See how the farmer waits for the precious fruit of the earth, being patient with it until it receives the early and the late rains. - James 5:7

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Can Same Sex Marriage Really Harm the Church?


"Fact finding" in overturning Prop. 8...
.
The ruling which overturned Prop. 8, issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker, included direct references to Catholic teaching:
.
The legal decision listed as its 77th “finding of fact”: “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”
.
In a list of supporting citations, the ruling quoted a 2003 document issued by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), “Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons.”
.
“Sacred Scripture condemns homosexual acts as ‘a serious depravity’,” is the first CDF phrase quoted in Judge Walker's decision.
.
The document was signed in 2003 by the CDF’s prefect Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, who was elected to the papacy in 2005.
.
The Prop. 8 ruling cited other passages from the same CDF document, apparently attributing it to the group Catholics for the Common Good. Quoted passages rejected the argument that homosexual unions are “in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God’s plan” and described the homosexual inclination as “objectively disordered.” The passages also describe homosexual acts as contrary to the moral law and “gravely contrary” to chastity.
.
The ruling of Judge Walker, who is reported to be homosexual, also cited the document’s statement that “legal recognition of homosexual unions … would mean … the approval of deviant behavior.”
.
Declared “findings of fact” play an important role in the appeals process.
.
CBS News’ chief political consultant Marc Armbinder, writing at the CBSNews.com blog “The Political Broadsheet,” said the ruling itself matters “less than the facts Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker finds". - CNA
.
Walker's citation wasn't one of approval.  It won't be long before the courts take a more direct aim at the Church.

14 comments:

  1. Anonymous8:58 AM

    And the form that it will take is that no narruge performed in the Catholic church will be recognized in the state, so that all people will have to be first married by the state and then they can have a church wedding if they wish.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fasten you seat belts, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
    I fear your 'prophecy', Terry, is going to come about.

    ReplyDelete
  3. My mom and I have had several long conversations over the years concerning this topic..

    Where the waters get muddied is that you have the LEGAL/secular definition marriage, and all the legal rights and responsibilities (taxes, property ownership, work benefits, etc) that that entails, and the then there's the religious aspect.

    In the US legally you can get married either by the court or in a church...in many countries you have to get civilly married (ie in a court), then you can have whatever religious ceremony you want.

    To confuse things even more in the US is that some states have "common law" marriages, where you don't even have a piece of paper yet you are still considered "married."

    The big fight I think is that folks are getting the "civil" legal definition of marriage confused with the "religious" definition. You CAN get married (in the US at least) without being religious. People throwing in arguements about "natural law" etc are using religous or philosphical terms rather than legal terms. I myself am not up to speed on the philosophy of "natural law" so my eyes glaze over when those discussions come up. We need to remember that we are not the Catholic States of America but the United States of America...encompassing folks of different faiths and of no faith.

    The judge may actually be right if the whole entire reason that the Proposition 8 was initiated was by what I call the "gross out" factor ie it grosses me out that gay people could be in a relationship and have it be LEGAL. We DO have to look at the civil rights of all...some cities here in Utah are actually passing ordinances prohibiting discrimination of LGBT individuals from housing and workplace ( about frigging time..)

    We shall see..

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  4. "The big fight I think is that folks are getting the "civil" legal definition of marriage confused with the "religious" definition."
    I think this is true; when people talk about marriage under civil law, and marriage as a sacrament, they are talking about different things.

    ReplyDelete
  5. You have to realize that "marriage" is just one item on a very long agenda that the homosexual collective, in alliance with the others opposed to the Catholic Church have planned.

    They follow Saul Alinsky's rule that you only go after one item at a time to not frighting the target government or business.

    In no particular order.

    1. Penalties against the Church for not ordaining women as priests.

    2. Penalties against the Church for not ordaining active homosexuals.

    3. Penalties against the Church for teaching the homosexual acts are a Mortal Sin that can consign you to Hell.

    4. Penalties against the Boy Scouts for not allowing homosexual leaders.

    5. Penalties against the Red Cross and other blood banks for not accepting blood donations from homosexuals.

    6. Penalties against the Red Cross and other blood banks for requiring homosexuals to test to prove that they are not contaminated by HIV/AIDS or other Sexually Transmitted Diseases.

    7. Removal of prohibitions against sexual activities with children.

    8. Removal of all prohibitions of programming on radio, television and the internet of sexual activity programming.

    9. Removal of all laws barring public nudity and sexual activity.

    10. Requirements that all schools, public and parochial, teach that homosexuality is normal, teach homosexual techniques in all grades and encourage children to regularly engage in sexual activity as soon as they are able.

    11. Provide government grants to businesses and institutions to encourage homosexuality among employees.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks, Ray.
    Great information and reflection, here.
    We gots to love the Lord, our Lady, the Holy Church, and mean it.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I should probably not read your gay posts, Terry. Some of the comments make me want to cuss profusely.

    I guess that's part of the agenda, too.

    / snark

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would like to say, however, that if a country ruled by religious law is appealing, I'm sure Iran would take you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Some day soon two men are going to show up at a church and demand to be married. The priest or preacher will refuse and he'll be vilified, sued and possibly imprisoned. Even if Christians decide to drop out of getting civil marriages the militants will follow us wherever we retreat.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Just because we're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get us...

    ReplyDelete
  11. Dymphna--I don't think that will happen...even straight couples can't walk up to just any church and demand that they be married. Most Catholic Churches require 6 months prep, the Protestant Churches I was associated with had a waiting period (of course, if you were a member of the church it was shorter), and I know a Jewish couple (friends of mine) had a waiting period also. Even a wedding on a cruise ship takes time and planning. If you're looking for a quickie wedding you either go to the courthouse or one of the chapels in Vegas..

    Sara

    ReplyDelete
  12. My question is this: why does the "law" have to acknowledge marriage between two men or two women in order not to discriminate?
    Why does it have to be "marriage"?
    A legal union of some kind could be proposed; there are all kinds of situations where people aren't married but need to have the legal rights for end of life issues, property rights, what have you.
    Why does it have to be "marriage"?
    Am I wrong here?
    The moral issues are one thing; the legal issues are another.
    I'm not proposing that the law enshrine immorality; but isn't there some kind of "middle way"?
    Marriage is between one man and one woman. period. It can't be otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Father, every time civil unions are proposed they're shot down by the right. It's really a catch-22- damned if you do, and damned if you don't.

    Sara and Melody are right. There are already states where marriage is legal, and there have been NO cases of any church forced to perform any wedding, period. Hell, there are still churches where I live that won't marry a couple of mixed race. No one is forcing them, in spite of anti-discrimination laws.

    ReplyDelete
  14. michael r.8:35 AM

    I believe the middle way that Father refers to is simple seperation of Church and State. The State can grant "marriage" rights to whomever, but the Church doesn't have to recognize them, as is the current practice. It would be more simple and straightforward if the State did not use the term "marriage" but "civil union" or "legal union" as Father suggests. For many reasons that would be preferable. I believe that is what President Obama favors.

    It is disingenuous for people to insist that the Church will be forced to recognize such marriages, or be forced to perform them, etc. I don't believe there is a single case of a man-woman couple forcing the Church to marry them.

    ReplyDelete


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.