What is the general catholic view on same sex marriage?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brandonisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Brandonisi

Guest
Hello all,
I’ll start out with full disclosure: I am not a Catholic. However, I am passionately curious about the different religions, Catholicism in particular. I’ve always heard that the Catholics get a bad wrap, but I believe that to be too general of an accusation (just as there are different forms of Christianity, there are different forms of Catholicism).

I am curious about your views on same-sex marriage.
 
Welcome and thank you for wanting to hear from Catholics what Catholics believe. 🙂

Marriage is not possible between persons of the same sex for the simple reason that that is not what marriage is. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of, not only their happiness, but for the procreation of children. No sexual relationship outside of marriage meets this definition. So, not only homosexual couplings are not marriage, neither is adultery or fornication or polygamy or any other form of sex humans might do. It has nothing to do with like or disliking any group of people. Indeed, we are called to love everyone no matter who they are or what they do. Acceptance of persons, however, is not the same thing as acceptance of sin as all right simply because people wish to do it. I hope that helps get you started. The best source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which you can find online.
 
The term “same-sex marriage” is an oxymoron. “Marriage” by its very definition, means a mating of two complementary parts - in this case, male and female human persons (bodies and souls). By the very words of Christ: “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female” (Matthew 19:4, Mark 10:6).

As to Catholic teaching on marriage, numerous catechism sections deal with it. However, here are a few of the most pertinent sections:

*** III. “MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM”
**
Equality and difference willed by God

369 Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God: on the one hand, in perfect equality as human persons; on the other, in their respective beings as man and woman. “Being man” or “being woman” is a reality which is good and willed by God: man and woman possess an inalienable dignity which comes to them immediately from God their Creator.240 Man and woman are both with one and the same dignity “in the image of God”. In their “being-man” and “being-woman”, they reflect the Creator’s wisdom and goodness.

370 In no way is God in man’s image. He is neither man nor woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective “perfections” of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.241

“Each for the other” - “A unity in two”

371 God created man and woman together and willed each for the other. The Word of God gives us to understand this through various features of the sacred text. "It is not good that the man should be alone. I will make him a helper fit for him."242 None of the animals can be man’s partner.243 The woman God “fashions” from the man’s rib and brings to him elicits on the man’s part a cry of wonder, an exclamation of love and communion: "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh."244 Man discovers woman as another “I”, sharing the same humanity.

372 Man and woman were made “for each other” - not that God left them half-made and incomplete: he created them to be a communion of persons, in which each can be “helpmate” to the other, for they are equal as persons (“bone of my bones. . .”) and complementary as masculine and feminine. In marriage God unites them in such a way that, by forming “one flesh”,245 they can transmit human life: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth."246 By transmitting human life to their descendants, man and woman as spouses and parents cooperate in a unique way in the Creator’s work.247

373 In God’s plan man and woman have the vocation of “subduing” the earth248 as stewards of God. This sovereignty is not to be an arbitrary and destructive domination. God calls man and woman, made in the image of the Creator “who loves everything that exists”,249 to share in his providence toward other creatures; hence their responsibility for the world God has entrusted to them.
 
Welcome and thank you for wanting to hear from Catholics what Catholics believe. 🙂

Marriage is not possible between persons of the same sex for the simple reason that that is not what marriage is. Marriage is the joining of a man and a woman for the purpose of, not only their happiness, but for the procreation of children. No sexual relationship outside of marriage meets this definition. So, not only homosexual couplings are not marriage, neither is adultery or fornication or polygamy. It has nothing to do with like or disliking any group of people. Indeed, we are called to love everyone no matter who they are or what they do. Acceptance of persons, however, is not the same thing as acceptance of sin as all right simply because people wish to do it. I hope that helps get you started. The best source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which you can find online.
I can understand your point of view. In your religious view, there’s no such thing as a “gay marriage”. However, I’ve never quite understood the argument that one of marriage’s main purposes is to produce children. If that were the case, what about couples unable to conceive? What about couples who simply don’t want children?

Also, another question: If the bible tells you this, why must the United States abide by it?
 
I can understand your point of view. In your religious view, there’s no such thing as a “gay marriage”. However, I’ve never quite understood the argument that one of marriage’s main purposes is to produce children. If that were the case, what about couples unable to conceive? What about couples who simply don’t want children?
The Church allows marriage between persons who are infertile but not between those who cannot consummate a marriage. This is because it is still between a man and a woman, as God created husband and wife.

Catholics who don’t want children put their marriages at risk of annulment because married couples are to be open to new life. This doesn’t mean they must have as many children as possible, but rather that they should not be preventing it except for grave reasons. The means to preventing conception must be natural, such as abstinence, or natural family planning because, again, this is how God created man and woman to reproduce–as a unifying act of love.

All countries must abide by this definition of marriage because it precedes man’s law and is natural to the human person.
 
All countries must abide by this definition of marriage because it precedes man’s law and is natural to the human person.
This is where I have an issue. It precedes mans law? Says who? I just have a real issue with a Church or individual of the Church declaring that their interpretation of “God’s Law” is unquestionably the correct one.
 
I can understand your point of view. In your religious view, there’s no such thing as a “gay marriage”.
It is not a view. It is. It is the objective truth. This is a concept it is important that you grasp if you intend to dialog on the Church’s teaching. Moral relativism is a false system of belief. The Church teaches the truth. Not “a” truth. Not “my” truth. THE truth. And, yes, the corrollary to that is that not all belief systems are equal, nor are they all true. In fact, only one is true.
However, I’ve never quite understood the argument that one of marriage’s main purposes is to produce children. If that were the case, what about couples unable to conceive?
What about them? They have a defect or disease. That does not change how marriage is ordered, or its purpose.
What about couples who simply don’t want children?
They are not called to marriage.
Also, another question: If the bible tells you this, why must the United States abide by it?
What is the purpose of the civil law?
 
It is not a view. It is. It is the objective truth. This is a concept it is important that you grasp if you intend to dialog on the Church’s teaching. Moral relativism is a false system of belief. The Church teaches the truth. Not “a” truth. Not “my” truth. THE truth. And, yes, the corrollary to that is that not all belief systems are equal, nor are they all true. In fact, only one is true.

What about them? They have a defect or disease. That does not change how marriage is ordered, or its purpose.

They are not called to marriage.

What is the purpose of the civil law?
It “is” because you believe it is. And that’s fine. However, it is not fine to insist others bend to your personal faith…especially a form of faith that isn’t exactly the most popular. I find it interesting that the Pope is referred to as a Holy Man. Why exactly is he “Holy”? Is it because he was elected to be Holy? I’ve never quite understood that. My point is, all religions have flaws, but Christianity in general is riddled with them and has no place in the law of society.
 
This is where I have an issue. It precedes mans law? Says who? I just have a real issue with a Church or individual of the Church declaring that their interpretation of “God’s Law” is unquestionably the correct one.
It’s the difference between natural law and ritual law.

Some things, like abstaining from meat for Catholics or Levitical dietary laws for Jews are only meant for them. Catholics are supposed to abstain from meat on Fridays as penance, but we won’t force others to join us. Similarly, while Jews don’t eat pork, for example, they wouldn’t force others to not eat pork.

On the other hand, some rules are natural law. They’re the things are are inherent in human nature. For instance, murder is a sin, no matter what religion you are. Or theft, or disrespecting your parents. Catholics consider marriage between one man and one woman to be a natural law, because again, “male and female he created them.”
 
It “is” because you believe it is. And that’s fine.
Well, no.

It is objectively true whether I believe it or not.
However, it is not fine to insist others bend to your personal faith.
I did not expect to.

But, if you are going to dialog with Catholics you need to understand what Church teaching is and is not.

So, again, what is the purpose of civil law?
 
It’s the difference between natural law and ritual law.

Some things, like abstaining from meat for Catholics or Levitical dietary laws for Jews are only meant for them. Catholics are supposed to abstain from meat on Fridays as penance, but we won’t force others to join us. Similarly, while Jews don’t eat pork, for example, they wouldn’t force others to not eat pork.

On the other hand, some rules are natural law. They’re the things are are inherent in human nature. For instance, murder is a sin, no matter what religion you are. Or theft, or disrespecting your parents. Catholics consider marriage between one man and one woman to be a natural law, because again, “male and female he created them.”
I don’t consider homosexuality to fail to fall into this category you’ve deemed as “natural law”. Actually, quite the opposite. Homosexuality is everywhere in nature and always has been, including human beings (it’s not some new “fad”). You’re suggesting that when a human is homosexual, it is not natural because your faith leads you to believe so.
 
So, again, what is the purpose of civil law?
Civil Law prevents or discourages anarchy and can’t be compared to biblical law. I’m not suggesting that everything the bible says is wrong is not; murder is obviously wrong, for example. We did not need religion to determine this.
 
I find it interesting that the Pope is referred to as a Holy Man. Why exactly is he “Holy”? Is it because he was elected to be Holy? I’ve never quite understood that.
Probably a topic for another thread, but…

Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.
 
I don’t consider homosexuality to fail to fall into this category you’ve deemed as “natural law”. Actually, quite the opposite. Homosexuality is everywhere in nature and always has been, including human beings (it’s not some new “fad”). You’re suggesting that when a human is homosexual, it is not natural because your faith leads you to believe so.
Time to introduce a nuance. Modern society is so sexualized, that people are assumed to be sexually active. So if someone experiences SSA, they must also be having sex. Let’s dissociate these for a moment. In other words, let’s discuss SSA separately from homosexual acts. The Catholic Church does not consider SSA sinful in and of itself. However, it still considers it disordered, and teaches that homosexual sex is sinful, just like any other extramarital sex.
 
I don’t consider homosexuality to fail to fall into this category you’ve deemed as “natural law”. Actually, quite the opposite. Homosexuality is everywhere in nature and always has been, including human beings (it’s not some new “fad”). You’re suggesting that when a human is homosexual, it is not natural because your faith leads you to believe so.
You misunderstand Natural Law is. It doesnt mean what is found in nature, it means what humans are naturally ordered for, in this case procreation.

A homosexual relationship isnt ordered toward anything. The “parts dont fit.”

A sterile hetero cpuples relationship is still ordered toward creation, even if they lack the capability (if the capability changed theyd be able to conceive. The same canmot be said.for a gay couple).
 
Christianity in general is riddled with them and has no place in the law of society.
Truthfully, our founding fathers disagreed. Were you aware that the term “Separation of Church and State” is nowhere in the constitution? It’s an interesting piece of history to find where it came from. But with that aside, I’m just going to address your ‘law of society’ quote.

From John Adams, signer of the Declaration of Independence:
**t is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, 1854), Vol. IX, p. 401, to Zabdiel Adams on June 21, 1776.)

[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)

From George Washington:
While just government protects all in their religious rights, true religion affords to government its surest support.

(Source: George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1932), Vol. XXX, p. 432 n., from his address to the Synod of the Dutch Reformed Church in North America, October 9, 1789.)

***Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of man and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice?

And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle. It is substantially true, that virtue or morality is a necessary spring of popular government. The rule, indeed, extends with more or less force to every species of free government. Who, that is a sincere friend to it, can look with indifference upon attempts to shake the foundation of the fabric?***

(Source: George Washington, Address of George Washington, President of the United States . . . Preparatory to His Declination (Baltimore: George and Henry S. Keatinge), pp. 22-23. In his Farewell Address to the United States in 1796.)

My only point–and I could pull in quotes from more and more of the framers and signers of the constitution and Declaration of Independence if requested–is that moral law has an undeniable role in civil law. Often times you will hear the argument that religion never was intended to have any role in civil law, but this simply is not the case. Pretty neat stuff, if you ask me! :)**
 
I can understand your point of view. In your religious view, there’s no such thing as a “gay marriage”. However, I’ve never quite understood the argument that one of marriage’s main purposes is to produce children. If that were the case, what about couples unable to conceive? What about couples who simply don’t want children?
They are still physically and spiritually complementary. A man needs the feminine spirituality of a wife to complement his masculine spirituality, and in turn his wife needs his masculine spirituality to complement her feminine spirituality, in order for them both to remain in balance.

In the running of a household, even a household that has no children in it, there is also the need for the complementary feminine and masculine working styles, to maintain a happy home.

As well, if you want a miracle to take place, you at least have to have the right ingredients present - it is possible (though unlikely) for an infertile opposite sex couple to conceive a child. It is not possible for the same to happen to a same-sex couple.
Also, another question: If the bible tells you this, why must the United States abide by it?
In order so that there can still be a United States in existence 100 years from now.

Realize that from the acceptance of homosexuality in Greece and the fall of Greece was less than 50 years. The fall of Rome was even faster, when homosexuality was accepted in the Roman Empire.

The most patriotic thing a young couple can do is have lots of children.
 
Troll alert. :newidea:
I’m a “troll” because I disagree with you? 🤷
Time to introduce a nuance. Modern society is so sexualized, that people are assumed to be sexually active. So if someone experiences SSA, they must also be having sex. Let’s dissociate these for a moment. In other words, let’s discuss SSA separately from homosexual acts. The Catholic Church does not consider SSA sinful in and of itself. However, it still considers it disordered, and teaches that homosexual sex is sinful, just like any other extramarital sex.
I’ll accept the notion that the church views any sex, regardless of the genders involved, outside of a marriage as sin.

However, that very rule works against both the homosexual and the ideas of the church.

If a homosexual person has sex outside of marriage, it is sin. However, the church says homosexuals cannot get married. Therefore, they must either be abstinent or marry someone of the opposite sex, entering into a false marriage anyway. Asking someone to be abstinent simply because their sexuality isn’t fully understood is, well, just kind of mean 😛
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top