J
- Status
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
what do you define as a rational person? is it someone who completely rejects the natural law and the Catholic Church, because i wouldnt call them rational or cateer to them.
if you claim to be Catholic, and claim to believe its teachings, but cant vote for them because you couldnt explain that vote to a ‘rational’ person i think you need more study and prayer, because that just doesnt add up.
B
Binary
Guest
We have established definitions for both “rational” and “person.” There is no mystery to what I am saying.
A rational person who is ignorant or indifferent to Church teaching could conclude that when a thing serves multiple purposes, e.g. sex, we are free to assign greater or lesser value to each purpose. As such, an overwhelming value could be given to the unitive aspect of sex, and they could place a tiny value on the procreative aspect. In this line of thought, gay sex diminishes the unitive aspect only slightly, since the procreative aspect is valued so little.
A rational person could also follow Nietzsche’s philosophy, and say that few things have meaning except the meaning that we assign to them. Such a person would probably reject natural law entirely.
I don’t know how to argue against either of these positions, which just leaves me with the reason of “I know what’s good for you better than you do.” And frankly, that’s a terrible motivation. The same motivation could lead people to vote for forced atheism, eugenics, sharia law, or a number of other terrible ideas. With that motivation, people could easily dismiss you as irrational, and decide not to cater to you.
B
Brendan
Guest
Every single law is an imposition of one beliefs over another. These can even be more arugments, such as laws against slavery, rape, child pornography and incest.
So your argument falls flat right from the start.
C
Cominghome89
Guest
Now I have to digress, the end of this gets a bit dangerous. While I am pro-life 100%, to say one should be excommunicated for their vote is completely crossing the line. At that point, who is to say the Church shouldn’t automatically excommunicate all liars, thiefs, drug addicts, etc?The New Hampshire State Senate just voted to approve gay marriage.
This means it will go to Gov. John Lynch (Roman Catholic-NH) next week.
It will be interesting to see if Bishop McCormack has the courage to have a "heart-to-heart with the governor before he has to decide whether or not to veto the bill.
Just a thought.… apparently there is a mechanism in place that any woman “ordained” a priest is automatically excommunicated. Why doesn’t the church set up the same thing for anyone who votes for abortion or same-sex marriage?
The Church is here to teach the truth and heal the wrong-doer, not condemn everyone who can’t agree with every one of its teachings. We are to correct these misguided souls with love so more may be saved, not condemn those who disagree or do not understand. I’m sure at one point you disagreed with some aspect of Church teaching at one point in your life, should you have been excommunicated if you voted against a good you did not then understand?
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
in these situations the people are not so much excommunicated as a punishment, but it is a blessing to them, so that they can see the error of their ways and repent. it also is there to prevent them from the blasphemy of unworthily recieving the Eucharist.
if we dont plain out tell them they are wrong in no uncertain terms how can we expect them to know and change?
C
Cominghome89
Guest
Voicing our dissent for an evil practice and voting against it is one thing, excommunicating those who do not vote our way goes beyond showing others what is right, IMHO.
S
savienu
Guest
Part of me worries this is too big for us. I mean, look at abortion. That’s been legal for almost 40 years, despite pro-life efforts. I know God can do all things, but clearly WE can’t…
A
aggiecatholic05
Guest
just remember that ‘our’ way isnt the republican way, or the forum posters way, but the Church’s way. if people dont want to follow the tennants of the faith why would they want to belong. better to try and correct them than write them off and let them suffer the consequences.
C
Cominghome89
Guest
I was referring to the way of the Church, I don’t affiliate myself with either political party. And that is exactly what I believe, that we should try to correct them rather than write them off. I believe in this day and age that writing them off and excommunication would be one in the same. Anyone far enough from the faith to be excommunicated today will likely not pray and hope for a glorious return to the Church. Most will lose faith or find a more watered-down denomination. Pray for these people who are unfortunate enough to vote pro-choice or for gay marriage rights, instruct them, tell them they are wrong and in danger of losing their souls. But cut them off entirely from the Church for not fully understanding their hideous sins? Sounds a bit void of forgiveness.
O
OriginalJS
Guest
My grandparents honestly believed it was immoral for a white person to marry a black person. My maternal grandmother gave me a mini-lecture in 1952 or 1953 that the stupidest thing the government had ever done was to give women the right to vote. Until a couple of decades ago, it was illegal for unmarried couples to live together or, as some statutes read, “lewdly and viciously cohabit.” In many states adultery was a crime, on the books at least, although it was rarely prosecuted. Until “no fault” divorce was adopted toward the end of the 60’s and during the 70’s getting a divorce was not easy, a party had to prove grounds. It was common wisdom that no divorced man could be president of the US (a woman president was unthinkable.) Children born out of wedlock were “bastards” or “illegitimate,” neither term is acceptable now. It was scandal at one time for an unmarried woman to have a baby, and families went to great lengths to hide their daughters’ indiscretions. (“Mary is spending the summer with her Aunt Bess” etc.) Interracial marriages were illegal in many states. Sales of contraceptives were illegal in many states. Abortion was a crime. Now, the government pays for some abortions. When I was a boy we learned the nursery diddie “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Now name-calling is politically incorrect and can result in rather severe penalties. One by one society has accepted these changes in the face of resistance. It seems to me that same sex marriage is the current issue getting the spotlight and that it is only a matter of time until it is widely recognized as a matter of law. The legalization of same-sex marriage by conservative Iowa is a harbinger of what’s coming.
However, no Catholic has to recognize such marriages as acceptable. We are called to be “in the world,” not “of the world.” There is a big difference.
However, no Catholic has to recognize such marriages as acceptable. We are called to be “in the world,” not “of the world.” There is a big difference.
P
piperspop
Guest
When I asked about automatic excommunication, I was referring to POLITICAL LEADERS who vote for abortion, not ordinary folk who do so in the privacy of the voting booth. To me the difference is in the “public scandal” of casting a vote in congress, of state legislature, or signing a bill.
But I do believe the church, any church, needs to take a public stand and keep these folks from identifying with the church whose doctrines they are trashing or ignoring.
A public stand beyong speechifying!
But I do believe the church, any church, needs to take a public stand and keep these folks from identifying with the church whose doctrines they are trashing or ignoring.
A public stand beyong speechifying!
S
stbruno
Guest
The greatest tragedy is that the children who must live with same sex “parents” are going to be so confused. Not only about their own sexuality but how to have a normal relationship when they grow as adults. More reasons to pray.
H
Holly3278
Guest
I would highly recommend, then, that you read the following encyclical:
vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html
It’s about Christian Marriage.
vatican.edu/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html
This encyclical is also about Christian Marriage.
I would highly recommend that you read up on Christian marriage and also read up on gay marriage and why the Church opposes it.
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
…Um, more reasons to act.
The children will have a significant delay in understanding the gender absent from their household. So if they are girls with “2 Mommies” they will have no opportunity to begin their journey of understanding the adult male psyche until they themselves are adults. If a girl OTOH has “2 Daddies,” she will have no primary role-modeling of a live-in same-sex adult. To rationalize that she will find “other adult females” of secondary & tertiary importance to her will rob her of this key parental function. All of the literature of absent-gender households (such as cases of desertion, absent divorced parent, widowhood, etc.) proves that there is a delay in either same-sex or opposite-sex understanding for these affected children. Deliberately creating such an environment is an intrinsic evil.
Oh, and another thing: they will have a perverse & bizarre understanding of human relationships and how sexuality relates to parenthood. They will consider it perfectly standard to obtain a “child” from random parts in various baby-part factories. Or they will learn that one of the 2 Daddies mated (whoops, I thought they were “born gay”) with a random willing female friend (straight or lesbian), willing to perform this limited function for them. That, btw, teaches children how to use people sexually. And if you think this doesn’t happen, you have no idea about how these “households” function. (But wait, they’re perfect or at least preferred models of parenting, vs. those evil straight couples who struggle with the permanent challenge of male-to-female communication.)
Or, alternatively to this, these kids at some point in time will realize how they were robbed of the normal male/female bonding, sexual relationship as an outgrowth of love, and a child as the natural product of that. As to the fact that gay couples also adopt children who have been the natural product of normal heterosexual love, yes, but a good half of the children in gay households are products of the above paragraph.
Disordered? Where to begin?
C
Cominghome89
Guest
Aha! Now the clarity comes. I have never considered this, but with people like Biden and Pelosi representing “Catholic” Democrats, that could be a good idea; its not as if these are minor issues being disputed here (not that anything the Church teaches is “minor”, these are just fundamental issues here). I humbly apologize, I was wondering where anyone would find the authority to excommunicate based on private voting choices. That is very plausible, sorry to start unnecessary conflict, there is quite enough of that on here
C
choose_to_love
Guest
Elizabeth502, do you have cites to your sources available, either particularly or in general terms, i.e., names of the researchers, the journals where published? Not giving you a hard time, I just think that would be handy material to be familiar with.
E
edwest2
Guest
Got any references to back that up? This American, and other religious Americans I know, have not accepted a meaningless Christianity. What Richard Dawkins would call ‘cultural Christianity,’ which has all the trappings but is equivalent to Santa Claus.
I urge you to not make such broad, general statements without supporting facts.
We are oblihgated to oppose gay marriage because it is a dysfunctional model of the unitive, procreative real marriage that produces children and families. And furthermore, the Pope, citing clear Church teaching, has explained why it is wrong. Be obedient to Church teaching. As Jesus told Peter, He who hears you hears me.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
L
ladybri77
Guest
Come now, this is a milestone. Marriage between one man and one woman has been in existence from the beginning of time. Now people are trying to change the definition?? Our nation was founded on these values. Are we to stand idly by and not defend it? The other things you mention go on all the time, sin is prevalent in this world, and it will always be until the end. We can only speak out against what is fighting so desperately to be legalized. And we have fought in the past against other immoralities such as making marijuana legal, euthanasia and abortion. These are political issues, of which we do in fact stand up against. The other sins we can just pray against since they are not at the moment trying to be legalized! And if and when they do, we will stand against those things.
L
ladybri77
Guest
You have an opinion don’t you? Other people have their opinions, but when people start making it illegal to voice your opinion or call you a hater of homosexuals or force kids to learn about certain things in the classroom, then you are imposing your beliefs on me, but not until.
- Status