Catholic Support of Gay Marriage?

[Lilllabettt]

yes. he's married. to someone on phatmass.

[Nihil Obstat]

No one is guilty of mortal sin unless (s)he thinks that its' mortal sin.  Gays don't. They just want to get married. As far as they are concerned,it's a good thing.

...are you married?

Is anyone on phat married (outside of the kids' section and Li'l Red)?---congratulations, Li'l Red!

Number one, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Number two, moral relativism is totally irrational. Number three, yes I am married.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Nihil Obstat

[Yaatee]

Number one, this has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Number two, moral relativism is totally irrational. Number three, yes I am married.

Well, I guess that it all depends on what is "moral".  Definitions differ. 

[MarysLittleFlower]

No one is guilty of mortal sin unless (s)he thinks that its' mortal sin.  Gays don't. They just want to get married. As far as they are concerned,it's a good thing.

...are you married?

Is anyone on phat married (outside of the kids' section and Li'l Red)?---congratulations, Li'l Red!

I think its much more complicated than there being mortal sin only if you think there is. Because a person could know its a mortal sin in their conscience (through natural law, inspiration from God or hearing Church teaching), but reject it. I know you see that as simple disagreement but the truth is felt with a certain authority in the conscience and if a person is open they would then, or later, receive grace to agree, maybe. A person rejects truth always for a reason in themselves. That's why ignorance can be an excuse but not truly rejected knowledge and vincible ignorance...because rejection is a closing off even if called disagreement. Such a person would disagree, culpably. And if you reject your conscience eventually you hear it less and feel more sure and comfortable disagreeing but that blindness increases culpability actually. Because its a lack of cooperation with grace and shows a person's rejection of it. I mean rejection ..not sincerely seeking truth even if slowly - these people usually find it and their consciences are not hardened because they will to obey them. Its in the will.

 

[MarysLittleFlower]

Well, I guess that it all depends on what is "moral".  Definitions differ. 

We believe its what the Church defines, since thats from God..

[Credo in Deum]

No one is guilty of mortal sin unless (s)he thinks that its' mortal sin.  

The above is a common mistake.  Let's see what the Catechism states:

CCC:1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."¹³¹

Grave matter.  That's not the same as saying, "you have to know it's considered a mortal sin."  No, you just have to know what you're doing is a grave matter.  With that said Mortal Sins can be and are committed by Catholics and non-Catholics, agnostics and atheists, heterosexual and homosexuals. 

Now If that sounds scary, then that's because it IS scary!  It is why the Church's mission is to baptize all nations, offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for reperation of sin and the conversion of sinners, hear confession, and why all of what She does is for the salvation of souls!

[Lux]

I'm still pretty curious about my original question--why is it that Catholics respond in polls as one of the groups most supportive of homosexuality? 2/3 of Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage--why is it that such a predominantly Catholic country is the first to legalize gay marriage by a popular vote?

[Yaatee]

Good question.  I have no idea.  It may be that in a country like Ireland, which has been so abused by the Catholic Church, that the referendum was against the church and one of the issue it holds most dear, and at the same time, not so important to the Irish for the reasons previously discussed.  After many/most gays came out, including famous ones in high places, many people met gays and saw nothing wrong with them.  Instead many gays appeared to be upstanding, hard-working, smart, competent citizens, often very talented, who cleaned up properties, had nice houses, cooked well, etc.  At the same time, the Catholic Church in Ireland had committed heinous crimes.  So the referendum was essentially against the church, using an issue which many/most Irish felt was not important to them.  This was especially true among the younger generation. I don't know how the Irish vote broke down in terms of age.  This would be interesting.  This was also true in Belgium, where same sex marriage is legal, for similar reasons, lots of pedophilia in Belgium.  In Spain it may have expressed a general dissatisfaction with the church, dating back and including the Franco era, which was in part created and upheld by the Catholic Church in Spain, and even dating back to the Inquisition.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Yaatee
punctuation

[Credo in Deum]

I'm still pretty curious about my original question--why is it that Catholics respond in polls as one of the groups most supportive of homosexuality? 2/3 of Ireland voted to legalize same-sex marriage--why is it that such a predominantly Catholic country is the first to legalize gay marriage by a popular vote?

I think you already know the answer to this.  It's because no one believes in their faith and most of them, if they go to church or do anything that requires going to a church, do so because they say it's part of their cultural tradition or that their mother or father or grandparents still care about it so they do it for them.  Others abandon the faith out of motives for human respect which is a very hard thing to overcome once you've become entrenched in it.  Others do not stand up out of fear.  Some are angry with the Church for priest scandals or other things.

Also there is nothing which really fosters a sense of the sacred in a lot of things being done in the Church.  More and more clergy are worried about social justice than the state of souls within their flock and the quality of liturgy they provide. Most of us don't make God our priority and so we become impartial or indifferent to what happens.  We don't offer sacrifices for souls, fast, or pray.

 

Edited July 2, 2015 by Credo in Deum

[Yaatee]

The above is a common mistake.  Let's see what the Catechism states:

CCC:1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."¹³¹

Grave matter.  That's not the same as saying, "you have to know it's considered a mortal sin."  No, you just have to know what you're doing is a grave matter.  With that said Mortal Sins can be and are committed by Catholics and non-Catholics, agnostics and atheists, heterosexual and homosexuals. 

Now If that sounds scary, then that's because it IS scary!  It is why the Church's mission is to baptize all nations, offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass for reperation of sin and the conversion of sinners, hear confession, and why all of what She does is for the salvation of souls!

Re the catechism: sin is a grave matter but is not regarded as either a grave matter or a sin by its performers.  I want to save my child from the possibility of mortal sin,  so I kill her.  Well, this is a grave matter, but I meant it in good faith. I have committed capital one murder, but I may not have committed a sin.

HIT-ler  felt that he was justified in starting WWII (in Europe) because of the defeat and humiliation and suffering Germany experienced during WWI, in which he fought, and also in murdering Jews, whom he felt were a pestilence.  He committed many crimes, but not necessarily sins.  He thought that he was justified and in the right.  It's that full knowledge part that is the kicker.   People don't say or think," I am committing a grave sin with my full knowledge and deliberate consent."

Once I did this with a venial sin, *sigh*.  I told a woman that I had received tenure.  I didn't like her.  She was trying to get tenure in a different field.  I didn't have to tell her, but I did.  Shame on me.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Yaatee
punctuation

[Lux]

So here's another question--not really related to the original but I thought I'd ask anyway. At what point is homosexuality considered "disordered"? Obviously the Church says that sex between two men or sex between two women is a sin. But sex is not the singular purpose to marriage. If two people of the same sex are romantically attracted to each other, is this considered a sin? There was a trend in New England called "Boston Marriages" in which two women would live together in what was usually a celibate, "romantic friendship." At what point does this behavior/living situation become "disordered"?

[Yaatee]

I think that a lot of those female duos and male duos had originally a sexual component.  Society chose to ignore it.  We also chose to ignore it, at least the FBI did, vis a vis J. Edgar Hoover, who was a cross dresser, lived with a man, never married, but relentlessly persecuted homosexuals.

Homosexual sex is a variant of "regular" heterosexual sex, which is ancient, and was well-developed in Grecian times, and may have been recognized in early Christianity.  People have wondered about Sts. Cosmos and Damien--what was that all about?   Because homosexual sex can't be procreative, it is at the very least irregular.  But what about sex amongst older people; is that disordered, because it can't be procreative?

[Yaatee]

I think its much more complicated than there being mortal sin only if you think there is. Because a person could know its a mortal sin in their conscience (through natural law, inspiration from God or hearing Church teaching), but reject it. I know you see that as simple disagreement but the truth is felt with a certain authority in the conscience and if a person is open they would then, or later, receive grace to agree, maybe. A person rejects truth always for a reason in themselves. That's why ignorance can be an excuse but not truly rejected knowledge and vincible ignorance...because rejection is a closing off even if called disagreement. Such a person would disagree, culpably. And if you reject your conscience eventually you hear it less and feel more sure and comfortable disagreeing but that blindness increases culpability actually. Because its a lack of cooperation with grace and shows a person's rejection of it. I mean rejection ..not sincerely seeking truth even if slowly - these people usually find it and their consciences are not hardened because they will to obey them. Its in the will.

 

Well, people and institutions can be blind to their individual and collective consciences.  Many people feel that the Catholic Church is the last arbiter of "truth". These people and institutions disagree with the Catholic Church with real authority.  You assume that the truth is out there like Aristotle's chair.  Many truths are relative, depend on circumstances, and on many other "truths" asserted by the Catholic Church, for example, there is wide disagreement.  One assumes that a person's rejection of "truth" implies culpability, rather than being an honest disagreement.  In regard to some "truths" such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, the Catholic Church could not have been more wrong. 

[Credo in Deum]

  But what about sex amongst older people; is that disordered, because it can't be procreative?

It's disordered if they aren't married and it would be disordered if they weren't open to life if God so willed that they become pregnant.  The fact that they have been medically deemed incapable of having children does not mean they are incapable of having children if God so willed it to happen.  This is because their union (man and woman) is still in conformity with the way in which God willed mankind to cooperated with Him in the act of creation.  

[MarysLittleFlower]

Well, people and institutions can be blind to their individual and collective consciences.  Many people feel that the Catholic Church is the last arbiter of "truth". These people and institutions disagree with the Catholic Church with real authority.  You assume that the truth is out there like Aristotle's chair.  Many truths are relative, depend on circumstances, and on many other "truths" asserted by the Catholic Church, for example, there is wide disagreement.  One assumes that a person's rejection of "truth" implies culpability, rather than being an honest disagreement.  In regard to some "truths" such as the Crusades and the Inquisition, the Catholic Church could not have been more wrong. 

i have a different view of truth, and the way the human heart makes a response to truth. Truth is objective.. Very objective on moral matters. God decides what it is. If two people are offered grace to believe in a truth, there is a mysterious relationship of grace and free will but if a person rejects the truth, that has to do with the fall and concupiscence. It is their free will but its not a choice for God and from God.  It is not an innocent thing that is equal to the other choice. One person cooperates with grace, the other does not... That affects salvation. As for the Crusades and Inquisition, there's so much historical inaccuracy and misunderstanding of these things in our culture I'm not even going there.. I'll just say that the popular view is based on exaggerations and not real documents. This can be found out through research. Did some individuals there do bad things? Maybe. But in terms of what these things were generally, or the intent on the official level, there are many false statements out there that should be taken with a grain of salt.