Catholic Online Forum

Anything on the code of canon law for marriage ? Not just the Latin right but for all the church ?

Thank you.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Michael,

You'll need to be more specific. There is quite a bit in Canon Law on marriage.

And there is a Code of Canon Law for the Latin Rite, and a separate Code that governs the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

In regards the concept of "Same-sex marriage" I know it seems like a stupid question but, has this concept ever been known or implemented/attempted by the church in its history in any part of the worl ? If not, what is the churches official teachings on it ?

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Marriage, in sacramental theology and in the canons, is defined as between one man and one woman:

1983 Code of Canon Law:


http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P3V.HTM

1990 CCEO (Eastern Churches Sui Juris):





I had a look at earlier stuff, but get the impression that this is so clearly stated in Scripture that the Fathers didn't really bother (checked Orthodox canons too). However, this is talking about true, sacramental and physical marriage; civil, legal fictions are somewhat different.

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Canon law does not address history. Nor does the Catechism of the Catholic Church address it per se. The Catechism is quite clear that the truth of God does not change, and that valid marriage only exists between a man and a woman. From this, we conclude that the Church has never taught that marriage was anything else.

Does that mean no validly ordained Catholic priest has ever attempted to "marry" two people of the same sex? No. But it does mean that he was never successful in witnessing the marriage of two persons of the same sex.

_________________
Jeff Stevens

Michael,

The Church can no more marry a man and a man than it can consecrate a can of grape soda.

You would be hard-pressed to find any attempts in the history of man until the present age (let alone in Church history) to marry a man and a man or a woman and a woman I would bet, because marriage is a natural institution inextricably linked with procreation. Marriage is not a specifically Christian institution.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

98% of marriage has been defined by humanity as heterosexual. However, while there scant there are incidences of marriage between same sex couples. Specifically within the Cherokee tribes of America I am told. There is a claim that two men were married by a church in medieval Europe and died together as recognised married. Yet these are claims. What I cant understand is if a man and a women are catholic and married in the church and then the man transitions to a women and stays with there lawfully wedded wife, are they still married in the eyes of the church ?

---------------------------------------------

This is how marriage is defined today in Scots law:

Scottish marriage law

Between a genetic man & a genetic women.

Who are sixteen years old at least. No parental consent is needed.

Who give there free consent.

Who are not related in anyway save being cousins.

Who are not married to another.

Who are not the ancestor or descent of a former spouse or a former spouse of a descendent or ancestor.

Must be British citizens or foreign citizens resident in the British Isles, if a foreigner wishes to marry a Scot in Scotland but is not yet in Scotland or have just arrived for the marriage, they must have a valid visa.

Must strictly be within the tradition of the church of Scotland; however other recognised faiths may perform the ceremony at any place.

May happen at an ‘approved place’ by an ‘approved person’ appointed by government.

Must happen between sunrise and sunset.

Divorced persons may marry.

Marriage intention must be publicly displayed for objection.

Common law marriages have not been recognised since 2006.

---------------------------------

The point of this is that Scotland are deciding to pass laws to legalise same sex marriage, I just want to see how solid the claim is that 'marriage is not just for men and women'.

Is marriage just for children ? If so should we ban hetrosexual couples from marrying who know they can never have children then ? If it is a natural and holy state then is it just as un-natural and unholy for a catholic priest to never marry for the production of children as much is it would be for a gay couple ? I am not asking these questiosn to be insulting or argumentative just to see what others/the church think of these points that I am sure the preponents of gay marriage will put forward.

The bible states 'Be ready to give an account of your faith'

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

My brother posted an article on facebook by an antropologist who claimed that the church married same sex couples in the early church based upon a picture of two saints supposedly getting married (both male) and some erotic talk about the two. I didn't bother trying to refute it but suspect the supposed talk was a fake and I didn't see the painting to make a comment on it. It seemed an absurd claim.

_________________
Valerie Garcia
vals1990@yahoo.com

"Listen, O my son, to the precepts of thy master, and incline the ear of thy heart, and cheerfully receive and faithfully execute the admonitions of thy loving Father, that by the toil of obedience thou mayest return to Him ....." St. Benedict

I concur, even if I was to be totally anti-religious about this for a second, homosexuals were (sadly) executed in Europe right up to the 1950's even on the Scots statue books today there are crimes of 'consensual sodomy' but its never employed by the courts. I do think even during the reformation if a gay couple were 'married' they plus the priest/minister would have been bunt/hanged. None sequeter.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Michael,

As far as the Church is concerned, the man is still a man and the woman still a woman, even if they attempt sex-change ops. However, there is such a thing as canonical separation (still married) and if the desire to live as a member of the opposite sex pre-dates the marriage then it may be possible to examine the validity of the marriage in the first place.

_________________
Jules Xx


What will become of sinners?

Marriage is for the good of the spouses AND for the procreation of children. The two ends are linked and are not to be separated. Regarding procreation of children, it is not that the marriage MUST bear children (as in the case of elderly or sterile couples), it is that it must not be closed to the bearing of children (as it is with homosexual couples or those heterosexual couples who enter a marriage determined never to have children).

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Michael,






Juvenal, Satire II.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/ ... lateng.asp

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

I prefer not to use the word 'gay' to describe an activity that is clearly self destructive and intrinsically disordered.

As to your first question -the answer is CLEAR; however, you argue the why?

Marriage between man and woman has been respected and given social preference and support from the beginning. THIS is self evidently true. WHY is this true? Many reasons, some of which may never be known let alone understood completely.

To suggest that there is or that there must be a rational basis for everything is first and foremost to deny God -secondarily, it is to deny free will and the better nature of man.

As to procreation e.g. having and raising children, creating a family -since when has society had procreation police that enforced procreation? I do not think such would even be possible or even provide a great benefit to society which is probably why such has never been imposed. Simply because such a system has never been imposed does NOT imply that procreation is irrelevant.

Clearly, homosexual sex practitioners can not conceive children by engaging in homosexual sex -to myself, this is why there has never been any value assigned to such couplings by society.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Daniel,



I agree with you, but I think we've lost that battle. In objecting to the word "gay" i think we're probably flogging a dead horse.



Well, it's certainly historically true. It's probably anthropologically true. But I don't see that it's self-evident. "All triangles have three sides" is self-evident. "All black cats are black" is self-evident.



No, it isn't.



No, it isn't.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Pretending that marriage between man and woman is not what society has freely chosen as something beneficial and given privilege to does not make such any less self evident. Nor does pretending the converse; e.g. homosexual couplings are beneficial to society; make such an absurd claim any less self evidently absurd.

As to denying God --I guess it depends upon what the meaning of is is? I would suggest that denying God as a premise for opinion in public discourse IS denying God.

This from a discussion just over two years ago Catholic Online Forum • Anti-Prop. 8 ruling claims Pope teachings ‘harm’ homosexuals:

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

James were does that document come from ? What date is it from ? Is it authentic ?


If people should be open to procreation, does that also imply that priests in the west should be permitted to be married as they are in the east ?

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

People are not required to get married. But, if they do, they are required to be open to procreation, as that is one of marriage's ends.

We are not required to assume any particular state in life (e.g. married, single, clergy). But whichever the station in which we find ourselves or freely choose to enter, we assume the obligations of that state in life. For single people, it is the obligation to refrain from sexual relations. For clergy who enter the priesthood / diaconate as unmarried men, it is the obligation to remain celibate (i.e. unmarried) and, with that obligation, to not engage in sexual relations. For marriage, the obligation is to be open to children.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

Michael,



It is by Juvenal. I've given you a link to the full text of Satire II in both English and the original Latin.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juvenal

I was quoting from Juvenal in answer to your question "Same-sex marriage... has this concept ever been known or implemented?"

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Lets thrash this out hear.

Everybody in a free society should have the right to public expression of belief and practice of those beliefs as long as nobody is killed or maimed in the process. We believe that the church must be separate from the state and the state should be neutral allowing all citizens equal access to the right to belief expression, therefore is it not right that the state should allow homosexual people to practice there belief that they are partners and that when they form there own ceremony within there own churches allow them to call it marriage if they wish. The state should merely record that wish and declaration as they would do from the practices of any other community belief. After all you all pay your taxes into a secular democratic society not a catholic theocracy. Should the sacrament of marriage or marriage from anybody ever be recognised legally in a nation separated for the church. As one MEP over this side of the pond stated:

‘ I am not gay, I do not know anybody who is but I fully understand there are a lot of gay couples out there in Europe and around the world however, before civil partnerships came into being the Catholic Church never spoke out against the regulation of people in legal fictions under secular law, the church whispered its dissent when the state regulated marriage in civil offices and certified divorce. In that sense it surrendered its monopoly and power over the traditional marriage. I am not a catholic but all catholics pay taxes into a system that funds the abomination that’s abortion killing the family unit everyday, yet the church still say nothing against paying taxes. The churches idle complicity and omission has lead to this point, it is now to little to late. The wider gay community have the ends now there is no point in trying to raise a defence from the means. ’

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

In short why whine when the state attack marriage when you pay your taxes and vote into the system thats killing the church.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Lets not.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

Michael,

From your (illiterate) MEP...



False. St Thomas More, St John Fisher and many, many others gave their lives.



No kidding.



The point being?



Paying taxes is "idle complicity"?



It's difficult to know what that is supposed to mean.

BTW, homosexuality is not a "belief". Nor is it the expression of a belief.

I've read some really silly nonsense about same-sex "marriage", but this probably takes the cake.

_________________
James Daly

"It is the Lord." (Jn 21:7)

Well I'm glad I'm still on and not banned as I stated I only argue these points hear becouse the faith is going to be pitted against these points on any argument from gay marriage.

I agree the MEP perspective is a bit ill informed.

I think it is a valid point though that paying taxes, voting, co-operating or recognising the state or being part of it detrimental today. The UK, USA, EU, most nations of today are not what they used to be they are in fact anti-church, anti-life and antichrist.

If your catholic your loyalty is to Christ and the church, you can not serve two masters. It's ok saying I pay taxes to fund schools and hospitals, I vote conservative and abhore abortion, euthanasia and the decrees of the rights if others but when your vote puts in a party that does not deliver or change laws, your taxes also fund abortion and your co-operation to get by legitimises an in humain government then morally you are partly liable especially if you know this.

You must be forever ready to stand up against injustice (That is very hard and I have/do fall short) be prepared to go to jail, be executed and suffer like our Lord for the sacrament but until we do that we can complain against goverentment evil but we look very look warm.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Something I just read that is interesting and timely:

A Rational Basis for Marriage between One Man and One Woman

-small excerpt:


I still read and ponder this; however, my initial conclusions are that IF this question is decided by judges then really the only Catholics requiring rational arguments would be lawyers. IF on the other hand the question is to be decided by a vote then UNLESS religious liberty is denied and faith as a basis for opinion is banned from public discourse there is no need for Catholics to argue a rational basis.

_________________
Daniel

"Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division." -- Luke 12:51

That’s actually a very good argument there I must admit.

Hears my last question on this, even though its clutching at straws and even if it was decided by cannon judges to be true it would still mean bad cases make bad laws. Hear go's:

Man married women under the sacrament of marriage.
Man had no inclination he is transgender at this time.
Years later man says he is a women and transitions to a women.
Women is unhappy with this, so is children.
However church don’t recognise man as women so in church law man is man.
Man is not unfaithful in anyway.

Despite man living in sin and women and children unhappy about man having a sex change could the church allow a divorce especially if they don’t see man as women and the man is not unfaithful.

If no then is it right the Scottish state force the man and women to register divorced because 'same sex' marriage is illegal. If it is wrong then do the church need to defend the rights of a man (who has changed gender legally) and a women’s marriage to remain ?

In short is there a case for 'same sex' marriage under cannon law ?

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

I am taking an avezandum on the matter, and at 7 O'clock I need to decide if I put my signature to a document that declairs my support for traditional marriage. I have looked at both sides, so I will let everybody know what I decide.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

Michael,

The man who was genetically a male and who mutilated himself to take the appearance of a woman would still be a male.

The Church does not recognize civil divorce as something that breaks apart a valid marriage. Therefore, no matter whether Scottish law permitted divorce or not, the Church would continue to presume such a marriage to be valid until it was submitted to a tribunal to investigate its validity. Validity would be determined by the circumstances at the time the marriage was contracted, not by what happened after.

The Church could permit separation of the man and woman. But they would still be considered validly married and neither could remarry until a tribunal rendered a decision on the validity of their marriage.

_________________
Dean
Most people's sense of history goes back to breakfast time - Benjamin Netanyahu

This is how I would judge this matter from a legal prespective:

The applicant LGBT & Others (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community with others) have submitted to me the proposition to change the current legal definition of the status of ‘Marriage’ as dictated by Scots Law.

I also reiterate the rules of engagement in the decision making process as being consistent with all cases, that is being that onus is upon the proponent to prove there case as meritorious of replacing the established orthodoxy. The defendant or in this case the challenged status quo need not prove anything if they do not wish to.






I will now proceed with stating the facts in our law:


Marriage is thus defined as:

1. Between a genetic man and a genetic women although if one partner transitions to the same sex of the other the marriage is no longer a marriage for the purposes of law.

2. Between those that consent only, the practice of dowry is permitted but both partners must agree to this.

3. Both must be at least sixteen years of age. No parental consent is required.

4. No partner can be related save cousins.
5. No partner must be currently married, however polygamist marriages formed in other nations will be recognised if both spouses are foreign natives who immigrate into Scotland.

6. Both partners must not be a descendent or ancestor of either’s previous spouse.

7. Both partners must not be the spouse of either’s descent or ancestor.

8. Both partners may be foreigners however the marriage must occur on Scottish soil and both must have a valid visa to be on such soil.

9. All marriages must happen within religious premises or another place by a minister of religion within the lawful church of Scotland or a recognised religion.

10. All marriages must happen between sunrise and sunset.

11. Marriages can only commence once the intention to marry has been publicly displayed for two weeks prior.

12. Common law marriages before the introduction of the 2006 EU Marriage Act maybe recognised if verified by a marriage claritor.








I will now proceed by detailing the proponents challenge:

The proponent alleges that the current definition promotes discrimination of LGBT persons and presents a denial of access to marriage. The proponent requests that the law be amended as to allow any religious celebrant who volunteers to conduct a same-sex marriage be recognised in law as acting legally and therefore upon completion of the ceremony - a marriage in law.

The proponent alleges that this is a matter of conscience and human rights thus can not be put to a public vote as it would be as unjust to do so as it would be to put the rights of Roman Catholics to conduct and have there marriages recognised as valid in the law to the dictates of a referendum.

The proponent concedes that the effects of civil partnerships in law give the same rights and practical effect as a married couple do in law however the proponent states that the marriage is the ‘Gold Standard’ denial to this standard amounts to segregation, promotion of discrimination akin to being permitted on the bus but forced to take a back seat, even though both have tickets to go on the same journey.

Finally the proponent invokes the spirit of the equality act and points to the spirit of human rights as a justification for the amendment, such an amendment if granted would not stop discrimination but in there opinion would place LGBT persons on an equal footing.








I Will now proceed in detailing the defence of the defendant:

The defendant states that marriage as currently defined in law is correct as marriage is ancient to Scotland, natural to human experience, tried, tested and inline with the majority of relationships that naturally occur.

The defendant states that allowing the amendment would end this current tradition, present a sociological risk to Scottish society and is the best environment for the procreation of children and there rearing. The defendant also states that if the amendment is allowed it would allow major legal cases against the rights and liberties of those who disagree with the amendment, it may even be used to rationalized polygamy.

The defendant does not counter claim that marriage should be changed more towards there own point-of-view but that it should not be changed against the current definition, the status-quo as it stands should be kept firmly standing.







Judgment:

I should state that looking at the issue from an objective point of view the best way I can, this does not seem like a ‘Gay rights issue’ but a ‘Gender issue’ a ‘religious issue’ and a ‘Constitutional issue’

The international declaration of human rights of which Scotland via the Acts of union 1707 is a signatory to states that marriage is entered into freely by the intended spouse, it is between a man and a women for the good of society, it constitutes society therefore deserves the full protection of society. The problem if one wishes to propose one, is not with Scots law but with international human rights law that prohibits by declaration, marriage being defined as being between anybody else but a man and a women

There is a sequential legal logic between ‘Marriage’ ‘Man & women’ and ‘Society’ hear, it is plain from the declaration that Scotland has a duty of care over marriage and that it may not pass measurement at a domestic level to that detriment. Therefore, if I were a legislator in Scotland and were to grant the requested amendment as much as I would like too I would be guilty of breaking international human rights law.

On this jurisdictional basis only, this basis being sequentially superior to and in Scots law I deny the proponent the requested amendment and rule in favour of traditional marriage.

I note that heterosexual couples may not even have a civil ceremony classed as marriage however international human rights law would permit such couples to be married. Marriage while recognised by international law is not formulated or granted by the state in Scotland but by faiths. Marriage can not be regulated by the state but by churches, specifically by the church of Scotland even if same sexed couples were to hold there own religious ceremony for I or Scotland to recognise such marriages as being marriages would be a contravention of the declaration of human rights.

However if such a wording is repealed within the declaration then there may be a very good case for same sex marriage. There is a case for the transgender individual who was married while they were there birth sex but became the same sex of there partner into the marriage then due to this, suddenly had there marriage forcefully dissolved, however as the case is presented to me now I can not rule in the favour of gay marriage I must therefore rule if favour of traditional marriage. Scotland and I have no power to change the dictates of international law, I will however grant leave to the proponent to take there case to the international court of human rights to appeal the law there.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

I will be signing the petition in defence of traditional marriage.

_________________
'' As for me and my house, we shall follow The LORD. '' - The Book Of Joshua 24:15, The Holy Bible.

Michael

David,

You are correct I misunderstood Michael' post.

_________________
Bob C