Gay = Condemned to Hell?

[FatherMerrin]

Coupled with that is that the Church holds that marriage is between a man and a woman. This goes clear back to Genesis - be fruitful and multiply. Homosexual couples cannot (outside other intervention such as artificial insemination for females - which is also considered morally seriously wrong even for heterosexual couples). So a gay couple may love one another as St. Paul refers to love - self giving, other directed.

Unfortunately, the modern world has made this matter even more complex. I might have thought a few years ago that marriage should remain a wholly heterosexual institution, but there’s also considerable legal benefits to marriage that a gay couple forbidden to wed wouldn’t have, such as social security, inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, and marital tax deduction, just to name a few.

 

[MNathaniel]

there’s also considerable legal benefits to marriage that a gay couple forbidden to wed wouldn’t have, such as social security, inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, and marital tax deduction, just to name a few.

A civil union doesn’t have to be pronounced “Meh-ridge” to obtain these civil privileges.

 

[signit]

FatherMerrin:

there’s also considerable legal benefits to marriage that a gay couple forbidden to wed wouldn’t have, such as social security, inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, and marital tax deduction, just to name a few.

A civil union doesn’t have to be pronounced “Meh-ridge” to obtain these civil privileges.

Not necessarily.

Some of these benefits are set in law only for spouses. You can’t contract into them.

The Social Security benefit for spouses, for example, is only for spouses.

Spouses have benefits under the tax laws. Spouses can file taxes jointly and take advantage of the lower tax rate for taxpayers who are “married filing jointly.” You can also give gifts or leave assets to your spouse without tax consequences.

 

[JimG]

If it’s all about taxes and other legal benefits, then to be fair, ANY two people should be allowed to “marry” to obtain those benefits. Any two people.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Tax law and benefits law are man-made, civil law. Tax law especially is completely made up by the state, to encourage or discourage certain behaviors from a state standpoint.

We don’t make a moral evaluation of marriage based on what the secular state decided to do. At various times in history, the secular state has allowed polygamy, for example. That doesn’t mean the Church has to agree with that.

Furthermore, let’s get down to brass tacks here. People are not getting married for the primary purpose of making sure their spouse gets their pension if they die. They are getting married for the primary purpose of being in a committed romantic and sexual relationship. That’s what it’s about for 99% of couples.

 

[Gorgias]

If I was confronted by a homosexual person (male or female) who asked if they’re really going to cast down into eternal hellfire because of the gender of their partner, what should I tell them?

Strictly speaking, because of the way you’ve framed the question, the answer is “no”:

• Loss of eternal salvation comes by being in a state of mortal sin at the time of one’s death. Therefore…
  • the gender of your partner does not place you in a state of mortal sin
  • temptations or inclinations to sin do not place you in a state of mortal sin
  • what’s known as “the near occasion of sin” – that is, placing yourself in a situation in which you’ll be tempted to sin – does not place you in a state of mortal sin

The only thing that causes you to lose your salvation is that you are unrepentant (at the time of your death) for a serious sin which you know is serious and which you freely committed anyway. That’s it.

Can the number of good deeds in a person’s life mitigate “bad” deeds?

No. It’s not a scale, against which you balance the “number of virtuous actions” against a “number of sinful actions.” That’s what eastern religions mean by “karma”.

would I simply state why I need to personally disapprove of such a romance, and otherwise leave them be?

I wouldn’t even state it, unless your relationship with them was such that you believed they’d listen to you and follow your wishes for them.

 

[otjm]

Unfortunately, the modern world has made this matter even more complex. I might have thought a few years ago that marriage should remain a wholly heterosexual institution, but there’s also considerable legal benefits to marriage that a gay couple forbidden to wed wouldn’t have, such as social security, inheritance, health insurance, medical decisions, and marital tax deduction, just to name a few.

Last time I checked, the “modern world” does not even believe in a life after death, so making any decision based on what the “modern world” believes is bereft of any truth - or TRUTH (aka Jesus Christ).

Tax law, as has been pointed out, is a construct of the Federal and State governments and is subject to change. Allowances for a subset dealing with homosexual couples could have been made, without the necessity of calling such relationships marriage.

Social Security is a separate issue; they would not have access to some provisions made for married couples. However, they still would have their own SS benefits as if they were single; non-marriage does not take that away anymore than it does to any other single person.

Inheritance is also a matter of State and Federal tax law - see above.

Health insurance is also law, created by lawgivers and subject to change - as we have seen in the last decade. HIPAA laws likewise could be changed to include partnerships. And medical decisions likewise. The marital tax law, see above.

And none of these issues are ones subject to grounds for overturning marriage as a man and a woman - which goes far far beyond simply Judeo-Christian law; it is near universal.

Not to mention that none of what you have listed has to do with the moral law and their individual souls.

I do not suggest it is easy; but it is simple: you can either speak the truth, in charity, or not speak the truth - which in my book, bespeaks a lack of charity.

Priesthood is a sacrament; and as a sacrament and as an alter Christus, it is up to you to proclaim the truth, and the TRUTH. No one ever said that is easy; and no one ever said that the listeners were of necessity eager to hear it and him. It is up to you to speak the truth which the Church holds, and then pray mightily to the Holy Spirit that the Spirit will lead them to that truth, no matter how hard they perceive it, no matter what the world says, and no matter what their emotions deliver to them.

You are not responsible for their decisions; but you are responsible for proclaiming the truth; it is up to them to accept or reject it.

 

[Malka]

CCC 2359 – Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

__

If an individual knows that homosexual acts are against God’s Law and engages in them anyway (freely)… then yes… it would put his/her soul in danger.

I also highly recommend the following video on the topic…

“Homosexuality and the Catholic Church” - Jason Evert