Bishop Barron's statement on same sex marriages

[BGorski]

I recently received a note regarding Bishop Barron’s comment in an interview towit:

"The recent (January 30) statements by the Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Robert Barron, that he will not fight for the abolition of the same-sex “marriage” ruling has scandalized even his admirers. He contends that revoking that decision “would probably cause much more problems and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.” He doubles down: “I wouldn’t want to get on a crusader’s tank and try to reverse that.”

Does anyone have any idea if -

1. the statement as published is an accurate recording of what he said, or is it ‘clipped’ to convey what the reporter wanted to say.
2. What is the official teaching of the Church on same-sex weddings? Has it tacitly decided as seems it seems here to ‘not make a big deal about same sex marriages’ preferring instead to pick other more moral battles

 

[MJDorry]

Barron knows that there is no holy matrimony between two individuals of the same sex, and he knows it’s mortally sinful to have intercourse as such. I suspect that all he means by this is that it’s going to hinder the Church’s ability to expand its voice if it gets caught up in trying to alter the legality of state-recognized “marriage”.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

You can read what the bishop himself had to say here: wordonfire.org/resources/article/dave-rubin-the-pelvic-issues-and-larry-david/5384/

He also links to the videos so you can see for yourself what he said.

 

[Faithdancer]

Barron knows that there is no holy matrimony between two individuals of the same sex, and he knows it’s mortally sinful to have intercourse as such.

Very true. No matter how many secular governments try to legitimize it, it’ll still be a chimera and a parody.

 

[Milestone]

Bishop Barron explains himself much better in the interview. He did say those things, but I suggest you watch the video for the full context. Whoever sent you that note is just trying to defame Bishop Barron by only giving you bits and pieces of what he said.

 

[1neophyte]

I recently received a note regarding Bishop Barron’s comment in an interview towit:

"The recent (January 30) statements by the Auxiliary Bishop of Los Angeles, Robert Barron, that he will not fight for the abolition of the same-sex “marriage” ruling has scandalized even his admirers. He contends that revoking that decision “would probably cause much more problems and dissension and difficulty if we keep pressing it.” He doubles down: “I wouldn’t want to get on a crusader’s tank and try to reverse that.”

Does anyone have any idea if -

1. the statement as published is an accurate recording of what he said, or is it ‘clipped’ to convey what the reporter wanted to say.
2. What is the official teaching of the Church on same-sex weddings? Has it tacitly decided as seems it seems here to ‘not make a big deal about same sex marriages’ preferring instead to pick other more moral battles

Anyone scandalized by what he said suffers from profound confusion.

 

[Corki]

The Church’s position is in my signature.

 

[Estevao]

^^^Here is the link

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

 

[Richard_White]

Yes, Bishop Barron made these statements, and I too received the e-mail that you received attesting to what is in their opinion a very horrible thing for the Bishop to say. However, I went and watched the video, and as everyone else has already said, Barron stated it all very eloquently and all in accordance with Church teaching. To summarize, he believes rightly that same-sex “marriage” is impermissible, but he also recognizes that now that it is American law, it is best not to focus our efforts on legally repealing it, because it would just cause mass confusion and more issues. It is better to focus on the core teachings of the Gospel, etc.

May God bless you all!

 

[psalm90]

I am not a groupie of Bishop Baron. But he is popular and a bishop.

As a generalization, I broadly agree that the Church has to pick its battles, and our main mission is evangelization. I don’t foresee an end to ss marriage and abortion until there is a greater spirituality developed in the US. Unfortunately, we’re not headed in that direction.

When I listen to 'The Journey Home" with Marcus Grodi, I hear stories of conversion to Catholicism that often take years, with much study and anguish in those who are seeking the truth.

With rogue nations testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and making threats against the U.S., I would have thought that more people would be evangelizing themselves and praying more, etc. and generally conforming their lives to the Gospel. Sadly, I don’t see this happening.

It seems that proponents of same-sex “marriage” and abortion are most vocal and forward about admitting their apostasy from religion in general and Christianity in particular. Perhaps that is what Barron is saying, that we need more emphasis on the big picture of converting all nations.

 

[SuperLuigi]

On a recent interview with atheist classical liberal Dave Rubin (who is a very nice guy), Barron noted the Aquinas principle in dealing with so-called gay “marriage”.

In reference to the American court ruling on the matter, the ruling itself violates the 10th Amendment on it’s face, so that alone is reason enough to overturn it.

But what a lot of those who criticize Bishop Barron need to realize is that if the ruling is overturned, which is not likely right now, most if not every state will legalize it to some degree.

I don’t agree with brushing it off so easily as the Bishop has—I think we need to be honest.

Dennis Prager (also in an interview with Rubin) noted that changes made to the legal definition of marriage are driving this gender nonsense.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I am not a groupie of Bishop Baron. But he is popular and a bishop.

As a generalization, I broadly agree that the Church has to pick its battles, and our main mission is evangelization. I don’t foresee an end to ss marriage and abortion until there is a greater spirituality developed in the US. Unfortunately, we’re not headed in that direction.

When I listen to 'The Journey Home" with Marcus Grodi, I hear stories of conversion to Catholicism that often take years, with much study and anguish in those who are seeking the truth.

With rogue nations testing intercontinental ballistic missiles and making threats against the U.S., I would have thought that more people would be evangelizing themselves and praying more, etc. and generally conforming their lives to the Gospel. Sadly, I don’t see this happening.

It seems that proponents of same-sex “marriage” and abortion are most vocal and forward about admitting their apostasy from religion in general and Christianity in particular. Perhaps that is what Barron is saying, that we need more emphasis on the big picture of converting all nations.

Here’s the thing: when this was on the ballot in CA, some Christian leaders weren’t in favour of it because of “homophobia”.

People in good conscience may disagree, but if we are going to fall for progressive gimmicks, one-liners, phobias, -ists and -isms we may as well throw in the towel and stop wasting time and energy. So let’s just throw up our hands and baptize the scribes.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

What is the official teaching of the Church on same-sex weddings? Has it tacitly decided as seems it seems here to ‘not make a big deal about same sex marriages’ preferring instead to pick other more moral battles

The teaching of the Church on same sex marriage will always be the same, as Bishop Barron notes. There can be no such thing as same sex marriage, from a Christian point of view. The political environment, however, is always changing. The level of persecution that the Church receives is always changing. The Obergefell decision and other court decisions that legalized civil same sex marriage are not going to change anytime soon. That is the political reality, which is very different situation than the unchanging apostolic teaching of the Church.

 

[SuperLuigi]

The teaching of the Church on same sex marriage will always be the same, as Bishop Barron notes. There can be no such thing as same sex marriage, from a Christian point of view. The political environment, however, is always changing. The level of persecution that the Church receives is always changing. The Obergefell decision and other court decisions that legalized civil same sex marriage are not going to change anytime soon. That is the political reality, which is very different situation than the unchanging apostolic teaching of the Church.

The only real disagreement here is how to handle the matter in terms of policy.

I’d like to see a slightly harder stance, but I know the Bishop means well and has thought about this.

 

[exnihilo]

As a generalization, I broadly agree that the Church has to pick its battles, and our main mission is evangelization. I don’t foresee an end to ss marriage and abortion until there is a greater spirituality developed in the US. Unfortunately, we’re not headed in that direction.

You are very right. A moral people will have moral laws. An immoral people will have immoral laws. To some extent the law does lead us. It is a guide.

The particulars of the US case was the renegade courts invented a right of SSM. They forced it on us through intellectually dishonest means. To be sure many Americans want SSM, but even liberal California had forbidden it in their constitution in 2008. The current political situation makes ending SSM in the US realistically impossible absent a revolution. The chances of a future court reversing its decision are slim to none. The chances of getting a federal constitutional amendment passed forbidding SSM are slim to none. That being so it is realistically impossible to end SSM within the political system at least for a very long time. So spending energy fighting something impossible may not be wise.

 

[Bradski]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

And can we please leave children out of this, as adoption by gay couples was allowed before gay marriage was legalised. I’d like to know that since that time has anyone been specifically affected.

 

[1neophyte]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

And can we please leave children out of this, as adoption by gay couples was allowed before gay marriage was legalised. I’d like to know that since that time has anyone been specifically affected.

What sort of test would that be? Do I or anyone I might know need to be negatively affected by HIV in order for me to know that it is harmful?

 

[mVitus]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

And can we please leave children out of this, as adoption by gay couples was allowed before gay marriage was legalised. I’d like to know that since that time has anyone been specifically affected.

Personally, no. And I also recognize that there aren’t any strong secular arguments against its being institutionalized. However I do feel we, as a country, need to look over the current legislation when it comes to conflicts of gay marriage vs religious beliefs so that we can find a way to prevent discrimination from either side. While I understand there is very real concern in regards to discrimination against homosexuals purely because they’re homosexual, I think we need to also find a way to not force people to violate deeply held religious beliefs by making them provide services for acts that directly involve gay unions or other specific things.

 

[exnihilo]

May I ask a relatively straightforward question? Has anyone here, or anyone that you might know, been negatively affected in some way by same sex marriage being allowed?

All US taxpayers now have to pay for SSM benefits to federal and state employees and we now pay out social security to same sex partners. I don’t know of anyone who thinks paying more taxes is good.

 

[exnihilo]

Personally, no. And I also recognize that there aren’t any strong secular arguments against its being institutionalized.

I disagree. The secular arguments against SSM are actually the strongest. Marriage is the institution necessary for raising children. The natural result of the sexual relationship of men and women is children. These children deserve to have a mother and father, ideally their own, raise them. Marriage is an institution which helps achieve this.

Homosexual relationships are intrinsically sterile. They will never produce children. There is no need to formally recognize these relationships, even if they were good. Recognizing homosexual relationships is like having a love interest registry. Do people really think the government should be in the business of keeping track of ones love interests or sexual partners? Of course not.

The dangerously confused and given over to evil Justice Kennedy in his opinion made it clear he thought SSM needed to be recognized to legitimize and promote homosexuality. His argument was a moral one predicated on the goodness of homosexual sex. Needless to say that is a terrible argument as homosexuality has nothing to do with children since by its nature it is anti children.