Saturday, July 30, 2011
Wednesday, July 27, 2011
What is marriage and why same sex “marriage” can never be a reality?
Here is my shot-gun approach to try to explain marriage and the family.
Now more than ever we hear so many slogans on both side of the so-called same sex marriage debate that they seem to have lost their meaning. I am sure you have heard them all so I won’t repeat them. These slogans have been used so much that I think the people who use them don’t know how to explain their position intelligently or even with compassion.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church Marriage is defined as:
1601 "The matrimonial covenant (promise), by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
Again in the Catechism: The nature of the family
2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. the love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.
2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.
2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.
Marriage has been instituted by God since the very beginning of mankind for the survival of mankind. It is a religious sacrament. Its very origins are religious and the earliest civilizations have adopted the marriage sacrament and integrated it into their own society because they saw the benefits of the family. And to reiterate what was mentioned above, that public authority has an obligation to recognize it. A strong united family is vital for a civilization to thrive for various and obvious reasons. There are things that a father can provide that the mother can’t and vice versa. This doesn’t make one better than the other. Just because they are different does not make them unequal. It is reality. A marriage is a relationship that is complementary.
Two males or two females lack the fullness of what is necessary to create of even raise a child. Regardless of how masculine or feminine one of the two is. There is something that is intrinsic in God’s design or “in nature” if you will, that completes the order of the family. If we take God out of the argument and look at the situation from a science/ biological, economic, even logical perspective they will tell you that a family is what is needed for the well being and continuing prosperity of a civilization.
What is mentioned in the CCC 1601 is describing the normal order of how things should be. But because of man’s fallen nature we are susceptible to sin. There are plenty of scenarios that we can imagine and make comparisons of various situations and make a list of “what if’s” and “what’s better”; the point is that we have to try to conform ourselves to the natural order of things for our own benefit and happiness. The rules set by God are not arbitrarily mandated but have been placed so that we can have life and have it abundantly. He knows what is good for us better than we can possibly know, and when we turn our backs on him, we are making ourselves to be our own “god”, determining what is best for us and ultimately cutting ourselves off from the very One who created us in the first place.
Theologians have said that marriage is a reflection or image of the perfect union of God; the Blessed Trinity. Although God is neither male nor female, the nature of God is pure life giving love. Marriage reflects Gods nature when a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage and have children. The family can serve as a testimony that we abide to His plan.
People are very passionate about this subject because they feel it is a civil rights issue. I don’t believe it is. For it to be a civil rights issue does it have to be an issue of race, religion, sex or ethnicity? Are we really to create a new class of people based on their sexual preference? Are there going to be check boxes on applications or on census forms indicating “gay” or “straight”? I think that just creates more division.
I do see a civil rights issue on the forefront however. That civil rights issue will come to a head when a Catholic Priest refuses to marry a same sex couple. Would he be breaking the law if he refuses to do so? We have seen instances similar to this in Boston when a Catholic adoption agency was forced to shut down because they would not let a same sex couple adopt a child. They were given an ultimatum, either let same sex couples adopt or get shut down. They shut down.
I think this is just the beginning of a long ride down a slippery slope. I am not very optimistic about the situation, especially after what happened in New York. I am not so sure the majority of the American people want this to become the law of the land. But the government, Hollywood and mainstream media outlets are pushing this agenda.
Now more than ever we hear so many slogans on both side of the so-called same sex marriage debate that they seem to have lost their meaning. I am sure you have heard them all so I won’t repeat them. These slogans have been used so much that I think the people who use them don’t know how to explain their position intelligently or even with compassion.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church Marriage is defined as:
1601 "The matrimonial covenant (promise), by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."
Again in the Catechism: The nature of the family
2201 The conjugal community is established upon the consent of the spouses. Marriage and the family are ordered to the good of the spouses and to the procreation and education of children. the love of the spouses and the begetting of children create among members of the same family personal relationships and primordial responsibilities.
2202 A man and a woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family. This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. It should be considered the normal reference point by which the different forms of family relationship are to be evaluated.
2203 In creating man and woman, God instituted the human family and endowed it with its fundamental constitution. Its members are persons equal in dignity. For the common good of its members and of society, the family necessarily has manifold responsibilities, rights, and duties.
Marriage has been instituted by God since the very beginning of mankind for the survival of mankind. It is a religious sacrament. Its very origins are religious and the earliest civilizations have adopted the marriage sacrament and integrated it into their own society because they saw the benefits of the family. And to reiterate what was mentioned above, that public authority has an obligation to recognize it. A strong united family is vital for a civilization to thrive for various and obvious reasons. There are things that a father can provide that the mother can’t and vice versa. This doesn’t make one better than the other. Just because they are different does not make them unequal. It is reality. A marriage is a relationship that is complementary.
Two males or two females lack the fullness of what is necessary to create of even raise a child. Regardless of how masculine or feminine one of the two is. There is something that is intrinsic in God’s design or “in nature” if you will, that completes the order of the family. If we take God out of the argument and look at the situation from a science/ biological, economic, even logical perspective they will tell you that a family is what is needed for the well being and continuing prosperity of a civilization.
What is mentioned in the CCC 1601 is describing the normal order of how things should be. But because of man’s fallen nature we are susceptible to sin. There are plenty of scenarios that we can imagine and make comparisons of various situations and make a list of “what if’s” and “what’s better”; the point is that we have to try to conform ourselves to the natural order of things for our own benefit and happiness. The rules set by God are not arbitrarily mandated but have been placed so that we can have life and have it abundantly. He knows what is good for us better than we can possibly know, and when we turn our backs on him, we are making ourselves to be our own “god”, determining what is best for us and ultimately cutting ourselves off from the very One who created us in the first place.
Theologians have said that marriage is a reflection or image of the perfect union of God; the Blessed Trinity. Although God is neither male nor female, the nature of God is pure life giving love. Marriage reflects Gods nature when a man and a woman become one flesh in marriage and have children. The family can serve as a testimony that we abide to His plan.
People are very passionate about this subject because they feel it is a civil rights issue. I don’t believe it is. For it to be a civil rights issue does it have to be an issue of race, religion, sex or ethnicity? Are we really to create a new class of people based on their sexual preference? Are there going to be check boxes on applications or on census forms indicating “gay” or “straight”? I think that just creates more division.
I do see a civil rights issue on the forefront however. That civil rights issue will come to a head when a Catholic Priest refuses to marry a same sex couple. Would he be breaking the law if he refuses to do so? We have seen instances similar to this in Boston when a Catholic adoption agency was forced to shut down because they would not let a same sex couple adopt a child. They were given an ultimatum, either let same sex couples adopt or get shut down. They shut down.
I think this is just the beginning of a long ride down a slippery slope. I am not very optimistic about the situation, especially after what happened in New York. I am not so sure the majority of the American people want this to become the law of the land. But the government, Hollywood and mainstream media outlets are pushing this agenda.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
7/19 Class on Apologetics
This blog post originates from a conversation I had with a good friend of mine. I was telling him about a “class” I just started attending at my parish. I hope to post more about what I learned in the class and share it here. I am going to another one tonight. Here is a brief overview of what I wrote to him:
The class is on apologetics. Apologetics does not mean “to apologize”. It comes from the Greek work “apologia”, which means defense or explanation. In 1 Pet 3:15, Peter says, “…Always be ready to give an explanation (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope…”
In this case our “reason for hope” would mean our hope or faith in Christ and that when asked about it we must be prepared to give a defense or explanation when asked about it.
He (Jim Blackburn) talked about Church authority and how the Church got the authority from Christ and proving that in the bible. He said that Jesus left us with a Church and didn’t leave us with a bible. The bible as we know it today wasn’t developed until a couple of hundred years after Jesus death. So it was left up to the apostles to spread the gospel through oral tradition (preaching/ homilies) and letters. Well, obviously the apostles died and the gospel still had to be spread so the apostles had to give the authority to their predecessors, exactly like when Jesus knew he was going to die, he had to give the teaching authority to his processors, i.e., the apostles. This is called “apostolic succession”.
Jim talked about “papal succession” as well. In scripture he pointed out the there had to be someone in charge of the Church after he died. In other words a visible representative that can speak infallibly on issues of faith and morals. Peter was the first person with that authority (Matt 16). After Peter died, that authority had to be passed on. It went to Pope St. Linus and then to Pope St. Cletus, then to Pope St. Clement and so on, all the way down to Benedict XVI. This is historically verified.
The class is on apologetics. Apologetics does not mean “to apologize”. It comes from the Greek work “apologia”, which means defense or explanation. In 1 Pet 3:15, Peter says, “…Always be ready to give an explanation (apologia) to anyone who asks you for a reason for your hope…”
In this case our “reason for hope” would mean our hope or faith in Christ and that when asked about it we must be prepared to give a defense or explanation when asked about it.
He (Jim Blackburn) talked about Church authority and how the Church got the authority from Christ and proving that in the bible. He said that Jesus left us with a Church and didn’t leave us with a bible. The bible as we know it today wasn’t developed until a couple of hundred years after Jesus death. So it was left up to the apostles to spread the gospel through oral tradition (preaching/ homilies) and letters. Well, obviously the apostles died and the gospel still had to be spread so the apostles had to give the authority to their predecessors, exactly like when Jesus knew he was going to die, he had to give the teaching authority to his processors, i.e., the apostles. This is called “apostolic succession”.
Jim talked about “papal succession” as well. In scripture he pointed out the there had to be someone in charge of the Church after he died. In other words a visible representative that can speak infallibly on issues of faith and morals. Peter was the first person with that authority (Matt 16). After Peter died, that authority had to be passed on. It went to Pope St. Linus and then to Pope St. Cletus, then to Pope St. Clement and so on, all the way down to Benedict XVI. This is historically verified.
Bloggy thingey acting funny
For some reason the link at the bottom of the last post will not appear. Anyway, go to www.wordonfire.org to see a good commentary on atheist and the CNN belief blog.
CNN Beleif blog...
My Dad brought this to my attention. Read the link below. Here is a guy who is commenting on the bible, gay marriage and inconsistancies of Christians.
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/my-take-bible-condemns-a-lot-so-why-focus-on-homosexuality/
Here is my response.
The blogger points out the many inconsistencies on moral issues among the many Christian denominations. That is true. And that is the reason why there are so many other Christian denominations. It is because they can’t agree on issues both moral and theological. If a group of Christians from a certain denomination don’t agree with their pastor than they start their own church and make up their own interpretation of what they think the bible means. Prime example would be the Lutherans and the Calvinists that came forth out of the Reformation.
Regarding Catholics, there have been some of our Church fathers who have commented on issues of faith and morals and some of them are dead on with what the Church teaches but others have made some contradicting comments. They however, do not define doctrine, the Church does.
Us Catholics do not look to the Bible as the sole authority. After all, Jesus did not leave us with a Bible before he died, he left us with a Church (confirmed in Scripture itself). That Church that Jesus left is the Catholic Church and has authority on issues of faith and morals. The Church uses what we call “Sacred Tradition” AND “Sacred Scripture”. Like Sinatra said, “You can’t have one without the other”. What the Protestant denominations did was throw out the “Sacred Tradition” part and have gotten rid of the Church authority.
My point, the bible indicates the sin of homosexuality. Sacred Tradition and the Church confirm it.
Here is what the Catechism (teaching) of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
From the Bible:
1 Corr 6:9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So what the blogger is saying about what the Bible says and homosexuality isn’t necessarily true. He has broken with Sacred Tradition and has taken out of context Sacred Scripture so as to conform to his opinion and lacks the authority to back up his assertions.
Here is a good commentary on the CNN belief blog:
http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/06/21/my-take-bible-condemns-a-lot-so-why-focus-on-homosexuality/
Here is my response.
The blogger points out the many inconsistencies on moral issues among the many Christian denominations. That is true. And that is the reason why there are so many other Christian denominations. It is because they can’t agree on issues both moral and theological. If a group of Christians from a certain denomination don’t agree with their pastor than they start their own church and make up their own interpretation of what they think the bible means. Prime example would be the Lutherans and the Calvinists that came forth out of the Reformation.
Regarding Catholics, there have been some of our Church fathers who have commented on issues of faith and morals and some of them are dead on with what the Church teaches but others have made some contradicting comments. They however, do not define doctrine, the Church does.
Us Catholics do not look to the Bible as the sole authority. After all, Jesus did not leave us with a Bible before he died, he left us with a Church (confirmed in Scripture itself). That Church that Jesus left is the Catholic Church and has authority on issues of faith and morals. The Church uses what we call “Sacred Tradition” AND “Sacred Scripture”. Like Sinatra said, “You can’t have one without the other”. What the Protestant denominations did was throw out the “Sacred Tradition” part and have gotten rid of the Church authority.
My point, the bible indicates the sin of homosexuality. Sacred Tradition and the Church confirm it.
Here is what the Catechism (teaching) of the Catholic Church says about homosexuality:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P85.HTM
2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.
From the Bible:
1 Corr 6:9 Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor practicing homosexuals nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.
So what the blogger is saying about what the Bible says and homosexuality isn’t necessarily true. He has broken with Sacred Tradition and has taken out of context Sacred Scripture so as to conform to his opinion and lacks the authority to back up his assertions.
Here is a good commentary on the CNN belief blog:
Monday, July 25, 2011
Blame my Dad for this...
It is an amazing thing to see that my blog spot is still up even after one year of neglect.
Kind of a funny story as to how I made my return to the blogosphere. My dear old man suggested that I start a blog and I told him that I already had one and that it had been a while since I wrote anything. So I checked it out to see if it was still up, and it is (obviously).
This is where it gets strange. I looked at the date of my last post and it was exactly one year ago today. What a trip!!
There are a couple of reasons why I haven't blogged for so long.
1. I didn't think I had anything original or unique to say (still don't).
2. What has been said or can be said is done by people far more eloquent than I.
3. Most of my posts are about Catholicism. Not exactly what most people will bookmark under their favorites.
As weird as this may sound, this could be a new "calling". I was feeling guilty for leaving my old ministry at Holy Family parish. I couldn't dedicate enough time to it and it wasn't fair for the team and the catechumens. I still feel the need to evangelize somehow. I was fighting a kind of battle. I could have taken up a ministry at my new home parish of St. Mary's but with #4 being born two months ago I would have been in the same boat. Even though St. Mary's is down the street, I still will not be able to find the time.
I guess this is the avenue I should take, at least for now. Oddly enough, it was my dad who put the bee in my bonnet to start blogging again. See how it goes...
Kind of a funny story as to how I made my return to the blogosphere. My dear old man suggested that I start a blog and I told him that I already had one and that it had been a while since I wrote anything. So I checked it out to see if it was still up, and it is (obviously).
This is where it gets strange. I looked at the date of my last post and it was exactly one year ago today. What a trip!!
There are a couple of reasons why I haven't blogged for so long.
1. I didn't think I had anything original or unique to say (still don't).
2. What has been said or can be said is done by people far more eloquent than I.
3. Most of my posts are about Catholicism. Not exactly what most people will bookmark under their favorites.
As weird as this may sound, this could be a new "calling". I was feeling guilty for leaving my old ministry at Holy Family parish. I couldn't dedicate enough time to it and it wasn't fair for the team and the catechumens. I still feel the need to evangelize somehow. I was fighting a kind of battle. I could have taken up a ministry at my new home parish of St. Mary's but with #4 being born two months ago I would have been in the same boat. Even though St. Mary's is down the street, I still will not be able to find the time.
I guess this is the avenue I should take, at least for now. Oddly enough, it was my dad who put the bee in my bonnet to start blogging again. See how it goes...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)