Senior Catholic clerics weigh in on gay marriage

[markomalley]

Rather than a sarcastic response to my post, please focus on the part I bolded…which is that you mentioned he has an opinion. You mentioned it last as if to say that he is allowed such an opinion despite being against Church teaching. I would think the Church would not approve (laity as well as leadership) of Church leadership publically vocalizing an opinion that goes against Church teaching.

My sarcasm comes from your sarcastic comment, Are you okay with that? Obviously, when I say that I disagree, I’m not OK with that.

More to the point, I haven’t seen any of the currently active hierarchy come out and make corrections to His Eminence’s statements, have you?

I mean, look, they are the hierarchy and I am a mere member of the laity. But I would think that if they had concerns about him making very widely publicized statements like this, they would have said something back in 2006 (which was the first time he made such statements)

Remember what happened when Cardinal Mahoney’s track record was actually released? Archbishop Gomez publicly relieved him of all duties. I would think that if Cardinal McCarrick’s opinion was offensive to Cardinal Wuerl’s (the current Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Washington) understanding of the Magisterium , that Cardinal Wuerl would have publicly corrected the record.

At least to my knowledge, he hasn’t done so (nor has Cardinal Dolan, the current President of the episcopal conference). If either has actually done so, I would like to see where (sincerely, I would).

I personally go with the teachings out of the Vatican on this subject. But I could see where a “lower information” Catholic, who may not have taken the time to peruse the Vatican’s issuances on the subject, could find him/herself confused. I guess I just have to trust my hierarchy that they have it under control.

 

[Lucky7]

My sarcasm comes from your sarcastic comment, Are you okay with that? Obviously, when I say that I disagree, I’m not OK with that.

More to the point, I haven’t seen any of the currently active hierarchy come out and make corrections to His Eminence’s statements, have you?

I mean, look, they are the hierarchy and I am a mere member of the laity. But I would think that if they had concerns about him making very widely publicized statements like this, they would have said something back in 2006 (which was the first time he made such statements)

Remember what happened when Cardinal Mahoney’s track record was actually released? Archbishop Gomez publicly relieved him of all duties. I would think that if Cardinal McCarrick’s opinion was offensive to Cardinal Wuerl’s (the current Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Washington) understanding of the Magisterium , that Cardinal Wuerl would have publicly corrected the record.

At least to my knowledge, he hasn’t done so (nor has Cardinal Dolan, the current President of the episcopal conference). If either has actually done so, I would like to see where (sincerely, I would).

I personally go with the teachings out of the Vatican on this subject. But I could see where a “lower information” Catholic, who may not have taken the time to peruse the Vatican’s issuances on the subject, could find him/herself confused. I guess I just have to trust my hierarchy that they have it under control.

I’m sorry that my initial post came off sarcastic. That was not my intention.

No, I have not heard anything with respect to the comments.

I’m glad you have such trust in the heirarchy. I was once like that as well. Unfortunately, in the wake of the sex abuse cover-ups/scandals, I have a harder time with trust. If that makes me a “lower information” Catholic. then so be it.

 

[markomalley]

I’m sorry that my initial post came off sarcastic. That was not my intention.

No, I have not heard anything with respect to the comments.

I’m glad you have such trust in the heirarchy. I was once like that as well. Unfortunately, in the wake of the sex abuse cover-ups/scandals, I have a harder time with trust. If that makes me a “lower information” Catholic. then so be it.

CAF posting rules are CAF posting rules.

 

[Lucky7]

I would think that if Cardinal McCarrick’s opinion was offensive to Cardinal Wuerl’s (the current Ordinary of the Archdiocese of Washington) understanding of the Magisterium , that Cardinal Wuerl would have publicly corrected the record.

At least to my knowledge, he hasn’t done so (nor has Cardinal Dolan, the current President of the episcopal conference). If either has actually done so, I would like to see where (sincerely, I would).

After thinking this over, I’m actually not suprised that we haven’t heard anything from these two Cardinals. Since they allow public politicians to continue to receive communion, they probably don’t believe in publically correcting bishops either.

 

[Lucky7]

CAF posting rules are CAF posting rules.

What does that mean? Are you suggesting I have broken the rules? Where?

 

[markomalley]

What does that mean? Are you suggesting I have broken the rules? Where?

No. I’m suggesting that I don’t want to break the rules.

 

[Lucky7]

No. I’m suggesting that I don’t want to break the rules.

Oh OK! I understand. I don’t want to either. Sometimes it is hard to express my feelings though without offending others. I’m sorry if I offended you in any way.

 

[markomalley]

Oh OK! I understand. I don’t want to either. Sometimes it is hard to express my feelings though without offending others. I’m sorry if I offended you in any way.

You haven’t.

Posting on an Internet board requires some degree of thick skin. I have to tone it waaaaaaaay down when posting on this one.

 

[peduzzi89]

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things.

Now given the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual one, to try and argue for equality when it comes to marriage, would be an unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, unjust and prejudicial treatment being to equate two things that are obviously unequal.

Therefore, homosexual unions being recognised as marriage is a discrimination against hetrosexual marriage.

So by this logic, to legalise homosexual marriage, would be to legalise and enforce discrimination, now Im sure there are laws against that arn’t there?

Josh

You’re elaborating on a definition that is actually quite simple. Discrimination is simply treating different things differently. The whole legal/societal battle over discrimination is whether those differences are something based upon which we legally can discriminate - race being one such example. Sexual orientation is another, and I think the first comment makes a good point that there isn’t a rational reason for denying same sex couples legal marriage that’s not based on religion.

 

[josh987654321]

You’re elaborating on a definition that is actually quite simple. Discrimination is simply treating different things differently. The whole legal/societal battle over discrimination is whether those differences are something based upon which we legally can discriminate - race being one such example. Sexual orientation is another, and I think the first comment makes a good point that there isn’t a rational reason for denying same sex couples legal marriage that’s not based on religion.

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, now this is why we say homosexuality is immoral, if you disagree with that than fine, but don’t say that homosexuality and hetrosexuality are equal when it comes to marriage, because the reality is that they are vastly different unions, so thats why it’s discrimination, it’s an unjust and prejudical treatment to try and equate two vastly different unions such a homosexual and hetrosexual unions under the same word as marriage.

If people are arguing to equate homosexuals and hetrosexuals, than I applaud them because that’s what I also try to do, however when they try to equate homosexuality and hetrosexuality with same sex marriage, than that is just illogical and doesn’t make any sense.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[peduzzi89]

The very nature of homosexuality means to use the organs in a manner in which they are not designed to be used for, now this is why we say homosexuality is immoral, if you disagree with that than fine, but don’t say that homosexuality and hetrosexuality are equal when it comes to marriage, because the reality is that they are vastly different unions, so thats why it’s discrimination, it’s an unjust and prejudical treatment to try and equate two vastly different unions such a homosexual and hetrosexual unions under the same word as marriage.

If people are arguing to equate homosexuals and hetrosexuals, than I applaud them because that’s what I also try to do, however when they try to equate homosexuality and hetrosexuality with same sex marriage, than that is just illogical and doesn’t make any sense.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Discrimination is not just any unjust or prejudicial treatment - those things, which I said before, aren’t actually in the definition of discrimination…it’s just extrapolation on your part. It’s not discrimination to treat two things, whether or not you think they’re different, the same. It’s just simply not what the word means.

Who’s to say that the organs are not designed for that as well? If you say God, then you’re putting yourself in the religious argument camp, which is fine, but has no place in arguing for or against legal rights. Even if I agree they’re not designed for that, why does that automatically make it immoral? I use my vocal cords for singing even though they weren’t designed for that purpose. Again, I’m curious as to whether you can make an argument against that that doesn’t involve religion.

What are your non-religious arguments for saying it’s illogical? I’m only asking that way because I already know the religious ones, so there’s no point in repeating them, especially when they don’t hold legal ground.

 

[josh987654321]

Discrimination is not just any unjust or prejudicial treatment - those things, which I said before, aren’t actually in the definition of discrimination…it’s just extrapolation on your part. It’s not discrimination to treat two things, whether or not you think they’re different, the same. It’s just simply not what the word means.

Okay.

Who’s to say that the organs are not designed for that as well? If you say God, then you’re putting yourself in the religious argument camp, which is fine, but has no place in arguing for or against legal rights. Even if I agree they’re not designed for that, why does that automatically make it immoral? I use my vocal cords for singing even though they weren’t designed for that purpose. Again, I’m curious as to whether you can make an argument against that that doesn’t involve religion.

Well our sexual organs are physically not designed to be use for homosexuality, as anal intercourse is no way a designed use of our bodies and you are right, I said, this why we believe that this is immoral, if they disagree that it’s immoral than that is fine.

Now if they disagree with ‘designed’ and ‘immoral’ than they still can’t say that homosexuality and hetrosexuality are equal, because by the sexual nature they are not, therefore it’s illogical to try and equate them under the same word as marriage.

What are your non-religious arguments for saying it’s illogical? I’m only asking that way because I already know the religious ones, so there’s no point in repeating them, especially when they don’t hold legal ground.

My non-religious arguments are that the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual union makes them vastly different unions, therefore it’s illogical to try and equate two vastly different unions under the same word as marriage.

The union of a man and a woman, is just vastly different compared to the union of two men or two women, the human anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this, so to try and equate them under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[peduzzi89]

Okay.

Well our sexual organs are physically not designed to be use for homosexuality, as anal intercourse is no way a designed use of our bodies and you are right, I said, this why we believe that this is immoral, if they disagree that it’s immoral than that is fine.

Now if they disagree with ‘designed’ and ‘immoral’ than they still can’t say that homosexuality and hetrosexuality are equal, because by the sexual nature they are not, therefore it’s illogical to try and equate them under the same word as marriage.

My non-religious arguments are that the sexual nature of a homosexual union compared to a hetrosexual union makes them vastly different unions, therefore it’s illogical to try and equate two vastly different unions under the same word as marriage.

The union of a man and a woman, is just vastly different compared to the union of two men or two women, the human anatomy of a man and a woman dictates this, so to try and equate them under the same word as marriage is illogical.

Thank you for reading
Josh

Ah ok I see more of what you’re saying now. I disagree with both the designed and immoral parts, but I’m also not trying to say that heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse are the same thing. To be frank, no one is trying to make that argument, because you’re stating the obvious. What they are arguing is that the nature of the sex life of two members of a married couple and whether they can/do produce children has nothing to do with the state’s involvement in affording legal rights to said married couples. Therefore, they say, a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship for the purposes of marriage rights. And I agree with them.

 

[josh987654321]

Ah ok I see more of what you’re saying now. I disagree with both the designed and immoral parts, but I’m also not trying to say that heterosexual intercourse and homosexual intercourse are the same thing. To be frank, no one is trying to make that argument, because you’re stating the obvious. What they are arguing is that the nature of the sex life of two members of a married couple and whether they can/do produce children has nothing to do with the state’s involvement in affording legal rights to said married couples. Therefore, they say, a homosexual relationship is equal to a heterosexual relationship for the purposes of marriage rights. And I agree with them.

Well I think that the acts of homosexuality is not designed and it is certainly Immoral, as a Catholic I know this, please view the Churches stand on same sex marriage before you argue for same sex marriage.

Also hetrosexual intercourse and homosexual intercorse are very different as you agree with me on, therefore obviously people are going to be upset when they try to equate both under the same word as marriage.

Men and Women are different, however they are treated equally under law, just because the law doesn’t recognise the difference between men and women doesn’t mean that in reality there is no difference, same sex marriage is like arguing that for equality sake, women should be able to be recognised as men.

If it’s about certain equal rights under law between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union why do they not argue for that? why are they arguing to be recognised as a marriage? they are arguing to be recognised as a marriage because it’s all about equating a homosexual union with a hetrosexual union, and like I have said the sexual nature dictates that both unions are vastly different, so it’s illogical to argue for equality in that regard by the use of the word marriage, there would have to be some kind of separate but equal policy because homosexuality and hetrosexuality are very different and of course people like me are going to be upset when they try to equate homosexuality and hetrosexuality under the same word as marriage, it’s wrong what they are trying to do by changing the definition of marriage.

There are many gifts that a hetrosexual union stands to recieve in marriage that a homosexual union simply cannot, such as procreation and male and female complementarity especially with regards to sexual activity, by changing the definition of marriage it wont change the reality of homosexuality, so I don’t know why people want to pretend that homosexual marriage exists, maybe you want to make homosexuals feel better about their desires, but nature opposes what they are doing, deep down you must know that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and Immoral, homosexuals need the truth of their desires not a lie to make them feel better, you are encouraging them to aim for something they cannot achieve, which is equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, because the human anatomy of a man and a woman and nature itself opposes what they are trying to do in regards to homosexuality.

It’s only right and just to be arguing for equality between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but it’s illogical and unjust to be arguing for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality through things like same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[RobbyS]

I think the position of the Catholic Church in the United States should be to adopt the European approach to marriage where there is state sanctioned “unions” and “marriage” is conferred by religious organizations. Instead, the two are hopelessly intertwined where religious officials can act as agents of the state in conferring both the state sanctioning rights of marriage and the religious sacrament. Ultimately there is no rational basis for the state to deny LGBT people marriage equality rights, even giving all the same benefits and calling it something different has zero rational for the government.

Do you think that a civil marriage is just a contract? For a contract to be valid, the parties be competent to enter into one. Do you believe that any two parties are competent?

 

[kitkatty]

And the next call will be to legalize pedophilia. Write it down.

I love my parents. Don’t want to marry them, though.

You hit the nail on the head Luigi! That is exactly what I am afraid of that even more perversions will follow.

 

[RobbyS]

Well I think that the acts of homosexuality is not designed and it is certainly Immoral, as a Catholic I know this, please view the Churches stand on same sex marriage before you argue for same sex marriage.

Also hetrosexual intercourse and homosexual intercorse are very different as you agree with me on, therefore obviously people are going to be upset when they try to equate both under the same word as marriage.

Men and Women are different, however they are treated equally under law, just because the law doesn’t recognise the difference between men and women doesn’t mean that in reality there is no difference, same sex marriage is like arguing that for equality sake, women should be able to be recognised as men.

If it’s about certain equal rights under law between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union why do they not argue for that? why are they arguing to be recognised as a marriage? they are arguing to be recognised as a marriage because it’s all about equating a homosexual union with a hetrosexual union, and like I have said the sexual nature dictates that both unions are vastly different, so it’s illogical to argue for equality in that regard by the use of the word marriage, there would have to be some kind of separate but equal policy because homosexuality and hetrosexuality are very different and of course people like me are going to be upset when they try to equate homosexuality and hetrosexuality under the same word as marriage, it’s wrong what they are trying to do by changing the definition of marriage.

There are many gifts that a hetrosexual union stands to recieve in marriage that a homosexual union simply cannot, such as procreation and male and female complementarity especially with regards to sexual activity, by changing the definition of marriage it wont change the reality of homosexuality, so I don’t know why people want to pretend that homosexual marriage exists, maybe you want to make homosexuals feel better about their desires, but nature opposes what they are doing, deep down you must know that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and Immoral, homosexuals need the truth of their desires not a lie to make them feel better, you are encouraging them to aim for something they cannot achieve, which is equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, because the human anatomy of a man and a woman and nature itself opposes what they are trying to do in regards to homosexuality.

It’s only right and just to be arguing for equality between homosexuals and hetrosexuals, but it’s illogical and unjust to be arguing for equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality through things like same sex marriage.

Thank you for reading
Josh

I certainly agree that sexual relations between a man and woman differ fundamentally from those between two men or two women. The homosexual are trying to co-opt the term “love,”as if that alone were enough to justify calling a long-term liason a marriage. Then we could call an adulterous relationship a marriage, when it is properly called concubinage.

 

[peduzzi89]

Well I think that the acts of homosexuality is not designed and it is certainly Immoral, as a Catholic I know this, please view the Churches stand on same sex marriage before you argue for same sex marriage.

I already know what the Church’s teaching is, and you’re perfectly entitled to believe that. BUT the Church’s teaching cannot be used as a basis for a law. If we were arguing about what the Church’s teaching should be, you would be right. But we are arguing about what the law should be.

Also hetrosexual intercourse and homosexual intercorse are very different as you agree with me on, therefore obviously people are going to be upset when they try to equate both under the same word as marriage.

I’m repeating myself here. Marriage as viewed by the law has nothing to do with the act of sexual intercourse. This is not an argument, it’s a fact.

Men and Women are different, however they are treated equally under law, just because the law doesn’t recognise the difference between men and women doesn’t mean that in reality there is no difference, same sex marriage is like arguing that for equality sake, women should be able to be recognised as men.

You actually made a better point for same-sex marriage instead of against it. Men and women are treated equally under the law, so they should be here too.

If it’s about certain equal rights under law between a hetrosexual union and a homosexual union why do they not argue for that? why are they arguing to be recognised as a marriage?

Because being recognized as a marriage is the only way for their to be equality.

they are arguing to be recognised as a marriage because it’s all about equating a homosexual union with a hetrosexual union, and like I have said the sexual nature dictates that both unions are vastly different, so it’s illogical to argue for equality in that regard by the use of the word marriage, there would have to be some kind of separate but equal policy because homosexuality and hetrosexuality are very different and of course people like me are going to be upset when they try to equate homosexuality and hetrosexuality under the same word as marriage, it’s wrong what they are trying to do by changing the definition of marriage.

I’m having trouble understanding this because it’s a long run-on sentence with lots of commas, but I’ll do my best. You keep saying that the sexual nature makes the unions vastly different, citing logic. But neither you thinking something is logical nor the church telling you something is logical makes a line of thinking fly under the scrutiny of the law. So while you’re citing your personal logic and the church, while I’m citing the law - which is not…I repeat…NOT NOT NOT interested in the sexual nature of marriage. It simply isn’t. And the law doesn’t care whether you’re upset about it. You being upset about it is totally your right but totally irrelevant to the argument.

There are many gifts that a hetrosexual union stands to recieve in marriage that a homosexual union simply cannot, such as procreation and male and female complementarity especially with regards to sexual activity, by changing the definition of marriage it wont change the reality of homosexuality, so I don’t know why people want to pretend that homosexual marriage exists, maybe you want to make homosexuals feel better about their desires, but nature opposes what they are doing, deep down you must know that the acts of homosexuality are disordered and Immoral, homosexuals need the truth of their desires not a lie to make them feel better, you are encouraging them to aim for something they cannot achieve, which is equality between homosexuality and hetrosexuality, because the human anatomy of a man and a woman and nature itself opposes what they are trying to do in regards to homosexuality.

Hopefully after a third time, I won’t have to repeat myself. The government is NOT interested in the supposed sexual complementarity of the sexes, whether they can or will procreate, and especially not whether their actions are immoral or unnatural. Your feelings of homosexuality being unnatural or immoral are based solely on the Church’s teachings, and therefore can’t be used in a legal argument. It’s far too subjective. The law is only interested in rights, and it has already established that church teachings can’t be used to dictate it.

I beg of you to use more periods - not out of rudeness, but because I’m actually having trouble understanding what you’re saying. And for goodness’ sake, it’s heterosexual, not hetrosexual.

 

[peduzzi89]

You hit the nail on the head Luigi! That is exactly what I am afraid of that even more perversions will follow.

Then you’re very naive. Pedophilia will never be legal because a child cannot enter into a contract, which is what legal marriage is. The whole “slippery slope” idea is hogwash, because they always say it will happen but it never does. People literally said the same sorts of things when interracial marriage became legal. Scores of people felt about it exactly how you do about same-sex marriage. But our legal system recognized that prohibiting it was not fair under the law.

 

[peduzzi89]

I certainly agree that sexual relations between a man and woman differ fundamentally from those between two men or two women. The homosexual are trying to co-opt the term “love,”as if that alone were enough to justify calling a long-term liason a marriage. Then we could call an adulterous relationship a marriage, when it is properly called concubinage.

The sexual nature of a relationship has nothing to do with the government’s interest in marriage. It has to do with rights between two people who legally and willingly enter into a contract. If two people in an adulterous relationship are legally married, then the law still sees it as a marriage, though you’re still entitled to think whatever you want about it.