Why is the US Catholic church so obsessed with the gay issue?

[Contarini]

No. That was not my original claim. You told me to “to point out elements in the historical context that you think justify Leo’s condemnation.”

That was my response to your rude admonition to “look at the context” and “not be a one-texter.”

This is where this entire discussion should end. Your examples have nothing to do with the teachings of the Church.

That is evidently not true.

Leo and Clement condemned these propositions (which in both cases are clearly true and orthodox propositions, by the standards of modern Catholicism) because of their understanding of Church teaching.

Bringing them into the discussion without a proper historical or theological explanation only diminishes the credibility of the Church.

We have very different ideas about what diminishes the credibility of the Church.

We got into this because you were defending the horrific proposition that people who have trouble with some particular Church teaching should be encouraged to leave the Church. My point is that, in fact, at many times in Church history it would have been right and proper to question things that sounded, at the time, like Church teaching.

Thomas Woods and James Alison are examples of contemporary Catholics who clearly intend to be faithful Catholics, but who think that particular things in official Church statements are to be rejected because they stray into matters not covered by the proper parameters of Church teaching (economics for Woods; the biology and psychology of sexuality for Alison).

Of course, on this forum Woods is treated as a hero and a champion and Alison, if people are aware of him at all, is no doubt reviled as a heretic. I think they are both wrong, though I admit that I’m much more tempted to agree with Alison than with Woods.

The damage you do could be serious.

Only “could be”? The damage you and those who argue like you do is demonstrably far beyond serious. Those of you who insist that anyone not matching your understanding of Church teaching should just leave are murderers of souls, if anything like the Catholic Church’s claims about itself is actually true.

Take the case of a non-Catholic going through a period of discernment who visits CAF out of curiosity. He can deduce…"Wow! …there’s this guy on CAF with a Ph.D. in church history and he says that the popes contradict Church teaching all the time. He even has references to encyclicals…
When he brings that up at RCIA the Religious Ed. director will probably go into a tailspin.

I have personally sent several RCIA directors into tailspins, and am happy to teach other people how to do the same thing

But of course I am not saying that “the popes contradict Church teaching all the time.”

I am saying that it is not always clear, at any given time, just what is or is not binding Church teaching. There is a spectrum, from the Nicene Creed, which is clearly beyond question, all the way over to the American bishops’ statements on issues like immigration or health care. Anyone reading this who wants to know where the line is officially drawn in terms of what may be questioned and in what way should read this document.

As well they should…until capital punishment is condemned.

So from the fact that capital punishment is sometimes licit, it follows that the Church should support whatever policies the state may have on the subject?

Never mind that, in fact, Church officials and theologians explicitly supported the practice of executing heretics, as Leo’s condemnation of Luther shows, among other evidence.

Interesting concept. I would agree with all except the burning at the stake…that sort of practice is reserved for the “Religion of Peace”.

Historically, it has far more often been practiced by Christians, particularly by Catholics, than by Muslims.

Again, we clearly have different ideas about what damages the Church’s credibility.

You are saying that you would support laws banning heresy, and even possibly imposing the death penalty as long as it wasn’t burning at the stake (if I understand you correctly, which I hope I don’t), should political and social circumstances once again favor such legislation.

I hope someone brings that up in RCIA

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Actually your original point was…"A person may believe the Catholic Church to be the true Church while believing that this particular stance will turn out not to be the permanent teaching of the Church."

“…this particular stance…” = homosexuality/SSM (Topic of thread)

Come on Edwin PhD…do you really contend that the Church will change it’s “stance” on homosexuality or the definition of marriage??

No. I would put the probability low but not at zero–maybe 10%. More like 30% for women’s ordination, I think.

However, even if I did put the probability of such a change at 0% or so close as made no difference, that would not affect the truth of the claim you quoted.

I am speaking of what a person may believe with intellectual and moral integrity, not of what I myself believe.

Thomas Woods believes that the papal statements on a just wage go beyond the proper parameters of Church teaching and thus may be rejected.

I disagree with him. But he is a man of intelligence and integrity, as far as I can tell, as are many people who believe things I don’t believe.

Yes, you probably know the difference between affirming and condemning. Just remember that popes do not condemn what the Church affirms or affirm what the Church condemns.

And yet you thought, quite understandably, that the Church was affirming the things said by Quesnel.

Because, as far as I can see, the Church does now affirm those things. Yet the Pope condemned them. Clearly not infallibly. But he did condemn them.

Edwin

 

[Rau]

…Thomas Woods believes that the papal statements on a just wage go beyond the proper parameters of Church teaching and thus may be rejected.

I don’t know that document, but the topic does not sound doctrinal. It sounds prudential. The obligation to act justly, and not to defraud (James 5:4) sounds doctrinal. Statements about how a very specific set of economic relationships and circumstances align with justness sounds prudential.

 

[Thorolfr]

I don’t know that document, but the topic does not sound doctrinal. It sounds prudential. The obligation to act justly, and not to defraud (James 5:4) sounds doctrinal. Statements about how a very specific set of economic relationships and circumstances align with justness sounds prudential.

doctrinal vs. prudential…it all sounds like part of the Catholic jungle that C.S. Lewis was talking about…

 

[ctb95]

doctrinal vs. prudential…it all sounds like part of the Catholic jungle that C.S. Lewis was talking about…

Catholic jungle? I think if C.S. Lewis were alive today, he would be more horrified by the Anglican jungle which faced him.

 

[Rau]

doctrinal vs. prudential…it all sounds like part of the Catholic jungle that C.S. Lewis was talking about…

Does the concept truly cause you confusion, or was that just a snarky remark?

 

[Thorolfr]

Does the concept truly cause you confusion, or was that just a snarky remark?

It just seems to me that some arguments and distinctions are overly convoluted. To say that the obligation not to defraud is doctrinal whereas a call to give “just wages” is only prudential does not make much sense to me. Isn’t giving just wages part of our obligation to act justly?

 

[Contarini]

It just seems to me that some arguments and distinctions are overly convoluted. To say that the obligation not to defraud is doctrinal whereas a call to give “just wages” is only prudential does not make much sense to me. Isn’t giving just wages part of our obligation to act justly?

Woods would say that the goal (that everyone should earn enough to support a family) is just and the Pope’s teaching on the moral goals/principles is binding, but that the way to get there (laws regulating wages) is not a proper subject for church teaching but rather for economic analysis.

The two papal documents that I know address this issue are Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno.

Really this should be its own thread. . . .

Edwin

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Leo and Clement condemned these propositions (which in both cases are clearly true and orthodox propositions, by the standards of modern Catholicism) because of their understanding of Church teaching.

Then could you, as a Church historian, please explain how two popes, who are infallible in their teaching of faith and morals make such a grave error.

We got into this because you were defending the horrific proposition that people who have trouble with some particular Church teaching should be encouraged to leave the Church.

All I said was* why join a club if you don’t like the rules?*

Quite frankly, those who reject Church teachings and speak out against them have essentially “left the Church” and need no encouragement. I know a lot of former Catholics who took Vatican II as “official” encouragement to leave.

My point is that, in fact, at many times in Church history it would have been right and proper to question things that sounded, at the time, like Church teaching.

It is right and proper, today, to question anything that “sounds” like Church teaching…but ain’t. It is also right and proper to question AUTHENTIC Church teaching to gain a better understanding. But once understood, it is not right and proper to reject authentic teachings as some of Jesus’ disciples did when they said: “…these are hard teachings. How can anyone follow them?”…and walked away.

Only “could be”? The damage you and those who argue like you do is demonstrably far beyond serious. Those of you who insist that anyone not matching your understanding of Church teaching should just leave are murderers of souls, if anything like the Catholic Church’s claims about itself is actually true.

Wow…murderers of souls. That’s a little heavy for just defending my Faith.:knight1:

I have personally sent several RCIA directors into tailspins, and am happy to teach other people how to do the same thing

Thats nothing to be proud of…

But of course I am not saying that “the popes contradict Church teaching all the time.”

I am saying that it is not always clear, at any given time, just what is or is not binding Church teaching.

Maybe its not clear because all the RCIA teachers are in tailspins.

There is a spectrum, from the Nicene Creed, which is clearly beyond question, all the way over to the American bishops’ statements on issues like immigration or health care. Anyone reading this who wants to know where the line is officially drawn in terms of what may be questioned and in what way should read this document.

Excellent document…and I agree that all should read it. I like the part about** adhering with submission of will and intellect to the teachings which either the Roman Pontiff or the College of Bishops enunciate when they exercise their authentic Magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim these teachings by a definitive act.**

But, you know, Edwin…I simply cannot lay my finger on the part that says: “Now, if any of the faithful do not agree, reject or expect the Church to change its mind…well its OK.”

So from the fact that capital punishment is sometimes licit, it follows that the Church should support whatever policies the state may have on the subject?

I really feel odd about pointing out Church history to a PhD in church history but…check your notes on the Council of Trent.

Bringing it up to today…The U.S. bishops have conceded that Catholic teaching has accepted the principle that the state has the right to take the life of a person guilty of an extremely serious crime.

Never mind that, in fact, Church officials and theologians explicitly supported the practice of executing heretics, as Leo’s condemnation of Luther shows, among other evidence.

See above.

also…

Did it ever occur to anyone that Luther was trying to save his own skin…? There was a good chance his actions could have led him before the High Inquisitor. No wonder he condemned the death penalty for heretics.

Historically, it has far more often been practiced by Christians, particularly by Catholics, than by Muslims.

Burning at the stake…I don’t think so. England was doing worse to Catholics and priests long after the inquisition died down. Even in this country…Salem Mass. Heck, Muslims burned a Jordanian pilot alive just last February. We haven’t beheaded or burned anyone in centuries…

Again, we clearly have different ideas about what damages the Church’s credibility.

I’ll say

You are saying that you would support laws banning heresy, and even possibly imposing the death penalty as long as it wasn’t burning at the stake (if I understand you correctly, which I hope I don’t), should political and social circumstances once again favor such legislation.

I hope someone brings that up in RCIA

I was responding to your absurd conjecture in a similar manner. But the more I think about it…a law banning heresy would not be objectionable.

 

[Rau]

It just seems to me that some arguments and distinctions are overly convoluted. To say that the obligation not to defraud is doctrinal whereas a call to give “just wages” is only prudential does not make much sense to me. Isn’t giving just wages part of our obligation to act justly?

I did not express the false dichotomy you point too. One should not defraud. One should act justly. But what makes a wage just? Without reading the document, neither of us can be certain about the nature of what was written. But surely the principal that says doctrine and judgement are distinct things is not controversial? That a wage be “just” is one thing, but what constitutes just in what set of circumstances is unlikely to become doctrinal.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

How old are you? Just curious.

mid 40s

 

[catholic1seeks]

Well, I wouldn’t put it that strongly. I simply take it as a mockery of a beautiful traditional institution.The re-definition of which only serves to promote the the social acceptance of a deviant form of sexual behavior.

As much as I disagree with you and have problems with your approach and tone sometimes, I’m thankful you don’t see gay marriage as being thrown at your face as others have phrased it lately on this thread. Two people getting married, generally, has no affect on another person personally. It especially not something shoved in another’s face. I’m willing to bet big bucks that most gay couples don’t give a rat’s bottom about what someone who so opposes them thinks.

 

[Contarini]

I have started a new thread on the Non-Catholic Religions forum: “Should dissenting Catholics be encouraged to leave the Church?”

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

As much as I disagree with you and have problems with your approach and tone sometimes, I’m thankful you don’t see gay marriage as being thrown at your face as others have phrased it lately on this thread. Two people getting married, generally, has no affect on another person personally. It especially not something shoved in another’s face. I’m willing to bet big bucks that most gay couples don’t give a rat’s bottom about what someone who so opposes them thinks.

Well it is true that I don’t see ssm as being thrown in my face…but since it is a mockery of marriage itself…I am very much offended.

Don’t get me wrong…I DO blame the Supreme Court for “shoving it down our throats”…not throwing it in my face.

 

[Graceful_Lamb]

Yes because gays’ being able to marry really is a load of crud being thrown at your face, isn’t it.

To me, it is.

 

[catholic1seeks]

To me, it is.

Aw, poor you.

 

[Jerome1974]

This may seem a bit off topic, but pay attention here. Your question title asks about the CHURCH and forms a loaded question because answering the question it requires the reader to accept the premise that the CHURCH is “obsessed with…”. Any answer you get will serve to confirm the implicit conclusion in your premise. This is why loaded questions are logical fallacies.

I do not mean to be pedantic here; I assure you of that. I merely believe that there is a dearth of critical thought and rational discourse many issues in American society today, particularly this one! Just say that you don’t support gay marriage in public and roll video on the vitriolic responses you get. It’d be great for YouTube!

I can only speak for my own parish, but I have heard very little about the issue in homilies: a lot less than I should have I believe.

As for the apparent, actual focus of your question, it’s a very timely issue with a lot of social engineering behind it that affects a lot of people. Assuming that the radio shows, podcasts, etc. do talk a lot about it, I believe this is a good thing. Because of the aforementioned emotion that the issue carries, on all sides (and the fact that people make decisions based on emotion over reason these days), I believe that it’s important for Catholics to learn as much about it as possible if for no other reason than to be able to counter straw man fallacies, which are increasingly rife where our faith is concerned. A much darker reason we need to start speaking up can be explained by a study of the character Benjamin in the novel Animal Farm.

 

[1990Domer]

There are some very good posts one this thread. Perhaps the Catholic Church is “obsessed” (not my words, as I do not think it is) with SSM because of articles such as this:

illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

And yes, I admit, these articles scare me as well. I feel entrapped.

 

[at9009]

I can only speak for my own parish, but I have heard very little about the issue in homilies: a lot less than I should have I believe.

As for the apparent, actual focus of your question, it’s a very timely issue with a lot of social engineering behind it that affects a lot of people. Assuming that the radio shows, podcasts, etc. do talk a lot about it, I believe this is a good thing. Because of the aforementioned emotion that the issue carries, on all sides (and the fact that people make decisions based on emotion over reason these days), I believe that it’s important for Catholics to learn as much about it as possible if for no other reason than to be able to counter straw man fallacies, which are increasingly rife where our faith is concerned

I don’t think the problem is that there is a lot of talk about this particular issue. The problem is it kind of seems like its the only sexual sin issue that is ever discussed. In the U.S. we have rampant contraceptive use (even by many Catholics), divorce with remarriage, and a hook-up culture with the younger generation (Just to name a few). But these are rarely ever talked about. It almost feels like saying they’ve accepted these sins in our society and are okay it but draw the line on this issue (which kind of feels like a double standard). It creates the pereception that the church doesn’t view those sins as serious but treats this issue as a higher or worse sin. I don’t believe the the Church or the supportive organizations have that mentality, but the perception is there.

 

[Jerome1974]

One of the first replies to the thread had a good take on that:

I dont know, but I wonder if it would have came to this if they would have concentrated on premarital sex, remarriage, cohabitation and all that when it was fresh and new. Now it’s like putting the horse back in the barn. Plus their not addressing all these other issues so it looks like their discriminating against gays and lesbians. But the truth is, the same rules apply to everyone.

It is pretty typical of modern American society to focus almost exclusively on an issue until the media comes up with another one to hold our attention for a little while, and then a different one… For example, can you recall the news headlines on September 10, 2001? I actually do–you would have thought it was the summer of shark attacks or of Chandra Levy/Gary Condit–and I hear you. Perhaps this is another answer to the poster’s question. Although, I do advise readers to do some research on him and look at how often he posts on this issue in particular. It makes one wonder who is REALLY obsessed with the issue.