US Catholic Parish set to "Publicly Bless the Relationship of Same-Sex Couples"

[Petergee]

To be more accurate, what marriage is varies from culture to culture. In the cultures most imbued with Judeo-Christian values, marriage always meant sharing of both love and property, between a man and a woman. (In some rare cases in ancient times a Jewish a marriage could involve more than one woman, but the women were not considered married to one another).

More fundamentally, marriage in Judeo-Christian and most other cultures/religions has always meant the union of a man and a woman essentially ordered towards and open to the conception and upbringing of their children. This is by definition impossible for two persons of the same sex.

But the “not done at present” blessings of sinful actions are not the only problem. Virtually every point in the statement is a direct contradiction of Catholic teaching and morality.
I can’t believe this statement has been in the public domain for 13 years and the local bishop has done nothing to have it withdrawn.

 

[wanner47]

Gee, after the Church protesting the same sex marriage laws so much, it’s surprising that the Church blesses same-sex unions. Rather schitzophrenic even

The Church does not bless same-sex unions. Whatever gave you that idea?

 

[johnstown_johnn]

A “blessing” is unlike Holy Communion (Consecration). At the Mass a priest who has hidden offenses against God has the power to call on Heaven to change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ even with the priest’s imperfections and strayings. The people STILL receive Jesus in the Eucharist.

When it comes to “blessings” it depends on the state of that priest’s condition of mind and heart. Some blessings are more efficacious than others; some “blessings” are WORTHLESS.

There is NO WAY a homosexual priest can be expected to perform an exorcism. Same-sex unions are the Devil’s (“sacrament”). A priest who is in league with Hell CANNOT exorcize anyone or anything such as a house.

Jesus tells us that when the Jews said he “…casts out devils by the power of Beelzebub…” Jesus responded, “…were that so then a house divided against itself would fall…”

That “blessing” was nothing but an “in-your-face” promotion of something unholy. It’s a “blessing” from Hell. .

 

[AJC]

Anyone want to bet me that the local Bishop does absolutely nothing?

AJ

 

[jay29]

Gee, after the Church protesting the same sex marriage laws so much, it’s surprising that the Church blesses same-sex unions. Rather schitzophrenic even

The catholic Church doesn’t. This is a wild, flamboyant, heretical priest, loose cannon, that needs to be reigned in by his bishop.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

What has been defined as “marriage” by the Catholic Church has not changed in 2,000 years. Jesus’ teaching on marriage is clear. One man, one woman, one flesh – and no divorce.

If the parish does not believe the above, they should quit pretending they’re a Catholic parish and start calling themselves Lutheran or Episcopalian.

God has spoken on this through the Catholic Church. The union would not be blessed by God; He would consider the two people to be fornicating and thus in a state of unrepentant mortal sin, putting their souls in jeopardy of damnation.

Again, if the parish does not believe the above, they should quit pretending they’re a Catholic parish and start calling themselves Lutheran or Episcopalian.

The actually blessing is “similar” to the usual sacramental ceremony. Again, the priest can do the martial blessing, but it is between God and the couple on what actually happens as he uses the priest as a conduit. I would say something passes through the priest to the couple.

We really do not know what God officially thinkings about it. Many theologians in the Church have many different thesises about what happens but we really do not truly know.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

If this time comes (which it will not), then the Church has erred and ceases to be the Church. At that point I, as well as anybody who is serious about their faith, will start looking elsewhere.

I would disagree. “Serious about their faith” varies by person. “Serious” has many meanings which when you get to the pew level opens it up to a wide diversity of humanity. We are of course free to leave if we choose too, but “faith” is a broad concept (reflected by humanity), not a narrow one.

 

[wanner47]

The actually blessing is “similar” to the usual sacramental ceremony. Again, the priest can do the martial blessing, but it is between God and the couple on what actually happens as he uses the priest as a conduit. I would say something passes through the priest to the couple.

And the Church has said that such “unions” are not sacramental, nor are they morally licit. The Church was given the authority to teach so by Jesus Christ.

Did He give YOU that authority?

We really do not know what God officially thinkings about it. Many theologians in the Church have many different thesises about what happens but we really do not truly know.

Thankfully, Jesus set up a Church to act in His stead, so, in matters of faith and morals, we actually DO know what He thinks. Jesus made it quite clear that marriage was between one man and one woman, and that teaching has not changed in 2,000 years.

Edit: according to your CA Forums profile, you say your religion is Catholic. If you do not believe in the Church’s teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, that means you are an apostate Catholic, one who is not in communion with the Church.

I recommend that you do more in-depth research about the reality of SSA as well as the Church’s teachings on sexuality and why the Church has the authority to teach so. Otherwise, you might want to start identifying yourself as Protestant because you seem to be protesting pretty strongly against the Church’s authority.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Yes, and it has done wonders for both of those communities. Are you blind? They are both falling apart. For this, as well as other issues, such as “women priests.”

Yes, it will. Read above. The Episcopalians are a prime example. Even if the sky doesn’t fall, the Church has still erred, in which case it never was the Church founded by Jesus anyway.

That’s a far cry, from condoning and allowing gay marriage. Show me an infallible statement, just one, where the Church has said that for all time, women should be treated as property by men.

It is heresy to condone the act, which is what blessing a gay union would be. This is clearly a case of “Roma locuta est, causa finita est.”

Yeah we do, because he gave us his thoughts on homosexuality in the Bible, and it is clear it is a “no way, no how” kind of thing.

Yes, because we should once again condone something we are totally and completely against.

Then, what’s the point? Besides sending off the wrong signals to good and faithful Catholics everywhere, not to mention everybody else on the planet, this accomplishes nothing.

The subject of women holding roles as high as the priest or above is for a different thread. They do represent 50% of humanity so they have much worth in the world and Church.

The Episopicals are doing fine with their own church and their own decisions. What is thought of as “founded by Jesus” gets complicated we do not know his views to begin with and that all schisms over time have kept the same theological definition of Jesus.

In the property statement, it was not as much a official Church matter as it was a acceptable part of society at some time in the past. It of course changed in the times of change from 1860-1920 in the Suffrage movement.

“Heresy” in this case is actually undefined, as there is no one clear theological acceptance of this in the Church.

Are we talking OT or NT? Which writers and translators of the Bible are we talking about? When referring to the Bible, the history must be taken into account and not a literal recestation.

“Good and Faithful” Catholics are everywhere and as the global diversity of the Church shows, that term can be applied to many having many diverse opinions.

Same-gender couples have been married in the Episipocal Church for many years. I see no problems with those who have done it Any problems have been from differences of opinions from members, but no earth shattering collapse on the personal level of any couple that has been blessed.

 

[a_cermak]

Because the blessings are not implemented anyway, what difference does it make? Are not sins defined by what someone does vs. what someone thinks? This parish thinks that blessing same sex unions would be OK, but does not do it. Why? Because they respect the authority of the Church to tell them not to do it. Isn’t that the way the parish should behave?

I did not find anything else in their statements offensive. Given the reality of a gay or lesbian relationship, isn’t it in the community’s interest for it to be as strong and healthy of a relationship as it can be? Most people I know would consider it in poor form for a community to try to weaken partnerships of any kind. As for gay clergy, I believe the Catholic church tends to take a “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards it and as long as the clergyman lives faithfully his vow of celibacy, it probably shouldn’t and doesn’t matter what his sexual leanings are.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

A same -sex “blessing” mocks God. It is worse than blasephemy since a priest is Christ’s representative. It does NOT bode well for someone who insults the Son of God.

It’s just as damning as if the priest does a Black mass.

 

[johnstown_johnn]

Because the blessings are not implemented anyway, what difference does it make? Are not sins defined by what someone does vs. what someone thinks? This parish thinks that blessing same sex unions would be OK, but does not do it. Why? Because they respect the authority of the Church to tell them not to do it. Isn’t that the way the parish should behave?

I did not find anything else in their statements offensive. Given the reality of a gay or lesbian relationship, isn’t it in the community’s interest for it to be as strong and healthy of a relationship as it can be? Most people I know would consider it in poor form for a community to try to weaken partnerships of any kind. As for gay clergy, I believe the Catholic church tends to take a “don’t ask don’t tell” attitude towards it and as long as the clergyman lives faithfully his vow of celibacy, it probably shouldn’t and doesn’t matter what his sexual leanings are.

The “blessing” was a public display of contention to what is holy (marriage). It is rebellious because it is done by an ordained man of God who has taken vows to obedience and faithfulness to God and His Church.

Even if this was done by actors on a stage it would still offend people of God. When a priest does it…it is in ANOTHER dimension.

There is a lot more to being a priest than “celibacy.” The priesthood serves God; NOT man in the secular sense.

“Don’t ask; don’t tell” correlation is absurd.

 

[SemperFidelis]

The subject of women holding roles as high as the priest or above is for a different thread. They do represent 50% of humanity so they have much worth in the world and Church.

Where did I say women don’t have worth?

The Episopicals are doing fine with their own church and their own decisions.

Yeah, you’re right, they’ve been doing just fine these last fifty years. Wake up and smell the coffee.

What is thought of as “founded by Jesus” gets complicated we do not know his views to begin with

Uh, yes we do. That’s why he gave us his Church. Nice use of quotes by the way. Do you or do you not believe the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ?

and that all schisms over time have kept the same theological definition of Jesus.

It doesn’t matter what schismatics teach. We know what is right and that is what the Church thinks, because there is a Magisterium to tell us. If you don’t believe in the authority of the Magisterium, then why are you even Catholic?

In the property statement, it was not as much a official Church matter as it was a acceptable part of society at some time in the past. It of course changed in the times of change from 1860-1920 in the Suffrage movement.

Society can change, but the truth doesn’t.

“Heresy” in this case is actually undefined, as there is no one clear theological acceptance of this in the Church.

I can show you several official definitions of heresy from the Church, and you know what, they are all the same.

Are we talking OT or NT? Which writers and translators of the Bible are we talking about? When referring to the Bible, the history must be taken into account and not a literal recestation.

Come on, do you really think the Bible is silent on what it thinks about homosexuality? It is clearly condemned. If you think otherwise than you have set up yourself as your own Magisterium. People who think like this are Catholic in name only. This is clearly one of those parts where the Church believes in a literal recitation, much like the Virgin Birth, etc.

that term (“Good and Faithful”) can be applied to many having many diverse opinions.

Not for some things, and this is one of them.

Same-gender couples have been married in the Episipocal Church for many years.

Yes, and there have been several schisms because of it.

I see no problems with those who have done it

Well the Church DOES, so clearly you don’t even believe in your own Church.

Any problems have been from differences of opinions from members, but no earth shattering collapse on the personal level of any couple that has been blessed.

I guess schism isn’t a collapse to you. I’m glad to know where you stand.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I would disagree. “Serious about their faith” varies by person. “Serious” has many meanings which when you get to the pew level opens it up to a wide diversity of humanity. We are of course free to leave if we choose too, but “faith” is a broad concept (reflected by humanity), not a narrow one.

Anyone who is serious about their Faith would know that the Church has erred if it changes its position on homosexuality. At this point Catholicism as we know it would mean jack squat. Anyone serious about their Faith, would of course understand it would be impossible to stay Catholic, for it would not please God. I would be checking out the Orthodox really soon.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

And the Church has said that such “unions” are not sacramental, nor are they morally licit. The Church was given the authority to teach so by Jesus Christ.

Did He give YOU that authority?

Thankfully, Jesus set up a Church to act in His stead, so, in matters of faith and morals, we actually DO know what He thinks. Jesus made it quite clear that marriage was between one man and one woman, and that teaching has not changed in 2,000 years.

Edit: according to your CA Forums profile, you say your religion is Catholic. If you do not believe in the Church’s teaching authority in matters of faith and morals, that means you are an apostate Catholic, one who is not in communion with the Church.

I recommend that you do more in-depth research about the reality of SSA as well as the Church’s teachings on sexuality and why the Church has the authority to teach so. Otherwise, you might want to start identifying yourself as Protestant because you seem to be protesting pretty strongly against the Church’s authority.

These are views on the pew level of the church. “Official” writings in the church are diverse and what we are debate here are not ex cathedra/infallible. I have read much of what has been discussed, and there are opinions that go both ways in the theological discussions on this “issue”. I have had personal contact with many with same-gender preferences, they are normal people just like you and me. Who they are attracted to is not “disordered” or “sinful”, they are who they are. Chastising will only hurt and breed division instead of trying to find unity. If you ask a hundred different Catholics on what would make them “apostate”, you would get a hundred different answers, one of the diverse strengths of the Church.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Anyone who is serious about their Faith would know that the Church has erred if it changes its position on homosexuality. At this point Catholicism as we know it would mean jack squat. Anyone serious about their Faith, would of course understand it would be impossible to stay Catholic, for it would not please God. I would be checking out the Orthodox really soon.

Actually, there is a diverse place for everyone in the Catholic Church. What is “serious about their Faith” varies widely in the global humanity that is the Church. I am strong enough in my faith to accept that the Church can and does represent that diversity. The Synoptic Gospels (which are the core of the Faith) do not reference gender preference at all. They refer to humanity and reaching out to others. Catholicism would be stronger from learning from diversity and be far from “jack squat”.

Where is the Church? In our hearts. While we go to buildings to worship daily or weekly, as Fr Grochel says, the daily struggle is to have the Kingdom Established in our Hearts, far from an easy task. Acceptance of others is just one part of this.

 

[Gertabelle]

Because the blessings are not implemented anyway, what difference does it make?

Given the reality of a gay or lesbian relationship, isn’t it in the community’s interest for it to be as strong and healthy of a relationship as it can be? Most people I know would consider it in poor form for a community to try to weaken partnerships of any kind.

I’m just speaking from my own experience here, but I think a parish’s stated belief does make a difference. When I was in college my best friend committed suicide, and my therapist got me “recovering memories” of things that never happened (incest, etc.). Lordy was I one confused pup. And to add to my troubles, our new campus minister was a woman who personally trying to transform the Catholic Church to her liking – with the assistance of the priests and lay ministers.

I was surrounded by people who told me to consider all life choices as equal in the eyes of God. And in the confusion of losing my dearest friend, and of all the nonsense my therapist was feeding me, I chose to call myself a lesbian and act on it.

Thus began the most miserable years of my life. I gradually moved further and further away from my true self and from my faith. I flitted from relationship to relationship, until I entered one that lasted eight years. That’s stable, right? And I was miserable.

I returned to the Church just over a year ago, and I can’t begin to describe the peace and happiness I have experienced being an orthodox Catholic. I’ve embraced that part of me that felt lost and was yearning for God all those years.

God has my soul now, and I know, I remember, my purpose in life. But I’m also 40 years old and a single mom. My heart aches for the years I wasted wandering around looking for what I’d had all along – at least until I was encouraged to leave it. And I do have to fight bitterness at times towards the people who encouraged me to walk my own path (well, their idea of my own path) – a path that caused me so much pain.

My heart is filled with compassion and tenderness towards those with SSA. I know the pain, and I know the struggles. This is no matter to throw in someone’s face – which is what caused my friend’s suicide in the first place. But I just wish that I could have been surrounded by brothers and sisters in Christ who would have listened with compassion and shared some of their strength with me through those days, who could have helped me see and face the fears and hurt that were causing me confusion.

In short, I needed people to remind me of who I was while I was reeling from my circumstances. I didn’t need a bunch of people telling me that I should just follow whatever whim came to me and God would understand. They were so busy supporting their “lesbian friend” that they didn’t help me hear my heart, which was always calling out for God, and His teachings and path through the Church.

So yes, a public statement like this DOES make a difference. And I’m just one of the souls that would have been lost had it not been for God’s grace.

Just my story and my opinion.
Gertie

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

Where did I say women don’t have worth?

Yeah, you’re right, they’ve been doing just fine these last fifty years. Wake up and smell the coffee.

Uh, yes we do. That’s why he gave us his Church. Nice use of quotes by the way. Do you or do you not believe the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ?

It doesn’t matter what schismatics teach. We know what is right and that is what the Church thinks, because there is a Magisterium to tell us. If you don’t believe in the authority of the Magisterium, then why are you even Catholic?

Society can change, but the truth doesn’t.

I can show you several official definitions of heresy from the Church, and you know what, they are all the same.

Come on, do you really think the Bible is silent on what it thinks about homosexuality? It is clearly condemned. If you think otherwise than you have set up yourself as your own Magisterium. People who think like this are Catholic in name only. This is clearly one of those parts where the Church believes in a literal recitation, much like the Virgin Birth, etc.

Not for some things, and this is one of them.

Yes, and there have been several schisms because of it.

Well the Church DOES, so clearly you don’t even believe in your own Church.

I guess schism isn’t a collapse to you. I’m glad to know where you stand.

“Schism” in other Churches is not a sign of failure. All schisms from the Catholic Church and sub-schisms never change the theological definition of God. All churches have this unity so there is no real spiritual schism as much as there are human schisms. Over time, the real reasons for the original schisms are forgotten and the spiritual unity bring the human element back together. If it was not for some parts of the human element on all sides, complete unity back would be possible (e.g. Orthodox, Reformation, SSPX, etc…).

I accept that Rome has authority, but it is also a human authority here on earth. And as such they have fallibilities, such is life. Which is why there is a diversity of opinions in the Magistritium down.

The core of the Catholic faith is the Synoptic Gospels, correct? Well, nothing is mentioned about same-gender preferences in them. The rest of the Bible is written by a diverse group of people with human fallibilities coming through the writing. Along with the variances of the many translations (human differences in word interpretation), makes it an very important book but one that leaves the door open to many ambugities, hense the art of theology.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Who they are attracted to is not “disordered” or “sinful”, they are who they are.

Funny you should use these words, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church uses these exact words when describing homosexuality.

If you ask a hundred different Catholics on what would make them “apostate”, you would get a hundred different answers

Good thing, truth isn’t determined by the majority opinion of those in the pew then.

one of the diverse strengths of the Church.

Moral relativism is not a strength.

 

[SemperFidelis]

I am strong enough in my faith to accept that the Church can and does represent that diversity.

But you apparantely aren’t strong enough in your Faith to accept what the Church has to say on homosexuality though…