Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

It’s never in history been so easy as it is today, to access knowledge.

There are also chances that they knew all this anyway and chose to ignore it

In the defense of those who may be invincibly ignorant,

how do you define invincible ignorance in this situation?

PetraG:

it can be reasonably conceded that finding the truth could be likened to finding a needle in a haystack. There are many philosophies being touted as the truth and many people teaching that the Church’s position is not appropriate for a modern, educated, tolerant or even civilized person to accept. It is hard to believe that Providence will not find some people who have found a false way while trying their best. They may get a lighter sentence than those who knew the way and followed it more poorly than they could have:
“That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
We who know everything required to make a saint and yet fail to become one are wise to hope for a bounty of mercy for all. We know that even others who do far worse may be deserving of a far lesser sentence than we deserve, whatever Heaven determines our sentence may be.

Ignorance needs to be innocent to be an escape. However, as posted earlier

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Many People find excuses for their bad self.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

PetraG:

Uriel1:

I stand to be corrected but a civil celibate gay marriage is just a legal way of living responsibly in harmony; it is the homosexual act that is sinful.

When this topic came up in Oregon, the Archbishop said that the civil union of adults for whom marriage is impossible for the sake of mutual care is a morally-permissible civil institution, but only provided that the right to sexual consort or the implication of sexual consort is not legally implied. An institution that gives the same rights as marriage on the premise that the relationships between two persons of the same sex are analogous or the same as those between a husband and wife are false, misleading and constitute a scandal.

“civil union” can just as easily make a civil contract between themselves. They don’t have to violate the name marriage for their action

This has come up again; are you equally opposed to non-Christian marriages?

Marriage is between a man and a woman NOT between man and man or woman and woman.

AND

This is NOT coming from me as if I invented this thinking.

 

[steve-b]

This is NOT coming from me as if I invented this thinking.

Alex337:

That didn’t seem to answer the question. Are you equally opposed to non-Christian marriages?

You posted before you saw my completed post. I didn’t invent the position. Think of it as I’m obeying instruction from scripture.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

steve-b:

This is NOT coming from me as if I invented this thinking.

Alex337:

That didn’t seem to answer the question. Are you equally opposed to non-Christian marriages?

You posted before you saw my completed post. I didn’t invent the position. Think of it as I’m obeying instruction from scripture.

That still doesn’t seem to answer the question though. Are you equally opposed to non-Christian marriages?

Why would you ask that as if all this depends on my view?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

This is a thread about sin, though, not a thread about criminality.

We are not talking about legal culpability, as in whether or not someone would be expected to be subject to penalty from a human court. We are talking about whether someone would be facing eternal consequences for embracing a mortal sin. The standard there is that Providence alone has standing to know how to judge hearts in order to justly judge what relationship a soul has chosen to have with his or her Creator for all of eternity. Only Providence can know whether someone is to be held culpable at all, let alone how much.

For our part, we do need to caution people that the matter is grave and that the eternal consequences could therefore be grave beyond imagining. We cannot say what will happen to any particular soul, no matter how much someone wants us to say we know who will be condemned because of the particular magnitude of their wrongdoing. We also cannot say what mitigating factors will relieve someone of culpability from committing a serious sin when they were objectively seem to be capable of doing otherwise.

Well laws and morality are not always distinct, for instance, same-sex acts are illegal and immoral in some countries.

I agree with some of what you said but it is different than the argument given in the 1st post on this thread. Your position involves same-sex acts still being a sin even if the person was ignorant of the fact that it’s a sin. In post #1, the author states a viewpoint where a person ignorant of a sin not only avoids culpability but their sinful act itself (gay marriage) is not sinful, as well, and therefore there’s no punishment from God.

Then there’s the issue of culpability being completely removed which I also disagree with under the scenario you gave. If dictators can offer reasons for why they killed (perhaps they can say the Church was not their authority), despite knowing the Church’s position on the matter, then they get to go free from punishment. There doesn’t seem to be any afterlife solace here since those who are evil in this lifetime can just claim ignorance.

FYI …I don’t believe same-sex is evil as a non-believer, but under your logic, a brutal dictator can get away with his crimes).

 

[PetraG]

how do you define invincible ignorance in this situation?

I don’t. Not my place. The only point is to explain how people who reject the faith could possibly end up in Heaven. The answer is that according to the judgment of Providence, they were doing the best they could do. That is only possible if it is possible to seek the truth, be confronted by the truth, but not see it…kind of like looking for your glasses and having them in your hand the whole time, I guess. You’d think it couldn’t happen, but at least with the glasses we know it does. This is why the Church teaches invincible ignorance is possible.

Yes, I have to admit the possibility that a brutal dictator is as innocent as a pack of wolves.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ignorance needs to be innocent to be an escape. However, as posted earlier

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Many People find excuses for their bad self.

I agree with you as I expect for Christians to be consistent with their morality and not give special exceptions to hot button issues. Such viewpoints takes away from the concept of ‘objective’ morality. There’s little to no value in an objective moral system that is applied subjectively or in a relativistic way.

 

[Alex337]

Because I’m interested.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

how do you define invincible ignorance in this situation?

I don’t. Not my place. The only point is to explain how people who reject the faith could possibly end up in Heaven. The answer is that according to the judgment of Providence, they were doing the best they could do. That is only possible if it is possible to seek the truth, be confronted by the truth, but not see it…kind of like looking for your glasses and having them in your hand the whole time, I guess. You’d think it couldn’t happen, but at least with the glasses we know it does. This is why the Church teaches invincible ignorance is possible.

Yet, that’s not describing invincible ignorance.

AgnosticBoy:

Yes, I have to admit the possibility that a brutal dictator is as innocent as a pack of wolves.

To your point,

I would just make a distinction,

A dictator may have a hugely damaged or inactive conscience, and an intellect that is atrocious, but a conscience and intellect he still was given. Wolves otoh, don’t have those attributes. Even if that dictator shows all the signs of being raised by a pack of wolves.

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

I would try to not rely on invincible ignorance. Kind of more for places that haven’t been evangelized yet.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Ignorance needs to be innocent to be an escape. However, as posted earlier

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Many People find excuses for their bad self.

I agree with you as I expect for Christians to be consistent with their morality and not give special exceptions to hot button issues. Such viewpoints takes away from the concept of ‘objective’ morality. There’s little to no value in an objective moral system that is applied subjectively or in a relativistic way.

That’s why Jesus lowered the boom on the Pharisees.

 

[steve-b]

Because I’m interested.

You ask me “Are you equally opposed to non-Christian marriages”?

I never said anything for or against that… Civil non sacramental marriages between a man and a woman happen all the time.

 

[Alex337]

Cool, those don’t follow the rules of a Catholic marriage either. Why are you okay with them?

 

[steve-b]

Cool, those don’t follow the rules of a Catholic marriage either. Why are you okay with them?

Freedom of religion for one thing. By freedom however I don’t mean license to do anything one wants to do.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Cool, those don’t follow the rules of a Catholic marriage either. Why are you okay with them?

Freedom of religion for one thing. By freedom however I don’t mean license to do anything one wants to do.

Cool, my religion (Australian Quakers) recognise same sex marriage.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Alex337:

Cool, those don’t follow the rules of a Catholic marriage either. Why are you okay with them?

Freedom of religion for one thing. By freedom however I don’t mean license to do anything one wants to do.

Cool, my religion (Australian Quakers) recognise same sex marriage.

That’s why I make the distinction between freedom and license.

 

[Alex337]

Cool, why?

 

[steve-b]

Cool, why?

License for example gives one the freedom to break rules or principles or change facts that others are bound by

There is no authority on earth that can give license to break Divine laws with no consequences to them. Therefore everyone is obligated to follow Divine laws.

 

[PetraG]

A dictator may have a hugely damaged or inactive conscience, and an intellect that is atrocious, but a conscience and intellect he still was given…

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

CCC 1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

CCC 1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

CCC 1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

CCC 1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

CCC 1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

I don’t know any stories of terrible dictators where the likelihood that he was not in any way responsible for his erroneous judgment is at all high. Many give the indication that they are not at all interested in finding a good that would require them to abandon self-interested judgment. Having said that, this so depends on the foundation of the conscience and invisible aspects of the psyche that it still seems right to admit the existence of the mere possibility that a person who seems to do horrible things in utter rebellion to all that is good could be suffering only from a poor foundation for which they are not responsible enough to be gravely liable to judgment for their actions.

Your point is well-taken, though: it is extremely important that people correctly understand that they must follow the dictates of a correctly-formed conscience, not just any philosophy that seems good to them as “discovered” without any real exertion to discover the truth. Invincible ignorance only removes culpability when the soul submitted to formation of a correct conscience to the best of their ability.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

Cool, why?

License for example gives one the freedom to break rules or principles or change facts that others are bound by

There is no authority on earth that can give license to break Divine laws with no consequences to them. Therefore everyone is obligated to follow Divine laws.

Cool. Good thing they’re having marriages, not matrimony. And I’m still confused why one form of non-Catholic marriage is fine, but another isn’t.