Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Yeah…they’re out there…I can only say: “Forgive them father…for they know not what they do.”
- Status
U
unstoppable_II
Guest
Where this idea collapses is that no matter who is in charge, his views will be forced on the rest of us. When you vote for Candidate “A” instead of Candidate “B” you are in effect voting to have “A’s” views “forced” on the rest of us. Here is a good essay on legislating morality:
“The Reality About Legislating Morality”
By Selwyn Duke
renewamerica.com/columns/duke/040914
And no one can, with a straight face, claim that the homosexual movement is not trying to force their views on society.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
That is hardly the case.
While ANY kind of a “privileged class” is wrong…there are a great many people (Me included) who do not need an organized religion or a Magisterium to tell them that homosexuality is unnatural and a same sex relationship can really not be considered a marriage.
N
nothingclever
Guest
So you need the state to reinforce your sacrament with special recognition and tax breaks because… Do I get special secular status for being baptized or confirmed? Just curious, Id like a nice pat on the back, or government recognized privilege as well, for my status as a practicing Christian. Perhaps we should have a special sin tax on non believers and divvy it up amongst ourselves. Exactly what Jesus would want right?
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Not at all. Marriage between one man and one woman existed long before any state was established and long before Jesus Christ walked the Earth.
Our religion treats marriage as a Sacrament. The state created a legal status for marriage because without marriage there would soon be no state.
It is beyond the competence and authority of the state or the Church to redefine the fundamental attributes of marriage because marriage preceded the Church and the state.
I believe it was Jesus Christ, not our founding fathers, who “separated” Church and State when He said: “Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s”
E
epan
Guest
It’s hard to know what he meant from your post. But perhaps he was referring to the broader context of the civil rights movement. Many churches were opposed to progress in the 1960’s, and yet many were in the forefront of advancing civil rights.I am disturbed by something I heard in the homily today. I know something the priest said was a fallacy but I can’t put into words the problem with what was said. He said that just because we Catholics don’t support same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we should push our views on others, and we should let same-sex couples get married.I’m sure I could find an argument against that somewhere, but I don’t exactly know what to type in. I’m really shaken up, and I’m trying to focus on the parts of the homily that I agree with, but I still don’t feel any better. Please pray for this priest as well.
I came across an interesting statistic that about 75% or Irish citizens are in favor of gay marriage, yet 84% of the Irish are Catholics. You can do that math, but there is no way to come to the conclusion that the majority of Irish Catholics are opposed to gay marriage, if those numbers are correct.
There is a broad change in attitude, not just in the US, but worldwide.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Do you think that a “broad change in attitude” should affect the teaching of the Catholic Church?
K
Kal2012
Guest
Also, you have to wonder how many people say they support SSM because they don’t want to be viewed as homophobic if they say the wrong thing.
That happens more than people want to admit.
So, I have to wonder how broad that change really is.
How much of it is genuine and how much of it people saying what they need to say to be “socially acceptable”?
In American politics, there’s a thing called the “Wilder effect”. Basically, when people were polled about whether they’d vote for Wilder for Governor of Virginia (a black man), people said “yes”, but then when they looked at the actual number of votes, they found a significant difference between those who said they’d vote for him and those who actually did. A lot of people only said that they’d vote for Wilder because they didn’t want to say to a pollster that they didn’t want to vote for a black man.
Wilder was Gov way before Obama showed up on the political scene, but human nature really doesn’t change that much.
People get afraid to be honest because they think that it will hurt them socially.
That happens more than people want to admit.
So, I have to wonder how broad that change really is.
How much of it is genuine and how much of it people saying what they need to say to be “socially acceptable”?
In American politics, there’s a thing called the “Wilder effect”. Basically, when people were polled about whether they’d vote for Wilder for Governor of Virginia (a black man), people said “yes”, but then when they looked at the actual number of votes, they found a significant difference between those who said they’d vote for him and those who actually did. A lot of people only said that they’d vote for Wilder because they didn’t want to say to a pollster that they didn’t want to vote for a black man.
Wilder was Gov way before Obama showed up on the political scene, but human nature really doesn’t change that much.
People get afraid to be honest because they think that it will hurt them socially.
C
Crown_of_Stars
Guest
My thought is… same-sex “marriage” may be legal, but it will never be a sacrament. It can be called a “marriage,” but in God’s eyes it isn’t, and that is all that matters. What He intended for marriage (between a man and a woman) has already been established from Creation (Adam and Eve) and it will stay that way until the end of time. I don’t care that same-sex “marriage” is “legal.” Call it what you like. It’s legal only in the sense of the courts, not God. Through God, marriage between a man and a woman is a sacred sacrament, and anything other than that is a sacrilege. The problem is that this culture doesn’t want to accept that certain things are just wrong. Jesus Himself told the woman who was almost stoned to go in peace and sin no more. He loved her, and warned her not to sin again, and she accepted what she had done was wrong. She didn’t pester Him and call Him a bigot because he thought what she did was wrong.
E
epan
Guest
I am in the minority here, though in the mainstream among serious religious scholars elsewhere, when I point out that the Catholic Church has obviously and demonstrably changed its teachings on a variety of moral issues over the years. This point of view contradicts the currently popular view to the opposite which is widely espoused here.
That is the preface to my answer, which is that I don’t really care whether the Catholic Church changes its teaching on the subject. So, the direct answer is, no I do not think that the Catholic Church SHOULD change its teachings. It should stand up for what it believes.
Having said that, it would also not surprise me that if eventually it does modify its stance over time, just as other Christian Churches, such as the Episcopal Church have.
R
Rau
Guest
I cannot imagine how the Church can change black and white teaching of the magisterium. Do you envisage a future catechism that rewrites entirely the section on marriage, a catechism that entirely repudiates the catechism of today, and numerous encyclicals and other statements. A catechism that explains why for most of history it was a grave matter to do X, but now, X is part of the good and holy institution of marriage. A host of new encyclicals to repeal the old?
I’m afraid that is not realistic. You would be entitled to be very surprised.
C
christiansibeli
Guest
Hmmm…I am disturbed by something I heard in the homily today. I know something the priest said was a fallacy but I can’t put into words the problem with what was said. He said that just because we Catholics don’t support same-sex marriage doesn’t mean we should push our views on others, and we should let same-sex couples get married.
This is a bit hard. I agree with you and completely disagree with the priest. Just because we are promoting the truth does NOT mean we are imposing it.
Letting same sex couples get married is what we are trying to AVOID.
What is wrong with priests these days?
They are becoming lazy and misinforming the community for the sake of “peace”.
WE do NOT sell out Christ for so called “peace” .
We need to defend the truth and make it known.
There is obviously a way to do it. You tell the person. Obviously not going into their face and what not, But to say that we should let them get married is US Accepting it and goes against the church and God Himself.
God bless.
I will try and get you a formulated argument.
Mary
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Thank you for an honest answer.
Just a couple of things.
I can’t think of any moral issue teachings that have changed within the Catholic Church. Perhaps an example or two…
I agree that the Catholic Church SHOULD stand for what it believes…because if it does not stand for something it will…like other Christian Churches, such as the Episcopal Church…fall for anything.
The Catholic Church cannot modify its stance because the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.
The conclusion that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status is based on the truth, not just on Catholic teaching. Yet, saying that makes this conclusion all the more controversial. If it were based simply on Catholic teaching, opponents could say: “You Catholics are entitled to your opinion, but that is not binding on others.”
However it is TRUE that same-sex relationships should not be afforded legal status. This, of course, is offensive to those who deny the existence of truth, who prefer to live in a world dominated by what Pope Benedict XVI termed a “dictatorship of relativism.”
If you acknowledge that truth exists, then we can discuss and even argue about whether or not I or the Catholic Church correctly understands the truth of this matter. But if you deny that there is such a thing as truth, that is, the truth, not just my truth and your truth, then the matter becomes merely an exercise of raw political power in terms of who has more votes to impose an agenda, and that is what makes it ultimately tyrannical.
- Status