Secular and Chistian definitions parted company many years ago with the decriminilisation of adultery, Sodomy and the legalisation of divorce.
We believe the only sex willed by God is between an adult man and a woman, exclusive, for life and who have gifted their bodies to each other for the purpose of conceiving and rearing children. That is how we define marriage. More recently we have included the need for love (covenant not simply contract).
Other institutions throughout history have not always agreed, and certainly that is true of formerly christian nations since the 1950s even in legal practice.
I think posters need to be wary of identifying Catholic Matrimony with the Sacrament. They are not the same. My brother is validly married to a Buddhist. It is a valid Catholic Matrimony, it is holy, it is not a Sacrament.
Lets not think that Purebloods and Muggles arent both Catholic marriages!
FrDavid it is comforting to hear this. As you will know, SSM is going to be made legal in Australia. Bills being put forward and discussed in parliament today allow for clergy to say no to marrying SSA.
But any protections for those offering wedding ceremony services are being made redundant.
The only way, I foresee around this , is to offer these services to those celebrating the Sacrament under Canon defined terminology.
There is a fair section of the younger generation that are against SSM. Perhaps the Church offering a differently defined ceremony will encourage more couples to choose the Church Sacrament as opposed to what the state offers. Ie matrimony in Church cf marriage on the beach.
No. The Church can’t change the definition of marriage to include same-sex marriages. The teachings on homosexuality come from God Himself as divine / natural law, not the ecclesiastical, or man-made law, of the Church which can be changed or dispensed from by the appropriate and competent ecclesiastical authority.
In other words, the teachings on homosexuality is a defined doctrine that can’t be changed. Therefore, a same-sex marriage is NEVER valid in the eyes of the Church.
Yes, looking back, it would have been more precise had I said “Christian matrimony” (since every marriage involving at least one Catholic is still “Christian” even though it’s not always a Sacrament) rather than use the word Sacrament.
In any case, the distinction was about Matrimony as the Church uses the word, as opposed to marriage as the states now (erroneously) use the word.
I am not entirely convinced that changing to the word “matrimony” (instead of marriage) is going to really do anything. In my own life I cannot think of even one single time when I thought the two words were different in any way whatsoever.
As you may be aware I view language use by non homogenous nations as analogous at best and equivocal at worst.
Whenever we try and dig below the surface on contentious issues we suddenly see worlds collide with markedly different word meanings fracturing along the usual cultural, religious, philosophic or sexual fault lines.
Christian marriage sounds good to me even if not perfect.
The legal definition of marriage doesn’t need to change. It needs to remain the same. God instituted marriage between one man and one woman. Man does not have the right to change it just because he’s in the mood to be in a same gender “relationship.”
As long as the government does not require religious bodies to perform same-sex weddings, then it’s best just to let it be.
Convenience (what I want, sometimes called “freedom”) and fairness (sometimes called “civil rights”) have replaced traditional morality in the view of the government, and to an extent in society, as the principles by which laws should be made. Same-sex marriage falls under the fairness ideal. It’s unfair that gays and lesbians cannot marry… therefore it must be wrong to outlaw it. That’s what we have to live with.