Differing Opinion

If I don’t agree on fighting to make gay people second class citizens does that mean I shouldn’t bother trying to become faithful to the Catholic Church again?

Also is it true that someone who is impotent to the point of total sterility can never marry? If so I may not bother trying anyways because it seems nothing satisfies God and his Church; like if a Catholic Veteran returned home incapable of having children he can never marry?!

The Catholic Church isn’t fighting for that; it simply opposes changing marriage from what it has always been, simply to suit their desires.

Also is it true that someone who is impotent to the point of total sterility can never marry? If so I may not bother trying anyways because it seems nothing satisfies God and his Church; like if a Catholic Veteran returned home incapable of having children he can never marry?!

There are two distinct issues there.

Impotency – the inability to carry on the spousal activity – is a bar to marriage, because there can be no marriage without that physical union of man and woman.

Infertility – the inability to procreate – is not such a bar in itself.

So if someone is not impotent but is not fertile, they have no problem getting married. If they are impotent, they cannot, simply because they cannot physically do what marriage requires.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

Where did you get your information?

What drove you away the last time?

The Catholic Church isn’t fighting for that; it simply opposes changing marriage from what it has always been, simply to suit their desires.

Then why arent Catholics fighting to make it illegal for someone who is paralyzed from the neck down to get married by the state? By Catholic standards that shouldnt be allowed either. It ends up making defending this issue impossible on a secular stand, their are plenty of marriages between consenting adult humans that are not valid to the Church. I mean would everyone fighting to keep SSM illegal be fine with the government only allowing Catholic marriages and denying protestants, and non-christians from getting legally married?

Flavius,

The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Ten Commandments and Sacred Scripture states that sexual acts outside of marriage and that all sexual acts of homosexuals are mortal sins.

Why then, would the Catholic Church approve of marriage between two women or two men?

Flavius,

The Catholic Church’s understanding of the Ten Commandments and Sacred Scripture states that sexual acts outside of marriage and that all sexual acts of homosexuals are mortal sins.

Why then, would the Catholic Church approve of marriage between two women or two men?

But why work to stop marriage license from the government? They arent even christian based; papers only valued by the government, spiritually worthless.

also Barbkw I will answer your prior question later on, right now I must get to one of my classes.

From a college-level theology textbook. Sorry, I don’t have it with me.

Have you better information? If so, I am open to correction.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

What drove you away the last time?

Well my own sin was what softened me I admit, but over time it became more difficult to put faith in God’s existance without any valid evidence and the matter only got worse when I felt that even if God did exist he didn’t deserve to be worshiped (mostly through the different accounts of genocide, punishments, ect. in the OT)

If your information is correct, single Catholics past the childbearing age, would not be allowed to marry in the Church.

Because man with man and woman with woman sexual relationships would be normalized within society.

No; read what I said; Infertility is not a bar to marriage, impotency is; they are not the same.

Impotency and infertility are not the same. Impotency is what men take Viagra for. Infertility is where IVF, surrogacy, etc, come in.

If the physical act is possible, but would not “bear fruit,” there is no impediment.

If the act itself is impossible, that would be the end of it.

ICXC NIKA

Because man with man and woman with woman sexual relationships would be normalized within society.

So, does that mean they should be treated as sub-citizens in the United States or any other country?! Seperate but Equal never works; it always places one group above the other. I don’t want to be a part of a fight that is saying gays aren’t allowed a spritually empty piece of paper that by government standards sets them equals to other consenting adult humans.

And before I hear the polygamy slippery slope, I wouldn’t care if it was allowed. This is a secular society with no reconigized religion, and these are consenting men and women. Is it a Sin, most definately- are Catholics in the right to try and stop sins of others by forcing them by the point of law to conform? NO!

The same still holds true from my first post.

Men and woman past the child bearing years (and men of this age take Viagra) then they wouldn’t be allowed to marry in the Catholic Church?

And, at advanced ages, they would be too old to adopt.

Canon Law is specific:

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 indicates the invalidity of consent obtained by deception, presumably including deception about one’s fertility

tee

If the couple can’t consummate the marriage, its not a marriage.

Its why gay unions, can not be defined as marriages.

Jim

If the couple can’t consummate the marriage, its not a marriage.

Its why gay unions, can not be defined as marriages.

Jim

Then I’ll ask again, why in a secular marriage license do you follow the Church’s definition of marriage, but if the government is marrying say non-Catholics then everyone is just completely fine with the government’s definition?

Archbishop Dolan Calls Refusal to Defend Defense of Marriage Act an ‘Alarming and Grave Injustice’

WASHINGTON (March 3, 2011)— “Our nation and government have the duty to recognize and protect marriage, not tamper with and redefine it, nor to caricature the deeply held beliefs of so many citizens as ‘discrimination,’” said Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB). His statement followed the February 23 announcement that President Obama has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a move Archbishop Dolan called an “alarming and grave injustice.”

Archbishop Dolan’s full statement follows:

The announcement on February 23 that the President has instructed the Department of Justice to stop defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is an alarming and grave injustice. Marriage, the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife, is a singular and irreplaceable institution. Only a man and a woman are capable of the “two-in-one-flesh” union of husband and wife. Only a man and a woman have the ability to bring children into the world. Along with that ability comes responsibility, which society historically reinforces with laws that bind mothers and fathers to each other and their children. This family unit represents the most basic and vital cell of any society, protecting the right of children to know and be known by, to love and be loved by, their mother and father. Thus, marriage represents the bedrock of the common good of society, its very foundation and future.

Contrary to the Attorney General’s statement, DOMA does not single out people based on sexual “orientation” or inclination. Every person deserves to be treated with justice, compassion, and respect, a proposition of natural law and American law that we as Catholics vigorously promote. Unjust discrimination against any person is always wrong. But DOMA is not “unjust discrimination”; rather, it merely affirms and protects the time-tested and unalterable meaning of marriage. The suggestion that this definition amounts to “discrimination” is grossly false and represents an affront to millions of citizens in this country.

The decision also does not stand the test of common sense. It is hardly “discrimination” to say that a husband and a wife have a unique and singular relationship that two persons of the same sex—or any unmarried persons—simply do not and cannot have. Nor is it “discrimination” to believe that the union of husband and wife has a distinctive and exclusive significance worthy of promotion and protection by the state. It is not “discrimination” to say that having both a mother and a father matters to and benefits a child. Nor is it “discrimination” to say that the state has more than zero interest in ensuring that children will be intimately connected with and raised by their mother and father.

Protecting the definition of marriage is not merely permissible, but actually necessary as a matter of justice. Having laws that affirm the vital importance of mothers and fathers—laws that reinforce, rather than undermine, the ideal that children should be raised by their own mother and father—is essential for any just society. Those laws serve not only the good of the spouses and their children, but the common good. Those laws are now under relentless attack. If we forget the meaning of marriage, we forget what it means to be a human person, what it means to be a man or a woman. Have we wandered away so far in our society as to forget why men and women matter, and eroded the most central institution for our children and for our future?

The Administration’s current position is not only a grave threat to marriage, but to religious liberty and the integrity of our democracy as well. Our nation and government have the duty to recognize and protect marriage, not tamper with and redefine it, nor to caricature the deeply held beliefs of so many citizens as “discrimination.” On behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, I express my deep disappointment over the Administration’s recent decision. I have written of these concerns to the President in separate correspondence, and I pray that he and the Department of Justice may yet make the right choice to carry out their constitutional responsibility, defending the irreplaceable institution of marriage, and in so doing protect the future generations of our children.

usccb.org/comm/archives/2011/11-043.shtml

Actually, the original purpose of the civil marriage license was to protect the wife and children from abandonment by the husband/father.

There use to be a time when fathers were actually obligated by law to support their wife and children, and men who failed to do so, went to prison.

Its not the case any more and mothers now are more able to support themselves and their children, should they be abandoned by their spouse.

Jim

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.