Prop. 8: Gay-marriage ban unconstitutional, court rules

[PRmerger]

We are discussing the Constitionality of same sex marriage and how the reasoning of denying marriage to same sex couples was used also by the opponents of inter-racial marriage. We are discussing the decisions of consenting adults to determine their lives…not the victimization of an adult upon a child or animal.

Claim: Banning gay marriage is like banning interracial marriage:

Actually, it is not. This argument is based on a reductive analogy between racism and heterosexism. Most people today would agree that the state should have no right to prevent interracial marriage, and some now argue for the same reason that it should have no right to prevent gay marriage. Both racism and heterosexism are forms of prejudice. Both are due to a combination of ignorance and malice. Both are evil. But the analogy is seriously flawed, because it assumes that all those who oppose gay marriage, like all those who oppose interracial marriage, are bigots. Some are, but others are not.

Marriage between people of different races was indeed banned because of racism. But that was only one example of a larger phenomenon. We refer to endogamy, marriage only with those from inside the community. And endogamy is not always caused by racism. Sometimes, for instance, it is caused by religion — that is, by the urge to perpetuate a religious culture. These societies ban interreligious marriage but usually accept marriage to converts, regardless of their racial or ethnic origins.

In any case, endogamy is a cultural variable. Many societies practice exogamy, after all, marriage only with those from outside the community. Endogamy cannot be considered a universal feature of marriage and should not, therefore, be required by law in a diverse society. Marriage between men and women really is a universal feature, on the other hand, both historically and anthropologically. And for a good reason: bringing men and women together for both practical and symbolic reasons. The prejudice of some people notwithstanding, in short, there can be a morally legitimate reason for maintaining the heterosexuality of marriage.

Besides, how many advocates of gay marriage would argue for polygamous marriage as well? Some would, no doubt, but not many. Although we do not advocate polygamy, we also do not see anything inherently wrong with it.27 Because a good case could be made for it, following precisely the same logic as that of the case made for gay marriage (see claim 17), it would be dishonest for advocates of the latter to trivialize it due to political expediency.

Attention: The Catholic Education Resource Center notes that the persons writing this article are neither Catholic nor in full agreement with the Church’s teaching on homosexuality. Nevertheless, the urgency of the issue of gay marriage at this time and the compelling arguments raised against it here, make this paper an important resource.
source.

Also, authors Katharine Young and Paul Nathanson are neither Catholic nor in full agreement with Church teaching on homosexuality. One of them, in fact, is admittedly gay.

 

[Befink]

Hi Math,

Thanks for those. Some of those arguments are respectable (finally on page 16 of this thread!). I still dismiss those which are based in fornication because it’s already a sin for all of us. I also dismiss those which say there are more changes coming (beastiality, incest). That’s someone watching too much fear-based conservative media. The better ones relate to their children where the study attached shows advantages and disadvantages. The main disadvantage is they are likely to experiment more with homosexuality. Ultimately thought, that is fornication again. What we really want is them in our churches instead of pushed away. I’m sure the church would have far less issue with gay people if they weren’t so liberal. There’s the interesting social effect that same sex couples along with divorce, birth control, etc. are degrading the value of marriage. Being in a marriage I still feel we as a society tend to look to find that special someone and live happily ever after. There are a number of reasons it doesn’t always work out that way but I still take my marriage very seriously regardless of the mistakes people make around me. I have to admit it was discouraging before I met my current wife because it felt most marriages don’t work out and the ones that do aren’t always very happy. Luckily there were enough good examples around that I knew what to look for. Offhand, I don’t feel a gay couple couldn’t have provided me similar examples. I don’t see that being gay, by itself, is a bad example of a good marriage. If you talk to them you learn they really do have the same dreams as us.

I’ll digest your articles further but those are my initial thoughts on that.

I’ll ask you and others this question: if God told you to murder your son (per Abraham), you’d do it right? If Jesus asked that you would too. What if the Pope asked that in an infallible teaching? What if he asked that as a non-infallible doctrine? What if your local priest asked you to do that? You would obviously do it for God but you would not do it for your local priest (I hope not ). The point is there is a decreasing level of confidence that what the Church is saying is God’s will. We are expected to believe all infallible teachings or we are not Catholic. Most of the rules we follow are non-fallible teachings which means we are expected to take them on faith but are not the same as infallible teachings. The church is not 100% confident Jesus would say the same thing.

Speaking of doctrine. I was trying to figure something out. The church sacrament is between and man and a woman. The church doctrine is about the act of homosexuality being a sin. We are not really arguing these two issues of doctrine, especially when we recognize that gays couples can abstain and live together. So what about civil unions and adopting kids are we arguing about? Is there more doctrine I’m missing or are we really arguing an unofficial teaching, such as when the pope was against the war in Iraq but many conservative catholics felt free to disagree.

To address PRmergers concerns. The answer is yes I have changed my view sometimes and yes you are right that there is a tendency to create God in my own image, and yes it’s very frustrating. What I want to see is where truth and love come together. Why I seek answers on CAF is to hear alternative viewpoints so I can hopefully fuse the ideas together into a deep spiritual life. I know the liberal approach doesn’t work but I’m not seeing the conservative one work either. There’s truth but then they always struggle with anger, judgement and a degree of fear and ignorance. They seem far from the true peace Jesus and some of the saints had. I’m forced to conclude that I won’t find it by obeying all the rules, especially those that violate my conscience. I hashed this out on another thread in more detail but that’s the short answer.

 

[PRmerger]

To address PRmergers concerns. The answer is yes I have changed my view sometimes and yes you are right that there is a tendency to create God in my own image, and yes it’s very frustrating./quote]

If you don’t mind, could you share what this is?

I will offer my own: I have conformed my views to the Church in regards to divorce and re-marriage. If I had my druthers I’d love to celebrate my friends’ second attempts at happiness and celebrate with them in their second marriages.

However, even though I hate that I cannot celebrate and endorse their second marriages (esp. when I saw how horrid their first husbands may have been), I defer to the Church’s teaching on this and say, “I am sorry but I cannot attend your wedding.”

 

[Maso]

Originally Posted by Maso
I think the Supreme Court is Unconstitutional…

What do you think 'bout THAT…!

You might have a tough time with that argument…

Well… It is when the justices are using thier authority to un-do the constitution that they sware to uphold, and that’s exactly what will happen if the subversive Obama gets relected and makes three more appointments who are like himself. And that’s what he will do if the Catholics who voted for him that last time don’t get smart and vote differently next time.

Better belive it…

Think about it…!

 

[Befink]

Befink;8947526:

To address PRmergers concerns. The answer is yes I have changed my view sometimes and yes you are right that there is a tendency to create God in my own image, and yes it’s very frustrating./quote]

If you don’t mind, could you share what this is?

I will offer my own: I have conformed my views to the Church in regards to divorce and re-marriage. If I had my druthers I’d love to celebrate my friends’ second attempts at happiness and celebrate with them in their second marriages.

However, even though I hate that I cannot celebrate and endorse their second marriages (esp. when I saw how horrid their first husbands may have been), I defer to the Church’s teaching on this and say, “I am sorry but I cannot attend your wedding.”

Hi PR,

A fair question. I’ll be brief since we’re getting off topic and I have explored most of these on other threads.

So far the disordered marriage one hasn’t come up for me but I’ll admit I’d probably struggle with it. This gay issue is easily the most sensitive for me of all. That’s because I’ve seen a number of friends hurt by it. I also feel I would go to them with compassion and real advice on how to live a better life if the right arguments were there. That’s why I keep pressing for secular arguments. They tend to be there on every other teaching. Ironically though, this doesn’t affect me directly.

I’m skeptical of NFP but my wife and I are actually going to explore it (Math, I haven’t told you this yet). Another one is that on rare occasions I believe in showing respect for non-Catholics by attending their church services. While I’d always prefer Catholic, there are times we are visiting a friend who has their church they like. What’s good is that when they visit me we go to Catholic church. I have also used this approach to convince people straying from the flock to go back to the church they know. I hope that my encouraging helps bring them back to God and makes them consider Catholicism later.

 

[PRmerger]

I’ll ask you and others this question: if God told you to murder your son (per Abraham), you’d do it right? If Jesus asked that you would too. What if the Pope asked that in an infallible teaching? What if he asked that as a non-infallible doctrine? What if your local priest asked you to do that? You would obviously do it for God but you would not do it for your local priest (I hope not ). The point is there is a decreasing level of confidence that what the Church is saying is God’s will. We are expected to believe all infallible teachings or we are not Catholic. Most of the rules we follow are non-fallible teachings which means we are expected to take them on faith but are not the same as infallible teachings. The church is not 100% confident Jesus would say the same thing.

Wow. So much misinformation in this one little paragraph.

Let’s address.

Firstly, all of the Word of God has already been revealed. Thus, there is no such scenario that’s possible in which God would tell us, as he did with Abraham, to sacrifice our son (at an altar–that God demands our children’s lives for Him is, well, a truth no one can deny. They are not truly ours after all, right? But that is fodder for another thread.) God cannot contradict a Truth that has already been revealed, and the God of Love would never demand something contrary to His Nature–that is, the murder of our children.

Secondly, your point about the assent of faith given to infallible vs non-infallible teachings belies a certain ignorance about exactly what being a Catholic Christian means. It speaks to, what apologist Mark Shea cheekily calls, the “Minimum Adult Daily Requirement” thinking.

…then I submit this is Minimum Daily Adult Requirement thinking. No lover asks “What’s the absolute bare minimum amount of contact with my Beloved I can get away with?” Similarly, if, as the Church claims, the fullness of revelation subsists in the Catholic communion, then** “How little contact with the fullness of revelation can I get away with?” is the exact wrong question for somebody who is serious about discipleship to Christ. **Our goal, according to Scripture, is not to achieve bare minimums of love, fellowship and discipleship with Christ and His Bride, but to “attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ;… we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love” (Ephesians 4:13-16).

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

A fair question. I’ll be brief since we’re getting off topic and I have explored most of these on other threads.

So far the disordered marriage one hasn’t come up for me but I’ll admit I’d probably struggle with it. This gay issue is easily the most sensitive for me of all. That’s because I’ve seen a number of friends hurt by it. I also feel I would go to them with compassion and real advice on how to live a better life if the right arguments were there. That’s why I keep pressing for secular arguments. They tend to be there on every other teaching. Ironically though, this doesn’t affect me directly.

I’m skeptical of NFP but my wife and I are actually going to explore it (Math, I haven’t told you this yet). Another one is that on rare occasions I believe in showing respect for non-Catholics by attending their church services. While I’d always prefer Catholic, there are times we are visiting a friend who has their church they like. What’s good is that when they visit me we go to Catholic church. I have also used this approach to convince people straying from the flock to go back to the church they know. I hope that my encouraging helps bring them back to God and makes them consider Catholicism later.

Am I understanding this correctly, Befink? It seems as if in the above examples the only “idea” that you’ve conformed to the Church’s is NFP–and you haven’t actually conformed your conscience to it but rather are skeptical of it?

It seems, if I am reading this correctly, that you haven’t actually provided an example of an idea that you’ve changed based on what the Church has proclaimed?

You haven’t conformed your beliefs to the Church’s on gay marriage. You haven’t conformed your beliefs on attending non-Catholic services. So where’s the example of a belief you’ve changed?

Or is there no belief that you’ve left behind since learning of the Church’s teaching on a particular issue?

 

[Befink]

Hi PR,

Point of the Abraham question is to illustrate a question of conscience. My point being that there can be times we’re not convinced the Church represented Jesus 100% correctly. You may not feel this way but those that do can’t just blindly comply. It takes a long faith journey that fuses both love and truth so we find peace and happiness. No wonder so few ever get there.

Also agree that it’s not about doing the minimums. The church does define degrees of teaching though so it’s worth knowing what we’re dealing with here. Obviously conservatives were well aware that there was no official teaching against war in Iraq even though the Pope was very clear that it was wrong.

Finally, I thought your question was which teachings I still struggle with not which I’ve changed on. There were several changes but for sake of privacy you’ll just have to accept that it’s between me and God.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

Point of the Abraham question is to illustrate a question of conscience. My point being that there can be times we’re not convinced the Church represented Jesus 100% correctly. You may not feel this way but those that do can’t just blindly comply. It takes a long faith journey that fuses both love and truth so we find peace and happiness. No wonder so few ever get there.

I agree with you, Befink.

But here’s something for you to consider: how is it that you know what Jesus said, what he taught, what God has revealed?

Is it only through the Church, or is there some other avenue of revelation that you consider to be “kosher” enough to speak for God?

If it’s the Church, but the Church doesn’t get it right all the time, then what’s the canon you use for discerning what’s true and what’s not? What is it that you use to conform your conscience to?

 

[PRmerger]

Finally, I thought your question was which teachings I still struggle with not which I’ve changed on. There were several changes but for sake of privacy you’ll just have to accept that it’s between me and God.

Fair enough.

But you do see the point of my question, yes?

If you’ve devised a belief system (and here I mean a general “you”) that happens to agree with all of your own personal beliefs, then it stands to reason that this belief system is modeled after the Almighty Self, rather than the Almighty, right?

IOW: someone who struggles with the teaching on, say, divorce and re-marriage, decides that well, God really wouldn’t want someone to stay single for the rest of her life after marrying a hoodlum, may be simply creating a false god. Especially if everything she struggles with she decides that God agrees with her and not the Church–that seems pretty suspicious, no?

 

[Befink]

Hi PR,

Fair questions so let me try to give you my thoughts.

First of all, fascinating aspects of God’s creation of us is that we all have a moral compass. We also all seek God. Morality and spiritual curiousity are universal traits in humans. This was true well before the Catholic church existed. Today we see that everyone is good at the core whether they are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc., etc. Everyone seeks to do good. Everyone seeks happiness. Everyone seeks God (atheists too. They’re never at peace with that belief). Our sinful nature is also universal but we never enjoy being bad. Typically we lie to ourselves to try to justify our actions. We are very good at it in fact. Put in religious terms, Satan knows he can’t influence us directly to do bad things so he works though our egos. Therefore we sin in the name of righteousness. That can be as big as going to war in the name of religion. That can be as little as being angry at someone, even if they ‘deserve it’.

The guidance comes from the most important commandment: “love your neighbor as I have loved you”. Jesus showed us the right way to live. God is love. The church understands this as well. Everything they teach is intended to teach us how to love. When we act in love we can not sin. It is always the right path. Love must act as the foundation of one’s faith.

The Church is excellent at what they do. In my opinion they are the best out there by far. The sacraments we have help us build a relationship with God. Reconciliation, for example, makes it much harder for Satan to work in us when we have to come clean on our sin.

My struggle is that the Church is not perfect as has been shown many times in history and yes even non-infallible doctrine has changed in favor of greater love. Even today, very little of it is infallible because the church knows it can’t guarantee that they have it right. If the church were perfect, all teachings would be infallible. It would be as if Jesus himself taught all of it.

I’m passionate about gay issues because the Church struggles with it at well. I see us treating a class of people as second class. That is not love. That never goes well in any society. I see us pushing gays out of our churches leaving them bitter at God. That is not love. I see us fight to keep them from adopting children. Children are in the foster system wondering, “who will love me?”. There are not enough straight couples out there but there are gay couples saying, “we will love you” but the Church is against this. Why? That is not love.

Truth is obviously important too but it’s dangerous to use it as a foundation of faith instead of love. Truth can change. It can be brittle. Just look at what Biblical literalists are struggling with. They are afraid of science because of what would happen if their truth isn’t true. With love as a foundation, we don’t have those fears. Catholics once struggled with this but now we know better.

Hope that helps understand where I’m coming from and why I keep asking for a solution for gays that treats them with love. Understand if I saw it, I would seriously call all my gays friends and teach them to follow it so they can finally be at peace after all the suffering they’ve endured.

 

[thunder_brain]

I heard a discussion between Charlie Rose and the Lawyer against Prop 8. The lawyer said that he proved that gay marriage was not detrimental to society — Therefore his opinion was definitive and the question about gay marriage is settled: pro gay marriage and against prop 8. Was there any counter arguments? Where can I get a copy of these arguments.

 

[Jupiter_Victor]

I belive some of hyou people are abit sick in the head…
democracy is not an excuse to deny rights to a minoroty group.

if that were the case there would have black emancipation and women’s liberation would have all been thrown aside in the early years too.

the governments have learnt from the past that it is job is to make sure all groups have their rights not just maintain what the religious groups wants.

Gay marriage will not change the church. the churches will still have the right to decide who can and who cannot marry inside a Catholic Church Building in a Catholic Sacrament. civil marriage for homosexuals does not change the churches rights in the matter.
it is the majority of catholics on here who are aiding the taking away the rights for homosexuals. if you don’t want a gay marriage then don’t get one. but leave the rest of us who do the option to do so!
this is not a theocracy, your church does not dictate my morals or the morals to a good portion of the world anymore. your churches rules and disciplines and beliefs should only affect you guys and no-one else.

 

[Jupiter_Victor]

Hi PR,

Fair questions so let me try to give you my thoughts.

First of all, fascinating aspects of God’s creation of us is that we all have a moral compass. We also all seek God. Morality and spiritual curiousity are universal traits in humans. This was true well before the Catholic church existed. Today we see that everyone is good at the core whether they are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc., etc. Everyone seeks to do good. Everyone seeks happiness. Everyone seeks God (atheists too. They’re never at peace with that belief). Our sinful nature is also universal but we never enjoy being bad. Typically we lie to ourselves to try to justify our actions. We are very good at it in fact. Put in religious terms, Satan knows he can’t influence us directly to do bad things so he works though our egos. Therefore we sin in the name of righteousness. That can be as big as going to war in the name of religion. That can be as little as being angry at someone, even if they ‘deserve it’.

The guidance comes from the most important commandment: “love your neighbor as I have loved you”. Jesus showed us the right way to live. God is love. The church understands this as well. Everything they teach is intended to teach us how to love. When we act in love we can not sin. It is always the right path. Love must act as the foundation of one’s faith.

The Church is excellent at what they do. In my opinion they are the best out there by far. The sacraments we have help us build a relationship with God. Reconciliation, for example, makes it much harder for Satan to work in us when we have to come clean on our sin.

My struggle is that the Church is not perfect as has been shown many times in history and yes even non-infallible doctrine has changed in favor of greater love. Even today, very little of it is infallible because the church knows it can’t guarantee that they have it right. If the church were perfect, all teachings would be infallible. It would be as if Jesus himself taught all of it.

I’m passionate about gay issues because the Church struggles with it at well. I see us treating a class of people as second class. That is not love. That never goes well in any society. I see us pushing gays out of our churches leaving them bitter at God. That is not love. I see us fight to keep them from adopting children. Children are in the foster system wondering, “who will love me?”. There are not enough straight couples out there but there are gay couples saying, “we will love you” but the Church is against this. Why? That is not love.

Truth is obviously important too but it’s dangerous to use it as a foundation of faith instead of love. Truth can change. It can be brittle. Just look at what Biblical literalists are struggling with. They are afraid of science because of what would happen if their truth isn’t true. With love as a foundation, we don’t have those fears. Catholics once struggled with this but now we know better.

Hope that helps understand where I’m coming from and why I keep asking for a solution for gays that treats them with love. Understand if I saw it, I would seriously call all my gays friends and teach them to follow it so they can finally be at peace after all the suffering they’ve endured.

I think that is prob the most beautiful put and most profound thing ive read on this topic. you have restored my faith that Christians do have the ability to live with homosexuals as their neighbors and that we can love one another.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

Fair questions so let me try to give you my thoughts.

First of all, fascinating aspects of God’s creation of us is that we all have a moral compass. We also all seek God. Morality and spiritual curiousity are universal traits in humans. This was true well before the Catholic church existed. Today we see that everyone is good at the core whether they are Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, atheist, agnostic, etc., etc. Everyone seeks to do good. Everyone seeks happiness. Everyone seeks God (atheists too. They’re never at peace with that belief). Our sinful nature is also universal but we never enjoy being bad. Typically we lie to ourselves to try to justify our actions. We are very good at it in fact. Put in religious terms, Satan knows he can’t influence us directly to do bad things so he works though our egos. Therefore we sin in the name of righteousness. That can be as big as going to war in the name of religion. That can be as little as being angry at someone, even if they ‘deserve it’.

The guidance comes from the most important commandment: “love your neighbor as I have loved you”. Jesus showed us the right way to live. God is love. The church understands this as well. Everything they teach is intended to teach us how to love. When we act in love we can not sin. It is always the right path. Love must act as the foundation of one’s faith.

The Church is excellent at what they do. In my opinion they are the best out there by far. The sacraments we have help us build a relationship with God. Reconciliation, for example, makes it much harder for Satan to work in us when we have to come clean on our sin.

My struggle is that the Church is not perfect as has been shown many times in history and yes even non-infallible doctrine has changed in favor of greater love. Even today, very little of it is infallible because the church knows it can’t guarantee that they have it right. If the church were perfect, all teachings would be infallible. It would be as if Jesus himself taught all of it.

Beautiful!

2 thoughts:
You do realize that the Church has never claimed to be perfect, right?

Is there any belief that you’ve changed because the Church, as the voice of God, has declared it to be so?

 

[PRmerger]

I’m passionate about gay issues because the Church struggles with it at well. I see us treating a class of people as second class. That is not love. That never goes well in any society. I see us pushing gays out of our churches leaving them bitter at God. That is not love. I see us fight to keep them from adopting children. Children are in the foster system wondering, “who will love me?”. There are not enough straight couples out there but there are gay couples saying, “we will love you” but the Church is against this. Why? That is not love.

Now, this, I don’t understand.

How is it that the Church is treating homosexuals as “second class” people? Is it because they cannot marry according to Church teaching?

If so, then do you think that the Church is treating divorcees as second class people? (And then you’ll have to claim that Jesus does this as well, for, of course, the Church is only claiming that which Christ himself proposed.)

And if the Church is treating homosexuals as second class people because they can’t marry, then am I being treated as a second class person because, since I’m already married, I can’t love someone else, should I feel the desire to? (Calm down, folks! This is just a rhetorical! )

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Beautiful!

2 thoughts:
You do realize that the Church has never claimed to be perfect, right?

Is there any belief that you’ve changed because the Church, as the voice of God, has declared it to be so?

Well, as a nuance of your statement. The Church declares that its teaching on faith and morals is perfect, because they were given to her directly from Christ and are protected by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t a quality that is indiginous to the Church, but rather inherited by the Church from God as part of its work of evangelization.

 

[PRmerger]

Well, as a nuance of your statement. The Church declares that its teaching on faith and morals is perfect, because they were given to her directly from Christ and are protected by the Holy Spirit. It isn’t a quality that is indiginous to the Church, but rather inherited by the Church from God as part of its work of evangelization.

Yes, it must be understood with some nuance.

“The Church on earth is endowed already with a sanctity that is real though imperfect.” CCC 825

That is, the Church’s holiness is imperfect. Her teachings are, however, true and without error.

And even if they were in error, so what? Do we not have to obey our parents even if they’re fallible?

Did not Moses lead the Israelites in the wrong direction in the desert, yet they were bound to follow him as God was indeed guiding them all the way?

 

[Befink]

Beautiful!

2 thoughts:
You do realize that the Church has never claimed to be perfect, right?

Is there any belief that you’ve changed because the Church, as the voice of God, has declared it to be so?

I know the church doesn’t claim perfection, particular in actions. There is also non-infallible doctrine which they ask us to take on faith as well although they do make changes sometimes. I’m still confused on some of the details beyond that but then again we haven’t done this in RCIA yet. That’s why I ask where these issues stand in Catholic doctrine.

Have I changed my beliefs? Yes, and thanks for asking because it allowed me a chance to reflect on my faith journey over the past year. Much of the change has come with dogma. I now believe the immaculate conception, the ressurection, that the blood and body of Christ is real, that my baptism will forgive a lifetime of sins.

What’s been so tough for me is that I have a very active logical mind that likes to work in details so I can’t just take a big leap such as believing all teaching are perfect, particularly when the example set by those who believe that isn’t always what it should be. Therefore I end up hashing out every teaching I’m skeptical about individually, trying to find the love behind the teaching. It’s the hard way but there’s a significant benefit not only for myself by my ability to evangelize others. I can use this knowledge to help atheists explore spirituality, agnostics to consider organized religion, casual practicers to become regular practicers, evangelical Christians to deepen faith past the literal bible, Catholics to become better Catholics. Along the way everyone helps me get better too. The elusive one is talking to my gay friends about faith. I can usually convince them that God is not the one they are really mad at, a big step in the right direction. After that, it hurts me that I can’t recommend my own church because they won’t find peace. The best I can do is encourage them to go to a gay church. At least that’s better than nothing.

My hope is to eventually learn how truth and love come together to achieve true peace. Imagine the example we set then. Just being around someone like that is such a warm experience that you say, “you’re Catholic? Where to I sign up?”

“Second class citizen” refers to legally or socially treating a group of people in a lesser manner. I felt today’s readings and homily hit the issues well. We tend to push aside certain people then are surprised that they lash out in ways that are harmful to society. This is true even if the reason they are outcast is due to sinful behavior such as thieves, prostitutes, child molestors etc. The poor are the best example but gay rights apply as well. Our religious sacraments aren’t so much the issue as pushing a legal agenda onto greater society. Your other examples don’t apply because those groups have full legal rights in partnerships and child custody.

 

[rlg94086]

I know the church doesn’t claim perfection, particular in actions. There is also non-infallible doctrine which they ask us to take on faith as well although they do make changes sometimes. I’m still confused on some of the details beyond that but then again we haven’t done this in RCIA yet. That’s why I ask where these issues stand in Catholic doctrine.

Have I changed my beliefs? Yes, and thanks for asking because it allowed me a chance to reflect on my faith journey over the past year. Much of the change has come with dogma. I now believe the immaculate conception, the ressurection, that the blood and body of Christ is real, that my baptism will forgive a lifetime of sins.

What’s been so tough for me is that I have a very active logical mind that likes to work in details so I can’t just take a big leap such as believing all teaching are perfect, particularly when the example set by those who believe that isn’t always what it should be. Therefore I end up hashing out every teaching I’m skeptical about individually, trying to find the love behind the teaching. It’s the hard way but there’s a significant benefit not only for myself by my ability to evangelize others. I can use this knowledge to help atheists explore spirituality, agnostics to consider organized religion, casual practicers to become regular practicers, evangelical Christians to deepen faith past the literal bible, Catholics to become better Catholics. Along the way everyone helps me get better too. The elusive one is talking to my gay friends about faith. I can usually convince them that God is not the one they are really mad at, a big step in the right direction. After that, it hurts me that I can’t recommend my own church because they won’t find peace. The best I can do is encourage them to go to a gay church. At least that’s better than nothing.

My hope is to eventually learn how truth and love come together to achieve true peace. Imagine the example we set then. Just being around someone like that is such a warm experience that you say, “you’re Catholic? Where to I sign up?”

“Second class citizen” refers to legally or socially treating a group of people in a lesser manner. I felt today’s readings and homily hit the issues well. We tend to push aside certain people then are surprised that they lash out in ways that are harmful to society. This is true even if the reason they are outcast is due to sinful behavior such as thieves, prostitutes, child molestors etc. The poor are the best example but gay rights apply as well. Our religious sacraments aren’t so much the issue as pushing a legal agenda onto greater society. Your other examples don’t apply because those groups have full legal rights in partnerships and child custody.

True peace is found when one’s will is in-line with God’s will. It sounds like the “peace” you are encouraging your gay friends to embrace is a worldly peace based on acceptance of their sins.

The way we minister to our fellow sinners is to speak the truth in love. Jesus did indeed embrace all sinners, but when He healed them, He would also say “go and sin no more.” He embraced the sinner, but He never condoned their sin.

I agree it is very difficult to minister to those who are convinced their sin is not sin. I still love them, embrace them, pray for them and encourage them, but I don’t shy away from speaking the truth. This is true, regardless of the sin they are convicted of. Meanwhile, I keep working on my own sinfulness.

If I may, though I know you felt that I insulted you earlier, I have been where you are. I’m also logical, and I am a convert. I struggled with a lot of Church teaching, but I was also coddled because the parish I belonged to shared a false belief in supremacy of conscience - i.e. the thought that a properly formed conscience could be at odds with dogma. My turnaround happened when I humbly accepted the authority of the Church. I then accepted the teachings, even the hard ones, while continuing in my struggle to understand and fully embrace them. The humble acceptance had to come first. I still have a long way to go.