Gay Marriage and Catholics: The Hour Has Come

Catholic Exchange ^ | March 7, 2005 | Stephen Bennett

[NYer]

	In a recent hour-long interview on the Drew Mariani Show on Relevant Radio, I praised Catholics worldwide for their unwavering stand on the right to life. Catholics have been among the leading voices behind saving countless numbers of God's most precious from a horrible, tortuous death in of all places — their mothers’ wombs.
An Evil Agenda Puts the Pedal to the Metal Catholics, along with people of other faiths, have stood out in the rain, in the snow and the burning sun faithfully for decades, pleading with mothers not to do the unthinkable and murder their own children. However, during this escalating culture war, the moral Catholic voice has been by large silent and nearly non-existent on the issues of homosexuality and “gay” marriage — until now. We were no doubt all horrified at the chilling discoveries and numerous cover-ups of the molestation of so many innocent children at the hands of some clergy over past decades. According to the Catholic Church's official reports, upwards of 80% of what the media like to call “pedophile priests” have molested adolescent boys. This has clearly been a problem stemming from homosexuality within the priesthood. Many of these boys (and the lesser number of girls who were victimized by actual pedophiles) are now as adults dealing with terrible, life-long trauma. Some have also tragically gone into the homosexual lifestyle because of their childhood sexual abuse. Praise God for the recent response from Catholic officials and the newly implemented measures sparing other innocent children from the hands of twisted individuals. However during this time, the Catholic voice was virtually silenced as the Church’s moral credibility came under serious scrutiny. It is no accident that homosexual activists seized this moment to vigorously press their militant agenda with all of their finances, force and fury. The strongholds gained by these radical activists — many claiming to be “faithful Catholics” — include, in many states, same-sex partner benefits, legalized homosexual adoption of children (the deliberate denial of a mother and father to children) and homosexual civil unions. To the utter shock and dismay of most Americans, the unthinkable happened in May of 2004. “Gay” marriage actually became legalized in the heavily populated, highly liberal, and largely Catholic state of Massachusetts due to four radical, activist judges. While I believe that Satan has used this homosexual abuse scandal within the Catholic Church to try to silence the moral voice of Catholics, I believe God has used it ultimately for good. With homosexuality being the moral controversy of our day, Catholics are beginning to boldly speak out. Strong Voices at the Top On February 22, 2005, the Reuters News Service reported that Pope John Paul II declared homosexual marriages are part of “a new ideology of evil” that is insidiously threatening society. The pope took his strong, biblical punch at immorality and “gay” activists worldwide in his fifth book Memory and Identity, published only days ago by Italian publisher Rizzoli. Nearly two weeks earlier on the February 11, 2005 broadcast of EWTN’s The World Over Live with host Raymond Arroyo, Nigerian Cardinal Francis Arinze was interviewed. Boy! did this Catholic official set the record “straight” (no pun intended). Arinze, one of the top Vatican cardinals in the Catholic Church, ended once and for all the debate on all dissenters and homosexual activists — including the notorious “Rainbow Sash” movement. His message to these “rebellious religious”: you are hereby forbidden to receive Holy Communion. According to the dictionary, the term “activist” defines one who “advocates” for any cause. In the New Testament, the Apostle Paul in the Book of Romans, chapter one, addresses those who “approve of” or “take pleasure” in those men and women involved in the practice of homosexuality. It’s not a pretty picture Paul paints — and regarding the Lord’s stern warning, I wouldn’t want to be in these activists’ shoes. Members of the Catholic Church now have a very important decision to make: obey their Church’s teachings or reap the consequences. On EWTN, Cardinal Arinze made it very clear: “The Catholic Church has never accepted homosexuality as normal. You read the Scripture. It’s very clear. What are we examining? Are we going to change Divine Law, how God made us?” A big, hearty “Amen” to Cardinal Arinze. Yet, while the Catholic Church could not be any clearer on the Lord’s biblical, moral prohibition against the practice of homosexuality, many who identify themselves as practicing Catholics say they simply “don’t care” what the Church says. That brings us back to our dear friends in the “rainbow” state of Massachusetts. Recently, Catholic public officials were honored at a public ceremony at the Massachusetts State House by homosexual activist groups for their open defiance of Catholic Church law and their personal approval and promotion of legalized homosexual marriage. They claim their support for “gay” marriage comes from living their “true Catholic faith.” While this was billed as a public event, those who opposed the “gay” gala celebrations honoring these Catholic officials and others, were “booted” out of the event and off the property — public property their own state taxes pay for. My... how tolerant of these homosexual activists. Devout Catholics living in Massachusetts and all across America are outraged and feel betrayed by their elected Catholic officials who do not at all represent their Catholic voice, nor the teachings of their Catholic faith. For many Catholics, they have simply been brought to the point of boiling and have finally said, “Enough is enough.” The true voice of the Catholic Church in America today is simply not being heard or represented — it is drowned out by the voice of a deceptive counterfeit, a loud, vocal minority of wolves in sheep's clothing posing to represent the real voice of faithful Catholics worldwide. There are many of these defiant Catholics around the world who openly are promoting and practicing homosexuality — as there are individuals in the other Christian communions. Sin knows no bounds. These deviants will continue to promote, practice and lobby until their churches change their views on homosexuality and sadly, we’ve seen many of these denominations cave in to these extremists. Many of the Catholic homosexual activists and sympathizers hold public office, teach America's children, are active members of the clergy and are even major figures within the media. I know because I have personally debated a number of them. These are men and women who place themselves above their Church's beliefs and teachings — and above those of our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Scriptures. While we must uphold our moral and biblical beliefs, we need to love and respect one another and all human beings, for we are all created in the image of God. We are a fallen human race — imperfect. None of us is without sin. Having said that though, we have to draw the line when it comes to knowingly and willingly condoning a lifestyle the Bible clearly calls sin. What is Possible with God As a former homosexual, now married for nearly 12 years to my beautiful wife and the father of our two little children (yes, that's my family in the picture), I found the Truth in the Holy Scriptures and in my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. God’s Holy Word broke through my stony, wicked heart years ago as I was convicted of my homosexual sin through reading of the Holy Scriptures for myself — for the Bible says, “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God” (Rom 10:17). I finally made the choice to follow Christ and embraced my true identity as the heterosexual man God created me to be — and I have never been the same — nor have I ever been happier in my life. My homosexual struggle — by God’s grace alone — has completely come to an end. That wonderful, new life in Jesus Christ awaits all those who seek it. Regardless of who we are and regardless of whether we struggle with homosexual or heterosexual sin, the Holy Scriptures are very clear: we all need Jesus Christ in our lives, for He is the Answer. I beg you to rise up and let your voices be heard. For the sake of our children and future generations, please make a difference in your parish and in your community. Do so with love and compassion as Christ would, trusting that the True Light will always outshine the darkness. How can you effectively do this? 1. Understand clearly what the Bible and the Church says about the sin of homosexuality. 2. Understand the dynamics of homosexuality that can lead a person down the homosexual path. 3. Never be intimidated to speak the truth in love. 4. Love the individual unconditionally as Christ would, but never condone the sin. 5. Develop a solid, godly relationship with the individual and be a good listener. 6. Help the individual to identify the “root issues” underlying their homosexual struggle. Homosexuality is an outward expression of an inward conflict. 7. Share the Gospel, the Scriptures and the individual’s need for Jesus Christ as the Holy Spirit leads. However, never “cram” Scripture down someone’s throat. We want to draw people to Christ, not push them away. 8. Keep the individual in fervent prayer and get others to pray as well — prayer truly works! 9. Seek godly wisdom, counsel and guidance from those who truly understand the dynamics of the homosexual struggle. 10. Pour your life, your heart and your love into the individual — true love conquers all. Develop a heart for the homosexual and proclaim the Truth in love, no matter the response you may receive. Remember Christ’s words in the Gospel of John, “They’ll hate you because they hated Me first.” If you are rejected, it is not you they are rejecting — but Jesus Christ Himself. My friend, be strong, be vigilant and be not afraid. Please, before it's too late — share the truth in love. © Copyright 2005 Catholic Exchange Stephen Bennett is Executive Director and Founder of Stephen Bennett Ministries in CT — a pro-family organization advocating for the traditional family, the protection of children and proclaiming the truth about homosexuality. He is featured frequently on most of the major networks and cable news programs and is a National Spokesperson for Concerned Women in America in Washington, DC and the Special Issues Editor on Homosexuality for the American Family Association in Tupelo, MS. Stephen Bennett has just released a brand new, informative resource titled The 10 Most Effective Ways to Reach the Homosexual for Christ. This one-hour special audio CD (which includes the recorded testimony of Stephen Bennett leaving the homosexual lifestyle) along with an additional Companion Study Guide are now available by going to www.SBMinistries.org.

[NYer]

Vatican Document on Homosexual Unions

"Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involving a grave lack of respect for human dignity,(15) does nothing to alter this inadequacy."
CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

[NYer]

Ping!

[hispanichoosier]

What a wonderful testimony! I know that the Nat'l Ass'n for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (http://www.narth.org) has done much research in counseling gays and in leading them charitably out of the gay "lifestyle."

[DBeers]

For those interested -some links to documents and some excerpts:

1. The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality - Guidelines for Education within the Family

   104. A particular problem that can appear during the process of sexual maturation is homosexuality, which is also spreading more and more in urbanized societies. This phenomenon must be presented with balanced judgement, in the light of the documents of the Church. Young people need to be helped to distinguish between the concepts of what is normal and abnormal, between subjective guilt and objective disorder, avoiding what would arouse hostility. On the other hand, the structural and complementary orientation of sexuality must be well clarified in relation to marriage, procreation and Christian chastity. "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". A distinction must be made between a tendency that can be innate and acts of homosexuality that "are intrinsically disordered" and contrary to Natural Law.

   Especially when the practice of homosexual acts has not become a habit, many cases can benefit from appropriate therapy. In any case, persons in this situation must be accepted with respect, dignity and delicacy, and all forms of unjust discrimination must be avoided. If parents notice the appearance of this tendency or of related behaviour in their children, during childhood or adolescence, they should seek help from expert qualified persons in order to obtain all possible assistance.

   For most homosexual persons, this condition constitutes 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 fulfil 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". "Homosexual persons are called to chastity".

2. Persona Humana - Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics

   VIII At the present time there are those who, basing themselves on observations in the psychological order, have begun to judge indulgently, and even to excuse completely, homosexual relations between certain people. This they do in opposition to the constant teaching of the Magisterium and to the moral sense of the Christian people.

   A distinction is drawn, and it seems with some reason, between homosexuals whose tendency comes from a false education, from a lack of normal sexual development, from habit, from bad example, or from other similar causes, and is transitory or at least not incurable; and homosexuals who are definitively such because of some kind of innate instinct or a pathological constitution judged to be incurable.

   In regard to this second category of subjects, some people conclude that their tendency is so natural that it justifies in their case homosexual relations within a sincere communion of life and love analogous to marriage, in so far as such homosexuals feel incapable of enduring a solitary life.

   In the pastoral field, these homosexuals must certainly be treated with understanding and sustained in the hope of overcoming their personal difficulties and their inability to fit into society. Their culpability will be judged with prudence. But no pastoral method can be employed which would give moral justification to these acts on the grounds that they would be consonant with the condition of such people. For according to the objective moral order, homosexual relations are acts which lack an essential and indispensable finality. In Sacred Scripture they are condemned as a serious depravity and even presented as the sad consequence of rejecting God. This judgment of Scripture does not of course permit us to conclude that all those who suffer from this anomaly are personally responsible for it, but it does attest to the fact that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered and can in no case be approved of.

3. Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

   10. It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church's pastors wherever it occurs. It reveals a kind of disregard for others which endangers the most fundamental principles of a healthy society. The intrinsic dignity of each person must always be respected in word, in action and in law.

   But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

   11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

   Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

4. Some Considerations Concerning the Response to Legislative Proposals on Non-discrimination of Homosexual Persons

   II. Applications

   10. "Sexual orientation" does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder (cf. "Letter," No. 3) and evokes moral concern.

   11. There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.

   13. Including "homosexual orientation" among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights, for example, in respect to so-called affirmative action or preferential treatment in hiring practices. This is all the more deleterious since there is no right to homosexuality (cf. No. 10) which therefore should not form the basis for judicial claims. The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality. A person's homosexuality would be invoked in opposition to alleged discrimination, and thus the exercise of rights would be defended precisely via the affirmation of the homosexual condition instead of in terms of a violation of basic human rights.

5. Considerations Regarding Proposals To Give Legal Recognition To Unions Between Homosexual Persons

   4. There are absolutely no grounds for considering homosexual unions to be in any way similar or even remotely analogous to God's plan for marriage and family. Marriage is holy, while homosexual acts go against the natural moral law. Homosexual acts “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”.

   7. Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition. Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. The possibility of using recently discovered methods of artificial reproduction, beyond involv- ing a grave lack of respect for human dignity, does nothing to alter this inadequacy.

   Homosexual unions are also totally lacking in the conjugal dimension, which represents the human and ordered form of sexuality. Sexual relations are human when and insofar as they express and promote the mutual assistance of the sexes in marriage and are open to the transmission of new life.

   As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in these unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case.

[Salvation]

Wow! What a collection!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

[Dominick]

This is an excellent resource for those who have to deal with liberals, in the CAtholic sense and the poltitical sense.

[FatherofFive]

I struggle with this issue, and I’d like some help in my thinking.

I fervently believe that homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, and that people who commit homosexual acts are committing a grave sin. However, adultery (including re-marriage after divorce) carries the same scriptural penalty as homosexuality (Death by stoning). This tells me that the sins of divorce and remarriage are on par with that homosexuality. I see far more damage to families from divorce and remarriage than from a homosexual marriage.

Are the people who are fighting secular homosexual marriage opposed to re-marriage after divorce? Should we prevent the state from allowing this as well?

My belief is that marriage is a religious sacrament. The state should not be involved in a religious marriage. We need to separate the covenantal aspects of this gift with the secular ones. “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s”

As much as I hate the sin of homosexuality, I don’t want the state to interfere with religion. Using the state to promote a religious view is the wrong approach.

From a secular (government) perspective, why should I oppose homosexual marriage?

[DBeers]

I fervently believe that homosexuality is a behavioral disorder, and that people who commit homosexual acts are committing a grave sin.

Yes, you are for the most part correct.

[FatherofFive]

I’m not sure that a 135 year old British example is valid reason to overturn divorce laws today. Besides, the King is the head of the Church of England. Secular marriage and divorce laws are designed to protect the spouse and children financially. What would be the secular reason to prevent divorce?
I thought the Mary Gallagher reasons were rather weak – “From there it is a short hop to polygamy. … Some things really are fundamentals of our civilization. … We don't permit states to "experiment" … In the United Sates of America, marriage means something: the union of husband and wife who can give to their children a mother and a father.” More opinion than reason.

[DBeers]

What would be the secular reason to prevent divorce?

May I suggest your question is flawed in presupposition?

I would suggest the divorce laws are now not strictly 'secular' -they are morally based (albeit a morality in the same vein as the morally relative and morally corrupt liberals' "social justice" type of morality)...

Before no-fault divorce, divorce was a breach of contract... Legally and secularly the 'morality' that gives supposed legality to no-fault divorce should be dumped... The question actually should be "What would be the secular reason be to allow no-fault divorce?"

[DBeers]

What would be the secular reason to prevent divorce?

Let me also add that this has nothing do do with a required prohibition on homosexual 'unions'...

[FatherofFive]

Q. "What would be the secular reason be to allow no-fault divorce?"
A. Because we can. Secular law can be anything at all. We can ban alcohol because of all the bad things alcohol abuse does to people and families. We can un-ban it because of all the bad things the ban does to society. If a secular law can be created to begin a marriage, the same law can end it. There is no secular marriage “covenant” – that is sacramental. A Catholic family life has benefits in this world and the next. My point is that this is my faith – the government cannot make it happen. Government cannot legislate morality. Even though they are doing their best to legislate immorality, does this matter? I follow my faith regardless of what the government says I can do.

Certain laws are morally based, but they could be defined as crimes against life, such as murder (except, regrettably for those in the womb) and assault; or crimes against property such as theft, and not have “morality” involved at all.

[FatherofFive]

“Let me also add that this has nothing to do with a required prohibition on homosexual 'unions'”

I was using it as analogy, in that the sins of adultery, divorce and remarriage are on par with that homosexuality. Many on the religious right simply like adultery more than homosexuality. But why a “required” secular ban on homosexual unions? Homosexuality won’t get you salvation, but we know everyone won’t get there anyway.

[FatherofFive]

I think you are missing my point, and I don’t want to go off on a tangent of British law. I firmly believe that children raised by a mother and father in a Christian family setting is the ideal. I also believe that television is harmful (except for basketball and football!), that you should exercise at least 20 minutes a day, that you should eliminate flour and sugar from your diet, that you should send your children to a Catholic school, that you should pray the Rosary daily with the family, that you should brush and floss, etc. All of these things are good. Should we make them mandatory? I agree with everything that Maggie Gallagher says. But I still feel these are opinions, and anecdotal evidence is not a reason. Even if we had proof that something eg, alcohol, can lead to bad consequences, should we ban it?

“Marriage is justified by the human condition: the societal need for procreation and stability.”
Secular marriage and divorce laws are designed to protect the spouse and children financially. People always have and will pro-create regardless of marital status. It may not be stable, but with 50% divorce rates, I suggest we are far from stable.

“If marriage did not exist as an institution, would there be a need for a registry of same-sex couples, conferring a special legal status and contract, and the provision of benefits?”
This comes back to my basic question. There is the sacramental marriage, and the secular marriage. I think we should keep them separate. I could actually see some secular advantage in some sort of marriage for homosexuals – it would allow me to eliminate domestic partner benefits.

[DBeers]

My point is that this is my faith – the government cannot make it happen. Government cannot legislate morality...

I disagree (you know that your statement is a liberal talking point based in the false premise of separation of Church and state etcetra). The Government legislates morality all the time -always has and always will... The Government is not some innocuous entity that must reject moral and or religious opinion (where is that written?).

-the Government is of the people and it will legislate whatever the people can get legislated. As a Catholic I have and will vote as my well informed conscience dictates.

[DBeers]

A. Because we can.

I think you missed my point -specifically, why is it that in the case of divorce a party can breech a contract without penalty or proof of hardship required? Even in bankruptcy an inability to pay and hardship etcetera must be proven in court?