Gay Marriage & Being a Good Catholic

[wisedom]

How would Jesus govern? What law would he pass? Would he force his views on another religion or society? Or, would Jesus take the Joe Biden route and make abortion legal, even though he “personally” held a different view? It seems absurd.

Jesus knows what is best and would rule accordingly. Those who are not confident in right and wrong are the ones who cop out by hedging their position. For example, God made his feelings toward homosexuality very clear at Sodom & Gamorrah. Would Jesus, therefore, legitimize the same sin now by making it legal? Civil unions? Fine. I understand that politics is the art of compromise. But unless you are a full-time compromiser, have some backbone and walk your talk! Marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman for life.

The non-Christian world is pushing their views on us. Unless we hold fast to the truth, we will continue to see government require Catholic hospitals to provide abortions and churches to hire practicing homosexuals. Quit apologizing for what you know is right!

“It is the duty of nations as well as men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God and to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the LORD.” Abraham Lincoln, Proclamation Appointing a National Fast Day, Washington, D.C., March 30, 1863

when raping of innocents by presbyterians is receiving cover-up by the hierarchy, it follows that homosexuality is widespread among the clergy, esp. those who are forbidden an outlet for sex…for all practical purposes, this is a subtle ‘legitimization’ of homosexuality and rape by those that are duty bound to display the highest standards!..that is why these depraved wolves in sheeps clothing seethe with rage at the society-homosexuality, which is their own handiwork and they project or divert their own intolerance towards their own grave sins, against the society…who are projected as sinners, so that the actual originating predatory men in white would appear as saints-----------hypocrisy at its worst!..

Scripturally, these teachers of the law, teach man’s rules and regulations as if they were God’s law and commands!

as to the practising homosexuals you refer to, who better than the honourable clergy itself?..mind you, the sodom and gomorroah within the upper church is just the tip of the iceberg, as regards what has actually come to light or revealed!

 

[wisedom]

It has nothing to do with “agreeing with,” because faithful Catholics do not approach scripture as “private interpeters” who are dependent (swayed) by a supposed consensus. Scripture is not a free-for-all do-it-yourself text, but a collection of many ancient texts, some of which had multiple authors but a unified message. In any case, the authentic interpretation of S&G has been outlined – among many other places – on the Catholic Answers website itself. Authentic has to do with understanding of all the various tools in which to understand the message(s) with expertise, having been informed about the foundations of the history, cultural understandings (language has meaning only within the culture), the literary forms being read, the tradition in which people received oral teachings, the allusions Jesus used, and much more.

And the Gospels themselves are not stand-alone texts. They refer back to Kings, to the Prophets, to Psalms, to Deuteronomy, to Genesis, and to contemporary practices and politics which Jesus was well aware of. A 21st century First World viewpoint is an utterly flawed tool. Naturally I’m not saying that you are doing so! However, many, on this site and off, do in fact try to do so, deceiving themselves and failing in the process.

I know that if you refer to the S&G discussion on the C.A. homepage, you will find the answer to your question. There are other credible sources, but that’s a good place to start. (I have found it myself there.) Good luck.

you appear to suggest that your views are fully in sync with Jesus’ and your judgements entitle you to the THRONE!

 

[wisedom]

We may all find out after we die that God was not against gay marriage! Nobody actually knows, it is just what they believe to be true.

WE believe that whatever the sin, the mercy of GOD is limitless and indefatigable and is available to all who trust in it!

‘gaying’ may be a serious or venial sin just like other spiritual sins or even of less severity, but it cannot be construed as wickedness!

 

[wisedom]

Hi, All,

I was a member of this Forum years ago but seem to have forgotten my previous account’s information, so I made a new one. This is my first post with my new account, and I guess I’ll just jump right in…

The “right” of persons of the same sex to get legally married to each other is, of course, a cause célèbre right now in the United States and much of the Western world. As Catholics, obviously we do not believe that a sacramental marriage can exist but between one man and one woman. Legal marriage, i.e. marriage defined by the state, however, is of course a different animal - it reflects the Christian understanding of marriage in some ways, but not in others. For instance, one can dissolve his or her legal marriage through a divorce, whereas according to perennial Christian doctrine “divorce” is impossible - valid marriages last until the death of one of the spouses.

In any case, here is what I am concerned about: we often here from the Church’s bishops (a holy and humble group of men, increasingly, of whom we should all be proud) that we must oppose efforts to legalize gay marriage. My question is: is it truly a Catholic’s duty, is a Catholic truly not living in accord with the Church’s teachings, if he faithfully holds to the Catholic Faith in believing that a marriage in the eyes of God could only ever be between a man and a woman, but who does not necessarily believe that the state can legitimately deny to same sex partners their desire for a (legal/civil) marriage?

Although I certainly don’t subscribe to the view that a legal marriage to a person of the same sex is a Constitutional “right” as we hear so often by the gay marriage lobby, neither can I find a foolproof reason why, if the majority of a state’s citizens (by state I mean each of the 50 states, not the federal State) decide to vote in favor for it, why we must oppose that. Often it seems that the Church’s bishops imply or even explicitly state that we, as good Catholics, must vote against these measures, whereas to the best of my knowledge, there is no Catholic doctrine that says “You must vote to make laws of the nation reflect exactly the Church’s doctrines” - all I am aware of is that there is a Catholic doctrine that says “marriage, in God’s eyes, is only between a man and a woman” - something I certainly agree with.

I think the bishops mean well, and they mean to stem the tide of sexual depravity gripping our nation, but at the same time I think it’s quite dangerous to try and make something appear as if it’s part of the Church’s immutable dogma when it is not.

Can someone help here? Tell me where I’m going wrong, or if I’m going wrong?

RC

“AS A MAN THINKETH SO IS HE”

if you think you are going wrong, how could you ever be right?

 

[Elizabeth502]

you appear to suggest that your views are fully in sync with Jesus’ and your judgements entitle you to the THRONE!

Not exactly. Wait: Not even close.

I “appear to be,” and am, in sync with other experts in scripture study (Protestants, Jews, Catholics) because of my graduate course of studies in the study of scripture and my additional undergraduate and graduate background in approaching literature in general. Credible, reputable scripture scholars overwhelmingy agree that the inhabitants of S&G committed numerous horrific immoral acts, including – but not limited to – homosexual activity.

Have a nice day.

 

[RMW]

Just some general thoughts with respect to some arguments/points that keep coming up in this thread:

First of all, the Church does not object to the re-definition of marriage as a point of Catholic doctrine, but on the basis of natural law. In other words, the Church’s position is not a strictly religious one, but one based on reason. Because the traditional definition of marriage is based on natural law, it applies to all human beings, regardless of their religious sect. As such, the definition of marriage is like the prohibition against murder or the moral precept against lying. Therefore, it does not make sense to say “I believe in the Church’s definition of marriage, but I don’t believe the state should impose it on others,” just as it does not make sense to say, “I believe in the Church’s prohibition against murder, but I do not believe the state should impose it on others.”

As far as I’m aware, the best summary regarding the philosophical arguments against the legal re-definition of marriage can be found in “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy. You can download the paper here: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1722155. They not only provide a robust defense of the definition of marriage as the permanent and exclusive union of one man and one woman, they also also provide objections against the re-definition of marriage by the state to include same-sex marriage.

Secondly, from a Scriptural perspective and with respect to the issue of supposed changing definitions of marriage throughout Biblical times, I would have thought that Matthew 19: 3-9 settles the argument:

"Some Pharisees approached him, and tested him, saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause whatever?” He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” They said to him, “Then why did Moses command that the man give the woman a bill of divorce and dismiss (her)?” He said to them, “Because of the hardness of your hearts Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. I say to you, whoever divorces his wife (unless the marriage is unlawful) and marries another commits adultery.”

This passage clearly implies that while it is true that God allowed certain practices amongst the Jews, such as divorce or polygamy, it is not because His law had changed. Rather, His people decided to ignore His precepts and act according to their own desires.

I just think the above two points are important to keep in mind. The first implies that you cannot brush off the Church’s defense of marriage as a purely sectarian matter. Additionally, the passage referenced above shows how deviations from the traditional view of marriage (i.e. an indissoluble and exclusive union between one man and one woman) in Biblical times cannot ground an accusation of inconsistency or historical ignorance against Catholic/Christian defenders of traditional marriage.

 

[wisedom]

Not exactly. Wait: Not even close.

I “appear to be,” and am, in sync with other experts in scripture study (Protestants, Jews, Catholics) because of my graduate course of studies in the study of scripture and my additional undergraduate and graduate background in approaching literature in general. Credible, reputable scripture scholars overwhelmingy agree that the inhabitants of S&G committed numerous horrific immoral acts, including – but not limited to – homosexual activity.

Have a nice day.

could it not be possible that a child has more accumulated wisdom than an expert with relatively less…? that is what SPIRITUALITY lays emphasis on!

but the same ‘credible, reputable’ scripture scholars skilfully avoid commenting on s&g perpetrated on innocent young males by their ““FATHERS””?..they are not numerous horrific immoral acts, including-but not limited to- homosexual activity? (in inverted commas!)

your humility is admirable and appreciated/COMMENDABLE!..GOD LIFTS UP THE HUMBLE -THE BIBLE.

 

[Deacon_Monte]

Hi, All,

I was a member of this Forum years ago but seem to have forgotten my previous account’s information, so I made a new one. This is my first post with my new account, and I guess I’ll just jump right in…

The “right” of persons of the same sex to get legally married to each other is, of course, a cause célèbre right now in the United States and much of the Western world. As Catholics, obviously we do not believe that a sacramental marriage can exist but between one man and one woman. Legal marriage, i.e. marriage defined by the state, however, is of course a different animal - it reflects the Christian understanding of marriage in some ways, but not in others. For instance, one can dissolve his or her legal marriage through a divorce, whereas according to perennial Christian doctrine “divorce” is impossible - valid marriages last until the death of one of the spouses.

In any case, here is what I am concerned about: we often here from the Church’s bishops (a holy and humble group of men, increasingly, of whom we should all be proud) that we must oppose efforts to legalize gay marriage. My question is: is it truly a Catholic’s duty, is a Catholic truly not living in accord with the Church’s teachings, if he faithfully holds to the Catholic Faith in believing that a marriage in the eyes of God could only ever be between a man and a woman, but who does not necessarily believe that the state can legitimately deny to same sex partners their desire for a (legal/civil) marriage?

Although I certainly don’t subscribe to the view that a legal marriage to a person of the same sex is a Constitutional “right” as we hear so often by the gay marriage lobby, neither can I find a foolproof reason why, if the majority of a state’s citizens (by state I mean each of the 50 states, not the federal State) decide to vote in favor for it, why we must oppose that. Often it seems that the Church’s bishops imply or even explicitly state that we, as good Catholics, must vote against these measures, whereas to the best of my knowledge, there is no Catholic doctrine that says “You must vote to make laws of the nation reflect exactly the Church’s doctrines” - all I am aware of is that there is a Catholic doctrine that says “marriage, in God’s eyes, is only between a man and a woman” - something I certainly agree with.

I think the bishops mean well, and they mean to stem the tide of sexual depravity gripping our nation, but at the same time I think it’s quite dangerous to try and make something appear as if it’s part of the Church’s immutable dogma when it is not.

Can someone help here? Tell me where I’m going wrong, or if I’m going wrong?

RC

Where I think that there is an overall misunderstanding is that the term “marriage” is being redefined. In the dictionaries that I have read to date, it is defined as a union between a man and a woman. As with other terms, our secular society has now changed that basic meaning to be a union between two people regardless of the sex of each. However, the ecclesial definition remains as it previously was. One solution might be to name all non-ecclesial unions “civil unions” and all ecclesial unions “marriages.” The problem with that is that some religions might marry homosexual couples. Of course this could be secularly legally disallowed as a solution to that problem. Then the Supreme Court would have to make the decision. Sigh!!! I am so happy that I am a Roman Catholic and that our beloved religion follows the word of God as we have received it!

In any case, the words of the Constitution can be twisted to say anything this crazy society wants it to say. An example is the the phrase of the separation of church and state does not exist in the first amendment. That amendment simply states that the state can not prevent citizens from practicing their religion freely and without hinderance. (Atheism is not a religion. By the very definition of the term, it is the antithesis of it.) The fact is that our entire governmental structure is founded upon a strong belief and dependence on God. God is mentioned positively quite often throughout all the original documents upon which this country is founded.

In answer to your question, I believe that Catholics must adhere to the teachings of the Church. As the only Apostolic Church, the understanding of the behavior that God wants His creatures to follow has been passed down from our Savior, Jesus Christ. The words of a language of His creatures may change, but God’s wishes don’t. It is our responsibility to show others by our carriage that we will adhere to God’s wishes before we will submit to mortal social pressure. No attempt of social intimidation, such as calling me a bigot, will make me see it otherwise. Wherever there is a question, I will go with God every time.

Good luck to you with this. I hope that I have been of some help.

 

[Faithdancer]

you appear to suggest that your views are fully in sync with Jesus’ and your judgements entitle you to the THRONE!

Actually Elizabeth isn’t expressing her “views,” except as these coincide with the teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, which in my observation she always upholds completely and to the letter. There are many orthodox Catholics here on CAF who have an excellent grasp of the moral theological implications of same sex “marriage,” and Elizabeth is one of them.

 

[Elizabeth502]

could it not be possible that a child has more accumulated wisdom than an expert with relatively less…? that is what SPIRITUALITY lays emphasis on!

but the same ‘credible, reputable’ scripture scholars skilfully avoid commenting on s&g perpetrated on innocent young males by their ““FATHERS””?..they are not numerous horrific immoral acts, including-but not limited to- homosexual activity? (in inverted commas!)

your humility is admirable and appreciated/COMMENDABLE!..GOD LIFTS UP THE HUMBLE -THE BIBLE.

I see that you enjoy sarcasm. Unfortunately, that tone does not correspoind to what your “identifier” claims as a “religion” (ie., “LOVE”). I see that you are also fond of capital letters. .

Someone asked a rational and factual question. I gave a rational and factual answer. The moral theology content of both the NT and the OT is actually not at all “for a child,” because understanding the meaniing of moral theology is radically different from understanding or intuiting the spirituality. Two different animals. One requires expertise which no child has, by definition, given that it requires advanced critical reading skills which are not in the skill set of even a gifted young child, since cognition in human development has actual stages, corresponding to brain development. It also requires a knowledge base and exposure which no young child has had the opportunity to access.

Try to have a nice tomorrow; you seem troubled, and I have no idea what the semi-hystierical tone (above and in your previous Reply) is about, but I hope for a peaceful tomorrow for you.

 

[wisedom]

Actually Elizabeth isn’t expressing her “views,” except as these coincide with the teachings of the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church, which in my observation she always upholds completely and to the letter. There are many orthodox Catholics here on CAF who have an excellent grasp of the moral theological implications of same sex “marriage,” and Elizabeth is one of them.

I THINK, at that moment, i was trying to make clear how anyone can presume that their views are identical to Jesus’ views, could not Jesus think and act differently as he did when he FAILED to agree with the decisions of the teachers of the law, who were hell-bent on stoning an ‘innocent’ woman whom they accused of adultery?; how could she be accused of adultery, when the men responsible for her adultery did not reveal themselves?

those who JUDGED her were guilty of worse or worst sins, which Jesus alone knew!

 

[wisedom]

I see that you enjoy sarcasm. Unfortunately, that tone does not correspoind to what your “identifier” claims as a “religion” (ie., “LOVE”). I see that you are also fond of capital letters. .

Someone asked a rational and factual question. I gave a rational and factual answer. The moral theology content of both the NT and the OT is actually not at all “for a child,” because understanding the meaniing of moral theology is radically different from understanding or intuiting the spirituality. Two different animals. One requires expertise which no child has, by definition, given that it requires advanced critical reading skills which are not in the skill set of even a gifted young child, since cognition in human development has actual stages, corresponding to brain development. It also requires a knowledge base and exposure which no young child has had the opportunity to access.

Try to have a nice tomorrow; you seem troubled, and I have no idea what the semi-hystierical tone (above and in your previous Reply) is about, but I hope for a peaceful tomorrow for you.

i am just indignant that self-righteous and excessively scrupulous people in this site- and they are far too many- should repeatedly violate Scripture that says: “JUDGE NOT AND YOU WILL NOT BE JUDGED”
i see that you see many immaterial things and presume you are right about them!

sarcasm is used only to highlight HYPOCRISY!

capital letters may be sometimes inadvertently used due to the fact that caps lock may be on, when it should not have been so!

as to the spirituality thing it is off-track and on a different wave-length!

of course there is no sarcasm directed at you relating to the concluding biblical quote!; could it not have been actually a compliment, which of course you do not need!

 

[Michael_Francis]

Thread closed pending review by moderator Matilda Bennett.