What would happen if The Church accepted same sex marriage?

[Murmurs]

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.

You’re right, of course, Christine. It is a circle that is particularly difficult to square! I think the problem we are faced with runs way deeper than semantics, but part of it is popular (secular) perception of the Church because of semantics, if you see what I mean. I don’t say I like the solution I proposed but it may be one that is easier than others!

If it wasn’t so vitally important, it would be really fascinating what will happen over the course of our lifetimes…

 

[awsiukiewicz]

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

 

[awsiukiewicz]

I was a little surprised that an option to vote did not include…consider SSPX…whether one what consider such a thing is questionable…however…I find it very difficult to imagine that the church…despite heterodox Cardinals, Bishops, Priests who openly favor women ordination, Holy Communion for divorced/remarried Catholics try to find some good in the (loving) nature of homosexual couples…Heaven help us

 

[Ignatius]

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?

Jesus Christ declared that He would protect His Church until the End of Time. That would be the end of His Church and, therefore, indicate the End Times are upon us and I would look for Our Lord to be returning in Glory.

 

[Mark86]

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.

I completely agree, and I think the Church should actually abandon the word “marriage” to describe what it does and focus on using the word “Matrimony.” It’s quite clear to me that what the world is doing in secular civil marriage is NOT what the Church intends to do when she joins a couple in Holy Matrimony. We don’t acknowledge Baptisms that are done without the intent of doing what the Church does when she baptizes, so I think it’s time that we stop acknowledging non-Christian marriages as well. It sounds harsh, but times are changing. What the Church does is NO LONGER what the world does when it comes to marriage, and I think it’s time that we make a point of that semantically. I don’t say this with the intent of saying that it’s okay for gays to get “married” to each other with the intent of doing what the Church does in Holy Matrimony, I say this so that perhaps the outside world will get the idea that the Church is true to its teachings and is not simply following the “norms” of civilization around it. For that reason, I think it’s necessary that the Church make a clean break with the outside world on this issue. The Church has had to do things like this before when the outside world no longer represented the Christian ideal, and in order to preserve the ideal in hard times, I think it’s prudent that she does so again.

I think this is a reality that the Church is going to have to do something about in the coming years, because it’s only going to get worse. Like it or not, “gay marriage” is here to stay and its only going to get more and more normalized to the point where any “old fashioned” argument the Church makes against it is no longer going to mean much to ordinary people living it out successfully. We can’t continue to exist in the world pretending that it’s still a taboo mentality, because it’s not. We have to realize that it’s the “new normal” in secular culture. I do not for a second think this means the Church needs to change doctrine, because I don’t think the doctrine can or should be changed. What the Church needs to do is start to realize that we can’t coast anymore on “being Christian,” we have to prove it.

I think about how St. Paul evangelized. He went around working for people. He was fixing their tents and digging their trenches and went without pay. And when they asked him, “Why are you working for us for free? Are you mad?” His response probably was something like, “Yes I am, madly in love with Jesus Christ.” Contrast that with the current method of walking around quoting Catechism paragraphs at people, “well the Church says this… well the Church says that… so obviously it must be so…” Had St. Paul gone around quoting random paragraphs from random books written by a couple of fishermen in Jerusalem claiming to have divine authority behind them, nobody would’ve fallen in love with the Lord Jesus Christ. They had to see the extent of that love to fall in love themselves. This is something I firmly believe in. It’s something I revere our Pope for being such a strong advocate for. We need to act as though the first 20 centuries of Christianity never happened and just go out there and start digging trenches for people.

 

[Murmurs]

I think about how St. Paul evangelized. He went around working for people. He was fixing their tents and digging their trenches and went without pay. And when they asked him, “Why are you working for us for free? Are you mad?” His response probably was something like, “Yes I am, madly in love with Jesus Christ.” Contrast that with the current method of walking around quoting Catechism paragraphs at people, “well the Church says this… well the Church says that… so obviously it must be so…” Had St. Paul gone around quoting random paragraphs from random books written by a couple of fishermen in Jerusalem claiming to have divine authority behind them, nobody would’ve fallen in love with the Lord Jesus Christ. They had to see the extent of that love to fall in love themselves. This is something I firmly believe in. It’s something I revere our Pope for being such a strong advocate for. We need to act as though the first 20 centuries of Christianity never happened and just go out there and start digging trenches for people.

YES

 

[MacBP]

Personally, if the Church were to ever approve of same-sex marriage I would become an Atheist (all the while, ironically, doing a 180 on my attitudes towards same-sex marriage). Like it or not, both Scripture and Tradition are pretty clear when it comes homosexuality and if I’m not supposed to those aspects of Scripture and Tradition seriously then why should I believe anything else.

As for the Church itself? I think it’s pretty easy to see what would happen. Just look at the Anglicans. There would be a lot of tension within the communion and the Western World would be pitted against everyone else. Maybe there would be a large schism, maybe there wouldn’t be, but the Church would accelerate her present decline in the West (why go to a Church that doesn’t even believe what it teaches). Both the LGBT community and the most of the western world would go back to ignoring the Church or or would look at pressuring the Church to change on the next LGBT issues (transgender issues, the fluidness of sexual identity,etc).

 

[MacBP]

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

This really bothers me.

Christians, Muslims, Jews and others who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they either believe that same-sex marriage would be wrong or non-nonsensical. Many people see that as stupid, backwards, discriminatory and intolerant but at least its on the basis of moral conviction.

However, when the prospect of multiple-partner marriage to those who would approve same-sex marriage, this is the response that I usually see. “Well, it would be really hard so…” I’m going to assume that this is the standard response because most of the arguments that have been used to further same-sex marriage apply equally well to polygamous marriage. If marriage doesn’t have a specific purpose other than proclaiming one’s love for one another, then why not extend that to three, four or more partners? Extending those benefits might be hard, but other countries do it so presumably we could too. Especially when we recognize that Muslims recognize polygamous marriages and polygamy remains a social force in Africa. Even if there isn’t a big push for marriage in the Western Word (yet…) wouldn’t a sense of fairness, inclusiveness and consistency compel us to seriously consider the possibility of multiple-partner marriages?

Here’s the part that bothers me. I, as a Catholic, oppose polygamy because I have specific beliefs about marriage that render a polygamous union impossible. On the other hand, it seems that many people who oppose polygamy and support same-sex marriage (this doesn’t necessarily extend to you BlueEyedLady) oppose polygamy ostensibly because it would be a bureaucratic mess. In actuality, I suspect many people oppose polygamy because it’s “weird” and “different.” Who, then, are the really intolerant class of people: those who oppose some marriages because their beliefs on the nature of marriage or those who opposes some marriages because it makes them feel uncomfortable?

 

[MacBP]

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

Perhaps you might want to elaborate more on this thought?

The stock response given by supports of SSM who oppose multiple-partner marriages (MPM) seems to be that MPM would be difficult to implement. I’m sure that MPMs would take work to implement, but since some countries do recognize MPM and since the work associated with recognizing SSM seem to be a non-issue, do you really think it’s fair to deny MPM to those who want them?

In talking to people who support SSM, and in reading associated articles, it seems that most people who support SSM would define the essence of marriage as a legally binding romantic commitment between two people with some associated, material benefits. The fact that it’s between two people seems to be historical accident more than anything else. I don’t seen any logical reason why you can’t have a romantic commitment between three or more people (our species has been doing it for most of its existence). After all, doesn’t altering marriage to include same-sex marriage demonstrate that marriage is whatever the government says it is? Sure there are less people wanting to enter into a MPM than into SSM, but was numbers ever the crux of the matter. If only 0.3% of the population was homosexual instead of of 3%, would you have considered the arguments for SSM marriage less valid?

Multiple religions and ethnic groups accept and approve of MPMs (notably Muslims and non-mainstream Mormons). Because society would accept their union, the Western World has a sizeable amount of MPM in secret. Why should society deny these people the right to love one another in the manner that they choose when there seems to be good reason not to. Is it fair that they should be denied the right to marry because no one wants to put in the effort to allow their legal recognition? Isn’t that discriminatory? I mean, Christians oppose SSM and MPM because they have a specific vision of marriage that requires heterosexual, monogamous couples, but in most cases, aren’t people opposes MPMs because they find them icky, weird, or simply don’t care enough about people in these situations. If anything, doesn’t that make these people worse than Christians who oppose SSM?

Or maybe there’s more to the story here than I’ve been lead to believe?

 

[Seamus_L]

I think a more realistic question is this. What if the Vatican continues to reject homosexual marriage, but a Bishop somewhere in the world comes out in favor of it, blesses homosexual couples and even marries a few. Then a whole year passes and that Bishop is still in charge of his diocese, and during that time, two more bishops have out and followed his lead ?

 

[SWolf]

I think a more realistic question is this. What if the Vatican continues to reject homosexual marriage, but a Bishop somewhere in the world comes out in favor of it, blesses homosexual couples and even marries a few. Then a whole year passes and that Bishop is still in charge of his diocese, and during that time, two more bishops have out and followed his lead ?

This is a much more realistic scenario. The Vatican may send a mushy proclamation that allows some Bishops to “interpret” it as allowing same-sex unions. No punishment will be given.

The result? Maybe not official schism, but they might as well be. The Churches in different dioceses will seem like different Churches altogether based on the Bishop in charge. Then people on this forum will argue the Church allows same-sex marriage based on a poorly worded and mushy pronouncement, other Catholics will say “absolutely not”, and round and round in circles we go.

 

[Flecth_F_Fletch]

It would cease to exist. And since we know that cannot happen (gates of hell shall not…), it isn’t possible.

The question is a bit like asking "What if God was sometimes wrong? " or “What is Jesus was a liar?”

They can’t and shouldn’t be answered seriously.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[FollowChrist34]

This is a much more realistic scenario. The Vatican may send a mushy proclamation that allows some Bishops to “interpret” it as allowing same-sex unions. No punishment will be given.

The result? Maybe not official schism, but they might as well be. The Churches in different dioceses will seem like different Churches altogether based on the Bishop in charge. Then people on this forum will argue the Church allows same-sex marriage based on a poorly worded and mushy pronouncement, other Catholics will say “absolutely not”, and round and round in circles we go.

I agree - look at the situation with the nuns. A sort of unofficial schism would occur (if it hasn’t already for all intents and purposes).