I can’t know what is on anyone else’s mind…but if the SSM campaigners in Australia are to be believed, their claim is that the marriage of two men must be understood as no different than the marriage of man+woman. Not a simulation of anything, not a granting of permission - just the same as the marriage of man+woman. That is what we are asked to accept, and if one attends, I’m inclined to think that that is the position to which one gives assent.
I would bring it to the Bishops attention in an email or something if possible. It’s one thing for the College to do this in their own magazine or paper, but to do it under the guise of ‘Catholicism’ when it is no such thing is just wrong. It creates scandal and promotes heresy.
God Bless You
Thank you for reading.
If someone respects your Catholic faith, they would not put you in a position to compromise on it.
You can kindly decline on this point.
Yes it does. I thought it was wrong.
Then why do you say:
Not all valid marriages are sacramental. There are untold millions of valid, natural marriages.
Slow down there young man. Think before you shout.
There are untold millions of perfectly valid marriages, both sacramental and natural, where there is no priest and no Catholic involved.
As long as a man and a woman are free to marry, not bound by any impediment, they may validly marry in front of a Druid priestess on a beach or a Baptist minister in a double-wide or at a Vegas Drive In Elvis chapel.
Also, in this time you will sound silly to say there is not “such a thing” as same-sex marriage. The law of the United States and several other countries recognizes these marriages as legal, so, they do exist.
A same sex marriage is not valid, however, it is very legal. Screaming it “does not exist” only makes you look kinda kooky in a debate. Recognize that there is legal status, then, go on to speak about the ways that natural or sacramental marriage is valid/invalid.
I disagree. The law is not the arbiter of what is real or not. The law in the US says women have the right to kill their babies. That doesn’t mean I’ll ever say it is a real right.
You are free to argue from that position. I’ve not seen that position used to an advantage in changing hearts and minds.
Well Jesus gave a jolly scandalous simulation of doing so all the same…especially at that huge celebration put on by Levi…the dirty stinking thief. He spent huge amounts at that one, the guest list enormous, no doubt using all that money robbed from the poor. Jesus was deeply cooperating in evil, celebrating evil by attending.
Like Jesus exemplified, I think its good to treat things on a case by case basis. Not live robotically on universalised abstract rules. There are usually exceptions in practice.
Going back to the OP’s question, participating in scandal is not a good idea. The Church views same-sex marriage as not a marriage. Making it legal only gives the appearance of marriage from a legal standpoint but it does not make it one. Sure, it happens, it’s legal, but Catholics should refrain from participation.
I know two people who got married in court. So, while their marriage was legal, it did violate the Catholic Church’s teaching about getting an annulment. Legally, their marriage was valid, but the Church has its own means of handling certain situations that, if both parties are Catholic, should be followed. I’m not interested in other beliefs and practices regarding marriage rites since this is a Catholic forum. And I do know one couple who were married in a Native American ceremony. Legal? Yes. But one party was Catholic so it’s validity in the Church’s eyes is a question for a priest.
There is no possibility of this marriage becoming sacramental.
For others who are wed civilly, there is that possibility and hope.
What is your position on my brother’s valid Catholic but non sacramental marriage then?
Yes, let us pick one terrible law the US made while setting aside the dozens of good and fair laws that promote such things as freedom of religion.
I was taught that we can celebrate with those who are marriages are civil, between and and woman, because there is hope that a civil marriage will one day become sacramental.
I was addressing the issue of same sex marriage and how this is impossible for this to happen in the op’s example.
Lots of things we are taught assume a context and can in fact be erroneous if taken out of that context.
And some things we are taught are just approximations.
And some things are in “baby words” that need to be fleshed out as we mature.
Hope of Sacramentality really has little bearing on the matter of attending a civil union.
My brother’s Buddhist wife has no intention of becoming a Christian and he certainly isn’t angling to convert her. His marriage is valid all the same and he acquired his dispensation simply as a rubber stamp with no education or questions asked as to the conditions you mention. Those days are gone.
Same with us once strictly not being allowed to attend non Catholic wedding “celebrations” under pain of great sin.
Are you rejecting the idea that the event is (in the eyes of the couple at least) a Marriage?
When’s the wedding?
I don’t think it’s worth the risk to go to this ceremony since it could possibly an offence against God. I read in my catechism that participating in something we are not sure of would still be a sin since we were willing to risk offending Goodness itself for some base and trivial things (which constitutes every single sin whether it is something like disobeying one’s parents or overeating) As a Catholic it would be safer to not attend. What is the worst that could happen. After all God is infinitely more valuable and important than any person since He has created everything and all their good qualities come from him. Even in this forum the answer is unclear. It’s probably best to avoid any potential compromises of the Holy Faith.
See post #72…