Posted on 06/28/2015 2:23:52 PM PDT by NYer
If you are a Catholic, chances are you may be bombarded with questions at your local cookout this weekend, thanks to the Supreme Court decision on same-sex marriage today. In case you are a little rusty, here are a few talking points on what the Catholic Church does and does not teach regarding same-sex marriage. I base much of this on the amicus brief submitted by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for Obergefell vs. Hodges. If you find yourself at all struggling to understand or to explain the Church’s stance on same-sex marriage and want a more detailed read, I highly encourage you to read this thoughtful and respectfully written document, which you can find here. The document seeks to shed light on why the Church believes that the definition of marriage should not be changed, and its authors draw on a variety of sources, not “just” religious conviction.
First and foremost, "the legal definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman is not based on hatred, bigotry, or animus." (USCCB amicus brief, pg 16) The section on homosexuality in the Catechism of the Catholic Church opens with the admonition that “any sign of unjust discrimination” toward homosexual people is not to be tolerated. Indeed, we recall that Christ loved all people—especially those whom society scorned. When, for example, Jesus encountered the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned to death for her crime, he didn’t judge her, but instead told her to “go forth and sin no more” (John 8). It follows, then, that we could not expect a faith founded on unconditional love of all—even one’s enemies—to preclude extending that love to people who are attracted to people of the same sex. Despite the Gospel message, people are always surprised to know that the Church doesn’t “hate gay people,” because this is all too often the characterization that they see in the mainstream culture.
The brief goes on to explain, then, that “declining to accord a sexual relationship between two men or two women the benefits of marriage is not a reflection of bias or animus of any kind. Rather, it is a common sense reflection of the fact that such relationships do not result in the birth of children, or establish households where a child will be raised by its birth mother and father.” (page 16)
For Catholics, marriage is certainly about “intimate association” and “the hope of companionship,” as argued in the majority opinion of Obergefell vs. Hodges, but marriage is also linked intrinsically to the procreation and education of children. This, too, is a seemingly foreign concept for many of us today. The “contraceptive culture” has left us believing that the main function of our reproductive systems is not, in fact, to reproduce, but is rather for the pursuit of pleasure or intimacy, or sometimes both. The Catholic Church teaches (as enumerated in Pope Paul VI’s landmark encyclical Humanae Vitae) that sex within marriage has two purposes: the unitive and procreative. If we eliminate one of these purposes—or both, as the hook-up culture tends to— we are left with a physical union of bodies, devoid of any transcendent meaning. Sex and babies are so separated in the modern mind that it is exceedingly challenging to describe why and how marriage is more than two people who love each other, but that it is a conjugal union that exists in part for the creation and education of new people.
The USCCB amicus brief explains how this is relevant not only from a religious purview, but from that of the state: “as a matter of simple biology, only sexual relationships between men and women can lead to the birth of children by natural means. As these relationships alone may generate new life, the state has a distinct interest in reinforcing these relationships alone, particularly to assure responsible childbearing and the protection of children’s interests.” (6) This is why, as Justice Kennedy had mentioned during the initial hearings, marriage has been viewed as a permanent union between a man and a woman for millennia.
Finally, we must recall the main tenets of Christ’s message: human dignity, love, justice, and respect for life in all of its stages. Is all of this teaching a farce? Now that this issue has been decided by the Court rather than by the people themselves, it is more important now than ever to foster dialogue about this issue. We need to be willing to discuss the uncomfortable, to try to explain where much of this teaching comes from, so that others know and understand that the Church’s position here is not based on hatred or discrimination. If we do not take this opportunity, we lose the ability for an honest dialogue and faith-filled people will be dismissed as bigots rather than as people who are seeking to work out their faith “with fear and trembling.” (Phil 2:12)
Contrary to popular belief, Catholics do believe that #lovewins. We call it the Resurrection.
Love Archbishop Sheen!
It’s just a matter of time, six months maybe, before Pope Francis throws another cup of confusion into the mix. I expect him to make some sort of vague remark that appears to sanction gay marriage, or at the least, refuses to condemn it.
But, how can that be? His holyness, the quack justice of the church of what is happening now . . . Justice Kennedy the Great . . . has determined that all people of faith are haters !!!!!
Homosexuals are like little children, mentally. “if I can’t have it my way and now, you must HATE me!”
The problem this explanation has to solve is if the procreation is primary and the inability to procreate an obstacle to marriage, why does the Church celebrate the marriage of seniors.? My mother in law passed on at 66 in 1990. My father in law remarried in 93 at the age of 68. His partner was 57. The marriage was at a nuptial Mass in a church in the Diocese of Brooklyn. Now when I was in grade school studying the Baltimore Catechism I learned that the inability to reproduce was an impediment not an obstacle to marriage. An impediment could be overcome with Church approval. If this entry is the Church’s legal response to refusing to recognize same sex marriage they will have a problem
I guess they encourage marriage among the elderly so as to keep the old geezers from shacking up.
As they do down here in FL in The Villages.
Huge STD problem with the elderly in the Villages.
And I don't mean Doctorate of Sacred Theology.
You could go so far as to call them The Village People.
Ever hear of Abraham and Sarah? Zachariah and Elizabeth?
Matrimony is a sacrament of the Church like baptism or the Holy Eucharist. For Catholics marriage is not a mere contract but a means of grace. Its ministers are the man and wife. The priest is the official representative of the Church at this public ceremony.
Your mother at 66 was past menopause, thus the ‘impediment’ would be natural. She and her new husband should have been able to have natural carnal relations, just would, most likely, not result in children. As opposed to two men having ‘carnal relations’ that are impossible to create off-spring.
Let's take this analogy.
Imagine a senior citizens baseball team that shows up to play the St. Louis Cardinals. They have absolutely no chance of achieving the proper end of baseball (gaining more runs than the other team), but so long as they play according to the rules, their play is still ordered to its proper end.
But in the case of SSM, the play itself is changed. It would be like 2 teams showing up at the game without bats, wanting to play with their backs to each other so that even if they have the "intent" of winning a baseball game, what they are doing can't possibly be ordered to that end because they are, quite simply, no longer playing baseball.
So some married couples (the elderly, post-menopausal women, women post-hysterectomy, etc etc etc) may have sexual relations that are infertile, but their acts will always still be ordered towards life. While they have zero chance of conceiving, their marital embrace is still ordered towards the proper end of marriage: procreation and union.
Yes, whereas God has performed miracles with elderly heterosexual couples, He has never performed same miracle for a homocouple.
Nice. I like that.
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. Leviticus 18:22If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them. Leviticus 20:13
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
(And, in a related subject...)
A woman shall not wear anything that pertains to a man, nor shall a man put on a woman’s garment; for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God. Deuteronomy 22:5
The Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees, saying that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered" (Paragraph #2357), and that homosexual practices are "sins gravely contrary to chastity" (Paragraph #2396).
Again, this is not talking just about homosexual marriage, but about homosexual acts and practices.
You are looking at things backwards. The primary purpose of marriage is to accommodate the children who are normally the “fruit” of the sexual union. Only a man and a woman can produce children. This is why the state becomes involved because of its future citizens. It has no interest in “Love”. An affectionate relationship between two men or two women is called a friendship. If a same-sex couple adopts a child, this is really a joint-guardianship. Whether or not they have sex is now immaterial to their relationship with the child.
Wow!
The Church does seem to be pussy-footing around Paul’s strong language in Romans 1: 18-31. Without more than anecdotal evidence, I conclude that it bass to do with the embarrassing number of homosexual priests. Many of these are good and even saintly men,but the exceptions prove the rule.
A rock that falls from a cliff will finally come to rest even if no one is there to record the event.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.