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

[PRmerger]

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.

Awesome! That’s *exactly *what I was asking.

And here’s some further food for thought: find the Church that Christ established, and then *conform your views to that *Church. *Anyone who says, "I disagree with the Church on " ought to consider really, really hard if they want to say this, because what they are essentially saying is, "I disagree with Christ *on ".

For the truth is, no one would know what Christ said except for the fact that the Catholic Church discerned, guarded and proclaimed the Word of God for you and for me.

So if you accept that the Church got it right when she says that God is love, then why not accept that the Church got it right when she says that homosexuality is a sin.

If you don’t accept one, how can you accept that she got it right with the other?

 

[rlg94086]

Awesome! That’s *exactly *what I was asking.

And here’s some further food for thought: find the Church that Christ established, and then *conform your views to that **Church. Anyone who says, "I disagree with the Church on " ought to consider really, really hard if they want to say this, because what they are essentially saying is, "I disagree with Christ *on ".

For the truth is, no one would know what Christ said except for the fact that the Catholic Church discerned, guarded and proclaimed the Word of God for you and for me.

So if you accept that the Church got it right when she says that God is love, then why not accept that the Church got it right when she says that homosexuality is a sin.

If you don’t accept one, how can you accept that she got it right with the other?

 

[PRmerger]

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.

I, too, have a very active, logical mind that likes to work in details.

So here’s the thing, Befink: you are working under the misapprehension that you can only believe in teachings that “are perfect”.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that God wills that a child obey his parents? If so, why? Are the parents infallible? Must a child only obey when the parent is 100% correct? Or, since all authority comes from God, and that the authority possessed by the parents is God-given, should the child listen to his parents even if they’re not perfect?

Thus, if you believe a child ought to obey his fallible parents, then why is it that we presume we can disobey the Church simply because it is not perfect?

(Note: I predict a response such as, “If a parent demands that a child commit an immoral act, then naturally the child need not obey.” And my response to that would be: “Of course. And if you can come up with a directive by the Church authorities that is immoral, then please proffer it here!”)

As Catholic poster itsjustdave1988 said:

Sometimes we suffer the wrongs imposed upon us by authority, out of charity. Jesus did that, right? Didn’t Jesus even tell his disciples to do as the fallible Pharisees taught, but not to do what they did? Even though the Pharisees were not infallible, they sat upon the seat of Moses (cf. Matt 23:2). Thus, by that authority,** they were to be obeyed**, until such time that God established his eternal Church upon the rock of Peter (cf. Matt 16:18)

As for the Truth…it is Christ. We follow the Truth when we follow Him. He is the one who tells us to obey our fallible leaders which He himself empowered. Our response out to be “faith that worketh through charity.”

Heb 13:17 “Obey your leaders and submit to them; for they are keeping watch over your souls, as men who will have to give account.”

I really don’t think enough people prayerfully reflect upon the above passage, especially Americans, who often think they are not obliged to submit to anyone.

Now, it is true that we must reconcile Heb 13:17 with the other Scripture passages, such as this one…

Acts 5:29 “We must obey God rather than men.”

Thus, St. Thomas Aquinas states that there are two reasons why one is not bound to obey their lawful superior: 1) they command something outside the scope of their lawful authority, and 2) they command something contrary to higher authority.

Thus, we are bound to the lawful commands of lawful superiors, so long as they act in accord with their God-given authority, whether we agree with them or not.

As a military man, I have no difficulty submitting to very stupid superiors. I understand that they are my superior, not because they are always right, but because they were commission and appointed by lawful authority. I often suffer to submit to the will of another, even though I believe they are wrong. Being wrong is not the same as being contrary to God’s will.

For example, wasn’t Moses often going the “wrong” direction, away from the promised land while wandering in the desert? There were many who didn’t want to submit to him anymore (Korah, cf. Num 16). Yet, even though Moses was headed the wrong way, he was being navigated by God every step of the way. We cannot always understand why God navigates his holy people in divergent directions. But the response of the faithful is the “obedience of faith” spoken of by St. Paul in the Epistle to the Romans, even if we can’t understand why.

The problem is that many people aren’t really obeying God when they enter into homosexual relations, or appreviate the Bible and start their own church like Luther did. They aren’t really applying Act 5:29, but instead obey their own faulty understanding rather than the submitting to the Church, what Scripture calls “the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)

Everyone needs limits and correction from lawful authority, because we have a tendancy, as individuals, to go faster than the speed limit, for example, and otherwise rationalize our unlawful actions, pretending that God wants me to do X, despite the norms established by lawful authority.

By doing so we make our faulty self the de facto pillar of truth, which is certainly contrary to God’s will. It is certainly contrary to Christ’s affirmation that the final arbiter is the Church (see Matt 18:15ff). We are commanded by Scripture to “listen to the Church.” All the evil in the word can be attributed to a failure to do so. How are we to responsond “if he refuses to listen even to the church” as the final arbiter of truth? And make no mistake, heresy and dissent from the teachings of the Church is certainly a sin against Christ’s brethren. Scripture is quite clear in this regard.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is a puzzling paradigm.

Substitute any sin for homosexuality and see how that works: you want the Church to change its teaching on, say, adultery, and that way you could recommend the Catholic Church to an adulterer because then he would be able to find peace (and, tacitly, acceptance) there?

Ree-DAHNK-u-lous!

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?”

I understand your point completely.

But I caution you against judging a Church by its people. As the story about Catholic curmudgeon Walker Percy* goes: Apparently, after an encounter with a snippy woman in which he was gruff–and, perhaps rude, boorish, curt–this woman sniffed, “And you call yourself a Catholic!” to which he replied, “My dear, you should imagine what I would be like were I not a Catholic.”

IOW: Just because a person doesn’t act in the way you believe a Catholic ought to act, doesn’t mean that the Church hasn’t infused him with graces that you can’t even imagine!

*It was brought to my attention that the actual subject of this story may have been another Catholic curmudgeon, Evelyn Waugh, but no one is actually sure of the source.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

This is simply :whacky:

The Church has not “pushed aside” the poor, homosexuals, thieves, prostitutes, child molestors. All are welcome to be infused with God’s grace and come to perfection in Christ.

Your other examples don’t apply because those groups have full legal rights in partnerships and child custody.

Huh?

 

[Befink]

Hi everyone,

First, thanks for those posts. It gives me a lot to consider. At this stage though I’m committed to love as the foundation of my faith. Who knows where my journey will go, or yours for that matter.

One thing worth understanding about liberal Christians is that they never question God’s teaching. Nor do agnostics or even atheists. It’s all about whether those sources which claim to be God’s truth are correct. I respect that this flies in the face of your foundation of truth because you take it as a given that sources are correct and work from there. Probably not worth hashing it out much more than we already have for now. In the end none of us are perfect but we all seek to do good. When you take a step back you realize we don’t disagree on much.

I do have an open question about what we are even disagreeing on regarding prop 8. Your last posts referred back to sinful behavior of homosexuals but I keep asking about issues which are not directly tied to sinful nature. My point is that someone could have same sex tendency and abstain. What official teaching is there that such a person should not be allowed legal unions or to adopt children? I don’t see that there is such a teaching. So what we’re really disagreeing on regarding prop 8 is a political position the church chose to take by their own action.

My point about welcoming everyone is not one of agreement. It’s more about tolerance. If two men arrive at church holding hands, you don’t know if they’re having sex or not. Sure most are but you don’t know that particular couple. Imagine how bad you would feel about giving them a hard time only to find out they abstain. Suppose instead you are right that they are having sex. How does your advice help them in any way? They know the doctrine. It’s been rammed down their throats by now. The priest is probably already aware of their situation and doing his part to help them. Should he ask them to leave church, saying “sorry you can’t love God here”? I thought we were a hospital for sinners. How does your judgement improve their lives, or yours? Same goes for adulterers. Same for all other sinners. Worry about your own sins and trust God to handle theirs. God is much more loving and patient than us. Best we can do is treat them with love and be there for them if they want us to walk with them on their path.

Cheers

 

[rlg94086]

Hi everyone,

First, thanks for those posts. It gives me a lot to consider. At this stage though I’m committed to love as the foundation of my faith. Who knows where my journey will go, or yours for that matter.

One thing worth understanding about liberal Christians is that they never question God’s teaching. Nor do agnostics or even atheists. It’s all about whether those sources which claim to be God’s truth are correct. I respect that this flies in the face of your foundation of truth because you take it as a given that sources are correct and work from there. Probably not worth hashing it out much more than we already have for now. In the end none of us are perfect but we all seek to do good. When you take a step back you realize we don’t disagree on much.

I do have an open question about what we are even disagreeing on regarding prop 8. Your last posts referred back to sinful behavior of homosexuals but I keep asking about issues which are not directly tied to sinful nature. My point is that someone could have same sex tendency and abstain. What official teaching is there that such a person should not be allowed legal unions or to adopt children? I don’t see that there is such a teaching. So what we’re really disagreeing on regarding prop 8 is a political position the church chose to take by their own action.

My point about welcoming everyone is not one of agreement. It’s more about tolerance. If two men arrive at church holding hands, you don’t know if they’re having sex or not. Sure most are but you don’t know that particular couple. Imagine how bad you would feel about giving them a hard time only to find out they abstain. Suppose instead you are right that they are having sex. How does your advice help them in any way? They know the doctrine. It’s been rammed down their throats by now. The priest is probably already aware of their situation and doing his part to help them. Should he ask them to leave church, saying “sorry you can’t love God here”? I thought we were a hospital for sinners. How does your judgement improve their lives, or yours? Same goes for adulterers. Same for all other sinners. Worry about your own sins and trust God to handle theirs. God is much more loving and patient than us. Best we can do is treat them with love and be there for them if they want us to walk with them on their path.

Cheers

Oh brother.

So, we are to assume that every same sex couple holding hands is living a chaste relationship.

Sure. And, all the heterosexual couples living together are also abstaining. We are just being judgemental.

 

[PRmerger]

One thing worth understanding about liberal Christians is that they never question God’s teaching.

It would be helpful if it could be demonstrated how, exactly, a liberal Christian knows what God’s teaching is without the Church?

When you take a step back you realize we don’t disagree on much.

Indeed.

My point is that someone could have same sex tendency and abstain.

Yes, that’s the way he/she’ll be happiest, to be sure.

What official teaching is there that such a person should not be allowed legal unions or to adopt children? I don’t see that there is such a teaching. So what we’re really disagreeing on regarding prop 8 is a political position the church chose to take by their own action.

Yes–you are correct. There is no “official teaching” that a homosexual couple who is abstaining can’t adopt children. The Church is, as is her duty, simply articulating that which is helpful for the salvation of souls.

They know the doctrine. It’s been rammed down their throats by now.

Now this, I doubt highly. If you ask a homosexual Catholic couple attending Mass if they could articulate the Theology of the Body, you’d get a blank stare most likely.

Best we can do is treat them with love and be there for them if they want us to walk with them on their path.

No doubt!

 

[Befink]

Rig, you’re absolutely right that it would be silly to assume those people aren’t sinning. My point is that even if you knew for sure they were, what value do you bring by your judgement, anger, unsolicited advice? All you do is get them and yourself upset making you guilty of venial sins. If you love God you must trust Him to handle it. Jesus sets a great example. He pulls these people in by showing them love. We are called to be like Him. His “cast the first stone” teaching also comes to mind.

PR, excellent question regarding the source of morality for skeptics. I’m not expecting you to agree with any of the following but just help you understand their mindset. Since humans have a fully formed conscience we always rely on that. Even deferring to Church teaching is a matter of conscience to me. We strive to do good and act in love in everything we do no matter what our religious beliefs are. In fact most world religions don’t work with an authoritative centralized church like we have. The problem most skeptics run into is that they don’t trust religious teaching. Why? Because the teachings and/or actions fall short of what would be expected from a divinely inspired organization. If these skeptics are liberal, they’re concerned that conservative Christians seem contrary to love on issues like social welfare, environment, gay rights, willingness to go to war, etc. The conservative cause hurts itself most with their anger, judgment, etc. discussed earlier. The result for most skeptics is that they rely on their own conscience but as you know this has its own risks because ego and emotion are still present.

The liberal Christian (about 20% of the U.S. Population) can do better. I first read the Bible about ten years ago. What first hit home for me was learning that Jesus was against the religious establishment like I was. He taught that spirituality boils down to “love your God, love your neighbor, love yourself”. I think liberal Christians whether Catholic or not typically use that teaching as a foundation of faith. When making moral descions, we’re guided by “what would Jesus do?”. We pay close attention to His teachings in the Gospel. A good liberal, like a good conservative will pray to the Holy Spirit frequently.

One technique I use is daily meditation. I can ask questions, give thanks and run some of things I did that day which are on my conscience and try to sort through what I could have done better. I find that calming the mind allows me to step outside of myself and therefore any emotion or ego I had. Having such an active mind normally, you can imagine I’m pretty hard on myself. Since gay issues are a hot button for me, I don’t take it lightly that I’m not in compliance with the Church. I’ve been praying on it for years. So far the Holy Spirit has not given me guidance beyond my conscience. Again God is patient, far more than I am.

Cheers

 

[rlg94086]

Rig, you’re absolutely right that it would be silly to assume those people aren’t sinning. My point is that even if you knew for sure they were, what value do you bring by your judgement, anger, unsolicited advice? All you do is get them and yourself upset making you guilty of venial sins. If you love God you must trust Him to handle it. Jesus sets a great example. He pulls these people in by showing them love. We are called to be like Him. His “cast the first stone” teaching also comes to mind.

Excuse me? How am I handling the situation when a gay couple comes to my Church? You seem to be assuming…and judging me. Good work.

 

[PRmerger]

PR, excellent question regarding the source of morality for skeptics. I’m not expecting you to agree with any of the following but just help you understand their mindset. Since humans have a fully formed conscience we always rely on that. Even deferring to Church teaching is a matter of conscience to me. We strive to do good and act in love in everything we do no matter what our religious beliefs are.

Of course. And this is very Catholic of you to say.

In fact most world religions don’t work with an authoritative centralized church like we have. The problem most skeptics run into is that they don’t trust religious teaching. Why? Because the teachings and/or actions fall short of what would be expected from a divinely inspired organization.

Well, my opinion is that most skeptics don’t trust religious teaching because they don’t agree with it.

Where it conforms to their own views, as in, “God is love!”, well, they wholeheartedly trust in the Church’s teaching here. Why do they believe the Church could get this right, but something else wrong??

For, truly, the ONLY way they know that God is love, and that God loves them is because, well, the Church told them so.

So it’s curious that the Church could happen to get it right in this case–and it happens to fall in rather conveniently with the skeptics own personal views–but get it wrong on, say, gay marriage.

How do you know when she’s right and when she’s wrong?

Meditation?

Can a guy like Fred Phelps, who uses the exact same paradigm as you, be right? Simply because he uses the same method of coming to truth as you do?

 

[rlg94086]

Our priest posted this excerpt of Cardinal Ratzinger’s writing in our Sunday bulletin, in regards to “gay marriage.” I think it is apropos in this thread, and I encourage those who wonder about Church teaching on this subject to click on the link to read its entirety.

catholicinsight.com/online/culture/article_621.shtml

The issue is the rupture between sexuality and marriage. Separated from motherhood, sex has remained without locus and has lost its point of reference: it is a kind of drifting mine, a problem and at the same time an omnipresent power.

Man as product
After the separation between sexuality and motherhood was effected, sexuality was also separated from procreation. The [technical] movement, however, ended up going in an opposite direction: procreation without sexuality. Out of this follow the increasingly shocking medical-technical experiments so prevalent in our day where, precisely, procreation is independent of sexuality. Biological manipulation is striving to uncouple man from nature (the very existence of which is being disputed). There is an attempt to transform man, to manipulate him as one does every other “thing”: he is nothing but a product planned according to one’s pleasure.

        At the end of this march to shatter fundamental, natural linkages (and not, as is said, only those that are cultural), there are unimaginable consequences which, however, derive from the very logic that lies at the base of a venture of this kind.

Equality of all forms of sexuality
It logically follows from the consequences of a sexuality which is no longer linked to motherhood and to procreation, that every form of sexuality is equivalent and therefore of equal worth. It is. a matter. of lucidly drawing the consequences from the premises: it is, in fact, logical that pleasure, the libido of the individual, becomes the only possible point of reference of sex. No longer having an objective reason to justify it, sex seeks the subjective reason in the gratification of the desire, in the most “satisfying” answer for the individual, to the instincts no longer subject to rational restraints. Everyone is free to give to his personal libido the content considered suitable for himself.

They become "rights"
Hence, it naturally follows that all forms of sexual gratification are transformed into the “rights” of the individual. Thus, to cite an especially current example, homosexuality becomes an inalienable right. Given the aforementioned premises, how can one deny it? On the contrary, its full recognition appears to be an aspect of human liberation.

        There are, however, other consequences of this uprooting of the human person in the depth of his nature. Fecundity separated from marriage based on a lifelong fidelity turns from being a blessing (as it was understood in every culture) into its opposite: that is to say a threat to the free development of the "individual's right to happiness." Thus, abortion, institutionalized, free and socially guaranteed, becomes another "right," another form of "liberation."

A crisis within the Church
The now dominant mentality attacks the very foundations of the morality of the Church, which, as I have already said, if she remains true to herself risks appearing like an anachronistic construct, a bothersome, alien body. Thus the moral theologians of the Western Hemisphere, in their efforts to still remain “credible” in our society, find themselves facing a difficult alternative: it seems to them that they must choose between opposing modern society and opposing the Magisterium.

The number of those who prefer the latter type of opposition is larger or smaller depending on how the question is posed: consequently they set out on a search for theories and systems that allow compromises between Catholicism and current conceptions. But this growing difference between the Magisterium and the “new” moral theologies leads to unforeseeable consequences, also precisely for the reason that the Church with her schools and her hospitals still occupies an important social role (especially in America). Thus we stand before the difficult alternative: either the Church finds an understanding, a compromise with the values propounded by society which she wants to continue to serve, or she decides to remain faithful to her own values (and in the Church’s view these are the values that protect man in his deepest needs) as the result of which she finds herself on the margin of society.

 

[PRmerger]

What first hit home for me was learning that Jesus was against the religious establishment like I was. He taught that spirituality boils down to “love your God, love your neighbor, love yourself”.

Ah, yes. The life of Jesus and his words are our guide…true, this.

However, do you find it peculiar that liberal Catholics accept the authority of the Church on this, too?

They believe that somehow the Holy Spirit was able to correctly guide the Church into discerning that the Gospel of Mark is inspired but that the Gospel of Thomas isn’t…but that the Holy Spirit just can’t muster enough stuff to have the Church get it right on

 

[Befink]

Hi PR,

Your points are well made and its hard for me to explain otherwise. I feel most liberals are not hung-up on which details are right or wrong. It’s just a matter of sticking to the basics. When details are needed, go with love.

For many, it’s too casual but luckily there are several dedicated liberal Catholics I know who provide good role models. Heck, my mother-in-law had non-Catholic parents and decided to convert on her own. Not a big deal until you learn that she was 13!

In my case, why do I go to mass? We had a difficult situation a year ago. My wife was raised Catholic so we decided to start going. Why did I keep going after a while? It’s not a logical answer. I certainly struggled with a lot of Catholic truths, much more then than now. It didn’t help that a particularly conservative priest gave an impression on me that being Catholic was about following the rules. Ultimately though, I feel God when I’m at church, just like you I’m sure. Talk about keeping it simple.

I’ll also reiterate that I still feel being liberal or conservative is not the way to go. Over time I’m hoping to deepen faith to learn the mysteries of happiness. In the meantime, I’m one of the vast majority of Christians who generally fits the description of either liberal or conservative.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR,

Your points are well made and its hard for me to explain otherwise. I feel most liberals are not hung-up on which details are right or wrong. It’s just a matter of sticking to the basics. When details are needed, go with love.

For many, it’s too casual but luckily there are several dedicated liberal Catholics I know who provide good role models. Heck, my mother-in-law had non-Catholic parents and decided to convert on her own. Not a big deal until you learn that she was 13!

In my case, why do I go to mass? We had a difficult situation a year ago. My wife was raised Catholic so we decided to start going. Why did I keep going after a while? It’s not a logical answer. I certainly struggled with a lot of Catholic truths, much more then than now. It didn’t help that a particularly conservative priest gave an impression on me that being Catholic was about following the rules. Ultimately though, I feel God when I’m at church, just like you I’m sure. Talk about keeping it simple.

I’ll also reiterate that I still feel being liberal or conservative is not the way to go. Over time I’m hoping to deepen faith to learn the mysteries of happiness. In the meantime, I’m one of the vast majority of Christians who generally fits the description of either liberal or conservative.

Beautiful!

It’s a non-sequitur, but beautiful sentiments, nonetheless.

Again, I’d like to proffer this: how is it that liberal Catholics know what Christ said, what God has revealed? How do they know that God is love, love is the foundation, and that God loves them?

Truly, the ONLY way they know that God is love, and that God loves them is because, well, the Church told them so.

So it’s curious that the Church could happen to get it right in this case–and it happens to fall in rather conveniently with the skeptics own personal views–but get it wrong on, say, gay marriage.

How do you know when she’s right and when she’s wrong?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Beautiful!

It’s a non-sequitur, but beautiful sentiments, nonetheless.

Again, I’d like to proffer this: how is it that liberal Catholics know what Christ said, what God has revealed? How do they know that God is love, love is the foundation, and that God loves them?

Truly, the ONLY way they know that God is love, and that God loves them is because, well, the Church told them so.

So it’s curious that the Church could happen to get it right in this case–and it happens to fall in rather conveniently with the skeptics own personal views–but get it wrong on, say, gay marriage.

How do you know when she’s right and when she’s wrong?

Fantastic!!!

 

[PRmerger]

Fantastic!!!

shaw:

 

[peduzzi89]

Everytime I click on a “hot topic” in the emails that I get, I’m disappointed. I click on it wanting to debate the topic at hand only to find that by the end of the thread the conversation has already shifted topic. I really wanted to talk about the courts most recent decision.

 

[rlg94086]

Everytime I click on a “hot topic” in the emails that I get, I’m disappointed. I click on it wanting to debate the topic at hand only to find that by the end of the thread the conversation has already shifted topic. I really wanted to talk about the courts most recent decision.

Feel free to. What is your comment and/or question?

 

[melekali]

I would suggest the courts don’t make the laws in this country. The Congress does. We need to petition Congress to make a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman and make another defining life as beginning at conception. Otherwise let’s have a Constitutional Convention to add these two as amendments to the Constitution.