that only one interpretation is correct.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

.

All I wish to know is your reasoned view of why you support same sex marriage or why my reasoned view of why I oppose same sex marriage is incorrect.

God Bless

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That pretty much sums it up, and I think a lot of people on this forum are having a hard time separating the two: civil marriage and Sacramental marriage are completely different.

I don’t think it’s limited to this forum, but is an obstacle for the general public in the USA and other places. Not that I’m expecting total agreement once this obstacle is overcome. But as long as it’s there it seems to interfere with communication.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ve asked about Catholics that don’t conform to Catholicism in these forums before. The responses could be summarized by the phrase “Once a Catholic, Always a Catholic.” Though that doesn’t quite agree with what I’ve read about some other conclusions implied from CIC 205.

Sure. That’s why I call them **bad **Catholics.

Just like once you’re married, you’re always a husband (until death, and if, of course, you’re a male ) But if you divorce yourself from your commitment, then you’re a **bad **husband. But always a husband.

 

[PRmerger]

I considered veganism, but realized that without growing food myself, my existence would still cause death or at least the prevention of life (of plants).

I find it curious that you do not demand that an animal consent to its being killed, but you find it objectionable for an animal not to consent to someone experiencing sexual pleasure through it.

One would think that you would have a greater grievance at animals being killed without their express consent, than an animal standing still while a person achieves some sort of pleasure through it.

Quite inconsistent!

Do you not believe consent of all parties necessary for marriage?

Of course.

But then again I don’t consider bestiality to be a marriage. But that may be the next definition that will be coming…that is, if one consistently follows the argument that you presented here:

Josh expressed curiosity how anyone else who believed in God, presumably the Christian flavor of deity, could believe that homosexual marriage was morally correct.

I have a question as a rejoinder. Why do many people here appear to believe it necessary that one’s political views reflect their personal opinion? Why is it so far fetched that one might personally believe it is wrong to engage in homosexual behavior, yet also feel that no one outside of the pair so coupling is harmed by said behavior and so, in a free society, said coupling should in no way be infringed on by the State, leading, but not the fullest extreme of logic, to the State allowing same sex marriage?

The basis of this logic being that the State should protect individuals from harm that they do not consent to, but that individuals should be seen as responsible enough to decide on their own, without interference from the State, whether or not to engage in such activities that carry risk of harm as a consensual act.

 

[PRmerger]

Catholicism is in no way formidable to argue against if the one arguing is not Catholic, or is a non practicing Catholic.

In order to argue against Catholicism one has to suspend one’s logic and reason in a multitude of areas.

One biggie is to use our Bible, while also declaring that the Church is fallible and capable of error.

That is an untenable position which ought to make any lover of logic squirm.

The teachings can’t be proven and are a matter of faith, and without faith, there is no proof to argue in favor of the Church’s teachings.

While it is true that Revelation is required for* some* matters in the deposit of faith, reason alone can be used to prove a multitude of Christian teachings.

To wit: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

 

[Rence]

In order to argue against Catholicism one has to suspend one’s logic and reason in a multitude of areas.

Non-Catholics and non-practicing Catholics really have no reason to do that though…which again, doesn’t make Catholicism formidable to argue against.

One biggie is to use our Bible, while also declaring that the Church is fallible and capable of error.

That is an untenable position which ought to make any lover of logic squirm.

If one is a practicing Catholic, yes. If not…well, no.

While it is true that Revelation is required for* some* matters in the deposit of faith, reason alone can be used to prove a multitude of Christian teachings.

To wit: peterkreeft.com/topics-more/20_arguments-gods-existence.htm

If that were true, most people (including Catholics) would be following those teachings.

 

[josh987654321]

If that were true, most people (including Catholics) would be following those teachings.

Not necessarily, it could depend on the payoffs that one recieves by rejecting such teachings.

 

[inocente]

I’ll do better than that. I’ll cite the Word of God.

See John 7:24.

Which says Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.

I think you were judging by mere appearances when you called your brothers and sisters in Christ “dum dum lump in the pew” just on the basis of their view on a single issue, and let’s face it equal marriage isn’t the most important issue facing the Church or society in general.

Imho very few issues are so important they are worth discord and warring in a church, and at this point a Baptist pastor would devote a sermon to stopping it in its tracks, and there would be a mighty wailing and a gnashing of teeth, and at such times pastors close with 2 Cor 13:14 as everyone knows it’s a show stopper and their job is building up not tearing down.

 

[levinas12]

Did I? Oops, forgot.

Any idea of the post number? Then I might remember what it was about.

It’s really my “oops” … I went back to double check the posting and discovered it was in a closed thread “Secular arguments against gay marriage” (your posting #516).

Please forgive me. This is just one of the many senior moments I experience on a daily basis.

 

[PRmerger]

Not necessarily, it could depend on the payoffs that one recieves by rejecting such teachings.

Egg-zactly.

 

[PRmerger]

Which says Stop judging by mere appearances, but instead judge correctly.

I think you were judging by mere appearances when you called your brothers and sisters in Christ “dum dum lump in the pew” just on the basis of their view on a single issue, and let’s face it equal marriage isn’t the most important issue facing the Church or society in general.

3 things:

-I think* you *are judging me by mere appearances. You have no idea to whom I am referring as dum dum lump in the pew Catholics. And you don’t know what I have discussed with them. And it is quite evident that most Catholics–in the US and Spain–have no idea what is in the Catechism, and how to provide apologia for the teachings therein. (Surely you can’t be positing here that most Catholics are able to provide a reasoned defense for their beliefs.)

-I have not referred to them as dum dum lump in the pew Catholics just on the basis of their view on a single issue.

-we are agreed that we are commanded to judge, but to judge rightly, yes?

 

[PRmerger]

If that were true, most people (including Catholics) would be following those teachings.

I think that the fact that 2000 years ago people who actually saw the* Eternal Logos* in the flesh–Logic Incarnate–and weren’t convinced refutes your premise/conclusion.

Please note that **the majority **of those who saw Him, met Him, conversed with Him were not converted.