Please Rewrite Gay Marriage FAQ

[Elijah_Baley]

Looking over for resources in a recent argument I had on Gay Marriage, I searched around and found this particular article.

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

When I glanced at it at first, I decided to my dismay that I can’t use this as an easy link in an argument. It isn’t because I disagree with anything that is said — the content is surely line with Catholic teaching — but rather because the tone is entirely devoid of compassion, as so many against Gay Marriage talk. It spends its entire time hating the sin.

While that’s the purpose of the article, being devoid of love for the sinner is worse than hating the sinner in this instance, I believe, because a pro-gay marriage reader’s mind will run rampant and conflate the worst abuse towards gay people, ready to accuse the Catholic Church of hating gay people in the worst ways possible — there’s no evidence to the contrary.

Again, I’m not asking that we consider removing the essential position or even any part of the arguments, but I firmly believe that if we are to bear truest witness to God’s love for all sinners we mustn’t be so harsh. At the very least, we must add several paragraphs throughout reminding the reader, no matter the political persuasion, that Catholics are called to love the sinner. The answer to the question about homophobia is far too dry to be of any real help, I believe. While there are rational arguments which support our position, they are both cold and dry, and only reinforce the image of the Catholic Church as distant and out of touch with the very real human beings with whose borne cross we should sympathize.

In this article, we must at least in brief explain the difference in practice between loving the sin and hating the sinner, emphasis on the former, for at least the sake of Catholics rightly against gay marriage who seek this resource. We need the constant reminder to love the sinner as much as we need the dogma to know to refuse to condone a sin.

Specifically:

When the charge of “homophobia” is made, it signifies that those making the accusation do not have reasoned responses to their critics, so they switch to portraying their critics as irrational rather than responding to their arguments.

Even if it were possible for homosexuals to commit themselves to each other in the ways described, their relationships would still lack the orientation to procreation, the openness to life, that marriage is all about. This of itself means that any unions between homosexuals are not marriages, regardless of what people may wish to call them.

&c.

Moreover, putting marriage in quotation marks is polemic and just plain bad writing. This will only drive those in favor of gay marriage further away.

Thoughts?

 

[feargalmac]

My thoughts.

Here’s how I see your first quotation regarding homophobia. A phobia by definition is “an obsessive and persistent fear of a specific object or situation, eg spiders, open spaces, etc, representing a form of neurosis” (Chambers Dictionary). Therefore a homophobic person is neurotic and irrational and afraid!! Often when trying to discuss homosexuality and the gay lifestyle, the dicussion ends with my being protrayed as a homophobe. This ends the discussion as the person I’m talking to generally can’t answer my points, but won’t admit it. This is exactly what the quoted sentence is saying, so what’s wrong with it.

As for the second quotation, it seems self explanatory to me.

We are called to love the sinner, but that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t point out errors of failings. For example, if you knew someone who was drinking too much, wouldn’t you out of love for that person try and get them to see what they are doing to themselves and their loved ones?

 

[GEddie]

There is nothing wrong with the document in question, IMNAAHO. It is succinct and clearly written, as an FAQ file should be.

The OP objects that the tone of the document lacks “compassion.” It is hard, to say the least, to express compassion on a webpage. Not only is the presentation necessarily somewhat emotionless, but no amount of expressed sympathy would make the arguments acceptable to opponents in any case.

Again IMNAAHO, I’d say the page does not need to be changed.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA.

 

[edwest2]

Tone is difficult to express on the internet. As far as that article being compassionless, it needs to be worded in a technical manner. It must be factual and direct. It cannot equivocate or beat around the bush.

I recently heard Pope Benedict speaking to a group of priests in England. His tone was measured and lacked any real high or low emotional tones. The goal of speaking like that is to get the audience to hear your message and not be distracted by your voice.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Elijah_Baley]

That’s fair. Perhaps, then, could there be a separate article which specifically explains how and why and when to engage in discussions regarding this and similar arguments? Maybe it’s just from the way I’ve heard some homilies and the way I hear some Catholics talk, but preaching the hard work of discerning compassion is a critical ministry.

Too many Catholics — and especially other anti-gay marriage advocates from all denominations — do cross the line into gay-bashing, confusing the sin and the sinner despite what the Church teaches, just like too many Catholics cross the line on the opposite sides, confusing love for the sinner for advocacy. This is centrally true following the rash of gay teen suicides recently. Maybe the root of this is that I believe lay Catholics or clergy or someone must have an organized counter to the “It Gets Better” campaign lauded all over the place.

 

[ignatius777]

Looking over for resources in a recent argument I had on Gay Marriage, I searched around and found this particular article.

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

When I glanced at it at first, I decided to my dismay that I can’t use this as an easy link in an argument. It isn’t because I disagree with anything that is said — the content is surely line with Catholic teaching — but rather because the tone is entirely devoid of compassion, as so many against Gay Marriage talk. It spends its entire time hating the sin.

While that’s the purpose of the article, being devoid of love for the sinner is worse than hating the sinner in this instance, I believe, because a pro-gay marriage reader’s mind will run rampant and conflate the worst abuse towards gay people, ready to accuse the Catholic Church of hating gay people in the worst ways possible — there’s no evidence to the contrary.

Again, I’m not asking that we consider removing the essential position or even any part of the arguments, but I firmly believe that if we are to bear truest witness to God’s love for all sinners we mustn’t be so harsh. At the very least, we must add several paragraphs throughout reminding the reader, no matter the political persuasion, that Catholics are called to love the sinner. The answer to the question about homophobia is far too dry to be of any real help, I believe. While there are rational arguments which support our position, they are both cold and dry, and only reinforce the image of the Catholic Church as distant and out of touch with the very real human beings with whose borne cross we should sympathize.

In this article, we must at least in brief explain the difference in practice between loving the sin and hating the sinner, emphasis on the former, for at least the sake of Catholics rightly against gay marriage who seek this resource. We need the constant reminder to love the sinner as much as we need the dogma to know to refuse to condone a sin.

Specifically:

&c.

Moreover, putting marriage in quotation marks is polemic and just plain bad writing. This will only drive those in favor of gay marriage further away.

Thoughts?

It seems counter productive to argue against gay marriage from a relgious perspective. Many in favor of gay marriage either personally discount religion or see religion as the primary opposition to their agenda so arguing from that point only encourages their arguments.

I submit that a better way to address this issue is from a strictly logical point of view. Part of their argument is based on discrmmination which they wrongly attribute to religious definitions of marriage. The fact is according to the state (govt) marriage is defined as one man and one woman which can not be discriminatory since the sexual orientation of anyone seeking a marriage license is not identified before a license to marry is issued. The argument continues that any man can marry any woman regardless of their sexual orientation and since heterosexuals are not allowed to marry someone of the same sex the same as homosexuals then the definition of marriage can not be discriminatory.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

It seems counter productive to argue against gay marriage from a relgious perspective. Many in favor of gay marriage either personally discount religion or see religion as the primary opposition to their agenda so arguing from that point only encourages their arguments.

Also true. However, the thrust of using this as an easy link in an argument is among the religious, and especially the religious homosexuals I may meet. I still believe we must have some independent article linked at the end which helps the devout Catholic address these concerns through discourse — not in what to say, per se, but how to say it.

We need something written, I believe, on practical advice on how to love the homosexual, how to bear witness to loving the homosexual is possible even while opposing gay marriage.

 

[PetersKeys]

Looking over for resources in a recent argument I had on Gay Marriage, I searched around and found this particular article.

catholic.com/library/gay_marriage.asp

When I glanced at it at first, I decided to my dismay that I can’t use this as an easy link in an argument. It isn’t because I disagree with anything that is said — the content is surely line with Catholic teaching — but rather because the tone is entirely devoid of compassion, as so many against Gay Marriage talk. It spends its entire time hating the sin.

While that’s the purpose of the article, being devoid of love for the sinner is worse than hating the sinner in this instance, I believe, because a pro-gay marriage reader’s mind will run rampant and conflate the worst abuse towards gay people, ready to accuse the Catholic Church of hating gay people in the worst ways possible — there’s no evidence to the contrary.

Again, I’m not asking that we consider removing the essential position or even any part of the arguments, but I firmly believe that if we are to bear truest witness to God’s love for all sinners we mustn’t be so harsh. At the very least, we must add several paragraphs throughout reminding the reader, no matter the political persuasion, that Catholics are called to love the sinner. The answer to the question about homophobia is far too dry to be of any real help, I believe. While there are rational arguments which support our position, they are both cold and dry, and only reinforce the image of the Catholic Church as distant and out of touch with the very real human beings with whose borne cross we should sympathize.

In this article, we must at least in brief explain the difference in practice between loving the sin and hating the sinner, emphasis on the former, for at least the sake of Catholics rightly against gay marriage who seek this resource. We need the constant reminder to love the sinner as much as we need the dogma to know to refuse to condone a sin.

Specifically:

&c.

Moreover, putting marriage in quotation marks is polemic and just plain bad writing. This will only drive those in favor of gay marriage further away.

Thoughts?

why must homosexuality get the “free off the hook” card from criticism? Has the gay agenda really that much effected you?

The acceptance of homosexuality was a media ploy that homosexuals used in a time when societies morals was decaying. During the sexual counter revolution. It was prepared by 2 homosexual Harvard graduates. Read the book “After the Ball”

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

You realize “love the sin, hate the sinner” is a quote by the non-christian Ghandi. Nowhere is it taught in the bible or Church.

Psalm 5:5 tells us that “God hates all workers of iniquity”

The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. - Psalm 11:5

 

[ignatius777]

Also true. However, the thrust of using this as an easy link in an argument is among the religious, and especially the religious homosexuals I may meet. I still believe we must have some independent article linked at the end which helps the devout Catholic address these concerns through discourse — not in what to say, per se, but how to say it.

We need something written, I believe, on practical advice on how to love the homosexual, how to bear witness to loving the homosexual is possible even while opposing gay marriage.

Its sounds like you are worried about offending people. I cant think of a nice way to tell people they are doing something wrong or sinful without offending them. Jesus didnt seem to worried about offending the Pharisees and Saducees when He was around. How people receive something is up to them not us. We can speak in loving ways but that wont appease those who would be offended by your questioning their liffestyle.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Its sounds like you are worried about offending people. I cant think of a nice way to tell people they are doing something wrong or sinful without offending them. Jesus didnt seem to worried about offending the Pharisees and Saducees when He was around. How people receive something is up to them not us. We can speak in loving ways but that wont appease those who would be offended by your questioning their liffestyle.

The difference is that homosexuality is something that runs to the core of who a person is; their sexual identity. regardless of whether or not they act upon it. Saying that homosexuality is a “disordered” condition is essentially saying that a person, at their core, is defective. Granted, the Church does make the distinction, but most people don’t understand that and talk about homosexual people in ways that are unbelievably cruel.

As one so accursed, I see myself as a third class subject in the Kingdom and I hate myself because of it. The only thing keeping me from exiting this life is the knowledge that hell awaits me if I do something like that. I have no one to talk to about this (I feel like I’ve worn out all my friends and family talking about my issues) and since God apparently cursed me with this (Rom. 1:26-27), He doesn’t have any intention of helping me overcome it, but I digress.

 

[camerong]

With respect to the OP–I very much agree. I have sought to link to that page in my own discussions, and found it too combative (and frankly, not terribly compelling or well-written).

why must homosexuality get the “free off the hook” card from criticism? Has the gay agenda really that much effected you?

The acceptance of homosexuality was a media ploy that homosexuals used in a time when societies morals was decaying. During the sexual counter revolution. It was prepared by 2 homosexual Harvard graduates. Read the book “After the Ball”

amazon.com/After-Ball-America-Conquer-Hatred/dp/0452264987

You realize “love the sin, hate the sinner” is a quote by the non-christian Ghandi. Nowhere is it taught in the bible or Church.

Psalm 5:5 tells us that “God hates all workers of iniquity”

The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. - Psalm 11:5

I believe you meant to criticize “hate the sin, love the sinner.” This, however, is a prominent theme of the Gospels, and anyone saying we ought to hate sinners merely heaps coals upon his own head. The sins of an unrepentant person engaged in a homosexual relationship may be grave, but are no more real than your own.

 

[Corki]

If this particular tract doesn’t meet your current purpose, use something else.

I am not sure where all the “we must…” is coming from. The CA tracts are not written by CAF posters and we are hardly in the position to tell the CA apologists what or how they “must” write.

There are many, many, resources out there to refute the legitimacy of same-sex marriage; some will be better for particular uses than others.

 

[camerong]

Just a suggestion to make the site better. Particularly on a topic such as gay marriage–a poor understanding of which undoubtedly keeps many people out of the Church–this site’s writing should be thoroughly-considered to best reach its audience.

 

[ignatius777]

The difference is that homosexuality is something that runs to the core of who a person is; their sexual identity. regardless of whether or not they act upon it. Saying that homosexuality is a “disordered” condition is essentially saying that a person, at their core, is defective. Granted, the Church does make the distinction, but most people don’t understand that and talk about homosexual people in ways that are unbelievably cruel.

As one so accursed, I see myself as a third class subject in the Kingdom and I hate myself because of it. The only thing keeping me from exiting this life is the knowledge that hell awaits me if I do something like that. I have no one to talk to about this (I feel like I’ve worn out all my friends and family talking about my issues) and since God apparently cursed me with this (Rom. 1:26-27), He doesn’t have any intention of helping me overcome it, but I digress.

I want to be clear that I have never said homosexuality is a “disordered” condition nor do I believe that. What I believe is we all have those things about us which we struggle to manage within the teaching of the church. Some struggle with lust or gluttony or pride and the list goes on. It is no easy task being a catholic christian. We can only rest in the belief that God loves us and wants us to live the most righteous life we can. That in spite of who we are He loves us without end and beyond our ability to comprehend. You are no less then the “greatest” among us. Maybe its a blessing to be so “accursed” and a third class citizen you said for Jesus tells us, does He not, that the lats shall be first and the first shall be last? Remember the pharisee and the tax collector? The Pharisee thanked God he was not like “other men” like the tax collector, while the tax collector remianed humble. Who was more righteous in the eyes of God?

And how about those who have suffered greatly for God who can attach their suffering to the suffering of Jesus and eventually are able to thank God for their suffering because it so closely attaches them to God. We all have our struggles if we are really honest with ourselves.

 

[Elijah_Baley]

We can speak in loving ways but that wont appease those who would be offended by your questioning their liffestyle.

A practical guide to this, I believe, would be most helpful, and I want a guide for this which proselytizes from a Catholic perspective. This is Catholic.com, after all. If anywhere in the Internet should have this resource, it should be here.

why must homosexuality get the “free off the hook” card from criticism? Has the gay agenda really that much effected you?

It is the one issue which most threatens to divide the Church, even more than abortion. If we are legitimately criticized for being unloving we have a good shot at losing the battle for public relations, and therefore countless souls.

You realize “love the sin, hate the sinner” is a quote by the non-christian Ghandi. Nowhere is it taught in the bible or Church.

It is an easy summation of proper Catholic teaching. We are called to love the sinners, and we are called to turn our back on sin.

Psalm 5:5 tells us that “God hates all workers of iniquity”

The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates. - Psalm 11:5

As I understand it, “hate” when used in the Bible, especially the Old Testament, means “turn one’s back on someone or something” and not with any of our modern connotations. In every instance, or so I am told, God will only “hate” when the person first “hates” him through thought or deed, unrepentant.

Also, I am not God, who has the power to see a man’s heart and judge his soul. I therefore cannot have the absolute discernment to determine when to turn my back on him, and surely we are called to go out in search of every wayward lamb, as Christ the shepherd?

There are many, many, resources out there to refute the legitimacy of same-sex marriage; some will be better for particular uses than others.

I’m not aware of a single resource out there which helps teach the techniques of relaying a specifically Catholic message about homosexuality or other issues in a loving way. I worry that if we do not find a way to organize and spread the message lovingly without changing the content, we will lose the battle for public opinion and lose forever a generation of apostates. This issue, because only one side and the wrong side has the trappings of being loving about its convictions however false they are, will cleave the Western Church into two halves, one devout and loyal to Rome and the other presenting itself as a popular, cafeteria option when all it does is permanently damn the souls of its members.

Just a suggestion to make the site better. Particularly on a topic such as gay marriage–a poor understanding of which undoubtedly keeps many people out of the Church–this site’s writing should be thoroughly-considered to best reach its audience.

Exactly. Even at the most basic level, this domain is Catholic.com. We have a special responsibility to make sure that in every way the domain represents the fullest Catholic position, and helps Catholics argue for that position.

 

[Cristiano]

I think that the OP must realize that there is a clear distinction between being kind and being loving. This article by monsignor Charles Pope is quite illuminating.

blog.adw.org/2010/10/kindness-is-not-the-same-as-love/

 

[PetersKeys]

With respect to the OP–I very much agree. I have sought to link to that page in my own discussions, and found it too combative (and frankly, not terribly compelling or well-written).

I believe you meant to criticize “hate the sin, love the sinner.” This, however, is a prominent theme of the Gospels, and anyone saying we ought to hate sinners merely heaps coals upon his own head. The sins of an unrepentant person engaged in a homosexual relationship may be grave, but are no more real than your own.

hate the sin love the sinner isn’t a christian doctrine or taught in the bible. None of the saints said it. Ghandi, a pagan hindu created it.

I just don’t think we should put such an importance on a quote that never was taught in the Church, the bible, or quoted by the saints…

 

[Elijah_Baley]

I think that the OP must realize that there is a clear distinction between being kind and being loving. This article by monsignor Charles Pope is quite illuminating.

Yes, there is a difference between being kind and being loving. However, kindness can be an element of love, as Mnsgr. Pope notes, and I’m very sure that those with SSA deserve both. Kindness without condoning, of course, but nonetheless kindness.

hate the sin love the sinner isn’t a Christian doctrine or taught in the bible. None of the saints said it. Ghandi, a pagan hindu created it.

Again, “Hate the sin, love the sinner” is merely a convenient way to express what is actually taught. Please elucidate where it does not express Church teaching, because I’m at a loss.

 

[Cristiano]

hate the sin love the sinner isn’t a christian doctrine or taught in the bible. None of the saints said it. Ghandi, a pagan hindu created it.

I just don’t think we should put such an importance on a quote that never was taught in the Church, the bible, or quoted by the saints…

Are you saying that the Church says that God does not hate sin, and/or that we should not hate sin?

Are you saying that Church gives us exemption from our obligation of love because they are sinner?

Are you saying that a pagan/hindu is not subject to natural law and thus he cannot comment about natural law?

Mark 12:28-31
28
One of the scribes, when he came forward and heard them disputing and saw how well he had answered them, asked him, “Which is the first of all the commandments?”
29
Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone!
30
You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ (hate sin)
31
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (love the sinner)

 

[Abu]

ignatius777
I want to be clear that I have never said homosexuality is a “disordered” condition nor do I believe that.

This is clearly recognised by the Church on very good authority. CCC 2357: “tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.’ They are contrary to the natural law.”

**Is Homosexuality a Choice?
Answer by Fr.Stephen F. Torraco on 27/6/2008 (EWTN): **
The hypothetical question that you have a homosexual ask you is faulty. The question presupposes or implies that heterosexuality and homosexuality are on the same moral plane. They are not. Heterosexuality is the design of the Creator. Homosexuality is a disorder. You don’t choose to be heterosexual, but you do choose whether you will live it chastely.

Elijah Baley
I’m not aware of a single resource out there which helps teach the techniques of relaying a specifically Catholic message about homosexuality or other issues in a loving way.

Strange.
CCC 2358, “They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.”
Fr John A Hardon, S.J., is very good in *The Truth About Homosexuality *(The Cry of the Faithful), Ignatius, 1996.