Can Catholics attend same-sex marriage ceremonies?

[Learner1969]

If that isn’t homosexual then the word has lost all meaning.

Lets agree to disagree, you are thinking of perversion when it is abuse.

 

[Learner1969]

CC. 2358. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.

 

[bquinnan]

The Church doesn’t say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. She teaches that homosexual acts (CCC 2357) and the homosexual inclination (2358) are intrinsically disordered, because our sexual faculties are ordered toward procreation and homosexuality is not. It is important to understand that the Church isn’t attempting to explain the scientific cause of homosexuality or diagnose those who experience it but simply to guide people on how to live a holy life even if they experience such inclinations.

 

[SeriousQuestion]

There was a homosexual aspect to the abuse at least in the actions.

 

[LateCatholic]

Male are eighty percent of the abuse victims in the Church. If that isn’t homosexual then the word has lost all meaning.

Meaningless. 100% of all sex abuse in prison is homosexual. Should we not put gay people in prison?

Studies have shown that adult sex abuse by priests is almost predominantly heterosexual (priests raping or attacking women), and probably significantly exceeds sex abuse of children. Should we keep heterosexual men out of the priesthood?

 

[exnihilo]

Sorry, again, males are eighty percent of the victims and most abuse is not of children properly but of teenagers. The problem is pederasty.

The Church already teaches that those with deep seated same sex attraction should not be ordained.

 

[LateCatholic]

The Church doesn’t say that homosexuality is a mental disorder. She teaches that homosexual acts (CCC 2357) and the homosexual inclination (2358) are intrinsically disordered,

Please define the difference between “mentally disordered” and “intrinsically disordered”.

So it is “normal” to have homosexual feelings, but “disordered” to act on them?

our sexual faculties are ordered toward procreation

So ANY sexual act not ordered to procreation is a sin?
It’s a rabbit hole that the Church doesn’t want to go down, because they always lose, whether it is masturbation, oral sex, or even two married people having recreational sex. For instance, isn’t is “intrinsically disordered” for a woman past menopause to have sex? Or a man that is infertile? Why is that any different than a homosexual couple?

Look - if you don’t the Church to recognize homosexual marriage, that’s fine. But why are you denying the happiness of two people from a secular standpoint. So don;t recognize the marriage, just as you don;t recognize a divorcee getting remarried. That’s OK. But don’t take away their love and happiness because of your homosexual hang-ups.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Sorry, again, males are eighty percent of the victims and most abuse is not of children properly but of teenagers. The problem is pederasty.

Not that I don’t derail topics from time to time, but how does this relate to the OP’s question?

 

[bquinnan]

Please define the difference between “mentally disordered” and “intrinsically disordered”.

So it is “normal” to have homosexual feelings, but “disordered” to act on them?

The phrase “mentally disordered” amounts to a clinical diagnosis, which the Church doesn’t do in its moral teaching. Our understanding of why a person might have homosexual inclinations could change over time, and the cause may not even be the same among all people who experience this inclination.

The phrase “intrinsically disordered” refers to the fact that a person’s sexuality is being driven in a direction away from its divine purpose.

Here is a link to an article on the subject:
The Meaning of “Objectively Disordered”

So ANY sexual act not ordered to procreation is a sin?
It’s a rabbit hole that the Church doesn’t want to go down, because they always lose, whether it is masturbation, oral sex, or even two married people having recreational sex. For instance, isn’t is “intrinsically disordered” for a woman past menopause to have sex? Or a man that is infertile? Why is that any different than a homosexual couple?

The Church’s teaching has been consistent on this since the beginning. Sexual acts that are not directed toward procreation are never morally acceptable. That doesn’t mean that the goal of ever sexual act is to conceive a child, but it means that one’s sexual faculties are used in a manner consistent with both the unitive and procreative purposes of sexual intercourse. Contraceptive intercourse, for example, uses the human sexual faculties to achieve physical pleasure and, hopefully, physical intimacy, but deliberately circumvents the procreative intent, and is therefore wrong.

(See Why Contraception Is Wrong)

In the case of infertility, a couple uses their sexual faculties as designed without deliberately trying to frustrate the procreative nature of intercourse; it just happens that those faculties are not able to achieve procreation for whatever reason.

Look - if you don’t the Church to recognize homosexual marriage, that’s fine … But don’t take away their love and happiness because of your homosexual hang-ups.

It always baffles me when someone comes to a Catholic forum – with the word “Catholic” in their username, no less – and then is not only mad that people believe in Catholic Church teachings but dismisses such beliefs as “hang ups.”

The shortest answer that I can give is that to the extent society recognizes same-sex unions as marriages, it is encouraging immoral behavior. I do not want to participate in encouraging immoral behavior, and I don’t believe we should do so as a society.

Here are a couple of articles on why legally recognizing “gay marriage” is a problem:
Four Ways that Same-Sex Marriage Will Affect You
“Gay Marriage”: The Central Issue

 

[LateCatholic]

The phrase “intrinsically disordered” refers to the fact that a person’s sexuality is being driven in a direction away from its divine purpose.

But “divine purpose” is clearly a theological position. As soon as you use the word ‘divine’ you can’t use ‘intrinsic’. They aren’t compatible. You can say ‘morally disordered’ if you want, from your point of view. But not ‘intrinsic’. Regardless, why are you forcing your opinion on others? You are welcome to keep Catholic marriage between a man and a woman. Why are you forcing your minority opinion on the rest of us?

Sexual acts that are not directed toward procreation are never morally acceptable.

I agree the Church has been fairly consistent on this, other than the “rhythm method” which makes no sense. But this position is so outdated and laughable in the 21st century that it is effectively ignored. Plus, the Church is clearly and obviously very selective in its ‘enforcement’ or pronouncement of said position. When was the last time you heard a homily against heterosexual oral sex? Or masturbation? Or married Catholics using birth control? Or Catholic women on the pill? And so on. The Church’s position IS consistent, I will give you that, but the “marketing” is disgustingly weighted against homosexuals when all of the above acts are (supposedly) sins as well.

It always baffles me when someone comes to a Catholic forum – with the word “Catholic” in their username, no less – and then is not only mad that people believe in Catholic Church teachings but dismisses such beliefs as “hang ups.”

The shortest answer that I can give is that to the extent society recognizes same-sex unions as marriages, it is encouraging immoral behavior. I do not want to participate in encouraging immoral behavior, and I don’t believe we should do so as a society.

I don’t think you get my point. You are certainly welcome, as a Catholic, to not allow same-sex marriage in the Church. Good for you. I would discourage your stance against family members and loved ones not attending said secular marriages, as that is a sign of hate not love. But it is your opinion.

My biggest concern is why do you feel that you are entitled to enforce your morality, which is now in the minority (not that it really matters) on the rest of us? There is NO rational argument to be against SS marriage from a secular standpoint. Give me one if you have, but it’s be rehashed over and over again. Do not bring up “morality” or “religion” in your answer. I acknowledge the Church does not have to accept SS marriage. But you cannot force your subjective opinions on others. This is a America, not Iran or Vatican City.

 

[bquinnan]

But “divine purpose” is clearly a theological position. As soon as you use the word ‘divine’ you can’t use ‘intrinsic’. They aren’t compatible.

Sure they are. Our sexual faculties were designed toward a purpose, and that purpose is not changeable. Certain acts are opposed to that purpose in their very nature, ergo they are intrinsically disordered.

Why are you forcing your minority opinion on the rest of us?

I’m not so sure it’s a “minority opinion,” given that same-sex marriage was legalized by judicial oligarchy, not through democracy, and I suspect many people are reluctant to express politically incorrect opinions to pollsters. And I’m not forcing anyone to do anything. I’m just saying that I don’t think society should sanction something that is intrinsically disordered, just as I don’t favor giving business licenses to prostitutes.

There is NO rational argument to be against SS marriage from a secular standpoint.

I’ve given you links, and I can also recommend the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense” if you’d like a more in depth explanation. I suspect that you will dismiss any argument against SS marriage from a secular standpoint as irrational simply because you don’t agree with it.

 

[LateCatholic]

Our sexual faculties were designed toward a purpose, and that purpose is not changeable.

But you are clearly wrong about the ‘purpose’. For example, infertile people still have a sex drive. Women past menopause have a sex drive. Other forms of sex are pleasurable. Pregnant women have a sex drive. Homosexual desire, despite your claim it is “disordered” is real - and very common.

 

[bquinnan]

But you are clearly wrong about the ‘purpose’. For example, infertile people still have a sex drive. Women past menopause have a sex drive. Other forms of sex are pleasurable. Pregnant women have a sex drive.

The Church doesn’t teach that sex is only procreative. It is also intended to be unitive. It is part of the reality of life and nature that woman are not always able to conceive children, and that in some cases, men aren’t able to father them. And in such cases, a couple might still engage in intercourse to experience its unitive attributes. Even if conception is unlikely or virtually impossible, the act still uses each persons sexual attributes in the manner of their natural design in the way one would use them if one is open to procreation. One has not deliberately altered the act.

But that is different from deliberately sabotaging one’s procreative ability in order to prevent procreation. This CA article goes into the difference a little bit:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/whats-wrong-with-contraception-anyway

 

[LateCatholic]

There is NO rational argument to be against SS marriage from a secular standpoint.

This has been tried in legal courtrooms. There is NO secular reason to deny same sex marriage. I’m not saying the Church should allow it. Just that from a secular standpoint, there is no justification to deny it. The only arguments that have not been utterly refuted are that marriage is an institution not a right, and that majority rules. The former is handled by religious institutions not being mandated to support it, and the latter being struck down. Read the Supreme Court briefs.

 

[exnihilo]

This has been tried in legal courtrooms. There is NO secular reason to deny same sex marriage.

Actually the secular reason is the strongest. Just because courts have lost their way doesn’t mean reasonable people should follow them.

 

[bquinnan]

This has been tried in legal courtrooms.

A 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court does not suffice as proof that no rational argument against same-sex marriage exists in the legal realm. Were that true we would have to conclude that Dred Scott was a good ruling - that was 7-2. Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. The United States? SCOTUS does not have judicial infallibility.

 

[LateCatholic]

A 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court does not suffice as proof that no rational argument against same-sex marriage exists in the legal realm. Were that true we would have to conclude that Dred Scott was a good ruling - that was 7-2. Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. The United States? SCOTUS does not have judicial infallibility.

I’m saying that if you read the briefs, the opposing position was based on tradition and majority rule. I’d like to know what rational argument exists for denying the right to marry to same sex couples from a secular standpoint. I understand the religious position and do not care to argue it.

 

[LateCatholic]

Actually the secular reason is the strongest.

What is the secular reason you are referring to?

 

[exnihilo]

That marriage exists because children come from the coupling of a man and a woman. Children do not come from homosexual sex. In fact polygamy, which is still illegal, is actually marriage.

 

[LateCatholic]

That marriage exists because children come from the coupling of a man and a woman. Children do not come from homosexual sex.

People get married all the time and never have children. Homosexual couples have children all the time.

In fact polygamy, which is still illegal, is actually marriage.

Polygamy was illegal before same sex marriage. Why is it relevant?