"What Is Wrong With Homosexual Marriage?" A Catholic article

[Pattylt]

Just to add a footnote…I’m adopted. I was adopted at three days old by a Catholic charities organization into an Orthodox Jewish family. I’m pretty happy with the choice.

 

[Dakota111]

A personal policy of a Catholic agency, or even a Vatican directive is not an intrinsically evil principle of divine or natural law. The question of this thread is about immorality (as in “wrong”) not illegality under Church directives or Canon Law.

 

[edwest]

The answer has always been the same. Having same-sex attraction is one thing, acting on it is another. The answer to homosexual marriage is to place it under the ‘it is wrong’ category.

 

[Dakota111]

The Church has no such moral teaching re SS State recognised unions as far as I am aware. Yes it is currently against States legislating so. But like civil divorce, the Church could one day tolerate it under certain conditions. If you disagree please provide a Magistetial quote and we can analyse what it really means.

 

[goout]

goout:

In marriage a man and woman express that love you speak about uniquely, like no other couple-type relationship does.

The same same could be said about two men who share a sexual relationship in marriage.

Thank you for recognizing uniqueness.

Do you know what those unique aspects are?
Are those aspects worth any recognition whatsoever, or should they be blithely ignored in the interest of sameness?

At the risk of being very repetitive:
The marriage of a man and woman is unique in that it participates in the creation of human life. Is that worth recognizing, or is it the “same as” the union of a gay couple?

 

[QwertyGirl]

At the risk of being very repetitive:
The marriage of a man and woman is unique in that it participates in the creation of human life. Is that worth recognizing, or is it the “same as” the union of a gay couple?

My point was that, although the union of a gay couple through sexual intercourse doesn’t naturually produce children, it is uniquie in its own right. Their parts fit together, too, and they are of the same sex. Being of the same sex is the part the heterosexual couple isn’t able to accomplish.

Of course as a Catholic, you believe the purpose of sexual relations is first and foremost to pro-create. I don’t beleive that. We have to agree to disagree on that.

 

[0331]

@QwertyGirl

Absolutely not. Sodomy is a grave misuse of one’s sexual parts. It’s not just about ‘fitting.’ It’s about the intended use of such parts.

 

[JimG]

The Church has no such moral teaching re SS State recognised unions as far as I am aware

The Catholic position on same sex unions can be found HERE.

 

[Dakota111]

As I say this is NOT a moral teaching (ie natural law).
The document is titled “Considerations” and is not signed by the Pope.

In short it is no more than an interim political position paper of the Vatican…and likely not even imposed as a discipline (as in not eating meat on Fridays in Lent which all Catholics must obey).

There was a time when such “considerations” applied to civil divorce and civil remarriage of Catholics.
That also was reversed when we realised the discipline became counter productive.

In fact the Church now requires Catholics to civilly divorce before an annullment process can begin.

Now civilly remarried couples are not excommunicated, in fact they are warmly welcomed back to mass and even communion (without annullment) in some cases.

Its very clear to me the Church will eventually go similarly quiet on opposition to civil same sex unions when it likwise realises its stance is also counter productive.

 

[JimG]

The document is issued by the Congregation fo the Doctrine of the Faith. The last paragraph of Section II says this:

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

 

[Fauken]

As I say this is NOT a moral teaching (ie natural law).

The Catholic position against SSM is based on Natural Law.

The document is titled “Considerations” and is not signed by the Pope.

Even if a Papal signature alone made something ex Cathedra (which it does not), the CDF is a body whose power is from the Pope and as such answers to him.

In short it is no more than an interim political position paper of the Vatican…and likely not even imposed as a discipline

You’re right that it’s not a discipline. It’s doctrine.

In fact the Church now requires Catholics to civilly divorce before an annullment process can begin.

The Church also requires Catholics to be civilly married before they’re Sacramentally married, but the Church does not recognize civil marriage as Sacramentally valid. What sense does it make for a marriage to be null when the couple in question are acting legally as husband and wife?

Its very clear to me the Church will eventually go similarly quiet on opposition to civil same sex unions when it likwise realises its stance is also counter productive.

The Church has no interest in bending to the whims of the fickle and relativistic moral teachings of modern culture.

 

[Dakota111]

QG I think a better reasoned approach to your accepted trajectory is to zoom out to marriage (or more properly a Civil Union) and its purpose.

As a Catholic I no longer see it as essentially a contract freely giving a partner sexual rights or open slather on legal and moral procreative sex where rape of ones wife is virtually impossible and its still a true marriage even if the male has never intended to rear the kids, provide a home and treat his wife as anything more than animal chattle.

The Church, at last, now agrees. Procreative sex is no longer seen as the primary (ie sufficient) purpose of marriage. Additionally it now recognises the covenant/tenderness aspects (as in Genesis, It is not good that human be alone) as an equally primary and essential aspect.

SS unions clearly see the covenant purpose as a major good of their Union. I believe the Church must and will also. That would also include some of the lesser procreative contract goods such as rearing children, providing a home.

The real issue that the Church is struggling with is how disordered can the sexual side be tolerated before the whole project must be abandoned as unlikely conducive to human partner and family flourishing.

Given that the Church now is more tolerant of many other disordered heterosexual married couples (eg contraception, remarriage without annulment which is technical adultery) and in older times a wife had to keep the marriage going even when she was raped every second Friday night…that question has already been answered hasnt it .

Our funny old Church and laity always takes a couple of generations for the answers already implicitly there to float to the surface.

When we finally rejected procreation as the single primary purpose of marriage this die was cast.
That happened at Vat2 if I recall correctly.

The Church will eventually stop complaining about Civil Unions (it will unlikely and rightly ever call them marriages).

 

[Dakota111]

Well when you can actually provide clear Magisterial texts that clearly back up your somewhat excessive personal assertions then we will have something factual to talk about.
Until then God bless.

 

[Dakota111]

The Church also requires Catholics to be civilly married before they’re Sacramentally married, but the Church does not recognize civil marriage as Sacramentally valid

I can see no deep understanding of Canon Law or Sacramental Theology in these misleading assertions.
Do come back with Magisterial backup if you wish to pursue these trajectories.

 

[QwertyGirl]

When we finally rejected procreation as the single primary purpose of marriage this die was cast.
That happened at Vat2 if I recall correctly.

The Church will eventually stop complaining about Civil Unions (it will unlikely and rightly ever call them marriages).

I agree on all of your points with the exception of the Church’s explanation of the primary purpose of marriage. Yes, it is said sexual union is designed for two purposes: procreation and unity. However, that isn’t really what is emphasized. The procreation is emphasized far more heavily.

My point is simply that while sexual union between a heterosexual couple has specific meaning and purpose according to the Church, so does sexual union for a homosexual couple. It is not the same, but it can be equal. It is different. However, I will add, it isn’t any different than all of those Catholics who contracept in their marriages. The Church knows this happens. It may say the act is disordered, but it doesn’t claim the couple isn’t married.

Obviously, this is CAF and what I believe is not supported by the Church. It is important, though, because I think you are right. Eventually the Church will accept civil unions (regardless of what they are called) for what they are, although it will never call them marriages. It is why I am big proponent of having two types of marriage: civil and religious. There is no need for civil ceremonies to reflect religious or spiritual beliefs, and no need for religious ceremonies to reflect civil legalities. Time to separate the two.

 

[edwest]

That’s not going to happen. The Church prefers that people get out of “irregular” situations. I was there in the 1970s when “alternative lifestyles” were marketed.

 

[Fauken]

Well when you can actually provide clear Magisterial texts that clearly back up your somewhat excessive personal assertions then we will have something factual to talk about.
Until then God bless.

My “excessive personal assertions”? Very funny.

Let’s begin with the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved."

Reference 141 leads us here: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_19751229_persona-humana_en.html

“Nevertheless, since the erroneous opinions and resulting deviations are continuing to spread everywhere, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, by virtue of its function in the universal Church[2] and by a mandate of the Supreme Pontiff, has judged it necessary to publish the present Declaration.”

"Furthermore, Christ instituted His Church as “the pillar and bulwark of truth.”[6] With the Holy Spirit’s assistance, she ceaselessly preserves and transmits without error the truths of the moral order, and she authentically interprets not only the revealed positive law but “also . . . those principles of the moral order which have their origin in human nature itself”[7] and which concern man’s full development and sanctification. Now in fact the Church throughout her history has always considered a certain number of precepts of the natural law as having an absolute and immutable value, and in their transgression she has seen a contradiction of the teaching and spirit of the Gospel.

“At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.”

Would you like to know when this was published? 1975. After Vatican II. The Pope in question who mandated the publication of this document was Pope Paul VI. So much for the die being cast.

I can see no deep understanding of Canon Law or Sacramental Theology in these misleading assertions.
Do come back with Magisterial backup if you wish to pursue these trajectories.

So where’s your Magisterial backup supporting divorce and SSM?

 

[JimG]

The Church has not changed its position on divorce. Jesus prohibited divorce and the Church follows his teaching. Neither has the Church changed its teaching on adultery or other sexual sins. Is it seriously thought that the Church will reverse itself on sodomy or same sex unions?

 

[pnewton]

SS unions clearly see the covenant purpose as a major good of their Union. I believe the Church must and will also. That would also include some of the lesser procreative contract goods such as rearing children, providing a home.

This might be true, but only in the sense that it is a major good for parents to feed their children and provide for their education, especially a Catholic education. However, the parent that starts aborting children after the first to in order to achieve that good will still fall afoul of the end never justifying the means. Likewise, not amount of good in these relationships will ever be of sufficient moral weight to justify any good to come from them.

And the child-rearing good has not yet been accepted, or established.

 

[Thorolfr]

“At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.”

Part of that quoted statement is now a little out of date since a lot has happened since 1975. It should now say, “This they do in opposition to the…moral sense of some Christian people.” A number of mainline Protestant churches (ELCA Lutherans, Episcopalians, Presbyterian Church USA, United Church of Christ, some Quakers, etc.) now not only accept homosexuality, they even perform same-sex marriages.