Getting Gay Straight

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tomcmaj
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

Tomcmaj

Guest
I’m not quite clear on this, so please correct the statements I’m about to make if they are, in fact, wrong.
  1. A gay person who is chaste can participate fully in the Church.
  2. Two gay people sharing an apartment or a house, and both are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.
3, Two gay people who are married by a civil authority, live together, and are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.

Thanks, tomcmaj
 
Tomcmaj said:
  1. A gay person who is chaste can participate fully in the Church.
Click to expand...
Yup! 👍
Tomcmaj said:
  1. Two gay people sharing an apartment or a house, and both are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, I think they would be encouraged to find separate living spaces so as not to be in an occassion of sin. I know with co-ed rooming the reasons to live apart are the occassion of sin and giving scandal.
Tomcmaj said:
3, Two gay people who are married by a civil authority, live together, and are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.
Click to expand...
Since the Church doesn’t recognize civil marriages as valid (I believe) this would be virtually the same as No.2
 
I’m thinking the same as the above post. But, if they were really “chaste”, why are they getting married?
 
ahs said:
I’m thinking the same as the above post. But, if they were really “chaste”, why are they getting married?
Click to expand...
There are a lot of advantages to having a civil marriage, other than a physical relationship.
 
ahs said:
I’m thinking the same as the above post. But, if they were really “chaste”, why are they getting married?
Click to expand...
Straight off the top of my head: Insurance benefits? Methinks straight people might consider doing the same right now. Especially if they’re not gay at all whatsoever and a friend needs insurance. More especially since it’s just a piece of paper with civil legal benefits.
 
Equites_Christi said:
I think they would be encouraged to find separate living spaces so as not to be in an occassion of sin.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understand that. But we’d all be pretty busy if we did everything to avoid “occasions of sin.” Besides, they could simply be best friends.
 
Tomcmaj said:
I’m not quite clear on this, so please correct the statements I’m about to make if they are, in fact, wrong.
  1. A gay person who is chaste can participate fully in the Church.
  2. Two gay people sharing an apartment or a house, and both are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.
3, Two gay people who are married by a civil authority, live together, and are chaste, can participate fully in the Church.

Thanks, tomcmaj
Click to expand...
  1. yes
  2. maybe
    If they are just roommates, not problem. If they are pretending to be a couple, they might be giving scandal.
  3. no
    Attemepting marriage is a grave sin. It has nothing to do with the parties being homosexual.
Now, it also depends on what you mean by “participating fully”. #3 for example, may be forgiven in Confession and the parties could then receive Communion but as long as they are known as a married couple, they should not be serving as catechists or readers or EMHCs. Again, nothing to do with being homosexual. The same applies to heterosexuals who marry civilly and are living as brother and sister while awaiting an annulment.
 
As all Catholics should know, no one can marry another of the same sex.
 
Corki said:
1)Now, it also depends on what you mean by “participating fully”. #3 for example, may be forgiven in Confession and the parties could then receive Communion but as long as they are known as a married couple, they should not be serving as catechists or readers or EMHCs. Again, nothing to do with being homosexual. The same applies to heterosexuals who marry civilly and are living as brother and sister while awaiting an annulment.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that is what I was wondering about as well. So even in a heterosexual civil marriage, they cannot participate fully in the Church, even if they remain chaste?
 
But you shouldn’t be “pretending to be married”.

Since in the church’s view, you cannot marry a person of the same sex. Therefore, you can’t view yourself as being married and live in communion with the church, and if you don’t view yourself as being married, you are perpetrating a fraud if you are doing so for some kind of insurance or health care benefit.

It’s really hard to do the right thing in some cases.

I hope this helps,

God Bless,
John
 
The answer to your first question is yes, as others have said.

Regarding the second question, I would say it depends on the relationship between the two who are living together. Are they physically attracted to one another? Are they in love? It would very difficult–and therefore unwise–for two heterosexuals who are physically attracted to one another and in love to try to live together without getting themselves into some amount of trouble; it is the same for those who struggle with homosexuality. Most of us know ourselves well enough to know that putting ourselves into such a situation is an invitation to sin. Adultery in the heart was once defined by John Paul II as a desire for sexual knowledge of someone who is not one’s spouse. On the other hand, if there are no romantic dynamics involved, it would be the same as two friends who are heterosexual roommates.

Regarding the third question: Union between two of the same sex cannot be defined as such. Intrinsically, there is no such thing as “gay marriage”. Marriage is defined by God Himself (and the Church) as two persons of the opposite sex coming together and uniting to become one flesh (Ge 2:20-24). In Ephesians 5:30 St Paul says: "for we are members of his [Christ’s] body. Then he quotes Genesis 2:24: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” Then further he explains the meaning of such a wondrous thing: v 32: “This is a profound mystery — but I am talking about Christ and the church.” This union between a man and a woman is a union that signifies the very union between Christ and His Church. A union of any other kind does not signify this reality and is not a marriage.

Hope this helps.
 
Lutgardis said:
Intrinsically, there is no such thing as “gay marriage”.
Click to expand...
Ok, but my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that civil marriage, straight or gay, is not recognized by the Church.

Though both my parents and I were brought up Catholic, my parents only had a civil marriage, and at the time that meant they could not receive Communion (don’t know if that’s the same today).
 
Tomcmaj said:
Ok, but my understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that civil marriage, straight or gay, is not recognized by the Church.

Though both my parents and I were brought up Catholic, my parents only had a civil marriage, and at the time that meant they could not receive Communion (don’t know if that’s the same today).
Click to expand...
If your parents were both (or one) Catholics when they were married, and they were not married in the Catholic Church, they could not receive Communion. The Church does recognize marriages not performed in a Catholic Church if the two are not Catholic. This only pertains to heterosexuals. Gays may not marry in the eyes of the Church.
 
If the couple is chaste, the operable question is whether their living and legal arrangements give cause for scandal or presents a near occasion of sin. There is both a responsibility for people on the outside to avoid rash judment, true, but also for people on the inside of a question to avoid situations which tempt to rash judgment.

As far as I know, a Catholic may not enter into a civil marriage when they are not free to contract the same marriage in the Church. There might be exceptions for grave reasons, such as shielding another from mortal danger, but that would be a question one would take to a priest in each instance, to see whether the same end could be achieved without scandal or deceit.

If civil “marriage” were to be widely understood as not necessarily implying a sexual relationship as all, it could be a different story. For instance, if memory serves correctly, there were a pair of women in Oregon who contracted a legal domestic partnership, but who made it very clear that they had no sexual relationship. They were just long-term roommates who wanted to grant each other the mutual legal rights of inheritance, medical decision-making, and so on. This sort of thing is allowed by the Church.
 
A baptized Catholic who marries outside the Church in a civil ceremony does so invalidly Canon Law 1108 ff; CCC 1630-31; also see CCC 1601-1617, 1659-66, 2364-65.
 
The issue of the Church recognizing civil marriages is a hard one to understand, even harder to explain to friends/family who are simply not very knowledgable or interested in what the Church has to say, or even worse antagonistic towards it.

Even if the Church does not “recognize” a civil marriage, it still does see (or recognize) that something happened.

If a man and a woman marry in front of a judge and then seperate or divorce, they are not free to marry another in the Church without first obtaining an annullment. So even though the civil marriage was “unrecognized” it still has very real and serious consequences within the Church and for the souls of the participants.

I would imagine that participants in so called “same sex marriages” or “same sex unions” would also need to obtain an annulment before marrying within the Church. In these cases, an anullment would be certainly apply as a valid marriage can not occur between two people of the same sex.
 
Having a civil ‘gay’ marriage is no different than participating in Communion with Protestant churches, it’s a complete contradiction to the Catholic faith, a spit in the face of the Sacraments.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top