Same Sex Marriage?

[Kevin_B]

Easy. The church has no authority to tell us how to vote. She us only infallible on matters of faith. She can tell us that same sex marriage is immoral, but she does not have the authority to tell us how to vote on that issue.

The church is human. She makes mistakes. She once thought she had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth, she now this she can tell us how to vote. Neither is a matter of faith, so neither is under the umbrella of the Church’s infallibility.

The way I see it, if the church really had the authority to tell us that God wanted to vote against same sex marriage, then EVERYTHING immoral in the church would be illegal. It would be illegal to not go to mass. It would be illegal to not confess sins on a regular basis. But it isn’t, so someone is a hypocrite. I find it much easier to believe that the Pope is than God.

 

[livingwordunity]

Easy. The church has no authority to tell us how to vote. She us only infallible on matters of faith.

And morals.

She can tell us that same sex marriage is immoral, but she does not have the authority to tell us how to vote on that issue.

She has authority to help us form our conscience so that we can vote with a properly formed conscience that is in line with catholic morals/natural law.

The church is human.

And divine.

She makes mistakes.

Not regarding any teaching of faith and/or morals.

She once thought she had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth, she now this she can tell us how to vote. Neither is a matter of faith, so neither is under the umbrella of the Church’s infallibility.

True.

The way I see it, if the church really had the authority to tell us that God wanted to vote against same sex marriage, then EVERYTHING immoral in the church would be illegal. It would be illegal to not go to mass. It would be illegal to not confess sins on a regular basis. But it isn’t, so someone is a hypocrite. I find it much easier to believe that the Pope is than God.

The Catholic Church was against when laws were made to make divorce easier to get. But you are confusing the natural order with the supernatural order (sacraments). In other words, you are confusing what the Church teaches on faith with what the Church teaches regarding morality. And keep in mind that the Church is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Although a civil marriage between a man and a woman isn’t sacramental it’s still natural marriage. The Catholic Church is against so-called same-sex “marriage” not so much because of Catholic faith but because it goes against the fundamental morals of natural law.

 

[CMatt25]

Easy. The church has no authority to tell us how to vote. She us only infallible on matters of faith. She can tell us that same sex marriage is immoral, but she does not have the authority to tell us how to vote on that issue.

The church is human. She makes mistakes. She once thought she had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth, she now this she can tell us how to vote. Neither is a matter of faith, so neither is under the umbrella of the Church’s infallibility.

The way I see it, if the church really had the authority to tell us that God wanted to vote against same sex marriage, then EVERYTHING immoral in the church would be illegal. It would be illegal to not go to mass. It would be illegal to not confess sins on a regular basis. But it isn’t, so someone is a hypocrite. I find it much easier to believe that the Pope is than God.

Excellent point. I had never looked at it precisely in the manner in which you expressed. But you make a strong argument. If something is going to be illegal because the Catholic Church says it is immoral, then missing weekly Mass and not confessing to a priest would also be illegal. But the last I checked in the USA at least, a land of plural beliefs, Catholic teaching can not be forced upon the populace by the government. The US is not a theocracy nor a dictatorship, and no one is standing over a voter’s shoulder when they cast a free ballot. Peace and God’s blessings to you in your journey with Him.

 

[livingwordunity]

Excellent point. I had never looked at it precisely in the manner in which you expressed. But you make a strong argument. If something is going to be illegal because the Catholic Church says it is immoral, then missing weekly Mass and not confessing to a priest would also be illegal. But the last I checked in the USA at least, a land of plural beliefs, Catholic teaching can not be forced upon the populace by the government. The US is not a theocracy nor a dictatorship, and no one is standing over a voter’s shoulder when they cast a free ballot. Peace and God’s blessings to you in your journey with Him.

Just because someone tells you something you like the sound of doesn’t mean that it’s all true. See post #22.

 

[Monkey1976]

For myself, if I were to leave aside the infallibility of the Church’s teachings on faith and morals, it boils down to two simple questions:

1. Has any civilization ever endorsed same-sex partnerships on the same level as marriage?
   Answer: None that I can find. Even for the Spartans, whose use of homosexual bonding among their military was legendary, marriage was still reserved as being between a man and a woman.
2. Who is more likely to be right on an issue such as this: Pop culture - whose morals have radically changed in the past 30 years - or the institution which has as its mission the safeguarding of souls and has done so for the past 2000 years, with consistent moral teaching through all that time?
   Answer: The Church

 

[fix]

Government has an interest in the promotion of the common good and the maintenance of the moral consensus, so why in the world would it bow out of the marriage business? It has already done enough harm withdrawing what protections it once offered.

I am deeply alarmed by what I see as a rise in libertarianism on these forums. Do you people not realize that libertarianism is one particular strain of the same Enlightenment cancer that’s killed Catholics by the millions over the last few centuries? I suspect it’s well-meaning in that libertarianism seems to be a virile alternative to the leftism of the day (mainstream “conservatism” being a shallower and less principled form of that leftism), but for Heaven’s sake, it’s clearly at odds with the real and concrete teachings of the Church.

Yes, each time I see a self identified Catholic claim these terrible libertarian values I cringe.

 

[ahollars]

Easy. The church has no authority to tell us how to vote. She us only infallible on matters of faith. She can tell us that same sex marriage is immoral, but she does not have the authority to tell us how to vote on that issue.

The church is human. She makes mistakes. She once thought she had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth, she now this she can tell us how to vote. Neither is a matter of faith, so neither is under the umbrella of the Church’s infallibility.

The way I see it, if the church really had the authority to tell us that God wanted to vote against same sex marriage, then EVERYTHING immoral in the church would be illegal. It would be illegal to not go to mass. It would be illegal to not confess sins on a regular basis. But it isn’t, so someone is a hypocrite. I find it much easier to believe that the Pope is than God.

Not true, and you need to stop running around these forums making this claim.

Catholic Church - The Galileo Controversy

And the Church is not human. The Church is the Divine Bride of Christ instituted by God himself. We are the keeper of the keys, and the gates of hell will not defeat us.

If the Pope says that eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin, it does not matter if you believe that it is not. If someone does not believe that, then they are not Catholic.

 

[CMatt25]

Yes, each time I see a self identified Catholic claim these terrible libertarian values I cringe.

You do understand presuming they were baptized in the Catholic Church at which time they were made members of the Catholic Church with an indelible, permanent character placed upon their souls, that the the Catholic Church Herself identifies them as Catholic, don’t you? They are not merely self identified. I don’t understand why even “apologists” on purportedly a “Catholic answers” site have such difficulty with this basic teaching. I don’t mean to single you out. I see many do this. But to state they are merely “self identified” it seems to me suggests they are not Catholics in the eyes of the Catholic Church. And this misleads although you may not mean for it too. In any case they may or not be fully faithful or practicing. But the Catholic *Church’s answer is they are Catholics. Not merely self identified but identified by Her *as such. Peace.

 

[fix]

You do understand presuming they were baptized in the Catholic Church at which time they were made members of the Catholic Church with an indelible, permanent character placed upon their souls, that the the Catholic Church Herself identifies them as Catholic, don’t you?

What has that to do with my comment? I simply pointed out the inconsistency of publicly identifying as Catholic while promoting things contrary to the Church.

They are not merely self identified.

They are self identified. We have no proof of who is what. I was not commenting on the state of their soul. I was commenting on identifying as Catholic while supporting things contrary to the Church. That is a fact.

I don’t understand why even “apologists” on purportedly a “Catholic answers” site have such difficulty with this basic teaching.

They don’t have a problem. It is you that are reading things into others statements.

I don’t mean to single you out. I see many do this. But to state they are merely “self identified” it seems to me suggests they are not Catholics in the eyes of the Catholic Church.

That is a leap inconsistent with my comment.

And this misleads although you may not mean for it too. In any case they may or not be fully faithful or practicing. But the Catholic *Church’s answer is they are Catholics. Not merely self identified but identified by Her *as such. Peace.

They are self identified by their moniker. Just as I self identify as Catholic.

 

[sw85]

Once, not long ago, I saw a man propose to a woman in public and get shot down. He promptly proceeded to burst into tears and babble to her, I couldn’t overhear about what, but it seemed like begging. The thought ran reflexively through my head: “Ugh, be a man.”

Now obviously he was a man in the biological sense. I just used the word “man” to describe him, after all. So if someone heard me think that and said “Well obviously he’s a man, jerk! He’s got a Y chromosome!” it wouldn’t be particularly helpful or relevant, would it? And the reason that it wouldn’t be helpful or relevant is that “Be a man” doesn’t mean “Get a sex change operation, human female!” but “Conform your behavior to the ontological reality of your sex by refraining from effeminately displaying your emotions in public.”

See, as it turns out, it’s possible to use one word in more than one way.

Similarly, “Catholic” can be understood in two different ways. We can understand it in the narrow, canonical, legal technicality sense, according to which even Hitler was a Catholic. Or we can understand it in the ontological sense, according to which one may be more or less Catholic as one behaves more or less like we would expect a Catholic to behave, i.e., obeying the natural law and the precepts of the Church, faithfully attending Mass, reverencing the saints, showing respect to the Pope and bishops, etc. etc. Which means it’s, yes, even possible for one to cease to be a Catholic in this sense, by apostasizing altogether, or by straying so far from the faith that it is no longer recognizable as such. Would it profit anyone here to point out that, legally, technically, canonically speaking, Martin Luther was a Catholic till he died?

Yes, the Church has one way of using the word “Catholic.” It’s not the only way. It’s not even the only way that matters. It’s just the only way that matters for the purposes for which they use the word, i.e., canonical purposes, about which no one here is talking.

So let’s not pick nits, eh?

 

[CMatt25]

What has that to do with my comment? I simply pointed out the inconsistency of publicly identifying as Catholic while promoting things contrary to the Church.

They are self identified. We have no proof of who is what. I was not commenting on the state of their soul. I was commenting on identifying as Catholic while supporting things contrary to the Church. That is a fact.

They don’t have a problem. It is you that are reading things into others statements.

They are self identified by their moniker. Just as I self identify as Catholic.

As I said I did not mean to single you out, fix, and if I misinterpreted your comments I sincerely apologize. But because your post spoke of “self identified”, it merely reminded me of others who say someone is not a Catholic or can not identify as such. When the Catholic Church teaches differently. I am not reading into others’ statements though. I’ve seen it said on CAF as just one instance that a person can not be pro choice and be Catholic or can not be Catholic for this or that reason. Can not be Catholic and have voted for a particular political candidate. Or someone might think a person can not be Catholic and support SS civil marriage. It is one thing to say a Catholic may not be fully faithful or not fully practicing the faith. It is an entirely different thing though to say someone baptized or confirmed into the Catholic Church is not Catholic and can not self identify as such. I have found people here say the latter and it is just as inconsistent and contrary to Catholic teaching to say someone is not a Catholic when according to the Church they are, albeit perhaps they are less faithful or non practicing. But in any case short of CAF requiring Catholics to FAX their Baptismal certificates for proof I am glad you and they identify as they do. Peace be with you.

 

[CMatt25]

Once, not long ago, I saw a man propose to a woman in public and get shot down. He promptly proceeded to burst into tears and babble to her, I couldn’t overhear about what, but it seemed like begging. The thought ran reflexively through my head: “Ugh, be a man.”

“Be a man” doesn’t mean “Get a sex change operation, human female!” but “Conform your behavior to the ontological reality of your sex by refraining from effeminately displaying your emotions in public.”

So let’s not pick nits, eh?

If “be a man” means to you a man must refrain from displaying his emotions in public after having a marriage proposal shot down, we’ll just have to agree to disagree on what it means to “be a man”. In any case peace and God bless!

 

[Kevin_B]

Not true, and you need to stop running around these forums making this claim.

Catholic Church - The Galileo Controversy

And the Church is not human. The Church is the Divine Bride of Christ instituted by God himself. We are the keeper of the keys, and the gates of hell will not defeat us.

If the Pope says that eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin, it does not matter if you believe that it is not. If someone does not believe that, then they are not Catholic.

Thanks for that source.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

How you vote concerning the lives of other people is neither a matter of faith nor morals. Therefore infallibility is not a concern.

The Catholic Church is against so-called same-sex “marriage” not so much because of Catholic faith but because it goes against the fundamental morals of natural law.

If that were true then they would have no issues with civil unions, since civil unions, unlike marriage, have no basis in natural law. They are a purely human construction. If the Church had no opposition to civil unions, then their stance on same sex marriage could be explained by protecting natural law. But since they oppose giving same sex couples civil unions, which again are a purely human construction and have no basis in sacraments or natural law, it logically follows that they must have some other motive, and therefore this issue does not concern faith or morals.

You can’t be taken seriously about protecting the word marriage if you are concerned with things not called marriage.

 

[Monkey1976]

Thanks for that source.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

Ex cathedra statements by the Pope aren’t the only source of infallible teaching. The Bishops, when teaching in union with the magisterium, also exercise the charism of inallibility. Blessed John Paul II didn’t personally write the Catechism, but it is still infallible teaching.

How you vote concerning the lives of other people is neither a matter of faith nor morals. Therefore infallibility is not a concern.

But it most certainly is a matter of morals. If one votes for something that directly encourages immoral behavior, then one is sinning by encouraging others to sin.

If that were true then they would have no issues with civil unions, since civil unions, unlike marriage, have no basis in natural law. They are a purely human construction. If the Church had no opposition to civil unions, then their stance on same sex marriage could be explained by protecting natural law. But since they oppose giving same sex couples civil unions, which again are a purely human construction and have no basis in sacraments or natural law, it logically follows that they must have some other motive, and therefore this issue does not concern faith or morals.

You can’t be taken seriously about protecting the word marriage if you are concerned with things not called marriage.

It isn’t just the word “marriage” that the Church is fighting to protect. It is the institution. Whether one calls it a civil union, romantic partnership, wedlock, huwelik, or hôn nhân doesn’t matter. Homosexual activity is gravely disordered against natural law and a sin. Therefore, if we are at all concerned about the souls of others, we have a positive duty to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.

Yes, Our Lord spoke and ate with tax collectors, prostitutes, and adulterers. But in each case, He never said that their actions were okay. He told them to “sin no more”.

 

[guanophore]

Easy. The church has no authority to tell us how to vote.

The Church has the authority to assist the faithful in the formation of conscience, and how to live their faith in daily life. Voting is part of our civic responsibility, and should reflect the values we claim as Catholics.

She us only infallible on matters of faith. She can tell us that same sex marriage is immoral, but she does not have the authority to tell us how to vote on that issue.

Try the Voters Guide for Serious Catholics.

You seem to have your religious ideas or practice compartmentalized as if your faith should not influence every move you make all day long.

The church is human. She makes mistakes.

This is a deficient understanding that is based on a lack of catechesis. The Church is created by Christ (who is divine). It is He who establishes and builds the Church. She has Christ as her Head, and is ensouled by the Holy Spirit. It is these divine elements that make her infallible.

She once thought she had the authority to tell us whether the sun revolved around the earth, she now this she can tell us how to vote. Neither is a matter of faith, so neither is under the umbrella of the Church's infallibility.

Human beings who are Catholic can, and do, make mistakes, but the Church, because of her Divine elements, cannot. Jesus gave the Church the authority and guidance to “bind and loose” (legislate) for the flock. It is the duty of the Church to teach the disciples the faith, and to guide them in righteousness, and warn them away from sin. This duty extends to the whole of the flock.

The way I see it, if the church really had the authority to tell us that God wanted to vote against same sex marriage, then EVERYTHING immoral in the church would be illegal.

The Church is a pilgrim in a world that largely rejects the Truth that resides in her. Of course we have a duty to influence our society in a good way (be the salt and light) but clearly we are not able to make every immoral behavior illegal. We each and every one must do our part to try to direct the society in which we live in a good way.

It would be illegal to not go to mass. It would be illegal to not confess sins on a regular basis.

Catholics are under civil law as well as canon (church ) law. In fact, it is illegal to miss Mass, and confession. But the Church law applies only to those in the Church.

But it isn’t, so someone is a hypocrite.

Hmmm…wonder who might be calling himself Catholic, while repudiating Catholic teaching?

I find it much easier to believe that the Pope is than God.

It is painful to hear you insult our Holy Father, who is a man full of integrity and deep commitment to guiding the flock according to the will of Christ. We have been blessed in the last century with many holy popes.

If you do not wish to submit yourself to those who God has commanded that you do so, it is your God given ability to rebel, but you need not insult those persons in the process.

 

[JontheMaronite]

I would never sign such a petition with that message, or one that wants to privatize marriage.

The government plays a very important role in the social institution of marriage. It cares about male-female sexual relationships because these alone produce new human beings. What public purpose does the institution of marriage play in the political community? It creates and forms our new citizens in the stable home of families, it exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of the societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.

Another public benefit of marriage is that it tends to help spouses financially, emotionally, physically, and socially. The state’s interest in productivity and social order creates an interest in marriage. These benefits of marriage (children and spoual well-being and support also support the wealth of the nation or the economy as Prof Bradford Wilcox’s study concluded. The study sugggests that marriage and the creation of biological families play an underappreciated and important role in fostering long-term economic grown, the viability of the welfare state, the size and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of the economy. Those are legitimate state interests as well.

Because a strong marriage culture is good for children, spouses, our economy, and especially the poor, it certainly serves the cause of limited government. Most obviously, where marriages never form or easily break down, the state expands to fill the domestic vacuum by lawsuits to determine paternity, visitation rights, child support and alimony. More extensive effects also follow, such as social pathologies and greater demand for policing and state-provided social services. As the marriage institution declines, size and scope of state power and spending grow – attested to by sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe and their research on Scandinavian countries, a study by (liberal) Brookings Institution about welfare expenditures being attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and resulting exacerbation of social ills, a 2008 study showing that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year, etc.

Almost every human interest that might justify state action - health, security, educational development, social order - would also justify legally regulating marriage.

Two articles to read:
ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Is-Government-In-the-Marriage-Business

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf or you can buy the fleshed-out argument in the newly published book: amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

 

[InSearchofGrace]

I would never sign such a petition with that message, or one that wants to privatize marriage.

The government plays a very important role in the social institution of marriage. It cares about male-female sexual relationships because these alone produce new human beings. What public purpose does the institution of marriage play in the political community? It creates and forms our new citizens in the stable home of families, it exists as a protected legal institution primarily because of the societal values associated with the propagation of the human race.

Another public benefit of marriage is that it tends to help spouses financially, emotionally, physically, and socially. The state’s interest in productivity and social order creates an interest in marriage. These benefits of marriage (children and spoual well-being and support also support the wealth of the nation or the economy as Prof Bradford Wilcox’s study concluded. The study sugggests that marriage and the creation of biological families play an underappreciated and important role in fostering long-term economic grown, the viability of the welfare state, the size and quality of the workforce, and the health of large sectors of the economy. Those are legitimate state interests as well.

Because a strong marriage culture is good for children, spouses, our economy, and especially the poor, it certainly serves the cause of limited government. Most obviously, where marriages never form or easily break down, the state expands to fill the domestic vacuum by lawsuits to determine paternity, visitation rights, child support and alimony. More extensive effects also follow, such as social pathologies and greater demand for policing and state-provided social services. As the marriage institution declines, size and scope of state power and spending grow – attested to by sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe and their research on Scandinavian countries, a study by (liberal) Brookings Institution about welfare expenditures being attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and resulting exacerbation of social ills, a 2008 study showing that divorce and unwed childbearing cost taxpayers $112 billion each year, etc.

Almost every human interest that might justify state action - health, security, educational development, social order - would also justify legally regulating marriage.

Two articles to read:
ricochet.com/main-feed/Why-Is-Government-In-the-Marriage-Business

harvard-jlpp.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/GeorgeFinal.pdf or you can buy the fleshed-out argument in the newly published book: amazon.com/What-Is-Marriage-Woman-Defense/dp/1594036225/ref=tmm_pap_title_0

Excellent post. Thank you for including the links, especially the first one explaining the government role and why it is simplistic to propose that government just get out of the civil marriage business. Religious and government sectors need to operate from a consistent definition of marriage that serves the best general and proven interests of society.
,

 

[Kevin_B]

“But it most certainly is a matter of morals. If one votes for something that directly encourages immoral behavior, then one is sinning by encouraging others to sin.”

I see your problem. You are starting from a false premise (that legalizing something is the same as encouraging it), and that is how you get your illogical conclusion,

Making something legal is NOT the same as encouraging it. It is the same as ALLOWING it. Cigarettes, for instance, are legal, but actively discouraged by the government. If the government ENCOURAGED people to enter into same-sex marriages or civil unions, it would be immoral. But it is not immoral to ALLOW others to enter into immoral behavior. They have free will, after all. We should make same-sex civil unions legal, and discourage them.

“It isn’t just the word “marriage” that the Church is fighting to protect. It is the institution. Whether one calls it a civil union, romantic partnership, wedlock, huwelik, or hôn nhân doesn’t matter. Homosexual activity is gravely disordered against natural law and a sin. Therefore, if we are at all concerned about the souls of others, we have a positive duty to oppose the normalization of homosexual unions.”

Another faulty premise. Civil unions are not the same institution as marriage. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are simply a paper conferring tax breaks and other legal rights to another person. If you read one, they contain no mention of sexual activity. It is entirely possible for two heterosexual people of the same gender to enter into a civil union entirely for financial reasons. Your premise (that civil unions imply some sort of sexual or emotional bond) is flawed, and therefore your conclusion is flawed.

Of course, I won’t deny that many, if not most, people who get civil unions will be intimately connected with each other. But most people getting married by the state now have no plans on staying married forever, and yet we aren’t banning marriage. We keep marriage for the few that use it morally, so we should allow same-sex civil unions for the few that will use them morally.

“The Church has the authority to assist the faithful in the formation of conscience, and how to live their faith in daily life. Voting is part of our civic responsibility, and should reflect the values we claim as Catholics.”

Then everything which is immoral in the Catholic Church, including not going to Mass, over indulging, permarital sex, and being jealous. Since they do not encourage us to make all immoral acts illegal, then clearly this is not a matter of faith or morals.

“Human beings who are Catholic can, and do, make mistakes, but the Church, because of her Divine elements, cannot.”

Actually yes, she can, just not in matters of faith or morals.

“Catholics are under civil law as well as canon (church ) law. In fact, it is illegal to miss Mass, and confession. But the Church law applies only to those in the Church.”

Exactly. So why should “missing Mass” just fall under canon law, but “don’t marry someone of the same sex” be under both laws? Both negatively affect your soul. Either both need to apply only to Catholics, or both need to apply to everyone. I doubt God would pick and choose what laws to enforce, this sounds more like a human decision to me.

“Religious and government sectors need to operate from a consistent definition of marriage that serves the best general and proven interests of society.”

They have never shared a consistent definition of marriage. The church, for instance, requires that at least one person to be married is Catholic. Should the state require this as well?

 

[guanophore]

As I said I did not mean to single you out, fix, and if I misinterpreted your comments I sincerely apologize. But because your post spoke of “self identified”, it merely reminded me of others who say someone is not a Catholic or can not identify as such. When the Catholic Church teaches differently.

Certainly people have the freedom of speech to self identify as whatever they wish, and may even role play in a forum like this, pretending to be Cathoilc when they self identify as otherwise.

It is particularly problematic in an environment such as this, however, when a person publicly affiliates themselves as Catholic, and yet does not espouse Catholic beliefs. That is because it causes confusion for those who do not know the Catholic faith well, and think that persons who call themselves Catholic, yet reject Catholic doctrine, are considered to be in good standing with the CC, or that their heterodox positions are perfectly acceptable to Catholicism.

It has also been pointed out above that teaching or promoting anti-catholic positions can cause a public scandal, and may present even more grave dangers to the soul of a person who can be responsible for leading others into error as well.

   I am not reading into others' statements though.  I've seen it said on CAF as just one instance that a person can not be pro choice and be Catholic or can not be Catholic for this or that reason.

Certainly such a person has lost their Catholicity.

But there are many reasons that a person may reject the infallible teachings of the Apostles. One may suffer from a grave emotional or mental disorder, and not realize that the revelation of God is more accurate than their own opinions.

One may be plagued by evil spirits, who have co-opted the witless into rejecting the Teachings of the Church by insidious pursuasion.

One may be harboring secret sins, because they have broken the commandments of God, and in human nature to justify oneself, one may try to rationalize that God did not really mean what the Church thinks He meant.

One may be in a state of rebellion against authority, that of God, His One Church.

And, as may be the case of some (we can hope and pray) they may have taken an anti-Catholic position because they are poorly catechized and don’t know any better. Of all the above maladies that make a person justify evil, this last one is the most curable.

  Can not be Catholic and have voted for a particular political candidate.  Or someone might think a person can not be Catholic and support SS civil marriage.  It is one thing to say a Catholic may not be fully faithful or not fully practicing the faith.

There are certain actions that trigger automatic excommunication, so that persons who engage in them may have already separated themselves from the Church, but don’t realize it.

  It is an entirely different thing though to say someone baptized or confirmed into the Catholic Church is not Catholic and can not self identify as such.

You make a good point. There are rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff, who, though they are in rebellion, are no less subject to the one God has appointed to shepherd the flock. There are excommunicated Catholics, lapsed Catholics, apostate Catholics, heretic Catholics, etc, etc, and the most common, those who live in a state of mortal sin, so that any Catholicity they once had is of no value to them, as their last state is WORSE than the first!

  I have found people here say the latter and it is just as inconsistent and contrary to Catholic teaching to say someone is not a Catholic when according to the Church they are, albeit perhaps they are less faithful or non practicing.  But in any case short of CAF requiring Catholics to FAX their Baptismal certificates for proof :) I am glad you and they identify as they do.  Peace be with you.

It is not about whether one was once Catholic, but the public scandal caused by claiming to be Catholic while rejecting Catholic doctrine. To protect the Church, and the public, who may be unwittingly harmed, it is better for persons in that state not to advertise here they are “Catholic”.

Making this sacrifice is a way of honoring the Church, and demonstrates integrity. It communicates that a person is willing to restrain themselves from publicly claiming to espouse a faith that in fact, they do not.

 

[guanophore]

Thanks for that source.

Three conditions must be met for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility: (1) he must speak in his official capacity as the successor of Peter; (2) he must speak on a matter of faith or morals; and (3) he must solemnly define the doctrine as one that must be held by all the faithful.

This is only partly true, Kevin. These are the conditions for an ex cathedra statement, but the gift of infallibility is much broader than this. The Holy Father exercises it whenever he teaches the Apostolic faith, as does the Magesterium. Jesus promised to lead the Church into "all Truth. He will not allow His Holy Bride to fall into error.

Individual Catholics may fall into error and sin, but the Church, because of her divine elements, cannot sin.

How you vote concerning the lives of other people is neither a matter of faith nor morals. Therefore infallibility is not a concern.

It is your perogative to believe this lie if you wish, Kevin, but you will not pursuade any faithful Catholics here at CAF to fall for such pungent organic matter.

Everything we are in Christ, all that we do each day, is a reflection of our faith and morals.

If that were true then they would have no issues with civil unions, since civil unions, unlike marriage, have no basis in natural law.

This is true, but a civil union, while not an expression of God’s desire for His creation, do not involve redefining that which God has created (marriage) for His own glory. They are a human creation, and can be separated from the Sacraments of the Church.

They are a purely human construction. If the Church had no opposition to civil unions, then their stance on same sex marriage could be explained by protecting natural law.

Exactly!

But since they oppose giving same sex couples civil unions, which again are a purely human construction and have no basis in sacraments or natural law, it logically follows that they must have some other motive, and therefore this issue does not concern faith or morals.

Because the Church has the responsibility to bring God’s perspective into the world. This is the prophetic calling of the people of God. It is necessary for us to oppose that which opposes God. A same sex “marriage” is a much more aggregious affront to the Church, because it makes a mockery of God’s intention for His relationship with mankind.

You can’t be taken seriously about protecting the word marriage if you are concerned with things not called marriage.

The CC is concerned about all those “human inventions” that oppose the purposes of God. That includes activities that frustration His reproductive gift, which attempt to end the life of people prematurally, that offend the dignity of human persons created in the image of God, and all activities using the gift of human sexuality that are outside the boundaries He has established for their use.

You must have “faith and morals” in some kind of tiny snuff box, if you can dismiss so much of life as having nothing to do with them.

Phil 1:27
7 Only let your manner of life be worthy of the gospel of Christ…

The word translated “manner” here is Gk. *politeuomai *. I am sure you will recognize that it is the same root where we get our word “political”. It means to behave as a citizen. Christians are citizens of this world, as well as the Kingdom of Heaven. We are to live a manner of life that brings God’s light and salt to our culture and society. This is our civic duty. The idea that politics has no relation to faith and morals is frankly quite preposterous.