Frank Weathers Says it Best: Why the Catholic Church Will Never Support Gay Marriage

Franks Weathers, the brilliant writer, retired Marine and all around good guy who bills himself “Joe six pack,” wrote a fantastic post about gay marriage yesterday.

Instead of going off into arcane reasoning and trying to avoid the moral implications, Frank went straight to the heart of the matter. His argument can be summed up in a few words that belie the eloquence of what he wrote but still get the point across:

1. Hell is real.

2. People go there forever.

3. Homosexual acts can send you to hell.

4. The Church will never condone gay marriage because it will never condone anything that will send people to hell beause

5. The business of the Church is helping people go to heaven, not sending them to hell.

Frank, who blogs at Why I am Catholic, said it a lot better than that. In fact, he said it so well I have nothing to add. For a politician to say that she has nothing to add is, well, it’s incredible.

Here, is an excerpt from the incredible post, The Number One Reason the Catholic Church Won’t Support Gay Marriage, Updated. 

So what’s absolutely, positively, the A-1, best reason why the Bride of Christ won’t recognize Same-Sex civil unions as being a good?

Because Hell burns, and for all eternity. That’s why. The Church teaches that engaging in homosexual acts will lead one to eternal damnation.

Of course, the Church also teaches that committing all manner of other sinful acts, without compunction or repentance, leads one right to Hell too. Not much has changed in this regard since John the Baptist went around telling folks to “Repent!”

And the Church, that holy hospital built by Christ Himself to cleanse us, and lead us to the Promised Land, wouldn’t be doing her job properly for her Lord if she didn’t use every ounce of the Magisterial Authority she wields to do everything in her power to prevent souls from being destroyed forever in the Lake of Fire. (Read the rest here.)

  • Mike

    Yeah but has he or you ever considered that some people really do want to go to hell? Christopher Hitchens is a personwho comes to mind. He it seemed to me had no fear and was as full of pride as a person can be. I am not saying this bc I disagree with you, just pointing it out that nowadays many people simply don’t want to feel holy or good; they want to wallow in themselves and in their distractions. They do. I’ve known many of them.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      I’ve seen some oddball things out there. I just saw a poster with the pictures of famous people on it saying don’t fear hell; you’re going to have great company when you get there, or something similar. I think it was a poster promoting atheism, but I’m not sure because I didn’t look at it too closely.

      Frankly Mike, I think this is ignorance and arrogance more than anything else. Of course, I could be wrong. There may be people who understand what hell is and who still want to go there.

  • Theodore Seeber

    And while I agree with Frank, it does nothing to resolve our apparent schizophrenic disconnect on the subject of Religious Liberty. Assuming that we really want religious liberty- then people who want to go to hell for whatever reason is good enough in their minds, should under the Constitution of the United States have a path to get there, as long as they don’t drag anybody else along with them.

  • Sus

    Thank you Rebecca. I hadn’t read Frank’s post. It’s great. It’s something that you really can’t argue about. That is what the Church teaches and believes.

    It isn’t about the slippery slopes of pedophilia becoming legal, people marrying their pets if and people wanting to marry their siblings if gay marriage is allowed. Those arguments make me nuts because it’s completely unfair to put all that on gay people.

    • Theodore Seeber

      It is unfair to put all that on gay people. But that’s NOT what the slippery slope argument is about.

      The slippery slope argument is that once you give up on establishment of even common sense measures because they are religiously discriminatory, it is rather irrational to have any morality in the law at all.

      I believe we passed that point with no-fault divorce and contraception. Gay marriage is neither at the top nor the bottom of that slippery slope, it’s just one stage along the way to full sexual libertine moral relativism.

    • Guest

      The next thing on the slippery slope is polygamy and there is even less to argue with there since it’s still basically male-female marriage just more of it and they even did it in the Bible! It’s even had it’s own sympathetic reality show. I think people (as taxpayers) are more concerned about how one husband will support multiple wives and their offspring than about any moral implications. I think it will get legalized blindingly fast.

      I was watching The News Hour on PBS after the Supreme Court hearings on SSM. They interviewed a guest from each side of the argument and the guest speaking for traditional marriage brought up polygamy several times. You could see the guest for SSM get more and more offended that polygamy was being brought into it. Not just because the points were legitimate but I think because it kept taking the focus away from SSM and SSM advocates don’t want people thinking about any other new definitions of marriage right now.

  • Knower

    Yeah, but WHY does any seriously disordered free human act — or omission — tend toward the unhappiness of hell? According to Catholic tradition, it’s BECAUSE it’s intrinsically and seriously harmful to self or neighbor: not the other way around. Thus Thomas Aquinas in his *Summa Contra Gentiles* wrote flatly — sorry, I don’t know the exact reference — that “we don’t offend God except by what we cause [whether by act or by omission] which is against our own good” — i.e., against my own or my neighbor’s true good and happiness.
    And the philosopher Jacques Maritain writes (in Ch. 2, section 6 of his book *Moral Philosophy*) that “it is … because in the first place [a human action] has in itself a positive moral VALUE, that it is in consequence of such a nature as to lead us toward our final END.” By contrast, it’s because an intrinsically harmful human action has in the first place a NEGATIVE moral value, that it’s consequently of such a nature as to lead us away from the happiness of our God-intended final end, and toward the unhappy abyss of hell.

  • http://www.QuinersDiner.com Tom Quiner

    This post gets right to the heart of the matter. It is politically incorrect. To proclaim this message publicly is guaranteed to generate ridicule and contempt. When I have written on the subject and invoked the Catechism’s assertion that homosexuality is “disordered,” you can imagine the response. One sticks out: “boy, that really makes me want to join the Catholic Church. Not!” We will be called “haters” or “homophobes” or worse. And yet, if we don’t speak up, souls are at risk. Thanks for another sensational post, Rebecca. Thanks for what you do. Please keep doing it.

    • Rebecca Hamilton

      Thank you Tom. I feel your pain about the responses.

    • Bill S

      “And yet, if we don’t speak up, souls are at risk.”

      Please forget about this reason. If you can show that same sex marriage harms you in a real and significant way, please use that as your argument against it. Please don’t try to “save the souls” of gays and lesbians. They don’t need to be “saved” by you or anyone else.

      • Theodore Seeber

        And yet- the first person always hurt by a gay relationship, is one of the partners in the relationship.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X