Which harms marriage more, state gay marriages or liberal Church annulments?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steven_Merten
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I’m a little suprised that I’m in the minority as well. Non-Catholic marriages have ALWAYS had a tendency to violate our Sacrament, whether due to legal divorce, forced marriages, child marriages, you name it. What a homosexual does with marriage has no more bearing on our faith than what a Muslim or Atheist decides to do, just as their rejections of the other Sacraments affect us not at all. The fact is that society does NOT recognize marriage in a Catholic sense, and outside of Catholic communities it never has and never will. It’s unfortunate, but it’s also unfortunate that not everyone is Catholic. We can’t expect secular society to uphold our Catholic values, and we most definately can’t rely on secular definitions of our beliefs.

Annulments should not be “granted”, but rather the nullity of the marriage should simply be recognized. The minute we start to think of it as a dispensation rather than a simple recognition that the Sacrament never took place, we’ve begun to errode our faith and Church from the inside. Gay marriage, since it will never take place in a Sacramental way, and can’t, will never errode the sanctity of marriage. Let the non-Catholics marry as they will, so long as they don’t force us to recognize their marriages in the way we would our own.
 
I actually find it fascinating that Catholics find Catholic marriage so weak that they think it can be harmed by two guys getting married by a judge.
 
40.png
Ken:
I actually find it fascinating that Catholics find Catholic marriage so weak that they think it can be harmed by two guys getting married by a judge.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe that marriage in and of itself is hurt: rather, our understanding of what a marriage IS gets hurt. We lose sight of the holy, covenant aspect of marriage and move towards a contractual understanding. A union between one man and one woman is presented throughout Scripture as an analogy for the relationship between Christ and His people, the Church. That is lost when you have a marriage between two persons of the same gender. Contracts are made and broken regularly. Covenants are never broken.

Marriage affects people outside of the two getting married; if it didn’t --if it was completely a private matter-- then any argument at all about who could marry whom would become irrelevant. But I am affected by whether or not the couple next door is married or just living together, and by whether or not my friend Diana has a husband or a wife. :confused:

One concern I have about same sex marriage that I have not yet seen addressed here is this: once it is legalized, then “discrimination” against it will eventually become illegal. Now just stop and think for a moment about how that might affect our Church as an institution. Will Catholic radio shows be allowed to speak against gay marriages? Will parishes lose their tax exempt status for refusing to hire homosexuals? Will our priests be told to quit teaching against this form of sexual deviance? Will my children’s school textbooks have stories in them about John and Fred’s marriage and their new house?

Just MHO
 
40.png
Makerteacher:
I don’t believe that marriage in and of itself is hurt: rather, our understanding of what a marriage IS gets hurt. We lose sight of the holy, covenant aspect of marriage and move towards a contractual understanding. A union between one man and one woman is presented throughout Scripture as an analogy for the relationship between Christ and His people, the Church. That is lost when you have a marriage between two persons of the same gender. Contracts are made and broken regularly. Covenants are never broken.

Marriage affects people outside of the two getting married; if it didn’t --if it was completely a private matter-- then any argument at all about who could marry whom would become irrelevant. But I am affected by whether or not the couple next door is married or just living together, and by whether or not my friend Diana has a husband or a wife. :confused:

One concern I have about same sex marriage that I have not yet seen addressed here is this: once it is legalized, then “discrimination” against it will eventually become illegal. Now just stop and think for a moment about how that might affect our Church as an institution. Will Catholic radio shows be allowed to speak against gay marriages? Will parishes lose their tax exempt status for refusing to hire homosexuals? Will our priests be told to quit teaching against this form of sexual deviance? Will my children’s school textbooks have stories in them about John and Fred’s marriage and their new house?

Just MHO
Click to expand...
  1. If gay marriage is legal, how will your understanding of Catholic marriage change? How has it changed for Catholics in Massachusetts?
  2. How are you effected by the marital status of the couple next door? What are the effects?
  3. Catholic radio shows will be allowed to say whatever the owner of the station allows. Since we have no governmental restrictions on what radio shows say about race, women, or religion, I see no reason to think government in the US will restrict comment on homosexuality.
  4. Parishes would not face civil consequences for not hiring homosexuals because parishes are firmly established as part of a religion. However, other organizations such as Catholic Charities would fall under non-discrimination in hiring laws if homosexuals are included in the laws.
  5. Priests may be told to stop teaching about homosexuality, but the government will not tell them. It’s up to the priest to listen to anyone else who offers an opinion.
  6. There probably will be textbooks featuring Tommy’s two fathers. I don’t know if your kids’ school will use them. But you and your neighbors are free to make your wishes known in school board elections.
 
40.png
Wormwood:
This question is biased. Neither harms marriages. Homosexual marriage does not, in anyway, effect anyone other than the two people involved. What they choose to do with their lives has no bearing on you or your marriage.
Click to expand...
In the time of Noah, all people, except for Noah and his family, became wicked. God destroyed all of mankind except for Noah and his family. When the Apocalypse comes, it will not be due to the weapons of mankind, it will be due to the loss of faith, obedience and love for God from God’s Church. When the world no longer generates the fruit of the Kingdom which is love for God, it will be destroyed.

Rather than have the whole body of people fall into destruction again, Moses was commanded to “cut off” that portion of the body of people by stoning them to death. Adulterers and Homosexuals, allong with others, were stoned to death to protect the body of people from going down this path again as before the flood.

Jesus commands His Church that if Her hand or a portion of Her body is Her undoing, She is to “cut it off” and throw it into Gehenna. Jesus Gave His Apostles His sworn oath that anyone whom they hold bound to their sins on earth, He will hold bound to their sins in heaven. Anyone whom Jesus holds bound to their sins in heaven burns in hell. Jesus Commands His Church to protect Herself with the Spritually deadly sword of His mouth which is the power to hold sins bound in heaven. Church leaders are commanded to Spiritually put to death those individuals who lead the body of the Church into damnation. Spritiually “cutting off” a portion of the body of the Church to protect the body of the Church from taking the path to damnation, as happened before the flood, is Jesus will.
See Throwing Stones geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/stones.html

People are decieved into thinking that Jesus is going to “unconditionally love” everyone into heaven. This is not the case. Jesus is the one who gave us the concept of eternal damnation and, through scriptures, he often warns us of who He will damn. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/unforgiven.html

Church leaders greatest obligation to the Father and Jesus is to use the “keys to the Kingdom” (the power to have Jesus hold a man bound to his sins on judgement day) to protect the flock and not let sinners lead the body of the Church into sin. Are they fulfilling this obligation in the logrithmic explosion of Church annulments?

NAB LUK 13:6 The Barren Fig Tree.

Jesus spoke this parable: “A man had a fig tree growing in his vineyard, and he came out looking for fruit on it but did not find any. He said to the vinedresser, Look here! For three years now I have come in search of fruit on this fig tree and found none. Cut it down. Why should it clutter up the ground? In answer, the man said, Sir, leave it another year, while I hoe around it another year and manure it; then perhaps it will bear fruit. If not, it shall be cut down.”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
Dr. Ed Peters has written an article on the increase in the number of annulments granted. Here is a short quote:
Frankly, to attack American tribunals on the basis that, under Canon 1095, they are declaring null tens of thousands more marriages than they did a few decades ago is akin to attacking American hospitals on the basis that they are diagnosing tens of thousands more cases of HIV/AIDS than they did a few decades ago. That analogy might be unfair in that HIV/AIDS apparently did not exist 30 years ago, whereas fallen human nature and divorce did. Nevertheless, no credible social observer takes the position that average levels of personal maturity or individual integrity—two very important factors in Canon 1095 cases—have done anything but plummet over the last 30 years.
Click to expand...
 
Same sex marriage is the redefinition of marriage. It says mothers don’t matter. Two fathers = one father and one mother. Please make sure to call it same sex marriage. Divorce, easy annulments do not redefine what marriage is. They are failures of individuals. They may cause pain to children. That is very different than saying that it is of no consequence by whom children are raised. Same sex marriage is a total rejection of what the Church teaches about marriage. Marriage is a selfless giving of one person to another and that love produces new life. If marriage is reduced to just the validation of love and an issue of rights, there will be no rational for stopping any combination of people, brother/brother, man/woman/man, mother/daughter, etc. from marrying. We must look beyond how same sex marriage will affect our own lives and consider what it will mean for our society.
 
40.png
guse:
Same sex marriage is a total rejection of what the Church teaches about marriage. Marriage is a selfless giving of one person to another and that love produces new life.
Click to expand...
I would be *very * careful about this. Or would you deny the marriages of those complementary sex couples who bear the cross of infertility?

tee
 
I think it’s also important to point out that people can run off and get married in Vegas without ever even talking with a minister, people get married all the time for the wrong reasons, to the wrong people and it generally ends BADLY – their poor choice in a spouse doesn’t undermine my Catholic, faith-based, Christ centered marriage.
 
40.png
tee_eff_em:
I would be *very *careful about this. Or would you deny the marriages of those complementary sex couples who bear the cross of infertility?

tee
Click to expand...
The Church allows infertile people to marry. However, the Church always stresses that marriage must be open to life. The very concept of same sex marriage is closed to life, by choice. The Church is not as black and white as many people, especially non-Catholics, think. Yes, marriage must be open to life, however, the Church does not deny marriage to those who may be infertile. Maybe someone knows the reasoning behind this. I’ve read it before, but cannot remember what it is.
 
It seems our understanding of marriage is already harmed and you can’t say homosexual marriage contributed to that.
 
40.png
guse:
The Church allows infertile people to marry. However, the Church always stresses that marriage must be open to life. The very concept of same sex marriage is closed to life, by choice. The Church is not as black and white as many people, especially non-Catholics, think. Yes, marriage must be open to life, however, the Church does not deny marriage to those who may be infertile. Maybe someone knows the reasoning behind this. I’ve read it before, but cannot remember what it is.
Click to expand...
Look around your parish on Sunday. How many children are there to each couple. If your parish is like mine (the norm) then I doubt there are more than two or three. Most Catholic women I talk to admit they use contraceptives. Is this not undermining marriage?
I understand that homosexual marriage will have a negative impact on society, but the issue of contraceptives, fornication, adultry, etc. have already had an impact on marriage itself…homosexual marriage being the greatest so far.
 
So what is the point here? Since there are “abuses” so to speak in marriage, it won’t matter if same sex (please not gay) marriage is allowed? The very concept of same sex marriage means that a mother does not matter. It means it doesn’t matter who raises children? It means the sexes are interchangeable. Man/Man is the same as Man/Woman. Let’s be honest, millions of couples use contraception and are in happy, healthy marriages. I do not believe the main reason the Church teaches against contraception is because it will harm marriage. Isn’t the larger point that it is against God’s design for marriage. We also need to distinquish between what may be harmful to an individual’s marriage and what is harmful to the institution of marriage. Contraception is not a rejection of the very concept of marriage, but same sex marriage is.
 
40.png
guse:
I do not believe the main reason the Church teaches against contraception is because it will harm marriage. Isn’t the larger point that it is against God’s design for marriage. .
Click to expand...
Read what Pope John Paul had to say in Humanea Vitae:

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.

catholic.com/library/birth_control.asp
 
We must be honest, there are millions of happy marriages where contraception is used. That does not mean that its use cannot be harmful to one’s marriage. In my opinion, there is no comparison to the effects of contraception on marriage (the institution, not your marriage) compared to legalized same sex marriage. Again, same sex marriage denies the role of a mother and reduces women to baby factories. There must be a reason why the author of Genesis wrote that God created them male and female. Same sex denies male and female even exist. It says we are all the same.
 
Findnmway:
Read what Pope John Paul had to say in Humanea Vitae:

But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God’s gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end—procreation.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI promulgated Humanae Vitae, not John Paul.

Again, this seems coming dangerously close to saying infertile couples should not have sexual relations, and that is not my understanding of Catholic teaching.

Sex has a two-fold end: the procreative aspect and the unitive aspect. Just as it is wrong to intentionally frustrate the procreative aspect, so it is wrong to deny the unitive aspect. Both of these aspects are ordered toward the good of the spouses.

And that is why same sex relationships can’t claim the unitive aspect of sexual activity – Because same sex relations go against the natural moral law, and are not ordered toward the good of the actors.

tee
 
Both the priest and the annulment tribunal told her that her husband’s unnulment was none of her business. The tribunal granted the unnulment.
Click to expand...
Stephen,

Any decision of the Marriage tribunal can be appealed to the Rota in Rome. Why did this woman not do that?
 
40.png
martino:
The Church has the authority to grant annulments, even if they do a poor job of administering it. Nobody has the authority to change the meaning of marriage. Marriage was part of creation from the very beginning and has always been limited to men and women.
Click to expand...
Were Adam and Eve married??

The marriage contract seems to have been in existence in all cultures forever (governmental status of being married therefore associating privileges and benefits as a result of the union being recognized).

When did it become sacramental? With the jews, I presume…under Moses then, perhaps?

I still get blown away with old testament guidelines authorizing married men to sleep with their wive’s handmaidens or other extended family members, particularly in order to produce life, and to even take multiple wives.

What leg do we really have to stand on insisting God intended marriage from creation to be between ONE man and ONE woman, till death do you part, forsaking all others, etc?

I definitely see justification about it NOT being designed for two men or two women…got that part down…but presenting the argument opens the door to some of these other discrepancies.

Someone said gay marriages would open the door to polygamy…but according to scripture, polygamy was once accepted. Required even, when the next sibling was obliged to take the widow or widower of a relative in marriage.When did it stop being acceptable? Do we know?

Honestly just asking the questions this thread has raised…not looking for a fight…It would really help to be prepared when some of these points get thrown back at me.
 
40.png
Brendan:
Stephen,

Any decision of the Marriage tribunal can be appealed to the Rota in Rome. Why did this woman not do that?
Click to expand...
Perhaps you can provide a link that shows how one would go about doing that. That might be helpful to others here.

It would seem difficult to appeal something you were left out of the loop on altogether, but I’m unfamiliar with annulments. It sounded like the woman was denied access to anything involving the process so what grounds would she have to appeal on if she isn’t provided the specifics of the case?

Are annulments handled like divorces in that the woman would have received official notification in the mail stating her marriage was annulled?

Would that official mailing have included options for her to proceed from there…Like with insurance claim denials…“you have the right to appeal within XXX days by doing the following: …”
 
40.png
Brendan:
Stephen,

Any decision of the Marriage tribunal can be appealed to the Rota in Rome. Why did this woman not do that?
Click to expand...
The Story comes from the magazine Catholic Answers published by Our Sunday Visitor. The priest discussing the story is Fr. Stravinskas. He is the same priest who edited the Catholic Encyclopedia that I use. I have read Fr. Stravinskas’ Catholic Answers for almost twenty years now and I think he is great. I almost fell on the floor when he gave this advice to the woman. How could the Church totally abandon the people that God’s commandment against adultery was established to protect?

Will Rota in Rome take a look at a questionable unulment if it is the spouce of the one seeking the unulment who is doing the appeal? I would be very amazed if Fr. Stravinskas was incorrect on what he wrote. He has since repeated his same stand a couple more times. Do you have a link that tells us we can appeal a spouces unulment?

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
ILOVEYOUGOD.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top