What 10 Priests Say About Gay Marriage

[casslean]

I think your example is an interesting one because the Bakery Suits have been a huge and newsworthy group of cases. I THINK the distinguishing factor is that it’s not merely baking a cake and in every case gays or Lesbians were able and did come into the bakery and brought off the shelf products. It gets trickier as each wedding cake is tailored to the couple’s desires and use the artistic talents of the baker…further the placing of two grooms or two brides on the top makes the baker acknowledge it’s more than “just a cake.” If a baker refused to allow gay couples in the door or buy a cake in the window it might be one thing but to ask a baker to use artistic talent…also most bakers bring the cake to the venue, set up, decorate around it etc…is more than “just baking a cake.” I agree some compromise is possible…but clearly those pushing a “gay rights” narrative are not interested in dialogue.

The point I was trying to make is that the cake is not integral to the celebration of the marriage. It is a cake. The marriage would occur with or without the cake. Therefore, it gets difficult to argue that by providing a cake, one is being forced to facilitate a marriage they believe to be invalid, and thus, violating their own moral precepts.

Respect for religious beliefs and protection for the right to freedom of religion does not and should not provide permission to deny the existence of everything that is contrary to those beliefs. It also does not provide protection from anything and everything one might find offensive. What it protects is my right not to be compelled to act in a manner that is contrary to those beliefs. It would be a stretch to argue that merely by being forced to acknowledge that same-sex marriage exists and occurs (as is the case if I’m required to sell a product or provide a service to a same-sex couple), my right to freedom of religion is being infringed.

 

[ChainBreaker]

It depends on the service being provided. If the service is so closely linked to one’s religious beliefs, then yes, they should be free to refuse services when doing so would violate those beliefs. As a lawyer, for instance, I am under no obligation to take on a client who is asking me to argue that they should be able to obtain a physician-assisted death when doing so would violate one of my moral precepts (I would be directly facilitating the death of another person).

Im not sure if this is a fair comparison. After all there is a legal basis to protect life.

Similarly, a wedding planner should not be obligated to provide services where doing so violates their moral precepts. In that case, they would be directly facilitating a marriage they don’t believe is valid and legitimate, which I can concede is problematic.

Well the problem here is that it’s legal to be gay, and if you are in a state where same sex marriage is legal surely its common sense that you going to have to move your business if you are going to have a problem planning a wedding that just so happens to be a gay wedding.

The question is are you commiting a mortal sin by providing services to a gay wedding and does the Pope agree with the affirmative?

In my mind that is the only valid Question. Feelings of disgust towards gay marriage are to me irrelivant and a poor reason to reject services.

The challenge is when the service is more remote. If I’m a baker and my job is to provide a wedding cake, the cake won’t make or break the wedding. It isn’t a critical part of the wedding. In that case, providing a cake isn’t facilitating a marriage. It’s baking a cake.

I agree

Personally, I think tolerance is a two-way street, and same-sex couples could just acknowledge not everyone is comfortable with same-sex marriage and find another baker. Sometimes we don’t have to all proclaim and exert our rights; we can just agree to disagree and still find a way to get along.

I think proclaiming ones rights is important.

 

[casslean]

Im not sure if this is a fair comparison. After all there is a legal basis to protect life.

Actually, it’s an excellent comparison, because it’s an issue currently before the courts in Canada, and one which has repeatedly been brought before the courts on (among other things) the basis of discrimination - namely, that the current criminal laws in Canada discriminate against the severely disabled in their ability to choose to end their own life because they are not physically able to take the steps needed to do so. There are lawyers arguing this exact issue at the present time on behalf of clients. If asked to do so, I would have to refuse.

Well the problem here is that it’s legal to be gay, and if you are in a state where same sex marriage is legal surely its common sense that you going to have to move your business if you are going to have a problem planning a wedding that just so happens to be a gay wedding.

The question is are you commiting a mortal sin by providing services to a gay wedding and does the Pope agree with the affirmative?

In my mind that is the only valid Question. Feelings of disgust towards gay marriage are to me irrelivant and a poor reason to reject services.

It’s not an issue of feelings of disgust; it’s an issue of whether or not by engaging in those services you are cooperating with a mortally sinful activity and thereby being forced to act in a manner that violates your own moral precepts. It’s legal to obtain an abortion, but no one could argue that a Catholic has an obligation to provide or facilitate an abortion. I believe the ruling on contraception was similarly founded (I’m Canadian, so am less sure of this one) - requiring Catholics to pay for contraception through an insurance provider would be asking them to cooperate in a mortal sin and thus violate their moral precepts. It is a violation of the right to freedon of religion.

I think proclaiming ones rights is important.

I think respecting everyone’s rights is important. Religious rights are not less important simply because they are less trendy.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Actually, it’s an excellent comparison, because it’s an issue currently before the courts in Canada, and one which has repeatedly been brought before the courts on (among other things) the basis of discrimination - namely, that the current criminal laws in Canada discriminate against the severely disabled in their ability to choose to end their own life because they are not physically able to take the steps needed to do so. There are lawyers arguing this exact issue at the present time on behalf of clients. If asked to do so, I would have to refuse.

Well, just don’t be the kind of lawyer that is obligated to represents those cases.

It’s not an issue of feelings of disgust; it’s an issue of whether or not by engaging in those services you are cooperating with a mortally sinful activity and thereby being forced to act in a manner that violates your own moral precepts.

Has the Pope said that being a wedding planner for a marriage that just so happens to be gay a MORTAL SIN.

It is a violation of the right to freedom of religion.

Only if you are forced by the state to provide the service. What you don’t have a right to is to stay in the kind of business that would require you to provide immoral services and at the same time refuse to provide those services. Christians want special compensation to run a business without acknowledging gay rights. But you have to acknowledge gay rights if you want to do that kind of business.

I don’t see that there is a violation of Religious freedom; but rather a violation of special compensation for those who think that their rights are more important than everybody else’s.

I think respecting everyone’s rights is important. Religious rights are not less important simply because they are less trendy.

Thats the issue here though. Christians don’t respect gay rights. Thats why they are being sued.

 

[casslean]

Well, just don’t be the kind of lawyer that is obligated to represents those cases.

That’s my point. No lawyer is obligated to take that case. I am a litigator, meaning I could argue that type of case, but I wouldn’t. I would refuse the case. I am free to do so and I should be free to do so. My livelihood should not be dependent upon my willingness to violate my religious beliefs.

Has the Pope said that being a wedding planner for a marriage that just so happens to be gay a MORTAL SIN.

I’m not sure of your knowledge of Catholicism, but that’s not how mortal sin works. I know that engaging in a homosexual act is a mortal. If I cooperate, encourage, or facilitate the commission of a mortal sin, I have committed a mortal sin.

Only if you are forced by the state to provide the service. What you don’t have a right to is to stay in the kind of business that would require you to provide immoral services and at the same time refuse to provide those services. Christians want special compensation to run a business without acknowledging gay rights. But you have to acknowledge gay rights if you want to do that kind of business.

I don’t see that there is a violation of Religious freedom; but rather a violation of special compensation for those who think that their rights are more important than everybody else’s.

Let’s be clear. If you can face penalties for not providing the service (being sued), you are being compelled by the state to provide the service.

If the state can compel you to provide that service despite the fact that doing so violates your moral precept, that’s a violation of your right to freedom of religion. If the state can leave you with no option but to face penalties (being sued), close your business, or violate your moral precepts, that is a prima facie violation of your freedom of religion.

Same sex couples have a right to get married. They don’t have an entrenched right to insist that any business or individual cooperate or facilitate that marriage. They do have a right not to be discriminated against, but it isn’t an absolute right. It is limited by the extent to twhich that right conflicts with other rights, including the right to freedom of religion. That’s why we don’t compel clerics to marry same sex couples.

Thats the issue here though. Christians don’t respect gay rights. Thats why they are being sued.

Arguably, you could say that those who have pushed forward an agenda for same sex marriage don’t respect the religious rights of Christians. After all, Catholics don’t believe anyone has a “right” to the sacrament of marriage.

 

[ChainBreaker]

After all, Catholics don’t believe anyone has a “right” to the sacrament of marriage.

But thats the problem. Catholic Morality does not operate from the same premise as secular law. When a law is made, mortal sin is not a consideration, but consideration is made for those who believe in the possibility of mortal sin and that is why a Catholic priest is given special compensation to reject a gay wedding. However, when it comes to business, nobody has an entrenched right to run any particular business at the expense of somebodies rights. The wedding planner is asking that he or she be merited special compensation like the priest to reject gay weddings. However, since you don’t have to be a wedding planner, it cannot be argued that your religious rights are being violated.

 

[casslean]

But thats the problem. Catholic Morality does not operate from the same premise as secular law. When a law is made, mortal sin is not a consideration. Nobody has an entrenched right to run any particular business at the expense somebodies rights. The wedding planner is asking that he or she be merited special compensation to reject gay weddings. However, since you don’t have to be a wedding planner, it cannot be argued that your religious rights are being violated.

Actually, yes, it can. It is a violation of my religious rights if you’re telling me that my options are to abandon my livelihood or violate my moral precepts. That’s what it means to say you can’t make a law that “prohibits the free exercise” of a religion.

That’s also why I’ve been clear to say the affected services are those wherein by providing the service, it can be shown that the individual has to violate a moral precept.

 

[ChainBreaker]

Actually, yes, it can. It is a violation of my religious rights if you’re telling me that my options are to abandon my livelihood or violate my moral precepts. That’s what it means to say you can’t make a law that “prohibits the free exercise” of a religion.

That’s also why I’ve been clear to say the affected services are those wherein by providing the service, it can be shown that the individual has to violate a moral precept.

Well, then it would seem that you are having difficulty proving that “abandoning ones** particularly preferred livelihood** to preserve ones faith” is equal to “the violation of the free exercise of religion”

You haven’t convinced me.

 

[casslean]

I don’t think that people have to be wedding planners.

I don’t think that people “have” to be wedding planners either, and have no idea why they’d want to be, but if they want to be wedding planners, and are effectively restricted from doing so because they are Catholic, then their rights are being violated.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I don’t think that people “have” to be wedding planners either, and have no idea why they’d want to be, but if they want to be wedding planners, and are effectively restricted from doing so because they are Catholic, then their rights are being violated.

Well, then it would seem that you are having difficulty proving that “abandoning ones** particularly preferred livelihood** to preserve ones faith” is equal to “the violation of the free exercise of religion”

You haven’t convinced me.

If i know that a particular type of business exposes me to mortal sin, then it is my faith that is limiting me, not the state. I see no violation.

 

[casslean]

Well, then it would seem that you are having difficulty proving that “abandoning ones particularly preferred livelihood to preserve ones faith” is equal to “the violation of the free exercise of religion”

So, then, how is it a violation of anyone’s rights to “abandon their particularly preferred service provider”?

You haven’t convinced me.

If i know that a particular type of business exposes me to mortal sin, then it is my faith that is limiting me, not the state. I see no violation.

I don’t need to convince you. This is how the law works. I went to law school just to be sure.

 

[ChainBreaker]

So, then, how is it a violation of anyone’s rights to “abandon their particularly preferred service provider”?

As long as the customer is doing the abandoning, then no there is no violation. But if a service provider refuses to accommodate the law of the land (gay rights is now a part of that Law) they risk being sued for unfair discrimination.

The legal war on homosexuality is lost. Change is happening slowly, but the change is irreversible.

I don’t need to convince you. This is how the law works. I went to law school just to be sure.

It clearly isn’t how the law works. Thats why anti-gay protests are failing miserably. The problem is you are confusing circular law with the Catholic definition of moral law.

 

[sirach2v4]

A bit of an over reach there Sirach. The OP is what 10 priest say about gay marriage, not what 10 priests say about dealing with those who experience SSA nor what 10 priests say about how to live if you have SSA. If you read the Catechism, it is filled with compassion and understanding for the PERSON. We treat persons with compassion and grace but we treat ISSUES with truth. In truth there is no such thing as gay “marriage” if you are to give marriage any unique meaning—man and woman in a lifelong bond in which children are welcomed comes to mind here. So if the focus of these priests is gay “marriage” it is not going to address all of the issues people who experience SSA and those who encounter THEM. That’s what it seems distresses you…that the issues not involved in the OP were not addressed. Should they be or should you start another thread dealing with those important questions?

As to the lifestyle for those who experience SSA, it is no different than those who are not married, remain chaste, embrace your vocation which at the time is singlehood and live your faith. It seems that those who experience SSA think MORE is being asked of them than others who are not married. Do you think heterosexuals are not tempted to engage in sexual sins? Do you think everyone who wishes to be married can find a partner? Yes those who experience SSA have special challenges and that is clearly noted in the Catechism. But don’t feel like only those with SSA have these challenges and crosses to bear.

If you are interested in how those who experience SSA are able to deal with their cross and live their faith the organization Courage has a number of resources. I’ve seen numerous programs, videos and other material reported on EWTN and The Catholic Channel. In fact I have a friend who is Lesbian, lived the gay lifestyle for many years but returned to her faith and is living chastely. It is possible.

As to your comment the Church doesn’t want “homosexual” priests, in using this term you infer they are ACTIVELY homosexual. The Church accepts candidates who experience SSA as long as they are sincerely focused on remaning celibate just like heterosexual priests who also feel temptations in life.

Limiting the 10 priests to 4 sentences about gay marriage surely does not give them much latitude to discuss the topics I brought up, I will admit. One of the sentences should have been to some book which discusses the alternatives to what is secularly referred to as gay marriage. Simply calling it a meaningless expression doesn’t help the discussion.

 

[LisaA]

Limiting the 10 priests to 4 sentences about gay marriage surely does not give them much latitude to discuss the topics I brought up, I will admit. One of the sentences should have been to some book which discusses the alternatives to what is secularly referred to as gay marriage. Simply calling it a meaningless expression doesn’t help the discussion.

I responded to your questions as well as pointing out that the general issues regarding SSA were not part of the criteria for this article. I believe it’s a series where priests weigh in on specific topics…this was gay “marriage” not SSA. The priests were instructed to keep the responses limited…this was meant to be a taste, not an entire meal.

Also I wanted to disavow you of the theory that the Church rejected priests that experience SSA if they are celibate and keep their vows. Heterosexual priests also face sexual temptation. If the criteria were that one had no sexual feelings whatsoever I suggest there would be no future seminarians and any priest who was so lacking in normal human feelings wouldn’t make much of a priest anyway.

 

[LisaA]

The point I was trying to make is that the cake is not integral to the celebration of the marriage. It is a cake. The marriage would occur with or without the cake. Therefore, it gets difficult to argue that by providing a cake, one is being forced to facilitate a marriage they believe to be invalid, and thus, violating their own moral precepts.

Respect for religious beliefs and protection for the right to freedom of religion does not and should not provide permission to deny the existence of everything that is contrary to those beliefs. It also does not provide protection from anything and everything one might find offensive. What it protects is my right not to be compelled to act in a manner that is contrary to those beliefs. It would be a stretch to argue that merely by being forced to acknowledge that same-sex marriage exists and occurs (as is the case if I’m required to sell a product or provide a service to a same-sex couple), my right to freedom of religion is being infringed.

I am not sure about the Canadian laws but in the US, one is able to designate what constitutes practicing a religion and unless totally specious, is accepted. So even if the cake were not an integral part of the wedding, that the baker had to participate in a meaningful way (what wedding doesn’t have a cake and the associated rituals!) and in a way that he/she felt violated his/her religious faith.

In another thread I used a real example of a wedding photographer I knew who would only do church weddings. He would not photograph your wedding on the beach, in a bar or at Daddy’s golf club. As a result he did turn away business but his faith (I think he was LDS) informed him that marriage is a religious concept and to be taken seriously. Now the photographer was not integral to the wedding, but I certainly thought he had sufficient reason to refuse to provide his services at an event that he believed was demeaning to a marriage.

I appreciate your insight and also your cogent arguments. One of the real problems in America is that people have grown up thinking ONLY about their rights their rights their rights and not about the responsibility that goes with those rights. Slavery has been against the law for some time in America and the idea one could be compelled to perform a service for ANY reason flies in the face of America, land of the free.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I appreciate your insight and also your cogent arguments. One of the real problems in America is that people have grown up thinking ONLY about their rights their rights their rights and not about the responsibility that goes with those rights. Slavery has been against the law for some time in America and the idea one could be compelled to perform a service for ANY reason flies in the face of America, land of the free.

I am sorry to hear that people are being forced to be wedding photographers in America.

 

[LisaA]

I am sorry to hear that people are being forced to be wedding photographers in America.

I have no idea why you have come to that silly conclusion. Regardless of your profession or the service you provide, you are not required to provide a specific service to a specific person unless you have a valid contract…offer and acceptance, consideration and a legal transaction. If someone makes the offer “I would like you to photograph Bob and Joe’s wedding” and you say “No I will not accept your offer” there is no contract and no compulsion to provide the service. Are you under the illusion that every service provider must provide every service requested? Really?

 

[SuperLuigi]

=ChainBreaker;12695550]My argument is clear and irrefutable.

That’s kind of funny.

But if that were true, there’d be more substance in your replies.

I think the arguments that the pro gay “marriage” crowd puts forth are easily refuted.

Lets put this in authoritative terms. Unless the Pope says that it is not okay to render service to gay people, i see not rational or moral justification to refuse business.

I think individual cases like that should be brought before a spiritual director. :yup:

And you should be sued.

:ehh:

But if only if your straight, Christian and white?

 

[SuperLuigi]

I have no idea why you have come to that silly conclusion. Regardless of your profession or the service you provide, you are not required to provide a specific service to a specific person unless you have a valid contract…offer and acceptance, consideration and a legal transaction. If someone makes the offer “I would like you to photograph Bob and Joe’s wedding” and you say “No I will not accept your offer” there is no contract and no compulsion to provide the service. Are you under the illusion that every service provider must provide every service requested? Really?

Ultimately, they’ll arrive at silliness because, well, it’s silly that a gay relationship is equal to a straight one because the government says so.

Great post as usual.

 

[ChainBreaker]

I have no idea why you have come to that silly conclusion. Regardless of your profession or the service you provide, you are not required to provide a specific service to a specific person unless you have a valid contract…offer and acceptance, consideration and a legal transaction. If someone makes the offer “I would like you to photograph Bob and Joe’s wedding” and you say “No I will not accept your offer” there is no contract and no compulsion to provide the service. Are you under the illusion that every service provider must provide every service requested? Really?

Bob: I would like your company to photograph our wedding

Photographer: No i will not photograph your wedding because its a gay wedding.

Bob: I have a legal right to wedding services, why am i being excluded? I would like to speak to the owner of your company

Photographer: I am the owner. I believe homosexuality is a sin and Gay marriage is an abomination. That is why i am excluding you.

Bob: I am suing your company for discrimination. You can speak to my lawyer.

Comparison: This time its an interracial Marriage.

Bob Marley: I would like your company to photograph our wedding

Photographer: No i will not photograph your wedding because you’re a negro marrying a white woman.

Bob Marley: I have a legal right to wedding services, why am i being excluded? I would like to speak to the owner of your company

Photographer: I am the owner. Our services are for white people only. We do not believe in interracial marriage. It is a sin and an abomination. That is why i am excluding you.

Bob Marley: I am suing your company for discrimination. You can speak to my lawyer.