What would happen if a gay marriage were performed in a catholic church?

[Hodegetria]

:YAWN:

Are you exaggerating for the sole point of trying to prove a point and get special recognition?

This is news to you? Yes, believe it or not, some people HATE gay people just for being gay.

Why does that portion of my post bother you so much?

You “yawn” but you took the trouble to post a reply, and give me that “special recognition”! Hmmm…

Edit: Actually, on second thought, yes, maybe I did exaggerate. I should have said “too many…” instead of “many… Catholics try to tell me I should be hating…” I can’t even remember what I wrote exactly, but you get the point.

 

[Hodegetria]

Anytime any Catholic tells you to hate these people, point them to the catechism:
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
Hating is not an acceptable act.

Peace
James

Thank you for that! They have enough of a cross to bear IMO.

 

[ngill09]

God’s wrath is rarely so immediate and noticeable. Most likely it would simply be that a ceremony is performed, but no actual marriage takes place. Much as when a woman attempts to become a Catholic priest.

Usagi

The same thing that happens any other place. People play dress up and no actual marriage occurs.

So what exactly would this entail? What is the practical difference between two people being married and two people going through all the motions of being married, believing they’re being married, and yet not being married due to some factor?

 

[Havard]

This is news to you? Yes, believe it or not, some people HATE gay people just for being gay.

Why does that portion of my post bother you so much?

You “yawn” but you took the trouble to post a reply, and give me that “special recognition”! Hmmm…

Edit: Actually, on second thought, yes, maybe I did exaggerate. I should have said “too many…” instead of “many… Catholics try to tell me I should be hating…” I can’t even remember what I wrote exactly, but you get the point.

Yes this is news. I mean what the heck??? I’ve lived on the East Coast, West Coast, Midwest, U.K… in liberal dioceses (San Francisco), conservative dioceses (Arlington), etc. Never have I encountered an actual churchgoing Catholic that preached hate. Whoever these people are that you know, they are way out of step with the rest of the Church.

 

[Origen52]

But the word marriage comes from a latin root describing a civil union, a word coined by the state to describe an institution instituted and regulated by the state. So while you are, of course, free to use the word ‘marriage’, I don’t see what justification you think you have to complain about others, especially the state, using it to describe a union of same sex couples.

If the two are totally different (and that bothers you) shouldn’t you come up with a different word?

I really don’t care, sorry if it came off as if I did. You can call each what you want, but one is a civil contract and the other is a sacrament. That is just a fact.

 

[Origen52]

I can see a dissenting priest choosing to marry a gay couple in a Catholic Church. For that matter I know of at least one case where a Catholic priest allegedly married two other catholic priests, although where the ceremony took place was not stated. But I sincerely doubt any western country will force the Catholic Church to carry out SS weddings.

As to what would happen: two people will get married. Horribly overpriced cake and indifferent champagne will be consumed. Caterers will laugh all the way to the bank. The world will continue to turn.

It always bothers me when people say, “I know…” And give no particulars. Snopes is filled with such stories.

 

[DrTaffy]

This is quite correct - but I do not see how this is fundamentally hypocritical.

You are complaining about others forcing their beliefs about marriage on you, while simultaneously forcing your views on marriage on them. How could this be more clearly hypocritical?

Even in terms of degree - you are talking about a hypothetical enforcement of their beliefs on you (forcing you to carry out a wedding) that would last at most an hour(?) while your imposition on them is real, concrete, ongoing and directly influences the most intimate part of their lives for the rest of their lives, not just one hour.

If I push for you to be forced

You continue to avoid the relevant detail. In the gun case, arguing that there is nothing immoral per se about pointing a gun and pulling the trigger ignores the relevant detail that doing so killed an innocent. Likewise arguing that you are ‘just’ “exercising [your] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote” ignores the relevant detail that lobbying the government to (e.g.) burn all gays at the stake would be immoral. Not because lobbying the government is immoral per se but because the goal of that lobbying was immoral.

It is also foolish as you are currently losing this battle and losing it badly - if you are genuinely worried about being forced to allow gay marriage in Catholic churches, and if any gays do get even close to being able to do so, you having taken this sort of line might tempt people like me who would otherwise support you to be tempted to leave you to taste your own medicine for a decade or two and see if it changes your mind about the rights and wrongs of larger groups forcing their beliefs on smaller ones!

Sorry - I do not follow you here…

It is not a slippery concept. Which is the biggest imposition:

• being forced to participate in a same sex marriage ceremony for 1 hour
• being prevented from marrying your loved one. Ever. And any loved one you may ever have.

You are complaining about the first hypothetically being done to you while enthusiastically doing the second to thousands of gay couples.

Perhaps, but it is still the “traditional” view in the U.S. and has been since the founding of this country.

The Native Americans clearly do not count.

I honestly do not know how you got that from what I wrote. I said nothing about my views being more sincere than the views of anyone else. Let’s try to stick to what each other actually says

I am. You are trying to rationalise why you should be allowed to force your beliefs on others, but they should not be allowed to force theirs on you. You are violating the golden rule.

 

[DrTaffy]

I really don’t care, sorry if it came off as if I did.

Well gosh, that is very christian of you!

You can call each what you want, but one is a civil contract and the other is a sacrament. That is just a fact.

Hence my comment:

If the two are totally different (and that bothers you) shouldn’t you come up with a different word?

:ehh:

It always bothers me when people say, “I know…” And give no particulars. Snopes is filled with such stories.

Oh good, unsubstantiated accusations of lying. Did post #9 just pass you by, or do you feel this comment makes sense in the light of that?

 

[JRKH]

You are complaining about others forcing their beliefs about marriage on you, while simultaneously forcing your views on marriage on them. How could this be more clearly hypocritical?

I think you are reading a lot into my comments.
I’m talking about the free and unencumbered participation in the political process by both sides. Nothing hypocritical about that.

Even in terms of degree - you are talking about a hypothetical enforcement of their beliefs on you (forcing you to carry out a wedding) that would last at most an hour(?) while your imposition on them is real, concrete, ongoing and directly influences the most intimate part of their lives for the rest of their lives, not just one hour.

OK - - But I still have the right to participate in the discussion. That is the way it works in a democracy when there is a disagreement. Once all sides have their say, a decision is made and everyone has to live with that decision.

You continue to avoid the relevant detail. In the gun case, arguing that there is nothing immoral per se about pointing a gun and pulling the trigger ignores the relevant detail that doing so killed an innocent.

No one is talking about guns here…This is a relevant detail How???

you are ‘just’ “exercising [your] constitutional rights to free speech, to petition the government and to vote” ignores the relevant detail that lobbying the government to (e.g.) burn all gays at the stake would be immoral.

Please point out the comment where I displayed **any - I mean ANY - such hatred.

Not

because lobbying the government is immoral per se but because the goal of that lobbying was immoral.
The morality or immorality of the petition has nothing to do with it. A pro-traditional marriage person can just as easily level the charge that the gay community is advancing an immoral lobby.

It is also foolish

as you are currently losing this battle and losing it badly - if you are genuinely worried about being forced to allow gay marriage in Catholic churches, and if any gays do get even close to being able to do so, you having taken this sort of line might tempt people like me who would otherwise support you to be tempted to leave you to taste your own medicine for a decade or two and see if it changes your mind about the rights and wrongs of larger groups forcing their beliefs on smaller ones!
A gay couple licitly marrying in a Catholic Church simply will never happen. As I have already explained, the solution is extremely simple and is already employed in other countries. The Church will simply renounce its authority to conduct marriages of any kind. Priests will no longer be authorized to perform legally binding weddings. Those getting married in the Church will have a civil ceremony in front of a judge or other official and then have a sacramental wedding at the Church.
Problem solved.

It is not a slippery concept. Which is the biggest imposition:

• being forced to participate in a same sex marriage ceremony for 1 hour
• being prevented from marrying your loved one. Ever

. And any loved one you may ever have.

You are complaining about the first hypothetically being done to you while enthusiastically doing the second to thousands of gay couples.
Actually I have not complained about this.

The Native Americans clearly do not count.

i AM a native American. Born and raised here.

I am. You are trying to rationalize why you

should be allowed to force your beliefs on others, but they should not be allowed to force theirs on you.
Not really - I simply answered the specific question asked by the OP.

You are violating the golden rule.

It wouldn’t be the first time…I am a confessed sinner.

Peace
James**

 

[marymary1975]

As I expressed earlier, the way this could go is this.

1. Anyone duly licensed by the state to perform weddings - as defined by the state - would be duty bound to perform such weddings so long as those applying are leagally allowed to be wed under civil law.
2. The state would not be addressing the matter of "church"by yhe ut only addressing the law - and those who are licensed by the state under that law.
3. The Church indeed all clergy of any communion - would then have to decide whether it will continue to maintain it’s license to perform civilly binding ceremonies or not.
4. The Church’s teaching on this matter will force her to drop this association. She is then free to marry only those who come to her for sacramental marriage. The civil wedding would need to occur elsewhere.

I can easily see this happening and indeed I expect it to eventually.

Peace
James

I was about to write exactly this. And this situation is very likely to happen in a few years in my statr of residence, Massachusetts. In 2009 the supreme judicial court of MA came down with a decision that mandated any person who had been granted the ability to perform legal marriages on the Commonwealth, to Marry homosexual couples if requested by the couple. There is no religious exemption and basically no one with a license to marry can deny to marry a homosexual couple. If the person denies can be sued and fined (can’t recall of there is prision for the denial, it may).

So according to this decision if a homosexual couple goes to a priest and ask the priest to marry and the priest say no, the couple can sue the priest and the church. In this case the priest will have to pay ridiculous fines and any other sanctions establoshed for the breach of this duty anf the church will have to abandon its ability to perform legal marriages.

I also think this will happen in the future. However I don’t think it will happen within the next ten or fifteen years because right now it would not be convenient for the gay movement. It would be a very dumb step on their part if gayarriage is not legal on all 50 states.

First we will see gay marriage in all states and then when the gay movement has secured full legal support, then we will see a gay couple suing a priest for not wanting to marry them.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

But the word marriage comes from a latin root describing a civil union, a word coined by the state to describe an institution instituted and regulated by the state. So while you are, of course, free to use the word ‘marriage’, I don’t see what justification you think you have to complain about others, especially the state, using it to describe a union of same sex couples.

If the two are totally different (and that bothers you) shouldn’t you come up with a different word?

True, the Latin root word for “marriage” describes a civil union…but that union was defined by Roman law as a union between an man and a woman. What we traditionally understand “marriage” to be…existed before any state came up with “civil unions”.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because “marriage” both precedes the state and is a necessary condition for the continuation of the state (because future generations arise from and are formed in marriage).

When a state enacts a law saying that a same-sex relationship can constitute a marriage, it has the power to enforce that in a society’s external practices, but it is devoid of any intrinsic moral legitimacy and is a contrary to any natural reality.

If the state says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples “oranges,” the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an “apple” instead of an “orange,” but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.

 

[TimothyH]

It is impossible to perform a “gay marriage” anywhere, let alone a Catholic Church.

The witness would say the right words, the two men or two women would exchange vows but in terms of marriage nothing would happen.

They would think they were married. People might ***believe ***they were married. The state may say that they are married. But they are not married because marriage is a revealed truth defined by God. God says that marriage between anything other than one man and one woman is impossible.

The two brides or two grooms would go on their way happy. The Bishop would impose some discipline and I would get up tomorrow, eat oatmeal, read the Bible for a while, take a shower, drive my kids to school and go to work.

-Tim-

 

[mikekle]

The same thing that happens any other place. People play dress up and no actual marriage occurs.

Yes, but this event would be a very serious abomination against God…I tend to think God would indeed cause ‘something’ to happen, to make sure all of us recognize how upset he is about this.

Kind of like right after Jesus died on the cross, the church that had ensured Jesus was put to death, cracked in half…this was pretty immediate, and Im sure those that saw this, knew right away how wrong they were.

 

[ngill09]

Yes, but this event would be a very serious abomination against God…I tend to think God would indeed cause ‘something’ to happen, to make sure all of us recognize how upset he is about this.

Kind of like right after Jesus died on the cross, the church that had ensured Jesus was put to death, cracked in half…this was pretty immediate, and Im sure those that saw this, knew right away how wrong they were.

If something like that happened, then such a highly visible miracle would be pretty convincing for non-Catholics that God is real and the Catholic Church is His church. In that case I recommend performing a gay marriage ceremony in a Catholic Church with lots and lots of witnesses and lots and lots of video cameras.

 

[Hodegetria]

Yes, but this event would be a very serious abomination against God…I tend to think God would indeed cause ‘something’ to happen, to make sure all of us recognize how upset he is about this.

Kind of like right after Jesus died on the cross, the church that had ensured Jesus was put to death, cracked in half…this was pretty immediate, and Im sure those that saw this, knew right away how wrong they were.

Are you saying that DEICIDE - the act of killing God is EQUAL to having gay wedding ceremonies in churches, and both are possibly ‘deserving’ of some kind of destructive action from God? The absolutely worst sin possible is killing God, but then gay weddings (and I assume homosexuality) is next?

I know the homosexual act is a mortal sin and I’m against gay marriage, so don’t get me wrong, but this is what I really don’t get-- why does it seem so many religious people consider homosexuality such a horrible and hateful sin? Is there actually a theological reason? Are some mortal sins worse in caliber than others? The bible says fornicators, liars, drunks and more are ALL going to hell, so why the extra focus on gays?

I personally think if God didn’t “smite” the churches when pedophile priests were sinning against innocent children --right inside the churches for years – then God sure isn’t going to do anything (in this life, anyway) about a gay wedding. JMHO.

 

[Dorothy]

Isn’t it up to all of us to call sin what it is?

When our Lord Jesus Christ spoke to the woman caught in adultery he was compassionate, and the last words He said to her was “Go and sin no more.”

It seems to me that the focus on homosexuality today is because many are saying it is okay., Of course there are other sins - and all sin is not okay.

And, everything we say and do about these problems in the Church need to be handled with much wisdom, prayer, compassion, and truth.

 

[Hodegetria]

Isn’t it up to all of us to call sin what it is?

When our Lord Jesus Christ spoke to the woman caught in adultery he was compassionate, and the last words He said to her was “Go and sin no more.”

It seems to me that the focus on homosexuality today is because many are saying it is okay., Of course there are other sins - and all sin is not okay.

And, everything we say and do about these problems in the Church need to be handled with much wisdom, prayer, compassion, and truth.

I completely agree. It’s a hot button topic, especially with the legalization of gay marriage and the threat of any clergy being forced under penalty of law to officiate these weddings when it is against their religious beliefs. I’m against that 100% and I’m not saying active homosexuality is okay or right.

I’m just sick of so called religious people promoting hating on gay people, yes in real life and online then I was called out for saying so --“exaggerating” for “recognition”! Google it and look at the statistics on anti-gay hate crime. Thirty-five (35) Americans were killed in three years just because they were gay from 2010 to 2013 is a travesty. These were real people who were loved by their friends and families, trying to live their lives and if it’s wrong, pray for them, don’t hate on them.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin just like a bunch of other sins, but in the short time I’ve been on CAF I’ve seen parents posting that if their kid was gay, they’d disown them, posters saying gays will burn in hell, and then a post implying since Jesus’ death resulted in immediate action from God, wouldn’t it be fitting if the same happened for a gay wedding. Bring lots of cameras. WOW.

 

[Dorothy]

I completely agree. It’s a hot button topic, especially with the legalization of gay marriage and the threat of any clergy being forced under penalty of law to officiate these weddings when it is against their religious beliefs. I’m against that 100% and I’m not saying active homosexuality is okay or right.

I’m just sick of so called religious people promoting hating on gay people, yes in real life and online then I was called out for saying so --“exaggerating” for “recognition”! Google it and look at the statistics on anti-gay hate crime. Thirty-five (35) Americans were killed in three years just because they were gay from 2010 to 2013 is a travesty. These were real people who were loved by their friends and families, trying to live their lives and if it’s wrong, pray for them, don’t hate on them.

Homosexuality is a mortal sin just like a bunch of other sins, but in the short time I’ve been on CAF I’ve seen parents posting that if their kid was gay, they’d disown them, posters saying gays will burn in hell, and then a post implying since Jesus’ death resulted in immediate action from God, wouldn’t it be fitting if the same happened for a gay wedding. Bring lots of cameras. WOW.

I certainly agree that they need love and compassion. With the help of the grace of God we have to accept, with love the dislike for Christians that they display because they are trying to make their point.
It is tempting for those who want to rationalize their lifestyle to retaliate with disgust for those who disagree, and at times they do so in destructive ways.

We can help by proving we have compassion, and show them that we care. That is the hard part!
I like to advise those with SS attraction, and their parents, to get support and help from the organization “Courage”.

This is their website:

couragerc.org/

 

[Hodegetria]

Thank you, Dorothy. God bless you.

 

[DrTaffy]

It is tempting for those who want to rationalize their lifestyle to retaliate with disgust for those who disagree, and at times they do so in destructive ways.

This, of course, is just as true of you as it is of ‘them’ - the only real difference being that only one of the two groups is actively trying to prevent the other from living their ‘lifestyle’ in any significant way.