Gay Marriage in America

[sedonaman]

…I answered that with the failure of the Inquisition the Church recognized that you can’t just torture or burn people at the stake for whatever reason.

Who said anything about burning people at the stake, or even torturing them? The fact is that not every point of view is valid and must be given an airing. What next, Holocaust deniers? After all, they have a point of view, too.

The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors, or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.

– USCCB

If the Church taught that error had rights, which it does not, the USCCB could not make this statement.

Moreover, the American Bill of Rights protects even people who are in what you refer to as “error.” …Your position that “error has no rights” is resonant with the policies of the Spanish Inquisition, not with contemporary American law.

What the Supreme Court ruled:

“… disapproval of a private speaker’s statement does not legitimize use of the government’s power to compel the speaker to alter the message by including one more acceptable to others.”

Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston
gis.net/~paul/#What%20the%20Supreme

So the Parade did not have to include participation by a group it considered in error.

---

“Previous generations of social experimenters have caused unimaginable misery for millions of people. None of these people has ever been held accountable.”

 

[TMC]

I cannot understand how you can claim to teach Catholic ethics, yet you do not know these:

The so-called “five non-negotiables” do not come from any Church document or teaching. They are talking points developed by the political activity arm of Catholic Answers.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The so-called “five non-negotiables” do not come from any Church document or teaching. They are talking points developed by the political activity arm of Catholic Answers.

Au contraire. They come from, I believe, a particular bishop at one of the USCCB conferences. They were then also republished on the Priests for Life website. They are not poliitcal statements. They are moral statements, summing up the key contemporary issues about which Catholics should apply Faithful Citizenship.

(But nice try at misrepresentation. )

 

[Wardog]

Au contraire. They come from, I believe, a particular bishop at one of the USCCB conferences. They were then also republished on the Priests for Life website. They are not poliitcal statements. They are moral statements, summing up the key contemporary issues about which Catholics should apply Faithful Citizenship.

(But nice try at misrepresentation. )

When I Googled 5 non-negotiable issues, this voters guide was the first link:

Search Results5 Non-Negotiable Catholic Voter Issue www.saviorquest.com

This voter’s guide identifies five “non-negotiable” issues and helps you narrow down the list of acceptable candidates, whether they are running for national, …

 

[StAnastasia]

The fact is that not every point of view is valid and must be given an airing.

That’s a rather blanket statement. In my household we teach that each of our children’s points of view is valid and must be given an airing.

What next, Holocaust deniers? After all, they have a point of view, too.

They do have a point of view, as do evolution deniers and climate change deniers. Whether those viewpoints deserve a hearing depends on the audience and the context.

So the Parade did not have to include participation by a group it considered in error.

I’m not familiar with the parade or the controversy.

 

[StAnastasia]

The so-called “five non-negotiables” do not come from any Church document or teaching. They are talking points developed by the political activity arm of Catholic Answers.

Thanks. That’s what I suspected.

 

[Elizabeth502]

To clarify, I did not call any individual “unCatholic.” I characterized a failure to be clear about what is and is not morally acceptable in Catholic theology (where that has been clearly laid out) as an unCatholic understanding of that theology, in its language and assumptions. The language and tone of support for “a gay and lesbian” lifestyle (as opposed to the integrity of their individual personhood) is not a message that your Church wishes to promote. (If I didn’t consider you Catholic, I wouldn’t repeatedly refer to the Church as “yours.” )

Second, there is nothing in Catholic moral theology that would morally ratify a homosexual civil union for the “protection of children” of such unions – whether adopted or acquired by designer reproductive technology (another thing forbidden by your and my Church). That is another example of an “unCatholic” point of view. I am concerned because, as you say, you teach ethics, and I presume that you claim to represent a Catholic view of ethics. I would be less concerned had you indicated that you challenge your classes by asking provocative questions about homosexuality, homosexual coupling and “parenting,” while presenting the Catholic principles and requiring your students to reconcile those. But it appears that you are agitating for an unCatholic message in your teaching, which, as a Catholic concerned about the increasing moral distintegration of our society, troubles me.

I hope that’s clear, and I will pray for you today.

 

[Elizabeth502]

When I Googled 5 non-negotiable issues, this voters guide was the first link:

Thanks. That’s what I suspected.

The Voters’ Guide on issues (not candidates) derived from the bishops’ statements. The Church neither endorses, nor campaigns for, particular candidates.

 

[TMC]

Au contraire. They come from, I believe, a particular bishop at one of the USCCB conferences. They were then also republished on the Priests for Life website. They are not poliitcal statements. They are moral statements, summing up the key contemporary issues about which Catholics should apply Faithful Citizenship.

(But nice try at misrepresentation. )

Please don’t accuse me of dishonesty.

The five non-negotiables come from the Catholic Answers voters guide, which is published by “Catholic Answers Action,” the political arm of Catholic Answers and which is available here:

caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1.pdf

The Catholic Answers’ voters guide was written by Catholic Answers to use to influence voters (hence the name “voters’ guide”.) My understanding is that Catholic Answers wrote its own guide because it was unhappy with the guide published by the bishops. To my knowledge, there was no Church involvement in making the Catholic Answers voters guide–it was written, published and distributed by Catholic Answers, not the Church.

 

[StAnastasia]

But it appears that you are agitating for an unCatholic message in your teaching, which, as a Catholic concerned about the increasing moral distintegration of our society, troubles me.

I am not agitating for anything. I am merely countering falsehoods that you have written about me.

 

[MillTownCath]

The Voters’ Guide on issues (not candidates) derived from the bishops’ statements. The Church neither endorses, nor campaigns for, particular candidates.

Good. This is why I’m a part of the Catholic faith, and not the 1st Southern Baptist Church of Political ambitions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

This is your view. We inhabit a secular and pluralistic society, in which not everyone agrees with your claim about homosexuality being “grossly disordered.”

The poster was reflecting your and his Church’s truth about homosexuality being disordered. And again, I would think you would know this, as a Catholic.

Whose morality do you think should be imposed on the body politic in a pluralistic society? Islamic Shariah? Christian fundamentalist? Native American? Chinese Taoist?

It is not your Church’s position that representing morality amounts to “an imposition on the body politic.” Faithful Citizenship calls us to advocate. “Imposition” is not even a practical reality in a free society. It’s a Straw Man.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am not agitating for anything. I am merely countering falsehoods that you have written about me.

As Michelle noted, I have not written a single “falsehood” about you. I have questioned, and continue to question without receiving answers, why you posit secular, non-Catholic positions and language as legitimate Catholic moral positions.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Please don’t accuse me of dishonesty…

I didn’t. I accused you, and continue to accuse you, of misrepresentation.

The Catholic Answers’ Voters’ Guide followed the bishops’ statement; it did not precede it. Nice second try, though.

The action “arm,” as you put it, is free to elaborate on and advocate as it wishes. Its positions are not binding on Catholics, nor have I claimed that they are. However, they are guides springing from the statements from various levels of clergy: priests, bishops, the papacy. The issue was rather that St.Anastasia had “never heard of them,” when any well-read Catholic would have heard of them in a variety of published sources (even if they never had visited this website) and would undoubtedly consider them in voting decisions.

Have a nice day.

 

[michelleds]

to those who said these points were American political talking points, please point out to me where in Catholic teachings, these points are, in fact, negotiable? I could have taken the time to find each of the CCC sections and the relevant Encyclical commentary, but I figured you all must know where these points are negotiable from within the Catholic Church, so you tell me.

1. AbortionThe Church teaches that, regarding a law permitting abortions, it is “never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it” (EV 73). Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide.

The unborn child is always an innocent party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child’s, who should not suffer death for others’ sins.

2. EuthanasiaOften disguised by the name “mercy killing,” euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person.

In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassion, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person (cf. EV 73).

3. Embryonic Stem Cell ResearchHuman embryos are human beings. “Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo” (CRF 4b).

Recent scientific advances show that often medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
**
4. Human Cloning**“Attempts . . . for obtaining a human being without any connection with sexuality through ‘twin fission,’ cloning, or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of the conjugal union” (RHL I:6).

Human cloning also involves abortion because the “rejected” or “unsuccessful” embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.

**5. Homosexual “Marriage”**True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recognition of any other union as “marriage” undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement.

“When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral” (UHP 10).

 

[StAnastasia]

The issue was rather that St.Anastasia had “never heard of them,” when any well-read Catholic would have heard of them in a variety of published sources (even if they never had visited this website) and would undoubtedly consider them in voting decisions.

There you go again, Elizabeth, accusing me. I don’t go to your church or receive your Republican voter guides, as I’m non-partisan, so I had not heard of these so-called non-negotiables until you mentioned them. Now I have heard of them.

 

[JButky]

I still think that homosexual behavior is an issue of freedom to associate. If two people want to live together in the privacy of their home, so what? If they want to think of themselves as married, so what? If they further “get married”,…so what?

Freedom to associate is not equivalent to marriage, and not by a long shot. “Thinking” yourself as married does not make it so. The issue homosexuals are pursuing is about changing the definition of marriage to something LESS than it is so that homosexuals can be included.

There is lip service paid to the terms used to define marriage without an actual understanding of the terms defining marriage and so the homosexual “marriage” advocates falsely conclude that their argument is legitimate. As usual, a premise in error results in a flawed conclusion even if your logic is otherwise flawless.

Joe B

 

[Wardog]

There you go again, Elizabeth, accusing me. I don’t go to your church or receive your Republican voter guides, as I’m non-partisan, so I had not heard of these so-called non-negotiables until you mentioned them. Now I have heard of them.

I could have guessed at them, but I had never heard of them collected in this way. And I am a registered Republican.

 

[TMC]

I didn’t. I accused you, and continue to accuse you, of misrepresentation.

The Catholic Answers’ Voters’ Guide followed the bishops’ statement; it did not precede it. Nice second try, though.

The action “arm,” as you put it, is free to elaborate on and advocate as it wishes. Its positions are not binding on Catholics, nor have I claimed that they are. However, they are guides springing from the statements from various levels of clergy: priests, bishops, the papacy. The issue was rather that St.Anastasia had “never heard of them,” when any well-read Catholic would have heard of them in a variety of published sources (even if they never had visited this website) and would undoubtedly consider them in voting decisions.

Have a nice day.

I don’t know what I find more insulting, that you would accuse me of making misrepresentations and pretend that is not the same as accusing me of dishonesty, or that you have the gall to conclude your calumny with “have a nice day,” as if that meaningless phrase somehow erases your rudeness.

You have claimed that Catholic Answers five non-negotiables were Church teaching. When called on that you said they came from a meeting of the USCCB. Then you retreated to saying they were “derived” from the statements of the bishops. But, in reality, they are a reaction to the bishops’ own guide (as I said earlier they were published after the Church’s guidance by political activists unhappy with that guidance.) The Church’s actual teaching does not posit any “non-negotiables” at all, so to say that the CA’s five “non-negotiables” are drawn from the bishops’ statements is a bit of a stretch, to put it mildly. It is probably fair to say that the five “non-negotiables” represent what some politically-active Catholics wish the bishops had said, but that is as far as any connection between the two goes. I don’t understand how one can fault Catholics for not being familiar with what is said by every political group that styles itself as Catholic, especially “guides” published by groups unhappy with the official guidance published by the Church.

 

[Elizabeth502]

There you go again, Elizabeth, accusing me.

Why do you continue to deny what you said?

What are these "five non-negotiables? I haven’t heard of them.

I know the Nicene Creed and many other aspects of Catholics doctrine, but before logging onto Catholic Answers I did not know about the so-called “Five Non-negotiables.”

I don’t go to your church or receive your Republican voter guides, as I’m non-partisan, so I had not heard of these so-called non-negotiables until you mentioned them. Now I have heard of them.

(1) I attend the universal Roman Catholic Church. It’s the same universal Church you attend, if in fact yours is also in communion with Rome, which I assume it is.

(2) I am not a Republican. I am not a member of any political party.

(3) The Voters’ Guide is not a Republican voters’ guide; it does not emanate from any political party nor has it been, to my knowledge, endorsed by one.

(4) As to which parish (not "church") I attend, you wouldn’t know that, unless you happen to know my identity. So you wouldn’t know what “my parish” does or does not support, adovcate, evangelize about, and my response to any of positions of that parish. Actually, I attend 3 different parishes because I have roles in two of them, and the third one I attend for unique offerings that no other parish provides. I feel comfortable in any parish, because I understand what it means to be a member of the One, Holy, Catholic (universal), and Apostolic Church. The same moral absolutes are proclaimed and represented by any “church” which is in communion with the Holy See.