Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS

[fix]

(If you are not Catholic, sorry, but this thread doesn’t concern you)

I know there are a couple of threads on this subject currently running but they have a secular perspective and I want to know how Catholics can support gay “marriage,” given that marriage between a man and a woman is one of the seven Holy Sacraments and it seems that as Catholics we are required to uphold the seven Holy Sacraments. How can we even support gay “marriage” conducted in civil ceremonies or in other churches, if marriage is only sacramental when it is between a man and a woman?

I was talking with a moral theologian last night (starting his post-doc work), and he put it this way- from a Catholic doctrinal perspective, marriage must be:

1. uniting
2. complementary
3. procreative (i.e. physically procreative) or at least allowing of such (infertility happens)

He said that an argument may be advanced for gay “marriage” fulfilling requirement #1, but it is impossible to fulfill requirements 2 and 3, and all three must be fulfilled for the marriage to be sacramental.

Have you read this?:

This ordination of reason is called law. In man’s free will, therefore, or in the moral necessity of our voluntary acts being in accordance with reason, lies the very root of the necessity of law. Nothing more foolish can be uttered or conceived than the notion that, because man is free by nature, he is therefore exempt from law. Were this the case, it would follow that to become free we must be deprived of reason; whereas the truth is that we are bound to submit to law precisely because we are free by our very nature. For, law is the guide of man’s actions; it turns him toward good by its rewards, and deters him from evil by its punishments.

For, what reason and the natural law do for individuals, that human law, promulgated for their good, does for the citizens of States. Of the laws enacted by men, some are concerned with what is good or bad by its very nature; and they command men to follow after what is right and to shun what is wrong, adding at the same time a suitable sanction. But such laws by no means derive their origin from civil society, because, just as civil society did not create human nature, so neither can it be said to be the author of the good which befits human nature, or of the evil which is contrary to it. Laws come before men live together in society, and have their origin in the natural, and consequently in the eternal, law. The precepts, therefore, of the natural law, contained bodily in the laws of men, have not merely the force of human law, but they possess that higher and more august sanction which belongs to the law of nature and the eternal law. And within the sphere of this kind of laws the duty of the civil legislator is, mainly, to keep the community in obedience by the adoption of a common discipline and by putting restraint upon refractory and viciously inclined men, so that, deterred from evil, they may turn to what is good, or at any rate may avoid causing trouble and disturbance to the State. Now, there are other enactments of the civil authority, which do not follow directly, but somewhat remotely, from the natural law, and decide many points which the law of nature treats only in a general and indefinite way. For instance, though nature commands all to contribute to the public peace and prosperity, whatever belongs to the manner, and circumstances, and conditions under which such service is to be rendered must be determined by the wisdom of men and not by nature herself. It is in the constitution of these particular rules of life, suggested by reason and prudence, and put forth by competent authority, that human law, properly so called, consists, binding all citizens to work together for the attainment of the common end proposed to the community, and forbidding them to depart from this end, and, in so far as human law is in conformity with the dictates of nature, leading to what is good, and deterring from evil.

1. From this it is manifest that the eternal law of God is the sole standard and rule of human liberty, not only in each individual man, but also in the community and civil society which men constitute when united. Therefore, the true liberty of human society does not consist in every man doing what he pleases, for this would simply end in turmoil and confusion, and bring on the overthrow of the State; but rather in this, that through the injunctions of the civil law all may more easily conform to the prescriptions of the eternal law. Likewise, the liberty of those who are in authority does not consist in the power to lay unreasonable and capricious commands upon their subjects, which would equally be criminal and would lead to the ruin of the commonwealth; but the binding force of human laws is in this, that they are to be regarded as applications of the eternal law, and incapable of sanctioning anything which is not contained in the eternal law, as in the principle of all law. Thus, St. Augustine most wisely says: “I think that you can see, at the same time, that there is nothing just and lawful in that temporal law, unless what men have gathered from this eternal law.”(5) If, then, by anyone in authority, something be sanctioned out of conformity with the principles of right reason, and consequently hurtful to the commonwealth, such an enactment can have no binding force of law, as being no rule of justice, but certain to lead men away from that good which is the very end of civil society.

 

[markeverett49]

Which is a religious belief. Religious beliefs are not to be forced on society at large. That would be immoral.

What do you mean this is a religious belief? Sure, some religious people hold it but many also hold the belief that democracy is a good form of government but that doesn’t mean you can dismiss the latter view as “a religious belief.”

You are misinformed if you believe a) ONLY religious people oppose same-sex marriage, b) only religious reasons are offered for opposing same-sex marriage, or that c) all reasonable, non-religious people support same-sex marriage, or for that matter, d) all gay people support same-sex marriage.

Further, it would NOT be immoral to oppose legislation for moral reasons. People who think pornography is harmful, for example (a group which includes many secular feminists) are not immoral when trying to curb its spread, and especially its access by minors on the Internet. It is NOT immoral to work for end of direct procured abortion because in each case, it is the deliberate taking of an innocent human life even if some people don’t realize that. It is NOT immoral to oppose embryonic stem cell research (-which requires the destruction of human embryos) because that too treats a human being like a thing. It was NOT immoral to oppose slavery even where it was legal out of the moral conviction that slaves are people too even if some members of the Supreme Court didn’t see it that way.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Alright, I’m going to respond to most of what you said, but it’ll be the last part that’s most important. Some of the beginning stuff is probably purely semantic disagreement, but the stuff at the end is… not.

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:

So - If I say it is immoral for gay people to act as though they are married, and I further say that it would be immoral to treat them as though they are married, then if I am right a law which requires people to treat them as though they are married is OBJECTIVELY wrong. If I’m wrong then I have no argument.

But we’re Catholic.

So we know that I’m right.

So we know that a law which requires people to treat gay couples as though they are married is bad law.

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.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia Mae, since I think all would agree that you are the most vocal gay supporter on this thread, I’ll put it to you bluntly, and hope you will answer without equivocation- should priests of the Roman Catholic Church perform marriages between same sex couples?

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

 

[Julia_Mae]

What do you mean this is a religious belief?

This is what you said:

  			Originally Posted by **markeverett49** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=9768908#post9768908) 				
  		*Two people of the same-sex cannot MAKE a marriage, no matter what anyone anywhere calls it.*

This is a religious belief, a tenant of our religion, based on a definition of marriage from our religion.

Sure, some religious people hold it but many also hold the belief that democracy is a good form of government but that doesn’t mean you can dismiss the latter view as “a religious belief.”

No, but that’s because the Catechism doesn’t say “Democracy is the best form of government.”

You are misinformed if you believe a) ONLY religious people oppose same-sex marriage

I never said that.

, b) only religious reasons are offered for opposing same-sex marriage,

I’m not hearing any other reasons, except “Ew, we don’t like gays.” At least, no reasons with objective and reasonable substantiation.

or that c) all reasonable, non-religious people support same-sex marriage, or for that matter, d) all gay people support same-sex marriage.

I’ve never assumed nor stated or even implied one of these things. So, you are having a phantom argument with yourself and I’d appreciate it if you respond to what I actually say instead of attributing ideas and attitudes to me that misrepresent me.

Further, it would NOT be immoral to oppose legislation for moral reasons.

I never said it would be. It is also not immoral to support legislation for moral reasons.

 

[fix]

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.

How does any of that mean one ought to support what is evil?

 

[fix]

It is also not immoral to support legislation for moral reasons.

If the law is immoral then support for it would be immoral.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I was talking with a moral theologian last night (starting his post-doc work), and he put it this way- from a Catholic doctrinal perspective, marriage must be:

1. uniting
2. complementary
3. procreative (i.e. physically procreative) or at least allowing of such (infertility happens)

He said that an argument may be advanced for gay “marriage” fulfilling requirement #1, but it is impossible to fulfill requirements 2 and 3, and all three must be fulfilled for the marriage to be sacramental.

This quote is from the original post advances an opinion based on something reportedly said in a private communication to the OP from a post-grad in Moral Theology. Theologians are not the Pope, of course, but as one is quoted in the op, this article relates directly:

Do Most Catholic Theologians Support Same-Sex Marriage?

Among the theologians who say the bishops are in the wrong is Paul Lakeland, a professor of religion and director of the Center for Catholic Studies at Fairfield University, a Catholic university in Connecticut. “That’s not really an argument that has a theological justification,” Lakeland said of the church’s opposition to same-sex civil marriages. “It’s an argument that’s based more on fear or repugnance.”
Daniel Maguire, a theologian and Marquette University professor :
“Archbishop Dolan and the United States Catholic Conference are misrepresenting ‘Catholic teaching,’ and are trying to present their idiosyncratic minority view as the ‘Catholic position,’ and it is not,” Maguire wrote in an email to The Daily Beast. “The bishops will stand with Dolan and the U.S. Catholic Conference, but on this issue, they are in moral schism since most in the Church have moved on [to] a more humane view on the rights of those whom God has made gay.”

“Most Catholic theologians approve of same-sex marriage and Catholics generally do not differ much from the overall population on this issue,” Maguire said.

The most recent Gallup polling data backs up Maguire. When asked this month whether they think same-sex marriage should be legalized, 51 percent of Catholics said they think it should be, placing Catholics one percentage point higher than the national average.
…
Frederick Parrella, a professor of theology at Santa Clara University, a Catholic institution in California. Parrella said he sees growing support for same-sex marriage among his Catholic students, and that he himself finds “nothing in the Gospels” that should lead the church to oppose its legalization.

 

[Julia_Mae]

If the law is immoral then support for it would be immoral.

The operative word is “if.” I quoted some Catholic theologians above who don’t think the law is immoral.

 

[Befink]

I obviously tend to side with Julia Mae on this issue. Others seems to make the assumption that everyone can easily see that homosexuality and any legislation which might appear to support it are wrong, then they can’t understand that the rest of us would support such clearly immoral behavior.

The reality though is the majority of Catholics and a growing number of other Christians are supporting the rights of same sex couples in secular society. Obviously they don’t agree with the idea that we’re encouraging immoral behavior. When reading scripture, there are references to homosexuality (often taken out of context). When following tradition, well, people have thought it was icky for a long time. However, when viewing these issues in the spirit of God’s love, there is simply no good reason to forbid extending rights of gays in secular society. The arguments that society will fall apart if gays are given these rights is only fear-based. Obviously the courts aren’t seeing anything but discrimination as a motive behind the opponents view. Eventually these laws will become reality, then the opponents will eventually see there’s nothing to fear (kinda like Obamacare).

I’m not going back to my gay friends and telling them, “you are going to hell” because that is a religious belief and not even one that many Christians believe. Not to mention that attitude is the one that pushes them away from the Church and farther from God in the first place. The best I can do for now (which I have been doing) is to encourage them to remember that they are not angry at God but at some of His followers. It hurts me that I can’t recommend them to come back to Catholicism because they wont find peace in our churches but at least they can start by going to an independent Christian church which accepts them and let God guide them from there.

 

[fix]

I obviously tend to side with Julia Mae on this issue. Others seems to make the assumption that everyone can easily see that homosexuality and any legislation which might appear to support it are wrong, then they can’t understand that the rest of us would support such clearly immoral behavior.

The reality though is the majority of Catholics and a growing number of other Christians are supporting the rights of same sex couples in secular society. Obviously they don’t agree with the idea that we’re encouraging immoral behavior. When reading scripture, there are references to homosexuality (often taken out of context). When following tradition, well, people have thought it was icky for a long time. However, when viewing these issues in the spirit of God’s love, there is simply no good reason to forbid extending rights of gays in secular society. The arguments that society will fall apart if gays are given these rights is only fear-based. Obviously the courts aren’t seeing anything but discrimination as a motive behind the opponents view. Eventually these laws will become reality, then the opponents will eventually see there’s nothing to fear (kinda like Obamacare).

I’m not going back to my gay friends and telling them, “you are going to hell” because that is a religious belief and not even one that many Christians believe. Not to mention that attitude is the one that pushes them away from the Church and farther from God in the first place. The best I can do for now (which I have been doing) is to encourage them to remember that they are not angry at God but at some of His followers. It hurts me that I can’t recommend them to come back to Catholicism because they wont find peace in our churches but at least they can start by going to an independent Christian church which accepts them and let God guide them from there.

You are denying Scripture, Tradition, common sense, history, logic and with all that you conclude that evil actions are good, why?

 

[fix]

The operative word is “if.” I quoted some Catholic theologians above who don’t think the law is immoral.

You quoted dissenters. The law is immoral.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Julia Mae, since I think all would agree that you are the most vocal gay supporter on this thread, I’ll put it to you bluntly, and hope you will answer without equivocation- should priests of the Roman Catholic Church perform marriages between same sex couples?

The safest way to ensure that priests are never forced to perform same sex marriages is to remove the government from marriage. If the legal definition is changed to include same sex couples, which is inevitable as long as the government is given this power, then religious organizations could very easily be forced to perform same sex marriages or be faced with violating anti-discrimination laws. And before someone says that will never happen because of religious exemptions, just look at Obamacare.

If the only role the government had was to record and enforce contracts for legal purposes, such as taxes, etc., then the Church would be free to call marriage what it truly is and refuse to perform marriages. They could not be forced to recognize gay marriage because there would be no such term, no federal backing of the term, and no possibility of overriding the Church’s definition of marriage with the government’s.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The safest way to ensure that priests are never forced to perform same sex marriages is to remove the government from marriage. If the legal definition is changed to include same sex couples, which is inevitable as long as the government is given this power, then religious organizations could very easily be forced to perform same sex marriages or be faced with violating anti-discrimination laws.

No, they can’t. I wish people would stop saying this, it’s simply untrue. The Church can’t even be foreced to marry heterosexual x couples because the Church is a church, not a business open to the public, and even members don’t have the “right” to be married in the Church.

And before someone says that will never happen because of religious exemptions, just look at Obamacare.

EXACTLY. Look at Obamacare: all churches are exempt. Let me say this again: ALL CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT. No one’s Parish will have to supply birth control or abortifacients to the secretary and DRE. Nor will any Diocese or Archdiocese.

Private non-profits are not churches, no matter how many Catholics they employ. Catholic Charities could be part of the Church, but are not. This is by the decision of the Church.

No one can make a church do what is against it’s own theological practice in this country. Individuals are sometimes compelled. Those who believe that medicine is wrong and God’s will should reign, have been compelled to surrender a mortally ill child for medical treatment, for instance.

The sky is not falling. No one can make a priest marry a same sex couple.

Now, as far as the Elvis Memory Wedding Chapel in Vegas, well, they are a public business and can’t discriminate.

The Church is not a business, not public and no subject to these laws. In fact, it’s not subject to almost any Federal regulation. Not OSHA, not AWDA, nothing. They have to pay payroll taxes and Social Security, I think. I might be wrong.

 

[Julia_Mae]

You are denying Scripture, Tradition, common sense, history, logic and with all that you conclude that evil actions are good, why?

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.

 

[Bill_Martin]

No, they can’t. I wish people would stop saying this, it’s simply untrue. The Church can’t even be foreced to marry heterosexual x couples because the Church is a church, not a business open to the public, and even members don’t have the “right” to be married in the Church.

EXACTLY. Look at Obamacare: all churches are exempt. Let me say this again: ALL CHURCHES ARE EXEMPT. No one’s Parish will have to supply birth control or abortifacients to the secretary and DRE. Nor will any Diocese or Archdiocese.

Private non-profits are not churches, no matter how many Catholics they employ. Catholic Charities could be part of the Church, but are not. This is by the decision of the Church.

No one can make a church do what is against it’s own theological practice in this country. Individuals are sometimes compelled. Those who believe that medicine is wrong and God’s will should reign, have been compelled to surrender a mortally ill child for medical treatment, for instance.

The sky is not falling. No one can make a priest marry a same sex couple.

Now, as far as the Elvis Memory Wedding Chapel in Vegas, well, they are a public business and can’t discriminate.

The Church is not a business, not public and no subject to these laws. In fact, it’s not subject to almost any Federal regulation. Not OSHA, not AWDA, nothing. They have to pay payroll taxes and Social Security, I think. I might be wrong.

For the moment. But who knows what the future will bring. Nobody would have imagined 100 years ago that private organizations would be compelled to violate their faith, or that same sex marriage would have gained this much ground, or that the government would be trying to tell individuals to leave their faith at church. I think that removing the government from the marriage equation is a good way to prevent future problems in this area and allowing them to make up their idea of marriage is shortsighted.

 

[Iron_Donkey]

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:

If we can’t settle this, there will be no answer ever. But you did mention earlier something about supporting laws based on personal morality (a thing which I only agree exists if it means personal perception of morality). I propose then a working definition - a law is immoral if a person perfectly following objective morality would be obliged by said objective morality to oppose it. This to me seems a bit roundabout, but assuming that you agree that objective morality exists and you agree that people use moral reasons to make legal choices, it should suffice for now.

So a law it would be immoral to pass (say, a law calling for the extermination of people who mix up “their” and “they’re”) would be called an immoral law. It may be that there is other language you would prefer, but I think this will do the job succinctly.

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 [in particular oppose laws which require bad things]. It also judges particular choices [for example, the choices of which laws to pass], approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. It bears witness to the authority of truth [which is objective] in reference to the supreme Good [which is very objective] 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.” [this just means that the desire to do good (oppose immoral laws) should be built in deeply]

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 [which is to imply that authority must derive its moral legitimacy from something]. 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 [bad laws are bad]”:
A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. [a law contrary to the eternal law, also called divine law, which includes natural law and is the law of God, does not have the character of law - one is not required to obey it, it has no binding ability, it is bad law, it should not be enforced or put into the code in the first place] 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.

So far this seems to be agreeing with me. We should do good, there are bad laws, bad laws don’t have the character of law.

**
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.

I see absolutely no reason why any of this supports the creating a legal same sex “marriage.” It fails the just law criterion because just law must be grounded in eternal law, the law of God. It does not count as charity, because things which violate the eternal law do not count as charity.

 

[edwest2]

Okay, so here we have our point of disagreement. I assert law in the US is essentially morally neutral and is based on protecting the rights of the citizen. You believe otherwise as you state below:

*That tree ought to be producing more fruit, I wonder if it’s not getting enough water?

You should see this movie, Elmo, it’s fantastic! *

So, not all ought or should statements have moral content.

But the law itself is not moral, it is factual. It describes actions necessary or forbidden and consequences of the actions. It defines things essential to itself, like “person” or “consent” or “citizen.” The law is created around individuals and their welfare. It is not based on things being “right” or “wrong” but simply defines what is legal, illegal, required or forbidden. Law has no moral content,* per se*. Not in the US.

You can make no value statement about law that is not a moral statement.

*Law that is too vague invites abuse and is difficult to enforce.
*
But my reasons, as a person and an individual, for supporting or objecting to a law can be about my own personal morality. This doesn’t imbue the law with morality, however. There is no objective reason to bar persons of the same sex from participating in civil marriage. The objections are purely moralistic, and relative due to not all persons sharing the same moral imperatives on this topic.

Your statements are not based on any credible reference or scholarly source. They are illogical and self-serving. The government is in the business of promoting the general welfare of its people and the common good. We live in a society, and in order for it to function, it needs a framework.

"The case for morals-based law rests on a wider and more profound basis than the internal contradictions found in those who oppose legislating morality but are themselves unable to do as they insist. Those who wish to banish ethical considerations from legal affairs forget that civilizations are not founded on considerations of mere personal comfort and pleasure, or on science and technology, or even on self-expression and self-preservation, but on virtue — both public and private. A good society, in other words, depends for its preservation and well-being on the character of its people, on the virtues that accompany, perhaps even define, good citizenship. Only on the foundation of courage, self-control, and self-denial can a good society be found and continue.

“Such civic virtues are not natural to us. We are not born into the world as good and competent citizens. The civic virtues and public responsibilities that define good citizenship must be acquired. They need to be learned. In that sense, we all enter this world unequipped by natural endowment for effective citizenship and self-government.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

snip

The reality though is the majority of Catholics and a growing number of other Christians are supporting the rights of same sex couples in secular society. Obviously they don’t agree with the idea that we’re encouraging immoral behavior. When reading scripture, there are references to homosexuality (often taken out of context). When following tradition, well, people have thought it was icky for a long time. However, when viewing these issues in the spirit of God’s love, there is simply no good reason to forbid extending rights of gays in secular society. The arguments that society will fall apart if gays are given these rights is only fear-based. Obviously the courts aren’t seeing anything but discrimination as a motive behind the opponents view. Eventually these laws will become reality, then the opponents will eventually see there’s nothing to fear (kinda like Obamacare).

I’m not going back to my gay friends and telling them, “you are going to hell” because that is a religious belief and not even one that many Christians believe. Not to mention that attitude is the one that pushes them away from the Church and farther from God in the first place. The best I can do for now (which I have been doing) is to encourage them to remember that they are not angry at God but at some of His followers. It hurts me that I can’t recommend them to come back to Catholicism because they wont find peace in our churches but at least they can start by going to an independent Christian church which accepts them and let God guide them from there.

You are misinformed. It is not just a few members of the Church but the Church itself that defines the effects same-sex marriage will have on society.

1. There is no Catholic Church that checks your sexual orientation at the door. To believe otherwise is wrong. The Church has made no statement that this should be the case. Here is what she does say.

"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

“Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)”

1. It is true that some Christians have been deceived by self-serving arguments. And it is true that too many Catholics are living in objectively immoral circumstances and engaging in some objectively immoral practices (contraception). The numbers don’t matter. Even if wrong is legalized, it doesn’t make it less wrong.
2. “Nor can the principle of the proper autonomy of the individual be reasonably invoked. It is one thing to maintain that individual citizens may freely engage in those activities that interest them and that this falls within the common civil right to freedom; it is something quite different to hold that activities which do not represent a significant or positive contribution to the development of the human person in society can receive specific and categorical legal recognition by the State. Not even in a remote analogous sense do homosexual unions fulfil the purpose for which marriage and family deserve specific categorical recognition. On the contrary, there are good reasons for holding that such unions are harmful to the proper development of human society, especially if their impact on society were to increase.”

“11. The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”

On what basis do you believe we live in a “secular society”? What evidence do you have that the governments and the courts have no interests other than secular ones?

God loves everyone, but according to humanist/atheist/freethinker and similar forums/groups, in the case of gay marriage, any objection by the Catholic Church is regarded as “hate.” Or the inane word “icky” is invoked. No one has any business asking anyone about the graphic details of any sexual acts they engage in. However, and I have received no answer from anyone regarding this: Why was gay marriage even put on the ballot at the voting booth? WHY DOES ANYBODY NEED MY PERMISSION REGARDING THIS?

And I am sick and tired about hearing that gays should be “allowed” to get married. Allowed by who? Who’s stopping them? They are already having ‘commitment ceremonies.’

weddings.about.com/cs/gayandlesbian/a/commitmentcerem.htm

God does love gay (LGBT) people, however, the push for gay marriage did not materialize until 2001. This recent phenomenon is an attempt to radically redefine the meaning of marriage.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Befink]

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.

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.

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.