What if the government was to get out of the marriage business altogether?

[CatholicGeek1]

As a child adopted though Catholic Charities to a traditional couple I resent your underlining and implication. Not charitable in the least.

I also was adopted and find the thought that only biological children are part of the core family to be offensive and repugnant.

 

[aemcpa]

I also was adopted and find the thought that only biological children are part of the core family to be offensive and repugnant.

Adoption is a wonderful good, but marriage doesn’t exist so that there are couples available to adopt kids.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Adoption is a wonderful good, but marriage doesn’t exist so that there are couples available to adopt kids.

Marriage exists as the building block of the family. A family being a man a woman and kid(s). This is a benefit to society. Whether the kids are biological or adopted makes no difference in this case, and to imply that biological children are superior to adopted children is offensive.

 

[Joe_5859]

Joe, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am not saying that I disagree with you on these things, I am just saying that I’d like some more support for some of your statements.

Sure. Thanks for the additional questions. It helps me think through and better articulate what I’m getting at. This idea pops up a lot, so I want to get better at explaining it.

So, here are my questions/responses:

1. What says that the government has an obligation to be involved in marriage? I’m not an expert, but I don’t believe it’s in our constitution. Is there an authoritative document that spells out the responsibilities of government? (again, these are honest questions, not arguments)

I’m not thinking so much of any particular constitution as I am the Church’s teaching on civil authority. This section in the Catechism is helpful for background: CCC 1897-1927.

In a nutshell, the human community needs an authority to look after the common good. And since the family is the “original cell of social life.” (CCC 2207), the civil authority will always have a duty to safeguard and protect marriage and the family.

This is the ideal, of course, and our civil authorities might not see it the same way. But as Catholics, I think we ought to strive to move our civil authorities closer to the ideal.

1. In the scenario I’m proposing, I don’t think there is any legal recognition of same sex marriages, as there would be no legal recognition of marriages of any kind. There is recognition of contracts between people about how they intend to live, but government only recognizes a contract once there is a judicial process necessary to interpret said contract.

Okay. Sometimes this idea gets raised in the context of proposing “civil unions” as a replacement word for marriage, so that’s the angle I was coming from.

I still would question whether or not this is simply marriage by another name. If two people (provided they are not Catholics bound by the form set out in Canon Law) wish to solidify their relationship by entering into a legal contract whereby they make certain commitments, what is that if not marriage?

1. What is the benefit of “Catholics” getting married in the Church if they are just lying about their intentions anyway? (ie. willing to accept children and bring them up in the faith… try to get each other to heaven, etc.)

Fair enough. Certainly, we don’t want Catholics lying about their intentions. There is a widespread lack of understanding of marriage in our culture in general.

I don’t know that I have a fully formed answer to this question. For me, it seems to touch on a larger issue of what inward disposition and catechetical formation is required for a Catholic to receive any of the sacraments. In other words, we might ask the same question “What is the benefit of Catholics getting confirmed (or receiving the Eucharist, etc.) in the Church if they are just lying about their intentions anyway?”

I don’t really have a good answer. We want to educate Catholics about the nature and purpose of the sacraments. And anyone who would lie about their intentions only does so to their own detriment. But I hesitate to make too stringent of criteria as I fear that could be counter-productive.

I suppose it’s a balancing act between making light of the sacraments (which we don’t want to do) and becoming an elitist Church for only theologians (which we don’t want to do either). Trying to navigate between the two pitfalls is tricky business. If I ever figure it out, I’ll write abook about it.

1. The term “civil union” would also disappear, as it is a nonsensical term in the proposed scenario. So, protestants who were married in a protestant church who later become Catholic would have the same issues they have now. A couple who was atheist and living in some contractual arrangement who later became Catholic, could renounce their adulterous ways, and actually get married (just as couples who are cohabitating before marriage are asked to do now).

I’m no canon lawyer, so I certainly cannot speak on behalf of Tribunal offices, but it strikes me as a real possibility that any contractual arrangement cooked up by the government to replace marriage would naturally follow pretty much the same form as marriage and thus still be a valid marriage in the eyes of the Church.

Of course, a lot of this depends on how the contract is set up. If it is set up with a built in pre-nuptial agreement, then I suppose that could invalidate things from the start. But if it was set up as is natural to be set up (two people committing to each other and joining their life together), then that sounds like marriage to me.

I am genuinely interested in your thoughtful responses. Again, I’m certainly not trying to pick a fight, but I am trying to reason through this idea.

Thank you.

Hopefully my responses are thoughtful. I appreciate the questions. It’s good to talk through these things. This is an issue that is only looming larger and larger in our society. We want to make sure we can speak to it.

Thank you, too.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A lot of this comes down to definition and ownership.

To draw an analogy The Eucharist / Communion. Protestant denominations have their versions of Communion. Catholics can say well with out the True Presence it isn’t really truly Communion. Does it devalue The Eucharist? The only ones missing out is them. They aren’t receiving the full sacrament.

I don’t see why marriage is any different. It isn’t the Catholic view of the Sacrament so it’s not complete. That doesn’t devalue Catholic Marriage any more than Protestant communion.

We don’t try and keep Protestant Churches out of existence (in a civil legal sense) becasue of the wrong views of The Eucharist, why would it extend to marriage?

Catholics have a right to own and define the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage. Do they have the right to own and define it for the rest of society?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

A lot of this comes down to definition and ownership.

To draw an analogy The Eucharist / Communion. Protestant denominations have their versions of Communion. Catholics can say well with out the True Presence it isn’t really truly Communion. Does it devalue The Eucharist? The only ones missing out is them. They aren’t receiving the full sacrament.

I don’t see why marriage is any different. It isn’t the Catholic view of the Sacrament so it’s not complete. That doesn’t devalue Catholic Marriage any more than Protestant communion.

We don’t try and keep Protestant Churches out of existence (in a civil legal sense) becasue of the wrong views of The Eucharist, why would it extend to marriage?

Catholics have a right to own and define the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage. Do they have the right to own and define it for the rest of society?

You have presented an interesting analogy. I don’t know that I have an insightful response or opinion on it, but I do look forward to hearing what others have to say on the subject.

I would really like to hear Brother JR’s thoughts on all of this.

 

[livingwordunity]

A lot of this comes down to definition and ownership.

To draw an analogy The Eucharist / Communion. Protestant denominations have their versions of Communion. Catholics can say well with out the True Presence it isn’t really truly Communion. Does it devalue The Eucharist? The only ones missing out is them. They aren’t receiving the full sacrament.

I don’t see why marriage is any different. It isn’t the Catholic view of the Sacrament so it’s not complete. That doesn’t devalue Catholic Marriage any more than Protestant communion.

We don’t try and keep Protestant Churches out of existence (in a civil legal sense) becasue of the wrong views of The Eucharist, why would it extend to marriage?

Catholics have a right to own and define the Sacrament of Catholic Marriage. Do they have the right to own and define it for the rest of society?

In what way do you think that the Catholic Church owns society? All the Catholic Church does is teach the teachings of Christ. Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with Christ. In the United States, there is (or was) a thing called freedom of religion. The function of law is to impose someone’s morality on people. And religious liberty is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That means that in the U.S.A. we Catholics have the same Constitutional right to act in accordance with our morality to affect laws of the land as you do.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

In what way do you think that the Catholic Church owns society? All the Catholic Church does is teach the teachings of Christ. Anyone who has a problem with that has a problem with Christ. In the United States, there is (or was) a thing called freedom of religion. The function of law is to impose someone’s morality on people. And religious liberty is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That means that in the U.S.A. we Catholics have the same Constitutional right to act in accordance with our morality to affect laws of the land as you do.

I don’t think they own society.That is the point. Catholics are able to practice Communion the way that they want and Protestants practice Communion they way they want. The are both called communion but the view of what is at the heart of them is radically different. Both are considered Religion by the Government and receive the benefits of being religions like tax exemptions. No one is calling for Protestant Churches to lose their status as a recognized Religion because they changed the definition of communion. It’s not the Catholic Definition but still valid in the eyes of the State.

 

[aemcpa]

I don’t think they own society.That is the point. Catholics are able to practice Communion the way that they want and Protestants practice Communion they way they want. The are both called communion but the view of what is at the heart of them is radically different. Both are considered Religion by the Government and receive the benefits of being religions like tax exemptions. No one is calling for Protestant Churches to lose their status as a recognized Religion because they changed the definition of communion. It’s not the Catholic Definition but still valid in the eyes of the State.

How, then, would you respond to CCC 2202, which was quoted above and which condemns your proposition?

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t think they own society.That is the point. Catholics are able to practice Communion the way that they want and Protestants practice Communion they way they want. The are both called communion but the view of what is at the heart of them is radically different. Both are considered Religion by the Government and receive the benefits of being religions like tax exemptions. No one is calling for Protestant Churches to lose their status as a recognized Religion because they changed the definition of communion. It’s not the Catholic Definition but still valid in the eyes of the State.

Irrelevant. In the United States, there is (or was) a thing called freedom of religion. The function of law is to impose someone’s morality on people. And religious liberty is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That means that in the U.S.A. we Catholics have the same Constitutional right to act in accordance with our morality to affect laws of the land as you do.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

How, then, would you respond to CCC 2202, which was quoted above and which condemns your proposition?

That Catholics should practice the sacrament of marriage in a Catholic way.

What is the teaching for Civil Marriage. It doesn’t carry the same connotations and weight as the Catholic Sacrament. No Promise of trying to have Children etc. You can get civilly married and practice birth control during every conjugal act and it’s still a valid civil marriage. They can choose never consumate the marriage and if it’s consensual it’s still a valid civil marriage. They are different things.

 

[aemcpa]

That Catholics should practice the sacrament of marriage in a Catholic way.

What is the teaching for Civil Marriage. It doesn’t carry the same connotations and weight as the Catholic Sacrament. No Promise of trying to have Children etc. You can get civilly married and practice birth control during every conjugal act and it’s still a valid civil marriage. They can choose never consumate the marriage and if it’s consensual it’s still a valid civil marriage. They are different things.

That is not what the Church teaches. Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t recognize civil marriages of unbaptized people as valid marriages. Marriage is natural before it is supernatural, and the civil order has an obligation to recognize and support that thing that marriage already is, rather than redefine it arbitrarily.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You are attempting to make an irrelevant point. In the United States, there is (or was) a thing called freedom of religion. The function of law is to impose someone’s morality on people. And religious liberty is a right guaranteed in the US Constitution. That means that in the U.S.A. we Catholics have the same Constitutional right to act in accordance with our morality to affect laws of the land as you do.

I don’t understand.

How are Catholics being prevented from getting married? I don’t see any chains on the doors of Churches preventing entry. Priests aren’t being rounded up for saying mass. Parochial Schools are being shut down by school boards.

Are the rights of Orthodox Jews being violated when I eat a ham sandwich?

 

[livingwordunity]

What is the teaching for Civil Marriage. It doesn’t carry the same connotations and weight as the Catholic Sacrament. No Promise of trying to have Children etc. You can get civilly married and practice birth control during every conjugal act and it’s still a valid civil marriage. They can choose never consumate the marriage and if it’s consensual it’s still a valid civil marriage. They are different things.

Here is the Catholic position about a valid sacramental marriage VS a valid non-sacramental marriage.

In the debate about marriage it’s important for Catholics to know that a natural marriage that takes place outside of the Catholic Church between one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic can be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church even when it’s not a sacramental marriage. Natural marriage was what God first instituted by marrying Adam and Eve so that the two become “one flesh” (thank God that the first man and woman weren’t homosexual or none of us would be here). But Christ (God the Son) raised this to to a supernatural reality.

Marriage, like all the sacraments, involves natural form and matter. In the case of marriage the natural element is the physical union of one man and one woman. The basic concept of taking the natural and raising it to the supernatural is also the key to understanding all the other sacraments. For example, the natural function of water is to cleanse the body of impurities. But Christ elevated this natural function to the supernatural reality of Baptism which cleanses our soul of all spiritual impurities.

So the point of this is that the Church cares about protecting traditional marriage, even when it’s a marriage outside of the Catholic Church and not sacramental such as the civil marriage of one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic, because we affirm the validity of natural marriage.

Basic natural marriage was what Adam and Eve had, and this was a union that was blessed by God even though it was not elevated to a sacrament.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That is not what the Church teaches. Otherwise, the Church wouldn’t recognize civil marriages of unbaptized people as valid marriages. Marriage is natural before it is supernatural, and the civil order has an obligation to recognize and support that thing that marriage already is, rather than redefine it arbitrarily.

It’s how they deal with every other religion. Paraphrased - Catholic Teaching is the whole revealed truth and others may have a part of the truth. We hope they come around someday.

 

[stewstew03]

I don’t think they own society.That is the point. Catholics are able to practice Communion the way that they want and Protestants practice Communion they way they want. The are both called communion but the view of what is at the heart of them is radically different. Both are considered Religion by the Government and receive the benefits of being religions like tax exemptions. No one is calling for Protestant Churches to lose their status as a recognized Religion because they changed the definition of communion. It’s not the Catholic Definition but still valid in the eyes of the State.

Ludicrous argument. Since when does the Church claim to be the only religious institution? The Church has never said, “well, Islam is not a true religion, so the state should not recognize them as such.”

People who disagree about the substance of the Eucharist are not labeled “Anti-Transubstantiation” or “Anti-Consubstantiation” or “Bigots.” This is in stark contrast to those who oppose gay marriage, who are almost always labeled as “anti-gay” or “bigots.”

Finally, one’s view of the Eucharist – whether one believes in transubstantiation or a sacramental union – is inconsequential. In contrast, there can be real consequences, other than marginalization, for Catholics who oppose gay marriage – such as in Illinois, where Catholic Charities refused to allow adoptions to homosexual couples (the state promptly ended its relationship with CC after more than 40 years).

.

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t understand.

How are Catholics being prevented from getting married?

No one said that they are. But that’s not what the objection is. If you are going to argue against our position it would be more honest not to use a straw man.

Q: What is the greatest threat posed by allowing gays and lesbians to marry?

A:The better question is: What is the great good in protecting the public understanding that to make a marriage you need a husband and a wife?

I can illustrate my point with a personal example. When I was Bishop of Oakland, I lived at a residence at the Cathedral, overlooking Lake Merritt. It’s very beautiful. But across the lake, as the streets go from 1st Avenue to the city limits at 100th Avenue, those 100 blocks consist entirely of inner city neighborhoods plagued by fatherlessness and all the suffering it produces: youth violence, poverty, drugs, crime, gangs, school dropouts, and incredibly high murder rates. Walk those blocks and you can see with your own eyes: A society that is careless about getting fathers and mothers together to raise their children in one loving family is causing enormous heartache.

To legalize marriage between two people of the same sex would enshrine in the law the principle that mothers and fathers are interchangeable or irrelevant, and that marriage is essentially an institution about adults, not children; marriage would mean nothing more than giving adults recognition and benefits in their most significant relationship.

How can we do this to our children?
…
Q: How would the allegation that opponents are bigoted lead to their rights being abridged?

A: Notice the first right being taken away: the right of 7 million Californians who devoted time and treasure to the democratic process, to vote for our shared vision of marriage. Taking away people’s right to vote on marriage is not in itself a small thing.

But the larger picture that’s becoming increasingly clear is that this is not just a debate about what two people do in their private life, it’s a debate about a new public norm: Either you support redefining marriage to include two people of the same sex or you stand accused by law and culture of bigotry and discrimination.

If you want to know what this new public legal and social norm stigmatizing traditional believers will mean for real people, ask David and Tanya Parker, who objected to their kindergarten son being taught about same sex marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized it in that state and wanted to pull him out of class for that lesson. He was arrested and handcuffed for trying to protect his son’s education, and they were told they had no right to do so.

Ask the good people of Ocean Grove Methodist camp in New Jersey that had part of its tax-exempt status rescinded because they don’t allow same-sex civil union ceremonies on their grounds. Ask Tammy Schulz of Illinois, who adopted four children (including a sibling group) through Evangelical Child Family Services — which was shut down because it refuses to place children with same-sex couples. (The same thing has happened in Illinois, Boston and Washington, D.C., to Catholic Charities adoption services). … Ask the doctor in San Diego County who did not want to personally create a fatherless child through artificial insemination, and was punished by the courts… Ask Amy Rudnicki who testified in the Colorado Legislature recently that if Catholic Charities is shut out of the adoption business by new legislation, her family will lose the child they expected to adopt this year. … Nobody is better off if religious adoption agencies are excluded from helping find good homes for abused and neglected children, but governments are doing this because the principle of “anti-discrimination” is trumping liberty and compassion. …

When people say that opposition to gay marriage is discriminatory, like opposition to interracial marriage, they cannot also say their views won’t hurt anybody else. They seek to create and enforce a new moral and legal norm that stigmatizes those who view marriage as the union of husband and wife. … It’s not kind, and it doesn’t seem to lead to a “live and let live” pluralism.

creativeminorityreport.com/2013/03/abp-cordileone-gay-marriage-tutorial.html

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Here is the Catholic position about a valid sacramental marriage VS a valid non-sacramental marriage.

In the debate about marriage it’s important for Catholics to know that a natural marriage that takes place outside of the Catholic Church between one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic can be valid in the eyes of the Catholic Church even when it’s not a sacramental marriage. Natural marriage was what God first instituted by marrying Adam and Eve so that the two become “one flesh” (thank God that the first man and woman weren’t homosexual or none of us would be here). But Christ (God the Son) raised this to to a supernatural reality.

Marriage, like all the sacraments, involves natural form and matter. In the case of marriage the natural element is the physical union of one man and one woman. The basic concept of taking the natural and raising it to the supernatural is also the key to understanding all the other sacraments. For example, the natural function of water is to cleanse the body of impurities. But Christ elevated this natural function to the supernatural reality of Baptism which cleanses our soul of all spiritual impurities.

So the point of this is that the Church cares about protecting traditional marriage, even when it’s a marriage outside of the Catholic Church and not sacramental such as the civil marriage of one man and one woman who aren’t Catholic, because we affirm the validity of natural marriage.

Basic natural marriage was what Adam and Eve had, and this was a union that was blessed by God even though it was not elevated to a sacrament.

Not to get graphic but I’m pretty sure homosexuals can be “one flesh”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Ludicrous argument. Since when does the Church claim to be the only religious institution? The Church has never said, “well, Islam is not a true religion, so the state should not recognize them as such.”

People who disagree about the substance of the Eucharist are not labeled “Anti-Transubstantiation” or “Anti-Consubstantiation” or “Bigots.” This is in stark contrast to those who oppose gay marriage, who are almost always labeled as “anti-gay” or “bigots.”

Finally, one’s view of the Eucharist – whether one believes in transubstantiation or a sacramental union – is inconsequential. In contrast, there can be real consequences, other than marginalization, for Catholics who oppose gay marriage – such as in Illinois, where Catholic Charities refused to allow adoptions to homosexual couples (the state promptly ended its relationship with CC after more than 40 years).

.

Exactly - Catholics recognize that even though it isn’t the practice of the Church, it holds validity.

 

[livingwordunity]

Not to get graphic but I’m pretty sure homosexuals can be “one flesh”.

Not to get graphic, but in the way you are talking about so can a man and an animal. But it’s not in the same way that a man and a woman can. Hint: The love between a man and a woman is so real that usually nine months later they name it.