Same Sex Marriage and SCOTUS

[unstoppable_II]

Maybe the gov’t should stay out of the business of marriage.

I never looked upon marriage as a “business”.

The essential public purpose of marriage is to attach mothers and fathers to their children and to one another. To see the importance of this purpose, we must take the perspective of the child: What is owed to the child? Unlike adults, the child does not need autonomy or independence. The child is entitled to a relationship with and care from both of the people who brought him into being. Therefore, the child has a legitimate interest in the stability of his parents’ union. But no child can defend these entitlements himself. Nor is it adequate to make restitution after these rights have been violated. The child’s rights to care and relationship must be supported pro-actively, before harm is done, for those rights to be protected at all.

Marriage is adult society’s institutional structure for protecting the legitimate interests of children. Without this public purpose, we would not need marriage as a distinct social institution.

When parents fight, who will defend the child’s interest?

 

[Jeanne_S]

I never looked upon marriage as a “business”.
?

My response was re the statement by the OP,re the Church getting into gov’t affairs.

 

[unstoppable_II]

My response was re the statement by the OP,re the Church getting into gov’t affairs.

But that is different from the statement by the OP.

 

[exnihilo]

But she is right that the Constitution spells out separation of Church and State.

The constitution does not. It says there will be no established religion. That has a very narrow meaning. It means there will not be a national church. It does not mean you can’t have symbols of Christianity, promote Christianity above other religions, have Christianity inform the law, or have state churches (as they did at the founding). The courts have invented this no Christianity allowed rule just like they invented same sex marriage.

The South still had its lifestyle, though.

What lifestyle? Most people were poor laborers who didn’t own slaves. That is the same lifestyle the North had.

 

[unstoppable_II]

The constitution does not. It says there will be no established religion. That has a very narrow meaning. It means there will not be a national church. It does not mean you can’t have symbols of Christianity, promote Christianity above other religions, have Christianity inform the law, or have state churches (as they did at the founding). The courts have invented this no Christianity allowed rule just like they invented same sex marriage.

Very good!

What lifestyle? Most people were poor laborers who didn’t own slaves. That is the same lifestyle the North had.

There must have been some differences; otherwise, why go to war for 0 [zero]. After all, Robert E. Lee turned down command of the Union Army in favor of defending his state of Virginia.

 

[Book_Worm]

I‘m okay with “all of them” provided they can make a strong case. What I am not okay with is shutting some or all of them up merely because they are church(es.) That is not only unreasonable, it is downright stupid because it is an egregious instantiation of the genetic fallacy.

Not only that, but it is prejudice at its worse, because it prejudges what any member of any church has to say before they are even heard.

So, *which *church is the conscience by which the government is judged?

Even on same-sex marriage there is no unanimous view held by all the churches–*or *temples *or *mosques.

Which takes precedence?

 

[Operalan]

If you are Pro-SSM, can you say the Creed with an honest heart? When you say you believe in “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church”, are you no affirming that you believe its teachings? Is it dishonest if you say you affirm these teachings but support SSM? The Church’s teaching is clear on the subject.

 

[NovusFidem]

Then explain what the public purpose for marriage is.

What is the societal value of marriage? What is the societal VIEW of marriage? I will try to explain with complete disregard to religion, so cope with me.

In many different cultures, from the naked indigenous that inhabited/inhabits South America, to the aboriginal tribes that populated Africa, the nomadic tribes that navigated Asia, the settled population in Europe, India, Russia, even to the far-off land of Japan, one thing they had in common: marriage.

Let’s be honest here: it was not always about man and woman. In fact, sometimes, it was man and 5 woman. In some tribes, two brothers married one woman. Monogamy, polyandry, polygamy, you name it, they had it.

And let’s be honest on another point: for the largest part? It was not about Love either. That is a recent invention. Marriage was often a contract. We had arranged marriages made by the parents of the couple, or even the State. We had marriages made between cousins and even siblings in order to maintain the ‘blood clean’. We had marriages to end wars, to unite nations - and all these marriages (from the contract ones, to polygamous, etc) had ONE thing in common:

Man and woman.

Be it 5:1 or 1:5 or even 2:11, marriage had to include at least one from each gender.

Now, that is just observation of something that happens naturally. The question is: why has marriage been like this since ever?

The answer is obvious: children.

A marital contract, be it to unite two family houses or two countries, relies on the fact that one little thing (named Baby) will come out from it and unite them. The marriage, then, becomes a contract that binds both parents (or families, if that is the case) in having, raising, caring and educating this Baby. And then, this baby goes on to preserve the traditions and riches of both parties, from both mom and dad.

And homosexuality? It is, apparently, older than monogamy. The Ancient Greek believed that true love was to be had between two men only; Love was not something to be spared to one’s own wife. Love was between one older man and his young MALE lover. Women? They were for making baby. And getting married.

Even the Greek, who were openly fond of homosexual relationship (both on the physical/sexual and spiritual/loving aspect), who regarded their male lover as something more than their own wives, had concubines and all Sodom, understood and HAD marriage only between man and woman - because children. Demosthenes, a prominent statesman (think ‘councilman’) in Ancient Hellas, said: “We have prostitutes for our pleasure, concubines for our health (took care of the house), and wives to bear us **lawful **offspring.”

When you try to include other things into the marriage category, it only shows that society forgot what marriage is about. Today, they believe marriage is:

• about Love, and caring, and giving - True, a marriage does not work without these, but these alone do not constitute marriage. I can Love, and care and give my all to others as a Nun, for Pete’s sake!
• about upgrading a relationship - Many believe that dating forever is a no-go. Marriage is the logical “next step”;
• about validating one’s relationship - validating what? What is it that you do, or want to do, that you need to be married to do it? That a different contract or dispensation (for hospital visits, for example) can’t grant?

This was a small history overview of “the societal view of marriage”, next post I am going to try to explain why we need marriage.

 

[NovusFidem]

Now, what is the societal value, or meaning, or “why is marriage (as a contract) even needed?”.

You get a boy and girl, both teens. They live in our society, and have sex, and make use of contraception. Then, this happens:

Female Condom: 79% efficacy - almost never used due to awkwardness and discomfort
Male Condom: 82% efficacy - rarely used due to discomfort
Withdrawal: 78% efficacy - seriously, who has the presence of mind to withdraw at the last moment? Besides, pre-ejaculation
Hormonal Pill: 91% efficacy - efficacy may lower due to a lot of physiological alterations, use of antibiotics, alcohol, etc., plus it is dependant on the woman remembering to take them (injectable hormones raise efficacy by mere 3%)
Vasectomy (99,85%) and Laparoscopy (99,5%) - even with these extreme, usually non-reversible, methods, 1 in every 100 woman who made use of this method gets pregnant every year.

So, the girl gets pregnant. The boy doesn’t have money to take care of the girl, the girl is pretty much scared of the whole situation. What we have then:

a) The boy stays with the girl. Both have the baby. The child is raised by a maybe-loving family, with little resources for themselves;
b) The boy leaves the girl. The girl has the baby. The child is raised by a loving mother, being privved from the presence of a father and half the family.
c) The boy stays with the girl - as long as she aborts. The girl falls for that “proof of love” speech. The baby dies.

In all three cases, who is the one most affected by all this? The child. It either will be raised by people who did not prepare, nor want it, or it will be abandoned by one or both parents and put for adoption, or, worse of all, it will be killed before even having a chance to voice their own opinion on the matter.

When you consider how marriage was conceived BY SOCIETY, you understand that marriage was made to avoid all this drama and protect the child. Sex was something to be had between man and wife (and man and man in some cultures, like the ancient Greeks). Sex outside of marriage was a big NO-NO; as we disregarded this bit of Truth, and sex became free-for-all, then was given the first slap towards the healthy Traditional Family. But that is material for another discussion…

This is a bit of biblical reference, but more for the law present in Old Testament times (The Bible as a history tool, if you may): if a man had sex with a virgin (and she cried for help but none came - those were sad times), he had to marry her. The man had to assume responsibility for the act of sex, because from it might result a child that needed protection.

For the Ancient Greek, marriage was for babies only. While the wife had some prestige among the other women in a household, it was only barely. She did not have to clean or cook, but sex was her obligation. It was not romantic, neither it needed to be consented. The man had sex when he wanted children. Was there ever love? Sometimes, but it was not necessary.

About that tidbit from Demosthenes about lawful offspring:

"These lawful offspring were so important that, if a wife had not bore a husband children by the end of the tenth year of their marriage, the man was forced to file for divorce. This was a costly affair because a divorce meant parting with the dowry that was paid to the husband upon marriage, as the ex-wife was entitled to it.

Should a husband die before producing offspring, the widow was encouraged–even forced–to take a new husband as soon as possible and produce a child with him. This first born child was considered to be the child of the widow’s first husband and counted towards his family line and heritage. The practice was called ‘raising up seed’ and was a lawful and legitimate way of parentage, usually executed with the brother of the deceased husband. The custom of raising up seed also opened the way for the practice of adoption to sustain the family line."[1]

As you can see, marriage contracts were really concerned with babies, because that is what marriage was for. Legitimacy was so important back then, that ‘bastard’ became a offensive word. Being a bastard was bad, not only because of the stigma and loss of rights in a society (which we protect today, with alimony, pensions and all), but also for the loss of being raised by both parents; of being raised in a stable home; of being raised with enough conditions for a proper education, healthcare, safety and recreation.

So, in short: marriage is about a man and a woman making sure that, whatever child is born from that union, the child will be priority and their responsibility. With this socio-cultural definition (defined by different cultures, tribes, traditions), how does one include a homosexual couple into?

Our society corrupted the meaning of marriage a long time ago, with no-fault divorce, pre-marital sex and all that “freedom”. The instant they made it easy to enter and leave marriage, it was enough to show that they either didn’t care about the children OR that they didn’t think the children had any role in a divorce…

Now, marriage mean nothing of that. Now, marriage does not protect the children or the family, because the meaning of marriage is so corrupted and lost that no one would say that marriage is for protecting children. Now we rely on the State, and Statutes, and Laws to protect what once was the responsibility of a married couple.

Now, marriage is just telling to the States that some two people live together, until they decide they do not - for which, surprise surprise, we have divorce-made-easy to help!

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, *which *church is the conscience by which the government is judged?

Even on same-sex marriage there is no unanimous view held by all the churches–*or *temples *or *mosques.

Which takes precedence?

Whichever present the best case. Same with any other body or individual that has a compelling case to be made. If we are at all interested in good governance we ought to be listening to whichever voices present compelling reasons to question what the government is doing. It isn’t the voice or the source that is important it is what is being said.

This idea of “this group” over here shouldn’t be heard - not because they don’t have something compelling to say, but merely because they are a church - is ridiculous. If we are at all interested in the truth of things, we ought to be willing to listen to the truth from whatever quarter it comes. That is the idea behind freedom of speech and the reason why it is a positive thing to promote in any civilized society.

 

[NovusFidem]

Lastly, about what our religion has to do with all… this.

You can observe societies and see how each societal structure has worked so far. You’ll see that fraternal polyandry (two brothers sharing one wife) is good to avoid division of farming land, but that it might raise conflict between both brothers who will need to share one wife, and who will not know whose kids are their own.

Polygyny, so common before Judaism, where a man had many wives, is far more beneficial for a man and family in order to maintain a land and use it: one man can have many heirs to work the land. It is incredible for raising the workforce. However, it is highly detrimental to the value of a woman, who at most can say yes or no to the new wife, and this union highly focuses on the reproductive aspect of marriage, and not on the UNITIVE aspect.

Which brings us to monogamy, a rather recent idea. Old civilizations had monogamy only due to lack of resources: only the rich had enough to pay for and maintain more than one wife. But monogamy as the only acceptable form of marriage? Yeah, it is a new concept. A man and woman giving themselves fully, respecting each other as equals? That is Biblical teaching.

When you consider all this observations, and see what the Bible has to say on the matter… you’ll see that the Church was right all along. That is what the DEPOSIT OF FAITH is supposed to be: the Truth is there, we just need to understand and accept that, and apply it to our daily, changing, lives.

As said St. Augustine: “I should not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church” (Con. epist. Manichaei, fundam., n. 6) So, even if interpretation is possible, the final word should come from The Church (Apostolic Tradition, Magisterium AND Scriptures). So, if the Church says homosexual marriage is bad for society? You better believe it; proof is on the way, but until then, trust is needed to preserve us from what might be/is evil.

 

[Peter_Plato]

So, *which *church is the conscience by which the government is judged?

Even on same-sex marriage there is no unanimous view held by all the churches–*or *temples *or *mosques.

Which takes precedence?

When all else fails rely on the basic principles of democracy - representation by population. If 35% of the population are orthodox Catholic, then something like 35% of the population will speak with an orthodox Catholic voice. It is silly to pretend that in the name of a secular state, the voices of 35% of the people should be silenced. That is intolerance at best, an oligarchy or totalitarianism at worst. It certainly isn’t democracy in action.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

(Edited)

I’m sure anyone who is reading this post is a good person of a descent moral character. However, unless you’ve actually known someone close to you that is LGBT or you yourself is LGBT, it would be probably, most likely, greatly difficult for you to understand the great significance of such a great achievement and milestone of the SCOTUS. I’m a Catholic, and I applaud this decision by the highest court of the Nation. Don’t take away my self identity as a Catholic, because that is something you can’t ever take away from anybody, identify. A person can’t take away identity from another person. Call me a “Cafeteria Catholic” if you must. This is the right thing. This is the moral thing. There is a clear separation of Church and State enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The separation of Church and State must be strongly upheld. There are virtually no secular arguments against same sex marriage (as far as I know), except for religious ones. Religious arguments can’t be used in a court of law. That’s how things are, as it should. This has nothing to do with religion. This is a completely civil matter in its very essence. The Church needs to stay out of government affairs, because as we can see all throughout history, the corruption of the Church is aligned with its strong relationship with the government such as in more contempary cases in Ireland and Latin America. Jesuit priest, James Martin and CNN Religious Commentator, Edward Beck both posted positive comments on social media regarding the LGBT community. We may disagree about same sex marriage and the like, but as civil humans and fellow Christians, it’s important for us to respect and love each other. Christ said to love one another and do unto to others as you would want them to do unto you. As a Christian, it disheartens me to see nothing but hate and prejudice against the LGBT community by my fellow Christians. This is not Christian. There is no evil here. The only evil here is violating the civil rights of people in a democratic society. This is not Christian. You may say that you “love” the LGBT community, but y’all don’t act like it. Love and kindness is Christian, but I certainly don’t see that from many Christians. The decision regarding same sex marriage by the SCOTUS does not and will not change Church policy and doctrine. The official beliefs of the Church regarding same sex marriage remains intact and does not redefine the definition or sacramentality of marriage within the Church. The Church is free to believe and practice as they please. This decision is a matter of civil liberties for all residents of the United States. Religious rights are not being violated by this decision. The State is not violating your right to practice and believe in your respective faith. The State can not and will not force religious institutions to conduct same sex marriage ceremonies against their will. In fact, that is a clear violation of the Bill of Rights. The Sacrament of Holy Matrimony has not changed. The legality of civil same sex marriage is the only thing that has changed. The State is not attempting to define that nature of marriage itself, the State is merely giving individuals of the same sex to participate in civil marriage which of course is separate from religious marriage. The only rights being violated here are prohibiting people the right to choose the lifestyle they see as fit whether you agree with it or not. Peace and love. Bless you all my fellow Christians.

State and Church are separated, but there’s always this but:

The USA is a bunch of people. Each person is expected to voice his opinion on public policy. If most people are religious, then most people are going to be backing up certain policies for purely religious reasons.

Christians have the same vote as everyone else: one. We’re expected to vote for what we want, otherwise democracy doesn’t work. Whether or not the reasons we vote the way we vote are religious is immaterial to the system. The state should not endorse or put down any one religion, but the state is ideally nothing more than a representation of the will of the people. And if the people are religious, well… then don’t get worked up about policies for religious reasons.

It’s entirely democratic, and entirely in accordance with separation of Church and state for a nation to decide that same sex marriage isn’t a thing.

The main question remains: whether a minority is being mistreated by policies that uphold marriage as being between one man and one woman. Five years ago, most Americans said no. Now, most Americans say yes… Not that public opinion has anything to do with the supreme court, of course.
The correct answer is No, according to Catholic moral teaching. But that’s just it–this was only ever a moral question, not political.

-Greg

 

[ialsop]

The constitution does not. It says there will be no established religion. That has a very narrow meaning. It means there will not be a national church. It does not mean you can’t have symbols of Christianity, promote Christianity above other religions, have Christianity inform the law, or have state churches (as they did at the founding). The courts have invented this no Christianity allowed rule just like they invented same sex marriage.

TRUE…to an extent…it is true we have religious liberty, but religious liberty is the SAME IDENTICAL THING as separation of church and state.

If you persecute the Church, then you believe the antichurch should run the state spiritually.

If you support a state that favors Catholicism, then you believe that.

If you support religious liberty for ALL religions, freedom from a secular government, then you believe in…separation of Church and State.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

There is no such thing.

How so? Please elaborate on that statement. That would be great! Thank you!

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

Yes, we must love all people and we must be compassionate to the suffering. Clearly, many people today suffer from sexual disorientation. But to support their unnatural life style is a great sin, a mortal sin - to be blunt. No Catholic can offer encouragement for the sinful actions of others or to make excuses for them. No Catholic can support a law which is contrary to Catholic Faith or Morality. The Scotus decision is just as evil as the Roe vs Wade decision and other sinful decisions of the Supreme Court. Catholics who support such decisions have set themselves outside the commuion of the faithful and may not receive the sacraments without true repentance and confession.

wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/cdf-i…exual-persons/

As Pope Saint John Paul ll points out, Catholics are charged with the moral duty to vigorously oppose such sinful laws.

Linus2nd

Hello. Thank you for your response and for voicing your opinions.
Just a question to start some discussion. Do you love undocumented immigrants? If that is the case would you say that a person could still “love” undocumented immigrants if they objected to these people obtaining US citizenship or US permanent residency? How can a person still “love” undocumented immigrants but support them getting ready citizenship or residency? Just something to think about.

Please explain to me “sexual disorientation.” What is “unnatural lifestyle.” Supporting the SCOTUS decision doesn’t mean you’re supporting any lifestyle. All it means is you support the right for individuals to live the life they see as fit for themselves. For a State to base policy purely on religious doctrine or beliefs is seriously undemocratic, even if the “majority” supports such decision. Religious policy can’t mix with State policy in a free democratic society, that’s just how things work.

Christians who support such a decision, aren’t “encouraging” anything, they’re just giving them a right. That’s all it is. Rights essentially. A little while ago, NYC proposed a ban on certain sizes of soft drinks. I’m sure you heard of that. Now, if someone supports a right for a person to drink any size soft drink as they see fit without government intervention, I don’t think they’re supporting or encouraging any lifestyle or diet for that matter. Such a person is merely opposed to a Nanny State or a State with their noses in people’s personal lives and bedrooms.

I’m not supporting or encouraging anything. I just believe in rights. Rights are of utmost importance to me and many in this great country. I believe the State and the Church should stay out of people’s bedrooms and sexual lives. That’s just wrong and immoral. It just shouldn’t be done.

I go to Mass every Sunday. I do not go up to communion because of my personal opinions.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

If you really believe this then I don’t think you really understand the teachings of the Church and are as you say a buffet Catholic.

Hello, thank you for your honesty and candor.

I am a Christian and I am a Catholic. I’m a cafeteria Catholic / Christian, whatever derogatory or prejudice comments you want to call me, I’m fine with that. Call me what you please.

Understanding and disagreeing are two different things. I’ll tell you that. I do understand and respect the teaching of the Church. However, I simply disagree with certain teachings and polices of the Roman Catholic Church. That Church will always be a part of my life, but I just believe religion should stay out of government matters. That’s how I always felt.

 

[ThatsNoBueno]

In short, the bottom line and our mission as Catholics is to get as many people into heaven as possible. As such we should oppose any behavior whether considered by people as religious practice or state practice that interfere with that goal. The condoning of and making legal any behaviors that lead people away from God’s eternal will for them is wrong and disastrous regardless of what any man-made court may decree. Man’s law can never over ride God’s without the inevitable consequences.

We are all sinners and hating another of God’s creations is not an option for Christians, but loving our neighbors does not mean that we should or can condone sinful behavior so that we can avoid hurting someone’s feelings. Do we standby and say nothing while someone ventures out on to thin ice without calling out to them? Actually standing by and doing nothing would be a sin against loving our neighbor.
Love the sinner…hate the sin.

Its strange how the separation of Church and State only seems to object to the Church interfering with the State’s authority but not the State interfering with the Church’s.

The United States is an extremely diverse country. Diverse in many and all aspects in life. Christianity may be a “major” religion in this country, but it’s not the only religion in this country.

Sharia Law. Let’s talk about that. You state that “we” should oppose anything that would interfere with people’s ability to get into heaven. (Paraphrasing here, I hope that’s okay with you). The Muslim population is growing greatly in this country. What if some Muslims proposed policy and legislation that is accordance to their respective faith? What if Muslims started proposing foods that aren’t Halal are illegal? Eating Halal foods brings us closer to Allah, and not partaking in halal foods brings us further away from Allah.

Using your argument, any religion can and should push for legislation that puts us further away from Heaven. We should start banning meats and shellfish and anything that isn’t Kosher or Halal.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The United States is an extremely diverse country. Diverse in many and all aspects in life. Christianity may be a “major” religion in this country, but it’s not the only religion in this country.

Sharia Law. Let’s talk about that. You state that “we” should oppose anything that would interfere with people’s ability to get into heaven. (Paraphrasing here, I hope that’s okay with you). The Muslim population is growing greatly in this country. What if some Muslims proposed policy and legislation that is accordance to their respective faith? What if Muslims started proposing foods that aren’t Halal are illegal? Eating Halal foods brings us closer to Allah, and not partaking in halal foods brings us further away from Allah.

Using your argument, any religion can and should push for legislation that puts us further away from Heaven. We should start banning meats and shellfish and anything that isn’t Kosher or Halal.

Those are my thoughts. What are yours?

Aren’t you assuming that religions would begin to politically push for their own rituals and practices to be adopted by everyone in the country? I am not sure about Islam, but Catholicism would not go there.

Now moral principles are a different matter because morality applies, by definition, to all moral agents. However, even there, moral principles from any one religion would need to be demonstrated as being more conducive to the welfare of the whole of society than competing moral principles.

 

[NovusFidem]

Understanding and disagreeing are two different things. I’ll tell you that. I do understand and respect the teaching of the Church. However, I simply disagree with certain teachings and polices of the Roman Catholic Church. That Church will always be a part of my life, but I just believe religion should stay out of government matters. That’s how I always felt.

To quote Chesterton:

Religious liberty might be supposed to mean that everybody is free to discuss religion. In practice it means that hardly anyone is allowed to mention it.

Democracy is, basically, about the “power of people”. You elect people to represent you on decision that affect the society you are a member of. If the majority professes a certain belief, be it religious or not, that belief should be taken into account. A Secular State simply states that ‘it does not have a established religion’, but allows the presence and participation of religions, as it does the presence and participation of different opinions, different cultures and different traditions.

So, if people are religious and that affect their view of the world? Then that view is to be part of the government, having vote equal to that of people who were elected for the job. I am Catholic/Protestand/Jew/Atheist, and I voted someone there to represent my worldview. The State is secular, but the people are not.

Now, we as Catholics. It is very illogical to say “I believe that this religion holds the true Deposit of Faith” and then complete with “Except on these parts”. Not only it is illogical, but it is rather silly: why subscribe to a religion (by definition: a collection of beliefs, cultural systems and world views) if you don’t believe it is right?

I mean, why the Catholic Church? What does it have that other Churches fail to provide?

Either God exists, or not. If He exists, He either founded a Church, or not. If He has founded a Church, it either is the Catholic Church, or not.

If He founded a Church (as scripture shows), He probably wants us to be there. If He founded a Church, He must have left clues for us to find it. Indeed, He left us some promises:

“The church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of Truth” (1 Tim 3:15)

The Church you are thinking of joining/has joined either: a) is the pillar and foundation of Truth; or b) it is not the Church of God; or c) God lied to us.

“And I say that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it” (Matt 16:16-19)

The Church you want to join/has joined either: a) the gates of Hell did not overcome the Church; or b) it is not the Church of God; or c) God lied to us.

“I give you the keys to kingdom of Heaven, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and what ever you loosen on earth will be loosened in Heaven.” (Matt 16:16-19)

The Church you want to be a part of either: a) has powers to bind teachings on earth and Heaven; or b) is not the Church of God; or c) God lied to us.

So, unless God lied to us (very unlikely), you are either in a false Church OR you should believe in the Church completely, as it has the powers to bind on earth, Hell will not prevail against it and it was founded by Christ, and is protected by Christ in matters of Faith and Morals. If you found the True Church of Christ, why doubt its teachings?