Seeker I would agree to a certain point about rights, but why are they creating civil unions? In a progression that leads to SSM which they have already proved that they wanted that all along. Also to undermine Marriage.I am refraining from returning the level of rudeness that you exhibit in your response to me. Signing “best” doesn’t erase that tone, sir.
United States civil law is not made based on the religious traditions of ANY faith. Religion has nothing to do with civil law. Civil law is based on the common good for all citizens-thus laws are made to prohibit crimes like murder, and theft. Those laws may sound similar to religious rules, but they are not the same.
There are citizens in America who are not Catholic, not Christian, not followers of any religious tradition at all-and they have the exact same rights as those who are Catholic, Christian and who do follow a religion.
What I have grown to understand is that if I want my rights protected, then I must stand up for the rights of others-even when their choices are very different from my own.
Very well said I always have a hard time articulating that the way I want to.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.
Bucket,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.
I would agree that many of the proponents of same-sex unions want marriage. They proceed in this way because that is the structure of our society. Yes, they have an ulterior motive: to enjoy the privileged and benefits and even the struggles of married life in exactly the same way as heterosexual couples do, with the acceptance of society.Seeker I would agree to a certain point about rights, but why are they creating civil unions? In a progression that leads to SSM which they have already proved that they wanted that all along. Also to undermine Marriage.
So how is this for the common good when they have an ulterior motive? Do you really believe that they just wanted to stop there?
Is morals only about religion or the common good?
Just a few thoughts
GB
I can’t argue with the general thrust of what you are trying to say, but the bolded is a huge point of discussion. It gets right at common sense and natural law.**This is not a world in which things are merely obviously right or wrong. ** To think so is adolescent thinking. To discover the degree of rightness or wrongness we need to weigh out things like benefit and harm. I don’t think it is moral to harm even one individual if the benefit of the balance of society doesn’t at least demand that. I also believe (as I think the Founding Fathers did) that human beings properly informed are basically good, so that they should be allowed the maximum amount of freedom.
I concur. Things are obviously right and obviously wrong. Determining the relative weight and culpability of and for the sins on others’ souls is far more difficult, but fortunately we are explicitly forbidden from doing that.I can’t argue with the general thrust of what you are trying to say, but the bolded is a huge point of discussion. It gets right at common sense and natural law.
That is the Standard Operating Procedure. Am I missing something or is this 90% about sex or 100%?Note the terminology - “minor attracted”. This is like a replay. First change the language. Then demand equal “rights”. Claim discrimination.
You missed my point number 1There 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.
Is this about same sex civil marriages?That is the Standard Operating Procedure. Am I missing something or is this 90% about sex or 100%?
Ed
Oh, sorry, I did not read that iin context.You missed my point number 1
I would hardly say anything goes. A great deal does not “go”
I will agree that for the continuation of our species it is necessary that men and women mate. I think it’s better if they are married and meet all of the criteria I suggested in my list. Hooray for kids!
Don’t apologize. I need to be challenged.Oh, sorry, I did not read that iin context.
I agree the laity does not understand things, we could debate the causes. It takes a tremendous amount ot time and effort to understand the underlying principles of Church teaching. Most people are not spending their afternoons on a message board like we are here. You could say “just listen to the Church”, but no, we need to be shown, but on our schedule and with minimum amount of effort. If I had just listened to the Church, life would have been a lot better for me and a few other people.Clem and Bucket,
Fortunately, there are probably a lot of things that are clearly right or wrong, but others are not. We say murder is wrong, yet we execute criminals. The whole abortion- for- the- life- of- the- mother argument is another example. Or how about this:
It is now possible to perform testing on a foetus to determine if the child will be misformed or be born with defects. If thise defects are discovered they may be treated more effectively in utero so that the child will be healthy at birth. That same testing might lead to the decision to abort the child. Is it moral to do the testing?
Please don’t reply to the examples, if you want to reply, talk to my assertion that it’s not easy to arrive at moral decisions.
My point is, it’s a whole lot easier for us as individuals or as a society to leave the discussion of morality and public policy to others, but as citizens of this kind of country (I’d like to say democracy, but I’m sure that somebody would turn my argument into a discussion of that) we have responsibility to reach and help form public opinion.
If you will permit me a short rant about the Catholic Church. For too long the Church has gone in the direction of clericalism, where the ordained dictated opinions to the laity, who didn’t understand them, but accepted them. That made Catholics intellectually lazy.
I think your “woman” example is pretty good, but I think there have been people born for whom gender is not clear. They are rare, but they exist and present people (at least their families) with some tough decisions.I agree the laity does not understand things, we could debate the causes. It takes a tremendous amount ot time and effort to understand the underlying principles of Church teaching. Most people are not spending their afternoons on a message board like we are here. You could say “just listen to the Church”, but no, we need to be shown, but on our schedule and with minimum amount of effort. If I had just listened to the Church, life would have been a lot better for me and a few other people.
People do have a difficult time making moral decisions. But honestly,in most cases the right course of action is fairly clear, if you understand the teaching. The definition of marriage is not even a matter of making a decision, a marriage just is. It can’t be something that it’s not.
For instance: I am not a woman. You can redefine the term woman all you want and say that I should be able to grow breasts and have children but changing the definition does not change the reality that I am a man. When we deny basic realities, we have chaos.
I heartily concur. It most certainly is not necessary for every lay person to know his or her catechism back and forth or be able to explain just war theory or the principle of double effect in order to attain salvation. And frankly, given that most of the members of the Church are poor and uneducated, I think it’s a total impossibility. In these cases the laity are called to indeed accept what clerics told them. If the clerics are in error, and deliberately in error, then the sin is on them, not your poor Catholic in Africa who is working day and night to avoid starvation and does not have the luxury of brushing up on the finer points of theology.I agree the laity does not understand things, we could debate the causes. It takes a tremendous amount ot time and effort to understand the underlying principles of Church teaching. Most people are not spending their afternoons on a message board like we are here. You could say “just listen to the Church”, but no, we need to be shown, but on our schedule and with minimum amount of effort. If I had just listened to the Church, life would have been a lot better for me and a few other people.
People do have a difficult time making moral decisions. But honestly,in most cases the right course of action is fairly clear, if you understand the teaching. The definition of marriage is not even a matter of making a decision, a marriage just is. It can’t be something that it’s not.
For instance: I am not a woman. You can redefine the term woman all you want and say that I should be able to grow breasts and have children but changing the definition does not change the reality that I am a man. When we deny basic realities, we have chaos.
It’s not a big leap. You mentioned discrimination against gays when it comes to marriage. We discriminate against all those other groups as well. Close relatives are not allowed to marry , polygamists are not allowed to marry, pederasts are not allowed to marry, nor pedophiles. So it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of age, or blood relation, or number of partners, but not on the basis of the sex of the partner? Not only that, but as I’ve noted before, same sex partners have no capacity to engage in marital relations, thereby making the whole concept of ‘same sex marriage’ a contradiction.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.
I try never to state what other people might have as their motivations, but yes, those who have been charged to preserve truth, the leaders of the flock, have done a poor job of it.I heartily concur. It most certainly is not necessary for every lay person to know his or her catechism back and forth or be able to explain just war theory or the principle of double effect in order to attain salvation. And frankly, given that most of the members of the Church are poor and uneducated, I think it’s a total impossibility. In these cases the laity are called to indeed accept what clerics told them. If the clerics are in error, and deliberately in error, then the sin is on them, not your poor Catholic in Africa who is working day and night to avoid starvation and does not have the luxury of brushing up on the finer points of theology.
So I don’t think it’s a matter of “laziness.” There are a lot of people out there and, let’s face it, most of them are not high intellectuals. As a for instance, it’s tough to explain to many people why it’s OK to surgically deal with an ectopic pregnancy but impermissible to medically treat it with methotrexate. I mean, the same thing is happening, right? An unborn child is dying to save the life of the mother. Trying to explain double effect is quite difficult even to highly intellectual people.
So yes, arriving at moral decisions is difficult because not everyone knows all of the teachings. And in those cases, ignorance on the matter protects people from sin.
When it comes to the Church here in America, I think you’re wrong in terms of the source of the problem. I don’t think the issue is broad-based ignorance. Honestly, I think it’s mainly the fault of an absolutely horrible generation of priests and bishops who were so busy covering up their own crimes, protesting vehemently against Humane Vitae and using Vatican II as an excuse to change the Church in America into whatever the heck they wanted it to be that they utterly failed to provide any pastoral guidance to the flock whatsoever.
I think there is a better understanding today than there was 30 years ago that the Church is against contraception, for instance. I don’t think many people understand it and I can see why they would be hesitant to just accept whatever the clergy tell them. After all, the clergy in this country have pretty well undermined their moral authority as people. I believe a new orthodox generation that is also unafraid of transparency will help make the Church heal here. We may lose a few more members before the necessary repairs are complete, but they are well underway.
Jim,It’s not a big leap. You mentioned discrimination against gays when it comes to marriage. We discriminate against all those other groups as well. Close relatives are not allowed to marry , polygamists are not allowed to marry, pederasts are not allowed to marry, nor pedophiles. So it’s okay to discriminate on the basis of age, or blood relation, or number of partners, but not on the basis of the sex of the partner? Not only that, but as I’ve noted before, same sex partners have no capacity to engage in marital relations, thereby making the whole concept of ‘same sex marriage’ a contradiction.
Now, many things have changed throughout the course of history, as same sex marriage advocates keep pointing out. What has not changed is human biology, human nature, the fact of men and women, the fact of sexual complementarity, the need of children for mothers and fathers.
And no, it’s not welcomed, because it’s a sign that our society has lost its way, not recognizing reality, a sure sign that it is headed for the dustbin of history.
When I say orthodoxy, I mean adhering to the doctrine of the Church. I mean saying that contraception is not licit as opposed to “well the Church says it’s wrong but we’re all called to follow our conscience” **** that was spewed for decades.As for orthodoxy, that requires another definition, and don;t get me going…
This simply isn’t right RevDon. While sometimes the harm is clear to see, as in the cases of say, murder, assault, theft and adultery… the harm is more difficult to see in say, masturbation, pornography, sex outside of marriage, lack of prayer, missing required church services, self-centeredness and greed.Try the “harm” test.