Statements from California Catholic Church Leaders on Prop 8 overturn

[1voice]

Originally Posted by 1voice
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.

I found this … related to the self evident and well established precedent for marriage as being gender specific…

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

“ [T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. …] But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.[13]

 

[Saint_Castulus]

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.

so…you think gay sex is not a sin? the Catholic catechism is on record as stating it is, that is a fact, I am curious, your profile states you are Catholic? are you opposed to church doctrine?

 

[Dale_M]

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

Okay. I have moved so often that I never developed such a good rapport with my parish priest. Once resources became available online, searching for them was my first choice.

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…

This would be true if procreation were the only purpose of marriage. But it isn’t, at least not in the view of the Church. The Catechism, and also Pope Benedict’s encyclical “God is Love”, make clear that marriage is to unite two complementary human beings (male and female) to completeness.

Of course, from a secular point of view, the love of two women or two men are equivalent to the love of a man and a woman. However, the Catholic Church disagrees. And that disagreement is the basis for its opposition to same sex marriage.

 

[KJK80]

so…you think gay sex is not a sin? the Catholic catechism is on record as stating it is, that is a fact, I am curious, your profile states you are Catholic? are you opposed to church doctrine?

OK, I think it’s time I stop writing until I learn how to.

Please point out where I ever stated gay sex is not a sin. I think the entire post you quoted was stating quite the opposite… but I’m obviously not communicating effectively, I will take responsibility.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

OK, I think it’s time I stop writing until I learn how to.

Please point out where I ever stated gay sex is not a sin. I think the entire post you quoted was stating quite the opposite… but I’m obviously not communicating effectively, I will take responsibility.

simple question, as a devout Catholic…if that is what you are, do you promote gay marriage? do you think its OK? I have read your other posts…all of them, you come across as pro gay…I mean like all the nasty stuff they do to each other duh

 

[KJK80]

simple question, as a devout Catholic…if that is what you are, do you promote gay marriage? do you think its OK? I have read your other posts…all of them, you come across as pro gay…I mean like all the nasty stuff they do to each other duh

You’re reading what you want to read. That’s fine. I have nothing to prove or hide.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

You’re reading what you want to read. That’s fine. I have nothing to prove or hide.

you are being evasive, why is that? simple question…are you on board 100% with Catholic doctrine? hear me now…there are many sins such as adultery, bestiality, homosexuality and so on and so forth, I am opposed to all sin, however I am not with out sin, no man is.

 

[KJK80]

Okay. I have moved so often that I never developed such a good rapport with my parish priest. Once resources became available online, searching for them was my first choice.

That makes perfect sense. And to be honest, I’m forming the same opinion.

This would be true if procreation were the only purpose of marriage. But it isn’t, at least not in the view of the Church. The Catechism, and also Pope Benedict’s encyclical “God is Love”, make clear that marriage is to unite two complementary human beings (male and female) to completeness.

Of course, from a secular point of view, the love of two women or two men are equivalent to the love of a man and a woman. However, the Catholic Church disagrees. And that disagreement is the basis for its opposition to same sex marriage.

Well said.

So this kind of goes back to my original thought, that while the Catholic Church can and should “regulate” this singular message within the Catholic Church–it has little grounds to do so outside the Catholic Church.

Continuing… my thoughts are that this message needs to be fully formulated and addressed throughout the Church, at the parish level in particular. The Bishops need to take control of the message and ensure uniform “enforcement” throughout.

When I say formulated, I mean that the message should not include any possibility of error. Right now there’s some “science—at this time” type wording. The “message” needs to resist opposition of “science” and assume that science or psychology, etc. will figure a way to prove, “without doubt”, that homosexuality is a hard coded absolute that is not relegated to choice.

However… the likelihood of that happening effectively? Hmmm.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

That makes perfect sense. And to be honest, I’m forming the same opinion.

Well said.

So this kind of goes back to my original thought, that while the Catholic Church can and should “regulate” this singular message within the Catholic Church–it has little grounds to do so outside the Catholic Church.

Continuing… my thoughts are that this message needs to be fully formulated and addressed throughout the Church, at the parish level in particular. The Bishops need to take control of the message and ensure uniform “enforcement” throughout.

When I say formulated, I mean that the message should not include any possibility of error. Right now there’s some “science—at this time” type wording. The “message” needs to resist opposition of “science” and assume that science or psychology, etc. will figure a way to prove, “without doubt”, that homosexuality is a hard coded absolute that is not relegated to choice.

However… the likelihood of that happening effectively? Hmmm.

so you are arguing in support of Catholic doctrine? if so forgive for misunderstanding you…which is not to difficult based on all your previous post on all subjects.

 

[Saint_Castulus]

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?

here you go.Do you remember this thread? it appears you have a problem with authority?

 

[Dale_M]

here you go.Do you remember this thread? it appears you have a problem with authority?

Eh? I am not sure who you are addressing or what thread you are referring to. Could you clarify what your objection is and what thread you are referencing?

 

[KJK80]

so you are arguing in support of Catholic doctrine? if so forgive for misunderstanding you…which is not to difficult based on all your previous post on all subjects.

I never changed my stance. Only stating (again I’ll state it), that:

• at present time, the Catholic position on this matter will not (and rightly should not, as government is not a religious entity) hold up as a matter of law… even if it is popular opinion (which is perfectly proved by the temporary overturn of prop 8).
• because, it requires faith in the Church and God to irrevocably claim the act of homosexuality a sin, unnatural occurrence or immoral behavior
• therefore, the Church’s efforts need to be geared less toward public opinion (which has been temporarily overruled with the great likelihood of a continuance across the states) and less toward the government law makers (which have very little to go on, to support writing the Catholic viewpoint into law) and a much greater effort on defining an internal “lock tight” viewpoint on the matter and “preaching it from the pulpit” to borrow a Protestant term.
• which, I think the likelihood of happening is low (at least effectively or anytime soon), because of the time it takes in such a large organization to do such things, the world wide viewpoint being involved and the ‘taboo’ nature of the subject. Especially when it comes to confronting people that you’re simultaneously trying to welcome. It will admittedly be easier in some parishes than others. And those parishes that will have a low amount of resulting conflict will probably be much more likely to do it.

On a personal level, I will agree with the viewpoint that; as a Catholic, the “act” of homosexual sex is a sin, and there is no way for a homosexual “couple” to enter into the sacrament of marriage as instituted by the Catholic Church. Essentially no different than having three divorces of convenience or having a couple overnight girlfriends…

If any of this is not clear enough, please tell me.

I think you will find, if you review my posts, I have not stated as absolute “opinion” anything different than this.

 

[sw85]

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…

I don’t see this as being a fatal problem to the institution of marriage, as you do, provided we’re talking about marriages in the legal sense, rather than the Catholic/cultural sense.

We have a drinking age of 21 in this country. But there is nothing magical about the age of 21 – we simply use it as a proxy for maturity, because we assume people 21 and over are mature enough to handle alcohol. We use a standard of “age” rather than “maturity” because it obviates the need for intrusive government inquiries into a matter which is essentially qualitative and subjective.

Likewise, using sexual complimentarity (i.e., inherent fertility) obviates the need for intrusive government inquiry into a couple’s fertility. Moreover, since fertility is generally a matter of degree rather than a categorical fertile/non-fertile state, such inquiries would again render any judgment made on when a couple is “fertile” enough to be married qualitative, subjective, and arbitrary.

By contrast there is no “fertility test” we could conceivably give to gay couples. Both members of the union may be perfectly fertile in themselves and yet their relationship is inherently barren, because the results of fertility tests are meaningful only in the context of heterosexual behavior.

Which is precisely why we don’t limit marriage to heterosexual people only. We only limit it to the union of a man and a woman. It’s therefore available to everyone who wants to partake in its benefits.

That no one has ever adequately made these points publicly is one of the chief failings of the traditional marriage movement.

• at present time, the Catholic position on this matter will not (and rightly should not, as government is not a religious entity) hold up as a matter of law… even if it is popular opinion (which is perfectly proved by the temporary overturn of prop 8).
• because, it requires faith in the Church and God to irrevocably claim the act of homosexuality a sin, unnatural occurrence or immoral behavior

I’d also disagree with both these assessments. Understand before proceeding that I’m a deist and I’ve been mass all of once in my life (my girlfriend at the time took me).

That government is not a religious entity (i.e., that we have separation of church and state) does not mean religious principles must not or will not prevail. It simply means they must not/will not prevail by virtue of government forcing them to be accepted, or by deferring lawmaking powers to religious bodies. Moreover, it is hardly a fait accompli that gay marriage will win the day.

My faith in the Church is minimal (again, I’m not a Catholic). And my faith in the existence of God is hardly, well, an act of faith. It is simply a recognition of the nature of the universe. I think natural law is sufficient to regard homosexual behavior as the abomination that it is.

Of course I don’t think Catholics (or anyone) ought to go around declaring that homosexuality is a sin and that this is the reason we must oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals ought to be treated with compassion and love, as everyone must be. There is a perfectly good case against gay marriage to be made on secular grounds, which I have outlined here and elsewhere – that, simply put, gay marriage, by divorcing marriage from the context of fertility, obviates the use for marriage law entirely and opens the door to government endorsement of all atypical sexual unions.

 

[nguirado]

What is the interest of the state to promote any type of relationship?

 

[Montalo]

What is the interest of the state to promote any type of relationship?

babies

the more children that exist, the more people they can tax, and the bigger they can make their paychecks

anyways

people with SSA should be, and are, free to marry any person of the opposite sex that they wish

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t see this as being a fatal problem to the institution of marriage, as you do, provided we’re talking about marriages in the legal sense, rather than the Catholic/cultural sense.

We have a drinking age of 21 in this country. But there is nothing magical about the age of 21 – we simply use it as a proxy for maturity, because we assume people 21 and over are mature enough to handle alcohol. We use a standard of “age” rather than “maturity” because it obviates the need for intrusive government inquiries into a matter which is essentially qualitative and subjective.

Likewise, using sexual complimentarity (i.e., inherent fertility) obviates the need for intrusive government inquiry into a couple’s fertility. Moreover, since fertility is generally a matter of degree rather than a categorical fertile/non-fertile state, such inquiries would again render any judgment made on when a couple is “fertile” enough to be married qualitative, subjective, and arbitrary.

By contrast there is no “fertility test” we could conceivably give to gay couples. Both members of the union may be perfectly fertile in themselves and yet their relationship is inherently barren, because the results of fertility tests are meaningful only in the context of heterosexual behavior.

Which is precisely why we don’t limit marriage to heterosexual people only. We only limit it to the union of a man and a woman. It’s therefore available to everyone who wants to partake in its benefits.

That no one has ever adequately made these points publicly is one of the chief failings of the traditional marriage movement.

I’d also disagree with both these assessments. Understand before proceeding that I’m a deist and I’ve been mass all of once in my life (my girlfriend at the time took me).

That government is not a religious entity (i.e., that we have separation of church and state) does not mean religious principles must not or will not prevail. It simply means they must not/will not prevail by virtue of government forcing them to be accepted, or by deferring lawmaking powers to religious bodies. Moreover, it is hardly a fait accompli that gay marriage will win the day.

My faith in the Church is minimal (again, I’m not a Catholic). And my faith in the existence of God is hardly, well, an act of faith. It is simply a recognition of the nature of the universe. I think natural law is sufficient to regard homosexual behavior as the abomination that it is.

Of course I don’t think Catholics (or anyone) ought to go around declaring that homosexuality is a sin and that this is the reason we must oppose gay marriage. Homosexuals ought to be treated with compassion and love, as everyone must be. There is a perfectly good case against gay marriage to be made on secular grounds, which I have outlined here and elsewhere – that, simply put, gay marriage, by divorcing marriage from the context of fertility, obviates the use for marriage law entirely and opens the door to government endorsement of all atypical sexual unions.

Very well stated! This is the argument I’ve been making, as well, and I still get hit with “separation of church and state” or “what about infertile couples” responses. It isn’t about faith or infertility of individual couples. Sadly, the common sense understanding you posted seems to be lost on many, many people.

 

[Suudy]

• because, it requires faith in the Church and God to irrevocably claim the act of homosexuality a sin, unnatural occurrence or immoral behavior

No, it doesn’t. I was wondering why in all your posts you were focused on the science of the issue. But the science of why homosexuals feel the urges they do is irrelevant to the question at hand. Let’s spell out why the Church teaches what it does.

1. The church regards acts that are gravely disordered as sinful.
2. Homosexual acts are gravely disordered.
3. Therefore, the church regards homosexual acts as sinful.

The only formulation that includes any appeal to faith in God is the first premise. But the issue with regard to the announcement isn’t solely about whether homosexual acts are sinful. It is also that they are gravely disordered.

As to the second premise, it doesn’t take any more than some philosophy and logic to establish the truth of it.

Finally, I want to take a closer look at the end of your statement: “a sin, unnatural occurrence or immoral behavior”.

I’ve already addressed the sinful nature of homosexual acts. The last, immoral behavior, derives itself directly from the nature of the act. We have to look at this from an ethics point of view, ignoring the theology. What makes an act moral or immoral (or neither)? Depends upon the school of philosophical thought. But the Thomist point of view (which the Church largely agrees with). A good primer on Thomas’ ethics is here:

iep.utm.edu/aq-moral/

Another good one can be found here:

courseweb.stthomas.edu/kwkemp/Papers/MPSTA.pdf

And I think it clear that homosexual acts are immoral.

Finally, the middle term “unnatural occurrence”. Your use of “occurrence” indicates you mean “unnatural” to mean “not occurring in nature”. But that isn’t the view of the Church at all. The Church doesn’t judge acts based upon their occurrence in nature, but upon their accordance with natural law (or other laws, such as divine law).

The Church’s view is that it is contrary to the natural law, that is that homosexual acts are contrary to the end for which sex exists. Sex serves a natural end of procreation. Sex is ordered towards procreation. Now, sex certainly has other functions, including a unitive function. But its primary end is procreation. Since homosexual acts are not ordered toward procreation (and can never be), it is contrary to natural law, and thus disordered. And being gravely disordered (for it seriously violates the natural law), it is sinful.

• therefore, the Church’s efforts need to be geared less toward public opinion (which has been temporarily overruled with the great likelihood of a continuance across the states) and less toward the government law makers (which have very little to go on, to support writing the Catholic viewpoint into law) and a much greater effort on defining an internal “lock tight” viewpoint on the matter and “preaching it from the pulpit” to borrow a Protestant term.

Given that one of your premises is invalid, your conclusion isn’t valid. The Church is opposed both because it is sinful and because it is disordered. The Church needs to make efforts both in the arena of law and its own internal viewpoint.

No organization with more than one person on the face of the earth in all of mankind’s existence has ever had a “lock tight” viewpoint. To expect the entire Church to do the same is unrealistic. There are still people clamoring for the ordination of women, Catholic for a Free Choice claiming abortion should be acceptable, and even flat-earth proponents. If there can’t even be “lock tight” viewpoints on these issues, why do you think it should occur with homosexual “marriage”?

Sorry, but just because we can’t get 100% consensus amongst all members does not mean the Church should not oppose a particular stance.

On a personal level, I will agree with the viewpoint that; as a Catholic, the “act” of homosexual sex is a sin, and there is no way for a homosexual “couple” to enter into the sacrament of marriage as instituted by the Catholic Church. Essentially no different than having three divorces of convenience or having a couple overnight girlfriends…

There is no way for a homosexual couple to enter marriage, regardless of the sacramental nature. It is an ontological impossibility. This isn’t about what the *Church *thinks appropriate, it is about what is objectively possible with regard to same-sex relationships.

 

[KJK80]

OK I’m obviously too dumb to figure this out so it’s becoming obvious that the next logical steps for me to take, are to remove myself from this convo and current parish.

Thanks for your time and effort everyone.

 

[Suudy]

OK I’m obviously too dumb to figure this out so it’s becoming obvious that the next logical steps for me to take, are to remove myself from this convo and current parish.

Nobody said you were dumb. People are just disagreeing with you.

For my part, I think you are sincere. You have reasons for what you believe, and we are exchanging points trying to reconcile what you are saying with what we believe. It isn’t a competition. It isn’t about making you feel dumb. It is about trying to find the truth. Sometimes it gets personal (Lord knows I employ sarcasm far too often to the wrong circumstances), but I hope we can all ignore that and continue with the issues.

I encourage you to continue. We are bouncing ideas back and forth. For the most part, I think it has a been respectful (but heated) discussion. You certainly have made me sit and think before I respond. Your are obviously intelligent and well written, and that has made my reading of this thread all the better.

As for removing yourself from your parish, why? I must have missed something in the thread, but if your priest is teaching things contrary to the Church, then I would agree. But if you disagree with your priest–absent any contradictions with the Church herself–why leave?

 

[KJK80]

Re: parish/priest. I’m not going to go into any details here, but I would say my issues with this topic were torn fresh due to actions taken in two local parishes including and especially my own. And to clarify, away from the keyboard and process I’m going through right now, you and I would probably come to a quick agreement.

This all saddens me, because I have attended this parish since before I was Catholic, I was married here, I became Catholic here and my children were baptized here. I probably wouldn’t be Catholic without this parish…

On the flip side of the argument, a lot of my “points” come from having friendships with homosexuals from a fairly early age. To be clear, I never ever, even had the thought of “experimenting” within my own sexual orientation… It was never a thought, even when encouraged to do so. My parents never took much time on the subject except to say “yuck” so I would say, if someone could be influenced on this matter, it’d be me… but it never came up.

Furthermore, to be honest, I’m absolutely looking for opposite viewpoints on thoughts I “throw out” mainly to be able to knock them down myself or uphold them, as it goes. I play “the other side” just as hard with those of the opposite viewpoint, believe me.

The problem I’m having here, to get back to the original point, is that there’s little room for me to justify, on any level, the situation at hand. And I think I’m more frustrated at that than anything. I still need to continue forming my opinion on the matter (that’s been forming for a long time) and I still think there’s a simple solution to the complex problem that we haven’t arrived at yet… and I’m sure my exact, personal viewpoint will continue to change about 1,000,000 times, but again, there seems no justification for the situation at hand.

So I don’t know, perhaps I’ll figure a way to come to grips with it, without affecting other’s at the parish and my children negatively–but hey, I became Catholic, I’m already going to hell in the rest of my family’s eyes…

(Oh and to those who want to state that I’m not in accordance with the Catholic church because of my “forming viewpoint” please save your breath/fingers. It’s my process, not yours).