Catholic Church has no problem with marriage between gay man, lesbian

[EmperorNapoleon]

I don’t know why this case is stumping so many people. I guess it only goes to show that our mindsets can’t separate the attraction from the relationship.

If an SSA man and SSA woman marry, they will likely have no attraction towards each other. But they may still possess the spiritual and mental maturity to actually love each other and consummate the marriage. Given that love is an act of the will and not of the attraction, this is entirely possible and the marriage can be indeed valid, sacramental and consummated.

Yes, loving sexual intercourse can still take place even without attraction, which eventually fades anyway. But love, being an act of the will, never has to.

If grounds for annulment include many things other than the ability to procreate then why wouldn’t those things be a requirement for valid marriage in the first place?

 

[Country_Gal]

Breaking news: Catholic Church says it is okay for man to marry woman.

Are we supposed to be surprised at this?

Ha ha!:tiphat:

 

[TarkanAttila]

Actually, taking away the sexual attraction is probably a productive thing. Sexual appetite is a good thing, but it can distract from the fact that a person is a person, and not a walking sex toy.

I think of a gay Mormon named Josh Weed. He has a blog somewhere on the Internet. He’s got a wife and IIRC three children. He is definitely gay, but he treats his wife like a person, and sex like a form of communication (rather than an appetite), and he and his wife say “I love you” in such broad, clear strokes that Josh claims they have better sex than most straight people. I believe it, if what the Church teaches us about sex is true.

If what the Theology of the Body says is true, we should have no problem saying a lesbian and a male homosexual could have a successful marriage because sex is, above all, an act of communion.

 

[Lapey]

Well, as we all know, there are competing viewpoints regarding the moral issues on this subject.

Immorality is typically defined as one person hurting another, a harmful activity deserving of social sanction. This definition has broad support in pretty much every human community.

Homosexual acts don’t meet this definition of immorality, assuming of course that we’re referring to consenting adults. There are millions of gay couples who have stayed together for decades, and we can presume they would not continue together for so long if they felt they were being victimized by their partner.

On the other hand, Biblical interpretations which define homosexuality as a sin have historically been a substantial part of the rationalization system for the unjust oppression of gay individuals. Literally millions of completely innocent people have endured significant suffering over centuries due to this philosophy.

After all, if homosexuality is declared a sin against God deserving of punishment in the form of eternal torment in hell, then it’s only a small step to justifying beating up gay people on the streets, denying them jobs, housing, civil rights, etc.

It’s a trickier question as to whether it’s immoral to be unconcerned with the unjust suffering of millions of innocent people. This probably describes most of us.

We know of the oppression and suffering of millions of gay people over centuries, but because we ourselves are probably not actively involved in that oppression in an explicit manner, we may feel it has nothing to do with us.

If one witnesses a crime, but does nothing about it, is that immoral?

I understand you are agnostic and you do not believe or understand truth according to God’s word and His teachings through His Church, but you seem to miss an important point; if calling homosexuality wrong and immoral is oppression then calling adultery wrong and immoral is also oppression. Let’s take this further, sex with children, animals, multiple partners, etc. where are the limits?

You give good examples of relative thinking, unfortunately whether you believe this or not there are morality guidelines set by a higher being, not by man. Being required to follow moral ways of living is not oppression rather it is freedom. Standing up for what is true and right is our mission; as allowing sin to continue without intervention of a brother or sister will allow death to the soul for both, the sinner and the “sitter”. The one who sits by and cowardly says nothing of the sin is a “sitter”.

To listen to this world is to be relative, to listen to God is praiseworthy. I am married to a wonderful woman, 26 years now. I am attracted to many other women; the true freedom God gives me is the Grace to stay faithful to my wife. What is different about me and the attractions to many women and if I were a homosexual married to the same women but attracted to other men? None, the call to faithfulness is the same; there is no difference.

 

[Felasco]

Thank you for considering my remarks.

if calling homosexuality wrong and immoral is oppression then calling adultery wrong and immoral is also oppression. Let’s take this further, sex with children, animals, multiple partners, etc. where are the limits?

Calling homosexuality a sin, worthy of punishment by eternal torment in hell etc is not oppression, it’s just rude.

Calling Catholic sex all these things would be rude also. Perhaps we might pause a moment to consider how we would feel if others were publicly labeling our sex lives as an abomination etc.

And what if they start going after the boring people too, then I’d really be in trouble!!

Rudeness is less than ideal, but surely we all have a right to express our views, and sometimes such discussions will not meet the ideal, and that’s just life, the human condition.

It’s a different matter altogether to organize political campaigns to deny our peaceful law abiding neighbors legal rights that we claim for ourselves.

If Catholics can pass laws denying gays the right to legally marry, what’s to stop some other group from doing the same thing to Catholics?

Using precedents set by the Catholic community, such anti-Catholic activists could push their anti-Catholic laws forward without bearing the burden of proving harm to any specific individual. They would need only cite the sincerity of their ideological beliefs, and make vague sweeping assertions about abstractions such as “society”.

As for sex with children and animals etc, these are exaggerated phony examples, because nobody is calling for marriage rights for such acts. Plus, it would be easy to prove harm to specific individuals in those cases.

 

[fix]

Thank you for considering my remarks.

Calling homosexuality a sin, worthy of punishment by eternal torment in hell etc is not oppression, it’s just rude.

Calling Catholic sex all these things would be rude also. Perhaps we might pause a moment to consider how we would feel if others were publicly labeling our sex lives as an abomination etc.

And what if they start going after the boring people too, then I’d really be in trouble!!

Rudeness is less than ideal, but surely we all have a right to express our views, and sometimes such discussions will not meet the ideal, and that’s just life, the human condition.

It’s a different matter altogether to organize political campaigns to deny our peaceful law abiding neighbors legal rights that we claim for ourselves.

If Catholics can pass laws denying gays the right to legally marry, what’s to stop some other group from doing the same thing to Catholics?

Using precedents set by the Catholic community, such anti-Catholic activists could push their anti-Catholic laws forward without bearing the burden of proving harm to any specific individual. They would need only cite the sincerity of their ideological beliefs, and make vague sweeping assertions about abstractions such as “society”.

As for sex with children and animals etc, these are exaggerated phony examples, because nobody is calling for marriage rights for such acts. Plus, it would be easy to prove harm to specific individuals in those cases.

The problem is you have flawed premise. Unequals needed to be treated unequally as a matter of justice.To compare homosexual acts with Catholic beliefs is comparing unlike things. You draw erroneous conclusions.

 

[Tigg]

If the parties involved are upfront and honest, the sexual orientation will become a major issue that will have to be addressed, and they might not be permitted to marry because of it.

This echos my earlier post. I was in a healing seminar once which divided into small groups for sharing. A woman there told us of the forgiveness she needed to extend, but could not, to her ex-husband, who after 17 years of marriage and 3 children, had an extra-marital affair with a man, which resulted in divorce. Her priest told her that an extra-marital affair was not grounds for an annulment, however, the fact that he had committed adultery with a man was. Upon his advice, she started proceedings to have an annulment, and eventually was granted one.

So…can anyone expound on this as far as the validity of marriage between opposing sexual orientations? Deacon Lapey???

 

[edwest2]

Well, as we all know, there are competing viewpoints regarding the moral issues on this subject.

Immorality is typically defined as one person hurting another, a harmful activity deserving of social sanction. This definition has broad support in pretty much every human community.

Homosexual acts don’t meet this definition of immorality, assuming of course that we’re referring to consenting adults. There are millions of gay couples who have stayed together for decades, and we can presume they would not continue together for so long if they felt they were being victimized by their partner.

On the other hand, Biblical interpretations which define homosexuality as a sin have historically been a substantial part of the rationalization system for the unjust oppression of gay individuals. Literally millions of completely innocent people have endured significant suffering over centuries due to this philosophy.

After all, if homosexuality is declared a sin against God deserving of punishment in the form of eternal torment in hell, then it’s only a small step to justifying beating up gay people on the streets, denying them jobs, housing, civil rights, etc.

It’s a trickier question as to whether it’s immoral to be unconcerned with the unjust suffering of millions of innocent people. This probably describes most of us.

We know of the oppression and suffering of millions of gay people over centuries, but because we ourselves are probably not actively involved in that oppression in an explicit manner, we may feel it has nothing to do with us.

If one witnesses a crime, but does nothing about it, is that immoral?

There is no trick question or trick answer. Biology determines how we get the next generation of human beings. People get beaten up and even killed for their money and that’s been going on for centuries too. So has rape. Don’t try to change the subject. In Detroit, for example, there are crimes committed but no one comes forward.

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

Gay people have access to the courts just like anybody else.

Please don’t lump me into the “most of us” category. There are billionaires and people starving all over the world.

Ed

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for considering my remarks.

Calling homosexuality a sin, worthy of punishment by eternal torment in hell etc is not oppression, it’s just rude.

Calling Catholic sex all these things would be rude also. Perhaps we might pause a moment to consider how we would feel if others were publicly labeling our sex lives as an abomination etc.

And what if they start going after the boring people too, then I’d really be in trouble!!

Rudeness is less than ideal, but surely we all have a right to express our views, and sometimes such discussions will not meet the ideal, and that’s just life, the human condition.

It’s a different matter altogether to organize political campaigns to deny our peaceful law abiding neighbors legal rights that we claim for ourselves.

If Catholics can pass laws denying gays the right to legally marry, what’s to stop some other group from doing the same thing to Catholics?

Using precedents set by the Catholic community, such anti-Catholic activists could push their anti-Catholic laws forward without bearing the burden of proving harm to any specific individual. They would need only cite the sincerity of their ideological beliefs, and make vague sweeping assertions about abstractions such as “society”.

As for sex with children and animals etc, these are exaggerated phony examples, because nobody is calling for marriage rights for such acts. Plus, it would be easy to prove harm to specific individuals in those cases.

It’s even ruder is to discount thousands of years of moral teachings in favor of “recent revelations” as being more true than those thousands of years of proven history. Sin is sin, morality is morality, and it does not change with times. Homosexual activities have and always will be sinful. Being a sufferer of SSA is not, neither is my suffering with attraction to other women besides my wife.

This is how the discourse is changed into politics. You assert that I cannot speak my beliefs because you accuse me of being rude by saying truth. This is how most people are forced into silence; furthermore, this is how the militant gay and lesbian lobby gets things done, by intimidation.

I’m not sure what you refer to as “Catholic sex”. You know, I was in a talk with an awesome young priest this past weekend with about 1500 teenage men. He made one statement that really stood out, we are not here to be liked, God chose us Catholics to be the leaders in truth. We will not be liked by those like you or others who do not want to hear what truth is. The largest cancer on our country right now is relative thinking. We must admit that there is one truth, wrong is wrong. If you want to dislike me for being truthful then so be it.

The type of talk you are bringing to this argument is exactly what keeps abortion legal and available, there is no such thing as a safe abortion; the baby always dies. Going after boring people??? That makes absolutely no sense.

As far as Catholics passing laws about marriage, who is the creator of marriage; civil authorities, governments, people? No to all, it was and is God. His Church is the only controller of what true marriage is, you cannot change that. The sacrament of matrimony is not the popular opinion’s right to regulate.

As far as anti-catholic groups coming after us Catholics, since St. Stephen the first Martyr of the Christian Church groups have attacked us, bring it on.

There are many broad sweeping statements made, its called Church teaching, there is a subjective truth that must be recognized. This may make you feel queezy, but it would behoove you to look into this truth.

NAMBLA would disagree with your “exaggeration” comment. I can assure you that once gay “marriage” is a done deal, polygamy will be next and then other perversions of marriage.

 

[liturgy_geek]

We actually had a workshop on SSA in our diocese recently. One eye-opener, among many, for me, in that workshop, was that there is no reason to believe that someone with SSA will ALWAYS have SSA, whether the person with SSA believes that or not. I had never thought of that before, and was kind of horrified to realize that I had been that indoctrinated by our culture!

 

[porthos11]

If grounds for annulment include many things other than the ability to procreate then why wouldn’t those things be a requirement for valid marriage in the first place?

Sure. But where does it say that SSA in itself is an impediment to marriage? Hiding SSA, perhaps, but but a fully-disclosed SSA prior to marriage can easily take care of proper consent and still result in a valid marriage.

 

[Felasco]

This is how the discourse is changed into politics. You assert that I cannot speak my beliefs because you accuse me of being rude by saying truth. This is how most people are forced into silence; furthermore, this is how the militant gay and lesbian lobby gets things done, by intimidation

I did not assert you cannot speak your beliefs, as my posts above clearly show. I am not forcing you in to silence. I am not intimidating you. The process we are engaged in is called conversation, it’s what people generally do on forums.

He made one statement that really stood out, we are not here to be liked, God chose us Catholics to be the leaders in truth.

Leaders in love my friend. Truth’s a subject best left to God, who is most qualified to deal with that.

We will not be liked by those like you or others who do not want to hear what truth is.

It’s not that I dislike you, though I’ll admit that sometimes all this pointless bullying of gay people tests my quite less than perfect patience. It’s not that I dislike you, I just don’t accept your claim that you alone know the truth. But you are free to speak your truth as you see it.

The largest cancer on our country right now is relative thinking. We must admit that there is one truth, wrong is wrong. If you want to dislike me for being truthful then so be it.

Well, let me ask you this then please.

Would you dislike me at least a bit if I was working diligently in the public square to ensure that Catholics couldn’t marry other Catholics? Might that bug you just a little?

What if I had already succeeded in preventing Catholics from marrying Catholics in a number of states, including the one you live in? Would you be annoyed?

What if I was repeatedly calling your private sex life, which happens to be none of my business, a sin, an abomination, deserving of eternal torment in hell? Might you be slightly ticked off at me then?

What if I claimed the authority of the Prince of Peace while condemning you and stripping you of civil rights that I claimed for myself? How’re we doing now, still pals?

We might do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. We might love our neighbors as ourselves, and reach out to the oppressed and downtrodden, and help lift them up. Somebody very wise once said things such as this.

The sacrament of matrimony is not the popular opinion’s right to regulate.

This is a theological view which is binding on no one except those who chose to embrace it. It’s isn’t the 8th century anymore, and the Catholic Church is no longer the reigning political authority that gets to unilaterally decide legal questions.

NAMBLA would disagree with your “exaggeration” comment. I can assure you that once gay “marriage” is a done deal, polygamy will be next and then other perversions of marriage.

Please list for us the places where this has happened, thank you very much.

 

[JimG]

As always, we have to be careful of what is really being said. It simply comes down to “Can a man marry a woman?” And the answer to that is obviously “Yes.”

Now whether or not they will be permitted to marry is an entirely different subject. It’s like asking if a gay person can become a priest. If the parties involved are upfront and honest, the sexual orientation will become a major issue that will have to be addressed, and they might not be permitted to marry because of it.

Yes, it is certainly no surprise that the Church would accept that a man can marry a woman.

Assuming they are both capable of completing marital intercourse, i.e., not impotent, there would be no impediment in that regard. Their marriage vows would have to include proper intent, binding themselves to each other for life, with a promise of permanence and faithfulnes to each other, and be open to life.

As an aside, I would note that it is not the Church which has sought change in marriage laws. Every civilization since the beginning of history has recognized marriage as between man and woman. That’s been the case even before Christianity, before Judaism. It’s just the nature of marriage—joining men and women for the purpose of family formation. Nothing new there, at least until now.

 

[Lapey]

I did not assert you cannot speak your beliefs, as my posts above clearly show. I am not forcing you in to silence. I am not intimidating you. The process we are engaged in is called conversation, it’s what people generally do on forums.

Leaders in love my friend. Truth’s a subject best left to God, who is most qualified to deal with that.

It’s not that I dislike you, though I’ll admit that sometimes all this pointless bullying of gay people tests my quite less than perfect patience. It’s not that I dislike you, I just don’t accept your claim that you alone know the truth. But you are free to speak your truth as you see it.

Well, let me ask you this then please.

Would you dislike me at least a bit if I was working diligently in the public square to ensure that Catholics couldn’t marry other Catholics? Might that bug you just a little?

What if I had already succeeded in preventing Catholics from marrying Catholics in a number of states, including the one you live in? Would you be annoyed?

What if I was repeatedly calling your private sex life, which happens to be none of my business, a sin, an abomination, deserving of eternal torment in hell? Might you be slightly ticked off at me then?

What if I claimed the authority of the Prince of Peace while condemning you and stripping you of civil rights that I claimed for myself? How’re we doing now, still pals?

We might do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. We might love our neighbors as ourselves, and reach out to the oppressed and downtrodden, and help lift them up. Somebody very wise once said things such as this.

This is a theological view which is binding on no one except those who chose to embrace it. It’s isn’t the 8th century anymore, and the Catholic Church is no longer the reigning political authority that gets to unilaterally decide legal questions.

Please list for us the places where this has happened, thank you very much.

I don’t have much time so I answer a couple of points you are attempting. First, love is being truthful. I will not lie to you, I will always tell you truth. We are all called to teach and act in truth, I can quote many passages in Scripture about this but what will it matter unless you are ready to accept the authority of God in the Scripture.

Second, neither you nor government can prohibit a Catholic minister from witnessing a marriage between Catholics. This happens at times in the presence of a pastor and a couple for unjust law situations. If it were made illegal it would still take place. Remember, God created marriage, not man.

Third, I don’t and would not dislike you, I am called to love you. Which is why I am taking the time to communicate with you on this forum, it matters that you know the truth. It’s your choice to reject it but not to change it.

The only person on this forum talking of the eternal fires of hell is you; I never said that a homosexual is going to hell. I said acting on homosexual tendencies is just as sinful as me cheating on my wife. I did ask you what the difference was and you ignored that question.

I never condemned anyone, you imply that I did. Furthermore, you can claim to be the prince of peace but it doesn’t make it so. What did Jesus tell the woman at the well? Did He tell her to continue in your current life style because it is your civil right to have had 5 husbands and the one you’re living with now is not your husband; or did He instruct her to go and sin no more. You have to understand what sharing truth is and how it differs from condemnation.

This is the 21st century and the Catholic Church is still the reigning authority in interpretation of God’s commands. This is one of them; sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful. To continue in that state of life rejecting truth places one’s immortal soul in jeopardy. The civil authority judges actions; God judges actions and intentions. Whether a person is catholic or not does not mean they will not be judged by God’s law. If a person hears truth and rejects that truth, they will be judged bu that same truth.

You are thinking singularly on worldly affects or requirements, I am thinking singularly on spiritual aspects, we will disagree completely. But keep this in mind, you are on a Catholic forum, you will get catholic answers. Here you are dead wrong and will be corrected continually; out in the world you will possibly be affirmed and even praised as being so modern and open minded. You can have that praise, I’ll take the persecution that comes with speaking and living in the truth of Jesus Christ.

Remember this though, I tell you these truths because I love you and I have concern for your immortal soul, not your worldly ideas or pleasures.

 

[Felasco]

The only person on this forum talking of the eternal fires of hell is you; I never said that a homosexual is going to hell.

This is one of them; sex outside of marriage is gravely sinful. To continue in that state of life rejecting truth places one’s immortal soul in jeopardy.

Why should I debate you, when you are doing a good job of debating yourself?

 

[Memaw]

I did not assert you cannot speak your beliefs, as my posts above clearly show. I am not forcing you in to silence. I am not intimidating you. The process we are engaged in is called conversation, it’s what people generally do on forums.

Leaders in love my friend. Truth’s a subject best left to God, who is most qualified to deal with that.

It’s not that I dislike you, though I’ll admit that sometimes all this pointless bullying of gay people tests my quite less than perfect patience. It’s not that I dislike you, I just don’t accept your claim that you alone know the truth. But you are free to speak your truth as you see it.

Well, let me ask you this then please.

Would you dislike me at least a bit if I was working diligently in the public square to ensure that Catholics couldn’t marry other Catholics? Might that bug you just a little?

What if I had already succeeded in preventing Catholics from marrying Catholics in a number of states, including the one you live in? Would you be annoyed?

What if I was repeatedly calling your private sex life, which happens to be none of my business, a sin, an abomination, deserving of eternal torment in hell? Might you be slightly ticked off at me then?

What if I claimed the authority of the Prince of Peace while condemning you and stripping you of civil rights that I claimed for myself? How’re we doing now, still pals?

We might do unto others, as we would have them do unto us. We might love our neighbors as ourselves, and reach out to the oppressed and downtrodden, and help lift them up. Somebody very wise once said things such as this.

This is a theological view which is binding on no one except those who chose to embrace it. It’s isn’t the 8th century anymore, and the Catholic Church is no longer the reigning political authority that gets to unilaterally decide legal questions.

Please list for us the places where this has happened, thank you very much.

Archbishop Fulton J.Sheen said. " The truth is the truth even if nobody believes it and a lie is still a lie if everyone believes it." God Bless, Memaw

 

[Lapey]

Why should I debate you, when you are doing a good job of debating yourself?

I see your account is under review…sad, I would like to continue to show you the error of your ways. If you think my statements are contradictory you are foolishly mistaken. I do not condemn anyone, neither does God. We condemn ourselves by rejecting He who is truth, Jesus.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

This echos my earlier post. I was in a healing seminar once which divided into small groups for sharing. A woman there told us of the forgiveness she needed to extend, but could not, to her ex-husband, who after 17 years of marriage and 3 children, had an extra-marital affair with a man, which resulted in divorce. Her priest told her that an extra-marital affair was not grounds for an annulment, however, the fact that he had committed adultery with a man was. Upon his advice, she started proceedings to have an annulment, and eventually was granted one.

So…can anyone expound on this as far as the validity of marriage between opposing sexual orientations? Deacon Lapey???

When a couple marries, if the have SSA, this has to be revealed up front, so that the couple can receive proper counseling prior to marriage. In the case mentioned above, it appears that the husband’s SSA was hidden from the wife. This is problematic in many ways, notably that it may affect the wife’s consent to the marriage.

 

[Phemie]

When a couple marries, if the have SSA, this has to be revealed up front, so that the couple can receive proper counseling prior to marriage. In the case mentioned above, it appears that the husband’s SSA was hidden from the wife. This is problematic in many ways, notably that it may affect the wife’s consent to the marriage.

Exactly.
If the SSA is revealed and both parties agree to marry anyway, with the intention of the marriage being for life, being faithful and accepting any children God might grant them then they would have a valid marriage even if they never consummated it.

 

[Memaw]

Exactly.
If the SSA is revealed and both parties agree to marry anyway, with the intention of the marriage being for life, being faithful and accepting any children God might grant them then they would have a valid marriage even if they never consummated it.

How could they intend to have children if they never consummated the marriage? God Bless. Memaw