Sep 1, 2015 30 6:06 AM

Related posts


  1. commentator 1

    This is a very inaccurate editorial Pope Francis basically reiterated the Catholic Church stance to be opening to all people. He also still thinks abortion is a moral evil. Before writing your next editorial you guys should actually read the interviews and not write editorials based off tabloid headlines. I’m disappointed in this editorial’s lack of truth.

  2. Y. A. Warren

    Since the official stance on marriage in the church is to promote procreation, same-sex marriage in the church would negate the catholic purpose of marriage. Civil unions are simply that; they are partnerships in the eyes of the state. The crux of the problem can actually be addressed by separation of church and states. States should officiate over civil unions and churches should choose whether to “bless” and accept theses unions. The two should never have been combined in the first place in the United States of America.

    1. Peter

      Can’t the Church “accept” civil unions without “blessing” them with the moral approval of the Church?

      Loyola- and many other Jesuit and Church related institutions- welcome (even encourage, with funding) research that investigates hypotheses that are not completely squared with the dogma of the Church: military research and training used for wars that cannot be just, criminal justice research that violates our notions of compassion; policy research that creates harmful laws; and medical research used for medicine the Church has no control over. Often, our Church-affiliated groups vigorously breed discussions that represent a diverse and active society working to solve difficult problems.

      Why must Loyola insist that civil unions (an expression of love, faith, compassion, and commitment) not be held in its academic spaces? Can it do so and yet not officially sanctify the union as the “marriage” etched (or, hopefully, penciled) into dogma? I think so.

      1. Y. A. Warren

        There is a difference between funding research and accepting actions that go against the very fiber of the institution. Loyola is a private religious institution. They must have boundaries regarding what is allowed “in their home.”

        I know that many of my family use illegal drugs. I accept this as their choice. I, however, do not allow them to use them with my knowledge, on my private property. The church believes that certain things are harmful to society; they are morally bound to stand behind their own boundaries and defend their integrity.

        The bigger question is why this couple so wants to fly in the face of the institution in which they willingly participate. Loyola is not condemning their commitment, simply opting out of participation in the ceremony. This couple can privately hold their ceremony anywhere they choose. This seems an imagined injustice. Don’t they have more important things on which to exercise their social justice energy?

        1. Peter

          The Church’s holy conception of marriage cannot exclude all other definitions of lifelong commitment.

          Christine Irvine is looking to conduct a secular and state-sanctioned event that does not require a Church member to officiate the proceedings. These women’s action does not invalidate Church-officiated heterosexual marriages.

          Yes: the Church can say Catholic marriage must be between a man and a women.

          Yes: the Church can refuse to sanctify marriage outside of that definition.

          No: the Church does not have a moral imperative to actively prevent affirming love that occurs outside of that definition.

          It doesn’t go against the very fiber of the institution. That’s an imagined fallacy used by the most conservative (not in the American political sense) elements of the Catholic Church to deny acts of love.

          1. Y. A. Warren

            The RC church is nothing but a club or family with a set of rules for inclusion. I don’t understand those who continue to “beat their heads against stones” to enter “homes” that don’t welcome them. There are so many in our country who are only too happy to welcome responsible compassion in any form that it is manifested that I don’t know why people waste their time on attempts to be sanctioned or accepted by the RC church good old boy’s club.

          2. Publius

            Peter, you gravely misunderstand how the Church views these commitments of love. It appears to me that you think any expression of love, between any two individuals, must in one way, shape, or form be sanctioned by the Church, even if not in the form of marriage, simply because it is “love”. That is not how the Church works.

            A big part of the Church’s mission is to get souls to Heaven. If that means showing tough love, it means showing tough love. The fact of the matter is that same-sex relationships cannot and will not ever be condoned by the Catholic Church in any way. The Church teaches, rightly so I believe, that physical expressions of love- the consummation of love (sex)- is to be expressed within the confines of marriage, between one man and one woman. There is no middle ground here. Any other use of the sexual faculties, as in premarital sex or same-sex acts, is forbidden.

            Your own premises I find to be self-refuting as well. You say, on the one hand, that the Church can teach marriage as between one man and one woman, yet then you say that the Church cannot not affirm love that “occurs outside that definition.” If I understand you correctly, you’re saying that the Church must preach one thing but do another. Which is it? Can the Church teach that marriage (and sex) is between one man and one woman, and put that into practice, or must it affirm the relationships it can’t condone because of love, as you say?

            Contrary to what you contend, the Church’s concept of Holy Matrimony can, in fact, exclude other definitions of lifelong commitment from Church “affirmation” or sanction. As I’ve said, the only form of commitment the Church will recognize is one between one man and one woman in the form of Holy Matrimony. Any other relationship, be it premarital, polygamous, or same-sex in nature, will not be sanctioned by the Church.

            Affirming such a ceremony that is counter to Church teaching would in fact be counter to the fiber of the institution. There is no way around that. You are correct in saying that Loyola already does a lot of things counter to the Church; no one will dispute that. But two (or three, or four, or five) wrongs do not make a right. I will not condone the other contrary actions Loyola partakes in just as I will not condone this proposed one.

            If you really want to get to know Catholic teaching in depth, start with the Catechism: Can’t go wrong with that.

  3. Derek

    “The Catholic Church” is the people in the pews, not some unseen hierarchy. If the Jesuits running Loyola have done a poor job conveying Christ’s love and message of redemption to the students maybe it’s they who need to change.

Leave a Reply