Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit!
You're currently viewing Catholic CyberForum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our online cyberparish, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.
Join our community!
Messages posted to this board must be polite and free of abuse, personal attacks, blasphemy, racism, threats, harrassment, and crude or sexually-explicit language.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stone Wall Awards; ACCUSATIONS OF BIGOTRY
Topic Started: Friday, 2. November 2012, 09:35 (903 Views)
Penfold
Member Avatar

As a point of clarity the sacrament of marriage is administered and effected by the couple, the priest is there as a witness on behalf of the church and to give them the Nuptial Blessing.
The change of the definition of what marriage is, whether it is sacramental or not, is what is being debated. Should we allow marriage to be between people of the same gender or continue to define it as a union between a man and a woman?

What are the possible consequences of a change of definition? Many of the answers that some of you will offer to this question will be based upon emotive arguments rather than the factual clear and concise irrefutable evidence based upon sound theological debates. This is part of the problem, the principles by which we live are so often based upon acceptance of a Christian Gospel and the belief in an ethereal deity who gave us 10 laws by which we choose to live our lives, which God the Son reduced to 2. love god and love our neighbour.
The sadness is that I can accept that a man can love another man and a woman another woman and that these bonds of love can result in or from a physical attraction, chicken and the egg time, can we deny them the union that we call marriage. The problem is that marriage is more than just a union between two people, it is a bond that at the heart of which are the 3 fs. Fidelity, Forever and Fruitful, and this is the rub, how can a union between two people of the same gender bear fruit. How can such a union be procreative. Remember also that even between a man and a wife if the couple are incapable of having children then their marriage is considered invalid by the church. Marriage is not just about the union between two people it is about sharing God's creative power, to procreate.
A union between people of the same gender may well fulfil 2 of the 3 but there is no way a man can naturally become pregnant. A same sex couple may well provide a loving home to a child or a disadvantaged and vulnerable teenager, indeed some will make better parents. But to call their union Marriage is denial of the natural and divine laws
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
PJD
Tuesday, 6. November 2012, 22:48
"If legislation is passed permitting same sex "marriages" do you think Catholic priests would be bound by the laws of England and Wales to administer to them the Sacrament of Matrimony if our dioceses opt out of marriage registering for state purposes?"

Just a reminder Rose that we should be clear in our own minds that it would be quite impossible for our priests to administer to them the Sacrament of Matrimony - I mean in the Sacramental sense. Further in terms of the participants - irrespective of the location and the officials, scenery etc. - only they can effect the Sacrament and only then if said participants are male and female.
My mistake. Priests witness marriages. The bride and groom administer the sacrament to each other.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

Thank you for that Rose.

"Many of the answers that some of you will offer to this question will be based upon emotive arguments rather than the factual clear and concise irrefutable evidence based upon sound theological debates."

As regards this passage I agree with Penfold - would rather though replace the word debate with doctrine. All or any of the rest is just froth in my opinion adding to confusion. But that's me.

PJD
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Penfold
Tuesday, 6. November 2012, 23:50
Remember also that even between a man and a wife if the couple are incapable of having children then their marriage is considered invalid by the church.

That fits with something I read about many cultures considering that a couple is not married until they have their first child.

However, I am taken somewhat aback by this sentence. Is this really the case? A catholic man or woman who, lets say, is sterile as a result of radiotherapy in their teens can never be married in the catholic church? Or, lets say, if a catholic finds out that their spouse is infertile and was at the time of the marriage - they can walk away from the marriage and marry someone else?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Penfold
Member Avatar

Gerry the actual text from Canon Law reads,

Quote:
 
SPECIFIC DIRIMENT IMPEDIMENTS


Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.

§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.

Can. 1098 A person contracts invalidly who enters into a marriage deceived by malice, perpetrated to obtain consent, concerning some quality of the other partner which by its very nature can gravely disturb the partnership of conjugal life.

the ccc says
Quote:
 
The openness to fertility

1652 "By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory."160

Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: "It is not good that man should be alone," and "from the beginning (he) made them male and female"; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: "Be fruitful and multiply." Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.161

1653 The fruitfulness of conjugal love extends to the fruits of the moral, spiritual, and supernatural life that parents hand on to their children by education. Parents are the principal and first educators of their children.162 In this sense the fundamental task of marriage and family is to be at the service of life.163

1654 Spouses to whom God has not granted children can nevertheless have a conjugal life full of meaning, in both human and Christian terms. Their marriage can radiate a fruitfulness of charity, of hospitality, and of sacrifice.


The problem is if one knows that one is incapable of having children how can one enter marriage open to the possibility of having them?

However I am away for a couple of days so will come back to this later, it is as you suggest Gerry something were there is room for considered interpretation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Thanks Penfold,

Quote:
 
§3. Sterility neither prohibits nor nullifies marriage, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 1098.


That is good. Still a bit problematic for other things.

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Thursday, 8. November 2012, 14:36
The problem is if one knows that one is incapable of having children how can one enter marriage open to the possibility of having them?
How should a priest react when a widow and widower both aged over 60 approach him, to arrange their wedding?
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Gerard

Remind himself of Sarah?

Gerry
"The institutional and charismatic aspects are quasi coessential to the Church's constitution" (Pope John Paul II, 1998).
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 10:21
a bar and and off licence will welcome an alcoholic, that does not mean I will close down a bar or shut the off licence
Not in my experience. And probably not in any other Personal Licence Holders's experience.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
"Penfold"
 
I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin. Nothing I can do and nothing you can say will change that for it is not in my gift to change this


Whether you accept that homosexuality is anything other than a sin is neither here nor there. It is not a sin, it's the act that is sinful.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PJD

"it's the act that is sinful."

|I agree; this distinction is very important, and charity demands so methinks.

PJD

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Rose of York
Member Avatar
Administrator
Penfold has already apologised for what he wrote. I have emboldened the quoted apology.

Penfold
Monday, 5. November 2012, 02:30
OsullivanB
Sunday, 4. November 2012, 12:23
Penfold
 
I can not accept that homosexuallity is anything other than a sin
Wrong. All sexual activity other than that between a man and his wife is sinful. Homosexuality is not a sin. Sexual activity whether solitary or between umarried people is. This is (I accept well-meaningly) typical of the confused thinking and pronouncements of Catholics. It leads to a number of unintentionally offensive observations.

I am not a sinner because I am a homosexual. The two are not synonymonous. But repeatedly it is spoken and written of as if it were. I am sick of it.

Jesus accepts me as Bernard, who is all sorts of things including homosexual and (like everyone else from the Pope down) a sinner. I look forward to the day when this is widely understood and emulated.

(NB This is really not ad hominem about you, Penfold. It is ad causam and in ecclesiam.)
my apologies Bernard. You are correct.
Keep the Faith!

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Josephine
Member Avatar

Re post #54

Sorry, a bar or off licence will NOT welcome an alcoholic.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated.

If they did that, they would lose their licence and be subject to a hefty fine.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Angus Toanimo
Member Avatar
Administrator
Josephine
Friday, 9. November 2012, 23:54
Re post #54

Sorry, a bar or off licence will NOT welcome an alcoholic.

It is illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already intoxicated.

If they did that, they would lose their licence and be subject to a hefty fine.
Exactly.
Posted Image
Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
OsullivanB

If members wish to discuss alcoholism and/or the licensed trade, could they please do so in another thread.
:topicbaack: :pl:
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance - that principle is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · General Catholic Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply