Any gay couple will soon be eligible to marry in California, but they won’t be taking their vows in any Roman Catholic Church.
Pope Benedict XVI made no reference to the California Supreme Court, but today made the Church’s position on marriage quite clear (again):
“The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions,” he said.
The pope also spoke of the inalienable rights of the traditional family, “founded on matrimony between a man and a woman, to be the natural cradle of human life”.
Any questions?
ADDENDUM
A few excerpts from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1660 The marriage covenant, by which a man and a woman form with each other an intimate communion of life and love, has been founded and endowed with its own special laws by the Creator. By its very nature it is ordered to the good of the couple, as well as to the generation and education of children. …
1652 “By its very nature the institution of marriage and married love is ordered to the procreation and education of the offspring and it is in them that it finds its crowning glory.”
- Children are the supreme gift of marriage and contribute greatly to the good of the parents themselves. God himself said: “It is not good that man should be alone,” and “from the beginning [he] made them male and female”; wishing to associate them in a special way in his own creative work, God blessed man and woman with the words: “Be fruitful and multiply.” Hence, true married love and the whole structure of family life which results from it, without diminishment of the other ends of marriage, are directed to disposing the spouses to cooperate valiantly with the love of the Creator and Savior, who through them will increase and enrich his family from day to day.
1645 “The unity of marriage, distinctly recognized by our Lord, is made clear in the equal personal dignity which must be accorded to man and wife in mutual and unreserved affection.”
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.
38 Responses to “Memo from the Pope: No gay marriage”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:55 pm
How comfortingly, reassuringly predictable.
May 16th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Thank you Pope Benedict XVI Finally some sense.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Nice to see a consistent message in this world. In the one place you most expect it.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Gay Marriage = A Joke
May 16th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Don’t recall God being happy with anything homosexual in the Bible. All the men at Lot’s door would be Democrats today.
May 16th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Poop from the Pope. Can’t argue with it.
May 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Well how many Catholics go to church on Sunday then vote Dimwit on Tuesday?? It is the Dimwits who believe it is alright to have gay marriages. Isn’t there some kind of contradiction here???
May 16th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
7.
Why? Just because some people don’t follow church doctrine doesn’t invalidate the doctrine.
If a Baptist gets drunk every Saturday night, and goes to church Sunday morning, is Baptist opposition to drunkenness wrong?
If a Republican congressman is in favor of gun confiscation, would that mean the GOP platform against it is wrong? No, it means some congressman is not following the platform.
Further, the US is only a very small portion of the Catholic church. The Pope oversees the worldwide church, not just the US.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Good on Pope Benedict.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Any gay couple will soon be eligible to marry in California, but they won’t be taking their vows in any Roman Catholic Church.
And that’s the way it should be… leave marriage to religion, get the state out of the marriage business.
It seems, to this simple Marine, the most pragmatic way forward. Give any pair, triplicity, etc, of consenting human adults the same legal protections, but allow religion X the option to call it abomination and refuse to perform a service.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Semper fi Daniel. Same thing should apply to pharmacists who refuse either birth control pills or the morning after pills. But in some states, those pharmacists can be prosecuted if they refuse.
Simple and I are both formerly one each green.
May 16th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
And when science finds the “gay gene”, what then?
May 16th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
AW ? Gonna Be at Stuebner ? I am gonna visit the place !
May 16th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
I don’t think so Dov. We are meeting at the site where we meet to go to Tanner, then we are hitting some other places. It’s going to be a go in, move em out, move on to next spot kind of morning.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Dov, if you go there, don’t get into trouble!
May 16th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Reply to No. 8: Practicing one thing or doctrine on one day and doing something else on another, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite. What is was trying to say is that I know the Hispanic and blacks are very religious and for them to vote for a party who is basically against their core beliefs is a hypocrite but I don’t think they know that. If you practice your beliefs, whether they be Catholic or Baptist, then how can you vote for someone that doesn’t promote them????
May 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
#12;
So what? That will not change anything that affects free will. Let’s suppose there is a gene tha “makes” people have gay feelings. That still does not change the fact that the person must chose to be gay in order to be gay.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
The Pope did an outstanding job. Great position to take.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
RickG;
So is the Pope “going to say” that we should use the union between a man and a woman from what to compare all other unions by in 2202, or was that alread said in 2002?
Just curious.
May 16th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
Last I looked sperm/sperm coming together did not a baby make, neither did egg/egg coming together make one. For those unhappy with this unfair arrangement, take it up with Gaia.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
So God makes a person with a proclivity to be gay and then punishes them for being gay.
Interesting™
May 16th, 2008 at 9:12 pm
Hat tip to Daniel, USMC for a well stated comment.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Headshaker, assuming that you are talking about everlasting Hell, Then maybe you would have a point. fortunately, since the name of god is Everlasting and Eternal, then the ‘punishment’ may not be forever as we would interpret it, but the ‘Punishment of God’ or God’s Punishment. What is the difference for a straight man to commit adultery and a Gay Man to act upon his tendecies. Both are wrong. The thing is that we all have to Repent. Just because one is attracted to someone of the same sex, doesn’t mean one has to act on it. LIke ALL sin, The Bill has to be paid. Weather we take the gift offered and let The Saviour Pay for it or if we pay for it ourselves. The scriptures Say that Christ has the Keys to Death and Hell. Paul speaks of three Heavens and of three ‘brightnesses of glory’ in the Resurrection. ( st Coronthians 15 40-42.) Therefore, ONLY the ‘Sons of Perdition will be cast out with Satan forever. This is not generally understood, indeed it will upset a lot of people who ‘LUST’ after the eternal burning of others souls. God is wiser than that.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
#21
Who decided that the proclivity to be gay was God’s doing?
I agree with Pimlico. I have urges that might lead me to be in violation with God’s law. It is up to me to not act on those desires. I have a good friend in my church who holds a very prominent position, and who is gay. He understands that this is his cross to bear, and he bears it well. He does not, as far as I know, engage in homosexual behavior. He has been, however, living in the Montrose area to be near people who are like him, which gives him some comfort.
It is the activity, not the proclivity, that is the concern. As I’ve always taught my CCE kids - it is the sin, not the temptation that condemns us.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
We’re all born with the proclivity to sin - that doesn’t make sin ok.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
Headshaker plays the “gay gene” card…again.
And when science finds the “alcoholic gene” we should just encourage them to drink. After all, they can’t help it.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:04 pm
The fundamental problem is the fact that there exists a state definition of marriage in the first place. If a marriage is a union of a man and a woman by matrimony and a covenant with God, then really the state shouldn’t have any business in codifying what is a marriage. If I marry in my church as a sacrement of my faith, the state should not have anything to do with it.
Since the state definition of marriage seems to come in conflict with the practice of religious faith perhaps it is time to change the marriage definition to a form of business partnership. It essentially is anyway but with unequal status and advantages of one partner over the other depending on the circumstances.
There could even be clauses that describe the terms, conditions, and even lenth of time with conditions for renewal. Of course, clauses that describe breach, and reasons for early termination as well as arbitration for the disposal of shared assets and the distribution of liabilities.
It’s basically what happens now but with some unfair and obscure laws that favor lining the pockets of divorce attorneys.
Best to leave the church out of it.
May 17th, 2008 at 1:31 am
I sure don’t have anything all that personal against gays, but for crying out loud, two MEN marrying each other? It’s just so freaking STUPID I can’t even believe it.
If two men apply for a marriage license, they should be laughed out of the building.
May 17th, 2008 at 9:54 am
27 Barry -
The state makes moral judgements and pronouncements all the time. For instance, murder is a crime because the state (ie the people) judge murder to be immoral. Same thing for things such a drug use, prostitution, slavery, pedophilia, polygamy, etc.
The laws of the US are based upon the moral judgements of its founders as informed by the majority of its current residents. For instance the California Supreme Court overturned a law that was overwhelming supported by the citizens of California.
The answer here is not trying to further remove any vestige of God or morality from Government, the solution is for the majority of people in the country to stand up and declare that some things are inviolate.
May 17th, 2008 at 10:01 am
Headshaker -
You’ll never find that gene - from a biological standpoint, by its very definition it could never survive.
Our marriage laws are not discriminatory! Anyone, over the age of 18, is allowed to marry and and enjoy the benefits (and responsibilities) thereof.
Gays screaming about marriage laws being discriminatory are like short people complaining because the basketball hoop is 10 feet tall. “I’m short, so when I play I want the basket lowered to 8 feet so it will be fair.”
May 17th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I am adamantly against marriage between same-sex persons due to my moral code (marriage is ordained of God between an original man and an original woman), but then what about those who are bi-sexual and get married to one of the opposite sex and then find out they are really homosexual?
May 17th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Heh, heh. That’s pretty good.
May 17th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
#32 I recognize and appreciate the humor, but point out that it is an entirely invalid comparison. Our government’s regulation of marriage does in fact discriminate against homosexual people, and I see no support for doing so in the Constitution.
Yet again, the free market is far ahead of those who prefer a big government that unnecessarily intervenes in the lives of all.
May 17th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
The Gene thing is interesting. I suppose there must be a thief gene; a murderer gene etc. Right? I had thought for years that Pheramone studies of ‘Gay and ‘Straight’ people should be conducted. Then I read of a study that says that both gay Men and women experience ’same sex ‘ pheramones in the hypothalamus and opposite sex pheramone in the olfactory brain area. Sraight Folks, apparently, srcieved opposite sex pheramones in the Hypothalamus and same sex in the Olfactory sections. It appears that the Sexual attractions are recieved in the Hypothalamus by the attractee? All this makes the puzzle more complicated. The question becomes, is THIS interaction built in or caused by life’s rocky roads/ I have no Idea.
May 18th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
This homosexual gene thing is a secular ploy to absolve one from their actions. To say that some trait is genetically disposed is to say that one has no responsibility for their actions.
May 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
The Church, in her divinely-inspired doctrines and dogma, defines what it is to be Catholic. There’s a place for those Christians who do not agree with the Catholic Church; it’s called Protestantism.
May 19th, 2008 at 12:12 am
33: Bob
How does it discriminate? Homosexuals are as free to marry as anybody else. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman. The definition says nothing about sex, or sexual orientation.
Once again - marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Neither you, nor the government is free to re-define the term simply to suit your politically correct proclivities.
May 19th, 2008 at 8:51 am
The only reson marriage exists in the first place is for the children. Those gay folks that wish to wed are buying trouble needlessly. It is easy to marry and very difficult to divorce. Everybody wants what the cannot have….