Question: Is gay marriage sinful?

[PetraG]

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.

No, what the Church must NOT do is to “forget grace for a moment”!!
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...cfaith_doc_20000307_memory-reconc-itc_en.html

Here is a section that might interest you particularly (boldface, excepting the section heading, is mine):
5.3. The Use of Force in the Service of Truth

To the counter-witness of the division between Christians should be added that of the various occasions in the past millennium when doubtful means were employed in the pursuit of good ends, such as the proclamation of the Gospel or the defense of the unity of the faith. “Another sad chapter of history to which the sons and daughters of the Church must return with a spirit of repentance is that of the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of force in the service of truth.”(78) This refers to forms of evangelization that employed improper means to announce the revealed truth or did not include an evangelical discernment suited to the cultural values of peoples or did not respect the consciences of the persons to whom the faith was presented, as well as all forms of force used in the repression and correction of errors.

Analogous attention should be paid to all the failures, for which the sons and daughters of the Church may have been responsible, to denounce injustice and violence in the great variety of historical situations: “Then there is the lack of discernment by many Christians in situations where basic human rights were violated. The request for forgiveness applies to whatever should have been done or was passed over in silence because of weakness or bad judgement, to what was done or said hesitantly or inappropriately.”(79)

As always, establishing the historical truth by means of historical-critical research is decisive. Once the facts have been established, it will be necessary to evaluate their spiritual and moral value, as well as their objective significance. Only thus will it be possible to avoid every form of mythical memory and reach a fair critical memory capable - in the light of faith - of producing fruits of conversion and renewal. “From these painful moments of the past a lesson can be drawn for the future, leading all Christians to adhere fully to the sublime principle stated by the Council: ‘The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth, as it wins over the mind with both gentleness and power.’”(80)

 

[PetraG]

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.

Invincible ignorance is not something a person claims as a reason to reject a teaching of the Church!

No, invincible ignorance is a condition that a Christian must accept can afflict another person who is not currently accepting or acting according to all that the Church teaches, such that someone who is intellectually exposed to the truth but does not accept it cannot be automatically convicted of acting in bad faith. This possibility does not relieve the Christian trying to get someone else to accept the truth any more than the possibility of dyslexia relieves reading teachers to stop trying to teach a slow student to read. No, it explains why the slow student may not be stubborn or lazy. It does not mean a student is permanently incapable of ever learning to read. That is possible, but from the teacher’s point of view, incapacity is a diagnosis of exclusion. It is a possibility that a good teacher takes into account in order to be a more effective teacher, rather than a teacher who simply throws up his hands, blames students who don’t learn for being responsible for their lack of progress, and gives up on the student as a lost cause. (And no, the existence of dyslexia doesn’t imply that there is no such thing as a student who refuses to learn to read, either.)

 

[AgnosticBoy]

When I mentioned to forget grace, I was referring to just considering if or how someone is invincibly ignorant. That doesn’t require knowing about their salvation but rather it requires knowing what the person knows and the effort they put into seeking knowledge.

You are also avoiding the fact that there are ways to dtermine if some is ignorant in an innocent sense or not. God can reveal it to a prophet, the Church can reveal it to through investigation. Not only did your Church hold people culpable but also the apostles - were the original apostles wrong?!

Much of your other points applies to believers witnessing to non-believers. That has little to nothing to do with invincible ignorance among believers when it comes to core/basic teachings. Believers should be well aware of core beliefs which is why Paul had no problem excommunicating those who continued after receiving correction. Your standard seems to be accepting excuses, any excuses, ad nauseum. You open your heart that much and you’re bound to get duped by those who simply don’t want to accept Church teachings.

 

[steve-b]

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…

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!

I guess I run into too many who DO use it as a get outta jail free card.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

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.

I get mine from various other religions who also have marriage So you have your definition, and many other people have theirs. I’m afraid your definition doesn’t hold more weight than others.

 

[PetraG]

I guess I run into too many who DO use it as a get outta jail free card.

It is important to instruct people on what invincible ignorance means! You are right that it is widely misunderstood. That is a very dangerous problem in itself.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Alex337:

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.

I get mine from various other religions who also have marriage So you have your definition, and many other people have theirs. I’m afraid your definition doesn’t hold more weight than others.

I was debating how to answer you.

I’ll just say, suit yourself

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

I get mine from various other religions who also have marriage So you have your definition, and many other people have theirs. I’m afraid your definition doesn’t hold more weight than others.

I was debating how to answer you.

I’ll just say, suit yourself

No worries.

 

[anon10271182]

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

So do the Universalist Unitarians.

 

[edwest211]

But you’re not on a forum for Australian Quakers or Universalist Unitarians.

 

[anon10271182]

Exactly. Thank you for underscoring my point. Some here seem very confused about what the word “Catholic” means in the context of these forums. Or perhaps they are severely dyslexic and misread the title?

 

[Alex337]

You may have missed the part where we were discussing freedom of religion and how that interacts with other faiths views on marriage, and what can and cannot be called marriage in that context.

 

[PetraG]

You may have missed the part where we were discussing freedom of religion and how that interacts with other faiths views on marriage, and what can and cannot be called marriage in that context.

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that civil social institutions have to satisfy everyone. There are societies that don’t find plural marriage has a place in their social contract, either. That society chooses to tolerate some things without giving them active encouragement isn’t inherently unjust. More to the point, freedom of religion guarantees that people are free to keep thinking certain behaviors or life choices are sinful.

 

[Alex337]

Alex337:

You may have missed the part where we were discussing freedom of religion and how that interacts with other faiths views on marriage, and what can and cannot be called marriage in that context.

Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that civil social institutions have to satisfy everyone. There are societies that don’t find plural marriage has a place in their social contract, either. That society chooses to tolerate some things without giving them active encouragement isn’t inherently unjust. More to the point, freedom of religion guarantees that people are free to keep thinking certain behaviors or life choices are sinful.

This is true, currently the civil social institutions don’t seem to suit the Catholics as it agrees that homosexual marriage is marriage. But that’s wasn’t what we were discussing.

 

[PetraG]

This is true, currently the civil social institutions don’t seem to suit the Catholics as it agrees that homosexual marriage is marriage. But that’s wasn’t what we were discussing.

We’re here discussing this:

Recently I have seen otherwise devote Catholics start to argue that gay marriage is in fact not sinful because those engaged in it, do not have the knowledge or aren’t in a place to truly understand, and so they aren’t culpable and therefore the act of getting married to someone of another sex, isn’t sinful

The answer is that while someone may not be culpable for committing a sin because for some unknown reason they cannot appreciate that it is a sin, it is still wrong.

You can’t accept it, but it is wrong. You say, “It isn’t wrong to me, because I’m not Catholic.” We’re saying that there are things that are only wrong for Catholics to do because they are violations of laws specific to Catholics, but attempting to marry a man to another man is not one of them. That one violates laws that apply to all of humankind. You may say otherwise, some secular law may say otherwise, but we hold that there is such a thing as objective truth, and according to objective truth it is disordered for two people of the same sex to engage in sexual relations and it takes a seriously confused view of marriage to believe that two people of the same sex can be joined in marriage. The law can define anything it likes as a marriage and a judge will use that definition, but we’re saying that marriage is ultimately something that has an identity separate from the power of secular law to re-define.

Whatever religion you belong to, if your religion is now accepting marriage as a state that can be attained by two people of the same sex, your religion has also re-defined marriage. That is essentially saying that marriage can be whatever a society wants it to be: a mere social construct that can be changed in any way society decides to change it. We disagree with that view and maintain it is damaging to society to subject marriage to the arbitrary senses of popular whim.

You don’t think so. I think we get that.

 

[Alex337]

Cool, me and someone else had a discussion evolve. That happens.

Also, marriage has had many definitions through history. Catholicism redefined it too.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Catholicism redefined it too.

When did we redefine marriage?

 

[PetraG]

Cool, me and someone else had a discussion evolve. That happens.

Your discussion was trying to divide the Church into “uniformists” who believe that the definition of marriage cannot change and the “open-minded” people like Pope Francis, but that is a false dichotomy.

“Uniformists” who believe that everyone in the Church should be just like them. “They are rigid!” said the Pope. “They do not have that freedom the Holy Spirit gives,” and they confuse what Jesus preached with their “own doctrine of uniformity.” Jesus never wanted the church to be so rigid, Pope Francis said. Such people “call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the Church.”

Yet this is what the Pope has said:
By virtue of its very definition, marriage can only be between a man and a woman, Pope Francis has said in a new book-length interview.

“We cannot change it. This is the nature of things,” not just in the Church, but in human history, he said in a series of interviews with Dominique Wolton, a 70-year-old French sociologist and expert in media and political communication.

Published in French, the 417-page book, Politique et Société (“Politics and Society”) will be released on September 6. Catholic News Service obtained an advance copy, and excerpts appeared online.

When it comes to the true nature of marriage as well as gender, there is “critical confusion at the moment”, the Pope said.

When asked about marriage for same-sex couples, the Pope said, “Let’s call this ‘civil unions.’ We do not joke around with truth.”
(from 2017 interview with Pope Francis)
http://catholicherald.co.ukw0080000...-a-man-and-a-woman-and-we-cannot-change-it/--

There are things to be open-minded about, but re-definition of truth is not one of them. The Pope has never said that marriage is open to re-definition. You said that, and you implied that the Pope might agree with you.
It is not true, though.

 

[Alex337]

Friend, you seem to be conflating two separate discussion threads. No wonder it’s confusing. nor did I ever say the pope said that, but feel free to show where I did?

Also, marriage isn’t being redefined. Marriages has had many different definitions through time.

 

[PetraG]

Friend, you seem to be conflating two separate discussion threads. No wonder it’s confusing. nor did I ever say the pope said that, but feel free to show where I did?

Also, marriage isn’t being redefined. Marriages has had many different definitions through time.

Well, five days ago I guess someone on this thread was posting as you. Up around post 578…

There hasn’t been a Christian definition of marriage that included same-sex unions. That one is very rare, even in societies in general.