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

[DrTaffy]

Anyway, yes unfortunately I do know Catholics and others in my life that are completely anti-gay, not to the point of violence, but our local school has had hate crime incidents where gay students were jumped either on or off school property

This is neither specifically about catholics, nor hate crime as such, but I found it very interesting. After being told by a gay caller of the kind of reaction he had to put up with every day, two radio presenters, both heterosexual men, tried walking down the street for four minutes doing nothing more controversial than holding hands.

This was their experience.

Taken with this speech by an Irish gay man about how much so called ‘little things’ (like being able to hold the hand if your loved one without worrying about being attacked) matter, I would say that low grade but very common and everyday discrimination like this does at least as much damage worldwide as the more dramatic killings and beatings of gays.

 

[manualman]

With all the news about gay rights and the ground they seem to gain year after year, personally, I think at some point in the near future, a gay couple will fight to have their marriage in a traditional catholic church, probably will be done out spite, but legally, I think the US legal system would probably grant them this right.

So in this hypothetical scenario, lets say, they ‘win’ the legal right and the CC must marry them, as they would perform any other marriage…I have no idea, but I would assume the consequences would be severe and probably immediate as well, not sure if the actual churches foundation would suddenly crack, earthquake, some other kind of disaster, etc? I would assume God would send his wrath right away though.

Anyone care to guess what would happen?

Same thing as would happen if a valid priest prayed the Eucharistic prayers over pizza and beer instead of bread and wine.

Nothing. Invalid matter = invalid sacrament. God can’t be bullied.

 

[Hodegetria]

This is neither specifically about catholics, nor hate crime as such, but I found it very interesting. After being told by a gay caller of the kind of reaction he had to put up with every day, two radio presenters, both heterosexual men, tried walking down the street for four minutes doing nothing more controversial than holding hands.

This was their experience.

Taken with this speech by an Irish gay man about how much so called ‘little things’ (like being able to hold the hand if your loved one without worrying about being attacked) matter, I would say that low grade but very common and everyday discrimination like this does at least as much damage worldwide as the more dramatic killings and beatings of gays.

Thank you. How sad that their 4-minute experiment resulted in funny looks, shaming comments and looks of disgust from strangers. I can’t imagine having to hide your true self in order to avoid that kind of abuse or facing it 24/7.

Wow @ Rory O’Neiil (“Panti Bliss” is his stage name) giving a TED talk from Sept. 2014 about the “little things” everyone else takes for granted, like holding hands in public without being abused by strangers. She says just putting up with it has been exhausting. I sympathize with anyone who’s exhausted just by being.

Further down in that article was another piece she did in Feb 2014 that I found really heartbreaking… being screamed at by strangers and having garbage thrown at you…going home and turning on the TV to find a panel discussing your right to be a good parent, to be allowed around children, whether you’re trying to destroy marriage etc, and how they act as if it’s perfectly acceptable to be discussing what rights you “deserve” and “don’t deserve”…and how oppressive it feels.

Even Pope Francis said “Who am I to judge…” Now what he really meant has been debated over and over, but I think he meant let’s get on with the business of being Catholic-- helping the poor, the sick, the needy etc and leave the judging to God.

As far as gay marriage, I hope no one is forced to perform a marriage ceremony for anyone they don’t want to do it for, for whatever reason. Even if it’s legal in all 50 states, I don’t see how they can force a Catholic Church to do it-- at least one partner must be Catholic, and I thought being a Catholic “in good standing” was required.

 

[DrTaffy]

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.

Clearly an unsupported assertion, and indeed an unsupportable one, but more to the point utterly irrelevant.

Once you concede that the word ‘marriage’ was coined by the state and refers to the civil institution, that is the only point I would draw from the Roman example. I do, in fact, believe that the many examples of same sex marriage in Roman history with no hint that they were not legally valid suggests that they were legally recognised, but who cares?

Since you agree that the state coined the word ‘marriage’ the only relevant point I would draw from this is that you (christians) do not own that word and have no argument for preventing the state from using it as it wishes. Just as if you move in with your in-Laws, then decide that you cannot live together, you don’t have the right to throw them out of their own home, you are the one who should move out. The word ‘marriage’ existed before you started using it, coined by the state, so if you are no longer willing to share it with the state, come up with your own word.

Granted, conversely, the State (and others) missed any opportunity to prevent you from using it, but noone other than you is trying to prevent others from using it.

What we traditionally understand “marriage” to be…existed before any state came up with “civil unions”.

But you cannot prove that what ‘we’ (as opposed to ‘you’) meant by ''marriage" excluded same sex marriage.

A re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state, because “marriage” both precedes the state

You contradict yourself. If you concede that the state defined the word ‘marriage’, it can redefine it. If it cannot, the redefinition by christians in the Theodosian Code is invalid, so no redefinition to allow same sex marriage is needed.

 

[clem456]

…
You contradict yourself. If you concede that the state defined the word ‘marriage’, it can redefine it. If it cannot, the redefinition by christians in the Theodosian Code is invalid, so no redefinition to allow same sex marriage is needed.

Yes words can be redefined according to political process and popular opinion.
It doesn’t matter how the language is manipulated, it doesn’t change the reality that a man and woman form a unique relationship.

Or am I mistaken? Perhaps when the Germans used the word “undermensch” to describe fully human beings, those fully human beings did indeed become less than human beings. Did the words change the reality?

 

[Gorgias]

from this link:

Is that a fair summary?

It’s a fair summary of a Baltimore Catechism question that was written prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law. There are still sins which carry ecclesiastical penalties, of course. A priest must wait to absolve a penitent until the appropriate authority (the diocesan ordinary in some cases, the Apostolic See in others) lifts the penalty; once the penalty is lifted, the priest absolves the penitent. So, it’s not the case that the priest is unable to absolve; it’s a matter of following the appropriate process.

(There’s one exception that I can think of: a priest cannot absolve a person with whom he committed a sin against the sixth commandment. Even that’s not an exception related to a particular type of sin, however; it’s an exception related to a sin that the priest himself has committed.)

 

[Gorgias]

For #2, I meant the priest would probably decline to officiate a gay wedding, not an interfaith wedding. Thank you just the same. God bless you.

Oh, OK. You’re welcome!

 

[pnewton]

Thank you. How sad that their 4-minute experiment resulted in funny looks, shaming comments and looks of disgust from strangers. I can’t imagine having to hide your true self in order to avoid that kind of abuse or facing it 24/7.

Abuse? Funny looks are abuse? If one engages in any behavior outside of social norms he can get funny looks. It is not abuse. Here is what happened.

Looks
A father moved on with t child of unmentioned age
A teenage made a smart aleck comment. The mother remarked, “He is a teenage boy.”

This is what life is, not abuse. It is also not an experiment in any real sense of the word. It was a stunt marked by an exaggeration of its importance.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Clearly an unsupported assertion, and indeed an unsupportable one, but more to the point utterly irrelevant.

Yes, it is supported and not an assertion. AND totally relevant since you brought it up.

Once you concede that the word ‘marriage’ was coined by the state and refers to the civil institution, that is the only point I would draw from the Roman example. I do, in fact, believe that the many examples of same sex marriage in Roman history with no hint that they were not legally valid suggests that they were legally recognised, but who cares?

Marriage existed before man decided to form a “state”.

No blue ribbon panel of politicians, sociologists, or religious leaders sat down at the dawn of time to establish marriage or even define it. It is as it was. The state had to accept what existed. And the state could “coin” it anyway they want…However the state has no authority or power to “re-coin” the nature of a union of one man and one woman.

Granted, conversely, the State (and others) missed any opportunity to prevent you from using it, but noone other than you is trying to prevent others from using it.

The State can say that a apple is an orange…but that does not make the apple turn into an orange.

But you cannot prove that what ‘we’ (as opposed to ‘you’) meant by ''marriage" excluded same sex marriage.

You and I did not create or define marriage. It existed before “us” in whatever term it was known as. In all of civilized history it was never defined as a same sex union.

You contradict yourself. If you concede that the state defined the word ‘marriage’, it can redefine it. If it cannot, the redefinition by christians in the Theodosian Code is invalid, so no redefinition to allow same sex marriage is needed.

I don’t concede that the state defined marriage. As I said before marriage proceeded the state. The state had no choice but to accept what marriage really is.** A union of one man and one woman. **

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes words can be redefined according to political process and popular opinion.

Great, we agree. Indeed, I would argue that words can only have meaning by consensual agreement. There is nothing intrinsic about the letters or phonemes of the word ‘circle’ that relate to what we all understand by that.

It doesn’t matter how the language is manipulated, it doesn’t change the reality that a man and woman form a unique relationship.

Great, so you have no need to insist that the State discriminate against same sex couples in order to protect some allegedly naturally occurring thing that will exist anyway.

Or am I mistaken? Perhaps when the Germans used the word “undermensch” to describe fully human beings, those fully human beings did indeed become less than human beings. Did the words change the reality?

Dangerous example for you, Godwin’s law aside. It is not the pro-gay side that try to present one group of humanity as ‘untermensch’ or lesser than the rest of us.

 

[DrTaffy]

It’s a fair summary of a Baltimore Catechism question that was written prior to the promulgation of the 1983 Code of Canon Law.

I do not want to derail this thread, nor do I want anyone to spend much time on this as it is idle curiosity on my part, but do I understand that my reference is outdated and superceded? Does anyone have a handy link to an authoritative up-to-date opinion?

(There’s one exception that I can think of: a priest cannot absolve a person with whom he committed a sin against the sixth commandment.

ITYM “Thou shalt not commit adultery” rather than “Thou shalt not kill”

What about a priest who has broken the seal of the confessional? That also, I understood, was outside what could normally be absolved by the average priest unless the penitent was likely to die very shortly?

 

[DrTaffy]

Abuse? Funny looks are abuse? If one engages in any behavior outside of social norms he can get funny looks. It is not abuse. Here is what happened.

Looks
A father moved on with t child of unmentioned age
A teenage made a smart aleck comment. The mother remarked, “He is a teenage boy.”

This is what life is, not abuse. It is also not an experiment in any real sense of the word. It was a stunt marked by an exaggeration of its importance.

What happened was that two normal, heterosexual men tried walking in a gay man’s shoes for four minutes and were shocked at how threatened and uncomfortable they were made to feel.

If Catholics experienced this every day you would be screaming ‘abuse’ and ‘discrimination’ all over the place. Witness those here who scream blue murder at the least excuse, even if it only an institution refusing to discriminate against gays.

 

[DrTaffy]

Yes, it is supported

Nope, you did not support it. The original post is here, for those who want to check.

Not that it matters - we have gone over this several times before, and as I pointed out it does not matter, at least in this debate.

and not an assertion.

AND totally relevant since you brought it up.

Umm, no. I only brought up the fact that the word ‘marriage’ stems from the Roman legal civil tradition. You were the first and only one to drag in the issue of whether or not that covered same sex unions.

Once you concede that the word ‘marriage’ was coined by the state and refers to the civil institution, that is the only point I would draw from the Roman example

Something may well have existed, but it was not called ‘marriage’.

The State can say that a apple is an orange…but that does not make the apple turn into an orange.

But an apple or an orange is a real, physical thing that exists independantly from the State.

Now you can assert that there is a similair real, physical, existent thing that you refer to as ‘marriage’ - fine. But the word originally referred to a thing created by and defined by the state, a legal civil institution to regulate the rights and responsibilities of couples living together. As such, the state can redefine that. And as the original meaning you have not the least hint of a justification to demand that we stop using it to mean that - if you are not happy to share the word, come up with your own word.

In all of civilized history it was never defined as a same sex union.

Blatantly false, as you well know after all our discussions of this. Or are you trying to insist that the Native American and African and Siberian and all those other cultures were ‘not civilized’ and so do not count? :ehh:

I don’t concede that the state defined marriage

Too late, you already did!

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

The reason I asked him/her about it was because I don’t like to second guess. But playing the “everyone hates X group that I REALLY ‘care’ about” routine gets old fast, especially since gay couples are high on the ladder of perpetual victimhood in the West.

Overall, it’s just a progressive technique to silence those who dissent on issues like so-called gay “marriage” and/or to get them to back down, and it get us off track from the issue at hand. Progressives have to do this because their philosophical viewpoints are usually not based on facts, only personal selfishness. :yup:

GLBTQ persons get all kinds of special attention and flattery today in the West and any opposition to so-called gay “marriage” is usually shot at, figuratively speaking, and sometimes with gobs of hateful rhetoric.

The fact is there’s just too many people out there playing the victim/“poor me” card on a myriad of issues, and I think the “mainstream” Westerners are gravely mistaken if they think that by giving the whiners what they want, they’ll hush up and vanish.

It never works like that.

On the issue of so-called gay “marriage”, I know a couple of people voted for it to just shut people up for lack of a better phrase, but now being “married” isn’t enough. They gotta have their cake and flowers from a business run by religious persons. (always one by a straight, white Christian, NEVER a Black evangelical or Muslim).

And just look at how all the sniveling sympathizers circle the wagons even on that issue.

 

[CatholicSheila]

Abuse? Funny looks are abuse? If one engages in any behavior outside of social norms he can get funny looks. It is not abuse. Here is what happened.

Looks
A father moved on with t child of unmentioned age
A teenage made a smart aleck comment. The mother remarked, “He is a teenage boy.”

This is what life is, not abuse. It is also not an experiment in any real sense of the word. It was a stunt marked by an exaggeration of its importance.

I have to agree with the original poster who said there are those who encourage hating on gays. I’ve heard and I’ve seen it. I will say though that I have encountered it a lot less within the Catholic Church that I did within the protestant denomination I grew up in.

That said, yeah, that video isn’t abuse. When you see something you aren’t used to, you look. You do that because you are trying to work out for a moment was is different about what you’re seeing and then determine what an appropriate response is. By the time you do that, the situation can be over. Some of those people would have disapproved, others just needed a moment to process. It’s called life and we all get it.

As a Catholic I’ve had just as much backlash for my religious beliefs as I’ve had for been gay. I actually find very little difference between them on a day to day basis. Of course, that is in the context of my been Australian. Discrimination against gays is a lot more controlled here than in some other nations, such as the US, so the experience of gays in the US may be different.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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.

How could anyone really prevent someone from living their lifestyle? Do people REALLY have that kind of power others in the Western world? People do have their own lives to tend to…

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Nope, you did not support it. The original post is here, for those who want to check.

From my original post: "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). "

Not that it matters - we have gone over this several times before, and as I pointed out it does not matter, at least in this debate.

It does not matter to you because it does not agree with your absurd conjectures.

Umm, no. I only brought up the fact that the word ‘marriage’ stems from the Roman legal civil tradition. You were the first and only one to drag in the issue of whether or not that covered same sex unions.

I’m sorry Dr. but I believe the title of this thread has to do with “gay marriage”. I was just trying to stay on track, rather than drift off into semantics.

Something may well have existed, but it was not called ‘marriage’.

Yes, right you are. There was a very poetic term used by the Neanderthals but it is difficult for modern man to pronounce. I can’t spell it…but it meant a union of a man and a woman.

But an apple or an orange is a real, physical thing that exists independantly from the State.

Now you can assert that there is a similair real, physical, existent thing that you refer to as ‘marriage’ - fine. But the word originally referred to a thing created by and defined by the state

Wrong! As I have explained to you ad nauseum THE STATE DID NOT CREATE MARRIAGE. Marriage (or whatever the Neanderthals called it) existed before man created the state.

, a legal civil institution to regulate the rights and responsibilities of couples living together. As such, the state can redefine that. And as the original meaning you have not the least hint of a justification to demand that we stop using it to mean that - if you are not happy to share the word, come up with your own word.

Nice try Dr. but we are content with the traditional definition. YOU people are the ones who want to change the definition…it is up to YOU to come up with name to describe an un-traditional, unnatural, and unhealthy same sex relationship. How about “Rainbow Connection”?

Blatantly false, as you well know after all our discussions of this. Or are you trying to insist that the Native American and African and Siberian and all those other cultures were ‘not civilized’ and so do not count? :ehh:

You have to admit that Native Americans were considered savages (uncivilized). Many African Tribes are still uncivilized and Siberians are non-cultured (according to Russians)
However while all of these cultures accepted same sex relationships and behavior, such relationships were never treated as a marriage.

Too late, you already did!

No I didn’t…I simply contend that a re-definition of marriage to include same-sex marriage is beyond the competence of the state,

 

[DrTaffy]

From my original post: "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). "

:ehh: How on earth does that support your assertion that the word ‘marriage’ “was defined by Roman law as a union between an man and a woman”?

It does not matter to you because it does not agree with your absurd conjectures.

No, it does not matter in this debate as no-one is (yet) presenting an argument based on whether Roman Law acknowledged same sex couples or not.

AND totally relevant since you brought it up.

Umm, no. I only brought up the fact that the word ‘marriage’ stems from the Roman legal civil tradition. You were the first and only one to drag in the issue of whether or not that covered same sex unions.
I’m sorry Dr. but I believe the title of this thread has to do with “gay marriage”. I was just trying to stay on track, rather than drift off into semantics.

Which does not change the fact that your assertion that I raised the topic of whether or not Roman Law acknowledged same sex couples is batantly false.

Yes, right you are. There was a very poetic term used by the Neanderthals but it is difficult for modern man to pronounce. I can’t spell it…but it meant a union of a man and a woman.

Peachy. Whether or not you can prove this… original assertion, feel free to use that term as you wish.

Wrong! As I have explained to you ad nauseum THE STATE DID NOT CREATE MARRIAGE. Marriage (or whatever the Neanderthals called it) existed before man created the state.

The state created the word ‘marriage’, as you have conceded, and the thing to which it originally applied. A civil’ legal arrangement, and therefore something the state is perfectly capable of redefining or extending to new groups, even if you were capable of proving your assertion that the original definition was exclusively heterosexual.

Nice try Dr. but we are content with the traditional definition. YOU people are the ones who want to change the definition…it is up to YOU to come up with name to describe an un-traditional, unnatural, and unhealthy same sex relationship. How about “Rainbow Connection”?

We are happy with the actual traditional definition of ‘marriage’ as a state approved union TYVM. If you are not happy to share, the phrase “Rainbow Connection” is all yours for now, but if you want to keep it I would suggest talking to a lawyer about trademarking it.

Blatantly false, as you well know after all our discussions of this. Or are you trying to insist that the Native American and African and Siberian and all those other cultures were ‘not civilized’ and so do not count? :ehh:

So you are making that argument? :bigyikes:

I need say no more.

However while all of these cultures accepted same sex relationships and behavior, such relationships were never treated as a marriage.

False. As, again, you know.

Too late, you already did!

Did so!

True, the Latin root word for “marriage” describes a civil union…

neener neener

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

So you are

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12664534:

So you are making that argument?

I need say no more. :bigyikes:

A simple: You are right Zoltan…would be nice.

But you are neither factually nor morally right. Such contempt for other cultures is appalling.

It is not false. You can call it false but that doesn’t make it false. You are welcome to prove me wrong.

You are welcome to try to prove it right. Merely asserting it does not make it true. But we have done this on other threads, it is not germane to this thread, there is another thread on this forum where you are already posting where it would fit far better, and unless you have finally come up with a good argument against at least one of the many examples I gave of historical same sex marriage I am unlikely to be interested.:nope:

Finish the quote Dr.

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”.

That elided part does nothing to change the fact that the root for ‘marriage’ referred to the civil union, not a sacrament. QED