Yes To You - Fr Pontifex Addresses Homosexuality

[dUSt]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXq4izbFgAM&feature=share"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXq4izbFgAM&feature=share[/url]

[GregorMendel]

A great presentation of the church's position, but I think there is still something unsatisfying about the message of "Although the Church says no to gay marriage, it still says yes to you".

Also, how did he get JJ Abrams to direct this? lol

[dUSt]

What is unsatisfying about that statement?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1348169501' post='2484700']
A great presentation of the church's position, but I think there is still something unsatisfying about the message of "Although the Church says no to gay marriage, it still says yes to you".

Also, how did he get JJ Abrams to direct this? lol
[/quote]
[quote name='dUSt' timestamp='1348169714' post='2484701']
What is unsatisfying about that statement?
[/quote]

I do not want to speak [i]for[/i] Gregor, but I think I understand what he is saying. It seems, in a way, to set up a contrast between "no" to homosexual 'marriage' and "yes" to the suffering person behind it. Rather than putting those in opposition, and framing the "no" as a negative, it is more the case that the "no" to homosexual 'marriage' is actually a "yes" to God.
Essentially, it just appears as if the syntax sets up a false opposition. Of course I do not think that this is what Fr. Burns intended by that line. That is just one narrow way in which it could be interpreted.

That is my take on it at least, and I see where Gregor is coming from.

Also I have not watched the video.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Nihil Obstat

[MissyP89]

It still hurts. That's what I took Gregor to mean.

The Church can say "we still love you" all she wants, but it doesn't take away the truth that folks with SSA will never be able to fulfill the desire for self-giving love and family with those their hearts feel pulled toward.

At the end of the day, you still have the cross. No one's going to take it away. You still have to live with the pain.

Edited September 20, 2012 by MissyP89

[Luigi]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1348171652' post='2484707']
It still hurts. That's what I took Gregor to mean.

The Church can say "we still love you" all she wants, but it doesn't take away the truth that folks with SSA will never be able to fulfill the desire for self-giving love and family with those their hearts feel pulled toward.

At the end of the day, you still have the cross. No one's going to take it away. You still have to live with the pain.
[/quote]

That's true of a lot of life conditions.

People who are sterile may want children, but are unable to have them. The Church says, "We still love you," but the person still has the cross. No one's going to take it away. The person still has to live with the pain.

A person in a wheelchair probably gets tired of having to deal with it. The Church says, "We still love you," but the person still has the cross. No one's going to take it away. The person still has to deal with using a wheelchair.

We all have to deal with what we have to deal with. ALL the Church can do is say, "We still love you," and help us deal with it.

[PhuturePriest]

[quote name='Luigi' timestamp='1348173266' post='2484725']
That's true of a lot of life conditions.

People who are sterile may want children, but are unable to have them. The Church says, "We still love you," but the person still has the cross. No one's going to take it away. The person still has to live with the pain.

A person in a wheelchair probably gets tired of having to deal with it. The Church says, "We still love you," but the person still has the cross. No one's going to take it away. The person still has to deal with using a wheelchair.

We all have to deal with what we have to deal with. ALL the Church can do is say, "We still love you," and help us deal with it.
[/quote]

I agree completely. I struggle with speaking in front of large groups of people or when I'm nervous. I stutter and sometimes you can't get a word out of me. This is my Cross to bear. It's difficult at times, but the Church is still there to help me. The Church never claimed it would take away pain, so I'm not sure why someone would interpret it as that.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1348170772' post='2484704']
I do not want to speak [i]for[/i] Gregor, but I think I understand what he is saying. It seems, in a way, to set up a contrast between "no" to homosexual 'marriage' and "yes" to the suffering person behind it. Rather than putting those in opposition, and framing the "no" as a negative, it is more the case that the "no" to homosexual 'marriage' is actually a "yes" to God.
Essentially, it just appears as if the syntax sets up a false opposition. Of course I do not think that this is what Fr. Burns intended by that line. That is just one narrow way in which it could be interpreted.

That is my take on it at least, and I see where Gregor is coming from.

Also I have not watched the video.
[/quote]
[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1348171652' post='2484707']
It still hurts. That's what I took Gregor to mean.

The Church can say "we still love you" all she wants, but it doesn't take away the truth that folks with SSA will never be able to fulfill the desire for self-giving love and family with those their hearts feel pulled toward.

At the end of the day, you still have the cross. No one's going to take it away. You still have to live with the pain.
[/quote]

Yes to both, and far more eloquent than I could express myself.

Edited September 20, 2012 by GregorMendel

[Anomaly]

Paraplegics and other people who can't physically have sex can't get married either. It's not hate.

Edited September 20, 2012 by Anomaly

[dUSt]

I already have a wife, so I can't get married to another one. The church hates me!!! Wait, that means Obama hates me too!!!

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='Anomaly' timestamp='1348178773' post='2484739']
Paraplegics and other people who can't physically have sex can't get married either. It's not hate.
[/quote]



I think this line of logic conflates the physical conditions discussed (stuttering, sterility, paraplegia, etc.) with a belief that is clearly only applicable to homosexuality.

The belief that the physically disabled are restricted, legally or otherwise, from marriage given possible sexual limitations is ridiculous. More to the point, while I may be misinformed, I doubt the church bars such individuals from the possibility of the sacrament of marriage.

It is in this way that I feel the message of "No, but Yes" is unsatisfying.

Edited September 20, 2012 by GregorMendel

[MissyP89]

Just so you guys know, I stand with the Church 100%. I'm just also saying I can understand the intellectual struggle of those who don't.

[MissyP89]

Also, Gregor, the Church actually does bar those who know, prior to marrying, that they are physically incapable of sex. It's different than being infertile or realizing later on that you have sexual issues.

You have to at the very least be able to consummate your marriage one time.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='MissyP89' timestamp='1348181227' post='2484750']
Also, Gregor, the Church actually does bar those who know, prior to marrying, that they are physically incapable of sex. It's different than being infertile or realizing later on that you have sexual issues.

You have to at the very least be able to consummate your marriage one time.
[/quote]

Hehe, Fr. Matt had to ask Katy and I separately if I am impotent or if she is the female equivalent. Just one of those things they are required to ask.

[Anomaly]

Canon 1084. The Church will not confer a sacramental marriage on a couple who knows the cannot physically consummate. Doesn't matter if they're sterile. Pointing out the concept of catholic marriage must possibly conceive Chiildren. Sterility may be overcome miraculously, but only if they can perform the act.
The Church view in marriage isn't about making two people happy even if they're hetero.

[Basilisa Marie]

Part of the reason why consummation and consent of the spouses are both required for a valid marriage is because in the early Church, there was some debate as to whether consummation made the marriage or the consent. Just one or the other offered a variety of problems (secret marriages that were easily denied by one party, etc), so naturally the Church decided that both were required, and that a representative of the Church had to witness the consent-giving. The birth of a child was generally considered the "witness" of the consummation in many places.

But back on topic - I think it's more fair to compare the pain people experience with homosexuality to that of infertility than it is to compare it to not being able to have a second wife. You don't actually want a second wife, and get to experience the joy of having a wife and creating a family with her. It's not the same as having to go without. We all have crosses to bear, and should bear them, but we shouldn't make light of another person's cross.

Edited September 21, 2012 by Basilisa Marie

[GregorMendel]

Well, I can honestly say that I've learned something today! Thank you all for your thoughts upon the matter, but I must admit that conflating physical impairments with sterility or homosexuality seems crass and cruel to me.

[Basilisa Marie]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1348187240' post='2484810']
Well, I can honestly say that I've learned something today! Thank you all for your thoughts upon the matter, but I must admit that conflating physical impairments with sterility or homosexuality seems crass and cruel to me.
[/quote]

Learning is fun.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. It's not really "conflating"...from what I'm reading what's being said is that there are a variety of different things that can "impede" a valid sacramental marriage, and that the pain one suffers from them is very real.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='GregorMendel' timestamp='1348187240' post='2484810']
Well, I can honestly say that I've learned something today! Thank you all for your thoughts upon the matter, but I must admit that conflating physical impairments with sterility or homosexuality seems crass and cruel to me.
[/quote]Sterility is not the same as it isn't an impediment.

[GregorMendel]

[quote name='FuturePriest387' timestamp='1348174406' post='2484730']
I agree completely. I struggle with speaking in front of large groups of people or when I'm nervous. I stutter and sometimes you can't get a word out of me. This is my Cross to bear. It's difficult at times, but the Church is still there to help me. The Church never claimed it would take away pain, so I'm not sure why someone would interpret it as that.
[/quote]

To conflate the impediments faced by a stutter to those faced by those who are homosexual is at least illogical, if not offensive.


This has all gotten away from my original point, being 'does anyone think Father Pontifex's message would be satisfying to homosexuals trying to abide by the laws of the church?' Sure, it acknowledges the struggles of those faced with ssa, but I dont believe the "No, but Yes" statement lives up to its goal of affirming the individual within the church.