Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[KJK80]

Let me ask another question…

I think it’s well accepted that the Catholic Church does not view “homosexuality” as the sin, but the act.

So is it OK if two people of the same sex love each other and want to get married but “promise not to perform the deed” ?

And revisiting an old argument, if the argument for marriage continues to be based on procreation, then can a woman who is beyond her childbearing years become married? Again what about those who know they are sterile before marriage? What if you never consummate your marriage by choice?

That’s a slippery slope of arguments. I agree, but again, this is where a “loctite” case is needed, which in my opinion does not exist at this point in time, in opposition of same-sex relationships or marriage.

 

[DawnInTexas]

One more indication of the “Godless Nation” some desire for our Country-the Godless Nation we are becoming-so blatantly reverberated in the Halls of our Capital with the perversion of “Separation of Church and State.”

Remember what happened at Sodom & Gomorrah.
God does not change-He is the same today as He was yesterday, and will be tomorrow.

We are wallowing in the Sins we have made rights in this Country.

Eventually, God will say, “Enough!”
Pray!

God Bless.
+Jesus, I Trust In You!
Love, Dawn

 

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
… 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. century.)

Where are the boundaries?
What if an Islamic group wants to be able to have 10 wives?

 

[edwest2]

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.

I don’t understand what you’re saying. The Church has carefully studied the issue and has published her thoughts:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Can you provide an example of a face to face decision?

God bless,
Ed

 

[nguirado]

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

bility ar

The inevitability argument is powerful because it demoralizes people.

One secular reason to be against same sex marriage is that it will further destabilize families because people will see, even more, that marriage is meaningless. People with the least respect for marriage itself are the most ardent supporters of SSM. Or, only liberal places with high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock or no births support SSM. SSM will speed up the process.

On the other hand, I can’t think of any positive social outcome of SSM. The serious argument I hear is based on sentiments, to make people feel included. We will have chipped further away at marriage for no good reason.

 

[KJK80]

I don’t understand what you’re saying. The Church has carefully studied the issue and has published her thoughts:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

Can you provide an example of a face to face decision?

God bless,
Ed

To me, the Church being formalized on an approach is not in any way equal to an obscure document on the Vatican website. Sorry.

Though the document is well written, there are statements written as fact that at present are definitely within the ‘debatable’ form.

Face-to-face decisions… sure… The real decisions come within the Church when it comes to those in a same-sex relationship:

• Receiving the Eucharist
• Holding positions within the church administration (such as parish council, etc).
• Having programs held in Catholic Church’s that affirm homosexuality and celebrate “sexual orientation”
  -etc.

 

[Dale_M]

Where are the boundaries?
What if an Islamic group wants to be able to have 10 wives?

Its a good question. Opponents to gay marriage often bring up ridiculous arguments about marrying one’s dog or a 12 year old. But they actually have solid argument that polygamy, as a religious practice, could be next.

I think the downfall of that argument is that polygamy, whether Mormon or Islam, is permitted, but not mandated by the religion. Polygamy would be a cultural tradition, rather than a religious practice. If this is true, my earlier comment about the Supreme Court decision on polygamy was ill-founded.

 

[Dale_M]

To me, the Church being formalized on an approach is not in any way equal to an obscure document on the Vatican website. Sorry.

o.0

The document came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was written, in part, by Cardinal Ratzinger. It was approved by Pope John Paul II. The document is well known to any Catholic concerned with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

Though the document is well written, there are statements written as fact that at present are definitely within the ‘debatable’ form.

erm… really? What is the basis for this statement?

 

[1voice]

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.

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

I was referring to the fact that it is self evident that the definition of marriage has always been gender specific … The only reason that it, recently, has been written down is because of the attack initiated by a few on what has been a given in societies for thousands of years. ( I realize that there are exceptions … Nero “married” one of his male slaves for example)

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.

Not sure what you are saying here?
Sounds like you are saying that the racial equality argument, if applied to bisexual, underage marriage and bestiality… would be legitimate. Are you saying that they are all, arguably, rights that can/should be upheld and protected under the constitution … in the same way as racial equality?

 

[KJK80]

The inevitability argument is powerful because it demoralizes people.

On the other hand, I can’t think of any positive social outcome of SSM. The serious argument I hear is based on sentiments, to make people feel included. We will have chipped further away at marriage for no good reason.

Demoralizing? I would say that’s dependent upon the person… I would rather assume the worst and be prepared that just assume that the subject is going to go away… 'cause it’s not going away, in my opinion.

Regarding positive outcomes, I would assert that if:

• Homosexuality was absolutely proved to be not only a state of condition at birth, but also a state of being that cannot be changed by choice

&

• Same sex “marriage” were condoned under due scrutiny (as traditional marriage is today) and given the same rules as traditional marriage (perhaps with augmentation to the consummation side).

then:

• You would eliminate “allusive” relationships where the couple is “living in sin” just the same as in a man/woman relationship.
• You would have the opportunity for same sex couples to have the same courtship and “solitary union” as well as other benefits marriage offers. And again, the same rules would apply pertaining to divorce, etc.

Of course, there are lots of variables to this thought process and an innumerable amount of unforeseen consequences and the whole thing is based on a fact that at this time does not necessarily exist.

But, let me ask you this, how is condoning a same-sex relationship that abstains from sex and allowing privileges to that relationship, for arguments sake that are approximate to that of “marriage” sinful?

And by extension how is this necessarily different than being a priest or nun and also abstaining from sex? There’s a trust principle there in both cases. Though I would say in the case of a same-sex relationship, the abstinence would be a more difficult proposition.

 

[KJK80]

o.0

The document came from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and was written, in part, by Cardinal Ratzinger. It was approved by Pope John Paul II. The document is well known to any Catholic concerned with the Church’s position on homosexuality.

erm… really? What is the basis for this statement?

Typically, a Catholic concerned with the Church’s position on homosexuality is going to look first to their local parish, not a document.

Furthermore, actions always speak louder than words. If actions are taken that affirm same-sex relationships, it seriously downplays documents such as this…

---

Well for one, it opens up for questions that I’ve already put forward…

This statement:

Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

This would open up for me the argument that if by choice or circumstance a couple is not able to procreate they cannot legitimately be married as they cannot contribute to the survival of the human race…

As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

I would say more harm comes to children within same-sex families from the words and actions of other children (in particular children of Christian families) than has ever been proven to come from the institute itself.

etc.

 

[1voice]

I would say more harm comes to children within same-sex families from the words and actions of other children (in particular children of Christian families) than has ever been proven to come from the institute itself.

etc.

I am sure there are instances of harassment … but the exception does not establish the rule… My experience is that the true Christians that I have known treat everyone with equal respect. Most of them have family members or or close friends/ acquaintances that are associated with the gay lifestyle. There is concern that the gay lifestyle not influence their own children to head down a road that seems good to man… but the end there of is death …
That said, mutual respect and friendship are the rule… not the exception.

 

[KJK80]

I was referring to the fact that it is self evident that the definition of marriage has always been gender specific … The only reason that it, recently, has been written down is because of the attack initiated by a few on what has been a given in societies for thousands of years. ( I realize that there are exceptions … Nero “married” one of his male slaves for example)

“self evident” doesn’t hold up in court until “due process” defines it. That’s not going to happen overnight, it never has, especially when under heavy scrutiny such as now. It may ultimately be defined as one man and one woman. The overturning of this proposition is only temporary in its current state… I have a feeling there’s going to be bigger things to come as a result of this ruling… some of which I’m sure are in process now.

Not sure what you are saying here?
Sounds like you are saying that the racial equality argument, if applied to bisexual, underage marriage and bestiality… would be legitimate. Are you saying that they are all, arguably, rights that can/should be upheld and protected under the constitution … in the same way as racial equality?

What? No, I’m not saying that at all. I’m saying that the racial equality argument has no place in the discussion.

I’m saying that bisexuals have no place in the discussion.
I’m saying underage marriage has no place in the discussion.
I’m saying bestiality has no place in the discussion.
I’m saying polygamy has no place in the discussion.

The “redefinition” … but in reality, definition of marriage… as relevant is not defining age, “multiple partners”, other animals or interracial issues. It is (an attempt) to define the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage being available to either “one man and one woman” … or “two women” or “two men.”

To the best of my knowledge, that is the boundary of the discussion.

 

[KJK80]

I am sure there are instances of harassment … but the exception does not establish the rule… My experience is that the true Christians that I have known treat everyone with equal respect. Most of them have family members or or close friends/ acquaintances that are associated with the gay lifestyle. There is concern that the gay lifestyle not influence their own children to head down a road that seems good to man… but the end there of is death …
That said, mutual respect and friendship are the rule… not the exception.

Are you saying that “gay” is contagious?

I guess I should also keep my kids away from wealthy people. - 1 Timothy 6:10

So you’re saying that the majority of Christian (Catholic within our scope) schools, parents, administration and children would be completely accepting of a 6 year old attending their private school that has “two daddy’s” ?

Let’s say your 6 year old goes to school with their 6 year old. Your 6 year old asks the question of why she has “two daddy’s” or “where’s her mommy?” and you would … ??

Your alternatives as I see it:

1. You ignore it
2. You say something about families being different, and now open the opportunity for your child to “catch gay” or the “road of death”
3. You say what you actually feel, and that’s repeated the next day in class to said 6 year old or possibly worse, to all the other kids.
4. You have a get together of the gay parents along with teachers, other parents, etc. and explain to the gay parents that they have a choice, are “living in sin” and need to repent of their ways… So they do this, the 6 year old still has two daddy’s… or two daddy’s and one mommy, or two daddy’s and two mommy’s…

Oh not to mention the fact that the child probably came from an abortion turned adoption…

Perhaps I’m being extreme here, and if you have another alternative that has a more positive outcome, I’d honestly like to hear it.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

bility ar

The inevitability argument is powerful because it demoralizes people.

One secular reason to be against same sex marriage is that it will further destabilize families because people will see, even more, that marriage is meaningless. People with the least respect for marriage itself are the most ardent supporters of SSM. Or, only liberal places with high cohabitation and out-of-wedlock or no births support SSM. SSM will speed up the process.

On the other hand, I can’t think of any positive social outcome of SSM. The serious argument I hear is based on sentiments, to make people feel included. We will have chipped further away at marriage for no good reason.

I agree what are you and I going to do when gay marriage is allowed in our state? have mental breakdown? get angry? my point is I believe 100% in Catholic doctrine and no matter what my faith is strong, you do see the tide is against us? what to do but live a good life and do not support issues like this or support adultery or whatever

 

[1voice]

Are you saying that “gay” is contagious?

I guess I should also keep my kids away from wealthy people. - 1 Timothy 6:10

So you’re saying that the majority of Christian (Catholic within our scope) schools, parents, administration and children would be completely accepting of a 6 year old attending their private school that has “two daddy’s” ?

Let’s say your 6 year old goes to school with their 6 year old. Your 6 year old asks the question of why she has “two daddy’s” or “where’s her mommy?” and you would … ??

Your alternatives as I see it:

1. You ignore it
2. You say something about families being different, and now open the opportunity for your child to “catch gay” or the “road of death”
3. You say what you actually feel, and that’s repeated the next day in class to said 6 year old or possibly worse, to all the other kids.
4. You have a get together of the gay parents along with teachers, other parents, etc. and explain to the gay parents that they have a choice, are “living in sin” and need to repent of their ways… So they do this, the 6 year old still has two daddy’s… or two daddy’s and one mommy, or two daddy’s and two mommy’s…

Oh not to mention the fact that the child probably came from an abortion turned adoption…

Perhaps I’m being extreme here, and if you have another alternative that has a more positive outcome, I’d honestly like to hear it.

You can skirt around the fact that homosexuality is a sin if you choose. That doesnt change reality. It is also a reality that children are influenced by their environment. I was a social worker for a long time … have known children as well as adults in very difficult and vulnerable circumstances that took affection where they could find it. Would there have been a difference if they had been exposed to a different environment … I think, in most cases, yes. People are social/ interactive … and they respond when stimulated. TV advertising and politicians figured that out. Lots more kids have the first stages of diabetes, than in previous generations, because of environment.

We all have one thing in common… a propensity to sin. It takes discipline to learn not to sin. Homosexual activity is sin according to the word of God. I taught my kids the truth and monitored their environment as any responsible parent would do. My kids had gay friends, no problem.

If I had a 6 year old and she started asking questions about her friend’s two mommies I would explain that they were gay and that because we are Christians we do not have relationships like that …but we still love and respect everyone … no matter what they choose. I would not allow my daughter to do sleepovers because I just would not want her to be closely exposed to that kind of socialization … but playgrounds and birthday parties and classmates and soccer games … I see no problem.

 

[KJK80]

You can skirt around the fact that homosexuality is a sin if you choose. That doesnt change reality.

I’m confused as to where I’m skirting around any facts… Though I believe the Catholic position is that “homosexual behavior” is the sin, not homosexuality. But I think that’s what you meant, as you defined this later in your comment.

If I had a 6 year old and she started asking questions about her friend’s two mommies I would explain that they were gay and that because we are Christians we do not have relationships like that …but we still love and respect everyone … no matter what they choose. I would not allow my daughter to do sleepovers because I just would not want her to be closely exposed to that kind of socialization … but playgrounds and birthday parties and classmates and soccer games … I see no problem.

I think that it would be difficult to differentiate based on Christianity if the “two daddy’s” are active within your parish at multiple levels, receive the Eucharist, etc.

If you did say that, and your child told their child that they were not Christian, even though they may be active in your parish, are you prepared for the consequences?

 

[DawnInTexas]

…One of the most common errors of all time is to confuse freedom and license. Today, frequently under the specious pretext freedom, mankind acts in a manner that is really license. We are not morally free to do whatever we choose to do. Only when rooted in truth and acting in objective truth can we hope to be free. No one has the moral right to do evil. No one has the moral right to choose to take an innocent life or to engage in actions that are out of accord with right reason or any objective standards of morality we have ever known.

The inevitable consequence of abusing freedom is losing freedom. Soon, if we do not alter our present course, the United States will no longer be the home of the brave and the land of the free. Loss of personal freedoms, one at a time, is already well underway. One day we shall awake from our moral slumber and find that we have become slaves.

We must live in truth and act in truth if we are to remain free. Abuse it and I assure you we shall lose it! Wake up America! God is not a disinterested spectator. Let’s thank God for our freedom, but let’s not sit by idly while the forces of darkness divorce freedom from truth. For, as Jesus says, “The man who sins is the slave of sin.” (John 8:34)…

Full e-mailed Independence Day Message from Father John Corapi can be read here:
fathercorapi.com/Webpage.aspx?WebpageId=60&CategoryId=25

 

[1voice]

I think that it would be difficult to differentiate based on Christianity if the “two daddy’s” are active within your parish at multiple levels, receive the Eucharist, etc.

I could handle it.

If you did say that, and your child told their child that they were not Christian, even though they may be active in your parish, are you prepared for the consequences?

I would explain to my child that their lifestyle and their religious beliefs were their personal business and should never be talked about except with myself and her mother because gay people are very sensitive about their private lives and sometimes they dont understand what you mean and could get very upset and even bring charges against us for saying the wrong thing … so that we might have to go to court about it and we might have to take you out of school and send you to another school if any of us say the wrong thing … So please honey, if your friend or anyone ever talks to you about her two mommies just politely end the conversation by saying … I just remembered I need to call my dad.

 

[KJK80]

Well there you go then.