Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[JDaniel]

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.

Rawb:

We are and there are: since the government already enacted a law that permits abortion, and since it has taken us years to get most (not all) of Protestantism on board, we’re getting closer and closer to a change. As Betterave pointed out, the other sins you mentioned are “private” sins. We don’t “see” them; with the exception of divorce, and, how would we know whether or not the parties had received an annulment?

God knows our hearts. If we get an annulment, or a divorce, we better be prepared to pay the ultimate price - disconnect from God - if we lie in confession.

It’s being done, but, we need everyone to participate. Check with your church to see if they sponsor meetings, or stands against abortion outside of abortion clinics. If you are, as I suspect, somewhat young, you could certainly present your views on the price children pay for divorced parents.

We invite you to join many of us.

God bless,
jd

God bless,
jd

 

[ConstantineTG]

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

Agreed. And in many places the Church has fought against the legality of Divorce. Its that in the US divorce has been legal for so long, how do you really fight to make it all of a sudden illegal? The Church has to pick and choose its battles. As long as the legality of an immoral act can be challenged, the Church will fight for it. But once we’ve gone past that stage, then the Church has to continue its fight in another battleground.

 

[Lutheranteach]

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

Sure, even though there are those that would disagree. The public character of marriage, or a legal union, I feel carries with it certain implications even in today’s society, Namely it’s a declaration of accepted civil responsibility. The Lutheran point of view is that marriage is isn’t just for the couple being married, but also a promise the community that there is an intention to live a peaceful and mutually fulfilling life and willingness to strengthen the community in which they live.There is an accountability for the vows. To live up to this, a church has a responsibility to support and counsel couples who want to live up to those vows and to their promise to the community as a whole. Do we withhold that from those in same sex relationships who seek the same lifelong companionship, commitment, public accountability as those in traditional unions? Do we look at a man and woman and say we’ll give you all the support and help we can to be successful and help you live up to the promise you made while at the same time looking at a single-sex couple and say not only will we not help you in anyway, we don’t even feel you have the right to even make such a promise to one another or society. And — and I think this is worst part —*we won’t hold you accountable for —*destructive patterns of relationships.

 

[Seeker2010]

I would guess that you know some really good friends or family member, (or yourself) who are gay, and because they are really great people, you can’t fathom the idea of them being denied their “happiness”, or even worse, going to hell.

John, I am not gay, and though my wife is bisexual, I am not in favor of gay marriage because it would benefit me or anyone I am close to, rather I am in favor of it because I don’t believe straight society has the right to tell gay society they’re not worthy, even if us strait people do outnumber them 9 to 1.

That said, you bring up an interesting point, and one that has been an influence to my own big picture philosophy, and that is would a kind, just, loving God send one of his children to be tortured for all of eternity for having gay sex? I have come to the conclusion that he would not, not if he is truly a loving entity. I believe in God, in a creator, but I do not believe in the hateful, vengeful, cruel God found within the documents of most organized religions, including Catholicism.

If I am wrong, and God would indeed send an immortal soul to eternity being punished in a manner in which not even us primitive, cruel humans do to each other for actions taken while in a physical form and not fully informed of the ramifications, frankly I would not wish to be associated with a sadistic monster like that.

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Welcome, Lutheranteach:

But, that’s impossible. Such unions cannot be open to life.

Now, I know, from a secular POV, that adoption is a way to overcome this, but, it isn’t really. One only needs to look at the statistics of gay marriages to see this. At least on male side.

God bless,
jd

 

[ConstantineTG]

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?

Actually, they are. But as I said in my previous post, the Church will challenge the legality of something when it can challenge it. The time to challenge the legality of divorce and Sunday work has long gone. Same sex marraige, at least in the US, is an ongoing legal battle. Why should the Church give up on a battle that is ongoing?

 

[JDaniel]

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

Rossum:

But, rossum, we do have that little thing called annulment. Granted, it’s a potential side door into mortal sin, but, it’s there.

As to your 2nd point, yes, unfortunately. Would that it weren’t.

God bless,
jd

 

[JohnDamian]

Rossum:

But, rossum, we do have that little thing called annulment. Granted, it’s a potential side door into mortal sin, but, it’s there.

As to your 2nd point, yes, unfortunately. Would that it weren’t.

God bless,
jd

Annulment is not the same as divorce; it declares that there was no marraige in the first place. (or in technical terms that it was a putative marraige; ie; invalid).

 

[StevenFrancis]

Being an American is as important to me as being a Catholic

I don’t necessarily disagree with civil unions. After all, that is “civil”, and not the province of the Church in a pluralistic society. I also see them as being for people in general who are in a relationship which may involve legalities, wills, sharing of medical information, etc… Could be brothers, sisters, etc. Just a legal arrangement to secure proper rights and benefits of citizenship, and not fall through the cracks.

I was a little startled, (not in a good or bad way), just taken off balance by the statement of yours which I quoted here. It may seems strange, but I have never even thought in these terms before. To me, my nationality simply, flat out pales in comparison to my faith. I am happy to be an American. An excellent accident of birth, I must confess. I never asked for it, but when seeing the rest of the world, I always counted myself fortunate. I served active duty in the U.S. military for 8 years, and was prepared to die for our ideals. I still serve in a civilian capacity.

I only became a Catholic in my heart about 6 years ago, and was confirmed only 5 years ago, and I’m 53 years old. So how did a Church which is so relatively new to me in comparison to my nationality have outstripped its internal significance to me so quickly? (This is a rhetorical question. One I look forward to praying and meditating on.). I don’t really even think strongly about myself as an American anymore to be honest. I think of myself as a Christian. I am certainly not ungrateful to be an American, and I can’t think of anywhere else to go. It’s very difficult to explain.

My “Americanism”, just hasn’t occurred to me since the beginning of my conversion process. It’s interesting more than anything else to make a discovery about oneself. I watched this last election cycle with a muted interest in comparison with my old heavily political self which has kind of vanished. I don’t listen to political radio anymore, or watch politcal TV, which I always find biased. I cared about the outcome of the election, of course, but having voted for neither Obama nor McCain, I didn’t feel I had a real voice in the result. I voted for the only guy I could get enthusiastic about at all, when I looked at the field of candidates who would appear on my ballot, and ended up with an independent constitutionalist named Chuck Baldwin. There really just doesn’t seem to be anything getting me enthused about the dominant political parties anymore. I just feel like I’ve got to serve Caesar as a good citizen, whoever is in power. I will always vote, and I pray that someday we’ll get leaders who don’t want to simply steal from the American people, but stealing by governments has been going on for 10,000 years or so, so why that would change now, I don’t know.

Some thoughts

I don’t love the President, or his office, or even the constitution, with all my heart with all my soul, with all my being and with all my strength, (this one or any other since I’ve been alive). He’s just the boss, and Commander in Chief, and I respect his position. Anybody who ends up in it get’s the same duties and loyalties as a citizen out of me. I am lucky to be in a democratic republic where I can cast a vote and give an opinion on who that somebody will be, and of course some have been better than others,

No president has EVER loved me.

I love Jesus Christ. I loved Jesus during the Bush adminstration. I love him just as much now, and I’ll love him just as much when the next guy comes in.

I love Jesus when our economy is in poor shape. I love Jesus when our economy is booming. I love Jesus while Roe vs. Wade is still in effect, and I’ll love him if it’s ever struck down. I love Jesus regardless of what gays are allowed or not allowed to do in this country.

Jesus left us the Holy Spirit, who guides the Bishop of Rome, who guides the Bishops of the world, who are our shephereds. Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop Joseph Pepe, and my parish Priest have a lot more influence on my life than any president has or could ever have. If I have a problem in my life, and need direction, I’ll be looking for the advice of one of those guys long before I think of my Congressman or Senator.

I treat my Government with a great deal of respect. I know that they have influence on the environmental and superficial aspects of my life, but they have nothing whatsoever to do with my soul.

It’s also not lost on me that being a Catholic in Afganistan would be a much harder life. (I still would be Catholic, of course). I could be subject to death for my beliefs if I did certain things. God bless the USA. Please don’t get me wrong.

It’s possible for America to change so vastly culture and civil law that it would hold no more of it’s most important principles and creeds. It’s not possible for the Church to change it’s creeds and principles.

I read the portions of the bible everyday for inspiration, guidance, knowledge, and insight into how God thinks, and how people are.

I don’t read passages from the constitution every day. Just when researching an issue.

Anyway, great food for thought, thank you. Your one sentence made me think about things I haven’t had a chance to really think about since giving my life over to Christ.

Blessings,

Steven

 

[JDaniel]

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.

Welcome, Zeemeermin. But, this they already have. Now, they want more. It’s for nothing more than a “feel good.”

God bless,
jd

 

[edwest2]

Let us keep in mind that a “sin” is something one does. It is an action, a choice, taken by one purposely against God and his will. But a sexual orientation, such as homosexuality is not a choice. It is the nature of a person and therefore cannot be sin.

Please provide scientific evidence that it is not a choice.

God bless,
Ed

 

[Zeemeermin]

Please provide scientific evidence that it is not a choice.

Please provide scientific evidence that it is. I happen not to think people are born that way. I think environmental factors cause the orientation to manifest. Damaged relationships, etc… but that still makes it not their choice. Children cannot control their upbringing environment.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The more I look into it, the flimsier it seems to me that arguments againt gay marriage in the secular world become.

I am Catholic, and the Catholic Church should NEVER, EVER consent to gay marriage, because we know that it doesn’t really exist.

But you know what? We also know that Islam is a flase religion, and Judaism is incomplete, and Busshism is false, and Hinduism, and Shintoism.

Sure, they’re not a matter of morals. But allowing gay marriage in the SECULAR SENSE ONLY does not nescessarily mean gay people are plotting the destruction of the traditional family. All it means is that gays want their unions to be called marriage.

So fine. Whatever. Not my proplem. Just don’t make the Catholic Church have to issue gay “marriages”.

And yes, I know I’m supposed to look toward the guidance of the Bishops on this issue, but it doesn’t seem to make sense to me, no matter how I look at it. I’m following my conscience.

 

[JDaniel]

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?

Larkin:

We are a pluralistic society. It would be nice if everyone that ran for office was Catholic, but, alas, that’s not the case. Other religions are slowly coming along, but it’s almost by kicking and screaming. Until they do, we’re stuck with the politicians we get. :bigyikes:

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I remember when I was younger it struck me as odd that people were concerned that Kennedy being a Catholic might prove an impediment for his election to the Presidency.

Now I get it. It’s not enough for you guys that those who chose Catholicism will live as you tell them to, at the end of the day the truth is ya’ll want to force all of us to. We do not live in a Catholic Theology.

Seeker:

“Spiritual, not Religious.” What the heck does that mean? Would you mind telling me how that works?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Homosexuality is simply sex between consenting adults. Working on Sundays and divorce have been legal in this country far longer and have affected many more families.

I think that this gay marriage “priority” is rooted in greater selfishness: a turf war mentality over marriage: you will share Sundays with non-believers and not complain when people work then and you will not attempt to make divorce illegal as long as “true Catholics” don’t go for it, but no one–that I suspect has to do with deep psychological issues around sexuality and possessiveness–can mess with the axis of marriage cuz, dad blam it, that ruins how I see my wife!

I assume you see her as a sex-object. After all, you said above, “Homosexuality is simply sex between consenting adults.” That must be all that hetero-marriage is, too.

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Since you completely ignore the rational analysis of the issue, no one is likely to be impressed with your groundless personal ad hominem opinion here.

I must say, it gets rather depressing engaging with people who evidently have no interest in intelligent dialogue.

Sorry, Betterave, but you can talk to me if you like. Although that might not be much better!

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

“Spiritual, not Religious.” What the heck does that mean? Would you mind telling me how that works?

Happy to.

It means I believe in a creator, a God if you will, and a state of being beyond what we experience here in the physical world. But it also means that I have concluded that religions, all religions, are man-made, and therefore have no more insight into the true nature of God than any of the rest of us do. I do not believe that any religious tome of any religion is anything more than a work of (a) man.

For example, and somewhat on topic, many religions hold that promiscuous sexual behavior has been prohibited by God. So I ask myself why that might be the case. I mean did God really knock on some dude’s door 4000 years ago and say, ‘Bro, write this down’, or did early man, who was likely quite superstitious, look at the actual results of promiscuity (really nasty diseases and death) and conclude that those afflicted were being punished by God for their behavior? I think the latter is more likely, because ancient man did not have an understanding of (or control of) disease like we do now, and surely if God was punishing humans while still alive for behaviors that are not allowed, there would no doubt be spiritual punishment as well.

I have done a lot of research into the topic of Near-Death Experiences, and I find the evidence compelling that not only is there life after death, but that dogmas taught by human religion are mostly wrong. I also have a theory that I haven’t really spent any time looking into, and therefore can’t even remotely begin to document it, that some, if not most of the worlds religions came about because someone back in the day experienced an NDE and got a glimpse of the other side.

 

[JDaniel]

Let us keep in mind that a “sin” is something one does. It is an action, a choice, taken by one purposely against God and his will. But a sexual orientation, such as homosexuality is not a choice. It is the nature of a person and therefore cannot be sin.

Rvalin:

I was about to say, “That is very true!” when suddenly I realized that the jury is still out on whether or not homosexuality is a “choice”.

Now, to be clear, the Catholic church does not hate, dis-love, dis-care, whatever, homosexuals. The church cares that they do not engage in sinful practices. It is no different than in heterosexual marriages. The pair cannot engage in SEX unless there is the “potential of,” and they are “open to,” life.

And, Larkin just exposed homosexuality for what it is. “Homosexuality is simply sex between consenting adults.” Is that “Love?”

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

I support gay marriage. These gays WON’T get married in a Church, their weddings would be state weddings. Saying “they can’t get married because it’s not marriage” is arguing semantics. “Civil Unions” and “Marriage” is basically the same thing. It’s like saying “Water” and “Aqua”.

The only sin about homosexuality is gay sex. Even the Catechism states that being homosexual isn’t wrong. It states that they should be received with love and without judgement, and that gays are called to live a chaste life, free of sex.

Marian:

You are correct to the point where you say, "It’s like saying “Water” and “Aqua”. No it’s not. “Water” and “agua” are the exact same word in different languages. But, “marriage” and “civil unions” are not only different words, in the same language, but, different historically, religiously, contextually, and lawfully. Marriage is an institution created for a man and a woman and is Sacramental, NOT so for a man and a man, etc.

God bless,
jd