I'd like to ask one more time (political opposition to gay marriage rights)

Now that gay marriage rights are established in the majority of US states, with no hope of reversal, I’d like to ask this question one more time…

Where in Catholic teaching is found the MANDATE that Catholics must oppose gay marriage rights not just personally, but also POLITICALLY?

  1. Is it anywhere in the Bible? (It is not)

  2. Is it “Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons” written by Benedict in 2003 before he became pope?

  3. If #2 is yes, is that document really part of the Magisterium? Is it actually and expressly required for Catholics to follow this document? (We know that Ratzinger was and still is a polarizing figure in the Vatican.)

  4. If #3 is yes, can’t it be simply repealed, or deemphasized, by Francis?

Marriage is EXCLUSIVELY between man and woman and is both unitive and procreative. That will never change. It is irrelevant if it is civilly legal or not. Just because something is legal does not make it moral.

Homosexuality (meaning active sexual relations between same sexes) is a sin of grave matter and as this is an infallible teaching of the Church it can NEVER change.
If you want me to quote from the Bible about homosexuality please tell me and I’ll give you plenty.

By the way the document you refer to is NOT a Church teaching and Catholics are not bound by it.

No, we’re already getting sidetracked! The Bible arguably does teach that homosexuality is a sin (unless you believe it only forbids temple prostitution and pederasty).

Let’s focus on the political mandate. Where is the political mandate found in Catholic teaching?

Why is it not enough to oppose it in one’s personal life, but support civil rights politically?

By the way the document you refer to is NOT a Church teaching and Catholics are not bound by it.

Thank you for the clarification. I thought it was Church teaching.

If something like this is wrong it doesn’t matter weather it is political or not its still wrong.

Like suicide. We all know that it is wrong but if the government allows euthanasia
it ok. (but your still killing yourself so it’s still wrong) POLITICAL OR NOT ITS STILL WRONG

Good question–is it necessary for Catholics to resist this change politically, or can we accept the budding separation between church marriage and state marriage, and continue to uphold our religious teaching outside of the secular and legal spheres?

There is no right to something which does not exist. A civil right is derived from natural right, and a man has no more right to marry a man than he has a right to ovulate and bear children. A woman has no more right to marry a woman than she has a right to her own penile election and ejaculate. That a group of state officials abetted by a public delusion have decided to create a legal semblance of marriage is a sign that the political state itself has collapsed: the central pillar of civil society is marriage through which laws regarding all family relationships are defined. Under this notion of civil right, there can be no legal impediment to incest, if brother and ssister love each other; or if parent and child enter into an erotic relationship. Polygamy must be a civil right, obviously.
Any Catholic who insists on going with the self - contradictory notion that the state canapé arrive where the creation and it’s Creator can’t is part I paying in a massive fraud and injustice. IIt’s analogous to the injustice when a state deliberately defraud laborers by the continual devaluation of wages; or by giving free rein to schemes in which speculative gains are treated as real assets.
Atheists are fond of comparing God’s existence as being like that of an invisible flying spaghetti monster. ‘Civil rights’ to ‘gay marriage’ are far more substanceless. The reversal will come not by procedure but through the incapacity of the whole Web of legal and social relationships to deal with the multitudinous absurdities of treating a self - contradictory notion as an unassailable fact.

Matthew 22:15 Then the Pharisees* went off and plotted how they might entrap him in speech. 16 They sent their disciples to him, with the Herodians,* saying, “Teacher, we know that you are a truthful man and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. And you are not concerned with anyone’s opinion, for you do not regard a person’s status. 17 Tell us, then, what is your opinion: Is it lawful to pay the census tax to Caesar or not?” 18 Knowing their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing me, you hypocrites? 19 Show me the coin that pays the census tax.” Then they handed him the Roman coin. 20 He said to them, “Whose image is this and whose inscription?”
21 They replied, “Caesar’s.”* At that he said to them, “Then repay to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and to God what belongs to God.” 22 When they heard this they were amazed, and leaving him they went away.


Never mind, CaliLobo. There’s still a chance that someone might actually try to answer your question. I hope so. It was nicely paraphrased by 1newcatholic.

Peaceful opposition is all that matters. It is totally irrelevant if it is personal or political or both.

This is pretty much the argument Muslims would use to justify the use of Sharia law instead of a civil code of justice.

I think this document called *The Participaton of Catholics in Political Life *addresses your question directly. I would argue that Catholics do have an obligation to resist in the temporal order (i.e., politics) that which contradicts or offends the moral order. Emphasis mine:

[quote=]By fulfilling their civic duties, “guided by a Christian conscience”,[7] in conformity with its values, the lay faithful exercise their proper task of infusing the temporal order with Christian values, all the while respecting the nature and rightful autonomy of that order,[8] and cooperating with other citizens according to their particular competence and responsibility.[9] The consequence of this fundamental teaching of the Second Vatican Council is that “the lay faithful are never to relinquish their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic, social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to promote organically and institutionally the common good”.[10] This would include the promotion and defence of goods such as public order and peace, freedom and equality, respect for human life and for the environment, justice and solidarity.


[quote=]When political activity comes up against moral principles that do not admit of exception, compromise or derogation, the Catholic commitment becomes more evident and laden with responsibility. In the face of fundamental and inalienable ethical demands, Christians must recognize that what is at stake is the essence of the moral law, which concerns the integral good of the human person. This is the case with laws concerning abortion and euthanasia (not to be confused with the decision to forgo extraordinary treatments, which is morally legitimate). Such laws must defend the basic right to life from conception to natural death. In the same way, it is necessary to recall the duty to respect and protect the rights of the human embryo. Analogously, the family needs to be safeguarded and promoted, based on monogamous marriage between a man and a woman, and protected in its unity and stability in the face of modern laws on divorce: in no way can other forms of cohabitation be placed on the same level as marriage, nor can they receive legal recognition as such.

The very nature of marriage as the basic foundation of a healthy society mandates that we oppose any efforts to undermine it, whether those efforts be political or through any other means.

A society that rejects the basic nature of it’s most foundational unit it doomed to collapse, and we cannot sit by idly and allow that to happen. As such, it is our duty as both Christians and citizens of whatever country we inhabit to work to uphold the only true definition of marriage that is possible.

To be frank, it’s not in the Bible because it shouldn’t be an issue, it should be plainly clear to -EVERYONE ON THE FREAKING PLANET- that marriage can only exist between a man and a woman. Even the friggin Greeks, who freely engaged in all manner of sexual immorality including homosexuality and pedophilia, recognized that marriage was special and set apart from all other forms of relationship. If our society has become so blind as to not even be able to recognize that basic a truth,we’re in big trouble.

This has nothing to do with Pope Emeritus Benedict’s writing, and everything to do the moral law. This is not something new to the Church. S has been fighting this battle since She was founded by Christ. First against the Romans, and then against other pagan societies. The Truth always won out because any society founded on something besides the Truth was lacking in comparison.

No hope of reversal? You sound like white southerners before MLK or slave owners before the Civil War or the British before the Revolution, etc. etc etc.

You’d be surprised what can be done. Our culture seems to either be heading for a re-evangelization (which will bring with it an end to SSM) or to a complete collapse and takeover by a more virile culture (which will also bring an end to SSM). Either way, I doubt SSM will be here for long.

For me the answer to your question can be found in Luke 17:2

It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.

Political support of gay marriage is like saying you support the “right” to abortion even though you personally oppose it. We are supposed to uphold good both personally and publicly.

The quote from Luke would seem to say that those who support sin will not be judged in the best light come the final judgement.

I don’t think I understand what you mean by any society not founded on the ‘Truth’ was somehow lacking. I take it you mean Christian societies are founded on the Truth? So, in your eyes any society or civilisation founded on other religions are/were lacking in comparison to Christian ones?

Opposition to same-sex whatchamacallits is not merely current Church policy, Truth and moral law demand it. Homosexual acts are intrinsically evil, and one is always obliged to avoid formal cooperation with evil, and try to avoid material cooperation with it as much as reasonably possible.

It is opposed becasue God defines marriage as between a man and a women in Genesis. The law books say sodomy is a sin and therefore evil. Jesus said that we shouls follow the law so this is proof that he was against any form of gay union. Even though we are now free from the law anything that was a sin before is still a sins

It doesn’t shake the foundations of society if two people who love each other live together. What they do in the privacy of their own home whether it be playing ping pong or whatever, does not affect me and therefore does not affect society. It is promiscuity, soliciting etc that causes the harm to society and that goes for couples of any sex. Gay couples are part of my society and are friends, they play an active, beneficial part in it…church included in some cases. I would have no desire to deprive them of the love and comfort of living with another human being like I am lucky enough to have with my husband. I have no idea if they are sexually active or not…any more than anyone knows about me! I’m not interested and see no evil.
At least the new pope is looking into the subject with love rather than hate.

That document along with this one are pretty clear that there is no legitimate political position that supports same-sex “marriage” or even civil unions.



Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

“In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.”

Yes, this is an authoritative document of the Magisterium. Catholics are bound by it.

  1. yes, the document could be superseded by another authoritative document. But even if another document were to be issued, this one would not cease to exist.

But take heart, the battle is not lost. The idea of the inevitability of same-sex “marriage” is a western delusion. For most of the world, especially most of the Catholic world, marriage is one man-one woman. The Church is not going to change its teaching based on the sexual proclivities of North America and Europe which long ago abandoned many other morally centered ideals. Just look at no-fault divorce and abortion. Being legal doesn’t make it right and certainly doesn’t put any pressure on the Church to adapt.

The answer is 2. For 4, the answer is no. Although the secular media and some gay sites seem to think Pope Francis has been somewhat favorable regarding one comment he made, he will not upend Church teaching, especially since the Considerations present no new doctrinal elements. The Church advises based on right reason and previous Church teaching, including the Bible. The Considerations were a further clarification.


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.