Post by Chris Smith[Insults removed again...]
You can only hide behind this for so long, Chris.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithIt's true that marriage under natural law is recognized as valid by the
Church.
Finally, you admit this.
Yes, I agree with you on this, and in fact never denied it. Apparently
we misunderstood each other before.
And since you admit below that you expressed yourself poorly on a
related topic, you should think about admitting the same thing here.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonThen Old Testament polygamy was _not_ "natural law marriage"? Then
what was it? Will you deny that it was 'valid'? Also, _some_ of the
requirement you mention have also been required for civil marriages by
certain states.
I have no informed opinion on whether polygamous marriage in the time
prior to Christ was valid marriage.
Then you need to read the Catechism more closely. Or read Augustine's
Confessions, where he treats this topic. Abraham's marriage to Rachel
and Leah were _both_ valid.
Post by Chris SmithCertainly the Church does not recognize polygamous marriage as being
valid today, even under natural law.
That is because polygamy IS a deviation from natural law marriage. But
as Augustine pointed out, it was a deviation _permitted_ by the Old
Testment dispensation/economy, i.e., permitted by _divine_ permission.
Post by Chris SmithIf the Church did recognize this, then it would not require that
those who were divorced and remarried prior to becoming Catholic
receive a declaration of nullity on prior marriages before their
first marriage is presumed to be valid.
But this supports another point I was trying to explain to you, and
you are still resisting: there _is_ such a thing as valid marriage
outside the Church. Otherwise there would be no need for this
'declaration of nullity', since it would _automatically_ be null.
This is why you are wrong to claim that every "civil union" is not a
"real marriage".
Post by Chris SmithThe Church does require this, and therefore denies the
possibility that two marriages can be valid at once under natural
law.
Post by Matthew JohnsonWhich 'it'? ARE you claiming that there exists sacramental marriage
that is not between Christians?
No. "It" = natural law, in the sentence above. Of course there are no
valid sacraments among the unbaptized.
But what kind of 'marriage' can there be without any sacrament at all?
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonYou are evading again. You are still silent about the differentiae.
What exactly do you want?
That is clear enough. I want you to treat the differentiae. But you
are silent about them, just as you were in your previous posts.
Post by Chris SmithDeclarations of nullity are denied to those who are civilly divorced
whenever the church fails to find a cause for the declaration of
nullity. It's a negative condition; I can't list all possible cases
in which this would occur, because there are an infinite number of
them.
So you can't list the possible cases here, yet you whine when I do not
list all the possible exceptions to the commandment to obey the law
(implicit in Rom 13:1)? Give up the double-standard, Chris.
[snip]
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonAnd if they are "not terribly unjust", then there WILL be overlap with
"natural law marriage". For it is in the state's interest to encourge
the same things the Church encourages, within limits.
There will be overlap, of course, but not because the state's interest
is to encourage the same things as the Church.
When will you learn to respond to what was written? Why must you
insist on twisting my words instead? I never said that it was the
state's interest to encourage ALL the same things as the Church.
Post by Chris SmithThere is overlap because there's clearly no compelling interest to
the state in restricting the legal institution of marriage,
Why are you so sure of this? Many states have disagreed with you
throughout history. Even the relatively liberal US still restricts
polygamous marriages, allowing only _serial_ polygamy.
Post by Chris Smithand therefore the state does recognize most marriages. Sometimes,
though, this is violated.
No doubt. But that is no justification for your abrupt change of topic
below.
Post by Chris SmithUnjust restrictions are placed on marriage
This is the abrupt change: you -were- talking about "when the state
recognizes marriage", but now you are talking about something MUCH
more specific, i.e., _unjust_ restrictions.
The reason I have to point this out is that it LOOKS like you are
trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and pretend that the two are
the same. They are not.
Post by Chris Smithdue to race, socio-economic or religious class, etc.
And why are you grouping _these_ three together? They are very
different, you know. Grouping together such very different things into
one category is a classic fallacy.
Besides: how can it be unjust for the _state_ to restrict marriage
based on religious class when your own Church does it? An RC cannot
marry a non-Christian in the Church.
Post by Chris SmithIn that case, the state excludes marriages that the Church
recognizes. As far as I can tell this is always an injustice, but it
does happen.
But why are you simply repeating your one and the same conclusion over
and over without any evidence or discussion? This conclusion, that
"this is always an injustice" is the VERY topic under dispute here.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithAs such, married Christians are expected to abide by those laws
and become recognized as a married couple under the law. This
doesn't affect the validity of their marriage, though. It's
purely a matter of the licity of marriage, not the validity.
How can it be valid if it is not licit?
Lots of things are valid but not licit. Why do you think otherwise?
Look at the definitions of the words. Dictionary. com shows:
valid:
1.sound; just; well-founded: a valid reason.
2.producing the desired result; effective: a valid antidote for gloom.
3.having force, weight, or cogency; authoritative.
4. legally sound, effective, or binding; having legal force: a valid
contract.
5. Logic. (of an argument) so constructed that if the premises are
jointly asserted, the conclusion cannot be denied without
contradiction.
6. Archaic. robust; well; healthy.
licit:
legal; lawful; legitimate; permissible.
Note the huge overlap between valid(4) and licit. Note also that most
of the other senses for 'valid' are clearly out of context in your
discussion of valid/licit marriage.
Finally, note also that my original challenge to you was to prove your
point from the RCCC: but it uses only ONE of these terms, 'valid'
marriage. The word 'licit' does not even OCCUR in 1601-1666.
Post by Chris SmithPerhaps I could answer your question if I knew where you are coming
from.
You would know where I am coming from if you set aside a moral
theology that sounds like it came from Martin Luther King, and went
back to that described by Augustine in the Enchiridion.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithWhen it is impossible or infeasible, the requirement is waived.
But ONLY then? And who defines what is 'infeasible'?
The local ordinary has the sole authority to grant this dispensation.
For a Latin Rite diocese, the local ordinary is the Bishop. I am not
sufficiently familiar with the eastern canons to answer that question
for an Eastern Rite diocese.
You answered the second question, but not the first. And even the
second was answered in a surprisingly verbose way.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonUnfortunately, not always. And it doesn't do much good to do it
with "excruciating care" if the reader forgets that he is, after
all, reading a tranlsation, since no translation is perfect. That
is _why_ we use the commentary of experts at exegesis and
hermeneutics, especially the commentary of the Fathers, such as
Augustine.
Fine. Augustine doesn't agree with you either, as we already saw.
No, that is not what _we_ saw. You have forgotten the great influence
of Plato on Augustine, and so you are misinterpreting Augustine's
words, missing the _clear_ references to Plato's theory of the duty of
obedience of the individual citizen to the state.
As I said before: the obedience demanded is pretty nearly
unconditional. You seem bound and determined to water down both
Augustine and Paul and make it quite conditional.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonYou miss the point. I never said that 'obey' was the better
word. Rather, what I said what that the notion of 'subjection'
_includes_ obedience.
And I'm waiting for a reason to believe that.
You already have the reason. You are just being stubborn. Remember
that Augustine followed Plato's philosophy, and reread the
Augustine quote we discussed before. Remember what Plato said about the
high degree of obedience, pretty nearly unconditional, that he
described in the Crito, XII 50D.
Adams paraphrased it as:
Begin quote------------- The bargain was that you should obey us
without qualification, as our child and slave. Persuasion you might
bring to bear upon us, but not force.
End quote---------------
Post by Chris SmithCertainly being subject to someone means obeying them to an extent.
And you struggle mightily to minimize that extent, FAR beyond what
Augustine would ever agree to.
Post by Chris SmithIt means obeying when there is no reason to do otherwise,
That is a proviso too vague to be worth anything.
Post by Chris Smithand granting the benefit of the doubt when there may appear to be
such a reason.
No, it goes further than that. You have to have a VERY good
reason. Personal, individual judgment that such-and-such law is
'unjust' is NOT good enough.
Post by Chris SmithThere is, however, a requirement of justice that one not be complicit
in actions that are immoral.
But that 'requirement' does not automatically overrule the duty to
obedience. Otherwise, Paul would not have said, "he who resists
authority resists God's order (Rom 13:2)".
BTW: is this why some RC pharmacists are refusing to fill
subscriptions for birth control pills? This is an good example of how
NOT to encourage Christian values in society.
Post by Chris SmithThis is why Christians in the first century were justified in
continuing to worship God despite restrictions against this.
No, that is not why. Rather, this is one of the few exceptions to the
rule of unconditional obedience. But NOT because of some "requirement not
to be complicit in immoral actions".
Post by Chris SmithIt is also why Catholic Bishops in the U.S. granted standing
dispensations to allow interracial marriages when they were still
illegal in various states.
It amazes me that you can think these two cases are comparable, and
for the same reason. You merely _state_ that they are, you provide no
evidence. And your statement is VERY unconvincing to me, for reasons I
already gave you.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonTherefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the
ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to
themselves judgment. (Rom 13:2 RV)
This again speaks to whether Christians ought to resist others having
power over them, not to whether they ought to obey every command that
is given.
And what do you _think_ the authorities use this power for? To enforce
obedience to the laws they pass. Paul was explicit about this in the
following verses.
I'm staring at the following verses now.
Don't 'stare'. READ. And _think_ about what 'to be subject' means.
Post by Chris SmithThey don't say this.
Yes, they do. Remember the ancient frame of reference, as I describe
elsewhere in this post.
Post by Chris SmithPaul says that authorities will approve good conduct and stop bad
conduct.
True, he does. Now think about how sweeping a generalization he did or
did not mean this to be. Do you really think he forgot, for example,
his own legally authorized behavior of persecuting Christians?
Why, Augustine covers this very question in Exposition Quarumdam
Propositionum Ex Epistola Ad Romanos 66[74], where he says:
Begin quote----------------------
Quod autem ait: Necessitate subditi estote, ad hoc valet, ut
intellegamus, quia necesse est propter hanc vitam subditos nos esse
oportere, non resistentes, si quid illi auferre voluerint, in quod
sibi potestas data est, temporalibus rebus; quae quoniam transeunt
ideo et ista subiectio non in bonis quasi permansuris sed in
necessariis huic tempori constituenda est. Tamen quoniam dixit:
Necessitate subdidi estote, ne quis non integro animo et pura
dilectione subditus fieret huiusmodi potestatibus, addidit dicens: Non
solum propter iram sed etiam propter conscientiam, id est, non solum
ad iram evacuandam, quo potest etiam simulate fieri, sed ut in tua
conscientia certus sis illius dilectione te facere, cui subditus
fueris iussu Domini tui, qui omnes vult salvos fieri et in agnitionem
veritatis venire
End quote-------------------------
I am not going to take the time to translate all that, as long as you
keep showing that you do not read what is written. Find an English
translation yourself if you can. I will only summarize what I think is
most necessary, that he claims Paul is saying the civil authorities
have absolute authority over the _things of this world_, e.g., money
(hence the tax/tribute examples in Rom 13:6-7).
So then the question boils down to whether or not we think a marriage
is a "thing of this world". For a civil marriage, the answer should be
clear: it is YES.
Post by Chris SmithHe lists specific ways in which we are to fulfill his command: by paying
taxes and other fees, and by giving honor and respect to our leaders.
And pay attention to the phrasing of the 'list'. He -never- claimed it
was exhaustive; he -never- claimed this was the complete list of how
to "be subject to them in conscience (Rom 13:5)". These are only
_examples_ of what is implied by the commandment to be subject to
authority.
Post by Chris SmithThere is no explicit (nor implicit) command to obey in all things.
Yes, there is. It is in the very first verse, "let EVERY soul be
subject to higher powers (Rom 13:1)".
Again, "be subject to" _implies_ 'obey'. It does not allow exceptions
because the individual disagrees with the state. This WAS the frame of
reference in antiquity. This theme pops up not only in Plato (as I
already pointed out), but in Sophocles as well.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonWhy, he even speaks as if the authority could not
use his power for anything _but_ good!
But we know that's not true, so clearly you are misinterpreting
something...
No, that does not follow. He really does speak as if the authority
could not use his power for anything but good. But this is not because
he really believes that is so, it is because that is off-topic; it is
not relevant to what he is trying to explain to the Roman
congregation.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonDo waht is good, and you will have prase from it [authority]; And
if not from it, then throught it. For either if you do what is
just, then just authority will prase you; or you who do justice
will be crowned by God even if the unjust authorty condemns
you. But you must hold on to righteousness through this, you must
live well.
It says to do JUSTICE (not blind obedience), and you will be crowned
by God even if the unjust authority condems you for it.
Aha! So now it is the word 'justice' you do not understand! When
Augustine says 'justice' here, the sense of the word is similar to
that in the name for the branch of government here in the US, 'Justice
department'. That is, 'justice' means what the justice department says
it is, NOT just what some abstract standard says.
No, that's not what is meant. If it were, then "unjust authority" would
be nonsense.
And you will find, if you read other passages of Augustine on this
topic, that he -does- often treat "unjust authority" as nonsense, as a
oxymoron. See, for example, De Libero Arbitrio I, 6.14, where he
explains how two apparently contradictory laws are both just.
Now Augustine does allow for exceptions, but only rarely. And even
when dealing with Roman authorities we would certainly call 'unjust'
today, he never accuses them of this. Not even when he criticizes the
Pope of Rome for interfering in the African Church.
Post by Chris SmithWe don't need to look for textual evidence, though. The meaning of
justice in scripture and among early Christian writings is clear and
well recognized, and it doesn't mean enforcing the laws.
"Clear and well recognized", you say? Then why are you still getting
it wrong? St. John Chrysostom also taught pretty nearly unconditional
obedience to civil authorities (see On the Statues). So did many
others whose names I cannot recall right now.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonReally, this should not be so hard for you to understand. It is
related to the old idea of "the social contract", which says that
we obey the laws set up by society's authorities, we do NOT judge
the laws ourselves, deciding which we will obey and which we will
not.
I don't know whose idea of a social contract you are representing there.
Certainly not Hobbes,
Of _course_ not. Hobbes was a Johnny-come-lately to the topic. You
should have been able to guess, since I mentioned Augustine, and it
_is_ "clear and well-recognized" how he was under Platonic influence.
Post by Chris Smithor any of his successors that I've read.
Why are you reading only sources so late? Have you really never read
Aquinas on the topic?
Post by Chris SmithHobbes, in fact, believed in anyone's right to violate the social
contract if they felt like it.
That is already off topic, but no, Hobbes did not believe any such
thing. His position was more nuanced. He said that if an individual
_did_ presume to do this, he had better be ready to pay the price
exacted by the state, which could be a very harsh punishment indeed.
Post by Chris SmithHe simply argued that upholding the contract was in everyone's own
self-interest. If we apply a Christian morality to Hobbes' contract,
then we can no longer make that decision on self- interest, but
rather also on the will of God, which is expressed by the Church.
Post by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithPaul uses the nearly same words, just past the section you quoted
earlier in this thread;
No, he does not.
You're right. That was the commentary I was reading, not the actual
words of Paul. My mistake.
And are you still making such mistakes? It seems to me that you are.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonBut this doesn't make any sense. You are still running away from
the meaning of "subject to authority". And BTW: you inserted
another word not in the text, 'rightful'.
Feel free to ignore it. It was of no consequence for our discussion.
Post by Matthew JohnsonIf you keep on tampering with the text like this, expect far worse
punishment than my alleged "character attacks".
Excuse me? You really need to get a hold of yourself.
No, YOU need to learn to avoid tampering with the text, and avoid it
at all costs. Until you learn this, you will keep on repeating the
same mistakes, and falling into the same pits. Loudly proclaiming
nonsense and failing to understand even very _basic_ points in
Scripture.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonNot really. There are exceptions to lots of things. That is WHY people
say, "there's an exception to every rule".
So, in other words, Paul did not mean complete obedience. It is good
that you recognize this.
I said this a long time ago, way back on Aug 14. Look up "pretty
nearly unconditional" in Google. It is you who failed to understand,
and picked a fight.
Post by Chris SmithWith this in mind, perhaps you can give actual reasons why you
believe that Romans 13 requires obedience to, for example, a
restriction on interracial marriage. (We can even simplify and
assume that a couple is actually applying for a marriage certificate;
that way, it's clear that a law is being violated, and the resulting
consideration can be made simpler.)
Is it? Since when is it against the law to apply for a certificate
simply because you don't qualify?
Post by Chris SmithWe does Romans 13 forbid this, when it didn't forbid Christian
worship in Rome?
Remember, we've already established that Romans 13 doesn't require
complete obedience.
But you _still_ show no sign of recognizing what we have "already
established". When you do that, then we can get into your detailed
questions.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew Johnsonattempting to get tax benefits you are not qualified for is a
violation of a _different_ law, one that we do not dispute states
have a right to expect obedience to.
I hoped that by giving an example of something that *would* be a
violation of law, it might be made clear that marriage is not.
Now that is a hope that is sure to be frustrated.
Post by Chris SmithBecoming married in a Church is *not* a violation of laws that govern
the government's recognition of marriage.
That depends on the government. You really should refrain from such
sweeping generalizations. It is NOT conducive to reasonable
discussions.
Post by Chris SmithApplying for a marriage certificate is.
What are you talking about? Applying for a certificate you do not
qualify for is NOT a violation of the law. Not in the US, at least, as
long as you do not commit perjury while filling out the form. The only
penalty is the non-refundable filing fee.
Post by Chris SmithFiling a joint tax return is. Participating in or performing a
religious ceremony is not.
You miss the point. People do not "perform the religious ceremony"
without the intention of actually living as man and wife. If they do,
they are being fraudulent, which is a _different_ violation of the
law. And living as man and wife when you are not legally married
actually can be against the law, depending on what jurisdiction you
are in. In most US states, cohabitation itself is not a violation of
the law, but lying on your 1040 by claiming to be married (when you
are not legally married) IS a violation.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithWhat I disagree with is whether the government ought to be
enforcing this. I see nothing in the catechism suggesting that it
should.
Again: one thing at a time! If you knock it off with the relevant
digressions, we will get there.
We are already there.
No, we are not.
Post by Chris SmithEither discuss it, or don't. Your choice.
My choice is to remind you of section 909 of the catechism. That is a
much more direct proof of my point than what I gave before.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonFor that matter, it is your Catholic church that has, for
_centuries_ fought for natural law to be better expressed in the
actual laws (a.k.a. 'positive law')of states. That is WHY Aquinas
said that "positive law that violates natural law is not true law";
that is WHY Jesuit colleges have Law Faculties. So it surprises me
that you need proof that such a thing is good to do.
There is a clear difference between fighting for laws that do not
violate natural law, and laws that enforce natural law.
Why does this sound SO much like an answer to the wrong question? Ah,
I know. Because it is! Once again, you are not responding to what was
written. The Law faculties of Jesuit colleges do NOT confine
themselves to "fighting for laws that do not violate natural law,"
Post by Chris SmithThe first is always a valid and important undertaking. The second is
not necessarily justified.
You are still showing that you do not understand or agree with the
Catechism. Look at 909 again.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithThey clearly demonstrate that *whatever* marriage is, it is not
the same thing as the legal institution. If they were the same
thing, it would be impossible to have one but not the other. That
is possible, so they are not the same. It's really very simple.
Again, you are resorting to irrelevant distraction. I never said
they _were_ the same.
Great, then we agree. You have certainly gone to a lot of trouble to
argue over something we agree about.
You are being too hasty. We do not agree. And it is you, not I who is
making so much trouble out of this. You do it by making careless
mistakes like quoting commentary when you thought you were quoting
Paul. You do it by ignoring the difference between "pretty nearly
unconditional" and "unconditional".
Such carelessness _always_ generates a lot of trouble. Slow down, stop
biting off more than you can chew.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonWhat I said was that even a civil marriage is a 'marriage' in some
sense, and what I am trying to get you to realize is that the
language of the RCCC implies that marriage in this sense too, is
instituted by God.
The CCC doesn't say this, so you'll have a tough time convincing me that
it does.
Yes, it does say it. I even gave you the section#s. You did NOT
address them in your response. Instead, you plunged off into a fantasy
distinction, NOWHERE in the Catechism, between 'licit' and 'valid'
marriage, and between 'civil union' and 'real marriage'.
Post by Chris SmithHowever, if you like to try, then a good step would be to
point out where it does. You have already tried once, but in fact you
managed to point out the one section of the CCC that most clearly denies
your position, in that it is excruciatingly careful to describe someone
who invalidly contracts a legal marriage as being in a "civil union"
rather than a marriage.
You cannot claim that a "civil union" is not a marriage. There is
nothing in the Catechism to justify this. That is your 'eisegesis'.
Post by Chris SmithIt then points out precisely how that civil union is irrelevant to
the position of the Church,
No, it does no such thing. Nor can it, as long as it does as you
yourself admit above, recognizing the need to study whether or not a
declaration of nullity is possible for a previous marriage of a Catholic
convert.
Post by Chris Smithby explaining that the Church denies full participation in the
sacraments and liturgical responsibilities in the basis of sexual
activity, and not on the basis of the civil union.
It would be hard for you to do worse than to try to support your opinion
by pointing out section 1650.
Again, you continue to repeat this fiction only because you read
_into_ the text a distinction that is NOT there, namely, between
"civil union" and "real marriage". There is NOTHING in 1650 to
contradict the assertion that civil union is or can be a natural law
marriage.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithI agree that marriage has a contractual nature. (The catechism uses
"covenant".)
That is the English translation. The French, Spanish and Latin do not
follow it, but use a word with a much stronger implication of
'contract' (e.g. 'foedus'). And it is the civil authority that decides
contract law.
You are making an unjustified leap here. The catechism describes
marriage as a contract in the sense that it is a consensual agreement
between two people. There is no implication that it is subject to
adjudication by civil courts.
You have missed the point. Contracts are governed by Contract Law. If
I make a contract, then it is governed by the contract law of the
relevant jurisdiction.
Now as it so happens, in the US, we do not apply Contract Law, because
a contract requires monetary consideration, which we do not usually
have in US marriages. India may still have doweries, but we only have
expensive engagement rings;)
But it is still subject to civil law.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithThe question is whether the contract is the same as legal marriage
(it isn't)
Why are you so sure of this? Clearly that depends on how the state
defines "legal marriage"; in some states, it _is_ the contract.
You just acknowledged above that is possible to have one or the other of
civil marriage versus natural law marriage without the other.
What -are- you talking about?
Post by Chris SmithSince that is true, the two cannot possibly the same thing. We could
move on with much of the conversation if you'd decide what you
believe here.
Not true. One category can be a proper subset of the other.
Post by Chris Smith[More insults removed.]
Again, you can't keep hiding behind this forever.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonFor _now_ you say "it isn't at issue', but you _did_ dispute
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonBut the Catechism _calls_ marriage this contract! This is why I
am surpise that you take this position.
I believe you are misinterpreting the catechism
You said "But the Catechism _calls_ marriage this contract!" That was a
false statement.
No, it is not.
Post by Chris SmithThe CCC calls marriage a covenant, but not the same contract as the
civil union. That is, it is contractual, but it is not "this"
contract [by which was meant the civil union]. Establishing that
marriage has a contractual nature is obviously not sufficient to
establish that it is identical to any specific other contract.
You are equivocating. When the RCCC calls marriage a covenant, it does
NOT restrict the assertion to _Church_ marriages. On the contrary: it
is discussing marriage before the Fall (see, for example 1601, 1660),
from which _all_ marriage derives its nature, however imperfectly.
I pointed this out to you before, but where is your acknowledgment of
it?
ALL marriage is a 'covenant'. What is unique to Christian marriage is
that it is also a sacrament.
BTW: I never said it was "identical to any specific other
contract". Where did you get this red herring?
Post by Chris SmithFurthermore, we agreed earlier that it's possible to have one without
the other, with clearly demonstrates that they are not the same
thing. (I feel like a broken record here.)
You sure do. Especially since your argument is very broken.
Post by Chris SmithThe CCC doesn't identify marriage with a civil union; rather it
carefully distinguishes between the two, while at the same time
pointing out that marriage is a covenant between two people and God.
That is NOT "distinguishing between the two". Just because it uses the
term "civil union" does NOT mean it "carefully distinguishes between
the two". Not by a LONG shot.
Why, you have done NOTHING to prove that the Catechism makes the same
distinction that you do.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris Smith1. It clearly defines that civil marriage is *not* the same as real
marriage. This is an important point.
What are you talking about? It does no such thing. It is only
_remarriage_ that 1650 condemns as "not real marriage".
A civil marriage is contracted whether or not either party is
previously married (assuming they were divorced -- again a civil
action). Real marriage is not. Therefore, they aren't the same.
No, that does not follow. For the RCCC NEVER calls civil marriage "not
real marriage". YOU do that. But as I said before, you cannot justify
this based on the RCCC.
Post by Chris SmithThe rest of this hinges around the usual confusion that results from the
double-usage of the word "marriage".
A confusion you deepen by talking about "real marriage" where the RCCC
does no such thing.
Post by Chris SmithI'll merely point out that the section begins by describing the new
legal relationship as a "civil divorce" and "new civil unions", with
the clear intent to exclude an interpretation that these are the same
as marriage.
No. This is FAR from 'clear'. What distinction is intended is not
clearly stated at all. I claim that it is NOT what you say at
all. Rather, it is only intended to distinguish between civil marriage
and Church marriage, i.e. Christian marriage. WITHOUT denying the
possibility of "real marriage" among civil unions.
Post by Chris SmithThe remainder of the passage should be interpreted accordingly.
No, rather, it should not be interpreted your way at all.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithIt describes certain ecclesiastical consequences that apply so
long as they persist in that sin. It also provides that they may
repent of this sin and be restored to right relationship with God
if they make a commitment to live "in complete continence"
Close, but not quite. It _only_ opens to them the Sacrament of
Penance, NOT the other Sacraments. To be restored to Communion,
they have to undo the "situation that objectively contravenes God's
law".
Since they have sinned, it is proper that penance preceeds receiving
communion or participating in certain roles of the liturgy.
But this is NOT what you said. You said it opens to them the
Sacraments in general, without any qualification.
Post by Chris SmithThat is the same for anyone in grave sin. Read the section again.
Reconciliation is granted *through* the sacrament of penance, just as
it always is, but reconciliation is indeed granted. Nothing so
unusual is going on here as allowing someone to confession but not to
communion. That would never happen; it is a core teaching of the
Church that no moral culpability for sin remains after a valid
confession, and Church obviously would not allow anyone to go to
confession when they know it would be invalid.
You don't know the canons very well. It has been the practice since
long before the Great Schism to admit certain penitents back to the
Church by confession and chrismation, but still deny them communion
until their deathbed. This has been the rule for centuries, for
example, for those who apostasize to Islam and then repent.
Post by Chris SmithIn fact, getting back to practice instead of just the catechism,
Eucharist is offered to those who have civil marriages to someone
other than their true spouse, so long as they avoid sin (including
sexual relations). This is a fairly common resolution to this
problem. It happens every day.
"Every day", you say? Now that has got to be an exaggeration. Or are
these couples you mention no longer living with each other?
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonTrue, but whoever said otherwise? I didn't. So why are you
distracting with this irrelevant trivia? All this has NOTHING to do
with whether or not a civil marriage, as a contract, is the
contract the Catechism refers to in 1601, 1624-25.
Why, in fact, if anyone did say otherwise, it was you, in this very
post! For you claimed that "It clearly defines that civil marriage
is *not* the same as real marriage."
But as I already pointed out, it does no such thing. As you now
finally admit, it gives only ONE invalidating factor, saying
nothing about others. So in a case where that one factor is absent,
there is NOTHING in 1650 to say that it is "not a real marriage".
You seem to be missing the simple fact that one invalidating factor
is enough to establish that they are not the same contract.
I am not 'missing it'. It is not even true. You seem to have forgotten
that category one could be the proper subset of the other. In this
case, what you call "one invalidating factor" could be only a
differentia between the set and the subset.
Post by Chris SmithIf they are both the same contract, then it would logically be
impossible to validly enter one but not the other. (I wonder how
many times I've said that now.)
Once was too many.
Post by Chris SmithThat's not to say that there are no other such conditions. There
are. They aren't needed, though, to demonstrate that the contracts
are different.
You still need to consider the possibility you are hiding from: that
one category is a proper subset of the other, and that as a 'covenant'
or a 'contract', they are the same. Your "one invalidating factor"
does NOT rule out this possibility.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonPost by Chris SmithWhy is it handled differently from adultery? It's mentioned
separately because it is a common problem.
That is an absurd answer.
Yet correct.
No, it is not correct, as explained above.
Post by Chris SmithPost by Matthew JohnsonSo _what_ if it is a "common problem"? Or did you really mean to
say that the two problems "adultery" and "previously existing
marriages" have a lot in common?
If there are sexual relations in the current civil union, then yes. In
fact, they are the same problem, except that one is more specific than
the other.
Finally, a recognition of the obvious difference between disjoint sets
and set with proper subset! Now if only you would recognize this
where it needs to be recognized! All marriage is a contract/covenant
(foedus in the RCCC), whether natural law, civil law or Church law
marriage.
Why you can't see this in RCCC 1601 and 1660 is a mystery to me. Why,
it is even a deeper mystery than the mystery of matrimony itself;)
--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)