Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[Rawb]

Good question, but Catholics do not believe in a radical dichotomy between the public/secular sphere and the religious sphere, as you suggest. This fact is grounded in the fact that we don’t believe in a radical dichotomy between reason and faith, although there is a legitimate sphere of autonomy that pertains to each. The Church is a moral educator, but so is the state. It is impossible for a Catholic to accept that the state should positively reinforce corrupt moral norms.

p.s. Rawb, I hope this counts as a helpful expansion on my comment to you. There is an important difference between not legally prohibiting sin, and positively reinforcing it.

Very helpful, thank you. I think part of my problem with your statements is my mistrust of government; I don’t look to them for any sort of moral guidance, so the statement that the government is a legitimate moral educator strikes me as wrong (I admit, this is probably because I’ve so long seen our government as the opposite of moral).

This would make sense. If Catholics hold that the government should be a moral educator, then we as the people form the government and must then form it with a correct “conscience”. I also see, or am beginning to see, the dichotomy in your last paragraph.

Can you provide sources that back up these claims? That this is Church teaching, that we have always believed this, etc?

 

[ConstantineTG]

But although adultery is an evil, both morally and socially, it is not an offense under criminal or civil law. I have never heard a Christian advocate the banning of adultery, as abhorrent as it is. How do you feel?

The difference is adultery by and large is still a private sin. I know that today a lot of people flaunt it, but how do you really enforce something by law that only goes within someone’s private bedroom? Whereas marriage is a public act, because its not only an act between the two people, but it affects society as a whole. Because the nucleus of society is a family, and marriage is the beginning of a new nuclear family.

This issue is something I also struggle with. I don’t believe that homosexual “marriage” is really marriage, but if the term “civil unions” or similar were used instead to designate what some would have the law call “gay marriage”, would this make the concept any more palatable? I mean, doesn’t this kerfuffle stem at least somewhat from the inequality homosexuals perceive in the law–whether or not under it their relationships would be called “marriages”–by its granting heterosexual couples certain rights which homosexuals would wish to enjoy? (I don’t know much at all about what these rights are, but I’m guessing tax accommodations and hospital-visitation rights would be included.)

I agree that Civil Unions aren’t really any better but its a compromise at best. Safeguarding the definition of marriage at least tells people what something actually is.

I’m not staking out a strong position here, but the conflict between Christian morality and secular lawmaking has to be resolvable somehow, in such a way that we avoid both moral relativism and theocratic thinking.

That is the goal. The problem is that nowadays its moral relativism thats driving policy making. To what extent would we move the bar so low before we realize we’re ruining society at the cost of satisfying the whims of a small number of people? I’ve thrown out crazy ideas to defend marriage, like saying this will eventually lead to things like legal underage marriage and bestiality. People would tell me I’m crazy, but if 15-20 years ago I said same sex marriage would be legal in 15-20 years, they would have said the same. At some point we have to stand up and say that enough is enough. We should have more respect for ourselves as a society than just giving in to the whims of a handful of people with loud voices.

 

[Betterave]

Very helpful, thank you. I think part of my problem with your statements is my mistrust of government; I don’t look to them for any sort of moral guidance, so the statement that the government is a legitimate moral educator strikes me as wrong (I admit, this is probably because I’ve so long seen our government as the opposite of moral).

Good point, but we are called to ongoing social engagement to rectify this situation. The fact is that the government IS a moral educator - the only questions are, to what extent (there are necessarily, and there should be, limits to its role in this area), and whether it will teach good or evil.

This would make sense. If Catholics hold that the government should be a moral educator, then we as the people form the government and must then form it with a correct “conscience”. I also see, or am beginning to see, the dichotomy in your last paragraph.

Can you provide sources that back up these claims? That this is Church teaching, that we have always believed this, etc?

Here are some sections from the CCC:

1886 Society is essential to the fulfillment of the human vocation. To attain this aim, respect must be accorded to the just hierarchy of values, which "subordinates physical and instinctual dimensions to interior and spiritual ones:"8

Human society must primarily be considered something pertaining to the spiritual. Through it, in the bright light of truth, men should share their knowledge, be able to exercise their rights and fulfill their obligations, be inspired to seek spiritual values; mutually derive genuine pleasure from the beautiful, of whatever order it be; always be readily disposed to pass on to others the best of their own cultural heritage; and eagerly strive to make their own the spiritual achievements of others. These benefits not only influence, but at the same time give aim and scope to all that has bearing on cultural expressions, economic, and social institutions, political movements and forms, laws, and all other structures by which society is outwardly established and constantly developed.9

1887 The inversion of means and ends,10 which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end, engenders unjust structures which "make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible."11

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.12

1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.

1901 If authority belongs to the order established by God, "the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens."20

The diversity of political regimes is morally acceptable, provided they serve the legitimate good of the communities that adopt them. Regimes whose nature is contrary to the natural law, to the public order, and to the fundamental rights of persons cannot achieve the common good of the nations on which they have been imposed.

1902 Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a “moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility”:21

A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.22

**1910 Each human community possesses a common good which permits it to be recognized as such; it is in the *political community *that its most complete realization is found. It is the role of the state to defend and promote the common good of civil society, its citizens, and intermediate bodies. **

 

[Rawb]

I suppose there you have it. If we hold the government to be a moral educator, and you’ve given ample evidence that we must, it follows that we must then form that government (as we’re able to do) to be in accord with proper morals. This paragraph makes that especially clear:

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.

It makes it, in fact, an obligation of ours to vote against such things as gay marriage.

My question now is, why are we not campaigning on other moral fronts? Why is there no large move to make contraception illegal? Or divorce? Or remarriage after divorce? These are all sins, the first against natural law even, but I’ve never heard any real attempt to make them illegal.

 

[colmcille1]

The question is why for this particular issue do some Catholics find it difficult to separate their largely private religious views from their views as citizens in the public sphere. There is great inconsistency in the application deemed to be required by the faith.
The principles behind " I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it" Should be given the broadest possible sway

Hi mcteague,
What you have posted above (my editing) does not make sense.
Catholics are required to follow their reasoned conscience in accordance with His Way.
If you have met some Catholics who are inconsistent in said following, then that is most unfortunate; but please do not tar us all with this brush simply because it may help your argument here.
I have been on many threads and, where applicable, Catholics have stated quite clearly that the workings of a private/public conscience are interdependent; and when non-believers require just one sphere to be employed, they act quite indignant when it is plainly pointed out to them that that is not possible.
Also, I have heard this quote (“I disagree with what…”) used before in the context of a completely different debate.
It seems to be a handy catch-all statement that over-reaches itself.
Nobody is denying anyone the right to speak. Isn’t this one of the reasons why we are attracted to these forums?
Catholics will continue to debate with a fully-informed conscience as guided by His Loving Church.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Lutheranteach]

Unacceptable. The Catholic stance is a moral one, so its not merely a doctrinal issue within the Church, it affects the lives of all people. Same sex marriage is a poison to society and would affect all no matter whether the wedding itself happens. It also is a non-issue within the Church. No one who knows the faith and the Church wells believes that it will ever be accepted within the Church. So the issue really is do we allow same-sex marriage to poison the society at large? And the answer is no. Morality is for the entire society, not just Catholics. And that is what we Catholics are defending.

It may bot be acceptable to many Catholics, and others, but I have no doubt this is precisely what will come about over the next few years. I doubt any church will ever be forced to perform such weddings/unions, but they will be legalized and recognized and I think we’ll be all the better for it as same-sex relationships will then be held to the same standard — with the same responsibilities as others.

 

[rossum]

The difference is adultery by and large is still a private sin. I know that today a lot of people flaunt it, but how do you really enforce something by law that only goes within someone’s private bedroom? Whereas marriage is a public act, because its not only an act between the two people, but it affects society as a whole. Because the nucleus of society is a family, and marriage is the beginning of a new nuclear family.

I disagree. In America, because divorce is legal, adultery is often flaunted: “Hey, I’d like you to meet my second husband.” In Catholic terms that is adultery, since the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce.

There is already a gap between Catholic morality and the laws of the United States.

rossum

 

[colmcille1]

It may bot be acceptable to many Catholics, and others, but I have no doubt this is precisely what will come about over the next few years. I doubt any church will ever be forced to perform such weddings/unions, but they will be legalized and recognized and I think we’ll be all the better for it as same-sex relationships will then be held to the same standard — with the same responsibilities as others.

Hi Lutheranteach,
May I ask you please to explain this?
“Held” by whom?
What “others”?
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[StevenFrancis]

Why would Catholics object to the proposition that one could object to same sex marriage as a Catholic ceremony, but defend its inclusion as part of the secular world? In the same way that, although Catholics presumably believe that their faith is the correct one, most would defend the right of other religions to practice even if they vehemently disagreed with them. Supporting legalization of same sex marriage does not mean it has to be permitted inside the Church.
I can understand that for certain kinds of issues that separating the two is impossible for many. The abortion issue would be a good example. I would not expect Catholics to accept that its alright as long as it is not performed in Church. However gay marriage does not seem to be the kind of issue that would require supporting a particular public policy as requirement of living a Catholic life. One should be able to support its acceptance in the public sphere, but reject its inclusion as a Catholic ceremony

This post demonstrates how misunderstood this issue is among many persons who are not Catholic, and an alarming number of those who ARE Catholic. If you’re not a Catholic, of course we’d rather you see it our way, , and we’ll pray for you if you don’t, but no Catholic has been given power over Non Catholics unless something happened while I was asleep last night.

We are also called as Catholics to vote as Catholics when we live in a democratic society that allows such things. As long as issues of same sex marriage keep coming up, the faithful Catholic citizen will vote against it. To be fair, many don’t vote against it, and that is a problem caused by the confusion of liberalism and modernity in pluralistic society bleeding into the lives and thinking of the Church faithful. Not into the Church’s doctrine, but into her followers. Catholics who believe and practice the doctrines of the Church do not support same sex marriage.

It’s not about the ceremony, or where it’s held, or who officiates it, or whatever. It’s about persons of the same gender having sex together. Now matter how much secular society condones it. Heck, even if secular society made it mandatory, it wouldn’t effect the Church stand on the matter. It’s not a matter up for grabs. The Church doesn’t have political parties. We don’t have a changeable party platform that we can be persuarded on by angry non Catholics, or confused cafeteria Catholics.

Also, even as it stands now, If a gay couple are not Catholics, then they’re not going be coming to the Catholic Church for blessings or ceremonies anyway. If they the gay couple ARE Catholics, then taking it down the street to the city gazebo doesn’t change the fact that it’s against Catholic doctrine, and they’ve got some issues to deal with in their spiritual life.

For Catholics, a man and a woman who are married to each other, and are open to life should celebrate the marital embrace. All others are to live a life of chastity. It’s pretty simple in theory, though there is no illusion on anyone’s part that it is easy to practice. It is just what is. We all have temptations to do other than God would have us do. It’s part of the cross we all must bear. Homosexuals are tempted by sodomy and fornicatons. Heterosexuals who are not married are tempted by fornication. Married heterosexuals are tempted with adultry, and fornication, and some married heterosexuals are tempted by adultry, fornication and sodomy. So in the sense of sexual union apart from the man and wife, even married people are called to chastity. It is the natural Catholic state of being unless marriage occurs. So that’s the Catholic doctrine simplified.

It’s not changeable due to society, secularization, changing norms, politics, frustrations, demonstrations, ballot issues, or civil law etc. And when a Catholic Christian “supports” these things, they are being untrue to their faith, and complicit in evil. We may end up having to live in societies which are very much anti Catholic in their philosophies, humanity, etc., but as long as we have choice on ballots, we are not supposed to HELPING society be given over to sin. If we have the ability to vote against such thing on ballots, then we have a DUTY to vote against such things on ballots.

Having said all this, of course we don’t have “vote police” or anything, and Catholics are VERY big on free will. The Church offers guides, at least in the US, I know the USCCB has a guide to help voters use their faith to inform their voting decisions, but in the end, we must be in conformance with our own conscience, and willing to explain or justify ourselves to God for what we’ve done. If we’ve done wrong, we’ll know it, and we have the awesome gift fo the sacrament of reconciliation.

May God bless you,

Steven

 

[Betterave]

It may bot be acceptable to many Catholics, and others, but I have no doubt this is precisely what will come about over the next few years. I doubt any church will ever be forced to perform such weddings/unions, but they will be legalized and recognized and I think we’ll be all the better for it as same-sex relationships will then be held to the same standard — with the same responsibilities as others.

LOL! I’m sorry, but what “standards” and “responsibilities” would those be?

 

[edwest2]

I suppose there you have it. If we hold the government to be a moral educator, and you’ve given ample evidence that we must, it follows that we must then form that government (as we’re able to do) to be in accord with proper morals. This paragraph makes that especially clear:

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.

It makes it, in fact, an obligation of ours to vote against such things as gay marriage.

My question now is, why are we not campaigning on other moral fronts? Why is there no large move to make contraception illegal? Or divorce? Or remarriage after divorce? These are all sins, the first against natural law even, but I’ve never heard any real attempt to make them illegal.

We’ve been told to shut up over a 40 year period. “Consenting adults” can do whatever they want, we were told. “It’s my life, leave me alone!” “You can’t force me to live by your beliefs!” Do you want more?

What happens to a pharmacist who refuses to sell contraception?

time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040607-644153,00.html

Read about No-Fault Divorce here:

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=513

A detailed look at annulments:

catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=350&CFID=49136615&CFTOKEN=97292279

If you look at the origins of laws regarding sexual matters, the loudest voices are those who approve of adultery, fornication and divorce.

Today, “justice” means gay marriage. The media will tell you that 24/7. The Pope is a villain because he told people in Africa not to use condoms.

The Catholic Church is speaking up, but the world hates what they are hearing.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Zeemeermin]

As I mentioned already: It is impossible for a Catholic to accept that the state should positively reinforce corrupt moral norms.

My religious beliefs do influence how I vote. Always. BUT we do not live in a theocracy. If we did, we might have the right to enforce our moral norms on everyone. Frankly, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. Never seems to work right. This is why, even though abortion is one of the most sickening, morally repugnant things I can think of, I also think it will stay legally available. Simply because one group, in a democratic, pluralistic society, cannot impose its moral laws on another that disagrees. Same with divorce, the decriminalization of adultery, etc. We in the Church must work on the “hearts and minds” level. We should be seeking to inspire true conversion, not mere legal acquiescence. If Catholics took this mission seriously and did it well, the laws wouldn’t matter, because no one would take advantage of them. I think The Church does well at expressing moral law and refusing to change to rules to “suit the times.” However, I think individual Catholics, parishes, national conferences of bishops, do fairly badly at the kind of evangelization that would repair the social fabric.

Being an American is as important to me as being a Catholic. And as an American, believing as I do in liberty, equality, and freedom from religion as a corollary to freedom of religion… I think civil unions would be OK.

 

[challam2010]

In a simple form, I think the answer (or one answer) is that society, collectively, has the right and duty to formulate laws for the good of that society – based on whatever principles might apply (moral, safety, defense of the group, welfare and management of the group, etc.) “We” decide what is right and wrong, allowable and not allowable. Over the centuries that our society has developed, both in this hemisphere and others, we, including the Church’s influence, have determined what constitutes marriage – and what does not – which has, in the past, been notable for errors (white/black discrimination, etc.)

The Catholic Community, as a large segment of our American society, is speaking and acting based on its theological and moral principles – as it has a right and obligation to do. The Church also claims moral authority based on it’s standing as God’s instrument. Since the Church perceives same sex marriage as contrary to both natural and God’s laws, it is thereby obligated to influence society’s choices – “our” choices, with “our” being our American society/culture.

Speaking personally, I think there would be a LOT less hassle and flack on all sides if the LGBT community would peacefully accept “civil union” and drop the word “marriage.” In claiming discrimination against their “rights” – they have yet to come up with an example of any society anywhere, any time, that has granted the “right” of homosexual marriage.

Also speaking personally, I don’t believe that homosexuals have made a “lifestyle choice” in their sexual orientation. Whatever the cause, and no one has yet said what that is definitively, they are playing with the cards they’ve been dealt. I can’t think that includes living without companionship and/or love.

I applaud the Catholic communities that embrace GLBTs and show them Christ’s love – I believe they are richer for those they include and cherish. BUT – I dearly wish they’d drop the word ‘marriage’ from their dreams. I think we have thousands of years of history behind us (as well as the Church’s teaching) that define what ‘marriage’ means.

 

[Betterave]

I disagree. In America, because divorce is legal, adultery is often flaunted: “Hey, I’d like you to meet my second husband.” In Catholic terms that is adultery, since the Catholic Church does not recognise divorce.

There is already a gap between Catholic morality and the laws of the United States.

Gee thanks, Captain Obvious!

**Rawb wrote: **My question now is, why are we not campaigning on other moral fronts? Why is there no large move to make contraception illegal? Or divorce? Or remarriage after divorce? These are all sins, the first against natural law even, but I’ve never heard any real attempt to make them illegal.

That’s a good question that brings up a lot of complicated historical and political issues. In general, though, there is obviously a pragmatic element to campaigning on any moral front. As an analogy, think of the early Christians: they obviously had counter-cultural social beliefs and didn’t hide them and were persecuted as a result; but they couldn’t realistically go directly to political campaigning to change the laws of the empire. An *incremental *approach to political change (conversion) is always necessary and the Church herself is always in need of conversion, and as CCC 1888 suggests, inner conversion must precede outer conversion. The Church sometimes fails in her mission as moral teacher just as the state does, and the former contributes to the latter. Also the Church teaches ‘subsidiarity’:

CCC 1883 Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

…So there are a lot of different issues to take into account in answering your question. It’s mainly just a question of realistically assessing where we’re at and what requires our attention here and now.

 

[Zeemeermin]

Speaking personally, I think there would be a LOT less hassle and flack on all sides if the LGBT community would peacefully accept “civil union” and drop the word “marriage.” In claiming discrimination against their “rights” – they have yet to come up with an example of any society anywhere, any time, that has granted the “right” of homosexual marriage.

Also speaking personally, I don’t believe that homosexuals have made a “lifestyle choice” in their sexual orientation. Whatever the cause, and no one has yet said what that is definitively, they are playing with the cards they’ve been dealt. I can’t think that includes living without companionship and/or love.

Totally agree with both these points. The battle over the wording may seem insignificant to some but to me, it’s the line where the reasonable demand for tolerance crosses over into the unreasonable demand for acceptance.

 

[JohnCS]

My religious beliefs do influence how I vote. Always. BUT we do not live in a theocracy. If we did, we might have the right to enforce our moral norms on everyone. Frankly, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. Never seems to work right. This is why, even though abortion is one of the most sickening, morally repugnant things I can think of, I also think it will stay legally available. Simply because one group, in a democratic, pluralistic society, cannot impose its moral laws on another that disagrees. Same with divorce, the decriminalization of adultery, etc. We in the Church must work on the “hearts and minds” level. We should be seeking to inspire true conversion, not mere legal acquiescence. If Catholics took this mission seriously and did it well, the laws wouldn’t matter, because no one would take advantage of them. I think The Church does well at expressing moral law and refusing to change to rules to “suit the times.” However, I think individual Catholics, parishes, national conferences of bishops, do fairly badly at the kind of evangelization that would repair the social fabric.

Being an American is as important to me as being a Catholic. And as an American, believing as I do in liberty, equality, and freedom from religion as a corollary to freedom of religion… I think civil unions would be OK.

With all respect and charity, you might want to prayerfully reconsider the bolded type thoughts. It smells an awful lot like a breech of the first commandment. Putting love of country on the same level as love of God… just a thought. As far as abortion being legal, this is not one group forcing it’s morals and values on others. That my friend is moral relativity. Morals are not relative, things are either morally good, morally neutral, or morally bad. All of the things that the Church teach as being morally wrong don’t need the “because God said so” argument to back them up. Reason, natrual law, psycology, science all back up the church when you look at the truth without liberal colored sun glasses. One lesson that I wish we could learn from the earliers Christians is that EVERY THING we do every day is done with God on the mind. They did not compartmentalize God to certain aspects of their life and then use a secular outlook for the rest of their life. Their duty to their country/town/tribe etc was done with how God would have them do it. God bless,

John

 

[larkin31]

Unacceptable. The Catholic stance is a moral one, so its not merely a doctrinal issue within the Church, it affects the lives of all people. Same sex marriage is a poison to society and would affect all no matter whether the wedding itself happens. It also is a non-issue within the Church. No one who knows the faith and the Church wells believes that it will ever be accepted within the Church. So the issue really is do we allow same-sex marriage to poison the society at large? And the answer is no. Morality is for the entire society, not just Catholics. And that is what we Catholics are defending.

Then fight legal divorce publicly, too.

And working on Sundays.

These must be poisoning society also. But who is publicly arguing for these to be made illegal? What candidates speak publicly against these when they run for office?

 

[Betterave]

My religious beliefs do influence how I vote. Always. BUT we do not live in a theocracy. If we did, we might have the right to enforce our moral norms on everyone. Frankly, I don’t want to live in a theocracy. Never seems to work right. This is why, even though abortion is one of the most sickening, morally repugnant things I can think of, I also think it will stay legally available. Simply because one group, in a democratic, pluralistic society, cannot impose its moral laws on another that disagrees. Same with divorce, the decriminalization of adultery, etc. We in the Church must work on the “hearts and minds” level. We should be seeking to inspire true conversion, not mere legal acquiescence. If Catholics took this mission seriously and did it well, the laws wouldn’t matter, because no one would take advantage of them. I think The Church does well at expressing moral law and refusing to change to rules to “suit the times.” However, I think individual Catholics, parishes, national conferences of bishops, do fairly badly at the kind of evangelization that would repair the social fabric.

Being an American is as important to me as being a Catholic. And as an American, believing as I do in liberty, equality, and freedom from religion as a corollary to freedom of religion… I think civil unions would be OK.

Well maybe your religious beliefs influence your votes, but your religious beliefs are obviously not *Catholic *religious beliefs.

Your claim, “one group, in a democratic, pluralistic society, cannot impose its moral laws on another that disagrees,” is false and simply absurd.

It is true that “we should be seeking to inspire true conversion, not mere legal acquiescence” - but that must be understood in the context of CCC 1888:

It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.

 

[JohnCS]

I suppose there you have it. If we hold the government to be a moral educator, and you’ve given ample evidence that we must, it follows that we must then form that government (as we’re able to do) to be in accord with proper morals. This paragraph makes that especially clear:

1888 It is necessary, then, to appeal to the spiritual and moral capacities of the human person and to the permanent need for his inner conversion, so as to obtain social changes that will really serve him. The acknowledged priority of the conversion of heart in no way eliminates but on the contrary imposes the obligation of bringing the appropriate remedies to institutions and living conditions when they are an inducement to sin, so that they conform to the norms of justice and advance the good rather than hinder it.

It makes it, in fact, an obligation of ours to vote against such things as gay marriage.

**My question now is, why are we not campaigning on other moral fronts? Why is there no large move to make contraception illegal? Or divorce? Or remarriage after divorce? These are all sins, the first against natural law even, but I’ve never heard any real attempt to make them illegal./**QUOTE]

We are not campaingning to make same sex marriage illegal. We are trying to prevent it from becoming legal. Just as we did when they were trying to make abortion legal.

 

[Betterave]

Also speaking personally, I don’t believe that homosexuals have made a “lifestyle choice” in their sexual orientation. Whatever the cause, and no one has yet said what that is definitively, they are playing with the cards they’ve been dealt. I can’t think that includes living without companionship and/or love.

Uh, right; obviously - so what’s your point?

I applaud the Catholic communities that embrace GLBTs and show them Christ’s love – I believe they are richer for those they include and cherish. BUT – I dearly wish they’d drop the word ‘marriage’ from their dreams. I think we have thousands of years of history behind us (as well as the Church’s teaching) that define what ‘marriage’ means.

Not clear what you’re suggesting here: embrace the people or embrace their sins? What do you mean by “Christ’s love”? Not the false compassion mentioned earlier, I hope.