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

[Book_Worm]

Note, applying the same argument to a different issue: “the government doesn’t consider a fetus to be a person, and a very large portion of society doesn’t consider a fetus to be a person.” It doesn’t appear to be a very helpful standard for determining a person’s identity.

Apples and oranges. A fetus is a person or it isn’t. Society can say it isn’t until it’s blue in the face, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t.

A family is what society deems it to be since it is a construct of society. Society could say that only a husband and wife, a male parent and male children or any other arrangement of people are a family, and that’s what a family would be.

 

[manualman]

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.

I’d say this sort of thinking has indeed been very effective in changing the minds of many people who indeed did hold prejudiced and unjustly discriminatory views about homosexuality. There is a very human tendency to scapegoat in which we really like to condemn those prone to sins to which we, ourselves, are not terribly inclined. “Oh, THOSE, people. They’re so depraved. I’m so glad I’m not like THAT.”

But such thinking does not easily survive actually meeting and KNOWING “those” people. So the cycle starts over. Instead of thinking it through and recognizing that sinning doesn’t negate all the goodness of the sinner, the scapegoater now picks a new villain. “Oh, those homophobes. I’m so glad I’m not a backward Neanderthal like THAT anymore.” New scapegoat, same old attitude. They all fail to understand the basic premise of Christianity!

But those who have a balanced understanding of Original Sin, Grace and Salvation don’t see homosexuality that way. It’s an inclination to a particular sin. We all have them. THEY aren’t fundamentally any different than WE are. We all are fallen and inclined to sin. Which sorts of sins hardly matters in the grand scheme. The point is that we need to repent of those sins and ask for the Grace to overcome them. When you understand sin that way, the estesbob approach naturally results.

 

[Havard]

Apples and oranges. A fetus is a person or it isn’t. Society can say it isn’t until it’s blue in the face, but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t.

A family is what society deems it to be since it is a construct of society. Society could say that only a husband and wife, a male parent and male children or any other arrangement of people are a family, and that’s what a family would be.

Okay, well again, this notion that it’s a construct of society contradicts the Church’s claim that the family is “the original cell of social life” (CCC 2207). I believe historical analysis supports the Church’s view. There simply was no other society before the family. Certainly the family predates any concept of government, and recorded history, as well.

Regardless of how you think about this distinction, my earlier point stands… the government or society can be far off-base when it comes to deciding these issues.

 

[edwest2]

I just saw this news article about where Catholics stand on issues related to politics these days. Frankly, I shouldn’t be, but am surprised to read these parts, and have trouble making sense of them:

and

How can I make sense of this? I could better handle it if 99% of the people found the teachings too difficult and simply walked away. However, they remain, continue to hear the teaching, and continue to embrace the opposite in spite of it. The church appears to be failing in promoting a matter of fundamental truth and importance. It can’t be, though, because then the gates of hell would be prevailing, right?

-LT

Keep in mind that one hour in Church is not enough to override the propaganda being broadcast by the media 24/7. That’s the best way to understand this. Fear not. The Church has consistently opposed same-sex marriage and each one of us should too, in a public but respectful way.

The idea that marriage can be any mix or match group of LGBT persons will fall by the wayside.

Peace,
Ed

 

[manualman]

The idea that marriage can be any mix or match group of LGBT persons will fall by the wayside.

Indeed, it’s a literally sterile idea. Much like the Shakers, it’s an idea that will appeal for a while then pass on as sterile ideas always must.

 

[phil19034]

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. 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”. 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.

When it comes to moral TEACHING, the Church is going to focus on the areas that Society is not handling itself. We all know that the Church is against racism, sexism, violence, etc. And sure, the Church could always do more (everyone can always do more). But society is already attempting to handle those topics. Society is doing God’s work there. Celebrities, politicians, and civil activists are always bring up those topics. But society has let the devil seek in regarding sexual sin. In this area, society is doing the devil’s work, so that’s where the Church is. The Church is always busy fighting the devil. If abortion were against the law and not a political topic, we would never discuss it. We would be focused on something else.

People have to realize that society has changed more rapidly in the last 50 years than it has in the previous 500 years. And the rate of change is speeding up each decade. For example: I’m 37 years old. When I was a Freshman in high school, short hand was still an optional elective. By my senior year, it was gone. Home-Ec was gone by the time my brother graduated. And I just learned that my 2nd youngest cousin, who just graduated high school this year cannot write or read cursive. They never taught it! I haven’t even touched the morality issues or the growth rate of non-denominationalism and atheism.

The Church focuses on fighting for the people no one fights for: the unborn, the **domestic **homeless (Hollywood is quick to raise funds to the poor overseas, but not often domestically), and the family. If the Church doesn’t focus on those, than no one will.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[Book_Worm]

Okay, well again, this notion that it’s a construct of society contradicts the Church’s claim that the family is “the original cell of social life” (CCC 2207). I believe historical analysis supports the Church’s view. There simply was no other society before the family. Certainly the family predates any concept of government, and recorded history, as well.

Regardless of how you think about this distinction, my earlier point stands… the government or society can be far off-base when it comes to deciding these issues.

The way a family is defined is a construct of society. In Muslim countries, a man, his multiple wives and is progeny is considered a family. That was also true in Biblical times. THAT was the “original cell of social life.”

In our time, in our country, we define a society differently. Each society claims the right to define a family as it chooses.

 

[ltravis]

Keep in mind that one hour in Church is not enough to override the propaganda being broadcast by the media 24/7. That’s the best way to understand this. Fear not. The Church has consistently opposed same-sex marriage and each one of us should too, in a public but respectful way.

The idea that marriage can be any mix or match group of LGBT persons will fall by the wayside.

Peace,
Ed

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around to my original concerns. I agree with all you said. Sorry to get a bit off track but I wonder…when Jesus spoke of the Eucharist many could not accept such difficult teaching. St. John says they left. Could it have also been the case that the majority of those who did stay also didn’t accept what he was saying about it, as important as it was? That’s kind of a parallel I see to this issue today.

-LT

 

[chero23]

As a Canadian, we were on the fore front of the gay marriage issue. When they first became legal here I was dead set against them. Marriage was between a man and a women. I thought at one point governments should get out of the marriage business completely (leave this to churches that only permit heterosexual marriages) and only license “civil unions” whether they are gay or straight. This would be difficult to implement though with the many, many years governments have licensed marriages. The transition would be very messy and go on for years.

Over time I have altered my view in that we Catholics are rather harsh in banishing homosexuals to a life of celibacy with no options for companionship, intimacy and the love of another person to share your life with. Homosexuality is not something a person chooses; it is in their genes.

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

Yes your right God will judge the person, but if we know its wrong why must we accept it? Is it bc society wants us to, so we just follow along?

 

[chero23]

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.

You are correct, these people are not those who actually know the faith, its just a name for them.

 

[chero23]

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

In what sense?

 

[chero23]

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.

I don’t think your imposing, you just know what is right and that’s it. Its like if your with your friends and they tell you to smoke some pot, and they offer it to you. and you know that is wrong, you simply say not I don’t want to. Your not imposing on anyone, you know that is not right so you keep yourself from committing something bad.

 

[Havard]

The way a family is defined is a construct of society. In Muslim countries, a man, his multiple wives and is progeny is considered a family. That was also true in Biblical times. THAT was the “original cell of social life.”

In our time, in our country, we define a society differently. Each society claims the right to define a family as it chooses.

Polygamy was the exception among the Jews, and it was never affirmed by God in the Old Testament. In fact, instances of it usually ended in suffering (Lot, King David, etc.). A consistent reading of Scripture shows that is has always been against God’s will. The model was set in Genesis, long before the departures humans made from it, as you mention.

 

[Scottgun]

Polygamy was the exception among the Jews, and it was never affirmed by God in the Old Testament.

Exactly. 1000 anecdotes, even 1000 Biblical anecdotes, do not add up to one moral precept.

 

[edwest2]

Thanks for bringing the discussion back around to my original concerns. I agree with all you said. Sorry to get a bit off track but I wonder…when Jesus spoke of the Eucharist many could not accept such difficult teaching. St. John says they left. Could it have also been the case that the majority of those who did stay also didn’t accept what he was saying about it, as important as it was? That’s kind of a parallel I see to this issue today.

-LT

The Church and societies around the world have defined family as one man and one woman. The two of you are bound to each other willingly to bring new life into the world.

I don’t think your example applies. Some want us to believe the following:

One man + one woman is not the only way. But in no way does
One man + one man or
One woman + one woman
equal the reason we have billions of people today.

Our bodies represent our reality as male or female and many men and women will marry. The propaganda is based on emotion primarily. So even Catholics have fallen for the idea that same-sex marriage is not hurting anyone. The Church teaches that is not true, but the media is clearly pushing a social experiment that will fade.

Truth is truth.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

They consider themselves a family and the government considers them a family and a very large portion of society considers them a family.

So if the government considered them defective, and a large portion of society agreed, they’d be defective?

You might want to look up “legal positivism” and the debates prior to the Nuremberg Trials.

A family consists of a father, a mother, and offspring according to the Natural Law.

In the event that the father or mother demise, it may consist of one parent and offspring.

In the event that both parents demise, it may consist of adoptive parents and the offspring of others.

All of these are natural events consistent with our species and the design and intent of our functions.

Legal positivism basically states that “In any legal system, whether a given norm is legally valid, and hence whether it forms part of the law of that system, depends on its sources, not its merits.”

It rejects Natural Law and believes that the validity of a law can never depend on its morality. We saw repeatedly in the 20th century where that leads.

Natural law is the law which St Paul describes as the law written in their hearts referring to the Gentiles. It is the law which is referred to in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

In other words, law which are inconsistent with the Natural Law are not laws at all.

.

 

[Rob_Arnzen]

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!

If you begin by suggesting that sexual morality is open to discussion, the presence of “gay couples that have been in committed relationships for many years” means something.

If you begin by recognizing that the Church, following in Christ’s footsteps, has never recognized anything but sex within a marriage as licit and morally permissible, all it means is that some people continue to live like pagans.

This is of course is not a heart issue at all. Morality doesn’t hinge on how you feel about, or how it “hits” you.

Logically if you happen run into incestuous couples that have been in committed relationships for many years, you’re going to have to endorse incest.

And if they happen to form couples of two males and one female, or two females and one male, or any other combination and stay committed to the relationship for many years, you’re obliged to endorse that as well.

.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

(Bolding Mine) Please note that you tell her that she’s making an incorrect assumption and you “prove” it with your own (admitted) assumption.

Regardless, fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other groups that teach strict adherence to premarital abstinence have higher than average rates of domestic violence.

The notion that having premarital sex turns men into abusers is a dangerous and unsupported statement. A LOT of things contribute to domestic violence, and it’s a very complex social issue that affects people of all races/religions/gender//etc.

And besides, even if men with more sex partners had higher rates of abuse, why would you assume that causality? Spuriousness seems likely in that scenatio (higher testosterone, more aggressive or cocky, upbringing, etc.)

 

[christus_vincit]

Regardless, fundamentalists, Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and many other groups that teach strict adherence to premarital abstinence have higher than average rates of domestic violence.

Are you assuming causality?

 

[schaeffer]

Baptism does indeed make and indelible mark and lukewarm (and stone cold) catholics remain catholic. But to whom much is given, much is expected (a rather terrifying passage, when you learn of the fate of the servant who did nothing with the coin entrusted to him but hide it.) But the purpose of the poll is presumably to see what effect holding to the catholic faith has on some social views people hold. If that’s the goal, then are you really asserting that people should refuse to acknowledge the substantive difference between those who actually believe in and receive the Sacraments most closely associated with repentance and those who disdain them in their lives?

Baptism (in case the horse isn’t dead yet) doesn’t remotely guarantee heaven. I hardly think it is a useless distinction to try to divide the opinions of catholics who are trying their best to walk the narrow path from the opinions of those content to take the broad and easy road.

Not sure why you are hot under the collar at me. I made no assertions nor did I say it was useless to make a distinction among practicing vs. non practicing Catholics.

Baptism in no way guarantees heaven, but Catholic baptism guarantees that person is Catholic for all of eternity.

A poll that does break Catholics down into subcategories would provide a lot of useful information. Apparently that was not what this particular poll was interested in doing, or it would have been set up that way.

The reason I brought this issue up is because I think it is of great importance in the Body of Christ, to accept deep down in the very core of us that the Church is one family, period. And the only way to address these issues is to accept that fact, across the board even when it’s really uncomfortable and inconvenient and we’d rather say “well, they don’t really count.”

Some Catholics are easier to love and accept and call “brother” than others. Some make the Church look good, others…not so much. Yet truly and deeply each one is just as much a member of God’s family.

Scripture does say that in the end the wheat shall be separated from the tares, and that the luke warm ones will be spit from Christ’s mouth, but I don’t believe that Church members have been given the authority to do that.

I truly DO understand your position and am not arguing against it. But the fact is, no one gets to claim someone else shouldn’t really be counted as Catholic, because we don’t like the way they believe and act.