Obama declares support for same-sex marriage

[estesbob]

Exactly. I started taking this same approach, when i matured as a Catholic and learned that I had been mistaught about the proper meaning of “primacy of conscience.” Some concepts took longer for me to understand. Birth control was a big one for my wife and I. Though we still didn’t understand or agree, we started following Church teaching and eventually got it.

The ban on barrier methods of birth control was very hard for me to understand. It took years of prayer and a careful reading of Humanae Vitae before i finally “got it”

 

[rlg94086]

The ban on barrier methods of birth control was very hard for me to understand. It took years of prayer and a careful reading of Humanae Vitae before i finally “got it”

Yep. Somewhere between the complete denial of Church authority on the matter and complete understanding of Her teaching, we made the decision to accept the authority and live in obedience. I’ve found that works.

I was catechized in the cafeteria, but I found the food offered there was not that great…even on pizza day.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Even after praying and studying, some people cannot be reconciled with Catholic teaching. I know some people like that. It seems that we can then pray for them to be enlightened even as they separate themselves from the Church without our condemnation. Yours is, of course, the correct thing to do, if it can be done.

Actually, many Catholics have not been able to be reconciled with Catholic teaching “merely” by prayer and study. Very often, engaging the will – prior to understanding – is what converts. Enlightenment very often occurs as the result of practice, not the reason for practice. That’s because understanding is not just an intellectual exercise, but a felt and/or experienced illumination.

We are way too left-brained in the modern world and in western tradition. We also, even unconsciously, are far too attached to personal conviction – and the stumbling blocks of pride, prejudice, and even intellect – to consider and respect the conviction of community.

 

[JimG]

The ban on barrier methods of birth control was very hard for me to understand. It took years of prayer and a careful reading of Humanae Vitae before i finally “got it”

I agreed with Humanae Vitae when it first was published, but I didn’t think about it much.

Now, after 40 years of watching the disastrous results of contraception play out in our society, I really get it. Paul VI was figuratively saying “this poison is bad for you and bad for society,” and now the poison has infected the whole culture, destroying marriage and family.

 

[estesbob]

I agreed with Humanae Vitae when it first was published, but I didn’t think about it much.

Now, after 40 years of watching the disastrous results of contraception play out in our society, I really get it. Paul VI was figuratively saying “this poison is bad for you and bad for society,” and now the poison has infected the whole culture, destroying marriage and family.

It is amazing how prescient Pope Paul was. His prediction of the perils of a contraceptive society were 100% correct

 

[Allen2Saint]

Do you also agree that murder is not sinful? Do you tell murderers and crooks that their behavior is OK?

If I did, I would also tell antagonistic people without an understanding of my job or my point that it’s OK to try bait me into an argument.

 

[Jeanne_S]

It is amazing how prescient Pope Paul was. His prediction of the perils of a contraceptive society were 100% correct

My thoughts exactly!

 

[mlz]

Right! I do disagree with the church’s teachings on homosexual conduct. Since I know many homosexual men and women who love each other and engage in relationships just like heterosexuals( and make as many mistakes as we do), I see no difference and think they should be afforded the right in our society to marry. The Church has the right to say no, as does every church, but this country should provide this right. I dont want any other religion imposed on me( magically, you left out that part) and I want to protect my faith from political interference.

And, I do find the Church’s authority on marriage lacking if a wedding can be annulled after 40 years.

I welcome a respectful exchange based on any of these points.

I’ve been reading along on this discussion and just want to say I’m so sorry for the hurt you feel with the Church letting you down via this annulment in your family. I will pray for you.

mlz

 

[Allen2Saint]

I’ve been reading along on this discussion and just want to say I’m so sorry for the hurt you feel with the Church letting you down via this annulment in your family. I will pray for you.

mlz

mlz, thank you for your compassion.

It was demoralizing to sit idly by and watch my aunt’s life ruined by the same church she still loves to this day, as I do. When I watched a loved one’s life get taken apart and I also saw the amount of suffering gay couples go through just seeking legitimacy, I started asking questions.

If questions are a sin, particularly when they are motivated by love or compassion for those who suffer, I will accept whatever punishment is given to me.

 

[Stephen168]

If I did, I would also tell antagonistic people without an understanding of my job or my point that it’s OK to try bait me into an argument.

No need for name calling, if you have no argument for your position just say so.
Your position is emotional while the Church’s position is rational. That was my point and you seem to get it.

 

[fix]

No need for name calling, if you have no argument for your position just say so.
Your position is emotional while the Church’s position is rational. That was my point and you seem to get it.

Bingo.

 

[Allen2Saint]

No need for name calling, if you have no argument for your position just say so.
Your position is emotional while the Church’s position is rational. That was my point and you seem to get it.

The double standard emerges once again. You can pose your comments in an inflammatory manner and I respond in kind and you call it name calling. My reasons are all over this thread, so please, just because you dismiss them, don’t say I don’t have any reasons.

 

[Stephen168]

The double standard emerges once again. You can pose your comments in an inflammatory manner and I respond in kind and you call it name calling. My reasons are all over this thread, so please, just because you dismiss them, don’t say I don’t have any reasons.

Your emotions are all over this thread. There are no reasons. Emotions are the justification for the fantasy know as “same-sex marriage.” Do you tell murderers and crooks that their behavior is OK?

 

[Elizabeth502]

I do find the Church’s authority on marriage lacking if a wedding can be annulled after 40 years.

I welcome a respectful exchange based on any of these points.

Human error is not the same thing as doctrinal error. The Church is protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal error: this is a basic tenet of our faith which you are required to acept as a baptized and confirmed Catholic.

For a discussion of human error, go here, and I will quote from the article by respected Vatican insider John Allen:

ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/%E2%80%98loose-canon%E2%80%99-annulments-may-get-tighter

A Rome conference in late April hinted that the Vatican may be moving towards a more restrictive posture on annulments, the procedure in church law for declaring a marriage null and void, which some critics refer to as “Catholic divorce.”

If so, the fallout could have special significance for the United States, home to just 6 percent of the world’s Catholic population but accounting for roughly two-thirds of the 60,000 annulments issued by church courts each year.

The April 26-27 Rome conference focused on canon 1095 of the Code of Canon Law, which allows a marriage to be declared null if one of the parties lacked the ability to consent because of “causes of a psychic nature.” Of the 15 to 20 possible grounds for an annulment in church law, more are granted on the basis of canon 1095 than all others combined, roughly two-thirds of the total.

Over the centuries, church courts typically interpreted the capacity to consent fairly narrowly – as long as someone was of age, not coerced and not clearly insane, they were presumed to be capable. …Some critics argue that the pastoral desire to help people in difficulty has led to an overly elastic interpretation of canon 1095…

Sheila Rauch Kennedy, who successfully fought to overturn an annulment granted to her husband, then-U.S. Congressman Joseph Kennedy, in 1997, has written that church courts in America have adopted such an expansive reading of canon 1095 that it can now cover “almost anything … from personality traits such as self-centeredness, moodiness or being eager to please, to unproven ‘disorders’.”

If the conference sponsored by Rome’s Opus Dei-run University of the Holy Cross is any indication, that loose canon may be about to become a little tighter.

Polish Bishop Antoni Stankiewicz, dean of the Roman Rota, the Vatican court that handles most marriage cases, told the conference that interpretation of canon 1095 must avoid an “anthropological pessimism” that would hold that “it’s almost impossible to get married, in view of the current cultural situation.” Stankiewicz warned against a “personalistic current” in legal theory, which would suggest there are “grades” in someone’s capacity to consent. In reality, he suggested, capacity in the legal sense either exists or it doesn’t. (For the same reason, Stankiewicz said he had opposed adding the word “grave” to the Code of Canon Law in regard to the concept of defect, saying, “It’s always a problem when you introduce adjectives into the law.”)

Citing Pope John Paul II, Stankiewicz said there’s a distinction between the “minimal capacity” required by church law and the “full realization of human potential in terms of the intellect and the will.” Stankiewicz said expert witnesses in annulment procedures will often declare someone “incapable” of consent in that “more expansive” sense, when, he argued, that’s not the legal standard. He described that trend as filling up “the minimum standard with the maximum content.”

At one stage, Stankiewicz took a question from the floor about whether it might be better simply to take canon 1095 off the books, or at least its third point about defects “of a psychic nature.” “I’ve heard important people who would be in favor of suppressing it,” Stankiewicz said. Yet he argued that “suppression wouldn’t resolve the problems,” and that what’s needed instead if “more precision on the meaning of ‘capacity’.”

The blog article is further discussed on the following CAF thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=671017

It is a logical fallacy to argue that because procedures for approving and denying annulments have been imperfect, the Church should be challenged on the absolute truth of its moral doctrines on sexuality, the family, marriage, the human person, and the order of Creation. The correction is not to institutionalize a gravely immoral lifestyle but to reform the procedures for annulments.

 

[estesbob]

mlz, thank you for your compassion.

It was demoralizing to sit idly by and watch my aunt’s life ruined by the same church she still loves to this day, as I do. When I watched a loved one’s life get taken apart and I also saw the amount of suffering gay couples go through just seeking legitimacy, I started asking questions.

If questions are a sin, particularly when they are motivated by love or compassion for those who suffer, I will accept whatever punishment is given to me.

Allen: You seem to take offense just about every time someone responds to you. I haven’t seen anything that I would consider even remotely inflammatory-but perhaps you do not participate in internet discussion boards much?

Thus far I believe you base your opinion that the Church is wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and its opposition to homosexual based on anecdotal evidence only. Ie:

1. You Aunt and Uncles had a ugly annulment
2. Homosexual you know who love each other and are committed to each other
3. You know someone who was murdered and that is far worse than homosexuality

Being a CPA I suspect i could trade ugly divorce stories with you. In fact the amicable divorce/annulment is the exception-not the rule. But even if we accept premise the annulment process is flawed that would in no way nullify 2,000 years of Church teaching on homosexuality. Likewise being loving and committed does not justify sin. Many people have pointed out to the logical conclusion to this assertion-do we accept murder if the murderer is “loving” and otherwise leads an exemplary life? We also need to know the difference between compassion and affirmation. I can be compassionate about those who suffer same sex attraction but must NEVER affirm their behavior when they act upon their SSA

I would agree that murder is not morally equivalent to homosexual behavior but so what? Both are grievous sins that will send a person to eternal hellfire if they do not repent and confess.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Allen: You seem to take offense just about every time someone responds to you. I haven’t seen anything that I would consider even remotely inflammatory-but perhaps you do not participate in internet discussion boards much?

Thus far I believe you base your opinion that the Church is wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and its opposition to homosexual based on anecdotal evidence only. Ie:

1. You Aunt and Uncles had a ugly annulment
2. Homosexual you know who love each other and are committed to each other
3. You know someone who was murdered and that is far worse than homosexuality

Being a CPA I suspect i could trade ugly divorce stories with you. In fact the amicable divorce/annulment is the exception-not the rule. But even if we accept premise the annulment process is flawed that would in no way nullify 2,000 years of Church teaching on homosexuality. Likewise being loving and committed does not justify sin. Many people have pointed out to the logical conclusion to this assertion-do we accept murder if the murderer is “loving” and otherwise leads an exemplary life? We also need to know the difference between compassion and affirmation. I can be compassionate about those who suffer same sex attraction but must NEVER affirm their behavior when they act upon their SSA

I would agree that murder is not morally equivalent to homosexual behavior but so what? Both are grievous sins that will send a person to eternal hellfire if they do not repent and confess.

Well stated Bob.

Anullments can be painfully ugly. And people generally don’t understand what an anullment actually is. Also, it should be noted that people seeking the anullment (or even those who grant annullments) have been known to game the system. The sin/problem itself isn’t the Church or it’s doctorine/dogma (as it’s well thought out) but the actual people.

 

[Allen2Saint]

Your emotions are all over this thread. There are no reasons. Emotions are the justification for the fantasy know as “same-sex marriage.” Do you tell murderers and crooks that their behavior is OK?

I bristle at the tone people use in these forums, which is why I am going to leave them alone. In fact, I’ve spent a fair amount of time sparring with the atheists on HuffPo and frankly, have received more respect there.

I know I’m emotional, but I’m not irrational and I think if one reads the post, you can clearly see I respond rationally when dealt with rationally. My opinion is called a fantasy. Is that not an insult?

I suppose it is no one’s fault and even an arrogance on my part that I bristle when someone can so easily throw out a comment like the one above when he or she has not had my work experience, because I find it misguided and callous.

I wish you all well and ask you to pray for me if I end up wrong. I’ll do the same for you.

 

[Stephen168]

Emotions are the justification for the fantasy know as "same-sex marriage."

My opinion is called a fantasy. Is that not an insult?

Is English your native language?

 

[estesbob]

I bristle at the tone people use in these forums, which is why I am going to leave them alone. In fact, I’ve spent a fair amount of time sparring with the atheists on HuffPo and frankly, have received more respect there.

I know I’m emotional, but I’m not irrational and I think if one reads the post, you can clearly see I respond rationally when dealt with rationally. My opinion is called a fantasy. Is that not an insult?

I suppose it is no one’s fault and even an arrogance on my part that I bristle when someone can so easily throw out a comment like the one above when he or she has not had my work experience, because I find it misguided and callous.

I wish you all well and ask you to pray for me if I end up wrong. I’ll do the same for you.

The problem is. Allen, that instead of joining the debate you express your opinions and then get upset whenever anyone responds.

 

[Stephen168]

Thus far I believe you base your opinion that the Church is wrong about the sinfulness of homosexual behavior and its opposition to homosexual based on anecdotal evidence only. Ie:

1. You Aunt and Uncles had a ugly annulment
2. Homosexual you know who love each other and are committed to each other
3. You know someone who was murdered and that is far worse than homosexuality

Because Allen did not respond to your summary of his position, I will assume you are correct. As I claimed, his position is irrational and based on emotion; which I think is typical to his side of the argument. Very sad.