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

[Dakota111]

Yep, thats important for a Catholic to Consider alright.

 

[Dakota111]

So when you provide Magisterial statements that clearly state homosexual civil unions in themselves (rather than homosexual sex acts) are intrinsically evil always and everywhere please come back.

So where’s your Magisterial backup supporting divorce …?

You are asking me to prove to you that the Church once penalised Catholics for getting civilly divorced then remarried…and now refuses to hear an annulment unless the civil divorce is done?

 

[goout]

goout:

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.

No I don’t believe that.
Sexuality expresses the full unity of the body and soul of the married couple. Sexuality is designed for mutual and total self donation. Love is sacrificial and fruitful.

Only the marriage of a man and woman expresses this fully and uniquely.
This is not something to believe as a matter of faith. It is simply a fact.

Now, you will object that a gay couple also loves fruitfully, and in whatever way you want to accept that, ok. But it is not fully fruitful. Only a man and woman can be fruitful to the fullest extent of a new life. And so the marriage of a man and woman uniquely participates in and allows human existence to flourish.

Is that of value or is it just another thing equal to other things?

 

[goout]

You have been poorly catechized in your Catholic faith.
I respect your right to believe what you believe, but you don’t understand Catholic thought on the nature of marriage. You have snippets. And snippets are just that.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Is that of value or is it just another thing equal to other things?

Of course it is of value. I never said it wasn’t. It is different. Two things can be different and still be of equal value.

 

[Bradskii]

Sexuality expresses the full unity of the body and soul of the married couple. Sexuality is designed for mutual and total self donation. Love is sacrificial and fruitful.

Only the marriage of a man and woman expresses this fully and uniquely.
This is not something to believe as a matter of faith. It is simply a fact.

I think that anyone would be hard pressed to disagree with you. But…allowing (or accepting) that two people of the same sex can enter into a lifetime partnership that will generally be referred to as ‘marriage’ does not detract from what you have said.

 

[Thorolfr]

Of course, the marriage of a hetersexual couple in their 60s is also not going to be “fully fruitful” in the way you are describing since they are not going to be able to have children. And if a younger couple are unable to conceive a child for some reason, they’re also not able to be “fully fruitful” but that doesn’t seem to be a reason that they shouldn’t be married.

 

[Dakota111]

And you have yet to provide a single Magisterial quote to gainsay anything I have observed.

 

[goout]

goout:

Is that of value or is it just another thing equal to other things?

Of course it is of value. I never said it wasn’t. It is different. Two things can be different and still be of equal value.

Equal treatment under the law does not make two different things the same, and when you claim they are the same, you detract from the value of the thing.
And that’s the elephant in the room: the claim that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage.

 

[Thorolfr]

QwertyGirl:

goout:

Is that of value or is it just another thing equal to other things?

Of course it is of value. I never said it wasn’t. It is different. Two things can be different and still be of equal value.

Equal treatment under the law does not make two different things the same, and when you claim they are the same, you detract from the value of the thing.
And that’s the elephant in the room: the claim that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage.

If someone doesn’t want to call the legal union of a same-sex couple “marriage,” then they don’t have to. But that doesn’t mean that society should not be able to extend all the legal protections and benefits of heterosexual marriage to other kinds of unions that are unique in their own right.

 

[edwest]

I happened to catch a brief bit on the TV news. Two women were walking out of a room after getting their marriage license. One said, “Now we’re equal.” That is the type of confusion we’ll be seeing more of.

 

[Thorolfr]

I happened to catch a brief bit on the TV news. Two women were walking out of a room after getting their marriage license. One said, “Now we’re equal.” That is the type of confusion we’ll be seeing more of.

They will be equal in terms of the legal protections and benefits they will now have. That’s undoubtedly what they were most concerned about.

 

[Dakota111]

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.

Surely SSUnions also have the goods of mutual support (it is not good for man to be alone) and also a partial remedy for concupiscence (promiscuity is a serious problem for the gay community).

However, the parent that starts aborting…

You lost me a little here sorry. I assume you are saying a hetero who entered marriage prepared to abort children after the first is committing an objective evil by marrying? Maybe but I dont quite see the relevance. Perhaps you are just saying SSUnions are immoral as a means to achieving most of the goods of marriage because biologically procreative sex is not possible and the sex that is involved is intrinsically evil.
Well, thats a fair enough hypothesis. But we must note that the Popes recognise different levels and types even between objective grave matter. For example abortion, murder and Euthenasia are of a quality that can never be justified as a tolerated evil (by means of the PODEffect) in the pursuit of a greater good.
However contraceptives (the zika advice), killing (self defence), legal civil divorce (which the State believes dissolves a marriage bond) in pursuing an annulment (which may be denied) can.

What about the risk of homosexual acts by a practising Catholic couple desiring all the acceptable goods of marriage by legally cohabiting? Given that the Church has reversed procreative sex as being the primary end of marriage and raised the mutual support covenantal purpose to be equal or even prior…I think civil gay unions can no longer be blanket ruled out as wholly intolerable and incapable of allowing human flourishing despite the irregularities and possible same sex acts that may be associated. Additionally unlike hetero Catholics, gay Catholics do not tend to see their Civil Union as intrinsically giving sexual rights over the partner.
If the Church can tolerate the technical adultery of the remarried (for the sake of the children) who are likely sexually active …yet do not have to cease cohabiting nor legally divorce, that further demonstrates that it is foolish to assert as principle that sexual sin and State legalising of such relationships are equally evil.
They simply are not.

It is foolish to assert that if homosexual acts are intrinsically evil then gay Civil Unions must be also and in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason. The Church has never taught this and in fact itself contradicts such a principle in the way it tolerates many irregular remarried couples who should not cease cohabiting for a greater good (sake of the children).

 

[Dakota111]

Likewise, no amount of good in these relationships will ever …

This begs the very question at issue here I think. As above the Magisterium has never taught this as a general moral principle (it is denied re some remarried who may cohabit for the childrens sake).
Nor has the Church settled the matter for SSUnions so far as I am aware. I personally believe the Church will eventually tolerate SSUnions even for some Catholic couples under certain circumstances. Like their remarried hetero counterparts they may not be allowed communion

 

[pnewton]

Perhaps you are just saying SSUnions are immoral as a means to achieving most of the goods of marriage because biologically procreative sex is not possible and the sex that is involved is intrinsically evil.

Change that to “a few of the goods” and I would agree. The ends cannot justify the means.

It is foolish to assert that if homosexual acts are intrinsically evil then gay Civil Unions must be also and in exactly the same way and for exactly the same reason. The Church has never taught this and in fact itself contradicts such a principle in the way it tolerates many irregular remarried couples who should not cease cohabiting for a greater good (sake of the children).

Then call me foolish. Such a cohabiting couple are to live in abstinence. I have never heard this desire to live in a marriage involving abstinence from the homosexual community. Also, there is the difference that when the couple does this for the good of the children, one is the father, the other the mother, letting the child have both parents under the same roof.

Nor has the Church settled the matter for SSUnions so far as I am aware.

What do you mean “settled”? I have a list of articles from the USCCB on the subject here.

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/same-sex-unions/

If I spend the time and find you quotes, would you admit you are mistaken, or argue that it is not “settled?” This is like saying the Church is not settled on the issue of abortion. Sex outside marriage is always gravely evil, whether with a different gender, same gender, different species or inanimate object.

There are two mistakes I have seen. One is treating this sin worse than similar heterosexual sins. The other is treating in better than other sexual sins out of sentimentality.

 

[Fauken]

So when you provide Magisterial statements that clearly state homosexual civil unions in themselves (rather than homosexual sex acts) are intrinsically evil always and everywhere please come back.

Alright. The quotes I provided state that homosexual acts are intrinsically evil. Intrinsically evil means that by its very nature, it is always immoral. It can never be moral. That same Magisterial document I provided states:

“This same principle [respect for the finality of the sexual act], which the Church holds from Divine Revelation and from her authentic interpretation of the natural law, is also the basis of her traditional doctrine, which states that the use of the sexual function has its true meaning and moral rectitude only in true marriage.[12]”

So the only moral way to have sex is within marriage. Homosexual activity, however, is always immoral. You can’t have something be immoral and moral at the same time. Ergo SSM can never be moral and will thus never be accepted by the Church.

Another way of looking at it is the third quote:

“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. ”

Two members of the same-sex claiming they’re married, acting like a married couple, and engaging in the marital act would certainly count as homosexual relations, would they not? And here this paragraph condemns them.

You are asking me to prove to you that the Church once penalised Catholics for getting civilly divorced then remarried…and now refuses to hear an annulment unless the civil divorce is done?

No. You’re arguing that there is no basis for saying that SSM is not possible. You are arguing that it is in fact truth and thus part of the Deposit of Faith. That means that at the very least, there must be a strain of this thought that can be traced to the Apostles and their successors that was considered to be orthodox teaching. Which means you should be able to find an ECF who wasn’t condemned for arguing it as part of the Deposit of Faith. I’d like to see such a quote. Because I have a handy book with plenty of quotations from the ECF saying the opposite and what orthodox Catholic teaching has said for over a millenia: that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. And as I’ve just shown, intrinsically disordered homosexual acts cannot be reconciled with the only way that sexual acts can be moral.

I don’t care what the ELCA, Episcopalians, Methodists, etc., teach. They’re not Catholic. But you cannot claim SSM nor that homosexual acts are moral as Catholic teaching.

 

[QwertyGirl]

Equal treatment under the law does not make two different things the same, and when you claim they are the same, you detract from the value of the thing.
And that’s the elephant in the room: the claim that same sex unions are the same thing as marriage.

They can be two different things, of equal value to eachother.

 

[Dakota111]

So the only moral way to have sex is within marriage. Homosexual activity, however, is always immoral. You can’t have something be immoral and moral at the same time. Ergo SSM can never be moral and will thus never be accepted by the Church.

Not sure that the nuances involved re the different words you use interchangably in your posts are helping.

If you were correct in your synonomous use of the words wrong, immoral, intrinsically evil, less than true meaning etc, …then you must conclude Pope Francis (and his predecessors) teaches heresy when he allows some Catholic remarried heterosexuals to remain cohabiting (heterosexual relations?) and does not require them to undo their alleged (according to you) intrinsically evil, always immoral civil union (called State marriage).

Further, as far as I know ( @pnewton ) the Magisterium does not require them always and everywhere to separate if they decide it best not to abstain from sex). Of course they may not receive Communion (though Francis sees exceptions even on this point for certain cases).

Clearly there is a problem in the theologising above. When you solve it perhaps we can take your interpretations further.

 

[Dakota111]

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.

You have jumped from the ends of marriage to the ends of sex! Very similar but not the same.

Yes, as I say procreation at the level of popular piety (including bishops and priests esp in the US) is still generations behind where the Magisterium and leading theologians are at. What do you expect from a less than healthy hierachy in the US that is confused about power, healthy discipline, accountability, the damage of sexual abuse and the sexuality of the celibate priesthood.

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.

I do not believe this argument will ever fly in the Catholic Church. If you were trained in Catholic moral philosophy you would intuitively understand why.

Let me explain with an example.
Can a shepherd truly intend to look after his sheep if, losing his crook, he goes out with a very sharp sickle?
His objective actions simply cannot anchor such an alleged intent regardless of his sincerity.

Homosexual acts simply cannot anchor a fully loving and flourishing intent towards the partner regardless of what they consciously think or desire re the sex itself. Other aspects of the relationship certainly can.

Which is why I dont take that trajectory re the sexual good. The most one might say is the sex relieves concupiscence and perhaps promiscuity…but thats not a particularly noble good.

So I believe the only way a SSUnion can be justified is by use of the PODEffect. Some grave evils can be tolerated for the sake of a greater good. Like civil divorce, ancient OT polygamy, slavery, civil remarriage, killing, contraception…some grave evils can be tolerated if indirectly intended. SSUnions clearly could be one such grave evil.

@pnewton sees this as the end justifying an immoral means. I do not think so. It is the PODEffect. It is the toleration of an unfortunately possible grave evil (homosexual acts) which may not directly intended in getting a SSUnion. If sex is not directly intended in seeking the SSU then the SSU is not immoral. It isnt even a means. Yes, it may be a grave disorder, just as killing in self defence is a grave disorder. It is not immoral in itself. Couples may vary re this determination.

 

[Fauken]

You may not quite have the theological education to understand the nuances involved re the different words you use interchangably in your posts.

I don’t claim to be a theologian. And it’s hard to admit that I’m not even good enough to be an amateur. There are people far well versed than me on this forum. But truth is truth. I don’t need credentials to affirm Church teaching. So which ones then did I use interchangably?

wrong, immoral, intrinsically evil,

Immoral actions are always wrong. However, not all immoral/wrong actions are intrinsically evil. I made no such interchanges with that. The fact of the matter is, whether you like it or not, homosexuality is intrinsically disordered. So is incest, abortion, beastiality, pedophilia, etc. These actions are always immoral. But don’t let me tell you that. Here’s a quote from the Catechism:

“1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39
1761 There are concrete acts that it is always wrong to choose, because their choice entails a disorder of the will, i.e., a moral evil. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.”

Such actions are called intrinsically evil by the Church.

then you must conclude Pope Francis (and his predecessors) teaches heresy when he allows some Catholic remarried heterosexuals to remain cohabiting (heterosexual relations?) and does not require them to undo their alleged (according to you) intrinsically evil, always immoral civil union (called State marriage)

Is this a dig at Amoris Laetitia? Well, I’m just stupid lay person who can’t appreciate the nuances of the words I’m using, so I won’t comment. I’ll let one of my betters, the pre-eminent Canon Lawyer of the US make a comment instead:

My comments on De Mattei’s response

A few days ago Prof. Roberto De Mattei opined on the significance of the appearance of the so-called Buenos Aires directives in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. I replied to his observations here. Now, …

canonlawblog.wordpress.com

“Some, I know, seek to avoid the serious problems occasioned by the abuse-prone language used by the pope in parts of Amoriset al. by claiming that the pope’s problematic assertions therein are not “magisterial”; I think at least some of them are, unfortunately, “magisterial”. Others seek to rally opposition to those assertions by invoking the label “magisterium” in a way that seems to exaggerate the significance of the weight of the pope’s assertions. I do not think they should be exaggerated. I describe those assertions for what I think they are: flawed, easily exploitable, expressions by a pope, which assertions nevertheless pale in the face of the Church’s unbroken enunciation of Church teaching and discipline in this area.”