Pope Francis on Gay "marriage"

[AvilaSurfer]

Agreed, but then how does a Catholic disagree?

 

[WarriorAngel]

Agreed, but then how does a Catholic disagree?

Thanks for the thread.
It's hard for Catholics to touch this one...being this is a teaching on the moral law.

 

[AvilaSurfer]

I kinda knew this would slowly sink to the bottom of the list.

 

[RDKirk]

The Pope is right, but I don't see why this is a problem.

 

[SolomonVII]

People are making the contrary argument that all the points that the pope touches on are optional.

 

[Erose]

I think Catholics (and for that matter most Christians) fall into two camps. Those who believe that we have a mandate to bring Christ to the world, and to help Him redemn the world; while the other camp believes that our faith is a private thing and should stay that way.

 

[WarriorAngel]

At the end of Mass i have heard these said:

Go forth, the Mass is ended. Or: Go and announce the Gospel of the Lord. Or: Go in peace, glorifying the Lord by your life.

If the priest doesn't say the last two - it should be a given to know this is our task in living.

 

[ebia]

I think Catholics (and for that matter most Christians) fall into two camps. Those who believe that we have a mandate to bring Christ to the world, and to help Him redemn the world; while the other camp believes that our faith is a private thing and should stay that way.

And group number three: that going on about some of what is wrong with the world without making an sacrifices to make anything better is sufficient.

 

[ebia]

I think he's right that the ideal parenting is a good father, a good mother, a good extended family and a good community.

Same sex marriages are a very, very, tiny way some children's upbringing will fall short of that.

If most catholics/christians put half as much emphasis about actually changing the structures that bring about the other 99.999% of them, this one would be much credible.

 

[RDKirk]

I think Catholics (and for that matter most Christians) fall into two camps. Those who believe that we have a mandate to bring Christ to the world, and to help Him redemn the world; while the other camp believes that our faith is a private thing and should stay that way.

There is a middle camp (at least one), the camp exemplified in 1 Peter, in which the Church is an embassy of the kingdom of Heaven with a mandate to be asylum--an ark, two spies in Jericho, two angels of Sodom--to save people out of a doomed world culture--not to "redeem the world."

 

[MoonlessNight]

Raise the possibility that the science used by the Pope might not be 100% accurate: according to many here, you aren't a faithful Catholic.

Openly advocate for civil same-sex marriage, and frequently hint that you do not see any reason why marriage in the Church should be restricted to one man and one woman: according to the same people, that's fine. Just make sure that you buy fair trade coffee before you leave for work.

 

[tadoflamb]

Agreed, but then how does a Catholic disagree?

Thanks for posting this. The SCOTUS ruling brought back those bad memories of when my dad, back in the seventies, starting preaching against and ridiculing traditional families and then went about dismantling his. I guess I still mourn the loss of my traditional family. Pope Francis affirms for me why this episode in my life was so painful and why the traditional family is rightly held to such high esteem within the Church.

 

[SolomonVII]

Thanks for posting this. The SCOTUS ruling brought back those bad memories of when my dad, back in the seventies, starting preaching against and ridiculing traditional families and then went about dismantling his. I guess I still mourn the loss of my traditional family. Pope Francis affirms for me why this episode in my life was so painful and why the traditional family is rightly held to such high esteem within the Church.

The family that the pope speaks of needs to be held out as the norm.
There is a lot of brokenness in the world of family today, and rather than evangelizing the kind of family that is solid with a proven track record, people advocate for acceptance of all variations and permutations of the family as equally normative.

 

[Erose]

There is a middle camp (at least one), the camp exemplified in 1 Peter, in which the Church is an embassy of the kingdom of Heaven with a mandate to be asylum--an ark, two spies in Jericho, two angels of Sodom--to save people out of a doomed world culture--not to "redeem the world."

But this thought process denies the very fact that Christ came to redeem the world. Until He comes, yes the Church is an ark, and the prince of this world is Satan; but that doesn't mean that we should be sharing in Christ's responsibility of striving for the redemption of the whole world. This is the reason why we are called to evangelize. Christians cannot and should not bury their heads in the sand and accept the world as it is. We are to make the world a better place, by bringing Christ, through us into it.

 

[RDKirk]

But this thought process denies the very fact that Christ came to redeem the world. Until He comes, yes the Church is an ark, and the prince of this world is Satan; but that doesn't mean that we should be sharing in Christ's responsibility of striving for the redemption of the whole world. This is the reason why we are called to evangelize. Christians cannot and should not bury their heads in the sand and accept the world as it is. We are to make the world a better place, by bringing Christ, through us into it.

I said "doomed world culture."

 

[mark46]

As I read the pope's statement, I agree that he strong opposes the raising of children by two men or two women. He also opposes the raising of children by one parent. Note the importance of a man AND a women. Of course, the best environment for a child is to be raised by the child's biological parents, a man and a women. Yes, that is the goal.

Are only allow the married parents of a child to raise that child?

Given the moral goal of have a married man and women raise a child, should we not allow other arrangements? Should we prohibit those of other faiths (and of no faith) to marry, perhaps raise children in any other way? Should we prohibit elders from marrying since marriage is for the purpose of having and raising children.

The pope state the model set out in the Tradition of the Church. And most of the world agrees that children should be raised by their biological parents. And what percentage of children in the US are raised by their biological parents?

Yes, there are many, many moral deficiencies in the raising of children, and supporting children, in the US. Nothing will be changed by prohibiting or allowing the state to marry two non-Catholics of the same sex. This argument is simply a diversion from the real issues of how to care for our children.

 

[SolomonVII]

Other arrangements will always be allowed. There are all different kinds of ways for a family to become broken and hobble along.
Is the tragic and the broken and the bizarre to be the norm though?

It is not a question of allowing. It is a question of norming, as if all models are the equivalent of the ideal that needs to be supported, striven for, and held up as the example that is to be honored.

 

[Erose]

As I read the pope's statement, I agree that he strong opposes the raising of children by two men or two women. He also opposes the raising of children by one parent. Note the importance of a man AND a women. Of course, the best environment for a child is to be raised by the child's biological parents, a man and a women. Yes, that is the goal.

Are only allow the married parents of a child to raise that child?

Given the moral goal of have a married man and women raise a child, should we not allow other arrangements? Should we prohibit those of other faiths (and of no faith) to marry, perhaps raise children in any other way? Should we prohibit elders from marrying since marriage is for the purpose of having and raising children.

The pope state the model set out in the Tradition of the Church. And most of the world agrees that children should be raised by their biological parents. And what percentage of children in the US are raised by their biological parents?

Yes, there are many, many moral deficiencies in the raising of children, and supporting children, in the US. Nothing will be changed by prohibiting or allowing the state to marry two non-Catholics of the same sex. This argument is simply a diversion from the real issues of how to care for our children.

You are missing what really happened. It has nothing to do with SSM in all reality. Quite frankly from the info gained from country's such as Holland and Canada, only about 5% of homosexuals get married. So when you figure that only 1 to 2% of the population is homo- or bi-sexual, the number really is insignificant. It is the REDEFINING of the term marriage that is the problem. What the courts have done is redefine marriage as a state licensed romantic relationship. It really is nothing more than that now in the eyes of the law.

So the question that needs to be raised, is If that is all the state recognizes marriage to be, why now should the state really care about marriage any longer? In all reality the state should get out of the marriage business altogether now.

 

[SolomonVII]

There is no overriding need for the state to get involved in the romantic affairs of people.
If marriage is not going to be linked to creating families, then there is no overriding reason why what two men do in their bedroom needs to be a factor in who the state deem fit to raise the next generation. There is no reason it should not be two sisters or a priest and a nun or a commune. Since marriage is no longer legally about sustaining potentially procreative relationships as its official goal, then whether or not two people are intimate with each other is beside the point of child rearing, or the private business affairs of a person.

Marriage is totally arbitrary now. Requiring it is redundant for child rearing or power of attorney. Sexual intimacy really need not be the requirement for any of the affairs that used to be normative for a traditionally married couple.

 

[ebia]

There is no overriding need for the state to get involved in the romantic affairs of people.
If marriage is not going to be linked to creating families, then there is no overriding reason why what two men do in their bedroom needs to be a factor in who the state deem fit to raise the next generation. There is no reason it should not be two sisters or a priest and a nun or a commune. Since marriage is no longer legally about sustaining potentially procreative relationships as its official goal, then whether or not two people are intimate with each other is beside the point of child rearing, or the private business affairs of a person.

Marriage is totally arbitrary now. Requiring it is redundant for child rearing or power of attorney..Sexual intimacy really need b e the requirement for any of the affairs that used to be normative for a traditionally narried couple

There are innumerable issues and errors in that, but since they've already been through....

If you feel that way, you are perfectly entitled not to get married.