Catholic Support of Gay Marriage?

[Yaatee]

How are they an apostate if the state does not force the Holy priesthood to marry homosexuals?

The state doesn't force priests to do anything.  Except pay taxes.  Get their cars registered.  C'mon.

[Ice_nine]

where you from yaatee?

[Yaatee]

where you from yaatee?

Iowa, born and bred.  Went to school on both coasts.

[Yaatee]

If you are Catholic, you believe in what the Church teaches on (a) the Sacrament of Matrimony, (b) the sinfulness of sodomy. These two points are incompatible with any support for 'gay marriage'. So it is inherently impossible for a Catholic to support 'gay marriage'; the moment he does, he becomes an apostate. 

If the question is why do people who identify as Roman Catholic and who attend Mass at least every Sunday support gay marriage, than the answer is that since the 1960s a large part of the Roman Catholic clergy has fallen into the heresy of Modernism and has misguided the faithful.

 

I would say that any RC who supports gay marriage within the RC is at variance with RC teachings.  The state can mayyr gay couples; it just decided to. Protests and Anglicans may decided to; they have.  However, it appears to be settled doctrine within the RC that gay sex is disordered and therefore the unions are, too  (tho' I think that a lot of gay couples, especially the older women, are celibate). 

I think that the reason that observant RC's support, or at least don't oppose gay unions has nothing to do with modernism.  Possibly priests avoid the issue from the pulpit, tho' the bishops don't, at least our archbishop doesn't (we're getting a new one--notice I keep track of these things.)  I think that a lot of straights now know gays, thru work or their neighborhoods, or meet couples they assume are gay, and see nothing wrong with them.  Gays, especially gay men, have been known to clean up neighborhoods and create thriving businesses, such as the Castro in San Francisco (neighborhood, before AIDS decimated it--it still is gay and probably thriving. It used to be a slum.)   A lot of people don't think in the abstract, they only know what they know, which is that the male couple with the nice house make-over on the end of the street, who make all that great food for the neighborhood get-togethers, are nice folks and they, the "people",  don't give a rat's ass (sorry) what they do in bed.

[Catlick]

I think that the reason that observant RC's support, or at least don't oppose gay unions has nothing to do with modernism.  Possibly priests avoid the issue from the pulpit, tho' the bishops don't, at least our archbishop doesn't (we're getting a new one--notice I keep track of these things.)  I think that a lot of straights now know gays, thru work or their neighborhoods, or meet couples they assume are gay, and see nothing wrong with them.  Gays, especially gay men, have been known to clean up neighborhoods and create thriving businesses, such as the Castro in San Francisco (neighborhood, before AIDS decimated it--it still is gay and probably thriving. It used to be a slum.)   A lot of people don't think in the abstract, they only know what they know, which is that the male couple with the nice house make-over on the end of the street, who make all that great food for the neighborhood get-togethers, are nice folks and they, the "people",  don't give a rat's ass (sorry) what they do in bed.

In a way you're right. Yet I think the popular judgment of homosexuality isn't quite objective. There exists a kind of a priori idea that homosexuals are good because their sex is by nature sterile (i.e. it is always without the result of conception); this absolute sterility allows them to perfectly practice the Sexual Revolution's core ideal of sex-with-no-consequences. This a priori idea makes people accept behavior that would be considered immoral among heterosexuals: e.g. leaving your wife and young kids for a new lover is often condemned in heterosexual cases, but when the adulterer has 'discovered' that he's gay and runs off with another sodomite, people praise his courage in overcoming the burdens of 'heterosexualist' family life. 

[CrossCuT]

Fair enough. I would think that only God truly knows whether someone is in a state of mortal sin. And I would think that only the Church can declare someone a heretic or an apostate. So I am not sure if you or me would be justified in calling another baptized Catholic as not being a real Catholic.

They do it all the time. Standard procedure.

[Nihil Obstat]

They do it all the time. Standard procedure.

Mt: 7:

[23] And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.

[Lilllabettt]

 

They do it all the time. Standard procedure.

I would rather be called a non-Catholic and have it be true than be called a hypocrite and have that be true.

But that's just me.

[Yaatee]

In a way you're right. Yet I think the popular judgment of homosexuality isn't quite objective. There exists a kind of a priori idea that homosexuals are good because their sex is by nature sterile (i.e. it is always without the result of conception); this absolute sterility allows them to perfectly practice the Sexual Revolution's core ideal of sex-with-no-consequences. This a priori idea makes people accept behavior that would be considered immoral among heterosexuals: e.g. leaving your wife and young kids for a new lover is often condemned in heterosexual cases, but when the adulterer has 'discovered' that he's gay and runs off with another sodomite, people praise his courage in overcoming the burdens of 'heterosexualist' family life. 

I don't think so, cat.  I think that people want other people's sexual orientation out in the open, recognized and accepted for what it is BEFORE they get into the heterosexual marriages.  In the olden days, ie., when I grew up, gay men would marry to protect themselves, sire children, and sneak around at night, often on business trips, having very risky gay (and hetero-) sex.   I don't think "sterile sex" has anything to do with it. (And, as you know, gay sex isn't so sterile, nowadays).  Sex had plenty of consequences then, as now, but they're different; in the past, there were disgraced men, destroyed marriages, children not understanding why their home life blew up.  I think that people choose to ignore homosexual sex, because it's so unsavory, at least I do, and although, being an old lady, I am uncomfortable with it, I think that all and every right and opportunity should be extended to gays.  I don't think that they are predators unless they are pedophiles, like many straights.  (I would submit that most of the predatory pedophile priests were/are straight.)  Personally, I think that homosexuality, especially male, is genetic,  present from birth. Gay men will tell you this; they knew that they were somehow different from their earliest recollections. I am certain that all/most ofus have seen gay young men who look different, not just gestures, clothes, voice, but appear structurally different. I distinctly remember of these from my childhood and years in school.  Women not so much, though I think that it's less well understood. (Everything about women is less well understood--that's because we are so much more complex;).) Alison Bechtel was gay from the beginning; so was her father.  Who knows, who knew?

 

Edited June 29, 2015 by Yaatee

[Yaatee]

Iowa, born and bred.  Went to school on both coasts.

Currently not living in Iowa.

[Yaatee]

 

I would rather be called a non-Catholic and have it be true than be called a hypocrite and have that be true.

But that's just me.

Moi aussi.

They do it all the time. Standard procedure.

Sorry, Cross.  Who are "they"?

Edited June 29, 2015 by Yaatee
typo

[Catlick]

I think that all and every right and opportunity should be extended to gays.

Just for the record: do you agree with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching that homosexual acts are disordered, sinful acts? 

[Yaatee]

Well, I think that they are disordered.  I'm not Catholic, remember.   But I think that a lot of things are disordered--and legal. Smoking, drinking (excess), probably marijuana, now that there is a growing body of research showing how dangerous it is, especially to the immature brain.  But there is no reason to deny equal rights and privileges to gays---outside of the churches.  Gay marriage is civil and will remain civil.  After all, someone has to marry!  Many (most?) couples living together in my state are unmarried, and a huge percentage of children are born out of wedlock.

[Era Might]

Well, I think that they are disordered.  I'm not Catholic, remember.   But I think that a lot of things are disordered--and legal. Smoking, drinking (excess), probably marijuana, now that there is a growing body of research showing how dangerous it is, especially to the immature brain.  But there is no reason to deny equal rights and privileges to gays---outside of the churches.  Gay marriage is civil and will remain civil.  After all, someone has to marry!  Many (most?) couples living together in my state are unmarried, and a huge percentage of children are born out of wedlock.

The unmarried are an interesting contrast, because at least they recognize what their lifestyle implies: that marriage is a formality, it is not something that defines or can define their relationship. Marriage is a socially-oriented institution, and if you're going to have it at all, then either it is going to be a meaningless legal matter, or it is going to be something that has to have some social and cultural meaning (which does not have to be one man and one woman, as historical polygamous marriage demonstrates, but it has to be something). The thing about "gay marriage" is that it has no special social or cultural meaning...the narrative is that gays are just being admitted to "marriage"...there is no "gay" and "straight" marriage, there is only marriage with gays and straights (I'm using "gay" and "straight" for usefulness, not implying there actually exists a class of persons gay and straight). If we're going to gut a social institution like marriage of any social, historical, or cultural meaning, and simply have it as a legal institution, then what have we accomplished? Nothing. Better to get rid of marriage than to make it a legal toy that we use to cover ideology. 

[Not The Philosopher]

What is this thread even about anymore