Posted on 06/29/2017 7:43:12 PM PDT by marshmallow
“Now, since the family and human society at large spring from marriage, these men will on no account allow matrimony to be the subject of the jurisdiction of the Church. Nay, they endeavor to deprive it of all holiness, and so bring it within the contracted sphere of those rights which, having been instituted by man, are ruled and administered by the civil jurisprudence of the community. Wherefore it necessarily follows that they attribute all power over marriage to civil rulers, and allow none whatever to the Church; and, when the Church exercises any such power, they think that she acts either by favor of the civil authority or to its injury. Now is the time, they say, for the heads of the State to vindicate their rights unflinchingly, and to do their best to settle all that relates to marriage according as to them seems good.”
—Pope Leo XIII, 1880
He saw it coming 133 years ago. First civil marriage with no element of faith, then civil divorce and remarriage, then easy civil divorce and remarriage. Now ‘gay marriage.’ It makes you wonder what the state will consider marriage in another 130 years. Civil law is only whatever judges, pols, or the voting majority think it is at any one time. That’s it, that’s all it can ever be to the state in the modern era.
Freegards
Oops, make that 137 years ago.
Freegards
Goes back a bit further. Back to Genesis.
Ransomed:
I agree, the Church needs to totally separate its theology and use the Term Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. All Bishops needs to clearly say the word Matrimony is derived from two Latin words and mean precisely X not Z or Y, or A, or whatever else. Pope Leo XIII clearly saw a long time ago where this was headed, very prophetic.
You hit on it with respect to the State, the state in terms of what constitutes a civil union can decide whatever it thinks is a “civil union” despite the protests of religious minded folks. It is what it is.
Groups that have a view of marriage that is akin to a contract I think long term have a bigger problem. Churches that have allowed members to be married civilly with no religious ceremony are also going to have to rethink what marriage is.
People are so conditioned to believe that the state defines marriage that the religious groups that accepted ‘gay marriage’ wouldn’t even marry their gay members until the state they happened to be in accepted it first. The state’s involvement in the modern era has been a disaster for the institution.
FReegards
In other polling news Hillary can’t lose the election that we just had either.
As for the state not performing civil marriages, by definition, you have to obtain a marriage license from the state for legal and tax purposes.
In fact, I don’t attend marriages or even funerals unless they take place in conjunction with a TLM, so I haven’t been to any.
My grand daughter, well she at least married a man even if he was a democrat. ha ha.
Excellent. We could use more of that.
And yet Liberals keep telling us you can't force morality on people. Then they just keep forcing more morality on people.
Change the law by unelected courts, then hit the public with wave after wave of pro homosexual propaganda, over time it will have the effect of forcing a new morality on people.
You know, that's a very good point. I remember even California voted against it in 2008 even though the judicial tyrants overturned that vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.