Catholic Church has no problem with marriage between gay man, lesbian

[trotsky]

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/428951/catholic-church-has-no-problem-with-marriage-between-gay-man-lesbian

MANILA, Philippines — Two homosexual men cannot marry but a gay man and a lesbian can tie the knot, according to the head of the Catholic Church’s matrimonial court.

Archbishop Oscar Cruz, judicial vicar of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines-National Appellate Matrimonial Tribunal, all but ruled out any chance of the Catholic Church agreeing to same-sex unions in the Philippines but said a lesbian and gay man might be allowed to marry.

“May a lesbian marry a gay man? My answer is ‘yes’ because in that instance the capacity to consummate the union is there. The anatomy is there. The possibility of conception is there,” Cruz told a church forum on Tuesday.

LMAO! This institution run by celibate, corrupt old men just gets more and more out of touch. You gotta love his marriage checklist, though. Apparently loving someone isn't even a consideration to get an official Catholic marriage. Plumbing checks out and you could make a baby together? OK!

[midnight]

1. Studying art history was a bit of an eye opener about how the Catholic clergy

operated.... Painting of the Catholic cardinals with their sons? They have always been pro consummate....

[rug]

2. "Apparently loving someone isn't even a consideration to get an official Catholic marriage."

Once again, you get it wrong. Apparently.

You really should know what you're talking about before putting your finger on a key.

[Bluenorthwest]

3. The OP clerics said exactly that, rug. Love? Matters not if anatomy fits.

That IS the stance of the Church. Same sex couples are 'an attack on God' Francis the Worst says. Deal with it.

[rug]

4. The OP does not mention love at all, it focuses on anatomy.

The Church, however, does:

http://rediscover.archspm.org/belonging/topic.php?id=7340

[Fix The Stupid]

5. Okay. A couple questions if I may?

Whats your personal feelings?

I.e., do you believe that 2 gay men or 2 gay women should be allowed to marry? Not a 'civil union', but marriage that is recognized by the catholic church?

If so, why?

If not, why?

My personal feelings are that if 2 people (whatever their gender, whatever their sexual orientation) love each other and are committed to each other, the church SHOULD be supporting this kind of union and recognize it as fully and completely as any other straight marriage.

Isn't that the direction we should be going? More inclusive?

Thanks

[rug]

6. The Catholic Church as doctrine holds a sacramental marriage is between a man and woman.

It also teaches a second marriage is not sacramental unless it is determined the first marriage was a sacramental nullity.

Neither doctrine is going to change. Nor do I think they can change and maintain any consistency. However, they affect only those who want to be married in a Catholic Church.

Many churches have different views on both. Fortunately, there are many church options for divorced persons or for same sex marriages.

It comes down to a matter of each church's doctrines and whether one wants to belng to that particular church. Groucho Marx famously said

I sent the club a wire stating, "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER". Telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills to which he belonged, as recounted in Groucho and Me (1959), p. 321

I will say that I am not married in the Catholic Church so my own marriage is not considered sacramental. I do continue to go to Mass but I don't take communion as I am considered to be living in sin. I understand and respect its rules whether I agree or not. In the end it's their rules but they are not binding on anyone who doesn't want to belong.

Since you don't want to discuss civil marriage I won't. It is a whole other topic.

[Fix The Stupid]

7. Ok.

I can understand that answer.

Something along the lines of, "if they don't want you, why would you want to be recognized by them?" sort of argument, which makes sense.

Damn - gives me more questions though, all rhetorical:

Why would anyone WANT the church's blessings then?

How can a gay person who is a fervent catholic reconcile their churches teachings with their own lifestyle?

and further to that:

How can there be ANY gay catholics?

Isn't this like a an African-American KKK member?

Too many questions. Not expecting any answers, but your reply made me think a bit...

PS - full disclosure - went to catholic school did all that stuff, baptism, confirmation etc. I knew when I was very very young it was not what it appeared to be. I'll leave it at that.

Thanks

[rug]

8. Those are tough questions.

But they are tough only if someone believes there is value in the Catholic Church. I do, so I must deal with the questions.

As to why someone would want to married in the Catholic Church, well if you were at any point a conscious, willing member, you probably know the answer.

As to your second question, that's a bear. I've looked at both the Dignity websites and the Courage websites. There is no easy conciliation between those two views. Courage is the officially sanctioned ministry for gay Catholics. Dignity has been thrown out of church-owned properties.

http://www.dignityusa.org/

http://couragerc.net/

Yes, there can be - and are - many gay Catholics. See above.

No, I don't think it's analogous at all.

All I can say is the best solution is as much accurate information as possible. Snide throwaways accomplish nothing, assuming accomplishing something is the goal.

Good luck with your questions.

[Lordquinton]

9. On the second point

"Neither doctrine is going to change. Nor do I think they can change and maintain any consistency. However, they affect only those who want to be married in a Catholic Church."

Why would this be true? They have changed many core tenants over the years, like Female clergy, and the point in which life begins, so why would this point be any different?

As for maintaining consistency, that would indicate that there is consistency in the first place.

[rug]

12. There are certain core beliefs that it considers to be unchangeable.

The basis for that is that it is either natural law or revealed truth.

What you are probably thinking of are matters of church discipline such as celibacy or fasting on Fridays. The Catholic Church has never, despite rumors to the contrary, had women priests. As to when life begins (I assume you're referring to the "quickening" position), the response would be that the doctrine was never explicitly held as to the point at which life begins. A better example would be Limbo, which, while widely taught, remained a theological position but never doctrine.

This brief article explains the difference between doctrine and discipline.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/can-the-church-change-its-doctrines

The Catholic Church, if nothing else, has been very consistent over many centuries in its core teachings. Maddeningly so.

[Lordquinton]

15. So the beliefs that have changed are not core

And if they changed a "core belief" then it's not core anymore. By "when life begins" I mean they changed the definition from birth to conception.

What you are saying is that even if the pope spoke with infallibly that marriage is between anyone who wants to marry, he would be countered by the church?

[rug]

16. You have it backwards.

There are many beliefs that are not definitive. In fact, the Catholic Church is generally reluctant to declare a belief to be definitive. But when it does, it does not change.

And no, that's not what I'm saying about infallibility. Its definition is easy to find.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. However, Cruz also says they would try to stop civil unions in the Philippines

Cruz said the Catholic Church would oppose gay civil unions and other related proposals if these were filed in Congress.

so it ends up affecting those who'd love to have nothing to do with the Catholic church at all. As it does in many other countries where the Catholics try to stop legislation about what non-Catholics can do.

[rug]

14. And he has no more basis to try that than Dolan does here.

If they choose to act as politicians they've forfeited their collars and miters.

There's an even more egregious example at the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12212804

[Goblinmonger]

10. I have no idea how they say these things with a straight face

How ridiculous is it to say that emotions make no difference. As long as Tab A fits in Slot B, then everything is OK. And maybe Slot A and Slot C are OK as long as there is a Slot B present.

Sheesh

[cleanhippie]

11. They can say it because they only care about the church and its ability to continue.

[mr blur]

17. And let 's not forget -

[trotsky]

18. What I don't understand is that those bigots are free to continue discriminating all they want.

They aren't going to be forced to perform gay marriages, it's just going to be made legal for others to do so.

They, and their loyal parishoner enablers, can use all the excuses and flim-flammery they want to justify their discrimination. The rest of society will thankfully move on, leaving dinosaurs like them and Fred Phelps to rot.