What would happen if The Church accepted same sex marriage?

[Pater_Noster]

ncregister.com/daily-news/confidential-meeting-seeks-to-sway-synod-to-accept-same-sex-unions/

There are a few threads that are in the forum that have touched on points related to this article, but none that I can tell that have started a discussion specific to the following:

If the Catholic Church were ever to acknowledge same sex marriage as acceptable and, for lack of a better word, “valid”, would not the following have to also change in kind?

Fornication and masturbation would have to be declared non-sinful.

Artificial contraception would have to be declared as acceptable.

Declaring what are now mortal sins as not sin at all.

Also, what I mean by “acknowledging” same sex marriages and being “acceptable”, I mean allowing same sex married couples and heterosexual non-married couples to receive communion. Since communicants must be in a state of grace, ie, not in mortal sin, to receive, I see no other way but for the Church to have to declare such sins as no longer sinful…

Thoughts?

Pater Noster

 

[on_the_hill]

As for the poll question, no. The Church will not change.

I mean allowing same sex married couples and heterosexual non-married couples to receive communion. Since communicants must be in a state of grace, ie, not in mortal sin, to receive, I see no other way but for the Church to have to declare such sins as no longer sinful…

Thoughts?

Pater Noster

As for this question, which is different from the poll question, the Church can’t do more than teach what it does now: Communicants must be in a state of grace.

The priest isn’t a mind-reader. He can’t deny Holy Communion based on an assumption that the communicant isn’t in a state of grace. A gay couple could attend Mass, and walk up to receive Communion because there’s nothing but their own consciences to stop them.

 

[Lion_IRC]

It’s not necessarily the case that if one ‘doctrinal domino’ falls, the rest must follow.

An organization could selectively approve and disapprove various doctrines, despite the obvious logical inconsistencies (hypocrisy) of doing so, and all the while maintain a straight face claiming that nothing has really changed. …Past doctrines have merely been “understood more fully” Blossoming into their greater truth through a process of “gradualism”.

We can be at war with Eurasia and have always been so, but one day we awake to learn that Oceania is our enemy and always has been even though we may not have realized yet.

The LGBTQ / SSM lobby can have (and does have) their own ‘doctrinal’ hypocrisy.

Note that they talk nauseatingly about love and marriage as some great “commitment” yet they would never condemn sexual promiscuity and multiple-partner lifestyle choices.

When was the last time you heard any liberal politician advocating for the rights of bisexuals who want to marry BOTH of the people they ‘love’?

And how often do we hear SSM advocates assuring us that churches won’t be forced to marry gay folks?

That’s hypocrisy too because churches that will marry heterosexuals but WONT marry gay people amounts to discrimination. So why would the LGBTQ lobby agree to such lawful discrimination against gays?

 

[Pater_Noster]

I guess we are talking about two different things in a way. I don’t expect the priest at a local parish to be a mind reader.

IF The Church were to “accept” same sex marriage as being non-sinful than homosexual acts could no longer be considered sinful nor could any form of fornication, masturbation or artificial contraception.

Pater Noster

 

[on_the_hill]

IF The Church were to “accept” same sex marriage as being non-sinful than homosexual acts could no longer be considered sinful nor could any form of fornication, masturbation or artificial contraception.

Pater Noster

Yeah…that’s a non-starter. Never happen.

 

[Pater_Noster]

I don’t see how selective approval could have any credibility whatsoever. I’m having a hard time wrapping my mind around how such a thing could be crafted to be believable.

I personally see no way that accepting same sex marriage as valid would not also demand validity in the case of non-married hetro couples currently thought of as “living in sin”. Homosexual acts are non-procreative; masturbation is also non-procreative.

Perhaps someone can play the Devil’s advocate here and give opinion on how the Church could say same sex marriage at some point but continue to hold the line on non-married hetero unions or even masturbation.

Also interesting in regard to the article I link to: Clearly proponents of changing the Church’s teaching in this way wish for a Church that follows rather than leads.

Pater Noster

 

[Lion_IRC]

Theres a reason it’s called the slippery slope “fallacy”.

Namely, that you cannot automatically presume that if X happens, Y must necesssarily follow.

I agree with you that if part of the church ‘caves’ on homosexuality then they ought to be consistent and cave in on other equally optional doctrines.

But they don’t HAVE to be consistent or logical.

…and the opponents of the church don’t EXPECT us to be consistent either!

 

[Murmurs]

ncregister.com/daily-news/confidential-meeting-seeks-to-sway-synod-to-accept-same-sex-unions/

There are a few threads that are in the forum that have touched on points related to this article, but none that I can tell that have started a discussion specific to the following:

If the Catholic Church were ever to acknowledge same sex marriage as acceptable and, for lack of a better word, “valid”, would not the following have to also change in kind?

Fornication and masturbation would have to be declared non-sinful.

Artificial contraception would have to be declared as acceptable.

Declaring what are now mortal sins as not sin at all.

Also, what I mean by “acknowledging” same sex marriages and being “acceptable”, I mean allowing same sex married couples and heterosexual non-married couples to receive communion. Since communicants must be in a state of grace, ie, not in mortal sin, to receive, I see no other way but for the Church to have to declare such sins as no longer sinful…

Thoughts?

Pater Noster

Well I don’t think this would happen, but I think hypothetically there would be no need to start considering contraception or masturbation to be acceptable. (Maybe for the purposes of anything a same-sex couple does in private the church needs to redefine its conceptions of them slightly?). If the Church acknowledged SSMs as valid then anything within that “marriage” couldn’t be fornication but the “marital act” (however bizarrely redefined).

Moreover as others have pointed out the Church doesn’t require adherents to produce affidavits testifying to their state of grace before receiving holy communion; it’s down to personal conscience and if you are in faith going forward to receive the Eucharist one would hope it’s not just for outward show, and if you care about the inward meaning of it then one would not present one’s self while knowingly in a state of mortal sin.

FWIW I think it IS probably possible for the Church to recognise celibate same sex marriages (the Church of England, which I’ll admit is not always a brilliant example in such matters, for instance allows married homosexual clergy as long as they are celibate, from what I understand). It is homosexual “practice” rather than homosexual “love” which is a problem for the Church and so a simple recognition of the emotional bond would probably be fine. I can’t see realistically how it could condone anything else without opening up a can of worms. However if a way could be found round that, then I think there would be little redefinition of “sin” needed per se; just other terms requiring it.

It’s a very interesting hypothetical question!

 

[Micosil]

What would happen? Here, this is what Satan would look like, in Hell: :snowing: :winter: :snowing:

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Never gonna happen. period. The end. Could a splinter group form and call themselves something else, of course. The church that Jesus Christ started will never change doctrine and dogma. Sin is still sin in all it’s forms. Jesus said, “Go and sin no more”. period. He never condoned a sin.

 

[eamonnroma]

What would happen if masturbation were scientifically proved to be essential for health?

independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/masturbation-the-health-benefits-10252487.html

And if it were proved that a gay person is born such, and that it is not a choice?

independent.co.uk/news/science/largest-ever-study-into-the-gay-gene-erodes-the-notion-that-sexual-orientation-is-a-choice-9875855.html

To be honest I stopped being obsessed by masturbation by the time I was 20 - since then it hasn’t been a problem.

 

[Illmatic15]

ncregister.com/daily-news/confidential-meeting-seeks-to-sway-synod-to-accept-same-sex-unions/

There are a few threads that are in the forum that have touched on points related to this article, but none that I can tell that have started a discussion specific to the following:

If the Catholic Church were ever to acknowledge same sex marriage as acceptable and, for lack of a better word, “valid”, would not the following have to also change in kind?

Fornication and masturbation would have to be declared non-sinful.

Artificial contraception would have to be declared as acceptable.

Declaring what are now mortal sins as not sin at all.

Also, what I mean by “acknowledging” same sex marriages and being “acceptable”, I mean allowing same sex married couples and heterosexual non-married couples to receive communion. Since communicants must be in a state of grace, ie, not in mortal sin, to receive, I see no other way but for the Church to have to declare such sins as no longer sinful…

Thoughts?

Pater Noster

If the Church accepted same-sex marriages as valid, I would just drop Catholicism, and maybe even Christianity in general. This isn’t because of any bias I have against gay marriage, but because the infallible Magisterium wouldn’t be so infallible. The truth doesn’t change, and if the Church changes it’s teaching on infallible material such as this, then there is no point in believing in the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Perhaps I would become an Eastern Orthodox Christian or a Protestant, but those words that Jesus spoke to Simon will always be in the back of my mind: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Any type of alliegance that isn’t to the Catholic Church would just seem so much to me to be a denial of these words that our Lord spoke. So, if the Church were to change its teaching on infallible matters, I might just consider atheism. However, that will never happen, because God has promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

I think what will happen is…the majority of people who “identify” themselves as Catholic will accept SS-marriage.
If the Vatican does not embrace it, then I think traditional Catholicism will become a very small group…and the larger group who accept SS-marriage will create an offshoot of their own “Catholic” group and elect their own pope, etc.
Maybe they will create their own name, like “New Catholics” or whatever.
I imagine the emerging majority would be stronger because they’ll have more money and more people.

If the Vatican does one day accept same-sex marriage…it will be made understood to people that that this was a “teaching” that was able to evolve, and they will explain why it evolved…and all will move onward. Just as many teachings or rituals have evolved over the last 2000 years, I think this will be seen in the same light.

For the traditionalists who think it’s heresy, I think that group will continue on as a smaller sect. And people will consider them archaic and disobedient, just as many consider those who are pre-Vatican-II as not keeping up with the church.

But having said all that…I actually think religion will wane drastically over the next century until the majority in this world are Atheists.
Just in the last ten years, the amount of people who have gone from religious to un-religious has something like doubled.
I think it will continue on like this.

.

That is interesting.

Human history bears this out… if I recall every third or fourth generation simply refuses to live the way their parents and grandparents lived. They refuse to accept the politics. They refuse to accept the culture. They refuse to accept the economic do’s and don’ts, the conventional wisdom, and they just chuck it all.

Then we have another backlash…The Victorians were a generation that grew up amongst debauchery, and they wanted no part of it. And they went so far the other way … prim, proper, perfect ,and total morality at all times.

We could be in that generation of “debauchery” right now. All we have to do is get through it and we will be back to normal.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

The LGBTQ / SSM lobby can have (and does have) their own ‘doctrinal’ hypocrisy.

Let me help

Note that they talk nauseatingly about love and marriage as some great “commitment” yet they would never condemn sexual promiscuity and multiple-partner lifestyle choices.

Marriage is a commitment. Bit it isn’t one that people are obligated to make. If some people don’t want to marry and/or be monogamous, that’s not my problem.

When was the last time you heard any liberal politician advocating for the rights of bisexuals who want to marry BOTH of the people they ‘love’?

Logistical nightmare. The government simply cannot keep track of and award benefits to webs of marriages.

More to the point, most bisexuals don’t want to marry two people. ‘Bisexual’ only refers to attraction. As a heterosexual, you’re sexually attracted to more than one person, but presumably you don’t want to be married to more than one.

And how often do we hear SSM advocates assuring us that churches won’t be forced to marry gay folks?

That’s hypocrisy too because churches that will marry heterosexuals but WONT marry gay people amounts to discrimination. So why would the LGBTQ lobby agree to such lawful discrimination against gays?

The constitution. Churches do have a right to discriminate. That’s why every now and then, you hear about a church refusing an interracial couple. That’s why although religion is a protected class, the catholic church can’t be forced to marry atheists or Muslims.

 

[paulrxp]

If the Church accepted same-sex marriages as valid, I would just drop Catholicism, and maybe even Christianity in general. This isn’t because of any bias I have against gay marriage, but because the infallible Magisterium wouldn’t be so infallible. The truth doesn’t change, and if the Church changes it’s teaching on infallible material such as this, then there is no point in believing in the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Perhaps I would become an Eastern Orthodox Christian or a Protestant, but those words that Jesus spoke to Simon will always be in the back of my mind: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Any type of alliegance that isn’t to the Catholic Church would just seem so much to me to be a denial of these words that our Lord spoke. So, if the Church were to change its teaching on infallible matters, I might just consider atheism. However, that will never happen, because God has promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

I share the same sort of sentiment. I use to put my faith in politics. Then I saw first hand how Truth was compromised, and how easily it could be twisted by those who never really defended its virtues. What was true one day, unraveled and evaporated the next.

The Church was left so the members of Christs’ body could with full faith and trust be lead to salvation. She can never (through her teaching) lead you to sin any more than Christ himself could. That’s why this issue is important. Not because 2 individuals want the freedom to sin(that’s truly their business), but that the Church expects all the faithful to know what is, and what is not sinful in the eyes of God.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I think what will happen is…the majority of people who “identify” themselves as Catholic will accept SS-marriage.
If the Vatican does not embrace it, then I think traditional Catholicism will become a very small group…and the larger group who accept SS-marriage will create an offshoot of their own “Catholic” group and elect their own pope, etc.
Maybe they will create their own name, like “New Catholics” or whatever.
I imagine the emerging majority would be stronger because they’ll have more money and more people.

If the Vatican does one day accept same-sex marriage…it will be made understood to people that that this was a “teaching” that was able to evolve, and they will explain why it evolved…and all will move onward. Just as many teachings or rituals have evolved over the last 2000 years, I think this will be seen in the same light.

For the traditionalists who think it’s heresy, I think that group will continue on as a smaller sect. And people will consider them archaic and disobedient, just as many consider those who are pre-Vatican-II as not keeping up with the church.

But having said all that…I actually think religion will wane drastically over the next century until the majority in this world are Atheists.
Just in the last ten years, the amount of people who have gone from religious to un-religious has something like doubled.
I think it will continue on like this.

.

There may very well be a severe pruning on the horizon for the Catholic Faith.Those that defect will become yet one of a multitude of Protestant faiths.

 

[chris62]

I think it is inevitable the Church will change its teaching on homosexuality as soon as a male and another male conceive a child naturally.

Or a female and another female.
Sorry, can’t discriminate.

 

[Jeanne_S]

I think it is inevitable the Church will change its teaching on homosexuality as soon as a male and another male conceive a child naturally.

Or a female and another female.
Sorry, can’t discriminate.

Haa,please refer to a prior post re the devil

 

[Pater_Noster]

If the Church accepted same-sex marriages as valid, I would just drop Catholicism, and maybe even Christianity in general. This isn’t because of any bias I have against gay marriage, but because the infallible Magisterium wouldn’t be so infallible. The truth doesn’t change, and if the Church changes it’s teaching on infallible material such as this, then there is no point in believing in the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Perhaps I would become an Eastern Orthodox Christian or a Protestant, but those words that Jesus spoke to Simon will always be in the back of my mind: “You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.” Any type of alliegance that isn’t to the Catholic Church would just seem so much to me to be a denial of these words that our Lord spoke. So, if the Church were to change its teaching on infallible matters, I might just consider atheism. However, that will never happen, because God has promised us that the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church.

I think you’re saying that if the Church changed its stand on homosexual relations the Church would lose credibility. I would agree with you entirely.

Taken from paragraph 2357 of the Catechism:

“Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” 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.”

Artificial contraception certainly closes the sexual act to the gift of life. Selectively approving of one sexual act not open to the gift of life (homosexuality) but not another (artificial contraception) would discredit the Church as well.

Maybe we are on the cusp of an historic schism. I never thought in my lifetime that the group to split would be unclear, that the likelihood of a “progressive” more “open minded” “Catholic” church would splinter (it seems there are enough bishops and even cardinals to lead such an exodus) or a “traditional” remnant more like SSPX would break off both being possibilities.

In my opinion it depends on whether the Church continues to lead or bends like a reed to the winds of this time.

What did Venerable Archbishop Sheen say? Something like a Church that marries this age will become a widow in the next and the Church is not behind the times, it’s ‘beyond the times, always fresh while the age is dying.’

 

[Sparkythedog]

I think what will happen is…the majority of people who “identify” themselves as Catholic will accept SS-marriage.
If the Vatican does not embrace it, then I think traditional Catholicism will become a very small group…and the larger group who accept SS-marriage will create an offshoot of their own “Catholic” group and elect their own pope, etc.
Maybe they will create their own name, like “New Catholics” or whatever.
I imagine the emerging majority would be stronger because they’ll have more money and more people.

If the Vatican does one day accept same-sex marriage…it will be made understood to people that that this was a “teaching” that was able to evolve, and they will explain why it evolved…and all will move onward. Just as many teachings or rituals have evolved over the last 2000 years, I think this will be seen in the same light.

For the traditionalists who think it’s heresy, I think that group will continue on as a smaller sect. And people will consider them archaic and disobedient, just as many consider those who are pre-Vatican-II as not keeping up with the church.

But having said all that…I actually think religion will wane drastically over the next century until the majority in this world are Atheists.
Just in the last ten years, the amount of people who have gone from religious to un-religious has something like doubled.
I think it will continue on like this.

.

My thoughts as well. I don’t think the church will be forced from the outside to marry same sex couples. It will occur internally.