Catholicvote Endorses Rick Santorum

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331785127' post='2400972']
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/pope-denounces-gay-marraige_n_1334504.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1334504.html[/url]

We do need to protect marriage in our country. In the USA we have the right as a people to make sure that government doesn't try to redefine marriage. Not only do we have that right, but we also have an obligation to make sure it doesn't happen. We cannot morally stand by as the government makes these changes because they are unjust, and they are against the dignity of marriage and the human person.

PS I posted that article to show that even Pope Benedict recognizes and supports this position of the USCCB and therefore my own position.
[/quote]

Of course we have to protect marriage. But we have to protect it from government as much as anything. It would be very hard to use government to protect it from government.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='truthlvr' timestamp='1331779464' post='2400921']
I believe Rick Santorum is exactly what America needs - Catholics and non-Catholics. He is a man of integrity and courage. He's not afraid to share what his beliefs are without forcing them on others. He will stand up for the unborn.[/quote]

He is not what America needs. If you go back and re-read what I wrote about him, he clearly is not a man of integrity and courage. He also is someone that wants to force his beliefs on others.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331782928' post='2400952']
Why should you ask the government for a marriage permission slip?
[/quote]

Great point, we shouldn't.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331783218' post='2400957']
Here, I'll post the relevant answer from that page: [url="http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/the-common-good-faq/#q6"]http://www.marriageu...on-good-faq/#q6[/url]


[size=4][color=#3C2314][b]6. Isn’t marriage just a religious issue that the government should stay out of?[/b][/color]
[color=#3C2314]No. The social value of marriage is great and is apparent even to those who do not share the Catholic understanding of its religious meaning. Marriage as a lifelong, faithful, and fruitful union between husband and wife serves the good of all – it serves the good of the spouses, the good of the children who may issue from their marital union, and the good of society in assuring that reproduction happens in a socially responsible way. To be sure, these goods are affirmed and reinforced by most religions. But they do not rely on any religious premises; they are based instead on the nature of the human person and are accessible to right reason. The government has the responsibility of promoting the common good and the best interests of all people, especially the most vulnerable, and upholding authentic marriage does precisely that. The fact that the responsibility of government to promote and protect marriage coincides with widely held religious convictions is not a reason for government to abdicate that responsibility.[/color][/size]
[/quote]

There is no guarentee that the Catholic interpretation of marriage will be applied by our government. If it was, that would be the government establishing a religion, which is banned by the first amendment to the constitution, "the government shall make no establishment of religion". We should also note that the current institution of marriage is also not catholic for it allows infinate number of divorces and abortions.

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1331784879' post='2400970']
Within the modern nation-state paradigm, when you give them the power to recognize your marriage, you also give them the power to withhold recognition, based on whatever criteria they choose. They're not looking out for your best interests, or for society's best interests, or for the sanctity of marriage. They want more power and more money. If they can gain some power by recognizing Catholic marriages, then they will. If they can gain more power by recognizing homosexual 'marriages', then they will. If they can gain more power by refusing to recognize Catholic marriages, then you'd better believe that they will.
We don't need a modern State to protect marriage. We need to protect marriage from the State.
[/quote]

This is completely true. As a matter of fact, when the idea of the government recognizing marriage first came about in our country it had to do with Eugenics. They were withholding a black man's right to marry a white woman. Does this sound like something that fits with Catholic doctrine or even the cause of liberty? What we see right now is the government imposing upon religion and personal liberty. I'm a father of three with one on the way and you best believe that the government keeps suggesting contraception. It's gotten so bad that whenever my wife goes into the doctor it's pressured upon her, whenever she goes to the country health center, and beaver dam near everywhere else. I'm just waiting for a legal mandate to take place. Just as eugenics was imposed through a marriage licease, so could contraception.

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331785127' post='2400972']
[url="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/09/pope-denounces-gay-marraige_n_1334504.html"]http://www.huffingto..._n_1334504.html[/url]

We do need to protect marriage in our country. In the USA we have the right as a people to make sure that government doesn't try to redefine marriage. Not only do we have that right, but we also have an obligation to make sure it doesn't happen. We cannot morally stand by as the government makes these changes because they are unjust, and they are against the dignity of marriage and the human person.

PS I posted that article to show that even Pope Benedict recognizes and supports this position of the USCCB and therefore my own position.
[/quote]

The government isn't redefining marriage, the people are the one's doing it. What is so unjust about the government getting out of the way and allowing people to live their lives? Not everyone is Catholic and not everyone is Evangelical. If the government stopped getting involved in marriage and got out of the marriage business it would be the same as it is now. Homosexual marriages would take place within their respective religions. Religious institutions like the Roman Catholic Church would still deny such marriages to take place and life would go on. In Egypt the government has required that the Coptic Orthodox Church allow for remarriage after divorce. However this is against the Coptic Church's religious standards so they have not done so. Because the government is allowed to define marriage, they have fined the Coptic Church alot of money and talked about imprisoning the Patriarch over it. This is why the government should not establish religion and be involved in the marriage business whatsoever.

Sure you say now, "Santorum will make the Catholic definition the standard for America" but just wait till Santorum is not in power and an Atheist. That Atheist then requires contraception. What if the next person in power is a Muslim and he requires the Catholic Church to preside over polgymous marriages? Liberty goes both ways and so does oppression.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331784462' post='2400968']

Read the site. It's got good stuff on it.[/quote]
I'm familiar with their positions. I disagree with them.
[quote]
Marriage is a social issue and should be regulated justly as such. That's not really asking for permission.
[/quote]
When you have to go to a special government building, fork over money, comply with their time frame, and cannot receive the sacrament of marriage until you go through that ritual, yes, it is asking permission. If I license you to perform a certain act, I have issued you permission.

You will be financially punished through taxation unless you go through that state controlled ritual.

It is not "just" that you should have to go get papers from the government, nor that you should have to pay. "Society" is not government. It would be sufficient to draw up a legal contract in order to deal with legal issues.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331816914' post='2401070']
I'm familiar with their positions. I disagree with them.

When you have to go to a special government building, fork over money, comply with their time frame, and cannot receive the sacrament of marriage until you go through that ritual, yes, it is asking permission. If I license you to perform a certain act, I have issued you permission.

You will be financially punished through taxation unless you go through that state controlled ritual.

It is not "just" that you should have to go get papers from the government, nor that you should have to pay. "Society" is not government. It would be sufficient to draw up a legal contract in order to deal with legal issues.
[/quote]Winnie,
I'm curious about your position on "[i]marriage". [/i]Do you believe that Government should not have any laws regulating civil union, neither promoting with tax breaks, requiring fees and a license, nor recognizing any sort of union?

[Winchester]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1331818029' post='2401074']
Winnie,
I'm curious about your position on "[i]marriage". [/i]Do you believe that Government should not have any laws regulating civil union, neither promoting with tax breaks, requiring fees and a license, nor recognizing any sort of union?
[/quote]
Yes. Zero favors, zero fees. The only "recognition" would be protection of a legal contract in court. If you didn't get a legal contract specifically for the marriage, then other titles to property would deal with the issue.

[qfnol31]

Winchester, so because some things can go wrong and because the system can be abused, we should have no governmental say in marriage?

RezaMikhaeil, marriage as a bond between a man and a woman isn't determined just by Catholicism. It was the norm in Greek society, even when pedophilia was practiced. It is the norm in Islam. It is the norm in Hinduism. It is the norm in almost every culture outside of Europe. Recognizing marriage as a unique bond between man and woman has always been the case. Now we're redefining it in our culture to mean "a contractual relationship with limits between any two people who sorta might love each other." The Church isn't fighting for her definition of marriage. It's fighting against this new one that bucks tradition, even recognized amongst non-Catholics.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331837083' post='2401293']
Winchester, so because some things can go wrong and because the system can be abused, we should have no governmental say in marriage?


[/quote]
No. Because government is not our parent, it has no say in my private, peaceful (in the vulgar sense) actions. I am not in submission to this government. It is not a monarchy. You want people to pay into the system and then be penalized for not conforming. A quick way to end this problem would be to remove all financial benefits associated with marriage through government fiat (including the insurance regulations). Even with the marriage licensing in place (and I am astounded you don't find it repellent that grown people have to be "licensed" to be married), this would likely not have come to be such an issue but for the special favors granted to some people for jumping through hoops.

[qfnol31]

Your position is untenable, both from a theological standpoint and from a societal standpoint.

Theologically we believe that the family is the foundation of society. By denying any link between government and the family, where the government recognizes the family (which is the point of licensing), we deny the role that the family has in society. The nucleus is the man and wife coming together in union. The government recognized this role of the family at one point, but has since reduced it. The Church, particularly the USCCB, have been trying to reestablish the link between marriage/the family and society in general.

From a practical point of view your position will not work because of simple problems like adoption. If the government doesn't have a say in what counts as a family, then there cannot be any good regulations on adoptions. If there are no restrictions to who can adopt you have denied the fundamental right of a child to a family with both a father and a mother. Until recently this is how adoption worked.

Libertarianism because we don't have a monarchy cannot and will not work. In the end it works against the Church and will destroy what place she has in there. Be careful than you don't join my more liberal friends in fighting against the good work of the Church here simply because you don't like the government or because you have another agenda.

[Winchester]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331846843' post='2401401']
Your position is untenable, both from a theological standpoint and from a societal standpoint.

Theologically we believe that the family is the foundation of society. By denying any link between government and the family, where the government recognizes the family (which is the point of licensing), we deny the role that the family has in society. The nucleus is the man and wife coming together in union. The government recognized this role of the family at one point, but has since reduced it. The Church, particularly the USCCB, have been trying to reestablish the link between marriage/the family and society in general.

From a practical point of view your position will not work because of simple problems like adoption. If the government doesn't have a say in what counts as a family, then there cannot be any good regulations on adoptions. If there are no restrictions to who can adopt you have denied the fundamental right of a child to a family with both a father and a mother. Until recently this is how adoption worked.

Libertarianism because we don't have a monarchy cannot and will not work. In the end it works against the Church and will destroy what place she has in there. Be careful than you don't join my more liberal friends in fighting against the good work of the Church here simply because you don't like the government or because you have another agenda.
[/quote]
If recognition were the point of licensing, then you would simply send in proof you were married after the fact. "Licensing" is the giving of license. Recognition is what you get when you fill out a will.

You view government as necessary for adoptions. Again, I do not. Because you see government as the regulator of the lives of individuals, this is a problem for you. It is not for me.

Thank you for your concern. I reject that central planning is needed or even desirable.

Without laws controlling our behavior, the Church will be free. Currently, she cannot speak out politically for fear of losing her tax exempt status. Currently, her work is subject to review and control by the State--she must follow education requirements set by the government, and so also with employment requirements. This is anything but the strengthening of the Church.

You're conflating government and society. I don't need government approval to be a father. Family is prior to the state.

Edited March 15, 2012 by Winchester

[Winchester]

Need to read it again, but I think it's pretty well done.
http://www.catholicculture.org/commentary/articles.cfm?id=527

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1331849808' post='2401428']
If recognition were the point of licensing, then you would simply send in proof you were married after the fact. "Licensing" is the giving of license. Recognition is what you get when you fill out a will.[/quote]Marriage licenses serve two purposes. The first is the giving of a license to marry to people. If there were no such license then anyone could marry anyone. What would happen if a kid tries to marry another kid at a service officiated by a kid? In this case the government (per the principles outlined in Dr. Mirus' article and just based on normal Catholic moral theology and the purpose of the state, as explained very well by Thomas Aquinas) is following the precepts of the natural law and demonstrating how marriage has occurred. In some ways this level of marriage (natural marriage) is separate from Sacramental marriage, but in others they overlap entirely. My marriage being recognized by the state isn't necessary for the sacramental aspect of my marriage. However, the government ought to recognize those aspects of marriage based in natural law for the reasons I explained above. We must define who can legitimately marry two people if we are to define when that marriage has occurred.

The second type of license is the license to get married. When two men try to get married in most states they are rejected because they cannot get married (by definition). If a person is already married he is prohibited from getting married. Again this part of governmental oversight works on natural law and recognizes what has happened. It is key that we define when marriage is and determine who is able to get married if we want to recognize marriage at all. Your problem is that you don't see why the government needs to recognize marriage in the first place. The government must recognize marriage (and by extension the family) because of justice and because of the implications marriage has for society as a whole. I'll explain this more below.

[quote]You view government as necessary for adoptions. Again, I do not. Because you see government as the regulator of the lives of individuals, this is a problem for you. It is not for me.[/quote]Have you partaken in any adoptions? I have now had some involvement in no fewer than 15 separate adoptions. Governmental oversight is necessary. Such a need for governmental rules and regulations is proven by the cases when a woman demands her child back or when a child is stolen in the middle of the night and sold off to the highest bidder. If the government does not protect these kids, then it has failed to protect its populace. There must also be regulations in place determining who can legitimately adopt or people who have no business adopting (pedophiles, abusive parents, etc.) will be free to adopt these kids. Again, it is untenable to think that adoption doesn't need any governmental oversight. I don't agree with the entire extent of our laws, but I know that they are necessary.

[quote]Without laws controlling our behavior, the Church will be free. Currently, she cannot speak out politically for fear of losing her tax exempt status. Currently, her work is subject to review and control by the State--she must follow education requirements set by the government, and so also with employment requirements. This is anything but the strengthening of the Church.[/quote]Without laws controlling human behavior in general then all people will be free to do what they want. That doesn't work. Your argument here contains the same error that those Catholics supporting HHS and its recent mandate espouse: that the Church's tax exemption is the same as governmental control. The Church chooses to be tax free; she does not have this status imposed upon her. This law makes sense, but she is under no obligation to follow it save that she has chosen to do so. This is different than laws forbidding the Church to do something or not to do something.

The obligations applied to employer standards or education may not be necessary strictly speaking, but the Church herself recognizes these as legitimate roles of the government to enact. The laws aren't always the best, but they fall under a certain amount of prudence when interpreting and legislating the natural law. It is fair and legitimate for the government to enact such rules about education, workers' rights, etc. as long as they are within the natural law (and these most assuredly are). Again this is a non-argument.

[quote]You're conflating government and society. I don't need government approval to be a father. Family is prior to the state.
[/quote]Only insofar as I recognize our government's role as upholding the good of our society. You don't need this government's approval to be a father, sure, but that wasn't my point. My point is that legislation is necessary, and I used the case of adoption to give a concrete, undeniable example of when it is necessary. Family is prior to the state, but the state must uphold the dignity of the family. This requirement of the state is based in natural law and cannot be denied as a legitimate right and responsibility.

My point is that by rejecting any governmental regulation on marriage you are working to divorce society and the family because the point of government is to uphold and protect the good of society, but the government is made impotent when the family becomes merely a private or religious issue.

If you go back and read Dr. Mirus' article, he talks about the accidental nature of government. He is right. But he does not say that the government doesn't have a particular role in relation to society. I do not always agree with our current situation, but I recognize that my duty as a Catholic is to recognize those disagreements that arise for religious reasons and those that arise for political reasons. Sometimes I object to the state because it has overstepped its authority. This happened with the HHS mandate. Sometimes I reject the government's laws because they are not politically the best. In this second case I recognize the role of the government to make such decisions and I object because they were not good decisions. The Church has taught and always will teach the sovereignty of the state and its legitimate use of authority in these cases, even if its not prudential or the best decision.

The recognition of marriage by the state and the government's defense of marriage is not and can never be one of these instances where our political alliances can interfere with our Catholic faith. The state MUST recognize marriage and work to promote true, legitimate marriage. If it does not or if it works against the real meaning of marriage then the state must be corrected. Our political ties cannot blind us to the need for the government to uphold marriage.

Now one last comment: I suppose you're into states' rights or even more local government. Well, if the government has a role in pointing out legitimate marriage, then how do we reconcile Maryland's definition with Texas'? Their definitions are mutually exclusive and so someone has to make a determination because the recognition of marriage needs to be made properly in both locations.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1331310000' post='2398236']
Maybe I'm just being naive, but Santorum seems like he genuinely believes in the Catholic social issues, including abortion, more than all the other candidates combined--and we consistently hear how abortion is the single most important issue--so... I don't get why he has so many haters here.

[/quote]

He's all for bombing Iran and supports the death penalty. I don't hate him, I just dislike him. I dislike all of the candidates for president at the moment. They are all...um...

Edited March 16, 2012 by LaPetiteSoeur

[cmotherofpirl]

Catholics are free to support the death penalty.

[XIX]

[quote name='qfnol31' timestamp='1331858318' post='2401547']
Marriage licenses serve two purposes. The first is the giving of a license to marry to people. If there were no such license then anyone could marry anyone. What would happen if a kid tries to marry another kid at a service officiated by a kid? [/quote]
What's stopping them now?

[quote]The second type of license is the license to get married. When two men try to get married in most states they are rejected because they cannot get married (by definition). If a person is already married he is prohibited from getting married.[/quote]
Not really...my understanding is that gay couples (for example) are allowed to play house all they want. Nobody's getting arrested if they go into a small church and says vows without the government's permission. It'll just be ignored by the government instead of certified.

I will say that government intervention with regard to adoption makes more sense, but I don't understand the analogy you are making...

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1331927498' post='2401933']
Catholics are free to support the death penalty.
[/quote]
...but not [i]torture[/i]
[i]...[/i]or sending money to Planned Parenthood to give people birth control pills!


I don't want to judge his soul or even his person, but Rick Santorum's politics are demonstrably not Catholic.

Edited March 16, 2012 by XIX

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1331930959' post='2401957']
What's stopping them now?


Not really...my understanding is that gay couples (for example) are allowed to play house all they want. Nobody's getting arrested if they go into a small church and says vows without the government's permission. It'll just be ignored by the government instead of certified.

I will say that government intervention with regard to adoption makes more sense, but I don't understand the analogy you are making...


...but not [i]torture[/i]
[i]...[/i]or sending money to Planned Parenthood to give people birth control pills!


I don't want to judge his soul or even his person, but Rick Santorum's politics are demonstrably not Catholic.
[/quote]
Please list documentation that Mr Santorum's politics are not Catholic.