- Status
R
rpp
Guest
Other Eric has suggested this. See below. His definition of “charity” is also flawed.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Just to clarify my own understanding of the specifics of Catholic teaching in this area—for the purposes of this, “consummate” means only heterosexual intercourse involving genital penetration of the woman by the man, correct? Other sexual activity that does not involve the use of the male sexual organ would not count as consummation? If the couple (say a paraplegic man with no sensation or response below the waist and a woman with no handicap) married, would the sexual activity in which they engaged as a married couple be considered illicit by the Church because the man was incapable of consummating the marriage in the approved fashion and therefore there was no marriage that was valid in the eyes of the Church?
R
rpp
Guest
That is correct. Impotence is an impediment to marriage.
W
wifeandmomoftwo
Guest
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.
§2. If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether by a doubt about the law or a doubt about a fact, a marriage must not be impeded nor, while the doubt remains, declared null.
yup.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
Accepting someone with respect, compassion and sensitivity does not mean, nor is it meant to imply, that we participate in the obstinacy of a sinner by supplying him with food and drink while ignoring his transgressions. This is classically referred to as assisting in the sin through silence. I also suggest that you reacquaint yourself with the spiritual works of mercy, the relevant one here being to admonish the sinner. The respect we owe those with same-sex attractions demands that we use every opportunity to call them back to Christ. Every coercive tool both evangelical and legal should be used towards this end. By calling such individuals back from sin we show them the respect, compassion and sensitivity that they truly need in order to walk with Christ rather than the indifference of silence that could lead them to eternal death.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
So, they are not even to be allowed food and drink unless they “repent”?
Remember, they are human beings Eric. Their gender preferences does not mean you take away their humanity. Come back from the afterlife argument and show some charity and kindness in this life.
K
KathleenElsie
Guest
Of what good is this false charity and kindness? What good does it do man to gain the privileges of this world and looses his soul? It is not a kindness to let others foolishly fritter away their soul for temporary pleasure.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
It is not “false” charity and kindness, it is sincere. There are many with same-gender preferences who have the same monogamous love towards their mate, no different than those with different-gender preferences. Acting on who they are is not a way to automatically loose their soul. Showing genuine love towards another person is not a way to loose one soul, as the two people finding each other probably came from a higher plan beyond this mortal plane.
True charity and kindness does not have any type of checklist whatsoever.
F
Filius99993
Guest
…sexuality is NOT how a person is. Yes, they may have a preference but no they may not act on the preference. There’s nothing wrong with helping them, but you need to let them know that what they are doing is most certainly not moral. Just because someone’s “love” is monogamous doesn’t mean that it is a moral and truly loving relationship. Look our priests have sexual preferences, but they do not act upon them (or at least they shouldn’t). Just so should all unmarried people be. And homosexuals are just as much people as anybody else, most certainly! So, they are obligated to the same restrictions we all should have. Love isn’t based on sex, but on giving oneself wholly to the person you love… and gay people can do that without having sex. Our incompetent society has confused love for what lust is.
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
And here is the Chicken and the Egg argument. Which comes first, the love or the marriage? Same-gender monogamous preference relationships cannot get a legal approval in many parts of the world, they can get spiritual approval from some religious denominations, but not all.
This is one way Civil Unions brings their relationships closer to the different-gender preference relationships, being able to have all the rights and responsibilities that comes with a formal union in civil and/or religious law. The Catholic Church always runs slow, so no changes are expected within our lifetimes, but the civil arena is different and Civil Unions and all that comes along with it.
If Civil Unions and/or Civil Marriage were allowed, then any discussions towards “immorality” in relation to not being in a committed relationship would go away. As there is a long-term commitment with two people who want to spend the rest of their lives together and all the normal ups and downs that entails.
F
Filius99993
Guest
…yes, but gay people can’t procreate- I don’t know if the marriage would be wholly consummated…
N
NewUlm1976_2000
Guest
Neither can some heterosexual people either. They can adopt and raise a loving family.
K
KarenNC
Guest
Not consummated according to the Catholic Church, but, as I understand it, this is because there is no genital penetration of a woman by a man’s genitalia, not because they can or cannot procreate as a result of such. I have been told numerous times that infertility is not a barrier to marriage according to the Catholic Church, though the lack of the ability to perform as I have described is.
Examples abound of legal marriages that are not licitly consummated according to the Catholic Church for one reason or another. The thing to remember is that we are talking civil marriage NOT sacramental marriage according to the Catholic Church. Two different things. Having the availability of legal civil same sex marriage does not and will not force the Catholic Church to provide sacramental same sex marriage any more than the availability of legal civil marriage between divorced people has forced the Catholic Church to provide sacramental marriage to divorced people.
The lack of ability to procreate or even consummate the marriage physically is not a barrier to marriage for a heterosexual civil marriage, so I personally don’t see why it should stand as a barrier to homosexual civil marriage, as American civil law is not determined by Catholic canon law. Now whether Catholics are allowed by the Church to support such is a separate matter and I cannot speak to that.
F
Filius99993
Guest
Look, although our laws aren’t determined by Canon Law doesn’t mean we should just go around accepting others’ sinful lifestyles. In our world, the only thing we truly can rely on is our Church. I know that the U.S. government is not going to care for everyone who asks for care (look at the illegal immigrants) or last forever. But we can always confide in the Church. And I don’t really care what our government decides, it isn’t necessarily moral. Of COURSE civil unions are frowned upon… they are acts of fornication. Of COURSE homosexual marriages are regarded as amoral. It doesn’t matter what the government says is legal or not- one man sticking his phallus into another man’s mouth is amoral. It’s still a sin. I don’t see how any one could call that “love” either.
A
Amolibri
Guest
Filius: I am frankly offended by your post. (for more than just the unnecessary description.)
What are you proposing to do to show that you are NOT "just go[ing] around accepting others’ sinful lifestyles.
I see you are 15 yrs. old, but this part of what you say is scary. I will pray for you.
S
SpiritMeadow
Guest
15??? I had no idea that CAF allowed that. Thanks for the heads up. Over on Myspace they at least ask for an age and post it with the person’s name. I really am leery of talking to children without parental guidance. No offence Filius, I’m sure you are a bright mature youngster, still I thought this site only allowed adults on it.Filius: I am frankly offended by your post. (for more than just the unnecessary description.)
What are you proposing to do to show that you are NOT "just go[ing] around accepting others’ sinful lifestyles.
F
Filius99993
Guest
Scary in what way? NOT a fanatic.Filius: I am frankly offended by your post. (for more than just the unnecessary description.)
What are you proposing to do to show that you are NOT "just go[ing] around accepting others’ sinful lifestyles.
…I meant no offense, I was just saying what it is. I mean, we can discuss it hours on end without discussing what it truly is… but it really upsets me when people call it “love”. That’s pretty much what I meant… the Catechism makes it pretty clear why it is wrong. I mean, its the act we’re against, and that’s about it. But it clearly condemns homosexual marriages and unions. So, as practicing Catholics, we shouldn’t just look away, but be opposed to such. Then again, we shouldn’t go gay bashing either… but I’ve never met a Catholic who does do such.
The fact that I am fifteen is trivial. In less than a month I will be sixteen. I do not believe that with age comes with maturity, but rather maturity depends on a person’s outlook and experience (which can come with age, but certainly not always does).
K
KarenNC
Guest
Nope, I believe they allow ages 13 and up. I have run into a number of posters who are in the 15-17 age range. You can check and see if the person lists their age in their profile by clicking on their username then selecting “public profile”. No one is required to list their age, however.
O
Other_Eric
Guest
It seems that there is a deeper problem with civil unions or same-sex marriage that we are all missing. We are approaching the privileges to be had as if they were provided only for the good of the individuals involved. Rather than descend into self-centered soliloquies extolling the goods both temporal and spiritual that marriage provides, we ought to focus on the collective goods that the institution is meant to primarily serve.
The various benefits of marriage such healthcare surrogacy, assumed inheritance and immunity against testifying against a spouse are all meant to provide stability – not for the good of the couple but ultimately for society at large. Society realizes a genuine benefit in seeing to it that marriages are stable and that the smooth transition of property from one spouse to another is not hindered by any legal difficulty. This stability both makes the union more desirable than unofficial ones, providing a steady community and formalizes the inheritance of property.
Civil unions, same-sex marriage or any other form of same-sex coupling that we would permit under the law wounds these goods that marriage provides for society. It shifts the primary reason for such unions from procreative to one of sexual hedonism, the latter being an inherently rickety construction predicated on nothing more than the whims of the moment. It does not do to focus on the sterility of certain couples that is currently tolerated under the law as a way of excusing same-sex unions since the former is a product of unintended medical tragedy and the latter a deliberate attempt to thwart the procreative faculty in favor of orgasm.
Same-sex unions can provide absolutely nothing to society. These relationships between such individuals cannot even be said to contain love or friendship. There is nothing to them but the sexual act, which is why they must never be permitted. There is absolutely no collective benefit to be had in same-sex unions and their tolerance under any sort of technicality would shift all the great virtues from ones of selflessness to the worship of the self and one’s own good. It is, essentially, to spit on the Crucifix so that one may do what one wills.
The various benefits of marriage such healthcare surrogacy, assumed inheritance and immunity against testifying against a spouse are all meant to provide stability – not for the good of the couple but ultimately for society at large. Society realizes a genuine benefit in seeing to it that marriages are stable and that the smooth transition of property from one spouse to another is not hindered by any legal difficulty. This stability both makes the union more desirable than unofficial ones, providing a steady community and formalizes the inheritance of property.
Civil unions, same-sex marriage or any other form of same-sex coupling that we would permit under the law wounds these goods that marriage provides for society. It shifts the primary reason for such unions from procreative to one of sexual hedonism, the latter being an inherently rickety construction predicated on nothing more than the whims of the moment. It does not do to focus on the sterility of certain couples that is currently tolerated under the law as a way of excusing same-sex unions since the former is a product of unintended medical tragedy and the latter a deliberate attempt to thwart the procreative faculty in favor of orgasm.
Same-sex unions can provide absolutely nothing to society. These relationships between such individuals cannot even be said to contain love or friendship. There is nothing to them but the sexual act, which is why they must never be permitted. There is absolutely no collective benefit to be had in same-sex unions and their tolerance under any sort of technicality would shift all the great virtues from ones of selflessness to the worship of the self and one’s own good. It is, essentially, to spit on the Crucifix so that one may do what one wills.
- Status