A Catholic Perspective on Gay Marriage

[hutch976]

Let me start by disclaiming that the points I am about to make are subject to revision, as they depend on church teachings. Also, I am speaking about gay marriage rights in the USA, and some of my argument depends on that context as well. I pray that I learn from this discussion, and we all grow in Christ.

So in America, there is religious freedom. If I am allowed to be catholic, I believe someone else can follow whatever religion they want as long as they aren’t harming innocents.

That being said, I disagree with the marriage policy in general in the USA.

When we get married as Catholics, it is between the man and woman, God, and it is relevant to the faith community of other Catholics. It is a holy sacrament. Why then, does the government immediately recognize our marriage, but not ones that are homosexual?

The government recognizes Muslim marriages, atheist marriages, Buddhist marriages, Hindu marriages, etc…and we seem to have no problem with that. Yet, we all receive the same benefits of being married in the legal and political sense.

If our holy church does not recognize those weddings as being valid (as they did not follow our holy sacrament), how would a gay marriage be any more invalid? To me, this is a violation of separation of church and state. We should all of us, after being married in the Church, go to the courthouse and say in a separate function that this person next to me is my spouse, give us the documentation to fill out, and grant us the same legal benefits that all other married couples get in this country.

To elicit my point maybe more clearly…Hassidic (or do I mean Orthodox?) Jews can get a legal divorce (i.e. for alimony, child custody, etc.) in the eyes of the government, but in the eyes of God and their faith community, they can still be married.

This is my point. What do you all think and why?

 

[ThereWasADream]

Here is my perspective, and keep in mind it’s incomplete and unofficial.

There is a difference between “invalid” and “impossible.”

While I think we wouldn’t recognize the marriages you listed, if they were between a man and a woman, they are still possible and potentially fruitful, ergo, they contribute to society as a whole. There is still some intrinsic good involved, both by the natural law and what we have historically seen as “good for everyone” in society.

Homosexual “marriages,” however, cannot actually be marriages. Two people of the same sex really can’t become one flesh. I hope I won’t have to illustrate that. They can’t procreate either. Even a couple who finds they are infertile can adopt and provide a child with both a mother and a father for life - which a homosexual couple cannot.

I’m sure there’s much more to say…

 

[Joe_5859]

The Church does recognize as valid the marriages of non-Catholics (provided there are no impediments). If both parties are baptized non-Catholics, the marriage is even sacramental. Only Catholics are bound by Canon Law.

I recommend reading through the statement by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this matter, especially section III:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

It very succinctly explains why Catholics are to oppose any type of legal recognition of gay “marriage” or even civil unions. And they utilize arguments from reason, not just “because the Church says so.”

 

[SwizzleStick]

The Church does recognize as valid the marriages of non-Catholics (provided there are no impediments). If both parties are baptized non-Catholics, the marriage is even sacramental. Only Catholics are bound by Canon Law.

I recommend reading through the statement by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith on this matter, especially section III:

Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons

It very succinctly explains why Catholics are to oppose any type of legal recognition of gay “marriage” or even civil unions. And they utilize arguments from reason, not just “because the Church says so.”

OP, there are many other older threads on CAF that have discussed gay marriage because it is a popular topic. Below are links to just a few. If you do a search, you will find many more. Most of the threads are fairly lengthy, so there is much that has already been discussed and much to read. I think you will find answers to your questions and much, much more. Happy reading!

how does gay marriage harm society?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=566326

Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? - Presentation
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=514730

Church’s Double Standard with Gay Marriage and Divorce and Remarriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&noquote=1&p=8589800

Gay Marriage Phobia
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=358734

Should all Catholics oppose legalizing gay marriage?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=583415

Non-religious Argument Against Gay Marriage?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=485400

Gay marriage why is it wrong
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=575464

Gay Marriage
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=537477

Gay Marriage: Political Necessity?
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=532101

Gay Marriage in America
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599570

 

[sw85]

Let me start by disclaiming that the points I am about to make are subject to revision, as they depend on church teachings. Also, I am speaking about gay marriage rights in the USA, and some of my argument depends on that context as well. I pray that I learn from this discussion, and we all grow in Christ.

So in America, there is religious freedom. If I am allowed to be catholic, I believe someone else can follow whatever religion they want as long as they aren’t harming innocents.

That being said, I disagree with the marriage policy in general in the USA.

When we get married as Catholics, it is between the man and woman, God, and it is relevant to the faith community of other Catholics. It is a holy sacrament. Why then, does the government immediately recognize our marriage, but not ones that are homosexual?

The government recognizes Muslim marriages, atheist marriages, Buddhist marriages, Hindu marriages, etc…and we seem to have no problem with that. Yet, we all receive the same benefits of being married in the legal and political sense.

If our holy church does not recognize those weddings as being valid (as they did not follow our holy sacrament), how would a gay marriage be any more invalid? To me, this is a violation of separation of church and state. We should all of us, after being married in the Church, go to the courthouse and say in a separate function that this person next to me is my spouse, give us the documentation to fill out, and grant us the same legal benefits that all other married couples get in this country.

To elicit my point maybe more clearly…Hassidic (or do I mean Orthodox?) Jews can get a legal divorce (i.e. for alimony, child custody, etc.) in the eyes of the government, but in the eyes of God and their faith community, they can still be married.

This is my point. What do you all think and why?

I’m afraid I don’t understand what your point is.

Are you saying that the Church’s teachings are constrained by political considerations? In other words, that there are limits to its magisterium? I can’t be sure but that sounds vaguely heretical.

If our society requires us to suspend or ignore our convictions as Catholics – to repudiate them in practice and perhaps even in thought – then our society is evil and we are not beholden to it.

Now bear in mind that I am coming from a perspective according to which “religious freedom” is a non sequitur. There is no right to practice error, because right is the flipside of duty (you have a right to do that which you must do) and we have a duty to seek out, respect, and speak the truth. So concordantly, to speak of “religious freedom” is either to speak nonsense or to say that the Catholic Church does not speak the truth, or at least is no more likely than any other religion to be speaking the truth (which is as good as saying the Church is lying, given what it says re: its own magisterium).

The Church is always and in every society ontologically superordinate to the state: properly speaking, the state merely enforces the moral consensus established by the Church. So to say that the Church ought to subordinate its teachings to the will of the state is as good as saying Catholicism is false and evil. And this is, itself, a false and evil thing to say. I hope you’ll give some thought to repudiating it.

 

[Corki]

I don’t buy into the rhetoric that the opposition to same-sex marriage is a religious issue. It’s a moral one as are most government regulations and laws. So what?

However, there is a flaw in your logic. Well, several flaws but this one stands out.

The government recognizes Muslim marriages, atheist marriages, Buddhist marriages, Hindu marriages, etc…and we seem to have no problem with that. Yet, we all receive the same benefits of being married in the legal and political sense.

If you are speaking of the US government, it recognizes only SOME Muslim marriages. Although Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife - religiously and legally in some countries - the US only recognizes one of those marriages. The Church recognizes the same regardless of the faith of those who are married.

 

[hutch976]

I don’t buy into the rhetoric that the opposition to same-sex marriage is a religious issue. It’s a moral one as are most government regulations and laws. So what?

However, there is a flaw in your logic. Well, several flaws but this one stands out.

If you are speaking of the US government, it recognizes only SOME Muslim marriages. Although Muslim men are allowed to have more than one wife - religiously and legally in some countries - the US only recognizes one of those marriages. The Church recognizes the same regardless of the faith of those who are married.

OK, so yes we also don’t recognize incestuous marriages, but in the Middle East it is super common. If we want this thread to be about the intricacies of different countries marriage laws that is fine. My point is that Catholics seem to be fine with, for example, non-baptized atheists (or insert ANY other religion) (man and woman) being legally married, but not OK with two gay people.

To me, an unrecognized marriage is just as invalid as the next. And if I am allowed to be Catholic, they are allowed to be (insert religion). And if I am allowed to receive legal benefits for choosing someone to be my spouse, why can’t a member of (insert morality of your choice). I think it should apply to non-religious marriages, and therefore, gay marriages.

Our marriages are sacred to us, and what other people do who are not Catholic is frankly none of our business, and vice versa.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

OK, so yes we also don’t recognize incestuous marriages, but in the Middle East it is super common. If we want this thread to be about the intricacies of different countries marriage laws that is fine. My point is that Catholics seem to be fine with, for example, non-baptized atheists (or insert ANY other religion) (man and woman) being legally married, but not OK with two gay people.

To me, an unrecognized marriage is just as invalid as the next. And if I am allowed to be Catholic, they are allowed to be (insert religion). And if I am allowed to receive legal benefits for choosing someone to be my spouse, why can’t a member of (insert morality of your choice). I think it should apply to non-religious marriages, and therefore, gay marriages.

Our marriages are sacred to us, and what other people do who are not Catholic is frankly none of our business, and vice versa.

And Appalachia

 

[sw85]

Our marriages are sacred to us, and what other people do who are not Catholic is frankly none of our business, and vice versa.

So, so wrong.

You have a duty in charity to be concerned about the immortal souls of others. “To each his own” is an expression of atheism and relativism. Constructing a society that minimizes the opportunity for people to indulge their sins is the least we owe them in the spirit of Christian love.

Please repent of this error.

 

[hutch976]

So, so wrong.

You have a duty in charity to be concerned about the immortal souls of others. “To each his own” is an expression of atheism and relativism. Constructing a society that minimizes the opportunity for people to indulge their sins is the least we owe them in the spirit of Christian love.

Please repent of this error.

OK fine, but my question is, why are we not protesting an atheist marriage, too? This is the main point of the thread.

Every religion, or non-religion, in this country can have their own ceremony and have it be meaningful and sacred, but then we should ALL have to go down to the courthouse and say this ONE person is my spouse, give them and myself all the legal benefits that come with that.

The gays are going to live their lives how they live their lives if our government makes it legal or not, JUST LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST (ancient Rome for example, and places around the world today)

And I will repent of my own errors before going around telling others, who I don’t personally know, what they can and can’t do, especially if they aren’t Catholic.

 

[hutch976]

Here is my perspective, and keep in mind it’s incomplete and unofficial.

There is a difference between “invalid” and “impossible.”

While I think we wouldn’t recognize the marriages you listed, if they were between a man and a woman, they are still possible and potentially fruitful, ergo, they contribute to society as a whole. There is still some intrinsic good involved, both by the natural law and what we have historically seen as “good for everyone” in society.

Homosexual “marriages,” however, cannot actually be marriages. Two people of the same sex really can’t become one flesh. I hope I won’t have to illustrate that. They can’t procreate either. Even a couple who finds they are infertile can adopt and provide a child with both a mother and a father for life - which a homosexual couple cannot.

I’m sure there’s much more to say…

OK thank you. I understand this point. Thank you for addressing my point, and providing a valid Catholic response.

I think I am looking at this issue as though I were a lawmaker in the US. Which I am not, and of course, is kind of stupid to think of anyways.

In the end, I always defer my opinions to the teachings of the Church. I just feel that sometimes we focus too much on certain issues (in the political activist sense), and it gives people the wrong idea about us, and we give ourselves the wrong idea about ourselves sometimes.

 

[Corki]

OK fine, but my question is, why are we not protesting an atheist marriage, too? This is the main point of the thread.

Every religion, or non-religion, in this country can have their own ceremony and have it be meaningful and sacred, but then we should ALL have to go down to the courthouse and say this ONE person is my spouse, give them and myself all the legal benefits that come with that.

The gays are going to live their lives how they live their lives if our government makes it legal or not, JUST LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST (ancient Rome for example, and places around the world today)

And I will repent of my own errors before going around telling others, who I don’t personally know, what they can and can’t do, especially if they aren’t Catholic.

Why would we protest an atheist marriage? It is a perfectly valid marriage as far as Catholics and the Church are concerned. It would be illogical to want to deny civil recognition of a marriage that the Church accepts as valid.

 

[Cider]

There is natural marriage and sacramental marriage. The marriage of a man and woman who are unbaptized is recognized by the Church as a natural marriage and becomes a sacramental marriage if they are later baptized. There is no possibility of marriage between two people of the same gender. Marriage is instituted by God as the joining of one man and one woman, you can read more on this in the CCC starting at 1601.

 

[Cider]

The government recognizes Muslim marriages, atheist marriages, Buddhist marriages, Hindu marriages, etc…and we seem to have no problem with that. Yet, we all receive the same benefits of being married in the legal and political sense.

If our holy church does not recognize those weddings as being valid (as they did not follow our holy sacrament), how would a gay marriage be any more invalid?

The Church does recognize atheist, Buddhist ect marriages as valid natural marriages. They just aren’t sacramental marriages because sacramental marriage is only between two baptized persons. What would be invalid is if a Catholic married someone in another church without a dispensation.

 

[John21652]

To me, an unrecognized marriage is just as invalid as the next. And if I am allowed to be Catholic, they are allowed to be (insert religion). And if I am allowed to receive legal benefits for choosing someone to be my spouse, why can’t a member of (insert morality of your choice). I think it should apply to non-religious marriages, and therefore, gay marriages.

Our marriages are sacred to us, and what other people do who are not Catholic is frankly none of our business, and vice versa.

After reading your post, I conclude that you’d be the one to support my campaign to marry my dog.

I’m a member of the “Marry my dog league” and I want some social benefits. I also want an end to the discrimination that prevents me from marrying my dog. And I hope you will come to my support when others try to say I shouldn’t have my marriage blessed by God (my dog is, after all, one of God’s creatures) and to support me when Hotel and Motel owners attempt to turn us away when we are honeymooning. I also anticipate that many will attempt to restrict people like me to marrying just one dog, when I know I could love and cherish many dogs.

I’m sure you have read all those tired old moral arguments about how me and my dog wont be ‘open to life’ and all that stuff, but gee whiz, we really do care for one another. I reckon it would be a great way to get promiscuous dogs off the streets and into good loving homes. Dogs will feel so much better about themselves, being loved and respected and all.

I also have a cousin who is soooooo in love with his horse…

What say you?

 

[sw85]

OK fine, but my question is, why are we not protesting an atheist marriage, too? This is the main point of the thread.

Every religion, or non-religion, in this country can have their own ceremony and have it be meaningful and sacred, but then we should ALL have to go down to the courthouse and say this ONE person is my spouse, give them and myself all the legal benefits that come with that.

The gays are going to live their lives how they live their lives if our government makes it legal or not, JUST LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST (ancient Rome for example, and places around the world today)

And I will repent of my own errors before going around telling others, who I don’t personally know, what they can and can’t do, especially if they aren’t Catholic.

As has been said, marriage between atheists is not invalid – nor is it intrinsically disordered.

Gay marriage by contrast IS intrinsically disorder (is actually nonsensical, a total ontological non-sequitur) and therefore always invalid.

 

[Dakota_Roberts]

Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, whether they are atheist or Catholic is utterly irrelevant. A marriage with one and/or both spouses infertile is still a marriage as long as they can complete the conjugal ajust as an apple with a worm in it is still an apple in principle. In a homosexual relationship the conjugal act is impossible

 

[hutch976]

There is natural marriage and sacramental marriage. The marriage of a man and woman who are unbaptized is recognized by the Church as a natural marriage and becomes a sacramental marriage if they are later baptized. There is no possibility of marriage between two people of the same gender. Marriage is instituted by God as the joining of one man and one woman, you can read more on this in the CCC starting at 1601.

Cider, and the other poster whom I already quoted, thank you for clarifying the Church’s position to me!

Now let me articulate this point, and if you could tell me if I am correct I would be most appreciative.

My point (as articulated sporadically and perhaps inconsistently throughout this thread) is incorrect, because God’s Holy Church recognizes marriages as “valid” when they are between a man and a woman who are both capable and willing to start a family and produce children, therefore benefiting society and the human race (so and so forth).

A marriage between two people of the same family is “invalid” (or should I say impossible?), because they are not naturally capable of doing the aforementioned beneficial actions. It in fact, goes against the natural order, is a corruption of nature, and therefore, we are opposed to it being an institution.

Other marriages in other religions are fine, so long as they are between a man and a woman, and capable of being beneficial to society as mentioned above. Our (as Catholics) recognizing their marriage as valid, has nothing to do with it being sacramental, as I was defining it.

This is how I am not only understanding yinz’s (Pittsburghese for your (plural)) arguments, but accepting them as a correction of my previous thoughts.

Am I correct in my understanding?

 

[sw85]

Cider, and the other poster whom I already quoted, thank you for clarifying the Church’s position to me!

Now let me articulate this point, and if you could tell me if I am correct I would be most appreciative.

My point (as articulated sporadically and perhaps inconsistently throughout this thread) is incorrect, because God’s Holy Church recognizes marriages as “valid” when they are between a man and a woman who are both capable and willing to start a family and produce children, therefore benefiting society and the human race (so and so forth).

A marriage between two people of the same family is “invalid” (or should I say impossible?), because they are not naturally capable of doing the aforementioned beneficial actions. It in fact, goes against the natural order, is a corruption of nature, and therefore, we are opposed to it being an institution.

Other marriages in other religions are fine, so long as they are between a man and a woman, and capable of being beneficial to society as mentioned above. Our (as Catholics) recognizing their marriage as valid, has nothing to do with it being sacramental, as I was defining it.

This is how I am not only understanding yinz’s (Pittsburghese for your (plural)) arguments, but accepting them as a correction of my previous thoughts.

Am I correct in my understanding?

I believe that’s all correct, yes. Unless an impediment is revealed (e.g., the wife reveals that she has concealed a condition from her husband that has resulted in her being infertile), the presumption is of validity.

 

[hutch976]

Well praise God then.

To me, it always seemed to obviously irrelevant, this whole gay marriage issue. Now that I have brought my argument out into the open, it has been put down through appropriate and relevant argumentation.

Thank you all for your patience in answering my questions, and fortitude in addressing my claim.

The church is with one less wrong stance today.