ifeelgoodforonce asked: Thank you so much Father for clearing that up and for answering my questions. I can't say I agree with everything, but it does mean a lot to me that you would answer so kindly and honestly. Again, thank you and I do hope you have a wonderful day!
I thank you as well, and am grateful to be asked for accountability in the issue of gay marriage without making me feel as if I am bad to begin with. It is truly refreshing to have someone disagree with me, in such an agreeable way.
If Tumblr had more people debating issues like you do, it would be ten times more enjoyable. God bless and take care, Fr. Angel
ifeelgoodforonce asked: Hello Father, this is the Unitarian again. In response to what you said about the healthiest household being one with a man and a woman raising the children, I must say I disagree. I was raised by a single mother and while that is different from being raised with two parents of the same sex, I find that I and my sisters are very well-rounded individuals. If it can be contested that a household without a man and a woman is unhealthy, what does that say of my single-parent family?
I should have been a little clearer, that when Natural Law theories look at what is “most in accord with human nature” they readily admit that there are exceptions.
For instance, Natural Law looks at healthy eating and regular exercise as keys to healthy living. But we know people who eat plenty, never exercise, and eat whatever they want and don’t have high blood pressure, diabetes, or cholesterol. And while our nature supposedly is most happy and content when we have few mental stresses and conflicts, we know people who experience conflict and intense stress and never seem to develop anxiety, panic, or depression.
So, when I wrote that people argue that the two parent, heterosexual household is the healthiest environment for transmitting a culture to offspring, I did not mean it as an ironclad rule with no exceptions. After all, humans are resilient, and creatively come up with ways to make up for deficiencies in their environment in order to survive and even thrive.
Rather, people cite studies in sociology and the anecdotal evidence from different countries to back this up “as a general rule.” This is why they recommend special care for a family when there is the loss of the dad, or the mom, or when the two call it quits in divorce. The children of such families are often cited as “at risk” children in the various studies.
The exception is the family like yours, where your mom worked hard and poured out her heart to raise good kids. You were blessed to turn out well rounded, but if you pour through the juvenile hall records, jail records, rehabs, etc you will find that most kids in a single household don’t report the same success. They report far more mental issues from the loss or absence of a parent and far more struggles to stay concentrated and keep up with their peers raised in an intact, two parent, heterosexual union.
The law, as written for society, has to take into account the general experience, the general rule, of what is healthy. Law should not be rewritten in order to cater to the exception. That happened when our first studies said that some kids do great after a divorce. Based on that exception to the general rule that divorce is a bad thing for kids, we changed divorce laws to make it very easy to divorce in most states. Now, we see that easy divorce has wreaked havoc on stable family life but now, the damage has already been done.
As I mentioned in my other posts, the effects of gay marriage on children in a gay marriage household can be debated, and many studies are so affected by prejudice and bias, that it is hard to sort through the evidence as it comes in, and to decide which side is more right.
But what is not debated is that gay marriage has an immediate effect on the civil rights of people who offer public services but are no longer free to express their opinion because the law no longer affords them that freedom (e.g. a property owner who doesn’t want to rent a hall out for a gay marriage).
I hope this clears up that what I was saying was a general rule, but there are exceptions. I just have a hesitation on rewriting laws when all the sociological evidence is not in yet on what is, overall, best for households and families that raise the next generation.
God bless and take care, Fr. Angel
orthodoxdude24 asked: As an Orthodox Christian, I know that my Church doesn't dogmatically prohibit us from accepting Evolution, as long as we continue to believe in the theological truths found in Genesis. Does the Catholic Church allow its members to accept Evolution and other aspects of modern science? Or is it necessary to hold a literal interpretation?
Yes! Catholics can embrace evolution and other aspects of modern science. They do not have to interpret all Scripture as literally.
Catholic exegesis believes there is a very clear line of demarcation between the scientific method and the methods of Scripture study and theology. The Church cannot tell scientists how to do science, nor dictate the conclusions that come from the theories, and experimentation that is part of the scientific method.
After all, God is the origin of creation and all life forms, as well as the source of spiritual truths that arise from Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition. As a result of these boundaries, and the desire to reconcile the truths from both sides of the fence, Catholic Scripture scholars are careful to have respectful dialogue with scientists.
To answer your question, then, the Catholic Church does not merely “allow” its members to accept aspects of modern science, but encourages knowledge of the modern sciences, including the science behind the various theories of evolution. Catholics have a conviction that the Scriptures are not meant to be read as sources of science, but of faith and theology. It’s alright, then, to not interpret the book of Genesis as literal to the last letter.
Galileo said, “The Scriptures are meant to teach us how to go to heaven, not to teach us how the heavens go.”
Too often, an overly “literal” interpretation of Scripture causes the truths of God’s Word to be placed in conflict with the truths of science. So Scripture must be approached and interpreted in a way that it’s interpretations do not conflict with what is accepted as scientific truth. I hope this helps.
Please look over this article on Genesis written by a Catholic. I think you will find it interesting.
God bless and take care, Fr. Angel
O Sacred Head
O Sacred Head surrounded
By crown of piercing thorn!
O bleeding Head, so wounded,
Reviled and put to scorn!
Death’s pallid hue comes o’er Thee,
The glow of life decays,
Yet angel hosts adore Thee
And tremble as they gaze.
I see Thy strength and vigor
All fading in the strife,
And death, with cruel vigor,
Bereaving Thee of life;
O agony and dying!
O love to sinners free!
Jesus, all grace supplying,
O turn Thy face on me!
In this Thy bitter Passion,
Good Shepherd, think of me,
With Thy most sweet compassion,
Unworthy though I be;
Beneath Thy Cross abiding,
‘Forever would I rest,
In Thy dear love confiding,
And wilth Thy presence blest.
———Saint Bernard of Clairvaux [1090-1153]
i think aggressively practicing self love is important, no matter where you are in life
if you’re single, you ought to dedicate time to finding out who you are and loving yourself
and if you’re in a relationship, you ought to dedicate time to finding out who you are and loving yourself