|
Post by iagosan on Oct 5, 2023 5:43:05 GMT
In many nations a religious wedding is distinct from the secular, legal "marriage" and completed at a different time and place.
Thus, in such countries any same sex "blessing" will become accepted as "Catholic gay marriage", ie the religious ceremony for secularly married homosexuals.
One such place is (drum roll……...) Argentina !
Yes, you read that correctly!
Some interesting information regarding that country:
Documentation and Requirements for Marriage
The legal requirements for getting married in Argentina…
Only civil marriages have legal effects, and they must be held at the Civil Registry Office (Registro Civil) corresponding to the domicile of one of the couple's members. Marriages outside of the appropriate Civil Registry Office are only authorized when one of the members of the couple is at or near the point of death.
Religious marriage ceremonies are of course optional, and have no legal status. In fact until 1987, it was a criminal offense for a minister of religion to celebrate the wedding ceremony of a couple that had not been previously married at a Civil Registry Office. Nowadays, although not legally mandatory, almost all couples who solemnize their marriage at a church, get civilly married beforehand at a Civil Registry Office-usually churches require them to do so, as per their own canons or policies.
Foreigners do not need a specific visa to get married in Argentina. However, they obviously must be present in the country with appropriate immigration status (for example, as tourists), which in the case of certain nationalities, may require a visa.
Marriage was made available to same-sex couples in 2010, with no difference in the application process vis-à-vis opposite-sex couples.
A civil marriage performed in Argentina is recognized and valid in most other countries (except for same-sex marriages).
Same-sex marriage, which was authorised in Argentina 2010, grants the same rights as heterosexual couples to both spouses, who can also adopt children.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 5, 2023 6:25:34 GMT
In many nations a religious wedding is distinct from the secular, legal "marriage" and completed at a different time and place.
Been there, done that, got the cummerbund. (Poland, not Argentina.) For about three hours, I was legally married before I was married in the Eyes of God. It was really a very nice, simple, dignified ceremony. Similar to the "wedding palaces" in the Soviet Union.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 5, 2023 6:34:50 GMT
Have all the heterosexual people who have been married, divorced and remarried outside of the Church stood up and demanded that the Church recognize their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages as legitimate. Nope. Yes, the Church has a process for that, in that the couple would need first to get a legal divorce before their annulment can be considered. Even the Church itself recognizes the secular law, and requires that the marriage be severed in the secular world before the Church even looks at it. Do I agree with annulments, or even divorce personally, nope, not one bit. If a grown person can't make a commitment and stick to it, well, I just have a personal problem with that. I guess it is best that I don't get to run the Church. But again, folks are holding protests and raising a big stink over folks with invalid marriages not being accepted. The number of people who fall into the category of divorced and remarried are far, far greater than the number of gay people getting married and wanting to be within the Church. The Church has failed to bend to the will of the remarried, outside the annulment process, I don't believe they will bend to the gay marriage thing no matter how loud they scream. Nor should they. People in gay marriages or living gay lifestyles are free to attend Mass, go to confession, do whatever they please. They just aren't free to have the Church bend to their desires of having a sacramental wedding, or receiving communion. Nor should the Church, as it would create scandal. Just as if a heterosexual couple isn't in a valid marriage and would like to receive communion, they should be refused due to the scandal that it would create, in addition to it being against Church teaching. Heck I don't like the fact that one of our priests, and several of our acolytes are divorced and are prancing around the alter like they are holier than thou. Again, my personal aversion to people not being able to keep their word regarding marriage. But it is within Church teachings for them to do so, so I just have to deal with it. As a divorced Catholic, I am not offended by this observation in the least. Divorce sucks. It's a scandal. It is admitting to the whole of society "we made a commitment that we cannot keep" (or do not want to keep). It is almost invariably a devil's brew of money, sex, wounded pride, moral turpitude, or any combination thereof. Unless it is to free oneself from a marriage that was invalid (in the spiritual realm, viz. either sacramentally or naturally invalid as the case might be) and cannot be validated, it is never a good thing. I have an annulment in process (my wife filed for it after eleven years of being in an invalid second "marriage") and it may come through, or it may not. Quite frankly, the inexplicable delay isn't looking good. I'm okay with it either way. It will be what it will be. I haven't served the TLM since my divorce, and I would not be surprised at all, if I were to seek to do so, and be turned down for that reason. It doesn't have a good look. I'd fully understand, and it would be the priest's decision either way. I did once serve the Novus Ordo, at a point after our divorce, when they had nobody else to do so --- one of the ushers commented that he'd never heard the bells rung with such gusto! --- and if I came across looking "holier than thou" that would have been in the mind of the observer, because I don't regard myself as being holier than anyone.
|
|
|
Post by homeschooldad on Oct 5, 2023 6:38:05 GMT
In Germany, priests are blessing gay marriages en masse in defiance of the Pope’s directive not to do so, and their bishops are backing them up.It’s reasonable to be concerned that this will become the norm everywhere. It is not an exaggeration, it is happening now. That's how CITH came about. But CITH, my personal objection to it notwithstanding (I am far from alone in that opinion), is not intrinsically evil, whereas sodomy is.
|
|
|
Post by AveMaria on Oct 5, 2023 6:56:47 GMT
That's how CITH came about. But CITH, my personal objection to it notwithstanding (I am far from alone in that opinion), is not intrinsically evil, whereas sodomy is. Not as bad as sodomy, but all I meant was it was born of disobedience.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 5, 2023 10:56:08 GMT
Argentina... Religious marriage ceremonies are of course optional, and have no legal status. You do realize that, except in some very, very extreme circumstances, the Catholic Church will not allow anyone to contract a sacramental marriage unless they are also getting married civilly, either previously or simultaneously? In most countries, generally those that follow civil code based on Napoleonic code, where a priest is not permitted to act as an agent of the state, it is beforehand in a government office. The priest will not perform the wedding unless he is presented with the civil marriage certificate (like Homeschooldad had to do in Poland). In the US, the priest is acting as both an agent of the Church and an agent of the state. He preforms two separate marriages, a sacramental one and a civil one, at the same time. He cannot marry anyone who does not have a valid civil marriage license, and he cannot avoid reporting the marriage to the state. If he were to do so, he could be prosecuted as an accessory to fraud, as the main reason couples want to be "religiously married" but not legally married in the US is to avoid reductions in state benefits or increases in taxes that they might incur if they were civilly married. Non-Catholic pastors from obscure and fringe religious groups sometimes end up in legal trouble for this reason. I can't imagine a Catholic pastor or anyone from a more mainstream church even trying a stunt like that. If they did, they would be in deep doo-doo with their bishop or equivalent. If you are mentioning Argentina in connection with Pope Francis, he opposed marriage equality there in 2010, and attempted side rail it by steering the discussion toward civil partnerships instead, thinking it would split the pro-equality camp. Unsuccessfully, as nobody was inclined to compromise by that point. Otherwise, I have no idea why you were surprised by the marriage laws in Argentina. They're not unusual.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 5, 2023 18:12:17 GMT
Yes, LBGTQ people are an extreme minority, with less than 10% total population and less than probably 3% population in churches. Believing in secular equality for a particular group of people has nothing to do with believing that they should or would have the ability to change private entities. For example on the secular side: Here in the US when Kaepernick decided to kneel during the national anthem at NFL games. That didn't bother me one bit. I am a patriotic American, and a veteran. He was displaying his right to protest whatever he was protesting in a peaceful, respectful way. I have no problem with that. Now, had he decided to run out, grab the flag, piss on it, light it on fire, or some other crazy display, then yes, I would have a problem with that. However, there is/were a group of people who were just beside themselves because he wasn't standing with his hand over his heart. But these same people have little problem with others working to destroy the fabric of our democracy. They would willingly destroy the Constitution and our current laws simply for political reasons, and because of fear of losing office, some of them kneel down and essentially kiss the ..... of other persons who are leading the threat to our democracy, and call themselves patriots. What a complete and utter joke. On the secular side, I have no problem with gay marriage and them being able to function as a typical heterosexual marriage would in the eyes of the law. Our country isn't run by the Catholic Church. There is a huge distinction. And yes, I call it gay marriage, because one is issued a marriage license from the state, like it or not, that is the word that is used. The marriage license means nothing to the Church in the first place. If two people, a man and a woman go down and get married at the JP's office, the Church doesn't recognize that anyway if they are both Catholic, since it isn't the sacramental marriage. Have all the heterosexual people who have been married, divorced and remarried outside of the Church stood up and demanded that the Church recognize their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages as legitimate. Nope. Yes, the Church has a process for that, in that the couple would need first to get a legal divorce before their annulment can be considered. Even the Church itself recognizes the secular law, and requires that the marriage be severed in the secular world before the Church even looks at it. Do I agree with annulments, or even divorce personally, nope, not one bit. If a grown person can't make a commitment and stick to it, well, I just have a personal problem with that. I guess it is best that I don't get to run the Church. But again, folks are holding protests and raising a big stink over folks with invalid marriages not being accepted. The number of people who fall into the category of divorced and remarried are far, far greater than the number of gay people getting married and wanting to be within the Church. The Church has failed to bend to the will of the remarried, outside the annulment process, I don't believe they will bend to the gay marriage thing no matter how loud they scream. Nor should they. People in gay marriages or living gay lifestyles are free to attend Mass, go to confession, do whatever they please. They just aren't free to have the Church bend to their desires of having a sacramental wedding, or receiving communion. Nor should the Church, as it would create scandal. Just as if a heterosexual couple isn't in a valid marriage and would like to receive communion, they should be refused due to the scandal that it would create, in addition to it being against Church teaching. Heck I don't like the fact that one of our priests, and several of our acolytes are divorced and are prancing around the alter like they are holier than thou. Again, my personal aversion to people not being able to keep their word regarding marriage. But it is within Church teachings for them to do so, so I just have to deal with it. And yes, one can love the sinner and hate the sin. It certainly is possible, as we do it every day with our fellow man/woman over all sorts of sins. To say it can't be done regarding gay people is simply wrong. However loving someone is different than accepting their sins as being good. Regardless of the sin. I have a brother who is a laicized priest and is in a gay marriage. Do I love my brother, yes. Do accept that his choices are good, no. That doesn't stop him from coming to family dinners or me helping him if he asks, just as I do with any of my other 9 siblings, some of which are in illicit marriages. It is the same type of error in my view. Do any of us siblings get into discussions about their situations regarding Church teaching, nope. Since all of them were brought up in the same household as I was with parents that were married for 70 years, and certainly were taught what the Church holds to be true. They know exactly where I stand, so there is no point. They made their decisions and that is on them. No good would come of the conversation. That's eerily reminiscent of something we have all heard many, many times before, just applied to a different minority. "I have no problem with X. Heck, some of my good friends are X, and we get along just fine. Heck, even my brother married and X. I don't agree with it, but we don't bring it up in polite conversation. It's just the uppity X's that I have a problem with, the activists trying to destroy our way of life. As long as they stay off in their own little neighborhood and don't try to sit at my lunch counter or send their kids to our school, sit in the back of the bus, and remember that they are just an insignificant minority and don't have the same rights as us, I'm all for live and let live." I think you have a lot of serious thinking to do. And praying.
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 5, 2023 19:03:07 GMT
Yes, LBGTQ people are an extreme minority, with less than 10% total population and less than probably 3% population in churches. Believing in secular equality for a particular group of people has nothing to do with believing that they should or would have the ability to change private entities. For example on the secular side: Here in the US when Kaepernick decided to kneel during the national anthem at NFL games. That didn't bother me one bit. I am a patriotic American, and a veteran. He was displaying his right to protest whatever he was protesting in a peaceful, respectful way. I have no problem with that. Now, had he decided to run out, grab the flag, piss on it, light it on fire, or some other crazy display, then yes, I would have a problem with that. However, there is/were a group of people who were just beside themselves because he wasn't standing with his hand over his heart. But these same people have little problem with others working to destroy the fabric of our democracy. They would willingly destroy the Constitution and our current laws simply for political reasons, and because of fear of losing office, some of them kneel down and essentially kiss the ..... of other persons who are leading the threat to our democracy, and call themselves patriots. What a complete and utter joke. On the secular side, I have no problem with gay marriage and them being able to function as a typical heterosexual marriage would in the eyes of the law. Our country isn't run by the Catholic Church. There is a huge distinction. And yes, I call it gay marriage, because one is issued a marriage license from the state, like it or not, that is the word that is used. The marriage license means nothing to the Church in the first place. If two people, a man and a woman go down and get married at the JP's office, the Church doesn't recognize that anyway if they are both Catholic, since it isn't the sacramental marriage. Have all the heterosexual people who have been married, divorced and remarried outside of the Church stood up and demanded that the Church recognize their 2nd, 3rd, 4th marriages as legitimate. Nope. Yes, the Church has a process for that, in that the couple would need first to get a legal divorce before their annulment can be considered. Even the Church itself recognizes the secular law, and requires that the marriage be severed in the secular world before the Church even looks at it. Do I agree with annulments, or even divorce personally, nope, not one bit. If a grown person can't make a commitment and stick to it, well, I just have a personal problem with that. I guess it is best that I don't get to run the Church. But again, folks are holding protests and raising a big stink over folks with invalid marriages not being accepted. The number of people who fall into the category of divorced and remarried are far, far greater than the number of gay people getting married and wanting to be within the Church. The Church has failed to bend to the will of the remarried, outside the annulment process, I don't believe they will bend to the gay marriage thing no matter how loud they scream. Nor should they. People in gay marriages or living gay lifestyles are free to attend Mass, go to confession, do whatever they please. They just aren't free to have the Church bend to their desires of having a sacramental wedding, or receiving communion. Nor should the Church, as it would create scandal. Just as if a heterosexual couple isn't in a valid marriage and would like to receive communion, they should be refused due to the scandal that it would create, in addition to it being against Church teaching. Heck I don't like the fact that one of our priests, and several of our acolytes are divorced and are prancing around the alter like they are holier than thou. Again, my personal aversion to people not being able to keep their word regarding marriage. But it is within Church teachings for them to do so, so I just have to deal with it. And yes, one can love the sinner and hate the sin. It certainly is possible, as we do it every day with our fellow man/woman over all sorts of sins. To say it can't be done regarding gay people is simply wrong. However loving someone is different than accepting their sins as being good. Regardless of the sin. I have a brother who is a laicized priest and is in a gay marriage. Do I love my brother, yes. Do accept that his choices are good, no. That doesn't stop him from coming to family dinners or me helping him if he asks, just as I do with any of my other 9 siblings, some of which are in illicit marriages. It is the same type of error in my view. Do any of us siblings get into discussions about their situations regarding Church teaching, nope. Since all of them were brought up in the same household as I was with parents that were married for 70 years, and certainly were taught what the Church holds to be true. They know exactly where I stand, so there is no point. They made their decisions and that is on them. No good would come of the conversation. That's eerily reminiscent of something we have all heard many, many times before, just applied to a different minority. "I have no problem with X. Heck, some of my good friends are X, and we get along just fine. Heck, even my brother married and X. I don't agree with it, but we don't bring it up in polite conversation. It's just the uppity X's that I have a problem with, the activists trying to destroy our way of life. As long as they stay off in their own little neighborhood and don't try to sit at my lunch counter or send their kids to our school, sit in the back of the bus, and remember that they are just an insignificant minority and don't have the same rights as us, I'm all for live and let live." I think you have a lot of serious thinking to do. And praying. Complete nonsense on your part. Why would I need to talk with my brother whom used to be a priest about the sin he is committing, or my siblings who are in illicit marriages about their sin. Do you not think that he and my sisters already know what the Church teaches? The fact that we don't talk about it has nothing to do with anyone being uppity or what not. They aren't going to change their lifestyle, and I am not going to change my belief that their lifestyle is sinful. No good would come from the conversation. We all range in age from 50's to 70's, and are pretty well set in our beliefs. I don't make him or any of my other siblings that are in illicit marriages sit at the kids table during meals. They are free to sit at any of the 3 or so tables, depending on how many family members are in, available in my home. Are you suggesting that in order for me to "accept" them that I turn gay, or commit adultery. Seriously, that would be like saying in order for them to accept me, they would need to turn straight or remove themselves from their illicit marriages or sinful sexual actions. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully enough, because rights, which are granted by the government are the same for gay or illicit marriages as they are for licit Catholic marriages. The Church doesn't grant rights. One's salvation isn't incumbent on the government, it is incumbent on the individual, and as a Catholic, there are "rules" if you want to call them, that will assist one in gaining salvation. There are also remedies for those who commit sin to get forgiveness of those sins. That certainly isn't handled by the government. To compare choices to have sexual relations outside of a valid marriage to the color of a persons skin is about as stupid of an argument as can be made. One is a choice, one is not. And no, I don't have a problem with X people either. One of my son's friends who is X color came in from DFW and stayed with us last weekend, and I let him use one of our cars to take his drivers test. Another one of my son's friends who is hispanic is coming to stay with us tonight through Sunday and will be fully welcomed into our household. BTW, I am not going to color my skin darker while they are here so they feel like I am accepting them. That again would be complete nonsense. If you don't believe that Catholics are allowed to consider actions which the Church deems sinful as sinful, what in the world are you doing on this forum? If you don't believe that the Church is allowed to determine what is sinful and what isn't, then I guess there is no need for the Church in the first place. However, just because someone doesn't believe that a particular action is a sin doesn't mean that everyone must believe the same, and it certainly doesn't mean that the Church should change its teachings.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 5, 2023 20:58:57 GMT
what in the world are you doing on this forum? I'm a Team Francis Catholic, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and here in support of his glorious mission. But, curiously, I total agree with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland in that an irreconcilable schism has already occurred and the paperwork just has to be sorted out. I have to admire their honesty. You and I have radically different ideas about what the Church is and should be. And, as Homeschooldad pointed out earlier in this thread, LGBT is just the tip of the iceberg. A quick and convenient litmus test for both sides. For now, we're stuck living in the same house, like it or not. It's going to be an interesting next few years. Pope Francis is only 86 years old, so he may well have a good many years left in him. There's no reason that he can't live to be 96, or 100. God grant him many years. Go, go, go, Team Francis!
|
|
|
Post by farronwolf on Oct 5, 2023 22:13:20 GMT
what in the world are you doing on this forum? I'm a Team Francis Catholic, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and here in support of his glorious mission. But, curiously, I total agree with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland in that an irreconcilable schism has already occurred and the paperwork just has to be sorted out. I have to admire their honesty. You and I have radically different ideas about what the Church is and should be. And, as Homeschooldad pointed out earlier in this thread, LGBT is just the tip of the iceberg. A quick and convenient litmus test for both sides. For now, we're stuck living in the same house, like it or not. It's going to be an interesting next few years. Pope Francis is only 86 years old, so he may well have a good many years left in him. There's no reason that he can't live to be 96, or 100. God grant him many years. Go, go, go, Team Francis! So you agree that sexual actions outside of a valid marital relationship are sinful. The Church does and will continue to uphold this. “When I said it is a sin, I was simply referring to Catholic moral teaching, which says that every sexual act outside of marriage is a sin,” the pope wrote to Jesuit Father James Martin in response to a request for clarification. Whether or not you agree that the Church should continue to hold this position, I have no clue. If you don't, well then I suppose you will be the one who holds a different view than the Church, and would not be in communion with the Pope. As should be understood by all Catholics, being homosexual isn't a sin, nor is being heterosexual a sin. But as noted above, sexual acts of either sort outside of marriage as recognized by the Church is a sin.
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 5, 2023 23:01:12 GMT
We'll see whose where when the dust settles. Until then, strap in, because it's going to be a wild ride.
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 6, 2023 6:11:33 GMT
what in the world are you doing on this forum? I'm a Team Francis Catholic, in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, and here in support of his glorious mission. But, curiously, I total agree with Cardinal Burke and Bishop Strickland in that an irreconcilable schism has already occurred and the paperwork just has to be sorted out. I have to admire their honesty. You and I have radically different ideas about what the Church is and should be. And, as Homeschooldad pointed out earlier in this thread, LGBT is just the tip of the iceberg. A quick and convenient litmus test for both sides. For now, we're stuck living in the same house, like it or not. It's going to be an interesting next few years. Pope Francis is only 86 years old, so he may well have a good many years left in him. There's no reason that he can't live to be 96, or 100. God grant him many years. Go, go, go, Team Francis! LOL Good stuff, keep it up (but I hope that you haven`t set too high a bar for yourself....)
(For anyone struggling to understand- I`m getting a vibe that the Hindu`s are on to something and that Susan from The Parish Council has been reincarnated as "Dominic". There may just be life beyond the pyre!
Anyway, I`m off to call Casa Santa Marta and let Pope Francis know the good news for Fraternity.....)
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 6, 2023 6:58:32 GMT
It's going to be an interesting next few years. Pope Francis is only 86 years old, so he may well have a good many years left in him. There's no reason that he can't live to be 96, or 100. God grant him many years. Go, go, go, Team Francis! LOL Good stuff, keep it up (but I hope that you haven`t set too high a bar for yourself If Gracida can make it to 100 and still be going strong, I see no reason why you would think that Pope Francis couldn't, too. Actually, most of the signers of these last "dubia" have a good few years on the Pope. Pope Benedict hit 95 himself. That's nine whole years beyond Pope Francis's current age. That's a lot episcopal appointments and a lot of consistories to come. James Cardinal Martin, SJ has a nice ring to it. I think it's going to be a while before the next conclave. And then, who knows? Maybe: Annuntio vobis gaudium magnum! Habemus Papam! Eminentissimum ac Reverendissimum Dominum Jacobum Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Cardinalem Martinum qui sibi nomen imposuit Johannis XXIV! Now that does have a nice ring to it! Latin never sounded so good! Heck, he might even outlive both you and me. The reports of his impending death are greatly exaggerated. Vivat! Vivat! Ad multos annos!
|
|
|
Post by iagosan on Oct 7, 2023 15:45:14 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Dominic on Oct 7, 2023 17:46:31 GMT
More malarkey. And little wonder, considering the source. I'll go with Pope Francis, any day. God grant him many years!
|
|