Squashed wedding announcement disappoints gay couple

[Santi2]

But seriously…is there some sort of official list from the Vatican that sorts out the gravest sin all the way down to the least serious one, in ascending order?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church contains teachings with regards to sin. One can attempt to draw a list if one is so inclined but, it is not necessary.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

In relation to same sex “marriage”, the above must be read alongside Catholic teaching on Sacraments i.e. Holy Matrimony.

vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P2Z.HTM

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm

Further reference within the CCC as to our Sacraments and sins of irreligion under CCC 2120:

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm

 

[gcharles]

Jesus said that hated Him and will hate you for following his teachings. Stand firm.

 

[buffalo]

Whether or not you like it, same-sex couples who have children ARE developing the next generation. Those households who hold jobs, own homes, pay taxes, and give everything they have in order to give their children every opportunity possible are a huge benefit to society. They benefit society in every single way that their married with children neighbors do. I personally know children of same sex couples who are, indeed, assimilated into the boundaries and expectations of a civil society.

Same sex couples cannot have children.

Except they deny these children the right to a biological mother and father. Why? Because they want to.

 

[buffalo]

Lancet Blames Homophobia For Growing HIV Epidemic

WASHINGTON, DC, August 3 (C-FAM) Despite overwhelming medical evidence that AIDS is exponentially growing among homosexuals because of behavioral risks, the widely read medical journal Lancet is telling the medical community that “homophobia is a key driver” of the growing epidemic. And the Lancet is calling for the decriminalization of homosexual behavior and the removal of any stigma and discrimination attached to homosexuality. In a new series of papers, “HIV in Men Who Have Sex with Men”, Lancet delves deeply into the root causes of the HIV pandemic among homosexuals, analyzing the biological, behavioral, and structural risks that affect men having sex with men.
The series was presented at a symposium during the AIDS 2012 conference last week in Washington D.C. presented by Professor Chris Beyrer from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
The findings of the papers are contradictory. On the one hand the papers conclude the problem is homophobia but the evidence of the paper demonstrates the problem is behavior. In fact, active homosexuals are eighteen times more likely to become infected with HIV than the general population. In addition, the papers detail how homosexual lifestyles are correlated with a host of other STDs and health risks, including substance abuse and depression.

more…

 

[Elizabeth502]

They benefit society in every single way that their married with children neighbors do.

No they don’t. And your position is not a Catholic position. It opposes settled Church doctrine on this specific issue for society.

 

[theBIGyowski]

Whether or not you like it, same-sex couples who have children ARE developing the next generation. Those households who hold jobs, own homes, pay taxes, and give everything they have in order to give their children every opportunity possible are a huge benefit to society. They benefit society in every single way that their married with children neighbors do. I personally know children of same sex couples who are, indeed, assimilated into the boundaries and expectations of a civil society.

There are 2 things we are talking about here: Marriage and Civil Unions

Marriage is a religious institution that has been upheld by societies all over the world for thousands of years. Even if you look back into ancient times, when it looked like it was more political, it was actually more religious and tied to some kind of ceremony. It was always between a man and a woman. Even if a man had slaves or multiple wives, there was never a marriage between two men or two women. If we want to split hairs, God created Adam for Eve and Eve for Adam. There was no such thing as divorce or multiple spouses in the world before sin created that rift between God and man. Fast forward thousands of years and you get Jesus, who reminds us that it was out of the hardness of hearts of man that divorce and other things that tainted marriage happened. God did not make marriage for any other reason than for one man and one woman to become one flesh and to be fruitful and multiply.

What the State has the authority to do is acknowledge Civil Unions. Why? Because the State is not a religious entity. It’s just semantics that they claim to acknowledge marriage. It’s why, in the US, even if you are married in a church, you have to go to the courthouse to file for a marriage certificate. A Civil Union is what provides a couple things like tax breaks and other legal advantages. You can have a priest marry two people, but unless they go get it recognized by the State, they are not “married” in the eyes of the State.

Therefore, if people of the same sex want all of the economical and legal advantages of being married, give them a Civil Union. Who cares really? A Civil Union is only worth the ink and paper that makes it legal. It is not marriage. It is nothing the Church can recognize as a Sacrament that brings grace into the family. I may not agree with it morally, but legally, the State has no authority to “marry” people, so I am not afraid of “marriage” being redefined at all.

A Civil Union can be broken. A marriage cannot. Even an annulment is not a divorce because an annulment can only say that there was something in the beginning that prevented the marriage from ever being valid in the first place. Therefore the couple was never truly sacramentally married in the first place. The Church simply acknowledges this. It’s similar to when the Church proclaims someone a Saint. The Church does not make someone a Saint, God does. The Church just has the authority, given by Jesus Christ, to acknowledge the fact that God sanctifies a person in a special way after they leave this life.

Sorry for the long post, but it is important that we know the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions and who has the authority to administer/acknowledge each one.

 

[Elizabeth502]

it is important that we know the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions and who has the authority to administer/acknowledge each one.

It is even more important to read what the USCCB says and what the Vatican says about the Catholic position opposing civil unions.

The State very much has the authority to declare what is and is not a marriage in the eyes of the State. Marriage is a societal institution. The aspect of sacramentality and religious ritual is separate from that.

 

[theBIGyowski]

It is even more important to read what the USCCB says and what the Vatican says about the Catholic position opposing civil unions.

The State very much has the authority to declare what is and is not a marriage in the eyes of the State. Marriage is a societal institution. The aspect of sacramentality and religious ritual is separate from that.

This is true…I am just saying that what the State calls “marriage” is not true marriage…it is a Civil Union. This is not an argument you can make with someone who does not acknowledge God and His Church of course.

According to the State, marriage is simply a contract signed by two parties. To call that “marriage” is an abomination. And because the State has turned it into a contract, they almost have no choice but to allow same-sex couples to get this same “right”. The State created this problem long ago, and now society is going to have to deal with it.

I am morally opposed to same-sex couples being able to “marry” one another, so do not think I am for it. I just know the State has done this to itself.

 

[sedonaman]

…Lancet Blames Homophobia For Growing HIV Epidemic
…

Homosexuals demand evidence but have no evidence of their own, so they resort to blaming the messenger. From the link:

… there is no data showing that the expansion of special rights to persons on the basis of their sexual and identity preferences has had any effect on their HIV infection rate, or overall health.

The health experts nevertheless affirm that stigma and discrimination through laws, culture, “hegemonic masculinity,” and especially religious traditions, are killing young men.

So what I think can give someone AIDS? Gimme a break.

 

[peduzzi89]

Same sex couples cannot have children
Except they deny these children the right to a biological mother and father. Why? Because they want to.

To have a biological mother and father is not a basic, intrinsic right. Unless you’re willing to say that all other adoptive parents who aren’t gay are committing the same infraction, then your arguments is a fallacy. And your saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and assinine! I personally know children of gay parents who are loved and cared for, there because their biological parents were abusive or otherwise sucked as parents.

 

[buffalo]

To have a biological mother and father is not a basic, intrinsic right. Unless you’re willing to say that all other adoptive parents who aren’t gay are committing the same infraction, then your arguments is a fallacy. And your saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and assinine! I personally know children of gay parents who are loved and cared for, there because their biological parents were abusive or otherwise sucked as parents.

Sure it is. And supported by natural law.

You think homosexual couples are adopting for the good of society? They want children.

Here again - you advocate society should lower the bar or work to strengthen normal families?

 

[peduzzi89]

There are 2 things we are talking about here: Marriage and Civil Unions

Marriage is a religious institution that has been upheld by societies all over the world for thousands of years. Even if you look back into ancient times, when it looked like it was more political, it was actually more religious and tied to some kind of ceremony. It was always between a man and a woman. Even if a man had slaves or multiple wives, there was never a marriage between two men or two women. If we want to split hairs, God created Adam for Eve and Eve for Adam. There was no such thing as divorce or multiple spouses in the world before sin created that rift between God and man. Fast forward thousands of years and you get Jesus, who reminds us that it was out of the hardness of hearts of man that divorce and other things that tainted marriage happened. God did not make marriage for any other reason than for one man and one woman to become one flesh and to be fruitful and multiply.

What the State has the authority to do is acknowledge Civil Unions. Why? Because the State is not a religious entity. It’s just semantics that they claim to acknowledge marriage. It’s why, in the US, even if you are married in a church, you have to go to the courthouse to file for a marriage certificate. A Civil Union is what provides a couple things like tax breaks and other legal advantages. You can have a priest marry two people, but unless they go get it recognized by the State, they are not “married” in the eyes of the State.

Therefore, if people of the same sex want all of the economical and legal advantages of being married, give them a Civil Union. Who cares really? A Civil Union is only worth the ink and paper that makes it legal. It is not marriage. It is nothing the Church can recognize as a Sacrament that brings grace into the family. I may not agree with it morally, but legally, the State has no authority to “marry” people, so I am not afraid of “marriage” being redefined at all.

A Civil Union can be broken. A marriage cannot. Even an annulment is not a divorce because an annulment can only say that there was something in the beginning that prevented the marriage from ever being valid in the first place. Therefore the couple was never truly sacramentally married in the first place. The Church simply acknowledges this. It’s similar to when the Church proclaims someone a Saint. The Church does not make someone a Saint, God does. The Church just has the authority, given by Jesus Christ, to acknowledge the fact that God sanctifies a person in a special way after they leave this life.

Sorry for the long post, but it is important that we know the difference between Marriage and Civil Unions and who has the authority to administer/acknowledge each one.

I agree with you 1000%! Unfortunately, you’re preaching to the choir :-/ that is exactly the argument I use in support of same sex marriage. I only use the word marriage because that is what the state calls it. I would be fine calling the government portion civil unions and the religious rite marriage. The biggest problem that comes up is that many will go on to say that what the states have currently as civil unions should be good enough then. But it’s not, because they don’t include all the rights at the federal level. As long as every single right is included, I don’t care what we call it! Because that’s what I always tell people, too: what the government does and what churches do are two different things. If the government hadn’t decided to share the word marriage in their entitlements of the legal contract, I don’t think this would have been a problem in the first place. I wish more people on your side would espouse this viewpoint because I think it is the one place where people who both approve of and disapproving of legal marriage for same sex couples can find common ground.

 

[peduzzi89]

Sure it is. And supported by natural law.

You think homosexual couples are adopting for the good of society? They want children.

Here again - you advocate society should lower the bar or work to strengthen normal families?

Just because something is supported by natural law doesn’t make it a right, just states that that’s how nature works. If we only abided by natural law we would still be hunters and gatherers.

As for your second two statements, it’s not clear what you’re trying to ask by either of them. Could you clarify?

 

[Dawnia]

To have a biological mother and father is not a basic, intrinsic right. Unless you’re willing to say that all other adoptive parents who aren’t gay are committing the same infraction, then your arguments is a fallacy. And your saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and assinine! I personally know children of gay parents who are loved and cared for, there because their biological parents were abusive or otherwise sucked as parents.

Ummm…how exactly do you get children without a biological mother and father?

 

[Elizabeth502]

To have a biological mother and father is not a basic, intrinsic right.

To have a mother and father is, however, a basic, intrinsic right. Excluding one gender denies that right and is an extreme form of selfishness and opposes Catholic doctrine. You could read up on your Catechism and all the critical Church documents on this issue, but nah, I doubt you will.

 

[peduzzi89]

To have a mother and father is, however, a basic, intrinsic right. Excluding one gender denies that right and is an extreme form of selfishness and opposes Catholic doctrine. You could read up on your Catechism and all the critical Church documents on this issue, but nah, I doubt you will.

How rude of you to make such assumptions. I already know exactly what the Catechism says about it. Your sarcasm is exactly what makes this argument more hostile than necessary. I have personal friends who are brothers that were raised from the age of two by a same-sex couple because their biological parents were abusive alcoholics. If you think that was an act of selfishness then you are living in a fantasy world. This argument, after all, is about way more than what the catechism says about the issue because it involves tons of people who exercise their right to not subscribe to the Catholic Church. Shame on you, senior member, for jumping to conclusions and using snide remarks. Not what Jesus would do.

 

[theBIGyowski]

Correct me if I am wrong…

But State marriage is declared by the physical state…not the Federal Government.

As in…my marriage certificate was given to me by the state of Alabama and they are the ones who declared me married to my wife. Just like my driver’s license is issued and guaranteed by my state…not the Federal government.

Therefore, is marriage not a federal issue, but rather a state issue?

This would be similar to abortion though I assume…in that a Federal law says abortion is legal…therefore a state law cannot say it is illegal.

 

[sedonaman]

To have a biological mother and father is not a basic, intrinsic right.

Yes, it is.

Unless you’re willing to say that all other adoptive parents who aren’t gay are committing the same infraction, then your arguments is a fallacy.

What fallacy? Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want.

And your [sic] saying it’s just because they want to is just so useless and asinine!

The only asininity here is the idea that sodomy is normal.

 

[Elizabeth502]

How rude of you to make such assumptions. I already know exactly what the Catechism says about it.

If you knew what both the Catechism and the encyclicals, addresses, and USCCB statement papers say, you would be unable to claim what you claim about how same-sex couples are ‘no different’ than heterosexual couples. You may interpret pointing out the facts about your postings as “rude,” but I stand by the content of your posts versus Church teachings. They are not “assumptions.” Your words speak for themselves. Whether you do know “exactly” what the Church says and simply choose to oppose it for reasons known only to you, or whether you are limited in your knowledge of Roman Catholic Church settled doctrine on sexuality and the family, is kind of immaterial, because in either case your postings are not supported by Catholic teachings.

 

[peduzzi89]

Yes, it is.
What fallacy? Adoption exists to give children the parents they need, not to give adults the children they want.

The only asininity here is the idea that sodomy is normal.

That is absolutely not the only reason adoption exists! Millions of couples who can’t have children turn to adoption simply because they want to have children and for no other reason.

I would venture to say that 90% of our country’s population has committed sodomy so involving it in the same sex marriage debate is useless.

Your [sic] was unnecessary because I didn’t mean “you are” in that case; that was an appropriate use of your. Sorry that your attempt to be snarky backfired.