Gay "marriage" question for CATHOLICS


#1

(If you are not Catholic, sorry, but this thread doesn’t concern you)

I know there are a couple of threads on this subject currently running but they have a secular perspective and I want to know how Catholics can support gay “marriage,” given that marriage between a man and a woman is one of the seven Holy Sacraments and it seems that as Catholics we are required to uphold the seven Holy Sacraments. How can we even support gay “marriage” conducted in civil ceremonies or in other churches, if marriage is only sacramental when it is between a man and a woman?

I was talking with a moral theologian last night (starting his post-doc work), and he put it this way- from a Catholic doctrinal perspective, marriage must be:

  1. uniting
  2. complementary
  3. procreative (i.e. physically procreative) or at least allowing of such (infertility happens)

He said that an argument may be advanced for gay “marriage” fulfilling requirement #1, but it is impossible to fulfill requirements 2 and 3, and all three must be fulfilled for the marriage to be sacramental.


#2

*I think we respect Gay people, but their union, is not marriage, first of all. Then, their “intercourse” is SINFUL so therefore, it is not permitted to “marry” a gay person. *


#3

While I don’t “support” gay marriage (especially so under the current modus operandi of the state), I do believe the government should not regulate marriage.

There are some religions that believe gay marriages to exist (:confused:), and I think it would be a violation of religious freedom for the government to interfere.

After all, as far as I know the Catholic Church doesn’t demand that protestants be prohibited from aping the Holy Communion although that’s one of the seven sacraments.


#4

Interesting points and your last paragraph is ingenious. Thanks Albertus!


#5

As a slight aside, how can “gay marriage” be uniting? The Catholic understanding of the unitive aspect of marriage involves complementarity.


#6

This smacks of modernism. The government regulates marriage because of its public purpose, which most people here are not aware of.


#7

It always has in the past few centuries. There is an obligation to protect marriage.

There are some religions that believe gay marriages to exist (:confused:), and I think it would be a violation of religious freedom for the government to interfere.

I cannot see how?

After all, as far as I know the Catholic Church doesn’t demand that protestants be prohibited from aping the Holy Communion although that’s one of the seven sacraments.

The Church is not interested in the sacramental aspect of marriage in this debate. She is interested in the natural institution of marriage which predates the Church.


#8

But if the government started trying to pass a law that said that what protestants did was the same as Holy Communion and that all people must recognize it as such, that would be a problem.

That’s not the best analogy, but the issue is that making laws saying that gay people can get married is the exact opposite of not regulating marriage. If gay people want to say they’re married, that’s immoral but probably shouldn’t be illegal. It’s the government saying that they are married (and hence that the rest of us must pretend that they’re married) that’s the problem.


#9

Always glad to be of service.


#10

I think there should be no marriage laws, personally, but that won’t work yet so for now I oppose gay marriage.

Ideally, I feel the government should get out of marriage (and everything else). I don’t think a faithful Catholic can say “The government should recognize gay marriage”.


#11

Actually I find your analogy quite apt. Both it and Albertus’ last paragraph that I referred to address the Sacrament issue which I think is key, for Catholics.


#12

I believe the government should not exist.

Therefore, my ideal government would not regulate anything. I’m an anarchist.


#13

I agree, of course. I guess I was being charitable…perhaps perfunctorily so?.


#14

Actually, before the reformation, control over marriage belonged to the church. Martin Luther gave control over marriage (who can and can’t) to the government in order to take it away from the Catholic Church.


#15

Is Genesis what you are referring to, fix? My moral theologian acquaintance brought up, in the context of our discussion on Theology of the Body, that it all relates back to, at core, Genesis 1 and 2, and in fact that Genesis is at the heart of Pope John Paul II’s work in this area. So the Sacrament which Christ instituted at Cana is a spiritual continuation (a New Covenant affirmation?) of something that is much older?


#16

I am saying that there are many nonsacramental valid marriages. The protection of marriage is not exclusively about scaramental marriages. It is about all marriages.

Marriage has always existed. Mary and Joseph had a valid marriage, but not sacramental. As you say Christ elevated it to a sacrament, but that is not only what the Church is defending.


#17

Why do you think this? The Church certainly doesn’t oppose marriage laws.


#18

I don’t like government.


#19

So you think there should be NO laws, right? It’s not particularly marriage laws that bother you, then, right? You don’t like governments and don’t like laws. I get it. It’s at odds with Catholic teaching, but you already knew that…


#20

I don’t know how one reconciles “Catholic” with “anarchist” either… but I love the “Catholic” part! Perhaps anarchism means something a bit different in the UK? I was first thinking “Libertarian” on Albertus’ first post, but that’s an American political party, and it’s not quite anarchist, more economically and socially laissez-faire.

Probably a topic for another thread, anyway.


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