Well, the institution as a whole is definitely stuck in the Middle Ages, but individual parishes vary wildly. Catholics, as a whole, in the US support same sex marriage.
I am an agnostic atheist, but grew up Catholic, and the parish my wife goes to is extremely liberal. Hell, I told the priest before we got married that I didn’t believe in God and that I shouldn’t accept communion, and he said, “Nah, go ahead. Jesus can take it.” Our particular Chuch is run by the Paulists, so they concentrate on social justice. They don’t give two shits if you’re gay, “living in sin,” transgender, Hindu, etc. They welcome everyone. If they could break off and marry same-sex couples while remaining in Communion with Rome, I’m sure they would (and I do feel there is some push in that direction.)
Even though I don’t identify as Catholic, I would not paint them so broadly as to say Catholics are stuck in the first century. This does not at all reflect Catholics at the personal level.
One important nitpick, here: The Church does not, and so far as I know never has, consider being gay to be a sin. It considers having gay sex to be a sin. But the Church obviously recognizes celibacy as an option, and draws no distinction between a homosexual celibate person and a heterosexual celibate person.
And before anyone gets the wrong impression, I’m not saying that this is the view that the Church should hold. They should hold the position that gays and straights have all of the same rights, including to marriage. But the position they do hold isn’t quite as barbaric as it’s made out to be.
On a somewhat-related note, “Everyone knows Catholics cannot get a divorce”.
As I understand it, it’s not the divorce per se that is the issue (though they would probably say that it is damaging to the family unit and should be discouraged) - but remarriage. The divorce is simply not recognized; you’re still married to the other person, so any remarriage would be adulterous.
As a lapsed Catholic, I believe that the Church has gotten many things very, very wrong regarding treatment of women, and reproductive rights in particular - but I do believe that they are trying to both adapt AND still be true to the rules laid down centuries ago - e.g. permitting natural family planning. It’s a dance they are not always successful at.
I think there are still some absolutes that the mainstream Church will never condone (gay marriage being one though I think they will budge on that before they budge on a lot of other issues!), and there are certainly some weasel-worded loopholes e.g. abortion is evil, but if medical treatment to save the mother accidentally kills the baby, it’s acceptable. A marriage can be “annulled” if reasons that showed up later on really meant the marriage wasn’t valid to begin with. Francis even stated, a few years ago, that in some cases the evil of artificial birth control is outweighed by the moral failure of bringing a child into danger (re the Zika virus, and the slums of the Phillippines).
Maybe one day you all will change my perception of these things, but to me this just reads as “In accordance with nearly the last two thousand years of belief, the Catholic Church still does not accept homosexual marriage.” This is not (at least to me) a bombshell news article and I don’t understand the attention it gets.
I remember the Gay Marriage Wars on this board and elsewhere. It was stated ad nauseum that the fight for legal homosexual marriage was not, repeat not, a requirement that any religion endorse such marriages or perform them, in fact had nothing to do with religion at all, only that the civil government recognize them so that these couples could enjoy the same benefits as heterosexual married couples.
Now, and if I am permitted to say “as usual,” the left continues down the slippery slope that was predicted and wants to chastise the Catholic Church, either implicitly or explicitly, for not endorsing something that has been against a universal part of its teachings for millennia. Was Kennedy wrong in the portion of his opinion in Obergefell that there should be respect for religious belief in this area?
“The Left” is not forcing the Catholic Church to change. “The Left” is expressing a desire that the church change, but there is no coercion involved here.
Neither side is obligated to approve of the views of the other.
I honestly haven’t heard much hubbub about this from “the Left” in general, just this thread. It is somewhat debated in Catholic church circles as, like I said above, most Catholics (according to a Pew survey–I’d have to dig it up, plus in my anecdotal experience as well) are fine with same-sex marriage. I’m not getting the slippery slope you seem to. The Catholic Church and other religions are free to do what they want to in terms of performing ceremonies, as long as it doesn’t harm other people (no human sacrifices, for instance. ). And I have the right to think they’re backward on this and many other issues, and that Christ wouldn’t give two shits about two men or women in domestic union.
Exactly. The “slippery slope” argument that UltraVires mistakenly thinks has been vindicated concerns whether the acceptance of same-sex civil marriage in secular law would lead to religious bodies being legally required to perform such marriages.
That did not happen and is not going to happen, and liberals in general have never wanted it to happen, because it would be a serious violation of the separation of church and state.
Sure, pro-gay-rights liberals have always complained, and are going to go on complaining, about the fact that the Catholic Church isn’t voluntarily changing its doctrine to accept same-sex marriage. But that is in no way endorsing the position that the Church should be somehow legally required to change its doctrine.
So UltraVires’s assertion about this so-called “slippery slope” is, and if I am permitted to say “as usual”, mere nonsense.
I believe this is usually proven with a sufficiently sized check. My sister’s marriage was annulled after 12+ years, two kids and her “devoutly Catholic” husband cheating on her with his “devoutly Catholic” girlfriend, expressly so that his side piece could get married to him in a Catholic ceremony.
There’s no slippery slope involved in chastising a religion. We have always been allowed to chastise any religion for their backwards beliefs.
I think France owns every church in the country that was built in 1905 or earlier. One of the problems with Notre Dame is that much needed renovations were delayed as France and the RCC bickered about who was going to pay the costs. From the RCC’s perspective it was the state who owned it and therefore it was their responsibility and from the state’s perspective it was the RCC who was using the church so they should pay for it.
The reason it’s getting attention is that the Church has come right out and said “No same-sex marriage”, in a very public manner. Nobody thought they condoned it 2000 years ago, nobody thought they condoned it 5 years ago. They just never issued a decree on the topic until now.
I’m left of center, strongly support SSM, and am a lapsed Catholic. That’s not the main reason - when I left the Church, it wasn’t even on my radar. But it’s another item on the list of why the church is no longer the right one for me.
Legally, you’re completely wrong, but culturally you’re actually right. Traditions (including religious traditions) that led to forcing gay people to hide in the shadows in live as second class citizens are finally being afforded exactly as much respect as they deserve. The monopoly on thought that heteronormative thinking has maintained for thousands of years started to lose hold due to LGBT activism and was significantly weakened when those activists secured legal rights for LGBT people. Now that LGBT people are given a voice in society, media and culture and get to participate in society with the same legal rights as straight people, bigoted beliefs are getting harder to justify. This is a good thing.
Didn’t the pope say just a few weeks ago that it was okay for members to take the evil Johnson & Johnson covid vaccine that used aborted baby tech to manufacture? So lots of wriggle room on the aborted babies thing but gay sex is just a big no.
Well, if the New Plague kills off too many Catholics that’s going to impact the power, wealthy, and influence of the church, as opposed to oppressing isolated small numbers of gay people, which doesn’t impact church authority/power/wealthy/influence.
And for what it’s worth, I’m a Catholic of the non-lapsed kind, and I still think that the Church should recognize and bless same-sex marriages. And I also think that they should allow female priests. And I further think that there’s essentially no chance of either happening in my lifetime, but that it’s possible to make slow, incremental progress on both.
I also think that the Church should allow married priests, and recognize transgender people (in either direction), and on both of those scores, I think it’s possible that I might see it happen in my lifetime.
A vast majority of the few remaining members of the ever dwindling German Catholic community thinks the same, including a big part of the lower clergy. They become more and more desperate with the Vatican.
). And I have the right to think they’re backward on this and many other issues, and that Christ wouldn’t give two shits about two men or women in domestic union.