Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[Chukarrushe]

And it doesn’t change my point, that it’s more important for the Catholic Church to educate within its walls (which is its jurisdiction) and not waste time trying to control popular vote or government’s rulings. Which by the way, the whole point at the “outrage” is a government ruling OVER popular vote.

Hey KJK80, refering to your earlier statement that the law does not limit the church, i think it has to be said that these laws intrinsically do limit the church. How? Law in some way is the act of legitimizing a certain action. Now when a powerful authority such as the government legitimizes an action such as gay marriage, it no doubt affects the hearts and minds of the population who hears it in the news, etc. People always place some sort of trust in authority, and so when the population, which includes the lay people of the catholic church hear it, it can serve to be another influence vying for the position that Catholic teaching would have instead.

I also want to respond to the statement you made about the church’s jurisdiction. The church’s teachings are the teachings of Jesus Christ, who said in Matthew 24:14 - “And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached throughout the world as a witness to all nations”. We have a duty to expound our faith to the hearts and minds of all people, and not just be alive to some hearts and some minds.

 

[KJK80]

Are witness and jurisdiction different?
Does the Catholic Church hold jurisdiction over non-Catholics?
Is the Catholic Church witnessing with a consistent thorough message at all levels?

I think part of the confusion on this matter is whether it’s a matter of science or morals. It’s a complex matter of science, social, morals and faith that creates a bit of a jagged line in the sand. I don’t think (at present) that it’s as clear cut as either side are trying to make it and no amount of civil laws or revisions will solve the dilemma (in my opinion).

So again, broadly speaking is this a matter of science or morals?

 

[Suudy]

So again, broadly speaking is this a matter of science or morals?

Both, for they cannot be separated. Ethics (and its subset, morality) is an integral part of science. Like most Catholic viewpoints, it is a both/and.

Unless you are using “science” in the classical sense, in which morality is a science. But I suspect not.

 

[KJK80]

So then I bring up two other topics only as reference. No need to get into it… the earth being flat and evolution.

I’m not convinced there’s any more evidence on the Church’s side to take a proper stance on this issue than either of those two.

You understand my hesitance I’m sure. 20 years from now if irrevocably proved different I’d rather not be the one remembered as preaching fire and brimstone, calling out others on their “sin.”

No, I’d rather do a better job of loving as Jesus loved. From there it would be my sincere prayer that the individual come to a divine realization to the right or wrong of their actions… but you certainly will not find me damning anyone to hell regarding the matter. Not that that’s happening here… but it is happening.

 

[Suudy]

So then I bring up two other topics only as reference. No need to get into it… the earth being flat and evolution.

I don’t understand how these examples apply. Neither have ever been examined from an ethics or morality point of view. Perhaps from a theological standpoint, but not morality.

What are you driving at with regard to the overturning of Prop. 8 and the science/morality angle?

No, I’d rather do a better job of loving as Jesus loved. From there it would be my sincere prayer that the individual come to a divine realization to the right or wrong of their actions… but you certainly will not find me damning anyone to hell regarding the matter. Not that that’s happening here… but it is happening.

And that is a very Catholic thing to do. The biggest lesson I learned when I swam the Tiber was to leave the judgment on who was going to heaven/hell to God. But that does not preclude us from recognizing and pointing out behavior that is dangerous to a person’s soul.

 

[Chukarrushe]

Are witness and jurisdiction different?
Does the Catholic Church hold jurisdiction over non-Catholics?
Is the Catholic Church witnessing with a consistent thorough message at all levels?

So again, broadly speaking is this a matter of science or morals?

     Yes, witness and jurisdiction are different, and yes officially the Church can only apply its laws and beliefs to it's people. The point I was trying to make, and perhaps i didn't do it well, is that the Church has another certain quality which makes it different from other political and societal institutions, which i think gives it universal jurisdiction - that the teaching of the church is not far from the heart; inherent in the truths it teaches is a universality that can be known by all people of good disposition.
        You and me both agree that the church is not witnessing as it should, and it is because of all the ideas out there - there is so much distraction that a person experiences and to fight through that has become a journey all on its own.

And to get to Suudy’s point, that love of one another includes pointing out dangers to one’s health - whether it be physical and spiritual. The fact is that we have a duty that god’s grace be given to all people - yes, through our love, but also through our admonition and teaching and through the other corporal and spiritual works of mercy. When we do these works we truly begin to love as Jesus loved.
God bless

 

[1voice]

Prop 8 reads “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

That logically must mean there are other types of marriage.

No it doesn’t.

The entire process of the changing the self evident fact that marriage, by definition, is gender specific was started by those who want the definition changed. All subsequent initiatives and court cases by those opposed have been designed to affirm that marriage is and always has been gender specific. There are no ‘other types’ of marriage.
Human secularism can and does invent whatever it wants in order to satisfy itself. Choosing to live a lie, and having some liberal secular humanist judge agree with the lie does not change reality. God declared ’ the whole head is sick’. What we are witnessing is validation of a statement made thousands of years ago about those that rebel against God.

 

[edwest2]

My view that the Church’s teaching is irrelevant in this ruling does not affect my standing with the Catholic Church.

And it doesn’t change my point, that it’s more important for the Catholic Church to educate within its walls (which is its jurisdiction) and not waste time trying to control popular vote or government’s rulings. Which by the way, the whole point at the “outrage” is a government ruling OVER popular vote.

What’s happening on the local level, is in my opinion, more important than this ruling. And I would guess that you’ll find what’s happening at your local Catholic church more surprising than what’s happening in San Francisco. At least I did.

More freedom and less regulation at a government level, is more good than harm in my viewpoint. Unless of course, you would like regulation on how you are to worship God… Which I’m sure is possible, at least in the USA.

If the Church teaches something is true, what should any Catholic do with that teaching? Nothing? All Catholics need to act on Church teaching. The Catholic Church is not out to “control” anything. Catholics who miss Mass will not have a priest pounding on their door on Monday demanding to know where they were. Have you seen any priests or nuns handing out fliers at polling places?

And what are the students educated within its walls supposed to do with their education as adults? Nothing? So when I saw ‘gay marriage’ on the ballot, what was I supposed to do? Just skip it? Mark OK, yeah, sure?

To my fellow Catholics - this is all about institutionalizing gay sex.

As a self-described gay comedian said, “Catholics say it’s OK to be gay as long as you don’t practice it. Well I think it’s OK to be Catholic as long as you don’t practice it.”

God bless,
Ed

 

[1voice]

My view that the Church’s teaching is irrelevant in this ruling does not affect my standing with the Catholic Church.

And it doesn’t change my point, that it’s more important for the Catholic Church to educate within its walls (which is its jurisdiction) and not waste time trying to control popular vote or government’s rulings. Which by the way, the whole point at the “outrage” is a government ruling OVER popular vote.

What’s happening on the local level, is in my opinion, more important than this ruling. And I would guess that you’ll find what’s happening at your local Catholic church more surprising than what’s happening in San Francisco. At least I did.

More freedom and less regulation at a government level, is more good than harm in my viewpoint. Unless of course, you would like regulation on how you are to worship God… Which I’m sure is possible, at least in the USA.

We are witnessing the encroachment of secular humanism on society. They dont have any compunction about preaching to and controlling Catholics… or any other Christian denomination … using the tools of democracy.
I… as a person who stands for the obvious truth that marriage is and always has been gender specific … feel strongly, that our opposition should be strong and relentless. God gave us the tools of democracy in order to establish truth and justice. Not to watch evil have its way while we huddle up in church. Standing for what is right is what God put us here for.

 

[Adeodatus]

So how do these two guys explain that 54 percent of California Catholics support the ruling?

Hey, maybe Catholics will get together and vote Jesus Christ out of office. What’s the term limit on “Son of God” anyway?

 

[1voice]

So how do these two guys explain that 54 percent of California Catholics support the ruling?

It is a clear indication that secular humanism is alive and well in the Catholic church.

… and, how can the numbers be important in your logic if they were not even a blip on the radar for the judge.

 

[Dale_M]

No judge can rule that it is not a sin. The judge is a human being… he cant wipe away the sin.
No matter what a human does… the ultimate judge is our Lord.
It is sad to see some Catholics defending the ruling… Do they not see… a judge can not take away a sinful act?

Whether something is a sin or not is not something for a judge, or law, to decide. The ruling on Prop 8 does not take away the sinfulness of an act. On those things I agree,. However, that doesn’t mean the ruling, based upon the laws and Constitution of the US, was unfounded.

I am not sure we disagree. I just wanted to clarify the distinction between opposing the legal merits of the ruling, and opposition to the results of the ruling.

 

[Chukarrushe]

Whether something is a sin or not is not something for a judge, or law, to decide. The ruling on Prop 8 does not take away the sinfulness of an act. On those things I agree,. However, that doesn’t mean the ruling, based upon the laws and Constitution of the US, was unfounded.

I am not sure we disagree. I just wanted to clarify the distinction between opposing the legal merits of the ruling, and opposition to the results of the ruling.

Hey Dale M, There is definetly a distinction between the legal grounds and the morality. But they do also overlap. First off, I do not see any legal merits of this ruling. The judge mentions the equal protection clause, but i think he uses it mainly to shift the argument. Every man and woman in the United States has the right to a heterosexual marriage, the right to free speech, the right to assembly, etc. And what i have found is that the gay movement is trying simply to create a completely new human right. So what the debate must focus on is not if we are granting equal rights to people - we are. It instead must focus on the question “is this a correct, legitimate relationship that should be supported by the government and should this action be added to the allowed actions of all citizens?” So this movement is much different in goals then say the civil rights movement because the civil rights movement was trying to create the understanding that African Americans were part of American society while the gay movement is trying to add a right.
This is not barbarian thought that we keep people from “living life” as they see fit. We would not have society if we did not prohibit some activities and allowed others.

 

[1voice]

Whether something is a sin or not is not something for a judge, or law, to decide. The ruling on Prop 8 does not take away the sinfulness of an act. On those things I agree,. However, that doesn’t mean the ruling, based upon the laws and Constitution of the US, was unfounded.

I am not sure we disagree. I just wanted to clarify the distinction between opposing the legal merits of the ruling, and opposition to the results of the ruling.

… But the decision was not based on any valid constitutional argument… If changing the accepted definition of marriage is constitutional … why was Utah refused entry as a State into the Union until it complied with the accepted norms for marriage laid out by the Federal Govt.

I watched an interview of the attorney that won the case. His argument rested on the assumption that gays had the right to redefine marriage in the same way people of color deserved not to be discriminated against. That is a false dichotomy.
A person’s propensity to act in a specific manner is not comparable to the color of their skin when they were born. One is based on the will of the individual the other is not.
… Even if being gay is totally genetic, the element of choice cannot be removed from the equation… using racial discrimination to defend the redefinition of marriage as not being gender specific is simply manipulation using a mind trick.
The judge’s decision to codify the redefinition of marriage was based on the feelings and desires of a specific group of individuals in their constitutional right to peruse happiness. Based on that logic … Followers of Islam should be able to have 10 wives…or … bestiality becomes legal if a judge says that its ok … or …

 

[KJK80]

… Even if being gay is totally genetic, the element of choice cannot be removed from the equation…

Are you absolutely sure of that, without any doubt, whatsoever?

If somebody told me at the age of say, 20 or 30 that I have the choice of being attracted to men (as a man) and must do that in order to comply with a tradition. I think I might reject that.

In Cardinal Bellarmine’s words…

“I say that if a real proof be found that the sun is fixed and does not revolve round the earth, but the earth round the sun, then it will be necessary, very carefully, to proceed to the explanation of the passages of Scripture which appear to be contrary, and we should rather say that we have misunderstood these than pronounce that to be false which is demonstrated.”

I’d say there’s absolute overwhelming and observable “real proof” that the earth revolves around the sun.

What if the same kind of “light bulb” evidence is unequivocally proven for homosexuality? Then what?

Sorry folks, but again, I don’t think this is a cut and dry formula.

I think there exists a very simple solution that will require a long process to achieve.

We’re no where near a solution now though.

I’ve studied, followed and researched this subject since I was 16, as a Protestant and as a Catholic and I have yet to see enough absolutes on either side to take a hard stance. I think there’s a lot to come and we’re still sitting at the beginning of the process.

All that said, I think the church seriously needs to formalize the approach of the matter.

There seems to be three reactions, right now…

1. strong opposition
2. Affirmation of the homosexual individual… such as “Rainbow Catholics in Christ”

3a) Ignoring the subject verbally while performing actions at the administrative level that either affirm or oppose.

3b) Ignore the subject all together. And are fortunate enough to not have to respond.

I think most Catholics and parish’s fall into 1 and 3b, sometimes in unison. You can blankly oppose a subject without having to live with the outcome of your actions. That’s pretty easy.

I think 3a is the biggest stumbling block for the church today.

But taking an absolute stance at the local level is going to cause issues that most parish’s aren’t going to want to deal with.

It’s easy for a cardinal to make a statement to the press… a bit harder to make face-to-face decisions and carry them out.

 

[Dale_M]

Every man and woman in the United States has the right to a heterosexual marriage, the right to free speech, the right to assembly, etc.

A right to a heterosexual marriage? I don’t think that is in the US Constitution. And I think that lack is the basis for the judge’s ruling.

… But the decision was not based on any valid constitutional argument… If changing the accepted definition of marriage is constitutional … why was Utah refused entry as a State into the Union until it complied with the accepted norms for marriage laid out by the Federal Govt.

I’m not so sure that the Utah ruling would survive a constitutional challenge today. As with the Dred Scott decision, the Supreme Court sometimes errs (or at least did in the 19th century.)

 

[Chukarrushe]

A right to a heterosexual marriage? I don’t think that is in the US Constitution. And I think that lack is the basis for the judge’s ruling.

Hey Dale M, good point - do you happen to know what the legal situation on marriage is? Is it dealt specifically by the States?

 

[1voice]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
… Even if being gay is totally genetic, the element of choice cannot be removed from the equation…

Are you absolutely sure of that, without any doubt, whatsoever?

The definition of marriage, as being gender specific, is now , all of a sudden unconstitutional, after 200+ years, simply because one person said so.

Basing that decision on its comparison to the right to racial equality is a false argument.
Race is not a choice. One gay person having an intimate relationship with another gay person is a choice. Therefore …basing the redefinition of marriage on a comparison with racial equality is a false argument based on two things that are not in any way fundamentally equal. What if a bisexual person wants to marry two other people? There is no logic in the decision other than surrendering to/ agreeing with social pressure.

Marriage is fundamentally and self evidently gender specific. Any other combination is not marriage. The judge is rewriting the definition by fiat and he is getting away with it because of sympathy for gay people. (I am not a homophobe)

 

[Saint_Castulus]

The following links include statements from Cardinal Roger Mahony of the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, and Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento:

cardinalrogermahonyblogsla.blogspot.com/

diocese-sacramento.org/Home_news/Bishop-Soto-Statement-Prop8-Overturn.html

I could not locate a statement by Archbishop Neiderauer of the Archdiocese of San Francisco, where the ruling was made yesterday. If anyone has a link to such a statement or statements by any other California clergy, please add it to this thread.

here is opinion on this matter gay marriage will be allowed in some if not eventually all states no matter what opponents do, that is a fact, the problem seems to be the majority of Americans do not have the same values that conservative Christians have.So many have no faith in the Catholic church or any organized religion, sure there are a few churches that think gay sex is not a sin my question is how are you all going to do about an increasingly secular society that is marginalizing the Catholic church? I for one am going to relax…let people sin, we have the right to choose between good and evil? I am going to concentrate on being as good of a Christian as I can be and to pray that on the day of judgement I will be in good standing who knows maybe someone will be impressed with my good life they may become Catholic? relax people! have faith in God and strive for salvation, you cannot force your will on others

 

[KJK80]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1voice
… Even if being gay is totally genetic, the element of choice cannot be removed from the equation…

The definition of marriage, as being gender specific, is now , all of a sudden unconstitutional, after 200+ years, simply because one person said so.

Basing that decision on its comparison to the right to racial equality is a false argument.
Race is not a choice. One gay person having an intimate relationship with another gay person is a choice. Therefore …basing the redefinition of marriage on a comparison with racial equality is a false argument based on two things that are not in any way fundamentally equal. What if a bisexual person wants to marry two other people? There is no logic in the decision other than surrendering to/ agreeing with social pressure.

Marriage is fundamentally and self evidently gender specific. Any other combination is not marriage. The judge is rewriting the definition by fiat and he is getting away with it because of sympathy for gay people. (I am not a homophobe)

Well no, the definition as exists in Proposition 8 is approx. 2 years old.

I’m not making any argument based on the comparison to racial equality. Though I would argue that making an argument based on the comparison to racial equality is technically just as legitimate as making the comparison of a homosexual marriage to that of a bisexual, underage marriage or bestiality.