The Support of Married Couples by the Catholic Church
On the marriage day the couple and their relatives are all happy with
great big smiles on their faces, however this doesn't last for long
necessarily. No matter how perfect the marriage maybe there will
always be some sort of a rough patch or troubled patch during the life
span of the marriage, this is where the marital vows kick in and
become real life, not just meaningless words. Some couples will be
able to come through this rough patch or patches however, some will
not have the commitment to make a marriage last and can't be bothered
to try and fix what ever problem there may be.
What most people forget is their vows which they made on their
marriage day; here they are to remind you.
Text Box: “I, (name) do take thee, (Name) to be my lawful wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part.†A quote from the traditional Wedding Mass
Most people forget the last part of the vows which they make, I have
highlighted them. Marriage is for life, not till when there is a
troubled patch, you can't just simple get a divorce, it is till death
do us part.
The Catholic Church is aware of the problems and is there to help
along with many other counselling organisations.
There are many reason for a marriage to come into difficulties, here
are just a few examples;
* Family problems
* Metal or terminal illnesses
* Death of a child or close relative
* Work
* Parenthood, different views on how to bring up a child
* Adultery
* Unemployment
* Physical assault
* Financial problems
* General arguments and rows
No matter how hard a couple may try they will always experience at
least one of the above problems. However, for some even a slight
The groom and best man are next to arrive at the church at least 30
Described as a “precious jewel” by Pope Paul VI, a vow of celibacy, abstaining from marriage and all sexual activity is required for those choosing a life of service in the Roman Catholic Church (Frazee 108). Perhaps one of the most long standing debates within the Roman Catholic Church is the issue of clerical celibacy, in particular for priests. Many ask, does compulsory celibacy for priest have any place in today’s modern world? Some will argue that compulsory celibacy for priest is essential for priest to adequately serve their parishioners as well as to faithfully serve God. While others suggest that this is an antiquated unnatural practice that is harmful for not only the priest but for the Roman Catholic Church. However, in order to adequately answer this question, it is imperative to understand the history of compulsory clerical celibacy in the Roman Catholic faith, as well as the reasoning for the implementation of this practice among clerics.
Marriage was very different in the 1400s than it is today. In the 21st century, it is hard to comprehend what kind of marriage traditions they had in the 15th century. While many people toady marry for love, in the Renaissance Era, marriages were primarily arranged by the families. In addition, when a couple did marry the ceremonies and customs were also very different.
Sexual abuse is a growing concern in society today. So many people are hurt by the actions of other people when they abuse them, especially in a sexual manner. The Catholic Church is also now being targeted for sexual offenders. Priests have been charged with sexually abusing young boys that are involved with the church. The church has been looking the other way on this issue for many years. The children as well as their family are being hurt and its time something was done to prevent the further exploitation of young boys in the Catholic Church.
I give to you, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, you also are to love one
Marriage is defined as “(1) the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage ("Marriage," 2003, p. 659). Despite the latter definition’s addition to dictionaries in the past decade, this definition of marriage is still debated. Being a touchy subject in both politics and religion today, it’s been very hard to come to an agreement. There are two main sides to this argument regarding the nature of marriage. Some stick to their conservative and/or religious beliefs, while others state that marriage is a civil right (Kim, 2011, p. [Page 38]). However, same-sex marriage is not legally recognized in North Carolina and thirty-two other states at this time ("Defining Marriage: State Defense," 2014). Homosexuals have been denied many of the rights given to those that are heterosexual. Same-sex couples are not able to receive other benefits as a heterosexual couple would. The lack of benefits is extremely unequal and unfair. This unacceptable treatment is unconstitutional and should not continue.
There are currently 16 states, including Washington D.C., which allow same-sex marriage. The very first being Massachusetts in 2003, but the initial concept of marriage was solely intended for opposite-sex marriage dating back nearly 60 years ago. When discussing the controversial topic of gay marriage, one should consider that if there is truly equality in the U.S. then gays should be treated in the same manner as those who are considered straight.
Sherif Girgis wrote his article, “Marriage: Whose Justice? Which Diversity?” in response to John Corvino’s, “What Marriage Can Be” article. Corvino’s article introduced the inclusivist view of marriage and then attacked Girgis’ conjugal view of marriage, which was introduced in Girgis’ book, “What is Marriage? Man and Woman: A Defense.” Corvino’s inclusivist view was meant to expand the definition of marriage, not re-define it (Corvino, p.6) and although Corvino’s defense of the inclusivist view was, “sophisticated, civil and well-informed” according to Girgis, it was also, “Contradicting virtually every philosophical and legal tradition until yesterday, it nonetheless offers no positive case for its thesis” (Girgis, p.1). Girgis obviously does not agree with Corvino’s inclusivist/revisionist view, but he does so on the basis that it has too many weaknesses. The conjugal view is superior as it most properly defines what true marriage is and should be. In the ensuing sections, I shall describe what the conjugal view of marriage is and why Girgis believes it to be superior to both the
Searching around to find a pertinent closing thought, all were overshadowed by the validity of the following: " You don't marry someone because you can live with them, you marry them because you simply cannot live without them." Ladies and gentlemen, if you could all be upstanding, and join me in a toast: To the two people who are so dear in all our hearts, the bride and groom.
Marriage is an institution that has always been considered sacrosanct in societies around the world; however, recent trends and statistics indicate that the importance of having a sound and lasting marriage has declined in recent years. The divorce rate in America is currently 50% of all marriages; this means that for every two couples wed, one of those couples will end up separated. (CITATION) The current state of marriage as exemplified in Didion’s essay “Marrying Absurd” and evident in modern society is a direct result of cultural values towards marriage, religious beliefs in relation to marriage, and the ideas today’s society has towards marriage. (CITATION) Such issues, along with financial issues and infidelity, are what cause such high divorce rates in America.
Ryan T. Anderson discusses the legal status of same-sex relationships in his article “In defense of traditional marriage” (2013). He contends that marriage is defined historically, socially and legally as existing between a man and a woman and should remain so defined for the benefit of society. Anderson is correct in his historical interpretation of marriage; yet present day usage would imply that the definition of marriage is undergoing a social change which should be reflected in the law.
to do and a guarantee to each partner. If we ask an engaged couple why
Marriage has gone through many changes throughout its history. It's earliest forms date back to the story of creation. It has developed a great deal since then. It is a simple fact that men and women can not survive without each other. Marriage is part of the created natural order, we were meant to be together.
In contemporary society, particularly in contemporary America, divorce rates have spiked to rates as high as 4.1 marital separations per 1000 individuals. This escalation has left many very ambivalent of the future of marriage in the world, a commitment that in many respects has been viewed as a lifelong or even lasting for eternity. Such surges in divorces seem to be more visible in cultures that allow for free-choice mate selection, where individuals are free to choose whom they wish to marry. This is highly contrasting to other cultures such as Japanese culture where arranged marriages are the regular practices of many kin-groups. Often free-choice societies are blamed for their elevated divorce rates because such individuals fail to take
As mentioned above, Clinton (2003), argued that the primary goal of marriage was not happiness or satisfaction, but holiness and sanctification. Marriage is considered a sanctifying institution that achieves holiness (Dane, 2009). Sanctification is the, “process through which God transforms profane objects into sacred entities”, while holiness is the outcome: being set apart, consecrated to God (Mahoney, Pargament, Murray-Swank, & Murray-Swank, 2003). For example, God uses marriage to change selfishness and arrogance into selflessness and humility (Clinton, 2003). Again, Martin (2010) insisted that, “marriage is to integrate the full spectrum of spiritual, social, psychological, physical, and sexual aspects of humanness” (p. 111).