The tolerant Catholic Church

I believe this exact question has been answered several times already.

Not really, assertions have been made that this would remove rights from the religious, but when pressed they haven't been substantiated. Or there has been other comments regarding tradition etc.
But there has been no good justification for why it is right that a religious teaching should dictate the state implementation of marriage, especially when the current proposals don't seem to stop the religious discriminating (in a non pejorative sense) as they wish.
 
I was only really interested in the last two answers as they are reason enough for the Catholic church to change its stance. The first two would give context I am however interested in how you define marriage. (edit: I fully accept marriage comprises more than love but those things eg financial responsibility etc are not relevant here)

Well, binary answers don't do much to prove either argument. While it doesn't stipulate anywhere in the Bible that men can't marry other men it does state that men should marry women. It also states men shouldn't engage in homosexual acts.

So I am still at a loss as to how you think the Church is in some way acting against the word of God.
 
Not really, assertions have been made that this would remove rights from the religious, but when pressed they haven't been substantiated. Or there has been other comments regarding tradition etc.
But there has been no good justification for why it is right that a religious teaching should dictate the state implementation of marriage, especially when the current proposals don't seem to stop the religious discriminating (in a non pejorative sense) as they wish.

I am pretty sure those points have all been answered. (I am pretty sure at least by me)

The pastoral letter from the Archbishops of Westminster and Southwark I think give a fairly good explanation of the rationale behind this position.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,
This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.
Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.
The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself.
Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion. Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity. Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.
There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.
The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (para.1601)
These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.
This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.
In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.
In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.
The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.
Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.
We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.
Most Reverend V. Nichols
Most Reverend P. Smith
 
Well, binary answers don't do much to prove either argument. While it doesn't stipulate anywhere in the Bible that men can't marry other men it does state that men should marry women. It also states men shouldn't engage in homosexual acts.

So I am still at a loss as to how you think the Church is in some way acting against the word of God.

I feel they help to to get to the nuts and bolts of it i.e That the Bible never says that a man can not marry a man - such an addition to any teaching is a traditional thing developed by man not God - the very thing Jesus taught against.

And as far as I am aware one of the stipulations of marriage is not the performing of any acts of a sexual nature so that is irrelevant. My marriage certainly never mentioned that .. not that I can remember I just remember them saying "for Life" and me going ... for Life ... LIFE ... LIFE .... :D
 
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Jesus Christ,
This week the Coalition Government is expected to present its consultation paper on the proposed change in the legal definition of marriage so as to open the institution of marriage to same-sex partnerships.
Today we want to put before you the Catholic vision of marriage and the light it casts on the importance of marriage for our society.
The roots of the institution of marriage lie in our nature. Male and female we have been created, and written into our nature is this pattern of complementarity and fertility. This pattern is, of course, affirmed by many other religious traditions. Christian teaching fills out this pattern and reveals its deepest meaning, but neither the Church nor the State has the power to change this fundamental understanding of marriage itself.
Nor is this simply a matter of public opinion. Understood as a lifelong commitment between a man and a woman, and for the creation and upbringing of children, marriage is an expression of our fundamental humanity.
Logical fallacy of begging the question.
spudbynight said:
Its status in law is the prudent fruit of experience, for the good of the spouses and the good of the family. In this way society esteems the married couple as the source and guardians of the next generation. As an institution marriage is at the foundation of our society.
There are many reasons why people get married. For most couples, there is an instinctive understanding that the stability of a marriage provides the best context for the flourishing of their relationship and for bringing up their children. Society recognises marriage as an important institution for these same reasons: to enhance stability in society and to respect and support parents in the crucial task of having children and bringing them up as well as possible.
None of the above explicitly excludes gay people from marrying and bringing up children.
spudbynight said:
The Church starts from this appreciation that marriage is a natural institution, and indeed the Church recognises civil marriage. The Catholic understanding of marriage, however, raises this to a new level. As the Catechism says: “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, by its nature is ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptised persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.” (para.1601)
That's great if you're a catholic, I'm not, so frankly why should I care one jot what catholics think about marriage?
spudbynight said:
These rather abstract words are reflected however imperfectly in the experience of married couples. We know that at the heart of a good marriage is a relationship of astonishing power and richness, for the couple, their children, their wider circle of friends and relations and society. As a Sacrament, this is a place where divine grace flows. Indeed, marriage is a sharing in the mystery of God’s own life: the unending and perfect flow of love between Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
If you're a catholic, sure.
spudbynight said:
We know, too, that just as God’s love is creative, so too the love of husband and wife is creative of new life. It is open, in its essence, to welcoming new life, ready to love and nurture that life to its fullness, not only here on earth but also into eternity.
This is a high and noble vision, for marriage is a high and noble vocation. It is not easily followed. But we are sure that Christ is at the heart of marriage, for his presence is a sure gift of the God who is Love, who wants nothing more than for the love of husband and wife to find its fulfilment. So the daily effort that marriage requires, the many ways in which family living breaks and reshapes us, is a sharing in the mission of Christ, that of making visible in the world the creative and forgiving love of God.
In these ways we understand marriage to be a call to holiness for a husband and wife, with children recognised and loved as the gift of God, with fidelity and permanence as the boundaries which create its sacred space. Marriage is also a crucial witness in our society, contributing to its stability, its capacity for compassion and forgiveness and its future, in a way that no other institution can.
All of which is only of relevance to you if you're catholic. The catholic interpretation of marriage has no bearing on the lives of most people in this country. The arguments here may be logically consistent within the dogma of Catholicism, but that is not the basis of this discussion or proposal.
spudbynight said:
In putting before you these thoughts about why marriage is so important, we also want to recognise the experience of those who have suffered the pain of bereavement or relationship breakdown and their contribution to the Church and society. Many provide a remarkable example of courage and fidelity. Many strive to make the best out of difficult and complex situations. We hope that they are always welcomed and helped to feel valued members of our parish communities.
The reasons given by our government for wanting to change the definition of marriage are those of equality and discrimination. But our present law does not discriminate unjustly when it requires both a man and a woman for marriage. It simply recognises and protects the distinctive nature of marriage.
Changing the legal definition of marriage would be a profoundly radical step. Its consequences should be taken seriously now. The law helps to shape and form social and cultural values. A change in the law would gradually and inevitably transform society’s understanding of the purpose of marriage. It would reduce it just to the commitment of the two people involved. There would be no recognition of the complementarity of male and female or that marriage is intended for the procreation and education of children.
We have a duty to married people today, and to those who come after us, to do all we can to ensure that the true meaning of marriage is not lost for future generations.
Most Reverend V. Nichols
Most Reverend P. Smith
To try and pretend that the supposed current definition of marriage is one that has always been held, unchanged, is fallacious. Additionally it's a fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem.
 
I feel they help to to get to the nuts and bolts of it i.e That the Bible never says that a man can not marry a man - such an addition to any teaching is a traditional thing developed by man not God - the very thing Jesus taught against.

And as far as I am aware one of the stipulations of marriage is not the performing of any acts of a sexual nature so that is irrelevant. My marriage certainly never mentioned that .. not that I can remember I just remember them saying "for Life" and me going ... for Life ... LIFE ... LIFE .... :D

The bible doesn't need to say "you can't marry another man" as it already clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. The need to specifically prohibit gay marriage is redundant.

Really this is just clutching at straws.
 
None of the above explicitly excludes gay people from marrying and bringing up children.

Can you explain how homosexuals can be the source of the next generation?

That's great if you're a catholic, I'm not, so frankly why should I care one jot what catholics think about marriage?
If you're a catholic, sure.

It was a pastoral letter to Catholics. Should I just pick and choose which bits I quote?

All of which is only of relevance to you if you're catholic. The catholic interpretation of marriage has no bearing on the lives of most people in this country. The arguments here may be logically consistent within the dogma of Catholicism, but that is not the basis of this discussion or proposal.

There is plenty in that of relevance to non-Catholics.

"The love of a husband and a wife is creative of new life." That applies to all.


To try and pretend that the supposed current definition of marriage is one that has always been held, unchanged, is fallacious. Additionally it's a fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem.

There is a lot more to that than "it's always been the case"
 
The bible doesn't need to say "you can't marry another man" as it already clearly says that homosexuality is wrong. The need to specifically prohibit gay marriage is redundant.

Really this is just clutching at straws.

No it's not, marriage does not imply sex (a common complaint I am led to believe). The bible says homosexuality is wrong and yet the Catholic Church has changed its position on that to water down the original message to not offend. And I expect it will have to do on this as Cameron wants it and so do the LibDems and there is nothing the church can do about it but at best keep same-sex marriages from being performed inside Catholic Churches. It's going to happen like it or not.
 
Can you explain how homosexuals can be the source of the next generation?



It was a pastoral letter to Catholics. Should I just pick and choose which bits I quote?



There is plenty in that of relevance to non-Catholics.

"The love of a husband and a wife is creative of new life." That applies to all.




There is a lot more to that than "it's always been the case"
The point I'm trying to make and I don't feel you are really addressing is that catholic interpretations and definitions are of no relevance to this debate in the argument of positions. You can justify your opinion with them, but while you are not being asked/forced to change them (and I fully support your right to define marriage however you see fit) they have no bearing on whether or not the state should institute same sex marriage.
 
No it's not, marriage does not imply sex (a common complaint I am led to believe). The bible says homosexuality is wrong and yet the Catholic Church has changed its position on that to water down the original message to not offend. And I expect it will have to do on this as Cameron wants it and so do the LibDems and there is nothing the church can do about it but at best keep same-sex marriages from being performed inside Catholic Churches. It's going to happen like it or not.

The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church has not changed its position on that. In the same way that the Bible says divorce is wrong, and the Church has not changed its position on that.

Really wish I had the time to reply to more questions/posts; unfortunately I don't. The rate at which the debate continues is alarming me :p Btw, does anyone know if there's a record for number of posts on a thread? We've busted the 1k barrier... :D
 
The point I'm trying to make and I don't feel you are really addressing is that catholic interpretations and definitions are of no relevance to this debate in the argument of positions. You can justify your opinion with them, but while you are not being asked/forced to change them (and I fully support your right to define marriage however you see fit) they have no bearing on whether or not the state should institute same sex marriage.

No, but the Catholic Church is actually trying to advocate a point which does bear on everyone and can be held by/is applicable to all, of faith or not. I've already tried to express something of that in a previous post. Here it is again:

The question of gay marriage, and indeed divorce and other related issues, is contentious fundamentally because of the issue of children. Looking at it from a purely biologically natural point of view, the sexual act's single function is to procreate. As an act, nature (if you want) has gone to the trouble to make it pleasurable in order to encourage animals to produce offspring in order to maintain and further the existence of the species. The fact that we are capable of reason and of emotion (to keep it secular) means that humans have given the sexual act further meaning: that of expressing an intimate love. But this does not and cannot (biologically, naturally) detract from the primary function of the sexual act. On the contrary, human experience generally has led to the recognition that the raising and careful fostering of children by their natural parents is something fundamentally good: for the spouses themselves, because it cements and deepens their relationship by requiring a coincidence of mutual effort and self-sacrifice -another fundamental way of expressing love- for the child; for the child, because it provides them with the love and support that come most spontaneously from its natural parents; for society, because it's future is provided for with a child that understands the values of love, respect and self-sacrifice (all of which I mean as the ideal).

One can therefore understand the interest of and to a society, in creating an institution whose sole purpose is to promote, safeguard, and encourage the necessary bond and commitment between a man and a woman to raise and foster children in a stable and loving environment, because ultimately it is beneficial to the society itself. Such an ideal necessarily (and ideally) excludes the concept of divorce, single parenting, etc.

Yes, it is an ideal, but is it not a reasonable ideal? Marriages fail and so on, but to introduce gay marriage fundamentally undermines the principle of raising and fostering one's own children, let alone in the ideal manner.
 
The Bible says that homosexual acts are wrong. It doesn't say homosexuality is wrong. The Catholic Church has not changed its position on that. In the same way that the Bible says divorce is wrong, and the Church has not changed its position on that.

So they have never changed their position at all ... really? Quite sure on that?
 
No, but the Catholic Church is actually trying to advocate a point which does bear on everyone and can be held by/is applicable to all, of faith or not. I've already tried to express something of that in a previous post. Here it is again:

The question of gay marriage, and indeed divorce and other related issues, is contentious fundamentally because of the issue of children. Looking at it from a purely biologically natural point of view, the sexual act's single function is to procreate. As an act, nature (if you want) has gone to the trouble to make it pleasurable in order to encourage animals to produce offspring in order to maintain and further the existence of the species. The fact that we are capable of reason and of emotion (to keep it secular) means that humans have given the sexual act further meaning: that of expressing an intimate love. But this does not and cannot (biologically, naturally) detract from the primary function of the sexual act. On the contrary, human experience generally has led to the recognition that the raising and careful fostering of children by their natural parents is something fundamentally good: for the spouses themselves, because it cements and deepens their relationship by requiring a coincidence of mutual effort and self-sacrifice -another fundamental way of expressing love- for the child; for the child, because it provides them with the love and support that come most spontaneously from its natural parents; for society, because it's future is provided for with a child that understands the values of love, respect and self-sacrifice (all of which I mean as the ideal).

One can therefore understand the interest of and to a society, in creating an institution whose sole purpose is to promote, safeguard, and encourage the necessary bond and commitment between a man and a woman to raise and foster children in a stable and loving environment, because ultimately it is beneficial to the society itself. Such an ideal necessarily (and ideally) excludes the concept of divorce, single parenting, etc.

Yes, it is an ideal, but is it not a reasonable ideal? Marriages fail and so on, but to introduce gay marriage fundamentally undermines the principle of raising and fostering one's own children, let alone in the ideal manner.
The raising of children used to be, and in some places still is, far more of a community effort than just the direct parents. Such has been pointed out earlier in this thread.
And does a couple being married suddenly make them better parents than an unmarried couple? Are they more loving? Civil marriage is a contract and a facsimile of it is currently available to same sex couples, civil partnerships. But as has also been said this is a case of "separate but equal", which is really still discrimination.
 
The point I'm trying to make and I don't feel you are really addressing is that catholic interpretations and definitions are of no relevance to this debate in the argument of positions. You can justify your opinion with them, but while you are not being asked/forced to change them (and I fully support your right to define marriage however you see fit) they have no bearing on whether or not the state should institute same sex marriage.

They are relevant to the debate when Catholics keep getting asked questions of the form "Where does it say X in the Bible"

And certainly when the thread itself it entitled "The tolerant Catholic Church" then understanding the Catholic position is vital.

Whether you agree with them or not is one thing but to say that "catholic interpretations and definitions are of no relevance to this debate in the argument of positions" is just absurd.
 
The raising of children used to be, and in some places still is, far more of a community effort than just the direct parents. Such has been pointed out earlier in this thread.
And does a couple being married suddenly make them better parents than an unmarried couple? Are they more loving? Civil marriage is a contract and a facsimile of it is currently available to same sex couples, civil partnerships. But as has also been said this is a case of "separate but equal", which is really still discrimination.

Do you disagree that the ideal environment to raise a child in is with a loving mother and father?
 
Back
Top Bottom