Is my position on this acceptable for a Roman Catholic?

[sheilathebard]

I am so glad that people are finally getting into the nitty gritty here. My apologies for taking so long to write my reply. There was a great deal of research I had to do to even half answer the arguments.

It seems to me that in order to prove that a person may not approve of same-sex civil marriage, you have to prove that the Church has infallibly taught the opposite. So first we have to look at what infallibility is.

Infallibility was defined by the First Vatican Council:

We teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
    when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
        that is, when,
            in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
            in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
            he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, 
    he possesses,
        by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, 
    that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
    Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

The Catholic Encyclopedia provides some helpful explanations. (Note: The CE is not infallible, obviously, but it was published before Vatican II and most conservative Catholics agree with it. Other sources on infallibility, for instance, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, will tell you roughly the same thing.)

Infallibility is not attributed to every doctrinal act of the pope, but only to his ex cathedra teaching; and the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree:
    The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as pastor and doctor of all Christians, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian, preacher or allocutionist, nor in his capacity as a temporal prince or as a mere ordinary of the Diocese of Rome. It must be clear that he speaks as spiritual head of the Church universal.
    Then it is only when, in this capacity, he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals that he is infallible.
    Further it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense. These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested.
    Finally for an ex cathedra decision it must be clear that the pope intends to bind the whole Church. To demand internal assent from all the faithful to his teaching under pain of incurring spiritual shipwreck (naufragium fidei) according to the expression used by Pius IX in defining the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin. Theoretically, this intention might be made sufficiently clear in a papal decision which is addressed only to a particular Church; but in present day conditions, when it is so easy to communicate with the most distant parts of the earth and to secure a literally universal promulgation of papal acts, the presumption is that unless the pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he does not intend his doctrinal teaching to be held by all the faithful as ex cathedra and infallible.

It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy, but not as a prerogative the exercise of which could be delegated to others. Hence doctrinal decisions or instructions issued by the Roman congregations, even when approved by the pope in the ordinary way, have no claim to be considered infallible. To be infallible they must be issued by the pope himself in his own name according to the conditions already mentioned as requisite for ex cathedra teaching.

So, writings by the CDF or any other congregation of bishops are not infallible. Neither are papal homilies, allocutions, private letters, and so forth.

Neither are any of the Pope’s opinions about anything outside of faith and morals. His scientific opinion, for instance, could never be infallible (and thank goodness, because many Popes believed the sun revolved around the earth). It’s really questionable whether the Pope could be infallible about political or legal matters at all, considering what a variety of political circumstances have existed throughout history. And you may know that most Popes before the past century or two spoke quite strongly of the evils of democracy and the Church’s preference for monarchy. I agree much more with the more recent social encyclicals, but I’m not positive whether all that social teaching is infallible or not. It may just be very good advice from some very wise men.

 

[sheilathebard]

But let’s assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the Pope could infallibly declare that in every age and land, there must always be a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The question then is, has he done so?

So I will go through the different quotations people have been so good as to provide.

I can safely toss out the Compendium of Social Doctrine because that’s not dogmatic at all, just a summary. So you’d have to figure out what it’s summarizing and what exactly is said. Both that and the following quote EasterJoy gave (from the Pontifical Council for the Family) are from pontifical councils. These are just groups of bishops, priests, and laypeople with no magisterial authority at all. They write encouraging things, and sometimes they write their own opinions. But it is quite acceptable for a faithful Catholic to disagree with any of that.

The same holds true for the CDF document EasterJoy posted. Since it was not written definitively by a Pope or Council, it is not infallible and does not have the weight of doctrine. Only rejecting doctrine is the sin of heresy.

Now, I find it very good advice. As you mentioned, “The duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world.” Not to define new ones.

But in fact nothing new is mentioned at all in this document. It simply reaffirms what the Church has always taught and no one here has contested: homosexual activity is always wrong.

Next, the quote by thewanderer from the Catechism:

2286 Scandal can be provoked by laws or institutions, by fashion or opinion.

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.

The Catechism isn’t infallible, but it’s a good compendium of other infallible stuff, so let’s go with it. I understand what it says – naturally you will be leading people into sin if you make a law that makes it difficult or impossible to do good. An example of this would be the law that strips welfare benefits from a single mother who chooses to marry the father of her children. If the man isn’t able to support them, she will be taking food out of the mouths of her children. That rather strongly disincentivizes marriage.

On the other hand, if two homosexuals are married, my own marriage remains the same. It becomes no more difficult for me to live a chaste life than before. Now the homosexuals obviously are sinning. But I have never EVER heard of homosexuals waiting for the state to recognize their marriage before engaging in homosexual behavior. They will do it with or without legal marriage. So I really don’t see how it makes it difficult for them to obey the Commandments. You could say that it fails to make it difficult for them NOT to obey the Commandments, but you’ll notice the Catechism doesn’t speak of scandal this way.

Next we go to John Paul II’s encyclical, Centisimus Annus. As far as I know nothing was doctrinally declared in there, but perhaps it could have been, so let’s look at what EasterJoy quoted:

Nowadays there is a tendency to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open or thinly disguised totalitarianism.

Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which purports to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on others their own concept of what is true and good. Christian truth is not of this kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church’s method is always that of respect for freedom.

You’ll notice I switched up the bold … this way, do you see it can be used to support my view as well as yours? Yes, we bring our morals with us to the voting booth and don’t leave them outside. But we also respect the freedom of others, and acknowledge that we can’t and shouldn’t attempt to legislate sin away. That would not be conversant with the dignity of the human person, whom God gave a free will even though he knew we would immediately start abusing it.

 

[sheilathebard]

Here’s the deal: you can find documents that aren’t in any way infallible that support your view, or you can find documents that probably are infallible but don’t support your view.
The fact that the ordinary magisterium (local bishops, congregations, etc.) has been so outspoken and consistent lately does suggest that the Church may be moving towards defining this more clearly. But it has not yet done so, and until it does, it isn’t carved in stone. The Pope could, considering the evidence, decide that because of the variety of political circumstances in which Catholics live, it wouldn’t be a good idea to make a hard-and-fast rule. If he does define it, the OP and I would be obligated in conscience to accept his teaching. Until he does, we are free to believe differently. The Church does not demand we give assent to teachings that are fallible.

 

[EasterJoy]

Here’s the deal: you can find documents that aren’t in any way infallible that support your view, or you can find documents that probably are infallible but don’t support your view.
The fact that the ordinary magisterium (local bishops, congregations, etc.) has been so outspoken and consistent lately does suggest that the Church may be moving towards defining this more clearly. But it has not yet done so, and until it does, it isn’t carved in stone. The Pope could, considering the evidence, decide that because of the variety of political circumstances in which Catholics live, it wouldn’t be a good idea to make a hard-and-fast rule. If he does define it, the OP and I would be obligated in conscience to accept his teaching. Until he does, we are free to believe differently. The Church does not demand we give assent to teachings that are fallible.

The Ten Commandments were carved in stone. Where’s the dogmatic pronouncement that the Ten Commandments are binding upon Catholics?

The CDF wrote this:
“At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people…no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.”

Do you read that? They wrote “in no case can be approved of.” Where do you find this wiggle room you are claiming in that? How could they possibly have been more adamant than that?

Look at what the Catechism tells us about the teaching authority of the Church (boldface and underline mine)
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium’s task to preserve God’s people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421

**892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose **in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. **To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it. **

 

[EasterJoy]

But let’s assume, for the purpose of this discussion, that the Pope could infallibly declare that in every age and land, there must always be a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman. The question then is, has he done so?

So I will go through the different quotations people have been so good as to provide.

I can safely toss out the Compendium of Social Doctrine because that’s not dogmatic at all, just a summary. So you’d have to figure out what it’s summarizing and what exactly is said. Both that and the following quote EasterJoy gave (from the Pontifical Council for the Family) are from pontifical councils. These are just groups of bishops, priests, and laypeople with no magisterial authority at all. They write encouraging things, and sometimes they write their own opinions. But it is quite acceptable for a faithful Catholic to disagree with any of that.

The same holds true for the CDF document EasterJoy posted. Since it was not written definitively by a Pope or Council, it is not infallible and does not have the weight of doctrine. Only rejecting doctrine is the sin of heresy.

Now, I find it very good advice. As you mentioned, “The duty proper to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is to promote and safeguard the doctrine on the faith and morals throughout the Catholic world.” Not to define new ones.

But in fact nothing new is mentioned at all in this document. It simply reaffirms what the Church has always taught and no one here has contested: homosexual activity is always wrong.

Next, the quote by thewanderer from the Catechism:

The Catechism isn’t infallible, but it’s a good compendium of other infallible stuff, so let’s go with it. I understand what it says – naturally you will be leading people into sin if you make a law that makes it difficult or impossible to do good. An example of this would be the law that strips welfare benefits from a single mother who chooses to marry the father of her children. If the man isn’t able to support them, she will be taking food out of the mouths of her children. That rather strongly disincentivizes marriage.

On the other hand, if two homosexuals are married, my own marriage remains the same. It becomes no more difficult for me to live a chaste life than before. Now the homosexuals obviously are sinning. But I have never EVER heard of homosexuals waiting for the state to recognize their marriage before engaging in homosexual behavior. They will do it with or without legal marriage. So I really don’t see how it makes it difficult for them to obey the Commandments. You could say that it fails to make it difficult for them NOT to obey the Commandments, but you’ll notice the Catechism doesn’t speak of scandal this way.

Next we go to John Paul II’s encyclical, Centisimus Annus. As far as I know nothing was doctrinally declared in there, but perhaps it could have been, so let’s look at what EasterJoy quoted:

You’ll notice I switched up the bold … this way, do you see it can be used to support my view as well as yours? Yes, we bring our morals with us to the voting booth and don’t leave them outside. But we also respect the freedom of others, and acknowledge that we can’t and shouldn’t attempt to legislate sin away. That would not be conversant with the dignity of the human person, whom God gave a free will even though he knew we would immediately start abusing it.

My, you are being obstinate. I didn’t give you my view. I gave you the Church’s view. Let me show you a place where it is worded even more bluntly:

From Humanae Vitae:

"No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men’s eternal salvation. (3)

In carrying out this mandate, the Church has always issued appropriate documents on the nature of marriage, the correct use of conjugal rights, and the duties of spouses. These documents have been more copious in recent times. (4)" – Humanae Vitae

And, from canon law:
Can. 1084 §1. Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have intercourse, whether on the part of the man or the woman, whether absolute or relative, nullifies marriage by its very nature.

Now tell me…if the inability of a man and woman to engage in intercourse would nullify a marriage between them by the very nature of marriage, how on earth do you imagine that two homosexuals could have a marriage? It is impossible!!

This is what the Church teaches. Do not teach anyone otherwise.

 

[jmcrae]

But two heterosexuals getting married in a civil union is also not considered a valid marriage by the church as well, right?
And that couple would be “fornicating” as well?

And yet, Catholics support the right for heterosexuals to get married in a civil union, don’t they?

.

It is how non-Catholics enter into a natural marriage. They still have male / female complimentarity, and they are still the basic building block of a human family and social community.

Homosexual “marriage” has absolutely nothing in common with natural marriage among non-
Catholics.

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s the deal: you can find documents that aren’t in any way infallible that support your view, or you can find documents that probably are infallible but don’t support your view.

The Church has only made two infallible statements in its entire history - that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Mary was conceived without sin.

Even the precept that God exists is not “infallible” in the technical sense. No Pope has ever declared infallibly, “God exists.”

However, it is a well-known teaching of the Church, and undisputed within the Church.

Same with the concept of marriage. Everyone knows what Catholics believe about marriage, and everyone is well aware that homosexual unions do not in any way qualify.

 

[EasterJoy]

The Church has only made two infallible statements in its entire history - that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Mary was conceived without sin.

Even the precept that God exists is not “infallible” in the technical sense. No Pope has ever declared infallibly, “God exists.”

However, it is a well-known teaching of the Church, and undisputed within the Church.

Same with the concept of marriage. Everyone knows what Catholics believe about marriage, and everyone is well aware that homosexual unions do not in any way qualify.

Yes. How on earth it can be imagined that the Church would re-imagine marriage so that it depends not at all on acts that have always been considered essential to the nature of marriage, and base it instead on acts that the Church has always taught are intrinsically disordered? It is incomprehensible, and it rests on a vain hope that the Church is not in fact competent to tell us right now today what moral law demands. Is it to be hoped that the Church has not in 2000 years ever really understood the true nature of marriage?

 

[sheilathebard]

The Church has only made two infallible statements in its entire history - that Mary is the Mother of God, and that Mary was conceived without sin.

Even the precept that God exists is not “infallible” in the technical sense. No Pope has ever declared infallibly, “God exists.”

However, it is a well-known teaching of the Church, and undisputed within the Church.

Same with the concept of marriage. Everyone knows what Catholics believe about marriage, and everyone is well aware that homosexual unions do not in any way qualify.

I’m sorry, but that’s simply ridiculous. Those two are the main infallible pronouncements since infallibility was defined as a doctrine in 1870, but there are lots of defined doctrines before then. The entire Nicene Creed was dogmatically declared at the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople. Most of our other teachings were defined at the Council of Trent. Before Nicea, a Catholic could validly believe that Christ was of a different nature than the Father, because the Church hadn’t clearly taught one way or the other. Once it was defined, everyone who failed to accept the formulation that Jesus is of one substance with the Father was declared a heretic. (Pro tip: if the word “anathema” is used, it’s probably meant to be infallible.)

Here’s the deal. If a teaching is not infallible, it could change and it could be false. Wouldn’t it be silly for a person to be excluded from the Church – in fact, to be damned to hell – for failing to believe something that might not be true after all?

Here is more on that topic from Jimmy Akin: jimmyakin.com/2004/06/two_instances_o.html

This is a pet issue of mine because a lot of people leave the faith over an incorrect belief about infallibility. For instance, popes and bishops universally agreed until this century that “no salvation outside the Church” meant that ALL pagans and Protestants were going to hell. Vatican II said otherwise, and the whole SSPX left. The Feeneyites also refuse to assent to the notion of baptism of desire. Luckily, it was NEVER infallibly defined that all pagans go to hell … simply that no one could be saved without the Church, which we still believe.

This entire article is worth a read. It explains how it is heretical to attempt to expand the definition of infallibility beyond what it actually is. catholicplanet.com/CMA/heresy-infallibility.htm

This distortion or denial of the First Vatican Council’s definition on Papal Infallibility is a heresy against the true Catholic Faith. This heresy is spreading among conservative Catholics today, many of whom now think that the Ordinary Magisterium, or the Ordinary Papal Magisterium, is always infallible or always inerrant, even when the conditions required by the First Vatican Council have not been fully met. A number of prominent priests, theologians, and lay leaders hold to this heretical view and have been teaching it to the faithful as if it were a doctrine of the Church.

It’s very harmful and has destroyed the faith of many.

 

[sheilathebard]

Yes. How on earth it can be imagined that the Church would re-imagine marriage so that it depends not at all on acts that have always been considered essential to the nature of marriage, and base it instead on acts that the Church has always taught are intrinsically disordered? It is incomprehensible, and it rests on a vain hope that the Church is not in fact competent to tell us right now today what moral law demands. Is it to be hoped that the Church has not in 2000 years ever really understood the true nature of marriage?

All I can say to you, EasterJoy, is that you don’t seem to understand what this debate is about. No one is arguing that the Church will ever consider same-sex unions to be marriage. Some civilly married non-Catholics are considered by the Church to have a natural marriage; others are considered not to be married at all, for instance, first cousins or those who were previously married to someone else. So the idea that the Church will refuse to recognize the state’s definition of marriage, and vice versa, is not at all new.

What we are debating here is, what is the role of the state with regard to marriage? And what is our role as Catholics who participate in the state?

This question is still unanswered, and I think it will remain unanswered because the Church makes declarations about faith and morals for her own children … not declarations on legal realities for non-Catholics.

Now, you can make a very good argument for why people should agree with you, and I think you have. It could give scandal if Catholics were seen to approve gay marriage, because people might think we then approved homosexual relations. On the other hand, if one was clear that they approved giving a civil licence to protect the rights of already-existing children, or to allow gay couples to visit each other in the hospital, but that they did NOT believe homosexual relations were okay, I think the danger of giving scandal would be removed.

Most bishops in America strongly believe we should vote against gay civil marriage. Many bishops in Vatican congregations believe the same. But since their position has not been definitively proposed to me for belief, I am not committing the sin of heresy when I disagree, nor am I placing myself outside the Church by doing so.

 

[jmcrae]

Here’s the deal. If a teaching is not infallible, it could change and it could be false. Wouldn’t it be silly for a person to be excluded from the Church – in fact, to be damned to hell – for failing to believe something that might not be true after all?

This is oversimplified.

There are many degrees between “infallible” and the parish handbook that are not going to be found to be false.

For example, we have dogma. Not “infallible” but at the same time, never going to be found “false.”

We have doctrine. Again, not going to be found “false,” although our understanding continues to develop over time. We are never going to reverse any of the teachings found in the doctrine of the Church, although our understanding of them may be nuanced. (We are never going to be nuanced into thinking that homosexuals can be married.)

We have the disciplines of the Church and Canon Law. Subject to change along with current conditions of the world, but again, not going to be found “false.”

Your parish pastor can alter things in the parish handbook to suit local conditions and his own tastes, but again, nothing within it is going to be found “false,” including any directions found within it about how to handle same-sex couples who attend the parish.

 

[sheilathebard]

Infallible MEANS it’s not going to be false. That is the literal definition of infallible. So I’m not sure how you can go around saying that dogma is not infallible (it is, so far as I know; nothing is a dogma that is fallible) and meanwhile the parish handbook couldn’t be wrong. Is there no difference then between fallible and infallible teaching?

I am aware there is a hierarchy, and some things are given a higher authority than others. But when the Pope or a Council proposes teachings on faith or morals to the whole Church for belief … that is an infallible teaching. And when Fr. Joe puts a note in the bulletin that he thinks the end of the world is in the next ten years … that’s not. (Our priest did this! Luckily I am not bothered by it; that’s his opinion and I can still have my own.)

 

[EasterJoy]

…What we are debating here is, what is the role of the state with regard to marriage? And what is our role as Catholics who participate in the state?..Most bishops in America strongly believe we should vote against gay civil marriage. Many bishops in Vatican congregations believe the same. But since their position has not been definitively proposed to me for belief, I am not committing the sin of heresy when I disagree, nor am I placing myself outside the Church by doing so.

First off, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is not “many bishops in the Vatican”. It is the body that by the bidding of the Pope has the particular office of informing the faithful what the moral law obliges them to do. They aren’t an advisory committee. They are the Magesterium, and as Humanae Vitae put it: No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law…

Nobody said you were a heretic or that having a malformed conscience will get you automatically excommunicated. You are being pretty willful about stubbornly clinging to a malformation of your moral conscience, though, because yes, the Church has told you in no uncertain terms what the boundaries of moral law are concerning this issue.

From the USCCB web site (underline mine):
In light of the Church’s teaching about the truth and beauty of marriage, what should Catholics do?

There is to be no separation between one’s faith and life in either public or private realms. All Catholics should act on their beliefs with a well-formed conscience based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. They should be a community of conscience within society. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society’s welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages…

 

[EasterJoy]

First off, the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith is not “many bishops in the Vatican”. It is the body that by the bidding of the Pope has the particular office of informing the faithful what the moral law obliges them to do. They aren’t an advisory committee. They are the Magesterium, and as Humanae Vitae put it: No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law…

Nobody said you were a heretic or that having a malformed conscience will get you automatically excommunicated. You are being pretty willful about stubbornly clinging to a malformation of your moral conscience, though, because yes, the Church has told you in no uncertain terms what the boundaries of moral law are concerning this issue.

From the USCCB web site (underline mine):
In light of the Church’s teaching about the truth and beauty of marriage, what should Catholics do?

There is to be no separation between one’s faith and life in either public or private realms. All Catholics should act on their beliefs with a well-formed conscience based on Sacred Scripture and Tradition. They should be a community of conscience within society. By their voice and their vote, they should contribute to society’s welfare and test its public life by the standards of right reason and Gospel truth. Responsible citizenship is a virtue. Participation in the political process is a moral obligation. This is particularly urgent in light of the need to defend marriage and to oppose the legalization of same-sex unions as marriages…

 

[EasterJoy]

Infallible MEANS it’s not going to be false. That is the literal definition of infallible. So I’m not sure how you can go around saying that dogma is not infallible (it is, so far as I know; nothing is a dogma that is fallible) and meanwhile the parish handbook couldn’t be wrong. Is there no difference then between fallible and infallible teaching?

I am aware there is a hierarchy, and some things are given a higher authority than others. But when the Pope or a Council proposes teachings on faith or morals to the whole Church for belief … that is an infallible teaching. And when Fr. Joe puts a note in the bulletin that he thinks the end of the world is in the next ten years … that’s not. (Our priest did this! Luckily I am not bothered by it; that’s his opinion and I can still have my own.)

What are you saying? Because what you seem to be saying is “Of course I’m not saying that the Vatican is wrong. I’m saying that I don’t have to believe that the Holy See is a definitive teacher of moral law and that if I want to abdicate my duty to guide my country to observe what the Church teaches is the unchanging natural moral law binding on all of humanity for all of time, I can go ahead and abdicate if I like.”

If that is not what you are saying, then please tell us what you are saying, and quote an infallible document that proves you are correct. Since you will not believe anything not proven definitiely, prove that the question of legalizing gay marriage is a situation where the magisterium is not competent to interpret the moral law definitively for Catholics.

 

[LongingSoul]

What we are debating here is, what is the role of the state with regard to marriage? And what is our role as Catholics who participate in the state?

This question is still unanswered, and I think it will remain unanswered because the Church makes declarations about faith and morals for her own children … not declarations on legal realities for non-Catholics.

***Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.

Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

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…

1. To understand why it is necessary to oppose legal recognition of homosexual unions, ethical considerations of different orders need to be taken into consideration…***

Read on here…

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

(I’m not sure if this document has been posted before on the thread and you’ve already debunked it?)

 

[Ron_Conte]

The Magisterium teaches infallibly in any of three ways:

1. Papal Infallibility
2. Conciliar Infallibility
3. the ordinary and universal Magisterium

All infallible teachings are formal dogmas. All truths contained in Divine Revelation (Tradition and Scripture) are material dogma. All infallible teachings require the full assent of faith (theological assent).

All other magisterial teachings are non-infallible and non-irreformable, and subject only to a limited possibility of error and reform. Non-infallible teachings require a different type of assent: religious assent (the religious submission of will and mind).

The number of times that Papal Infallibility has been exercised in the history of the Church is a matter of some dispute among theologians. However, many theologians (including Joseph Ratzinger) have opined that the number is quite a bit larger than two.

Pope John Paul II: “This magisterium is not above the divine word but serves it with a specific charisma veritatis certum, which includes the charism of infallibility, present not only in [1] the solemn definitions of the Roman Pontiff and [2] of Ecumenical Councils, but also in the [3] universal ordinary magisterium, which can truly be considered as the usual expression of the Church’s infallibility.” [Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 4.]

Cardinal Ratzinger: “When the Magisterium of the Church makes an infallible pronouncement and solemnly declares that a teaching is found in Revelation, the assent called for is that of theological faith. This kind of adherence is to be given even to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium when it proposes for belief a teaching of faith as divinely revealed.” [Cardinal Ratzinger, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 23.]

Catholic Encyclopedia on dogma:
newadvent.org/cathen/05089a.htm

First Vatican Council: “Therefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.” [First Vatican Council, Chapter 3, On faith.]

Canon 751 “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith…"

Canon 752 “Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.”

Pope John Paul II: “With respect to the non-infallible expressions of the authentic magisterium of the Church, these should be received with religious submission of mind and will.” [Address of Pope John Paul II to the Bishops from the United States on their ‘Ad Limina’ visit, 15 October 1988, n. 5.]

Cardinal Ratzinger: “When the Magisterium, not intending to act ‘definitively’, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect. This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.” [Cardinal Ratzinger, Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian, n. 23.]

IN the same document, then-Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope emeritus Benedict XVI), refers to the non-infallible teachings of the magisterium as “non-irreformable”.

 

[AKT1969]

I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Can I hold this belief?

You cannot! You are being tempted by the evil one. Do not give in to such thoughts and pray for enlightenment by the Lord our God. Those who make such laws are not of God, but of men. I will pray for you as well.

God Bless

 

[chevalier]

I firmly believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I do not believe it is the right of any religions group (whether it be Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, etc.) to enforce their beliefs via laws/legislation. I think that same-sex marriage should be legalized at the civil levels, but it should never be accepted by the Roman Catholic Church.

Can I hold this belief?

Don’t relativise things just because they happen to be a matter on which religions disagree or your Church disagrees with some other group of people.

 

[Joko2599]

After a year, I find myself reading these posts.

I’m actually leaning toward agnosticism, or maybe non-denominational Christianity. I find that the Church isn’t really accepting of all groups…