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

[namax91]

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.

 

[Andre1000]

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.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

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.

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

Without knowing these things, I can’t really give a good response.

I agree we should never “push” our beliefs on others. Effective evangelization meets people where they’re at, and forcing Church teaching on controversial issues down their throat is not going to do that.

But showing that same person love and respect, and calmly discussing what the Church teaches and why (without saying they have to agree) isn’t pushing it on them. It’s giving them information to consider so they can make a better decision.

But with regards to allowing them to marry, again I need context. Was he saying the Church should perform the ceremony? If so, then he needs to be challenged on this point because it is not up for debate. The Church cannot marry same sex couples. It’s not that she won’t. It’s that she literally cannot.

If however, what he was saying was more along the lines of not standing in their way of legal recognition by the state then the problems are fewer. There are still problems because he is not being completely faithful to the Magisterium, but it changes the approach I would take.

Best thing to do is to ask him about it directly and get some clarification on what he was saying. If you suspect a problem, ask him about the official Church teaching on the matter. If you feel uncomfortable confronting him about it, you could also write to the local Bishop’s office and let him know a priest in his jurisdiction is teaching something questionable.

 

[TARRAT]

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.

 

[Allegra]

I’ve heard a priest say that we should focus less on the marriage issue and focus more on teaching why homosexual acts are sinful and evangelizing others. The logic being that if we are successful in keeping the legal definition of marriage, we haven’t really accomplished much since the gay couples are still going to be sinning just as they were before and haven’t been saved. I agree with the idea in as much as I don’t think anyone’s mind will be changed based on which way the law goes, but I disagree that it isn’t important to fight such a change because we’ve already seen gay advocates abuse such laws in order to use the court system to persecute faithful Christians.

 

[captainrick]

We should “let them get married?” What else would we do? Raid the wedding? Even though we disagree with these actions and should express our views, we shouldn’t force our opinions on anyone.

 

[Allegra]

We should “let them get married?” What else would we do? Raid the wedding? Even though we disagree with these actions and should express our views, we shouldn’t force our opinions on anyone.

I assume that the priest meant that we should refrain from speaking or voting against changes in marriage laws.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… 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. …

Perhaps this will help you:
The Challenge of Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, issued by USCCB, November 14, 2007.

This does not address the morality of same-sex “marriage” but it does talk about the idea that we have no right to “push our views on others.” I find this argument unreasonable, irritating, and completely without merit. It is typical logic in this age of chaos, because in the end, someone’s views will prevail over society; that’s why you vote for candidate “A” in lieu of “B”: you want A’s views “pushed on society” instead of B’s.

Here are the topics covered.

WHY DOES THE CHURCH TEACH ABOUT ISSUES AFFECTING PUBLIC POLICY?

WHO IN THE CHURCH SHOULD PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL LIFE?

HOW DOES THE CHURCH HELP CATHOLICS TO ADDRESS POLITICAL AND SOCIAL QUESTIONS?

A Well-Formed Conscience

The Virtue of Prudence

Doing Good and Avoiding Evil

Making Moral Choices

WHAT DOES THE CHURCH SAY ABOUT CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE? – SEVEN KEY THEMES

The Right to Life and the Dignity of the Human Person

Call to Family, Community, and Participation

Rights and Responsibilities

Option for the Poor and Vulnerable

Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers

Solidarity

Caring for God’s Creation

CONCLUSION

References​

I would seriously consider writing to the bishop regarding the statements this priest made.

 

[captainrick]

I assume that the priest meant that we should refrain from speaking or voting against changes in marriage laws.

I hope not! But if so, as TARRAT said, find a new church!

 

[FrDavid96]

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.

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.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… This might be called a euphemism, or it might be called weasel wording (maybe another that I cannot name at the moment). …

Semantic gymnastics.

 

[DexUK]

The truth is that not all the world shares the Church’s belief about what constitutes marriage. Indeed, not everyone within the Church agrees on that either.

The Church can only insist that its adherents abide by what it considers is and is not marriage.

It’s not a ‘false compromise’ to accept that others believe differently. It’s simply accepting that the world is as it is, and that those who do not share the Church’s doctrine aren’t required to abide by it. If the world outside wishes to define that the opportunity to contract marriage applies to same gender couples, then that world is free to do so as it sees fit. The Church’s position is clear and unambiguous. There’s no need to bang on about it over and over again.

 

[Corki]

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.

What this priest said does not match Church teaching. We are to resist all attempts to create an equivalency between marriage and same sex unions - especially when it comes to voting and political action. If you want an argument against what this priest said, go straight to the top.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

 

[JRKH]

What disturbs me about the OP is the word “push”…We should not “push our views on others”.
This is one of those imprecise words that have more of an emotional meaning than anything else…

What PRECISELY does it mean to “push your view onto another”???

For example…
If I am in a discussion on a given topic and I express - and defend - my views, am I “pushing my views on others”.
If an item is placed on the ballot asking if some thing should be allowed or not, and I do the very same thing everyone else does - which is to vote my conscience - am I pushing my views on others?

So - what means this “push your view”???

Peace
James

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

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.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

The truth is that not all the world shares the Church’s belief about what constitutes marriage. Indeed, not everyone within the Church agrees on that either.

The Church can only insist that its adherents abide by what it considers is and is not marriage.

It’s not a ‘false compromise’ to accept that others believe differently. It’s simply accepting that the world is as it is, and that those who do not share the Church’s doctrine aren’t required to abide by it. If the world outside wishes to define that the opportunity to contract marriage applies to same gender couples, then that world is free to do so as it sees fit. The Church’s position is clear and unambiguous. There’s no need to bang on about it over and over again.

In general I agree with you, but there are occasions which require us to speak out more fervently against something.

From paragraph 326 of the YouCat (bold in original):

**An authority acts legitimately when it works for the sake of the COMMON GOOD and applies just methods of attaining the goals thereof. [CCC 1903-04, 1921]
**
The people in a State must be able to rely on the fact that they live under a “government of laws”, which has rules that are binding for all. No one is obliged to obey laws that are arbitrary and unjust or that contradict the natural moral order. In that case there is a right, or in some circumstances even the duty, to resist.

It can be demonstrated that same-sex marriages have a degrading effect on society, regardless of religious values. And while some of this evidence is still debated, what cannot be debated is the value of traditional, heterosexual marriages to society.

With the evidence at hand, any authority which legalizes same-sex marriages or takes action which arbitrarily and unjustly harms traditional marriages is not acting legitimately and should be resisted.

 

[unstoppable_II]

… The Church’s position is clear and unambiguous. There’s no need to bang on about it over and over again.

The Church’s position is clear and unambiguous, alright. But to assume the culture war is over is naive. Historian Paul Johnson was sympathetic to the original homosexual cause and offers a good summary of the history of the movement over the last 45 years or so:

There were a great many of us, in the 1960s, who felt that there were grave practical and moral objections to the criminalization of homosexuality, and therefore supported, as happened in most Western countries, changes in the law which meant that certain forms of homosexual behavior ceased to be unlawful. Homosexuality itself was still to be publicly regarded by society, let alone by its churches, as a great moral evil; but men who engaged in it, within strictly defined limits, would no longer be sent to prison. We believed this to be the maximum homosexuals deserved or could reasonably expect. [About this same time, we were given the “left alone” argument.] We were proven totally mistaken.

Decriminalization made it possible for homosexuals to organize openly into a powerful lobby, and it thus became a mere platform from which further demands were launched.

Next followed demands for equality, in which homosexuality was officially placed on the same moral level as standard forms of sexuality; and dismissal of identified homosexuals from sensitive positions, for instance schools, children’s homes, etc., became progressively more difficult [it is probably now impossible]. This was followed in turn by demands not merely for equality but privilege: the appointment, for instance, of homosexual quotas in local government, the excision from school textbooks and curricula, and university courses, passages or books or authors they found objectionable, special rights to proselytize, and not least the privilege of special programs to put forward their views – including the elimination of the remaining legal restraints – on radio and television. Thus we began by attempting to right what was felt an ancient injustice and we ended with a monster in our midst, powerful and clamoring, flexing its muscles, threatening, vengeful and vindictive towards anyone who challenges its outrageous claims, and bent on making fundamental – and, to most of us, horrifying – changes to civilized patterns of sexual behavior.

There was a lesbian couple who attended my church. No one said anything; they were just accepted. But they couldn’t leave well enough alone. The next thing they wanted was to become some sort of lay ministers. The extremely liberal pastor rightly saw this as sending a mixed message to the congregation and declined their offer. That was the last we saw of them.

Apparently, they concluded that they couldn’t gain any more ground here and moved on to a more promising [gullible] parish. In view of the whole history of the homosexual movement, it would be foolish to assume we have seen the last of their demands.

This is why I believe the movement is being orchestrated by Satan and must be resisted without let-up.

 

[CatholicHockey7]

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.

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.

 

[unstoppable_II]

…
If I am in a discussion on a given topic and I express - and defend - my views, am I “pushing my views on others”.
If an item is placed on the ballot asking if some thing should be allowed or not, and I do the very same thing everyone else does - which is to vote my conscience - am I pushing my views on others?

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:

In a Speech 101 class, [student] Lopez delivered remarks referencing his religious views as part of a class assignment, including expressing his view of Biblical morality and his conception of the proper definition of marriage. Following the speech, Lopez was called a “făshist băstärd” by his professor.

Lopez v. Candaele

 

[cycleman]

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.

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.