Recognising Marriage

Blogged by James Preece on 8th February 2013

I haven't quite finished thinking this one through but think Joseph Shaw is talking a lot of sense.

At first glance one might expect that the logical thing for orthodox/traditional/absoluist/nasty Catholics to do when the state does Marriage wrong - to the point of calling things Marriage when they are not - is to reject state Marriage altogether. One might expect that scaredy-cat, elitist, latin chant, only no-sinners-allowed types would want to retreat ever further in to a Catholic ghetto?

Yet the opposite turns out to be true. My thoughts on Marriage are alarmingly scientific. I consider it to be a thing that exists outside of my ideas about it. A thing I can look at and study and talk about but a thing none the less and a thing that, like Planets and apples falling out of trees, will go on being exactly what it is no matter what I or the government might choose to say about it.

A scientist can look at 16th Century ideas about gravity and say "those guys were wrong about gravity" but he knows that both he and the 16th Century fellow are talking about the same thing. I can look at 21st Century ideas about Marriage and say "those guys are wrong about Marriage" but I know that both myself and the 21st century peeps are talking about the same thing.

To quote Dr Shaw..

There is only marriage: natural marriage, and the sacramental marriage which, when the parties are baptised, supervenes upon it. Marriage is an institution of natural law, and it is recognised by both Church and state.

[link]

Today's government is very, very wrong about what Marriage is and how Marriage works. They are as wrong as alchemists having a guess at the invisible spirit thingies who pull the planets around the sky. Yet, I think the Marriage they are wrong about is still Marriage.

Dr Shaw continues..

The state also allows people to get married who are not, under Natural or Divine Law, free to marry: people who have a validly married spouse still living, for example. We say of such people that they are not 'really' married, and at this point what is recognised socially becomes less clear. But if the law of the land wants to do this, while it confuses and weakens the social recognition of the institution, it doesn't change the fact that if a couple want to marry, they want to be recognised as being married, by the law.

What is being proposed is that this confusion be increased vastly, and whole new categories of partnerships will be legally recognised as marriages, when under Natural Law they are no such thing. Ultimately, we may say that the state has ceased to deal with marriage at all, but will be doling out certificates of 'vaguely committed relationships'.

[link]

Ultimately, we may say (and I do) that the state did this in 1969 with the Divorce Reform Act. Since then, state Marriages have been certificates of 'vaguely committed relationships' which are routinely handed out to people who are not, under Natural or Divine Law, free to marry.

So in this respect, while "gay marriage" legislation is very wrong in that it denies the link between marriage and heterosexual fertility, I don't think the "gay marriage" legislation does very much to change the situation with regards to "what should the Church do when the state calls something marriage that isn't?"

The state might force us out of registering valid marriages with the state - but I don't think we should want to stop doing it.

At least... I think that's what I think... so far.

Far more important to me is the question of the priests in every city who already routinely bless "re-married" non-marriages and invite people in that situation to be extraordinary ministers. Talk about sowing social confusion... Will our Bishops be turning a similarly blind eye when the same is done with same-sex "marriages"?

Rate this blogentry: + -

+15

This Item Tagged With:

Reader Comments

Paul Priest said...

More complicated unfortunately James:

1949 marriage act #75 makes it a criminal offence to undergo a religious marriage without civil registration and cofirmation

Plus: Once the ECHR gets its claws into marriage and eliminates all the differences between SSM and heterosexual marriage in the name of equality - and presumptive consummation and fidelity are abolished.

We have a problem in our duty of care to those outside the Church - the baptised non-Catholic who heretofore were not thwarted by the state when they underwent a civil marriage from having a Church-recognised valid marriage - they made promises and did 'as the Church does'.

But soon they are going to be deliberately prevented [by state intervention] from being able to make those promises within a civil ceremony - thus where previously many, many baptised non-catholics were validly married - they won't be now - this invokes scandal....

and potentially it turns an unjust law [as Joseph Shaw describes] in which in order to achieve sacramental marriage we were permitted to remotely materially co-operate with a state who messed around with marriage, scandalised it, misrepresented and defamed it, attributed it to those who didn't earn it etc - but they never thwarted it ot prevented it from happening...

...but they will now - if they prevent couples from being able to make the promises which validate a marriage...

...and the question arises
"if they thwart marriage - does this turn a merely unjust law [with which we can co-operate] into an intrinsically unjust law [with which we can't - Evangelium Vitae 73 & 74 & the CDF's 'considerations' forbid us from that sort of co-operation]"

This may seem utterly crazy but until the CDF clarifies we could be facing an imminent scenario [after ECHR homogenisation/equalisation] where because we cannot conspire with a civil marriage we will become criminals if we perform sacramental marriage ceremonies...

I'm sure there are many out there who will be saying I am being hyperbolically ridiculous...but I cannot see any way out of this - we could potentially be at war with our government.

Philip Smith said...

That moron Paul Priest raises his ugly head again. Wittering on about marriage! There cannot be anyone in the world of Catholic Blogging that does not know that Paul Priest is not married, is living in sin, receiving communion when he should not be and STILL he rants on about marriage!!! Either get married Paul or shut up, for years you have insulted other Bloggers and lorded it over anyone who did not share your views. Nothing but a hypocrite, Pharisees are live and well and living in Corby!!!!

+10

Paul Priest said...

God bless you too - but the genetic fallacy doesn't stop this being a crucial issue in which every Catholic should be concerned. The government might have inadvertently declared war on a sacrament!
My private and public sins are irrelevant to the situation - hypocrite maybe but this isn't pharisaism...

Nicolas Bellord said...

Mr Smith: Your comment is an absolute disgrace. I suggest you seek absolution at the earliest possible opportunity.

Catherine said...

Paul makes a very valid point......

and when rebel Catholic priests who are already perfroming quasi "blessings" for homosexual CPs who then more boldly do what they do with impunity from the weak bishops who will not issue canonical penalties to stop them....said clergy even if they do suffer canonical penalties, will just take the diocese and bishop to court for violation of his so called human rights [despite the quadruple lock]
these rebel clergy will win their cases esp at the EU level and the rest of us will be forced to seek and have secret weddings
welcome to the underground catholic Church in England and Wales....bring it on!

Joseph Shaw said...

Thank you, James!

I don't know what exactly the civil marriage service will look like when they've finished with it, but it would be pretty difficult for it to be impossible for non-Catholic couples not to be able to use it to contract valid marriages. All that is required is for them to agree to marry, in a way which is socially recognised.

On James' point, it will indeed be interesting to see how the bishops will deal with blessings of SSMs by liberal priests. But others will be testing the law in the other direction, demanding a marriage service, and that the bishops won't be able to ignore.

Paul Priest said...

Fr John Boyle expressed it quite clearly - it's according to the principle of non-contrariety...
Providing the state doesn't intervene regarding the interpretation of spousal relationship - all that's required for validity amongst baptised non-catholics is " I am your wife/husband " - and all presumptive consequences follow from that.

But the state IS intervening by preventing spousal declarations to be inferred as ones of either exclusive intimacy or fidelity - even mutual recognition/acknowledgment and cohabitation aren't necessary - even any interaction before or after the ceremony.
Where previously the definitions were open to interpretation and the partners/Church and courts could determine accordingly - those options are no longer available...

Mockery of the Sacraments said...

LOL! Living in sin & receiving communion. Good work fella! :)

Paul Priest said...

believe what you want...

VOAT said...

didn't Archbishop Nichols tell people to 'hold their tongues' when it comes to publicly denouncing people on their worthiness for the Eucharist?

Mark Dobson said...

He didn't need to say anything beyond "CCC 2477-9" in any case.

New Friend said...

James

I find your current "thinking" rather encouraging. Not because I agree with you about marriage. There is a clear, and very well-rehearsed, difference of opinion over this, which seems pretty pointless in reviving, especially after this week's decisive vote in parliament.

You can go on believing that the state "does marriage wrong" until eternity, but I think that you have now seem to have accepted that it really makes no practical difference to daily life.

Your attempted analogy comparing gravity with marriage doesn�t work, although I can see why it appeals to those who believe marriage to be part of a �natural law�. Gravity is undoubtedly a natural phenomenon, for which there can only, eventually, be one explanation. Marriage though is a man-made construct, the origins of which are capable of several interpretations, and of continuing evolution. Gravity cannot evolve. Marriage can. They are as different as chalk and cheese, and I hope your uncompleted thinking reflects upon that.

Where I start to agree with you is when you identify when your concept of marriage started to part company with that of the state, and that this diversion is evidence of an evolutionary process. This surely means that what you regard as marriage is now quite different to that which is understood by the state. This makes an over reliance on language, to describe concepts which are developing and diverging, a risky undertaking. It leads to misunderstandings and disagreements.
I am much less concerned about what we call things, than that those things exist and that people are treated fairly in their opportunities to benefit from them.
I personally would be happy to see the term �marriage� reserved only for the joining of a couple in a church, and that the state equivalent be called a �civil partnership�, irrespective of the sexes of the couple. Churches would be free to decide whether they would marry same sex couples, or not.

Sarah said...

I too am not completely sure what I think about this. I've felt some unease about any dealings I've had with the Registry Office since Civil Partnerships were introduced, mainly because I invariably have young children with me and I seek to limit their exposure. But then I have no option but to register births and deaths. Perhaps an analogy is using NHS maternity services, knowing full well that the obs & gynae consultant delivering your child also does abortions, IVF etc etc.

Living here and now, where we are and at this point in time, it's pretty hard to navigate. But He never said it would be easy.

It's nice to see Paul Priest back in the com box.

Christian said...

Hi James and others.

I am not wishing to cause any anger or upset here, but I can't keep thinking about the argument that if marriage is purely a matter of heterosexual fertility then how do you square the marriages of the elderly or infertile couples? I am not being facetious or trying to argue against what you have said, I am just interested in how you respond. Would not the same thinking that condemns 'homosexual marriage' as a contradiction of terms also condemn 'infetile marriage'? Would you not agree that the marriage of an elderly couple are as much a 'bubble of lurve' as a homosexual marriage?

As I said, I am genuinely interested in the Catholic response as I am unsure in my own mind about this matter.

Thanks.

Christian

+10

Paul Priest said...

Christian I'm really sorry but the problem for this misinterpretation is the fault of spokespersons 'defending' marriage in the wrong way.
[Austen Ivereigh made the same mistake twice last week]
It's not that homosexuals can't merely procreate - it's that they can't perform the unifying physical act from which procreation may ensue if gifted by God.

Infertile and menopausal couples can indeed unify physically, emotionally and spiritually - thus fulfilling the 1st perfection of marriage; while the second perfection of procreation is not wilfully thwarted - and is actually celebrated - by their intimacy...

Homosexual couples - however loving or horizontally intimate - engage in non-physically-unifying mutual-masturbatory acts [c 1/4 males don't perform anal sex anyway] so there is no Catholic or Legal concept of consummation within such activity [hence its removal from SSM legislation and ultimate removal from all definitions of marriage once the ECHR has its way] ]

It's not simply the having and rearing of children - it's being able to unify in the first place [actions which can be graced with children]

+11

Simon Platt said...

I don't think anyone of good will and good sense has described marriage as purely a matter of heterosexual fertility. (Is there any other kind?) What is necessary is the complementarity of the sexes that is associated with fertility. Our nature is to be male or female, and marriage is the joining together of the two in a manner which normally is fertile but which, even when not, always bears witness to this complementarity.

Patricius said...

Complementarity is fundamental to marriage. Same sex "marriage" is not marriage but assemblage.

New Friend said...

Patricius

If you, or anyone else, still has a problem in understanding how the meaning of marriage has evolved, and now means something different to your analysis, might I suggest you read this:-

http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/06/shifted-meanings-marriage/

It explains it much better than I can and, as it comes from the OED, I trust that you can accept it's objectivity.

Your opinion is clearly sincere, but that doesn't stop the meaning changing. As I have said previously it might mean that you may now need to use an alternative word.

+13

James said...

That article deals only with how the things we call words can come to mean different things. Not that the things themselves change.

For example - the article says that the word 'meat' in old english meant food in general but over time came to mean just "the flesh of an animal". Would anybody claim that an apple in the 13th century physically turned in to a chicken?

The same word now means a different thing.

In the case of marriage - people are going to start using the same word to mean a different thing, but the original thing itself remains the same.

Reality doesn't change just because somebody decides to call it something different.

New Friend said...

James

The reality has changed though hasn't it? The reality is that what is now understood by the word HAS changed for most people.

What hasn't changed is YOUR understanding of the word. You no longer call an apple "meat" do you? Why not? It hasn't actually changed, but no-one would understand you if you did.

If you wish to differentiate your concept of marriage then I think you are left with no other choice than to start using new terminology.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend is just trotting out his view that there are only opinions as to what is truth in these matters. And if Parliament indorses those majority opinions then we should give them even greater respect and that is all there is to it.

I might add there seems to be a growing fatalism that the SSM bill is going to get passed and everything is going to get worse. However I believe that if we continue to pray against and fight this bill then it may still fail. The country is in a very dicky state at the moment and just about anything can happen with a possible collapse of the coalition.

The country is deluding itself about the economy as with SSM, CPs and Gender changes. Reality may hit home in more ways than one.

To-day we hear of the "injustice" of people having to sell their homes in order to pay for care home costs. Where on earth is the "injustice" in that? If somebody is going into a care home why does he still need a house (unless there are dependents)? It is just another of these delusions that the state can provide for all our needs and there is infinite wealth to pay for it all.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

No I am not. Please read what I have written, and the link I gave, without preconceptions. I am trying to point out the reality of the situation and suggest a way forward that might satisfy you. You cannot hold back the tide of change. You can either be swamped by it, or adapt to it.

Nicolas Bellord said...

New Friend: I wonder whether you are not a nominalist whilst I am a realist?

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Do you truly, in your heart of hearts, believe that it is realistic to expect that the change to the meaning of marriage is not going to happen? Not to your own understanding but to the one in general use.

As James picked up on we used to use the term "meat" for all foodstuffs, but you, like everyone else, no longer call apples "meat".

This issue is no different. The apples were always a fruit, but the name has changed. If you were someone devoted to the use of medieval language, then perhaps when speaking within your own community you might still call apples, "meat". Not outside of it though, because the meaning has changed. The realistic position is that you need to find a new name to cover what YOU mean by marriage. There is nothing nominalistic about that! Things change, even when you don't.

Nicolas Bellord said...

Whatever you call an apple its nature does not change. In the same way marriage does not change although you want to apply the word "marriage" to something that is not marriage.

I suspect that the public at large will continue to regard marriage in the traditional way as being between a man and a woman and calling a same-sex union "marriage" as at best just a bit of a joke. Of course I have no way of confirming my suspicion other than I have yet to meet anybody who thinks SSM is a good idea and further it depends upon whether this pernicious bill gets passed into legislation or not.

My understanding of nominalism is that you just have words to describe things but those things have no reality in themselves i.e. there is no true way in which they can be described. Thus you believe that this thing "marriage" exists only in the minds of human beings and is thus subject to every changing whim. I believe it has an objective real existence which does not change and that makes me a realist.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

You are quite right. An apple hasn't changed and nor has what you mean by marriage. What you seem to be missing is that the word is now being used to communicate an updated meaning. You might not like it, but the reality is that is what is happening, not just in the UK but across the developed world.

If you haven't yet met anyone who believes that SSM marriage is a good idea then you must be moving in some very restricted circles, and need to get out more. I have met many folk who think the time is right for the change and, so far as I can see, every opinion poll is now showing a majority in favour, especially amongst the young. So I think you are quite wrong and that most people don't regard this as a joke. If that truly is how you, and maybe other Catholics, see things then I think you are seriously out of touch, and in danger of being seen as a joke yourselves.

Of course, marriage has an objective real existence. Where we differ is that I believe that existence is capable of evolving, and adapting to changed circumstances. It is not a fixed, unmoving constant like gravity, which cannot evolve. It is not "whims" that cause the evolution, any more than they cause any other evolution. "Whims" are indeed man made. Evolution is a response to events. There is nothing unrealistic, or nominal, or "non Catholic" about accepting evolution. Indeed it is unrealistic to try to deny it.

Nicolas Bellord said...

In what way has marriage evolved such that two people of the same-sex claim that they can get married? Are they suddenly able to procreate by themselves?

You are confusing what people might think marriage is with what it is in fact.

The word is being used by you to express a concept of marriage that is not founded in the reality of marriage. You think you can change the nature of marriage merely by changing your definition because presumably you believe there is no such thing as marriage beyond your idea of what it is. That is nominalism.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

It really doesn't matter at all how, or why, the general understanding of the term is changing. All that matters is that it is. Are you denying that this change is underway?

You speak of the "reality" of marriage. Who are you to decide what this is? No-one has a problem with you continuing to believe that your own idea is correct, and carrying on trying to convince everyone else that you are right. However, if so many disagree that the general understanding of the word has changed then it has, and there is nothing anyone can do about it, you included. That really is reality. It has nothing at all to do with me not believing that there is no such thing as marriage beyond my idea of what it is, for I do so believe. I fully accept that you have a different understanding and respect that. However, it seems to me that it is you, and those who think like you, who refuse to entertain the idea that there can be any idea of marriage beyond YOUR idea of what it is.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: My point is that there is such a thing as marriage in the same way as there is a thing called an apple. Let us stick with the apple for the moment. It is possible to describe an apple in many ways - as a beautiful round rosy object, as a tasty food, as the fruit of ... well whatever genus it belongs to, as an object that when falling inspired Newton etc. However surely none of these descriptions should contradict one another. It is possible to study an apple for what it is. If a whole lot of people decide that it is a pear then I am afraid I am not going to follow that even if they are in a majority and pass an Act of Parliament to confirm it. The French call the potato a "pomme de terre". Well it isn't a pomme regardless of the fact that a whole nation who claim to be the most rational in the world call it that.

The same goes for marriage! It is possible to study what marriage is in much the same way as one can study what an apple is. I find the evidence adduced by experts that it is not ontologically possible to have same-sex marriage very convincing. It contrasts with those who suddenly assert the contrary but with no supporting evidence whatsoever and merely with a sentimental desire to please a minority.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

As there now is a much more pressing matter for you to consider, this will be my last post on this issue. For the moment anyway!

The problem is that your argument is circular in that it starts not with a fact, but with a premise. That an apple is an apple is a fact upon which we can all agree. That marriage is what you say it is, is not. It might be your strongly, and sincerely held, view, but it is not a fact. You are assuming it is true, whilst enough others disagree for it not to be a fact.

To reach a conclusion based on a premise is the classic way to build a circular argument, because it assumes what you are trying to prove. It is a logical fallacy.

The way we use "marriage" has changed. Speaking personally I don't like the way that "gay" has come to mean something else to that I understood it in my youth. It means that a useful word I used to mean happy and carefree cannot now be. Nor do I like the way "liberal" has been distorted by the right to mean socialistic, when it used to mean something quite different. However, in both cases I must accept the changes, or risk not being understood.

This is all I am saying. Not that you need to compromise your views, but rather that to achieve clarity with your language you might have to find other words in the future.

Nicolas Bellord said...

What I am saying is that one can study what marriage is, as one can study what an apple is. Marriage is as real as an apple.

You are confusing this with what people may mean when they use the word "marriage" which may be different for different speakers. I have no problem with the idea that the meaning of words changes over time.

If for you the word marriage is merely what people mean by the word marriage then that is nominalism.

We obviously disagree fundamentally.

As for a more pressing matter to be considered I suspect you mean the resignation of the Pope. Actually for me there is not much to consider. Benedict XVI has put forward an agenda and appointed people to promote that agenda of the hermeneutic of continuity. It now needs a more vigorous man to see the whole thing through. What is certain is that whoever is appointed as the next Pope will not be changing the doctrines of the Church on such matters as contraception, homosexual inclinations or any of the rest of the fundamental teachings of the Church. These are not the private views of a liberal or a conservative Pope as the media would like us to think but the unchanging orthodoxy of the Church.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

We do disagree fundamentally because for me it is completely obvious that marriage is not as "real as an apple". You don't have to study an apple to know what it is. Studying marriage will enable you to come to your view. However, others will also study it and come to another view.

I suspect that you may well be right about the next Pope, but nevertheless whoever it is will have their own style, and make a difference to the way the Church both behaves and is perceived. Any change might be subtle and slow, but it is still very important, especially for some people I care about. That's why so many non Catholics are interested. They care, and want to see things get better.

Mark Dobson said...

"To reach a conclusion based on a premise is the classic way to build a circular argument, because it assumes what you are trying to prove. It is a logical fallacy."

Gosh, he's embarrassingly out of his depth. The most elementary study of logic deals with how premises are essential to logical argument.

Proof, if proof were needed, that he doesn't have much idea what he's talking about.

New Friend said...

Mark

I suggest you re-read what I wrote! There is no question that premises are essential to logical argument. What I said was that "reaching a conclusion BASED on a premise....................." in other words to support the premise with the premise, rather than reaching a conclusion with supporting argument.

Mark Dobson said...

If anyone needs to re-read what NF writes, I�d say it was NF.

New Friend said...

Mark

I always re-read what I write, so let me help you.

The argument starts with the premise that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, goes around in a circle and ends with the conclusion that............. marriage is the union of a man and a woman. The conclusion depends entirely on the original premise, which is an assumption and not a fact. This is circular reasoning.

I completely understand that you regard your premise is a fact, but as this is not shared by others, it can only be considered a premise and so cannot be relied upon.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: But that was not my argument nor my premise. I merely suggest that one can study what marriage as one can study what an apple is. My conclusion from studying it is that it is exclusively between a man and a woman. That was not my premise!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I don't think a premise ever arrives out of thin air. It requires some study, albeit often very cursory. Any view, which is not a proven fact, must still remain a premise, no matter how much you study to reach it. An apple remains an apple to everyone, no matter how much it is studied. You might reveal some unknown qualities of the apple, but there can be no doubt that it is an apple. Marriage is quite different, although you are obviously having difficulty in seeing that. You have made your study, formed your view, and advanced your premise. As your conclusion appears identical to this premise, then the reasoning has to be circular.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: You have lost me completely. What premise and what conclusion? I have merely stated that marriage exists and can be studied. I suppose you could say "marriage exists" is a premise as I believe it is a real universal good whilst perhaps you take the nominalist view that it is merely a word that can be redefined and has no separate existence from what people think it is. As for the reasoning following from my premise I may have stated what I believe are conclusions one can draw as to the nature of marriage but I do not think I have gone into any detailed reasoning in these comments and I certainly do not see my premise as being identical to any conclusion I may have suggested. So where is the circular argument?

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Sorry about that. Maybe this has run it's course but from the OED:-

Premise:- "an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory"

The premise I mean is the claim that marriage exists only between a man and woman, and primarily for the purpose of procreation. This is the start point of the reasoning, but it is also the conclusion. There is the circular argument. You want to establish that marriage is something as indisputably identifiable as our much discussed apple. It isn't. It is a concept which means different things to different people, and always has. You simply cannot claim to study something and then claim, without definitive proof, that the result is anything more than a premise.

Nicolas Bellord said...

That was never my premise! I am merely saying that marriage exists and that one can study and reason as to what it is. That is the extent of my premise!

You seem to have come up with a wonderful idea. That you can study something and if you come up with a conclusion that you cannot definitively prove then your conclusion is a premise and therefore it is a circular argument. This strikes me as nonsensical.

There are many things one cannot prove but as a matter of practical reasonableness one can get to a conclusion which it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to hold to.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Mine:-

Premise:- "an assertion or proposition which forms the basis for a work or theory"

Yours:-

"There are many things one cannot prove but as a matter of practical reasonableness one can get to a conclusion which it is perfectly sensible and reasonable to hold to."

I am sorry but I see the first description being a perfectly accurate one for the second.

I don't see any reason why your "practical reasonableness" is anything other than you seeking to elevate your view to something it isn't. It is still your assertion. If your conclusion is identical, then your reasoning must be circular. To not be it has to advance to something else, or introduce supporting evidence, and I don't see any.

I regret that you regard this as "nonsensical", but I am not really surprised because it has been my experience that many believers are so totally convinced that they are right that they find it difficult to understand that their "conclusions" reached after "study" and with "practical reasonableness" are still just assertions. Example of circular reasoning:-

"The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

Mark Dobson said...

"The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible."

This may be considered an appropriate caricature of Protestant reasoning; it completely misses its target as a caricature of Catholic teaching.

Jesus, his teaching and his Church are historical and can be approached through history. Try Dei Verbum.

New Friend said...

Mark

Having had several long and interesting debates on the history of the Church with a professor of history, I have already approached this subject. Whilst much of the history of the Church is well documented, some of the early events are not as clear cut as you might believe. There are a variety of conclusions to be drawn. You have one. I probably have another.

Mark Dobson said...

This reply has little to do with what I said.

Nicolas Bellord said...

I think I must leave it others to judge the validity of your arguments!

All I can say is that my premise is that there is something called "marriage". I can then study it and come to a conclusion as a matter of practical reasonableness that it is exclusively between a man and a woman. My premise is not the same as my conclusion and therefore the argument is not circular.

That is all I was saying and that is all I intend to say. Let others judge.

Please note that I have not set out my reasoning for arriving at the conclusion from the premise!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

And we both know what the majority of "others" on here are going to think! I suspect we also both know that the result would be different if the arguments were considered by a representative sample of the general population.

It is not your premise that "there is something called marriage"! That is an obvious fact, upon which we all agree. Your premise is what you consider marriage to be. You assert it is exclusively between a man and a woman, and claim that this is "practical reasonableness". I suspect this claim has connections to "natural law" theory, and your admiration of John Finnis. If so you can understand why I reject it as inappropriate in these, and many other, circumstances, as it immediately introduces an element of bias into the thought processes. The result has to be tainted, and as a consequence a subjective appraisal of the situation.

Your conclusion is just the same. That a marriage should only be between a man and a woman and depends entirely upon your original, subjective assertion.

I doubt that you see this, or ever will. However, I would take pretty long odds that I am far from alone in rationalising the approach you have taken, along with the many others who share your views, in the way I do.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: I say that my premise is that there is something that is called marriage. You say it is not.

I do not understand how rational argument can proceed on that basis so let's leave it at that.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

You have lost me now, and maybe we will have to leave it. One more try.

OED definition of premise:-

"a previous statement or proposition from which another is inferred or follows as a conclusion"

As marriage is neither a statement, nor a proposition, it is therefore not a premise.

The premise is your analysis of what marriage is, and not marriage itself. As your conclusion is not "another" premise, but remains the same, it has to follow that your reasoning is circular.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: My premise was "there is something called marriage". That is a statement. Your arguments are getting more and more desperate.

Perhaps this is another example of relativism. If I state that X is my premise and from that I conclude Y you can object to my premise X by saying it is not true but you cannot say that it is not my premise! But perhaps relativism permits you to rewrite history by saying that my premise is not X. Sounds like pure doublethink to me.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

I suspect we are both pretty bored with this by now, never mind everyone else.

I have never been desperate about anything, and certainly not this! All I am trying to do is show you how illogical your position is.

"There is something called marriage" is not a premise. Why? Because it is, to use your own terminology, an absolute truth. To be a premise something has to be capable of being inferred from it, so as to enable an argument to be made. See the OED definition for confirmation of this. You have ignored this is in your response. A premise must have a conditional indicator, such as "because" or "since" or "for example". We all agree that there is something called marriage and nothing can be inferred from simply saying so. It is only when you qualify it by stating it is because it must only involve a man and a woman, that it becomes a premise.

I cannot object to X as your premise, if it is unarguable. It cannot therefore be a premise.

If you accuse me of doublethink then you also accuse the OED!

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: According to the SOED a premise is a previous proposition from which another follows as a conclusion. The SOED says the meaning of a proposition, in logic, is a form of words in which something is affirmed or denied of something. "There is something called marriage" is such a proposition. If I then go on to form a syllogism I would say "Because there is something called marriage and because of X then Y is entailed". If asked I would say that one of the premisses to that syllogism is "There is something called marriage". I would leave out the word "because" because it is redundant in that context.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Sorry, but "There is something called marriage" is NOT such a proposition, as there is not another following it as a conclusion. In other words there is no assertion. It stands alone. As I think you are tying yourself up in circles let's leave it there.

Nicolas Bellord said...

NF: I cannot see that saying "There is something called marriage" is other than an assertion! A syllogism according to the OED is: an instance of a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn from two given or assumed propositions (premises)

In constructing a syllogism one starts by asserting two or more premises and only afterwards do you arrive at a conclusion. Thus premises can exist without a conclusion!

Simon Platt said...

Dear Nicholas,

According to the OED, to flog a dead horse is to engage in fruitless effort.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

You are, of course, quite right, it is an assertion. However, what you are failing to understand is that is not the point. It asserts itself, whereas to become a premise it has to LEAD to something else. Even if you don't reach a conclusion a premise must assert something upon which an argument can be constructed. Stating that marriage exists takes us no-where at all, and we remain exactly where we started.

Flogging a dead horse? I think I must be!

Nicolas Bellord said...

"Socrates is a man; all men are mortal; therefore Socrates is immortal". - the original syllogism.

"There is something called marriage; anything that is, i.e. exists, can be studied; therefore we can study marriage" - Another syllogism.

New Friend said...

Nicolas

It seems we have an unbridgeable disagreement over what constitutes a premise. I continue to believe it cannot be a statement of fact, but has to be capable of sustaining an argument.

Of course marriage can be studied. I have never argued otherwise. What I am arguing is that "there is something called marriage" is not a premise, because it is a statement of fact, whereas what I have just written is. Your syllogism requires more than one premise to exist. Start with your "there is something called marriage" and no other premise can flow from it. There is nothing conditional about it. However "there is something called marriage, which can be studied" IS a premise, because you have added a condition to it.

These might seem very minor points indeed, and really boring, but they are nevertheless important in the context of making sure that the starting point in the "what is marriage" debate is properly understood. I think the real premise is "because marriage can only exist between a man and a woman, a union between a same sex couple cannot be called a marriage". That is a legitimate premise, leading to a conclusion and capable of being disagreed with and argued.

I think that's enough, don't you?

Nicolas Bellord said...

Okay an unbridgeable disagreement if you like. "Socrates is a man" is a statement of fact though!

New Friend said...

Nicolas

Ok too. I have though been reading about "syllogism". This appears to have some very precise requirements, involving a major and a minor premise, each containing all, some or no, and a conclusion. Both premises must have something in common with the conclusion. The last thing I think anyone wants is another long discussion about the precise meaning of terms, but as I don't think your examples qualify, I suggest you do the same research.