Why don't Catholics fight for a law agianst non-believers recieving communion?

[TheTrueCentrist]

The question you posted was why don’t Catholics fight for a law…etc. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexuality is a grave disorder and inherently harmful. So obviously, Catholics would not support a law that encourages what they believe to be objectively evil and harmful. Whether or not it actually IS harmful is a separate discussion.

But religion cannot dictate science. If the church teaches that homosexuality has some real world harm that is not borne out by the evidence, then the church is wrong. It is just like the anti-abortion crusaders who very much want there to be a link between abortion and breast cancer even though there is a scientific consensus that there is no link. This isn’t the old testament, God is not out punishing evil actions in this life.

I understand the spiritual objection, but Catholics also believe that receiving communion when you do not believe in the sacrament is spiritually harmful. Why then don’t they seek a law to regulate this behavior as well?

 

[smichhertz]

I understand the spiritual objection, but Catholics also believe that receiving communion when you do not believe in the sacrament is spiritually harmful. Why then don’t they seek a law to regulate this behavior as well?

Catholics do not believe that homosexuality is solely spiritually harmful, but also physically, mentally, etc. Catholics believe that homosexuality is disordered and contrary to human nature. They do not believe those things in regards to receiving Communion outside the church.

Consider it this way: If a person were to unknowingly receive Communion when they shouldn’t have, no Catholic would claim what they did was spiritually harmful. Because they did so in innocent ignorance, so there is no sin. However, if someone were to unknowingly engage in homosexual behavior, the Catholic Church claims what they did was harmful to themselves and to others, EVEN if they did so unknowingly.

Hopefully that helps demonstrate the difference.

 

[jmcrae]

But religion cannot dictate science.

In this case, it is a scientific fact that homosexual relationships are neither unitive nor procreative. Both aspects of the marital embrace are physically impossible, in the case of a homosexual couple.

Homosexual “marriage” does absolutely nothing to further the progress of society into the future.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

In this case, it is a scientific fact that homosexual relationships are neither unitive nor procreative. Both aspects of the marital embrace are physically impossible, in the case of a homosexual couple.

Homosexual “marriage” does absolutely nothing to further the progress of society into the future.

But as I said before, whether or not procreation is an essential component of marriage is captured in my original statement: “We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married.”

In other words, the Catholic position that marriages between inherently infertile couples are invalid is a component of the Catholic definition of marriage.

 

[jmcrae]

But as I said before, whether or not procreation is an essential component of marriage is captured in my original statement: “We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married.”

In other words, the Catholic position that marriages between inherently infertile couples are invalid is a component of the Catholic definition of marriage.

It’s also a component of why there is marriage, in the first place.

 

[Windfish]

You mean a civil law, right? Since there is already a canon law in place which prohibits non-Catholics (and even Catholics in mortal sin) from partaking in Holy Communion. You must see why your objection is sophistical. Holy Communion is not a secular matter. Marriage is.

 

[Windfish]

But as I said before, whether or not procreation is an essential component of marriage is captured in my original statement: “We expect the state to deny certain people access to marriage on the grounds that our definition of the sacrament does not allow them to be married.”

That is not our position. Is a man being “denied” the “right” to give birth if he, as a man, cannot give birth? No. By nature, he cannot give birth, so it is foolish to say he is being denied it. Similarly, we say that marriage is, by nature, between one man and one woman, so that the term “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms.

In this country, individuals have rights. And among those rights, yes, there exists the right to marry. But what does marriage mean? If it means the union of one man and one woman, than the homosexual who says that he is being denied marriage is like a polygamist who says he is being denied marriage - both are naturally excluded from the definition, there rights are not being denied, only there definition is not acknowledge. So this fight is over a definition.

Fortunately for us, reality is on our side. The State may declare by fiat what marriage means to it, but that is as about as potent as declaring that 2 + 2 equals 3. That is to say, it is impotent.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

It’s also a component of why there is marriage, in the first place.

No, procreation is why there is sex. Moreover, the current definition of marriage is not necessarily the only or best way to ensure a safe environment for children either. Remember all the biblical polygamists? Their children ended up just fine.

 

[Windfish]

No, procreation is why there is sex. Moreover, the current definition of marriage is not necessarily the only or best way to ensure a safe environment for children either. Remember all the biblical polygamists? Their children ended up just fine.

I guess you didn’t read the Bible. They were all screwed up.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Catholics do not believe that homosexuality is solely spiritually harmful, but also physically, mentally, etc. Catholics believe that homosexuality is disordered and contrary to human nature. They do not believe those things in regards to receiving Communion outside the church.

Consider it this way: If a person were to unknowingly receive Communion when they shouldn’t have, no Catholic would claim what they did was spiritually harmful. Because they did so in innocent ignorance, so there is no sin. However, if someone were to unknowingly engage in homosexual behavior, the Catholic Church claims what they did was harmful to themselves and to others, EVEN if they did so unknowingly.

Hopefully that helps demonstrate the difference.

I understand that Catholics believe there are societal hams from homosexuality. However questions such as “does homosexual marriage cause psychological problems” or “does homosexual marriage cause physical problems” are not religious questions. Those are scientific questions and ought to be answered accordingly.

I suspect that belief in those real world harms is a product of unwarranted religious extrapolation. Essentially, people so zealously proclaim the spiritual harms caused by homosexuality that they begin to believe there are real world harms as well. This claim is strengthened by the fact that religious researchers are more likely to find problems with homosexuality, while secular researchers tend to find little difference between homosexual and heterosexual relationships.

In what specific, real world way is homosexuality harmful then? I could say “taking the communion as a non catholic is harmful even if you don’t understand the sacrament.” Unfortunately, that statement is too vague and unproven to be useful.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

I guess you didn’t read the Bible. They were all screwed up.

Then why do we still listen to their teachings on homosexuality?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

People who want to outlaw gay marriage certainly seem to want this. I want to understand how the two are different.

The Eucharist is commanded by G-d. Homosexual activity is forbidden by G-d. Pretty simple difference.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

That is not our position. Is a man being “denied” the “right” to give birth if he, as a man, cannot give birth? No. By nature, he cannot give birth, so it is foolish to say he is being denied it. Similarly, we say that marriage is, by nature, between one man and one woman, so that the term “gay marriage” is a contradiction in terms.

In this country, individuals have rights. And among those rights, yes, there exists the right to marry. But what does marriage mean? If it means the union of one man and one woman, than the homosexual who says that he is being denied marriage is like a polygamist who says he is being denied marriage - both are naturally excluded from the definition, there rights are not being denied, only there definition is not acknowledge. So this fight is over a definition.

Fortunately for us, reality is on our side. The State may declare by fiat what marriage means to it, but that is as about as potent as declaring that 2 + 2 equals 3. That is to say, it is impotent.

So then why don’t Catholics fight for a law which defines Eucharist in the Catholic manner and prohibits non-Catholics from receiving it?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

The Eucharist is commanded by G-d. Homosexual activity is forbidden by G-d. Pretty simple difference.

An oversimplification. The Church teaches that it is wrong to receive communion in any state other than full communion with the Church. It also teaches homosexuality is wrong. Why not seek legislation against both, instead of only homosexuality?

 

[eagle_eye222001]

The study by R. Green that you mentioned says:
“Concerns that being raised by a homosexual mother might produce sexual identity conflict and peer group stigmatization were not supported by the research findings.”

M. Cretella is a religious activist, she works for NOM, as does Gallagher.
K. and P. Cameron work for the religious Family Research Institute.
P. Cameron was expelled from the APA for non-compliance with an ethics investigation.

Why are the most negative sources religiously motivated? If homosexuality were truly harmful, why haven’t non-religious researches had the same findings?

Edit
“Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children.” that you cited found:
"Results revealed no significant differences between the 2 groups of children, who also compared favorably with the standardization samples for the instruments used. In addition, no significant differences were found between dyadic adjustment of lesbian and heterosexual couples. Only in the area of parenting did the 2 groups of couples differ; lesbian couples exhibited more parenting awareness skills than did heterosexual couples. The implications of these findings are discussed.’

Point conceded on Green’s study for the moment. I will need to look into that as a mis-citation.

However I take your silence on the APA’s study as a continued point against the only citation you listed. The other ones I listed you argue that their affiliation with religious groups and marriage groups means they are not reliable. This is a logical fallacy to discount someone because of their affiliation. You should discredit their research and show how it is biased to a result.

The APA are not angels as you seem to hold them. Their stance on homosexuality was changed politically, and not scientifically. As the links show, the gay activists were very intolerant of science, and were only concerned in scaring the opposition…which they succeeded in doing.

conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/homosexual-activists-intimidate-american-psychiatric-association-into-removing-homosexuality-from-list-of-disorders/

traditionalvalues.org/urban/eleven.php

freewebs.com/theborngayhoax/theapa.htm

The APA bascially stopped listing homosexuality as a disorder…however it was not done according to science. The APA can be politically motivated to shove science aside as shown.

---

Catholics are taught to vote for the common good. It is for the common good of society that deviant sexual acts not be promoted. It is for the common good of society that traditional marriage be upheld.

Catholics will not force the public to receive what they hold to be Sacred and what should only be taken by believers.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

An oversimplification. The Church teaches that it is wrong to receive communion in any state other than full communion with the Church. It also teaches homosexuality is wrong. Why not seek legislation against both, instead of only homosexuality?

I don’t know. That sounds like a good idea to me. Do you want to form a group to advocate for that? I would like to see the people that abuse the Eucharist on YouTube stopped. They do some pretty vile things. There are already some good groups that fight homosexual marriage activities, and even some that fight other sacrilegious activities. Maybe one of them is already addressing this issue legislatively?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

However I take your silence on the APA’s study as a continued point against the only citation you listed. The other ones I listed you argue that their affiliation with religious groups and marriage groups means they are not reliable. This is a logical fallacy to discount someone because of their affiliation. You should discredit their research and show how it is biased to a result.

I thought the criticism of the AAP study was so trivial as to be dismissed. Here is the link again, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing (2006 report commissioned by the American Academy of Pediatrics):
pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/118/1/349#SEC5

It is good that they compared children of homosexuals to all possible alternatives. They found for example:
“Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.”
How could they have found this if they did not make that comparison? Moreover, the AAP’s work was a literature review that compared the results of many studies. It is true that some of those studies compared homosexuals to single parent households, as I mentioned. However there were also many studies that compared 2 parent households and found no differences in child development.

Religious affiliation is relevant as it clearly affects the conclusions of their work. Several of the link you provided, including the works of Cameron and Cameron and the book by Gallager, are not peer reviewed and do not therefore constitute strong evidence.

Edit
Here are the meeting minuites in which the ASA condemned Paul Cameron’s work (far right hand column)
asanet.org/footnotes/1987/ASA.02.1987.pdf#page=14

It begins: “The American Sociological Association officially and publicly states that Paul Cameron is not a sociologist, and condemns his consistent misrepresentation of sociological research.”

 

[Windfish]

Then why do we still listen to their teachings on homosexuality?

Even if the Bible were completely silent on homosexuality, we as Catholics also hold to reason and natural law, which (I think) we call general revelation that is available to all. That homosexuality is disordered and its acts immoral is a question amenable completely by reason but fully unfurled in the light of Revelation.

But you misunderstand the teaching on biblical inspiration. That the biblical writers were sinful is a point well taken. Logically, that does not affect their writing, that would be ad hominem. And then there is, as I mentioned, the teaching on biblical inspiration.

 

[Windfish]

So then why don’t Catholics fight for a law which defines Eucharist in the Catholic manner and prohibits non-Catholics from receiving it?

See my first post in this thread.

I cannot believe you do not see the sophistry in this topic.

 

[Filthy_Tugboat]

I think you are confused on exactly why there should be a civil law against gay marriage.

I think you are confused on the definition of ‘should’ and that your conclusions are presumptuous in favor of your own personal bias.

Homosexuality is a grave disorder

Why?

that is incredibly harmful for those who actively participate in it.

If you are referring to aids I feel you should be made aware that a large number of homosexual men do not participate in anal sex.

That’s why there is and should be a law against gay marriage.

I entirely disagree, by disallowing gay marriage all we would be doing is sweeping any problems under the rug. Gay people will still be gay, married or not and by preventing marriage we are essentially promoting a more flamboyant lifestyle that opposes monogamy. I would have thought you would find this something that increases the danger for homosexuals.

Just because the church teaches something, does not necessarily mean there should be law criminalizing any behavior to the contrary.

I definitely agree with this, church and state must remain separate at all costs.