Same sex marriage, but not in Church

[colmcille1]

No, this is not a diminution of sacramental marriage. It is harmful to society and a corruption of the secular institution of marriage, but the state does not have the power to corrupt the sacraments. Give God Almighty some credit! (Granted it may be the thin edge of the wedge for a new way to attack the Church, but the issue is bigger than that.)

Hi Betterave,
It is my ardent belief that the state does not care a whit about marriage as a sacrament. If the state got sufficient power, do you believe for one moment that it would hesitate in dismantling the precepts of the Church? The state and it’s self-serving politicians would do anything to acquire and hold onto power at all costs.
The gay agenda would happily employ any arm of the state to further its aims. Let us be under no illusion here. The anti-Catholic hatred is, unfortunately, alive and well.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[Betterave]

Hi Betterave,
It is my ardent belief that the state does not care a whit about marriage as a sacrament. If the state got sufficient power, do you believe for one moment that it would hesitate in dismantling the precepts of the Church? The state and it’s self-serving politicians would do anything to acquire and hold onto power at all costs.
The gay agenda would happily employ any arm of the state to further its aims. Let us be under no illusion here. The anti-Catholic hatred is, unfortunately, alive and well.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

In order for it to be possible for the state to dismantle the precepts of the Church, these precepts would have to be mere human constructs. If they are grounded in the truth, the state can certainly distort the truth and make it difficult to recognize, but it cannot destroy it.

Your view of the state and of politicians here seems to be a bit of a caricature. In Catholic philosophy, the state is a positive entity essential to the good of the human community and political leadership is a high, noble, and difficult calling. The state is not an entity which is essentially involved in a power struggle with the Church.

CCC1910 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.

 

[larkin31]

We are not trying to be “superior.” We are not to judge. Yet, the Church was established to be the pillar and bullwark of the truth. We are obligated to lead all people (to the ends of the earth) to Jesus. It is our work “to bear good fruit.” We must do what we can to stop the spread of homosexuality…

I would like to know how you think that homosexuality “spreads”.

 

[colmcille1]

In order for it to be possible for the state to dismantle the precepts of the Church, these precepts would have to be mere human constructs. If they are grounded in the truth, the state can certainly distort the truth and make it difficult to recognize, but it cannot destroy it.

**Hi Betterave,
If the state can distort the truth and use its influence to disseminate such distortion it can
push the gay agenda as far as it wishes. Remember it only takes a few well-connected individuals in very high places to set this process in motion.
**
Your view of the state and of politicians here seems to be a bit of a caricature. In Catholic philosophy, the state is a positive entity essential to the good of the human community and political leadership is a high, noble, and difficult calling. The state is not an entity which is essentially involved in a power struggle with the Church.

**Lets be honest. Does anyone truly believe that political leaders and their minions feel a call to their chosen profession because they are of a noble frame of mind?
I have seen so much political corruption here in an Irish context both on a local and central level that it is pointless to even think in terms one would academically associate with political philosophy. Politicians and senior civil servants in the main happily contort themselves into greedy caricatures without any assistance from the general public. **

CCC1910 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.

I think it is vitally important to be aware of the decidedly selfish impetus behind political activity. Power is the key to their existence and it is fought for with near-sighted ferocity.
To be fully aware of the enemy, one must know his methods.
God Bless,
Colmcille.

 

[kenofken]

I respect the point you are trying to make, in regards to your original question. Nineteen pages later, the topic has gone awry a few times, but the off-topic points do point back to the same basic truth. These questions are related in a reasonable way, and I hope you’re seeing the reason behind that.

I have considered before that a gay couple should have the same legal recourse as a traditional couple, myself. In regard to the claims on mutual property, they certainly should, in the case of an end to their relationship. Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I believe that recourse to the law already exists, basically, without defining their relationship as a marriage-like union. What is unacceptable to me, and all Catholics, and all other people with what clarity of mind they may have, about acknowledging a gay couple as a legitimate union (entitled “marriage” or not) is the effect that it has on society in general. The effects are manifold, and they are poisonous. They are adopting children now and raising them into a culture that is abominable, teaching these innocents to live a lie and to spread lies, twisting the definition of not only marriage, but love. It is a mockery to the natural order of life, and an outright disobedience to God’s commandments. Now, the Church, an institution of love, is being twisted in the views of society to be judgemental and hateful, when we are really just trying to live the life we are commanded to live.

We are not trying to be “superior.” We are not to judge. Yet, the Church was established to be the pillar and bullwark of the truth. We are obligated to lead all people (to the ends of the earth) to Jesus. It is our work “to bear good fruit.” We must do what we can to stop the spread of homosexuality. Historically, there have been homosexuals for thousands of years, and there will be until the end, no doubt. We are to love them and help them as much as any other brother and sister, but are not to support them in acts of sin. Support on a civil level would do an immeasurable amount of damage to our society. The general support they have received so far has only helped to increase homosexuality. Those tempted to follow such lusts may have otherwise rejected such a way of life instead of embracing it, simply because it is more acceptable in our society. People are naturally sexually curious. We are all tempted. Those not firmly taught in the teachings of the Church, faithful and strong enough to resist temptation, have nothing but the attitude of their peers and their own feelings to base their decisions on. Why would we not do everything in our power to stop as many souls as possible from going astray? We can’t just preach to the choir, keeping our way of life locked away inside our churches and our homes. We are commanded to shine the light of truth to all. So, that is what we do.

You can follow your Quixotic quest to rid the world of homosexuality to your heart’s content. All the rest of us are saying is you don’t get to use the state and civil law as your tool in doing so. They are there to protect the rights of ALL citizens, not as hammers to be weilded by whatever sectarian interest has the most heartfelt zeal for their cause. Our souls are not yours to lead anywhere. To the extent you try to assert otherwise, we will fight you. Not just “homosexual activists” or the “libral media” (whoever they are), but all of us who understand the freedom that created this country. We have no interest in forcing you to do or believe anything different on your side of the fence. No one here believes that, but I still maintain the point. If you try to force yourself onto our side of the fence (our many different individual properties, so to speak), you will have a hell of a fight on your hands, and you will lose.

 

[mcteague]

Sorry, I don’t know what you’re referring to here with this seemingly random string of pure assertions. Is it or is it not “just knit in your nature to not consider that you could be wrong”? If it is not and you do consider this possibility, is there any formal structure to such considerations, or do they just consist of occasional random formal conjectures about the abstract possibility: “well, yes - I could be wrong, it is a logical possibility…”? (I think the latter is usually the case for people who are fond of the kind of rhetoric you have used here.)

I mean learning to listen to other arguments with a greater degree of openness. Many people discuss things in the same manner as the legal profession. That is they are simply advocates for a particular position. They want to win. There is no real desire for understanding. We listen for rhetorical or logical weakness to attack. To really listen one has to at least try to lay aside one position as an advocate. You have to be able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong. Or at least that the other person may have something to contribute in reaching the truth.

This I will admit is often hard to practice. It is often just an exercise in politeness. We would not hold the strong positions we do if we did not believe we were right. And there are a number of arguments where it is neither practical or prudent to consider the other side. It seems to me that the biased adversarial approach to dialectics that seems almost universally practiced has some shortcomings. Perhaps a little more dialog and discussion and little less debate would go a long way.

The formal structure would be analyzing the underlying premises and assumptions that I have. Trying to look at the issue from the weltanschauung of the other person. Making sure that I actually understand what they are trying to articulate. Seeing if a reasonable case for their conclusion can be made given their assumptions and the paradigm within which their reasoning occurs.

I think people incorrectly use terms like truth and proof where it would be much better use a term like reasonable. In understanding social and philosophical issues framing questions in absolute terms like truth and proof often leads to the error of bifurcation. A thing is either true (or proved) or not. Most things we care about and discuss are rarely that simplistic. There is often more than one reasonable answer, and no actual truth

 

[mcteague]

The problem with the Catholic view from a humanist perspective is that it is essentially totalitarian. Look at the answers to the parts of this discussion that cover why we don’t outlaw other behaviors. They primarily site feasability and practicality, not a commitment to pluralism.
I have a friend who is what I would call a fundamentalist Catholic. He believes Vatican 2 destroyed the Church. He would like to see a worldwide Catholic government. Where he says “people like me would not be harmed, but I would never be allowed to teach or hold government office”. I guess I should be thankful that my life will be sparred.
The problem with taking a position that you are absolutely right and justified in any action because you, or your organization represent God is that anyone could claim that. Many lunatics have. I don’t want to compare the Catholic church to Jim Jones or David Koresh, but unfortunately the comparison seems more valid than many want to admit. Given sufficient power would there be any Catholic view that would not be imposed on the world. Would anything not be considered required because it is a commandment from God.
Many of the discussions I have seen here make little distinction between revelation and natural law. Treating both as absolute correct truth. And in an organization like the Church, with a 2000 year history, distinctions that may have existed for certain issues cease to be.
I do understand that as Catholics believing in your duty to God you feel obligated to think and act in certain ways. But can you not see that to non Catholics what many of you suggest is terrifying. We can not have an equal seat at the table if you presume the mantle of Gods authority. Or if you can not at least leave it aside when you enter the market place of human ideas. It is not we who hate or want to harm the Church. Rather it is you would would take away our liberty, won over centuries with our blood, and essentially make us slaves.

 

[thevoiceofone]

You can follow your Quixotic quest to rid the world of homosexuality to your heart’s content. All the rest of us are saying is you don’t get to use the state and civil law as your tool in doing so. They are there to protect the rights of ALL citizens, not as hammers to be weilded by whatever sectarian interest has the most heartfelt zeal for their cause. Our souls are not yours to lead anywhere. To the extent you try to assert otherwise, we will fight you. Not just “homosexual activists” or the “libral media” (whoever they are), but all of us who understand the freedom that created this country. We have no interest in forcing you to do or believe anything different on your side of the fence. No one here believes that, but I still maintain the point. If you try to force yourself onto our side of the fence (our many different individual properties, so to speak), you will have a hell of a fight on your hands, and you will lose.

My heart’s content is insignificant. You are right about that. Luckily for me, my heart’s content does not rule my life anymore. I follow the law of our Creator. So did our forefathers who founded (not “created”) this country, by the way. Remember, “In God We Trust?” Your side is trying to rid this country of what it was founded on in more ways than one. But, I’ll try not to rant off topic right now.

You are also right in saying we have a hell of a fight on our hands (very well said, indeed), but you are wrong to say we will lose. We may lose this battle and many others, but we will not lose the war.

 

[thevoiceofone]

The problem with the Catholic view from a humanist perspective is that it is essentially totalitarian. Look at the answers to the parts of this discussion that cover why we don’t outlaw other behaviors. They primarily site feasability and practicality, not a commitment to pluralism.
I have a friend who is what I would call a fundamentalist Catholic. He believes Vatican 2 destroyed the Church. He would like to see a worldwide Catholic government. Where he says “people like me would not be harmed, but I would never be allowed to teach or hold government office”. I guess I should be thankful that my life will be sparred.
The problem with taking a position that you are absolutely right and justified in any action because you, or your organization represent God is that anyone could claim that. Many lunatics have. I don’t want to compare the Catholic church to Jim Jones or David Koresh, but unfortunately the comparison seems more valid than many want to admit. Given sufficient power would there be any Catholic view that would not be imposed on the world. Would anything not be considered required because it is a commandment from God.
Many of the discussions I have seen here make little distinction between revelation and natural law. Treating both as absolute correct truth. And in an organization like the Church, with a 2000 year history, distinctions that may have existed for certain issues cease to be.
I do understand that as Catholics believing in your duty to God you feel obligated to think and act in certain ways. But can you not see that to non Catholics what many of you suggest is terrifying. We can not have an equal seat at the table if you presume the mantle of Gods authority. Or if you can not at least leave it aside when you enter the market place of human ideas. It is not we who hate or want to harm the Church. Rather it is you would would take away our liberty, won over centuries with our blood, and essentially make us slaves.

I understand your point of view, I really do. I once felt as you do now. I used to be very liberal. Let me confess: Long ago, I marched in protest with homosexual friends, and likewise in support of abortion. My greatest sin and ongoing misery in this life is that I allowed my girlfiend many years ago to have an abortion. I was in the room; I just watched; I did nothing. My baby would have been sixteen this year had she been allowed to live. I suffer every day because of what I did. And, the effect of what happened that day doesn’t end inside me. Who can say what good she might have accomplished? The effects of sin are manifold. Anyway, my point here is that would not have happened if abortion was illegal. The fact that it *was *legal, it then would not have happened if I wasn’t cradled in a society that thinks it’s *okay *to murder babies inside their mothers’ wombs. I was convinced that the mother’s rights were the only rights to consider. That’s what I thought. But, I thought wrong.

I’m really not trying to get off topic, but I mean to make a point. I don’t think you’re stupid, and I don’t think you’re a monster. I just think you’re fighting for the wrong side. You swallowed the same lie that I have yet to forget the taste of. It’s easy to do. I once heard Father Corapi say that the devil’s favorite color was gray. He was trying to make the point that the truth is black and white. There is right and there is wrong. The inbetween place (the gray) is the most dangerous place to be. The Church is not “changing with the times,” because the truth never changes… the truth is always the truth. We will not dare to undo what God has done, what was made according to His will, and that, essentially, is what all who protest against the Church are trying to do. Everybody wants to be their own God, but they can’t be.

You and I (or anyone else here) can argue who’s right or wrong until the cows come home. I don’t expect to convince you, and I hope you don’t expect to convince me. I’m sorry if you think we are behaving fanatically. I’m zealous for my side, you’re zealous for yours. We can not both be right. One of us is wrong. So, I’ll just leave it at that.

 

[Soulewolf]

The Church is not “changing with the times,”

wasnt this the whole point of Vatican 2?

 

[davidv]

wasnt this the whole point of Vatican 2?

No.

Vatican II’s purpose was to reexpress the eternal truths is ways more understandable given the circumstances of the time.

Edit
Introduction to The Sixteen Documents of Vatican II:

To sum up the intention…of Vatican II…the first and most general goal was to “impart and ever increasing vigor to the Christian life of the faithful”…It was called to “strengthen spriritual energies” so that the Chruch “will become greater in spiritual riches.”

 

[larkin31]

… I’m sorry if you think we are behaving fanatically. I’m zealous for my side, you’re zealous for yours. We can not both be right. One of us is wrong. So, I’ll just leave it at that.

I am not in this exchange, but I must point out the clear possibility that you are both wrong, or both right.

 

[mcteague]

I am not in this exchange, but I must point out the clear possibility that you are both wrong, or both right.

You are quite correct. We both could be wrong. I should also clarify that it was not my intent to say that official Catholic doctrine, or its policies are totalitarian. And neither was it to say it is the same as the people or groups I mentioned. It is my intention to say that there is a tremendous risk of totalitarianism within any ideology or movement that claims it’s authority comes from God. It almost seems inevitable that if a group believes their perspective is given to them by God, and they are also commanded to advocate for those positions without compromise, that a certain rather high percentage of it’s followers can develop totalitarian tendencies.

Just as capitalism often needs the softening agent of Christianity to prevent its natural excess, I would say Christianity needs a commitment to pluralism and liberalism in the public sphere to restrain some of its own possible negative tendencies.

 

[thevoiceofone]

I am not in this exchange, but I must point out the clear possibility that you are both wrong, or both right.

Well, that’s an interesting theory, but… I can’t figure out how you figure that. Maybe you’re a polytheist, or just a pluralist who likes to agree to disagree with everybody; I don’t know. You did say you were “not in this exchange,” so maybe you just haven’t read thru it all. I can understand that (it has grown rather long). But, for those who have been following it, and for you now, the point being argued is absolute. The Church is either right or wrong. The matter is a truth or a non-truth. There is no inbetween. We are not either both right or both wrong. Unless you are just switching positives and negatives… I suppose one could say that Eve was right to eat the forbidden fruit according to Satan’s opinion, but wrong to eat it according to God. In that sense, you may be correct in saying what you said. Otherwise, this can not be.

Perhaps you are just trying to make peace? But, the way you suggest is just a sham. Do not be fooled. We are at war! We are on the battlefield between good and evil… and you can not play for both teams. Pick a side, my friend. And, choose wisely.

Luke 12:51-56

 

[larkin31]

Well, that’s an interesting theory, but… I can’t figure out how you figure that. Maybe you’re a polytheist, or just a pluralist who likes to agree to disagree with everybody; I don’t know. You did say you were “not in this exchange,” so maybe you just haven’t read thru it all. I can understand that (it has grown rather long). But, for those who have been following it, and for you now, the point being argued is absolute. The Church is either right or wrong. The matter is a truth or a non-truth. There is no inbetween. We are not either both right or both wrong. Unless you are just switching positives and negatives… I suppose one could say that Eve was right to eat the forbidden fruit according to Satan’s opinion, but wrong to eat it according to God. In that sense, you may be correct in saying what you said. Otherwise, this can not be.

Perhaps you are just trying to make peace? But, the way you suggest is just a sham. Do not be fooled. We are at war! We are on the battlefield between good and evil… and you can not play for both teams. Pick a side, my friend. And, choose wisely.

Luke 12:51-56

I meant that you are simply assuming that there is only one correct answer to the issue, and that moral decisions participate only in absolute categories. But your assumption has no compelling reason to be considered accurate.

 

[Betterave]

I mean learning to listen to other arguments with a greater degree of openness. Many people discuss things in the same manner as the legal profession. That is they are simply advocates for a particular position. They want to win. There is no real desire for understanding. We listen for rhetorical or logical weakness to attack. To really listen one has to at least try to lay aside one position as an advocate. You have to be able to consider the possibility that you could be wrong. Or at least that the other person may have something to contribute in reaching the truth.

This I will admit is often hard to practice. It is often just an exercise in politeness. We would not hold the strong positions we do if we did not believe we were right. And there are a number of arguments where it is neither practical or prudent to consider the other side. It seems to me that the biased adversarial approach to dialectics that seems almost universally practiced has some shortcomings. Perhaps a little more dialog and discussion and little less debate would go a long way.

The formal structure would be analyzing the underlying premises and assumptions that I have. Trying to look at the issue from the weltanschauung of the other person. Making sure that I actually understand what they are trying to articulate. Seeing if a reasonable case for their conclusion can be made given their assumptions and the paradigm within which their reasoning occurs.

I think people incorrectly use terms like truth and proof where it would be much better use a term like reasonable. In understanding social and philosophical issues framing questions in absolute terms like truth and proof often leads to the error of bifurcation. A thing is either true (or proved) or not. Most things we care about and discuss are rarely that simplistic. There is often more than one reasonable answer, and no actual truth

In the abstract, that’s all very nice. But in the context of your strange response to my argument, it seems mainly ironic. …Also in the context of your contrual of revealed religion as “essentially totalitarian”, or at least dangerously inclined thereto, and your reference to the very un-Catholic views of your friend the “fundamentalist Catholic.” These are absurd caricatures and they speak to your lack of open-mindedness, the purely abstract, formal character of your advocacy of openmindedness.

Let me state very clearly: the Weltanschauung of “the world”, i.e., of people like yourself, is common currency in contemporary society and it doesn’t require much pondering to penetrate the assumptions and the paradigms that inform it. If you think there is something that we’re missing you should explain it, not make this abstract gesture towards it on the (likely false) assumption that your opponents are simply ignorant of it.

 

[thevoiceofone]

I meant that you are simply assuming that there is only one correct answer to the issue, and that moral decisions participate only in absolute categories. But your assumption has no compelling reason to be considered accurate.

I’m sorry to dissapoint you, but I’m not “simply assuming” anything here. I lost my faith as a young boy. I always believed there was a God, but I didn’t believe any man or man-made institution could understand Him. There were too many churches and too many opinions. I don’t want to get too far off topic again, but, just believe me when I say I believed in very little for a long time. When I met my future wife (a Catholic), I was confronted by her to figure out what I believed in. She wasn’t able to answer my questions well enough at the time, so I tried to prove to her that the Catholic Church was wrong. I needed information, so I studied and researched for years. What I found was that I was wrong and the Church was right. I don’t have time to explain my whole conversion story, besides the fact that it’s not appropriate to this forum, but know that I was like “Doubting Thomas.” I needed proof. I found the proof I was looking for. And I continued my study and research of the Church’s history and the Bible for more years. My faith is built upon solid rock. Just because you don’t believe as I do, do not say that I am “assuming.” I am not assuming.

Manners and etiquette and things such as that may not be absolute, but morals certainly are… *if *you believe in God. And, there are *very *compelling reasons to believe in Him.

 

[Leela]

Hi All,

The issue was raised here, but never answered. Suppose we grant that homosexuality is immoral. Is it necessary for a Catholic to support its being ruled as illegal? Certainly we don’t take every moral issue and make it into a law. There is broad consensus that it is morally good to help old ladies with their grocery bags, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that we ought to be legally required to do so. If we did encode all morality as law, there would be no such thing as virtue, since we would be coerced to do good. When does it become important to make a moral position into a law?

Best,
Leela

 

[Betterave]

Hi All,

The issue was raised here, but never answered. Suppose we grant that homosexuality is immoral. Is it necessary for a Catholic to support its being ruled as illegal?

Yes, and the answer to this question was given early in the thread.

Certainly we don’t take every moral issue and make it into a law. There is broad consensus that it is morally good to help old ladies with their grocery bags, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that we ought to be legally required to do so.

Right - so what? It would still be wrong to pass a law saying that not helping old ladies was equivalent to helping old ladies.

If we did encode all morality as law, there would be no such thing as virtue, since we would be coerced to do good.

That’s a non sequitur. Laws never replace virtues. That is simply an absurd suggestion which indicates you don’t know what the term ‘virtue’ means.

When does it become important to make a moral position into a law?

The point is that it is always important not to make *immoral *positions into law. The purpose of law is to promote the common good.

 

[davidv]

Hi All,

The issue was raised here, but never answered. Suppose we grant that homosexuality is immoral. Is it necessary for a Catholic to support its being ruled as illegal? Certainly we don’t take every moral issue and make it into a law. There is broad consensus that it is morally good to help old ladies with their grocery bags, but I don’t know anyone who thinks that we ought to be legally required to do so. If we did encode all morality as law, there would be no such thing as virtue, since we would be coerced to do good. When does it become important to make a moral position into a law?

Best,
Leela

It is my belief that one of the primary purposes of government to assure the common good. Legalization of SS couples attacks, for all of the reasons it is immoral, the foundation of common good, the family.