Please explain to me why gay marriage is wrong

[Thorolfr]

In order to contradict the Catholic faith…you should know a little bit about it.

First and foremost is that the “Syllabus of Errors” itself was not a magisterial document.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes as a “counter-syllabus-of-errors”.

It appears to have been declared a non-magisterial document as a result of the negative reception it got and after the fact. Cardinal Newman tried to explain it away by saying that it was “misinterpreted”. But others disagreed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

 

[PRmerger]

In order to contradict the Catholic faith…you should know a little bit about it.

First and foremost is that the “Syllabus of Errors” itself was not a magisterial document.

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) referred to the Vatican II Constitution Gaudium et Spes as a “counter-syllabus-of-errors”.

Indeed.

Still waiting for a magisterial statement.

None has been provided.

Thus, I stand by my original assertion: it was gaga lala nonsense that was being presented.

People have been duped into believing something because they read it on the internet.

Gullibility, however, is treatable.

That’s why Catholic Answers is here!

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

If you will read back to post 677, you will see that this atrocity was committed by an army under the command, both spiritually and militarily, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux who then sent a message to Pope Innocent III which said, “Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex.” This cannot be blamed merely on greedy monarchs and noblemen.

Since the papal legate who proceeded Arnaud was murdered by heretics I would say that Arnaud could have been a little extreme. In any case the numbers of deaths attributed to the Inquisition are grossly exaggerated. The range is between 2000 and one million.
There were not nearly 20,000 Cathars in France at that time. Most has fled to Germany.
Maybe Arnaud was talking about other heretics (?)

You blame Torquemada for 10,220 burnings in Spain while the royal Spanish court only records 2000 trials.

What I find amusing is the favorable support of the Inquisition by famous Protestant theologians.

As the learned Dr. Schaff (Luthern) declares in his “History of the Christian Church” (vol. V, New York, 1907, p. 524),

To the great humiliation of the Protestant churches, religious intolerance and even persecution unto death were continued long after the Reformation. In Geneva the pernicious theory was put into practice by state and church, even to the use of torture and the admission of the testimony of children against their parents, and with the sanction of Calvin. Bullinger, in the second Helvetic Confession, announced the principle that heresy could be punished like murder or treason.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Indeed.

People have been duped into believing something because they read it on the internet.

That’s why Catholic Answers is here!

“The thing about quotes on the Internet is you can’t confirm their validity” - Abraham Lincoln

 

[PRmerger]

Some posters on here absolutely refuse to recognize that the Catholic Church could ever, possibly have acted incorrectly or immorally.

I haven’t seen any Catholic here say that.

What has been promoted is that the Catholic Church has never taught anything incorrect or immoral.

How Catholics acted in history…well, that’s another story.

And you ought to know what your own Church teaches, tomberg, since you claim to be Roman Catholic.

Our own catechism professes that the Church is not perfect.

The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though** imperfec**t." In her members perfect holiness is something yet to be acquired: “Strengthened by so many and such great means of salvation, all the faithful, whatever their condition or state - though each in his own way - are called by the Lord to that perfection of sanctity by which the Father himself is perfect.”–CCC 825, bold mine

 

[PRmerger]

“The thing about quotes on the Internet is you can’t confirm their validity” - Abraham Lincoln

Heh.

 

[cena]

It actually says that in this case both spiritual and civil/militarily authority were being exercised by the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. So you think that it is OK for heretics to be executed for their beliefs? Would it still be OK now for the Catholic Church to execute heretics, in your opinion?

Are you aware of how grave a sin heresy is? It was only the heretics who were obstinate, teaching their errors, etc. not just everyone who didn’t believe. The Church and the state are separate now so it doesn’t have the civil authority to say when the death penalty can be used.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

It appears to have been declared a non-magisterial document as a result of the negative reception it got and after the fact. Cardinal Newman tried to explain it away by saying that it was “misinterpreted”. But others disagreed.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errorshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syllabus_of_Errors

Wickipedia…pa-tooie! :dts:

The view held by the Church in opposition to each thesis is contained in the contradictory proposition of each of the condemned theses. This opposition is formulated, in accordance with the rules of dialectics, by prefixing to each proposition the words: “It is not true that . . .” The doctrine of the Church which corresponds, for instance, to the fourteenth thesis is as follows: “It is not true, that ‘philosophy must be treated independently of supernatural revelation.’” In itself no opposition is so sharply determined as by the contradictory: it is simply the negation of the foregoing statement. However, the practical use of this negation is not always easy, especially if a compound or dependent sentence is in question, or a theoretical error is concealed under the form of an historical fact. If, as for instance in thesis 42, the proposition, that in a conflict between civil and ecclesiastical laws the rights of the State should prevail, be condemned, then it does not follow from this thesis, that, in every conceivable case of conflicting laws the greater right is with the Church. If, as in thesis 45, it be denied that the entire control of the public schools belongs exclusively to the State, then it is not maintained that their control does in no way concern the State, but only the Church. If the modern claim of general separation between Church and State is rejected, as in thesis 55, it does not follow that separation is not permissible in any case. If it be false to say that matrimony by its very nature is subject to the civil power (thesis 74), it is not necessarily correct to assert that it is in no way subject to the State. While thesis 77 condemns the statement that in our time it is no longer expedient to consider the Catholic religion as the only State religion to the exclusion of all other cults, it follows merely that today also the exclusion of non-Catholic cults may prove expedient, if certain conditions be realized.

newadvent.org/cathen/14368b.htm

 

[bisco1]

so, does this mean that gay marriage is okay? or not.

 

[clem456]

Sorry i am also not buying into John Henry Newman silly apologetic about what this document represents. That was nothing more than ducking for cover after the firestorm of criticism that enveloped the Western World after the publication of this nonsense.

My favorite:
The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.” (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Not exactly a model for religious tolerance and freedom of opinion.

I wish you would educate yourself about the faith you profess to hold.
Do a search on your favorite Catholic objections and let the thread return to it’s subject matter.
The objections you throw out are so god-awful tired and trite and have been slam dunked into the trash can of irrelevancy many times on CAF and other places.
You say you’re having fun with this, but it is boring and tiresome and akin to caring for an infant.

Do a search and learn something.
Read your catechism.
Read this if you want to learn about Catholic morality:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

 

[tomberg]

Are you aware of how grave a sin heresy is? It was only the heretics who were obstinate, teaching their errors, etc. not just everyone who didn’t believe. The Church and the state are separate now so it doesn’t have the civil authority to say when the death penalty can be used.

Does not matter how obstinate they were, if it is wrong to kill someone over a belief today, it was wrong to kill them then. Are not you all the people who say that was is moral and immoral never changes? I am sensing some inconsistency in your application.

 

[cena]

Does not matter how obstinate they were, if it is wrong to kill someone over a belief today, it was wrong to kill them then. Are not you all the people who say that was is moral and immoral never changes? I am sensing some inconsistency in your application.

Today the Church and state are separate so the Church does not determine what the death penalty can be punishment for.

 

[tomberg]

I wish you would educate yourself about the faith you profess to hold.
Do a search on your favorite Catholic objections and let the thread return to it’s subject matter.
The objections you throw out are so god-awful tired and trite and have been slam dunked into the trash can of irrelevancy many times on CAF and other places.
You say you’re having fun with this, but it is boring and tiresome and akin to caring for an infant.

Do a search and learn something.
Read your catechism.
Read this if you want to learn about Catholic morality:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

People can try to reconcile the positions of Vatican II with prior church teachings all they want. Only the most biased of observers will even attempt to assert that the Vatican II teachings are consistent with previous church teachings on other religions. At least the Pope Pius X crowd and the Sedevacantists are honest about this, and I have much more respect for them than for apologist who ridiculously try to claim that these teachings are perfectly consistent with earlier doctrines, and the Church has never been in error. Vatican II was a major course correction for the Catholic Church and one that rectified centuries of bigoted and arrogant teachings. Though I do admit, I think removing the Latin Mass was a huge mistake it is truly good to see it making a comeback.

 

[frobert]

Well, no, Frobert, I am perfectly willing to accept that there are valid moral belief systems other than my own. That is exactly the reason I am asking you to explicate your system so I get the opportunity to assess whether it is indeed a valid and coherent one or not.

The way I see it, you are claiming religious views do not have the only claim to grounding legitimate moral systems. I accept that. Now go ahead and provide an account for what those non-religious moral systems could be grounded upon. This is precisely what further discussion REQUIRES.

The only way you could consistently say further discussion makes no sense would be because you have no possible non-religious grounds for moral systems to offer or that it makes no sense to offer them. If that is so then it makes no sense for you to claim that there are compelling non-religious grounds for moral beliefs.

So if you seriously want to contend that religions are NOT the only grounds for morality, then it is up to you to provide those grounds. Otherwise, your claim is an empty one.

This move to “further discussion makes no sense” appears to be a polite way of admitting you have NO non-religious grounds for morality to offer. If you don’t, that would be fine with me, but don’t, then, continue to insist that your claim that religions don’t provide the only grounds for morality has any legitimacy.

If you want to make a claim, then be willing to defend it. Choosing unilaterally to end discussion when the burden is yours to make your case is a cop out. Full stop.

Great! My suspicions were wrong. Thank you for clarifying that.

Since writing the post you responded to I stated several times in this thread that my morals are grounded in virtue ethics.

 

[tomberg]

I wish you would educate yourself about the faith you profess to hold.
Do a search on your favorite Catholic objections and let the thread return to it’s subject matter.
The objections you throw out are so god-awful tired and trite and have been slam dunked into the trash can of irrelevancy many times on CAF and other places.
You say you’re having fun with this, but it is boring and tiresome and akin to caring for an infant.

Do a search and learn something.
Read your catechism.
Read this if you want to learn about Catholic morality:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html

What exactly does that have to do with “There is no salvation outside of the Holy Roman Catholic Church”?

You believe the Catholic Church can never fall into teaching error, I am in complete disagreement. You seem to believe that everything the Catholic Church has done through out history has been perfectly moral, I happen to disagree vehemently. Unlike other Catholics who abandon their faith because of disagreements with her, I choose to stay with her because despite her flaws, she is still the prettiest, smartest, most loving girl I have ever met. She has plenty of flaws, and I will not overlook her flaws or try to pretend that they don’t exist. I choose to love her with all her flaws, and even because of her flaws. I think that the Catholic Church has provided the absolute best that humanity has to offer, I also think it has provided some of the worst humanity is capable of. I love her because she is flawed, just like we are. So I will hang around until they formally excommunicate me and until that occurs I get to be a very bad Catholic who absolutely loves the Latin Mass, the sacraments, Mother Mary, Jesus, the Saints, and even you. My wife also studied apologetics when she went to Harvard Divinity School and she advises it is better to just ignore the apologist and go with what your heart tells me so that is what I do. I am more than ready to account for any of my heretical beliefs to Jesus when I die. I consistently ask for guidance and to forgive me for any errors I may be making in judgment or beliefs and to guide me everyday toward truth so maybe that is why I am here, maybe to change your mind, maybe for you to change my mind. That is the beauty of free and open debate.

 

[frobert]

I suspect your reasoning is based somewhat on promoted opinion. Biologically, two men or two women are not physically compatible. And that other thing I mentioned:

Best,
Ed

Good! You are basing your conclusion on nature and Tomistic natural law theory. Did you know that virtue ethics is also based on nature?

Virtue ethics has been used to to bridge the religious and secular divide. Naturally this means that the ethics can not rely on any religious theory so pre-Tomisic or Classical natural law theory is a natural fit. In the majority of cases the moral judgements would be similar but not always identical between the Tomistic and Classical theories.

Now tell me how you conclude that your reasoning is right and my reasoning with virtue ethics is wrong?

 

[tomberg]

Today the Church and state are separate so the Church does not determine what the death penalty can be punishment for.

Yeah I noticed that seeing as that I live in the United States in 2014 and not Spain in the 1400’s.

 

[BrassAnkles]

Does not matter how obstinate they were, if it is wrong to kill someone over a belief today, it was wrong to kill them then. Are not you all the people who say that was is moral and immoral never changes? I am sensing some inconsistency in your application.

In the Old Testament the Jews acted as God’s tool of punishment and were commanded to kill those that offended God.

In the New Testament we have a different command because judgment has been deferred to the end of the world. Nonetheless, given the Church is full of sinners it only is logical that some will cross the line. Often times people get confused about doctrine and act accordingly. In fact this thread is a perfect example of people who don’t understand the Gospel nor much less Catholic doctrine.

Still, in spite of the fact the Catholic Church is full of sinners, many are “repentant” and most don’t promote their sins. This is completely different from unrepentant sinners, like those who defend and promote homosexuality.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Indeed.

Still waiting for a magisterial statement.

None has been provided.

Thus, I stand by my original assertion: it was gaga lala nonsense that was being presented.

People have been duped into believing something because they read it on the internet.

Gullibility, however, is treatable.

That’s why Catholic Answers is here!

No kidding, especially when new CAF members who can’t stand the soundness of Catholic position rely on and love to cite Wikipedia, the self ascribed “encyclopedia that anyone can edit”, as source. It might serve as a starting point or a “quick and dirty” check, but it is known not to be accurate a lot of times, and far from complete all the time. It is notorious for submissions by agenda motivated contributors. In fact, teachers in universities and colleges worth their salt will not accept wiki sourced research papers with good reason, the top 10 reasons students are not allowed to cite or rely on wiki here.

Wikipedia provides Internet users with millions of articles on a broad range of topics, and commonly ranks first in search engines. But its reliability and credibility fall well short of the standards for a school paper. According to Wikipedia itself, “[W]hile some articles are of the highest quality of scholarship, others are admittedly complete rubbish. … use [Wikipedia] with an informed understanding of what it is and what it isn’t.”

,

 

[Michael_Francis]

Closed pending review by forum moderator Matilda Bennett