Religion
Related: About this forumNew York Cardinal Timothy Dolan denounces Obama gay marriage stance
In a statement, Dolan said that Mr. Obama's words are "not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.
"I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Source: TMJ4
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)according to the Catholic Church. FOR LIFE. Divorce is an "abomination" to them too.
cindyperry2010
(846 posts)of any merit anyway who cares what he thinks
BeyondGeography
(39,339 posts)Whatever.
Crow73
(257 posts)Cardinal Timothy Dolan urged Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers Monday to reject pending bills to codify abortion rights and open a window for victims of child sex abuse to sue for old incidents.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/cardinal-dolan-lobbies-gov-cuomo-to-show-restraint-on-expansion-of-abortion-rights/
Should he be lobbying and still not pay taxes?
all american girl
(1,788 posts)Get over it. Rich coming from a man who chooses to remain single.
bloomington-lib
(946 posts)geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)institutionalized CATholic homophobia and bigotry.
tanyev
(42,511 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Dolan has no authority to pronounce on anything outside a sacramental marriage. He's showboating.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)And how does a "sacramental marriage" differ from the standard definition?
rug
(82,333 posts)A sacramental marriage is purely religious, defined as a particular means of grace. It really has no bearing on a civil marriage, which is regulated by the state and exists primarily to define property and child rights and obligations.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)So what makes a sacramental marriage different from a natural marriage? Are Catholic officials allowed to comment on natural marriages?
rug
(82,333 posts)The Catholic Church has a very specific definition of a Catholic sacramental language, e.g., if you're Catholic, you must be married within the Catholic Church (I'm not), etc. The whole annullment process looks to see if any of those requirements were not present and, if not, it is declared null.
However, it also recognizes the sacramental nature of a marriage between two baptized Christians of another denomination. If a Catholic wants to marry a divorced non-Catholic Christian, that prior marriage must also be examined to see if it was a nullity within Church law. If not, no sacramental marriage is permitted.
But for your larger and more interesting question, natural marrage, the rules on sacramental marriage apply only to Catholics or baptized Christians. Natural marriages are considered to be valid marriages, although they are not considered to be sacramental marriages. (All seven of the Catholic sacraments are available only to those who choose to belong to the Church.)
Now if a Catholic wishes to marry a previously divorced nonChristian who had a valid natural (but nonsacramental) marriage? There would not be an anullment process, because it was not a sacramental marriage that required an anullment, but it was a valid marriage that required dissoultion before a sacramental marriage could take place. Then the Pauline or Petrine Privilege would apply.
I'm starting to wade too deeply through this, so here's a link (see #39 and #40 for the Pauline and Petrine Privileges):
http://www.archchicago.org/departments/tribunal/faq.shtm
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)doesn't it?
For instance, both my wife and I were baptized in trinitarian churches. She in a Baptist church, myself in the ELCA. Our wedding took place in a Lutheran church officiated by a Lutheran pastor. We were both atheists at the time, and still are.
Do she and I have a sacramental marriage?
rug
(82,333 posts)Although, in this case, if challenged, if either participant did not believe or intend that they were engaging in a sacramental marriage at the time, pastor or no, that would probably be a ground for declaring the sacramental nature of the marriage to be null and void. Otherwise, the presumption that it was acramental holds.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)is there a possibility their marriage would by default have to be considered sacramental?
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Now, here's a question for you.
What does theology have to do with state regulation of marriage?
2ndAmForComputers
(3,527 posts)Fanatics think the former should be the basis for the latter.
Additionally, there's too many fanatics and WAY too many of them wield some power.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That hasn't been my experience! I've had some great times!
What's "deeply saddening" is ignoring reality.... the church's main mission these days.
rug
(82,333 posts)laconicsax
(14,860 posts)Do you agree with him or your church's position on same-sex marriage?
E_Pluribus_Unitarian
(178 posts)When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite
Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale Universitys history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).
These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John....
http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html
rug
(82,333 posts)dmallind
(10,437 posts)It's his job. He was trained and selected for it. His pronouncements, unless corrected by more senior officials, are made as and reflective of group policy (as opposed to being made on unrelated subjects. Dolan's putative opinions on model aircraft are as irrelevant to the RCC as are Harris's on....well anything really).
rug
(82,333 posts)The point you miss is, the group is not competent to speak on this topic of civil, state-regulated marriage. Its opinion carries precisely the same authority as yours.
Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)Let's call it something else and make them happy?
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)As do the opinions of most senior-level Catholic clergy. Why else would his statement be news?
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)???
rug
(82,333 posts)As a hierarch, his authority is limited to church matters. Consequently, he has neither competence nor authority in the realm of civil marriages. However, as a hierarch of a church to which one out of four Americans belong, he probably has more secular influence than a third of Congress. That is why the RCC, along with several other churches, have a tremendous secular role.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)but that it was a secular institution. Which one is it?
Among many other things.
It's ludicrous to assert that an institution containing a sixth of the planet is neither a secular institution nor without secular influence.
Among many other things.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)But a secular institution, the Roman Catholic Church is not.
rug
(82,333 posts)Among other things.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Not secular. Sorry.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)I'd love that were it true. If you think so, good for you, but the church definitely does not agree and considers speaking about secular morality, ethics and laws is a key part of its role.
Would 'twere not so.
rug
(82,333 posts)(I'd peg its raison d'etre as salvation, but that's another subject.)
It does teach and encourage its brand of morality to its members and offers it to all who want it.
But it's exceed its purpose if it tries to impose it.
That's the bright dividing line.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)However, your church leadership does not see this line.
rug
(82,333 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)So why do you support them with your time, membership, and money?
rug
(82,333 posts)And it doesn't belong to them.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Paying members of a known hate group, they must be so proud.
rug
(82,333 posts)That's the least ignorant part of our statement.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Month isn't a demand for a tithe? Sure its voluntary, my parents refuse to pay it, but still a demand for money.
rug
(82,333 posts)Ask the DNC.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Point is, Catholics who support the Church financially must be so proud.
rug
(82,333 posts)Same with the DNC.
What's your point?
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)This isn't the DNC we are talking about. They are quite focused, and you can choose candidates to support or not support, do you have the same discretion with the Church?
rug
(82,333 posts)The regular collection is for the support of the parish, although I believe a portion of that gets kicked back to the diocese, unrestricted. The second collection is definitely earmarked for a specific purpose. This last Sunday if was for the care of elderly priests and nuns.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)in the country, some of that money came directly from your pocket?
How does it feel to materially support a hate organization?
rug
(82,333 posts)How does it feel to materially support political advocacy for predator drones dropping on Afghan villages?
How does it feel to materially support ecodevastation by oill companies?
Your simplistic suggestion of a boycott is politically immature, though self-righteous.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)If I want to eat I have to drive, and if I want to stay out of jail I pay taxes.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)as far as voting, well, lack of choice means picking the lesser of two evils.
Again, the comparison to religions or churches is bullshit because of the amount of choices you have.
rug
(82,333 posts)Or don't you vote?
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)It's still a poor comparison, because there was no viable alternative to voting for Obama for a progressive democrat. The same cannot be said in the case of supporting the RCC, because there are indeed other christian denominations open to your membership that have far more progressive stances when it comes to issues like gay marriage.
rug
(82,333 posts)You will still be supporting drone warfare with your vote no matter how much you cry "I had no choice".
As to staying or leaving the RCC, theologically and ecclessiatically, there is no viable alternative. Religions are not fungible. But you won't hear me crying about it.
eqfan592
(5,963 posts)However, as I said, the difference IS in the availability of a viable alternative. And there ARE viable alternatives to the RCC. Independent Catholic churches are in fact a thing, such as this one here.
Bishop George Lucey, of New Jersey, who leads the national organization, said the services might not be for everybody, but he wants the churches to be a "viable alternative."
"Hopefully, by its existence, it will give balance to the Roman Catholic structure," Lucey said.
(Emphasis mine)
rug
(82,333 posts)There have been many similar breakaway movements, especially since Vatican I.
Still, despite their similarities, if you've studied the history and eccessiology of the Catholic Church, you'd see why they are not really alternatives.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Honestly, I don't see how anyone can take those too seriously. But basically it boils down to your religion being more important than people, and that's just fucked up.
rug
(82,333 posts)Let's be explicit.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)I'll give you advice.
Bash the Catholic Church to your heart's delight.
Bash Catholics, or any other group, as a group at your own peril.
Bash me and we'll have an interesting conversation.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)That'll be the day.
rug
(82,333 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)That rapidly leads to bigotry.
Educate yourself.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)"known hate group"
Known to who? The Vice President? A third of Congress? Members of Catholic Worker?
You should be careful throwing around bigoted statements.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on the same moral level as the KKK. Perhaps I should have said "In my opinion" before that, but frankly I don't give a shit what you think about my supposed bigotry, I'm intolerant of intolerance, unlike you, who defends it.
rug
(82,333 posts)Somebody should tell the President.
And I don't gve a shit about supposed bigotry, only actual bigotry.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)rug
(82,333 posts)Dissemble away. You're bashing a group not just an institution.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)similar to someone who donates to the Salvation Army, even though they would like nothing better than the leave LGBT teens starving on the streets.
rug
(82,333 posts)Is that right? Is that the actions you're condemning?
Or are you also condemning anybody who throws a quarter in the kettle at Christmas too?
And are you hiding behind "LGBT teens starving on the streets" while you spew this shit?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)trotsky
(49,533 posts)and they are found in all religions, but the Catholic church seems to have a particular type - who sincerely believe their church is the "one true church" against which all others fall short and no matter what the people who run the church are doing, it is vitally important to support the church institution itself, even if it means supporting the corrupt evil old men who run it.
As if god in any progressive, liberal sense cares what church you belong to. I'd think god would prefer you to find a church that supports what you want, and doesn't work against it. But that's just a crazy atheist talking.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)JustAnotherGen
(31,776 posts)I'm a UU not a Roman Catholic - don't have to pay ONE IOTA of attention to any bishop, pope, priest, nun, etc. etc.
AlbertCat
(17,505 posts)Unique means there's nothing else like it. Which "unique" definition would he like?
Marriage has been many many things over the centuries and cultures. This is just another evolution from women being property, to arranged, to handmaids, to bigamy, to divorce....
brooklynite
(94,293 posts)...the transfer of propety and "chattel"