Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Birdpreacher]

war with marriage? Is the govt going to make all of us marry the same gender? DId I miss something?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Agree to disagree requires the consent of both parties. These threads are not making headway here. It’s the old beating a dead horse. So, accepting the authority is the starting point, not just respect. I go to other websites and I just don’t see the point of constant repetition with minor changes to the words. On a Catholic forum, we get that. Marriage Equality is not going to be recognized regardless of what laws are passed. Not because Catholics don’t like gay people but it is clear (and not just my opinion) that full agreement and approval is desired. Why?

Ed

Oh ok I might now understand better what you were saying. Well I truly can’t do anything about Catholics not being willing to consent to agreeing to disagree even though the fact is that people in society have different beliefs and POV. I understand though the most devout faithful Catholics on a Catholic forum are going to accept Catholic authority and you will not recognize marriage equality for all couples. I have no false hope that there will be full agreement and approval. I haven’t found all that many issues that do among a diverse population.

 

[FollowChrist34]

That’s interesting. All this time you’ve argued for the Catholic POV. And now you say in the case of unions it is not your business. Yet it appears your church believes unions are their business as it teaches with these words at least that not in any way can legal SS unions be recognized.

1. “The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions”

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

I think homosexual behavior is a sin. I think if someone is in a gay relationship, they are living in sin. I accept the Church’s view on that. I will oppose gay marriage (and civil unions) at the ballot box. I will speak up and tell a gay or straight person what I believe inside the Church or in the public square (at work, etc.) (i.e., witness the faith).

Civil unions and gay marriage are legal in my state. I never voted for either one. As a product of civil, secular culture, civil unions for gay people serve a function. I don’t think gay marriage is needed or good for society, secular or Catholic. My strongest area of concern is adoption of children into what I consider unhealthy, irregular relationships.

I am not sure how I am opposing Church teaching here? What should I do differently in practical terms?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think homosexual behavior is a sin. I think if someone is in a gay relationship, they are living in sin. I accept the Church’s view on that. I will oppose gay marriage (and civil unions) at the ballot box. I will speak up and tell a gay or straight person what I believe inside the Church or in the public square (at work, etc.) (i.e., witness the faith).

Civil unions and gay marriage are legal in my state. I never voted for either one. As a product of civil, secular culture, civil unions for gay people serve a function. I don’t think gay marriage is needed or good for society, secular or Catholic. My strongest area of concern is adoption of children into what I consider unhealthy, irregular relationships.

I am not sure how I am opposing Church teaching here? What should I do differently in practical terms?

I understand. My confusion merely came about because in the Church’s words She teaches that “respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions”. But then as someone who accepts the Church’s view, you said in a Catholic forum, “I could not care less personally if gays do civil unions. Not my business. No harm, no foul as far as I am concerned”. That just appeared to me to recognize legal civil unions. But no harm done as far as I’m concerned. Peace.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12704075:

No, while any word could

mean anything in principle, ‘marriage’ means the same thing it has since Roman times - a civil legal arrangement covering two (or more) people who are coming together to form a new family unit. And in roman history it was even used several times explicitly to refer to same sex couples.

Matrimonium comes from mater. The origin and nature were explicit in many Roman sources, marriage was a instrument for procreation.

So what? How does that invalidate in any way the assertion that the word originally referred to a civil legal arrangement, not the modern christian sacrament? Or that it was used to refer to same sex couples?

That marriage has been in part an instrument for producing children of (hopefully) known parentage, and moreso for providing as stable an environment as possible for rearing those children, is undisputed. At least by me. But lesbian couples make very good mothers, and the idea that etymology defines a word is nonsense.

If you want to persuade those outside the religious right to support or even tolerate your crusade against gay couples you need to come up with something better.

 

[DrTaffy]

If you want to come up with a new word, copyright (or whatever the appropriate intellectual property term would be) it, use that in a more restrictive sense and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, feel free…

Are you saying that you also have a grudge against the nice homosexuals?

 

[DrTaffy]

Have you ever thought about why such a “great” and “cool” thing needs so much hand-wringing and effort?

Because a certain group of people have spent a vast amount of effort and money to oppress a smaller minority than them? And I don’t like seeing nice people being bullied because of other peoples’ prejudices?

 

[estesbob]

Because a certain group of people have spent a vast amount of effort and money to oppress a smaller minority than them? And I don’t like seeing nice people being bullied because of other peoples’ prejudices?

Agreed- I feel so bad for the bakers, bed and breakfasts and other businesses that have been forced out of business by homosexuals activists and their supporters. I also feel bad for Catholics and other people of faith who are slimed on a daily basis for upholding Truth and not acceding morality to the mores of the current culture. Those who stand for morality and marriage are indeed an oppressed minority in today’s culture b-ut then being oppressed for supporting the truth has been the norm for eons.

 

[edwest2]

So what? How does that invalidate in any way the assertion that the word originally referred to a civil legal arrangement, not the modern christian sacrament? Or that it was used to refer to same sex couples?

That marriage has been in part an instrument for producing children of (hopefully) known parentage, and moreso for providing as stable an environment as possible for rearing those children, is undisputed. At least by me. But lesbian couples make very good mothers, and the idea that etymology defines a word is nonsense.

If you want to persuade those outside the religious right to support or even tolerate your crusade against gay couples you need to come up with something better.

I don’t think persuade is the issue. Those for and against redefining marriage to include gay persons has not stopped various marriage equality groups and others to stop promoting gay marriage. This is a Catholic forum so the right answer is the Catholic answer. This is not a crusade either. When the question is asked and answered, another thread pops up that takes a different angle to basically repeat the same message, over and over again. Catholics could be asked a thousand times, give the answer, and get asked the same questions another thousand times. Someone wrote that asking the same questions and getting the same answers is not going to change anything.

Catholics didn’t invent (gay) marriage equality.

Ed

 

[JimG]

“Terrence Prendergast is the Catholic archbishop of Ottawa. Speaking at St. Thomas University in Minnesota in 2012, he outlined the consequences of same-sex “marriage” in Canada. His list included: restrictions on freedoms, forced sex education, sexually confused children, sexual experimentation among children, muzzling and debilitating the Church, more births out of wedlock, more in-vitro fertilizations, more abortions, more poverty, more misery, more disease, more addictions and higher health care costs.”Source: crisismagazine.com/2015/totalitarianism-sex-marriage

 

[Thorolfr]

This is a Catholic forum so the right answer is the Catholic answer.

That’s a big disappointment to us Lutherans who were hoping that the right answer is the Lutheran answer sometimes.

 

[edwest2]

“Terrence Prendergast is the Catholic archbishop of Ottawa. Speaking at St. Thomas University in Minnesota in 2012, he outlined the consequences of same-sex “marriage” in Canada. His list included: restrictions on freedoms, forced sex education, sexually confused children, sexual experimentation among children, muzzling and debilitating the Church, more births out of wedlock, more in-vitro fertilizations, more abortions, more poverty, more misery, more disease, more addictions and higher health care costs.”Source: crisismagazine.com/2015/totalitarianism-sex-marriage

Good article. This is just another step in the Sexual Revolution which has been branded a failure. It appears that what are called “social conservatives” will become a kind of fragment of society, but indoctrination means there will be no level playing field for all concerned. That will lead to more bad fruit down the road. However, I believe that God and the Church will weather this. Truth is truth, and needs to be repeated daily.

Ed

 

[LisaA]

That’s a big disappointment to us Lutherans who were hoping that the right answer is the Lutheran answer sometimes.

Since Luther himself had some strange ideas, I don’t expect additional insight from his flock

Actually in all fairness, what IS the Lutheran answer? This is where I see the value of having THE Church with its Magisterium and not having 37000 different denominationswith 37000 differnt ideas because no one agreed on the answers to various questions. Those who claim that our Church’s central authority is oppressive apparently prefer the chaos that has resulted from splinters of splinters of splinters.

I used to be a Methodist and they changed doctrine every Conference depending on who had stacked the vote. Further Methodist in Washington and Methodist in South Carolina are not even passing acquaintances. Oh and what about the Westboro Baptist Church? Is this the same the Baptist church where Jimmy Carter attends?

So Thorolfr what IS the Lutheran answer? Are you sure? What about Lutherans from the “Misery” Synod as it’s termed or the Evangelical Synod? Do they agree?

I realize this is a whole 'nother thread but I appreciate my Catholic faith more all of the time.

All of the chaos among the various denominations

 

[religioussoup]

That would make you “somewhat of a Catholic”.

Well I do follow most of the teachings. Their ruling about gay marriage I do not.

 

[edwest2]

Since Luther himself had some strange ideas, I don’t expect additional insight from his flock

Actually in all fairness, what IS the Lutheran answer? This is where I see the value of having THE Church with its Magisterium and not having 37000 different denominationswith 37000 differnt ideas because no one agreed on the answers to various questions. Those who claim that our Church’s central authority is oppressive apparently prefer the chaos that has resulted from splinters of splinters of splinters.

I used to be a Methodist and they changed doctrine every Conference depending on who had stacked the vote. Further Methodist in Washington and Methodist in South Carolina are not even passing acquaintances. Oh and what about the Westboro Baptist Church? Is this the same the Baptist church where Jimmy Carter attends?

So Thorolfr what IS the Lutheran answer? Are you sure? What about Lutherans from the “Misery” Synod as it’s termed or the Evangelical Synod? Do they agree?

I realize this is a whole 'nother thread but I appreciate my Catholic faith more all of the time.

All of the chaos among the various denominations

A friend of mine converted from Methodist to Catholic. Her husband, who had issues with the Church, is now an usher at the Catholic Church they attend.

Ed

 

[estesbob]

Well I do follow most of the teachings. Their ruling about gay marriage I do not.

There are teaching of the Church I do not agree with. But I accept them ,adhere to them and pray to understand the error in my thinking.In short I have to work on my humility.I have to accept the fact the Church is wiser than me. And it is tough sometimes

 

[religioussoup]

There are teaching of the Church I do not agree with. But I accept them ,adhere to them and pray to understand the error in my thinking.In short I have to work on my humility.I have to accept the fact the Church is wiser than me. And it is tough sometimes

I admire you for being able to do this.

 

[estesbob]

I admire you for being able to do this.

You can do it. Leave in the hands of the Lord.

 

[FollowChrist34]

Since Luther himself had some strange ideas, I don’t expect additional insight from his flock

Actually in all fairness, what IS the Lutheran answer? This is where I see the value of having THE Church with its Magisterium and not having 37000 different denominationswith 37000 differnt ideas because no one agreed on the answers to various questions. Those who claim that our Church’s central authority is oppressive apparently prefer the chaos that has resulted from splinters of splinters of splinters.

I used to be a Methodist and they changed doctrine every Conference depending on who had stacked the vote. Further Methodist in Washington and Methodist in South Carolina are not even passing acquaintances. Oh and what about the Westboro Baptist Church? Is this the same the Baptist church where Jimmy Carter attends?

So Thorolfr what IS the Lutheran answer? Are you sure? What about Lutherans from the “Misery” Synod as it’s termed or the Evangelical Synod? Do they agree?

I realize this is a whole 'nother thread but I appreciate my Catholic faith more all of the time.

All of the chaos among the various denominations

I wondered about this too. I will tell you what I know as a Catholic who knows some Lutherans here and there (in family and elsewhere). The ELCA is totally pro gay marriage, etc. (I would be shocked to hear I am wrong); they are (to us) a lot like the Episcopalians. The Missouri Synod are very orthodox, traditional Lutherans. No women priests, no gay marriage, etc. I don’t see a lot of communication between the groups, but again, I could be wrong. My (distant) relation is Missouri Synod and observed that the ELCA was “kind of out there.” The ELCA thinks the Missouri Synod are like Puritans (or maybe Catholics…). Take my views with a grain of salt, please, I am surmising here. Plus I think there are additional groups or denominations than just these two.

But I do wonder if things are so rosy and thriving in the ELCA what would inspire all this dialogue and posting here on CAF. The ELCA is an oasis, an absolute oasis, for the gay person. Why not reform the Missouri Synod? Or just celebrate gay life in the ELCA? (My guess is if you tried to “enlighten” the Missouri Synod you would get your hide tanned.) I have read a lot of Luther myself and I feel pretty comfortable saying that the ELCA would make his head explode… The Missouri Synod he’d be fine with. But we are digressing, off topic.

 

[Thorolfr]

There are teaching of the Church I do not agree with. But I accept them ,adhere to them and pray to understand the error in my thinking.In short I have to work on my humility.I have to accept the fact the Church is wiser than me. And it is tough sometimes

That is a big difference between Catholics and Lutherans. Lutherans are willing to leave more issues to individual conscience and are willing to countenance greater disagreement among ourselves while encouraging us to nevertheless respect and care for each other despite our disagreements. For example, on the issue of lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) has stated:

This church also acknowledges that consensus does not exist concerning
how to regard same-gender committed relationships, even after many years
of thoughtful, respectful, and faithful study and conversation. We do not
have agreement on whether this church should honor these relationships and
uplift, shelter, and protect them or on precisely how it is appropriate to do so.

Although at this time this church lacks consensus on this matter, it encourages
all people to live out their faith in the local and global community of
the baptized with profound respect for the conscience-bound belief of the
neighbor. This church calls for mutual respect in relationships and for guidance
that seeks the good of each individual and of the community. Regarding
our life together as we live with disagreement, the people in this church
will continue to accompany one another in study, prayer, discernment,
pastoral care, and mutual respect.

elca.org/Faith/Faith-and-Society/Social-Statements/Human-Sexuality