74% of American Catholics support gay marry civil unions

[california boy]

The link to the NY times article

Last month, the Public Religion Research Institute, a nonprofit group, reported that 74 percent of American Catholics surveyed supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry or form civil unions (43 percent and 31 percent, respectively). The telephone survey asked more than 3,000 adults to choose among three options: whether gay couples should be allowed to marry, should be allowed to form civil unions or should receive no legal recognition. By comparison, 16 percent of white evangelical Christians approved of same-sex marriages; 24 percent approved of civil unions. Among the general public, those rates climb to 37 and 27 percent, respectively — still lower than among Catholics.

Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Ministry, an independent group that has worked on gay Catholic issues since 1977, said he had seen Catholics open up in recent years. His group maintains a list of “gay-friendly parishes and faith communities” around the country, which has grown to more than 200 from about 20 since 1997.

Church traditions in social-justice advocacy play a strong role, he said. “These people aren’t picking and choosing their Catholicism; their Catholicism has motivated them.”

Official church policy is tough on gay issues: homosexual acts are deemed sinful (though being homosexual is not); same-sex marriage is forbidden. Embracing diversity while toeing the Vatican line requires a delicate balance.

Some seek nontraditional ministry. Dignity New York, a chapter of Dignity USA, an independent gay ministry group, has liturgical services especially for gay Catholics, given mostly by nonactive priests, at St. John’s in the Village, an Episcopal church.

Yet Catholic churches from Texas to Wisconsin find ways to be welcoming. St. Francis Xavier in Chelsea, the Oratory Church of St. Boniface in Brooklyn and many others are known for programs offering spiritual and intellectual fulfillment for gay Catholics in a context once perceived as hostile.

The Rev. Gilbert Martinez, pastor at St. Paul the Apostle, a gay-friendly parish near Lincoln Center, said the study did not surprise him: Catholics have always struggled with moral issues on which the diocese and parishioners do not always agree.

Catholics believe God incarnates in diverse forms, Father Martinez said — like human beings.

“Once you say that God is a human person — I mean we’re just so varied and diverse that way — I think the real Catholicity of that is to acknowledge that and accept that,” he said.

Any thoughts?

[Nathair/|\]

Well, I don't see a problem with civil unions, but I am growing more and more uncomfortable with the state being involved in marriage at all.

[BCSpace]

For as their laws and their governments were established by the voice of the people, and they who chose evil were more numerous than they who chose good, therefore they were ripening for destruction, for the laws had become corrupted.

Helaman 5:2

[Mordecai]

Forty-three percent of Catholics are apostate. I think the pope would like to have a word with them. At least most of them understand the importance of the traditional family and recognizing its unique status.

[Calm]

The link to the NY times article

Any thoughts?

I'd like to see separation by activity level.

[LDSGuy]

Not only is this a moral issue, but it is a 10th Amendment issue.

[3DOP]

The Rev. Gilbert Martinez, pastor at St. Paul the Apostle, a gay-friendly parish near Lincoln Center, said the study did not surprise him: Catholics have always struggled with moral issues on which the diocese and parishioners do not always agree.

Catholics believe God incarnates in diverse forms, Father Martinez said — like human beings.

“Once you say that God is a human person — I mean we’re just so varied and diverse that way — I think the real Catholicity of that is to acknowledge that and accept that,” he said.

The underlying theology of this movement seems tenuous at best and truly crazy at worst. This priest who spoke out in favor of the progressive position argues that "Catholics believe God incarnates in diverse forms"? What do you think he even means? Jesus is the only one of whom it is said that the "Word became flesh". Jesus was one person in two natures. That is Catholic theology. Even Mormons have heard that one! Heh. Right? Catholics have never been taught that He is a bunch of different people. The numbers of diverse and varied people that He wasn't includes everyone except a virgin born Jewish carpenter who died for our sins and rose again from the dead on this day about two thousand years ago!

This same Jesus never revealed that He believed in homosexual marriage or civil unions. If he did, the Catholic Church has certainly been apostate from the beginning and loses every claim to being the true Church anyway. Contrary to what Father Martinez reasons, the Catholic Church has actually taught for centuries that the act under consideration here is not merely looked on with disapproval, but is in fact an outright sin. And not only is sodomy a sin, sodomy has been interpreted by the Catholic Church as homosexual activity and has the ignoble distinction of being one of only four sins that "cry out to heaven for God's vengeance"!

How can the "real Catholicity" drawn from Father Martinez' reflection contrast more clearly with the forcefully reiterated teaching of the Catholic Church? I am not arguing that homosexual behavior is wrong, although I do believe it. I AM arguing that there is no way that the Catholic Church can undo what it has said for 2,000 years and is still continuing to say. I don't know where these 74% of Catholics go to Mass, but I have never, ever met a Catholic who goes to Mass who said he believes it has been revealed that homosexual unions are permissible under Catholic teaching. Father Martinez' understanding of the Incarnation is an example of the craziest of theological gymnastics to try to maintain his position as a Catholic priest while at the same time approving of what the Catholic Church has forcefully condemned for 20 centuries. He needs to come to grips with reality.

If the Catholic Church has been wrong about this, why would we trust Her on matters that require even more faith? Like for instance that the consecrated bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ? Why would we believe that Mary was born without original sin and now reigns as Queen of heaven and earth? Why would we believe that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? These same "Catholics" who support gay unions have already begun to see their faith in other teachings of the Catholic Church erode. It is inevitable. One doesn't have to be a prophet to know that a similar poll would without doubt reveal that they tend to reject these more difficult beliefs too. There is no way they could believe that a good and true Church has condemned as horrific sin that which is actually revealed to be good, beautiful, and true. They might go to the Church, but they can't believe in the Church. Maybe Father Martinez has managed this intellectual trick, but it would create a huge conflict in any mind not compromised by needing to appease an employer. How could any good person love an institution that condemns and has even vilified that which is now believed to be so good? No one with a loving heart could ever love a Catholic Church that has been so viciously in the wrong for literally its entire existence. If Father Martinez has succeeded in playing "mind tricks" I can never believe he has succeeded in playing "heart tricks". I know he doesn't love the Catholic Church as it has been since the time of Christ, and up to the present day. How could he love an institution that has deliberately and consistently rejected that which is actually a precious Sacrament in the sight of God?

3DOP

[CQUIRK]

Not only is this a moral issue, but it is a 10th Amendment issue.

Totally agree! :good:

[CQUIRK]

... 'gay marry civil unions'?

[california boy]

The underlying theology of this movement seems tenuous at best and truly crazy at worst. This priest who spoke out in favor of the progressive position argues that "Catholics believe God incarnates in diverse forms"? What do you think he even means? Jesus is the only one of whom it is said that the "Word became flesh". Jesus was one person in two natures. That is Catholic theology. Even Mormons have heard that one! Heh. Right? Catholics have never been taught that He is a bunch of different people. The numbers of diverse and varied people that He wasn't includes everyone except a virgin born Jewish carpenter who died for our sins and rose again from the dead on this day about two thousand years ago!

I think he is referring to Matthew 25. In as much as you have done it unto the least of my servants, ye have done it unto Me. A simple concept central to the message of Jesus Christ.

This same Jesus never revealed that He believed in homosexual marriage or civil unions. If he did, the Catholic Church has certainly been apostate from the beginning and loses every claim to being the true Church anyway. Contrary to what Father Martinez reasons, the Catholic Church has actually taught for centuries that the act under consideration here is not merely looked on with disapproval, but is in fact an outright sin. And not only is sodomy a sin, sodomy has been interpreted by the Catholic Church as homosexual activity and has the ignoble distinction of being one of only four sins that "cry out to heaven for God's vengeance"!

This same Jesus who never condemned homosexuality but certainly condemned the religious leaders who were quick to judge others, but failed to see their own shortcomings. Evidently it was not an important issue with Christ.

How can the "real Catholicity" drawn from Father Martinez' reflection contrast more clearly with the forcefully reiterated teaching of the Catholic Church? I am not arguing that homosexual behavior is wrong, although I do believe it. I AM arguing that there is no way that the Catholic Church can undo what it has said for 2,000 years and is still continuing to say. I don't know where these 74% of Catholics go to Mass, but I have never, ever met a Catholic who goes to Mass who said he believes it has been revealed that homosexual unions are permissible under Catholic teaching. Father Martinez' understanding of the Incarnation is an example of the craziest of theological gymnastics to try to maintain his position as a Catholic priest while at the same time approving of what the Catholic Church has forcefully condemned for 20 centuries. He needs to come to grips with reality.

The thing about polls is they are not just someone's opinion or even life experience. There are plenty of Catholics who believe in gay marriage and attend mass. I guess they are Catholics who believe that treating others with kindness, respect, honesty and equality trumps dogma. Something I think Christ seems to have done with those who he came in contact with, even those involved in immorality. What sounds more Christlike to you? How do you think Christ should have treated homosexuals in his ministry?

If the Catholic Church has been wrong about this, why would we trust Her on matters that require even more faith? Like for instance that the consecrated bread and wine become the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ? Why would we believe that Mary was born without original sin and now reigns as Queen of heaven and earth? Why would we believe that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra? These same "Catholics" who support gay unions have already begun to see their faith in other teachings of the Catholic Church erode. It is inevitable. One doesn't have to be a prophet to know that a similar poll would without doubt reveal that they tend to reject these more difficult beliefs too. There is no way they could believe that a good and true Church has condemned as horrific sin that which is actually revealed to be good, beautiful, and true. They might go to the Church, but they can't believe in the Church. Maybe Father Martinez has managed this intellectual trick, but it would create a huge conflict in any mind not compromised by needing to appease an employer. How could any good person love an institution that condemns and has even vilified that which is now believed to be so good? No one with a loving heart could ever love a Catholic Church that has been so viciously in the wrong for literally its entire existence. If Father Martinez has succeeded in playing "mind tricks" I can never believe he has succeeded in playing "heart tricks". I know he doesn't love the Catholic Church as it has been since the time of Christ, and up to the present day. How could he love an institution that has deliberately and consistently rejected that which is actually a precious Sacrament in the sight of God?

3DOP

I think when one relies on dogma to recognize the true church of Christ, then they have missed the true message of Christ. If churches focused less on dogma and more on the message of Christ, this world would be a much better place. We need Christians to be more Christlike. You can't go wrong with that attitude in my opinion.

[3DOP]

I think he is referring to Matthew 25. In as much as you have done it unto the least of my servants, ye have done it unto Me. A simple concept central to the message of Jesus Christ.

This same Jesus who never condemned homosexuality but certainly condemned the religious leaders who were quick to judge others, but failed to see their own shortcomings. Evidently it was not an important issue with Christ.

The thing about polls is they are not just someone's opinion or even life experience. There are plenty of Catholics who believe in gay marriage and attend mass. I guess they are Catholics who believe that treating others with kindness, respect, honesty and equality trumps dogma. Something I think Christ seems to have done with those who he came in contact with, even those involved in immorality. What sounds more Christlike to you? How do you think Christ should have treated homosexuals in his ministry?

I think when one relies on dogma to recognize the true church of Christ, then they have missed the true message of Christ. If churches focused less on dogma and more on the message of Christ, this world would be a much better place. We need Christians to be more Christlike. You can't go wrong with that attitude in my opinion.

Hi California Boy.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my concerns. I couldn't possibly return an appropriate answer without some earnest consideration on my own part. I hope to get back to you on this.

God bless,

3DOP

[california boy]

Hi California Boy.

Thank you very much for your thoughtful reply to my concerns. I couldn't possibly return an appropriate answer without some earnest consideration on my own part. I hope to get back to you on this.

God bless,

3DOP

You are welcome. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this.

[Mordecai]

...If churches focused less on dogma and more on the message of Christ, this world would be a much better place....

Like the message that man was created for the woman and woman for the man, suggesting that the union of a man and a woman is ordained of God, while same-sex unions are not?

[3DOP]

Hi again California Boy

California Boy

I think he is referring to Matthew 25. In as much as you have done it unto the least of my servants, ye have done it unto Me. A simple concept central to the message of Jesus Christ.

3DOP

I didn't see it that way. It seemed like a muddled way of getting to that point. But it was from quotes of a news source and it doesn't matter. It IS the best possible interpretation of what Father Martinez means and I will give Father the benefit of the doubt. Any true teaching of Christianity will be compatible with the provision that we show love and good will toward every human person because of their dignity as creatures with the potential to become little Christs. In that respect, how we treat our neighbor is how we treat Christ. We cannot separate love of God from love of neighbor.

California Boy

This same Jesus who never condemned homosexuality but certainly condemned the religious leaders who were quick to judge others, but failed to see their own shortcomings. Evidently it was not an important issue with Christ.

3DOP

If it was not an important issue to Christ, as you say, and by silence He reveals that homosexual marriage is a sacrament or at least equally valid as heterosexual marriage, the Catholic Church has systematically undermined the sacramental nature and validity of homosexual marriage for 2,000 years and continues to do so to this day. Let me be clear. I am not arguing against homosexual marriage. I am arguing against this invocation of "catholicity" as an authority for believing in homosexual marriage. This priest is fooling himself. Does he really want 2,000 years of Catholic teaching to spell out clearly what his Church has said about this question? I am not objecting to his beliefs. I am objecting to his stated reasons for his beliefs. His reasons cannot be found in any dispassionate examination of the evidence of what the Catholic Church has ever specifically said about homosexual activity. I object to Fr. Martinez' use of Mt. 25 as a specifically Catholic commendation of homosexual marriage. Father takes a common and uncontroversial general principle and attaches a "catholicity" to it that is completely unwarranted by the clearest of factual evidence, namely the unending and resounding unwillingness of the Catholic Church to recognize homosexual marriage as a sacrament, combined with an equally forceful condemnation of all homosexual activity as sinful and even among the most grievous of sins.

California boy

The thing about polls is they are not just someone's opinion or even life experience. There are plenty of Catholics who believe in gay marriage and attend mass. I guess they are Catholics who believe that treating others with kindness, respect, honesty and equality trumps dogma. Something I think Christ seems to have done with those who he came in contact with, even those involved in immorality. What sounds more Christlike to you? How do you think Christ should have treated homosexuals in his ministry?

3DOP

If it is to be unkind, disrespectful, and dishonest to define homosexual marriage as invalid and non-sacramental, how can you at the same time think the Catholic Church is good and a worthy authority for Fr. Martinez to invoke? I am not trying to change your mind about homosexual marriage. I am trying to show that it is impossible that the Catholic Church is true or even decent if homosexual marriage is valid. If homosexual marriage is actually a sacrament in God's sight, let me be the first to declare that the Catholic Church has been and remains the tool of Satan, and a bitter enemy of the cause and revelation of Christ together with much that is naturally good, beautiful, and true in God's creation. Father Martinez turns all of the history and moral teaching of the Catholic Church upsidedown in pretending that it is from the Catholic faith that he received these insights about homosexual marriage.

California Boy

I think when one relies on dogma to recognize the true church of Christ, then they have missed the true message of Christ. If churches focused less on dogma and more on the message of Christ, this world would be a much better place. We need Christians to be more Christlike. You can't go wrong with that attitude in my opinion.

3DOP

But you aren't invoking the Catholic Church as sharing in your opinion like Father Martinez did. I disagree with your opinion, but I understand it. I completely agree with you about the needed demise of dogma if you are correct. If you are correct about homosexual marriage, dogma is irrelevant and who cares about the authority of Catholic Church anyway? Along with the demise of dogma should come the demise of the Catholic Church. Why the folly of invoking the Catholic Church as a supporter of homosexual marriage? To do that would seem to me to propose belief in "new dogma" from a basis of authority anyway, a violation of your principle? It would be much better, if you, Fr. Martinez, and the 74% of American Catholics are correct, to stop invoking the Catholic Church, the "Incarnation", or any other dogma because "Catholicity" has always taught that homosexual activity is immoral. There is not the slightest hint or trace in Catholic Tradition of the idea that homosexual marriage is a sacrament, valid, or licit in any way.

But to return to the important question of how I think Christ should have treated homosexuals? Assuredly, the same way as He expects me to treat them. As a Traditional Catholic I would consider myself obliged, and pleasantly so if the occasion should arise, that while giving a homosexual a cup of cold water when thirsty, or a sandwich when hungry, I do not at the same time let my compassion get the better of me by saying that I think a homosexual marriage is a sacrament. I am a natural compromiser. I love to agree with those I care about! But to do so in such an instance would be to renounce my faith. Yes, I believe Jesus wants me to clothe, comfort, and feed homosexuals as readily as heterosexuals and in so doing I may fulfill the requirements of Mt. 25 without denying the clear teaching of my Church.

Yours Truly in Jesus and Mary,

3DOP

[Jaybear]

But to return to the important question of how I think Christ should have treated homosexuals? Assuredly, the same way as He expects me to treat them. As a Traditional Catholic I would consider myself obliged, and pleasantly so if the occasion should arise, that while giving a homosexual a cup of cold water when thirsty, or a sandwich when hungry, I do not at the same time let my compassion get the better of me by saying that I think a homosexual marriage is a sacrament. I am a natural compromiser. I love to agree with those I care about! But to do so in such an instance would be to renounce my faith. Yes, I believe Jesus wants me to clothe, comfort, and feed homosexuals as readily as heterosexuals and in so doing I may fulfill the requirements of Mt. 25 without denying the clear teaching of my Church.

My wife and mother in law are both devout Catholics. They also support gay marriage.

That means they believe that gays should have the right to enter into a civil marriage, and a religious marriage if they are part of a faith that recognizes such marriages.

I doubt that either of them have even considered for a moment whether gay marriage should be a Catholic sacrament. That is simply not what the poll numbers reflect.

[TAO]

I doubt that either of them have even considered for a moment whether gay marriage should be a Catholic sacrament. That is simply not what the poll numbers reflect.

The influence provided by state mairrage though, could inadvertently cause it eventually to become such. Ideas grow and change, so 3DOP does have a point... there is a point where we cannot compromise... we can be kind, but not compromise on the issue of mairrage itself. Else, it ceases to be mairrage, sorta.

Somber Wishes,

TAO

[3DOP]

My wife and mother in law are both devout Catholics. They also support gay marriage.

That means they believe that gays should have the right to enter into a civil marriage, and a religious marriage if they are part of a faith that recognizes such marriages.

I doubt that either of them have even considered for a moment whether gay marriage should be a Catholic sacrament. That is simply not what the poll numbers reflect.

Hi Jaybear.

I am not questioning the devotion of your Catholic relatives, or of Fr. Martinez, or of the 74% of American Catholics who replied to the poll after such a fashion as to possibly give the impression that the Catholic Church may be moving towards a way of recognizing the validity of monogamous homosexual activity. I have been trying to point out that if the numbers DO give that impression, it is probably misleading. That is why I alluded to the fact that in my 16 years as a Catholic, I have never met anybody who goes to Mass regularly, with whom I have conversed, that has views compatible with a change that would permit monogamous homsexual Catholics to validly live a sacramental life. That is why I emphasized the theme of "sacramental marriage". No Catholics who are in favor of homosexual marriage are going to be able to be satisfied with a view that denies that it is a Sacrament just as heterosexual marriage.

You suggested Jaybear, not me, that while being devout, you doubt that either of your relatives "have even considered for a moment whether gay marriage should be a Catholic sacrament." You couldn't make my point any better. I am suggesting the similar probability that neither the 74% of American Catholics, nor Fr. Martinez "have even considered for a moment whether gay marriage should be a Catholic sacrament." The question of validity and sacramentality will stand as large and looming and immovable as a mountain in the distance as times and politics change and we move closer to the question of whether the Catholic Church can accept homosexual unions.

A similar sacramental question arose that was answered with precision and finality by the late Pope John Paul II. In response to the growing cry for female acceptance into holy orders, the priesthood, keeping in line with the times and what was happening in many other religious communities, it is instructive to see how the pope replied to this question a few years ago now:

Although the teaching that priestly ordination is to be reserved to men alone has been preserved by the constant and universal Tradition of the Church and firmly taught by the Magisterium in its more recent documents, at the present time in some places it is nonetheless considered still open to debate, or the Church's judgment that women are not to be admitted to ordination is considered to have a merely disciplinary force. Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

---Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, given on the Feast of Pentecost, 22 May, 1994

The Church can't monkey around with the Sacraments. It would be an indictment against 20 centuries of Catholic teaching and all known and recorded Catholic Tradition to admit having been so terribly wrong for such a length of time. To Mormons, it would immediately signal definitve proof of apostasy, and I would have nothing to say against them. I would be forced to agree. Notice what John Paul says in regard to the prime reason why we can never hope for female Catholic ordinations. Notice that "this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful." I love this: "The Church has no authority", he says! Haha! Yes. That's it. That is what our detractors do not often understand. They think the Pope and the Church can say whatever they want and it becomes church teaching. The opposite is the case. The Church and the pope have no authority to overturn what they have received from our fathers.

We can talk about 74% of living Catholics in America in 2011. It doesn't mean anything. In the Catholic Church, it isn't the living who cast the deciding votes. Catholic life is conformed according to what Chesterton called, "The democracy of the dead". The Church can never overturn 2,000 years of Tradition. Assuredly, just as the Church's detractors don't get this, neither do many modern Catholics, including priests and bishops, while they live. That is why they are stunned when a progressive pope like Paul VI declares against artificial birth control. They are appalled when a compassionate, completely modern, and visionary pope like John Paul II slams the door on female ordination. Who that considers these matters cannot see the eventual result for Catholics who may be hoping for a reevaluation of Catholic morality that would place our fathers in the faith in a most unfavorable light? I know that Fr. Martinez and the 74% aren't thinking about the dead. It doesn't even occur to them. They live only in the present. But the Catholic Church can never deny the voice of the dead. The voice of the dead rings resoundingly in the rooms of Rome and echoes clearly down the corridors of time transmitting from generation to generation the same beliefs as our dead fathers. Compared to the voice of our fathers, hearing Fr. Martinez and 74 % of American Catholics is like trying to hear the hushed whisper of a dying man against the roar of crashing waves on the shore. And just as assuredly as that man will die, so will any whispers asking for a recognition of homosexual marriage by the Catholic Church. And for as long as there is a Catholic Church, the roaring waves will be ever crashing on the surf and cannot be silenced. The waves always win.

3DOP

[california boy]

Hi again California Boy

California Boy

I think he is referring to Matthew 25. In as much as you have done it unto the least of my servants, ye have done it unto Me. A simple concept central to the message of Jesus Christ.

3DOP

I didn't see it that way. It seemed like a muddled way of getting to that point. But it was from quotes of a news source and it doesn't matter. It IS the best possible interpretation of what Father Martinez means and I will give Father the benefit of the doubt. Any true teaching of Christianity will be compatible with the provision that we show love and good will toward every human person because of their dignity as creatures with the potential to become little Christs. In that respect, how we treat our neighbor is how we treat Christ. We cannot separate love of God from love of neighbor.

California Boy

This same Jesus who never condemned homosexuality but certainly condemned the religious leaders who were quick to judge others, but failed to see their own shortcomings. Evidently it was not an important issue with Christ.

3DOP

If it was not an important issue to Christ, as you say, and by silence He reveals that homosexual marriage is a sacrament or at least equally valid as heterosexual marriage, the Catholic Church has systematically undermined the sacramental nature and validity of homosexual marriage for 2,000 years and continues to do so to this day. Let me be clear. I am not arguing against homosexual marriage. I am arguing against this invocation of "catholicity" as an authority for believing in homosexual marriage. This priest is fooling himself. Does he really want 2,000 years of Catholic teaching to spell out clearly what his Church has said about this question? I am not objecting to his beliefs. I am objecting to his stated reasons for his beliefs. His reasons cannot be found in any dispassionate examination of the evidence of what the Catholic Church has ever specifically said about homosexual activity. I object to Fr. Martinez' use of Mt. 25 as a specifically Catholic commendation of homosexual marriage. Father takes a common and uncontroversial general principle and attaches a "catholicity" to it that is completely unwarranted by the clearest of factual evidence, namely the unending and resounding unwillingness of the Catholic Church to recognize homosexual marriage as a sacrament, combined with an equally forceful condemnation of all homosexual activity as sinful and even among the most grievous of sins.

California boy

The thing about polls is they are not just someone's opinion or even life experience. There are plenty of Catholics who believe in gay marriage and attend mass. I guess they are Catholics who believe that treating others with kindness, respect, honesty and equality trumps dogma. Something I think Christ seems to have done with those who he came in contact with, even those involved in immorality. What sounds more Christlike to you? How do you think Christ should have treated homosexuals in his ministry?

3DOP

If it is to be unkind, disrespectful, and dishonest to define homosexual marriage as invalid and non-sacramental, how can you at the same time think the Catholic Church is good and a worthy authority for Fr. Martinez to invoke? I am not trying to change your mind about homosexual marriage. I am trying to show that it is impossible that the Catholic Church is true or even decent if homosexual marriage is valid. If homosexual marriage is actually a sacrament in God's sight, let me be the first to declare that the Catholic Church has been and remains the tool of Satan, and a bitter enemy of the cause and revelation of Christ together with much that is naturally good, beautiful, and true in God's creation. Father Martinez turns all of the history and moral teaching of the Catholic Church upsidedown in pretending that it is from the Catholic faith that he received these insights about homosexual marriage.

California Boy

I think when one relies on dogma to recognize the true church of Christ, then they have missed the true message of Christ. If churches focused less on dogma and more on the message of Christ, this world would be a much better place. We need Christians to be more Christlike. You can't go wrong with that attitude in my opinion.

3DOP

But you aren't invoking the Catholic Church as sharing in your opinion like Father Martinez did. I disagree with your opinion, but I understand it. I completely agree with you about the needed demise of dogma if you are correct. If you are correct about homosexual marriage, dogma is irrelevant and who cares about the authority of Catholic Church anyway? Along with the demise of dogma should come the demise of the Catholic Church. Why the folly of invoking the Catholic Church as a supporter of homosexual marriage? To do that would seem to me to propose belief in "new dogma" from a basis of authority anyway, a violation of your principle? It would be much better, if you, Fr. Martinez, and the 74% of American Catholics are correct, to stop invoking the Catholic Church, the "Incarnation", or any other dogma because "Catholicity" has always taught that homosexual activity is immoral. There is not the slightest hint or trace in Catholic Tradition of the idea that homosexual marriage is a sacrament, valid, or licit in any way.

But to return to the important question of how I think Christ should have treated homosexuals? Assuredly, the same way as He expects me to treat them. As a Traditional Catholic I would consider myself obliged, and pleasantly so if the occasion should arise, that while giving a homosexual a cup of cold water when thirsty, or a sandwich when hungry, I do not at the same time let my compassion get the better of me by saying that I think a homosexual marriage is a sacrament. I am a natural compromiser. I love to agree with those I care about! But to do so in such an instance would be to renounce my faith. Yes, I believe Jesus wants me to clothe, comfort, and feed homosexuals as readily as heterosexuals and in so doing I may fulfill the requirements of Mt. 25 without denying the clear teaching of my Church.

Yours Truly in Jesus and Mary,

3DOP

Thanks for you thoughtful and very though out response. I don't really have any disagreement with your viewpoint. It is certainly a completely valid viewpoint especially if you look at the Catholic church and its dogma. The problem with judging whether the church is doing "Gods will" based on the dogma of the church has always had fatal flaws. For example the persecution of Galileo because he disagreed that the sun rotated around the earth.. Or the earth being only 6,000 years old. Those Catholic belief was based on scripture and the church truly believe it was right. Now few people would support that dogma. I could list examples in false dogma in virtually every church. It is why I state that dogma does not make up the teachings of Christ.

I think it is with this view that father Martinez is making his statements. He sees the Catholic church as "Christ's Church" and so makes his assumptions based on how he views the word of Christ rather than the dogma of the Catholic church.

While many read Matthew 25 and think it is solely about feeding those that are in hunger or those that are in prison, some view that sermon as saying much more than that. A prison does not have to be behind bars and surrounded by concrete. Many people are living in their own created prisons. People can hunger for more than just bread. We can be thirsty for more than just water. I doubt many gay men need a sandwich. I think it is possible that Father Martinez has more of this view of the teachings of Christ. He sees all of us in need of love, care, embracement and support and few of us in need of scorn and judgement. When we see all of mankind in that light, as I believe that Christ did, then what church dogma you believe in is really not that important. If it was, I think Christ would not have condemned the church leaders of His time for their emphasis of the importance they put on "Jewish" dogma. He would have spent more time spelling out His own dogma. In fact, He did absolutely the opposite. He proclaimed a very simple dogma of loving yourself and others. And that is the message of the true follows of Christ that I think father Martinez sees himself as being. He is trying to exercise his Catholic faith in a much similar term that Christ exercised his Jewish faith.

Would it be reasonable for a follower of Christ to state that they ONLY follow the dogma that Christ taught and ignored every other opinion of other writers of the Bible? And if that was a valid viewpoint, how much dogma could you list that Christ taught? I would be willing to bet it could all be written on one sheet of paper. And half of that sheet of paper would simply read "Love one another as I have loved you.' How much more clear could He have been???? But yet, those defending almost all dogma in every church do not used the simple words of Christ to defend their positions. They always want to make up thoughts and words that were never spoken by Him and rely on the opinions of other writers who may not even have intended a letter to be doctrine of Christ. It was just a letter stating his opinions about how he thought things should be run at that particular time. A pretty sobering thougt huh.

Just my opinion.

[TAO]

Thanks for you thoughtful and very though out response. I don't really have any disagreement with your viewpoint. It is certainly a completely valid viewpoint especially if you look at the Catholic church and its dogma. The problem with judging whether the church is doing "Gods will" based on the dogma of the church has always had fatal flaws. For example the persecution of Galileo because he disagreed that the sun rotated around the earth.. Or the earth being only 6,000 years old. Those Catholic belief was based on scripture and the church truly believe it was right. Now few people would support that dogma. I could list examples in false dogma in virtually every church. It is why I state that dogma does not make up the teachings of Christ.

If I may, the problem is, people disagree on what false dogma is. People will always disagree. Some people view the things as commandments, others as opinions. Which is one reason that it is important to listen to one's leaders much of the time, as they can tell you those sort of things; what they are.

To be quite honest, I feel the same way about the LDS church as 3DOP feels about the Catholic Church. There is a certain amount of history, and things I cannot deny. Things I can explain, yes. But change, no, not on my own. God is the only one who can change things. Just as the Pope is rather limited in what he can say in terms of Catholicism, so is the prophet limited in what he can say on Mormonism. The reason being that doubt is a powerful thing. People like controlling other people's doubt, sometimes, and so it is rather risky to change directions; a good reason must be had. There was one for us, for example, with polygamy. Some don't believe that is the reason, but yes, it exists. In order to change directions, the Catholic Church has to have God give them a good enough reason. Or else it won't happen.

I think it is with this view that father Martinez is making his statements. He sees the Catholic church as "Christ's Church" and so makes his assumptions based on how he views the word of Christ rather than the dogma of the Catholic church.

My friend, many Catholics might view his statements as his specific dogma and opinion, and the Catholic Church's as the valid doctrine. They digress on what they see as 'dogmatic', and what they see as 'right'. That is why there is disagreement - because each other accuses the other of being dogmatic, I think.

While many read Matthew 25 and think it is solely about feeding those that are in hunger or those that are in prison, some view that sermon as saying much more than that. A prison does not have to be behind bars and surrounded by concrete. Many people are living in their own created prisons. People can hunger for more than just bread. We can be thirsty for more than just water. I doubt many gay men need a sandwich. I think it is possible that Father Martinez has more of this view of the teachings of Christ. He sees all of us in need of love, care, embracement and support and few of us in need of scorn and judgement. When we see all of mankind in that light, as I believe that Christ did, then what church dogma you believe in is really not that important. If it was, I think Christ would not have condemned the church leaders of His time for their emphasis of the importance they put on "Jewish" dogma. He would have spent more time spelling out His own dogma. In fact, He did absolutely the opposite. He proclaimed a very simple dogma of loving yourself and others. And that is the message of the true follows of Christ that I think father Martinez sees himself as being. He is trying to exercise his Catholic faith in a much similar term that Christ exercised his Jewish faith.

Christ's dogma though, also consisted of 'if ye love me, keep my commandments'. Yes, love them. But that doesn't mean disobedience is okay. Christ is very forgiving... but is forgiveness useful if you are never going to change? This I believe, in LDS theology, is something that may be what limits some Sons of Perdition... a never willingness to change... causing them to deny the holy ghost eventually =/.

Would it be reasonable for a follower of Christ to state that they ONLY follow the dogma that Christ taught and ignored every other opinion of other writers of the Bible? And if that was a valid viewpoint, how much dogma could you list that Christ taught? I would be willing to bet it could all be written on one sheet of paper. And half of that sheet of paper would simply read "Love one another as I have loved you.' How much more clear could He have been???? But yet, those defending almost all dogma in every church do not used the simple words of Christ to defend their positions. They always want to make up thoughts and words that were never spoken by Him and rely on the opinions of other writers who may not even have intended a letter to be doctrine of Christ. It was just a letter stating his opinions about how he thought things should be run at that particular time. A pretty sobering thougt huh.

In Matthew, it says 'Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt ^alove the Lord thy God with all thy ^bheart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy ^cmind. This is the first and great ^acommandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt ^alove thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the ^alaw and the prophets.'

Why did he mention the law and the prophets, if he was not concerned about them also? Is there not a law given, and a judgement executed? Aren't we going to be mindful of the words spoken by the prophets, and the commandments given by the Lord (2 Peter 3:2)? Or will wickedness become happiness?

It says in Luke, that Christ spake by the mouth of his holy prophets since the day the world began. Did they not speak, that indulging in homosexuality was not a correct practice? Why will we dismiss what they said, when Christ trusted them? ...No, Christ did not come to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfill them. By ignoring the words of these prophets... we'd be Pharisees in a way. We'd be entombing their words, and yet, still building sepulchers to them (Matthew 23:29).

I know these words may be harsh... and I hope they are not so. But no... we cannot turn on the book, even if we suspect it is opinion... We must have something more substantial than that; a knowledge of it. That's why we have the prophet, so we can have a knowledge of it.

It may be hard my friend, but know there is no trial God has give you that is more than ye are able to overcome. There is much hope still, and you can grab onto it... you just have to try. Hard yah, but a try is what it takes.

Best Wishes,

TAO

Ahh... 3DOP... I am sorry if I answered for you... I just felt kinda... obliged. sorry if ya didn't want that =/.

[3DOP]

TAO

Ahh... 3DOP... I am sorry if I answered for you... I just felt kinda... obliged. sorry if ya didn't want that =/.

3DOP

I have a friend from Brisbane who always says with a smile, "No worries mate." I love that saying...I mean, it has to be appropriate. You can't say "I just ran over your dog because I was drunk" and expect a "no worries mate". But this is one of those times when it is entirely applicable. I appreciate your comments. I have nothing to add...not today anyway! Heh.

God bless,

3DOP

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The link to the NY times article

Any thoughts?

Maybe that % in the Northeast where it is the norm, NY and Mass.