What would happen if The Church accepted same sex marriage?

[Pater_Noster]

I get discouraged, and then I take the time to read something like this, an Easter homily from Archbishop Sheen.

catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/homily-for-easter-day-archbishop-fulton-sheen/

This section from that homily sings in my heart:

"There came other moments in her history when in the eyes of the world she seemed to have her very life drained out of her. Whenever the Palm Sundays of earthly rejoicing came her way, and the world proclaimed her Queen, and strewed palm branches beneath her feet — in a word, whenever a great measure of temporal prosperity came her way, and she began to rely more upon action than prayer, she became weak. The yoke of Christ then seemed heavy to her children; bodies craved for the line of least resistance and hearts yearned for the fleshpots of Egypt. It is a strange but certain fact that the Church is never so weak as when she is powerful with the world; never so poor as when she is rich with the riches of the world; never so foolish as when she is wise with the fancies of the world. She is strongest with Divine Help when she is weakest with human power, for like Peter she is given the miraculous draught of fishes when she admits by her own power she has labored all the night and taken nothing.

When her discipline, her spirit of saintliness, her zeal for Christ, her vigils, and her mortifications, become a thing of less importance, the world makes the fatal mistake of believing that her soul is dead and her faith is departed. Not so! The faith, even in those days of lesser prayer, is solid — for it is the faith of the centuries, the faith of Jesus Christ. What may be weak is her discipline, her prayerfulness, and her saintliness, for these are of men, whereas her faith is of God. A renewal of spirit, then, will come not by changing her way of thinking, for that is divine, but her way of acting,for that is human."

Wow. May God bless you and keep you Archbishop Sheen and may you pray for us. Peace be to you.

 

[Jeanne_S]

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.

Can’t and won’t happen,that’s it in a nut shell.

 

[Brendan]

Can’t and won’t happen,that’s it in a nut shell.

Yep, pretty much,

it’ like asking ‘what if squares were round’?

 

[Jeanne_S]

**

Yep, pretty much,

it’ like asking ‘what if squares were round’?

Indeed!

 

[chris62]

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.

Total ignorance.

 

[Illmatic15]

@paulrxp: I agree brother, politics is full of corruption, it cannot be confused with faith. That’s not to say religion shouldn’t influence your political beliefs, as I believe that political views should be based on ethics. However, as you explained, religion can be compromised if politics is put before it. And we truly do need the Church to help us discover what is good and true. It sure seems kinda weird that Christ would leave us all alone to figure things out when we have so many questions. Sola scriptura has led to so many disagreements among Christians and shows that we truly do need the Tradition and Magisterium of the Church to guide us.
Peace

@Pater Noster: that’s exactly what I’m saying. Those who don’t understand the Church are constantly expecting the Church to change her mind on certain issues such as this, but that’s not the case. The Church will NEVER change their positions on this. I can’t tell you how many times I have seen newspaper articles talking about how Pope Francis is “shifting the Church’s view on homosexuality”. The Holy Father wasn’t changing any teachings; in fact, he had just been stating what the Church has always taught: homosexual acts are sinful, but people born with this disorder must be treated with utmost respect and no different from any other person, as we are called to love all people. And I also agree about artificial birth control, the Church must be consistent. Ever since it’s inception, the Church has continually defended this teaching. A great number of “churches” have turned their backs on this truth ever since the shameful Reformation (despite the fact that many of these “Reformers” did defend this teaching), but the gates of hell have not prevailed against the Catholic Church, and I thank God for keeping His promises.
Btw I really like that quote from Archbishop Sheen
Peace

 

[JimG]

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.

Well, Mother Nature is so discriminatory! It’s a wonder she doesn’t get sued.

 

[JackVk]

I get discouraged, and then I take the time to read something like this, an Easter homily from Archbishop Sheen.

catholicismpure.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/homily-for-easter-day-archbishop-fulton-sheen/

This section from that homily sings in my heart:

"There came other moments in her history when in the eyes of the world she seemed to have her very life drained out of her. Whenever the Palm Sundays of earthly rejoicing came her way, and the world proclaimed her Queen, and strewed palm branches beneath her feet — in a word, whenever a great measure of temporal prosperity came her way, and she began to rely more upon action than prayer, she became weak. The yoke of Christ then seemed heavy to her children; bodies craved for the line of least resistance and hearts yearned for the fleshpots of Egypt. It is a strange but certain fact that the Church is never so weak as when she is powerful with the world; never so poor as when she is rich with the riches of the world; never so foolish as when she is wise with the fancies of the world. She is strongest with Divine Help when she is weakest with human power, for like Peter she is given the miraculous draught of fishes when she admits by her own power she has labored all the night and taken nothing.

When her discipline, her spirit of saintliness, her zeal for Christ, her vigils, and her mortifications, become a thing of less importance, the world makes the fatal mistake of believing that her soul is dead and her faith is departed. Not so! The faith, even in those days of lesser prayer, is solid — for it is the faith of the centuries, the faith of Jesus Christ. What may be weak is her discipline, her prayerfulness, and her saintliness, for these are of men, whereas her faith is of God. A renewal of spirit, then, will come not by changing her way of thinking, for that is divine, but her way of acting,for that is human."

Wow. May God bless you and keep you Archbishop Sheen and may you pray for us. Peace be to you.

THIS! This is spot on!

It is better for the Church to not have power than to have all the power and influence in the world. In the case of the latter, we get the Borgias and the sex abuse crisis.

 

[Mark86]

I don’t believe the Church will change its doctrinal basics, but the Church is going to have to do a better job at explaining itself in the coming age, because like it or not, it’s going to dwindle and dwindle in influence to the point where it will fall into a “club only for the super-interested.” How can we “win the hearts and minds” from such a position? When people are fleeing the Church, how can we evangelize? The fact is, the Church can no longer depend upon the notion that “everybody agrees with the Church because the Church is always right, obviously.” We have to know our faith better, because they’re not going to know it for us! It’s not true that everyone agrees with the Church’s logic anymore, nor is relying on the idea of the “Church always being right” as the basis for “traditional marriage” going to sway anyone over in the 21st century. The Church does not have to fall into obscurity and see a decline in membership just because it stays true to its teachings in the modern world. It can innovate the way that it teaches its teachings though. That’s going to take more innovative thinking from people who will are tasked with actually living in the 21st century (something Paul VI wasn’t tasked with having to do).

As a Catholic 20-something, I look around and find myself utterly and totally alone when I go to Church, amidst the sea of married couples, children, and seniors. This is a glaring reality of the Church’s failure to bring the message of Christ to the millennials and the circumstances that actually face 20-somethings in the 21st century. I don’t see how the 12-and-under, 40-and-over “culture” of Catholicism can continue to move it forward. The Church is rapidly losing it’s 13-30 crowd to false ideologies (especially about human sexuality) that do a better job at evangelizing and converting than the Church does with the truth. Where are all the 20-something Catholics? They are lost in the “authenticity” and “excitement” of worldliness because worldliness is just not the “scary thing” that it once was in the popular consciousness.

The reason I bring this up is that if anyone is going to innovate the way the Church teaches its teachings, it’s going to come from the fully-engaged Catholic millennials themselves who are actually **in the world **of the 21st century. The 21st century Church can not continue to ignore the reality of the 21st century culture that has largely defined itself around these profoundly anti-Catholic sexual mores. The 20th century mindset of “homosexuality necessarily destroys lives” is no longer observed as a fact of life as it once was. The Church has to acknowledge this reality. The Church can not continue to base its explanation for the immorality of something on outdated norms and observations that no longer are the general experience of ordinary people.

The Church shouldn’t change its teaching, no, but perhaps come up with a better explanation for why the homosexual lifestyle is sinful than 1950s “Boys Beware!” scare tactics that everyone these days makes fun of for being beyond inaccurate. A better explanation may be to make a counter-proposal to the current worldview: that there is no such thing as “sexuality” (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual…etc.), and that ALL “sexual orientations” are sinful, because one doesn’t need to be “oriented” in order to procreate and experience the Sacramental union of spouses. The Church is not for “traditional marriage” because “heteronormativity is the norm” (it’s not anymore), it’s for the union of male and female because, regardless of what the “norm” is among human societies, the natural law doesn’t change.

We’ve relied on the excuse of the “norm” for so long that the Church needs to learn how to address a world that no longer considers it to be the norm. We need to regain a 1st century Church mindset, not perpetuate a 19th century one.

 

[JackVk]

I don’t believe the Church will change its doctrinal basics, but the Church is going to have to do a better job at explaining itself in the coming age, because like it or not, it’s going to dwindle and dwindle in influence to the point where it will fall into a “club only for the super-interested.” How can we “win the hearts and minds” from such a position? When people are fleeing the Church, how can we evangelize? The fact is, the Church can no longer depend upon the notion that “everybody agrees with the Church because the Church is always right, obviously.” We have to know our faith better, because they’re not going to know it for us! It’s not true that everyone agrees with the Church’s logic anymore, nor is relying on the idea of the “Church always being right” as the basis for “traditional marriage” going to sway anyone over in the 21st century. The Church does not have to fall into obscurity and see a decline in membership just because it stays true to its teachings in the modern world. It can innovate the way that it teaches its teachings though. That’s going to take more innovative thinking from people who will are tasked with actually living in the 21st century (something Paul VI wasn’t tasked with having to do).

As a Catholic 20-something, I look around and find myself utterly and totally alone when I go to Church, amidst the sea of married couples, children, and seniors. This is a glaring reality of the Church’s failure to bring the message of Christ to the millennials and the circumstances that actually face 20-somethings in the 21st century. I don’t see how the 12-and-under, 40-and-over “culture” of Catholicism can continue to move it forward. The Church is rapidly losing it’s 13-30 crowd to false ideologies (especially about human sexuality) that do a better job at evangelizing and converting than the Church does with the truth. Where are all the 20-something Catholics? They are lost in the “authenticity” and “excitement” of worldliness because worldliness is just not the “scary thing” that it once was in the popular consciousness.

The reason I bring this up is that if anyone is going to innovate the way the Church teaches its teachings, it’s going to come from the fully-engaged Catholic millennials themselves who are actually **in the world **of the 21st century. The 21st century Church can not continue to ignore the reality of the 21st century culture that has largely defined itself around these profoundly anti-Catholic sexual mores. The 20th century mindset of “homosexuality necessarily destroys lives” is no longer observed as a fact of life as it once was. The Church has to acknowledge this reality. The Church can not continue to base its explanation for the immorality of something on outdated norms and observations that no longer are the general experience of ordinary people.

The Church shouldn’t change its teaching, no, but perhaps come up with a better explanation for why the homosexual lifestyle is sinful than 1950s “Boys Beware!” scare tactics that everyone these days makes fun of for being beyond inaccurate. A better explanation may be to make a counter-proposal to the current worldview: that there is no such thing as “sexuality” (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual…etc.), and that ALL “sexual orientations” are sinful, because one doesn’t need to be “oriented” in order to procreate and experience the Sacramental union of spouses. The Church is not for “traditional marriage” because “heteronormativity is the norm” (it’s not anymore), it’s for the union of male and female because, regardless of what the “norm” is among human societies, the natural law doesn’t change.

We’ve relied on the excuse of the “norm” for so long that the Church needs to learn how to address a world that no longer considers it to be the norm. We need to regain a 1st century Church mindset, not perpetuate a 19th century one.

Amen, brother. I am 23 and am also one of the few faithfully Catholic millennials. “Traditional family values” is not going to fly if we are going to reclaim marriage as God intended it, as our culture has come to sneer at tradition. And claims that “same sex ‘marriage’ is bad for kids” lack solid evidence, and “it will allow for polygamy and bestiality” is seen as a slippery-slope fallacy.

Also, I agree that we can’t just use the circular argument that “the Church is of God, therefore the Church is always right on morals.” We need to prove why that is so.

 

[Mark86]

Amen, brother. I am 23 and am also one of the few faithfully Catholic millennials. “Traditional family values” is not going to fly if we are going to reclaim marriage as God intended it, as our culture has come to sneer at tradition. And claims that “same sex ‘marriage’ is bad for kids” lack solid evidence, and “it will allow for polygamy and bestiality” is seen as a slippery-slope fallacy.

Also, I agree that we can’t just use the circular argument that “the Church is of God, therefore the Church is always right on morals.” We need to prove why that is so.

I honestly think the best evangelization tool for reaching out to homosexuals is one of affirmation rather than the immediate, knee-jerk condemnation they are used to receiving from Christians… for their desire for friendship, for their unique life experiences, for their detestation of the human rights abuses waged against gay people around the world. These are causes the Church can get behind, and not have to abandon the teaching about how the lifestyle is a sin. Everyone knows that Catholic Church teaches that it is a sin, that’s about ALL they know the Church teaches because that’s the only message they’ve ever heard. So far…

One of the greatest things about “Desire for the Everlasting Hills” was that it didn’t show three lowlifes with AIDS and say “see? Gay is bad!” That’s the 20th century approach. On the contrary, it showed three people who had lived three very different lives, one of which was in a long-term relationship… and showed how each of them was affected by the gospel. That’s a 21st century approach.

The documentary showed a guy who had lived a promiscuous lifestyle, a guy who had tried to mask his homosexuality in an ultimately unsuccessful “straight” relationship, and a woman who was in a long term gay relationship… I mean, they sampled a real variety of life situations that we actually see in the real world around us (imagine that, the Church actually being relevant!), and showed how the message of Christ was able to break through each of them. That’s how to be authentic.

It’s one thing to quote catechism verses at society… it’s another thing to do what the Venerable Fulton J. Sheen would do and meet people where they are at with a timely message of eternal truths. Imagine if more people got a timely message instead of an outdated one. I think we’d see more people convinced about the true timelessness of the gospel for a change.

 

[JimG]

I don’t believe the Church will change its doctrinal basics, but the Church is going to have to do a better job at explaining itself in the coming age, because like it or not, it’s going to dwindle and dwindle in influence to the point where it will fall into a “club only for the super-interested.” How can we “win the hearts and minds” from such a position? When people are fleeing the Church, how can we evangelize? The fact is, the Church can no longer depend upon the notion that “everybody agrees with the Church because the Church is always right, obviously.” We have to know our faith better, because they’re not going to know it for us! It’s not true that everyone agrees with the Church’s logic anymore, nor is relying on the idea of the “Church always being right” as the basis for “traditional marriage” going to sway anyone over in the 21st century. The Church does not have to fall into obscurity and see a decline in membership just because it stays true to its teachings in the modern world. It can innovate the way that it teaches its teachings though. That’s going to take more innovative thinking from people who will are tasked with actually living in the 21st century (something Paul VI wasn’t tasked with having to do).

As a Catholic 20-something, I look around and find myself utterly and totally alone when I go to Church, amidst the sea of married couples, children, and seniors. This is a glaring reality of the Church’s failure to bring the message of Christ to the millennials and the circumstances that actually face 20-somethings in the 21st century. I don’t see how the 12-and-under, 40-and-over “culture” of Catholicism can continue to move it forward. The Church is rapidly losing it’s 13-30 crowd to false ideologies (especially about human sexuality) that do a better job at evangelizing and converting than the Church does with the truth. Where are all the 20-something Catholics? They are lost in the “authenticity” and “excitement” of worldliness because worldliness is just not the “scary thing” that it once was in the popular consciousness.

The reason I bring this up is that if anyone is going to innovate the way the Church teaches its teachings, it’s going to come from the fully-engaged Catholic millennials themselves who are actually **in the world **of the 21st century. The 21st century Church can not continue to ignore the reality of the 21st century culture that has largely defined itself around these profoundly anti-Catholic sexual mores. The 20th century mindset of “homosexuality necessarily destroys lives” is no longer observed as a fact of life as it once was. The Church has to acknowledge this reality. The Church can not continue to base its explanation for the immorality of something on outdated norms and observations that no longer are the general experience of ordinary people.

Yes, except for perhaps the general experience that humanity is composed of men and women.

The Church shouldn’t change its teaching, no, but perhaps come up with a better explanation for why the homosexual lifestyle is sinful than 1950s “Boys Beware!” scare tactics that everyone these days makes fun of for being beyond inaccurate. A better explanation may be to make a counter-proposal to the current worldview: that there is no such thing as “sexuality” (homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual…etc.), and that ALL “sexual orientations” are sinful, because one doesn’t need to be “oriented” in order to procreate and experience the Sacramental union of spouses. The Church is not for “traditional marriage” because “heteronormativity is the norm” (it’s not anymore), it’s for the union of male and female because, regardless of what the “norm” is among human societies, the natural law doesn’t change.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I have seen several articles recently which do make the argument that “orientation” of any kind is problematic. For example these excerpts:

“The slow evolution of the heterosexual is in fact the emergence of the homosexual. . . . Whether bi-, homo-, hetero-, all forms of hyphenated sexuality want the same thing: sex without moral or generative limits, relationships without cultural or familial constraints.”

Source

“Contrary to our cultural preconceptions and the lies of what has come to be called “orientation essentialism,” “straight” and “gay” are not ageless absolutes.”

Source

 

[Jeanne_S]

Instead of referring to marriage as we recognize it between one man and one woman as"traditional marriage" a better term would be “natural marriage”

 

[thistle]

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

The teaching about homosexuality is an infallible teaching which means it is IMPOSSIBLE for it to be changed.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

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

Actually Satan does look like that in Dante’s Inferno*!***

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Instead of referring to marriage as we recognize it between one man and one woman as"traditional marriage" a better term would be “natural marriage”

I like that.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Or how about “potentially procreative” vs. “non-procreative”?

 

[Jeanne_S]

Or how about “potentially procreative” vs. “non-procreative”?

That too.

 

[Murmurs]

Amen, brother. I am 23 and am also one of the few faithfully Catholic millennials. “Traditional family values” is not going to fly if we are going to reclaim marriage as God intended it, as our culture has come to sneer at tradition. And claims that “same sex ‘marriage’ is bad for kids” lack solid evidence, and “it will allow for polygamy and bestiality” is seen as a slippery-slope fallacy.

Also, I agree that we can’t just use the circular argument that “the Church is of God, therefore the Church is always right on morals.”

Jack, and Mark86, I couldn’t agree more and its the most sensible expression of how to consider facing the problems facing the Church in the 21st century Enough Catholics have a problem with the “the Church is always right on this matter, because the Church says has always right on this matter” issue of infallibility (we can talk 3-legged stools all we want, but this is how the church’s institutionalised smugness appears to those to whom we are meant to evangelise; we can’t change the doctrine because it’s true - but we could perhaps shut up about it for a bit.

We need to prove why that is so.

I think we need to show the world what the Church is, rather than tell it. For all the over-analysed media coverage of anything the Holy Father does, on this matter I think he is quite definitely showing us a way forward. I’m skeptical of tying any sort of immediate movement to him, because (very sadly) any Papacy is transient and we have a move systemic problem than the reign of one Pope can solve through sheer charisma. We all have to do this, all the time. I think it goes a very long way beyond any kind of response to homosexuality-in-the-21st-century - and without giving tacet approval to utter debauchery, I think we - the Church (especially its leadership when talking to the media, or from the pulpit) needs to shut up about about sex. My view is we need to focus again on doing good rather than being good, and encouraging others to do the same. The secular world (including my own friends, other women as well as men) will treat serious catholics with a little less bemusement and take the very vital message of Christ a little more seriously. But that’s only my view.

Or how about “potentially procreative” vs. “non-procreative”?

Or just call it all “marriage” because its simpler (and hairsplitting is something else the secular world will find ridiculous about the church when it continues to be so legalistic) - yes it maybe dilutes the term but I don’t think it matters much. Like the infamous (apocryphal?) test about obscenity - “we know it when we see it.” Just call it all marriage for the sake of interaction with the rest of the world and get over it. I don’t know if it matters much. To borrow very-out-of-context the quotation attributed to Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers: “God will know His own.” We meanwhile have to ensure more people know God.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Jack, and Mark86, I couldn’t agree more and its the most sensible expression of how to consider facing the problems facing the Church in the 21st century Enough Catholics have a problem with the “the Church is always right on this matter, because the Church says has always right on this matter” issue of infallibility (we can talk 3-legged stools all we want, but this is how the church’s institutionalised smugness appears to those to whom we are meant to evangelise; we can’t change the doctrine because it’s true - but we could perhaps shut up about it for a bit.

I think we need to show the world what the Church is, rather than tell it. For all the over-analysed media coverage of anything the Holy Father does, on this matter I think he is quite definitely showing us a way forward. I’m skeptical of tying any sort of immediate movement to him, because (very sadly) any Papacy is transient and we have a move systemic problem than the reign of one Pope can solve through sheer charisma. We all have to do this, all the time. I think it goes a very long way beyond any kind of response to homosexuality-in-the-21st-century - and without giving tacet approval to utter debauchery, I think we - the Church (especially its leadership when talking to the media, or from the pulpit) needs to shut up about about sex. My view is we need to focus again on doing good rather than being good, and encouraging others to do the same. The secular world (including my own friends, other women as well as men) will treat serious catholics with a little less bemusement and take the very vital message of Christ a little more seriously. But that’s only my view.

Or just call it all “marriage” because its simpler (and hairsplitting is something else the secular world will find ridiculous about the church when it continues to be so legalistic) - yes it maybe dilutes the term but I don’t think it matters much. Like the infamous (apocryphal?) test about obscenity - “we know it when we see it.” Just call it all marriage for the sake of interaction with the rest of the world and get over it. I don’t know if it matters much. To borrow very-out-of-context the quotation attributed to Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers: “God will know His own.” We meanwhile have to ensure more people know God.

I have no problem with gay people having unions and getting all the rights non-gays get. But marriage should be a term that somehow denotes what it has always meant: one woman and one man becoming one body to create new people on this earth.

I have a lot of friends and even family members who are gay, and good for them if they create a life-long bond between their partners. Maybe you think it is just a matter of semantics, but it really makes a travesty out of a word that for so long has meant the beginning of new generations.