Poll saying white Catholics embrace same-sex marriage than other Americans

[Havard]

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

As a fellow Northern Californian, I completely disagree. I’ve had gay people in my life, all my life… friends, family, you name it. My belief in certain moral truths has nothing to do with how much I love the gay people around me. IMHO, that notion that I must change my beliefs about sexuality in order to truly love them is absurd, and doesn’t hold up to the slightest application of critical thinking.

 

[schaeffer]

As for the OP, polls almost never say anything useful about catholic impact on society because they fail to differentiate between “catholics” who show up at Christmas, weddings and funerals and catholics who actuall attend mass weekly and go to confession at least a couple times a year. If you polled only those latter folks, you’d be polling those who actually CARE about what their alleged faith teaches. But few polls make such a distinction.

Making the matter worse, Catholicism differs from most protestant sects in that catholics still tend to identify themselves as such even if they’ve long effectively abandoned the faith. Most protestants will say “none” if polled for affiliation and they haven’t been to church in a few years. It’s a cultural difference.

When I was growing up Catholic, it was banged into my head, “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” if you were baptized Catholic, that is what you were. So…either they ARE once a Catholic always a Catholic or they are not. Can’t have it both ways depending on what reflects more favorably on Catholicism as a whole.

Catholicism isn’t an “alleged faith”, it is what you are by nature of Baptism. If that is indeed the case, then for better or worse the reality is that the polls reflect the views of Catholics.

If the teachings of the Church are not held by the members of the Church that is information that is worth looking into.

 

[ltravis]

When I was growing up Catholic, it was banged into my head, “once a Catholic, always a Catholic” if you were baptized Catholic, that is what you were. So…either they ARE once a Catholic always a Catholic or they are not. Can’t have it both ways depending on what reflects more favorably on Catholicism as a whole.

Catholicism isn’t an “alleged faith”, it is what you are by nature of Baptism. If that is indeed the case, then for better or worse the reality is that the polls reflect the views of Catholics.

If the teachings of the Church are not held by the members of the Church that is information that is worth looking into.

Point well taken, and I agree. I did ask why Catholics who don’t agree to its core issues don’t leave. No, they can’t really leave, but I would assume they would still either choose to affiliate with a different denomination more in line with their thinking or just not go to church at all. They are still “Catholic” but I doubt many know that or would answer the survey that way.

-LT

 

[Cone]

This is all part of the apostasy foretold by our Blessed Mother at Fatima.

 

[christus_vincit]

What it’s so sad about the Churchs’ position on all things sexual, is that we should be much more concerned with racism, sexIsm, violence, etc instead of whom is in love with whom and if they are sexual active.

Strong families are the best antidote for racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc. Therefore, the issues of homosexuality and fornication are in no way over-emphasized. The Christian family is the building block society. If the Church turns a blind eye to homosexuality (the homosexual act itself) and fornication not only would she appear neutral towards acts of grave depravity, but the family, too, would greatly suffer.

Right now we are having this debate on the NFL players who are involved in domestic violence and child beating. I think that stressing teachings on anti violence and programs that help squelch physical violence is Much more logical and helpful than sitting back in our lounge chairs and feeling morally superior because we don’t believe in sex or love making before marriage and therefore we could never be a “fornicater”.

What better medicine for such violence than a loving home-life during childhood? Those who are abused can become abusers. As I stated above, it is evident that in order to curb domestic violence the family unit must be protected at all costs.

I have read and understand what the Church teaches on sexual issues, but, sometimes we need to re-evaluate what our priorities are in society. I don’t believe that our world is ever going to condemn consenting adults for participating in sexual relationships unless you are living in Uganda or the ilk.

Perhaps not, but the Church must continue to be adamant in her stance and make the love and compassion of Christ known. We only ever focus on what are perceived to be the negative aspects of the Church’s message on human sexuality. But countless who are struggling have found solace and strength in it as well. This should not be discounted.

 

[Book_Worm]

So is the Church right?

I think the Church is right, but that doesn’t necessarily give me the right to impose my religious views on those who do NOT think that it is, just as I do not want any other religion imposing it’s views on me.

 

[Book_Worm]

You either haven’t read as much as you claim or you are dozing off during the reading then. It’s an unexamined ASSUMPTION on your part that domestic violence has nothing to do with unhealthy sexual behaviors - and an incorrect one.

When a man lives as if his sexual actions are irrelevant to the other aspects of his moral character, he becomes more and more blind to the decay of his overall moral character. The man who has sexual relations whenever and with whomever he feels like necessarily grows to see others as objects that are useful for his own gratification and when said objects are inconvenient or have needs of their own he easily becomes angry and prone to violence. When a man realizes the power of human sexuality and respects it by making life choices in accordance with the purpose of human sexuality in the first place, sexual intimacy is less prone to becoming an occasion of gratification and more likely to be one of self-gift.

I’m no social science observer, but I’d expect that if you looked into it, you’d find that men who have never had a sexual partner other than their own wives have an almost non-existent rate of domestic violence while men with a large number of sexual partners have sky high rates of domestic violence.

In other words, sin begets more sin. Always has, always will. You’ll always fail at trying to reduce the sort of sins YOU find loathsome if you simultaneously attempt to rationalize the sins you personally don’t object terribly too (or perhaps are personally tempted towards). The church HAS TO argue today with modern society when society attempts to relabel sins as virtues. Nobody is arguing that domestic violence is good, so there isn’t anything to argue about. But domestic violence arises largely out of objectification and lack of respect for women and you’ll never reduce it until men and required to respect the innate dignity of woman. That will never happen as long as society continues to treat women as self-propelled pleasure devices. That’s not about “feeling morally superior” it’s about actually doing something effective in the world instead of just hand-wringing.

How does this square with the many fundamentalists who feel they have a right to beat their wives?

Do you have any proof for your assertions other than what you would expect?

 

[PaulinVA]

My view is that the Church’s teaching on homosexuality really provides no other option than a life of celibacy for homosexuals who are brave enough to admit they are gay. They can only be married in the Church by denying who they are and marrying someone of the opposite sex. Life is too short to go down this road.

And eternity is too long to not go down that road.

I’m sorry, but you were asking for that…

You are correct, there are a lot of people in this world who have been dealt a bad hand. If you are sitting in the US or Canada in front of a computer, you are probably not one of them.

Now, if your children go to bed hungry, or are subject to rape or conscription or starvation or disease,** that’s** a bad hand. Living a life of celibacy is indeed very hard, but it is certainly better than my first son who had a terrible brain defect and died when he was three.

 

[manualman]

LOL! I guess I should turn my BA & MA back in since I just don’t believe the same way that you do. I must live in another world here in Northern California than you do in Chicagoland, but women are not victims of continuous objectification. Consenting adults, are just that, not that poor stupid woman being used by that big bad man.

If you can live in California and still assert with a straight face that American culture doesn’t routinely and consistently objectify women at almost every turn, then perhaps you should ask for a refund from whoever granted those degrees. Look around you, man!

It’s not a matter of saying women are either “poor or stupid” either. The fact of the matter is that biology has dictated that women bear the brunt of the consequences of poor sexual decisions. Secular human thinkers have tried desperately to equalize matters using abortion, pills, condoms, operations, implanted devices and legal strategies only to make matters worse instead of better. Christian thinkers simply shake their heads and wonder when the lights will turn on. Respecting the human person for who he or she is and what he/she was created to be will always turn out better than our pathetic and ill intentioned tinkering.

 

[estesbob]

I think the Church is right, but that doesn’t necessarily give me the right to impose my religious views on those who do NOT think that it is, just as I do not want any other religion imposing it’s views on me.

Do you have the right to impose your religious views on incest on others? How about rape?

All laws force others views on the populace.

 

[christus_vincit]

How does this square with the many fundamentalists who feel they have a right to beat their wives?

My guess would be that such men often do so from a flawed interpretation of Scripture, not because of a disordered conscience related to sexual sins.

 

[SquallLeonheart]

The main problem with Catholics following and, in their hearts, believing in, the teaching that gay people should not have romantic relationships is that most people now personally know gay people, it’s not an abstract concept anymore. We have gay and lesbian family members and also work with people of different sexual orientation from ourselves. We know gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years. I cannot wrap my heart of hearts around the Churchs’ teaching on this. At least I know that I’m far from alone in this struggle!

This is exactly true. When my cousin came out in the early 90s, it literally changed my whole family’s opinion on homosexuality. And I come from a very big family. By talking to my cousin, my Aunt and Uncle changed their views, as did almost all of us in the family. We since support SSM while we are still Catholic.

 

[estesbob]

How does this square with the many fundamentalists who feel they have a right to beat their wives?

Do you have any proof for your assertions other than what you would expect?

There are no fundamentalist religions that teach men have the right to beat their wives. In fact the only religion I know the teachers this is Islam

 

[Book_Worm]

Strong families are the best antidote for racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc. Therefore, the issues of homosexuality and fornication are in no way over-emphasized. The Christian family is the building block society. If the Church turns a blind eye to homosexuality (the homosexual act itself) and fornication not only would she appear neutral towards acts of grave depravity, but the family, too,

When I was a child, one of the racist remarks I used to hear was that African-Americans had materialistic values because they often drove big, expensive cars. As I got older I learned that our segregated society had closed off to them many of the avenues that others had to use their money, like living in expensive neighborhoods. They were being criticized for not living according to the standards of people who would not allow them access to those standards.

I see that today with criticism of gays (usually men) who live promiscuous lives. We say strong families are the basis of a stable society and then forbid gays to form family units. I just don’t see the logic in that.

(And I think you ought to ask some Jewish people if they agree that the “Christian family” is the building block of society.)

 

[christus_vincit]

This is exactly true. When my cousin came out in the early 90s, it literally changed my whole family’s opinion on homosexuality. And I come from a very big family. By talking to my cousin, my Aunt and Uncle changed their views, as did almost all of us in the family. We since support SSM while we are still Catholic.

You support grave sin that directly contradicts the Word of God? How do you reconcile that with your Catholicism? I don’t mean to be inflammatory, I just want to understand how one believes they can reconcile two ideals which are contradictory.

 

[christus_vincit]

We say strong families are the basis of a stable society and then forbid gays to form family units. I just don’t see the logic in that.
)

How does a gay couple form a family unit?

 

[estesbob]

This is exactly true. When my cousin came out in the early 90s, it literally changed my whole family’s opinion on homosexuality. And I come from a very big family. By talking to my cousin, my Aunt and Uncle changed their views, as did almost all of us in the family. We since support SSM while we are still Catholic.

My daughter is in a committed homosexual relationship with another woman. It has not changed my feelings about homosexuality nor that of anyone else in our family. My childrens sins should no more cause me to reject church teaching than my sins should cause them to do so. By affirming your cousins homosexuality you were helping put their immortal soul at risk.

 

[Tigg]

If gay marriage is wrong, then those in gay marriages can be judged before God when that day comes.

Do you have so little concern for your neighbor that you would let him fall off a cliff rather than try to save him?

 

[Tigg]

How does a gay couple form a family unit?

I’m waiting for the answer, too!

 

[SquallLeonheart]

You support grave sin that directly contradicts the Word of God? How do you reconcile that with your Catholicism? I don’t mean to be inflammatory, I just want to understand how one believes they can reconcile two ideals which are contradictory.

Well from the poll, we are not alone. Some might say it is pick and choose, but we have chosen to accept and love my cousin. I responded because of this mentioned poll.