Moral questions and legan fiat

[MoreCoffee]

Moral questions and legal fiat

I posted in my reply to the Australian Same Sex Marriage Postal Survey (that's the official name) on Saturday. I answered "yes" to the question "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?". My archbishop wrote a letter advocating a "No" answer but he did so in a letter stressing that he thinks Catholics can "propose but not impose" their view and the reasons behind it and I agree with him both for the reasons to say "no" and in his careful distinction between proposing and not imposing hence my decision to vote "yes" - a "no" answer would be asking the Parliament to keep marriage exclusive of same-sex couples and thus to continue the imposition of a legal definition that denies same-sex couples from participating in the benefits of marriage under the law. I think that the argument against imposing a view on others who disagree outweighs the arguments for saying "no" and allowing the continuance of the legal imposition of inequality under the law. What do you folk think?

 

[Josiah]

IMO, there's no such thing as "same gender marriage."

IMO, the secular state should not create marriage, and I would think Catholics would not be in favor of eliminating the Sacrament of Marriage and giving that sacred role to the secular, godless State.

IMO, people should have the same standing before the Law regardless of their sexual orientation, and I leave it up to the State whether it cares about adults living together or owning stuff together or adopting children or any other SECULAR thing. But I don't think the State should circumvent families and religion by inventing some new religious institution and then calling it something that it's not. If the secular, godless State wants to invent some secular, godless, "civil union" with LEGAL secular aspects like marriage, that's its business - it can do that, but it should not reinvent baptism or communion or any other religious/family institution that predates the secular state by hundreds of thousands of years. IMO, the separation of church and state applies here, government needs to get its BIG, power-hungry nose out of religion and the family.

Now, I can't and won't tell Australia or Australians what to do since I'm not Australian and thus I can't and shouldn't. So I'm not speaking to any specific political act in that OTHER soverign state. I'm ONLY speaking to the question of marriage.


My half cent.


- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Civil marriage is not sacramental marriage and Catholics do not treat it as if it were.

 

[hedrick]

I don't know the specifics of Australia, but in the US, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't make claims of changing the religious status. From the State point of view, it is providing legal support for pairs of people who want to make a permanent commitment. There are effects on taxes, the ability of one partner to make health decisions for the other, etc. There is also legal support for dealing with breakups, including looking after the interests of any children. Most marriages occur in Church, and so are both civil and religious marriage. But the State doesn't have the right to mandate changes in the religious aspect, and at least in the US has made no attempt to do so.

Before same-sex marriage, there were "civil unions," but calling it marriage for some people and civil union for others is discriminatory on the face of it. Further, the civil unions weren't really equal. Among other things, they weren't recognized Federally. But even at the State level, the legal implications normally weren't exactly the same.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't know the specifics of Australia, but in the US, legalizing same-sex marriage didn't make claims of changing the religious status. From the State point of view, it is providing legal support for pairs of people who want to make a permanent commitment. There are effects on taxes, the ability of one partner to make health decisions for the other, etc. There is also legal support for dealing with breakups, including looking after the interests of any children. Most marriages occur in Church, and so are both civil and religious marriage. But the State doesn't have the right to mandate changes in the religious aspect, and at least in the US has made no attempt to do so.

Before same-sex marriage, there were "civil unions," but calling it marriage for some people and civil union for others is discriminatory on the face of it. Further, the civil unions weren't really equal. Among other things, they weren't recognized Federally. But even at the State level, the legal implications normally weren't exactly the same.

In Australia the Marriage Act was framed in 1961 AD and didn't have a clear definition of marriage beyond stipulating that it was between two persons. Prior to the introduction of the Definition of Marriage Act in 2004 various cases in common law formed the basis of the operative definition of marriage in Australia. The English common law case Hyde v Hyde in 1866 AD was used as the definition of marriage: "that marriage, as understood in Christendom, may for this purpose be defined as the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others". The clause "for life" was overridden by various Acts of Parliament dealing with Family Law and divorce. But when the UK changed it laws to allow for same-sex civil partnerships in 2004 AD and other nations in Europe passed similar laws including laws allowing for same-sex marriage in the period leading up to 2004 AD Australia introduced the Definition of Marriage Act to prevent marriages contracted overseas between same-sex couples from being recognised in Australia as marriages.

The survey currently before Australian voters asks one question only and allows only a Yes or a No answer but not both. The intention is to find out how many people in Australia who are qualified to vote and who decide they want to participate in the survey will answer "Yes" and how many will answer "No". Once the survey results are finalised in Mid November 2017 the Parliament will vote (or not) on a law to change the definition of marriage under the law. Religious freedoms are already guaranteed under various acts in Australia and the right of ministers of religion who are (or are not) registered as Marriage Celebrants to preside or refuse to preside over particular marriages including marriages of divorced persons and same sex marriages is already protected under Australian law. The Australian Constitution is, apparently, silent on these matters. It contains no bill of rights because rights under Australian Law are defined by the common law and various treaties and conventions to which the nation is a signatory. Among other things Australia is a signatory to the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Australian Constitution is interpreted to give "implied rights" but those rights are defined only after cases are decided by the High Court of Australia (which is the highest court in the land).

The question in the survey is "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?". As far as I am able to tell a "Yes" answer means that the law could be changed to allow for same-sex marriages under Australian law and would affect the Marriage Act and the Definition of Marriage Act but would have no restrictive effect on rights and freedoms already defined or implied by Australian law and the Australian Constitution. A "No" answer means that the current law will stand or be modified to fill in any gaps that are not yet covered by Australian laws.

New Zealand, Canada, and the UK all have passed same-sex marriage laws of one kind or another in the years since 2004 AD so now the question is being up to people in Australia who are qualified to vote in Federal elections. I decided to answer "Yes" because I do not think that inequality before the law is fair and reasonable. My Archbishop wrote a very able letter advocating a "No" answer but in his letter he stressed that proposing was right and proper for Catholics and specifically for himself while imposing was neither right nor proper. I take the matter as being one in which a hierarchy of values is at play. For me fairness and equality before the law on this matter of civil laws defining civil marriage and the concomitant legal rights to be counted as next of kin, right to inherit, and other matters linked to civil marriage outranks moral considerations that may be applied to the civil laws of the land especially so since the civil laws do not prevent Christians from excluding (if they desire to exclude) same-sex couples from participating in Christian ceremonies for solumnising marriages.

One last consideration for me is this. I do not think that the state (in this case the Commonwealth of Australia) ought to define religious terms such as marriage as they apply within the church and in the various denominations of Christians as well as independent Christian groups. And since the civil law relating to marriage does not do that a "yes" or a "no" answer will not change what happens in Church marriage ceremonies. It will only affect what happens in civil law and the legal consequences of civil marriage.

 

[Imalive]

Homosexuals want to get legally married. Heterosexuals just hook up. The only thing I had against it is that they can get kids, but ppl who divorce and remarry can do that too, so thats hypocrit. What is the actual benefit? It only costs a fortune, hooking up makes you keep govt benefits.
One thing though, homosexuals may marry here for years, yet your hetero spouse from Brazil has to stay in her own country. Too expensive.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Homosexuals want to get legally married. Heterosexuals just hook up. The only thing I had against it is that they can get kids, but ppl who divorce and remarry can do that too, so thats hypocrit. What is the actual benefit? It only costs a fortune, hooking up makes you keep govt benefits.
One thing though, homosexuals may marry here for years, yet your hetero spouse from Brazil has to stay in her own country. Too expensive.

Those things will remain the same in Australia regardless of a "yes" or a "no" decision.

 

[Josiah]

Civil marriage is not sacramental marriage and Catholics do not treat it as if it were.

I believe that marriage is instituted by God (Catholics taught that to me). And our Catholic teachers taught us that it's one of the EXACTLY Seven Sacraments. Maybe all that has changed these days.

I think that two cows can live together, as can 5 donkeys and 8 rabbits and 2 big whales, but I don't consider that the Institution of Marriage that God ordained, and I don't think any of those are what homo sapiens defined as "Marriage" either for tens of thousands of years. What gives the godless, secular State of Australia or New Zealand or California the ability to take over marriage - and then make it WHATEVER it likes (say 2 rabbits, 3 mice and 4 donkeys)?

Does the Catholic Church not care about marriage and the family anymore? Has the Catholic Church recently determined to eliminate any religious or family or historic definition of marriage and is now okay with regarding Marriage as anytime 2 or more animals wanna shack up for 1 or more hours? Does the Catholic Church just not care anymore what Marriage is and is not? How then can it have a Sacrament of Marriage if the RCC has eliminated any definition or understanding of marriage - insisting it's up to the godless, secular State of Australia (or New Zealand or California) to determine such things for the moment in their own jurisdiction?

Even a now a Protestant, ONE of the things I highly admired about the RC Denomination is how it use to stand up for marriage and the family, how it was bold in moral stances, how it was willing to stand up to popular (but wrong) secular opinion. Too bad if that's been lost in one of the most important institutions of all, the very foundation of human society, the family.


Hum....


- Josiah

 

[Imalive]

I believe that marriage is instituted by God (Catholics taught that to me). And our Catholic teachers taught us that it's one of the EXACTLY Seven Sacraments. Maybe all that has changed these days.

I think that two cows can live together, as can 5 donkeys and 8 rabbits and 2 big whales, but I don't consider that the Institution of Marriage that God ordained, and I don't think any of those are what homo sapiens defined as "Marriage" either for tens of thousands of years. What gives the godless, secular State of Australia or New Zealand or California the ability to take over marriage - and then make it WHATEVER it likes (say 2 rabbits, 3 mice and 4 donkeys)?

Does the Catholic Church not care about marriage and the family anymore? Has the Catholic Church recently determined to eliminate any religious or family or historic definition of marriage and is now okay with regarding Marriage as anytime 2 or more animals wanna shack up for 1 or more hours? Does the Catholic Church just not care anymore what Marriage is and is not? How then can it have a Sacrament of Marriage if the RCC has eliminated any definition or understanding of marriage - insisting it's up to the godless, secular State of Australia (or New Zealand or California) to determine such things for the moment in their own jurisdiction?


Hum....


- Josiah

Catholics aren't the only ones not protesting. You can't force God's law on secular ppl. State and religion must be divided. Else if you get a majority of sharia muslims they can force all women to wear a burka. I don't really care if homosexuals get married or shack up. They're actually more open to the gospel if you don't force your belief on them. And why may they not marry but hetero's can hook up all they like, have one night stands, divorce and remarry and sometimes commit adultery w that, it's all no problem, but homosexuals may not do what they like.
If you don't want to divide state and religion get the O.T. laws back. Throw ppl in jail if they aren't a virgin before marriage or if they commit adultery.

 

[tango]

I'd really like to have separate terms for "marriage" as a spiritual institution and "marriage" as a secular arrangement.

Things I have never really understood, looking at the issue from both sides. Firstly, if a "civil union" (or whatever it's called locally) is functionally and legally identical to a marriage why is it to important to supporters that the relationship be called a "marriage"? On the other hand, why is it so important to opponents that the relationship is not called a "marriage"?

In many ways my concern isn't so much what a gay couple is allowed to call their relationship but the potential for the more militant members of the gay community to use marriage as a tool to bully churches. High profile cases like whether or not a bakery is legally required to make a cake for a gay couple getting married generate a lot of heat (and usually depressingly little light) and I think it would be a major problem if churches found themselves forced to conduct marriages for couples who did not meet the church's eligibility criteria. I know in the past at least some churches refused to marry someone who had been previously married and divorced, but these days it seems that as soon as anything other than fawning acceptance and approval of gay couples is encountered the screaming about homophobia starts.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe that marriage is instituted by God (Catholics taught that to me). And our Catholic teachers taught us that it's one of the EXACTLY Seven Sacraments. Maybe all that has changed these days.

I think that two cows can live together, as can 5 donkeys and 8 rabbits and 2 big whales, but I don't consider that the Institution of Marriage that God ordained, and I don't think any of those are what homo sapiens defined as "Marriage" either for tens of thousands of years. What gives the godless, secular State of Australia or New Zealand or California the ability to take over marriage - and then make it WHATEVER it likes (say 2 rabbits, 3 mice and 4 donkeys)?

Does the Catholic Church not care about marriage and the family anymore? Has the Catholic Church recently determined to eliminate any religious or family or historic definition of marriage and is now okay with regarding Marriage as anytime 2 or more animals wanna shack up for 1 or more hours? Does the Catholic Church just not care anymore what Marriage is and is not? How then can it have a Sacrament of Marriage if the RCC has eliminated any definition or understanding of marriage - insisting it's up to the godless, secular State of Australia (or New Zealand or California) to determine such things for the moment in their own jurisdiction?

Even a now a Protestant, ONE of the things I highly admired about the RC Denomination is how it use to stand up for marriage and the family, how it was bold in moral stances, how it was willing to stand up to popular (but wrong) secular opinion. Too bad if that's been lost in one of the most important institutions of all, the very foundation of human society, the family.


Hum....


- Josiah

I can't help but think that either you want the state to define marriage or you want your denomination to define it for everybody. Either way it is contrary to Catholic teaching for the state to define doctrine for the church or for the church to define law for the state. It's nice when state and church agree on something but only if the state agrees to do only what the church would when somebody disagrees. Nowadays no serious Catholic teacher, pastor, or theologian is going to advocate imprisonment or execution for breaking with church teaching, at most a person might expect excommunication and that is something nobody in the church wants the state to control so the idea that civil marriage should define sacramental marriage or the other way around is fundamentally against the gospel's teaching that morals and faith are matters of conscience and that the state is responsible only for the proper order of society and not for doctrine or personal matters like what you do in bed and who can or cannot marry. Not very long ago in some states of the USA black and white people were forbidden to marry yet now they are not forbidden and the church was neither disrupted by the change nor did society collapse after it happened (or before it happened). In the case of same-sex civil marriage it seems better to allow rather than to impose a prohibition when so many people want to marry and so many are willing to accept it. It is a civil matter not a church doctrinal matter and since nobody is proposing that the state ought to dictate who will be allowed to receive the sacrament of marriage I do not really see a good reason for the state to enact laws to define what a marriage is beyond the fairly minimal definition what the 1961 AD Marriage Act in Australia says "a union between two persons". If somebody at some time petitions for polygamy and polyandry then we'll see how that plays out for civil authorities but the Catholic Church will still teach that marriage is between one man and one woman for as long as they both shall live.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I'd really like to have separate terms for "marriage" as a spiritual institution and "marriage" as a secular arrangement.

... I know in the past at least some churches refused to marry someone who had been previously married and divorced ...

Catholics do have separate terms. One is civil marriage and the other is sacramental marriage.

The Catholic Church still refuses to marry a divorced person if their previous marriage was valid and their partner from that marriage is still alive.

 

[Pedrito]

MoreCoffee, Post #3:

Civil marriage is not sacramental marriage and Catholics do not treat it as if it were.

Post #12:

The Catholic Church still refuses to marry a divorced person if their previous marriage was valid and their partner from that marriage is still alive.

Are the marriages of people who have entered into only civil marriages, recognised by God as valid marriages?

If so, then the Catholic Church should recognised them as such as well.

If not, then the Catholic Church should ban people who are thus non-sacramentally married (and therefore not validly married in God’s eyes, and therefore living in sin) from all its sacraments.

Post #5 (emphasis added):

...For me fairness and equality before the law on this matter of civil laws defining civil marriage and the concomitant legal rights to be counted as next of kin, right to inherit, and other matters linked to civil marriage outranks moral considerations that may be applied to the civil laws of the land especially so since the civil laws do not prevent Christians from excluding (if they desire to exclude) same-sex couples from participating in Christian ceremonies for solumnising marriages.

One last consideration for me is this. I do not think that the state (in this case the Commonwealth of Australia) ought to define religious terms such as marriage as they apply within the church and in the various denominations of Christians as well as independent Christian groups. And since the civil law relating to marriage does not do that a "yes" or a "no" answer will not change what happens in Church marriage ceremonies. It will only affect what happens in civil law and the legal consequences of civil marriage.

Actually, if same-sex marriages are legalised, church priests and ministers will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and caterers will be forced to provide specialised wedding cakes and the like. Once that change of law is in place (if that happens), all a “same-sex” couple will have to do is claim “discrimination,” and the particular priest or minister or service provider will be liable to legal prosecution.

It will be interesting to see what the stance of the Catholic Church will be (or maybe already is) in the light of:
1 Corinthians 6:9,10: “9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.” (MKJV)
and
Galatians 5:19-21: “19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (MKJV)

Shouldn't the Catholic Church deny access to all church sacraments to people defined in those statements?

Pedrito guesses it all depends on whether at this point in its history, the Catholic Church chooses to regard those apostolic statements as directly inspired declarations from God, or simply "pastoral advice" originating from a human.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Are the marriages of people who have entered into only civil marriages, recognised by God as valid marriages?

If so, then the Catholic Church should recognised them as such as well.

If not, then the Catholic Church should ban people who are thus non-sacramentally married (and therefore not validly married in God’s eyes, and therefore living in sin) from all its sacraments.

...

Marriages are something that people do. God gave commandments to Israel about how to handle a marriage and how to terminate one. Jesus gave Christians a different perspective on marriages indicating that they cannot be terminated except by the death of one (or both) of the married people. Sacramental marriage is a reflection of the union between Christ and the Church. Civil marriages are increasingly like civil contracts that are made and broken like other civil contracts. Civil marriages are not sacramental marriages. A couple married under civil law who have not also sanctified their marriage as a sacrament probably ought to do so. I cannot say more at this time because I have not studied the matter.

 

[Imalive]

MoreCoffee, Post #3:


Post #12:


Are the marriages of people who have entered into only civil marriages, recognised by God as valid marriages?

If so, then the Catholic Church should recognised them as such as well.

If not, then the Catholic Church should ban people who are thus non-sacramentally married (and therefore not validly married in God’s eyes, and therefore living in sin) from all its sacraments.

Post #5 (emphasis added):


Actually, if same-sex marriages are legalised, church priests and ministers will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and caterers will be forced to provide specialised wedding cakes and the like. Once that change of law is in place (if that happens), all a “same-sex” couple will have to do is claim “discrimination,” and the particular priest or minister or service provider will be liable to legal prosecution.

It will be interesting to see what the stance of the Catholic Church will be (or maybe already is) in the light of:
1 Corinthians 6:9,10: “9 Do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor abusers, nor homosexuals,
10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit [the] kingdom of God.” (MKJV)
and
Galatians 5:19-21: “19 Now the works of the flesh are clearly revealed, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lustfulness,
20 idolatry, sorcery, hatreds, fightings, jealousies, angers, rivalries, divisions, heresies,
21 envyings, murders, drunkennesses, revelings, and things like these; of which I tell you before, as I also said before, that they who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.” (MKJV)

Shouldn't the Catholic Church deny access to all church sacraments to people defined in those statements?

Pedrito guesses it all depends on whether at this point in its history, the Catholic Church chooses to regard those apostolic statements as directly inspired declarations from God, or simply "pastoral advice" originating from a human.

No why would they be forced? State has nothing to do w that. If a church kicks ppl out who live together w out being married they can just do so.
Homosexual marriages have been legal here for quite a while. We have 2 ceremonies. First for the state, that counts and then a church may bless them and do the thing over, doesnt count for the State though. My sister wanted to get married in a church cuz that was so romantic and cosy. But both she and her husband were not christian, so all these church leaders they asked said: nope and then their friends made a fun song about the reverend not wanting to give em his blessings and they did it instead. Church can do what they want. Only ones getting in trouble w their conscience are the christian ppl who work for the govt to perform the legal marriage. They are now forced to marry gays and they protest, otherwise they loose their job. I find it quite hypocrit though cuz they didnt have a problem marrying me and my second husband and that was just adultery.

 

[Albion]

The Catholic Church still refuses to marry a divorced person if their previous marriage was valid and their partner from that marriage is still alive.

I suppose we could say that, but all that's necessary is for the party that wants to remarry is to pay the church $800 or so, claim that they didn't really know what they were getting into when they married (the other person in the first marriage is not consulted about any of this), and then that marriage is declared "annulled."

That's how the RCC allows divorced persons to remarry--it pretends that they were not married in the first place, even if that marriage were considered valid by the same church for decades. Tens of thousands of these quickie remarriages are arranged by the church in this country annually.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Nonsense. Just plain prejudicial ignorant nonsense.

 

[Albion]

You brought up the topic, not I, and I assure you that I'd much prefer it if the church had kept to its previous policies (the ones you imagine to be still operable).

But with so many church members getting divorced and them being told they are not to receive the sacraments as a result, "the church that never changes" did what it always does when members begin to doubt or drift away...and that's to change the church's teachings without admitting that there has been a change. :wink:

 

[Pedrito]

Imalive, in Post #15 on Page 2, in reply to Pedrito’s “Actually, if same-sex marriages are legalised, church priests and ministers will be forced to perform same-sex marriages, and caterers will be forced to provide specialised wedding cakes and the like. Once that change of law is in place (if that happens), all a “same-sex” couple will have to do is claim “discrimination,” and the particular priest or minister or service provider will be liable to legal prosecution.”:

No why would they be forced? State has nothing to do w that….

The authorities in Australia have a preoccupation with “discrimination and “offending others” ( for “others” read non-white races and non-Christian religions). And while the existing Australian government plans a way out for priests and ministers in mooted legislation, other service providers will not be protected.

In the USA businesses have been fined (and Pedrito believes even forced to close) for refusing to supply wedding cakes for same-sex couples. And from memory, individuals (celebrants?) have been similarly prosecuted.

Australia is never far behind the USA. The same-sex lobby is well organised, and well represented in high places.

Pedrito can predict, based on precedent, that merely reporting or claiming discrimination or offence will be enough to invoke legal censure.

For instance, not too long ago a Christian web site loaded a page containing quotes from the holy book of a religion that has been making headlines for many years now. Quotes. Quotes alone. No commentary. A member of that religion claimed that the page was offensive. The site owner was prosecuted and ordered by the magistrate (judge) to remove the web page on pain of death (almost).

The judge had not even bothered to view the web page to see what it contained. The claim was enough.

One could also make reference to legalised discrimination against heterosexuals, already in place. For instance:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arc...s/news-story/bff4efaa8a454379f5a7b5c17c81d030

http://www.mamamia.com.au/the-peel-sexist-door-policy/

And one from the UK.

https://www.theguardian.com/society...not-be-allowed-civil-partnerships-court-rules

There are power blocks in the USA as well.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2017/02/2...s-bullied-for-being-straight-in-98-gay-sport/

But if a same-sex person in a “normal” team was given a hard time, Pedrito believes there would be (to use a colloquialism) hell to pay.

Undoubtedly, "forced" will become a way of life for many.

 

[Pedrito]

From Post #12 on Page 2:

The Catholic Church still refuses to marry a divorced person if their previous marriage was valid and their partner from that marriage is still alive.

Readers may find that a squiz at the following web pages may show the above statement to be a little hollow.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ulments-celebrities-catholic-church/71874694/ (If any survey request pops up, it can be skipped.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...ae8-a1d7-76fd0f00675c/?utm_term=.83b4fd0e5e90

Readers could also look at these.

http://www.therecord.com.au/blog/pe...ments-the-loose-canon-the-church-cant-ignore/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/pope-francis-divorce-annulment-changes

Having looked at the material covered in those web pages (a reasonably representative sample), what do Readers think “valid” actually means in the quote above?

(Readers could also consider the necessary interpretation of the converse, “invalid”.)