How a married gay Catholic couple live their faith

[ProdglArchitect]

I didn’t imply any such thing, or anything even distantly resembling that. I’m sorry you either didn’t read or didn’t comprehend what I wrote.

But the fact is, the only way people involved in same sex “marriages” or priests approving of such marriages are going to be converted is by an ENCOUNTER WITH JESUS. And the way one can possibly have an encounter with Jesus in the year 2015 is through the Church. How in the WORLD can we expect anyone to be converted if instead of providing an encounter with Jesus, the “Church” only offers name calling, nasty condemnations, and ridiculous imaginary lines drawn dividing those who are worthy and unworthy of mercy.

We are not name calling or condemning, and hyperbole / exaggeration has been an excepted form of point making throughout history.

Telling someone that they are sinning is not condemning, it is acknowledging the reality of a situation. Pointing out that “gay marriage” cannot exist is not being spiteful, it is simply recognizing the Truth. If we do not confront sinners with the Truth, they will never think to convert. Being nice accomplishes nothing; we should be kind, and we should be friendly, and we should treat these people as we would any other; but none of that precludes us from our responsibility to live the Truth. This priest, by attending this “wedding,” chose to live the lie, and failed in his duty to uphold the Truths of God’s creation.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Well that is not exactly how I would put it. I’d probably say something more along the lines that those churches not in communion with Rome and which allow for greater diversity, do so because they allow for greater use of individual reason along a believer’s faith walk. And perhaps their understanding is that their path to the ultimate truth is a lifelong journey. That a finite human being’s understanding of an infinite being, God, is limited. But there always remains potential for human understanding to grow and evolve on matters of faith and morals along their way to seeking that one ultimate truth. Whatever it ultimately turns out to be. And in the meantime as they walk together in faith but not by sight, respecting and celebrating the differences in their church families when they come together in that faith to worship the one God.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

You’re saying those who experience same sex attraction don’t have psychological issues? Are you joking?

No, I believe that they do; but that those issues do not drive them to pursue “gay marriage.” Pride, hubris, a rejection of God, or any number of other factors drive that.

 

[Sy_Noe]

In the eyes of the Catholic faith, indeed. But not in the eyes of some others and certainly under civil law, a marriage exists and Fr Victor’s nephew and his husband are legally married.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Well that is not exactly how I would put it. I’d probably say something more along the lines that those churches not in communion with Rome and which allow for greater diversity, do so because they allow for greater use of individual reason along a believer’s faith walk. And perhaps their understanding is that their path to the ultimate truth is a lifelong journey. That a finite human being’s understanding of an infinite being, God, is limited. But there always remains potential for human understanding to grow and evolve on matters of faith and morals along their way to seeking that one ultimate truth. Whatever it ultimately turns out to be. And in the meantime as they walk together in faith but not by sight, respecting and celebrating the differences in their church families when they come together in that faith to worship the one God.

How can we rationally celebrate diversity, when that diversity contains within it competing, contradictory positions.

I cannot celebrate the diversity of two groups when one groups says that 2+2=4 and the other group says that 2+2=5. I can be civil with the incorrect group, but I still need to work to correct them, otherwise I am showing an indifference to them which is not loving.

 

[Cider]

In the eyes of the Catholic faith, indeed. But not in the eyes of some others and certainly under civil law, a marriage exists and Fr Victor’s nephew and his husband are legally married.

For faithful Catholics, in the eyes of the Catholic faith is all that matters. This is a Catholic forum and we are talking about a Catholic priest and lay Catholics. The fact remains that Catholics shouldn’t be endorsing or furthering heterodoxy.

 

[Sy_Noe]

How can we rationally celebrate diversity, when that diversity contains within it competing, contradictory positions.

I cannot celebrate the diversity of two groups when one groups says that 2+2=4 and the other group says that 2+2=5. I can be civil with the incorrect group, but I still need to work to correct them, otherwise I am showing an indifference to them which is not loving.

I suppose maybe that’s one reason that while you profess to be Roman Catholic, I profess to be non practicing. I’m more open to gray areas in matters of faith. Some of us are. Some prefer things in black and white. It’s just how we are I suppose.

 

[Cider]

I suppose maybe that’s one reason that while you profess to be Roman Catholic, I profess to be non practicing. I’m more open to gray areas in matters of faith. Some of us are. Some prefer things in black and white. It’s just how we are I suppose.

These aren’t gray areas though. You are professing things that are against church teaching, not gray areas.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I suppose maybe that’s one reason that while you profess to be Roman Catholic, I profess to be non practicing. I’m more open to gray areas in matters of faith. Some of us are. Some prefer things in black and white. It’s just how we are I suppose.

This is a common response I hear to this argument, and I have to say, it really doesn’t make sense. You say that you are open to the “gray” areas of the faith. The problem is that this isn’t a gray area. Quite the contrary, this area has been consistently black since the Church first started. In the earliest writings of the Church fathers, and even in the NT, we see a complete rejection of the entire notion of homosexual activities. This is not a gray area, and the only reason you think it is is because you disagree with the Church on the subject. With this type of logic, any issue that a person disagrees with becomes a “gray” area, which means that there are no absolutes, which is relativistic and completely contrary to the basics of logic and reason.

 

[1neophyte]

This priest, by attending this “wedding,” chose to live the lie, and failed in his duty to uphold the Truths of God’s creation.

Exactly. So are you going to kindly admonish him? Or are you going to simply complain about him to those who agree with you so you can feel righteous and correct?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Hopefully Archbishop Cordileone will be made aware of these errant priests and discipline them accordingly. These priests are actively leading their flock to grave and mortal sin. You seem to have a lot of information on what occurs in Catholic Churches in your area even though you’re not Catholic. There are several non-Catholic Churches within blocks of my church --Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., and I have no idea what occurs within those churches because I am Catholic and I attend Mass at my parish.

Yes from having read many posts by ComplineSanFran on these forums, I find her or him to have an amazing wealth of knowledge about and experience with a wide range of faith traditions.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Exactly. So are you going to kindly admonish him? Or are you going to simply complain about him to those who agree with you so you can feel righteous and correct?

This is a forum dedicated to debate, it’s not about feeling righteous or correct, it’s about learning, improving our knowledge, and trying to live according to God’s will. I cannot personally admonish the priest, but I am perfectly within my rights to discuss his actions, and debate them with people who hold opposing viewpoints.

 

[Sy_Noe]

This is a common response I hear to this argument, and I have to say, it really doesn’t make sense. You say that you are open to the “gray” areas of the faith. The problem is that this isn’t a gray area. Quite the contrary, this area has been consistently black since the Church first started. In the earliest writings of the Church fathers, and even in the NT, we see a complete rejection of the entire notion of homosexual activities. This is not a gray area, and the only reason you think it is is because you disagree with the Church on the subject. With this type of logic, any issue that a person disagrees with becomes a “gray” area, which means that there are no absolutes, which is relativistic and completely contrary to the basics of logic and reason.

No it’s not relativist as I believe there is one ultimate truth we seek. And if in faith He comes again, then we will know for sure. But sure, in the meantime, we can believe we know. I also believe what we believe we understand about God can evolve.

 

[Sy_Noe]

These aren’t gray areas though. You are professing things that are against church teaching, not gray areas.

I don’t quite get your post as that would be why I identify non practicing.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

I don’t quite get your post as that would be why I identify non practicing.

The fact that you are non practicing doesn’t change the fact that, morally speaking, these are not gray areas. You call them gray areas because you disagree with them, but under that logic you could claim that any teaching is a gray area, and make up your own set of beliefs. This is basically how Protestantism works, and is why there are literally tens of thousands of Protestant denominations.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The teaching of the church is that to baptize the child the priest needs a reasonable expectation that the child will.be brought up within the Catholic.Faith. the difficulty here is that a child with two actively homosexual parents within an invalid marriage in reality is not going to be brought within the Catholic faith. If this couple would agree to live chats lives and not.together teaching the child that homosexuality is sinful.and.that is why they are living.in.chastity, then there is a reasonable.expectation, but usually that is not the case.

Now this particular.priest seems to be in straight opposition to the teachings of the church so he probably doesn’t care about what the church h actually says.

Where do the practicing Catholic Godparents enter the equation? And has there never been a case when a priest baptizes an infant of parents who some call Cafeteria Catholics? What about a couple who gave birth to a child and desires their child to be baptized but who also use ABC at times? Or parents who doesn’t follow some other teaching with every “t” crossed and "i"dotted? No one except fully at all times and on everything 100% faithful Catholics have had their children baptized?

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Where do the practicing Catholic Godparents enter the equation? And has there never been a case when a priest baptizes an infant of parents who some call Cafeteria Catholics? What about a couple who gave birth to a child and desires their child to be baptized but who also use ABC at times? Or parents who doesn’t follow some other teaching with every “t” crossed and "i"dotted? No one except fully at all times and on everything 100% faithful Catholics have had their children baptized?

This is another common argument that gets made which makes absolutely no sense. “Because people haven’t done it perfectly in the past, we shouldn’t worry about doing it right now.” Seriously, do you honestly think this is a good argument?

Also, in all of those examples you gave, the underlying form remains proper; a mother, father and child. With homosexuals, the foundation is faulty to begin with, it is impossible for their situation to ever be valid. The situations are not comparable.

 

[marymary1975]

Where do the practicing Catholic Godparents enter the equation? And has there never been a case when a priest baptizes an infant of parents who some call Cafeteria Catholics? What about a couple who gave birth to a child and desires their child to be baptized but who also use ABC at times? Or parents who doesn’t follow some other teaching with every “t” crossed and "i"dotted? No one except fully at all times and on everything 100% faithful Catholics have had their children baptized?

That is why the priest needs a “reasonable” expectation. Priests can’t read minds.and.they have no way to know minor.details like if a regular parishioner.doesn’t agree with church teaching. It would be at priest`s discretion using his best knowledge and assessment of the situation. If the priest has a reason of weight to believe that the child will mot be brought in the Catholic faith, he can refuse the Baptism. The particularity with a homosexual.couple is that is clear and obvious that the child will not be brought up under Catholic teaching so that case us clear cut while other cases are not that clear cut.

As to the Godparents they are not the ones who.Will.be directly raising the kid.

 

[Cider]

Ah the old, “but Tommy did it” argument. I always taught my kids that other peoples stupidity or mistakes are not an example of what you should do.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Hopefully Archbishop Cordileone will be made aware of these errant priests and discipline them accordingly. These priests are actively leading their flock to grave and mortal sin. You seem to have a lot of information on what occurs in Catholic Churches in your area even though you’re not Catholic. There are several non-Catholic Churches within blocks of my church --Methodist, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., and I have no idea what occurs within those churches because I am Catholic and I attend Mass at my parish.

Very interesting analysis.