Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[steve-b]

steve-b:

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.

Are you associating gay marriage with one type of non-Catholic marriage?. Is that where this is going?

And

matrimony and marriage is a distinction without a difference.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Your point is very naïve if you expect me to believe that an educated person (esp. a practicing Christian) is ‘invincibly ignorant’ when they reject the tenet that homosexuality is a sin AFTER being shown from Scripture and Church teachings that it is. You may as well say that a Christian is ‘invincibly ignorant’ when they reject that Jesus really exists along with all the supernatural stuff in the Bible. In these cases there is a point when you can tell when someone is not being reasonable.

We find in Scripture and Church history that Christians did not put up with such ignorance and unreasonable thinking. Ignorance was dealt with by setting the person straight or applying Church discipline which implies culpability. The Church seemingly had no problem burning people at the stake for heresy with seemingly little consideration of ‘ignorance’ being involved. The disciples also had no problems judging people of being false teachers (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Galatians 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:3,4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3, 6; 1 Corinthians 6:1-4 and they rejected them accordingly.

As a non-believer, one of my interests here is to discuss Christianity as it is, with all of its good and bad. It is far from appealing when some Christians try to water down the bad side (the parts that go against current popular norms) just to get me to look at their religion in a better light. I’d rather come up with my own moral system, which is all that a relativistic moral system amounts to.

 

[PetraG]

Your point is very naïve if you expect me to believe that an educated person (esp. a practicing Christian) is ‘invincibly ignorant’ when they reject the tenet that homosexuality is a sin AFTER being shown from Scripture and Church teachings that it is . You may as well say that a Christian is ‘invincibly ignorant’ when they reject that Jesus really exists or none of the supernatural stuff happened. In these cases there is a point when you can tell when someone is not being reasonable.

We find in Scripture and Church history that Christians did not put up with such ignorance and unreasonable thinking. Ignorance was dealt with by setting the person straight or applying Church discipline which implies culpability. The Church seemingly had no problem burning people at the stake for heresy with seemingly little consideration of ‘ignorance’ being involved. The disciples also had no problems judging people of being false teachers (1 Corinthians 5:11-13; Galatians 2:4; 1 Timothy 1:3,4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; 1 John 4:1-3, 6; 1 Corinthians 6:1-4 and they rejected them accordingly.

As a non-believer, one of my interests here is to discuss Christianity as it is, with all of its good and bad. It is far from appealing when some Christians try to water down the bad side (the parts that go against current popular norms) just to get me to look at their religion in a better light. I’d rather come up with my own moral system, which is all that a relativistic moral system amounts to.

No one is watering anything down. You just need to understand what invincible ignorance is. It is not a “get out of jail free” card. It is an explanation of how someone who honestly tries to do their best morally might fail to do so and yet be judged by Heaven to have done the best they could considering what Heaven alone knows their capacities were. It does not remove the need to evangelize or relieve anyone of the duty to do their best to instruct the ignorant, admonish the sinner and counsel the doubtful, either.

Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers Magazine

 

[AgnosticBoy]

No one is watering anything down. You just need to understand what invincible ignorance is. It is not a “get out of jail free” card. It is an explanation of how someone who honestly tries to do their best morally might fail to do so and yet be judged by Heaven to have done the best they could considering what Heaven alone knows their capacities were. It does not remove the need to evangelize or relieve anyone of the duty to do their best to instruct the ignorant, admonish the sinner and counsel the doubtful, either.
Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers

You mention that “Heaven alone knows” but I addressed that point. Scripture says the Church can judge. Historically they’ve done so as I brought up in my last post. You don’t judge and punish someone if they are not responsible or ‘culpable’ for their actions. Your Scriptures also say if you claim to be a ‘believer’ but you teach falsehoods and/or live a sinful lifestyle then you are to “judge” this person as wicked and reject him (1 Corinthians 5:9-13). This presumes that a ‘believer’ should know the basics, like don’t go after your neighbor’s wife, no same-sex acts, etc. And of course, it also means that they’re culpable since they are being judged for it. That’s reasonable!

Based on the type of behavior I described towards the end of my last post, I predict that certain Christians will want to make exceptions for all other upcoming popular norms that conflict with biblical morality.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

steve-b:

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.

Are you associating gay marriage with one type of non-Catholic marriage?. Is that where this is going?

And

matrimony and marriage is a distinction without a difference.

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

 

[steve-b]

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

Marriage / matrimony, is only between a man and a woman. It’s been that way from the beginning.

1. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).
2. This, in turn, is in keeping with God’s original command to the first human couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28).

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

Marriage / matrimony, is only between a man and a woman. It’s been that way from the beginning.

1. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 ESV).
2. This, in turn, is in keeping with God’s original command to the first human couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28).

According to your religion, sure.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Alex337:

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

Marriage / matrimony, is only between a man and a woman. It’s been that way from the beginning.

1. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 ESV).
2. This, in turn, is in keeping with God’s original command to the first human couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28).

According to your religion, sure.

I merely give you information properly referenced. What you do with that is up to you.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

steve-b:

Alex337:

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

Marriage / matrimony, is only between a man and a woman. It’s been that way from the beginning.

1. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 ESV).
2. This, in turn, is in keeping with God’s original command to the first human couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28).

According to your religion, sure.

I merely give you information properly referenced. What you do with that is up to you.

The only issue is that many religions and cultures have marriage. So while you can define matrimony for your religion, you can’t define marriage for everyone elses.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Alex337:

steve-b:

Alex337:

They seem like a rather important distinction really. And I’m associating same sex marriage with many non Catholic marriages.

Marriage / matrimony, is only between a man and a woman. It’s been that way from the beginning.

1. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24 ESV).
2. This, in turn, is in keeping with God’s original command to the first human couple to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion” over all of creation (Genesis 1:28).

According to your religion, sure.

I merely give you information properly referenced. What you do with that is up to you.

The only issue is that many religions and cultures have marriage. So while you can define matrimony for your religion, you can’t define marriage for everyone elses.

I’m not the one defining anything. I quote my references properly referenced. I show where I’m getting the belief I have. It’s NOT from me. The one who spoke in the beginning and all that is, came into existence, is the one I reference.

Now be honest, where are YOUR references?

All I will say, judgement day is just 1 heartbeat away for all of us. We don’t know when that moment will be. So the old advice which is a good one, “be prepared”. I’ve done my part. I showed you from scripture where you’re wrong. That’s all I can do.

 

[steve-b]

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.

AND we see people can run too fast to invincible ignorance thinking it’s an automatic escape for themselves or others

when in fact

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

 

[PetraG]

You mention that “Heaven alone knows” but I addressed that point. Scripture says the Church can judge…
Based on the type of behavior I described towards the end of my last post, I predict that certain Christians will want to make exceptions for all other upcoming popular norms that conflict with biblical morality.

You are making an extremely good point, except that you’re miss the point of what invincible ignorance is. Better to make the vitally-important point than to let the matter lie. Let me clarify:

First off: Invincible ignorance is NOT to be reckoned a permanent condition, so it does not relieve the duty of those who understand the truth to evangelize. That is why counseling the doubtful, admonishing the sinner, and instructing the ignorant are spiritual works of mercy. Those who do not understand now may yet come to understand later and leave behind their faults, whatever those faults are.
Second: Invincible ignorance does NOT make the action suddenly moral, nor does it make the sinner innocent. It only reduces the culpability of the sinner. (That is not to say that invincible ignorance could not be complete, but that like other ways in which we honestly don’t “get” a concept, it is usually partial.)
Third: It does NOT make the person habitually doing the action into a paragon or a model of good behavior.

ALL the recognition of the possibility of invincible ignorance does is this: It offers the recognition that we cannot know whether or not someone else is really “doing their best” or whether or not they are a work in progress that may yet improve and it provides the hope that someone who has spent their life choosing a gravely immoral pattern of action might yet not suffer eternal damnation.

This is only the mercy that we ask for ourselves, after all: That is, that the evil we have done in spite of our intention to seek for the right and do the right will be forgiven us. Invincible ignorance does require that the sinner has sought to know and conform himself to the truth with due diligence.

On the flip side of invincible ignorance, by the way, is the extra condemnation that comes with knowing very well that one is opposing God and yet ardently teaching others to do the same, others who might have avoided the sin and resisted evil if not for the false counsel and encouragement to give up the moral life that they got. It would be a particularly grave offense to know a way was evil and yet to teach the doubtful or ignorant or weak that it was the way of God!

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!" (Matt. 18:32-35)

This is why is indeed extremely important to clarify what invincible ignorance is and what it is NOT, yes!

 

[PetraG]

…AND we see people can run too fast to invincible ignorance thinking it’s an automatic escape for themselves or others…

Correctly understood, the concept of invincible ignorance gives no one permission to stop trying to do his best to understand and conform himself to the truth, including the truths that are the foundation of the moral life. It only admits that a person may be doing their best to live the best life they can and yet fail in one or many major ways because they did not have the grace at that time to totally know and apply the truth they had heard to their own lives. Considering the near-deafening din of falsehood that anyone seeking the truth in our time has to contend with in their search for the truth, this concept is more important than ever.

For instance, consider someone who wants to believe in God but who honestly has tried and cannot force himself to believe the tenets of the Catholic religion are true. He wants to believe it is true, yet he accepts that he does not believe it. Try as he might, he cannot. He understands it would be a sacrilege to ask for baptism or reception into the Church when he cannot make himself believe that what he’d be asking for is true. This person might be more moral by refraining from asking for baptism or reception than someone who decided to just lie about what they believe and to join the Church. The person who does not believe is not free to just throw his hands in the air and say, “well, I just don’t get it. That lets me off the hook.” No, he has to keep trying to find the truth and he must adjust his actions to the best understanding he can obtain. That is what we all have to do. We believe this because we understand that faith is a gift, not a commercial item that is given automatically.

There was a time when I thought that the Church taught that everyone who had been told the Church was the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and yet did not choose to become Catholic would be damned, because there is no salvation outside the Church. I thought, “well, that cannot be right.” My problem was that I did not go to a priest and ask how this could be. I labored under the misconception that the Church had to be wrong for a very long time, until I learned this concept. It made everything clear to me: that is, how the Church can have a set of very important and binding truths which can be known with certainty and yet not conclude that everyone who refuses to buy into them must be going straight to Hell. No, the Church teaches that she has the duty to evangelize and to teach what is true and how we need to act but also leaves open the possibility that some will be won by the Holy Spirit eventually in ways we cannot know. It is like that with the rest of moral law, too.

Invincible ignorance does not teach that it is impossible that someone might understand the truth and yet reject it or might be culpable because they were too neglectful to even try to understand the truth. It is not that.

 

[PetraG]

In short: Invincible ignorance says that we will not be held responsible if we seek the truth and do not find it instantly, in spite of our due diligence, and because of our failure to accept the amount of truth we have been exposed to we honestly choose actions that are objectively immoral. It does NOT say that faith requires no cooperation from the soul! It does NOT say that whatever action a soul chooses must be the best it knew to choose!!

Faith and virtue require our free cooperation. It is always God who pursues us first, but in the end we will only be caught if we consent to God’s pursuit of us. The concept of invincible ignorance DOES NOT say we may sit back and expect the truth to woo us until we are so ravished by the force of it that we can no longer resist a life of virtue. I think we all know that is NOT how it works!

 

[AgnosticBoy]

ALL the recognition of the possibility of invincible ignorance does is this: It offers the recognition that we cannot know whether or not someone else is really “doing their best” or whether or not they are a work in progress that may yet improve and it provides the hope that someone who has spent their life choosing a gravely immoral pattern of action might yet not suffer eternal damnation.

I appreciate your clarification. The part of your explanation I quoted above is my main point of disagreement with your view. You stated, “we can not know”. I’ve stated that we can know, the Church can make such determination and act on it accordingly just as they’ve done throughout history.

The issue on this thread is about gay marriage from the Christian POV. Given that there is an overwhelming view that has stood the test of time (except when gay marriage is a hot button issue), given the ease to find this information, and the consistency amongst the different sources that deal with this issue, I believe it is fair to say someone in this day and age has more than enough resources to find their answer. A believer should certainly know all of this basic stuff which is why the apostle Paul teaches to not associate with “believers” who say something contrary to what he’s taught. To have the knowledge and reject it is not an innocent form of ignorance if that can be called ignorance at all. Do not mistake not accepting with not knowing!

I’m not sure how a religion could’ve ever gotten off the ground when its members can’t even agree on the core and basic stuff.

 

[PetraG]

Yes. The doctrine of invincible ignorance gives a logical reason why we don’t have room to go from inescapable conclusions about the morality of conduct to inescapable conclusions about culpability or the eternal consequences of choices that other particular persons make. We really cannot know who has or has not been given the grace to accept what they have been taught. We can only say–and yes, you are right, we are duty-bound to say!!–that those who do understand and can accept are morally bound to accept and justly liable to judgment for choosing not to do so.

It is possible to suffer as a moral or philosophical or religious dyslexic, I guess one could say–that is, you look at the same letters that make sense to everyone else, but no matter how hard you try, they are honestly gibberish to you. That doesn’t mean you are free to give up on trying to learn to read. It means you may not be at fault for failing to learn in the same way as the rest of your class, that your peers have no room to judge you as lazy or stubborn or any of that. You may even be accomplishing far more with the capacity you have been given and you may be trying harder than any of the other students have ever had to try, and in that sense you may be a far more pleasing student to the Teacher who really understands each student thoroughly than anyone else in your class, even the ones who are advancing far faster than you have or ever will. That’s all.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Yes. The doctrine of invincible ignorance gives a logical reason why we don’t have room to go from inescapable conclusions about the morality of conduct to inescapable conclusions about culpability or the eternal consequences of choices that other particular persons make. We really cannot know who has or has not been given the grace to accept what they have been taught. We can only say–and yes, you are right, we are duty-bound to say!!–that those who do understand and can accept are morally bound to accept and justly liable to judgment for choosing not to do so.

The Church can also judge and has judged Christians. This alone shows that people are held responsible for their actions and/or teachings.

It is possible to suffer as a moral or philosophical or religious dyslexic, I guess one could say–that is, you look at the same letters that make sense to everyone else, but no matter how hard you try, they are honestly gibberish to you. That doesn’t mean you are free to give up on trying to learn to read. It means you may not be at fault for failing to learn in the same way as the rest of your class, that your peers have no room to judge you as lazy or stubborn or any of that. You may even be accomplishing far more with the capacity you have been given and you may be trying harder than any of the other students have ever had to try, and in that sense you may be a far more pleasing student to the Teacher who really understands each student thoroughly than anyone else in your class, even the ones who are advancing far faster than you have or ever will. That’s all.

I don’t buy your explanation when the person shows “selective” ignorance. If they can understand what it means to not kill they should understand what it means to NOT engage in same-sex acts.

 

[edwest211]

"In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.

"Marriage is instituted by the Creator as a form of life in which a communion of persons is realized involving the use of the sexual faculty. “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife and they become one flesh” (Gen 2:24).

"Third, God has willed to give the union of man and woman a special participation in his work of creation. Thus, he blessed the man and the woman with the words “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28). Therefore, in the Creator’s plan, sexual complementarity and fruitfulness belong to the very nature of marriage.

"Furthermore, the marital union of man and woman has been elevated by Christ to the dignity of a sacrament. The Church teaches that Christian marriage is an efficacious sign of the covenant between Christ and the Church (cf. Eph 5:32). This Christian meaning of marriage, far from diminishing the profoundly human value of the marital union between man and woman, confirms and strengthens it (cf. Mt 19:3-12; Mk 10:6-9).

"4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved”.(4)

"Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts “as a serious depravity… (cf. Rom 1:24-27; 1 Cor 6:10; 1 Tim 1:10). This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered”.(5) This same moral judgment is found in many Christian writers of the first centuries(6) and is unanimously accepted by Catholic Tradition.

"Nonetheless, according to the teaching of the Church, men and women with homosexual tendencies “must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided”.(7) They are called, like other Christians, to live the virtue of chastity.(8) The homosexual inclination is however “objectively disordered”(9) and homosexual practices are “sins gravely contrary to chastity”.(10)

 

[PetraG]

I don’t buy your explanation when the person shows “selective” ignorance. If they can understand what it means to not kill they should understand what it means to NOT engage in same-sex acts.

You don’t have to buy it. We know that culpability depends on (a) the gravity of the action and (b) the knowledge a person has that a behavior is wrong, and (c.) the capacity of the person to choose to act rightly. We may judge the gravity of the action. We may teach others the necessity of conforming to the truth and that they have no human right to reject the truth. We may not judge another person’s capacity to act in a righteous manner. We don’t know it and we have been specifically forbidden to make that judgment.

The doctrine of invincible ignorance explains why, but the main thing is that we understand that part of the truth that we are all BOUND to accept is the truth that we are FORBIDDEN from judging someone else’s soul. We can judge individual acts to be outside moral boundaries, we may have the positive duty to instruct, council and admonish someone else that what they are doing is a grave sin, so that if they are afflicted with invincible ignorance they may eventually overcome it, but we may not conclude that we know the state of someone else’s soul. That is forbidden, and that is also part of the moral truth that we must accept and conform ourselves to.

The Church can also judge and has judged Christians. This alone shows that people are held responsible for their actions and/or teachings

Name a single person the Catholic Church has declared to be in Hell in the way the Church has declared persons to be among the saints in Heaven. You can’t, because the Church never has.

Excommunication is barring a person from receiving Holy Communion because the person has objectively committed acts of a gravity that would make reception of Holy Communion a sacrilege and a damage to the person’s soul. That is like a doctor refusing to give someone food to eat when they have a serious abdominal wound. It is a call to repent. It is not a punishment like being thrown in prison or an announcement that someone is going to Hell.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

If Paul was able to judge when people were being deceitful and wicked, and that these people have no part in the Kingdom of God, then I’d expect the infallible Church can also do the same. Forget ‘grace’ for a moment, and focus on actions taken to KNOW something. Logically speaking, a person who has been given the Christian POV on same-sex acts can no longer say they have no knowledge of it. If such a person claims otherwise then they are to be judged and/or rejected just as I pointed to Scriptural reference of that happening.