From: gordons@coopsol.com (Gordon Storga)
Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Subject: Re: I know more than I want to. (formerly: PRO-LIFERS: ABORTION...)
Keywords: From: decay@
Date: 20 Jul 92 16:25:25 GMT
Organization: Stay Awake Software

<1992Jul16.174541.5729@ucsu.Colorado.EDU>fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco) said:
>gordons@netcom.com (Gordon Storga) writes:
>>>That statement is incorrect. The priest is not the one who 'marries' the
>>>two people. He has no power to do so. 
>
>>He certainly does.  I suggest you try getting married by a priest not
>>authorized by the local or state government.  You'll find out that it is
>>not legal.
>
>I'm talking from a theological, not a legal, standpoint. Regarding marriage,
>the legality of it all is just a technicality, anyway, in my opinion.

Do you personally view those millions of people that have been married via
civil service ceremony as NOT *really* married?

>>>                                      The Church teaching is that the two
>>>people themselves confer the sacrament - through their marriage vows.
>>>If they are sincere in their vows, then God joins them together. 
>
>>Since only this god can know if these two people are sincere (I've never
>>been to a wedding where he put in a personal appearance and formally
>>declared them sincere) it follows that if they *do* want to get a divorce
>>that this god DID NOT join them together (else he joined them when they
>>weren't sincere).
>
>No, as I said, the Church merely gives its approval to what it believes
>to be a valid marriage, as a way of proclaiming to the community that
>the couple is married. Don't be so contemptuous of a very dignified tradition.

Contenpt has nothing to do with it (although I am contemptuous of
inconsistency and hypocrisy).  You claimed that the couple are only
religiously married if your god finds them sincere.  The church has *NO*
(none, nada, nothing, zero, zip) evidence that your god ever finds two
people sincere.  Therefore your church is taking a shot in the dark by
giving it's approval of any marriage where this god doesn't make a
personal appearance.

>Then they would have to admit that they lied before God at the marriage
>ceremony, which most couples would not have really done anyway.

No, the fact that they *want* and/or need a divorce is a sign that they
should not be married.  Your god would not have joined two people together
who shouldn't be together, right?  It follows that he might not have
approved of their marriage in the first place.

...
>>>Again, if the people no longer believe in the Church when they seek a
>>>divorce, they always have the free-will to leave it and get a divorce
>>>as they see fit. The Church will never recognize it, however.
>
>>It should since it's a sign from their god that the marriage wasn't
>>sincere, and therefore was never approved.
>
>No, sincerity does not mean living out one's promises. Sincerity simply
>means, in this context, making a promise in good faith. That's al that's
>necessary for the marriage to be valid.

I thought that all that was needed was for god to approve?  What of all
those "arranged" marriages that your god approved of in the past?  Did
those require that the individuals be sincere in their love and
commitment, or were they just married by force of church?

>>>Also, there is an implication here that we'd have our God do whatever
>>>we wanted to - however, the Church has far more integrity than that.
>
>>Really?  Anyone out there care to remind our friend here which
>>organization imprisoned Galileo for the 'crime against the church' of
>>declaring the earth revolves around the sun.  Was there ever an admission
>>of error?
>
>Yes, there was. Again, your contempt for the institution is unyielding.

I was under the impression that no apology was ever stated.  Could you
tell me when this apology was offered?  Like, how many years after his
death.

>>>Through examination of Christ's teachings, the Church, as the teacher
>>>of the faith on Earth, has decided that God does not permit divorce.
>
>>They also decided once that the earth was the center of the universe, and
>>that 'heathens and pagans' should be converted by the sword, and that
>>Witches should be burned to death.
>
>>>Anyone who gets married in the Catholic Church knows that asking a
>>>priest to preside over a 'divorce' ceremony would be heresy.
>
>>Only because it's not 'religiously correct' at this time.  Sooner or later
>>the Church changes it's mind about the "infallible word of god".
>
>Excuse me, but I was discussing, originally the merits of today's Church
>regarding the teachings on marriage. If you cannot restrict your arguments
>to the topic at hand without such tirades against Church history, then 
>you really, in my mind, do not wish to discuss the issue. If you want
>to talk about the whole Church, then make an argument against it. Maybe
>I'll respond to a responsible critique.

You may have originally been discussin church marriage, but you brought
into this discussion the church's interpretation of Jesus' teachings and
the bible.  Since the church has proven to be extremely fallible in their
other interpretations how is it you believe their interpretation in this
matter is accurate?

I'm sure you'll only respond to that which you wish to respond.  I'm
likewise sure that you feel I'm completely unreasonable in my observations
of your beloved church and their crimes/deeds.  My only response is, if
you can't defend your position wrt the church then don't pretend you can.
Don't blame me for asking the *wrong* questions.


Gordon
-- 
The opinions expressed are my own, and not the beliefs or opinions
of whatever company you think I work for.  So there, thhhbbbt!
Message to Kodak:  Freedom for Dan Bredy.
Newsgroups: talk.abortion,alt.flame