Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The issue is the Catholic understanding of marriage. If married people want civil divorce, let them have it. Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it. But Catholics cannot have "sacramental divorces" or "homosexual sacraments."

Manchu wrote:Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it.

That is most assuredly not the position argued...

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it.

That is most assuredly not the position argued...

This is the position argued by me.

Manchu wrote:The issue is the Catholic understanding of marriage. If married people want civil divorce, let them have it. Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it. But Catholics cannot have "sacramental divorces" or "homosexual sacraments."

Very technically, they can only not have homosexual sacramental marriages.

I suppose, just like anybody else, a person shouldn't take communion after non-procreative sex with a person of the same gender.

Homosexuality is not a sin. just the actual sodomy. And even that no more so than any other non-baby-making boots knocking.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it.

That is most assuredly not the position argued...

This is the position argued by me.

It's a good thing I wasn't talking about you.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Similarly, if homosexuals want civil marriages, let them have it.

That is most assuredly not the position argued...

This is the position argued by me.

It's a good thing I wasn't talking about you.

I guess you're talking about the bishops. But we Catholic laymen do often disagree with the bishops over politics. I'll hear the bishops out but they have no particular competence or capacity in terms of politics. A fair few Catholics seem to feel this way, or something like it.

Commentators have shown general surprise at recent findings of widespread support among Catholics for same-gender marriage and civil unions, laws against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and other LGBT-friendly policies. What may be a little surprising is that Catholic support is stronger than in other Christian denominations, with Latino Catholic support for civil unions or civil same-gender marriage crossing the 50 percent mark.

http://www.uscatholic.org/blog/2011/03/catholics-say-i-do-gay-marriage

It's one of the by products of a celibate clergy, i think.

Plenty of jokes are made about guys that never have sex laying down policy for those that do, but there's a lot of truth there. The modern clergy is composed of men that chose to be celibate. I'm sure some did so out of genuine religious zeal, but fundamentally... there's something "different" about people that aren't interested in sex.

Melissia and Mannahnin, you may be interested in this, too:

American Catholics are more tolerant than Americans in general and members of other Christian denominations on a variety of issues concerning homosexuals and same-sex couples, according to a study issued March 22 by the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute.

http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2011/03/study-catholics-more-tolerant-other-christians-same-sex-issues

Mannahnin wrote:I never said it was, nor do I in any way think the tribunal is a rubber stamp process.

Here's the thing, I'm getting a Catholic marriage in just under three weeks. I'm not of the faith, so the Father made sure we met up a whole bunch of times, and we talked about the importance of raising children in the faith, and all kinds of stuff about a good and healthy marriage. We met maybe half a dozen times.

Work was put into that because it remains important to the Catholic Church, and good on them for having those priorities.

There is simply no such priority for preventing divorce. Because they've moved on, along with everyone else. People can quote writings that claim otherwise, but what actually matters is how people act.

Polonius wrote:It's one of the by products of a celibate clergy, i think.

It could be. I know a fair few priests, however, who privately disagree with the bishops on this issue -- among many, many others.

Polonius wrote:But I don't see why it's so off the charts ludicrous for an organization to build in safeguards for a permanent, lifelong covenant.

If not for annulment, than a man could kidnap and drug a woman, have her say yes before a priest, and she'd be stuck.

Sense dictates that agreements based on fraud should be undone.

Sure, no-one is saying there should be absolute laws that no Catholic marriage can ever be undone.

People are saying that if you actually care about such things, put in the time to properly establish if that's what has really happened. Don't just say 'well we'll ask and you may lie, and if you do that's between you and God.' That's just putting up a rubberstamp so you can pretend you're opposed to divorce, but don't have the political will to actually stop any divorce.

sebster wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I never said it was, nor do I in any way think the tribunal is a rubber stamp process.

Here's the thing, I'm getting a Catholic marriage in just under three weeks. I'm not of the faith, so the Father made sure we met up a whole bunch of times, and we talked about the importance of raising children in the faith, and all kinds of stuff about a good and healthy marriage. We met maybe half a dozen times.

Work was put into that because it remains important to the Catholic Church, and good on them for having those priorities.

There is simply no such priority for preventing divorce. Because they've moved on, along with everyone else. People can quote writings that claim otherwise, but what actually matters is how people act.

Well, a divorce only ends a civil marriage, not a sacramental one.

sebster wrote:There is simply no such priority for preventing divorce.

How exactly would the Church "prevent" divorce? You seemed to say earlier, and I think correctly, that they could only discourage it by not allowing divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church. And that's exactly what they do. But disallowing this remarriage is not a policy to prevent or discourage a divorce. It is a legal consequence of the definition of Catholic marriage.

Manchu wrote:I'm afraid it isn't.

Seriously, when an organisation has a rubber stamp that lets people seperate without any real inquiry, then they're allowing divorce but just pretending to still be opposed. It couldn't be clearer.

sebster wrote:People are saying that if you actually care about such things, put in the time to properly establish if that's what has really happened.

That is what happens.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:But I don't see why it's so off the charts ludicrous for an organization to build in safeguards for a permanent, lifelong covenant.

If not for annulment, than a man could kidnap and drug a woman, have her say yes before a priest, and she'd be stuck.

Sense dictates that agreements based on fraud should be undone.

Sure, no-one is saying there should be absolute laws that no Catholic marriage can ever be undone.

People are saying that if you actually care about such things, put in the time to properly establish if that's what has really happened. Don't just say 'well we'll ask and you may lie, and if you do that's between you and God.' That's just putting up a rubberstamp so you can pretend you're opposed to divorce, but don't have the political will to actually stop any divorce.

I don't' know anything about the Church in Australia, but in Cleveland, it's a pretty lengthy process.

There is also an appointed person whose job it is to advocate on behalf of the marriage. So he investigates and argues to the tribunal about why the marriage is valid, and should be kept.

While things have loosened up, particularly with the concept of people being psychologically capable of intent, actual annulments still require some serious effort to gain.

sebster wrote:Seriously, when an organisation has a rubber stamp that lets people seperate without any real inquiry, then they're allowing divorce but just pretending to still be opposed.

That is not what happens.

Melissia wrote:Right, they're claiming they can travel back and time and amke it never happen.

Which is dishonest.

No, they're stating it never really was. Which is problematic from a legal POV, but perfectly sensible from a religious POV.

Not that any of this matters. It's just word games about silliness. What actually matters is how a religious body treats people who no longer want to be married, and who will at some point wish to marry other people within their church. And my direct experience is that the Catholic Church lets that happen, even though some portion of its members pretend otherwise.

sebster wrote:
Sure we have, and it's been done by people to try and equate atheism with various religious beliefs. And my point is that those people are doing themselves and their faith a disservice, ignoring all the great things about religion.

Ah, gotcha, I misunderstood what you were claiming.

sebster wrote:
Part of me suspects this is because for many people of faith their beliefset really is the source of inspirational to good works and higher thought that it should, but just a tribal identity, functionally no different to a person who figures there is no God and thinks no more on the subject.

I knew a UU girl in college that spent lots of her free time to develop a convincing argument that I was mistaken, categorically, in claiming that I did not believe in any kind of higher power. She was a smart, if obnoxious girl, so I think she was genuinely trying to defend her own belief that everyone believes in some sort of higher power, even if they don't realize it.

This type of person is annoying, if only for their vehemence, but I think they're the minority. I think most people that load atheism with religious baggage do so because they aren't accustomed to thinking about theism as something that is divorced from religion. For them its not "atheism v. theism" its "atheism v. religion" so they see a category that is comparable to religion. This isn't really all their fault, though, because for the most vocal atheists it really is "atheism v. religion." Hell, I'm probably one of the most religiously sympathetic atheists you'll ever meet, and that was how I saw the debate not very long ago.

Then, of course, there are other, smaller, groups of people who see atheism as a religion because, ultimately, they break everything down to religion. I think GG fits here.

sebster wrote:

Melissia wrote:Right, they're claiming they can travel back and time and amke it never happen.

Which is dishonest.

No, they're stating it never really was. Which is problematic from a legal POV, but perfectly sensible from a religious POV.

It's actually fine from a legal point of view as well.

sebster wrote:Which is problematic from a legal POV, but perfectly sensible from a religious POV.

It has nothing to do with religion. It is entirely a matter of legality.

Manchu wrote:sebster, the Church is not lobbying for an end to civil divorce. Is that what you're on about?

No, I'm saying that for all practical purposes the church has moved on. It left it's opposition to divorce on the books, but it's almost entirely a notional thing, and that it doesn't actually get in the way of people divorcing and remarrying within the church.

As such, it is possible that at some unknown time in the future, some generations after gay marriage has been made legal, the Catholic Church may end up changing its position on the matter.

And what do you mean, what am I on about? I said the Church had moved on on one issue, and you started claiming it hadn't. This nonsense is your invention, not mine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:The church long gave up its battles against divorce, yes.

That's what I said like four pages ago. I thought it was a just a throw-away line, but instead we got all this

sebster wrote:

Manchu wrote:sebster, the Church is not lobbying for an end to civil divorce. Is that what you're on about?

No, I'm saying that for all practical purposes the church has moved on. It left it's opposition to divorce on the books, but it's almost entirely a notional thing, and that it doesn't actually get in the way of people divorcing and remarrying within the church.

As such, it is possible that at some unknown time in the future, some generations after gay marriage has been made legal, the Catholic Church may end up changing its position on the matter.

The state of affairs in the US is not like that. It is easier to get an annulment now than a generation ago, but it is still difficult and/or expensive.

I will agree that the Church does not care much about people civilly divorcing, civilly remarrying, and holding themselves out as married within the Church. that's mostly due to the Church having better things to do.

@sebster:

There is no such thing as divorce in Church law. The near universal availability of civil divorce in the Anglophonic world for hundreds of years has not changed that. This is because Catholic marriage is indisoluable. One often hears the phrase, "there is no power on Earth" that could grant a divorce of a valid marriage. That means even if the pope were to solemnly declare that we could all have divorces from now on, and even if he claimed to be infallibly teaching this, it would still be impossible. The same is true of homosexuals never being able to enter into sacramental marriage.

Polonius wrote:Well, a divorce only ends a civil marriage, not a sacramental one.

But I know people who've divorced with the blessing of the Catholic Church, and gone on to remarry within the faith. And they didn't have half a dozen meetings in which they talked to the Father about the importance of staying in their faith.

Because the Church really, really doesn't have a priority for preventing divorce. There was a time when they would deny divorce, but not anymore. They've moved on. feth. What am I saying that's hard to get?

Polonius wrote:that's mostly due to the Church having better things to do.

Similarly, only Catholics not in a state of mortal sin may receive communion. But no one checks your ID card when you go up.

Manchu wrote:How exactly would the Church "prevent" divorce? You seemed to say earlier, and I think correctly, that they could only discourage it by not allowing divorced Catholics to remarry in the Church. And that's exactly what they do. But disallowing this remarriage is not a policy to prevent or discourage a divorce. It is a legal consequence of the definition of Catholic marriage.

They would not grant the anulment process. Tell people they're still married in the eyes of God and can't get a Catholic divorce. And yet people can get their past Catholic marriage anulled, and get remarried in a Catholic church.

sebster wrote:

Polonius wrote:Well, a divorce only ends a civil marriage, not a sacramental one.

But I know people who've divorced with the blessing of the Catholic Church, and gone on to remarry within the faith. And they didn't have half a dozen meetings in which they talked to the Father about the importance of staying in their faith.

Because the Church really, really doesn't have a priority for preventing divorce. There was a time when they would deny divorce, but not anymore. They've moved on. feth. What am I saying that's hard to get?

There's a reason I've prefaced my remarks with qualifiers such as "things are different here."

Bishops have broad discretion. It's possible that your diocese was far more lenient than most.

But as categorical statement you're simply not correct.

Manchu wrote:

sebster wrote:People are saying that if you actually care about such things, put in the time to properly establish if that's what has really happened.

That is what happens.

That is the exact opposite of what I've seen happen.

sebster wrote:But I know people who've divorced with the blessing of the Catholic Church, and gone on to remarry within the faith.

No you don't. There is no person on this planet who has gotten "divorced with the blessing of the Catholic Church."

Because the Church really, really doesn't have a priority for preventing divorce.

You have really, really missed the point. I already explained this to you. Not allowing people to remarry in the Church who are already married, i.e., have obtained a civil divorce but not a declaration of nullity, is not a policy intended to prevent or discourage civil divorce. It is the legal consequence of the concept of sacramental marriage.