Does Catholic theology imply support for (male) same-sex marriage?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Bear with me here...

The reason given for why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church is the Eucharist: during the sacrament of the Eucharist, the priest takes on the role of Christ, and this role includes the idea that Christ is the "bridegroom" and the Church is his "bride". Since "bridegroom" implies male, the priest must be male... QED, end of story... or is it?

The part that they never really talk about is the other half of that relationship: the bride. By the same logic that says bridegrooms must be male, brides (normally) must be female. This implies to me that for logical consistency, the laity must be female just as the clergy must be male... but this isn't the case. Both males and females are welcome to be part of the laity... IOW, to take on the role of "bride" during mass.

If we take this "divine" marriage as a model for the ideal of marriage, here's what we get:

- one spouse must be male.
- the other spouse may be either male or female.

Therefore, the mass itself supports the idea of same-sex marriage... for men, at least.

I realize this is contrary to the Catholic Church's stance on same- sex marriage.

Discuss.

 

[Iti oj]

Wow man heavy stuff

 

[Rocky S]

Bear with me here...

The reason given for why women can't be priests in the Catholic Church is the Eucharist: during the sacrament of the Eucharist, the priest takes on the role of Christ, and this role includes the idea that Christ is the "bridegroom" and the Church is his "bride". Since "bridegroom" implies male, the priest must be male... QED, end of story... or is it?

The part that they never really talk about is the other half of that relationship: the bride. By the same logic that says bridegrooms must be male, brides (normally) must be female. This implies to me that for logical consistency, the laity must be female just as the clergy must be male... but this isn't the case. Both males and females are welcome to be part of the laity... IOW, to take on the role of "bride" during mass.

If we take this "divine" marriage as a model for the ideal of marriage, here's what we get:

- one spouse must be male.
- the other spouse may be either male or female.

Therefore, the mass itself supports the idea of same-sex marriage... for men, at least.

I realize this is contrary to the Catholic Church's stance on same- sex marriage.

Discuss.

Wow interesting take on this. I never agreed with the fact that the church is referred to as the brie of Christ. In the bible the church is called the body of Christ. not a bride, or is not referred to any other feminine pronouns accept one time in allegory to one particular body of believers in a specific church in the 1st century by Paul. The allegory is a spotless virgin meaning not tainted by the sins of the world. The bride of Christ is referred to something else all together in the bible not the church as a whole. But to get in to that would take the thread into another subject kind of. I would love to get a catholic perspective on your threadopcorn:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Thanks, guys.

Any Catholics want to chime in? If I've made a mistake, I'd like to know.

 

[Tbone]

Does Catholic theology imply support for (male) same-sex marriage?

We are not to concern ourselves with traditions of men but rather with what God teaches and supports.

 

[McBell]

We are not to concern ourselves with traditions of men but rather with what God teaches and supports.

Except when it comes to same sex marriage...
Or masturbation...
Or birth control...

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

We are not to concern ourselves with traditions of men but rather with what God teaches and supports.

And what is it that "God teaches and supports"? Can you point me to a mistake in doctrine in my argument? If you can see one, I'd really like to know.

 

[Tbone]

And what is it that "God teaches and supports"? Can you point me to a mistake in doctrine in my argument? If you can see one, I'd really like to know.

You can infer whatever you will from the teachings of men, it doesn't matter what men teach or what you think they teach.
It only matters what God says.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

No because individuals within the Church may be male but the collective is the spiritual bride of Christ, I don't quite see your point

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Wow interesting take on this. I never agreed with the fact that the church is referred to as the brie of Christ. In the bible the church is called the body of Christ. not a bride, or is not referred to any other feminine pronouns accept one time in allegory to one particular body of believers in a specific church in the 1st century by Paul. The allegory is a spotless virgin meaning not tainted by the sins of the world. The bride of Christ is referred to something else all together in the bible not the church as a whole. But to get in to that would take the thread into another subject kind of. I would love to get a catholic perspective on your threadopcorn:

Yes but that is the point Paul makes in his views on marriage, a husband and wife relate as Christ and His Church do

 

[McBell]

Yes but that is the point Paul makes in his views on marriage, a husband and wife relate as Christ and His Church do

So which one is the owner and which one is the property?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No because individuals within the Church may be male but the collective is the spiritual bride of Christ, I don't quite see your point

How does the individual male become the collective female? Mass is still valid even if every single person in attendance is male.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

How does the individual male become the collective female? Mass is still valid even if every single person in attendance is male.

They are standing in place of the entire church, not themselves

 

[ForeverFaithful]

So which one is the owner and which one is the property?

Could you ask another loaded question?

 

[Me Myself]

Yes but that is the point Paul makes in his views on marriage, a husband and wife relate as Christ and His Church do

Ironically, this is talking on a terribly unequal way of relationship...

"brides, you husband is your god, do as he says on all. He knows best. Oh yes, he must do everything with the best interest of you in mind, after all, he is representing Christ, but remember, HE is the one who makes the decisions"

#$/&! :sarcastic

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Ironically, this is talking on a terribly unequal way of relationship...

"brides, you husband is your god, do as he says on all. He knows best. Oh yes, he must do everything with the best interest of you in mind, after all, he is representing Christ, but remember, HE is the one who makes the decisions"

#$/&! :sarcastic

Awesome, however no Church father ever read the passage in such a dry sarcastic way

They did however say;

The holy Synod has decreed that those who forcibly carry off women under pretence of marriage, and the aiders or abettors of such ravishers, shall be degraded if clergymen, and if laymen be anathematized.

- “The XXX Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synods, of Chalcedon,” Canon XXVII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 287.

Meaning the consent of the women is actually, contrary to popular belief, necessary for a valid sacrament

 

[McBell]

Could you ask another loaded question?

:biglaugh:

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They are standing in place of the entire church, not themselves

... just as the priest is standing in the place of Christ, not himself. If this means that the one standing in the place of the "bridegroom" must be male, why doesn't it mean that the ones standing in the place of the "bride" must be female?

Or are you arguing that the priest doesn't have to be a man?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Awesome, however no Church father ever read the passage in such a dry sarcastic way

They did however say;


- “The XXX Canons of the Holy and Fourth Synods, of Chalcedon,” Canon XXVII, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1978), 287.

Meaning the consent of the women is actually, contrary to popular belief, necessary for a valid sacrament

Umm... I didn't see anything in that quote that spoke to validity. Licitness, yes, but not validity.

 

[ForeverFaithful]

Umm... I didn't see anything in that quote that spoke to validity. Licitness, yes, but not validity.

Some one anathemazied can not receive any sacrament