Is it a sin to support gay "marriage"?

[fix]

Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1705

Libertas, Leo XIII

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.

I have quoted Libertas many times here. It is gold. The problem is that the post modern mind embraces relativism and defines freedom as doing whatever one wants to do.

 

[fix]

You’re inferring that everyone who is a Catholic has gone through this decision making process.

What process is that? The one where each person makes up the truth?

 

[fix]

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]

Indeed. The phrase “thinking for one self” always seems to mean rejecting some moral truth so that one may do as they desire.

 

[edwest2]

As opposed, presumably, to try to think for yourself and see if you agree with the church.

If you read Church documents, which are usually lengthy, the Church draws arguments from right reason. In this case, the obviously complementary sex organs of the male and female. From the established order: one man and one woman is not only the norm throughout history, it’s how you get your own biological kids. From Divine Revelation. God established marriage and elevated it to a Sacrament.

Thinking for yourself? You sure can. However, once Catholic, you are obligated to follow what the Church teaches based on the above. The Church is not a Democracy.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

You can’t prove your last sentence. It is a wish unsupported. And regarding contraception, why focus on women? Doesn’t the man also contracept? Either through condom use of voluntary sterilization? Those who have ‘disagreed’ have committed sins as defined by the Church. The Church always explains right and wrong, even when there is a high number of those who are sinning.

As I heard it said on Catholic Radio: “Multiple babies not multiple orgasms.” In other words, a 40 year long campaign that has told people pleasure is number one and babies are bad has led to this. But God, throughout history, always leaves a remnant.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

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.

I have worked with gay people. We had no problems. It has only been since 2001 that “gay marriage” appeared on the radar. We should not judge anyone - people are people. We all fail to some degree but we are to encourage one another.

pfox.org/about_us.html

I offer the following only to illustrate and not to generalize each person.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164783/One-gay-couples-married-New-York-set-to-divorced.html

nytimes.com/2003/08/31/world/now-free-to-marry-canada-s-gays-say-do-i.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

The issue is not as cut and dried as some here would like us to believe.

Peace,
Ed

 

[CrimsonThorn]

Its very much a sin. Its directly contradictory to what the Church teaches.

St Paul says those who are homosexual and those who support them, are worthy of death in the eyes of God. Serious words.

 

[Zenkai]

I never actually supported gay “marriage”, but I think I kind of sympathized with them. However, after more thought, I realized gay “marriage” was sinful and wrong. This was a while ago, before I decided to become Catholic. I don’t even really remember what my exact thoughts were on the issue.

 

[Newbie2]

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.

This is an excellent way of putting it! I’ve never heard it put quite like that before.

 

[Elizium23]

I thought most scholars perceive Paul as being gay?

nytimes.com/1991/02/02/nyregion/was-st-paul-gay-claim-stirs-fury.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx?p=1

An Episcopal bishop mulls the issues.

That is all we need to know to call shenanigans on this kind of horse puckey disguised as exegesis.

 

[Bradski]

Thinking for oneself means agreeing with what is true.

My take on it is to try to find out what the truth might be and see if you agree with it versus being told what you should believe is true.

 

[Bradski]

You can’t prove your last sentence. It is a wish unsupported.

It’s not a wish, it’s a fact. Why would I wish it? And why worry about it being true? That the vast majority of Catholic women have used contraception doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

Stick with your beliefs. Don’t worry about the percentages. Just be aware of them.

 

[fix]

My take on it is to try to find out what the truth might be and see if you agree with it versus being told what you should believe is true.

The phrase always means that one must reject some moral truth so that one may do as they want. How often do people say I reject 2+2=4 because I want to think for myself and not be told that to believe?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I thought most scholars perceive Paul as being gay?

nytimes.com/1991/02/02/nyregion/was-st-paul-gay-claim-stirs-fury.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2004/04/Was-The-Apostle-Paul-Gay.aspx?p=1

Most scripture scholars? No! I have no idea why you continually use sources from other fields to legitimize your unorthodox opinions about authentic Catholicism, and then use random secular opinions to “correct” practicing Catholics regarding their knowledge base. (Or to raise deliberately provocative opinions.)

Are you a scripture scholar? (That was a rhetorical question.)

Biblical criticism is a field not for amateurs, whether they be from the NYT, the NYT editorial section, or from the non-Catholic site, beliefnet. Or whether they live in NYC and regard the NYT as their own private bible. Credible Biblical criticism requires years of study, and knowledge about the discipline of that, preferably with a background in Hebrew, Greek, even Aramaic. It also requires knowledge of the history of the ancient Mediterranean, signfiicant understanding of Torah, and familiarity with textual variations.

Further, here’s what the NYT article says (from 21 years ago, btw; you really worked hard to dig up that archive):

Criticism of [Spong’s] thesis on Paul has come from all quarters, friends and foes, liberals and conservatives, Protestants and Catholics.

In Bishop Spong’s previous theological works, she said, she has found him to be “fun, interesting and intelligent.” But his new work, she said, is part of “a tendency to attribute to Paul all the neuroses of later Christianity.”

"The danger is that whenever we want to psychoanalyze any figure from antiquity, we simply project our own psychological complexities," said Dr. Perkins, the author of 14 books on the New Testament.

Others are not so kind. “This is not only shocking, it’s one of the craziest things I’ve heard so far,” said Archbishop Theodore E. McCarrick of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Newark.

Archbishop McCarrick’s remark came just a few days after he broke a long silence on Bishop Spong by writing in a newspaper column of the Bishop’s “strange journey” and suggesting that he has created a “church without morals.”

“I think Spong is self-destructing,” said the Rev. Todd Wetzel, the executive director of Episcopalians United, “Much of his thinking will soon be dismissed. It no longer represents constructive theological thinking nor responsible thinking.”

Bishop Spong sees his latest thesis as consistent with his career in the ministry. … **[insert words Political Agenda and Eisegesis here]**By viewing St. Paul as a gay man, he said, he hopes to make homosexuals more comfortable in the Episcopal church and to attract people who left the church feeling that it was a moribund institution wedded to ancient ways of thinking.

Other Bible authorities, however, said that it would be wrong to draw conclusions from the text that St. Paul was either a mysogynist or someone filled with self-loathing.

Father Wetzel, of Episcopalians United, said that St. Paul’s attitudes toward women were merely a reflection of the dominant Jewish culture of his time. “In the context of his day, St. Paul was rather liberal,” he said.

Posters, the other “source” (cough) quoted by the above poster is an ecumenical “spirituality” website which features popularized opinions and articles about religion and spirituality, regardless of their level of accuracy, authenticity, or scholarship. Beliefnet is not a source for Scripture scholars of any faith.

Second, the poster above questioned, assumptively, as to whether “most” scholars believe that “Paul was gay.” Understand that this poster believes that the word “most” = the word “one.” The same (non)“scholar” – Episcopal Bishop Spong, a man whose “scholarship” has been widely discredited within and without his own faith tradition is the very “source” of BOTH articles she cited in her post. One radical discredited bishop who has gone off the rails, virtually admitting that scripture should serve his ministry and not vice-versa, was used to incite readers to question whether “most scholars believe that Paul was gay.”

I leave you to draw your own conclusions.

(!)

Here’s the corrected statement:

Most scripture scholars (all of them who are well-educated in their field) believe that Paul was not homosexual. They “believe” that (deduce that) based on the discipline of scripture study.

 

[Bradski]

The phrase always means that one must reject some moral truth so that one may do as they want. How often do people say I reject 2+2=4 because I want to think for myself and not be told that to believe?

Personally, I’m trying to work out who is correct when they say that they have access to moral truths. I don’t think I’m the only one doing this. A lot of your fellow Catholics seem to be going through the same process.

Do you think that people should be told what to believe?

 

[Nate13]

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.

It would fall under the sin of scandal.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_P80.HTM

Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the corruption of religious practice, or to "social conditions that, intentionally or not, make Christian conduct and obedience to the Commandments difficult and practically impossible."87 This is also true of business leaders who make rules encouraging fraud, teachers who provoke their children to anger,88 or manipulators of public opinion who turn it away from moral values.

2287 Anyone who uses the power at his disposal in such a way that it leads others to do wrong becomes guilty of scandal and responsible for the evil that he has directly or indirectly encouraged. "Temptations to sin are sure to come; but woe to him by whom they come!"89

2284 Scandal is an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil. the person who gives scandal becomes his neighbor’s tempter. He damages virtue and integrity; he may even draw his brother into spiritual death. Scandal is a grave offense if by deed or omission another is deliberately led into a grave offense

 

[fix]

Personally, I’m trying to work out who is correct when they say that they have access to moral truths. I don’t think I’m the only one doing this. A lot of your fellow Catholics seem to be going through the same process.

Do you think that people should be told what to believe?

If you want to fly a jet you learn what others tell you to learn. You accept what they say. Is that being told what to believe?

 

[Faithdancer]

If you want to fly a jet you learn what others tell you to learn. You accept what they say. Is that being told what to believe?

And the human body is infinitely more valuable than a jet, because it houses the human soul. Body and soul compose the person, the hypostasis of the human being. Following Church teachings about how to treat the human body, and how to treat the bodies of other humans, is not slavery, it is liberation from following our base impulses. Those who give in to concupiscence, and who adopt a lifestyle of lust and hedonism, are the ones who are enslaved.

 

[Crescentinus]

Hmmm?
Not sure how I “continually” did anything…or “correct” anything…

I asked a very brief, simple question.
(hence, the question mark)

The two links I posted were just two of about thirty articles I read several months ago on the topic for a paper–written by both secular and christian scholars/religious thinkers.

This is a forum for discussion and debate for Catholics and non-Catholics, so there will indeed be opinions and questions that do differ from your own. Just a heads up on that. That is what a discussion board is for, to discuss and explore ideas and thoughts, old and new.

And Elizabeth had delivered her answer on that question.
So another question arises. Your point?

 

[CopticChristian]

I never actually supported gay “marriage”, but I think I kind of sympathized with them. However, after more thought, I realized gay “marriage” was sinful and wrong. This was a while ago, before I decided to become Catholic. I don’t even really remember what my exact thoughts were on the issue.

Zen,

As you become Catholic read the Catechism about forming your conscience…you are to be doing this routinely…