F
fix
Guest
Where in Catholic Moral Theology can I find that She teaches using the phrase “committed and loving” transforms illicit acts into licit acts?
- Status
T
tskrobacz
Guest
From another forum:
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related
Finally, a reasoned approach to this topic that I can agree with!
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 1 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=osCnn-ATrcI
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 2 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=ZdzCFMCsIb4
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 3 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=atsAiYpyI9M&feature=related
Same Sex Marriage: Why Not? (Part 4 of 4) youtube.com/watch?v=VwyOHhJAYko&feature=related
Finally, a reasoned approach to this topic that I can agree with!
E
Eugenius
Guest
I asked you to provide a reference that said human knowledge about Natural Law was incomplete. You responded with:
The CCC 2357 says:
The CCC does not say knowledge about Natural Law was incomplete. Did I misunderstand you?
T
tskrobacz
Guest
I did not mean to say knowledge of Natural Law is incomplete. Moreso the psychological genesis of same sex attraction. Sorry for the confusion.
N
Nate13
Guest
What if science was to show that some people had a genetic psychological/physical condition that made them apt to steal things? Would this mean that stealing is morally right? Or could it mean possibly that stealing would continue to be just as morally wrong as it was, and possibly the culpability of the act would be reduced some for that person in particular because they would have less control over their actions?
Also would you say that person had no need to attempt to control their condition and should just embrace it, or should they fight against it and work to mitigate the effect it has on their life?
My point is to show you that the genesis of homosexuality has nothing to do with whether homosexual acts are moral or not. If the condition was something that interrupted that person’s ability to reason and affected their decision making in a way they had no control over though, that would reduce that person’s culpability for the act.
E
Eugenius
Guest
Thank you for sharing these links, I particularly appreciated how Dr. Morse describes gay marriage as just the next in a series of problems that originated with no-fault divorce. If Catholics are going to oppose gay marriage I would hope we would oppose no-fault divorce with equal resources and vigor.
J
John21652
Guest
Eugenius, there is no doubt that no fault divorce is as bad, if not worse, than the notion of same sex marriage and you are right to call for great opposition from the Catholic Church.
Unfortunately, both have been foisted on society under the umbrella of utilitarianism which treats all of us as little vessels of happiness and according to which philosophy the granting of “rights” to minority groups supposedly increases the number of happy little vessels.
One merely needs to now take notice of how the number of unhappy little vessels seems to be increasing because of the harms that are accruing to society. The harm done by the introduction of no fault divorce is quite obvious. The harm done by the introduction of same sex ‘marriage’ is less obvious and the sad aspect to this debate that the harm might need to be unleashed so it can actually be quantified. Of course, by that time, the harm will be a permanent aspect of society for many generations to come.
M
Mudgely
Guest
That is a familiar argument, which is used by those who oppose the expansion of civil rights. And to think that you might not be able to read this without the expansion of women’s rights. It is also true that people like to be selective about what is a right. For example those pesky blacks wanted their rights. Those uppity women wanted their rights. Many in other social groups could see clearly that such aspirations were unnatural and would rent the social fabric of society. CAN YOU IMAGINE A WOMAN VOTING? they just don’t have the mental capacity to do such a thing. don’t call me a bigot, and am merely repeating your own line of reasoning. how could i possibly be a bigot? as you point out, the opposition to personal dignity and freedom, equal rights for others unlike yourself, persecution of others based on religious beliefs, none of this is bigotry.
M
Mudgely
Guest
For the analogy to hold, you would need to show two things at least: 1. that there is a victim. in the case of stealing there is a victim. in the case of sex acts between consenting adults, there is not; 2. that harm is done. so far nobody on this forum can point to any actual harm to anyone.
M
Mudgely
Guest
You have failed to make your case. Your family is not being attacked any more than allowing inter-racial marriage devalued same race marriage. though it was actually crystal clear to my catholic grandmother that inter-racial marriage was unnatural. if you couldn’t understand that, then there was simply something wrong with you. this is similar.
K
karoleck
Guest
Well,I for one can point you to this statement which has the authority of St.Peter behind it.I hope this helps you my friend ,as you are searching for the objective truth!
VATICAN CITY | Mon Jan 9, 2012 2:25pm EST
(Reuters) - Pope Benedict said Monday that gay marriage was one of several threats to the traditional family that undermined **“the future of humanity itself.”**The pope made some of his strongest comments against gay marriage in a new year address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Vatican in which he touched on some economic and social issues facing the world today.
He told diplomats from nearly 180 countries that the education of children needed proper “settings” and that “pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman.”
“**This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself,” he said.**The Vatican and Catholic officials around the world have protested against moves to legalize gay marriage in Europe and other developed parts of the world.
One leading opponent of gay marriage in the United States is New York Archbishop Timothy Dolan, whom the pope will elevate to cardinal next month.
Dolan fought against gay marriage before it became legal in New York state last June, and in September he sent a letter to President Barack Obama criticizing his administration’s decision not to support a federal ban on gay marriage.
In that letter Dolan, who holds the powerful post of president of the U.S. Bishops Conference, said such a policy could “**precipitate a national conflict between church and state of enormous proportions.”**The Roman Catholic Church, which has some 1.3 billion members worldwide, teaches that while homosexual tendencies are not sinful, homosexual acts are, and that children should grow up in a traditional family with a mother and a father.
“The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and states; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue,” Benedict told the diplomats.
Gay marriage is legal in a number of European countries, including Spain and the Netherlands.
Some Churches that have allowed gay marriage, women priests, gay clergy and gay bishops have been losing members to Catholicism, and the Vatican has taken steps to facilitate their conversion.
In 2009, Benedict decreed that Anglicans who leave their Church, many because they feel it has become too liberal, can find a home in Catholicism in a parallel hierarchy that allows them to keep some of their traditions.
The Vatican has since set up “ordinariates,” structures similar to dioceses, in Britain and the United States to oversee ex-Anglicans who have converted and be a point of contact for those wishing to do so.
J
John21652
Guest
Wrong.
The harm done by ilicit sex acts has been documented by many throughout this thread and many others as well. Homosexual sex acts cause societal harm and the first step in causing that harm is the attempt by a very small proportion of the population to attempt to redefine marriage and devalue it in the process.
K
karoleck
Guest
Responding Appropriately -taken from Redeeming The Rainbow by Dr.Scott Lively p34
church has suffered defeat and plunder in the past, most recently under the Nazis. (Not coincidentally,
the Nazi political machine was dominated by homosexuals, a little-known fact that is well
documented in my first book, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party)
- The “gay” agenda is real. It is an evolving set of political objectives whose ultimate goal
is the supremacy of homosexuality and related sexual lifestyles in our society and culture. Sexual orientation
policies, domestic partnerships, hate crime laws, “gay” marriage, “gay” adoption, “gay”
theology are only steps toward a future homosexual-dominated social order. - Gay activists define their personal identity by their homosexual actions and desires,
which causes them to believe that advancing the “gay” agenda is a fight for their very lives. - The “gays’” emotional urgency about their agenda, combined with the sense (fostered
by their own propaganda) of being victims of severe injustice, allows them to justify
virtually any political tactic against those whom they perceive as their enemies and oppressors. - The most hated enemy of the “gay” movement is the Bible-believing Christian church,
because the Christian commitment to preserving God’s design for the family, and to opposing sexual sin, stands
as the final barrier to the legitimization of homosexuality. - Over the past 60 years in the United States the “gay” movement has achieved most of
it’s political objectives and has now set its sights on the church – the only major social institution that still stands in its path to power. - “Peaceful coexistence” between the church and “gay” activists is not possible, since their respective
logical presuppositions about sexual morality in society are contradictory and mutually-exclusive.
The cultural influence of one side must prevail; that of the other must diminish. - Failure of Bible-believing Christians to actively oppose the legitimization of
homosexuality in the church – and to actively compete for influence in the larger society – will result in the defeat and
plunder of the church by militant “gays.”
church has suffered defeat and plunder in the past, most recently under the Nazis. (Not coincidentally,
the Nazi political machine was dominated by homosexuals, a little-known fact that is well
documented in my first book, The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party)
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
There is no “civil right” to homosexual marriage, nor any civil right for the “marriage” of three heterosexuals (bigamy). The basis of the acknowledgement of inherent (as opposed to arbitrary) civil rights for women was not an artificial “expansion,” but a refusal to deny something inherently and universally true. Properly speaking, legally, civil rights do not “expand.” Rather, there is a recognition of how inherent and universal such a right is, with the right being officially applied and legislated, not “expanded.”That is a familiar argument, which is used by those who oppose the expansion of civil rights. … [snip,snip]
There is nothing inherently rightful and universal about homosexual “marriage.” It’s an artificial construct propagandized by the Gay Lobby. The universal civil right of all homosexuals (like all heterosexuals) is called Free Association: within the bounds of protective laws (such as toward minors, such as toward the free will of others), people and couples can behave as honorably or as dishonorably as they choose, and with whomever they choose, without government repression of that private behavior.
An additional right is that they can privately call themselves whatever they wish: “husband” and “wife” – whether there’s any legitimate basis to that at all – “husband” and “husband,” etc. But what they cannot do is to demand that a government enshrine such language and decisions into regulation which asserts that true marriage, as an institution, is simply “romanticized,” sexualized friendship between any two people.
Have a nice day.
N
Nate13
Guest
There does not have to be a victim for it to be a sin. My post was in response to the idea that the genesis of homosexuality not being known could have an effect on whether homosexual acts are sins or not. My comparison makes this point.
Why is marriage important in your opinion? Here is all you need to know about the Catholic viewpoint on marriage to understand why homosexuality impedes on it and lessens it. Homosexual marriage wishes to redefine marriage as having the sole purpose of being “for the good of the spouses themselves” alone. If you include “the transmission of life” as part of the purpose of marriage you cannot have homosexual marriages.
O
Odell
Guest
It would say that the ideal marriage includes children only when they have been specially planned and chosen – children would become optional extras rather than the natural fruit and symbol of the spouses union. It would say that the ideal family need not include a father – a message that is especially pernicious in a country where one-third of births in 2000 were to unwed mothers. And it would say (because who can imagine that most homosexual couples would wed?) that marriage itself is optional, not the norm.
Legalizing gay marriage couldn’t change my feelings about my marriage. However, the value others have in my marriage will be reduced if you don’t see that my procreative relationship with my wife is a special and unique one that is essential to future generations and perhaps worth valuing greater than other human pairings that are called marriages.
Now it becomes crystal clear to society that my marriage is the un natural one.
I’m sure it’s also crystal clear to you that a 20 year old female who is in love and attracted to her friend’s 12 year old brother. The 12 year old male has hit puberty earlier than his peers, lets say. Lets now say that both of them consent to the relationship, and are in love with each other. Should we stop them? We can at this point in time, that’s “statutory rape” (even though there’s consent. But should the law be struck down so that these two lovers can do so without criminal action? Again, the only difference is the age gap and the timing. Flip it around, how about a 20 year old man and a 12 year old woman?
Should They be prevented from their love?
Of course they should. Mostly everyone at this point is in agreement it’s wrong. People would say “it’s not right”, which is a nice way of saying “it’s not natural”. But the same arguments “I was born this way”, “we’re not hurting anyone”, “we’re both choosing freely”, “what happens in our bedroom is our business”, “I can’t help how I feel”, “it’s instinct”, “my parents did XYZ”, “so and so experts say that it’s fine!” that people use to advocate same-sex marriages can be applied to minor/adult relationships.*
E
essie7777
Guest
I have read this thread over a few days there are a few post on here 
In response to the OP, i agree with all the posts which point out that nothing can devalue your own marriage if it soundly based on your beliefs and your own sense of self worth. The only true issue which threatens the sanctity of marriage is no fault divorce --as this can devalue your marriage into no existence without your right to defend against it.
Basically from reading through the argument seems to fall into different categories:
The state is democratically voted for so represents the views of the nation, not just the Catholic Church. This could explain why there is no state religion as there is no clear majority within the american people to decide which faith would be the state religion.
Note: Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention: 49 were Protestants(28 were Church of England or Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians,7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists); 3 were Roman Catholics and A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. From Frank Lambert. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. (Princeton University Press, 2003).
It seems then that the US laws are following the religious and moral teaching from the founding fathers as these faiths allow divorce, allow remarriage, allow same sex unions (or in state argue for it) and are in most cases pro-choice. Hardly the collection of religious thought that agrees with Catholic Teachings suggested by the poster.
Doesn’t this negate the argument to go back to the religous and moral affiliations of the founding fathers as a reference point?
It is difficult to argue with this position, even as a catholic since the Church and Jesus have never tried to take over government. Jesus left the state running to Caesar, it wasn’t his domain.
The Catholic Church promotes democracy so how can we then try and change the laws, that value that democratic process? Once they are law, state or federal, the majority has spoken and as Catholic we respect the function of government, but since the US in the case, is a democracy we can still practice our religion within the bounds of secular law. This law would not stop the Church and its valuing of marriage
Is there not a case to remove this debate from a legal issue as we are trying to do what Jesus never did, run government?
Surely, in a democratic society we would be better focused on changing people’s perceptions and beliefs, and then changing the law with a huge majority than trying to change the law and force out beliefs on people who do not understand us?
Wouldn’t it be great to have 70-80% popular support for our moral teachings in a legal setting rather than running behind the majority telling them STOP, NO we don’t agree with this law?
So no questions.
There was however one post that stuck out to me:
Thanks for reading and i’d appreciate answers to my questions to help me get all my thoughts into a clearer picture
In response to the OP, i agree with all the posts which point out that nothing can devalue your own marriage if it soundly based on your beliefs and your own sense of self worth. The only true issue which threatens the sanctity of marriage is no fault divorce --as this can devalue your marriage into no existence without your right to defend against it.
There is then the underling debate on the issue of same sex marriage which is dominating the thread. I have highlighted the questions i have in red. Please don’t assume because of my question you can suppose my stance i simply trying to understand in my own way this whole issue.
Basically from reading through the argument seems to fall into different categories:
- The constitution was founded on morality and religion so although it expressly forbids promoting one religion it should however make an exception for Catholic religious teachings.
The State does not prevent you from exercising your religion, you can do so freely every day at mass and follow the teachings within the bounds of the democratically voted for government laws.
The state is democratically voted for so represents the views of the nation, not just the Catholic Church. This could explain why there is no state religion as there is no clear majority within the american people to decide which faith would be the state religion.
Note: Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention: 49 were Protestants(28 were Church of England or Episcopalian, 8 were Presbyterians,7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists); 3 were Roman Catholics and A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin. From Frank Lambert. The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America. (Princeton University Press, 2003).
It seems then that the US laws are following the religious and moral teaching from the founding fathers as these faiths allow divorce, allow remarriage, allow same sex unions (or in state argue for it) and are in most cases pro-choice. Hardly the collection of religious thought that agrees with Catholic Teachings suggested by the poster.
Doesn’t this negate the argument to go back to the religous and moral affiliations of the founding fathers as a reference point?
- That homosexual marriage is asking to be recognized by the State not the Church, so is separate.
As from the quotes above, this takes a lot of different formats but inherently argues for the same thing.
It is difficult to argue with this position, even as a catholic since the Church and Jesus have never tried to take over government. Jesus left the state running to Caesar, it wasn’t his domain.
The Catholic Church promotes democracy so how can we then try and change the laws, that value that democratic process? Once they are law, state or federal, the majority has spoken and as Catholic we respect the function of government, but since the US in the case, is a democracy we can still practice our religion within the bounds of secular law. This law would not stop the Church and its valuing of marriage
Is there not a case to remove this debate from a legal issue as we are trying to do what Jesus never did, run government?
Surely, in a democratic society we would be better focused on changing people’s perceptions and beliefs, and then changing the law with a huge majority than trying to change the law and force out beliefs on people who do not understand us?
Wouldn’t it be great to have 70-80% popular support for our moral teachings in a legal setting rather than running behind the majority telling them STOP, NO we don’t agree with this law?
- The Church teachings on marriage, pre-marital sex all combining to be against homosexual marriage.
So no questions.There was however one post that stuck out to me:
I absolutely believe this type of action WOULD absolutely devalue marriage - the post seems to suggest committing fraud in marriage simply so it will be a man/woman union. I am pretty positive that the Church may have an issue with this.
Thanks for reading and i’d appreciate answers to my questions to help me get all my thoughts into a clearer picture
I
InSearchofGrace
Guest
It was not postured at all that an exception for Catholic teachings should be made in drawing laws. If you closely followed the discussion before and after Post 107 (mine), it should have been evident that I raised the point that we have freedom OF religion, the exercise thereof without government interference as protected by the constitution. Constitutional language does not say that laws should be free FROM moral reasoning, which had roots in religion by the founders who were mostly Christian.
,
P
pat_mc_1
Guest
Wow you are crazy.
E
epenilla
Guest
First i will say i havent had time to read all of the replies. So i may be repeating what someone else has already said,or someone might think im not paying attention but im being up front about not reading everything…
now,i really dont agree with the OP.
Why are you trying to compare EVERY marriage and relationship to your own? what about women who cant have children naturally but yearn to be biological mothers? What about gay couples who have been together for 20+ years without leaving each other and without any indiscretions? it is rare but def out there!
I dont find it just for you to compare someone else’s relationship/marriage to your’s because no 2 are alike. whether between and man and a woman or a same sex couple.
There are scriptures in our bible saying that being gay is wrong,a sin, etc.
but God also says to love thy neighbor as thyself. He wants us to spread His love and joy through every word and action in our lives,so that is what i try to do.
I leave the judgments to God when the time comes and i offer a loving hand when asked.
Dont go on a spree of devaluation or whats right and whats wrong. just worry about your own marriage! love what you have,struggles and triumphs
now,i really dont agree with the OP.
Why are you trying to compare EVERY marriage and relationship to your own? what about women who cant have children naturally but yearn to be biological mothers? What about gay couples who have been together for 20+ years without leaving each other and without any indiscretions? it is rare but def out there!
I dont find it just for you to compare someone else’s relationship/marriage to your’s because no 2 are alike. whether between and man and a woman or a same sex couple.
There are scriptures in our bible saying that being gay is wrong,a sin, etc.
but God also says to love thy neighbor as thyself. He wants us to spread His love and joy through every word and action in our lives,so that is what i try to do.
I leave the judgments to God when the time comes and i offer a loving hand when asked.
Dont go on a spree of devaluation or whats right and whats wrong. just worry about your own marriage! love what you have,struggles and triumphs
- Status