E
- Status
F
fix
Guest
Note the terminology - “minor attracted”. This is like a replay. First change the language. Then demand equal “rights”. Claim discrimination.
R
RevDon
Guest
I agree with you that western culture and American culture were formed through the benefit of a Christian perspective. Sadly, we can no longer claim ascendance. Part of the reason is that a significant portion of Europe and America (U.S. and Canada) were not formed in Christianity.
Another serious argument can be made that Christianity failed to consistently take the point in making her teaching obvious and applicable to people’s lives. American Secularists are not people who come to the U.S. from foreign lands, they are people who were born here, some who were never churched, and some who fled a church. If Christianity is to have any influence, it will come about only because she can make a convincing argument to people based on life experience. Appeals to tradition and to scripture won’t mean much to people who have no foundation in these things.
That’s why I believe a forum such as this is so valuable, and why I think there is value in hammering out all the arguments.
The Catholic Church was at one time the leader in the world for using intelligent discourse to win hearts and minds, but somewhere along the line, she turned in another direction, and resorted to power as a tool to create conformity. That won’t work today, and it doesn’t seem that the Vatican wants to engage in a discussion with the modern world, so I guess it’s up to us.
S
StevenFrancis
Guest
In the deepest sense, this is really all we are, or even can be doing as a Church. I think that’s all we’re saying. There is evidence that we are duty bound to vote for moral behavior in our culture and our society when we can, the resulting laws are just caesar’s laws. 51% of the voting public vote for immorality in the U.S. and Western Europe currently. The tide may tip the other way eventually. But not without some degree of evangelism. There is no reason for Catholic citizens to not speak the truth, any more than there is a reason for moral relativists to speak their self-convenient immorality. We all need to be tolerant of our fellow human beings, and I believe Catholics ARE deeply tolerant of our neighbors. But tolerance doesn’t equal assent. We have, what we firmly believe to be God’s unchanging truth and law. We believe these orthodox ideals deserve a place at the table of public discourse. The moral conscience left by Christ on earth until he returns again. We are in the unenviable position of speaking the truth, but being civilly obedient to caesar as well. We take a third path which is neither fight nor flight. We just stand firm, and won’t be changed to something which is not of Christ. As individual persons, we are all responsible for our own love of our neighbor. No Catholic ought to be singling out any other sinner for ridicule, cruel treatment, meanness, or whatever. We must all be Christ to each other. God is love. Christ is love. But we must also always speak the truth. Love isn’t just saying “yes” to everything a culture does. Love involves caring enough about someone to tell them “no”, as well. Because you don’t want them to hurt themselves. Not physically or spiritually. We see things through a worldview of what is and what has always been. What will be, as well. I pray that someday, the heterodox mind will be given the grace to understand the real concept and idea behind the orthodox position of hate the sin, love the sinner. But then, nobody ever claimed that the Catholic position is easy. Neither to live or impart.
R
RevDon
Guest
There is some value in what you suggest. In many places, France for example, a couple are joined at a government office. Then, if they choose to do so, they celebrate in a religious ceremony. Note: I was careful not to label either of those “get married” because I’m not sure where that bond takes place. The Catholic Church says that the essential sacramental act of getting married is for a couple to exchange vows. Then on top of that, the Church list a number of conditions (in a church, in front of a priest, etc., all of which can be dispensed. So the exchange of vows is the thing.
Your reference to the widespread occurrence of divorce is worth looking at. What is society doing to prepare couples for marriage? What about helping through the rocky times? I think not much. Perhaps a couple should have to pass some kind of test that would indicate their readiness for marriage and their firm intention to live out a life-long commitment before they can get a license.
F
fix
Guest
The only thing in the way is age of consent and that can be lowered.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
which country are you referring to?
T
The_Bucket
Guest
This is very, very well said.
R
RevDon
Guest
StevenFrancis,
Thank you for these words. Yes, Catholics have a civil duty to promote what is good and moral and to oppose evil and immorality.
While traditional teaching for Catholics has made clear the line where acceptable and unacceptable part (Catholics are very good at drawing those lines), Catholics have not sufficiently entered the public arena to engage in the conversation that helps others to understand why some things are good and others are bad. Traditionally Catholics just stand up and repeat their conclusions without leading others through the process whereby those conclusions were reached. At the very least it is uncharitable to do that, at worst, it is an abandonment of the tradition of scholarship that made the Church great. This generation is blowing it–through laziness? through ignorance? through fear?
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
How do you make the leap from heterosexual/homoesexual marriage to all of those in your list? Sometimes law takes a long time to give people rights. It’s late but welcomed, I am sure you will agree.
R
RevDon
Guest
And until this century nobody flew in an airplane. Times have changed, the make-up of society has changed. This is not to say that the values of past ages are wrong, only to say that they need to be adequately explained so that a new generation will see the good in them.
Please, let’s not get into the slippery slope argument.
A
aprilfloyd
Guest
L
Linux
Guest
Come on now. You’re crossing the line.
R
RevDon
Guest
Stephen, you are getting to the place where your tone is offensive. It is not my duty to carry this conversation.
I will say that my definition of marriage must include the following:
- between two people (no more than that)
- Participants must be mature
3, Participants must freely enter into the relationship - Participants must be monogamous
- Participants must intend a lifetime commitment
- Participants must treat each other with love and respect
S
silentfactor80
Guest
The slippery slope argument is totally relevant because what we are addressing is social order. In Canada (they legalized homosexual equivalency), polyamorists are already working for their rights now (polyadvocacy.ca/canadian-polyamory-advocates-confirm-national-focus-on-awareness). The bottom line is whatever the government says is ok ends up in school curricula and forced upon children. Two parents are no longer a potent enough force to influence their kids behavior. With the advent of social media society at large now raises the ideas in kids heads.
C
clem456
Guest
There are no objective factors there to compare with the fact that human beings exist because of sexual differentiation.
Under your scenario above, anything goes. You are truly basing marriage on your opinion. If I think polygamy qualifies, you have no foundation to deny me.
S
speakttruth
Guest
We don’t need to work out anything. A false premise does not require a rational answer. You won’t be getting anything but the right - non-religious - answer here. And quit bothering us, OK? Send a letter to the Vatican or read this if you are so concerned about what the Church thinks:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
See number 4.
Ed
T
The_Bucket
Guest
Well in my opinion, that’s just too darn bad. We can’t use the “protect the children” excuse. We can’t use the “the government is forcing this on us” excuse. The culture has changed. Period and full stop. No matter what its taught in school, kids are going to see this. Just like how my parents generation saw no-fault divorce become a thing.
We should not sit here and kvetch “our kids are going to be told this is OK!” Hey, I went to public school. I had public school health class in eighth grade. Did that keep me from knowing what was right and wrong when it comes to sexuality? No.
My kids are going to grow up in a world where homosexuality is not just tolerated, it’s celebrated. And it’s going to be my job to explain to them that homosexual acts are sinful but we should treat everyone with compassion, respect and dignity because we’re all God’s children.
Honestly, how different is it today versus the 1950s when the overreach was on the other side? In the 1950s the freaking federal government was keeping tabs on “suspected homosexuals” and monitoring their actions. Public spaces were kept basically “gay free” and many private establishments barred those suspected of being homosexual. This is outside of the McCarthy craziness and segregation.
You see my point? The pendulum has swung dramatically to the other side but it’s not like the public morality of the 1950s was anything close to Christ-like. Christ would not and did not keep those who engaged in sexual sin from coming to Him and listening to His word. He reached out to social pariahs and outcasts. He would never have favored anything as disgusting as racial segregation.
Toleration for the sake of toleration is not a virtue, but respect for the dignity of all men most certainly is.
R
RevDon
Guest
I understand the concern that comes from that observation, and I don’t think you are totally wrong to bring it up. My concern is that we need to evaluate each issue on its own merits, and in this posting we are talking about non-sacramental civil gay marriage.
It would not be wrong to offer the opinion that a potential harm of allowing civil gay marriage is that it could lead to the other things you named. But please, let’s not get into detailed discussions about those.
Your point is well made, In a world that doesn’t do what we are trying to do – give a deep treatment of the issue–all kinds of things can and do slip in unnoticed, uncriticized.
- Status