L
Is there any possibility that the Church could approve on gay marriage in the future?
- Status
D
Della
Guest
No. Why? Because sexual intercourse outside of marriage is sinful. Marriage is, by definition, the joining of one man and one woman according to God’s law. The only marriages the Church recognizes are sacramental, natural, or civil marriages that meet the above definition. The Church cannot change its doctrines/dogmas because they are not hers to change–they are God’s teachings which she has been entrusted to pass on to the world.
J
John_of_Woking
Guest
You will be glad to hear… No:thumbsup:
R
rfournier103
Guest
Um… no.
B
belorg
Guest
No, I don’t think so. What does seem possible is that some day the Church will learn that whether same sex marriage is recognized by the government is none of her business.
F
frobert
Guest
J
Joe_5859
Guest
The statistical chance of this ever happening is approximately 0.0000% (+ or - 0%).
J
jediliz
Guest
No, the church will NEVER approve MORTAL SIN!
E
EphelDuath
Guest
The salvation of souls is always the Church’s business, whether or not the government silences, persecutes, or kills us.
V
VanSensei
Guest
I could see it keeping mum about the issue on a secular level, but that’s maybe the extent of it.
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
Not to make light of the question, but only when Satan has to wear an overcoat because Hell froze over!
L
losh14
Guest
Taking your question seriously, a Sacramental marriage will not be possible for gay people, even those secularly-married. It’s not only a matter of not being able to approve of homosexual activity, but more simply that Sacramental marriage requires a man and a woman.
I think the closest that the Church will come is a statement on the rights of children of gay parents to receive the Sacraments, because I think this is not-commonly understood. All children, being made in the Image and Likeness of God, have the right to baptism and access to religious education in their parish, which includes preparation for and reception of the Eucharist and Confirmation. This includes children who are adopted as well as born of their custodial parents, and those born within marriage or outside of wedlock. Such a statement may be necessary, both to clear up any confusion (ie, those few instances we hear from time to time of priests who refuse to baptize the baby of a single mother) and to alleviate concerns from gay parents who want their children brought up in the Faith (which of course is what we’d like for all parents to do, gay or otherwise). Such a statement may be taken out of context by those in the media who pay next to no attention to ecclesial matters to mean that the Church approves of gay marriage.
The Church will also have to clarify how it considers those employees in a same-sex marriage. For example, there was the local case of a teacher being fired after told parents of plans to marry his same-sex partner:
stltoday.com/news/local/metro/gay-teacher-fired-over-wedding-is-married-in-new-york/article_4f926ee5-421a-5856-9c29-07da27921e91.html
This is probably more a legal tight-walk than any change in operations, and depends upon Court jurisprudence (specifically the interpretation of “ministerial exception” under the Establishment Clause, as we saw with respect to disability in Hosanna-Tabor). But in fairness parish schools and other Church entities that employ laypeople should at some point make clear that public behavior inconsistent with Church teaching can lead to dismissal, if they don’t already. In other words, the Church may need to announce, through the USCCB, that those in or who enter in a gay marriage may not be employed by a Catholic organization that receives diocesan funds or is under diocesan auspices. That said, I don’t know how often divorced teachers are fired, nor cohabitating teachers. I have heard (can’t find news stories though) of teachers being fired from parish schools for having affairs or having a photo on Facebook in front of a strip club. Similarly, public school teachers are fired for taking part in pornographic films or for being exposed on revenge porn sites. So this may be a developing area of law.
I think the closest that the Church will come is a statement on the rights of children of gay parents to receive the Sacraments, because I think this is not-commonly understood. All children, being made in the Image and Likeness of God, have the right to baptism and access to religious education in their parish, which includes preparation for and reception of the Eucharist and Confirmation. This includes children who are adopted as well as born of their custodial parents, and those born within marriage or outside of wedlock. Such a statement may be necessary, both to clear up any confusion (ie, those few instances we hear from time to time of priests who refuse to baptize the baby of a single mother) and to alleviate concerns from gay parents who want their children brought up in the Faith (which of course is what we’d like for all parents to do, gay or otherwise). Such a statement may be taken out of context by those in the media who pay next to no attention to ecclesial matters to mean that the Church approves of gay marriage.
The Church will also have to clarify how it considers those employees in a same-sex marriage. For example, there was the local case of a teacher being fired after told parents of plans to marry his same-sex partner:
stltoday.com/news/local/metro/gay-teacher-fired-over-wedding-is-married-in-new-york/article_4f926ee5-421a-5856-9c29-07da27921e91.html
This is probably more a legal tight-walk than any change in operations, and depends upon Court jurisprudence (specifically the interpretation of “ministerial exception” under the Establishment Clause, as we saw with respect to disability in Hosanna-Tabor). But in fairness parish schools and other Church entities that employ laypeople should at some point make clear that public behavior inconsistent with Church teaching can lead to dismissal, if they don’t already. In other words, the Church may need to announce, through the USCCB, that those in or who enter in a gay marriage may not be employed by a Catholic organization that receives diocesan funds or is under diocesan auspices. That said, I don’t know how often divorced teachers are fired, nor cohabitating teachers. I have heard (can’t find news stories though) of teachers being fired from parish schools for having affairs or having a photo on Facebook in front of a strip club. Similarly, public school teachers are fired for taking part in pornographic films or for being exposed on revenge porn sites. So this may be a developing area of law.
S
SybilMolly
Guest
The salvation of souls is our business.
P
phil19034
Guest
The Church would first have to approve of pre-martial sex and divorse. Neither of those two are going to happen.
So approval of Gay Marriage will always be ZERO.
NOTE: This does NOT mean that Catholics are against Gay people or think that Gay people are evil. The Church believes that ALL sex outside a valid marriage (between a man & woman) with openess towards having Children is sinful. Again… straight sex or gay sex between two people NOT married or unopen to children is sinful. And since Gay sex cannot produce natural children, it will never be considered natural or Holy.
God Bless
R
robwar
Guest
Why did you ask?
C
ClearWater
Guest
No. Some things are changeable, some not. That’s one of the things that’s not changeable.
F
fastenatingguy
Guest
NEAR future? No
DISTANT future? No
DISTANT future? No
F
Frankenfurter
Guest
Is the question with regards to a sacramental marriage in the church, or a secular ‘marriage’ which is a legal arrangement?
Sometimes I think the whole issue is an intentional blurring of the what the word ‘marriage’ means to try and remove any distinction between a sacramental marriage and a state defined legal arrangement.
To ask the church to approve of a sacramental marriage that it does not want to, makes no sense. That would invalidate the church’s ability to create marriages in the first place.
Separation of church and state is important. The government cannot force the church to change their definition of its own sacraments. I am quite disappointed that more folks don’t rally to defend the church’s ability to be autonomous, regardless of their political persuasion. Are we really wanting a state-run church in the future? Really?
Sometimes I think the whole issue is an intentional blurring of the what the word ‘marriage’ means to try and remove any distinction between a sacramental marriage and a state defined legal arrangement.
To ask the church to approve of a sacramental marriage that it does not want to, makes no sense. That would invalidate the church’s ability to create marriages in the first place.
Separation of church and state is important. The government cannot force the church to change their definition of its own sacraments. I am quite disappointed that more folks don’t rally to defend the church’s ability to be autonomous, regardless of their political persuasion. Are we really wanting a state-run church in the future? Really?
P
polytropos
Guest
It is essentially impossible to maintain Christian sexual ethics while allowing gay marriage. One could have no argument against contraception, masturbation, polygamy, etc.
L
losh14
Guest
Interesting coincidence. An example of two teachers at a Catholic school, dating and pregnant outside of wedlock, who are both terminated for having pre-marital sex:
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/should-catholic-schools-be-allowed-to-discriminate
Posted a few days after I posted:
I’ve since starting wishing everyone I talk with a Merry Christmas. They all react with surprise, as though no one has wished them a Merry Christmas in a long time.
catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/should-catholic-schools-be-allowed-to-discriminate
Posted a few days after I posted:
I concur with this post:
There is no ‘right’ to a sacramental marriage. It is a covenant and carries a contractual nature - if you do this, this entity will pronounce you married. What differentiates a right from a covenant (or a privilege) is a right is granted without condition, a privilege granted only upon satisfaction of those conditions.
Call me cynical if you like, I fear it’s more the case that those in power want a “church” without the hard parts. “Give us that nice warm feeling of community and the desire to help others, but leave out an authority higher than our own or a personal responsibility that supercedes that you owe to the government.” This is something we see again and again, an attempt to take Jesus out of the Church, to give us a God who is neither Love nor Holiness but only a vaguely good thing. It percolates down and we see the ridiculous, ie ESPN not running an ad from our local and much-beloved Cardinal Glennon Hospital because (gasp!) they used the Name of Jesus in a commercial about Christmas!
I’ve since starting wishing everyone I talk with a Merry Christmas. They all react with surprise, as though no one has wished them a Merry Christmas in a long time.
- Status