Wonder why the Catholic Church says marriage is only for a man and a woman?

If you want to be closed-minded about it, then skip the rest of this. America's Catholic Bishops have established a new website, "Marriage: Unique for a Reason," to help explain the church's position. You might not agree, but at least it will explain a position that in today's culture is considered to be divisive, if not outrageous. Perhaps it will help start a rational dialogue.

Comments

Leave a comment
  • I think this can be true for someone who is Catholic/Christian or some other religion or belief.

    But everyone is not religious (separation of Church and State), nor interpret religion the same way.

    I believe there are Higher Powers in the Universe (mortal and spiritual); and I believe marriage is based on love - same-sex, opposite-sex, interracial, international, intercaste, may-december, etc., etc., etc......

    I am entitled to my opinion just as you of course are to your's Dennis

  • I never said you weren't. I posted not to change your mind or silence your opinion. Just as points of information.

  • How about posting an atheist point of view?? No some right wing catholic understanding of our culture?? Stop being so slanted and saying your just trying to start a conversation. I'm looking at your posts and you could not be be any more slanted if were leaning over the side of a cliff.

  • In reply to TheBiggerPicture:

    This is an opinion column, so I am reflecting a view. A view, by the way, that is increasingly bashed and admittedly needs defending.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Dennis, cry us a river on defending marriage that's being 'bashed". It's a red herring thinking when the real underlying reason right-wingers like you push this garbage out is to attack the "gay marriage " issue.

    You: "I am, indeed, guilty of seeing a "oneness" is marriage that is unique and uplifting in ways that other "partnerships" are not."

    Since when do you get to decided what a marriage or partnership should be named? There are far to numerous relationships that can't be defined into one or two categories. Why should that be codified into law???

  • It's very interesting that if anyone actually wants to dig down on this, it's almost impossible to do so. As a severely lapsed Catholic (perhaps because of this gobshite) I bothered to click through and attempt to read the links. And guess what, there are no "new" answers. There's a link straight back to Vatican II, which, correct me if I'm wrong, is older than me. (A warning, you have to click through about 5 links to get to any text.)
    At some point it says" - "the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. Just as oxygen and hydrogen are essential to water, sexual difference is essential to marriage. The attempt to “redefine” marriage to include two persons of the same sex denies the reality of what marriage is. It is as impossible as trying to “redefine” water to include oxygen and nitrogen."
    Excuse me, but I've seen quite a few homosexual couples making their own type of "water" and apparently flourishing. The quotes you link to have no basis in science nor do they have a foundation in Scripture.
    I noted that at the beginning of the diatribe, there were biblical quotes as to a partnership (which did not define the sexes - Gen 1:27 etc.) but as soon as it became hard line nothing-but-hetero-, there was a distinct lack of biblical reference.
    And as for this - "On the other hand, sexual behavior between two men or two women can never arrive at the oneness experienced between husband and wife,"
    - hang your head in shame. Oneness? To this day women around the world are traded in marriages that are abusive, derogatory and at best, laughable.

  • In reply to Expat in Chicago:

    Just a thought, Expat, Their are multiple references to Man and Woman as marriage in the Bible. Since you only mention Genesis, when you get to Leviticus you will see more and you can go on and on. However, the logic in the mistreatment of women as property is not even close to moral equivalency. By your logic since it rains a lot in England and Seattle, you should carry an unbrella in the Sahara.
    Knowing Christ in a personal way, being filled with the Holy Spirit, and seeing miracles happen in your life and watching prayer bring real results that can't be understood as coincidence; these are the things that end the searching for Truth. I wished for years that the Catholic Church taught these things. Now i am in a parish that does, and great things happen. Frankly, you probably don't want to hear me preach. But you may want to ask Him personally to prove to you in a way that there is no doubt that He is who He says He is. Then you can enjoy the journey.

  • Thank you for digging down; I welcome your substantive response. I'm not arguing from Biblical references, since (a) my Biblical understandings are not all that great and (b) I think there is a secular argument to be made in favor of preserving a valuable, societal institution--namely traditional marriage. Yes, there have been great abuses of marriage and women in the name of marriage, and those are not to be tolerated. But I'm still not too old (69) to reject seeking the ideal and trying to perfect the reality we have. I am, indeed, guilty of seeing a "oneness" is marriage that is unique and uplifting in ways that other "partnerships" are not.

    By the way, why do we call people "partners," as in "howdy, pardner"? Why don't we call committed couples "lovers," which is more reflective of their relationship?

    Another BTW: Vatican II appears to be ancient history to more and more people. But at the time (I was in college then) it was considered to be the church's opening of a window to let in some fresh air. Sorry that it has become a symbol for backwardness or whatever.

  • Posted to my Being Catholic ... Really Facebook page. I like the way you think. ;-)

  • fb_avatar

    The central premise of the Catholic Bishops' argument is that the sole purpose of marriage is pro-creation:

    "Only a man and a woman can authentically speak the language of married love, because only a man and a woman can engage in the act which, by its nature, is designed for bringing new life into the world."

    That leads you to some inevitable conclusions:

    1. Heterosexuals who don't want to have kids should be prohibited from marrying.

    2. Heterosexuals who are infertile should be prohibited from marrying.

    3. Heterosexuals who are beyond the age of fertility should be prohibited from marrying.

    It seems to me that if anyone is attempting to radically redefine "marriage" in America, it is the Catholic Bishops.

Leave a comment

  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Advertisement:
  • Fresh Chicago News

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • google-site-verification: googlefdc32e3d5108044f.html
  • Meet The Blogger

    Dennis Byrne

    Chicago Tribune contributing op-ed columnist and author of forthcoming historical novel, "Madness: The War of 1812." Reporter, editor and columnist for Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Daily News. Freelance writer and editor.

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Categories

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • Monthly Archives

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: