Is my position on this acceptable for a Roman Catholic?

[sheilathebard]

Of course we don’t believe in gay marriage. It’s not marriage. The Church teaches that marriage is something very specific. Many or even MOST civil marriages are not “marriages” as we would consider the term. They are remarriages (invalid) or made without the intent of lifelong fidelity (invalid) or not open to even the possibility of children (invalid).

But should we LEGALLY BAN a civil contract between people who aren’t married according to Church teaching? Are we morally required to use the law – a very blunt tool at the best of times – as a bludgeon to make people acknowledge that we’re right and they’re wrong?

That is something the Church has never spoken on. If you can find a source (other than the one I mentioned, which is not infallible) that says anything about our LEGAL responsibility for enforcing our definition of marriage on an entire nation of people who aren’t Catholic … please cite it instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you a heretic.

 

[Cristiano]

Of course we don’t believe in gay marriage. It’s not marriage. The Church teaches that marriage is something very specific. Many or even MOST civil marriages are not “marriages” as we would consider the term. They are remarriages (invalid) or made without the intent of lifelong fidelity (invalid) or not open to even the possibility of children (invalid).

But should we LEGALLY BAN a civil contract between people who aren’t married according to Church teaching? Are we morally required to use the law – a very blunt tool at the best of times – as a bludgeon to make people acknowledge that we’re right and they’re wrong?

That is something the Church has never spoken on. If you can find a source (other than the one I mentioned, which is not infallible) that says anything about our LEGAL responsibility for enforcing our definition of marriage on an entire nation of people who aren’t Catholic … please cite it instead of calling everyone who disagrees with you a heretic.

Natural law is infallible because it is God given through creation. The so called homosexual civil marriage is contrary to natural law and to revealed law. Christians are accountable by natural and revealed law and everybody else is accountable by natural law.

 

[LongingSoul]

But should we LEGALLY BAN a civil contract between people who aren’t married according to Church teaching? Are we morally required to use the law – a very blunt tool at the best of times – as a bludgeon to make people acknowledge that we’re right and they’re wrong?

It’s not about ‘using the law’ to impose an opinion… it’s about ensuring the law reflects that which most benefits humankind, now and for the generations coming after.

Australias Prime Minister who is an atheist, left winger… stands against legalising same sex marriage, falling back on ‘tradition’ (as the guardian of natural law) to justify her political position.

Not only does it remain illegal in Australia but the Australian government refuses to issue CNIs (Certificates of No Impediment to Marry) to anyone thinking they can go overseas to marry. Most go to countries like the Netherlands that are willing to give CNI exemptions to Australians.

If Catholics don’t make their stance relevant across the whole spectrum of life, they give credence to all those who are trying to say that religion is an ‘opinion’ held by some old fashioned bigots, rather than the foundation stone of Gods relationship with His people.

 

[LongingSoul]

Isaiah 28 14-18

Therefore, hear the word of the LORD, O scoffers,
Who rule this people who are in Jerusalem,

Because you have said, “We have made a covenant with death,
And with Sheol we have made a pact.
The overwhelming scourge will not reach us when it passes by,
For we have made falsehood our refuge and we have concealed ourselves with deception.”

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD,
“Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone,
A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed.
He who believes in it will not be disturbed.

“I will make justice the measuring line
And righteousness the level;
Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies
And the waters will overflow the secret place.

“Your covenant with death will be canceled,
And your pact with Sheol will not stand;
When the overwhelming scourge passes through,
Then you become its trampling place.

 

[devoutchristian]

papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm

Rome has spoken so the matter is closed sheilathebard.

 

[sheilathebard]

Can you direct me to the part of the document you consider pertinent, devoutchristian? It’s rather long and I don’t see anything on this issue.

You also should demonstrate that the point you reference is taught as contained in Scripture and proposed for belief to the entire Church. Otherwise it just isn’t infallible.

Cristiano, you can’t just pull out “natural law” and assume people will listen to you. It’s difficult to interpret what is contained in natural law and what is not. We need the guidance of the Church to help us. When the Church has not spoken, no one is culpable if they don’t figure out what is and is not contained in natural law.

Most of all, we can’t expect non-Catholics, who have never even heard of natural law, to go along with it because we said so. If we forbid them from marrying, they will just continue in their homosexual relationships as usual. There is no way to make sure they give up homosexual actions short of, you know, bringing them to the truth by introducing them to Jesus. Anything else is just making life difficult for them without actually changing anything.

Keep in mind as well that Catholics are now and have always been a minority in this country. At the time of its founding, Catholics could not vote in most states. They were considered a threat because they didn’t go along with the Protestant majority. They were also persecuted in a variety of ways, like soldiers being forbidden to attend Mass or our churches being vandalized.

What stopped this was pluralism, the belief that we can make laws in such a way as to respect the religious beliefs of everyone without forcing one set of beliefs on anyone. It has its pros and cons, but keep in mind that if you set out to destroy pluralism, you destroy your own protection as well as everyone else’s. If the law can choose who marries and who doesn’t, or deny marriage to some, it can prosecute a priest for marrying illegal immigrants, or for refusing to marry divorced people.

It is quite possible to say, as a Catholic, “I do not believe that two people of the same sex can POSSIBLY be married. That is not marriage. But I don’t believe it’s the role of government to deny slips of paper that say “married” on them to any specific group.”

Also remember, those who are prone to call us heretics, what will happen if you DO manage to convince someone that they can’t be Catholic and okay with civil gay marriage. It’s unlikely they will say, “Well, guess I was wrong, I’ll be showing up at your anti-gay-marriage protest.” It’s more likely they will say, “Well, guess the Church is wrong. All this time I thought She was inerrant, but I just can’t believe She would teach this.” And they will leave the Church.

If you’re right, you’ve done no harm; they simply stop attending a church they don’t really believe in. But if you’re wrong, and the Church does NOT teach what you say it does, you have driven a faithful Catholic from the fold by spreading misinformation.

 

[devoutchristian]

Error #67

Frankly I prefer to save my energy to argue in favor of the Church’s position to those who are intellectually honest enough to admit that they disagree with the Church.

 

[sheilathebard]

"67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. – Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. "

Well, for one thing that’s an allocution, which is addressed to a certain group rather than to the universal Church. There are things said in some papal allocutions which directly contradict those said by other Popes. If allocutions were by nature infallible, I could not be Catholic because it would require me to believe directly opposing statements.

For another, that’s about divorce. So I hope you are going on anti-divorce marches, shunning those of your friends who have obtained divorces, refusing to employ divorced people, and boycotting businesses who employ divorced people. I presume you also don’t agree with the part in the catechism that says there could be grave reasons for a Catholic to seek out a civil divorce, provided they acknowledge that their sacramental marriage is not dissolved.

If you don’t want to talk to believing Catholics who disagree about what the Church does and does not require us to believe … might I suggest you are on the wrong thread?

 

[devoutchristian]

"67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. – Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. "

Well, for one thing that’s an allocution, which is addressed to a certain group rather than to the universal Church. There are things said in some papal allocutions which directly contradict those said by other Popes. If allocutions were by nature infallible, I could not be Catholic because it would require me to believe directly opposing statements.

For another, that’s about divorce. So I hope you are going on anti-divorce marches, shunning those of your friends who have obtained divorces, refusing to employ divorced people, and boycotting businesses who employ divorced people. I presume you also don’t agree with the part in the catechism that says there could be grave reasons for a Catholic to seek out a civil divorce, provided they acknowledge that their sacramental marriage is not dissolved.

If you don’t want to talk to believing Catholics who disagree about what the Church does and does not require us to believe … might I suggest you are on the wrong thread?

Look, if you want to nitpick Church teachings so that you can disbelieve as many of them as possible, then that’s your problem, and shouldn’t try to spread your unbelief to those who actually desire to conform their intellects to the magesterium.

 

[LongingSoul]

From the Catechism…

**The political community and the Church **

2244 Every institution is inspired, at least implicitly, by a vision of man and his destiny, from which it derives the point of reference for its judgment, its hierarchy of values, its line of conduct. Most societies have formed their institutions in the recognition of a certain preeminence of man over things. Only the divinely revealed religion has clearly recognized man’s origin and destiny in God, the Creator and Redeemer. The Church invites political authorities to measure their judgments and decisions against this inspired truth about God and man:

*Societies not recognizing this vision or rejecting it in the name of their independence from God are brought to seek their criteria and goal in themselves or to borrow them from some ideology. Since they do not admit that one can defend an objective criterion of good and evil, they arrogate to themselves an explicit or implicit totalitarian power over man and his destiny, as history shows.51 *

2245 The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person. "The Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen."52

2246 It is a part of the Church’s mission "to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances."53

…"Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church’s ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church’s position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

1. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society’s understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.

1. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law."

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH

LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

(During an audience granted to the undersigned Prefect, His Holiness, Pope John Paul II, approved this Letter, adopted in an ordinary session of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, and ordered it to be published.)

Given at Rome, 1 October 1986.

JOSEPH CARDINAL RATZINGER
Prefect

 

[Cristiano]

…
Cristiano, you can’t just pull out “natural law” and assume people will listen to you. It’s difficult to interpret what is contained in natural law and what is not. We need the guidance of the Church to help us. When the Church has not spoken, no one is culpable if they don’t figure out what is and is not contained in natural law.

…

It is not difficult at all to interpret what is contained in natural law, it has been written in our harts at the moment we have been created. We do not need the Church to explain natural law we either accept what we know by our own nature or we reject what we know, pretending not to know is not an excuse. Everybody is culpable for infringing the natural law independently of the knowledge of the revealed law. If you were to wait for the Church to explain it, then it would not be natural and it would have not existed before the Church. Natural law started with creation.

 

[bsroufek]

The Church teaches, I believe, that same-sex marriage is objective evil. That is, it should be part of the moral law, along with “don’t kill, don’t rape, etc.” It should be IMPOSED on everyone, whether religious or not.

 

[jmcrae]

"67. By the law of nature, the marriage tie is not indissoluble, and in many cases divorce properly so called may be decreed by the civil authority. – Ibid.; Allocution “Acerbissimum,” Sept. 27, 1852. "

Well, for one thing that’s an allocution, which is addressed to a certain group rather than to the universal Church. There are things said in some papal allocutions which directly contradict those said by other Popes. If allocutions were by nature infallible, I could not be Catholic because it would require me to believe directly opposing statements.

For another, that’s about divorce. So I hope you are going on anti-divorce marches, shunning those of your friends who have obtained divorces, refusing to employ divorced people, and boycotting businesses who employ divorced people. I presume you also don’t agree with the part in the catechism that says there could be grave reasons for a Catholic to seek out a civil divorce, provided they acknowledge that their sacramental marriage is not dissolved.

If you don’t want to talk to believing Catholics who disagree about what the Church does and does not require us to believe … might I suggest you are on the wrong thread?

In saying that homosexual people can’t be married. the Church is in no way advocating that people refuse to give homosexual people their civil rights. Marriage is not a civil right for those for whom it is impossible, including homosexuals, and children, and those who are impotent.

This does not take away their right to vote, or their right to be housed, or their right to be gainfully employed.

 

[SachieWhitby]

You know… I used to think what’s the big deal anyway? Why not let the gays have their gay civil marriage. It might even be good for the economy with then needing to buy wedding attire, hire florists, pay for reception venues, honeymoons and even gay divorce. I’ve since changed my position and not just because I was previously uneducated on the Catholic church’s teachings points at the ‘raised by atheists’ part of own specified religion – the gays themselves behave in a manner that I find disrespectful. If a florist, reception venue or whatever tries to not provide some wedding-related service to a gay union on the basis that it is a grave moral sin for them to do so within their faith, the gays won’t just go find someone that doesn’t have the same issue, sues the business and/or its owner, and wins every time.

It seems only logical that the gays will eventually target the Catholic church, wanting gay weddings and gay baptisms for their artificial inception created children that they’re planning on raising to be gay… then suing Catholics churches that say no on the basis that not being allowed these things violates their rights and freedoms as cohabitating gay Catholics.

 

[sheilathebard]

bsroufek, it seems to me that the very first commandment – Love the Lord your God with all your heart – is also contained in Natural Law. After all, didn’t St. Augustine say that because our hearts are made for God, they will be restless until they rest in Him? Reason can tell us we did not create ourselves, and reason can also make known to us that we owe worship to whoever did. That also explains why even unbelievers feel gratitude when they don’t think there’s anyone to thank, or awe when they think everything can be explained. It’s written on their own hearts that God exists.

It follows, then, that failing to worship God is objectively evil. What could be more evil than ingratitude to the one who created you? Our priest told us in the homily yesterday that sins against the first commandment are worse than any others. St. Thomas says that the gravity of any sin varies depending on the victim, and no victim is greater than God.

Therefore, if we are to accept what you have said, it should be illegal to fail to worship God. Anyone who does not pray or attend Mass on Sunday should be imprisoned.

That’s a reductio ad absurdum for you … though perhaps you don’t feel it’s absurd?

Here’s my view. Sin is sin. There is no “objective evil” sin and “subjective evil” sin. All sins are evil. And there is no set of “natural law” commandments and then the “divine law” commandments. Natural law is one WAY in which we find out what God wants of us … but it is difficult to interpret and understand, which is why so many people throughout history have failed to do so. God, knowing this, gave us divine law, which contains THE SAME MATERIAL, but more clearly spelled out so we wouldn’t have to wonder. Give him the glory for doing so; many of us would be lost without it.

But the Church has never given us a list: “These commandments are contained in divine law only, only Catholics have to do these,” and “These commandments are in natural law, so we must FORCE people to follow them.” There is no such Church teaching.

I have studied theology at one of the best and most Catholic schools in the country (Christendom) and I’m telling you, I’m not picking and choosing the Church teachings I like. I have just studied enough to know that there is a difference between infallible teachings, which you MUST believe to be a Catholic in good standing, and other teachings, which may be helpful, but with which you disagree. The USCCB’s or the CDF’s opinion on civil gay marriage is not infallible. So while I personally don’t actually believe in civil marriage for gays (or anyone), it IS possible to be a loyal Catholic and believe so, as long as you acknowledge that homosexual acts are wrong.

Personally I believe that it it is very, very difficult for homosexual people to foresake that lifestyle and live in chastity. They won’t do it because of a law, or because you threaten them. In many instances they are beaten within an inch of their lives and they still won’t give it up. The ONLY thing that will help them is an encounter with Jesus. When they know him, they will realize that the love they are looking for is found with him. He and he alone will give them the strength to live in chastity.

So, when I say that homosexual acts are wrong and I want people to stop doing them, what I mean is that I want to bring them to Jesus so that they can find the alternative. Trying to force them out of their lifestyle is likely to backfire; they will see Catholics as just another bunch of bigots who hate them and want to beat them and drive them to suicide. And that’s not who we are. I refuse to use the law like a club to beat them with, even if I were so lucky to get a majority behind me. Instead I want to use God’s love to convince them. That DOES NOT make me a bad Catholic.

 

[LongingSoul]

I have studied theology at one of the best and most Catholic schools in the country (Christendom) and I’m telling you, I’m not picking and choosing the Church teachings I like. I have just studied enough to know that there is a difference between infallible teachings, which you MUST believe to be a Catholic in good standing, and other teachings, which may be helpful, but with which you disagree. The USCCB’s or the CDF’s opinion on civil gay marriage is not infallible. So while I personally don’t actually believe in civil marriage for gays (or anyone), it IS possible to be a loyal Catholic and believe so, as long as you acknowledge that homosexual acts are wrong.

Popes John Paul and Benedict also studied theology at some of the best and most Catholic schools in Europe and have dedicated their lives to the service of Gods people and their salvation. So in dismissing all teachings not identified as dogma, as merely ‘may be helpful’, I think you are over estimating your own education and under estimating those of the CDF.

Homosexuality is probably the most difficult issue of our time. We have to be discerning enough to know some peoples lives are afflicted with this strange and fundamentally barren sexual disorder, often through no fault of their own… and that an agenda of evil also moves among the afflicted to undermine the cornerstones of civilisation like ‘marriage’. Those two facts have to be treated of with a clear sense of Gods will for man and mankind. To believe that supporting a re write of legislation that safeguards one of our most important institutions… ‘marriage’… is a sign of Jesus compassion, is misguided. Enshrining sin in this way and giving societal blessing to this strange disordered behaviour, is cheating people of Gods truth. God will show mercy where God will and the Church affirms that some conditions mitigate the severity of sin in fallen man. That is where we derive compassion for others from. We simply don’t have the authority as ignorant fallen mankind… to give societal blessing to sin based on our own ‘educated’ judgement.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups’ concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. - (the then) Cardinal Ratzinger.

 

[sheilathebard]

I never said it’s not still good advice. I agree with most or all of that document. But that’s not the question at hand. The question is, “May a Catholic believe differently?” And the answer is yes, because however intelligent or well-thought out those opinions are, they do not bind us to believe them as a matter of faith.

There’s a difference between being incorrect and being a heretic. I’m surprised how much trouble with this concept people are having.

 

[LongingSoul]

I never said it’s not still good advice. I agree with most or all of that document. But that’s not the question at hand. The question is, “May a Catholic believe differently?” And the answer is yes, because however intelligent or well-thought out those opinions are, they do not bind us to believe them as a matter of faith.

There’s a difference between being incorrect and being a heretic. I’m surprised how much trouble with this concept people are having.

You are misleading the OP by relegating gay-marriage and homosexual relations, to a category it doesn’t belong in. We can firmly believe it is a grave sin to miss Sunday Mass, but equally believe that all people should not be legally bound by this belief. We can firmly believe that marriage is a Sacrament that can only be celebrated by a Catholic Priest, but also believe that non-believers aren’t legally obligated by this.

However as a Catholic, we know that there are 4 sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance as they offend not just God, but man. One of these is sodomy as reflected by the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah. Just as we have a civil duty as Catholics to oppose legal murder in the form of abortion, euthanasia and capital punishment (in our day), by virtue of its toxicity to humanity, we also have a Catholic duty to oppose homosexual sexual activity against the blessing of the whole culture.

It is not acceptable for a Catholic to believe that marriage is only between a man and woman but to believe that this should not legally bind all men. The principle of sodomy as per the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, is an offense to humanity in the universal way that wilful murder is an offense. It’s dangerously misleading to void the heirarchy of sin as divinely revealed to us for our salvation.

 

[sheilathebard]

It is not acceptable for a Catholic to believe that marriage is only between a man and woman but to believe that this should not legally bind all men. The principle of sodomy as per the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah, is an offense to humanity in the universal way that wilful murder is an offense. It’s dangerously misleading to void the heirarchy of sin as divinely revealed to us for our salvation.

If this is true, prove it with a quote from an infallible source. How in seven pages has no one been able to do this? Could it be because no such declaration exists?

 

[LongingSoul]

If this is true, prove it with a quote from an infallible source. How in seven pages has no one been able to do this? Could it be because no such declaration exists?

Because I have seen this line used by the pro-choice Catholics… that is, I don’t believe in abortion but I believe in peoples right to chose one if they want one… I consider it a deception to cite a lack of infallible teaching on the dual position as justification. You could pick a thousand sins at any one time and apply the pro-choice reasoning to it since the Church doesn’t address every logical fallacy in this way.

Homosexual sexual relationships are sodomy as per the culture of Sodom and Gomorrah just like abortion is murder. Honest reasoning reveals the truth.