Poll: Majority of Australian Catholics back same sex marriage

[Rau]

Those who support same-sex marriage have rejected the teachings of Christ and the teachings of his Church. They have apostatised from the Truth.

I think one can believe that certain civil arrangements are desirable without rejecting Christ. I don’t think there is a need to condemn YES voters even if I think they are wrong in their judgement.

 

[Saxum]

I think one can believe that certain civil arrangements are desirable without rejecting Christ. I don’t think there is a need to condemn YES voters even if I think they are wrong in their judgement.

Not according to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Marriage is between one man and one woman for life. Furthermore, active homosexuality is gravely sinful. No Catholic should support anything that cloaks this sinful behaviour with the veneer of a sacrament.

Here’s evidence to back up my point:

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.

Source: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[Rau]

I’m familiar with that referenced document. It’s an instruction rather than a teaching.

As one Australian Catholic priest has pointed out: Civil marriage is a contract which can be cancelled on one year’s notice …" etc

His point is that it already differed from the sacrament of marriage instituted by Christ, and he makes no suggestion that any aspect of Church teaching should change. But he comes to a different judgement about civil marriage than do others (including you and me).

 

[Wesrock]

“The upper management of the church isn’t listening to the flock,” said Tiernan Brady, executive director of the Equality Campaign and a practising Catholic. “The flock have made their mind up on this, they support marriage equality.”

That’s. Not. How. It. Works.

 

[Saxum]

I’m familiar with that referenced document. It’s an instruction rather than a teaching.

Cardinals and Bishops tell us we can ignore Familiaris Consortio.
Father Martin wants to change what the Catechism says about homosexuals.
There’s a movement to ignore Humane Vitae.
This Australian priest is now saying we can ignore this document.

A lot of liberals want to ignore Church teaching and undermine doctrines.

St. John Paul II wrote the Theology of the Body to explain these doctrines. But now the liberals want to destroy everything. Sr Lucy warned us that the final battle between God and Satan would be about family. The battle is taking place before our very eyes.

 

[Wesrock]

A “next of kin” legal document is one thing, but I do not expect roommates to be filing taxes as a joint household. The state’s interest in such arrangements should be ordered towards supporting marriage and the family.

 

[Saxum]

Pius X said the enemies had infiltrated the Church and Fulton Sheen found the evidence when he spoke to Bella Dodd. This knowledge is essential nowadays because the enemies of the Faith are revealing themselves.

The enemies of the Faith are active and they depend on our ignorance to succeed. But I know what is written in the Bible; I know the Apostolic Tradition; I know the constant teachings of the Church. I thank God for the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for Catholic Answers and for EWTN for through them I was able to learn the Faith.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Catholics should be broken into two categories:

1. weekly mass attending Catholics
2. Catholics who attend less frequently than weekly.

But does it really matter? Catholics are Catholic, right?

 

[Rau]

Cardinals and Bishops tell us we can ignore Familiaris Consortio.

The communion rule as expressed in FC is changeable I believe. That AL proposes a different rule is not the main issue causing some people concern.

There’s a movement to ignore Humane Vitae.

There has been since the day it was published.

This Australian priest is now saying we can ignore this document.

He is disagreeing with it. Not everything from the Church leadership requires our concurrence. One might ask where is the superior of this priest on this issue?

If you want to declare persons are ignoring Church doctrine, best that you state which doctrine first. The priest favoring a yes vote does not believe he rejects any Church doctrine though he is rejecting that instruction referenced earlier.

 

[NiceIsAsNiceDoes]

Which is turning away from God, and you find it refreshing. Shameful. I’m sure Christ is proud of you.

Judge much? Turning away from the Catholic church isn’t at all the same thing as turning away from God. This close minded attitude about where God can be found is what sends so many leaving the Church.

 

[CatholicSheila]

A “next of kin” legal document is one thing, but I do not expect roommates to be filing taxes as a joint household. The state’s interest in such arrangements should be ordered towards supporting marriage and the family.

In Australia gay couples can already file taxes as joint household. De Facto relationships (straight or gay) are already treated the same as marriage. There are a couple areas that need to be cleared up (Superannuation) but otherwise gay couples are not missing any benefits.

 

[Rau]

In Australia gay couples can already file taxes as joint household. De Facto relationships (straight or gay) are already treated the same as marriage. There are a couple areas that need to be cleared up (Superannuation) but otherwise gay couples are not missing any benefits.

It has in fact been this way for quite some time. SSM is not about pecuniary benefits!

 

[Saxum]

If you want to declare persons are ignoring Church doctrine, best that you state which doctrine first. The priest favoring a yes vote does not believe he rejects any Church doctrine though he is rejecting that instruction referenced earlier.

What does the Bible say about marriage?
What does the Bible say about homosexuality?

There is nothing in the Scriptures or Tradition that remotely supports the notion that two individuals of the same sex can get married. The ONLY reason any Christian would support so-called ‘same sex marriage’ is to side with the views of society. There is absolutely no doctrinal, theological or philosophical reason.

 

[phil19034]

NiceIsAsNiceDoes said, “But does it really matter? Catholics are Catholic,
right?”

Depends

The people who are not in good standing with the church because they refuse
to follow Church teaching are not in communion with the Church. So in some
ways, they are no longer Catholic (like an atheist). The once Catholic,
always Catholic thing simplys means that we are always will to welcome them
back.

My point is, we would not judge other religions by people who don’t
practice that faith, why do the same with Catholics.

NOTE: I’m not saying that we shouldn’t pool non-practicing Catholics, in
simply saying that they should count as a separate catagory because most of
them only consider themselves Catholic due to cultural reasons and not
religious ones.

 

[frobert]

The ONLY reason any Christian would support so-called ‘same sex marriage’ is to side with the views of society.

I think this is what most Christians get it wrong. Many Christians who vote yes are supporting a real or perceived “civil right” for two adults to have a civil marriage regardless of gender. Arguing that there is no such thing as same sex marriage, more often than not, falls on deaf ears.

 

[ChunkMonk]

So the majority of Catholics in Australia are not Catholic?

Not a big surprise.

 

[Saxum]

The ONLY reason any Christian would support so-called ‘same sex marriage’ is to side with the views of society.

I think this is what most Christians get it wrong. Many Christians who vote yes are supporting a real or perceived “civil right” for two adults to have a civil marriage regardless of gender. Arguing that there is no such thing as same sex marriage, more often than not, falls on deaf ears.

But it has nothing to do with civil rights in many cases. The homosexuals have equal civil rights without ‘marriage.’ Take the UK as an example: homosexuals had civil partnerships but this wasn’t good enough - they wanted the word “marriage.” They wanted to make people believe that their civil arrangement was equal with marriage. This is also the springboard they need to demand the use of churches for their ceremonies.

 

[frobert]

frobert:

The ONLY reason any Christian would support so-called ‘same sex marriage’ is to side with the views of society.

I think this is what most Christians get it wrong. Many Christians who vote yes are supporting a real or perceived “civil right” for two adults to have a civil marriage regardless of gender. Arguing that there is no such thing as same sex marriage, more often than not, falls on deaf ears.

But it has nothing to do with civil rights in many cases. The homosexuals have equal civil rights without ‘marriage.’ Take the UK as an example: homosexuals had civil partnerships but this wasn’t good enough - they wanted the word “marriage.” They wanted to make people believe that their civil arrangement was equal with marriage. This is also the springboard they need to demand the use of churches for their ceremonies.

The basis of your argument is “separate but equal” but most people do not perceive that civil unions and civil marriages meet the bar of marriage equality. Saying that there is no such thing as “same sex marriage” proves the point. And that is why many western countries provide civil marriage for two adults, regardless of gender.

 

[jlhargus]

The duty of the Pope and Bishops, or as posted upper management, is to safe guard the faith handed on by the apostles. They cannot change what was once delivered to the apostles no matter how many people support ss marriage.

 

[SuperLuigi]

And the Western left has their “really, what’s the big deal” mircowavable excuses at the ready.

Notice how they aren’t using the appeal to authority on marriage or abortion—only on the climate change threads.