Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[Iron_Donkey]

Befink -

I can understand what you are saying here to a certain extent, but I have to point out that you seem to be getting dangerously close to putting private revelation over public.

It is not possible for God to contradict Himself. God cannot be leading you to encourage immoral activities.

I’m not really sure how to say this without coming across as insensitive or overly-skeptical, so I’ll just say it straight out and ask that you trust that I am not simply trying to offend you (and am in fact trying not to offend you, but that’s always harder): if it appears to you that God is guiding you to encourage or support activities that go against the teachings of the Church, then the thing that is guiding you is not God. Even prayer - perhaps especially prayer - must be tested.

For example, a Mormon friend used to tell me that if I read the Book of Mormon and prayed about it, I’d feel a “burning in the bosom” and know that it was true. A protestant friend used to tell me that if I prayed hard enough I’d realize that Catholicism was man-made and false. Both of them came to their conclusions after much sincere prayer, but both of them were simply wrong. It is not enough to just pray and assume that what follows is our answer, we must “test all things, and retain hold of the good.” The ultimate measure we test against cannot be our conscience, since our conscience is something that we must test, but the teachings of the Church - which emphatically prohibit encouraging immoral activities.

This is not to say that I don’t see a lot in what you write to agree with. We cannot treat people with SSA poorly. We may not alienate them. We must try to prevent making them angry at God.

But we cannot try to avoid making them angry at God by inventing a different God to present to them. We cannot say that what they do is ok because it is not ok, and if we say that it is acceptable in the eyes of God then we are lying and presenting them a false god, a golden calf of our own making that is easier to serve because it demands less of us - but in demanding less of us demeans us as well.

Think of what we say when we say that we cannot ask a person with SSA to remain chaste: we say not just that they have drives, as everyone does, but that they must necessarily be enslaved to them. We say that this person cannot overcome their base animal desires, cannot rise above their immediate wants and become human in the fullest sense of the word. Animals are slaves to their instincts and drives. Humans must struggle with them, but it’s a struggle that can be won.

There is no right for gay people to marry each other. In order for such a right to exist, such a marriage would have to be possible and it’s not. You might be able to argue that they have the right to say that they are married even though they are not, but if this is true it does not in any way imply a duty on the part of anyone else, government or otherwise, to pretend that they are. And since all people have a duty to speak the truth as it is known, and to spread the truth - indeed to spread the Truth, Jesus - as far as possible, we all have a duty to oppose the idea, at any level, that such a false marriage is acceptable. We cannot support gay “marriage”. To do so is to preach falsehood as truth, and this is something that Truth never desires.

I don’t know how you would convince two gay people to split up. Which is not to say that I don’t know the arguments that prove that they should - humans have this bad habit of ignoring reason when it comes to things they really want to do or really don’t want to do. To present the message would take careful handling, navigating an emotional minefield, and this handling and the layout of this minefield would probably be specific to each person.

Likely you wouldn’t be able to, and likely that’s not your job. I have read several accounts of people with SSA who have navigated that minefield, but I don’t recall any being convinced to in a single conversation by a single person. The norm seems to be a gradual realization of the truth, ideally with support and encouragement along the way, but often with disdain and attacks from the people still living the lifestyle they’re leaving. Perhaps your empathy means that you are meant to fulfill the role of encouraging friend, and not of guide. But if it is not your job to convince them, then it is certainly not your job to support their immorality.

As for convincing yourself: “And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.” (Not all of the sermon on the mount was ‘nice.’) Clearly there parts of each of us that need to be removed, and just as clearly those parts may seem important. I’m pretty attached to my right hand, and my right eye as well. They seem pretty built in. I was, in fact, born with them. Yet it may be necessary that they be removed for me to meet God, and that meeting is much more important than anything I might do with my hand or eye.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

We “must” be able to say that? Who? Catholics? The country isn’t made up of only Catholics. And the last thing we “must” do is force our beliefs on the populace. Or, shall we declare ourselves the American Taliban?

Everyone doesn’t believe what we believe, that’s why we are a country under rule of law, not rule of church. Before the Revolution, you know who’s marriages were invalid? Catholics. Or anyone married outside the Church of England. Did we like that? No. Let’s not treat people the way we didn’t want to be treated.

You seem to misunderstand what I was getting at. We must tell others that gay marriage is not marriage, but this is not what I was talking about. When we tell others this, we must try to convince, not coerce, them to our point of view. The Catholic view is correct and we have a duty to spread it. But again, this is not what I was talking about.

What I was saying is that Catholics (and others who know what marriage is) cannot be forced to treat things which aren’t marriages as marriages. If a gay man comes up to a Catholic employer and says “you must treat me and this other man as though we are married” then the Catholic employer must be able to say “No.” Examples: Catholic adoption agencies being shut down because they won’t place children with gay couples. That’s bad.

 

[Befink]

I’m unclear if those who advocate for same sex “marriage” are talking about relationships that do not involve sexual activity by either partner, either with each other or anyone else, or relationships that involve homosexual activity? Because advocating, promoting or otherwise supporting the latter kind of relationship would clearly seem to be an evil just as abetting any other mortal sin (which homosexual activity is) would be.

Probably the simplest way for me to explain it is this: imagine gay couples were called to follow every piece of our doctrine except specifically that homosexuality is a sin (and with it that sex must be procreative). Gay couples would then be expected to save themselves til marriage, stay in committed monogamous relationships, avoid impurity etc, just as we are.

Also like us, there are many gays violating these laws to their own detriment. If you add back the doctrine about homosexuality, all you’re forbidding is sex within marriage as everything else they would do was already considered a sin.

Jesus never mentions this issue, the only New Testament references to homosexuality come from Paul. In context, they referred to other sinful behavior of the time such as orgies, sex outside marriage, etc. Paul was the first of many Catholic writers to express concern over homosexuality because it was commonly sinful in many other ways. Nobody had the idea at the time that monogamous homosexual couples would emerge as society evolved over thousands of years, let alone deserve the same legal rights and recognition as straight married couples.

As I pray on these issues, it has not been revealed to me yet that the path of greater love is to deny these couples their legal rights. Instead I see us as going beyond our doctrine to impose our values on the rest of society, often using fear-based arguments instead of love-based ones. Might as well make laws that everyone needs to be baptized and take communion every week.

If we are truly to follow God’s will, we must do so out of love for Him by our own free will, not because laws were imposed upon us based on other people’s values.

 

[markeverett49]

Catholics can support the civil marriage of same sex couples because those marriages are not for anyone sacramental, including heterosexual couples and so, the definitions of sacramental marriage are irrelevant to the issue. The Church does not demand Catholics impose the Church’s teachings on the rest of the world.
In terms of moral theology, it is easily argued that justice and charity compel Christians to support same sex civil unions.

That homosexual acts are disordered is not just a Catholic teaching. It is not a teaching aimed specifically at Catholics. “You should have your child confirmed” is aimed at Catholic parents; ‘thou shalt not lie with a man as with a woman’ is aimed at everyone because it is wrong for ANYONE to do those things. (It is not wrong for a Jew to miss Sunday Mass, though it is wrong for a Catholic. But it is wrong for a Jew or a Muslim or an atheist to have an abortion, or to engage in homosexual acts.)

Pornography and abortion aren’t sacramental either, but it’s wrong to claim a Catholic can support their use by non-Catholics. In one sense, of course it is POSSIBLE for a Catholic to do this: a Catholic can say those words and take actions in accordance with them. But one cannot say those words and take those actions while following Catholic teaching. They are incompatible.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’m unclear if those who advocate for same sex “marriage” are talking about relationships that do not involve sexual activity by either partner, either with each other or anyone else, or relationships that involve homosexual activity?.

Maybe we are talking about the law of the land and offering the same opportunities and benefits to all adults and think what everyone else does in the bedroom is not our business. I believe as single adult persons have been subsidizing marriage for all these years, that all persons should have the same access to the benefits.

I would also support the removal of all benefits and any government involvement in the domestic arrangements called marriage.

 

[edwest2]

The state is not the Church.

Then you are willfully ignoring the whole purpose of this thread.

“The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.”

Catholic politicians need to defend Catholic teaching, and the common good of society. To be blunt: to oppose legalizing same-sex marriage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Not sure what this is addressing. I fully believe that homosexual acts are evil and that homosexual marriage is non-existant.

From your post # 61:

“I don’t believe they should be prohibited from it.”

Prohibited by who? And by what authority do you make that statement. Where does your belief come from, or what is it based on?

“The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.”

Catholic politicians are being encouraged to oppose same-sex marriage and to defend the common good of society.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think that issue is separate from the gay marriage issue though. It has more to do with anti-discrimination laws than marriage laws.

But that’s not the topic question. Who is being discriminated against? The law, by definition, does discriminate when people do certain things.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

What I was saying is that Catholics (and others who know what marriage is) cannot be forced to treat things which aren’t marriages as marriages. If a gay man comes up to a Catholic employer and says “you must treat me and this other man as though we are married” then the Catholic employer must be able to say “No.” Examples: Catholic adoption agencies being shut down because they won’t place children with gay couples. That’s bad.

Well, if we discuss this we get into matters of law and the OP doesn’t want that. However, for the sake of accuracy I will point out yet again a that no one shut down an adoption agency for not placing children with gay couples. The government withdrew the grant money that Catholic Charities was using to fund most of their operation. Catholic Charities decided to shut down their adoption services. They can have adoption services, limited to Catholics, and not give children to gay people. They just can’t use government money to do so.

Now, what’s the moral imperative here? Any Diocese or Archdiocese in the country can operate adoption services. If we believe giving children to gay persons is such a grave matter (Although, I’m stumped as to where in Church teaching it says this.) then why don’t we do something about it instead of trying to get all the people who don’t believe as we do to act the way we want them to act?

 

[sedonaman]

What bothers the pro-gay movement isn’t an actual breach of rights. They know that they can do whatever they want. The thing that gets their goats is that other people are allowed think that what they are doing is sinful and harmful to society. Perhaps they think that if only they can get the approval of the entire human race, then maybe God will see how they’re really not doing anything wrong. At any rate, if they can’t figure out a way to punish anyone that dares to think that homosexual acts are wrong, they can sure do whatever they can to punish anyone that dares to ACT as though homosexual acts are wrong. If they can get that through, the next step will be punishing those are willing to SAY that homosexual acts are wrong.

 

[sedonaman]

… Say there was a constitutional amendment or court ruling that stated that no government entity should designate benefits or privileges to any person on the basis of being married. The problem would be solved. Anyone who wanted to could call themselves “married” and anyone who wanted to could disagree. Churchs could marry who they like. All the people who live together who are not married could be content that no one is getting a dime more than they are. Lesbians and gay couples could have a big wedding party. Wedding photographers could carry on their business unharrassed. Chick-fil-a could open in Chicago. And everyone is happy. (Except the county clerks office, who’ve been deprived of their $50 licensing fee.)

“The issue is not the issue. The revolution is the issue.” This revolution is not going to end with more freedom for everyone. It will end with less. :sad_yes:

 

[Julia_Mae]

Then you are willfully ignoring the whole purpose of this thread.

No, I’m not. Catholics can support same sex civil marriage because civil union is not Sacramental marriage. That is a response to the op.

 

[sedonaman]

What is owed the child now? … A child’s parents are their parents, regardless if they are married, not married, or married to other people.

You have to have a concept of the public purpose of marriage, which is to tie the child to his parents and his parents to one another. Without children, there would be no reason for marriage.

 

[sedonaman]

Not always. The American people in the state of Washington voted for same sex unions. The only other place I can find where it was up to the Voters was Colorado, where it was defeated. So we’re 50/50 at this point which is pretty far from “always.” …

He didn’t say “always”; he said in general.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Well, if we discuss this we get into matters of law and the OP doesn’t want that. However, for the sake of accuracy I will point out yet again a that no one shut down an adoption agency for not placing children with gay couples. The government withdrew the grant money that Catholic Charities was using to fund most of their operation. Catholic Charities decided to shut down their adoption services. They can have adoption services, limited to Catholics, and not give children to gay people. They just can’t use government money to do so.

Now, what’s the moral imperative here? Any Diocese or Archdiocese in the country can operate adoption services. If we believe giving children to gay persons is such a grave matter (Although, I’m stumped as to where in Church teaching it says this.) then why don’t we do something about it instead of trying to get all the people who don’t believe as we do to act the way we want them to act?

1. The government grant was withdrawn as a way of forcing the values held by the government on Catholic Charities, not because Catholic Charities was doing bad work. In the same way, the DC grant was withdrawn from the Catholic anti-sex trafficking organization despite the fact that it was the one of the most successful such organizations because it refused to offer abortion and contraception.

Saying that this is bad is not forcing ideas on others, it’s refusing to have others’ ideas forced on us.

1. Putting children in gay homes is bad for many reasons, but most obviously because it is telling them that something that is known to be wrong is good.
2. We MUST try to get others to “act the way we want them to act,” at least when it comes to basic morals, because basic moral questions are part of the truth that Christ gave to us and told us to spread. We must resist being pushed to the side as if our view of morality is just a weird quirk that makes no sense because it is the correct view.
3. It makes no sense to say the ability of Catholics to ignore gay “marriages” depends on legal issues because the law is what it is made to be. Legal issues can be changed by changing the law, moral issues cannot be changed because morality is fixed. We must attempt to make the law what it should be, and the law should not force us to pretend that two gay people are married. This is independent of whether or not current law would view that as discrimination or anything along those lines. It simply doesn’t matter.

 

[edwest2]

Hi Iron Donkey
Rather than go point by point, I’ll just answer your overriding question of why I as a Catholic support gay legal marriage (or civil unions, or “marriage”, or whatever we call it in a legal context).

I have many gay friends, several of whom are in committed monogamous relationships with someone. I have seen them hurt unnecessarily by the rest of society who judges and treats them sub-human just over their SST even though they don’t practice it in a threatening way to others in society (if they practice at all). Not only does it hurt them but they usually have anger towards God & Jesus which is the last thing we should be encouraging.

In my faith journey, I have looked to help them find a path a greater love. Traditionsl religious teaching means they must abandon their life partner and live in celibacy. I’ve asked many including those on CAF, priests, apologists (including Fr. Serpa directly) how I would convince them (and myself) that for gays in quality loving relationships, they must give it up to be with God. This isnt just theoretical, I would actually do it if i ever find the answer. Instead I get “good question”, a lot of avoidance, and the usual CCC/Bible quotes (not useful in this context).

I continue to pray on this issue and others like abortion. I usually get back, “it’s a serious issue” but when I ask if they should be illegal or if I should vote for the conservative politicians, I get nothing. Over time. I’ve come to realize that God’s moral issues are not typically simplified in legal or political terms. Abortion is an easier example to understand. Basically God wants them to not happen anymore. We could argue about what political or legal path gets us there but in the end it’s irrelevant if society comes to believe that they are always immoral.

When I pray on gay marriage, what I’ve gotten so far is that God is very concerned that couples are not taking marriage seriously enough. He hasn’t been specific about gays/straight or what we should do about it other than impress upon engaged couples on case by case basis to understand and respect what they are committing to.

I do my best to keep asking for God’s guidance, then I must trust God will guide me as He sees fit. Perhaps someday He’ll have me evangelize all my gay friends through having them give up their relationships. In the meantime, I must act according to my conscience which is formed on the guidance God has given me so far. That is to say that gays should not be treated in any way as lesser humans. Taking away legal rights unnecessarily is not the path of greater love.

On what basis are these legal rights considered rights?

As far as gay people being hurt or being treated as sub-human, how does that relate to the topic? In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed Homosexuality through a non-science based vote from the Diagnostic ans Statistical Manual. How is gay marriage, or similar, going to solve the mistreatment of gay people problem? Prior to 1973, I was a stupid teenager, and on occasion, I would associate with a few of the less-than-polite toward anybody not exactly like themselves types so I could understand where they were coming from. At no point in time was it even suggested that we should tease or bully anyone who was gay, much less injure them. Of course, my association was brief because these guys were jerks toward most people outside of their own group.

No one should be treated as lesser humans but I grew up in a large city, and to this day, Blacks, Mexicans and I hate to use the term, “trailer trash,” are shunned and judged/feared and treated as less than other people.

I offer the following link that I hope will help you on your journey:

pfox.org/about_us.html

May God bless you for seeking His Will,

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Not always. The American people in the state of Washington voted for same sex unions. The only other place I can find where it was up to the Voters was Colorado, where it was defeated. So we’re 50/50 at this point which is pretty far from “always.” Both votes were very close. I note this has been almost entirely a state legislature decision.

If my information is out-of-date please update.

There was no vote in Washington State by the people. It was politicians acting on their own that passed a law. That law will be put to a vote by the people in November.

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Washington State officials said Tuesday that a group opposing gay marriage had collected enough signatures for a referendum that seeks to repeal a same-sex marriage law passed by the state’s legislature this year.

“Preserve Marriage Washington turned in more than 247,000 signatures in support of its Referendum 74, more than double the nearly 121,000 it needed to get the repeal on the ballot. Implementation of the same-sex marriage law passed earlier this year is on hold until the November election.”

Full article here: online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303410404577464793812361230.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

We “must” be able to say that? Who? Catholics? The country isn’t made up of only Catholics. And the last thing we “must” do is force our beliefs on the populace. Or, shall we declare ourselves the American Taliban?

Everyone doesn’t believe what we believe, that’s why we are a country under rule of law, not rule of church. Before the Revolution, you know who’s marriages were invalid? Catholics. Or anyone married outside the Church of England. Did we like that? No. Let’s not treat people the way we didn’t want to be treated.

American Taliban? Was that necessary? That was rude and uncalled for. The Church recognizes what marriage is. There are no substitutes. And it advises Catholic politicians to oppose it on the grounds that it is not marriage. Civil? As in “keep your Bible out of my government”? That’s not the way it works. Pluralistic society? Except for Catholics?

Did you miss the fact that the OP directed this thread only at Catholics? Does Church teaching matter, at all?

William F. Buckley, Jr. Quote. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

From a Church document:

“The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.”

Believers and non-believers are both being called to defend the common good of society, including Catholic politicians.

That is the issue. Not - there’s a “civil world” over here, and a “Catholic world” over there. Catholics are being called to stop being silent about this.

Fact: On a board where I am a moderator, those who favor gay marriage want one thing from religious people - APATHY. They want us to stop caring. They want us to stop speaking up.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Bill_Martin]

American Taliban? Was that necessary? That was rude and uncalled for. The Church recognizes what marriage is. There are no substitutes. And it advises Catholic politicians to oppose it on the grounds that it is not marriage. Civil? As in “keep your Bible out of my government”? That’s not the way it works. Pluralistic society? Except for Catholics?

Did you miss the fact that the OP directed this thread only at Catholics? Does Church teaching matter, at all?

William F. Buckley, Jr. Quote. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

From a Church document:

“The present Considerations are also intended to give direction to Catholic politicians by indicating the approaches to proposed legislation in this area which would be consistent with Christian conscience.(2) Since this question relates to the natural moral law, the arguments that follow are addressed not only to those who believe in Christ, but to all persons committed to promoting and defending the common good of society.”

Believers and non-believers are both being called to defend the common good of society, including Catholic politicians.

That is the issue. Not - there’s a “civil world” over here, and a “Catholic world” over there. Catholics are being called to stop being silent about this.

Fact: On a board where I am a moderator, those who favor gay marriage want one thing from religious people - APATHY. They want us to stop caring. They want us to stop speaking up.

Peace,
Ed

Legislating morality is all nice and everything until the government’s idea of morality differs from ours. That is why we have a separation of church and state and why we should continue to support it. It is also why legislating morality is not a good idea. It would be better for the government to stop regulating and defining Sacraments. The precedent that it sets is unacceptable.

 

[Joe_5859]

Legislating morality is all nice and everything until the government’s idea of morality differs from ours. That is why we have a separation of church and state and why we should continue to support it. It is also why legislating morality is not a good idea. It would be better for the government to stop regulating and defining Sacraments. The precedent that it sets is unacceptable.

If we did away with all laws that legislate morality, we would have no laws against murder, rape, theft, etc.

Marriage is a sacrament, but also precedes the sacraments. It was an institution on its own for thousands of years before Jesus raised it to the level of a sacrament.

You’re right, the government should not be defining it, but it should be defending it, because it is something independent of religious creed or personal opinion.