If We Don't Say No to Same-Sex Unions, then Why Not Incest and Pedophilia Says Archbishop

[MichaelTDoyle]

So… minding my own business will make me into an automaton?

No, it will make you a poorer Christian. We were admonished to love our brother by Someone Who knew full well that we humans have fallen natures. This love must include fraternal correction given and accepted in humility.

There will be a general judgement and I do not think the answer of “I minded my own business” while my brother damned himself is gonna sound so good.

 

[eliasaph99]

Yet we allow couples who are past the age of bearing children or who are otherwise infertile, to get married. Surely marriage for such persons must have some other socially redeeming quality?

I did say primary.

It is directed toward that purpose. Though it also serves other purposes for the couple. However, all those purposes, from a secular viewpoint, are secondary to the purpose of procreation. Companionship, financial security, etc.

 

[JimG]

For thousands of years, governments have taken an interest in marriage, because marriages form families and provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. Not all marriages are procreative, but if none were, any society would soon fall. So it is in society’s interest to ensure that children are conceived and born and raised and nurtured, until they are their own, (at about age 30.) Somehow, families involving mothers and fathers and children has worked pretty will for the continuation of civilization. Are we sure we want to tinker with that natural formula?

 

[pprimeau1976]

For thousands of years, governments have taken an interest in marriage, because marriages form families and provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers. Not all marriages are procreative, but if none were, any society would soon fall. So it is in society’s interest to ensure that children are conceived and born and raised and nurtured, until they are their own, (at about age 30.) Somehow, families involving mothers and fathers and children has worked pretty will for the continuation of civilization. Are we sure we want to tinker with that natural formula?

I say why not? Secular governments have essentially given us “the bird” when it comes to marriage. I think that the Church should just turn the other cheek and say to the state:

We don’t want to be part of your “system”. Your idea of marriage is totally different than our idea, therefore, we refuse to act as agents of the state by being your “designated representatives”. What the sacrament of marriage provides goes way beyond what a “marriage certificate” provides, therefore, we refuse to sign any secular “marriage certificate” for marriages performed within the Church. Additionally we refuse to recognize any purely secular marriages as valid.

And let them try to tax the Church in revolt. The Church has been through much worse before.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

no, no, no you have me all wrong. I’m not the bad guy. I’m just willing to help others who have skewed views to see the error of their ways. It almost makes me a public servant, a humble public servant who doesn’t give a whit about decorum or faux manners that have pervaded this Godless society.

Thank you.

Chrismyster:

I don’t think that a lot of people realize that we are going to have to answer to God Himself, who will know whether we tried to get people who were living sinful lifestyes to forsake those lifestyles.

Obviously, we have to “tell the truth in love,” and try not to argue, but I don’t think that people realize that at least some of these people know that they’re doing something wrong and just want someone to care enough to say that God created them for better.

I understand this may bring persecution, but our Lord said that we would be persecuted as he was and that no servant was greater than his Master.

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Mirdath]

I don’t think that a lot of people realize that we are going to have to answer to God Himself, who will know whether we tried to get people who were living sinful lifestyes to forsake those lifestyles.

Is not God judging you after your death, not how many sales you made? That makes the Church sound suspiciously like Amway.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

Is not God judging you after your death, not how many sales you made? That makes the Church sound suspiciously like Amway.

Matthew 5

14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

 

[fix]

It is not domination; for many, it is escape from persecution – and, like it or not, freedom to live as we believe we ought. Lucky you, you have such freedom already. Others don’t – and if the ‘natural order’ gets in the way of that, something’s obviously wrong with it.

Freedom has obliagtions. What you, and others, call freedom is not freedom at all.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

The issues are entirely different, and it amazes me that an archbishop who is supposed to possess a lick of sense about moral and ethical questions can’t see how.

Consent. Homosexuality between consenting adults poses no ethical problems (morality is a personal or faith-based issue, not a legal one). Incest, pedophilia, bestiality – all of those raise serious questions at the very least as to whether or not informed consent has been given or is even possible (and in the cases of bestiality and pedophilia, it by definition is not possible). That the archbishop can’t make this basic distinction is shameful and reflects poorly on the entire hierarchy.

ARe you saying that a 25 year old woman cannot give informed consent to have sex with her 27 year old brother?

 

[Mirdath]

Matthew 5

14 You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. 15 Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven. 17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

That says ‘be an example’, not ‘be a voyeur’. Lead us by your example, don’t try to shove it in our faces and then lapse in your own practice.

Scott_Lafrance:

ARe you saying that a 25 year old woman cannot give informed consent to have sex with her 27 year old brother?

Not impossible, but I’m saying it’s questionable, yes. And the other way around too.

 

[RyanL]

Mirdath,

Haven’t we done this dance before?

Consent regarding incestuous relations:

You claim that it’s defective by virtue of relation. The truth is that the law recognizes no such de facto rule in contracts - consent freely given in contracts is binding, regardless of relation. Parents can contract with their adult children on any number of things (parents employ their kids, “James & Sons,” etc.), and siblings can go into business together with no legal issues and have it be legally binding. Why are you putting marriage in a “special category” if it’s simply consent and contract? The fact is, there’s no jurisprudential reason for this view, and much against it.

Further, arranged marriages are legally recognized as marriages, provided neither party tries to get out. Was there an external pressure to marry? Certainly. Does that make it not-a-marriage? Hardly.

Your argument against incestuous marriages is therefore faulty.

Regarding animals, couple of points:

1. Animals are not legal persons. As such, their consent is irrelevant. Just look at what we do to embryonic humans, which the Court has deemed “not legal persons.” Their consent is irrelevant. Same goes for the animals we do scientific tests on, and basically all animal husbandry.
2. If the animal doesn’t struggle to get away, an argument could be made that they consented. If a dog goes-at-it with my leg, and I choose to “help him out” the consent is apparently there. Who are you to question this?

Your argument against bestiality is therefore faulty.

Regarding consenting homosexual acts done with consent and in private:

1. Private acts may indeed be regulated. Drug use is the most common example, but the examples could be multiplied. Smoking is another example. Attempted suicides are another.
2. Taking smoking as a starting point, we regulate it by ordinance and taxation. The “homosexual lifestyle” can result in a markedly increased rate of anal cancer, STDs, suicide and abuse. I can provide stats if required. If health risks go up, society (i.e., the state) has an interest in regulating the conduct - in private or otherwise.

Your argument that private acts should not be regulated is therefore faulty.

Regarding “same sex unions”, you’re missing the original intent for protecting marriage in the first place.

Marriage was originally incentivized by the state (through ready-made contracts, inheritance rights, visitation rights, powers of attorney, and tax incentives) in order to accomplish a specific goal. The goal can be viewed as follows:

1. People will engage in “baby making activity” whether or not there is marriage.
2. Baby making activity frequently results in babies.
3. Babies who are raised in stable environments become more productive citizens than babies who are not.
4. Therefore, the state has an interest in making sure baby making activity occurs in as responsible a way as possible, and a life-long commitment (i.e., marriage) is the best way to provide the stable environment for these children.

So at its root, the state’s interest in marriage is simply to ensure that baby making activity occurs in the most responsible way possible. Plural marriages have proven socially counterproductive (objectively minimizes the importance of one partner, at a minimum, and frequently demeans them as well), and are therefore prohibited.

Homosexuals cannot engage in baby making activity. Heterosexual couples can engage in baby making activity (be the heterosexuals infertile or otherwise). The state’s interest is therefore implicated by all heterosexual couples.

Therefore, the interest of the state is not implicated by homosexual activity; since it is not implicated, there’s little reason for the state to protect it or make sure it happens in the most responsible way possible. The fact that it frequently results in lowered life expectancy rates and a myriad of health risks (including psychological), indeed provides the state with some reason to make disincentives for homosexual activity.

Therefore, your argument for same sex unions fails. Now you can’t say that you’ve never been given a reason.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

That says ‘be an example’, not ‘be a voyeur’. Lead us by your example, don’t try to shove it in our faces and then lapse in your own practice.
.

Protecting the innocent and children from witnessing and being taught perversion is an act, an example. Protecting the society from normalizing homosexual unions to denigrate marriage by enacting laws is an act

How is a Christian lapsing when he proclaims the truth? It is exactly the opposite, Mirdath. If the Christian shut up and allowed this degradation to continue with silence he would be guilty of being complicit with their disordered behaviour and darkness.

Ezek.3
[19] But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.
[21] Nevertheless if you warn the righteous man not to sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live, because he took warning; and you will have saved your life."

 

[Mirdath]

Mirdath,

Haven’t we done this dance before?

We have. [Mod edit: removed personal attack] Your arguments seem to be even less coherent and reasonable this time around. So, I’m not going to bother.

MichaelTDoyle:

Protecting the innocent and children from witnessing and being taught perversion is an act, an example. Protecting the society from normalizing homosexual unions to denigrate marriage by enacting laws is an act

How hard is it to see the difference between ‘let your light shine before men’ and ‘run around opening locked doors and sticking your flashlight everywhere’?

How is a Christian lapsing when he proclaims the truth? It is exactly the opposite, Mirdath. If the Christian shut up and allowed this degradation to continue with silence he would be guilty of being complicit with their disordered behaviour and darkness.

Degradation?

I’ve nothing against proclaiming what you think is right – I’m doing it right here. It’s when you pry into others’ lives and try to regulate them that I take offense.

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

I’ve nothing against proclaiming what you think is right – I’m doing it right here. It’s when you pry into others’ lives and try to regulate them that I take offense.

We are in agreement civilly, which is why I am not picketing for condoms to be outlawed, though I find them morally reprehensible. However, Marriage is not just between two people, it is a societal institution; it also involves the family and the government. I have a responsibility to the children who will be taught disordered behaviour and will witness disordered false unions portrayed as marriage.

They are prying into my life by destroying marriage and propping up perversion in its place.

 

[RyanL]

We have. [Mod edit: removed personal attack] Your arguments seem to be even less coherent and reasonable this time around. So, I’m not going to bother.

Please do bother.

Please show me why I don’t think as good as you.

Please show me why you forcing your view of moral equivalence on me (“You **can’t say it’s wrong") is better than me forcing my view of morality ("It is wrong”) on you.

Please show me these acts, which are objectively contrary to the Natural Law (the source of our rights in the first place - go read the Declaration), are matters which should be either (1) ignored by the state completely or (2) promoted by the state.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

MichaelTDoyle:

They are prying into my life by destroying marriage and propping up perversion in its place.

I really would like to know how; I’ve asked many times and never been given a real answer. Sacramental marriage remains as inviolate as ever, or at least as close to that as it can be with rampant divorce and annulment. Civil marriage isn’t the same thing – and the Church doesn’t recognize it as a valid union anyway.

So, how is a marriage between two men or two women you don’t know in a city you’ve never been to affecting your life personally?

Please show me why you forcing your view of moral equivalence on me (“You can’t say it’s wrong”) is better than me forcing my view of morality (“It is wrong”) on you.

Oh, I’m not telling you you can’t say it’s wrong! What I’m telling you is that you can talk all you like, but attempting to force others to conform to your standards of moral behavior is a violation of their rights and dignity – and that continually telling people they’re wrong outside the bounds of debate is depressingly rude and unlikely to win anyone over.

So yeah, stand on that soapbox as long as you want. But nobody has to listen to you, either; and attempting to strongarm them into doing so by legal proceedings is a misuse of government.

Please show me these acts, which are objectively contrary to the Natural Law (the source of our rights in the first place - go read the Declaration), are matters which should be either (1) ignored by the state completely or (2) promoted by the state.

The Declaration: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, okay. I don’t see any passage relating to gay sex (or straight, for that matter). And while we’re over founding documents, please note that the Constitution is a positive document which reserves to the people and the states all rights not explicitly given the federal government. One can assume that that spirit is the one under which our legal system is founded: that which isn’t expressly forbidden is permitted.

Further, the authority of natural law is on shaky ground at best. It is so because one religion says so; what does this do for the billions of people on this earth who don’t subscribe to Catholicism? Nothing at all. Church law holds in church; it has no authority over non-members, nor should it.

Natural law itself is no great shakes, either. Its prohibition against homosexuality is identical to my distaste for sweet pickles. I firmly believe cucumbers weren’t meant to do that, just as proponents of a natural moral law believe people weren’t meant to do that. Yet gherkins remain on store shelves and are considered a valuable addition to lunch by a vast group of people in spite of what is naturally apparent to me as their inherent wrongness. Natural law in this regard is nothing more than a possibly-overactive sense of morality saying ‘eww, that’s gross’.

So, this natural law is seriously overstepping its boundaries. Inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – that’s a ‘natural’ law I can support (and as I’m sure you remember, I believe they are in fact artificial). Rights and their protection are the proper domain of such a construct; unrelated prohibitions are not.

The government (in the US, at least) has no authority to prohibit homosexuality, as it has not been granted oversight of all our sex lives. The Church does have that authority, as it is an organization with a clearly-expressed code of proper sexual behavior and mores; but the Church’s authority ends at its adherents and does not pass one millimeter beyond.

 

[fix]

I really would like to know how; I’ve asked many times and never been given a real answer.

It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a* de facto* reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”.(14) Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[RyanL]

I’ll respond more later, but I thought the following was an interesting display of tolerance:

Vandals have defaced the cathedral of Genoa, Italy, in an apparent retaliation after Archbishop Angelo Bagnasco spoke out forcefully against same-sex unions.

The words “Bagnasco shame” were spray-painted across the main entrance to the cathedral of St. Lawrence in Genoa. The words appeared shortly after Archbishop Bagnasco, the president of the Italian bishops’ conference, issued a statement opposing the legal recognition of civil unions, and saying that the government’s failure to enforce moral norms regarding marriage could open the way to all kinds of perverse relationships.

Police in Genoa told reporters that Archbishop Bagnasco was being accompanied by an armed guard because of concerns about his security raised by the incident.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mirdath]

This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good.

‘Common good’ here as defined by the Catholic Church, which has no ability or right to define such a thing for a society not founded on its principles and beholden to its moral authority.

Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

Again, Catholic moral values, Catholic perception of marriage. And I would argue that it would cause no such occulting of anyone’s moral values – recognition of gay marriages is not forcing anyone to surrender their opinion on the morality of homosexual acts. Is the Church going to start vocally condemning oral sex between consenting, heterosexual, married non-Catholic couples any time soon? That’s quite a double standard at work there, considering the sin committed is the same at root.

Not a satisfying answer, and not really matching the question: how is the marriage of a couple you don’t know in a place you’ve never been to personally affecting you?

 

[Aramis]

I really would like to know how; I’ve asked many times and never been given a real answer. Sacramental marriage remains as inviolate as ever, or at least as close to that as it can be with rampant divorce and annulment. Civil marriage isn’t the same thing – and the Church doesn’t recognize it as a valid union anyway.

So, how is a marriage between two men or two women you don’t know in a city you’ve never been to affecting your life personally?

Two ways: one, trying to explain the difference between legal marriage, spiritual marriage, and Christian spiritual marriage to my children.

The other: employers being forced by law to provide benefits based upon behaviors which are immoral.