How Do Those Who Call Themselves Catholic Support Gay Marriage?

[GEddie]

Yes, I am suggesting that the government should protect its citizens, even if it means from themselves. We ban people from having free access to methadone for the health of their physical bodies, so what’s wrong with banning access to a mockery of a Sacrament for the health of their spiritual bodies?

You would have to convince the leadership that the spiritual body exists, for one, and that protecting it is worth the opprobrium to be received from the gay sector.

Sadly, susceptibility to brainwash and group pressure is one of the democratic republic’s fatal flaws.

ICXC NIKA

 

[odhiambo]

Yes. Another thread on gay marriage.

But I have not seen this issue addressed in any significant manner in any of the other myriad threads on this subject.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Yet here we are.

In Illinois, my home state, gay marriage was recently signed into law.

It could not have reached this end without the assistance of some so-called Catholic legislators. It was signed into law by our Governor, who also claims to be Catholic.

If we, as Catholics, truly believe that unconfessed mortal sin will place at risk of losing our salvation, isn’t supporting gay marriage akin to telling someone that you couldn’t care less about their soul?

Isn’t support of gay marriage fomenting scandal?

What am I missing?

Sadly they are Catholics in name only, you know, C.I.N.O.s.

 

[KrazyKat]

Misplaced compassion.

 

[kanrok]

In an attempt to answer this question, I spoke with two people I know who regularly attend Mass and also support gay marriage. After respectfully asking them how they reconcile these two divergent actions, it came down to both of them saying they just didn’t believe that homosexual acts are sinful.

I asked if they read what the Catechism and the Bible had to say.

Both said that society has “progressed” to a point where much of what was written in these books no longer makes sense.

I blame poor catechesis and the daily hammering we all get from secular sources.

 

[kanrok]

Misplaced compassion.

I totally agree.

 

[epan]

Yes. Another thread on gay marriage.

But I have not seen this issue addressed in any significant manner in any of the other myriad threads on this subject.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Yet here we are.

In Illinois, my home state, gay marriage was recently signed into law.

It could not have reached this end without the assistance of some so-called Catholic legislators. It was signed into law by our Governor, who also claims to be Catholic.

If we, as Catholics, truly believe that unconfessed mortal sin will place at risk of losing our salvation, isn’t supporting gay marriage akin to telling someone that you couldn’t care less about their soul?

Isn’t support of gay marriage fomenting scandal?

What am I missing?

There has been a popular shift in perception which frames the issue as one of social justice.

It would be naïve to expect Catholic politicians to buck against the current of popular changes any more than any other politician. Keep in mind that this movement began with the women’s rights movement, and is simply a logical consequence, in secular terms.

To stop the social trend, one would need to revert marriage law back to the 1950’s, and get popular acceptance of those principles. Otherwise, gender roles in marriage dissolve under the law. Once that occurs, then gender cannot be considered legally as relevant to marriage. The argument is simple and inexorable.

 

[epan]

Another observation, with the pending addition of Illinois and Hawaii, the jurisdictions which support gay marriage add up to 42% of the US population. So, this is not some fringe issue. The 51% point is close. You can’t expect a politician to swim against that current, over religious views. We live in a secular state.

 

[Catherine_S]

Homosexual Marriage How Catholics Lost.
How can this** lapse** in neglecting the** truth** be explained? I would suggest three causes:

a. The** habit** of compromise: for years now the Catholic world has become used to pursuing the lesser evil instead of the good and the true: a law on bad homophobia rather than a** worse one.**

b. The existence of a** homosexual lobby** in the **Catholic world **which paralyzes it on this and other battles.

c. Fear of clashing with the world and of losing a political battle.
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/11/***how-catholics-lost*html

Now, at this point, the person who tries to say homosexuality goes against nature, and that they would not want a homosexual teacher*, becomes an outlaw***, first at the** level of the mass-media** (pilloried by TV and newspaper journalists) and then at the** juridical level** (laws on homophobia); and here, the Catholic world abandons to their fate, all those who run into the executioner’s axe which has been** set up** by the new “homo-cracy”, liquidating them as “imprudent” or “Integra lists.”
.
When all is said and done, this “surrender” explains how homosexuality, judged as a harmful abnormality by the greater part of public opinion until not so long ago, has become not only licit conduct but worthy of special juridical protection; making it become even more meritorious than the traditional man-woman relationship. It is clear that it is the work by the homosexual lobby and the favourable ground created by the** mass-media** whichhave contributed to this situation. Nonetheless, it needs to be added, that** Catholicism, you might say, “has dug its own grave”,** through ten earth-shatteringly erroneous moves:

 

[Catherine_S]

Homosexual Marriage How Catholics Lost.
How can this* lapse** in neglecting the** truth** be explained? I would suggest three causes:*

a. The** habit** of compromise: for years now the Catholic world has become used to pursuing the lesser evil instead of the good and the true: a law on bad homophobia rather than a** worse one.**

b. The existence of a** homosexual lobby** in the **Catholic world **which paralyzes it on this and other battles.

c. Fear of clashing with the world and of losing a political battle.
.
Now, at this point, the person who tries to say homosexuality goes against nature, and that they would not want a homosexual teacher*, becomes an outlaw***, first at the** level of the mass-media** (pilloried by TV and newspaper journalists) and then at the** juridical level** (laws on homophobia); and here, the Catholic world abandons to their fate, all those who run into the executioner’s axe which has been** set up** by the new “homo-cracy”, liquidating them as “imprudent” or “Integra lists.”
.
When all is said and done, this “surrender” explains how homosexuality, judged as a harmful abnormality by the greater part of public opinion until not so long ago, has become not only licit conduct but worthy of special juridical protection; making it become even more meritorious than the traditional man-woman relationship. It is clear that it is the work by the homosexual lobby and the favourable ground created by the mass-media which have contributed to this situation. Nonetheless, it needs to be added, thatCatholicism, you might say, “has dug its own grave”,** through ten earth-shatteringly erroneous moves:
http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2013/11/***how-catholics-lost*html

 

[kanrok]

Another observation, with the pending addition of Illinois and Hawaii, the jurisdictions which support gay marriage add up to 42% of the US population. So, this is not some fringe issue. The 51% point is close. You can’t expect a politician to swim against that current, over religious views. We live in a secular state.

I don’t expect much from politicians.

But if a politician plays up his or her Catholic faith to garner votes, perhaps they should know what the faith means.

In Illinois, gay marriage came up for a vote just before the spring session ended. The proponents of the bill were sadly disappointed when they counted heads and found they didn’t have the support. Some of the same Catholic legislators that 4 months ago were against the bill, were now in favor of it.

The fact that we live in a secular state should not justify compromising principle.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes. Another thread on gay marriage.

But I have not seen this issue addressed in any significant manner in any of the other myriad threads on this subject.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how any Catholic with a passing knowledge of the Bible, the Catechism, Papal directives like Humane Vitae and the corporal and spiritual works of mercy could ever support gay marriage.

Yet here we are.

In Illinois, my home state, gay marriage was recently signed into law.

It could not have reached this end without the assistance of some so-called Catholic legislators. It was signed into law by our Governor, who also claims to be Catholic.

If we, as Catholics, truly believe that unconfessed mortal sin will place at risk of losing our salvation, isn’t supporting gay marriage akin to telling someone that you couldn’t care less about their soul?

Isn’t support of gay marriage fomenting scandal?

What am I missing?

Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s.

If Caesar wants to recognize gay unions as marriage, so be it. If Caesar wants to give tax breaks and other “marital” benefits to homosexual couples, so be it. Caesar can do whatever he wants with his money. Our representative republic is built on the idea that we do not discriminate with public money against any group of people…more or less.

Those who are Christians will oppose the idea that these “unions” are sacramental. Thus, we reach a Church-State divide, and we may eventually reach a point where we have to distinguish one type of marriage v another in normal conversation.

I was sacramentally married in the Catholic Church 25 years ago. What others do elsewhere is between them, Caesar and God.

 

[kolya111]

Disclosure - I am gay and not in the Catholic faith.

Back when I was in the faith, and still denying my identity to myself, I supported gay marriage because the prohibition on gay marriage is based on religion, and we live in a secular society. Without legally-recognized unions, government denies gay couples the legal benefits entitled to heterosexual couples (tax, survivorship, hospital visitation and power of attorney). Read this - thestranger.com/seattle/i-can-die-now/Content?oid=17152673.

“Civil unions” are not a solution because a separate legal recognition would create government-endorsed difference between unions; the gay union (a civil union) implicitly being seen as less moral than the straight one (a marriage) by the secular authority. You cannot have separate but equal; we’ve seen that before. If the voting public was willing to name all government-recognized unions “civil unions” to stop government intrusion into marriage then that would be fine, but since Christians long ago demanded that government endorse their “marriages” they have only themselves to blame for losing control of the institution.

And lost control they have - support for gay marriage is climbing north of 70% in younger demographics and support has doubled even in the conservative south over the last ten years. Another ten years and the battle may be won.

 

[epan]

I don’t expect much from politicians.

But if a politician plays up his or her Catholic faith to garner votes, perhaps they should know what the faith means.

In Illinois, gay marriage came up for a vote just before the spring session ended. The proponents of the bill were sadly disappointed when they counted heads and found they didn’t have the support. Some of the same Catholic legislators that 4 months ago were against the bill, were now in favor of it.

The fact that we live in a secular state should not justify compromising principle.

Actually, what you call “compromising principle,” is precisely why we have religious freedom in the US. The sword cuts both ways, to borrow an overused analogy. If the, now a minority, segment of voters is allowed to dictate the behavior of others, then you find yourself in the difficult position of defending why any religious minority should be protected at all.

Just as the women’s equality movement leads logically to gay rights in marriage, so does the gay equality movement imply the preservation of religious rights for a shrinking religious minority, such as Catholics.

This concept seems very difficult for anyone who is obsessed with the mechanics of sex (as the Catechism clearly advises that we should be). But, the sociopolitical issue is much broader. We do, in fact, live in a secular society. Plurality protects others’ freedoms, as well as our own.

Part of the difficulty lies in the history of great influence which the Church once had. Adapting to the reality of a lesser role, as times change and views progress, is not easy. In historic terms, a cogent argument could be made that the Catholic Church should butt out of this issue, in order to protect its own liberty into the future.

I have yet to hear a rebuttal to the question: If the views of the Church should prevail to regulate the private lives (such as sex and marriage) of non-Catholics, then why should the views of non-Catholics not be imposed on the behavior of the Church? Until this question can be answered without referring to religious doctrine (which is irrelevant to the question), then the Church should remain as a valuable advisor to those who seek its guidance, while remaining neutral in the public realm on secular issues.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Disclosure - I am gay and not in the Catholic faith.

Back when I was in the faith, and still denying my identity to myself, I supported gay marriage because the prohibition on gay marriage is based on religion, and we live in a secular society. Without legally-recognized unions, government denies gay couples the legal benefits entitled to heterosexual couples (tax, survivorship, hospital visitation and power of attorney). Read this - thestranger.com/seattle/i-can-die-now/Content?oid=17152673.

“Civil unions” are not a solution because a separate legal recognition would create government-endorsed difference between unions; the gay union (a civil union) implicitly being seen as less moral than the straight one (a marriage) by the secular authority. You cannot have separate but equal; we’ve seen that before. If the voting public was willing to name all government-recognized unions “civil unions” to stop government intrusion into marriage then that would be fine, but since Christians long ago demanded that government endorse their “marriages” they have only themselves to blame for losing control of the institution.

Is the government responsible for determining morals? Boy, that explains a lot…

It seems to me that sacramental marriages and civil unions are two different things in the eyes of God (even Catholics who are only civilly “married” have a problem from the Church’s perspective) and the state (which theoretically couldn’t care less about God). I had to buy a marriage license (read “tax”) from the state of Maryland when I was married in the Catholic Church. Caesar will get his share.

One solution would be for the state to recognize only unions (and a marriage as a union) then the Church could continue to recognize only marriages. Thus, all marriages are unions but not all unions are marriages.

Unfortunately, the laws are written with the word “marriage” embedded in the code.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Divorce is a separate issue and separate thread.

The issue at hand is gay marriage and why people would identify themselves as “Catholic” would support it.

The issue at hand is whether or not Catholics should oppose gay marriage because homosexual acts are frowned upon within the church. I pose a natural question- to Catholics seek to legislate based on similar reasoning in other areas? I suspect you’ll find that the answer is no. The gospels (Matthew?) specifically show that Jesus was against divorce, and yet we see no demands that the US reverse course in order to save souls.

 

[kolya111]

Is the government responsible for determining morals? Boy, that explains a lot…

It seems to me that sacramental marriages and civil unions are two different things in the eyes of God (even Catholics who are only civilly “married” have a problem from the Church’s perspective) and the state (which theoretically couldn’t care less about God).

One solution would be for the state to recognize only unions (and a marriage as a union) then the Church could continue to recognize only marriages.

Unfortunately, the laws are written with the word “marriage” embedded in the code.

I don’t know why you are rolling your eyes; I agreed with everything you said - it would be fine if civil unions were the only legally-recognized unions. They aren’t though.

 

[kanrok]

Actually, what you call “compromising principle,” is precisely why we have religious freedom in the US. The sword cuts both ways, to borrow an overused analogy. If the, now a minority, segment of voters is allowed to dictate the behavior of others, then you find yourself in the difficult position of defending why any religious minority should be protected at all.

Just as the women’s equality movement leads logically to gay rights in marriage, so does the gay equality movement imply the preservation of religious rights for a shrinking religious minority, such as Catholics.

This concept seems very difficult for anyone who is obsessed with the mechanics of sex (as the Catechism clearly advises that we should be). But, the sociopolitical issue is much broader. We do, in fact, live in a secular society. Plurality protects others’ freedoms, as well as our own.

Part of the difficulty lies in the history of great influence which the Church once had. Adapting to the reality of a lesser role, as times change and views progress, is not easy. In historic terms, a cogent argument could be made that the Catholic Church should butt out of this issue, in order to protect its own liberty into the future.

This does not really answer the question I first posed.

A legislator who proclaims himself Catholic has to step outside of his or her Catholicism to vote for something that is intrinsically disordered.

I fully understand the politics of the issue.

What I don’t understand is how they justify their vote.

They are fomenting scandal by making it appear that wrong is right.

On the other issue, I am fascinated by the interplay between our stated first amendment right to the free exercise of religion versus the judge made “right” to marry whomever you choose.

Which one will ultimately win out?

We’ll see.

 

[epan]

Is the government responsible for determining morals? Boy, that explains a lot…

It seems to me that sacramental marriages and civil unions are two different things in the eyes of God (even Catholics who are only civilly “married” have a problem from the Church’s perspective) and the state (which theoretically couldn’t care less about God). I had to buy a marriage license (read “tax”) from the state of Maryland when I was married in the Catholic Church. Caesar will get his share.

One solution would be for the state to recognize only unions (and a marriage as a union) then the Church could continue to recognize only marriages. Thus, all marriages are unions but not all unions are marriages.

Unfortunately, the laws are written with the word “marriage” embedded in the code.

There are many legal terms which are ambiguous. Since civil code refers to marriage, in a legal sense, perhaps both sides should be more accurate in their choice of language. The Church could refer always to “marriage” as “sacramental marriage,” and the state could refer to “legal marriage.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

There are many legal terms which are ambiguous. Since civil code refers to marriage, in a legal sense, perhaps both sides should be more accurate in their choice of language. The Church could refer always to “marriage” as “sacramental marriage,” and the state could refer to “legal marriage.”

Are sacramental marriages legal?

Then we’re going to get into issues related to the fact that some liberal churches will marry homosexuals…so those are “church marriages” but not "sacramental marriages’.

 

[epan]

This does not really answer the question I first posed.

A legislator who proclaims himself Catholic has to step outside of his or her Catholicism to vote for something that is intrinsically disordered.

I fully understand the politics of the issue.

What I don’t understand is how they justify their vote.

They are fomenting scandal by making it appear that wrong is right.

On the other issue, I am fascinated by the interplay between our stated first amendment right to the free exercise of religion versus the judge made “right” to marry whomever you choose.

Which one will ultimately win out?

We’ll see.

None of the rights in question are “judge made.” That point of view implies that the protections which you agree with are indeed constitutional, and those which you disagree with are “judge made.” I find that view to be somewhat juvenile in perspective. Yes, judges do preserve and protect our rights under the Constitution, as they understand it. Yes, for every winner of a lawsuit, who agrees with the ruling, there is also a loser who disagrees with it. That is exactly why we have our courts, to adjudicate such disagreements. If everyone agreed, then we would not need the courts.

As for the politician’s motives, I am sure that it varies from one person to another. You won’t find the answer on a case by case basis here.