WASHINGTON — Victor Bermudez, the president of Franciscan University of Steubenville’s pro-life group, accompanied 400 students from Steubenville, Ohio, to the nation’s capital for the March for Life this week. Back on campus, he directs a slew of activities, from prayer vigils at abortion businesses to baby showers for mothers in crisis pregnancies.
But ask the energetic sophomore about where pro-life students come down on same-sex “marriage,” and he’ll explain that his membership remains focused on life issues.
“Abortion is the prime issue because of the sheer numbers of abortions performed in the nation. Same-sex ‘marriage’ is not something that most people want to debate,” said Bermudez, who added that “students here hold closely to Catholic teaching, and most won’t defend ‘gay marriage.’”
But what about young people on the whole?
A 2009 survey by the Gallup organization reported that “younger Americans have typically been much more supportive of same-sex ‘marriage’ than older Americans, and that is the case in the current poll. A majority of 18- to 29-year-olds think same-sex couples should be allowed to legally marry, while support reaches only as high as 40% among the three older age groups.”
A variety of studies also confirmed that Catholics were more likely than Protestants to support same-sex “marriage” and regular churchgoers were more likely to oppose it.
Yet, at the same time that college students have become more accepting of same-sex unions, traditional marriage has hit the skids. A Pew Research Center report released last month confirmed that barely half of adults in the nation are married—a drastic decline fueled by the postponement of marriage among college graduates—and increasing numbers of high school graduates begin families outside of wedlock.
While pro-life outreach has become a commonplace feature of campus life at many Catholic and secular colleges, many students who oppose same-sex “marriage” think twice about speaking out.
“There is diversity of opinion on that among kids coming to our conferences,” agreed Kristan Hawkins, 26, president of Students for Life, which has experienced a rapid increase in membership. Since the group opened its doors in 2005, the number of affiliated schools and colleges and graduate programs has jumped from 181 to 670.
“A lot of students will have qualms about ‘gay marriage.’ But where the rubber hits the road, they will be quiet on that issue. Some student leaders disagree with us on this. They are pro-life, but they are pro-‘gay marriage,’” said Hawkins.
She said her generation’s exposure to the destructive consequences of abortion has fueled a steady reassessment of life issues.
“They are personal witnesses to abortion. They have grown up with this. We talk about abortion as a human-rights issue. With ‘gay marriage,’ you are not stopping murder. But with legal abortion, every day children are dying; women are scarred forever.”
Personal Experience
However, personal experience has largely taken young Americans in a different direction on marriage. “They have grown up with friends who are gay; family members are gay. It’s difficult for them to say, ‘I don’t think you have the right to be married,’” she noted.
Hawkins observed that it would be a mistake to underestimate the power of political correctness and a narrow, secular mindset on many U.S. campuses, including some Catholic colleges.
“It’s enough for students to say they are Christian. There is no way they will [publicly] oppose ‘gay marriage.’ It is a problem. We don’t take a stance. It will take time to deal with this issue,” she concluded.
At Grand Valley State University in Michigan, junior Raymond “R.J.” McVeigh, president of the campus Students for Life group, echoed this judgment.
His group of 30 members concentrates on helping peers struggling with crisis pregnancies, providing a range of support, from meals to babysitting.
“Our group solely focuses on life issues, and we are classified as a service and advocacy group, as opposed to a religious group. We stay away from other themes,” he said, adding that their advocacy focuses on abortion as a human-rights issue, not a religious issue.
“The challenge our members face is the dilemma of moral relevancy: How can they relate and talk about something that is intrinsically good or evil? In an increasingly secular society, many students who are Catholic and Christians are careful about coming out with their beliefs. They try to find different ways to talk about abortion as a human-rights issue, not as a religious issue,” he said.
Catherine Palmer, a pro-life leader at the College of William and Mary, applauded Students for Life’s “Pregnant on Campus Initiative.” She described the program as “first, to love the pregnant and parenting women on our campuses, serving them, holistically, as best we can. Resources ought to be in place for them to both care for their child and finish college, should they so choose.”
Meanwhile, her organization “takes no official stance on same-sex ‘marriage.’ My position on the matter is that same-sex ‘marriage’ is a significant sociocultural concern. Surely, homosexual persons are owed profound love and respect, bearing dignity as any other person. Yet marriage, in its perennial sense, between one man and one woman, contributes intuitively to the common good, and particularly to the needs of children.”
Staying Focused
For now, most campus pro-life leaders will stay focused on the fight against abortion. But their hand could be forced as the advance of “marriage equality” flattens conscience provisions that could ultimately affect pro-life Americans in the workplace. Down the road, pro-life and traditional-marriage activists could find themselves making it a common cause.
Indeed, Emily Bissonnette, a former president of the pro-life group at Franciscan University who now works as a theology of the body education coordinator at Ruah Woods in Cincinnati, suggested that Catholic students should take time to grapple with the moral and theological connection between two hot-button issues.
“Pope John Paul II … said that the root of the culture of death is ‘an eclipse of the sense of God and of man.’ Through that lens, we can see the link between same-sex ‘marriage’ and abortion and, consequently, the link between defending life and defending marital love between one man and one woman,” said Bissonnette.
“If we look at abortion primarily as a matter of rights, then it can be difficult to see how marriage should be promoted within pro-life clubs on campus. But when seen as a matter of the dignity of the human person through ‘adequate anthropology,’ then the two issues can be seen as standing or falling together,” she added.
Victor Bermudez, who still has two more years ahead of him at Steubenville, agreed that same-sex “marriage” needs more attention. But he thought that secular arguments would have more traction with his generation.
“There is a secular way to defend traditional marriage. It’s in society’s best interest to protect traditional marriage because it’s the best environment to raise a child: with a mother and father. It’s the best way to build up society because families are the anchor for a society,” he proposed.
To underscore the state’s interest in upholding traditional marriage, which focuses on the rearing and education of future citizens, he offered an analogy his peers might understand: “The government gives us an incentive when we recycle cans, and it’s fair that it provides incentives for strong families,” said Bermudez.
But just as the destruction wrought by legal abortion could only be acknowledged in hindsight, he wondered if his own generation might not wake up until long after the damage has been done. “I could see same-sex ‘marriage’ being legalized,” he said, “and then people realizing their mistake.”
Register senior editor Joan Frawley Desmond writes from Chevy Chase, Maryland.
Dan Burke: Call to Prayer: Seven Resources for your Lenten Journey
Comments
Post a Comment
The church isn’t pro-life, it’s just pro-birth.
The primary reason that many support gay “marriage”, especially among Catholics, is a failure of catechesis, or more simply, ignorance of our faith. In this case, ignorance of what marriage IS.
This is at least partially understandable given the secular bombardment most people have had that insists that marriage is nothing but a legal contract recognizing a romantic relationship.
In fact, the sacrament of marriage is a complete union - emotionally, spiritually, and physically - and such a union is biologically only possible between a male & a female (in species that reproduce heterosexually, anyway.)
I believe I read a letter from the NJ bishops which actually explains this quite well, including answering most of the questions of “but what about [various rights]”, all of which are already legally provided for same sex civil union contracts that are legally enforced in NJ. This shows that the big “marriage” debate is really over a desire to redefine something that isn’t even understood to begin with.
What is most disturbing about the debate in regards to “same-sex marriage”, is that so many dismiss the fact that every same-sex sexual act demeans the inherent dignity of the person engaging in that sexual act and is thus physically, psychologically, emotionally, and spiritually harmful. One would think that out of Love and respect for those men and women who are struggling with a same-sex sexual attraction, those persons who claim to Love them would tell them the truth, that the very nature of same-sex sexual acts precludes those men and women who engage in them from ever having a relationship that is grounded in authentic Love. We should all desire that our beloved develop healthy and Holy friendships and relationships and teach them to never underestimate the value of a Loving friendship. We have been so conditioned in this Time of great deception that many of us can no longer discriminate between appropriate and inappropriate sexual behavior or simply excuse and tolerate such behavior out of a false sense of Love.
Is there some way to notify me if my comments appear to be spam because due to the nature of my comments in regards to same-sex sexual acts, on several occasions my comments have been blocked.
If you don’t like same-sex marriage, then don’t enter into one. Otherwise, it’s not your business.
Very simple. Why the church feels it necessary to impose their own opinion about right and wrong on everyone else - especially those who aren’t Catholic - is beyond me.
You are aware that when you put quotes around something it makes it seem as if you yourself are not convinced of its worthiness to exist. That, or you’re saying it is a subject worthy of ridicule. I am unaware if this was a personal choice by the author or if this was a decision made by the editors, but this is hardly a way to tell an unbiased story about “marriage equality.” Unless each time someone discussed “marriage equality” they made “air quotes,” what you’re doing is either making an odd style choice at best or passive-aggressively inveighing against an already oppressed minority at worse.
There is a comment in this article that, “You are not stopping a murder.” Someone at Steubenville should be teaching the lie of that statement and the heads of pro-life groups as well. This sin isn’t part of the culture of death for no reason. And not all murders are physical.
“scare” quotes re: SS"M” are silly. Same Sex Marriage is legal for 1/4 of the population. It is a fact and when priests say “same sex so called marriage” as on WETN’s “Women of Grace”, it is just childish. The wave of marriage equality is washing over the country and spitting into the wind will not stop it.
First, the argument against abortion is straightforward: Live and let live. The argument against gay marriage is more nuanced and has to do with the nature of marriage, sex, and homosexuality. The Catholic Church has always treated abortion as a human life issue and not a sexual issue.
Second, the debate on gay marriage is more of a legal debate than a spiritual debate.
Plenty of people get legally married every day in situations that violate Catholic rules on marriage. These young people see gay legal marriage as no different than a marriage after a divorce, or a “starter marriage”, or a marriage that has no intention of producing children. In other words, if Kim Kardashian can get legally married, why not a gay couple that has been together for years?
Conversely, the First Amendment protects the Catholic Church from having anything to do with gay marriage. Situations outside the U.S. (where the First Amendment does not apply) are inapplicable.
Furthermore, the “secular defense of traditional marriage” given in the article hasn’t gotten any traction because it isn’t a very good argument. Gay couples simply aren’t interested in heterosexual relationships. For these people, the choice isn’t between gay marriage and traditional marriage. The choice is between gay marriage and no marriage. Homosexual relationships are a fact and society should encourage these relationships to be stable and monogamous.
Likewise, heterosexual couples aren’t interested in gay marriage. Whether gay couples can or cannot get legally married is completely irrelevant to who I am attracted to. I am just not interested in other men. Period. Most heterosexuals are the same way.
Most people don’t consciously choose their sexual orientation, meaning that the incentives described won’t make any difference as to whether gay couples or heterosexual couples enter into a heterosexual marriage. Even if they did, they would be far more likely to encourage gay people to enter into INVALID traditional marriages (by being dishonest about their orientation) than to “straighten them up”. Encouraging invalid marriages harms marriage far more than legal recognition of same-sex relationships.
For many of us, it isn’t the pressure of political correctness that keeps us silent. What keeps us silent is the knowledge that it is heterosexuals (our parents ) who have destroyed marriage with rampant infidelity, divorce, and multiple marriages. How can I look my friend in the eye, a friend for whom i feel nothing but love, and with a straight face, without feeling the slightest bit of shame, tell him that he doesn’t deserve the same legal protections in his committed relationships as the rest of us. And you will have a hard time finding more than a few 20 somethings who even remotely believe that there is any connection at all between abortion and gay marriage. Marriage is about love, not death, and it is that sort of twisted logic that will drive us away from the church, just as issues related to sexuality drove young people away from the Church in the 60s and 70s.
Comment on the line about “With ‘gay marriage,’ you are not stopping murder.” Actually, with ‘gay marriage’ you are stopping murder. It may not be physical murder but it is spiritual murder. In reading the Cathechism on the Ten Commandments, it gave me a new understanding of them. “Thou shall not kill” is not only for physical death. Causing someone spiritual death is harder to see but just as real. Supporting ‘gay marriage’ is supporting spiritual death. I will add one thing, if you are Pro-Life then how can you be Pro ‘gay marriage’ when two men or two women cannot produce life. ‘Gay marriage’ by it very nature is “anti-life”. If you are completely Pro-Life then you would support a marriage between a man and a woman since there is the possibility of producing life.
Making abortion a sexual issue is poor tactics and likely to do more harm than good.
The argument that made abortion legal is that it was a sexual issue and that the government had no business in controlling a woman’s body in order to punish her for having sex. The argument that defeats that is that the child is a human life and has inherent value as a new human life, even in the mother’s womb. Therefore, abortion is wrong because it destroys a new human life.
Gloom and doom conservatives seem to be unaware that this argument is actually winning in popular culture. Take the movie Juno, for example. The movie starts when the teenaged Juno finds out she’s pregnant. She sees abortion as clearly her best choice. But when she gets to the clinic, she meets a sidewalk counselor. She can’t go through with the procedure because she recognizes that the child is a new life and that the abortion will end that life. The rest of the movie is about her pregnancy and reinforces that her choice was the right one.
The language of “choice” and “reproductive freedom” is a dated and losing argument, even among people who emphatically reject Catholic teaching on sexuality. Tying the two together muddies the water by diminishing from the simplicity of the pro-life argument AND plays into the prejudices of the pro-abortion side. Therefore, it is poor tactics.
@Chris: You seem to be confused between the concept of legal marriage and sacramental marriage. The law deals with contracts, not sacraments. In the eyes of the law, marriage IS nothing but a legal contract recognizing a romantic relationship, and I see no reason why this recognition should only be granted to heterosexual couples.
It would have been interesting to know the attitude of these pro-life students toward contraception. I suspect they are at least as pro-contraception as they are pro-same-sex-marriage. I think it’s pretty clear that most of these young people who oppose the legal availability of abortion are not doing so for religious reasons. They believe they can determine what is right and wrong for themselves. They reject or accept church teachings based on their own knowledge and emotions. I don’t believe they see a problem with this.
It’s funny to me that the Catholic bishops claim to speak for millions of Catholics when they object to Catholic hospitals and universities being required to cover contraception and sterilization in health insurance policies. How many actual Catholics would be outraged to find that the contraceptives they are already using are now covered by their insurance plan?
The failure to uphold the sanctity of marriage over the last 40 years is quite closely tied to the life issues—failure to link the two is folly. In the last 2 generations, we have seen an increasing divide between married life and raising children. The problem is that society has failed to remember that marriage and children necessarily go together, and attempting to split these two responsibilities inevitably leads to the chaos we see now. The roots of these problems stem from widespread access to and acceptance of contraception (which leads to more abortion, not less - know the facts), sexual intimacy outside of marriage (whether heterosexual or not, whether pre-marital or extra-marital), abortion on demand, and greater proclivity toward divorce.
***
When the American Catholic Church failed to uphold the teachings of Humanae Vitae, a generation of Catholics (and all of society) suffered the consequences. If half of all marriages end in divorce (something the Church has never allowed; divorce is different than an anullment), why would society see same-sex marriage as any different than traditional marriage? If it’s merely a legal contract, what difference does it make? If the purpose of marriage isn’t aimed toward the raising of children and the sanctity of the family, then why not accept the relatively new societal norms of contraception, abortion, cohabitation, extra-marital sexual activity, divorce, pornography, and same-sex marriage?
***
My point is that the last two generations of Catholics have done an incredibly poor job of living the vocation to marriage (by not following the Church’s teaching on marriage) and have therefore become an example for the rest of society. If those of us who profess to be Catholics can’t follow our own precepts, then we shouldn’t be surprised that the rest of society doesn’t want to, either. We reap what we sow, people. Marriage and children go together—always have, always will. To say the two aren’t related is blatently ignorant.
As these comments show, the argument for traditional, hopefully sacramental, marriage, for that which is unitive and potentially procreative and PROTECTS WOMEN, who are uniquely vulnerable to abandonment and objectification in relationships, is not easily reduced to a sound bite, like ‘marriage equality’.
However, our beautiful and foundational institution of marriage, so important for stability in society, is worth fighting for, against the secular forces that don’t see the damage being done to society by redefinition of marriage.
I think there is a lot of work to be done in the Catholic Church on a lot of issues, especially moral issues. There are many clergy that need to be re-catechized in what the Church believes and should be teaching. The moral relativism that the Pope speaks about has infiltrated into our very Church.
Remember this…..
“Wrong is wrong even if everyone else is doing it, right is right even if no one else is doing it” ~ St. Augustine
To claim that there is such a thing as “marriage equality” is a lie from the start, since the very essence of Marriage is restrictive to begin with. It is a self-evident truth that not every couple can live in relationship as husband and wife. For this reason, banning fathers and daughters, mothers and sons, brothers and sisters, children, two men, two women, one man and two women, one woman and two men, from marrying each other, is not unjust discrimination.
Well said, Quo Vadis. This is the best post yet. Traditional marriage is an institution based on procreation and family. It takes moral courage to stand up for what God has intended. Our society has lost its courage since abortion became legal. We have distanced ourselves away from our Creator because of abortion and it only was going to lead to the destruction of what is good and right. I pray that people listen to their heart of hearts to follow God’s voice.
I don’t think success of ‘pro gay marriage’ is because of personal experience (with gay family etc.). Experience implies that these young people might also be familiar with some of the negative aspects of the homosexual lifestyle: abusive relationships, heavy drug use,a culture of the abuse of the young among many male homosexuals, people suddenly realizing they are homosexual and abandoning their families, bizarre STDs and physical ailments - but they don’t seem to be.
Instead, the ‘young person’s view’ is the one pushed by the propaganda on TV shows and other media which cater to the young: that homosexuality is the flip side to a coin (‘heterosexuality’ being on the other side) and that homosexuals actually want to settle down in a monogamous relationship with someone they are romantically in love with. That these observations did not occur to anyone from the beginning of human language until about AD 2000 or so is never pondered. In contrast there is little propaganda for abortion (in modern entertainment directed at young people) - I’m guessing because there are many more gays in entertainment than feminists.
I’d also say that most young people at this time themselves participate, want to participate, or want people to think they participate, in sinful sexual behaviors so find it hard to be condemn others that do. Young college-type people are also idealistic and inclusive and it hurts them to say ‘no’ to people who they believe have good intentions.
My generation has also been raised with the consequences of a 50% divorce rate among marriages. Jesus speaks of the sinfulness of divorce on numerous occasions, yet the Church chooses to ignore this and instead targets gay and lesbians. This just pushes us away from a relationship with Christ, not to mention it makes many of our Priests look like hypocrites.
Jesus never spoke about same sex relationships, at all. Kind of odd, considering they were quite common at that time…
Perhaps the students have it correct: Pro-Life, Pro-Gay-Marriage!
@RMMT: Quite the contrary. The Catholic position against contraception as defined in Humanae Vitae was deeply flawed and widely ignored as a result. (Remember that a majority of bishops and theologians disagreed with it, including the majority of the Vatican’s own commission.)
An unintended consequence of this is that by taking such an extreme and largely unworkable position, the Catholic Church was no longer part of the larger cultural discussion on human sexuality. This is unfortunate, because Catholic values need to be part of the discussion. Instead, Catholics are lumped with fundamentalists and their arguments summarily dismissed.
Our scientific understanding of human sexuality has changed dramatically, yet the Catholic Church refuses to re-evaluate its teachings in light of new discoveries. The Catholic Church is dedicated to the truth and should know better than to oppose it, even if they had to admit they did not understand it properly in the past.
“Instead, the ‘young person’s view’ is . . . that homosexuals actually want to settle down in a monogamous relationship with someone they are romantically in love with.”
If they didn’t want to settle down in a monogamous relationship with someone they are romantically in love with, then there would be no gay marriage debate.
My experience is that lesbian couples especially are interested in just that. Gay men less so, but it is not uncommon.
Even assuming that these relationships are inferior to heterosexual relationships, gay and lesbian people aren’t interested in a heterosexual relationship.
If they are going to be gay, they might as well be monogamous and stable. Conversely, I have seen the wreckage that happens when a homosexual enters into a traditional marriage with a member of the opposite sex who they are not truly attracted to. (Such marriage would likely be found invalid by the Church and not a situation that should be defended.)
A surface look at gay marriage, fiends who are gay, co-workers etc will generally lead to a knee jerk “I’m ok with that,” kind of response. You have to put the thinking hat on and be frank, honest and open about what gay means. When you say your ok with that, you are also saying actions like masturbation, anal sex and all that comes with being gay is also ok? You normally don’t have one without the other. It’s saying all of the sexual activities that normally accompany husband and wife in loving relationship naturally ordered for pro-creation of the race are ok for same sex.
Orange County Kevin, If you read Jesus in the New Testament, you will see He doesn’t speak of homosexual relationships because they aren’t even on the radar. He is so far above sins of the flesh and speaking about such holy relationships that they aren’t even mentioned. John says that the world couldn’t contain everything Jesus said and did if it was written down, but His apostles who lived with Him for three years speak clearly on this issue so it is most certain He spoke to them about it or they would not all agree on it as coherently and speak with such authority on the subject. It is a battle of FLESH v. SPIRIT. You are made for greater things. This is a powerful temptation and Mother Teresa would say you were blessed to be asked to carry a cross so heavy because it brings you closer to Christ’s real blood-sweating suffering, but it is a sin and He is greater than all sin. Those who say it is here and we should just try to make it more stable don’t understand the nature of sin. It is overcome or it spreads. It has consequences. God is very consistent that way. Read the vision of Pope Leo XIII how Satan asked for one hundred years to prove people only loved God because He made them love Him. God gave Satan the twentieth century. That is why we are so deeply awash in sin. And the Church does not ignore divorce and infidelity but it has pulled farther away from the relationship Jesus called us to by allowing so many annulments. Some people are born with difficulties like diabetes or alcoholism. Some people have emotional issues. Some people are in difficult personal circumstances and are drawn into stuff that isn’t good for them. Do we deny that? Why would we deny that homosexuality is not a rightly ordered sexual relationship? Denial in these circumstances may seem to make someone feel better but it is harmful. Some harms are physical and some are spiritual but they are both very real.
If you accept contraception , you accept abortion and same sex marriage. As Jon Paul II taught, to accept contraception is to say, “there is no God.”
@ Orange County Kevin. The Church regularly speaks out against divorce. Actually, another segment of critics have made it habit to criticize the Church’s stringent standards on divorce. If your position held sway, one could easily presume there would be no need for ecclesial annulment. Therefore the Church’s position is consistent with that of Christ.
Additionally, same sex marriage (so-called) were not common in Jewish culture. They were not. To allege they were is delusional or worse, a lie. In order to sanitize Christ’s teaching in opposition to homosexuality, one would have to take the ahistorical, unbiblical, and non-[T]raditional stance that the story of Sodom and Gomorrah was merely a story of in-hospitality, a position which begs of us to diswed that story from the context of Jewish law and culture. Also, the Paul spoke in opposition to homosexual relationships. Moreover, Catholics are not fettered to mere scripture; the Church’s teaching on homosexuality is deeply rooted in 2000 years of Church history!
@Jim. You do realize that your argument asks the Church to adopt the wider culture’s position on contraceptives and then asks the Church to dialogue with the wider culture on issues pertaining to contraception, which, according to your statement, would be no different or marginally different from that of the wider culture?
Additionally, the Church’s moral teachings on sexuality comport with science. For instance, if one were to find, irrefutably, that homosexuality is biological trait possessed from birth, the Church’s teachings on homosexuality would not change. Biological predisposition does not alter one’s moral duty to obey God despite our brokenness as spiritually and physically imperfect humans.
The State has a role in legislating the boundaries of virtue. We do so with several facets of daily life. They go unnoticed because they are uncontroversial. Many take objection to same-sex marriage law that prohibit same-sex legal marriage. However, very few take objection to prohibitions on human sex with animals. The main argument against bestiality is the protection of a non-consenting partner, in this case an animal. We have a sense of morality and justice which causes to object to non-consenting sexual acts. Note, I do not intend to equate bestiality with homosexuality necessarily.
.
Additionally, the implementation of same-sex marriage laws are meant to be corrective. By this, I mean that the laws being passed are intended to instruct the public on how to behave. One cannot honestly diswed the passage of same-sex marriage laws from the arch social-movement which seeks legitimation of same-sex life styles, both legally, spiritually, and morally. Hillary Clinton herself, addressing State Dept. policies which seek to restrict aid partially based on homosexual legal rights, said, and I paraphrase, “Laws have an educational tendency.” On a basic level, governmental pressures are being brought to bear on its polity to legitimate the engagement and acceptance of immorality. And moreover, this powerful and ever growing government seeks export this unjust pressure around the world.
@Nancy D - explain to me exactly how same-sex couples are, by the nature of their same-sex pairing, unable to ever have “a relationship that is grounded in authentic Love”? If you’re going to list off some crap about same-sex relationships not being procreative, I would remind you that many heterosexual couples marry with no intention of having children, and some couples are even unable to. Lastly, the fact that you would compare the act of same-sex pairings to things like incest shows how ignorant you truly are.
Forced pregnancy is slavery: that does not and will NEVER protect women. Only when the younger generation loses its rights (like the right to choose) and sees the Church starting to merge to the far right like other anti-women religions like Islam, will the youth of that generation realize what people in the 1970’s fought for. One doesn’t appreciate freedom until it’s taken away from you. The rights of sentient women should always come before those whose lives are 100% dependent (ie; eating, excreting, building skeletal mass as the unborn do) on their bodies for survival.
Jim says that our scientific understanding of human sexuality has changed, yet the Catholic Church refuse to re-evaluate its teachings in the light of new discoveries. Do we forget that Godhas given us the eternal rules that will stand for ever ? Jesus said that generations will pass away, but his words will remain. The teachings specially moral values on marriage are eternal. Simply because some scientists announce that some persons are born with a different sexual orientation, eternal rules cannot be changed.It is sheer ignorance of Jesus’s teachings, and even natural law that some argue for gay marriage. This misunderstanding arises on account of a mistaken notion that marriage is meant for sex and that sex is all that is important in life. Anyone who has faith in Jesus will believe his words about the need to carry one’s cross , if one really wants to follow him
CATHOLIC marriage is a tradition based on procreation - marriage itself is not. Who do you receive a marriage license from? Also, don’t other religions also have marriage? To claim that yours is the only true definition when there are clearly other widely accepted definitions is myopic. And no, I’m not even talking about gay marriage here (although since the word marriage doesn’t actually belong to you, you have no claims over its legitimacy in other forms). Despite your supernatural mythological fairy-tale teachings, marriage and procreation are not intrinsically linked - sex and procreation are. Many couples marry who cannot have children. Many couples marry who choose not to have children. To claim that theirs is a lesser love is to be hateful and ignorant of others who are different.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-26/college-freshmen-are-more-liberal-on-gay-marriage-abortion.html
Thomas, the same sex marriage laws are meant to legitimize something that is morally wrong and carries serious consequences for our children and our nation. If people aren’t relating to the opposite and same sex in a healthy manner, codifying this is not the answer. This is why it is causing the trouble it is causing. The same is true with Roe v. Wade. People are being forced to accept things that they know are morally unacceptable and which do not edify the human race or bring blessings or really help the physical and spiritual welfare of the people involved. Women who kill their own children are not “free”. They are victims of a lie. The child is not the problem. Killing the child just adds one more problem. Perhaps the relationship is a problem, perhaps the societal pressure is, but the child is not. There are other options and all of them are better than killing the child and most of them would make the mother and child stronger and better human beings. We as a society have promoted the lie. As to laws having some educational purpose, it is important to note WHOSE values they are pushing.
athenian_oracle: Marriage is a procreative union of a man and a woman. It always has been. There have been polygamous unions but they are still male/female. The term envisions the two coming together as one as only male and female body parts can do. If the two are infertile, they may still bear children as Sarah and Abraham did. Many infertile couples have had their own children after adopting for instance. Something changed. But two sets of eggs or two sets of sperm cannot create life. It is a different relationship. As to people choosing to marry and never have children even though they can, that is a poverty, Mother Teresa would say - a very understandable one in the day and age we live in. Whatever the motive, by its own self-prescribed limits it defines itself as a somewhat lesser love. That kind of love may indeed be all a person thinks they have to give and giving what they have is a great thing. They will probably learn that when you give love, it grows. We all know people who thought they would have no kids but Surprise! They found themselves parents. It isn’t hateful or ignorant to speak the truth but it is hurtful that that is not the truth of a homosexual relationship to someone who struggles to face that truth. But facing that truth is healthy. There is an answer if you are open to it.
Hi Moderator, Seeing if we can speed up the posting process. Thanks
The Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality is based on two assumptions:
.
1. Everyone is either male or female.
2. Everyone has a natural primary opposite sex attraction.
.
The problem is that not everyone is either male or female. Some people are born intersexed and not 100% male or 100% female. It is rare but it does happen. The Church deals with these situations on a case-by-case basis.
.
The question is whether homosexuality is a free choice or whether it is something more resembling intersexuality—something from birth beyond the control of the person. That has tremendous implications for the Church, as they would be sentencing people who were born a certain way to a lifetime of involuntary singleness and involuntary celibacy.
.
You say the moral law cannot change. That is true, but our understanding of it can. The Church’s interpretation of Paul’s command that the women should not speak in Church has changed dramatically. The Catholic Church understands the difference between modern finance and the sin of usury, although for years they did not distinguish the two.
.
What Paul condemned in the Bible (and rightly so) is not what we would see as gay couples in long term relationships, but heterosexuals engaged in pederasty and male prostitution, both of which were common in the ancient Mediterranean. If the Church can distinguish between finance and usury, they can certainly distinguish between these to types of homosexuality.
.
As for contraception, that teaching needs to be rethought as well, although that is a separate issue. Humanae Vitae condemns contraception with circular reasoning and argument from consequences. Older writings on the subject are based on incorrect biology and a theology of maleness and femaleness that the Church has since rejected. It is only tangentially related to the more modern TOB. (Note that TOB guru Christopher West doesn’t talk about contraception when talking to non-Catholic audiences.)
.
The Catholic Church could still maintain it’s position that babies are good without requiring EVERY act to be “open to life”. Furthermore, the Church would not have to teach the absurdity that an act known to be naturally sterile is “open to life”.
.
As for the laws being instructive, the instructive value of only recognizing opposite sex couples is questionable at best. Who is supposed to take what instruction from them? Homosexuals are not interested in traditional marriage (and if they entered into one, there is a good possibility they would hide their orientation from their spouse, making the marriage invalid). Likewise, heterosexuals are not interested in gay marriage. Furthermore, in a pluralistic society, the Catholic interpretation of natural law is not the only one. Catholics should be careful about pushing too much theology into politics, lest the political winds change against them.
athenian_oracle, et.al : The married couples who decide not to have children for a non-grave reason and especially when they use contraception to prevent those children from being conceived are also distorting marriage. God instituted marriage from the beginning of time. People have been getting married long before marriage licenses were even thought of. GOd established marriage and Jesus raised Christian marriage to the state of a Sacrament with a purpose in mind. This purpose is meant to bring us the happiness and joy which God intended.
While I am sure that homosexual couples love each other, it is not the same kind of love that can be shared between a man and a woman in the bonds of holy matrimony. That is just reality - heterosexual love and homosexual love are VERY different for more than the obvious reasons. Do you actually know what goes on in a homosexual union?
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02
I would invite you to find out what the Church actually teaches about marriage instead of throwing out sound bites and calling names.
Tamayn Irraniah, Unfortunately the younger generation has been raised in an environment that doesn’t care for the truth. The media will say whatever it wants to effect its agenda. For example CBS was caught showing pictures only of pro-choice voices at the March for Life and making it seem as though there were large numbers of both prochoice and prolife voices in Washington that day. I was at that march and didn’t even see any prochoice counter demonstrations, although I saw a sea of humanity marching for life. CBS was forced to post some pictures of the prolife demonstration but still greatly exaggerated the facts of who was actually there. Same with many issues we are dealing with as people of faith. Have you noticed that although Santorum won Iowa they do not promote him? Have you noticed how they are trying to tell you who the candidates for president will be when the decision is up to the voters and not the media or big business? The truth is squashed or silenced. But the truth is still the truth and God is greater than this evil. So all the article you link to really means is that truth and common sense are being done in by efforts to overide the true teaching of Jesus Christ and to promote secularism, materialism, human sexuality over virtue.
Moderator, it has again been a very long time since a comment I submitted has been posted. Over 36 hours seems unreasonable. I also just posted a new comment. Hope it will post much faster than that. Thank you.
@athenian_oracle
“To claim that yours is the only true definition when there are clearly other widely accepted definitions is myopic.”
The mere fact that some people define marriage differently does not: (1) give additional credence to those alternate definitions, and (2) does not demote the significance of the Catholic definition of marriage.
Also, alleging that the Catholic position on marriage is myopic only to turn around and call that position “supernatural mythological fairy-tale teachings” has me thinking about black kettles and such. The Catholic very well knows the connection between sex and procreation, the sacramental unity of marriage, and the powers of State. All you know is sex and the State. And who do you say is myopic? Relativism is your jail cell and strict empiricism your shackles.
@Thomas - How is my view of the bible being fiction myopic? Assuming that all I know of marriage is sex and state is proof of your myopia. My idea of marriage includes love and partnership and is not limited to sex and a marriage license. Your counter-argument is so unrelated to anything I’ve said - a phenomenon I encounter regularly when engaging in “discussions” with religious people.
Jim, Your premise is incorrect. The Catholic Church doesn’t base its teaching on your two assumptions. The Catholic Church is well aware that “Everyone” never includes everyone. What has happened in society though is that alot of homosexuals are being “created”. They were not born with homosexual tendencies but have been convinced that they are homosexuals. They are children who have been labelled or who needed help and instead were handed over to predatory practices. They are people who were emotionally vulnerable and didn’t get the love they needed from people who should have been there for them. They are people who were coerced or enticed by easy money or a lavish lifestyle, etc. Lives and souls are not getting the love we are called to give. The Catholic Church knows there are exceptions. But the Catholic Church also knows Christ’s healing power and the power of God’s grace. St. Paul, St. Peter, and other Apostles all explained that desiring to sleep with someone of the same sex as one would desire to sleep with someone of the opposite sex was a sign that someone had been handed over to their passions. They did not distinguish, as you would like to, between serial relationships, prostitution or committed relationships. It was the act of desiring and sleeping with someone of the same sex they condemned. The Church does not condemn anyone to a life of involuntary celibacy, it invites them to discover that their feelings and desires are not chains that need to bind them to homosexual relations. Jesus Christ came into this world to show us the loving God we have and so that all of us may be freed from chains of the flesh whether those chains are material or sexual cravings that keep us from loving each other as we should. In His great love, God wants to heal but He will not force healing on us. We need to be open to it - to see how we have not loved God and how sin separates us and hurts us and others and to truly desire to be healed. When we are ready to admit that we are the prodigal child He rushes to clothe and feed and heal. As for contraception, that is an issue of humility and trust, not old school/new school thinking. “Do not worry about what you are to eat or drink, or what you are to wear….” God has a plan. As to being careful about our view of natural law and putting theology into politics lest the political winds change, we are bound to put God first and we are wise to fear and trust God more than to fear and trust men. If we are fearing and trusting God we will be loving you and everyone else better Jim and there should be nothing to fear!
athenian_oracle, without the sex it’s a friendship, not a marriage.
When did I ever say that marriage doesn’t include sex? My marriage presently includes a deep emotional relationship, (and yes, a friendship), and CONDOMS.
F.Y.I- http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0011.html
Please read with the understanding that we should refer to those men and women who experience same-sex sexual attractions not as homosexual, gay, lesbian…which sexually objectifies the human person and is thus demeaning, but rather as men and women who have or are experiencing a same-sex sexual attraction, while recognizing sexual conduct can always be transformed by the desire to develop friendships and relationships that seek to respect the inherent Dignity of all persons through authentic Love, a Love which is not possessive nor does it serve to manipulate.
athenian_oracle, Sorry,a misunderstanding. I thought that’s what you were saying when you said it wasn’t limited to sex and a marriage license. And you use a condom because you are afraid to have too many children or don’t think you can love alot of children or think it would be financially impossible to provide for alot of children or you carry a gene you don’t want to pass on? It’s understandable based on worldly values, but we are thinking ourselves right out of peace and holiness and joy.
Pam - No problem, thank you for taking the time to re-read what I posted. What I meant was that marriages (whether or not the man-written bible is the first historical record of the term’s use) are not purely limited to a procreative definition, since marriages involve so much more than procreative sex and the official contract (be it with the state or the church). I believe we should be responsible about the number of people we bring into the world. We need to have a good ratio of parents to children so that the children can benefit from interactions with their parents. I know it’s an extreme case, but when I look at families like the Duggars who have left the number of children they have up to God, I see children raising children. That’s not fair to the oldest (who didn’t choose to have the children themselves) and it’s not fair to the youngest (since they are deprived from experiencing deep learning experiences with their parents). From what I gather of the Catholic church’s teachings, married couples have 3 choices in the matter: abstain from sex, have a lot of children, or try NFP and hope that your cycle is regular enough that it is effective. That doesn’t seem fair to me, since a healthy sexual relationship is very important in marriage. Forcing couples to abstain rather than allowing them to use condoms seems like control. The church and its teachings are not welcome in my bedroom.
athenian_oracle, It’s true marriage isn’t purely limited to procreation but it is what makes it sacred. God’s love brings forth creation and His gift to us is to let us share in that role. In the Catholic faith we know that Jesus Christ came to help us understand God as well as to restore us to God’s sanctifying grace. Jesus has a famous passage in the Gospel of Matthew explaining one aspect of God. It is about not worrying about what to eat or drink or wear - God knows our needs. Our work He explains is to seek God’s kingdom. When you think you can know who should be born or how many children God or you should have on this earth you are denying God in a way. Yet His existence speaks to us in all creation and its order. Abstinence isn’t the Church controlling anyone. It is charity,obedience and humility. Charity because it is out of love for the other or yourselves as a couple that you don’t indulge your urges. Many people grow in love doing this because they find other ways to express that love. Obedience because God, not the Church, wants us to be open to life. And humility because we know we are not God and if we aren’t open to another child we should be responsible and obedient enough not to do the act that creates the child. The teachings are all the height of love, not control. Love of God, love of neighbor, love of self. And recognition of our dignity as not just creatures of the flesh who will be around for eighty years, but as Children of God, eternal souls, who know we will meet God face to face one day. By making the sex act solely a tool of personal pleasure we demean women and men (just saw the special on superbowl ads- women as sex object, men as pigs); we lose sight of why we are on this earth; we grow more selfish and less self-controlled; we abort children, killing life etc. I do not know the Duggars but believe they have almost twenty kids or something? That isn’t necessarily ok either. If both partners are open to that, God bless them. What we forget sometimes is that love is all around us. If mom and dad don’t give it, God will put it in the heart of a sibling or teacher or neighbor. We should be loving to everyone we interact with. But even if we fail God will find a way to show love to His children who know Him. Those twenty kids will get the love they need if they live in a world with people who love and they know their God. And they will learn to share and to appreciate and to treasure special moments. In their household “normal” is helping a younger sibling. That’s a good thing if the older child is trained to the task, not something to pity the older and younger one for. If the husband will not abstain even though his wife is exhausted and overwhelmed the Church would not consider that ok. That would be selfishness. And vice versa.
Pam - I believe that you believe whole-heartedly in what you’ve written, but I still stand by my key points: 1.) It is irresponsible to have so many children that older children are forced to act as pseudo-parents. The older children did not ask for that responsibility. 2.) There is absolutely nothing wrong with non-reproductive sex in marriage. To culturally enforce such a strong tie between sexuality and biology is criminal. I can cite countless scientific studies (not super bowl ads) that discuss the benefits of a healthy sex life in marriage. I can also count many philosophical and theoretical writings that outline exactly how the church used its teachings to control sex (Foucault is just one example that comes to mind). To avoid sex simply because one does not wish to have any (more) children is not a healthy marriage. The bonds we form when we have sex have proven health benefits (both emotionally and physically).
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.