In a recent private conversation, Pope Francis has reiterated his view that same-sex 'marriage' is an “anthropological regression”.
The Holy Father was also “saddened” by legislative proposals in Malta to extend equality legislation to homosexual couples, particularly those who wish to adopt.
In an interview with the Italian bishops' newspaper Avvenire published today, Auxiliary Bishop of Malta Charles J. Scicluna said that when he met Pope Francis on Dec. 12, he expressed his concern to the Pope about the proposed law. “The Pope showed his sadness at this development, especially on the question of adoption.”
He added: “I told him that the promoters [of the bill] quote his words: ‘If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?’ but they don’t quote his words from 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope repeated the phrase of his letter of 2010: ‘It's an anthropological regression.’"
In 2010, then-Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio called same-sex 'marriage' an "anti-value and an anthropological regression." In a conversation with Rabbi Abraham Skorka published in the book “On Heaven and Earth”, he said same-sex 'marriage' is a weakening of the institution of marriage, an institution that has existed for thousands of years and is “forged according to nature and anthropology.”
Bishop Scicluna, who worked for 17 years as a promoter of justice at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said the new socialist Maltese government which won elections in March last year promised to facilitate the claims of the homosexual lobby and to legislate in favour of same-sex unions.
The new bill, inspired by the Danes in 1994, equates in all respects civil unions (both heterosexual and homosexual) and civil marriage, and allows homosexual couples to become adoptive parents.
Bishop Scicluna said Malta’s bishops have expressed their concern about the bill, “referring to Catholic doctrine that itself is clear, while insisting at the same time pastoral closeness to everyone, including homosexual people.”
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
The Roman Catholic Church should not, and is under no obligation to, change its teachings based upon the transitive and lowest common denominator whims of sinful man. Right versus wrong; morality and Doctrine are not to be influenced by the results of current polling.
THE LIES AND MACHINATIONS OF THE HOMOSEXUAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
(OR HOW THE GAYMOB HOODWINKED AMERICA)
Jenna Mains and Katherine and all those wish to know how society become the way it is with regards homosexuality. Please read the link. Be informed. Know the enemies tactics and expose their lies.
http://library.gayhomeland.org/0018/EN/EN_Overhauling_Straight.htm
Jenna Mains: Also Marcus I have yet to use the words “homophobe or bigot” in any of my posts.
Me: And you are probably the exception. Without fail, when homosexuals run out of argument (as they do because all their arguments are bogus and illogical and have no foundation in Scripture or common sense) then that is what they do. If it was face to face, they’d probably punch you - which is what they have done to those affirm the faith. This they have done in city after city where people have peaceably prayed on the sidewalk with their placards affirming that marriage was ordained by God to be between man and a woman.
Which brings me to the point: How could you possibly go against that? How could you possibly defy God in that way.
Jenna Mains: @Marcus You cannot base an entire group of people’s beliefs off of one radical in a youtube video. I mean I would hope that you wouldn’t want to be represented as a Christian by the Westboro Baptist Church, but then again who I am to say?
Me: No Jenna. I am not basing it on one YouTube video. This is consistently the modus operandi of the homosexual mob. This is not one isolated incident, this is the consistent response to people who peaceably gather and declare their belief in Christian truths. This is who they are and how they act.
—
Jenna Mains : according to you “real Catholics” i’m only a Catholic in word and I apparently voted for Satan when I decided that I am going to love and support the people around me despite the fact that they are gay instead of proclaiming them all as sinners.
Me: Jenna, the reason you are not really Catholic is not because you love people who sin, it is YOUR SUPPORT OF THE SIN. You said it yourself, you do not think that it is a sin. So basically you have made yourself better and higher and more knowledgeable than the Church and even God Himself when you declared homosexual activity not a sin when God said otherwise. THAT is the big difference.
You know that scene in John 8 when Jesus was confronted with an adulterous woman. Well let us put that into 21st century homosexual situation
-
JOHN 8 IN CONTEMPORARY SETTING
And the people brought to Jesus a homosexual couple caught in the act of homosexual activity. Now Moses has commanded us that such people should be killed. Jesus stooped down on the ground and started writing as though He has not heard them. When they pressed Him he said: Whoever among you is without sin let him cast the first stone. One by one the accusers left.
Then Jesus turned to the homosexual couple, has no one condemned you?
No one, they said.
Then Jesus said: Neither do I condemn. GO AND SIN NO MORE.
THEN THE HOMOSEXUALS GOT ANGRY WITH JESUS AND SAID: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?! WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS NOT A SIN. WE WERE JUST EXPRESSING OUR DESIRE FOR EACH OTHER. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US THAT WE WERE SINNING. YOU KNOW WHAT, FOR ALL YOUR PRETENSIONS AT BEING ENLIGHTENED AND ALL THAT YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A BIGOT AND A HOMOPHOBE.
Jenna Mains: Perhaps I haven’t been able to articulate how I feel but this 65 year-old Catholic nurse does (I’ve included a link below
http://contemplativecatholicuk.blogspot.ca/2013/02/nurse-challenges-nicholls-on-same-sex.html
Me: All the arguments that this nurse has written are illogical and groundless and have been debunked many times over.
Firstly, she is of the assumption that “love” somehow makes something evil a good thing. That is one of the most stupid assertions in that letter because you will not find that anywhere in scripture.
God is merciful but God is also just. God does not give us laws to make our life difficult. It is there to help us flourish. Sin on the other hand leads to misery. And yet here she is all in the name of “love” proposing to entrench sin.
She makes the same mistake as you of declaring herself Pope and Magisterium all in one by challenging the statement of the Church that homosexuality is an intrinsic evil. If she does not believe that then she can very well join other congregations who have exchange the truth for the lie – as St Paul says.
What you are hearing from the homosexual mob is their propaganda. Their propaganda that shields everyone from the evil reality of the homosexual lifestyle.
I could go on and on and debunk each of her claims point by point but maybe I will do that on the website itself if they have the honesty to actually post my comment. These people are afraid of the truth.
Now I hope that you will also read the link I give.
Relations: The Challenge of Homosexuality. It is sickening and very, very frightening.
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Lee-The-Truth-About-The-Homosexual-Rights-Movement.php
When I get the chance this evening, I will write some extracts from a book called Strained
I do pray that there is a semblance of a desire to know the truth in you because Jesus is the TRUTH.
Jenna Mains: @Marcus You cannot base an entire group of people’s beliefs off of one radical in a youtube video. I mean I would hope that you wouldn’t want to be represented as a Christian by the Westboro Baptist Church, but then again who I am to say?
Me: No Jenna. I am not basing it on one YouTube video. This is consistently the modus operandi of the homosexual mob. This is not one isolated incident, this is the consistent response to people who peaceably gather and declare their belief in Christian truths. This is who they are and how they act.
—
Jenna Mains : according to you “real Catholics” i’m only a Catholic in word and I apparently voted for Satan when I decided that I am going to love and support the people around me despite the fact that they are gay instead of proclaiming them all as sinners.
Me: Jenna, the reason you are not really Catholic is not because you love people who sin, it is YOUR SUPPORT OF THE SIN. You said it yourself, you do not think that it is a sin. So basically you have made yourself better and higher and more knowledgeable than the Church and even God Himself when you declared homosexual activity not a sin when God said otherwise. THAT is the big difference.
You know that scene in John 8 when Jesus was confronted with an adulterous woman. Well let us put that into 21st century homosexual situation
-
JOHN 8 IN CONTEMPORARY SETTING
And the people brought to Jesus a homosexual couple caught in the act of homosexual activity. Now Moses has commanded us that such people should be killed. Jesus stooped down on the ground and started writing as though He has not heard them. When they pressed Him he said: Whoever among you is without sin let him cast the first stone. One by one the accusers left.
Then Jesus turned to the homosexual couple, has no one condemned you?
No one, they said.
Then Jesus said: Neither do I condemn. GO AND SIN NO MORE.
THEN THE HOMOSEXUALS GOT ANGRY WITH JESUS AND SAID: WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THAT?! WHAT WE WERE DOING WAS NOT A SIN. WE WERE JUST EXPRESSING OUR DESIRE FOR EACH OTHER. WHO ARE YOU TO TELL US THAT WE WERE SINNING. YOU KNOW WHAT, FOR ALL YOUR PRETENSIONS AT BEING ENLIGHTENED AND ALL THAT YOU ARE NOTHING MORE THAN A BIGOT AND A HOMOPHOBE.
The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what detestable. They must be put to death;their blood will be on their on heads.
The Bible says in Leviticus 20:13, “If a man lies with a man as ones lies with a woman, both of them have done what detestable. They must be put to death;their blood will be on their on heads.
We all have our on opinions and views about Homosexual marriage, and the homosexual life style, if you have a disagreement with me that’s one thing, but if you have disagreement with what is in the Bible, the Holy word of God, which clearly calls homosexuality a gross sin that is a abomination,and not just a common sin, but a sin unto death, which means in the old testament days, you were put to death for commenting this sin, if you disagree with the Bible you have a serious problem.
@Jenna: As a nurse in my early sixties, I found the letter to the Archbishop by the 65 year old nurse just another case of an ill formed Catholic. You CINOs can band together and support each other ‘til the cows come home, but it does not make your ill formed moral understanding correct. BTW, I have been married forty years (ten years longer than her) and I can see how damaging making homosexual unions the legal equivalent of marriage between one man and one woman (as it as been codified in our laws and moral understanding for two thousands year and is reflective of natural law as well as the Judeo-Christian moral code) as very damaging. Does my better formed opinion count as cancelling her ill informed opinion out in your eyes? Ah, probably not even though it reflects the teaching of our Holy Mother Church. Also please be reminded that homosexuals are not seen as evil by our loving faith, just the acting out of homosexual acts. You know: “love the sinner, hate the sin”. There is a difference between calling an act intrinsically evil and a person intrinsically evil. And as one who has homosexual cousins whom I love, I think I can speak to this subject as well if not better than the next person. I don’t think you will get this though as Marcus and others on this post have clearly explained how this all works yet you still reject the Church’s teaching. I will keep you and all obstinate “Catholics In Name Only” in my prayers.
Also Marcus I have yet to use the words “homophobe or bigot” in any of my posts.
@Marcus You cannot base an entire group of people’s beliefs off of one radical in a youtube video. I mean I would hope that you wouldn’t want to be represented as a Christian by the Westboro Baptist Church, but then again who I am to say? because apparently according to you “real Catholics” i’m only a Catholic in word and I apparently voted for Satan when I decided that I am going to love and support the people around me despite the fact that they are gay instead of proclaiming them all as sinners. Perhaps I haven’t been able to articulate how I feel but this 65 year-old Catholic nurse does (I’ve included a link below.) I truly respect all of you who have posted because we are all entitled to our own beliefs even if mine differ. Maybe everything I say is “hogwash” to you and I know most of you profoundly disagree with me but I am a Catholic and I thought I would just give my take.
http://contemplativecatholicuk.blogspot.ca/2013/02/nurse-challenges-nicholls-on-same-sex.html
Thanks to the Nigerian legislature and President,the Pope and other well meaning world religious leaders for standing against SSM. SSM is against God’s plan and against natural principles. IT MUST STOP!
Every government, including legitimate ones, legislate their view of morality. Many governments which were not/are not legitimate and/or which do not represent the majority of the people they rule try and have legislated that evil is good and good is evil. All of the people which have comprised these governments in the past - Nero, Stalin, PolPot, Hitler, Mussolini, Mao eg - have died. So too will the current people who say evil is good and who impose legislation that enforces this. Perhaps we are or will soon be the USSA. Either we who believe there is life after this physical body dies will live on or we won’t. Those who say evil is good will live on or they won’t. Either the rest of our Creed will then be reality or it won’t. But check out history, and then look around - there are still Creed believers; I see no Third Reich, I see no Roman Empire, I see no USSR. Even if the current evil=good folks prevail, millions will say and continue to say “I believe in God, the Father almighty,......“Guy McClung, San Antonio
@ Marcus: Amen! Your logic and truth are a beacon of light to those in this post Christian culture. That Jenna sees herself as a Catholic “not just in word” is so sad and an indication of how poorly some of the faithful have been catechized. Their religion is not comprised by the truths of Jesus and his Church but the truths as proclaimed by CNN, MSN, morally bankrupt political parties, etc. Let us pray for one another.
Jenna Mains: Jesus once said he who is without sin cast the first stone. In other words, we are all sinners and who are we to go around condemning others for their sins rather than looking at how we should be repenting ourselves?
Me: But Jenna. That is not the argument at all. Precisely because we believe that there is such a reality as sin - and homosexual activity is one of the graver manifestations of this reality – that we say we need to repent. The main problem with you people is that you are saying that homosexuality is not a sin. That is a whole different ball game altogether tantamount to calling God a liar. Here is an illustration that I hope you will get: It is one thing to say that one should not condemn the murderer, it is totally another to say that murder is not a bad thing and is quite okay to do. And yet that is what you are saying, that homosexuality is okay. If sin is okay, what do we need to repent for? Why, if sin is good, then we do not need God’s mercy and it is totally ludicrous that Christ died on the cross for our sins which according to you is none existent.
—
Jenna Mains: I am a Catholic (no not just in word), I believe in God whole heartedly I stand-up for life but like Katherine, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus himself surrounded himself with people who were tax collectors and prostitutes (considered the lowest of the low at the time) and he showed them his love.
Me: And Jesus never said that homosexuality is okay. As a matter of fact, when asked about divorce, the very first thing he affirmed was creation – that God made us male and female and that marriage is between male and female. St Paul was even more explicit. He said that the reason homosexuals are the way they are is because they have exchanged the truth of God for the lie which basically means that they have decided to follow the father of lies – the devil – instead of following God and that this following of the devil is a conscious choice, a conscious choice to exchange God for the devil.
—
Jenna: @Marcus nobody bullied me in to supporting gay rights and I find it offensive that you would consider yourself oppressed by a bunch of people fighting for their own rights. You are not oppressed.
Me: Hogwash. Gay activists are bullies. Just check out you tube. You will see there gay and pro-gay people spitting, hitting, splashing with dangerous chemicals those who are quietly standing on the street proclaiming the truth of God that marriage was ordained by God to be between male and female. Their behaviour is disgusting, violent and bullying. THAT is the true face of the gay mob.
Jenna Mains: Oppressed are the kids who get bullied for being gay and end up killing themselves because people in their schools, churches and their communities don’t support them.
Me: Yes there are those who are bullied for being homosexual. But that was then. Now it is the other way around. Just look at the news.
1) Charitable institutions are forced to shut down because they would not give children to homosexual couples. These institutions have helped many heterosexual couples ad yet they are forced to shut shop because of homosexual bullying.
2) People who would not sell them wedding cakes or let them use their premises for weddings are taken to court and bullied into submission.
3) A homosexual couple in Brittain volunteered as foster parents and they molested the boys given them but even when there were reports that these were happening, the social services was afraid of confronting them because they were afraid that they will be labelled homophobes.
4) Every time you run out of logic or reason, you fall back on name calling: labelling those who oppose you as homophobes and bigots. Sorry but that is nothing more than a bullying tactic to shut us up, because truly reason has long since deserted your ideology.
Jenna: You are not deprived of any rights, you can marry whoever you like.
Me: Completely wrong. If I happened to “fall in love” with my sibling or parent, I can’t marry them no matter how much “in love” I am with them. All of us are able to marry within certain rules. There are no rules that say we must be ”in love”. That has nothing to do with it. In any case, for homosexuals it is mostly in lust. Marriage is not there to suit our preferences. Marriage is there to serve society – to bring up families.
Furthermore, there is no such thing as gay rights. Rights are not made but simply recognized. Rights exists independent of contrived conditions. Should paedophiles have paedophile rights apart what is normal human right? Should murderers? When you grant rights to a specific group in society because of their predilections, then you take rights off someone else. The bakery and adoption agency are prime examples.
And here is another eye opener for you – homosexuals don’t want to get married because they very, very promiscuous. They do not believe in monogamy. The homosexual lifestyle is stomach churningly depraved. If you don’t believe me, read the link I provided above.
The façade of unity and monogamy for homosexuals is just that: a façade.
—
Jenna Mains: It’s not like gay people are trying to obstinate for the removal of heterosexual marriage.
Me: Sorry to have to inform you that that is precisely what will happen. They are not so much after marriage as the destruction of marriage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKI-w6DLWBM
Heterosexuals who support homosexuals remind me of this frightening “joke” that landed on my inbox.
A man died and was asked by God whether he want to go to heaven or to hell. The man says, well I know that heaven is all bliss and joy but can you show me what hell is like. So God allows him to pay a visit to hell. Upon arrival, he was surprised because hell was not like what he imagined. In fact it looked like his Golf Club with grassy slopes, beautiful building, people having a good time, much laughter about, his friends drinking top class wines and plenty of beautiful women everywhere.
So when the final decision came, he told God politely that he would prefer to be in hell because it really looks like a kind of wonderful and vibrant place. God asks: Are you sure? You only get to choose once. Guy says he’s sure. So down he went. But when he arrived, the place looked so different. There was slime and misery everywhere. It stank to high heavens and the devils are frightening and evil looking. So he asks, whatever happened to the golf club. The devil says: Oh that? That was just advertising. We were campaigning then. Today you voted for us.
And these my friend is exactly the kind of lie that is being foisted upon us by the gay mob. All that nice façade is just that - a façade. When they get their way, you will clearly see that you have voted for the devil. St Paul does not lie.
Jesus once said he who is without sin cast the first stone. In other words, we are all sinners and who are we to go around condemning others for their sins rather than looking at how we should be repenting ourselves? I am a Catholic (no not just in word), I believe in God whole heartedly I stand-up for life but like Katherine, I don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin. Jesus himself surrounded himself with people who were tax collectors and prostitutes (considered the lowest of the low at the time) and he showed them his love. @Marcus nobody bullied me in to supporting gay rights and I find it offensive that you would consider yourself oppressed by a bunch of people fighting for their own rights. You are not oppressed. Oppressed are the kids who get bullied for being gay and end up killing themselves because people in their schools, churches and their communities don’t support them. You are not deprived of any rights, you can marry whoever you like. It’s not like gay people are trying to obstinate for the removal of heterosexual marriage.
Katherine: Gay people want to be able to get married because it’s a basic human right
Me: And they are not deprived of that right. They have the same right as I do, as do all the rest of the population. They can marry the opposite sex. Simple.
Katherine: and they want to be able to be unified with the person that they love for the rest of their lives like you have been able to do in your “real” marriage.
Me: That is a whole lot of hogwash. Firstly, the institute of marriage is nowhere based on feelings. Secondly, if unity is all they want, then they already do that when they remain with this partners. So no, it is not unity that they want, they want their depraved sexual union to be legitimized and in the process destroy marriage.
Katherine: How does two people of the same gender who happen to love each other getting married affect you in any way?
Me: It affects me in a huge way because it will destroy society as we know it. To allow gay marriage is to destroy marriage and put something else in its place. The building block of society is family and marriage.
Katherine: If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person. As far as corrupting children, heterosexual marriage has done a pretty good job of that. The divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples is 50%.
Me: Exactly! The divorce rate is so high and that of itself is an attack on marriage. Contraception is so high and that is of itself an attack on marriage. When you remove procreation from sex you attack the marriage and that is why we now have the homosexual lobby.
Katherine: Heterosexual content in movies, tv shows, music and other media have done more harm to the sanctity of marriage than two gay men in love ever has.
Me: And that is only because they have not been allowed to wreak the tremendous havoc that they can do. Just imagine saturating the media with the same level of homosexual content as heterosexual content. That would be Sodom and Gommorha all over again. Vile and depravity everywhere.
Katherine: I am a Catholic but I often struggle with this issue in the church and I believe that God loves all of us whether we were born (yes born it is not a choice) gay or straight because afterall we were all made in his image.
Me: Your issue is not with the Catholic Church but with extremely flawed logic. God does love us all that is why He does not want us to sin. What you and the rest want is for the Church to declare that what is sin is no longer sin.
If you think that sin is good, then sorry to say this but you are a Catholic in name only. You really are not a Catholic at all because a Catholic acknowledges sin and then repents. That is what Jesus died on the cross for.
Katherine: Believe what you will but don’t downgrade others and their rights because you were born loving the opposite gender.
Me: Katherine, the homosexual mob has got you totally under their thumb because you are thinking along the issue of “rights”. They are not deprived of any rights. They have the same rights as you and me. They are not oppressed in the least bit. But what is slowly happening is that in their bullying, they are surely and steadily oppressing us. They are the bullies who want to deprive us of our rights.
Katherine, it’s sad that you’re propagating sodomy instead of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and so spiritually blind you think you’re ‘catholic.’ Why not be honest with yourself and others and refer to yourself as catholic in name only. Believe what you will but don’t downgrade faithful Catholics who choose to obey Jesus Christ and the Commandments of God.
@Paddy
Rubbing people’s face in it? And children are the ones most affected by it? Do you honestly believe that a gay person wants marriage rights so that they can shove their sexuality down other people’s throats and so that they can “corrupt” children? Gay people want to be able to get married because it’s a basic human right and they want to be able to be unified with the person that they love for the rest of their lives like you have been able to do in your “real” marriage. How does two people of the same gender who happen to love each other getting married affect you in any way? If you don’t like gay marriage then don’t marry a gay person. As far as corrupting children, heterosexual marriage has done a pretty good job of that. The divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples is 50%. Heterosexual content in movies, tv shows, music and other media have done more harm to the sanctity of marriage than two gay men in love ever has. I am a Catholic but I often struggle with this issue in the church and I believe that God loves all of us whether we were born (yes born it is not a choice) gay or straight because afterall we were all made in his image. Believe what you will but don’t downgrade others and their rights because you were born loving the opposite gender.
Clara: Yes, in the Bible it says that man shouldn’t lie with another man like he lies with a woman, and yes, it is unnatural in the sense that it doesn’t lead to procreation. However, doesn’t mean they are ‘abnormal’ or ‘a mortal sin’ at all.
Me: Sorry but yes it is abnormal and yes it is a moral sin. In the aspect of sexuality, what is natural and what is normal is a man or woman who is attracted and desires the opposite sex. That is just plain fact.
Take for a example the a man born without a limb? Is that normal? Is the normal and natural state of a human being to be born without a limb? Of course not. Normally, we have 1 head, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 2 legs, 2 arms, etc,etc. When something is not quite right then we say that it is not normal and therefore abnormal.
Now, I am not saying that because of their abnormality we should shun them and treat them badly. Quite the contrary, we should treat them with compassion. But that does not alter the fact that they were born with an abnormality.
And another point. It is not true that all homosexuals are born that way. There is absolutely no scientific support for that. It is true that there maybe some chemical imbalance or other biological factors that will influence homosexuality but there is no such thing as a homosexual gene.
—
Clara: The commandment doesn’t say ‘Love Thy Neighbour (apart from the gay ones)’ it just says love thy neighbour.
Me: And no one is saying otherwise. We should love the homosexual but hate the sin – the homosexual act and the disordered inclination.
—
Clara: If you are arguing that heterosexual couples are getting married for the primary reasons of love and procreation, remember that nowerdays many couples do not marry with the sole intention of having children, in fact, how many heterosexual couples on this website alone use some form of contraception? Isn’t gay sex just a natural form of contraception then?
Me: And what you have described there is of course a sin. Which the Church condemns. But just because some people sin, should we now say okay, let everyone sin and sin is no longer a sin? That would be absurd. Furthermore, even from contracepting couples – life can still spring – which is why we have a lot of abortions. An overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are also using contraception. But in the case of homosexual couples there is absolutely no way that they sexual activity can bring life. It is the deadest relationship ever.
Clara: Like a heterosexual couple having sex when the woman isn’t ovulating or fertile? So many heterosexual couples choose to not have children so that argument is slightly redundant.
Me: Wrong again. Even though they may be thwarting life, life can still come. The only 100% sure way to not have babies is abstinence. The other 100% way not to have babies is to have sex with the same gender. That is surely a dead as dead can be relationship.
Clara: Also, with the argument of it being ‘dangerous and harmful’ for the children, how many children born off heterosexual couples end up in care after being born into an abusive, unloving or incapable straight family? Which is really harmful for the child-them growing up with homosexual parents or them growing up in care for the rest of their childhood?
Me: By far, it is so much more harmful for the child to be brought up by same sex couples. Here’s why:
You say that hetero couples can be abusive. So can homosexual couples. In fact, they can be more abusive. You have this rosy notion of loving homosexual couples but they are few and far between. Violence within homosexual relationships are quite common. They just don’t report it. You are pitting a kind of “idealized” homo couple with the worst version of a hetero couple.
So let’s compare apples with apples. Let’s say we have loving and nurturing hetero couple and a loving and nurturing homo couple. Which one is better? Obviously the hetero couple. There are many things that a child picks up while growing up (social cues) that will be missing in a homo couple. Furthermore, the child will grow up in an environment where depravity is entrenched and a part of life even if the homo couple is “loving”.
And just to squash those rose tinted glasses of yours, the homosexual lifestyle is a terrible lifestyle.
Only a very, very tiny minority of homosexuals are faithful. That is just not part of their culture. A sizeable percentage of homosexuals admit to having over 1000 sexual partners, some even simultaneously. Some say they have between 500 to 1000. The homosexual is all about sex, sex and more sex. The simple fact that they define themselves by their sin – by their disordered inclination speaks for itself.
-
More than that, AIDS is prevalent among homosexuals. There was a time when they thought that this is a disease that is indiscriminate. But in fact, it is largely a homosexual disease. Check the facts at the Centre for Disease Control. On top of that, they engage in risk taking behaviour and much more likely to engage in bestiality than hetero couples. This is the kind of lifestyle that you are putting the child in. A homosexual couple was recently jailed because they adopted an infant and proceeded to sexually abuse this baby from the beginning. More than that, they allowed other homosexuals to sexually abuse this baby.
So no, even in a best case scenario, the homosexual couple is very bad news for a child.
Clara the Bible tells us a man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife,and they will become one flesh.[Genesis 2:21-24] God made the man and woman sort-of half complete, its not till they came together that they are complete with each others strengths and wickedness’s.Two men joined together or two woman does not complete oneness,or one flesh.The Bible says marriage was instituted by God to bring forth Godly offspring,[Malachi 2:15]it says here not just one in flesh, but one in spirit as well, two men or two woman cant bring forth any children much less Godly ones.Also according to the Bible if they come together sexually, the man and woman, and they are both virgins, that they are married in Gods eyes at that moment.The Bible also says we are to love the sinner but hate the sin.
Clara the Bible tells us a man will leave his father and mother and will be united to his wife,and they will become one flesh.[Genesis 2:21-24] God made the man and woman sort-of half complete, it not till they came together that they are complete with each others strengths and wickedness’s.Two men joined together or two woman does not complete oneness,or one flesh.The Bible says marriage was instituted by God to bring forth Godly offspring,[Malachi 2:15]it says here not just one in flesh, but one in spirit as well, two men or two woman cant bring forth any children must less Godly ones.Also according to the Bible if they come together sexually, the man and woman, and they are both virgins, that they are married in Gods eyes at that moment.
I’ve been brought up a Catholic my whole life but I don’t understand any of this. Yes, in the Bible it says that man shouldn’t lie with another man like he lies with a woman, and yes, it is unnatural in the sense that it doesn’t lead to procreation. However, doesn’t mean they are ‘abnormal’ or ‘a mortal sin’ at all. The commandment doesn’t say ‘Love Thy Neighbour (apart from the gay ones)’ it just says love thy neighbour. If you are arguing that heterosexual couples are getting married for the primary reasons of love and procreation, remember that nowerdays many couples do not marry with the sole intention of having children, in fact, how many heterosexual couples on this website alone use some form of contraception? Isn’t gay sex just a natural form of contraception then? Like a heterosexual couple having sex when the woman isn’t ovulating or fertile? So many heterosexual couples choose to not have children so that argument is slightly redundant. Also, with the argument of it being ‘dangerous and harmful’ for the children, how many children born off heterosexual couples end up in care after being born into an abusive, unloving or incapable straight family? Which is really harmful for the child-them growing up with homosexual parents or them growing up in care for the rest of their childhood?
Jess Hoffman:And there is plenty of research to show that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Children are much smarter than you give them credit for.
Me: The latest research by Mark Regnerus shows otherwise. Putting a child with a same sex couple is child abuse. You are purposely and wilfully denying them the right to normal heterosexual parents.
Jess Hoffman: 1. My name is *Jess*, a woman.
2. I’m not gay or lesbian.
Me: Then would you care to explain why you are advocating for the validation of homosexuality?
Jess Hoffman: People don’t become gay or lesbian because of absent fathers or overbearing mothers.
Me: Maybe not all, but there is strong correlation between homosexuality and absent fathers. There is no “gay” gene so the “born this way” does not wash.
Jess Hoffman: Most gay men are masculine in appearance, and most lesbians are feminine in appearance. Appearance has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but this does say a lot about your insecurities regarding your “masculinity”.
Me: And I never mentioned anything about “appearance”. When I said that we need more masculine fathers - I meant precisely what I wrote. Not just appearance but are actually masculine. Same thing with more feminine mothers.
Jess Hoffman: It’s m-a-s-c-u-l-i-n-i-t-y. If you purport to be smart, might as well show that you know how to spell.
Me: Aaah the common response of one who has run out of a rebut: Quick, let’s go find some typo. FYI I know I am terrible at proof-reading so if you are hoping to belittle me with that, it ain’t working.
Secondly, You can scour through all my posts and you will not find any where I made claims to great erudition. So if you think I am “purporting” to be so, it is you who must think me so. So there you are.
Robert Shay: May, Amen, Jesus DID fulfill the Old Testament law. And for that reason Christians are no longer under it.
Me: So, you are saying that Christians now can murder, commit adultery and lie with impunity? When Jesus came to fulfil the Law, he made it even harder for you and me. Did you not read what He said? Before it was simply do not murder. But Jesus says; if you have anger against someone you have killed. Does that sound like “not being under the law anymore? Why, it looks as though the law was made even more broad and more encompassing that there is less wiggle room left for anyone. Now all you have to do is look with lust at someone and presto you have committed adultery.
Robert Shay: That same law condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed thread garments and permits parents to stone a rebellious child to death. In that passage
Me: While ceremonial laws and laws about cleanliness may be done away with, moral laws are not. As a matter of fact, St Paul in his letter to the Romans was very clear about this. He says that the reason they commit such perversions is because they have EXCHANGED THE TRUTH OF GOD FOR A LIE. So if they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie when they engage in homosexual sex, who are they following? Who else but the Father of Lies - the devil. And what did St Paul was the punishment for this? God left homosexuals to their sin because they are saying that sin is no longer sin.
Robert Shay: Jesus was not defining marriage. He did not even use the term marriage. What he did say was that a man shall ‘cleave his WIFE’. He was talking about married heterosexual men.
Me: Of course Jesus was talking about married heterosexual men, there was no such thing as married homosexual men - it was an abomination as far as Jesus was concerned.
Jess Hoffmann: If a single man or woman can successfully and responsibly raise a child, then so can two men or two women.
Me: Well not quite. A single man or woman raising a child is very, very far from ideal. No child deserves to be raised by one parent only. Now through some tragedy, it does happen that a child may be left fatherless or motherless or even totally orphaned.
But what you are proposing is to wilfully manufacture an even greater tragedy and plonk the unsuspecting child right in the middle of it. The harm to that young child is far worse than someone who is raised without either parent.
May and Hlyghst - thanks very much. Peace of the Lord to you both.
Robert Shay: An advantage for children of same-sex couples: they are never had by accident.
Me: They are never HAD by same sex couples - period, because same sex couples cannot ever HAVE kids. And the kids forcibly took will not be harmed by accident either. They will be hared intentionally.
Robert Shay: You are right. Jesus was addressing divorce, made clear by his use of the word for ‘cleave’. But that passage is no more a condemnation by Jesus of homosexuals for their intimacy than it is a condemnation of single people for failing to marry.
Me: Well hello. When the Son of God says that God made them male and female and the male and female ARE THE ONES WHO MARRY, then ergo, only MALE AND FEMALE can marry. NOT MALE AND MALE NOT FEMALE AND FEMALE.
In Jesus’s time, Jews know that this is an abomination. Jews knew what happened to Sodom and Gomorrha. Jews knew the prescriptions of Leviticus. Everyone agrees that it is an abomination. And if you want to portray Jesus as soft on sin - well just think back to what He said about adultery - if you so much lusts after a woman you have already committed adultery. So for SSA people, if they so much as lusts after a male, they have as good as committed homosexual sex which is an abomination.
As for anyone who advocate for gay marriage on the grounds of discrimination - you are not being discriminated against. You have the same right as I do - you can marry someone of the opposite sex. So enough of this ” we are oppressed” nonsense. You are not oppressed. That is all just primadona drama so typical of the homosexual. And yes, that is all it is, just drama being played by drama queens.
To Robert Shay, after reading the comments you have posted, I don’t see how you sleep at night, talk about the blind leading the blind, you should read the original Hebrew and Greek version of the Bible before you speak your mind on what it says. Really how do you sleep at night, prob-lee with a stiff drink, or drug to block your guilt, and shame. Note to Homosexuals, Bi-sexual s, and heterosexuals.Any one, Male or Female who eats or swallows Male Sperm, or Semen is committing a cannibalistic act or cannibalism, your eating the seeds of an infant human child.
God Himself gave marriage and when He did He gave Adam & Eve. Not Adam & Steve
@Jeff, Which dust are you talking about? Jesus has promised to be with His Church till the end of time. We know that that’s the reason why our Pope is being encouraged to bring worldly teachings in the Church in order to scatter the faithfuls. But hey, trust the Holy Spirit, NOBODY with any tactic can pull down the Temple of God! Rather, the person will be pulled down.
Also, it will interest you to know that multitude will miss God’s kingdom because of what their flesh offer them. God needs few worthy faithful while others will abide with Satan in burning lake of fire mixed with sulphur. Christ said, “Many are called but few are chosen.”
You’re onto it Cathy. It’s pretty basic stuff eh ? There will always be those who subjectively push against the tide of truth, to no avail.
Let’s stipulate that the practice of homosexuality is a sin and that the church’s teaching is correct. Are we discriminating when we encourage people not to sin? We want to say go ahead, you’re not hurting anyone, be happy. But what about our judgement day? Has our compassion helped or has it helped to cause a sin that will now be answered for?
Barney Rubble wrote, “Jesus Christ spoke simply so that all could understand.
But in Matthew 13, He says the direct opposite and gives the reason:
10 And his disciples came and said to him: Why speakest thou to them in parables?
11 Who answered and said to them: Because to you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven: but to them it is not given.
12 For he that hath, to him shall be given, and he shall abound: but he that hath not, from him shall be taken away that also which he hath.
13 Therefore do I speak to them in parables: because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And the prophecy of Isaias is fulfilled in them, who saith: By hearing you shall hear, and shall not understand: and seeing you shall see, and shall not perceive.
15 For the heart of this people is grown gross, and with their ears they have been dull of hearing, and their eyes they have shut: lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.
Robert Say said: “Jesus DID fulfill the Old Testament law. And for that reason Christians are no longer under it. That same law condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed thread garments and permits parents to stone a rebellious child to death.”
You are wrong Robert Shay. Hundreds of man made laws followed slavishly by the Pharisees were condemned by Jesus as they were man made and not laws pertaining to morality based on the natural law nor the Ten Commandments given to Moses by God Himself. And the dietary laws, for example, were addressed specifically by Peter after receiving a vision (dream) regarding removing such unnecessary restrictions. If you note, he weighed in on circumcision as well in his role as our first Pope. No specific reversal was addressed redefining marriage in the New Covenant by either Jesus or subsequent Popes. But Jesus did tell us to love one another as we would love God, therefore the harsh punishments of the Old Covenant were also removed. Homosexuality was never changed under Jesus New Covenant. Believing that is wishful thinking on the part of homosexuals. They, like heterosexuals who sin in other ways, are called to repent and sin no more.
All he needed to say, as pope, is that same-sex marriage will never be accepted in the Eyes of God, before his altar and that it is an Abomination, an insult to God. With abortion rife and the Priests not speaking-out and now this, all sorts of propaganda about same-sex marriage. No wonder God’s wrath is beginning to strike the world.
The truth of God is not complicated, rather it is a simple philosophy which today, at the Vatican, is not concise language for all to understand; rather, it is ‘double-dutch’. Bring back JPII & Benedict, both humble Men of God.
If the pope is referring the press to quote his words of 2010, then why is he not still quoting those words, today ?
Once again operates with ‘twisted speak’ to that nobody can understand him. Jesus Christ spoke simply so that all could understand.
Robert Shay: “..Jesus DID fulfill the Old Testament law. And for that reason Christians are no longer under it.”
No true. May is correct. We are still under the old and new law until the end of time.
“your situation validates statistics. They say that one of the common denominators of homosexuals is the absence of a father. The interesting thing is this is also a common denominator of avowed atheists. Which validates our point even more, we need good and strong fathers in the family. The masculanized woman and the feminized man just spells disasters”
1. My name is *Jess*, a woman.
2. I’m not gay or lesbian.
3. People don’t become gay or lesbian because of absent fathers or overbearing mothers.
4. Most gay men are masculine in appearance, and most lesbians are feminine in appearance. Appearance has nothing to do with sexual orientation, but this does say a lot about your insecurities regarding your “masculinity”.
4. It’s m-a-s-c-u-l-i-n-i-t-y. If you purport to be smart, might as well show that you know how to spell.
May, Amen, Jesus DID fulfill the Old Testament law. And for that reason Christians are no longer under it. That same law condemns eating shellfish and wearing mixed thread garments and permits parents to stone a rebellious child to death. In that passage Jesus was not defining marriage. He did not even use the term marriage. What he did say was that a man shall ‘cleave his WIFE’. He was talking about married heterosexual men. Single men and gay men don’t have wives to cleave to.
Correction of typo: Previous post should say unchastity on the forth line, not chastity.
@Robert Shay: Jesus said that He came not to abolish the law, but to fulfill it. Therefore, the Old Testament law in Jesus’ day was still in force and Jesus accepted it. That is the same law that condemns homosexuality in the Book of Leviticus. In Matthew 15 Jesus states that adultery and chastity, sexual acts committed outside of marriage, defile a human being. In Matthew 19 Jesus defined marriage when said that marriage, as God intended it, is the union of one man and one woman.
@Marcus, You are right. Jesus was addressing divorce, made clear by his use of the word for ‘cleave’. But that passage is no more a condemnation by Jesus of homosexuals for their intimacy than it is a condemnation of single people for failing to marry. If you can read the former into the passage, you can more easily read the latter.
On the one hand some people are militant homofascists and fundamentalist GLADD militants-and what we have seen and heard here you can see in many many blog threads on the Internet. As we have and proclaim our dogmas and beliefs, so do they. On the other hand, for each of us God lets us have these encounters with other persons He has created - in CS Lewis’s terms, next to Christ in the Eucharist, the most sacred and holy of His creations that we will encounter on this earth. Out of all this we can try to help Him bring them to Him in heaven, and we can thank Him for using them and their words, in His sometimes inscrutable God-way, also to bring us to Him. Guy McClung, San Antonio
@Marcus. Ditto on May’s post. Your responses to the gay activists comments shows that their arguments are built on sand not rock. It’s sad that they try and squelch debate on gay marriage by using homophobia as an excuse. Instead of looking at the Church from the outside, where it looks like a dull grey building, if they would go inside when the sun is shining through the stained glass windows they would see the beauty of God’s love and teaching on homosexuality. As a priest once told me, the only difference between a saint and a sinner is that a saint knows his sins.
@Marcus: Thank you so much for taking the time to address the nonsense posted on this thread by the gay marriage proponents. Your charitable, truthful, thoughtful and reasoned responses to their attacks shed the light of truth as taught by God through his revealed Word. If anyone is just seeing this thread for the first time and you don’t have enough time to read all comments, just read Marcus’ comments. They provide a wonderful review of the truth as taught by Holy Mother Church. There are also a few others who responded well, but his are truly worth taking the time to read in their entirety. IF you have time read them all it is worth doing. It is a real education for those who have not followed the gay mafia’s assault these past decades. Let us pray for each other. Especially pray that those who have fallen for Satan’s lies regarding homosexuality be open to conversion.
Jess Hoffman: There is no respected research that shows this. Your lies and your prejudice are sinful. And stay away from children.
Me: Yes there is. By Regnerus. And his research sample is way larger than those conducted by pro-gay researchers.
And the gay mob is so afraid of him they smeared him even without looking at the study. Just goes how belligerent the gay mob is.
Jeff Hoffmann: How would you know this? My father passed away at a young age. I and my 6 siblings were raised by a single mother. That happens all the time.
Me: Then your situation validates statistics. They say that one of the common denominators of homosexuals is the absence of a father. The interesting thing is this is also a common denominator of avowed atheists. Which validates our point even more, we need good and strong fathers in the family. The masculanized woman and the feminized man just spells disasters.
Robert Shay: ALL God’s Law!—Jesus
Me: Hhmm. What does Jesus have to say about all this? Let me see. When Jesus was asked about the permissibility of divorce, instead of saying straight out - “No, Divorce is not allowed”, He says: “Haven’t you read, that at the beginning the Creator ‘MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE” and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”
So there you are - there’s what Jesus says explicitly about marriage. He firstly re-iterates that they were made male and female and it is the male and female that marries and become one flesh.
Jesus is not the long haired, hippie who goes around muttering “peace man peace”.
Jeff: I have never seen so much ignorance and hatred as on this website and in the malicious, bigoted commentary. Disgusting.
Me: Yes, and your posts and those of like mind are exactly what constituted the disgusting and bigoted part. You are playing true to form. When you run out of sensible and rational ideas you go on the attack. Sorry but we know the tactic. Call them bigots and malicious. That should end the discussion. Pretend to be the victim so that people will feel sorry for you.
IF there is anything malicious going on, it is the tactic of the homosexual mob.
Know what, that tactic does not work anymore because we know. And the funny part is that the homosexuals themselves are the ones who let the cat out of the bag.
Robert Shay: But the state’s recognition is not based on ‘acts’. It is based on commitment. And the cruelty I alluded to earlier has been the judging of gays in the name of God, emotional, physical and spiritual gay bashing, imprisonment, treatment like criminals for expressing their love. Uganda and Nigeria today are where we were not long ago.
Me: The state’s recognition of gay marriage is flawed. Nowhere in the history of mankind has it been about feelings and commitment. It was always about a man and woman. Man and man don’t make a marriage.
While there may have been emotional and spiritual gay bashing in the past, now there is straight bashing when the gay mob bullies the straight. Yes, there ‘s proof of it everywhere. You can see it in you tube.
And there is the lie again of trying to play the victim. Sorry, you are not victims. These days you are the ones who victimize. And you do it by calling anyone who dares to defend their religious rights as homophobes. They are not homophobes. They are just conscientious citizens who know what will happen to society when the gay lifestyle takes over.
Robert Shay:The Holy Spirit is changing the hearts and minds of people in educated countries around the world who now see how cruelly they have been treating homosexuals in God’s name and I am glad you are living to see it happen.
Me: No, Robert. It is not the Holy Spirit that is changing the minds and hearts of people in educated countries. It is the father of lies. That is why atheism is so high in so called educated countries.
Robert Shay: @Marcus Sorry. Even if you don’t, God knows the difference between the intimacy of a loving gay couple and the gang rape you claim took place in Sodom. The Holy Spirit is changing the hearts and minds of people in educated countries around the world who now see how cruelly they have been treating homosexuals in God’s name and I am glad you are living to see it happen. “Treat your neighbor as yourself.” = ALL God’s Law!—Jesus
Me: Me: Sorry Robert but you know that that is just spin. Sodom was not destroyed because of gang rape. Firstly, it did not occur. The men were blinded before they could do it. Secondly, God had already determined to destroy Sodom even before the attempted gang sodomization of the messengers of God. So obviously, Sodom was judged and found evil and deserving of destruction for sins that happened even prior to the arrival of the angels. What the text tells us is a confirmation of what these practices are – homosexual sex. In fact it is said that the evil is so great that it was crying to heaven. The depraved practice was so endemic that Abraham bargained with God and God said that if 10 men were found righteous He would not destroy Sodom. But guess what, the destruction was done because there were not 10 men who were found righteous. So this depravity has taken over almost all the town and the text was clear that all the town’s men - young and old alike - wanted to have sexual relations with the messengers of God.
And this is the quality of homosexuality, it seeks to indoctrinate and pervert everyone. You see that now in the media. Years ago homosexuality is a taboo. But look at it now. They are so rampant we have even have countries and states that have legalized gay “marriage”. Most likely in the case of Sodom, it did not start out with all the men being so perverted, but the small perverted group pushed their agenda until they were able to corrupt the entire population. And that is exactly what is happening now, the push to corrupt society. And if this push does not go unchecked, this is precisely what will happen. The righteous, like Lot will be driven out. You can see that happening now with Christians being persecuted for refusing to cave in to the homosexual mob.
And the intimacy of a gay loving relationship is a lie. Gays are the most promiscuous lot with a large percentage saying they have had 1000 partners. Most gay couples who are able to remain together for a while is able only to do so because there is an agreement that they will both have sex outside of their union.
The loving relationship you are portraying is a sham and does not exist. If it does exist, it is a very tiny minority. And this depraved lifestyle is validated by AIDS statistics.
The picture your paint of blissfull domesticity is a lie.
@Robert Shay. Actions speak louder than words. Since homosexuals can’t procreate, then you remove from the sex act the greatest expression of love in a marriage - the creation of life - a child. So you’ve reduced marriage to sex for mutual eroticism. Love for a child is doing what’s best for the child which only traditional marriage can do, that is, enfolding a child with the love of a mother and father. Since I’m assuming that you’re a homosexual, the elephant in the room is why you think children don’t need a mother?
Jess Hoffman said,
As Hlyghst said, the other parent is usually also involved in the child’s life. And even where that’s not the case, a single parent will often seek out someone of the opposite sex to provide something of a role model of that gender for the child, such as an aunt, uncle or family friend. Do same-sex couples do the same?
There is research that purports to show that, but for the reason I noted earlier it is nowhere near the quality that we expect of such research when comparing outcomes of children raised in other more common situations (single parent, biological parents, adoptive parents, biological + step parent, etc.)
Kevin Rahe, homosexuals only have planned pregnancies. The motivator for us is wanting to love and raise a child, not sensual pleasure.
@Jess. Of course some heterosexuals are selfish which explains abortion. It boils down to what love is. So besides the way in which homosexuals have “sex”, what else makes them different than the rest of society?
@Hlyghst—as if no heterosexual parents have ever done that! Again, how could you know the motivation and heart of same-sex parents?
@Jess - It’s selfish when you look at the child as a means to satisfy an emotional need.
@Hlyghst—Raising a child is not a “selfish choice”. Relying on one’s favored prejudice is what is truly pathetic and selfish.
I agree that children pick up on divorced parents who fight constantly. But the child still has the benefit of a father and mother to guide their development. There was a story about a boy on a soccer team who was being raised by a lesbian, and when he saw the other boys doing soccer drills with their fathers asked his mother why he couldn’t have a father. I don’t know how she answered that, but actions speak louder than words. No matter what she said, he will eventually learn that they has a biological father. Unfortunately, same-sex couples make the selfish choice of depriving a child of a mother or father so they can have a relationship.
@Hlyghst - besides that, most gay couples are raising children they have *adopted*—meaning, they were orphaned, abused and/or abandoned by their allegedly “superior” birth parents. The world should be grateful to these couples, not contemptuous.
Lesbian couples tell the child that a father is not important, and gay couples tell the child that a mother is not important.
How would you know this? My father passed away at a young age. I and my 6 siblings were raised by a single mother. That happens all the time. Furthermore, I work with young children professionally, and many of their parents are separated or divorced and fighting constantly—you don’t think the child picks up on that, do you?
Jess H.: Single heterosexual parents have the parent of the opposite sex involved in the child’s life through visitation arrangements. So the child is getting the love and development from both sexes; not just one although this is not the ideal arrangement. Lesbian couples tell the child that a father is not important, and gay couples tell the child that a mother is not important. You’re right, children are smarter than we give them credit for, and they pick up on this and feel that they are unworthy of a parent of the opposite sex.
I am amazed by those who “come out of the closet” because they “don’t want to live a lie,” then ask the rest of us to accept that two men or two women are the “parents” of a child.
If a single man or woman can successfully and responsibly raise a child, then so can two men or two women. And there is plenty of research to show that children raised by same-sex couples fare just as well as children raised by opposite-sex couples. Children are much smarter than you give them credit for.
This pope is probably proud of all the conflict he’s creating. I think he lacks intellectual and spiritual depth; most of his ideas reek of double-speak.
Doesn’t he remember that Jesus taught us to rebuke?
2 Timothy 2:24-26 - The Lord’s servant must correct those who have been taken captive by the Devil.
Luke 17:3 - If your brother sins, rebuke him
About half the pregnancies in this country are “unplanned,” yet we’re still below a replacement rate of fertility. If human beings could keep themselves from dying out through only “planned” pregnancies, sex wouldn’t need to be pleasurable.
Pleaes see if I can get a furlough from my well-deserved exile in purgatory when you are ushered into the big room and tell God the Father any child was His “accident.” Guy McClung, San Antonio
ps: later please send down some ice water
An advantage for children of same-sex couples: they are never had by accident.
Jess Hoffman said,
That is correct, but neither is there any respected research that contradicts that idea. The fact is that adults who were raised by a committed, monogamous, same-sex couple are so rare in our society that it’s practically impossible to get them to show up in a random cross-section of Americans in statistically-significant numbers. So the best we can say about outcomes for them is that we don’t know.
However, that doesn’t negate the very reasonable doubts about same-sex couples raising children based on (at least) the fact that a child being raised by a same-sex couple as his or her “parents” is daily and involuntarily injected into a paradox, a situation that cannot exist naturally and that doesn’t exist in any other parenting arrangement. (I am amazed by those who “come out of the closet” because they “don’t want to live a lie,” then ask the rest of us to accept that two men or two women are the “parents” of a child.)
Marcus: “Homosexual couples are bad for the child. A homosexual couple is worse for the child than either a single mother or a single father. Aside from the fact that the child gets confronted daily with a disordered lifestyle and an evil one at that, then the harm to the child is compounded.”
__________________________
There is no respected research that shows this. Your lies and your prejudice are sinful. And stay away from children.
Robert, to be honest I didn’t even read the entire page I linked to. All I was interested in was the information about the take rate for same-sex “marriage,” which it reports was acknowledged by John Corvino (I’m sure you’ve heard of him) and uttered by his co-author on CSPAN.
Kevin Rahe, Wow! That research website page sure says it all. For a minute there I almost mistook it as belonging to the National Enquirer. I was hoping to see a more scientific site, like that of the American Psychological Association or the American Sociological Association.
Robert Shay said,
You’re suggesting that in an age where expectations that men and women should marry before they begin an intimate relationship continue to wane - in fact are abhorred by many of the same people who advocate same-sex “marriage,” that their expectation that same-sex couples should marry will increase? In other words, people who currently have no concerns about two people having an intimate relationship with each other outside of “marriage” will begin to look upon such relationships negatively? It sounds like a stretch to me, especially if you suppose that “marriage” among such folks will ever reach the levels it still does among male-female relationships.
The only data in my comment came from sources arguing in favor of same-sex “marriage:” http://functionalculture.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-homosexual-marriage-advocate-says.html
Marcus is the expert on what is sin. I wonder how many sins he did?
Kevin Rahe, well, as it becomes more common for gays to marry, expectations will change. As for your research data, what is the source, when was it published, and what peer reviews have there been of it?
TEll me, why does it bother some of you that I have a different understanding and definition of marriage so much that you must degrade and dehumanize me by calling me names, such as “bigot”. I do not hold any fear or hatred for you or your definition of marriage. I simply wished my parents marriage wasn’t destroyed by false understandings of love, thus forcing me to grow up without a father. I wish I had my father growing up. No one to walk me down the isle, fix my car, tell me my dress was too short. He’s not the same as my mother, but an equal contributor to who I am. I hurt for others like me. I don’t want to see others accumulate the scars I have because adults have decided marriage is strictly about themselves and their personal fulfillment. I’m not a bigot, I’m truly hurt by this false understanding of what marriage is that we’ve been going through for the last 50 years or so. And right now all the studies don’t mean sh*t because no one seems to have any integrity to do any unbiased research. And even if there were someone, the rest of us have no integrity to admit a study my be reliable. All I see is selfishness in adults. I’m tired of it, and that does not make me a bigot. But some of your tirades against people like me might make some of you one.
I have never seen so much ignorance and hatred as on this website and in the malicious, bigoted commentary. Disgusting.
What Veritatus said.
Jeff,
You couldn’t be more wrong. It’s not about being trendy, or “current” or old-fashioned or new-fashioned…it’s about being correct and that is a question which requires wisdom, not a regard for “the world” as currently morally constituted. To deny a child a mother or a father by placing him with homosexuals is a form of long-lasting child abuse. Children need the unique nurturing that only a father and only a mother can give. Having two men who are mentally disordered or two women with the same problem bringing up an innocent child in that disorder is objectively and eternally wrong, regardless of what the contemporary batch of hedonists and atheists and Stalinists wish to foist upon the world. The whole world minus the Western left knows this to be true and supports my position. Only less than 1% of the world’s population supports homosexual marriage and even less homoxexual adoption. None of Islam, none of Hinduism, none of Buddhism, No real Christians, nor practicing Jews. So that only leaves the atheists, heathens, pagans and Secular Humanists, which are plenty in Western Europe, North America and Australia, but that’s it. All of Africa, Asia, South America, Russia, China, India all do not support this aberration of cultural normalcy. So it’s you Jeff and you ilk that are going to be left in the dust of history like Nero, Calligula and Sodom and Gomorrah have been.
Robert Shay, given that granting married couples alternate tax rates was one of the first things the federal government did when it first began formally recognizing marriage around a century ago, I suggest that said treatment has much to say about what the government considers marriage to be based on. In other words, rather than being an ancillary matter as you imply, favorable tax rates indicate much about the benefits that the government expects marriage to yield for society at large. I also suggest that they were justified on a practical level - i.e. they were not merely symbolic or intended to have only an intangible effect.
But even where same-sex “marriage” has been legally recognized for some time, the take rate among homosexuals is only 10%, so how it could be expected to have much effect I don’t know. Plus, unlike opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples will always suffer from the absence of any compelling reason for anyone else to expect them to marry.
Kevin Rahe, voters can always demand changes to the laws governing tax rates. I see that as a separate issue. The tendency for promiscuity is not inherent to being gay. It is more inherent to being male. It is just that gays have had less incentive NOT to be promiscuous.
Robert Shay, it seems to me that if two people are committed to each other’s welfare, they have less need to have their taxes shifted to others rather than more need, as the law seems to imply.
As for promiscuity, the possibility that children may arise from sexual relations and society’s expectation that both of a child’s parents are responsible for his or her education and welfare can serve as a significant if imperfect deterrent. Regarding those who practice other forms of sexual activity, or those who engage in purely sexual intercourse with the perception that pregnancy can be avoided anyway (even though that perception isn’t backed up by reality), I don’t know what deterrent there could be, especially if society explicitly finds such activity acceptable. Shifting taxes to them certainly doesn’t seem to be working.
To Kevin Rahe The marriage contract recognized by the state is one where each commits to the welfare of the other as they grow old and to the welfare of their children. Love and commitment replace promiscuity. It is in the state’s interest that marriages be affirmed, even gay marriages.
The state’s interest in marriage is merely “commitment?” How does two people “committing” to each other justify shifting taxes from them to those who (ostensibly) aren’t “committed?” It seems like there needs to be more to it than that.
Kevin Rahe, true. But the state’s recognition is not based on ‘acts’. It is based on commitment. And the cruelty I alluded to earlier has been the judging of gays in the name of God, emotional, physical and spiritual gay bashing, imprisonment, treatment like criminals for expressing their love. Uganda and Nigeria today are where we were not long ago.
Robert Shay, no one deserves to be treated cruelly merely because they experience same-sex attractions, or even because they engage in sexual acts other than purely sexual intercourse. But avoiding societal affirmation or government recognition of relationships based on such acts is not in and of itself cruel.
@Marcus Sorry. Even if you don’t, God knows the difference between the intimacy of a loving gay couple and the gang rape you claim took place in Sodom. The Holy Spirit is changing the hearts and minds of people in educated countries around the world who now see how cruelly they have been treating homosexuals in God’s name and I am glad you are living to see it happen. “Treat your neighbor as yourself.” = ALL God’s Law!—Jesus
Any further questions? What is it about this issue that so many just don’t get? The Pope shows compassion toward all people, but he cannot change doctrine that was settled over 1,500 years ago. Truth is immutable and eternal, not the fashion of the day. Why do so many want to fall for a lie and a fraud? What part of the word “No” is so difficult to understand?
Ross: Homosexuals are not Catholic—big deal!
Me: But it must be a big deal to you or you will not be here vehemently denouncing the Church. If it does not matter, you will pay no mind to any of what we say.
Not to worry-rejoice in all things-like so many of us in the past seeking truth and seeking the TRUTH, Jeff, Joe, Sarah, Robert, Frank, Mike, Stephanie, Edward and Ross, et al are on their way - proof of this is in what they think and what they write and that they come here to say what they have to say. God made each of them in His image and He gave them the gifts that they are using to find Him. If we are right that there is only one truth and only one TRUTH, they will all, so long as they continue on the path they are on, come to the truth and the TRUTH. This is inevitable…either in this life or the next. And I face this inevitability each day realizing what I now must do now so that then I can embrace and hold and enjoy this truth and TRUTH when I say out loud “...I have greatly sinned.” Guy McClung, San Antonio
Robert Shay, you can spin it all you want but the sin of Sodom and Gommorha was sodomy.
What utter hogwash! Your spin cannot be supported in anyway by the Biblical Account. The men of Sodom wanted to sexually molest the men of God. That is plain as day if you read the account in Genesis. This is precisely why Lot offered them his daughter!
This is why from the beginning, gay sex has been called sodomy and gays as sodomites.
No city has ever been close to being 100% gay? Well we have Sodom and Gomorrha. And that just shows you exactly what will happen if sane people don’t fight the insanity of the homosexual lobby. That is exactly the gay agenda, to pull men down to their sick and perverted lifestyle. Sodom plays out now exactly in the lifestyle of the gay mob. And we have the gay mob to thank for the scourge of AIDS.
Ross, you are not aware of the gay mafia? This the network of gay priests and religious who have infiltrated the Vatican and they have sown their perversion there. This is most likely the reason they did not want the abuse exposed.
Why is sexuality so important to the Church? Well how about because God made them male and female and told them to go and multiply.
Considering that sexuality is part of how God created human beings then it is the concern of the Church.
How will marriage equality harm me? It won’t. There is already marriage equality. You are speaking with a forked tongue. You are not for marriage equality you are for gay marriage. You can get married right now provided you marry a person of the opposite sex. No one is stopping you. So there you are. You are not hard done by. You are not treated unequally. The rule that applies to you applies to me. Marry someone of the opposite sex.
Legalizing gay “marriage” is not marriage equality. That is verbal engineering.
Stop playing the victim because you are not.
If same sex marriage is legalized, it will destroy society. Let’s face it, two men and two women don’t make parents. You actually need to redefine the word to make it fit you. So the homosexual rights movement have been doing all sorts verbal gymnastics just so they can justify their perversion.
The Catholic Church will teach the Truth, Hold on to the Truth, until the end of time.
Those who are starting to go against it, typologically find themselves reenacting heretics and protestors of the middle ages.
God Bless this World.
@Marcus. Wrong. The sin of Sodom and Gomorrah was inhospitality toward itinerants who depended on cities on their route to survive. There was no Sodom Hilton. The men of Sodom wanted to get to know Lot’s guests so they could know if they were a threat their city. The Hebrew word was far less used to mean knowing someone sexually. All the men, young and old, surrounded Lot’s house. No city has ever been even close to 100 percent gay. Most men had wives. But the next day Lot’s daughters got him drunk so he would have sex with them. False witness causes hate and persecution.
Marcus—does the word “perjury” have any meaning for you? What about the term “obstruction of justice?”
.
Where did you get the idea of “homosexual mafia?” What do the sexual practices of the mafia have to do with the corruption of the Church—unless the Church is complacent?
.
For that matter, why is sexuality so important to the Church—unless the Church needs to control it? All the Vatican has to do is declare homosexual acts anathema (which it did) and it will remain intact. Homosexuals are not Catholic—big deal!
.
What are you scared of? How will marriage equality harm you? Will it tempt you back to your sex/porn habits?
Ross: Catholic dogma on human sexuality is flat-out unscientific and wrong. For Church leaders to defame gay people by calling homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil”
Me: Wrong again. Catholic dogma on human sexuality is more scientific than you can even begin to understand. She got it right that we are male or female and that our sexual organs are “genital” organs, i.e. geared towards pro-creation.
Anything that goes against this very scientific fact is thus intrinsically evil for it goes against the very nature of our humanity - of what a human being is.
Ross: Being a Gnostic Christian, I of course ignore such commands
Me: There is no such thing as a Gnostic Christian. You are either Christian or your gnostic. And never the twin shall meet.
Sarah Flynn, there are studies that show that homosexual parents are bad for the child. Regnerus did one and his sample is quite large.
Homosexual couples are bad for the child. A homosexual couple is worse for the child than either a single mother or a single father. Aside from the fact that the child gets confronted daily with a disordered lifestyle and an evil one at that, then the harm to the child is compounded.
Stephanie, the behaviour of some members of the Church - the homosexuals - do not define the Church. The Church is the path precisely because it condemns the sin of homosexual activity and fights the normalization of something so abnormal.
Robert Shay, what God abhors is homosexual sin. That is why Sodom and Gomorrha were destroyed.
The gay rights movement is trying to portray that being actively gay is the same as being actively heterosexual. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
This article exposes the lie that the homosexual right movement has painstakingly tried to hide
http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articles8/Lee-The-Truth-About-The-Homosexual-Rights-Movement.php
Ross, I don’t dispute that hiding the abuse is tantamount to abuse. What I would say is that perhaps this abuse was easily hidden precisely because of the gay mafia in the Church.
I would say that the reason there were so many gay men in the Church around the period of Vatican II was due to the sexual revolution and the breaking down of rules. Perhaps this was an attempt to be more “understanding of the homosexual” and so they were allowed to enter seminaries. It was a bad move. So the Church is now paying for this.
Robert Shay, we are talking about the child sex abuse in the Church. It is a fact that 80% of sexual abuse of minors in the Church were perpetuated by gay men.
Is it me but do you notice that it is Communists/Socialists/Liberals who are behind pushing this filth??
Hlyghst—So? How does your one anecdote of sexual abuse in a family make Catholicism the reasonable path?
The majority of priests who abused children and adolescents were homosexuals. Two gay men who were selected by ABC in Australia as the “parents of the year” in 2010 were found guilty of molesting their adoptive son since he was one year old in 2006 - abusing him on a daily basis, taking pictures, and sharing him with other men from around the world as part of the “Boys Lover Network”. This is why Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian children in 2012. Mark J. Newton, 42, was jailed in the U.S. for 40 years and ordered to pay $400,000 in restitution to the child, while his lover, Peter Truong, 36, from New Zealand, awaits sentencing in his home country.
Marcus—from your post of 9:40 on 1/5/14, I generally agree. “The Scourge” of the Catholic church is homosexual, or rather sexuality in general. Your comment raises the question of how and why the “gay group” is so much a part of the culture of the Church.
.
The sexual abuse scandal involved not only the abuse of young people, but also the cover-up and transfer of abusive priests to new parishes. In this context, abusive priests were not oppressed, they were protected from the Church’s doctrine against abusive sex. It seems that where clergy is concerned, abuse is a forgivable “sin,” <i>after>/i> they were charged.
.
Sexual abuse can be homosexual or heterosexual or bestial, or any number of manifestations. The key is whether one chooses to be responsible for what they do. I’m concerned that the universal forgiveness of sin by the Catholic religion if one repents afterwords. The perpetrator benefits, but the victim has no justice—in fact, their anger over the outrage that they experienced is also considered a sin.
.
Yes, “the gay and liberal elements which have so infiltrated the seminaries and convents” are causing the decline of people staying with the Catholic Church. Why do you think SNAP was formed to protest the abuse by priests? If sexual deviation is evil, why should the Catholic Church be exempt? Maybe the gay element wouldn’t object, but the liberal element, which values consent over obedience, calls for accountability of sin within the Church.
@Dale Jesus is Lord. ONLY He is without error. No man, no matter how inspired, had God’s complete understanding. The inerrent Word of my Lord came from HIS lips. Anything that does not adhere to ‘Love (and therefore treat) your neighbor as yourself.’ violates what Jesus said ALL the Law depends on.
@Marcus Wrong. The vast majority of child molesters are heterosexual male family members or persons known by the child’s family. God abhors your false witness which leads to hate and persecution.
Ross, child rape are mostly committed by gay men. That is a fact. Even Kinsey stated that and proved it with his research. You are the ones who are sexually vicitimizing children. Let’s get that one fact straight. And it is about time that that fact is told. You have been successful in spinning that data but no more. Let the truth out. An overwhelming majority of the sexual abuse in the Church was perpetuated by gay clergy. I think even on a national average including the secular world, this proportion will bear out.
Ross, the reason there has been a steady decline of men and women wanting to join religious orders is because of the gay and liberal elements which have so infiltrated the seminaries and convents.
I have listened to men who had their vocations snuffed because rectors and seminarians propositioned them and sodomized them. It is the gay filth in the Church that has emptied the seminaries.
Now that the reforms have been undertaken, we now see a slow blossoming of vocation once again. The traditional seminaries are thriving.
The scourge of the Catholic church are they gay group. They are the source of the child molestation scandal.
Gay activists like yourself are nothing more than bullies. You want to shout us down by calling us bigots and haters.
Gays are not oppressed. That is another lie you are peddling so that you can portray yourselves as victims. You are not victims. You are the victimizers. You are not oppressed. You are the oppressors, the ones who bully those who wish to speak for the truth and you want to shove down our throats your evil perverted lifestyle.
This article validates the point of so called “Francis haters”. This has been the point all along, that unless the Pope starts speaking like the Vicar of Christ that he is supposed to be, then the world will use him for its ends.
Maybe this incident will drive home to Pope Francis the foolishness and downright irresponsibility of those off the cuff statement that are poorly framed and lacking in light.
I hope that this will vaporise his naivete and finally realize that one cannot just shoot from the mouth without consequences. He needs to think well before he speaks.
@ John on Friday, Jan 3, 2014 6:07 PM (EST):
Well, perhaps the pope seeing how his words are used may decide to use his words more carefully,...
Pope Francis is RIGHT in his expressions. It is some people who don’t get his meaning. The problem is not with the Pope.
Did people understand Jesus the Lord when he spoke on different occasions,? Not all.
People have to change inside, then they will understand the Pope. Those who don’t want to change have different motives.
Stephany on Sunday, Jan 5, 2014 1:57 PM
Living in the past,why not live in the present?
Not following the present Pope?
The Catholic Church is the world’s single largest anti-gay hate group. If we are to minimize its pernicious influence, we must educate societies about the Church’s financial motivations for keeping gay human beings oppressed.
———
How does the Church intimidate gay people into signing up for lifetimes of poverty, hard work and (ostensibly) celibacy? By socially stigmatizing gay human beings and driving young gay people to despair about their chances for satisfying adult domestic lives, the Church as good as tortures young gay people into signing up to be priests and nuns. The fall-off in the number of young people signing up for lifetimes slaving for the Church corresponds almost precisely to the gradually increasing social acceptance of gay human beings. The Church knows that and — at the expense of gay people’s basic human rights — is lashing out in attempts to protect its business interests and historical business plan.
——-
Catholic dogma on human sexuality is flat-out unscientific and wrong. For Church leaders to defame gay people by calling homosexuality an “intrinsic moral evil” — and other such defamatory, non-fact-based phrases — is as disgraceful as was the Vatican’s signing of the Reichskonkordat political treaty with Adolph Hitler. Remember; in the present-day world, we are witness to Christian-majority countries that propose establishing the death penalty for all known homosexuals.
———-
Not only is the Church wrong to poison minds against gay people, it is doing so at least in part to distract from its crimes of child rape and child rape cover ups. In August, 2011, a priest in the Bronx allegedly sexually assaulted, repeatedly, a 16-year-old girl working in the rectory. After arrest, the priest told prosecutors that the girl was “wearing short skirts.” Would you not think that an organization with a monstrous child rape history would instruct its employees never to blame the victim that way?
————
Archbishop Dolan on his official Church blog subsequently posted – “with gratitude” – a press release from the Catholic League attacking the 16-year-old girl’s integrity and calling the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests (SNAP) a “phony victims’ group.” Dolan’s blog post could serve as a text book case of how an institution can intimidate victims out of coming forward or bearing witness to child rape crimes. As with its gay-bashing, the Catholic Church bashes Church child rape victims out of financial motivations; intimidate as many victims as possible out of coming forward, in order to avoid having to compensate them.
———
Thought Reform and the Psychology of Totalism popularized the term “thought-terminating cliché”. This refers to a cliché that is a commonly used phrase, or folk wisdom, sometimes used to quell cognitive dissonance. Though the clichéd phrase in and of itself may be valid in certain contexts, its application as a means of dismissing dissent or justifying fallacious logic is what makes it thought-terminating.
.
In the early years, the Catholics hierarchy was against the reading of scriptures. In that day, to question any dogma was often met with violence. It took Martin Luther to end Catholic monopoly of biblical interpretation yet it can be argued that he did so for political, monetary and not religious reasons. Germany was losing too much wealth to Rome and he used his theses against indulgences to split from the Catholic Church.
Since that day, the Spanish inquisition, and Catholic/Protestant policies have pushes for only the biblical interpretations that have been sanctioned by the various Church hierarchies to be accepted. IOW, they are to control your theosis or apotheosis.
Being a Gnostic Christian, I of course ignore such commands. If you are one of faith then you cannot. You must kowtow to whatever sect you belong to and believe as they believe.
Most Catholics and Protestants I talk to tell me that we are not to judge God. Strange as this condition excludes them of course, as they have judged their God to be good. The rest of us are fine if we agree and since we cannot judge God on our own, we are not allowed to judge anything but good. Judging God as evil is not allowed.
To judge, one needs knowledge first and foremost. Eden shows that God did not want Adam and Eve to have knowledge of good and evil. The early Catholic Church followed suit by burning competing gospels and killing members of other Christian sects that did not convert. Protestant sects and their hierarchies, by insisting that theosis is under their guidance only, also discourage questioning and judging and acquiring knowledge.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.
Reason is a *****, the greatest enemy that faith has.”
Martin Luther
What do the churches fear with a more intelligent population?
Are they afraid that with knowledge, people will stop believing in talking animals and other fantasies, miracles and magic and realize that their faith has no clothes?
.
The path of the RCC over the last 50 years is a losing strategy. In that time the Church has struggled to find people willing to enter religious orders—from priests, to brothers (almost extinct) and nuns (the average age of the LCWR is over 70!). The situation is desperate. At the current rate, there will be no one left to say mass or run religious schools in a few decades. The same trend can be seen in Church attendance. There are fewer and fewer young people buying in, while the older members die off. The Church, at least in the U.S. is in a struggle for survival.
The Church is giving its beliefs on homosexuality a higher priority than its beliefs on helping the needy. The second recent example involves the much talked about criticism of the LCWR. The church leadership actually stated the sisters are spending too much time on projects related to poverty and not enough time speaking out against same sex marriage (as well as some other topics). Again, we see the shift to place same the homosexual agenda ahead of helping the poor.
The EVIL(THE INSTITUTIONAL) aspect of the Church is preoccupied with taking control of the world FORGETTING to follow and obey the Lord.
FIRST THINGS FIRST : Following and obeying Jesus the Lord requires the exercise of APOSTLESHIP - and it wold bring the world to her feet. This is the only “ONE THING NECESSARY”.
“The Church’s preoccupation with sex stems chiefly…”
Actually it is the Church’s modern (pop culture) critics who are preoccupied with sex. The Church is at the forefront of immigration rights, prisoner rights, protecting the poor, the oppressed, the refugee, leads in educating children and families throughout the world, and speaks out incessantly against military action and military spending.
The critics are so focused on sex, this what they want the focus to be on as sex sells their “papers”, their movies, and riles up their base for fundraising purposes.
Decades ago when the Protestant denominations changed their position on birth control, we were told that contraception would strengthen marriages, end divorce, end prostitution, and result in more respect for women.
Well, that has not worked out too well, while big pharma made millions polluting women’s bodies and our environment. Also, the sexual “revolution” now cost the US some $10B or more in treating sexually transmitted diseases. How has acceptance of this lifestyle then benefited the poor, improved education, or address income inequality throughout the world?
All of these gay activists here to demand we turn against Christ for their perversion. They know they’re wrong which is why they spend so much time here. They are deceivers.
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/
.
Check out this site—it should also gross you out.
“Under the guise of Christianity, the Papal Church committed more enormities than ever disgraced the annals of paganism. Disregarding the maxims and the spirit of the Gospel, the papal Church, arming herself with the power of the sword, vexed the Church of God and wasted it for several centuries, a period most appropriately termed in history, the ‘dark ages’. “The kings of the earth, gave their power to the Beast.” (Fox’s Book of Martyrs, Ch. IV)
.
“Roman Catholicism was born in blood, has wallowed in blood, and has quenched its thirst in blood, and it is in letters of blood that its true history is written.” (Baron DePonnat, 1940)
.
“And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus.” (Revelation 17:6)
.
People do not realize that counterfeit religions, like counterfeit money, must resemble the genuine in order to deceive those who lack spiritual discernment or those who have not had the opportunity or taken the time to carefully compare all the major tenets of Roman Catholicism.
.
http://www.lifesitenews.com
Go there and look what a gay couple did to their own “son.” It’s sick!
What an unnatural perv couple did! I guess we’re just not thinking for ourselves like they all tell us off of the card they read from their gay activists organizations. And they come here because they aren’t happy—they know inside they are wrong!
With the recent advances of medicine that have allowed embryo transfers, test-tube babies, and artificial insemination, many Americans have been perplexed by the Catholic Church’s strong negative responses to these advances, given the Church’s so-called pro-life position. However, Americans should not be perplexed.
.
The Church claims that such conceptions are against “natural” law, and great pains are taken to defend this doctrine with elaborate theological reasoning, all of it sheer nonsense. There is a different reason for its opposition. The very existence of the Church is threatened by these advances. How?
.
The Catholic Church is an absolute monarchy under absolute and infallible leadership. The Church claims and actually exercises sovereignty over nearly 800 million Catholics. It has a system of law called “canon law,” and, in the “domain” in which the claim of sovereignty is made, canon law is applied. Yet, the Catholic hierarchy exercises this sovereignty without the direct use of force, armies, police, or weapons.
.
History, as well as a careful analysis of their current doctrines, practices, and traditions, demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt that Catholicism is very evil.
.
The Catholic church is so hypocritical and espouses ideals that incite it’s members to hatred and violence. The church has covered for pedophiles in the priesthood, allowed for violence against women, started wars, sanctioned imprisonments and inquisitions when it’s values were questioned.
.
The Catholic Church is insidious by trying to insinuate its doctrine into secular life, law, and policy. This is extremely dangerous in a secular, pluralistic nation, such as the United States. It also protects the criminality of sexual abuse by its clergy. It is an entire tax exempt industry, built upon the sole purpose of control of its members through doctrinal intimidation - do as we say, or you’ll go to hell.
.
Look at it’s fruits The Roman Catholic ‘church’ blames bad individuals for child sex abuse by priests, babies stolen and sold by nuns, etc; but these things happen because this organization places more importance on maintaining its reputation and authority than on truth. It is supremely arrogant, rather than humble; it treasures having power and control over people’s lives to the exclusion of spirituality; it is a polity, not a religion. It can never allow people to think for themselves, or to question, because its doctrine and tradition do not stand up to examination.
.
Poor countries are a good example of the brainwashing of the church Has anyone ever noticed that every country that is predominantly Catholic is poor? Like Ireland during the turn of the century. How about the Philippines today for that matter. Mexico is another good example. The church hoards and contracts the money supply leaving it’s people destitute. What an evil system. The devil could not have devised a better system of control of man against man than that of the world’s mainstream religions.
http://www.lifesitenews.com
Go there and look what a gay couple did to their own “son.” It’s sick!
“Hate the sin, love the sinner.” Worked out real good, didn’t it?!
The tyrant in the beginning rarely looks like a monster. He usually appears to be the savior of his people, though once he has attained power he soon shows his hand—at root he merely wishes to accumulate as much power as possible in order to obtain an absolute security or glory for himself, and to enjoy it at any cost.
.
It must be understood that the highly motivated idealist is not merely interested in improving the exterior forms of society. He wishes to save us from ourselves. Of course, he will find that basic human nature is rather difficult to remold, and as time goes on he will need to continuously expand his power until his control approaches the level of totality. If he is clever at it and fills up the world with beautiful rhetoric, and takes care not to grossly infringe upon our pleasurable rights, and if, at the same time, he takes upon his own shoulders our unpleasant rights, the ones which demand effort and sacrifice, then he may get away with it. This is never more possible than in a historical period of extreme stress. In such a climate the lifting of our responsibilities is not felt as deprivation; it feels, rather, like relief from intolerable tensions. Somebody at last is doing something about the human condition! A sick society is getting therapy! A cancer patient puts himself into the hands of his doctor, so why shouldn’t a “dysfunctional” people entrust itself to its social or political physicians? Somewhere during the therapy there is a decisive transfer of power and responsibility. When this happens on a massive scale something is seriously amiss. There may not be brown-shirts and jackboots marching in the streets. No public book-burning. No grotesque executions. In some cases there may even be no visible dictator, only a system or a social philosophy which permeates and controls everything. Indeed, the world may appear to be perfectly normal. The Catholic philosopher Josef Pieper points out that this is the most dangerous form of totalitarianism of all, almost impossible to throw off, because it never appears to be what, in fact, it is.
The absolute ruler always attempts to destroy diversity. He cannot rest content with a passive populace. As he extends his grasp into more and more aspects of human life he becomes hostile to everything outside of his own will. As his power becomes near absolute it grows increasingly negative, because by its very nature it must oppose what cannot be extinguished in the human person. It must seek at some point to destroy the inner impulse to genuine creativity which depends for its well-being on freedom from manipulation.
Hate the sin, love the sinner
Frank, I find it interesting that when you’re unable to proffer a reason that we should suddenly ignore what has been the dominant attribute of marriage throughout history, you resort to attacking the Catholic Church which is proving to be one of its most ardent defenders. In other words, you don’t like the message, so you’re shooting the messenger.
How peculiar that the perverts come on here—they have their “legal status” but yet God’s Word still prevails and they come here distorting God’s Word etc for their antiChrist purposes. They aren’t happy that their perversion is now law of the land, they still come after us—because somewhere inside—they KNOW they are wrong. None of us go to pervert blogs.
@robert shay there is nothing more evil than using God’s words to pursue the antiChrist. Good luck with your legal status. You’re going to need it.
It isn’t an injustice that marriage is the sexual union of a man and a woman any more than it’s injustice that an uncle is the brother of your mother or father, rather than the man next door, or your son. Different things need different names so we can differentiate them.
Marriage and homosexuality are not only ontologically different, they are objectively opposed. In every meaningful sense, they have nothing in common with one another. Marriage brings together the two sexual halves of humanity to create new biological relationships, it is in the female that the male finds his sexual complement and vice versa. Homosexuality is the rejection of marriage.
A rational society has different words for different phenomena. This is why Catholics such as myself believe that “same-sex marriage” is a Satanic lie designed to confuse the children of God, by which we mean the whole of humanity, not just Catholics.
@Tom in AZ Fine. You have your definition of marriage. I’ll stick with the definition and legal status my state and federal government recognize. The American people will continue to pursue fairness. I’m glad we both are living to see the long injustice overturned. “ALL God’s Law hangs on treating your neighbor as yourself.” God bless!
Tom in AZ
F W Maitland, the great English legal historian, discussing the decretals of Alexander III observes, “We must distinguish between the perfection of a legal act and the fulfilment of obligations which that act creates. We must not blur this distinction by talk about “consummation.” A marriage is a marriage, and it cannot become more of a marriage than it already is.”
Thus, St Paul says, “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [i Cor 7:4] From the moment of the marriage, that is, from the moment of agreement, the man has no power over his own body, or, in other words, his body is already his wife’s and her body is his. Therefore, this is the moment at which they become “one flesh.” Their agreement makes them “one flesh” by giving to each power over the other’s body; the sexual union is mere matter of fact.
@Rev Sarah Flynn…
So everything being equal ...do you think a child is better off with a mom and a dad? Or it doesn’t matter ? If it doesn’t matter, then there is no difference btwn a man and a woman.
Sorry my mom and dad are equal but not the same.
See how this gay dad says his adopted child longs for a mother. See there is a difference btwn men and women ...a mom and a dad. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/06/23/opinion/sunday/the-misnomer-of-motherless-parenting.html
@Michael Paterson-Seymour: It is not ALONE sleeping together that makes a marriage, but CONSENT (a much better translation, in this context, of “consensus”) to the marital contract. However, a woman, validly-contracted wife of a man, but who had never had intercourse with him, could be divorced from him with no canonical impediment to her then obtaining another marriage, if there were sufficient grounds (if he mistreated her, for example, sufficiently for her to request divorce, there were none of the vetoes on divorce and remarriage present in a consummated marriage). Obviously that doesn’t mean the legal aspects of marriage didn’t come into play until the actual consummation; you’d have anarchy if you set up your marriage laws like that, to say nothing of the imposition on the couple’s privacy. But the consummation of the marriage—which IS the sacrament—was the determining reality.
-
If it comes to that, ancient Chinese law had people routinely married when they were infants—as in Roman law, even some Christian Roman law, the consent of guardians was as valid as the consent of the parties themselves, to make a marriage—who didn’t consummate their marriages for over a decade. It was still much easier for a woman, despite the shame of being a divorcee in Confucian culture, if her ex-husband could vouch that the marriage was unconsummated. Consummation of a marriage is the absolute clincher, in all cultures and times, whatever other aspects attend on the arrangement of marriages.
-
Incidentally, “de praesenti tempore” means simply “of present time”, with many senses other than the simply grammatical.
Tom in AZ writes, “As human society has always defined the concept, an unconsummated marriage never existed. If the union is unconsummated, they can go their separate ways with no need of whatever divorce proceedings are, or are not, permitted in the given culture.”
But both the Roman Law and the Canon Law deny this.
In the Digest, Ulpian says, “Nuptias non concubitus, sed consensus facit” [It is not sleeping together, but agreement that makes marriage. [ Dig. 50.17.30 Ulpianus 36 ad sab]
Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) in answering a case propounded to him by the Archbishop of Salerno, declared that if consent de praesenti [“de præsenti” is, of course, an ellipsis for “de præsenti tempore” – “words in the present tense”] was expressed by such words as these Ego te accipio in meam et ego accipio te in meum [I accept you as mine and I accept you as mine] whether an oath was interponed or not it was unlawful for the woman to marry another and if she should contract a second engagement by promise even although followed by sexual intercourse she should be separated from the second and should return to the first husband. [Corpus Juris Canonici Decretales Gregory IX lib iv tit iv cap iii] The same doctrine is repeated and applied by the same pope in the famous decretal “Veniens ad nos G,” which is too long to cite, but the curious will find it at Decretales 4.1.15
@Robert Shay: The universal custom of humanity has been that a marriage that has not been consummated does not actually exist—the marriage is a legal fiction until consummation—and the principals can part ways with no divorce proceedings.
-
That the state does something is not an argument. It classed black men as property, appropriate objects of other men’s ownership, not very long ago. Was it wrong then? Why? It sometimes classes men as proper objects of other men’s marriages now. Is it right now? Why? What is your objective standard?
-
“Marriage” is a special name we give to our mated pairs, and perhaps also to polygamy, because this is the one kind of animal that can form concepts. Fundamentally, however, any time the animal in question tries to claim that the concept applies to something other than the animal form (i.e. to the mating of male and female), the animal is being as stupid as when it tries to treat gravel as food (which is another thing the animal called human does, because its conceptual capability can circumvent the obvious evidence of its senses).
-
I am not interested in your anecdotes about your relatives. I am not interested in your feelings. I am interested in biological facts and scientific and philosophical realities.
@ Frank on Saturday, Jan 4, 2014 4:17 PM (EST)
If you are not fit to exercise your common sense and and responsibility why blame the Church? IS THE TRUE CHURCH of Jesus the Lord and INSTITUTION?
NO.
It may have an institutional dimension because of the weakness men involved.
It is so very true.
We are descending to animal level or even below that.
The reason for the above is all because The Church officials are not bringing the Light of Christ the Lord through his Word to CONVICT the world of SIN. For this the Church officials themselves need to follow Jesus the Lord making sure that he has called(and not that an institution has called them) to continue his work which he entrusted to his APOSTLES.
Only as true Apostles of the Lord these officials can do the work of the Lord : Proclaiming his Word of salvation through the power of his holy spirit accompanied by the signs of his Kingdom.
Setting aside the work of Christ the Lord calling it, “CHARISMATIC” is itself an aberration : THE FRUIT OF INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF HIS CHURCH.
If the Church officials are determined to stick the this EVIL sure and certain they will end up serving ANOTHER CHRIST. If EVIL religions are conquering their INSTITUTION and wiping it out all over and that too very fast, it is because GOD IS FIGHTING AGAINST THEM.
Unless the Church officials repent and believe in the Good News UNLIKE THE PHARISEES, they are going to lose proving the Lord’s saying, “When the Son of Man come back will there be Faith left on earth…
Here is (hopefully) a correction of the first link in my previous comment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_(psychology)
Herbert Spencer said,
Perhaps the pope was using the term regression as it applies to psychology, which according to Freud “is a defense mechanism leading to the temporary or long-term reversion of the ego to an earlier stage of development rather than handling unacceptable impulses in a more adult way,” one that applies at the level of society rather than an individual.
The question of import is not whether reproduction involves marriage but whether marriage involves reproduction. There may very well be some outliers among historical cultures where a man and woman weren’t expected to make a public commitment to each other before beginning an intimate relationship, but I suggest that in cases where reproduction outside of marriage was acceptable, that marriage itself wasn’t at the same time seen as having any real importance. You can argue that marriage in general is no longer important or necessary, but the abolition of marriage altogether doesn’t seem to be what same-sex “marriage” proponents want, at least ostensibly.
Are you sure about that? Evolutionary History of Hunter-Gatherer Marriage Practices
@Tom in AZ My mother and step father were married as senior citizens. They never engaged in ‘the marital act’, but their marriage was totally legal and valid and they had the documents to prove it. So do I and my husband. No state requires a ‘certificate of consummation’.
@Frank: Klansman’s tan coming in nicely, I see. Thanks for demonstrating why your kind were once called the Know Nothings, though.
-
@Edward: Yes, Frank does an excellent job of showing up your side’s true motives. You actually ENDORSE that vicious bigoted tirade? Pssst, you’re supposed to keep “we’re completely and utterly motivated by Jingo racism” on the down-low, genius.
@Frank : Are you an ex-priest or seminarian?
In the final analysis the Church stands for common good, and is open to the too powerful to be challenged (whether they are inside or outside) on common ground of humanity or on the basis of God’s Word.
“It is undeniable that the Vatican maintains many un-American doctrines.”
The Church is not exclusively married to any particular nation on earth. She belongs to all and she embraces all. Is ‘your America’ weded to moral perversion? Moral perversion is what the Pope is tackling.
@Robert Shay: As human society has always defined the concept, an unconsummated marriage never existed. If the union is unconsummated, they can go their separate ways with no need of whatever divorce proceedings are, or are not, permitted in the given culture. That’s the universal rule of every culture; that’s the standard in Roman, Canon, Common, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, Chinese, “Aztec”, Mayan, and pretty much EVERY other law. Homosexuals cannot consummate marriages, so they are not married.
-
As for childlessness…I didn’t bring it up, so why did you? I was talking about SEX, not children. Masturbating into the digestive tract isn’t sex. But since you bring it up, the involuntarily infertile are only accidentally infertile; were the organs healthy, they would conceive. The infertility of homosexuals is intrinsic; the healthiest colon or gullet in the world is never going to conceive a child, I’m sorry you needed that explained.
Frank: you are my hero each and every time you post on this forum. You articulate a very common-sense, anti-clerical point of view that is not only hard to argue with, put gets the rabid “go away you homos” crowd all in a lather, which is fine by me.
Why do trolls come here? I think one reason is they like comedy. Some of your responses are so ludicrous that coming here is like a circus.
Frank copied and pasted some text from a liberal web page. You all gave the universal paranoid Catholic responses, because the ideas make you “uncomfortable” (to put it mildly. It’s great fun to watch you squirm and go berserk trying to convince yourselves that the ideas must be wrong, because otherwise the Church would be wrong and you would have been really screwed.
You have no dignified way of justifying your faith. Trolls come here for the laughs.
The special meaning of the word free should be noted. A free nation in priestly parlance appears to be a nation that permits priests to control education. The nation that operates its own schools through school boards elected by the people is, by inference, totalitarian.
It is undeniable that the Vatican maintains many un-American doctrines. These doctrines clearly threaten American democracy and American security. The needs of the Vatican are placed above the needs of the United States. They also suggest a certain discomfort with American democracy.
The Vatican’s affinity with fascism is neither accidental nor incidental. Catholicism conditions its people to accept censorship, thought-control, and, ultimately, dictatorship. Catholicism is the fascist form of Christianity. The Catholic hierarchy rests fully and securely on the leadership principle with the infallible Pope in supreme command for a lifetime. Like the Fascist party, its priesthood becomes a medium for an undemocratic minority rule by a hierarchy. Catholic nations follow fascist doctrines more willingly than Protestant nations, which are the main strongholds of democracy. Democracy lays its stress on personal conscience; fascism on authority and obedience.
Many of the Vatican hierarchy’s social and political policies are clearly incompatible with Western democracy and American culture and no American should ever apologize because he or she objects to these policies.
@Frank, could you use fewer words to make your point? (I am probably not as smart as you ;) and can not possibly read all that. It’s like a dissertation paper. Would love to dialog with you.
The general rule is: “All men are forbidden to read books that are contrary to faith in God, good moral conduct, and Christian virtue”—a rule so sweeping that it can be interpreted as banning a large proportion of all modem works on science, medicine, and morals.
In practice this rule means that no Catholic is allowed to read knowingly and without special permission any book attacking any fundamental doctrine of the Catholic Church. “The Church is not afraid of truth,” says Father John C. Heenan in his Priest and Penitent, “but She is very much afraid that a clever presentation of falsehood will deceive even the elect.” The Church teaches that literature is “immoral” if it is opposed to Catholic standards, and that “no one has a ‘right’ to publish such literature any more than one has a right to poison wells or sell tainted food. When a book has been denounced by official authorities it is a grave sin for a Catholic knowingly to buy, sell, borrow, own, read, or lend it to any other person. The penalties apply to booksellers, publishers, readers, and reviewers unless they secure special permission to handle contraband goods.
The justification for censorship: just as we are not free to take as food for our bodies matter that will disease, deprave, and destroy them, so too for our minds—far more precious—we may not take ideas that similarly vitiate the very functions for which the mind was made.
Catholic cardinals are not isolated and they are rarely spontaneous. The censorship system of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States is neither a spasmodic nor an intermittent phenomenon. It is a highly organized system of cultural and moral controls that applies not only to books, plays, magazines, and motion pictures, but to persons and places.
Catholics believe that the Church has the right to restrict the activities of those who would lead their people away from their allegiance to the Catholic Church . . . they possess the right to prevent propaganda against the Church. This is merely a logical conclusion from the basic Catholic tenet that the Son of God established one religion and commanded all men to accept it under pain of eternal damnation.
Not only are individual writings blocked through censorship but this censorship biases national perceptions of the past, governmental policy, and the national images of the Church in order to present the Church in the best possible light.
How is it possible to think that the Vatican can be capable of any wrongdoing or in any way harm America? All we see is goodness! There is virtually no negative press whatsoever. The dangers that lie in the continuation of this arrangement are stunning. The very security of the United States is threatened by this arrangement whereby the Church ultimately hopes to gain control of our democracy through sheer numbers.
It is unquestionable that the position of the Catholic hierarchy throughout the history of the Church has always had as its goal achievement of power through numbers. This position has been common to most institutions in history, especially those that have survived for any length of time. As has been pointed out, much of the system of “morals” maintained by the Church is devoted to this end.
However, in the United States, the hierarchy has almost completely lost its control over communicants with regard to matters of reproduction. The Vatican has even been divisive within the American Catholic Church—American Catholics are ignoring the wishes of the hierarchy and have adopted desired family sizes identical to non-Catholic Americans. They are using the same contraceptive methods with the same frequency and are resorting to abortion at the same rate. The result is that American Catholics are not out-breeding American non-Catholics.
In no other area of human activity is the Church’s use of the “divide and conquer” technique more apparent than in the population growth control field.
There is nothing distinctive about the “American” Catholic Church. It is, first and foremost and always, Catholic. American democracy has not made it democratic. It does not stand for the causes of freedom of the press, speech, or worship (for Protestants) any more than do the Catholic Churches in Latin countries. Regarding freedom of speech, from The New Scholasticism, published by Catholic University of America, “Free speech is not free to injure faith, hope, charity, prudence, justice, temperance, truth, or any other virtue protecting the welfare of the individual or society.” Of course, only the Church can judge what “injures” and what “protects” the welfare of the individual or society.
Regarding the principle of separation of church and state, Pius IX, in his Syllabus, condemned the principle of separation of church and state as one of the “principal errors of our time.” In no nation does the Church honor this principle; the hierarchy feels that no nation has the right to impose this principle since it has a “divine right” to direct nations in matters of faith and morals (and “morals” in some way touches on all human activities).
@Dale, we should never ask people like Frank to go away. He came here because he was compelled to do so for what ever reason. Maybe even a small inkling from God? Who knows. Be charitable even when others are not.
@Frank, There is a distinction that must be understood between the teachings of the church and the sinful members. We’re all sick. The teachings (truth) are the remedy. Freedom is not the ability to do whatever I want, freedom is the ability to work within the truth and choose that which is good. Sports analogy, freedom in the game of baseball is knowing the rules (truth) of the game, and choosing to work with these rules(choosing the good) in order to excel at the game. Brainwashing is an offense against the dignity of the human person. It is not what is meant by “obedience and submission” as you have noted because charity can not be taken from us. Our “fiat” to the will of God and His church must be given freely and with full knowledge. Only under this context can these words be understood. And likewise, respect for the free will of others to not choose the good must be observed. We all participate in the world, society, communities and politics because we all belong here. We all have a stake in this world, this society, this community and these politics. We all have something to share and offer. You can reject it. But, no one should ever compel anyone to go against their conscience, free will, deeply held beliefs through the use of force by government, political, civil and social powers. The use of power and the constant battle to acquire it is tearing all of us apart. And for what? In the end we’re all dead. One day we’ll all die, and not one iota of any of this will matter. Grace and love can’t be compelled or taken. And those are the only things outside ourselves that live on.
Gay activists like Frank do not understand that it’s not about controlling others, it’s about controlling ourselves and not giving into the flesh. Frank shows he is merely a troll on behalf of the gay hate groups that come here to try to confuse those who are weak in the Faith. Don’t fall for it! He obviously doesn’t know anything about God and denying the flesh.
Now that these “immoralities’ are accepted by the laity, priests can use them for purposes of control, as well as fundraising. Since virtually everyone is guilty of at least some of these “sins,” and since forgiveness of sins has to be sought and only the priest can give such forgiveness, he retains a considerable amount of control over his flock. The power that the priest derives from this control is ultimately transferred to the Vatican.
The great tragedy in all of this is the tremendous social injustice caused by the Church because of these “immoralities” which seem to have at their root a lust for power. The untold mental anguish caused by production of guilt feelings, as well as physical harm brought about by these “immoralities” is unconscionable.
If a democracy favors the Church, then the hierarchy tolerates it; if it opposes the Church, then that proves that the government is godless and lacks the necessary divine authority.
Instead of using physical weapons, the Church uses psychic weapons. The most extreme case is the threat of excommunication. Over the centuries, the Church devised an elaborate system of controls that rely nearly completely upon “psychic terrorism.” The concepts of morals and sins which can only be forgiven by certain members of the hierarchy are examples of controls. Of course, it is purported that both have as their ends “goodness,” and adherents believe this. Yet, some thoughtful people recognize other “ends,” including the maintenance of the power of the Catholic hierarchy and the enhancement and advancement of this power. Through the Vatican’s constant presentation of the Church’s actions as “virtuous,” recognition of the Church as a tyrant has been thwarted. Characterizing all actions in terms of “goodness” has allowed this tyranny to survive for nearly two thousand years while all others have failed.
The Catholic hierarchy has been appropriately described as a cabal of power that moves under the guise of benevolence. How could this be possible in America?
Frank-Really?: “In most public schools, children are encouraged to think for themselves; they are given empirical knowledge and taught the meaning and value of the U.S. Constitution”?
What public schools are you talking about? Not in the USSA-no think for yourself, no value of the Constitution. Groupthink is taught and woe to the child who might suspect “die gedanken sind frei” - our thoughts are free. Woe to the child who might think, let alone voice, that the Constitution has been subverted and hi-jacked by a dominant majority that amends it via judicial fiat and not by its own professed method for amendment. Sure - you can think for yourself, child, on the homosexual issues so long as you think in accord with the fundamental dogmas of the fundamentalist GLADD militants. Good Catholic parents have a choice for religious schools from the two primary religions in America-send children to the schools of secular state religion [your public schools, Frank] or send children to Catholic schools. Guy McClung, San Antonio
The Church’s preoccupation with sex stems chiefly from three very different concerns of power or control: (1) control of priests and nuns; (2) control of lay persons; and (3) control of nations.
The control of nations is seen by the Church, as by many other institutions throughout history, as being a function of numbers. The Church, from the beginning, was concerned with “out-reproducing” other groups. Sex, to some extent, became a concern on those grounds.
Earlier religions and primitive groups exalted virginity as a status of perfection. The Catholic Church adopted this concept as a step toward producing clerical leadership for the masses. The self-control required for celibacy was looked upon as evidence of an inner strength not possessed by ordinary men and women. These celibates of the Church were promoted as men and women worthy of leadership positions in the community or people who should be respected, admired, and unquestionably followed. Then the Church bestowed a number of characteristics upon the priest to literally “create” leadership that was at the same time devoted, subservient, loyal, and obedient to the hierarchy. The priest is obliged to relinquish certain personal prerogatives that we all would agree are essential for responsible and responsive participation in American democratic life.
Control of the laity through exploitation of their sexuality was probably initially related to desire of the hierarchy to out-reproduce non-Christians. Thus, controls were placed on all human sex-related activities imaginable. Since maximum reproductive output was the goal, anything and everything that inhibited maximum output was made “immoral.”
1. Masturbation was forbidden. Making intercourse the only sexual outlet maximized reproduction.
2. Sex among the unmarried was made immoral since, on the average, women will have more exposure to intercourse and, in turn, be more likely to conceive and produce more children if all sex were limited to marriage.
3. Homosexuality was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.
4. Contraception, which had already been practiced for centuries, was made immoral because this practice reduces reproduction.
5. Abortion was made immoral because it obviously reduces reproduction.
6. Divorce was made immoral because it, too, often meant the termination of reproduction by women before they reached menopause.
7. Sex education has traditionally been immoral because it inevitably results in fertility control actions on the part of the couple. In a reluctant compromise, the Vatican now allows limited sex education which does not include information on any of the effective methods of fertility control, such as the modem methods of contraception and abortion. Education that includes effective fertility control measures continues to be immoral.
8. Prostitution was made immoral because it reduced the number of marriages and thus family formations and lessened sexual activity among married couples.
Nearly all sex-related acts that are considered immoral by the Church can be traced to the reduction of reproduction. Others not mentioned here are related to the Church’s absolutism, but nearly all can be traced to the “immoralities” listed above.
According to the Vatican, education is the function of the parent, not the state. However, nowhere does the Church leave the decisions regarding education to the parent (as is done in U.S. public education). The Church expects to exercise absolute authority in all matters related to the education of Catholic children. Catholic parents must send their children to Catholic schools when they are available under moral law. In other words, it is “immoral” to send Catholic children to public schools if Catholic schools are available. Catholic schools teach intolerance and oppose national solidarity when the Vatican is threatened.
In most public schools, children are encouraged to think for themselves; they are given empirical knowledge and taught the meaning and value of the U.S. Constitution. In Catholic schools, children are taught that they owe “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” They learn that the pope “should rule America in moral, educational, and religious matters,”
Freedom of thought in the official Catholic system means freedom to accept Catholic truth, not to reject it. The Catholic Almanac defines freedom of thought as follows: “liberty to think the truth. In our day the expression has come to mean liberty to think as one pleases; this is an error. Our rational nature demands that we think only the truth, whatever the impact of outside forces or our own appetites.” And, of course, supreme religious and moral truth comes to men only through the Church. Such truth is an ecclesiastical entity, unchanging and unchangeable, over which the Church has a permanent monopoly.
The justification given by the hierarchy for their acts of censorship is that the information, interpretation, finding, and so forth is “offensive” to the Catholic people. However, upon close examination, it becomes apparent that, in virtually every instance, that which is being censored actually threatens the power of the hierarchy. The hierarchy has vigorous concern for stamping out threats to its power that arise in the mass media.
Gays love to say that the culture is in trouble because marriage between heterosexuals is falling apart. Well, the sexual revolution is what has undermined marriage. It started with saying sex outside of marriage is fine. Then it condoned sex without kids (birth control and abortion are standard fair today as a result). So yes the family is in a tail spin. Homosexual sex is just another step in the so called sexual revolution. But it won’t be the last. Polygamy and gender confusion are the next. The solution is to return to God’s plan for humanity: Committed “MARRIAGE” between one man and one woman for life which is open to life and protects that life in the circle of the traditional family. But most brainwashed “modern” people will never understand that. The Church is the protector of that so the Church will not change, much as the deviant sexual practitioners would like. Let us all pray for one another. Once the culture implodes, the Church will return to the public square and restore the culture. There is nothing new under the sun.
@Frank why do you homos troll here? You don’t believe. You obviously haven’t a clue about Faith and what we can and cannot control. Take your antiChrist feel good elsewhere. We don’t troll your homo sites, so leave ours alone.
Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, Chief Duties of Christian Citizens, stated that Catholics owe “complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” The pope sits on the throne of St. Peter and, as television has shown Americans, is worshiped as a king. The infallible spokesman of God, he is also worshiped “as God Himself.” This is by intention.
Obedience is an essential qualification for securing and holding Church office. The mechanism for the screening of potential bishops is so thorough that there is virtually little possibility of the appointment of any bishop who is not subservient to his own bishop and to the hierarchy. Inside the closed cultural system, the priest is supplied at second hand with all the arguments against Catholicism and learns stereotypical answers. He takes his religion from others above him as a matter of duty because he has always been taught that submission to Church authority is the essence of “freedom.” Likewise, the members of the parish church are taught to be guided in turn by the priest, with what has been described by one Catholic writer as “the apron-string mentality which leaves the clergy to do all thinking for the faithful.”
This institutional arrangement of unquestioning obedience makes it nearly impossible for some faithful Catholics to participate in American democracy. We seldom seem to notice the frequency with which the hierarchy says one thing and does the opposite. Few question. The mass media avoid such findings.
The pope wants one thing for every nation: the freedom for each to “live its own life.” But, according to columnist Robert Blair Kaiser, this is just one more broken promise by the pope.[9] Freedom for each to live his or her own life does not include the use of contraception or anything else that in any way threatens the Church.
This election year the Roman Catholic Church will regularly pontificate on policy matters. And the media will report its views and actions as if they came endowed with a certain moral authority despite the fact that the Church itself has been found guilty of the most heinously immoral actions.
Virtually all of the Church’s most aggressive policy interventions relate to sex. (e.g. contraception, abortion, gay rights).
The Catholic Church even acts as if it believes that sex matters above anything else. It will not go to the mat to fight against poverty or injustice but it will pull out all the stops to prevent people of the same sex from marrying.
Stop killing unborn children in your country and the evil will not be so strong! Stop this demon of abortion!
Sodoma is on the bed of The Dead Sea! No life there, even birds don’t fly there!
Dear Jennifer-Yessssss! May I add? in reply to “Equal in dignity regardless of all our differences, abilities or inabilities, to contribute to society or not” - by definition, each human being, no matter who, no matter what state he/she is in, each made in the image of God and each today is God’s loving instrument in the life of someone else to help God bring that someone else back to Him; so each, no matter who, no matter baptized Catholic or not, can and does “contribute to society,” not only this world USA society, but the society of the Mystical Body Of Christ. Jennifer-if you do not already, you need to write and publish professionally-you have a gift. Guy McClung, San Antonio
This Pope would have a Church that means nothing. His glad handing and misbegotten populism are filling the church with titillated deviants of impious intent. What at all does anthroprological regression have to do with the teachings of the church or spirituality or morality? Is he attempting to define Church teachings by his imperfect view of the non science of anthropology or sociology? It is an errant teaching, if indeed he said something so dumb.
Luckily, we live in a country where the Pope has zero influence on civil politics, civil legislation, and CIVIL MARRIAGE. If he wants to throw his weight around tiny little Malta, let him have at it. Me and my husband are doing very well here in the good old US of A.
The genders are not the same and preference for one or the other reinforces this. They don’t look the same, they don’t act the same, and they don’t think the same. We’re not created the same, in size, shape, abilities, strengths and weaknesses etc. So why do we use the language of “same”? But humans are equal in dignity, from the first stage of conception to our last breath. Equal in dignity regardless of all our differences, abilities or inabilities, to contribute to society or not. We all need a healthy dose of humility to get over ourselves. Our lives are not about ourselves. New human beings can only be created from the two genders, undisputed science, and said human being, out of respect for their dignity, has a right to one person of each gender because of the gender differences and complimentary contributing portions to that new human physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually. (Babies are not like getting a puppy where you can decide whether or not you want to own it. More like cats…you don’t own them, they own you…babies own their parents. Marriage is supposed to enshrine this right.) The deterioration of marriage and family began with men who refused to treat their wives as Christ treats His church, like a servant leader. And women who refused to trust their husbands like the Church must trust and rely on God. Thus divorce looked like a “good” idea. With the acceptance of divorce came the notion that marriage is about my own interests (hogwash)and following “my heart” (hearts deceive). Children raised without fathers or mothers, grew up screwed up and continued the rapid acceleration of the deterioration of the family. Drugs, poverty, criminal and deviant behavior. The SSM crowd didn’t start this, we all did. The SSM crowd are my friends, who like myself grew up in broken homes and families, ruled by the false belief that “if you’re happy, your children will be happy” (selfish bullsh*t) philosophy. Everyone seeking out their own self-interests does not make for a better more charitable society and I’ve got the scars to prove it. It’s sad too, we’re all trying to compel charity out of each other, looking inward to our own interests and outward to others to change, but charity isn’t something that can be taken, only freely given. And changing others is not within our power. If only we could all be looking inward to change ourselves and outward to the interests of others. That is the charitable thing to do. This is “The Way.” Someday, this side of the veil, the tides will turn and this will be realized again (“thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”). Until then the Church, God’s representative on earth, will continue to be a beacon of truth (which is a port in the storm for sinful broken people such as myself) and an enemy of the state. Go Jesus, my best friend and Savior!!!!
@Kevin Rahe
I didn’t address the question of whether one man one woman marriage has some natural basis, as my comment was simply directed at the terminology the pope used, “anthropological regression,” which by using the word regression implies that recognition of same sex marriage is a step backwards on a continuum of progression, presumably a progression towards one man one woman marriage as a sole form of recognized matrimony.
I recognize that the argument is also being made here that the church’s position is one of holding fast to “the traditional meaning of marriage” and barring the gates against the barbarians. These two arguments are charmingly contradictory, since one implies a golden age adherence to one man one woman marriage while the other implies that the past was marked instead by a lack of “modern morality” as embodied in that form of marriage.
As to the “traditional definition of marriage” argument, it really boils down to whether you equate marriage with reproduction, since biologically it can’t be denied that reproduction genetically requires one sperm and one egg. But the argument’s adherents make the unwarranted assumption that reproduction and marriage are and “always have been” essentially the same issue. Anthropological studies have clearly demonstrated that there is no requirement that a society equate it’s concept of marriage with the choice of sexual partners and mechanics of reproduction. Clearly there was reproduction long before any society came up with the concept of “marriage,” and marriage has often been more important with regard to with questions of property and inheritance than it is with when and how people mate. Even in the modern post-industrial world, a large percentage of married people don’t confine their sexual activities exclusively to their spouse - whether that is good or bad is an ethical question and not a historical one.
The pro-ssm folks like to say they are following their natural instincts and ssm is natural. Well if you look at nature, it is natures rule to go forth and multiply to protect the species. It takes a male and female. In the animal kingdom same sex attracted individuals cease to be since they can not procreate and can not form family units for survival. They cease to be since it’s survival of the fittest. So natures laws are the survival of the family unit for procreation and protection which ssm lacks. It’s just biology, the way God intended it to be. ssm will go the way of the dinosaur in a generation.
@Joe Cermak you can’t have it both ways. You must fight your proclivity—not put your own proclivity before the Word of God. And you do not have a right to change God’s word to fit your own perversion.
@nancy D. This Pope is seriously doing the last blow to the culture of Christ. he’s too busy becoming popular with the antiChrist crowd. And EWTN and all the rest can’t get enough of him and his popularity with the anti Christ crowd. They celebrate it. Gaining the world and losing their soul.
@claude
‘I being Maltese myself’ can also say that woe to the Church if it does not cause ‘social unrest’ to you and your ilk. Christ was crucified because he caused trouble by telling the truth to power , and Pope Francis and Bishop Scicluna are doing precisely that. Your ‘1 in 10 families in Malta have gay members’ is a homosexual pipe dream.
For those who “want the church to changeI” I say find another church. The Romab Catholic Church is the only one established by Christ himself & the Pope is not about to change the basic tenets of the faith. So, don’t expect the Church to change. There are plenty of “churches” that have no problem with deviant, immoral, unhealthy life choices. That’s why God gave us free will.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
What the pope refuses to address is CCC 2359
In fact, CCC 2359 is missing from my United States Catechism for Adults, 2006 Edition. The question is why?
Herbert Spencer, I would suggest that in opposing recognition of same-sex “marriage” the Church isn’t defending a “forward march of social evolution” at all. In fact, by merely defending the dominant attribute of marriage that has been there since the beginning - which isn’t incorporated in same-sex “marriage” at all - it’s much more doing the opposite.
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/1834/popes_yearend_address_to_curia_whoever_defends_god_is_defending_man.aspx#.UsZXYsu9KSP
No legitimate anthropologist would seriously entertain the notion of an “anthropological regression” whether in reference to some form of marriage or for that matter any other cultural phenomenon, including, say, the rituals or practices of an organized religion. The terminology suggests a very antiquated and long discredited view of cultural history that implies a “forward march of social evolution.”
Even if we ignore the inherent philosophical flaw with this concept and take it at face value, there is no basis other than historical coincidence to claim a correlation between any specific sexual practices or forms of marriage and any other traits that either you or Pope Francis may choose to define as indicators of “social progress.” Unless of course you take a circular path and define “one man one woman” monogamy as both the necessary precursor for and the proof of social progress.
If this report is true, is this the Pope’s scientific opinion? What does that mean? It has nothing to do with sacramental marriage or the past position of the Church. The degeneration incited by government dictated Socialism will destroy all personal liberty and dignity. The Pope has certainly made a mess of the Church and a valley of tears awaits him.
As regards government recognition of marriage or society’s acceptance of it, I suggest that man’s traditions regarding the institution do carry more weight than the special significance a particular religion might add to it, which I would expect to be relevant only to those who accept that religion. The only thing my own religion can claim regarding the practice of marriage in the wider world is the refinement that it should consist of only one member of each sex, which increased the status of women in comparison to the way marriage was often practiced in the old world.
As regards the origin of what human beings generally consider the “right thing to do,” the broader view is that God’s law is “written on our hearts” as the Bible puts it. In other words, citing anthropology doesn’t take God out of the picture at all.
Kevin, you assert that a man-made justification for heterosexual marriage carries more weight than the actual institution of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage by your Creator, Almighty God? You’re not the first to think you can be equal to or even above God. Lucifer thought the same. Pride comes before the fall.
“The RCC must change or it will be left in the dust…”
Well, mainstream Protestant denominations have changed and are now mostly empty shells of their past prominence and largely irrelevant on the social and civic stages.
It is obviously clear there is no need for the RCC to fear being left in the dust.
Pope Francis is precisely correct on this point, and it’s something I’ve essentially been arguing myself lately - that the merely anthropological case against acceptance of same-sex “marriage” is stronger than any argument based on religion could be.
Despite all the permutations of marriage throughout history that are regularly bandied about as evidence that marriage “changes,” there is a dominant attribute or common thread among them, which is that they involve someone of each sex. Even the idea that marriage is merely a commitment between two people doesn’t find as much support in anthropology as the argument that it involves someone of each sex.
If God, in His infinite love, mercy and wisdom, favored sodomite or lesbian unions then He would have entrusted the infant Jesus, His dearly beloved Son, to a same-sex couple. Did God do that? Absolutely not! God instituted the Sacrament of Marriage - one man and one woman. What pride, what vanity to think one knows better than Almighty God. Stop worshiping your egos and pleasure centers and start worshipping your Creator.
What’s with the idiotic questions?! Asking what’s wrong with sodomy, lesbianism, or sodomite unions is like asking what’s wrong with strolling into the middle of a busy highway and doing the twist. STUPID! Why are sexual perverts constantly jamming NCR threads? There are plenty of web sites out there that cater to those who love sexual perversion more than God…please go there. Even if you got the entire RC Church to worship at the altar of sodomy it wouldn’t prevent God from drop kicking sodomites into Hell if they refused to sincerely repent prior to death. Repent and believe the good news - the Gospel of Jesus Christ!
The notion, entertained by its supporters, that SSM will produce a unisex institution of marriage, with identical rights and incidents for same-sex and opposite-sex couples is false in fact.
Despite the recent efforts of the French National Assembly, a leading jurist has analysed the result of their labours as follows:
“It is necessary, since the law of 19th May 2013 (2013-404) opening marriage to persons of the same sex, to distinguish two marriages
1. The union freely agreed to, of a man and a woman in order to found a family. Only this marriage between a man and a woman affects filiation (Title VII of Book I of the Civil Code) [This is a reference to Art 314 of the Civil Code, “The child conceived or born during the marriage has the husband for father”]
2. The union, freely agreed to, between two persons of the same sex, which permits them, within the limits of the appreciation of the interests of the child by the administration and then the judge, to adopt (Title VIII of Book I of the Civil Code) the child of one of them, or a ward of the State or, subject to what is permitted by conventions between states, a foreign child.”
Marriage equality, even in the hands of its proponents, reveals itself to be an illusion.
Anthropological Regression, homophobe, gay rights, same-sex marriage, man-boy love, etc… Baptized catholics who have adopted this type of language designed to subvert divine revelation and practice or condone sexual immorality have sold out cheap. They have chosen human respect, hedonism, and/or the empty promises of satan and rejected the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Unrepented Sodomy or Lesbianism condemn souls to the eternal fire of Hell made for the devil and his angels. Any who use double talk to confuse or in any other way strive to deny this are LIARS like their father satan the father of all lies.
Marriage is the social sanctioning and recognition of the sexual unions of men and women; the organic mechanism by which society orders, structures, promotes, protects and supports mating, motherhood, sexual relations and procreation, rooted in the protracted and intense needs of mothers and infants. It is anthropological, physical and socio-biological in character, not legal or political. It is not a subjective and malleable construct, it is one of two objective ways that people become physically related to one another, the other one being through birth.
The state has no power over the substance of marriage, which remains outside its purview. All the state can do is commit ontological fraud by creating a legal definition which conflicts with its objective nature and purpose.
A child told me that he had two Mommies and then asked “When do I get a Daddy?”
What will he ask when he is older? WHO is my Daddy?
1. A sperm bank
2. An anonymous donor
3. ?
Pope Francis, in his book On Heaven and Earth, dismisses the destructive nature of same-sex sexual unions that are “private”, do not include children, and are not called marriage.
All of us have disordered inclinations of various type and degree, some more difficult to overcome than others; it is not a sin to have a disordered inclination, it is a sin to not desire to overcome our disordered inclinations and become transformed through God’s Gift of Grace and Mercy.
1) Stop dumping on gay people. Some are genuinely and naturally incline toward the same sex - that is not a sin and is not the root of all evil any more than some’s tendency to judge and bully them.
2) The church’s position on same sex relations is clear, it is based on God’s design of pro-creation.
3) Being gay is not a mortal sin, nor probably is a sexual act.
4) The risk and the church’s fundamental position against gay marriage however is based on sound church logic. If gay sex is a sin and gay marriage is a public commitment not just to the love and caring between the couple, but a commitment to that (sinful) sexual relationship, then the marriage becomes a commitment to sin (essentially creating a mortal sin). Should the church condone gay marriage then they would be condoning mortal sin.
5) For this reason expecting #4 to change without #2 changing does not make sense.
.
God gives us each free will, so ultimately you must make your own decision, but what I see is that many good Catholics look to the church to condone their weakness (cheating, stealing, adultery, lust, greed) and when the church cannot condone it, they get mad.
Yet in some ways we really need the church to continue to point us to the truth and we need to, over time, decide how we will make our choice - continue in our sin, or fight it.
@Tom in AZ An exclusive, enduring, and committed love between two adults is the necessary component in a marriage. Sadly, the ‘marital act’, as you put it, does not require a marriage or even love. And yet many loving, married couples are unable or choose not to have children, but they are nevertheless married.
With the exception of @Skeleton Horse I haven’t read anything approaching substance. I had presumed that the minions of the NC Register and EWTN would have greater ability to encounter the culture in which I dwell. Here in Chicago Cardinal George has taken to saying that we can’t square a circle, can’t make something something else even if we wish it so, and can’t make marriage other than what it has been since forever, regardless of both church and state. Jesus made what was already present a sacrament, the state [ wait - the Roman Empire???] determined to protect it. Ergo I can’t marry the man I desire to be my husband. And yet, and yet….But it just doesn’t compute. The various forms of marriage in the Bible, the long participation of the Church in all manner of state and vicious marriage brokering and annulling, and the testament of world cultures makes our “natural law” understanding of marriage a minority report at best. How can my fundamental self-understanding as a gay man be disordered when it is natural to me as breathing- I know, it isn’t, according to the Church. And as I view my congregation - where are the children???? Where is the call to EVERY unmarried Christian to be chaste? I can only say again that I will not take the rap for the fall of western civilization, nor can I consent with integrity to any analysis that tells me that my husband and I are on the highway to hell. I don’t meet the standard criteria for mortal sin. So - again - help me understand why I should live as a chaste Christian and a single man until the Kingdom comes - please. Oh yeah….I do believe straight Christians may also practice buggery….a lot. It’s Friday night - cue Gaga’s “Born this Way” and I’ll see you at Mass….
@Skeleton Horse God said it. End of argument. Every single religion rejects it because it perverts nature. End of argument. If you reject God’s word,Repent!
@ D C
The study you quote, known commonly as the Regnerus study, has been and continues to be rubbished and debunked with respect to gay parenting. It is rapidly descending into the same category of “Junk Science” as much of the other academic propagandizing that has been generated for the ‘anti gay rights’ movement.
He himself has acknowledged it to have not been about gay parenting.
The study is itself currntly being scrutinised in the courts in Florida.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/mark-regnerus-same-sex-parents
@Robert Shay: Except that obviously all slaves are intrinsically capable of being free. No same-sex couple is actually capable of having sex—one of the organs involved, in the only things they’re capable of doing, is a part of the digestive tract, not a sex-organ. No serious biologist would class that as “mating”, so why pretend they can constitute mated pairs? Saying same-sex couples are married, when they objectively cannot perform the marital act, is not like freeing slaves, it’s like appointing a horse to the Senate. Was Nero not insulting the Senate? He sure thought he was.
Marriage is no more devalued by loving same-sex couples being allowed to marry than freedom was devalued by slaves being set free.
Well, perhaps the pope seeing how his words are used may decide to use his words more carefully, assuming accuracy is his intent in its “Ignatian” way or however it is spelled as a made-up word. I mean, to read the reports it seems he is “surprised” about the current well known functioning of the secular left, odd-ball female Rev’s notwithstanding. Then, perhaps like me, he is not the brightest bulb in the box, probably not, given the illegal nature of bright bulbs these days it would seem politically intolerant to be a brighter bulb. Somehow though I find it most amazing that the extreme swift advances of the enclosing darkness in this society seems to go so unnoticed by so many. On the upside while they are currently waving palms at Francis as he rides his humble mule or Fiat around, I am heartened to know that reality has a way of setting in and, with history as a guide, one can go from adulation to crucifixion by a loud voice vote of social and political activists. I am not sure but perhaps it is still early in the week for him, but soon it will be mid-week and then comes a Friday, at least in the media. Should it occur, let us pray that the resurrected media version of Francis will be able to bi-locate his communications in a more swiftly accurate form, thereby reaching the little flock that remains, and make no mistake, baptismal counts, Anglo-catholic-presbyter-baptist-luther-wikians and Catholics notwidthstandng, the flock is really really small. There are however countless “guests” at dinner in every parish, and they like much but not all of the food, you can tell by seeing what kind of food is served. Mostly it is warm fuzzy food without substance, it leaves one hungry. Then there are the sloppy and vulgar table manners where indeed the crumbs and much more are fed to dogs - ‘mostly the two legged kind. Alas, these dogs do not beg from the Lord, these dogs steal. And the shepherds? Many, if not most give the howling dogs what they crave. The dogs howl so loudly that indeed there is no silence with which to contemplate the meal. And while these dogs make and even roll in their own mess, there is no master to stick their nose in it and swat their snouts, for the stink of spiritial feces is all the norm and so constant the nose no longer works - for most. Or perhaps ignorance is indeed bliss?
Yeah, I don’t think most people would say gay marriage is alone responsible for the decline of the West, but it’s one of the mile markers. The problem is that without patriarchy and marriage, everyone is on the short end of the stick. It’s not that patriarchy and civilization are merely related, it’s more that they are one and the same thing. Patriarchy being defined as a father being legally bound to his legitimate children. That legal innovation ended milennia of grass-hut matriarchy and unleashed all kinds of wealth and creative energy of men who for milennia had been basically just hanging out in the sun and having sex with lots of women, while the mothers scratched out a living for their broods. It’s possible to preserve patriarchy (civilization) while also not enslaving people or murdering homosexuals or putting little kids in factories, etc. The problem is gay marriage and divorce supporters are cutting off the branch we’re all sitting on.
“Homosexuality” is an edifice of depravity built up with bricks of sin, one after another, during the course of a person’s impressionable youth. A “gay” life is short and sad. God help our children who fall under the influence of the perverted LGBT lobby and of lemmings (like some commentators above) who, having abandoned the eternal anchor or Truth, drift along the currents of moral relativism.
I am laughing. Thanks for the witty response. I do see what you mean, but my left-leaning soul rejects it. “Patriarchal marriage” and the world we know may be related, but how about all the folks on the short end of that stick? Greater threats, besides the G/L couples I know - with their adopted special needs kids btw - to traditional marriage seem to be unbridled capitalism, celibacy and vowed chastity [ha!], slavery, and oft-married Republicans. The west has been undone by divorce and contraception already - we are late to the game and shouldn’t shoulder the blame. It seems to me that heterosexuls are responsible for the demise of marriage and the west. Just sayin….
At the end of the day I still don’t undestand how gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. Please help me understand.
It undermines marriage in a society/civilization-wide sense. It’s anthropologically regressive, see? Civilization only exists because of patriarchal marriage. When marriage is redefined as not primarily relating to children (gay marriage) or redefined as not permanent (divorce), marriage is compromised and in the long term undermined because more and more people will behave according to the new philosophical understanding of marriage. When people say gaymarriage undermines marriage, they’re speaking in broad, civilizational terms, trends, etc. They’re not saying that two homosexuals signing a piece of paper and sharing an apartment in San Francisco will somehow wreck a marriage in Idaho.
SAVE THE WORLD through the exercise of true APOSTLESHIP.
All aberrations of this sort in our world is due to the failure of Religions especially it is due to the failure of Christianity which is made in the guise of promoting the cause of Jesus the Lord.
Jesus the Lord spoke of himself as THE WAY and showed himself as THE WAY. This WAY can be presented to people of the world for their salvation only by those who exercise the authority of true APOSTLESHIP. Let us pray that Pope Francis starts doing it unlike so many others.
Religions try to perpetuate themselves instead of mediating God-experience. What we see in the KINGDOM OF GOD Jesus the Lord brought to us on earth is the DOMINANCE of God-experience in JESUS THE LORD as seen in the “Acts of the Apostles.
True God-experience the one that comes to us in Jesus the Lord is: APOSTOLIC EXPERIENCE as we see it in the “Acts of the Apostles”.
When God in Jesus the Lord comes DARKNESS (SIN) flees. Evils in the world disappear and LIGHT shines, for JESUS IS THE LIGHT OF THE WORLD; HE IS OUR SALVATION FROM SINS OF ALL SORTS.
MORE OF GOD IN JESUS THE LORD AND LESS OF RELIGION(S). THIS IS THE NEED OF THE HOUR - whether Christianity or any other MUST DISAPPEAR, for religions are man-made traps KEEPING US AWAY FROM JESUS THE LORD.
Jesus the Lord, DID HE GIVE US RELIGION? BUT he gave us a Church LEAD by his TRUE APOSTLES. Are our Bishops acting as true APOSTLES? Where is their AUTHORITY in practice?
Only true APOSTLES of Jesus the Lord can bring about such a situation where SINFUL LIVING HAS NO PLACE.
To spread THE KINGDOM OF GOD ON EARTH Jesus the Lord went on promoting Apostleship : Look at the 72 disciples PROMOTED AS APOSTLES, St.Paul and others like him. If Apostleship is not promoted EVIL RELIGIONS will take control of the world and for this ‘CHRISTIANS’ will be responsible.
People pray to John Paul II for wisdom!
I was not a big fan of John Paul II but he was not dogmatic. He was simply teaching what all the Popes since Leo XIII have said Marriage is a sacred institution which if not protected will spell the end our Western Civilization. Pope Emeritus Benedict told the Chris this very issue a few years back in 2010. Dogmatic? I think not. Its the truth. As far as why SSM or gay marriage is a threat because we have seen it being forced on entire states and countries against the will of the people. Also now we have see with the Duck Dynasty mess shows that if you speak out on just the lifestyle you will be bullied and harassed and even sued or lose your job. FTR most members of the LGBT are not even interested in SSM at all.
People do you still believe in God?
If YES don’t be afraid, but remember the fate of Sodoma.
Be afraid of sin, it destroys your happiness.
People pray to JOHN Paul II for wisdom.
When God created Adam and Eve, no doubt He had in mind procreation. The word marriage implies just that. Homosexuals came into this world with a genetic flaw. They want to be acknowledged as ‘normal.’ In the eyes of God that are loved, but society has placed an ugly stigma on them, making them feel unwanted or unloved. This is wrong. To compensate, they feel by legalizing their union, that are accepted. I have known a few homosexual friends to be very loving, caring and kind. The Church accepts them with the provision they are chaste. In our over sexed society, abstinence, sacrifice unheard of. When Pope Francis said, Who am I to judge.” That applies to me too.
So it begins, just like when in the press, charismatic, athletic and cool Karol Wojtyla metamorphosed into dodgy, intellectually decrepit and dogmatic Pope John Paul II in the span of year or less. I trust the Holy Spirit more than the spirit of the world which probably has a lot to do with why I am fine with Pope Francis.
It is not the popes law but Gods natural law that has provided us with guidance for over two thousand years. It is there for us to try to follow. We are all self absorbed with our own wants.
It is nothing new.
Is it not true we are all born with burdens and cry out in despair?
Alcohol, sex problems, gambling etc
We have tendencies. It is true.
Some have blindness, MS,diseases and have to live with these burdens.
We must look inside ourselves for the truth. We cannot have everything we want.
Thank God for these guidelines. They are very hard to follow but we must try including myself.
In a society where we think we are so natural , eating natural foods,exercising etc we are using chemicals by the millions everyday to alter our bodies, to have chemical abortions over the counter for young people. We will have new diseases.
Please God guide. We have choices to make in our own relationship with god
This gay Catholic loves the Holy Father, as i loved the Holy Fathers before him, but has been watching with a wary eye his track record and current comments on homosexulaity. At the end of the day I still don’t undestand how gay marriage undermines traditional marriage. Please help me understand. At the end of the day I simply cannot understand the condemnation of acting on my nature as a gay man. What’s the big deal? I must be post-modern. The condemnations seem ridiculous if not absurd, and those loudest in condemnation seem, quite frankly, pretty gay to me. Happy Epiphany to all.
He added: “I told him that the promoters [of the bill] quote his words: ‘If a person is gay and seek the Lord and have good will, who am I to judge?’ but they don’t quote his words from 2010 when he was still Cardinal Archbishop of Buenos Aires. The Pope repeated the phrase of his letter of 2010: ‘It’s an anthropological regression.’”
This is inane. Of course they don’t quote his words from 2010. He wasn’t pope then. And why is his supposed restatement of this in a “private conversation”? The so-called Interview with an Atheist was supposed to be a private conversation but the Vatican had no problem linking to it on the Vatican website…until they saw the danger and took it down.
@Rev Sarah Flynn
A liar? What is purpose of Marriage?
Pope Francis refuses to call a spade a spade. Same sex marriage is an abomination against God. It is a SIN. Sin ia a word the pope doesn’t like to say in regards to anything concerning homosexuality.
@Nancy Kiterman,
Amen.
Anthropological regression means it turns back the clock on civilization and slowly undermines and destroys civilization. The patriarchal family (one man + woman/women+ children he sires) is “the building block of civilization.” So no-fault divorce (aka serial monogamy) is also anthropologically regressive. Civilization is patriarchy. It only exists because fathers are legally bound and have legal rights to their children. In other words, a father has a legal right to control his wife’s sexuality. Feminism wants to eliminate this right, so feminism is also anthropological regression, or a civilization destroyer.
The Holy Father is heroic in the eyes of faithful Catholics. The secular press would love it if Pope Francis said SSM was OK. We have biblical evidence that men with men and women with women is not OK. The church must stand strong and not cave into going along with what some Catholics would like to have happen. Man does not have the right to change God’s laws or to reinterpret the Bible to suit themselves. It would be a lot easier for Pope Francis but leading the church is not about what is easy. Thank God we have a strong leader. Pray for Pope Francis.
Jeff, in who’s dust is the Church going to be left in? Is the Church supposed to keep up with the world’s values?
Rev Sarah Flynn - “The Pope and Conservatives talk as if there were actual sociological proof that same sex marriages are bad for children in such families. No such proof exists of that claim.”
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What about this study?
http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/new-study-on-homosexual-parents-tops-all-previous-research
The Pope and Conservatives talk as if there were actual sociological proof that same sex marriages are bad for children in such families. No such proof exists of that claim. What studies show is that children do better in two parent families. Gender is not a factor. There is also no proof that same sex marriages result in unstable families. Heterosexual unions have a 50% failure rate before ss marriage was permitted. There is no evidence that the failure rate of same sex marriages will exceed that of heterosexual unions. On this subject the Pope and Conservative Catholics should not go looking for the splinter in the eyes of gay and lesbian couples while there is such a huge log in the eyes of hetero couple marriages.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Posted by Nycdreamr on Friday, Jan 3, 2014 11:02 AM (EST):
How come whenever someone quotes the pope in a way that the far right considers objectionable NCR immediately comes out with stories about the unreliability of second hand information but when an auxiliary bishop of a puny island nation relays a sliver of his alleged “conversation” supporting far right beliefs that’s published as if it were gospel? Try a little objectivity, people.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Is it not obvious? When words are clear and no vagueness no one complains. Pretty simple. Also, when the words are consistent with Catholic teaching in an unambiguous way, no one complains. See? Not hard to fathom at all.
All Fudnamentalist Sexual Militants, including, GLADD militants, this guy must be silenced or there will be a debate and discussion about this, and the facts will be aired to a public that has, to date, been fooled. And we must boycott all the Pope Dynasty merchandise at WalMart. Be sure to add “hate” to every comment and “phobic” to every word you can. We must destroy his right to speak. Let him worship his phobic hateful God behind closed doors. We can’t win peoples’ hearts and minds and get them to vote this in, so talk about basic “rights.” Whatever you do, do not respond to comments that say the right to incest, the right to bestiality, the right to pedophilia, the right to pederasty and the right to necrophilia are on the way. And vote Democrat!
I came across this article by coincidence… and I being Maltese myself all I can say is that the Church is causing social unrest over here! Malta up until a few years ago used to be a one complete religious county and now cause of the church holding back on such issues many are taking this on a bad note and put the church on the side… not to mention that 1 out of 10 families in Malta have gay members and such comments only cause hardship and unnecessary arguments and stuff. Long story short, the church is basically driving full speed ahead into a wall. Considering how things are changing day by day , its impressive to see this religious nation turn into just ‘Social and moral support’ rather following religion’s rules… which by the way I am one of those many who are now seeing the church as being something that causes trouble in society ... which is sad ... but well you have to move on in life and be strong.
How come whenever someone quotes the pope in a way that the far right considers objectionable NCR immediately comes out with stories about the unreliability of second hand information but when an auxiliary bishop of a puny island nation relays a sliver of his alleged “conversation” supporting far right beliefs that’s published as if it were gospel? Try a little objectivity, people.
I could not find a clear explanation of “antropological regression” I am expecting so many will speak for the pope. Also I am bit puzzled at “Anti Value”. Against what? we are Catholic. Can we speak as Catholic? I understand that my God Father said “Multifly ” !”. It requires man and woman. The hardest pain in this drama is children under that confussed family structure. My heart cry out for them! Evil try to distory Marriage, and Priesthood. We have to join our prayers for the protection of these sacrements.
Jeff,
Truth is truth no matter the age. You should come out of darkness and into light.
@Paddy,
Your comment suggests a “theirs versus ours” mentality that can somehow coexist side-by-side in peaceful harmony. Sadly, because of anti-discrimination laws and certain groups bent on using them like a club to beat dissenters into submission, we may not soon reach any sort of “detente” where we can “agree to disagree.” Rather, I sense some early rumblings of reviving the old Diocletian policy that “All loyal citizens must make public sacrifice to Caesar.”
I work for a very large company that you would definitely recognize, and our company has no direct connection to the wedding industry. However, this last year, our president “encouraged” all employees to attend Gay Pride festivals. (The only similar “encouragement” that I recall the president giving was the encouragement to donate to the United Way, but that “encouragement” was accompanied by a video showing the community services the United Way facilitates. Maybe, for Gay Pride encouragement, the president could have shown us that Michael Douglas-Matt Damon movie about Liberace that the studio would not release last year….)
This year we were “encouraged” to attend Gay Pride; next year, who knows?
Same sex marriage is not about equality, it’s about rubbing people’s face in it. The children are the ones most affected by all this and it is proven that they do best in a stable family with a father and a mother. That isn’t always possible but laws which promote the break up of family (divorce, abortion, SSM) all undermine society and lead to real problems. We need laws which promote the benefits of the community over the individual to help restore the balance. As a committed Catholic I consider my sacramental marriage to be the ‘real’ one and the civil marriage to be simply a paper trail. SSM gives a good reason not to bother with civil marriage as it no longer means anything and instead just to stick to a church wedding.
Bishop Scicluna is a long time conservative and one who continues to live in the past. The RCC must change or it will be left in the dust and that would be a very sad thing.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.