Attending gay "wedding" compared to attending protestant communion service?

There is only this double standard because gay marriage is fairly new.
Wait just 50 years and gay marriage will be tolerated by Catholics, just like Protestantism is now. Probably then one of the next popes will add some gay weddings to an Assisi meeting.

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall NOT PREVAIL AGAINST IT! Matt 18

Protestant weddings God is invited, Gay weddings God is mocked.

Research vocations they all involve love so the difference between chased and religious life is children.

The sacrament of marriage is about children not about sex or tax benefits.

You realize that 1 in 5 American women have never born a child, married or not.

Marriage being about having children is obviously NOT a common understanding. Even for Roman Catholics.

I could give a monkeys about what Americans in this day and age view marriage as, or the Eucharist or any of the other sacraments.

The kingdom of God is not a democracy, and why would it be?

A majority of fallen human beings will logically choose what’s evil for themselves.

been going on since the original sin… Genesis 3:5-7 … and because God the Father so loved the world and mankind that he sent his Son as the perfect sacrifice… John3:16… yet despite this sacrifice, we still have free will… praying for these fallen people is what we, as Christians, do so that the Grace of God will be conferred unto them so that they will make the illogical choice and choose what is good.

the real presence of Jesus in the eucharist is dogma and yes transubstantiation


1376 The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: “Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation.”[sup]206[/sup]

__________206 Council of Trent (1551): DS 1642; cf. Mt 26:26 ff.; Mk 14:22 ff.; Lk 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor 11:24 ff.

Unfortunately the Catechism cites Trent by way of Denzinger-Schonmetzer, which I don’t have (and I don’t read Latin anyway), but it is a direct quote of the entire Fifth Chapter (the title of which is “On Transubstantiation”) of the Thirteenth Session of Trent.

Trent goes on to enshrine this doctrine in Canon Law:

If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema. [Council of Trent, [URL=“”]13th Session

, Canon 2]

Is it not an attempt to describe something that we cannot really describe or understand?

You mean like when the Church attempted to describe the hypostatic union? Or the Trinity? Or any other mystery?

Teaching. It’s what the Church does.

The Orthodox would never use this word,

Yeah, well, I would expect nothing more.

yet they firmly believe in the Real Presence.

But could you accept the Real Presence the way it is presented by the Anglicans (receptionism - if you believe it’s the Body/Blood then it is) or by Luther (consubstantiation - the bread and wine do not undergo any ontological change to become the Body/Blood, but Jesus is somehow handcuffed to the bread/wine)?

You might lack the vocabulary to describe what you mean by a “Real Presence,” but I think you can say that you don’t mean either of these ideas.

Not to discount your point, which I think for much of Protestantism is about being selective in what they emphasize and how they interpret, but the Orthodox would say the RCC has done this as well. Particularly with the Filioque.

The Catechism:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

Going and celebrating a “gay wedding” is by its nature I would say “approving” that which is objectively and intrinsically evil. “Celebrating it”. Expressing “congrats!”…

Very different than ecumenical relations with fellow Christians…

One of course even then one is to avoid any indifferentism or approving etc in anything that is in error…and avoid “false ecumenism”.

Then why is it not objectively and intrinsically evil to attend a protestant communion service, which is a sacralidge against the Body and Blood of Our Lord?

“Celebrating it”. Expressing “congrats!”…

Are you now talking about the ceremony itself, or the reception afterwards?

Very different than ecumenical relations with fellow Christians…

But WHY??? They profane not ONLY a Sacrament, but the very Body and Blood of Our Lord, and it’s somehow OK (ecumenical), but they profane ONLY a Sacrament and it’s somehow off-limits?

If gay “marriage” was declared an “ecumenical” practice, would it make it OK for Catholics to attend?

The definition of a sacrilege is “the violation or injurious treatment of a sacred object or person.” But if Catholics believe that the bread and wine in a Protestant service are just bread and wine and are therefore not sacred objects, how can it be a sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Jesus? And if a gay wedding is not really a wedding, how is going to one any different than going to eat some cake with your friends? :rolleyes:

Because, in at least Anglican and Lutheran traditions, they present their bread and wine (grape juice?) as the Body/Blood of Our Lord (according to their flawed understanding, but they still call it a “real presence”). It is thus idolatry, and is thus a sacrilege.

And if a gay wedding is not really a wedding, how is going to one any different than going to eat some cake with your friends?

Do they serve cake at a gay wedding? I thought that happened afterwards, during the reception. I’ve never seen cake served at a regular wedding.

If a gay wedding is presented as a union established by God then it is a lie, and is thus a sacrilege. But my question is not whether it is a sacrilege - my question is: why are Catholics specifically permitted to attend protestant (including Anglican/Lutheran) communion services, but might not (the jury is still out, apparently) be permitted to attend gay weddings?

=DavidFilmer;13181733] There’s another thread currently active asking if it is permissible (or sinful) to attend a gay “wedding.” So far, official Church teaching has proved elusive.

But I want to look at it from a different perspective. Michelle Arnold notes that this is a sacrilege against the Sacrament of matrimony (but stops short of saying that attending a gay ceremony is sinful or prohibited).

Hi David.
I know this is the main thrust of your thread, and I will respond to it. But you also said:

But aren’t protestant communion services a sacrilege against the Body and Blood of Christ? Yet we are allowed to attend (but not partake of) protestant communion services. (though for most of protestant history this was not so)

Obviously, I don’t consider our Eucharist as sacrilege. Neither does a rather prominent Catholic:

I count among the most important results of the ecumenical dialogues the insight that the issue of the eucharist cannot be narrowed to the problem of ‘validity.’ Even a theology oriented to the concept of succession, such as that which holds in the Catholic and in the Orthodox church, need not in any way deny the salvation-granting presence of the Lord [Heilschaffende Gegenwart des Herrn] in a Lutheran [evangelische] Lord’s Supper.

Cardinal Ratzinger claims it to be “the salvation-granting presence”. The context and wording are significant. The context is a letter written to a German Lutheran bishop, so this isn’t a comment of patronizing niceness, since he would have known would the recipient, Bishop Hanselmann, would not be so deceived.
As for the wording, it is significant that he says,“the salvation-granting presence of the Lord…”, as opposed to even “a” presence.
In any event, this does not sound like he considers it a sacrilege, if it is the salvation-granting presence. After all, how could it be both?

Vatican II’s The Decree on Ecumenism says, “Our separated brothers and sisters also celebrate many sacred actions of the Christian religion. These most certainly can truly engender a life of grace in ways that vary according to the condition of each church or community, and must be held capable of giving access to that communion in which is salvation.”
To which The USCCB responds,
** If the actions of Lutheran pastors can be described by Catholics as “sacred actions” that “can truly engender a life of grace,” if communities served by such ministers give “access to that communion in which is salvation,” and if at a eucharist at which a Lutheran pastor presides is to be found “the salvation-granting presence of the Lord,” then Lutheran churches cannot be said simply to lack the ministry given to the church by Christ and the Spirit. **

Isn’t it a double-standard to say that we should refrain from gay “weddings” because they are sacrilegious, but it’s OK to attend a protestant communion service, even though the nature of the sacrilege (against not only a Sacrament, but against the very Body and Blood of Our Lord) seems more serious?

Therefore, it is not a double standard at all, even if, with good reason BTW, one considers same sex marriage to be a sacrilege.


I count three “ifs” in that statement.

I could say, "IF we can move much faster than the speed of light, and IF we can ignore the effects of gravity, and IF we can economically transmute lead into gold, THEN we can colonize distant planets.

Help me out here. It seems the conclusion is based on three very improbable conditions.

How are these conditions probable or actual?

The three “ifs” referred to are the statements by Cardinal Ratzinger, and the documents from Vatican II. Those are actual.

I will add another “if” here, from the CCC:

"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

How could the Spirit use these “ecclesial communities” if they practice sacrilege? More importantly, why would He do so?


Fr Serpa is a good shepherd.


the HS is not behind 10’s of thousands of disperate heretical ecclesial communities.

Also from then Card Ratzinger,

“…to be a Church the community must be “legitimate”; they are legitimate when they are “united with their pastors”. What does this mean? In the first place, no one can make a Church by himself. A group cannot simply get together, read the New Testament and declare: “At present we are the Church because the Lord is present wherever two or three are gathered in His name”.The element of “receiving” belongs essentially to the Church, just as faith comes from “hearing” and is not the result of one’s decision or reflection. Faith is a converging with something I could neither imagine nor produce on my own; faith has to come to meet me. We call the structure of this encounter, a “Sacrament”. It is part of the fundamental form of a sacrament that it be received and not self-administered. No one can baptize himself. No one can ordain himself. No one can forgive his own sins. Perfect repentance cannot remain something interior—of its essence it demands the form of encounter of the Sacrament. This too is a result of a sacrament’s fundamental structure as an encounter [with Christ]…”
from [/FONT]

Protestantism made themselves. They are 100% manmade… by Luther, Henry VIII, Calvin, Smyth, etc etc. Therefore, then Card Ratzinger is saying, that’s NOT legitimate. Ergo those who do that aren’t legitimate

Legitimacy is not the issue. Even considering his view expressed here, he still recognizes the salvation granting presence. In fact, it actually adds significant weight to his comment about Lutheran Eucharist.

If it was me, I would certainly want to know that issue


Turn this scenerio that you describe around.
]Can a Catholic leave the Catholic Church and join the Lutherans, and now receive “the salvation granting presence” with the Lutherans? No.
]Can a Catholic leave the Catholic Church and join the Lutherans, and that has no consequence on their immortal soul? No
[/LIST]Why not? One has to know those questions are there, and one needs to know why the answer to both is

THAT’s why I think you’re reading too much into what then Card Ratzinger said in the quote you referred to.

First, of course that Catholic who transfers membership to the Lutheran church can still receive the salvation granting presence, and can still receive that grace which is eternal life. You and I both know we won’t agree on that point.
Second, I’m not reading anything more into it than the USCCB does in the document I cited. OTOH, I have no odd notion that Cardinal Ratzinger held to a belief outside your communion’s, I promise. I encourage you to read the context in his book, Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith.
Finally, the intent was to challenge David on his claim of sacrilege, which I doesn’t sound like a claim of the CC.

Then why is it not okay for a Catholic to leave the Catholic Church and become a protestant.?

It’s not okay you know. And THAT’s where the rubber meets the road…inspite all the squishy ecumenical language


Re: sacriledge, it goes on lots of times at a Catholic mass. Here’s just one example

To deliberately miss mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. If one who is guilty of this doesn’t go to confession first and receives the Eucharist, they commit a sacriledge. They defile something sacred.

Do you have anything like that in Lutheranism?
*]Is deliberately missing one of your assemblies on Sunday a mortal sin?
*]does a Lutheran need to be free of mortal sin before receiving communion in a Lutheran assembly?
[/LIST]If any of this is NO, please explain

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit