Pushing our views on same-sex "marriage" on those who disagree?

[AyJSimon]

What? The definition of words evolve all the time. Gay used to mean "happy, it now also means homosexual.

No one (certainly not the Catholic Church) has “copyright” on the definition of a word. The Church is certainly entitled to retain the traditional understanding of the word and the sacrament within itself, but is not entitled to insist that it be the larger society’s definition. Maybe that’s what the priest was trying to say.

Perhaps so. The government’s definition of marriage has always been at least slightly different than the Catholic Church’s definition of it. All that’s happening right now is the government is re-defining it again to be inclusive of gay couples.

 

[unstoppable_II]

What? The definition of words evolve all the time. Gay used to mean "happy, it now also means homosexual.

No one (certainly not the Catholic Church) has “copyright” on the definition of a word. The Church is certainly entitled to retain the traditional understanding of the word and the sacrament within itself, but is not entitled to insist that it be the larger society’s definition. Maybe that’s what the priest was trying to say.

If “the Church is not entitled to insist that it be the larger society’s definition,” where do feminists get off insisting on “Mzz”, “he or she”, “his or her”, etc.?
In any event, you can call a horse’s tail a leg, but that doesn’t make it one.

 

[JRKH]

It all depends. If in these hypothetical situations you are a Christian, the answer is yes. Reason is you have to look at it from the other point of view. To wit:

I see nothing in that reply that answers my question or clarifies what constitutes “pushing”…

Peace
James

 

[unstoppable_II]

I see nothing in that reply that answers my question or clarifies what constitutes “pushing”…

Peace
James

In that case, I suggest the next time the opportunity presents itself, that you ask the person making the charge.

 

[JRKH]

In that case, I suggest the next time the opportunity presents itself, that you ask the person making the charge.

Actually that is what I am doing…The “charge” is in the title…

OK the OP is not making the charge - but it is something that should be raised.

Either there is a very real and valid definition of what it is - - or - - it’s just one of those nonsensical charges that is designed to shut down conversation.

The bottom line is that we do not push our views on others…we simply participate in the debate. The same thing everyone else does.

Peace
James

 

[namax91]

Can you recall exactly what he said? What was the greater context?

Here’s the basic context. Jesus weeps when we humans hurt one another. Just last week 21 Coptic Christians were beheaded by ISIS in the name of Allah. We Christians sometimes use the name of Jesus to justify evil acts. Jesus is not hateful. Allah Is not hateful. There has always been hatred in the world. There is still hatred in America involving white people discriminating against black people. And now there is discrimination against gay people. I wonder how we would react if our son or daughter was gay. This judge in Alabama is going against the law in refusing to marry homosexual people. We Catholics don’t believe in same-sex marriage, but we should not pusr.ur views on those who disagree with us.

Find a new church. The only way to dissuade those who don’t believe in Catholic teaching is to give them and empty church to preach to.

This is not our regular parish. This particular priest, who we’ll call Fr. Y, is only a visiting priest. (He is technically retired so he only celebrates the Mass a few times a month at this parish.) The other times, the pastor, Fr. X, who is the only priest assigned to this parish presides. Now, Fr. X is not a very healthy man, and he needs the rest, enter Fr. Y. (This arrangement is basically set in stone. A few weeks ago when Fr. Y was set to preside, he was sick, so they had a Communion service presided over by the deacon. Fr. Y is going on vacation for over a month, so I have no idea what they will do.) We don’t normally attend this parish because Fr. X is super ethereal and it’s next to impossible to follow his homilies, although from what I do manage to understand in his homilies, he stays faithful to the Magisterium. Why do we go to this parish when Fr. Y is presiding? He is super humble and nice, and just a great person. I wish he wouldn’t say this kind of stuff though.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
The bottom line is that we do not push our views on others…we simply participate in the debate. The same thing everyone else does.

Peace
James

I agree, but vaguely remember in the debate over øbamacare when a certain co-ed testified before congress that she couldn’t afford $3,000 a year for birth control pills that her Catholic university didn’t want to pay for, as mandated by the government, based on religious beliefs that a cry of, “Don’t you Catholics force your beliefs on the rest of us,” went up that you would have thought the world was ending. The same cry goes up every time a homosexual “wedding” cake gets in the news.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The first fallacy is that such situations are marriages. They are not. This might be called a euphemism, or it might be called weasel wording (maybe another that I cannot name at the moment). Changing the definition of a word is fallacious.

The next is called “false compromise” the “let’s all get along and agree to disagree” method. Truth cannot be compromised. Something is either true or it’s false. Agreeing to disagree doesn’t make an untruth into a truth.

It sounds like an appeal to emotion (another fallacy). The “we should let them get married” position appeals to our emotion that we want everyone to have the same opportunities. Appealing to emotion doesn’t make a position right or wrong.

“We should not push our views on others” is a fallacy. This one’s easy to name. It’s called “the lie” (which is a legitimate term for a fallacious argument, even though it sounds pretty obvious.) As people of God, we most certainly must speak the truth. Now, one might make a difference between “pushing a point” and “teaching a point.” Lest I fall into the fallacy of changing his words, I need to mention that last part. My point here is that yes, we must speak the truth. It’s our responsibility to do so.

I think Catholics should be reminded that we are called to conscientiously OBJECT to all civil laws that recognize same sex relationships as a marriage.

 

[JRKH]

I agree, but vaguely remember in the debate over øbamacare when a certain co-ed testified before congress that she couldn’t afford $3,000 a year for birth control pills that her Catholic university didn’t want to pay for, as mandated by the government, based on religious beliefs that a cry of, “Don’t you Catholics force your beliefs on the rest of us,” went up that you would have thought the world was ending. The same cry goes up every time a homosexual “wedding” cake gets in the news.

Exactly my point…it is an assertion that needs to be called out for what it is…nonsense.

Peace
James

 

[TARRAT]

I take it you mean a new CATHOLIC Church?

If what he said was that we should just stand by and let it happen, I’d support anyone looking for a new parish.

What you said Luigi.

 

[TARRAT]

My only problem with this approach is it contradicts Scripture.

We are told in the NT to first tell our brother of his wrongdoing. If he doesn’t listen to us alone, bring one or two witnesses. If he still doesn’t listen, bring the dispute to the Church. If he refuses to listen even after that, then we should have nothing to do with him.

Applying that to this priest:

1.) Talk to the priest about your issues with what was said
2.) If his position is not clarified in a way that is in accord with the Magisterium, or he continues to teach in a way that may lead others astray, bring one or two witnesses with you the next time you meet with him.
3.) If the problem persists, contact the local Bishop’s office with details (including the names of your witnesses)
4.) If the Church cannot convince him, then leave the parish.

In all of this, I strongly recommend giving the benefit of the doubt. Approach your priest with an attitude of curiosity and learning. It’s possible you heard something that sounded wrong, but talking with him will clarify he actually meant something else. Maybe that conversation will lead him to clear up any controversy in next week’s homily or in a bulletin insert.

I’ve been in this situation. The priest is stubborn and the bishop’s hands are tied because there are not enough priests. I guess it goes without saying that you should do these steps. But in my experience it is easier to find another parish. I would never suggest somebody join any church but the one true church. That is what I meant in my earlier post.

:twocents:

 

[FrDavid96]

What? The definition of words evolve all the time. Gay used to mean "happy, it now also means homosexual.

This is not about a word “evolving.”

It is about using a word (in this case, “marriage”) to describe a situation that is, by its very nature, not a marriage.

There is a difference.

What you are doing is called the fallacy of “bad analogy.”

Just because words can and do change over time (which, by the way, no one denies), that does not mean that a relationship of two men or two women can thereby become a marriage.

I might say “that apple pie was a good marriage of sweet and sour.” That does not mean that a pie is the equivalent of a union between a man and a woman.

No one (certainly not the Catholic Church) has “copyright” on the definition of a word.

Since the Church does not claim any such copyright, there is no point in responding.

The Church is certainly entitled to retain the traditional understanding of the word and the sacrament within itself, but is not entitled to insist that it be the larger society’s definition. Maybe that’s what the priest was trying to say.

The Church is entitled and indeed has the responsibility to speak the truth.

Whether or not the larger society wants to hear that truth (and most of society does want it in this case), does not change that the Church must still speak it.

 

[nothingclever]

I’m somewhat queer myself and have made the choice not to sleep with either sex or engage in any other type of sexual sin. I made the choice; the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all in my opinion.

My priest told me during confession that I’m allowed to have my own opinions and don’t have to vote if I truly have problems with the states stand on the initiation of force. I think it’s foolish for members of a minority religion to try and set the legal precedent of a majority dictating to a minority. Just my two cents, if you truly believe that the state is the arbiter of morality I’d encourage you to spend more time lobbying to make desecrating the Eucharist illegal.

I respect your rights, even if you want to limit my own. People are allowed to have disagreements on the best way to run society, there is a difference between shepherding and dictating IMHO. I’m glad we don’t live in a theocracy, I’m especially glad the court system is set up to stop people from limiting my secular rights.

God told us not to do sinful things, and respects our free will enough not to force us to follow him. I’d kindly suggest we all follow his example, and only use the state when absolutely necessary. Mostly to preserve free will and save lives.

My English is bad, hopefully I communicated my point clearly.

 

[JRKH]

I’m somewhat queer myself and have made the choice not to sleep with either sex or engage in any other type of sexual sin. I made the choice; the state shouldn’t be involved in marriage at all in my opinion.

Perhaps the state should not be involved in marriage…but it is…so that is what we must deal with.

My priest told me during confession that I’m allowed to have my own opinions and don’t have to vote if I truly have problems with the states stand on the initiation of force.

I don’t understand what you mean here…“the state’s stand on the initiation of force”.

I think it’s foolish for members of a minority religion to try and set the legal precedent of a majority dictating to a minority.

The legal precedent, as you call it,is already set and has been so for many many centuries. It is not the members of a “minority religion” who are trying to set a precedent.
All that we are doing is to exercise the same rights as others - to make our views known and to vote our conscience. In neither of the these things are we “forcing our views on others”.

Just my two cents, if you truly believe that the state is the arbiter of morality I’d encourage you to spend more time lobbying to make desecrating the Eucharist illegal.

In the U.S. we, the people, ARE the state. So when you speak of “the state” as though it is something separate from the people you are missing a very important aspect of our governmental structure and ideal.
Your choice to not vote or to lobby effectively removes you from participation in the state that you are a part of.

I respect your rights, even if you want to limit my own. People are allowed to have disagreements on the best way to run society, there is a difference between shepherding and dictating IMHO. I’m glad we don’t live in a theocracy, I’m especially glad the court system is set up to stop people from limiting my secular rights.

Yes there is a difference between shepherding and dictating. There is also a difference between having the freedom to express one’s views and to participate in debate and to attempt to persuade AND to vote on issues that we see as important to the health of society as a whole.
In ALL of this we are exercising our very important rights - and obligations - in our society.

God told us not to do sinful things, and respects our free will enough not to force us to follow him. I’d kindly suggest we all follow his example, and only use the state when absolutely necessary. Mostly to preserve free will and save lives.

I agree with this. But of course there will be different views on when it would be “absolutely necessary”.

My English is bad, hopefully I communicated my point clearly.

You did fine.

Peace
James

 

[nothingclever]

To JRKH

While the state is involved in marriage then the only moral options in my mind are to either end it’s involvement or open state “marriage” to any and all who are not violating anyone’s right’s. (This easily side steps the “slippery slope” argument in my mind).

Initiating the use of force is being the first party to well… initiate the use of force. I.E. dropping bombs that will likely kill civilians, allowing one arbitrary group a privilege and not another (Creating a straight, or Christian ascendancy), throwing people in jail for crimes where there was no victim.

I’d argue that creating a privileged straight class is totally forcing your religion on others. The church shouldn’t marry anybody it doesn’t want, or adopt out children it has custody of to who it doesn’t want, but forcing others to follow it’s morality by codifying it into secular law is a horrible idea. What if protestants made it illegal for Catholics to adopt, or marry? Would you like that? What if there preachers told them they HAD to vote on such laws to be considered good protestants? Would you consider that the clergy overstepping it’s bounds?

In my opinion it’s no longer a democracy when peoples main sources of information are owned by a small group of corporations, not to mention politicians are more or less openly bought and sold by said vested interest. The U.S. government is more of some type of neo-feudal plutocracy. I never made it past the eight grade, so I could be wrong, but I’m entitled to my beliefs. I have the moral obligation not to vote if I feel the system is being unjustly manipulated by a ruling class. Also you didn’t address my point of why we aren’t trying to make desecrating the Eucharist illegal. If that’s truly the son of God, as I believe, you’d think that’d be priority one as far as using the state to enforce the churches beliefs go.

My deeply held beliefs have already addressed the next two sections of your reply.

I worship the slaughtered lamb and find the prorogation of the state sponsored cult a form of Idolatry. I love Americans, same as any people, but I don’t feel a moral obligation to love the government or the concept of nation states in general. Granted I have minority view’s, but that makes me no less Catholic than the Pope.

I’m in no way violent, perhaps I’d defend my Godson or brother if they where directly attacked. Out of animal instinct and a lack of faith on my part, but I shouldn’t be made to fell less of a Catholic simply because I take the words of Jesus a bit differently than some people. My priest most certainly did overstep his bounds by telling the congregation we had to vote for the G.O.P., I don’t see what the OP’s priest did wrong though.

Again bad English, can’t figure multiple quotes out either. My bad y’all.

 

[teeboy]

And what is about divorced remarried people, people who have premarital sex, heretics like protestants or the abusive economy? Why not ban this too? He is right that it is not useful to inflate this one average sin and turn it into some kind of super sin. We are in pagan/satanic countries and better focus on converting people to the Catholic Church, then they will follow all Catholic teachings.

One average sin? It is living out sin. There is a differnce between a one night stand and marrying Steve next door.

 

[PoorKnight]

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.

This is a relativistic statement. He’s pushing his religious view on you. Ask him if we shouldn’t push our views on eachother, why is he pushing his view (of not pushing views on eachother) on you. It’s a self-contradicting statement, like saying “I can’t speak english.”

As Fr. Benedict (as he now wants to be called) once said, (paraphrasing) relativism has invaded everywhere and is the greatest evil we face today.

Hope this helps,
God Bless
Poor Knight for Christ and His Church

 

[nothingclever]

Ehh, no one listens to crazy radicals… You say American empire and people ignore you. It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere, good night and God bless.

I’m sure you mean well if your following what you believe to be God’s will. If you think God wants you to rat out a priest for saying something you don’t like I’d suggest you do it. Our opinions are nothing next to what Jesus thinks. Again good night and God bless.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

When discussing a topic like “Pushing our views on same-sex “marriage” on those who disagree” we should remember that it is a legal understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause.

Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law purports to do so.

 

[unstoppable_II]

When discussing a topic like “Pushing our views on same-sex “marriage” on those who disagree” we should remember that it is a legal understanding of First Amendment jurisprudence that the mere fact that a civil law harmonizes or agrees with religious beliefs is not grounds for finding a violation of the Establishment of Religion Clause.

Certainly, if the civil law granted recognition only to sacramental marriages as defined in the Code of Canon Law of the Catholic Church, this would violate the Establishment Clause. But no law purports to do so.

I agree, but try explaining that to someone who is yelling in your face and throwing things at you.