Cardinal Dolan And Vp Biden

[Apotheoun]

According to the Church, If a marriage does not follow the proper canonical form, it is not considered valid. Secular marriages do not follow canonical form and are not valid unless the parties are baptized Christians, in which case, the marriage is assumed to be valid per the guidelines they follow.

That's according to the Roman Church, but I am not Roman Catholic, I am Eastern Catholic, and my Church does not accept that notion. We hold that natural marriage and sacramental marriage are one and the same species of thing, the only difference being the addition of graces peculiar to the Christian vocation for members of the Church.

[ToJesusMyHeart]

The Church teaches that secular marriages are not valid SACRAMENTAL marriages, but they are valid natural marriages. And natural marriage is a good thing, but sacramental marriage is the better thing.

[Apotheoun]

According to the Church, If a marriage does not follow the proper canonical form, it is not considered valid. Secular marriages do not follow canonical form and are not valid unless the parties are baptized Christians, in which case, the marriage is assumed to be valid per the guidelines they follow.

I think you are misreading the Roman Church's position. In the case you have given, as long as the parties exchanged vows it would still be a marriage, it just wouldn't be sacramental.

 

In the Byzantine Church a marriage is only sacramental if a priest crowns the couple and gives his blessing.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

Again, I will say it again, I'm all for your advocation of protecting sacramental marriage, but the idea of so called "natural marriage" is not necessarily believed by everyone and you have no right to dictate that the secular government follow your specific belief.

[Apotheoun]

Again, I will say it again, I'm all for your advocation of protecting sacramental marriage, but the idea of so called "natural marriage" is not necessarily believed by everyone and you have no right to dictate that the secular government follow your specific belief.

I do not accept the idea that there is a distinction to be made between natural marriage and sacramental marriage as if they are two different species or essentially different realities. Sacramental marriage builds upon natural marriage, it does not destroy or supplant it.

 

All sacramental marriages are also natural marriages, while not all natural marriages are sacramental marriages. But marriage is one and the same reality ordained by God from the beginning of creation, and transfigured through the redemption as an icon of the relationship between Christ and His Church. But this iconic reality was intended by God from the very beginning.

Edited March 28, 2013 by Apotheoun

[Fidei Defensor]

I do not accept the idea that there is a distinction to be made between natural marriage and sacramental marriage as if they are two different species or essentially different realities. Sacramental marriage builds upon natural marriage, it does not destroy or supplant it.

You are free to believe that. I do not. 

 

The idea of so called "natural marriage" is a Christian invention.  You have the right to believe whatever you want about it. But not everyone does. And the Constitution has some things to say about freedoms of expression and belief by everyone.

[Apotheoun]

You are free to believe that. I do not. 

 

The idea of so called "natural marriage" is a Christian invention.  You have the right to believe whatever you want about it. But not everyone does. And the Constitution has some things to say about freedoms of expression and belief by everyone.

LOL.  Natural marriage is just marriage.

[Fidei Defensor]

LOL.  Natural marriage is just marriage.

Natural marriage is the name given to non-sacramental, non-canonical marriage by the Church because without sacrament or ceremony, it is defaulted to God's "natural law." That phrase is only used in context of religious beliefs.

 

Look, I can and will concede any points that are tied to your religious beliefs. You have the right to dictate those things. But you can't argue from the standpoint of secular law because legal recognition of same-sex unions under the definition of marriage does nothing to impede any free exercise nor does it abridge any of your rights. It is not forcing you to believe they are valid, it is not forcing you to perform them. It is, however, allowing free exercise, in practice and belief, by others.

[Apotheoun]

Natural marriage is the name given to non-sacramental, non-canonical marriage by the Church because without sacrament or ceremony, it is defaulted to God's "natural law." That phrase is only used in context of religious beliefs.

 

Look, I can and will concede any points that are tied to your religious beliefs. You have the right to dictate those things. But you can't argue from the standpoint of secular law because legal recognition of same-sex unions under the definition of marriage does nothing to impede any free exercise nor does it abridge any of your rights. It is not forcing you to believe they are valid, it is not forcing you to perform them. It is, however, allowing free exercise, in practice and belief, by others.

Natural marriage is just marriage between a man and a woman. It is what God ordained from the beginning, and Christians will probably have to die as martyrs to defend it.

[Fidei Defensor]

Natural marriage is just marriage between a man and a woman. It is what God ordained from the beginning, and Christians will probably have to die as martyrs to defend it.

 

Add "killing heterosexual Christians over marriage belief" to that list of things you will alert me to.

[Apotheoun]

Add "killing heterosexual Christians over marriage belief" to that list of things you will alert me to.

I won't need to tell you when it starts happening. You'll see it with your own eyes. 

 

By the way, marriage being restricted to one man and one woman is a part of my religious beliefs, because as Jesus said, "Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, `For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." 

Edited March 28, 2013 by Apotheoun

[4588686]

It's based on more than his tradition, or mine, or yours. It's based on anthropology - on the way that human beings have lived on all continents throughout all time. Homosexuality has also existed, but has seldom been approved - it was fairly widespread in a few cities in ancient Greece and Rome, but it was never condoned by law. Governing bodies can change the law just because they're able to, but it won't change the way human nature, or human society.

monogamous heterosexuality isn't a historical or cultural norm.  

 

A change in the law won't necessarily force hetrosexuals to marry homosexuals, but it will impact heterosexuals who are opposed to homosexual marriage - Will a Catholic justice of the peace have to marry two homosexuals? Will my tax dollars pay survivor benefits to a homosexual widow? Will my tax dollars be spent on any kind of government-provided spousal benefits? Then I am being forced to support homosexual marriage in ways that I oppose. It would be the same as forcing me to support chattel slavery, to which I am also opposed.

Yes.  I'm horribly sorry.  Neither the Vatican nor Saudi Arabia would force you to do either and I'd really encourage you to consider relocating.  

[CatholicCid]

Natural marriage is the name given to non-sacramental, non-canonical marriage by the Church because without sacrament or ceremony, it is defaulted to God's "natural law." That phrase is only used in context of religious beliefs.

 

Look, I can and will concede any points that are tied to your religious beliefs. You have the right to dictate those things. But you can't argue from the standpoint of secular law because legal recognition of same-sex unions under the definition of marriage does nothing to impede any free exercise nor does it abridge any of your rights. It is not forcing you to believe they are valid, it is not forcing you to perform them. It is, however, allowing free exercise, in practice and belief, by others.

 

 

4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society. 

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously. 

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage

 

To relate this discussion with the OP, I think it is interesting to note how the discussion is flowing. For VP Biden, he believes that abortion is wrong, but does not want to enforce his belief on others. Tardis is offering a similar suggestion: Though Catholics have every right to believe that homosexual 'marriage' is wrong, they do not have reason to enforce this opinion on others. 

 

This, however, is always a non-sensical argument. A look at why Catholics believe as they do should show why they cannot simply sit idly by. In the case of abortion, Catholics view abortion as murder. To prevent abortion is to prevent the murder of the unborn. Therefore, Catholics cannot simply sit idly by. It is not "enforcing their beliefs on others", but ensuring that the natural law is kept (e.g. Do not commit murder). Regardless if someone accepts this belief or not, to a Catholic it should be seen as an objective fact. This is why we cannot sit idly by.

As to same sex 'marriage', it is seen as a perversion of the true meaning of marriage. It is something that harms society and the common good. As such, Catholics cannot sit idly by at this issue. Sanctioning same sex 'marriage' undermines the dual meaning of marriage (unitive and procreative) while also attempting to force acceptance of a moral perversion upon society. As such, for the Catholic to sit idly by would be a failure to act on the betterment of society and his fellow man.

[Fidei Defensor]

4. Same-sex marriage won’t affect you, so what’s the big deal?

Since marriage is a relationship between two individuals, what effect would it have on the rest of us? At first glance, it sounds like a good question, but a deeper look reveals that since marriage is a public institution, redefining it would affect all of society. 

First, it would weaken marriage. After same-sex marriage was legislated in Spain in 2005, marriage rates plummeted. The same happened in the Netherlands. Redefining marriage obscures its meaning and purpose, thereby discouraging people from taking it seriously. 

Second, it would affect education and parenting. After same-sex marriage was legalized in Canada, the Toronto School Board implemented a curriculum promoting homosexuality and denouncing “heterosexism.” They also produced posters titled “Love Knows No Gender,” which depicted both homosexual and polygamous relationships as equivalent to marriage. Despite parents’ objections, the board decreed that they had no right to remove their children from such instruction. This and many similar cases confirm that when marriage is redefined, the new definition is forced on children, regardless of their parents’ desires.Third, redefining marriage would threaten moral and religious liberty. This is already evident in our own country. In Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., for instance, Catholic Charities can no longer provide charitable adoption services based on new definitions of marriage. Elsewhere, Canadian Bishop Frederick Henry was investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for simply explaining the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality in a newspaper column. Examples like this show how redefining marriage threatens religious freedom.

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage

 

To relate this discussion with the OP, I think it is interesting to note how the discussion is flowing. For VP Biden, he believes that abortion is wrong, but does not want to enforce his belief on others. Tardis is offering a similar suggestion: Though Catholics have every right to believe that homosexual 'marriage' is wrong, they do not have reason to enforce this opinion on others. 

 

This, however, is always a non-sensical argument. A look at why Catholics believe as they do should show why they cannot simply sit idly by. In the case of abortion, Catholics view abortion as murder. To prevent abortion is to prevent the murder of the unborn. Therefore, Catholics cannot simply sit idly by. It is not "enforcing their beliefs on others", but ensuring that the natural law is kept (e.g. Do not commit murder). Regardless if someone accepts this belief or not, to a Catholic it should be seen as an objective fact. This is why we cannot sit idly by.

As to same sex 'marriage', it is seen as a perversion of the true meaning of marriage. It is something that harms society and the common good. As such, Catholics cannot sit idly by at this issue. Sanctioning same sex 'marriage' undermines the dual meaning of marriage (unitive and procreative) while also attempting to force acceptance of a moral perversion upon society. As such, for the Catholic to sit idly by would be a failure to act on the betterment of society and his fellow man.

Believe me, I completely understand and respect why Catholics don't "live and let live," so to speak. That doesn't mean I won't try to convince you otherwise ;)

 

That being said, the Constitution of the United States limits your legal ability to impose your beliefs, regardless of whether you believe them to be objective fact or not.

Edited March 28, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[CatholicCid]

Believe me, I completely understand and respect why Catholics don't "live and let live," so to speak. That doesn't mean I won't try to convince you otherwise ;)

 

That being said, the Constitution of the United States limits your legal ability to impose your beliefs, regardless of whether you believe them to be objective fact or not.

And, of course, the likewise is true (on both statements).

 

 

I also forgot to mention, the link I previously posted (http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage) contains 10 replies to common arguments for same sex 'marriage'.