Differences in how Church and society should behave - gay marriage etc

[ianjmatt]

As someone about to embark on an RCIA course, I have been pondering a number of ethical questions - such as this one about gay marriage:

Is it right for the Church to seek to impose a morality upon a society that they majority of people in that society don’t want? For example, if the majority in a community want to legalize gay marriage, is it right for the Church to seek to prevent this? Or, is it more preferable to seek protections for the Church, or to take a stand of conscience if that is necessary (e.g. no longer performing the civil aspect of marriage at all, just performing the sacramental act and leaving it up to the couple to arrange the legal aspect separately)?

Would the Church’s energy be better spent seeking conversions and seeing a change of culture through the religious convictions of more converts rather than a ‘top down’ approach of circumventing the democratic process.

 

[michelleds]

As someone about to embark on an RCIA course, I have been pondering a number of ethical questions - such as this one about gay marriage:

Is it right for the Church to seek to impose a morality upon a society that they majority of people in that society don’t want? For example, if the majority in a community want to legalize gay marriage, is it right for the Church to seek to prevent this? Or, is it more preferable to seek protections for the Church, or to take a stand of conscience if that is necessary (e.g. no longer performing the civil aspect of marriage at all, just performing the sacramental act and leaving it up to the couple to arrange the legal aspect separately)?

Would the Church’s energy be better spent seeking conversions and seeing a change of culture through the religious convictions of more converts rather than a ‘top down’ approach of circumventing the democratic process.

Inherent in your question is the unspoken premise that Catholics should not have a voice in the democratic process. This is a common premise in today’s modern world that likely stems from a misunderstanding of separation of church and state. Individuals *should and must *bring their morality to bear in their public discourses as well as their voting decisions. By saying “impose their morality” and “circumventing the democratic process” you are saying that the Church or Catholics are dangerous.

It would necessarily follow from your unstated premise that one should ask if it is right for the Church to seek to outlaw abortion or euthanasia.

 

[ianjmatt]

Inherent in your question is the unspoken premise that Catholics should not have a voice in the democratic process. This is a common premise in today’s modern world that likely stems from a misunderstanding of separation of church and state. Individuals *should and must *bring their morality to bear in their public discourses as well as their voting decisions. By saying “impose their morality” and “circumventing the democratic process” you are saying that the Church or Catholics are dangerous.

It would necessarily follow from your unstated premise that one should ask if it is right for the Church to seek to outlaw abortion or euthanasia.

That is not what I’m saying. What I mean, if the Catholic view is the minority view in a society, is it right to seek to prevent what the majority want other than by persuasion and debate. Being vocal in expressing a view is an essential part of the democratic process, including unpopular views. But my question is whether we who hold a particular view have the right to expect the wider society to conform to that view if it is not the majority view.

I think abortion and euthanasia are different to gay marriage. They result in direct harm outside of the individuals making the choice, whereas it might be argued that gay marriage may result in indirect harm, that is not the same thing.

 

[Corki]

That is not what I’m saying. What I mean, if the Catholic view is the minority view in a society, is it right to seek to prevent what the majority want other than by persuasion and debate. Being vocal in expressing a view is an essential part of the democratic process, including unpopular views. But my question is whether we who hold a particular view have the right to expect the wider society to conform to that view if it is not the majority view.

I think abortion and euthanasia are different to gay marriage. They result in direct harm outside of the individuals making the choice, whereas it might be argued that gay marriage may result in indirect harm, that is not the same thing.

Some problems with your analysis.

1. This isn’t just a “Catholic view”. The belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman is a shared view that crosses religius and cultural divisions.
2. No one is “imposing” traditional marriage onto an unwilling society. At worst, we are defending what is** already **the social construct against a radical redefinition.
3. Why does direct or indirect matter? What matters is whether anyone is harmed.

Or, is it more preferable to seek protections for the Church, or to take a stand of conscience if that is necessary (e.g. no longer performing the civil aspect of marriage at all, just performing the sacramental act and leaving it up to the couple to arrange the legal aspect separately)?

This is a ghetto mentality. The idea that those who have a certain moral code are less than full citizens and need to sequester their beliefs and opinions is not a Catholic view - nor an American one, for that matter.

oops, just saw you are not in the US. Maybe a ghetto or bunker menality is more acceptable in other non-American cultures

 

[ianjmatt]

Some problems with your analysis.

1. This isn’t just a “Catholic view”. The belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman is a shared view that crosses religius and cultural divisions.
2. No one is “imposing” traditional marriage onto an unwilling society. At worst, we are defending what is** already **the social construct against a radical redefinition.
3. Why does direct or indirect matter? What matters is whether anyone is harmed.

To answer:

1. Yes - but the question still stands - what if that view is now the minority belief? Or what if it is the majority view, but the majority also support the right of people to have gay marriage?
2. But if society wants to redefine marriage, then by what right do people preserve the status quo?
3. Because direct harm to a 3rd party is the basis of all judgements on liberty. For example, alcohol causes much indirect harm, but isn’t outlawed as the balance of liberty and restriction works on the basis of mitigating indirect harm (e.g. drunk driving laws) whilst preserving the right of someone to make decisions about their own life.

This is a ghetto mentality. The idea that those who have a certain moral code are less than full citizens and need to sequester their beliefs and opinions is not a Catholic view - nor an American one, for that matter.

oops, just saw you are not in the US. Maybe a ghetto or bunker menality is more acceptable in other non-American cultures

It isn’t about being a ‘full citizen’. Marriage for Catholics is surely a sacrament, with the legal aspect incidental (e.g. if a Catholic was in a country without a legal framework for marriage wouldn’t change the nature of Catholic marriage). If the state, through the democratic process, changes the definition of marriage within a society, it seems simple for Bishops to no longer provide sanction to civil marriage. This isn’t a ghetto mentality - it is recognizing that the state is not the Church - that America or the UK or wherever is not the Church.

 

[JRKH]

As someone about to embark on an RCIA course, I have been pondering a number of ethical questions - such as this one about gay marriage:

Welcome - Glad to hear you are starting RCIA.

Is it right for the Church to seek to impose a morality upon a society that the majority of people in that society don’t want?

It will depend to a certain extent on how the minority (in this case church) seeks to go about “imposing”…The Church does not seek to “impose” by force but rather by reason and persuasion. It should also be noted that in the case of Gay marriage, the Church is not really trying to “impose” but rather to “retain” since “gay marriage” has historically never been legal…

For example, if the majority in a community want to legalize gay marriage, is it right for the Church to seek to prevent this?

Why should it not be? The Church, or more specifically the members of the community who belong to that Church have the same right to oppose gay marriage as others have to support it. Each votes his/her conscience on the matter.

Or, is it more preferable to seek protections for the Church, or to take a stand of conscience if that is necessary (e.g. no longer performing the civil aspect of marriage at all, just performing the sacramental act and leaving it up to the couple to arrange the legal aspect separately)?

These are aspects that the Church has been involved in as well. One bishop in the U.S. went so far as to say that the Church could live with “gay marriage” being legal if it were called something besides “marriage”…And of course religious freedom issues would need to be addressed.

Would the Church’s energy be better spent seeking conversions and seeing a change of culture through the religious convictions of more converts rather than a ‘top down’ approach of circumventing the democratic process.

I know of no effort in the Church that seeks to circumvent the democratic process.
And the Church DOES seek to convert people in their beliefs and convictions.
Of course I can’t speak specifically to what things are going on in the Church in the U.K. Only what is going on in the U.S.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

Having read through the other responses here - I feel compelled to ask…

What specifically do you see the Church doing that bothers you?
What actions are, in your view, inappropriate “imposing” etc. ?

Peace
James

 

[jwakja]

If anyone can standup for homosexuality, abortion, sodomy, and other liberal mantra’s that are now acceptable and often glorified in Hollywood then why can’t Catholics say that these things are wrong in God’s eyes and speak out?

 

[Corki]

To answer:

1. Yes - but the question still stands - what if that view is now the minority belief? Or what if it is the majority view, but the majority also support the right of people to have gay marriage?

Majority is irrelevant. I know you are not in the US but there was a time when the majority felt that racial segregation was a good and fair approach to diversity. Morality is not determined democratically.

1. But if society wants to redefine marriage, then by what right do people preserve the status quo?

No one is talking about forcefully imposing something onto “society”. Everyone has the right to defend against changes that they believe are harmful. The right to defend and advocate doesn’t go away just because you might be of a minority opinion.

1. Because direct harm to a 3rd party is the basis of all judgements on liberty. For example, alcohol causes much indirect harm, but isn’t outlawed as the balance of liberty and restriction works on the basis of mitigating indirect harm (e.g. drunk driving laws) whilst preserving the right of someone to make decisions about their own life.

Not a very good analogy. In the case of same-sex marriage, one of the third parties inficting the indirect harm is the government itself. We should be much more vigorous in defense against harms from the government than simply from other individuals with competing “rights”.

It isn’t about being a ‘full citizen’. Marriage for Catholics is surely a sacrament, with the legal aspect incidental (e.g. if a Catholic was in a country without a legal framework for marriage wouldn’t change the nature of Catholic marriage).

Catholics aren’t just concerned about defending Sacramental marrigage but marriage as a social element. An attempt to force Catholics (or anyone) to accept a reduced definition of marriage is to treat them as less than full citizens.

If the state, through the democratic process, changes the definition of marriage within a society, it seems simple for Bishops to no longer provide sanction to civil marriage.

But this would go directly against yet another important part of our faith. Marriage is not dependent on the sanction of a Bishop. The Church supports and recognizes non-Catholic marriages, natural marriages, civil marriages, etc.

This isn’t a ghetto mentality - it is recognizing that the state is not the Church - that America or the UK or wherever is not the Church

It is exactly a ghetto mentality. It is the idea that anyone who forms a moral opinion based, even in part, on the teachings of their religion, is not allowed an equal voice in the process of forming laws. It attempts to force people who hold certain views out of jobs, out of academic instituations and out of public life. It sequesters people of faith and restricts our free expression and free speech. In the US, that’s a big deal. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom to redress wrongs are enshrined in our Constitution. Freedom of marriage is not – let alone freedom to redefine marriage.

 

[fix]

It isn’t about being a ‘full citizen’. Marriage for Catholics is surely a sacrament, with the legal aspect incidental (e.g. if a Catholic was in a country without a legal framework for marriage wouldn’t change the nature of Catholic marriage). If the state, through the democratic process, changes the definition of marriage within a society, it seems simple for Bishops to no longer provide sanction to civil marriage. This isn’t a ghetto mentality - it is recognizing that the state is not the Church - that America or the UK or wherever is not the Church.

The Church is not only concerned with Catholics. She is concerned for all people. Marriage is a natural institution that involves all of society. Redefining it is like redefining what is human. The state has no authority to do such things. It is simply an abuse of state authority.

 

[ianjmatt]

I guess I’ll just have to disagree. Im not suggesting that people cannot have a voice in society, but expecting that our voice has more weight than anyone else is presumptuous, and if we cannot persuade people we don’t have the right to prevent what people want to do.

If people want to allow gay marriage that doesn’t mean the church has to support it, and if after arguing against it, it still happens then it doesn’t change anything regarding the truth and what marriage really is.

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel - use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff de-personalises the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people. Showing them the wonderful truth and grace that is offered and can be found in Christ through the Church. This isn’t to minimize sin, but to consider how we address sinfulness - through harsh judgement, political slogans and demonstrations, or through acts of love and charity, speaking the truth in love.

 

[Corki]

I guess I’ll just have to disagree. Im not suggesting that people cannot have a voice in society, but expecting that our voice has more weight than anyone else is presumptuous, and if we cannot persuade people we don’t have the right to prevent what people want to do.

No one is suggesting that the opionions of Catholics or others who defend same-sex marriage be given **more **weight. We are saying that our opinons shouldn’t be given less weight just because they are formed, in part, by our faith.

The whole same-sex marriage issue was drummed up by a very small and very vocal minority. It wasn’t an organic upswelling from society. Most people, at least in the US, who get counted as “supporting” same-sex marriage are, at best, ambivalent.

If people want to allow gay marriage that doesn’t mean the church has to support it, and if after arguing against it, it still happens then it doesn’t change anything regarding the truth and what marriage really is.

Well, again, it may be different in the UK but the proposed same-sex marriage law changes in the US would have required Catholics and Catholic institutions to support it even if they don’t actively participate.

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel - use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff de-personalises the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people.

I agree with you there. Our discourse should not be in the form of “yelling” but in clearly and consistently explaining our views in a calm and Christian manner.

Showing them the wonderful truth and grace that is offered and can be found in Christ through the Church. This isn’t to minimize sin, but to consider how we address sinfulness - through harsh judgement, political slogans and demonstrations, or through acts of love and charity, speaking the truth in love.

I actually think our Bishops have done a pretty good job at being the voice of truth and grace and not falling into harsh judgements, slogans, etc. Of course, individuals are imperfect in that regard (on both sides of the discussion).

 

[fix]

I guess I’ll just have to disagree. Im not suggesting that people cannot have a voice in society, but expecting that our voice has more weight than anyone else is presumptuous, and if we cannot persuade people we don’t have the right to prevent what people want to do.

If people want to allow gay marriage that doesn’t mean the church has to support it, and if after arguing against it, it still happens then it doesn’t change anything regarding the truth and what marriage really is.

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel - use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff de-personalises the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people. Showing them the wonderful truth and grace that is offered and can be found in Christ through the Church. This isn’t to minimize sin, but to consider how we address sinfulness - through harsh judgement, political slogans and demonstrations, or through acts of love and charity, speaking the truth in love.

Well, it is not a case of either/or. It is a both/and. The drastic change will have serious effects including on children. It is no small matter. Majority opinion does not mean such an opinion ought to rule our society.

 

[fix]

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel - use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff de-personalises the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people.

This is really a matter of interpretation. As an example, please see thousands of posts at this very site where any discussion that imparts truth is immediately deemed “hate” or “intolerant”. A very large problem we have is that the debate is often controlled by folks who shut it down by claiming offense or some such thing. That does not mean we should not be considerate, but it also does not mean that every time the truth is mentioned it needs to be watered down so as no person will cry offense.

 

[JRKH]

I guess I’ll just have to disagree. Im not suggesting that people cannot have a voice in society, but expecting that our voice has more weight than anyone else is presumptuous, and if we cannot persuade people we don’t have the right to prevent what people want to do.

I know of no one who thinks their voice should have any more weight than the next guy…but neither should it have any less…

If people want to allow gay marriage that doesn’t mean the church has to support it, and if after arguing against it, it still happens then it doesn’t change anything regarding the truth and what marriage really is.

This is very true…

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel

Who is “Yelling”?

use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff depersonalizes the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people.

Specific discussions at specific times and places with specific people or groups might bring out various terms, language etc. That is the nature of debate…The Church remains concerned about people and society as a whole…which is why she opposes gay marriage.

Showing them the wonderful truth and grace that is offered and can be found in Christ through the Church. This isn’t to minimize sin, but to consider how we address sinfulness - through harsh judgement, political slogans and demonstrations, or through acts of love and charity, speaking the truth in love.

I agree - Charity must permeate all…but I must ask again…
What specifically do you see the Church doing that bothers you?
What actions are, in your view, inappropriate “imposing” etc. ?

Do not those who support gay marriage demonstrate? Do they not use "political slogans?
As for harsh judgements…I tend to see more of that from the supporters of gay marriage than I do from those (Catholics) who oppose it.

I understand that you are struggling with this question as you move forward into RCIA. Continue to pray on the matter as you continue learning about the Church.
In truth I don’t know what the best answer is to the dilemma for I see pretty clearly that Same sex unions will eventually be permitted in many, if not most, areas.
I trust that Christ will show us the way to deal with this.

Peace
James

 

[LaSainte]

In a democratic society, everyone has the right to speak and vie their conscience, even if their conscience tells them it’s ok to sit around shooting up heroin all day. Everyone gets a say. Because I personally elieve that a true Democracy is the best form of government and allows for the best chance of dignity and equality for each and every person, I dont think democracy should be circumvented or manipulated, even if I disagree with the outcome. Exceptions would be if the majority were voting for something that could seriously imperil the safety or freedom of my family-but this would be rare.

So I see your point. We do however, have to fight for our moral beliefs, because things like the legalization of gay marriage, while it seems to only hurt those directly involved, “wounds the consciences” of everyone, especially children, the most vulnerable citizens. What I mean is that when you normalize something that is morally wrong in a society, it psychologically affects the conscience. Look at how “normal” it is now to see people on television havig one-night stands, and then they all high-five each other and go out for a beer. Look at how normal it is to see people doing all manner of things like this, how there is no longer ANY stigma whatsoever attachd to all sorts of behavior that we know to be immoral. On tv, you can have a bisexual “experiment”, cheat on your significant other, snort cocaine, have a baby with a friend out of wedlock is because you want a kid but no attachments-and nobody thinks anything of it because it’s the “new normal”.

When this happens, things that were once taboo, become less so. It pits a person’s conscience against itself-especially for kids who are so young and impressionable. Pretty soon, you have the sexy, glitzy, “no harm done” attitudes of the media and secular society barraging your kids with immorality. It’s pretty hard to fight against this appeal.

That’s why it’s important to try to keep these things from becoming a normal part of society.

 

[ianjmatt]

I agree - Charity must permeate all…but I must ask again…
What specifically do you see the Church doing that bothers you?

Thanks James. Here are a few examples:

• I watched some videos of a radio phone in on EWTN in which phrases such as ‘this is a war’, ‘we cannot let the gays win’, ‘this is our country - if they don’t like it go and move somewhere else’ and similar phrases were regularly used by the presenters. I asked myself the question" would this persuade a childhood friend of mine, who is gay, to change his life - or would it just entrench views further?
• Catholic Bishop links gay marriage to incest
• Anger as archbishop suggests MP died from organ failure ‘because he was gay’

 

[Dorothy]

I guess I’ll just have to disagree. Im not suggesting that people cannot have a voice in society, but expecting that our voice has more weight than anyone else is presumptuous, and if we cannot persuade people we don’t have the right to prevent what people want to do.

If people want to allow gay marriage that doesn’t mean the church has to support it, and if after arguing against it, it still happens then it doesn’t change anything regarding the truth and what marriage really is.

My real concern is that yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel - use of language such as “culture war” and similar stuff de-personalises the debate making it about politics and laws, whereas our concern should be about people. Showing them the wonderful truth and grace that is offered and can be found in Christ through the Church. This isn’t to minimize sin, but to consider how we address sinfulness - through harsh judgement, political slogans and demonstrations, or through acts of love and charity, speaking the truth in love.

You are very correct when you say “yelling about these things does not make people want to seek the Gospel.”

It is how we speak out the truth, and it must be done…".with patience and sound doctrine."

These scriptures jumped out at me early this morning, (in the Office of Readings), so much so that I wrote them down in my notebook.

Then, later on, I saw the original post in this thread. Here are the scriptures I would like to share:

Sirach 4:23-24 “Speak out when the time is right, do not hide your wisdom, for speech makes wisdom known and all a man has learned appears in his words.”

2Timothy 4:2 “Preach the word, persevere in this task both when convenient and inconvenient; correct, reprove, summon to obedience, but do all with patience and sound doctrine.”

Here are the timely scriptures

 

[JRKH]

Thanks James. Here are a few examples:

Thanks…These are helpful.

I watched some videos of a radio phone in on EWTN in which phrases such as ‘this is a war’, ‘we cannot let the gays win’, ‘this is our country - if they don’t like it go and move somewhere else’ and similar phrases were regularly used by the presenters. I asked myself the question" would this persuade a childhood friend of mine, who is gay, to change his life - or would it just entrench views further?

Just to be clear. Were these comments from the the people in the studio or the people calling in?
Perhaps you could provide a link or two.

Catholic Bishop links gay marriage to incest

I see nothing in this that represents an attempt to either “impose a morality” or is “circumventing the democratic process” - (both phrases you used in your opening post).
I see in this a legitimate question asking where one draws the line.

Anger as archbishop suggests MP died from organ failure ‘because he was gay’

Interesting…I ask you to read very carefully this article. Look at the title…then note precisely what they quote the Archbishop as saying (one assumes that the articles author will quote the most "damning)…I see nothing in the Archbishops comments doing what the Title of the Article suggests.
Then look at the response to his comments…I ask you…Who is spewing more hate and less tolerance. Who is attempting to stifle free speech and thus “circumvent the democratic process”? The Bishop who responded honestly and openly to a question asked? Or those who read more into the comments and deride, denounce and demand an apology for something that was (apparently) not even said…

You see - over the years I have developed a very careful way of reading news articles. Each must be taken apart carefully for, while they will purport to objectively report “facts”, they will often do so in ways that purposefully create a certain impression.
The articles cited above are good examples…

Peace
James

 

[april32010]

Some problems with your analysis.

1. This isn’t just a “Catholic view”. The belief that marriage should be between one man and one woman is a shared view that crosses religius and cultural divisions.
2. No one is “imposing” traditional marriage onto an unwilling society. At worst, we are defending what is** already **the social construct against a radical redefinition.
3. Why does direct or indirect matter? What matters is whether anyone is harmed.
   This is a ghetto mentality. The idea that those who have a certain moral code are less than full citizens and need to sequester their beliefs and opinions is not a Catholic view - nor an American one, for that matter.

thank you Corki. this is the most succinct and concise statement i have ever read on this.:clapping::tiphat: