Green Room

Fr. Marcel Guarnizo’s rebuttal to Bill O’Reilly on same-sex marriage

posted at 12:25 pm on April 21, 2013 by

During my coverage of the papal conclave in Vatican City, I got a chance to meet and interview Fr. Marcel Guarnizo, an American theologian and philosopher living in Rome. On Friday, Fr. Marcel offered a lengthy and thoughtful rebuttal to Bill O’Reilly on the subject of same-sex marriage, but also to the notion that faith and values linked to faith have no role in the American political debate. Writing for CNS News, Fr. Marcel offers a point-by-point response that is just too complicated to easily excerpt, and is worth reading in full.

However, this argument in response to O’Reilly’s charge of “Bible thumping” is a good entrée:

The second clarification comes from a philosophical direction. The argument from faith, being revealed by God is essentially the strongest argument per se. It may not be understood to be so, by those who do not believe in Divine Revelation, but, if God exists and Christian revelation is true, it is undoubtedly the strongest. God does not have opinions, or positions on issues. God is simply Truth. The fact that the argument from eternal law cannot be used with the homosexual lobby, which is markedly atheistic, does not grant the further claim that Divine Revelation is a weak argument. The weakness of it is not due to the argument itself but to the condition of the hearer, who does not recognize Divine Law.

So, as to Mr. O’Reilly’s assertion that “more than Bible thumping” is needed in the discussion regarding the nature of marriage:

Indeed, we may need to appeal to reason principally, in our day and age, due to the lack of faith of those to whom we speak. But, as a Catholic, Bill O’Reilly should also know that it is the dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church that reason and faith do not contradict. Therefore, as a Catholic priest, it is unproblematic for me to argue either way. I may indeed argue against the “Anglicans gone wild” that electing bishops who are acting on homosexual tendencies is contrary to Christian teaching and revelation. Yet I would indeed not appeal to the highest science, Divine science, if arguing with Bill O’Reilly, the libertarian.

If Bill O’Reilly believes in Divine Revelation and the divinity of Christ, he surely should realize that theology and reason (philosophy) are simply two different ways of arriving at the same conclusion. Theology and revelation are necessary, even in cases where one can arrive at the same conclusion on by reason alone, because not every individual has the time or ability to arrive at correct conclusions from reason. Revelation in this sense is a service to the human conscience, for it affords another way for many people to arrive to necessary conclusions, quickly, and without the admixture of error. Revealed doctrine is a service to reason, not an obstacle.

But since Mr. O’Reilly demands “more than Bible thumping,” I argue from reason, that homosexuality is simply not a normative inclination in the individual and therefore its existence constitutes shaky ground to make a norm for society as a whole. One has to take a deep breath and depersonalize the issue. We speak at this level when evaluating policy. The question before us is whether the tendency of some men and some women toward a same sex attraction is reasonable grounds to legislate for an entire nation or state.

Be sure to read it all.

Recently in the Green Room:

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Ah I see, and when parents disagree who cuts the child in half?

You are absolutely absurd and ignorant on family law. There is absolutely no reason to continue a conversation with you. A married parent cannot deny another parent rights; they are equal in custody, medical decisions, financial responsibility. That is why it requires a court during a divorce to seperate the rights to the child.

Hah. Alternative to the one true sexual relationship I presume.

No, alternative to the standard man/woman makes a baby relationship. Any other variation of sexuality does not need state recognition.

Recognizing SSM is inviting the government into my bedroom? Denying the same benefits for the same outcomes based on an arbitrary majority definition of “sexual relationship” seems more like inviting it into other American’s bedrooms.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Yep, you are asking the government to license a sexual relationship. That is the essence of inviting the government into the bedroom.

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Michael Voris on ChurchMilitant.TV had a good episode recently on the diabolical push for the homosexual agenda throughout the world. It is worth a watch, as are all of his videos.

There is not a doubt in my mind that a chastisement is coming. We should all be turning to Jesus for His Divine Mercy. Learn about approved prophecy, like this from the 17th century Our Lady of Good Success, Quito, Ecuador:

“…corrupted priests will scandalize the Church …Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women, and, in this supreme moment of need of the Church, those whom it behooves to speak will fall silent.

As for the Sacrament of Matrimony, which symbolizes the union of Christ with His Church, it will be attacked and deeply profaned. Freemasonry, which will then be in power, will enact iniquitous laws (no fault divorce) with the aim of doing away with this Sacrament, making it easy for everyone to live in sin and encouraging the procreation of illegitimate children born without the blessing of the Church. The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of Faith will gradually be extinguished until there will be an almost total and general corruption of customs. Added to this will be the effects of secular education, which will be one reason for the dearth of priestly and religious vocations.

Church Fathers, Saints and Blesseds, all the way back to the beginning up to more recent approved ones like Fatima, Akita, etc. spoke of a ‘minor’ chastisement that would come prior to end times. I don’t think it is a coincidence that Pope Francis has dedicated his papacy to Our Lady of Fatima. Read what the Holy Mother told the seers there, then look around you. Though it could be another century or more, all the signs are here, showing that it could come within our lifetime, heck, within the year. One look at Drudge is enough to see that.

When it is evening, you say, It will be fair weather, for the sky is red. [3] And in the morning: Today there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times? Learn the signs. Look at the world. Something is coming.

Oh, and there is nothing ‘minor’ about the Minor Chastisement. God have mercy.

Jesus, I trust in You.

pannw on April 22, 2013 at 12:18 PM

pannw on April 22, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Excellent post!

Sterling Holobyte on April 22, 2013 at 12:48 PM

When a non believer says you have to keep your religion out of the public sphere, it’s in essence saying..

(You have to dispense with every governing principle you have, which informs your own morality, because I don’t like it.)

Great, so I think secular humanism should be banned from the public discussion of politics, since it offends me.. and my values.

But that sadly won’t happen.

and atheists, are going to have to get over not being allowed to tell us what values we are permitted to have and discuss.

They certainly tell us to that they don’t like our personal values and principles.. and that sword cuts both ways, who appointed them the judge of what values are allowed to be discussed? Free speech would suggest, they have to endure speech they don’t like, as we do.

But the SSM marriage crowd adopts the leftist argument, wether they are or not, telling us what informs our position is illegitimate, because they don’t like it.

I don’t call those who favor SSM they are scum for holding that view, I expect the same in return. I expect most people don’t care all that much, which makes the public view easy to twist, it doesn’t mean the argument for it is right, just it has a media juggernaut driving it.

I never considered the states approval of our marriage the biggest prize, but the churches.. I could care less what the government thinks of straight marriage. The fact is, the only approval we need is God’s.. so like him, I won’t see SSM as legitimate, no matter what the state and CNN say.

The state may recognize, I hope not, but even if they do, I’m not required to.

no more than when the kids are playing and marry the family dog to the cat..

mark81150 on April 22, 2013 at 1:57 PM

There is absolutely no reason to continue a conversation with you.

And yet…

A married parent cannot deny another parent rights; they are equal in custody, medical decisions, financial responsibility. That is why it requires a court during a divorce to seperate the rights to the child.

The same can be said of a SSM couple. You feel like the status quo is somehow unchangeable and I’m not sure why that is. Laws change all the time.

No, alternative to the standard man/woman makes a baby relationship. Any other variation of sexuality does not need state recognition.

Completing the circle. So now my line is: “SSM couples can make babies”. And you say: “No they cant”. Then i say “Yes, I know for a fact they can!”

But all of this is moot, as SSM recognition seems all but inevitable now. I win!

Yep, you are asking the government to license a sexual relationship. That is the essence of inviting the government into the bedroom.

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 12:14 PM

They already license traditional marriage. I know you dont see it, but this is why the argument is so absurd. We’re talking in circles. Gay couples are having and adopting children and forming committed relationships. They fulfill the same criteria as traditional marriages like mine as far as the state is concerned and so they should be included.

It’s certainly not going to effect me directly in any manner much less invite anyone into my bedroom, least of all the government.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

The same can be said of a SSM couple. You feel like the status quo is somehow unchangeable and I’m not sure why that is. Laws change all the time.

No they cannot. A gay couple cannot BIOLOGICALLY have children together. The law will NEVER assume that both parents are the parents of the children within their “marriage” because it is NOT BIOLOGICALLY POSSIBLE.. No matter how many times a gay couple has sex, no matter how much they wish; they will be as infertile as a single person masterbating by themself.. A SS couple will always have to go to the court despite being “married” and have the court divvy out parental rights, absolve third party rights and have the non-bio parent adopt said child within the marriage. A heterosexual couple does not have to do that unless they dissolve the marriage. Don’t like science and biology– take it up with nature.

They fulfill the same criteria as traditional marriages like mine as far as the state is concerned and so they should be included.

And polyamorous groups and incestuous couple fulfill the same criteria as SS couples.

It’s certainly not going to effect me directly in any manner much less invite anyone into my bedroom, least of all the government.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

Again, you show your ignorance of marriage and family law. Marriages can be annulled due to impotence. You are asking the government to license your sexual relationship. If you weren’t, then you would be pushing to represent ALL pairings that require financial contracts like elder aging parents and their children who take care of them…

It’s certainly not going to effect me directly in any manner much less invite anyone into my bedroom, least of all the government.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

And yeah it does when it is used to sue private businesses and take away parental rights. Recently in the name of GLBT diversity,a New York school made middle school students ask each other for lesbian kisses under the auspices of an anti-bullying program.

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/middle-school-anti-bullying-lesson-includes-lesbian-role-play.html

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 3:09 PM

I swear the complete ignorance of science when talking about this issue is irritating. Saying a gay couple can ‘produce a child together” is as the same as saying that a single person who got insemination did it by immaculate conception..

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Completing the circle. So now my line is: “SSM couples can make babies”. And you say: “No they cant”. Then i say “Yes, I know for a fact they can!”

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM

And I know for a fact that Unicorns can mate with centaurs and produce Unitaurs!!! I know some personally who have!!!!

And that is no more ludicrous than your claims. Why would you keep stating something you know to be a lie? Unless you are a total ignoramus, you know two men can not produce children together, nor can two women. It is an impossibility, therefore you make yourself look like a fool or worse.

pannw on April 22, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Dash,

My mother is helping my sister raise my neice. They live in the same home, pool their financial resources and both have a hand in parenting her. My mother is her custodial guardian when my sister is not around.

Based on your reasoning, shouldn’t they be able to marry and be afforded marriage benefits? Why or why not?

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 3:36 PM

Dash,

You’re in denial of basic biological facts. I think you’re persisting in this because to acknowledge biology is to acknowledge that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

Marriage has an objective structure with inherent characteristics derived, or born if you will, quite literally, from the very nature of the sexual union of a man and a woman. This union is absolutely unique— you can say what you want and say it’s not so, but you cannot change this objective reality that has nothing to do with opinion or interpretation.

From the reality of this objective structure flow the inherent characteristics of marriage that are permanent and inseparable elements of marriage. God wrote the reality of marriage into who we are when He created us as male and female.

One of my college courses was on human physiology, and the text discussed the many organic systems of the human body such as the cardiovascular system, the adrenal system, and the digestive system. Each and every one of these functions as a self-contained system within one body. There is only one human organic system that requires a second body to bring to completion its organic function—you know where I’m going—the human reproductive system, which necessitates organic union between one male and one female.

Cells in the human body are diploid, containing two sets of chromosomes, one set from the mother, and one set from the father—except for the gametes, the reproductive cells, egg or sperm, which each contain only one set of chromosomes. These haploid cells must be joined in an organic union between mother and father for the human reproductive system to achieve the goal of reproduction—the creation of a new human being .

INC on April 22, 2013 at 5:17 PM

Traditionalists can be against whatever they want in a religious setting, this is a state issue though. Small government and all that.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Gays sent the issue to SCOTUS which exposes the lie that they think it’s a state issue. They want SCOTUS to impose SSM by judicial fiat.

You’re not reading or responding to anything that’s been said about small government.

Government will only grow if a legal definition of marriage is changed.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 5:29 PM

Despite your declaration, the government has an interest in stable productive citizens.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 11:58 AM

Well, yes. And children thrive best when reared by their married biological parents. As was said in the French editorial I quoted on the second page:

You argue that the families without “a papa and a mama” are legion: widowhood and single-parenthood are often the cause. Learn that between accepting this deprivation that presents itself to us and knowingly provoking it by causing the birth of a child outside of these benchmarks [mother and father], there is one major difference: will. While the first circumstance is inflicted, the second is selfishly caused.

There’s a reason why they put a photo up of a pregnant woman with a UPC code on her abdomen. We’re talking about baby manufacturing.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 5:31 PM

On the second page I also quoted Robert Lopez as saying:

“Third Millennium Slavery,” the view of children as soulless disposable products to be consumed or discarded at the will of paying adults.

This is the reality we’re talking about.

If you want to talk about adoption rather than surrogacy, then go back and read this quote from an earlier comment I made.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 5:33 PM

No they cannot. A gay couple cannot BIOLOGICALLY have children together.

Saying a gay couple can ‘produce a child together” is as the same as saying that a single person who got insemination did it by immaculate conception..

You’re in denial of basic biological facts. I think you’re persisting in this because to acknowledge biology is to acknowledge that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

This seems to be all the same argument so I’ll lump them all together:

Many hetero, traditional married couples can not “BIOLOGICALLY have children together.” But that is all a distraction since there is no requirement to have children in order to get married and have the benefits of the state given to you if you’re hetero.

Suddenly there are tests and hurdles if you’re same sex?

To say it again, a woman bearing two children, one with her partners egg is certainly producing offspring in my book. Argue otherwise all you want. It’s a weak case.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

No, there is not a requirement to have chidren, but it’s certainly not a distraction.

It is a recognition that from male and female are born babies.

To say it again, a woman bearing two children, one with her partners egg is certainly producing offspring in my book. Argue otherwise all you want. It’s a weak case.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

It is ridiculous to claim that a woman is producing a child, when that child would not have come into being without a male gamete cell, sperm.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Many hetero, traditional married couples can not “BIOLOGICALLY have children together.” But that is all a distraction since there is no requirement to have children in order to get married and have the benefits of the state given to you if you’re hetero.

Most of them do not know they are infertile when they marry, however and as such the state has a vested interest in recognizing those unions as infertility is notoriously unreliable. It is also a MEDICAL problem. The hetero couple actually has the equipment to get married whereas no matter how much two women or men have sex no children will ever result.

To say it again, a woman bearing two children, one with her partners egg is certainly producing offspring in my book. Argue otherwise all you want. It’s a weak case.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Then you are a fool and scientifically illiterate. It is no more “producing” offspring together. One LESBIAN produced offspring; the other was her cheerleader but had no legal or biological rights to the child unless she adopts said child..

Answer this question:

My mother is helping my sister raise my neice. They live in the same home, pool their financial resources and both have a hand in parenting her. My mother is her custodial guardian when my sister is not around. Essentially the equivalent of ‘TWO SAME” sex parents..

Based on your reasoning, shouldn’t they be able to marry and be afforded marriage benefits? Why or why not?

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Answer this question:

My mother is helping my sister raise my neice. They live in the same home, pool their financial resources and both have a hand in parenting her. My mother is her custodial guardian when my sister is not around. Essentially the equivalent of ‘TWO SAME” sex parents..

Based on your reasoning, shouldn’t they be able to marry and be afforded marriage benefits? Why or why not?

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM

Oh and since my mother is co-parenting my niece does that mean she “produced” said niece with my sister?

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Let’s do a little set theory.

If you start with the two distinct and defined sets, one of men and the other of women, only the union of one member from each set, i.e., one man and one woman, can create, form or produce etc., etc., the subset known as a child.

This is impossible for any members of the same set to accomplish.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 8:49 PM

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:44 PM

Dash sets a new record of willful blindness to objective truth.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Dash sets a new record of willful blindness to objective truth.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 8:51 PM

Dash thinks that biological truth is relative and subjective. I say gays can’t produce babies together and he says they can. He thinks based on that that we each have our “own truth.” Unfortunately somethings are bound by scientific reality.

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM

To say it again, a woman bearing two children, one with her partners egg is certainly producing offspring in my book. Argue otherwise all you want. It’s a weak case.

Dash on April 22, 2013 at 8:34 PM

Why do you keep up your lies? Talk about weak…Which one of the women produced the sperm? It is required for reproduction, you know. That requires a male. Only male and female can produce children. And you know it. Or you really are an ignoramus.

For your sake, I hope it is the latter. Lying is serious business you know?

You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof. But if I say the truth, you believe me not.

Time is short, Dash.

pannw on April 22, 2013 at 9:21 PM

It is fascinating that the Christian right’s reliance upon biological reproduction to rationalize keeping same-sex marriage illegal requires the denigration of heterosexual adoptive parents as “not ideal.”

libfreeordie on April 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM

libfreeordie on April 22, 2013 at 10:03 PM

Reality is not rationalization.

Neither is it denigration.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Anne-Claude Girard wrote this poignant appeal in her Open letter from adopted children to France. It is a moving insight into the price that children pay for the desires of adults.

Today, this same Republic is about to pass a law that would open adoption to same-sex couples. The law would eliminate the right for those who were guaranteed a mother and father before….

If we were not raised by those who conceived us, with a father and a mother who adopted us, we build our selfhood by understanding that we could have been the child of their love.

Our lineage is comparable to that of the two adoptive parents; this understanding is essential to make us who we are. I understood in becoming myself a mother, that that had been a fundamental stage of my development.

A number of professionals have explained to you how much the wound of being abandoned inspires, among adopted children, a tireless search for their origins.

How then can it even be conceived — to give an abandoned child to a same-sex couple? That is to condemn the child forever to the double doubt:

“why was I abandoned, and why do I not have a dad and a mom?”

…This fight is about those who have known the frailty of the state of abandonment, who are different, and who deserve to build themselves up within a home of father-mother-child.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 10:13 PM

…This fight is about those who have known the frailty of the state of abandonment, who are different, and who deserve to build themselves up within a home of father-mother-child.

Yeah because kids of biological heterosexual parents never need therapy. I know a few kids adopted by heterosexuals. One ended up being a mess, but three are doing just fine. That seems to me a good percentage, and about as good as natural parenting can guarantee.

libfreeordie on April 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM

libfreeordie on April 22, 2013 at 10:25 PM

Strawman.

INC on April 22, 2013 at 10:33 PM

Answer this question:

My mother is helping my sister raise my neice. They live in the same home, pool their financial resources and both have a hand in parenting her. My mother is her custodial guardian when my sister is not around. Essentially the equivalent of ‘TWO SAME” sex parents..

Based on your reasoning, shouldn’t they be able to marry and be afforded marriage benefits? Why or why not?

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:42 PM

I need more information, are your mother and sister involved in a sexual relationship? Since you’re saying it’s essentially the equivalent of two same sex parents, and you already equated that to incest? If so I would say tough question. Incest laws are the result of a health hazard when children are produced from close genetic lines. However that wouldn’t be the case here so I’m really not sure! Stil though, No… I’d say no. No marriage due to the incest.

Dash thinks that biological truth is relative and subjective. I say gays can’t produce babies together and he says they can. He thinks based on that that we each have our “own truth.” Unfortunately somethings are bound by scientific reality.

melle1228 on April 22, 2013 at 8:53 PM

Hetero couples get sperm and eggs from external sources, even surrogate mothers and are still married. I know you didn’t forget, you just chose to ignore it because it kills your argument.

So yes gay couple can together produce a baby in the same way a sterile man and wife can.

This is why you’re losing so badly. Calling me a fool wont help.

Dash on April 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM

I need more information, are your mother and sister involved in a sexual relationship? Since you’re saying it’s essentially the equivalent of two same sex parents, and you already equated that to incest? If so I would say tough question. Incest laws are the result of a health hazard when children are produced from close genetic lines. However that wouldn’t be the case here so I’m really not sure! Stil though, No… I’d say no. No marriage due to the incest

No, they are not involved in a sexual relationship, but that doesn’t matter see Lawrence v. Texas re: privacy rights in the home. THere is no question on the form that indicates sexual relationship and the only reason states would care about it is in the creation of a BABY.. And you’re no marriage due to incest is bigotry. It is also a violation of due process as proposed by the gay lobby– Since marriage does not require procreation; you can not restrict marriage rights based on procreation– incest is exactly the same argument..

Hetero couples get sperm and eggs from external sources, even surrogate mothers and are still married. I know you didn’t forget, you just chose to ignore it because it kills your argument.

So yes gay couple can together produce a baby in the same way a sterile man and wife can.

This is why you’re losing so badly. Calling me a fool wont help.

Dash on April 23, 2013 at 9:16 AM

First off, sterility is a medical condition- one that gays do not have. Second, no the hetero couple did not “create” a baby together if genetic material was donated from a third source hence why there are legal hurdles that have to be cleared to dissolve the third party rights. If the hetero or gay “created the baby” there wouldn’t be a third party involved.

Second, sterility is not usually known when someone marries with the exception of a couple who is having sex in the wrong way as to never produce a baby– then “sterility” is guaranteed by life choices not a medical condition.

I am not losing the argument, because no matter how much you spin it- Two same sex parents cannot biologically create a baby together- anymore than my mother was involved in the creation of my niece.

I called you a fool because no matter how many times you argue “your truth” it doesn’t make it biologically or legally accurate. It is subjective mush..

melle1228 on April 23, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3