Mandeville, LA – Please witness prominent conservatives and “theologians” incapable of relating Christ’s dogma on homosexuality, neighborliness and gay marriage. A “Catholic theologian” proposes 3 hypotheticals to absolve himself from the charge of “homophobia”. Since a hypothetical has yet to actually occur, this is the flimsiest of grounds to base a moral dogma on.
C) Marriage is suddenly legalized in your state. They [the homosexual neighbors] marry and ask you to bake the cake. Would you? However, I say “no” to C because marriage is not an institution that can be defined entirely in terms of affection, loyalty and service. Or even eros or heartfelt private romantic feelings. Marriage includes all those things, but it exists [a]s a social institution because the fertility of male and female potentially creates uniquely public consequences (children).
We are in bigger trouble than previously thought. Marriage is not a social but a spiritual institution. It exists in the material world because Men & women are its accidents but the Institution is in the spiritual world because it is created and ruled by God. This error is the good news of the day. The NY Times Ross Douthat provides even more confusion while conducting another ridiculous hypothesis. If you’re wondering why I rail against the hypothesis here’s why. The hypothesis is used to make nearly every scientific statement made today, because it attempts to predict an event that has yet to occur it has to include terms it assumes are universal when in fact there is no way of knowing that they are. Hypothesis is thus based on the experimental. This works well to design computers, it has failed miserably to “design” moral men and women. The proper method for that endeavor is the philosophic method which does not and cannot produce conclusions using the unknown (the hypothetical) because it is, when used properly, based on experience. The fact that “America’s most famous Catholic” is using the scientific method, that has caused the sinful drama he frets about; over the philosophical method (thomistic or scholarly) should generate a Van Halen concert, decibel-leveled “[w]arning Will Robinson, danger approaching!”.
My family has its share of divorces and second marriages; my friends’ romantic paths are varied; my closest friend from high school just exchanged vows with his longtime boyfriend. I’m going to a party celebrating them next month. If they asked me, I’d bring a cake.
Q: So why can’t other believers do the same?
A: First, these issues are difficult and personal, and I don’t presume that my approach is always right. Second, details matter. My closest gay friends are fairly secular. But I would be uncomfortable attending same-sex vows in the style of a Catholic Mass…
The statement that said dogma and the issues it reigns over are “personal” is a rejection of that dogma and its Author. Here’s why: If I say “I personally do not prefer apples I prefer pears” I haven’t made an argument, I’ve stated my preference between two organic objects, neither which is sentient. If I say “I prefer the Church’s teaching on abortion but NOT Her teaching on marriage” I’ve used my free will as a sentient being, Man, to deny Christ. If Rod does the same but reverses the order “I prefer the Church’s teaching on Marriage but NOT her teaching on abortion” the result is the same.
The Truth has been denied by these two men and this is the cause of today’s moral confusion. The Truth of the Church dogma is not a burger menu at Carl’s Jr. to be picked from while preserving the Grace of your soul. Either both dogmas are True i.e. Eternal and both men are in Apostasy OR neither are True meaning they never could have been True and there is/was no Christ (who told us they were True). Truth is eternal, if A. & B. were True in 31 A.D., 421 and 1521 it is True today. The Vatican states in it’s canon # 1958…
The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies: Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface.
We must see that there are no “personal choices” in the Truth of these matters to be made, if there were, then 2000+ years of Catholics and 4,000+ years of prophets and Saints may as well have been worshipping the sun.