Gay Marriage in America

[TMC]

What evidence do you have that leads you to disagree with it?

The lack of any evidence that it is correct. Gay people have been adopting children for many years, and there is no evidence that any harm comes to them because of it.

 

[tm30]

C’mon, you know better than that. Everything that comes from the Magisterium is not infallible, nor is everything the Magisterium does a matter of faith or morals. One can disagree with the Magisterium on any number of things and not be either opposing infallible statements or declaring the Holy Spirit unjust. There are religions in which the leaders declare themselves to be Gods, but Catholicism is not one of them.

The Magisterium doesn’t declare itself a god. If you were paying attention to what I wrote, you would understand that it’s the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) who is doing the teaching through the Magisterium.

A member of the Magisterium giving his personal opinion to a newspaper is not infallible. This happens all the time. Cardinal so-and-so tells AP contraception might be okay in some circumstances, and the media runs with it as if it’s official Church teaching. Official Church documents published by the Magisterium, however, are indeed infallible.

 

[TMC]

No, a few of the direct statement of the Holy Father are absolutely infallible (when he speaks ex-cathedra), but the body of teaching of the Magisterium is infallible by definition. The pope does not need to speak ex-cathedra on 99% of these matters because they are already established fact. Extraordinary declarations of dogma by the Pope are rare occurrences because almost all dogma is already in the body of teaching of the Magisterium. The Pope spoke ex-cathedra on the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception because these were not yet declared dogmas, but were part of the Deposit of Faith in Sacred Tradition.

Per the Constitution of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

The Magisterium is infallible and you are compelled by the Church to believe so. I didn’t write it. The Church wrote it.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. We are not talking about the infalible Deposit of Faith - at least I am not. The infallible Deposit of Faith is by definition not something that could be unjust. (Of course there has been constant debate for 2000 years as to what, precisely, makes up the Deposit of Faith.) I am talking about the actions of the Church’s Magisterium, including the disciplines of the Church. Those actions and disciplines cannot be infallible (again by definition, they simply are not), and may be right or wrong, biased or not.

 

[rossum]

But two objects and two other objects always makes four objects, no matter what numeral base is being used.

5+5 always equals ten, even if we’re using base-12 and write ten as A.

Not if the objects being added are sets. Mathematics encompasses a large variety of objects, some of which behave very strangely indeed.

rossum

 

[TMC]

The Magisterium doesn’t declare itself a god. If you were paying attention to what I wrote, you would understand that it’s the Holy Spirit (i.e. God) who is doing the teaching through the Magisterium.

A member of the Magisterium giving his personal opinion to a newspaper is not infallible. This happens all the time. Cardinal so-and-so tells AP contraception might be okay in some circumstances, and the media runs with it as if it’s official Church teaching. Official Church documents published by the Magisterium, however, are indeed infallible.

It seems to me that we are suffering from a definitional problem. You appear to be using the term Magisterium to mean only the entire Magisterium when it speaks infallibly. If that is your definition then the Magisterium is (by your definition) always infallible. I use the term Magisterium to mean the action and statements of the instution and its members generally, and those actions are not infallible (as you seem to acknowledge) and may include mistakes or be influenced by unjust biases.

I am not sure what you mean by “official Church documents publised by the Magisterium,” but not all official Church documents are infallible in their entirety. For example, encyclicals are not generally infallible. Councilar documents have the force of Church teachings, but may contain both infallible and non-infallible teachings, etc.

 

[Hastrman]

Not if the objects being added are sets. Mathematics encompasses a large variety of objects, some of which behave very strangely indeed.

True enough, but in that case they aren’t 11 objects in base-3, either, now are they?

 

[tm30]

I am talking about the actions of the Church’s Magisterium, including the disciplines of the Church. Those actions and disciplines cannot be infallible (again by definition, they simply are not), and may be right or wrong, biased or not.

You’re deflecting. The subject is gay adoption, and you’re trying to change the focus to disciplines. Moral teachings are not disciplines. Gay adoption is not a matter of discipline. It is grave moral matter, as pointed out by the Church. So if the Church declares that gay adoption is gravely immoral and does violence to the children, you are compelled to accept this is as a teaching not just of the Magisterium, but of the Holy Spirit.

Disciplines have always been considered “changeable”, but moral teaching is not. And because a discipline may change, doesn’t alter the infallibility of the implementation of that discipline, nor the infallibility of wisdom in its alteration or removal. Disciplines may be subject to temporal conditions, but moral teaching cannot be.

 

[Hastrman]

You’re deflecting. The subject is gay adoption, and you’re trying to change the focus to disciplines. Moral teachings are not disciplines. Gay adoption is not a matter of discipline. It is grave moral matter, as pointed out by the Church. So if the Church declares that gay adoption is gravely immoral and does violence to the children, you are compelled to accept this is as a teaching not just of the Magisterium, but of the Holy Spirit.

Disciplines have always been considered “changeable”, but moral teaching is not. And because a discipline may change, doesn’t alter the infallibility of the implementation of that discipline, nor the infallibility of wisdom in its alteration or removal. Disciplines may be subject to temporal conditions, but moral teaching cannot be.

Actually they should at least ban it by gay men; children raised by gay men, whether adopted or fathered in previous het relationships, are much more likely to be promiscuous. And that is a valid public health concern.

 

[sedonaman]

The lack of any evidence that it is correct. Gay people have been adopting children for many years, and there is no evidence that any harm comes to them because of it.

I would respectfully disagree with that position.

---

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – Historian Paul Johnson

 

[FormerWarrior]

If someone declares the Magisterium bigoted (i.e. unjust), that person is declaring the Holy Spirit bigoted (i.e. unjust), since it teaches infallibly by the power of the Holy Spirit. That’s blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, which, last time I checked, is still the worst sin imaginable.

I don’t know how much simpler I can make it.

This is where scientific method, and spiritual method clash. In the former, claiming truth by asserting authority is not considered a valid argument. In the latter, it is the essence of the validity of the argument. I think that is why people sometimes come to loggerheads. It is an apples and oranges thing. Reconciling the two approaches to knowledge is not always easy to reconcile.

 

[TMC]

You’re deflecting. The subject is gay adoption, and you’re trying to change the focus to disciplines. Moral teachings are not disciplines. Gay adoption is not a matter of discipline. It is grave moral matter, as pointed out by the Church. So if the Church declares that gay adoption is gravely immoral and does violence to the children, you are compelled to accept this is as a teaching not just of the Magisterium, but of the Holy Spirit.

Disciplines have always been considered “changeable”, but moral teaching is not. And because a discipline may change, doesn’t alter the infallibility of the implementation of that discipline, nor the infallibility of wisdom in its alteration or removal. Disciplines may be subject to temporal conditions, but moral teaching cannot be.

Is gay adoption the topic? I thought the topic was wether or not it was possible for the Magisterium to act unjustly. Either way, the Church’s teaching on gay adoption is not an infallible teaching. You are still talking as if every thing taught by the Church is infallible, and every Catholic knows (or should know) that is not the case.

 

[FormerWarrior]

you forgot the greatest assumption of all…that our ability to reason has any relation to reality at all…

Every system of logic is axiomatic. See Godel. He may have been the first to formally describe the limitations of axiomatic systems with his Incompleteness Theorem.

The idea is that there are certain underlying assumptions for any system of thought. Those are taken to be true. When you change the underlying axioms, then you change the system. For example, non Euclidean Geometry, vs tradition Euclidean Geometry. Godel was the first to formally point out that every system is limited by its underlying axiomatic foundation.

 

[tm30]

It seems to me that we are suffering from a definitional problem. You appear to be using the term Magisterium to mean only the entire Magisterium when it speaks infallibly. If that is your definition then the Magisterium is (by your definition) always infallible.

Correct.

I use the term Magisterium to mean the action and statements of the instution and its members generally, and those actions are not infallible (as you seem to acknowledge) and may include mistakes or be influenced by unjust biases.

Agree.

I am not sure what you mean by “official Church documents publised by the Magisterium,” but not all official Church documents are infallible in their entirety. For example, encyclicals are not generally infallible.

True. Because encyclicals come from the Pope, and are subject to insertion of personal opinion. For example, Pope Benedict issued an encyclical two years ago which spoke of the financial crisis. In that document, the Pope spoke of the moral obligation society (and specifically) the financial industry has toward the public. That is infallible teaching. In the same document, the Pope opined on what he believes would be the proper solution to the crisis that was enveloping the world (and still is). That is not infallible, because it is not within the competency of the Church to establish economic policy for the world. It is definitely within the competency of the Church to provide infallible teaching on the moral aspects. So there is an admixture of both. But once again, the Church is speaking competently and infallibly about a moral issue when it comes to gay adoption.

Councilar documents have the force of Church teachings, but may contain both infallible and non-infallible teachings, etc.

Agreed - if we are talking about references to history or other statements that do not relate directly to the moral pronouncements within the document. An encyclical on, say, the moral responsibilities of democracy in America, could erroneously state that the Constitution was signed in 1776, but the moral guidelines laid out would nonetheless be guaranteed by the Holy Spirit.

 

[FormerWarrior]

I would respectfully disagree with that position.

---

“The study of history is a powerful antidote to contemporary arrogance. It is humbling to discover how many of our glib assumptions, which seem to us novel and plausible, have been tested before, not once but many times and in numerable guises; and discovered to be, at great human cost, wholly false.” – Historian Paul Johnson

Can you point to any actual harm which has been done, by virtue of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents?

 

[tm30]

Is gay adoption the topic? I thought the topic was wether or not it was possible for the Magisterium to act unjustly. Either way, the Church’s teaching on gay adoption is not an infallible teaching. You are still talking as if every thing taught by the Church is infallible, and every Catholic knows (or should know) that is not the case.

It is absolutely infallible. I’ve provided you the official Church document that declares the practice gravely immoral. It’s a moral pronouncement by the Magisterium. No amount of cognitive dissonance can change that. And the Magisterium cannot teach unjustly because morality is the essence of justice, and all moral teaching comes from God.

So to wrap it up, declaring that the Magisterium, guaranteed in all matter of faith and morals by the Holy Spirt, is fallible and unjust in any of those teachings, is blasphemy. Close the book.

 

[Hastrman]

Every system of logic is axiomatic. See Godel. He may have been the first to formally describe the limitations of axiomatic systems with his Incompleteness Theorem.

The idea is that there are certain underlying assumptions for any system of thought. Those are taken to be true. When you change the underlying axioms, then you change the system. For example, non Euclidean Geometry, vs tradition Euclidean Geometry. Godel was the first to formally point out that every system is limited by its underlying axiomatic foundation.

That is not the point of Incompleteness Theorem. The point of incompleteness is simply that mathematicians would never be able to find a set of axioms for math that is both complete and consistent.

And the fact that logic depends on axioms that must be accepted before anything can be proved has been known since the dawn of formal logic, so it’s several centuries older than Platonism.

 

[Hastrman]

It is absolutely infallible. I’ve provided you the official Church document that declares the practice gravely immoral. It’s a moral pronouncement by the Magisterium. No amount of cognitive dissonance can change that. And the Magisterium cannot teach unjustly because morality is the essence of justice, and all moral teaching comes from God.

So to wrap it up, declaring that the Magisterium, guaranteed in all matter of faith and morals by the Holy Spirt, is fallible and unjust in any of those teachings, is blasphemy. Close the book.

It’s also heresy.

 

[tm30]

This is where scientific method, and spiritual method clash. In the former, claiming truth by asserting authority is not considered a valid argument. In the latter, it is the essence of the validity of the argument. I think that is why people sometimes come to loggerheads. It is an apples and oranges thing. Reconciling the two approaches to knowledge is not always easy to reconcile.

True. But Christianity is based in faith, not science. So one who enters the faith should not expect to build a foundation of their own belief based on just empirical observations - although science is often complimentary to the teachings. By definition, the supernatural cannot be explained by natural intelligence, or by the finite arts. It requires faith to bridge the gap. Jesus was witnessed as physically risen from the dead, but it requires faith to believe that it was possible in the first place.

 

[sedonaman]

Can you point to any actual harm which has been done, by virtue of the sexual orientation of the adoptive parents?

TMC uses the absence of evidence as evidence, which is not evidence at all since we cannot know harm that is done in matters kept private. You all are the advocates of social change, so prove your case.

 

[sedonaman]

There were a great many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalization of homosexuality, and therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by its churches, as a great moral evil; but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect. We were proven totally mistaken. Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched. Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality, and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programs to put forward their views – including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints – on radio and television. Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and to most of us horrifying – changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior. – Paul Johnson, The Quest for God, 1997

All of this after homosexuals assured us that all they wanted was “to be left alone,” and they are still saying it.

Sidebar note: There are those who are currently lobbying for the felon’s right to vote.