I’m hoping & praying he knows something about the election outcome & is acting preemptively before the new GOP administration comes in.

Kathleen, the slant of your response to this article is most unhelpful

Actually, I’m really pretty much OK with Kathleen’s comment.  With some prayer and a bit of luck he’d be looking for a job on Wednesday morning anyway.  Ambassador Mary Ann Glendon has a nice ring to it.

Posted by Ifeanyi on Monday, Nov 5, 2012 10:08 AM (EST):Kathleen, the slant of your response to this article is most unhelpful”
******************
I just hope it’s true….My fingers are crossed.
:)

The Obama administration ahs no radical views on abortion or same-sex marriage.

Re abortion:  Roe v. Wade has been the law in the US since 1973.  No POTUS can overturn Roe ve. Wade.  The US Suprme Court will have to do that.  Yes, Presidents do sometimes have an opportunity to replace a retiring justice.  But many Presidents nominate candidates to the Court thinking the person will vote in particular ways on constitutional issues before the Court, only to be greatly surprised!  Think of Justice David Souter, appointed by the George HW Bush.

Same-sex marriage:  This is about the 14th Amendment rights of all US citizens.  To deny gay people the right to marry is a violation of the 14th Amendment and in noway impacts freedome of religion in the US and in no way harms heterosexual marriage or harms children.  Tos ya otherwise tis to buy into illogical, unfounded, unscientific, irrational and bigoted views.  The RCC is immoral in its attempts to deny equal rights to all American citizens.  If this is a radical view, then the US Constitution is a radical document.  The RCC needs to stop trying to interfere with the US Constitution.

For the voted upon and approved (in quotes) DEMOCRATIC and REPUBLICAN platforms along with Pope Benedict’s statements on intrinsic evils - go to:
http://www.ewtn.com/voting.asp
In addition:
It does matter who is elected PRESIDENT.
It does matter who is in the SENATE and the HOUSE.
The MEXICO CITY POLICY, is an intermittent United States government policy that requires all non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive federal funding to refrain from performing or promoting abortion services as a method of family planning with non-US government funds in other countries.
The policy has not been in effect since January 23, 2009 due to Obama.
Since 1973, USAID has followed the Helms Amendment ruling, banning use of US Government funds to provide abortion as a method of family planning anywhere in the world.
The policy is a political flashpoint in the abortion debate, with REPUBLICAN administrations adopting it and DEMOCRATIC administrations rescinding it.
The policy was:
1)  enacted by REPUBLICAN President Ronald Reagan in 1984,
2)  rescinded by DEMOCRATIC President Bill Clinton in January 1993,
3)  re-instituted in January 2001 as REPUBLICAN President George W. Bush took office,
4)  and rescinded January 23, 2009, 2 days after DEMOCRATIC President Barack Obama took office.
Follow the money.  This is the reason that Planned Parenthood wants Obama re-elected.  They want our tax dollars for their murders.
Only Catholic heretics and Catholic schismatics can support OBAMA and his Administration.

Lisa, he voted against protecting infants who survive abortion. He wants partial-birth abortion to be legal. He wants free abortion for all, on demand. He is against a ban on sex-selective abortion.

How is his position not radical?

And, by the way, perhaps you’ve not noticed, but other religions are against abortion, and others are against gay marriage. This isn’t just a Catholic issue.

Should we remove our Catholic heritage from our vote entirely, and stop thinking about the poor? The migrants and immigrants? Abuse and murder victims? The environment? Schools and children’s nutrition?

You don’t get to pick and choose which part of us is “allowed” to have a say in civic matters. We are consumately Catholic.

@Lisa- Up until now, we were just thumbing through our Bibles trying to resolve these matters and didn’t realize it was all plainly stated in the U.S. Consitution.

You belittle your readers by explaining the separation of powers. If you don’t think Presidents can have any affect on Roe vs. Wade, the Supreme Court, and abortion laws in the country then, by all means, be consistent and vote for Pro-life candidates. What harm can that do to your cause? I’ll wait.

In regards to same sex marriage, opponents like myself are supporting the status quo which means we aren’t denying anyone anything. In this case, the burden is on those attempting to change the definition and practice of marriage to include same sex couples, something which no other civilization in history, pre-Christian or non-Catholic, has ever entertained until recent history.

We are the ones not ignoring history, jurisprudence, philosophy, ethics, human biology & anatomy, and gender so you can tout your intelligence somehwere else. Homosexuals aren’t being denied any marriage rights and limitations that other citizens don’t share. After all, I don’t have the right to marry a man, or three women, or any combination thereof. The fact is that we already have marriage equality in America. Polygamy is prohibited and any adult man can marry any adult woman, straight or homosexual, so long as the union is consentual and there are no impediments to the marriage.

I sincerely hope you think twice before you allow your misinformed and prejudiced position to forever label an entire group of people as bigots and immoral. If people didn’t have strong reasons to support their views they wouldn’t be willing to have to deal with the divisive and oftentimes prejudiced rejection of their peers

Lisa Kaiser, you’re at it again? Don’t you ever get tired of your nonsense. You spew hatred everywhere you go. You want the Church to stop preaching its gospel so you can fill the void with your wickedness? I think it’s people like you who should stop interfering with the constitution and everything else for that matter. Repent!

KM,

I am not interfering with anything,  my opinions are not sins that I need to repent of, I an not wicked I am not talking nonsense of “spewing hatred” everywhere.  Jesus was silent about gay people and abortion.  So there is nothing “Gospel” in what the RCC is teaching—which is hatred and bigotry.

The Church that set pedophiles priests loose on children and young people and then lied about it, covered it up, should not be telling other people how to live their lives.  It is the RCC that should repent and stop interfering withthe lives of American women and the lives of gay Americans.

Lisa Kaiser, what school did you go to? It’s clear you do not much about the Gospel.

KM,

Please provide citations from any the four gospels where Jesus said anything about abortion or about gay people.  If you think Jesus mentioned either of these topics, YOU do not know much about the Gospels.

The “Jesus was silent about…” argument is laughably ludicrous. He was also silent about archery, rifles, cannons, nuclear weapons,... PETA, the Supreme Court, the existence of the American continent…—to try to make an argument from silence cannot be considered a serious case.
And I am quite honestly getting tired of people raising the tragedy of the past decades. (Note I called it a tragedy! I am not trying to sweep it away.) Look deeper into the history of what happened and you will discover the wrongdoing was not so much pedophile action as action, mostly homosexual, with vulnerable individuals too young for a proper relationship. Regardless of age, the tragedy was of priests who did not take their commitment to celibacy seriously who entered relationships that were, and are, immoral. To attempt to use this argument against the Church’s teaching is illogical (straw-man argument, if I remember my logician class correctly)
So, Lisa, you need to try some better logical arguments. You have failed to present anything convincing or rational.

Yes, Lisa, where did Jesus say it is a sin to marry your sister or your father? Where did he say that pigs can’t fly? He didn’t NEED to say some things.

And surely you don’t believe that Jesus would have EVER said it is okay to kill unborn children? That Jesus would ever give his blessing to ripping a little baby apart piece by piece or to stabbing it’s skull?

I am just saying that no one should make the claim that the RCC is preaching against abortion, birth control and same-sex marriage because it is teachings from the Gospels.  We all know these teachings are not from the Gospels. The RCC has unhealthy, immature, illogical, irrational ,unscientific, bigoted attitudes toward women, sex & sexuality.  That is why it cannot stand to see that American woen have the right to control their own lives and that gay people are also people who have rights in the USA.  These unehalthy immature, etc attitudes toward women, sex and sexuality are on full display with the ongoing pedophile priest fiasco.  And its ongoing—note the recent conviction of Bishop Finn for acts committed in 2010. NOte that Bishop Finn is a convicted criminal who cannot by the rule os the Dallas agreement engage in contact with childre and note that the Pope ihas failed to force Finn, a convicted criminal, to resign. Note that the Dioces of Green Bay (Ithink) will be going on trial soon for recent acts of covering up the past of one of its priests.  Note the ongoing pedophile priest problems in Philiddelphia.

I stand by my assertion that such actions by the RCC totally negates any moral authority the RCC may wish to assert and totally negates any credibility the RCC may with to assert in telling other people how to live or in trying to tell the USA how to enact federal or state laws

The issue witht he pedophile priests is NOT homosexuality.  The problem Is that the RCC encouraged into the seminary ordained emotionally and sexually immature men who have no idea about how to enter into or sustain a realtionship with a healthy mature adult.  They are men whose emitonal development stopped in adolescence and they can only related to adolescent or younger children.  The issue is flawed priestly formation by the RCC.

Of course the Church teaches against abortion, contraception, and homosexual marriage because they go against Christianity.

Lisa, by your logic, then the actions of Judas totally negate any moral authority of Jesus.

Grace T,

Jesus was an observant Jew.  The Torah forbids marriage bwtween siblings. So this was something he and his community knew and abided by.  However the Torah and the Gospels are silent on the topics of abortion and same-sex marriage.  Thse topics are topics the RCC teaches about, but neither the NT or the Hebrew scriptures taught.  The RCC just want people to think that.

Grace T,

SSupposedly Christianity was founded by Jesus (really it was founded by Peter and Paul).  Neither Peter, nor Paul nor Jesus talked about, in way, the topics of abortion, contraception, or abortion.  The teachings of the RCC are NOT the teachings of Jesus, Peter or Paul. They are teachings of men who want people to believe they speak for God, whilce in fact they do not.  The certainly contraception and same-sex marriage do not go against the teachings of God.  They may go against the teachingso fthe RCC—which is a totally separate thing.

And your point about Jesus and Judas is totally off-point, irrelevant and has noting to do with the flawed priestly formation of the RCC.  Judas did not go to seminary, did not take vows, did not call himself a pries (and was not a priest).  No one covered up for the acts of Judas, no one hid Judas’ records and lied about it, no one passed Judas on to another rabbi without disclosing his past.

“Thse topics are topics the RCC teaches about, but neither the NT or the Hebrew scriptures taught.  The RCC just want people to think that.”

The Bible doesn’t teach about murder(abortion) or homosexuality(“same-sex marriage”) in either the old or new testaments? please. do a google search or something and stop pretending Christianity is something it isn’t and has never been. You’re only lying to yourself.

Lisa wrote:
The teachings of the RCC are NOT the teachings of Jesus, Peter or Paul.

I beg to disagree.

Clearly, the Roman Catholic Church condems homosexual acts and, by implication, same-sex marriage. The writings of the Apostle Paul also clearly condemn homosexual deeds. The best known and most frequently mentioned example is found in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet” (Rom. 1:22-27).

Lisa, you still haven’t answered my question, where did you go to school?

Catholic State Legislator,

You, like many and like the RCC takes those teachings out of context.  Please do some scholary reserch re the context of those teaching—which nave nothing to do with same-sex relationships or same-sex marriage, as understoos in the 21st century.  The RCC is free of course to take these teachings out of context and to try to convince people that the scriptures say something they do not say.  That is freedom of worship.  But the RCC should stop trying to deny all American citizens their rights under the US Constitution.  The USA is not an RC theocracy and the law of the our federal state governments should not be the reflections of the RCC.

Lisa, you are still only presenting a straw-man argument against the Church. The following is from the logicalfallacies.info web site:

Straw Man Fallacy Explanation

A straw man argument is one that misrepresents a position in order to make it appear weaker than it actually is, refutes this misrepresentation of the position, and then concludes that the real position has been refuted. This, of course, is a fallacy, because the position that has been claimed to be refuted is different to that which has actually been refuted; the real target of the argument is untouched by it.

Example

(1) Trinitarianism holds that three equals one.
(2) Three does not equal one.  Therefore:
(3) Trinitarianism is false.

This is an example of a straw man argument because its first premise misrepresents trinitarianism, its second premise attacks this misrepresentation of trinitarianism, and its conclusion states that trinitarianism is false. Trinitarianism, of course, does not hold that three equals one, and so this argument demonstrates nothing concerning its truth.

Your comments misrepresent the Church, even though you claim to be correct. You are being illogical, therefore unreliable in your arguments. Please research what the Church teaches. Faulty reasoning does not do anyone any good.

Jesus did say: “But the things which proceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart, and those things defile a man. For from the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things that defile a man” (Mt 15:18-20). I’m pretty sure we can lump abortion under Jesus’ category of MURDER and homosexual activity under the category of ADULTERY or FORNICATION. And since Jesus is God, the same God who speaks in the Old Testament, it is clear that abortion, contraception (cf . Gen 38:9-10), and homosexual activity is forbidden.

Lisa: You previously made the unscholarly assertion that the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are not consistent with the writings of St. Paul. I demonstrated to you that such teachings are consistent with the views of St. Paul.

Now you claim that I and/or the RCC have taken St. Paul’s words out of context and that same-sex relationships are morally different in the 21st century as opposed to the 1st century AD. Query: How are homosexual relations different today than in the 1st century?

You further claim that the RCC is trying to deny all American citizens their rights under the U.S. Constitution. Query: What rights under the U.S. Constitution are the RCC trying to deny American citizens like you?

KM,

Its none of your business where I went to school.  I am certainly under no obligation to tell you anything about myself.  So don’t bother to ask. Suffice it to say, my RC education is extentsive and gained from exellent teachers.

Frank,

The RCC is free to teach whatever it wants & to try to convince gullible people that men who enable, cover up for and lie for pedoophile priests are credible teachers of anything.

However, the RCC is not free to try to turn the USA into an RC theocracy.  The USA is not a Christian nation, it is not a Catholic nation—its a nation of diverse faith traditions.  Its a nation that is free to decide its laws without the interference of the RCC.  If the RCC wants to interfere in US politics and governance it should give up its tax-exempt status and register as a lobbying group and pay taxes on its real estate.

aha, excellent teachers…righhhht. That’s probably why you’re here making these embarrassing arguments that cannot be substantiated in any real sense of the word. Many people disagree with the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality or abortion. But no one who intends to be taken seriously denies their Biblical basis.

Lisa, Those Scriptures do mean what you think they don’t mean. How could they mean anything else? Men are not to share relations with other men and women are not to share relations with other women - which would lead to the next logical conclusion - no marriage between same-sex attractees. Also, Christ himself gave the keys to the Kingdom to Peter and instructed him to form a church and said that because he would give them the Holy Spirit, they would not err. So, though the Church is filled with sinners (i.e. pedophiles, etc., as is the rest of the world)Christ himself told them that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. He also told them that He would separate the wheat from the weeds in the end. So, it means that those who are sinners and do horrible things will be with it (as in all of society) until the end. But, if you truly pray and ask Jesus Himself to show you His Truth, with a truthfully seeking heart, He will show you that all that the Church teaches is true - even this hard teaching for you about contraception and homosexual acts.

Dear Lisa Kaiser,
No gay person has been denied the opportunity to marry. Rather they are the ones who reject marriage, to marry one of the opposite sex, traditional marriage which has existed since humans have. Instead people with same sex attraction seek a different product which they wish to call marriage.  Because they have not been denied anything that others have, it’s not a civil rights issue by any reach.  And you are very confused to call same sex marriage a 14th amendment issue.  Clearly Roe v Wade violates the 14th amendment as it denies life to a child. Sadly, too many justices on the Supreme Court in 1973 sacrificed a lot of children due to their confused thinking. And tragically we are living with that legacy to this day.

Lisa, you are barking up the wrong tree here.  We Catholics are not impressed by humanist, materialist thinking.  You have tried to reduce the Bible and the words of Jesus to emperical verication.  Jesus is against death, againt fornication, adultry and all manner of immorality.  You are propigating the culture of death and it is sinful to all who have even one eye to see or even a partial ear.  Your ignorance and hatred are astounding and instead of being rightfully ashamed of yourself for insisting that women have a right to murder their children and that marital act, outside of marraige is licit, you propigate it with pride.  Jesus would certainly not agree with you and he would call you to repent and to “sin no more”. 
We would not try to force our ideas on you, and it is impossible for you to shame Catholics when your platform is so shameful.

P.S.  Lisa, you say you have “extensive” education and have had excellent teachers of the RCC…...well I can’t find the right way to say this, but it is with sincerity that I tell you, you sound literally retarded, as in delayed as in childish.  Now it is possible that you are only a child in which case I am sure your mommies wouldn’t want you to play on the computer so much, and if by some chance you are of an age of consent, you find yourself a good lawyer and get that money back you spent on your so called “education.”  You were fleeced lady.

Lisa is notoriously known around the Catholic blogosphere. Check out her comments that she made here in this entry. http://www.ncregister.com/blog/danielle-bean/gay-men-excluded-from-st.-vincent-de-paul-presidency

I engaged her back then just like many good people are doing now. However, seeing how she keeps making these obviously-hateful comments, I decided to stop stooping to her level.

Lisa, Christ is calling you with love and compassion, “Repent” (Luke 13:5). If you have any psychological problems, Christ can heal them as well. Seriously. I mean this with all my heart. Christ loves you and he wants you back. You’re being used by the Radical Feminist propaganda machine. Our Lord can free you from all that because none of your feminist friends will be able to intercede for you on the Day of Judgment. I’ll include you today in my intentions when I say my Rosary. I hope you will heed God’s call.

KM,

Your comments are patronizing, ignorant and just totally off-base.  Sorry, but there is n Biblical basis to deny same-sex marriage.  The Bible , in both testaments, is clear that people should use the gift of sexuality in a responsible and loving way.  But the Biblical condmenations of homosexulity have to do with idolatry and rape, not with loving relationships and not with same-sex marriage.  You are just wrong about this.  The RCC again is free to teach whatever gullible people will accept, but it needs to stop trying to deny all American citizens their right to equal treatment under the law via the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. 

Jesus was a great teacher of the Torah (and he taught stright from the Torah), but he was not God.  Obviously you are free to believe Jeus was/is divine, but please do not foist that off onto me.  God is God, but Jesus was not/is not God. 

I noticed that a number of comments on this thread condemn gay relationships as adultery and fornication.  Supporting the fundamental right of all American citizens to marry would solve at least the “fornication” issue.  As for adultery—well that is something that all people, straight and gay may be tempted into.  .  Relationships between consenting adults are relationships between consenting adults—no matter who the adults are.  Frankly, based on the way many straight people and the way many “Christians” ahndle marriage, perhaps the only people who should be permitted to marry are gay non-Christians,  But serioulsy, supporting marriage equality is support of loving family-cnetered relationships. Please free to commence foaming at the mouth at this comment!

Also, thereis absolutely nothing in the Bible that prohibits artificial contraception.  God gave us brains, intelligence and stewardship over the earth.  Nothing in the Bible says that we humans have to populate the earth to the point of destroying every other living species, to the point of filling up every available inch of the earth, to the point of overpopulation and destruction of our planet.  Use of artifical contraception is good for the plaent, good fmailies and good for women. Again, the RCC is free to teach whatever gullible people will accept, but its just inaccurate to say that artificial contraception is prohibited in scripture.

Lisa wrote “Jesus was a great teacher of the Torah (and he taught stright from the Torah), but he was not God.  Obviously you are free to believe Jeus was/is divine, but please do not foist that off onto me.  God is God, but Jesus was not/is not God.”

Yep, there it goes. It’s really obvious now just how “excellent” were these “teachers” who taught you and how “extensive” your education is.

KM,

Great teachers help students look at subjects in a throughtful, analytical, critical way.  Great Teachers give students a foundation.  The word teacher is not the same as brain-washer.  If everybody just blindly accepted whtever was taught to them, the world would not advance.  Your way of thinking is what led the RCC to denounce the scientific advances of Galileo.  The RCC siad, “well Aristotle taught that the sun revolves around the earth.  So we just have to accept that.”  You apparently did nothave great teachers who gave a foundation in thinking analytically. I guess you came from the school if thought that say “well if Father so & so or if Sister so and so say this or that, it must be true.  That’s the problem with tghe RCC today, it wants blind obedience—it is convinced that it is right about everything.

If someone’s not Catholic & is trolling thru the internet, what benefit is it to post stuff on an orthodox Catholic site like this one? Do you really think there are potential converts? I can recommend other “Catholic” sites that are more sympathetic…

Kathleen,

First of all, I am not “trolling”.  Secondly, I am free to express my opnion here.  I think its interesting that you think no ther oprinion chouls be expressed here other than an “orthodox” opinion.  thirldy, you have no idea whether I am RC or not.  Fourthly,  its weird that you assume I am looking for “converts”.  So you think this site is just of “orthodox” RC to talk to each other, pat each other the back and to have have to face the fact that not everyone in the world accepts a particular world view?

Lisa you are not RC even if you say you are.  THere would be as much truth in that as of your other opinions. I don’t think anyone here takes your opinions seriously, but it might surprise you to know that all of us take your person very seriously.

well Lisa, apparently your “excellent” teachers failed to teach you to think analytically or critically.

“The Father and I are one” (John 10:30)
“Whoever has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9)
“that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.” (John 5:23)
“You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it” (John 14:14)

the list goes on and on. Pick any of these verses and tell me how Jesus is “not God” as you claim.

KM,

First of all you have to believe that the historical Jesus actually said these things, as opposed to the writer of the Gospel of John putting these words in the mouth of Jesus to convey a message, to appeal to an audience, to try to convince people,  These may not be the words of Jesus at all.

The second quote can be said of any human being since we all made in the image of God.  The 3d quote, Jesus as an observant Jew, would have never said. 

You beleive that Jesus was Gos, so for you these these quotes prove your point.  I remain unconvinced.

Also, even if Jesus said them, they may not be true. 

Achilles,

It is not for you to judge what I am or am not.  That is between me and God.  I don’t care if anyone takes my opinion seriously or not.  I am free to comment here as I wish.  That comment from you just points out the problem with ge rigid right of the RCC—its smug and closed, convinced that its correct in all things at all times.  Convinced that it and it alone contains the full truth of God, that God cannot and does not act outside the RCC.  Its the same attitude one find with the Taliban, with the extremists of Islam.  The Taliban shoots young girls who want to go to school.  The RCC knowingly and deliberately unleashes known pedophiles in parishes to abuse children.  All the extremists are the same—convinced that they and only they are privy to the truth because God told them so and everyone else is wrong and sinful.

Lisa, I was hoping you would engage in a serious discussion rather than dismiss the verses with one-liners

For the historicity of the gospels, read http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/are-the-gospels-myth

“The second quote can be said of any human being since we all made in the image of God” Is this why no one else in the Scriptures or anywhere else says something like this???? Read v.18 The Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for speaking like this.

“The 3d quote, Jesus as an observant Jew, would have never said.”
Then you would have to deal with the fact that he actually says these words because they appear there and you reject them (why do you call yourself Catholic again???? go figure).

Why are you patronized by what I’m writing? You’re not angry, are you?

lisa, you are taking advantage of this site and treating it as if it is your personal dialogue.listen everyone.  ignore her and maybe she’ll slink away.  she’s proved herself to be impossible to dialogue with and her comments have less relevance the more she says.  she only wants to malign the church that she is obviously so MAD at. such rage acts to poison this site.

As a counterpoint to the rhetoric justifying homosexuality, have a read through Leviticus 20:13 (any “translation”)  Let the proponents of same-sex marriage argue on emotional or “social justice” grounds and, please, don’t pretend that Scripture says nothing on the subject.

What Jesus said:

Matthew 19:5

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’
5
and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?
6
So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.”

No use trying to make your point with Lisa, she will never listen:
“For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don’t believe, no proof is possible.”

Oh Lisa, our Lord established the Church and its hierarchical authority for the expressed reason to help lost souls like yourself and so many others that as Pope John XXIII stated that there are many baptized atheists inside the Church.  Peter, James, John and Paul all spoke of those that would come teaching things other than what they had taught and to treat them as anathema.  It is the fallen angel Lucifer that is the father of all lies.  He too tried to twist the word of God to tempt Jesus.  That did not go well. All these faithful people on this blog are trying to do is what Jesus says we are to do when a brother/sister falls in to sin and false teaching.  We are called to correct those that teach or believe falsely. If they do not listen to the correction of the faithful, the faithful are to take them to the Church.  The Church is not a theologian/priest/bishop that does not teach authentic Church doctrine which appears to be the crowd you’re learning from and hanging out with.  The Church has dealt with these very issues of abortion/infanticide, homosexuality, and general immorality from the very beginning.  Just look at Sodom, Pagan Rome, Greece, all hot beds of irregular sexual behavior and immorality.  Actually the US is looking more like Sodom, Pagan Rome at the time of its final fall than the Kingdom of God.  It is the prince of this world that keeps trying to make all this immoral behavior acceptable.  The Church has always been in battle with the prince of this world. There are only two teams in eternity the one of the One Most High God and that of the creation that thought he could be equal with the One Most High God. All we are trying to do is get you on the right team.  I highly recommend you study Humanae Vitae realizing it was written in the 1960’s and look where our society is today.  Also I would recommend St. Augustine’s City of God and do a comparison with the USA.  I believe I may say our prayers are with you. Seek not your will but let His will be done.

Jesus didn’t say not to judge, he said “don’t judge by appearances but judge righteous judgment.  ON the question of your supposed Catholicism, there is no condemnation of you, just the easy, fish in the barrel observation that your views are incompatible with Christ’s and therefore with that of the RCC.  We do not believe in death the way you do.  So based on your professed statements it is for me to conclude that you are not RC.  If you were, you would preach the Gospel News, not the death you espouse.

As far as being rigid and closed, I think you might take the cake.  I am much more open to you than you are to me.  I am completely closed to your ideas of death, and by converse, you seem to be closed to me and to my ideas.  Am I wrong?  And it is your rigid closemindedness that you find in the Taliban, not mine, because your positions lack reason.  You have mistaken open mindedness for licentiousness.  You are permissive to vice and closed to virtue. You scorn Truth and plead tolerance for lies.  You have mistaken pathos for ethos and in doing so have lost sight of the true end of man.  Let Christ tell you about it, but first you must abandon your belief in yourself.

May the Holy Spirit shine light where there is darkness Lisa, Achilles

Based on Lisa’s argument, Jesus was must be ok with nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, the Holocaust, the Ford Pinto, and Beavis and Butthead since He never explicitly condemned them.  Good to know.  Lisa, you are a terrible debater.  Just give it up before you hurt yourself :)

KM, Thanks for the tip on Lisa Kaiser. She is just a hater and a bigot.
Annette, yes, you are right.

Lisa,

Just so I get this right: The Church is wrong because there is no scriptural support for moral issue X, and the Church is wrong because they trust the scriptures on topic Y. So, lets drop the canard about Scriptural authority, since if it disagrees with your worldview, the scriptures are bunk, anyway.

From extra biblical sources - Jesus is God, because really, I don’t see all of the apostles going to their death for a misunderstanding. ST. Bartholomew flayed alive because he had something to gain from witnessing to Jesus’ Divinity? A little suspicious. So the burden is on you to provide an argument where this makes sense.

The Church’s teaching on abortion - because people shouldn’t be murdered. If we are unsure about persons being killed, the responsible thing is to not do something that would kill persons if they were in fact present. Throwing a granade into a movie theater is a bad idea, if you are not absolutely positive that the theater has no people in it. So, again, prove that a pre-born baby, who can think, responds to stimuli, and could exist on their own outisde of the womb is not a person.

On homosexual marriage - sex is ordered to procreation. This is not the gospel, its a basic realization of biology. So if you want to be materialist in your worldview…why do you not follow the biology? Sex is the definitive way to produce life, like eating is to get full - its what sexual organs are for. IF you eat things that aren’t nourishing, you might die….if you have sex with things that you shouldn’t, you might die. Even barring death, the products to which these functions are ordered is not being produced, therefore we have limited our bodies ability to be what it is supposed to be. Again, the proof is on you to argue how having sex without an order to procreation - like eating without ordering to nourishment - is justifiable. All the Church is doing is pointing to the obvious role of biology, that you are ignoring.

<arriage and sex are about more than procreation.  Should straight people who cannot have children because of age or other cause of infertility not be permitted to marry?  And now that there are wcientific advances inthe area of reporduction, gay can and do have children, do procreate.  So to say that gay people should not be permitted to marry because they cannot procreate flies in the face of reality and such thinking would also deny marriage to some stright people.

As for the proof of Jesus’ divinity being found int he willingess of the apostles to be marytryed for that belief:  many people have many diverse beliefs.  Many people have died for their faith traditions—Muslims, Aztecs, Incas, Buddhists, Jews,Hindus, etc.  RC Spanish conquistadors murdered Aztecs, Incas and other Native Americans because the Native Americans would not convert, becaue the Native Americans wnated to stand firm in their faith traditions.  Marytrdom does not prove the validity of any faith tradition.  It proves the power of belief.

Lisa, I didn’t expect an answer from you becuase surely you don’t have one that contains any kind of logical coherance or integrity. May Christ’s peace be with you and may the Holy Spirit penetrate the great wall of self-deciet that surrounds us all. Achilles

I saw this great article about the Church & thought it might be enjoyed by folks posting here:

Why I love the Corrupt and Crime Ridden Catholic Church
FATHER DWIGHT LONGENECKER

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0444.htm

Achilles,

You just do not want to acknowledge the logical coherence or integrty of my comments.  You just seem to be obsessed about whether I am RC (according to your definition of RC) or not.  The RCC is free to teach and believe what it wants.  It should not seek to impose its illogical, immature, irrational ,unhealthy, unscientific teachings re gay people and women, on the broader American secular society.

Dear Lisa, I am not at all obsessed with anything about you, but I am very interested in stating that your ideas about the propagation of the culture of death are wrong. That you incorrectly assert that I am “obsessed” is further evidence of your lack of integrity. Before you say it, you ought to be reasonably sure it is accurate based ont the data.  Not very scientific of you, or you are very unclear on the meaning of the word obsession.

I have not seen any logical coherence or integrity in your comments only pathos and vitriol.  Madam, you are irrational and ideological.  I am not an ideologue, I am a Catholic.  You are an ideologue and not a Catholic.  And because you have free will, that is a fact that you chose it and will have to live with the consequences of that.  I as your brother only demonstrate in the shallowest terms some of the logical consequences of your choices.

You have yet to put forward a coherent argument, for example you have in no way demonstrated that any Catholic position is “illogical, immature, irrational ,unhealthy, unscientific”.  There is nothing in those adjectives that objectively describes the Catholic positions on these issues. Ironically, these very nicely describe your arguments. 

Let’s take one fact-  acting on SSA for men leads to verifiable health problems and even to an early death.  If this fact is true, and it has been verified even by the gay community, then does it not follow that encouraging someone to act on SSA is an unloving act? Like giving the alcoholic a bottle of Jack because he wants so badly to drink.  To give in is an act of pathos and the worst kind of sentimentality because it ignores the objective moral order.  Catholics are not above it and we break the moral order incessantly, probably not as often as you commit crimes against logic and the proper use of the intellect, yet still we are quite bad sinners.

Please Lisa, tell me one thing true, logically consistent and with intellectual integrity that does not come from your misdirected emotions and I will gladly give credit where credit is due.  As of yet, you bring no honor to your side or to your teachers.

Achilles,

The health of gay men and women in relation to their sexual activity is not all that much different than that of straight people. You might want to check out some health stats on the CDC website or on the website of your state’s health dept. Same with life expectancy.  American gay men and women have the same life expectancy as straight Americans.  The leading cause of death for all Americans over 45 yrs of age is heart disease.  For certain age groups (young people) the leading cause of death is traumatic injury—vehicle collison, motorcyle crashes, etc. 

Sorry you still cannot or will not acknowledge the logid and integrity in my comments.  This is the kind of blindness that extremists suffer.

Good point Lisa, thank you.

The life expectancy of homosexual men is about 20 years shorter than that of straight men, and it is probably higher if associated diseases such as anal cancer are included. http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html

Grace, you are totally incorrect.Please get your facts from a credible source like the CDC or your state’s health dept.

Grace, there is no dispute, unless like Lisa you put on the blinders and follow a limited piece of data from the CDC.  Lisa points out the “extremists suffer blindness” and on that she is surely correct.  The full picture is much grimmer than Lisa can see.  Yes, amongst sexually active homosexual males, not only is life shortened, but higher incidence of mental disorders, drug use and myriad other disorders follow.

Achilles and Grace,

CDC data is certainly not limited and mot certainly comes form highly trained public health experts who are highly educated in assembling and tracking all sorts of health data.  Ther is no more reliable and competent source of health data than the CDC.  Disparage the CDC if you want, but it just makes you look follish.

I don’t know where you all are getting your data, but it sounds like it comes the Quacks “R” Us School of PsuedoScience and Pet Grooming.

I wouldn’t want to disparage the CDC, but let’s use a little common sense here. One of the things that many Catholics do not do is let statistics speak in place of reason and common sense. 

I do have some homosexual friends.  IF you do, ask them how many funerals they have been to for other men under the age a 50.  This should help you to see that there may be more in the world of evidence than specific categories of numbers put our by the CDC.

To pretend that male homosexual acts do not have devastating health consequences is really stupid.  I am not calling you stupid Lisa, but would you really say that male homosexual acts are equally as healthy as normal heterosexual acts?  You think they are equivalent?  Really?  And you would call us blind.  Funny.

Achilles,

Health states gathered by the CDC and epidemiologists in all 50 states ARE the truth and so do reflect commons sense and reason.  You want to substitute antedoctal stories for evidence-based fact.  You want to reject the science in favor of superstition, denial, ignorance.  Your ignorance is NOT equal to the facts.  Lots of people for many reasons do not live to be 50 yrs of age and that includes gay men.  And like many people who do not live to the age of 50 gay men , like straight men die from a variety of causes.  They die in vehicle collisons, they die of heart disease, they die of diabetes (Type I and Type II (endemic across all population groups) they die of a variety of cancers (the same cancers straight men die of and that have nothing to d woth sexual activity).  Again, American gay men and gay women have the same expectancy as stright Americans.  That’s just a fact.  Sorry, but you are just wrong.  You are in denial.  You have swallowd the nonsense of the Quacks “R” Us School of Psuedoscience and Pet Grooming.  Science and fact trump ignorance.

WASHINGTON, DC, June 6, 2005 – A new study which analyzed tens of thousands of gay obituaries and compared them with AIDS deaths data from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), has shown that the life expectancy for homosexuals is about twenty years shorter than that of the general public. The study, entitled “Gay obituaries closely track officially reported deaths from AIDS”, has been published in Psychological Reports (2005;96:693-697).

Quacks are us means anyone who doesn’t agree with your ideolgoy of equality, right Lisa?

This interesting thread seems to be oscillating between faith and reason. Effective societies seek a balance between the secular and sacred. Pope John-Paul II reaffirmed the complementary symbiosis of faith and reason, writing in 1998 that faith and reason are not only compatible, but mutually dependent. He wrote that faith without reason results in superstition, whilst reason without faith leads to relativism and nihilism. (Ioannes Paulus PP. II Fides Et Ratio, 1998: http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0216/_INDEX.HTM)

Without faith, the secularist “social justice” agenda makes a certain kind of sense. Abortion on demand seems to provide a satisfactory solution to personal and social problems such as unwanted pregnancy and overpopulation.  Gay marriage would seem to extend equal property and other rights to people regardless of their sexual orientation.

Without reason, religious ideas can and have resulted in grotesque undertakings such as the persecution of early Christians, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Reformation and Counter-Reformation, and the Troubles in Northern Ireland, to name a few.

As a young graduate student, one of my professors (H. Curtis Wright) frequently reminded us that there is the world of faith and the world or reason and that the laws of one do not necessarily work in the other.”

A number of western philosophers have considered the limitations of our human understanding. In 1689 John Lock wrote: 
“For till it be resolved how far we are to be guided by reason, and how far by faith, we shall in vain dispute, and endeavor to convince one another in matters of religion.”  John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, ed. By A. C. Fraser (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1894), II, 415.

It is naïve to argue the secularist agenda outside the context of faith on a site such as this one. In the 4th century, St Augustine articulated the basic human need for God when he wrote:
“You have made us for yourself, O Lord, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you.” (St Augustine, 397, Confessions, Book 1, Chapter 1)

The attempt to frame questions of morality solely in secular terms is equally naïve. Without faith and a higher accountability, why should I look after a neighbour who certainly is not looking after me?  Why should I worry if others suffer from poverty, disease, hunger, and oppression if I am okay?

During my student years becoming a science-trained PhD, I was taught the limits of empiricism/positivism, a limitation I was to encounter over and over through the course of a 30 year research career (80 refereed papers, 6 authored/edited books). Unlike phenomena which lend themselves to empirical study, religious topics lack a hard unit of analysis and do not lend themselves to empirical study. Hence, the study of the same religious topic can produce very different results, depending upon one’s background, viewpoint, and beliefs.  The attempt to understand God without faith is “religious studies.” The attempt to understand God with faith is “theology.”

Writing in the 11th century St Anselm of Canterbury rather elegantly defined theology as “faith seeking understanding.” In his view, the benefits of theological study and thinking are only realised by those who already believe. (St Anselm, Proslogion, 1078)

This view has been expressed through the ages by some of the most influential thinkers in the Christian tradition as: “Therefore do not seek to understand in order to believe, but believe that thou mayest understand.” (St, Augustine of Hippo, 4th century; St Anselm of Canterbury, 11th century; St Thomas Aquinas, 13th century).

Without faith, there is no particular reason for people to adopt humanistic and benevolent social policies and practices. History provides a number of examples of dysfunctional social movements that ignored or suppressed the moderating influence of faith. Nazism, Soviet totalitarianism, the Khmer Rouge, North Korea, Al Queda, and the mental prison of 21st-century western Political Correctness come to mind.

However, faith without reason provides equally abhorrent examples such as the Reformation, the current and widespread struggle between Sunni and Shia, the “Troubles” in Northern Ireland, the enmity that exists between Christian and Muslim in such diverse places as the Philipines, Burma, Iraq, Lebanon, and, yes, even in our own United States from time to time.

Discussing the policies and shortcomings of the RCC outside the context of faith is unproductive and illogical. Faith lies beyond the realm of human logic. The appeal to personal faith, not to be confused with the appeal to authority, lies outside the limitations of formal logic and cannot be logically refuted.  Faith and reason both need and inform one another.

Most churches claim to have the “Truth” and, as a consequence, expend considerable energy and resources convincing others that they are the “True Church.” For some, the search for the “True Church” is a never–ending and frequently disappointing quest. Rather than this top–down approach, it might be more satisfying for individuals to find a church that works for them. For many who have contributed to this thread, the Roman Catholic Church, warts and all, works for us.

I wonder if Ambassador Miguel Diaz could no longer handle being the ambasssador for the US, because of Obama and his sick ideas. I see it as him being caught in the middle of good and evil. Obama will have to choose a sick minded man like himself to represent the US. Then Rome and Obama can have solid discussions, which can only make the US stronger against evil.

“Without faith, there is no particular reason for people to adopt humanistic and benevolent social policies and practices.”
What about an atheist country like China? Are you saying that its people have not adopted any humanistic or benevolent policies or practices?

Is that what I wrote? Secular states do some humanistic things and theocratic states do some barbaric things. The point of my post is that human existence is improved when striking a balance between faith and reason. If the Church Fathers and Doctors are correct in identifying connection with God as a basic human need, if faith is to avoid becoming theocratic excess such as an Inquisition or Crusade or Jihad, the moderating influence of reason is indispensable. If a secular state, such as the one in which I reside, is to avoid excesses of ideology and expediency, to avoid dystopic policies such as forced euthanasia or the reductionism inherent in lifetime healthcare limits and rejection of the aged for hospitalisation and medical care on economic grounds, the moral absolutes that emanate from faith are needed as safeguards.

I have a real problem with ” the moral absolutes that emanate from faith”. One big example is the Catholic Church’s stand on contraception. It’s only one example of how wrong it can be to look to faith as a source of morality. Utilitarianism is a much better source for moral values than religion.  I understand your reasoning as to there having to be a balance but I don’t see the Catholic Church as an appropriate counterweight.

Thank God for the Catholic Faith. She is the voice of God on earth. The Church has spoken infallibly on the use of contraceptions. They are not permitted under any circumstances. There are those who continue to bang their heads against the wall demanding the Church to change. The Church will not change divine law just because there are some who do not understand God’s plan for us. If we do not understand God’s plan, lets not blame his Catholic Church, because we have only ourselves to give complete blame to. Follow Church Law, then God will give an understanding as to why he has decreed what he has, through his Church. Rebellion will get us absolutly nowhere!

Reinventing Marriage is what’s being done here hiding behind the 14th Amendment!
A Sodimite Marriage is WRONG period! Why? Because our Lord Jesus Christ says so! God makes NO mistakes! It’s a CHOICE to live a sodomy lifestyle. God made Adam and Eve NOT Adam and Steve! Even ANIMALS know better than this and HUMANITY is suppose to be higher evolved? You want to live this kind of behavior, then SHUT UP about it and do it behind closed doors and quit being PROUD of something you should be ashamed of.

The Divine Physician is the ONLY one who can heal you. May your heart repent and God have mercy on your soul!

Jeanne Marie,

FYI, many many married stright couple spractice sodomy (the legal definition of which is oral or anal sex).  That used to be illegal—talk about government in the bedroom!.  But thankfully the US Supreme Court in Bowers v Hardwick struck down thse silly laws.  Just becasue you do not approve of or say that God does not approve of some sexual practice, does not mean that marriage should be illegal for those who do not behave the way YOU want them to in the bedroom.  Marriage is about mor than sex and its about more than proecreation (but do know that gay people regularly procreate).  Not all strigth people can or do have children—marriage is not outlawed for them, becasue marriage is about more than sex and procreation.  If you do not like same-sex marraige then do marry a person of the same sex!  But neither the RCC nor any faith tradition in the US trumps the US Constitution.  we are, thankfully, a secular society.  No one gets to impose his or her persoanl religious beliefs upon the entire nation.,  And that is the brilliance of our nation and of our Constitution.

Lisa Kaiser, the Lord loves you and Catholics also love you. I hope that you find peace and purpose in your life. Hatred for the Catholic Church is not the answer. Jim

Jim,

I have no hatred of the RCC. The RCC has great potential and has been a great source of good.  What holds the RCC back is its corrupt hierarchy who are interested only in power and privilege.  I do have peace and purpose in my life.

Lisa, Why are you reading the National Catholic Register?

Dave,

I sometimes read the Register as a way to gauge the extent of right-wing extremism in the RCC.  Also, its good to read what is being written by those who have a different viewpoint. For better or worse the RCC is a huge, influential global organization—its good to read a number of RC publications just to keep up with the “mood” of the RCC in the US.  I don’t just read writers whose or publications who take the dame viewpoint as I do—the better to understand their assertions in order to formulate effective and compelling arguments against right-wing extremism.

Lisa Kaiser, We Traditionalists in union with the Holy Father do the same as you. In the 80’s I would go to a nearby parish just to buy the National Catholic Reporter (National Catholic DISTORTER to us). I would get my copy for the mere sake of getting a good laugh at just how rediculous liberals would get. But in these past few years it seems liberals are starting to sober up. So they are not as funny as they used to be. Another funny publication was our Diocesan Newsletter, and they still have not lost their flavor on being absurd. We Traditionalists have long defended the Church from the enemies within, it has all paid off very well. We ain’t finished yet!