With Gay Marriage being allowed will the Catholic Church Change

[CopticChristian]

It’s ironic that people keep referencing slavery, since the defenders of slavery used the Bible and Christian theology as the basis for their defense. So did the abolitionists, of course, but I imagine this is cold comfort to folks who think they can divine moral precepts from their religion.

Giants,

You confuse the Protestants that used the Bible and theology. This is the CAF where Sola Scriptura/Bible alone is not relevant to answers or defense.

 

[Tony_the_mad]

The Catholic Church did not change when civil divorce became legal. I very much doubt that it will change its rules on same sex marriage where/when civil same sex marriage becomes legal.

At most it might reduce the level of campaigning it does and move on to other things. How many Catholic anti-divorce demonstrations do you see compared to anti-gay marriage demonstrations? The level of campaigning will eventually reduce to the same as the anti-divorce campaign, though the doctrine will not change.

$0.02

rossum

I wish we had most posts like this one, for it hits the nail on the head.

Unfortunately, people often confuse legal with moral. There are plenty of issues that are legal but immoral, adultery and marriage after divorce are the two biggest along with premarital sex. I can make the list a lot longer if you wish. (I don’t include abortion because, in my opinion it should be illegal.) Personally, I include same sex ‘marriage’ in the same category as marriage after divorce; immoral, but we probably should not make it illegal. “The avalanche has begun, it is too late for the pebble to vote” It is easy to make the argument that same-sex marriage is much less destructive than divorce which leaves a trail of broken families whose kids often, but not always, pay a huge price.

Unfortunately, the Church has stopped fighting (at least as hard as it should) against adultery, divorce, premarital sex, etc.

 

[Giants]

But that’s exactly what the OP was suggesting - that the fact SSM has become legal (amkng other things of course) indicates that it is the Church that is somehow wrong and needs to reexamine its teaching. The title of the thread practically states it in so many words.

Well, take heart. It is illegal for the government to make any law respecting religion, so there will be no effort made to force your Church or anyone else’s to accept SSM.

 

[rossum]

What is really ironic is to claim some court is the authentic authority in these matters. Some judge may issue some ruling but reality does not change.

Courts are an authentic authority in matters of law. The Supreme Court of the United States is the authentic authority in matters of US law.

US law on marriage already differs from Catholic teaching in the matter of divorce and other details.

rossum

 

[LilyM]

Well, take heart. It is illegal for the government to make any law respecting religion, so there will be no effort made to force your Church or anyone else’s to accept SSM.

What, like there is no effort currently being made to force Church-run organisations to accept paying for abortion and contraception for their employees? Like making them pay fines if they choose to follow their religious beliefs is not an effort to force some to go against them?

 

[rossum]

What, like there is no effort currently being made to force Church-run organisations to accept paying for abortion and contraception for their employees? Like making them pay fines if they choose to follow their religious beliefs is not an effort to force some to go against them?

A “Church-run organisation” is not a church. Churches are free to discriminate on the grounds of sex – no women priests for example. Church-run organisations are not free to do so. If they want to appoint an accountant then they cannot reject a candidate for the post simply because she is female.

rossum

 

[LilyM]

A “Church-run organisation” is not a church. Churches are free to discriminate on the grounds of sex – no women priests for example. Church-run organisations are not free to do so. If they want to appoint an accountant then they cannot reject a candidate for the post simply because she is female.

rossum

Church-run organisations, oddly enough, are still staffed (at least partly) by Catholics. And Catholics are not the type to only adhere to our faith inside Church walls or leave its practice only to our priests.

Our faith is, as faith should be for all those who hold to a faith, a crucial part of every aspect of our lives, including whether we prescribe, assist in, or pay for, contraception and abortion, for ourselves and those we employ or pay for insurance for. Our faith, believe it or not, affects how we treat employees - we cannot condone their sin any more than our own!

And we are happy to hire women accountants - and indeed to obey and uphold the law in every other way that does not interfere with their religious teaching or punish them simply for being practicing Catholics!

How would you feel about a law that punished you for your Buddhist beliefs - for example if you were fined for publicly stating that you were Buddhist or possessing any Buddhist texts or paraphernalia - or even praying Buddhist prayers - and forced to do something Buddhists would find absolutely abhorrent, such as - I don’t know, eating meat at every meal or something?

 

[Lochias]

A “Church-run organisation” is not a church. Churches are free to discriminate on the grounds of sex – no women priests for example. Church-run organisations are not free to do so. If they want to appoint an accountant then they cannot reject a candidate for the post simply because she is female.

rossum

The law is telling those Church-run organizations that they and their employees are not allowed to stick to their religious convictions and beliefs outside of a Church building.

The law is, effectively, telling those employers how to think.

Truly, Big Brother is watching.

 

[rossum]

Church-run organisations, oddly enough, are still staffed (at least partly) by Catholics. And Catholics are not the type to only adhere to our faith inside Church walls or leave its practice only to our priests.

Our faith is, as faith should be for all those who hold to a faith, a crucial part of every aspect of our lives, including whether we prescribe, assist in, or pay for, contraception and abortion, for ourselves and those we employ or pay for insurance for. Our faith, believe it or not, affects how we treat employees - we cannot condone their sin any more than our own!

And we are happy to hire women accountants - and indeed to obey and uphold the law in every other way that does not interfere with their religious teaching or punish them simply for being practicing Catholics!

How does hiring a civil partnered homosexual as an accountant go against Catholic teaching? Given that a great number of people in the world are sinners – remarried divorcees for example – then what is the issue? If Catholic-run organisations never hired sinners then they would hardly have any employees.

How would you feel about a law that punished you for your Buddhist beliefs

I am already “punished”. My taxes are used to support wars, armies and nuclear weapons, all of which are against Buddhism. Marriages in a Buddhist temple are not officially recognised so Buddhist couples have to go to a Registry Office for a second state wedding in order to get legal recognition.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The law is telling those Church-run organizations that they and their employees are not allowed to stick to their religious convictions and beliefs outside of a Church building.

The law is, effectively, telling those employers how to think.

Truly, Big Brother is watching.

Does a business run by one of the "Aryan Nation"churches have the legal right to discriminate on racial grounds? The Church itself does, it can legally appoint only white ministers. The business does not have the legal right to discriminate. There are limits to religious freedom and it seems reasonable to draw those limits at the door of the church where there is a major effect on other people. I would consider refusal of a job to be a major effect in this case.

rossum

 

[LilyM]

How does hiring a civil partnered homosexual as an accountant go against Catholic teaching? Given that a great number of people in the world are sinners – remarried divorcees for example – then what is the issue? If Catholic-run organisations never hired sinners then they would hardly have any employees.

I am already “punished”. My taxes are used to support wars, armies and nuclear weapons, all of which are against Buddhism. Marriages in a Buddhist temple are not officially recognised so Buddhist couples have to go to a Registry Office for a second state wedding in order to get legal recognition.

rossum

Firstly - Buddhist marriages should be recognised. Are you guys out there kicking up a stink to make sure they are? Or do you care so little about your faith that you are happy to suffer this sort of discrimination?

Secondly - this issue of the state recognising same-sex marriage is not just a matter of accepting that individual are sinners. it is a matter of facilitating and legitimising that sin on an official level. The common response is similar to yours - ‘if SSM/contraception/abortion are contrary to your faith then just ignore the laws permitting them’. Uh - no. We go to a lot of effort to ensure that, for example, extremely violent or sexual TV is not shown free-to-air at times that young people are likely to be watching tv. We don’t say ‘well, Mum and Dad, just turn those shows off and everything will be fine’. Because it won’t be. And so we say certain rated tv has to wait until later at night when kids are asleep.

Now there is no corresponding action you can take with something as public as marriage. Marriage is designed to be a public acknowledgement and endorsement of a relationship. Without allowing it to be public it would hardly be a marriage - and being public it is a public danger.

 

[Regular_Atheist]

Regular,

If you conclude that my experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals then may I ask are you speaking from fact and knowledge or experience?

Common sense.

 

[Crescentinus]

Why is it that I see Chesterton in that statement of yours?

 

[Crescentinus]

Awesome!

If I recall correctly, G.K. Chesterton may have even foreseen the rise of homosexism.

 

[Crescentinus]

G.K. Chesterton had also foreseen the sexual “revolution” (read: devolution). I blame EWTN for introducing me to Chesterton.

I can say the same to my own homeland of the Philippines. Here, homosexism is the fringe among the GLBT community.

 

[fix]

And it was defended using the Bible. Just an example of faith being played on both sides of the board.

Just like people claim Christianity allows for homosexual acts. Disingenuous people abound.

A court is the legal authority, and like it or not, that is where the game is being played. Nobody’s suggesting that the courts have any jurisdiction over your Church’s view of such matters, and nobody is interested in changing your mind.

The court abuses its authority just like when slavery was allowed. That does not change reality. Wrong is wrong.

 

[fix]

Courts are an authentic authority in matters of law. The Supreme Court of the United States is the authentic authority in matters of US law.

US law on marriage already differs from Catholic teaching in the matter of divorce and other details.

rossum

Killing unborn children is legal. Discrimination based on race was legal. Slavery was legal. So, yes the court can and does abuse it’s authority. Is that your god?

 

[fix]

Common sense.

Among relativists.

 

[CopticChristian]

Common sense.

Regular,

You said in reference to my comments…

I don’t speak for homosexuals. I’m just saying that your experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals.

I asked…

If you conclude that my experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals then may I ask are you speaking from fact and knowledge or experience?

You say that you speak from common sense. You say you do not speak for homosexuals. You suggest that based on your common sense that my experiences do not say anything about the lives of so many homosexuals.

You are suggesting that you have something that allows you to criticize yet not be a voice. You are in contradiction in your mind. Your mind allows you to criticize others based on some innate quality you call common sense. This same common sense allows you to deny the existence of a creator as you are “regular athiest”.

You manifest some sort of egalatarian quality that you suggest is innate that allows you to express unfounded opinions and criticisms based on “i am me”.

Your common sense should be explained.

Were you born with common sense? Did you acquire common sense? Does everyone have common sense? Is common sense different from person to person?

Help me understand the source of your thinking.

 

[sedonaman]

I think it’s kind of situations like this when the claim of Catholics, or strong Christians in general, being bigoted (or, at least, the claim that they are attempting to dehumanize homosexuals) is justified. I find that this idea of all, or even most, homosexuals being deviant monsters that wish only for sex and feel only lust is absurd. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. It’s nothing more than a conspiracy theory - the claim that homosexual activists seek to do little more than turn the world into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah. Generally, the idea of an evil, anti-religion, anti-decency, anti-morality Homosexual Agenda is just an attempt to dehumanize them. After all, it’s hard to claim that Adam and Steve down the road are evil, vile, immoral perverts, but it’s very easy to say that about the Homosexual Agenda. …

The article sounded like the one Midwest88 was looking for, and all I did was offer it up. Something wrong with that?

When you consider that in the late '60s, gays said all they wanted was to be left alone, and what their demands are today, clearly there was an agenda to reach an ulterior motive. It doesn’t really take a genius to notice this. So the slippery-slope-is-a-fallacy argument doesn’t hold water.