Is it a sin to support gay "marriage"?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zenkai
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zenkai

Guest
Just wondering , is it a sin to support/sympathize with gay “marriage”? Not actively support it, but just sympathize with it.

I’m against gay “marriage”, but I know that several Christians groups support it, even some Catholics do. So is it a sin/mortal sin?

Thanks.
 
Just wondering , is it a sin to support/sympathize with gay “marriage”? Not actively support it, but just sympathize with it.

I’m against gay “marriage”, but I know that several Christians groups support it, even some Catholics do. So is it a sin/mortal sin?

Thanks.
To support any objectively evil practice could be a mortal sin if it is grave matter. In this case would be ( depending on your knowledge of the fact ) because it is a mortal sin for anyone to practice sex outside of marriage and homosexuals can never be " married " in the eyes of the Church. So the answer is yes, it would be a mortal sin unless you were unaware of that fact at the time you held that opinion - through no fault of your own.

From now on, if you are going to be Catholic, try to think along with the Church.

The exact state of your mind and the degree of culpalbility is something you will have to discuss with your priest when you make your first confession - maybe even before would be a good idea, that way you won’t get flustered in confession, you will know what needs to be said without stumbling around. 👍
 
Your best answer would be to ask a Catholic priest. You can call a parish.

This subject gets a lot of airplay around here. So my question to you is this: after years, and decades of gay couples living however they want and acting out their sexual behavior, where do you see a point of sympathy? I’ve asked this before and never got an answer: Why was this on the ballot in so many states? Isn’t it obvious that nobody needs my permission to live how they want?

Peace,
Ed
 
I’ve asked this before and never got an answer: Why was this on the ballot in so many states? Isn’t it obvious that nobody needs my permission to live how they want?
Sodomy laws should never have been repealed, and the homosexualists chip away, brick by brick.
 
What about civil unions– as I understand it, the secular version of marriage
 
As opposed, presumably, to try to think for yourself and see if you agree with the church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1705

“Catechism of the Catholic Church” said:
1705 By virtue of his soul and his spiritual powers of intellect and will, man is endowed with freedom, an “outstanding manifestation of the divine image.”

, Leo XIIILibertas

“Leo XIII” said:
5. Liberty, then, as We have said, belongs only to those who have the gift of reason or intelligence. Considered as to its nature, it is the faculty of choosing means fitted for the end proposed, for he is master of his actions who can choose one thing out of many. Now, since everything chosen as a means is viewed as good or useful, and since good, as such, is the proper object of our desire, it follows that freedom of choice is a property of the will, or, rather, is identical with the will in so far as it has in its action the faculty of choice. But the will cannot proceed to act until it is enlightened by the knowledge possessed by the intellect. In other words, the good wished by the will is necessarily good in so far as it is known by the intellect; and this the more, because in all voluntary acts choice is subsequent to a judgment upon the truth of the good presented, declaring to which good preference should be given. No sensible man can doubt that judgment is an act of reason, not of the will. The end, or object, both of the rational will and of its liberty is that good only which is in conformity with reason.
  1. Such, then, being the condition of human liberty, it necessarily stands in need of light and strength to direct its actions to good and to restrain them from evil. Without this, the freedom of our will would be our ruin. First of all, there must be law; that is, a fixed rule of teaching what is to be done and what is to be left undone. This rule cannot affect the lower animals in any true sense, since they act of necessity, following their natural instinct, and cannot of themselves act in any other way. On the other hand, as was said above, he who is free can either act or not act, can do this or do that, as he pleases, because his judgment precedes his choice. And his judgment not only decides what is right or wrong of its own nature, but also what is practically good and therefore to be chosen, and what is practically evil and therefore to be avoided. In other words, the reason prescribes to the will what it should seek after or shun, in order to the eventual attainment of man’s last end, for the sake of which all his actions ought to be performed. 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.
  2. If when men discuss the question of liberty they were careful to grasp its true and legitimate meaning, such as reason and reasoning have just explained, they would never venture to affix such a calumny on the Church as to assert that she is the foe of individual and public liberty. But many there are who follow in the footsteps of Lucifer, and adopt as their own his rebellious cry, “I will not serve”; and consequently substitute for true liberty what is sheer and most foolish license. Such, for instance, are the men belonging to that widely spread and powerful organization, who, usurping the name of liberty, style themselves liberals.
Libertas is pure gold, even as papal encyclicals go. I suggest reading the thing in its entirety for full effect. I have quoted scattered excerpts.
 
Actually, while I was caught observing another intra-Catholic argument about this same topic of Catholics supporting gay “marriage” (and civil unions), I happened to stumble upon this sticky note on the Social Justice thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=134749

If you click on the Vatican document contained in it, it clearly states that
“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”
And this was from Card. Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) with Pope John Paul II’s approval.

Hope this helps clarify things, if only a little bit. (But yeah, I’d definitely go ask the priest – this document seems to indicate a “Don’t Support Gay Marriage” answer, but I’d just do it to double-check.)
 
As opposed, presumably, to try to think for yourself and see if you agree with the church.
What you have to remember is that the Catholic does his homework before he assents to the Church.

This means the homework done by Catholics are to find reasons to believe in the authority of the Church. Once this is done, Catholics give full assent.

This is very similar to how an average person gives “assent” to the teaching authority of a Stephen Hawking regarding physics. There is a difference however in that physics is verifiable but Catholic truths or any religious truths to be precise (like heaven, and salvation) are only verifiable once it is too late i.e. after your death.

So it is essential that everyone does their homework first to reasonably discover who, if any, has the authority to teach regarding transcendent matters. Catholics are those who have discovered the authority of the Church. Therefore, they now assent completely.

In this sense, your question becomes meaningless for a Catholic. Catholics cannot pick and choose if they like the particular teaching of the church just as much as the average person cannot pick physics theorems taught by Stephen Hawking based on his “liking” or “agreement” with it.
 
Sodomy laws should never have been repealed, and the homosexualists chip away, brick by brick.
You’ll be pleased to know that there are plenty of places that still consider it illegal:

Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Ethipia, Angola, Zambia, Saudi, Afghanistan…
 
You’ll be pleased to know that there are plenty of places that still consider it illegal:

Algeria, Libya, Sudan, Ethipia, Angola, Zambia, Saudi, Afghanistan…
Our Muslim brethren, though in error with respect to many elements of faith, are aware of some of the more basic tenants of natural law that we in the West have forgotten.

This is truly something, if there were anything, to be admired about these countries.
 
You’re inferring that everyone who is a Catholic has gone through this decision making process. I would respectfully disagree. I know a few Catholics personally who were ‘born and raised’ Catholics and who wouldn’t have gone through it.

Perhaps I could compare it to one’s parents putting you down for membership of a club when you are born and you having to accept the rules to maintain your membership when you are grown.

On the other hand, there are many Catholics, either born and raised as such or those who made a conscious decision to become Catholic, who have spent some time thinking about matters to see if their personal beliefs match the church.

In areas such as contraception, almost all Catholic women are, or have at some point, disagreed with the church. In the matter of the topic of this thread, it is quite conceivable that a large majority of Catholics have inwardly debated this as there is a slight majority actually in favour of gay marriage.
 
Yes it is because you know that the Catholic Church does not support it, therefore, you know what is right and wrong. And no, you can sympathize for them but I think what’s best is for you to pray for them. I know several Catholics who are homosexual and still attend church. We’re not banning them, on the contrary, we want to help them. It’s not a sin for someone to be homosexual, as long as they don’t act upon their “emotions”. These emotions are things that some people can’t control, but what they can control are their actions. But overall, we should not be supporting gay marriage. Instead, we support helping them to find the truth.
 
Just wondering , is it a sin to support/sympathize with gay “marriage”? Not actively support it, but just sympathize with it.

I’m against gay “marriage”, but I know that several Christians groups support it, even some Catholics do. So is it a sin/mortal sin?

Thanks.
Yes, of course it is sinful to support grave sin. I suspect that you already knew that.

Is it a mortal sin? That depends on many factors: degree of cooperation, invincible ignorance, etc…
 
Just wondering , is it a sin to support/sympathize with gay “marriage”? Not actively support it, but just sympathize with it.

I’m against gay “marriage”, but I know that several Christians groups support it, even some Catholics do. So is it a sin/mortal sin?

Thanks.
Yes, it is wrong.
 
You’re inferring that everyone who is a Catholic has gone through this decision making process. I would respectfully disagree. I know a few Catholics personally who were ‘born and raised’ Catholics and who wouldn’t have gone through it…
Blah, blah, blah…Catholics are stoopid, see how smart, original, and freethinking I am??

Did you even bother to read the previous post regarding the Catechism, and Libertas’ views regarding free-will?

You willfully ignore centuries of Catholic thought to fit your own self-aggrandized weltanschauung.

[/rant]
 
The supporters of SSM love to use strawmen and weak analogies to convert people into their idiotic excuse of activism.
/thread
 
What is appropriate to “sympathize” with (quoting the OP) is not the wish to legalize an unhealthy lifestyle, but merely the existence of the homosexual urgings themselves. Plenty of CAF’ers with such urgings have discussed, over the last 4 years, the unwanted and troubling nature of these attractions, and the destabilizing effect of indulging in those attractions.

The sympathy should be directed toward the struggle and the effort to resist what they themselves have acknowledged has not led to long-lasting contentment (such as is possible in heterosexual marriage) when/if they have acted on those attractions. It should also be directed toward their consciousness of sometimes ‘feeling different’ in ways other than physical attraction, as well as the ‘fear factor’ when it comes to being accepted as equally human, equally sanctifiable, equally needy in affection, equally gifted with potential, etc. That is the equality which should be furthered and cherished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top