Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[Iron_Donkey]

Again, we don’t disagree that the government should uphold moral values for greater society, we disagree on whether giving legal rights to gay coupled is immoral for society or if opposing it is merely fear-based discrimination.

Lemme try again.

It is immoral for a person to pretend that homosexual unions are in fact marriage and treat them as such. It is therefore immoral to require, by force of law or any other way, that people pretend that such unions are marriage and treat them as such.

Jesus did not mention this issue. Instead he went to great lengths to teach us that to love is to know God. Therefore it’s the spirit of the teachings that matters, not the letter.

Even if it were true that Jesus did not make any comments that shed light on the issue, this would be irrelevant because God guides the Church (including other NT authors) and the Church (including other NT authors) did speak on it. Pretty clearly too. So God did speak on it. If not directly when incarnated as Christ (which I dispute, you can find relevant if not direct passages), then through the God-breathed Scriptures.

The letter and spirit of the law are both crucial. You can’t pick one or the other. And since the law came from God, you cannot say the two are in inherent conflict. The bible is pretty clear on the issues of sexual morality, and you cannot wave that away because you think it would be more loving or more compliant with the “spirit of the law” to do so.

True love seeks God.

The person who is truly seeking God follows His commandments.

Scripture and tradition are rejected all the time as our understanding of love, supported by research evolves.

Nononononononono never never no never no no. This statement is pretty much directly opposed to what it means to be Catholic.

We no longer practice polygamy, slavery, making women cover their heads at church, etc. in direct violation of scripture because they clearly aren’t the path of greater love.

You need to do some reading on these issues. Head coverings were (and clearly were) a discipline centered around the cultural practices of the time. Polygamy was tolerated not supported.

But on what basis do you reject polygamy? Can you really not see in another 20 years or so someone making exactly the same argument you are making now? “I know several polygamous people, the husband really and truly loves each wife, how is it the ‘path of greater love’ to deny these people the acceptance they crave?”

The answer to that argument is the same answer to yours - what they crave is immoral, so it is immoral and not loving to give it to them no matter how much they want it.

In modern society, common sense and logic are replacing fears held by the Church and others in society which do not have any real basis. All we are doing is hurting God’s children by opposing their legal rights. Not surprisingly, the courts, many theologians, and now the majority of Americans support gay marriage and that support will only continue to grow.

Whether you like/understand the answer or not, we have clearly answered the OP’s question.

The answer appears to be, and I wish I could find a nicer way to say this, “because you think you can ignore what the Church teaches.” You’ve essentially just said that nothing the Church says matters because your common sense and logic (which you haven’t presented by the way, only asserted exists) somehow implies that lying to gay people by telling them that they are married is “the path of greater love”. I’m still not sure why it is that you think you know more about love than the organization that Love Himself founded and still guides into the truth today.

 

[fix]

I am bowing to charity and love and employing logic, common sense and considering history most carefully. I find nothing in the Gospels that compels me oppose and much that compels me to support.

Well, Jesus upheld all the moral law which includes proscriptions regarding homosexual acts. There is nothing in the Gospel that would support defending such acts.

Marriage isn’t evil. Including civil marriage. Forced marriage might be evil, in many cases. It also might not be.

The last Pope called the notion of homosexual unions a new ideology of evil. Marriage is not evil. Calling unnatural unions marriage is evil.

I believe I have said all I have to say and I don’t think there is much to be gained from continuing to say the same things over and over. The fact is a lot of Catholics, including priests, are, if given the chance, going to vote to grant the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples.

We aren’t heretics, we are following our Lord as much as we can. God will judge us. I suggest y’all leave it to Him, lest this become an occasion of sin for you.

I am not judging anyone’s heart, only words and actions. There is no way to reconcile support for such evil things with the moral law.

 

[fix]

Again, we don’t disagree that the government should uphold moral values for greater society, we disagree on whether giving legal rights to gay coupled is immoral for society or if opposing it is merely fear-based discrimination.

Jesus did not mention this issue. Instead he went to great lengths to teach us that to love is to know God. Therefore it’s the spirit of the teachings that matters, not the letter.

Many things are not recorded that Jesus mentioned. Is that the standard? Our Lord upheld the entire moral law. He said heaven and earth will pass before one letter of the law.

Scripture and tradition are rejected all the time as our understanding of love, supported by research evolves. We no longer practice polygamy, slavery, making women cover their heads at church, etc. in direct violation of scripture because they clearly aren’t the path of greater love.

We mix up all these things?

In modern society, common sense and logic are replacing fears held by the Church and others in society which do not have any real basis. All we are doing is hurting God’s children by opposing their legal rights. Not surprisingly, the courts, many theologians, and now the majority of Americans support gay marriage and that support will only continue to grow.

Whether you like/understand the answer or not, we have clearly answered the OP’s question.

If you want to hurt people then you should tell them to act on their desires. That would be a sin though. See, you have it backward.

 

[Faithdancer]

What priests should do is not the topic of the thread you, yourself, started.

Then I’m happy to state the question in a different way. Do you support conducting same sex “marriages” within the Catholic Church? Or to put it another way- do you believe that same sex “marriages” should be recognized as sacramental by the Catholic Church?

 

[Faithdancer]

Having read some of the posts by Befink, I would love to hear his or her response to the above question as well.

 

[Faithdancer]

I’ll take the silence as a no- which is good. I’d be distressed to read that anyone was so confused as to support such things.

 

[Faithdancer]

Well, Jesus upheld all the moral law which includes proscriptions regarding homosexual acts. There is nothing in the Gospel that would support defending such acts.

The last Pope called the notion of homosexual unions a new ideology of evil. Marriage is not evil. Calling unnatural unions marriage is evil.

I am not judging anyone’s heart, only words and actions. There is no way to reconcile support for such evil things with the moral law.

Your last statement is absolutely, crystal clear truth, fix, and is in perfect accord with basic moral theology. Only poorly catechized Catholics could support gay “marriage” for any reason whatsoever. This really points out the need for continuing adult faith formation and orthodox Catholic teaching so those who cling to such errors and persist in heterodoxy can be helped to understand their delusion, which is at core the work of the devil.

 

[Faithdancer]

Scripture and tradition are rejected all the time as our understanding of love, supported by research evolves.

Rejected by you, perhaps, not by the Magisterium. This statement is prima facie heretical.

Whether you like/understand the answer or not, we have clearly answered the OP’s question.

Actually you haven’t answered anything. Do you support that marriage is a holy Sacrament between a man and a woman only, or don’t you?

 

[Faithdancer]

We are never going to hear each other about the law and morality. I find your position illogical and you find mine… I don’t l know, maybe the same. So I’ll jump down to the end:

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1777 Moral conscience, present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.

1770 Moral perfection consists in man’s being moved to the good not by his will alone, but also by his sensitive appetite, as in the words of the psalm: "My heart and flesh sing for joy to the living God."

1830 The moral life of Christians is sustained by the gifts of the Holy Spirit. These are permanent dispositions which make man docile in following the promptings of the Holy Spirit.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. **
**
1826 “If I . . . have not charity,” says the Apostle, “I am nothing.” Whatever my privilege, service, or even virtue, "if I . . . have not charity, I gain nothing."103 Charity is superior to all the virtues. It is the first of the theological virtues: "So faith, hope, charity abide, these three. But the greatest of these is charity."104

1827 The practice of all the virtues is animated and inspired by charity, which “binds everything together in perfect harmony”;105 it is the form of the virtues; it articulates and orders them among themselves; it is the source and the goal of their Christian practice. Charity upholds and purifies our human ability to love, and raises it to the supernatural perfection of divine love.

1828 The practice of the moral life animated by charity gives to the Christian the spiritual freedom of the children of God. He no longer stands before God as a slave, in servile fear, or as a mercenary looking for wages, but as a son responding to the love of him who “first loved us”:106

**If we turn away from evil out of fear of punishment, we are in the position of slaves. If we pursue the enticement of wages, . . . we resemble mercenaries. Finally if we obey for the sake of the good itself and out of love for him who commands . . . we are in the position of children.107 ** **1829 The *fruits ***of charity are joy, peace, and mercy; charity demands beneficence and fraternal correction; it is benevolence; it fosters reciprocity and remains disinterested and generous; it is friendship and communion: Love is itself the fulfillment of all our works. There is the goal; that is why we run: we run toward it, and once we reach it, in it we shall find rest.108

It is on this basis that I suggested, helped frame the argument for, and support the legalization of, same sex civil marriage.

A lengthy Catechism passage…but where is the part that says it is charitable to support evil? Or don’t you believe that homosexuality is evil?

 

[PRmerger]

Scripture and tradition are rejected all the time as our understanding of love, supported by research evolves.

:bigyikes:

Absolutely NOT a Catholic paradigm, Befink.

We as Catholics NEVER reject Scripture and Tradition.

We no longer practice polygamy, slavery, making women cover their heads at church, etc. in direct violation of scripture because they clearly aren’t the path of greater love.

Yes, and it is thanks to the guidance of the Church, as she proclaims the living word of God (through Sacred Tradition, I might add) that we know that polygamy, slavery, making women cover their heads in church, etc, are not part of what it means to be Catholic.

 

[markeverett49]

Not surprisingly, the courts, many theologians, and now the majority of Americans support gay marriage and that support will only continue to grow…

This won’t make it right anymore than Roe vs Wade made abortion right or moral.
Consider these words of Jesus:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad the road which leads to ruin, and many there are who enter by it…” (Matthew 7:13)

 

[edwest2]

I am bowing to charity and love and employing logic, common sense and considering history most carefully. I find nothing in the Gospels that compels me oppose and much that compels me to support.

Marriage isn’t evil. Including civil marriage. Forced marriage might be evil, in many cases. It also might not be.

I believe I have said all I have to say and I don’t think there is much to be gained from continuing to say the same things over and over. The fact is a lot of Catholics, including priests, are, if given the chance, going to vote to grant the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples.

We aren’t heretics, we are following our Lord as much as we can. God will judge us. I suggest y’all leave it to Him, lest this become an occasion of sin for you.

Most of your statements are 100% against Church teaching. Your continuing to promote something that isn’t right or true will not change anything. Catholics who know and understand Church teaching will ignore this entirely since it is not based on Church teaching. And Catholics will oppose this whenever they can and should.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Befink]

OP question has been answered many times over. Can’t do much now if you’re still not understanding where we’re coming from. Just re-read our posts and you’ll find them. No reason to continue here.

Peace be with you

 

[Faithdancer]

Yes, our Forum Master summed it up very nicely on the previous page.

 

[markeverett49]

Most of your statements are 100% against Church teaching. Your continuing to promote something that isn’t right or true will not change anything. Catholics who know and understand Church teaching will ignore this entirely since it is not based on Church teaching. And Catholics will oppose this whenever they can and should.

Well said.

 

[Listener]

The meaning of marriage is being completely eroded. I am old enough to remember when almost nobody was divorced. If a Catholic couple got a divorce, it was the talk of the town for months. Divorced people were considered rather “tainted,” as in someone you wouldn’t want to hang around with. Annulments were few and far between. Divorce wasn’t something you could just get. You had to have “grounds” for a divorce. I think you had to sue in court. Of course, it wasn’t very nice to treat divorced people that way, but I am just pointing out that the meaning of marriage has already changed a lot over the last 50 years.

Now, I can understand if a same-sex couple wants some kind of “domestic partnership,” with marriage-like benefits. After all, you can have a business partnership with almost anyone, so why not a domestic partnership? However, that is not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I’m wondering where this will all end. Someone will probably ask, why is marriage between TWO people. They will insist that there are good reasons for a marriage to include three or more people. Mormon men will ask why they can’t have more than one wife. You know something? If marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, then I can’t imagine why the Mormons couldn’t have more than one wife.

So if I was having trouble in my marriage, maybe my husband could just go get himself an additional wife if he wasn’t happy with me. It seems like this whole thing opens a huge Pandora’s box.

People need to use their heads instead of just their emotions when they vote on whether or not to legalize gay marriage.

 

[edwest2]

The meaning of marriage is being completely eroded. I am old enough to remember when almost nobody was divorced. If a Catholic couple got a divorce, it was the talk of the town for months. Divorced people were considered rather “tainted,” as in someone you wouldn’t want to hang around with. Annulments were few and far between. Divorce wasn’t something you could just get. You had to have “grounds” for a divorce. I think you had to sue in court. Of course, it wasn’t very nice to treat divorced people that way, but I am just pointing out that the meaning of marriage has already changed a lot over the last 50 years.

Now, I can understand if a same-sex couple wants some kind of “domestic partnership,” with marriage-like benefits. After all, you can have a business partnership with almost anyone, so why not a domestic partnership? However, that is not a marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Now, I’m wondering where this will all end. Someone will probably ask, why is marriage between TWO people. They will insist that there are good reasons for a marriage to include three or more people. Mormon men will ask why they can’t have more than one wife. You know something? If marriage is not a union between a man and a woman, then I can’t imagine why the Mormons couldn’t have more than one wife.

So if I was having trouble in my marriage, maybe my husband could just go get himself an additional wife if he wasn’t happy with me. It seems like this whole thing opens a huge Pandora’s box.

People need to use their heads instead of just their emotions when they vote on whether or not to legalize gay marriage.

The meaning of marriage has never changed for Catholics, even over the last 50 years. We are not Mormons. “Domestic partnership” is marriage for gay people. It’s just like two roommates except for the sex. Can I get Domestic Partnership benefits because I live with my sister? And who’s going to pay for the benefits? Let’s be honest, this is about legalizing gay sex by law and calling it a “Civil Union” or a “Domestic Partnership” or even “Marriage.”

Business partnerships (I’ve been in one) involve money, not sex. This is about everybody accepting how gay people already live right now, except they want the government, and the rest of us, to approve it. Husband and husband? Wife and wife? It’s against Biology, Natural Law and Church Teaching.

No one is standing at the Church door as you walk in to check on your sexual orientation. No one. It’s one thing to leave people alone to do what they want, it’s another thing when they want to force what is bad for a stable society on the rest of us and to tell us that what they call “gay marriage” actually exists. It doesn’t. Sure, they can love their partner, but keep it out of the voting booth. Nobody needs anybody’s permission to live how they want right now.

And God will continue to love us regardless of what sexual sins we commit, but there will be a problem if we don’t repent of our sins and go to Confession.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Iron_Donkey]

OP question has been answered many times over. Can’t do much now if you’re still not understanding where we’re coming from. Just re-read our posts and you’ll find them. No reason to continue here.

Peace be with you

I think we understand what you’ve said, the problem is that a fair amount of it is direct contradiction with Catholic teaching. The rest was trying to point this out to you in hopes that you either meant something else and could explain, or would realize this.

 

[Faithdancer]

I think we understand what you’ve said, the problem is that a fair amount of it is direct contradiction with Catholic teaching. The rest was trying to point this out to you in hopes that you either meant something else and could explain, or would realize this.

This is true, and the thread was started in the first place to attempt to have a discussion about the issue which devolves around moral theology. But some keep trying to drag it back into the “social justice” arena. I believe this is because there is no defense for a Roman Catholic to say that homosexual activity, or any relationship that involves it, is not inherently sinful. It is also not possible for a Roman Catholic to say that marriage is not a holy Sacrament between a man and a woman, without denying established Catholic doctrine and thereby committing heresy.

By sanctioning gay “marriage,” or even civil unions, outside the Church, we are not helping practicing homosexuals toward salvation- we are giving them up as lost and turning a blind eye to their damnation. Where is the charity in that?

I don’t know where all of these CAF Catholics are who supposedly support gay “marriage” are. I’ve seen two. I guess that was just another unsupported fantasy statement.

 

[Faithdancer]

Rather than speculate about how many CAF Catholics support or condemn gay “marriage,” a poll has now been posted. Please vote!