In the United States, there are two forms of marriage: there are religious marriages, and there are legal marriages. In the Catholic Church, marriage is a holy sacrament in which a man and a woman are bound together for life, except for extreme situations in which the marriage is anulled.
Now I don't know a lot about marriage laws, but in the United States a legal marriage is a legal contract between two people who pledge to stay together until they choose to end the contract. Marriages in the legal sense come with insurance policies that cover both people, regardless of whether both have a job. A legal marriage also comes with the right to adopt children in some states.
On the other hand, since I am Catholic, I know a bit about the Catholic sacrament of marriage. You get married in a church, with a priest or a dean or a bishop. You make vows that you aren't allowed to break. In the Church, you can't get divorced, and you can't get re-married.
Her comes the interesting part. There are plenty of Catholics that get divorced and re-marry. My grandmother was one of them. These people just don't get married in a church, and the church doesn't recognize their marriage. These marriages are completely legitimate according to the law.
So why is the Pope so against gay marriage becoming legally recognized as equal to a straight marriage? The church will not be required to perform gay marriages. It definitely won't be required to recognize a gay marriage as a sacrament.
Eventually, the Vatican will lose this battle, and gay marriage will become legal almost everywhere. The battle against gay marriage will be remembered the same way the battle against second marriages will be remembered, as a childish determination to prevent change and progress.
Why the Pope Shouldn't Care About Gay Marriage
By aileencross - Posted on March 30th, 2008
Tagged: lgbt
• Personal freedom
This was a nice way to provide a logical solution to a bad situation, and it also sheds new light to defend gay marriage. From what I've heard, though, one of the reasons the Catholic church opposes gay marriage is through literal Bible interpretations. I've heard that gay relationships in general should be classified under sodomy, and that there's a Bible verse that specifically states God opposes gay relationships. Being as I don't own a Bible, I'm not sure where in the Bible it makes these claims, but it seems far-fetched. I enjoyed your post, though.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
Maybe you should get a bible and see what the Lord has to say himself
I'm a Protestant Christian, not Catholic, but the reason why I agree with the pope's position on gay marriage is because God specifically says that homosexual sex is wrong in Leviticus and Romans. Leviticus 18:22, "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." Romans 1:27, "In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."
It's an interesting question, but I think the answer is simply that the Vatican sees it as a moral issue.
The Bible speaks against homosexual relations, whether this is right or not isn't my problem, but the Catholic church is there (supposedly) to uphold the Christian faith, and it's written principles, as put forth through the Bible.
The official Church view on homosexuality is that those persons that are 'afflicted' with it should be pitied rather than punished. Yes, the Church believes that gay relationships are morally wrong, but it also believes that children out of wedlock, second marriages, condoms, and birth contol pills are morally wrong. I'm sure that a lot of people agree with the church's position on these matters, but there are just as many that disagree just as firmly.
The Catholic Church actually doesn't take all of the Bible literally. Some of the more intense, dedicated protestant religions actually do take the Bible word for word, as written in modern-day English.
The Bible has be translated and retranslated so many times that specific wording should be taken with a grain of salt. It began as an oral history of the Jewish people, who then wrote it down. The Christians took the Old Testament, leaving out the parts they didn't like, and added things that happened with Jesus and afterwards. I'm not sure, but I think the original complete compilation was written in Greek. I do know that it was translated to Latin from Greek, and then to German with the invention of the printing press. By the time English-language versions came about, many things were changed.
The the term 'sodomy', in reference to gay relationships, is actually a misnomer. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was that the cities were inhospitable to visitors. Although that is putting it mildly. They were quite nasty to visitors.
For more information:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_...
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/02/27/quebec-priests060227....
"I'm not sure, but I think the original complete compilation was written in Greek. I do know that it was translated to Latin from Greek,"
The New Testament was written in Greek, as most of the letters were sent to Grecian believers.
The Old Testament was written in an ancient Hebraic dialect.
Both are newly translated for each version.
Saint Jerome translated the ancient Hebrew and Greek into Latin for the Vulgate. Before then there was a Greek compilation, so you have that correct.
"[A]nd then to German with the invention of the printing press."
Translated into German from ancient Hebrew and Greek, but not with the printing press. The first German translation was undertaken by Martin Luther after the Schism.
"By the time English-language versions came about, many things were changed."
Why should WE care what the Pope (or any other religious leader) thinks about gay marriage? After all, he's not a U.S. citizen and the Constitution of the United States clearly forbids establishing the beliefs of any religion as such into the body of our Laws. Those who have a religious belief are free not to personally engage in any action which they feel conflicts with their religious beliefs, but they may not lawfully compel other citizens to make the same choice. Arguments that rely on "the bible says" are categorically irrelevant, thanks to the protection afforded to us as citizens by the First Amendment to the Constitution.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I like your argument the best of the ones I've read, especially as an advocate of the separation between church and state. It's strange to think that in modern times, the lines would be blurred so much...But with people like Ted Haggard and the many scores of evangelists, perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.
Cheers from Union Jane
"I have only ever made one prayer a very short one: "God, make my enemies ridiculous." And God made it so." --Voltaire
"No one can make you feel inferior without your consent." --Eleanor Roosevelt
Thank you for your comments.
The reason that anyone should care about what the Pope thinks is that while many people are not Catholic, the Pope is still an political icon in modern society. How many highschool kids don't know who their state's governer is? How many highschool kids know the politics of their state's senators?
The answer to that is: not very many. I don't know these things. But the Pope (and the church) have their position (which hasn't seen much change in the past fifty years) up front and obvious. And there are several European and South American countries that have huge Catholic populations, and whose governments might be swayed from one side to another depending on how hard the church pushes.
...but you did couch your blog in terms of "In the United States..." While I do sympathize with the plight of gay and lesbian people who are being discriminated against around the world in the name of religion, the opinions of "the church" and "several European and South American countries" are likewise irrelevant to whether or not same-sex marriage becomes legal "In the United States."
Point taken, however.
TTFN,
percivale
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Before you go off claiming that the Vatican will lose a battle of morality you have to know what you are talking about. How can you claim to be a Roman Catholic and argue for the advancement of gay-marriage when you don't even know the tenets of the sacrament of marriage. Marriage is a sacred rite between a man and a women that binds them under the will of the Lord. "You get married in a church, with a priest or a dean or a bishop. You make vows that you aren't allowed to break. In the Church, you can't get divorced, and you can't get re-married." You state rather liberally that you make vows you arent allowed to break, but these are part of a covenant with god, and covenants cannot be broken. Instead, god wills your covenant to either remain intact or be released through his holy Church. You say you can't get divorced which is completely wrong. You may ask the church for an annulment which the Church will deliberate on. They are quite understanding and will guide you through your mistake in marriage spiritually. You can get remarried and the Church looks on your decision with compassion in that you are willing to once against take up your covenant with god.
Now that you actual know what marriage is in a religion you claim to belong to, we can examine what you said about why the Pope cares since the people wont get married through the Church. Everyone that inhabits the earth is one of god's children and they are lovingly granted free will. Now some will argue that homosexuality is a gene, but I and the Church do not believe thsi and believe instead that it is a choice of free will to be homosexual. When the Pope, who is the rock of the Lord, sees the Lord's people going astray from what is confirmed as God's desire for people not to be homosexual (revealed through divine revelation and inspiration in the Bible), he will be concerned. I will pray for you that you see differently on this issue in which you stated, "the battle against gay marriage will be remembered the same way the battle against second marriages will be remembered, as a childish determination to prevent change and progress." How is the breaking of god's covenant on Earth progress for someone who claims to be a member of his most Holy Church?
How can you claim to be a Roman Catholic and argue for the advancement of gay-marriage
I would suggest that you would do it the same way that a catholic, for example, might argue that the earth is round, and that it travels around the sun rather than sitting on a fixed position at the center of the universe.
when you don't even know the tenets of the sacrament of marriage. Marriage is a sacred rite between a man and a women that binds them under the will of the Lord.
So...what was marriage before the catholic church declared it a "sacrament" at the Council of Florence in 1431 C.E.?
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Yes, I've changed my username from "percivale" to "Blackout." Go here if you want to know why.
You make good objections to my arguments. In resonse:
1)the argument that the earth is fixed as the center of the solar system was a critical period of decision-making for the church. The Roman Catholic church stood by its claim against the new scientific theory to protect the previously held tenet of interpretation. This interpretation was proved incorrect and adjusted due to the science. This case is not of science, but of morals. There is a stronger argument in this case because the fact that the Earth was the center of the universe was an interpretation of the Bible while the case against homosexuality explicitly written from the Lord's word. (Personally I greatly admire Galileo for making his claim and then renouncing it to keep with his faith and continue to the serve the Lord through the will of his Church)
2) Your second point seems to be a technicality. At the council of Florence the Church met to solidify the tenets of the faith and to develop a clear doctrine amidst the threat of heresies. Before this date, marriage was still held to be as important as it was afterward as a core belief of God's love on Earth, between a man and a woman.
Government has no other end, but the preservation of property. - John Locke
1) I would suggest that you are confusing the word "morals" with "religious dogmas." And perhaps a better comparison would be to the way that modern catholicism has begun to reject the held-for-centuries belief that people with disabilities were "sinful," too. The point was that while there is a legitimate scientific question concerning the causes of , there is also a strong scientific consensus that people do not make a conscious choice to be gay. It is difficult (even for catholics) to defend the consideration of an involuntary psychological state as "sinful."
I would also suggest that the biblical argument against homosexuality is not nearly as "explicit" as you seem to think that it is. In fact, most of the anti-gay biblical references we hear so much about are of relatively recent interpretational vintage. None of the commonly referenced New Testament passages can actually be supported as being "explicitly" about homosexuality in the original Greek, and even the passages from the Old Testament have been similarly mistranslated and re-interpreted (i.e. the story of Sodom and Gamorrah) exaggerated, or wildly exaggerated (Leviticus). And nowhere in either the Old nor the New Testament can you find any "explicit" mention of female homosexuality.
2) I think you missed the point of my second comment, as well. That point was that the practice of marriage predates the christian institution by at least several thousand years. The historical tradition of marriage in Western Civilization was considered an essentially private affair, with no connection to the the christian religion until at least the 10th century C.E. Even then, the connection was cursory...the priest only serving as a neutral witness to the verbum. More specifically, the institution of marriage that began in the United States can actually be traced directly to the pre-christian institutions of the Common Law. Christians do not now nor have they ever had a unique claim to the practice known as "marriage." And even if they did, our country does not permit the exclusion of citizens from public, secular institutions because some citizens have a religious objection to their inclusion.
TTFN,
Blackout
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
>None of the commonly referenced New Testament passages can actually be supported as being "explicitly" about homosexuality in the original Greek
Actually that's true. The common New Testament reference to homosexuals not entering the Kingdom of God is actually more accurately as "man-whores", which I think should be applied to a lot of people before gays.
Damnit blackout can you not just let the Catholics argue about Catholicism? :)
:phbt:
-------------------------
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.