In my own opinion, a couple can be married in the sight of G-d even if they have not had a civil or religious ceremony. Their intent is all that matters. Of course, if you’re not married according to the rules established by the secular authorities, you will not be afforded the benefits of marriage extended by them (tax breaks, inheritance laws, etc.) If you’re a member of a religion that does not recognize the legitimacy of your marriage, they may also choose to refuse certain benefits otherwise extended to married members. Of course, G-d is not subordinate to secular or religious authorities, and is not bound by their rulings. The main purpose of civil or religious marriage ceremonies is to declare publicly before the (religious and/or secular) community that:[list=A][li]You are, in fact, married, and[/li]
[li]you intend to fulfill the obligations and responsibilities to the community regarding this marriage, and[/li]
[li]you rightfully claim whatever benefits the community affords married couples.[/list=A]Makes sense? Or am I too tired to be coherent?[/li]
~~Baloo
“I sent my kids to a religious school so they wouldn’t be indoctrinated by the lies of public schools (like evolution).”
—Mmm-hmmm . . . Okaaaay . . . [backing slowly toward door]
pk, I was actually going to respond seriously to your OP, but then I read your evolution comments.
I have to ask- Why, if “most” Catholic institutions teach about evolution, does this school view it as a “false theory?”
You hardly hear any good stories about renegade Catholics anymore. I always picture nuns on motorcycles or some such nonsense 
Wow, what an interesting thing. Does it seem strange to anyone else that pk has these feelings about evolution, but in the profile says interests are “beer, motorcycles, guns, freedom & liberty?”
Trippy, never woulda’ thunk it.
My Catholic friend also says that God doesn’t actually forgive me because I don’t go to Confession and have a priest to intervene (I’m Presbyterian), so go fig. :rolleyes:
Ok PK, I’m not going to pound on you like I intended(about your quote: … be indoctrinated by the lies of public schools…), and like the others did, instead I’ll ask you on what belief (or proof) can you make such a statement?
Erin, your friend is as ignorant of her Catholic tradition and doctrine as a lot of other people are. I’m not going to hijack this thread over the Sacrament of Confession/Penance/Reconciliation, (it’s been addressed in other threads), but she is simply wrong.
Statement about what? About what lies I don’t want my kids being taught, or about why I believe them to be lies? Public schools teach that “alternative lifestyles” are normal & healthy, it’s ok for teens to engage in sexual behavior, evolution theories, and the total ban on God as if he doesn’t exist. I consider all these things to be lies and I don’t want my children indoctrinated by them. I don’t have to justify why I believe these things to be lies, I’m entitled to my beliefs without explination. Was a catholic school the best option? NO! But it was the best option I could afford for 3 kids in a row. Some of the other private schools and academies cost twice as much. Also, this school doesn’t tolerate the disruptive behavior that is so prevelent in Milwaukees public schools. All in all, it’s a real good school. Now the question is, am I going to hell for not being married in church, and if so where does the bible say this?
pkbites, you are being disingenuous. If you don’t want to answer his statement, say so. I think though, that your original question has been pretty thoroughly answered. Surely there is no harm (this being great debates after all) in people examining wrong headed and inflamatory statements on your part?
Quote edited to remove nonessential text.
[/quote]
Kyberneticist: Your phrasing presumes you believe yourself to be right-headed and non-inflamatory, yet the words themselves have the opposite effect. The above declaration is itself wrongheaded and inflamatory. Were it phrased in less damning terms, it would be neither. Putting your question in such a provocative form is itself disingenuous and hypocritical. Cut it out.[/hijack]
~~Baloo
It was intended to be so. But when his comments about schools (horrors!) teaching that “alternative lifestyles” as being normal, and evolution “lies” convinced me that he is close-minded. It also suggests some level of bigotry towards the gay community. Both of those pissed me off. I don’t like to think of people raising children along the same lines.
I feel this is a true statement.
His claims are inflammatory.
Calling evolution lies, then trying to jump back to the nature of marriage is close to being a troll. His wanting God in public schools and sex education and acceptence of gays as normal I would also place in that category.
His claims are wrong headed.
I feel all these statements he made are wrong. I did not back up my claim, I was more interested in snarling at that post. But I’m sure we will have plenty of feedback on it soon. Or, he can visit http://talkorigins.org and countless threads on evolution, homosexuality, and church-state separation here.
Finally, while I admit to having gotten angry, and responded in kind to statements that I categorized (rightly) as inflammatory, I think I was relatively restrained.
Furthermore, while I think he was avoiding the question, I spoke quite frankly as to my opinion. Therefore I think you misused the word “disingenuous”.
That’s what happens when I get excited. No proof reading.
But when=But while (yes, starting with But is iffy)
. Is=, is
Well, I certainly wouldn’t want MY children going to any school that taught lies like “alternative lifestyles” are abnormal & unhealthy, sex is evil and dirty, evolution is only a theory, and God exists!
blush
er
acceptance=unacceptance
This could go on for a while. So I am going to refrain from further proofing and go to work.
These are not your children. I will raise my kids the way I see fit, and I will defend your right to raise your kids the way you see fit. I was not trying to troll, I was simply stating why I didn’t want my offspring going to public school. I refuse to get into an argument over evolution. The whole thing is utter nonsense to me, and if I want my kids to be taught that the story of man coming from apes is a lie, then I will teach them that. If they grow up to decide I was wrong, so be it. But when they are young and living under my roof I am going to have them taught the things I want. And when someone tells my child an untruth (like couples who weren’t married in church are going to hell) I get ticked.
Then by all means, do not send your kids to a school that would do this. I defend your right to raise your kids the way you want just as you should defend my right to do the same. Oh, and where did I say sex is evil and dirty??? I just don’t think children should be told that it’s ok for them to be sexually active. Sex is an adult activity, just as drinking, smoking, and gambling are. You’re not pushing those on your young’uns are you?
See, the problem here is that it is not at all clear that this is an untruth by the standards of the religion that sponsors the school you are sending your children to. You keep asking for a bibblical passage, which is, if I may say so, a very Protestant way of approaching the question. Catholosism has never embraced the doctrine of sola scriptura, and holds many things to be sinful that are not explicitly covered in the bible. Now, the experiences of several posters have indicated that the RCC does, indeed, hold the position that a JP marrage is not a suitable substitute for being married by the church. Since Tomndeb has not corrected these people and he is reading the thread, we have to assume that this is in fact the RCC’s position.
Now, we can not tell you whether or not your child’s teacher was right or wrong in any sort of objective sense–none of us have hard empirical evidence on this one. All we can tell you is whether or not her statement is in line with the beliefs of the orginization she represents. The answer to that question is that no, she isn’t wrong. So you’ve no right to be ticked.
You of course have every right to explain to your child that his teacher is a member of a diifferent faith that your own, and this is one place where your beliefs diverge from hers. But is not right to claim she has made a mistake or is ignorant of the “real” truth.
Yeeesh**!** When did I become an authority?
For the record, I doubt that I am better informed on Catholicism than Bricker (who posted here) or Moriah (who has not posted in a while). My views are close enough to the ones Bricker posted that I saw no need to add anything, here.
(The RCC would probably hold that a Catholic was in need of some soul-searching if s/he married “without benefit of clergy,” but it is ludicrous to suppose that the RCC holds non-Catholics to the same rules of Catholicism–and, as Bricker and others have noted, in the eyes of the RCC, the couple are the ministers of the Sacrament to each other.)
I’m afraid I do find it humorous that pkbites would send his kids to Catholic school and not expect them to get a fair amount of Catholic indoctrination. If the teacher was assuming an all-Catholic classroom, then Catholic parents who have not had their marriage solemnized and recorded within the Church are, as Bricker noted, in violation of sixth of the (old) 6 Laws of the Church (enumerated in the Baltimore Catechism) and could be considered (from a strictly Catholic perspective) to be “living in sin.” However, those rules have been reconsidered quite a bit in the last 35 years and would never apply to a non-Catholic, in any event.