Bishop Barron's statement on same sex marriages

[Rau]

The Church’s position is in my signature.

And your signature is fine. It does not obligate the specific course of entering into a legal fight.

There is a greater principle of morality that forbids actions judged likely to cause more harm than good. Of course, where that balance lies is for the individual to judge.

 

[Rau]

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.

Certainly, SSM is a legitimization of homosexual sexual relationships. It brings them into a category out of keeping with their nature.

 

[Rau]

I used to be pro-gay marriage and I used to laugh at the silly arguments made against it. Frankly I still find secular arguments against it to be stretching it. Religious reasoning has brought me against it personally, but I find no justification for its institutional abolishment, just laws in the grey area that it conflicts with religious beliefs. You need God if you want to argue against it as an institution.

I see no difficulty in proposing a legal framework for committed relationships. But would such relationships need to be deemed marriage? Only if the nature of marriage is misunderstood. The state has no interest is same sex sexual relationships on account of their sexual nature, yet “SSM” implies that it should.

 

[Ormond]

Unless you’re saying that there is an objective morality that goes beyond your own opinions and conclusions…

I am stating my own opinion, and justifying it with well known facts. I personally believe it’s evil to deliberately engineer a highly addictive product that you know in advance is going to bring pain, suffering and death down upon great masses of people. That’s my personal opinion. As far as I know, the Bible didn’t comment upon the tobacco industry.

 

[BGorski]

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.

The potential “push” to make the Catholic Church first honor, then conduct SS marriages is ignoring the sacramental nature of Marriage viewed by the Catholic Church (not any other with perhaps exception of Anglican/Episcopalian). Such a submission has the potential to force the reversal of 2000 years or so of Catholic teaching, tradition traceable back to the time of the Apostles. I don’t know about you, but I can see a drastic schism coming about in that circumstance…in other words an act that would tear families apart…more that a political discussion of SS Marriage and the other related discussions.

In regard to the affect on children, that is like wanting to talk about an erupting volcano while ignoring the destruction and death of population living on it’s perimeter. One can only guess at the ultimate damage to children in the next generation or the generation after that. But it will have an affect. “Do what feels good” has always been fraught with potential negative impact. In other words, regarding ask your question again in 20-30 years to learn from “anyone who has been specifically affected.”

 

[Ormond]

Like I said, you need God’s law to argue against same sex marriage.

Which version of God’s law?

Even within the Catholic community (in the United States at least) there is deep division regarding what God’s law is in regards to same sex marriage. In fact, according to the professional independent research firm Pew Research most Catholics in the U.S. support gay marriage.

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/09/19/majority-of-u-s-catholics-opinions-run-counter-to-church-on-contraception-homosexuality/

About half (54%) of U.S. Catholics favor same-sex marriage, according to aggregated Pew Research data from this year, and just a third (33%) say homosexual behavior is a sin, according to a May survey.

Members should be clear that they aren’t articulating God’s law in their opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality, but rather their opinion of what God’s law is.

Certainly all members are entitled to have an express their opinion whatever it may be, agree fully there. But to claim that one’s opinion is the same thing as God’s law can hardly be called humility, given that the only way to settle the question decisively would to be God oneself.

To my understanding, Jesus never mentioned the topic of homosexuality even once. This would seem to demonstrate that at the least he didn’t consider it an important topic worthy of our time. So when some Church clergy try to make homosexuality in to an important topic, it is they who are having an argument with Jesus.

Jesus surrounded himself with the social outcasts of his day and embraced them as his closest friends. Want to follow in his footsteps and accept his leadership? Do the same.

 

[1neophyte]

Which version of God’s law?

Certainly not imaginary versions dreamed up by lay people. God’s law is not determined by popular vote or polls of those in the pews.

 

[Ormond]

In regard to the affect on children, that is like wanting to talk about an erupting volcano while ignoring the destruction and death of population living on it’s perimeter. One can only guess at the ultimate damage to children in the next generation or the generation after that. But it will have an affect. “Do what feels good” has always been fraught with potential negative impact. In other words, regarding ask your question again in 20-30 years to learn from “anyone who has been specifically affected.”

My wife’s father is gay, and so was her mother probably. They were married as straight people, but had gay lovers in the house all the time, including living there. Caused no problem whatsoever for the kids, because the gay people running that household LOVED their kids. Their sex did absolutely nothing to interfere with that love. My wife is a great person, much saner than me and my Catholic family, no kidding.

That’s what matters for kids, love, not sexual orientation, not legal situation. Love. Write it down so you don’t forget it. For people following a religion explicitly about love, some of you seem to know precious little about it.

There is no evidence at all that gay marriage is hurting anybody, and we don’t need 20-30 years to learn that. You’re desperately grasping at straws. Give it up already, grow up, and join the majority of Catholics in the United States who support gay marriage. Stop looking for someone to hate, to judge, to condemn, to control, to use as a prop for fantasy moral superiority.

 

[Ormond]

Certainly not imaginary versions dreamed up by lay people. God’s law is not determined by popular vote or polls of those in the pews.

I do understand that some Catholics, a minority in the U.S., feel that God’s law is defined by that tiny minority of Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions in the Vatican. This view is certainly part of Catholicism, but it is a view widely ignored by most Catholics, who typically decide for themselves which Church teachings they agree with.

What’s going to happen when some future Pope comes out for gay marriage? Will you then loyally salute the new rulings from the Vatican and faithfully fall in line behind the Pope, no matter what he says? Or do you too think for yourself?

 

[1neophyte]

I do understand that some Catholics, a minority in the U.S., feel that God’s law is defined by that tiny minority of Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions in the Vatican. This view is certainly part of Catholicism, but it is a view widely ignored by most Catholics, who typically decide for themselves which Church teachings they agree with.

What’s going to happen when some future Pope comes out for gay marriage? Will you then loyally salute the new rulings from the Vatican and faithfully fall in line behind the Pope, no matter what he says? Or do you too think for yourself?

Yes, I’ll salute the new rulings if they happen. Let’s wait and see if that ever comes to pass. But you have everything completely backwards. The Church has very defined teachings, as you know, in the Catechism. No matter how widespread the opposition is, and no matter how many of the traitors who oppose the teachings continue to fill up the pews, the teachings do not change.

Which raises an interesting question. You make many good points in your previous post, and you seem convinced that gay marriage is wonderful. Great. But why in the world would you remain Catholic, when you disagree with its unchanging teachings? When you consider those in authority to be self-appointed? It seems to me to be no different than someone accepting Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior, and then continuing to attend an Orthodox Jewish synagogue and identifying as an Orthodox Jewish person, all the while disparaging the “self-appointed leadership” for not recognizing Jesus as the messiah. It seems self-defeating. What am I missing?

 

[edwest2]

I see so many emotion words. It seems all you need to do in the US is get photographed holding a sign that reads “No Hate in my State.” First, assigning hate to everyone is wrong, unless you know it for a fact. It is not rational and bypasses rational arguments - it short- circuits the thinking process and focuses on an emotion that again, some may or may not have.

A strong, continuous propaganda campaign, including going door to door, helped misdirect the people. Why did this appear on the ballot in the first place, and get voted down? Twice in California. In the Letters to the Editor section of a Detroit newspaper, one writer wrote: “Michigan, the great hate state.” False and irrational.

So the final option was to do an end run around the will of the people and get the Supreme Court to pass it. But the propaganda kept going until the 51% victory mark was achieved.

Ed

 

[Rau]

Yes, I’ll salute the new rulings if they happen. Let’s wait and see if that ever comes to pass. But you have everything completely backwards. The Church has very defined teachings, as you know, in the Catechism. No matter how widespread the opposition is, and no matter how many of the traitors who oppose the teachings continue to fill up the pews, the teachings do not change.

Since the teachings never evolve to contradict themselves, the first sentence makes no sense. Same sex sexual relationships will never be taught to be good.

 

[Rau]

My wife’s father is gay, and so was her mother probably. They were married as straight people, but had gay lovers in the house all the time, including living there. Caused no problem whatsoever for the kids, because the gay people running that household LOVED their kids. Their sex did absolutely nothing to interfere with that love. My wife is a great person, much saner than me and my Catholic family, no kidding.

That’s what matters for kids, love, not sexual orientation, not legal situation. Love. Write it down so you don’t forget it. For people following a religion explicitly about love, some of you seem to know precious little about it.

There is no claim that same sex attracted persons are incapable of loving children, or each other for that matter. The question is posed, though, whether children deserve the love of a mother and a father? Now, sometimes, that impossible of course, but the question remains - do children deserve the love of their mother and their Father? If so, then we are justified in taking a dim view of surrogate or such arrangements to set out to cause a child to be denied the love and nurture of mother and father.

As for adoption agencies - they ought to be tasked to do the best by the children in their care, and to find the best available adoptive parents.

 

[Faithdancer]

To my understanding, Jesus never mentioned the topic of homosexuality even once. This would seem to demonstrate that at the least he didn’t consider it an important topic worthy of our time. So when some Church clergy try to make homosexuality in to an important topic, it is they who are having an argument with Jesus.

Jesus didn’t need to preach about homosexual activity as everyone knew it was an abomination. Same sex “marriage” wasn’t even on the radar, so why on earth would He talk about that, either? Your argument that Christ’s silence on the subject indicates tacit acceptance is absurd. He isn’t recorded as speaking on bestiality or necrophilia, either–are we to conclude that these abominations therefore had His blessing??

The only reason homosexual activity and same sex marriage are talked about by Christians is because militant homosexuals and their supporters are bullying Christians into accepting their viewpoint. These militants are also sexualizing young children with their “awareness” etc. programs, which is outrageous.

 

[Faithdancer]

What’s going to happen when some future Pope comes out for gay marriage?

You are really in fantasy-land now, my friend. Could you display any less understanding of the faith? Do you realize that this can never happen? That the church has no authority to sanction same sex unions, let alone “marriages?” That the Roman Catholic Church would immediately cease to exist, if such an absurd thing came to pass?
Obviously, you don’t. Or else you are being deliberately provocative.

 

[Rau]

…To my understanding, Jesus never mentioned the topic of homosexuality even once. This would seem to demonstrate that at the least he didn’t consider it an important topic worthy of our time.

I would have thought it suggests the subject was not so topical in HIS time, rather than ours. But it is good to see that you do have regard for what Jesus had to say. You might recall what he had to say about Marriage - he spoke about husbands and wifes - not any other combination.

Jesus surrounded himself with the social outcasts of his day and embraced them as his closest friends. Want to follow in his footsteps and accept his leadership? Do the same.

I cannot dispute that excellent advice. Please note that Jesus did not embrace the sins of these outcasts. He forgave sins and commanded: “Now go and sin no more.”

 

[jeannetherese]

I see no difficulty in proposing a legal framework for committed relationships. But would such relationships need to be deemed marriage? Only if the nature of marriage is misunderstood. The state has no interest is same sex sexual relationships on account of their sexual nature, yet “SSM” implies that it should.

Hi Rau,
I have been following this thread for some time and found your idea thought provoking.
Perhaps, the interest of the state in promoting same sex marriage, which is inherently sterile, might be in population control?
This is not an endorsement, but a possibility, pondering the shift from marriage tied with potential procreation to marriage with limited or non-existent procreation.
Perhaps, we should be looking at this shift in a critical analysis of the state?

 

[Ginny89]

I do understand that some Catholics, a minority in the U.S., feel that God’s law is defined by that tiny minority of Catholics who have appointed themselves to leadership positions in the Vatican. This view is certainly part of Catholicism, but it is a view widely ignored by most Catholics, who typically decide for themselves which Church teachings they agree with.

What’s going to happen when some future Pope comes out for gay marriage? Will you then loyally salute the new rulings from the Vatican and faithfully fall in line behind the Pope, no matter what he says? Or do you too think for yourself?

Is it your claim that Catholics in Central and South America, Africa and Asia support gay marriage? Americans and Europeans do not constitute the majority of Catholics.

 

[jeannetherese]

given that the only way to settle the question decisively would to be God oneself.

To my understanding, Jesus never mentioned the topic of homosexuality even once. This would seem to demonstrate that at the least he didn’t consider it an important topic worthy of our time.

Perhaps, given the Old Testament, He considered it settled business?

 

[Rau]

Hi Rau,
I have been following this thread for some time and found your idea thought provoking.
Perhaps, the interest of the state in promoting same sex marriage, which is inherently sterile, might be in population control?
This is not an endorsement, but a possibility, pondering the shift from marriage tied with potential procreation to marriage with limited or non-existent procreation.
Perhaps, we should be looking at this shift in a critical analysis of the state?

Whether or not a person who experiences only SSA can access a state authorised “marriage” to a person of the same sex would not likely have any effect on population. Either way, they won’t be joining with a person of the opposite sex.