Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 15 2005, 12:57 AM']Did you mean sacramental marriage? Baptism can be performed by anyone, even an unbaptized unbeliever. It simply requires (1) a liquid that is substantially water to be poured over some part of the person's body (doesn't have to be the head) at least enough so that one could consider the area in contact with the water to have been washed, (2) the invocation of the Triune name, and (3) the intention by the one performing the baptism to join the person being baptized to the Church. Natural marriage occurs when an unbaptized man and woman exchange vows OR when one is unbaptized and one is baptized and they exchange vows. Sacramental marriage for non-Catholics occurs when a baptized man and a baptized woman exchange vows. It doesn't have to be before a witness. Sacramental marriage for Catholics not only requires both parties to be baptized, it also requires an authorized Church witness and the forms of canon law to be observed. I've got a rather humorous story in that regard. One of my brother-in-laws is a priest. Another was engaged to be married. He and his fiancee were sitting in the living room the night before the wedding with several members of the family, including the priest, and he suddenly decided that they should practice exchanging vows. So he said his vows, but before she began, I pointed out that since Fr. Michael was present, if she completed her vows, they would be married in that moment, since they both certainly had the intention and a Catholic priest was in the room to witness it, thus fulfilling the forms. The woman, who was new to the Church, asked Fr. Michael, "Is that correct?" Fr. Michael just smiled, said, "Good-BYE!" and raced out of the room, to raucous laughter from everyone else. [right][snapback]724029[/snapback][/right] [/quote] yes I meant marriage, i was just really tired and in a rush. I still am somewhat iffy on this, as I was instructed that for a marriage to be sacramental it had to be with 2 baptised Christians AND in the name of the Trinity. This was not just from one source but from multiple differant sources. I will have to go a researching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Sep 15 2005, 06:58 AM']They gave consent AFTER she got pregnant. Prior to that they had a restraining order against the guy. There is nothing honorable about how this particular situation went down. The man and his child bride snuck around behind her mother's back, defying a restraining order, got knocked up and then hid the pregnancy from the girl's mother. The mother gave "consent" in an effort to make the best out of a bad situation. [right][snapback]724108[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Look first of all unless you people know some new math she was 13 when she got pregnant not 12, the baby isn't born yet and she is 14 so unless she has had a 2 year pregnancy she was 13 when she got pregnant. Just thought I should point that out since everyone keeps clammering about 12 year olds. 13 has been the age of adulthood in numerous cultures throughout time. If we are not raiseing our children to be mature by that point well then we need to start. Now I have not said that ther was anything honorable aboutthis situation in fact I said if this would never happen if the girl had a decent father. I am not saying that what happened in this case is good. No one here as far as I can tell has said that. The behavoir was dishonorable independent of thier respective ages if it had been honorable she couldn't have gotten pregnant at all becuase they wouldn't have been having sex out of wedlock. If you go back and look all I comented on was the marriage itself until people started throwing around the word pedophile which offended me in the extreme for reasons already explained. I do not think that in this case this is a good thing, however I do not think this was rape, stautory rape is not rape in the traditional sense of the term. Personally if it was my daughter I would have never gotten a restraining order I would have told him to come back when she 15 or 16 and court here then, if he didn't well a load of 000buck into his hood would probably change his attitude, if it didn't well a simular load into him would have. But that is because my child is under my Gaurdianship, and in my opinion 15 is more likly to be a good fit physically and eotionally than 12, butthat doesn't mean that someone is a pervert because they are interested n dating a 12 or 13 year old girl, so long as she is pubescent and have fully developed pyshically. There is a differance between my own personal view and what is objectivly right and wrong. I don't understand why that is so hard for people to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='Sep 15 2005, 02:47 AM']*nods* [right][snapback]724073[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Just as a not, after her 14th year is 14 not 15, we start counting from 0 not 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 10:45 AM']that doesn't mean that someone is a pervert because they are interested n dating a 12 or 13 year old girl, so long as she is pubescent and have fully developed pyshically. [right][snapback]724153[/snapback][/right] [/quote] That statement is just nuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 15 2005, 08:54 AM'] That statement is just nuts. [right][snapback]724163[/snapback][/right] [/quote] \ well then as I said by your defenition most of the men through out history where perverts inclusive of many Saints among then St. Joseph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 10:59 AM']\ well then as I said by your defenition most of the men through out history where perverts inclusive of many Saints among then St. Joseph. [right][snapback]724168[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I answered that same comment pages ago! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Carrie' date='Sep 15 2005, 09:00 AM']I answered that same comment pages ago! [right][snapback]724169[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And it was an absurd response then as well as now, people are developing faster now than in the past, so unless you are a Historisist and believe Truth is fluid( I am not accusing you of that by the way) or a moral Relativist ( which you deny) then one cannot say " this is immoral by nature now but not 100 or a 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. Either it is a perversion to marry or intend to marry a 12 or 13 year old girl or it is not, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Sep 15 2005, 09:06 AM']And it was an absurd response then as well as now, people are developing faster now than in the past, so unless you are a Historisist and believe Truth is fluid( I am not accusing you of that by the way) or a moral Relativist ( which you deny) then one cannot say " this is immoral by nature now but not 100 or a 1,000 or 10,000 years ago. Either it is a perversion to marry or intend to marry a 12 or 13 year old girl or it is not, you can't have your cake and eat it too. [right][snapback]724177[/snapback][/right] [/quote] How many doors can we open with that statement? Was it immoral to have multiple wives? Was it immoral to have concubines? Was it immoral to treat women as property? Was it immoral to eat pork? The reality is that culture does play a part in some issues of what is immoral and what is not. Some aspects of morality changes throughout time and culture and all of us, including you, support that. How many threads have there been about dressing modestly when Adam and Eve were running around naked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don John of Austria Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 15 2005, 09:25 AM']How many doors can we open with that statement? Was it immoral to have multiple wives? Was it immoral to have concubines? Was it immoral to treat women as property? Was it immoral to eat pork? The reality is that culture does play a part in some issues of what is immoral and what is not. Some aspects of morality changes throughout time and culture and all of us, including you, support that. How many threads have there been about dressing modestly when Adam and Eve were running around naked? [right][snapback]724193[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Adam and Eve where in a state of Grace so that really isn't cogent here is it. Was it immoral to have multiple wives? No. the Only reason it is immoral today is becase the Church Says so, it is Traditional that Christians have only one wife but it is not naturally immoral. Concubines are a bit more complicated what exactly a concubine is is in fact determined by culture, depending on what exactly you mean by concubine, concubinage could be inherintly immoral of not. ( In some cultures concubines where akin to wives, in others they where simply objects). Was it immoral to treat women as property--- could you be more specific? It is immoral to treat a person as a thing, it has always been immoral to do so, it was immoral for people to do it in the past whether or notthey thought it immoral at the time or even if the where morally culpable it is and was and will be immoral to do so. It was and is immoral to eat Pork if you are bound by the dietary laws of the Old testement as those Laws where propagated by God and disobediance related to His commands is inherintly immoral. So I say agian if something is inherently immoral or perverse then it has always been so, if it has not always been so then it is not in fact immoral or perverse by its nature. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skellmeyer Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Sep 15 2005, 07:58 AM']They gave consent AFTER she got pregnant. Prior to that they had a restraining order against the guy. There is nothing honorable about how this particular situation went down. The man and his child bride snuck around behind her mother's back, defying a restraining order, got knocked up and then hid the pregnancy from the girl's mother. The mother gave "consent" in an effort to make the best out of a bad situation. [right][snapback]724108[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't think anyone is arguing that what led up to this marriage was a GOOD series of events. The point is, they are married now and that marriage has to be respected, since neither one is seeking an anullment or divorce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skellmeyer Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 15 2005, 10:25 AM']How many doors can we open with that statement? Was it immoral to have multiple wives? Was it immoral to have concubines? Was it immoral to treat women as property? Was it immoral to eat pork? The reality is that culture does play a part in some issues of what is immoral and what is not. Some aspects of morality changes throughout time and culture and all of us, including you, support that. How many threads have there been about dressing modestly when Adam and Eve were running around naked? [right][snapback]724193[/snapback][/right] [/quote] While Scripture records that people did certain things (such as taking multiple wives or taking concubines) it does not say that what they did was good. Indeed, you would be hard-pressed to find an example of Scriptural concubinage which worked out well for the parties involved. Nowhere does God command Abraham to take a concubine - his wife demanded it. Nowhere does God command Jacob to take a second wife - he dreamt that up on his own, and then took concubines at the insistence of his wives. Israel was unique in that it did NOT treat wives as property. Eating pork was immoral for the same reason that eating meat on Friday is - God set a discipline to be observed. The immorality comes not from the eating, for eating a nutritious food is always a good, rather, it comes from the disobedience. Thus Adam and Eve's nakedness was a sign of their obedience, the need for clothes is a sign of our tendency to want to be disobedient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 15 2005, 09:40 AM']I don't think anyone is arguing that what led up to this marriage was a GOOD series of events. The point is, they are married now and that marriage has to be respected, since neither one is seeking an anullment or divorce. [right][snapback]724204[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I can acknowledge it as a true fact. I don't have to respect it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaime Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote]Israel was unique in that it did NOT treat wives as property.[/quote] Untrue, the story of Onan is the first representation that indeed women were the property of their husbands. [quote]Eating pork was immoral for the same reason that eating meat on Friday is - God set a discipline to be observed. The immorality comes not from the eating, for eating a nutritious food is always a good, rather, it comes from the disobedience. [/quote] No eating pork back then was an easy way to die. The meat could not be processed properly to be safe. It wasn't nutritious it was life threatening. This is why it was immoral. They didn't randomly pick a meat and say " Hey give this one up" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skellmeyer Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:12 AM']Untrue, the story of Onan is the first representation that indeed women were the property of their husbands. [/quote] How? The woman clearly wanted to raise up children in the name of her dead husband. She went to extraordinary lengths to accomplish the deed, even posing as a pagan temple prostitute and knowingly risking death, because she knew she would be accused of fornication and stoned if she couldn't come up with a good reason for being found pregnant (that's why she snagged the signs of authority from Judah - to protect herself and her unborn child from execution). That's a pretty clever woman acting on her own to accomplish what she wants. [quote]No eating pork back then was an easy way to die. The meat could not be processed properly to be safe. It wasn't nutritious it was life threatening. This is why it was immoral. They didn't randomly pick a meat and say " Hey give this one up" [right][snapback]724237[/snapback][/right] [/quote] The pork story is simply a canard. Pork was no more dangerous than anything else, and the surrounding pagan tribes ate it all the time. Why else would there be swineherds? Were people MILKING them? Yet Jesus encountered swineherds with the demoniac and told the story of the Prodigal Son to an audience who was clearly familiar with the practice of keeping domestic pigs. Pigs are good for only one thing - eating. I remember working with an Egyptian archeologist at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign who laughed when someone brought up the "pork was dangerous" myth. If it was so dangerous, why was everyone eating it? The Israelites didn't pick the meat to avoid, God did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skellmeyer Posted September 15, 2005 Share Posted September 15, 2005 [quote name='homeschoolmom' date='Sep 15 2005, 11:05 AM']I can acknowledge it as a true fact. I don't have to respect it. [right][snapback]724226[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, true in one sense. If you don't respect a natural marriage, you are refusing to respect a God-given institution that models in a natural way God's own life-giving love. If you don't respect a sacramental marriage, you are refusing to respect God joining Himself to man and His elevation of the natural model to a supernatural divine union. So, yes, you can refuse to respect either a natural or a sacramental marriage. But I don't think that's a good idea. You've heard of "love the sinner, hate the sin?" Well, "love the sacrament, hate the sin that brought the need for it." Your reaction is much like the man who has no respect for the sacrament of confession because the need for it is a consequence of our sinfulness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts