I find it interesting how the post-Conciliar popes’ words must continually be nuanced so as to not cause scandal.  JPII was spineless and weak.  Benedict played it safe.  Pope Francis may be (but hopefully not) a JP clone.

Guys, the Catholic Church is in shambles and yet all we keep hearing is about the “New Evangelization” and the “New Springtime”.  Get your heads out of the sand already. 

Pathetic.

Not the same at all.  An Archbishop is not a politician or one providing a voice of the voter.  He may be free to vote for it under certain conditionsbut not to promote it as Bishop of the Church. Your analysis doesn’t hold up.  If it happened as reported his fellow Bishops were right to dismiss it.  They may have been brainstorming things like this are fair discussion in such a case.

How was Blessed JPII spineless? How? I mean, what the heck more should he have done? Alienate humiliate and ridicule absolutely everything secular? The rise of the shepherd/terminator? God himself woos but cannot ravish—CS Lewis’ words not mine, and true. Our Lord sets the example and the Way. I tremble at the thought of my children becoming adults in this world, but only truth and example can guide them.

What the heck is this Curmudgeon talking about? None of what you said actually makes sense. O.o

In my view this analysis does not sufficiently take into account the binding nature of moral absolutes.  John Paul II’s statement above is taken out of context.  The proposal offered by the “elected official” to limit the harm of a pro-abortion law, cannot violate moral absolutes by say, explicitly permitting abortion.  Such a proposal would be intrinsically unjust in such a way that one could “never” support it.  The one sentence paragraph in Evangelium Vitae which immediately precedes this quote above says exactly this.  It states: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.’”

Therefore, incremental proposals are fine, insofar as they do not permit the intrinsic evils like abortion, or in this case, “civil unions.”  No one has the authority to support grave intrinsic evils under any circumstance.  Thus, this analysis misses the mark.

Excellent article once again Jimmy!! Will definitely be sharing this! Thank you and God bless you!!

Recent church reactions to developments in the gay rights, such as Cardinal Bergoglio’s suggestion that the church stop fighting same sex civil unions in a last ditch attempt to stave off same sex marriage, remind me of nothing so much as those old cartoons where the cat is about to swallow the hero mouse or bird, and is interrupted by the huge bulldog who is a friend of the mouse/bird. The cat puts on a smarmy smile and bestows some hypocritical pats on the head to its almost-meal.

Oops, the cat/church miscalculated the balance of power. The once weak and isolated prey now has defenders. The cat/church now wants to bargain, and stress how homosexuals have ALWAYS been openly welcomed into the Catholic Church. See, there are ministries to help you stay chaste. If that’s not enough, we’ll let you have civil unions if you’ll just admit you don’t have a right to marriage.

Too late. Better run away fast cat/church. The power is no longer with you.

Thanks Jimmy.  I was not aware of the CDF document that made the same reasoning over so-called “gay marriage” as the Pope did for abortion.

Seems to me the media is starting earlier with Pope Francis than they did with Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI

We need a lion in the Vatican, not a kitty cat. I can only hope the Cardinal who become Pope will have the roar we need.

The Father of Lies is wily and cunning enough to make you believe Up is Down, Black is White, male can assume the female role, and female acts the male in the spousal union.  When earthly powers complain that the Church is, “out of touch with the present-day world,” we rejoice and take courage because that is precisely the intention of what the Lord has founded! He desires to lift our physical existence beyond this mortal place, this finite time, to that which is ethereal and eternal.  With Christ’s and the Holy Spirit’s impetus keep the good fight, Papa Francisco!

“This is not simply a political struggle, but an attempt to destroy God’s plan. It is not just a bill but a move of the Father of Lies, who seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God.”

Oh, please!  Why can’t we just leave these people alone and let them live their own lives?

I recently heard a speaker at a Ladies of Charity luncheon.  She works with victims of domestic violence and was lamenting that fact that much of her funding comes from marriage licenses.  Because fewer and fewer couples are actually getting married, her funding is drying up.  She went on to say that, while she opposes gay marriage, she hopes that at least its legalization will increase her funding.  As she said, “Those people want to get married.”

So, what does this tell us about our own adult sons and daughters.  Why aren’t we doing more to encourage them to find a spouse and make a family?  Even among Catholic couples, children are regularly born out of wedlock.  Where is the hue and cry over that?

For the record, I, too, oppose gay marriage.  But I just wonder why we are so focused preserving the sanctity of marriage when we are raising a generation of kids who don’t even value it.

Cowalker, once again, excellent points. I love the Dog/Cat/Mouse analogy.

This struck me: “If he privately floated the idea of civil unions as a way of stopping full-blown homosexual marriage, I would see this as a last, desperate expedient and not suppose that he viewed such unions as a positive thing, just as a less-horrible thing.”

As the church continues to fight against the tide of SSM, it makes itself look more and more anti gay and will continue to drive out young people.  As 9 States and counting allow SSM, the screaming by the church just seems more and more shrill, like the old man “Get off my yard”.

I agree with Blessed Bucky, and am wondering how The Catholic Church responded in Argentina, when Argentina first introduced the idea of same-sex unions as one cannot support same-sex sexual unions without supporting same-sex sexual acts.

The Catholic Church has punted itself into a corner. It has no choice but to fight gay marriage, come hell or high water. At some point, SSM will be universally accepted and the Church will find itself with no support on the issue except from the die hards who will always be loyal followers no matter what.

Well Curmudgeon, you certainly live up to your name.

Annonymous,
I think perhaps our children have seen so many failed marriages & resulting legal entanglements in their parents’ generation that they’re wary about the whole thing.If one doesn’t believe in the sacramental value of marriage, it can seem pointless.Our social welfare system makes having a father in the home a liability. So, it’s hard to blame young people for being cynical about marriage.

“the church just seems more and more shrill, like the old man “Get off my yard”.

Actually, the proponents of same-sex “marriage” seem like adolescents screaming “It’s MY life.” Then, loaded with alcohol, they get behind the wheel of a car…

What is the difference between allowing for civil unions in order to prevent homosexual marriages, and allowing for contraceptives to prevent abortions? I am not trying to be snarky. I see this as a question that would be asked and I would like to know how to answer it

“Actually, the proponents of same-sex “marriage” seem like adolescents screaming “It’s MY life.” Then, loaded with alcohol, they get behind the wheel of a car…”

Huh???  I don’t see the connection.

@ Bill S -  The connection I see is that those who support SSM do not see the damage and harm it is causing to themselves and society as a whole.  The same can be true of the kids & drunk driving.  They may do it time and again with no one getting hurt - they arrive home safe.  But the damage is done invisibly to their souls and psyches (not to mention their bodies) and, just maybe, one night, the damage may leak into someone’s car, house or very life.  Just because ‘no one got hurt’ doesn’t mean ‘no one got hurt’.
-
Admittedly, there is a power shift afoot and we are losing moral fights we thought we would win.  Some call it postmodernist thought, some call it being progressive.  But for me it has shades of the past - the Old Testament and Rome.  Deny your faith, your God or watch your children die!  Deny your faith, your God or face the lions.  Regardless of the power shift, the truth remains on our side and while that might not keep me from jail or death, it will grant me heaven.

“Huh???  I don’t see the connection.”

It’s about proponents asserting their own desires against reality, both biological and moral, and attacking any authority that has the effrontery to remind them of that reality. They want to think that “nobody’s going to get hurt.” They’re wrong. If you don’t think that the past hundred years shows that tampering with marriage hurts people, you’re blind.

“The connection I see is that those who support SSM do not see the
damage and harm it is causing to themselves and society as a whole. The same
can be true of the kids & drunk driving.”

I can easily see that drunk driving is always wrong and can result in a tragedy, even after getting away with it numerous times. You can’t compare that to SSM, which can be as rewarding to a gay couple as traditional marriage is to a straight couple. It’s just another lame argument against gay rights.

Approval of civil domestic unions need not imply approval of homosexual acts *at all*.

It’s just a civil contract between two people - *any* two people otherwise unattached and eligible(a pair of elderly friends supporting one another in their remaining years, for example) - who wish to form a mutually supportive domestic arrangement. This would allow some legal recognition when it comes to financial and medical issues, probate, taxes, etc…

Such a law would say nothing about such trivialities as how the participants *feel* about one another or what kind of sex life they might have, IF THEY HAVE ONE at all. It’s a practical household arrangement. Nothing more.

I could support that. Somehow, though, I don’t think it would be enough for the gay activists.

@RMW:  Amen!!! Thank you for your courageousness.

I understand the Church’s documents and the idea of supporting legislation that would lessen the harm of an unjust law, but I think applying that to same-sex unions as less harmful than same-sex marriage is a stretch because in effect same-sex unions don’t lessen the harm at all, it is just a change of name.  It doesn’t even lessen the impact on the definition of marriage.  The moral pillar of marriage as the primary unit of family would be damaged whether or not the technical definition is effected.  The primary unit of family would change. 

Furthermore, the idea that proposing same-sex unions a second time does not bring the Church’s teaching into play if the first proposal did not result in booked law.  The Church’s statement of “first” proposal is in reference to “already on the books.”  We see this as it is applicable to the abortion laws.  Laws that lessen the harm of abortion but do not eliminate the original law are understandably licitly supported.  But with no law on the books, a lesser law proposed as an alternative is not what the Church had in mind as being licitly supportable. 

Having read many Church documents (translated) as you have Mr. Akin you know that the language sometimes does not reflect the Church’s intention.  In any case when it seems to contradict the overarching objective moral foundation, the language should be reconsidered.

Heck O’ A Job, as usual.

Most of what has been written are attempts to split hairs. A civil union doesn’t imply sexual relations, really?
This whole business stinks and amounted to overlooking sinful actions in the form of a delaying tactic that had no chance of succeeding and has now become a reality.
The bottom line is that homosexuals have no right to impose their views on the majority.
If Pope Francis indeed endorsed civil unions, then scandal has been given.

What about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether?  Sacramental marriage is a union that only the Church can grant, anyway.  Let the government simply say that they no longer care who marries who.  Rights such a insurance, inheritance, etc., can easily be granted based on legal contracts between two people who want to grant them to each other for any reason.  Could be a brother and sister, father and child, two unmarried friends.

Susan ,
I hear you in one sense, but I guess it depends on what vision one has for a society. Do we really want to live in a society where anything goes & maybe more importantly, how long would a society like that exist?If you unravel the social fabric to that extent what’s really left to define a culture? Most likely, another culture with more vigorous social mores will replace it.

THIS COMMENT IS IN REFERENCE TO SOME POSTINGS I READ ON THIS WEBSITE: A reason, and only one influencial reason why the Church is in shambles today, is not because of the Church “at the head”, but because of the faithful; including the direction of many Bishops. Many faithful in the Church are not orthodox to the Seat of Peter as they should be, and many Bishops; even though there has been many excellent Bishops, have “dropped the ball” in being an apostolic shepherd. It is not because of “the head” of the Church like many people seem to believe. A century with wonderful Popes is the 20th century; I wished I could say the same for “all the Bishops” rather than just some”.

what is left after the law removes sex and children from its definition of marriage?  why would anyone support having the government provide support and encourage to private relationships that, if not damaging, provide nothing of positive substance to a society.  the male female relationship has profound consequences for society.  private male male or female female relationships provide nothing of importance to society.  why are people so intent on destroying the connection between marriage and children and marriage and sex?  and destroying it for what, private relationships that have, at most, no positive effect on society.

I agree with you Bob.  Civil Union laws are created primarily for legal protection for two people involved in a sexual relationship, either heterosexual and/or homosexual.  Both living arrangements are not in accord with church teaching.  Therefore, the church should not put itself in a position that appears to accept or tolerate either.  Personally, I am shocked that our Holy Father, as Cardinal, would have even tried to persuade his bishops to back such a proposal.  I wouldn’t call our Holy Father’s position compassionate, but I would call it compromise. I hope and pray that the Vatican issues a statement on this matter quickly so that faithful Catholics know exactly where this Pope stands on the matter.

“Oh, please!  Why can’t we just leave these people alone and let them live their own lives?”

Bill S.,

BECAUSE THEY DON’T LEAVE US ALONE!

1) Once gay “pretend” marriage becomes the law of the land, they (liberals) will go into the classrooms and teach kids sexual experimentations and sow sexual confusion. And we will be ripe for judgement just like Sodom. And STDs and AIDS will spread its destruction.

2) The Homosexual elites who are 1%-3% in populations will reap all the benefits as traditional marriage couples, YET they won’t produce any TAX PAYERS.
If the ELITES crowd do adopt (OR they may not adopt-most likely they won’t) children or give us their test tube babies, due to the VERY SMALL percentage of this people producing the next generation of TAX PAYERS, they should not get the benefits (tax breaks) as the Traditional marriage couples because they don’t produce enough tax payers to pay into the Social Security System.

The elites crowd don’t care about the rest of the country.
THE HOMOSEXUAL CROWD are TRUE ELITES!
And SIN is NOT a civil right!

What about getting the government out of the marriage business altogether?

The Church has weighed in on this. Please see, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

In short, the libertarian “get the State out of the marriage business” is not an option.

If it’s true that the Pope supports civil unions for man-man and woman-woman relationships, which unions are a clear rejection of God’s explicit laws commanding us as males and females to join as one flesh and be fruitful and multiply, he’s probably not going to be the hoped-for pope that will clean out the reported “Gay Lobby” from within the Vatican.

The “gender theory ideology” movement that Benedict XVI warned about in his Dec. 21, 2012, Address to the Roman Curia is the battle that is presently being imposed on the whole world as a veil of evil is smothering goodness. We will at some point be forced to choose a side in this battle.

I’ll wait for the predictable comments, “Oh, what doom and gloom”, “Hah, what a conspiracy theorist!”. 

“Posted by Scott W. on Thursday, Mar 21, 2013 1:18 PM (EDT):

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
In short, the libertarian “get the State out of the marriage business” is not an option.”

Where do you read that in the document? I read it to say that marriage is a sacrament. Does the secular state dispense sacraments? How does the abolition of civil marriage not protect marriage? Because the Unitarian wackos would offer gay polygamous inter-species unions? So what.

the only reason why a christian can not countenance gay sexual activity is because it is described as abomination by the sacred scriptures and the church fathers. Either one accepts the bible and church tradition rejecting homosexual acts, or one rejects the bible and christian tradition and thereby embrace homosexual acts. Any middle way is self-deception at best.
NB!
Mr Jimmy kindly join us in saying every day Psalm 2 and Psalm 29 (hebrew numbering) to defeat the present Global Gay Agenda (especially the 5th columnists within the church)

I think Jimmy sees a daunting task ahead in providing justifications and rationalizations for this new pope we have, including the lack of respect for the Eucharist which Ann Barnhardt has been documenting (barnhardt . Biz).  Better eat your Wheaties, Jimmy.  It’s starting to look like this guy’s a typical Jesuit after all.

Thanks for this insight, Mr. Akin.

Got bored reading through the comments, so I’ll just offer some thoughts on a couple of the objections so far:

First of all, I’m very hopeful about our new Pope.  I’m rather shocked and appalled by the frequency of disrespectful and judgemental comments levelled against him, less than a week into his papacy.  But that’s all I’ll say about that.

Secondly, to those who suggest that gay marriage isn’t harmful, or that homosexuals should have the right to fruitful and satisfying marriages like heterosexuals, that it is “their life” and we should let them to it, fail to recognise that marriage is itself a social institution.  It involves more than simply two people living their life together, but has a larger cultural and societal impact on the world around them.  The family is the building block of society, not the individual, and as such, what constitutes families gravely affects the shape of the society.  If the Church teaches that certain family structures are immoral, then it has an obligation to try to prevent those family structures from happening and thus damaging not simply individual souls, but society as a whole.

Finally, what is the difference between “marriage” and “same-sex unions”, as far as limiting the damage done to society?  First of all, the Church believes that marriage is a sacrament.  It has no such regard for “civil unions”.  As such, on a purely pragmatic level, a government that recognises the validity of same-sex civil unions without terming them “marriages” is unable and less likely to place any religious institution in the position of being forced to perform “gay marriages” or face legal penalties and persecutions (as is beginning to happen here in Canada).  There is a definite legal separation between the two types of union that provide a buffer between what the Church does and what the State does and what the State can expect the Church to do in such situations.

Secondly, differentiating between same-sex civil unions and marriage, even if the first is afforded the same or similar rights to the second by the state, creates a two-tier system that keeps the distinction clear in the minds of people.  Arguments claiming that it is simply a semantic difference fail to account for the fact that our language forms the way we think about something, and what we call things affects how we think about them.  Calling it a civil union and not a marriage become a constant reminder that a same-sex relationship is something different than a marriage, and from that ongoing distinction in the minds and the language of people, a conversation can begin or continue about the differences and why they are important, and whether same-sex unions are, in fact, good and beneficial, or whether they are harmful.

This would, in fact, mitigate to some degree the damage done of recognising gay “marriages”, and is not simply a distinction without a difference, as some above are suggesting.

(1) A cardinal is not a politician, he is supposed to teach or clarify a divide between good and evil. (2) Homosexual unions are not a lesser evil because they do not decrease the amount of homosexual activity, i.e. intrinsic evil or grave sin. (3) “I certainly wouldn’t see it as evidence that he was “seeking compromise” or being “flexible” or open to “dialogue” on established moral principles.” As a matter of fact, as you state above, Cardinal Bergoglio, did dialogue privately with homosexuals despite the opposition of the other bishops which proves his flexibility on the issue.

It is saddening to see so many people ready and willing to believe the very worst of our new Holy Father.

The issue is as long as there is a push to legalize gay marriage and impose it on the world, there will be an opposition to it.

There is nothing in international law that says, gay marriage MUST be legalized or that it must be a human right.

I don’t think the question ought to be whether Cardinal Bergoglio supported homosexual unions in leiu of homosexual marriage, but why was his theology so poorly thought out. From at least the time of Thomas Aquinas the premise that one cannot do evil in pursuit of good has been the very solid teaching of the church.

I disagree with you Jimmy. If in fact he did ” float the idea of a civil union being permissible” as a stop gap measure to full blown gay marriage how can that be ok? The semantics of ” civil union” and “marriage” are the same thing in the eyes of the legal system, aren’t they? They at least result n the exact same thing in the relationship of the same sex people, dont they? Marriage in the Church is one thing, a sacrament, something that is holy and an instition instituted by God. Same sex “marriage” is not. It is instituted by man and is not holy. Being permissable to these kinds of “unions”, a lesser bad still gives those involved in them the idea that maybe it is ok and condoned by God especially if a cardinal floats an idea that they are permissable. Does that make sense? These unions or “marriages” are never permissable, right? Should abortion at 6 weeks be permissable as opposed to late term, 32 weeks? Or how about abortion over infanticide? If he did permit or at least give the idea that these unions are permissable then he was wrong. Just wrong. Correct it correctly. Popes and Cardinals are not perfect.

Allan Wafkowskik,

You are right, but what about indirect material co-operation, where you try and minimize the harm done, when you cannot get rid of something completely.

J,

Civil unions and marriage are not the same legally. Not everywhere in the world. In France and New Zealand for example, civil unions do not permit adoptions. Under French law civil marriage affirms the right of a child to a mother and a father.

Jody Bottum in the Weekly Standard on the difficulties of trying to fit Francis into prevailing political categories:

“A leftist who denounces the state power and cultural changes demanded by the left. A reactionary who despises the accumulation of wealth and the libertarian freedoms praised by the right. No attempt to impose liberal and conservative definitions on him will succeed.”

I am trully sad to see in our genration, that a lot of people in the Catholic Church being drawn into the side of Devil.  Some without even recognizing it, and some just realy want to show off how in favor they are of the Devil, rather than their Creator.  To those who think Civil Union is completely different from Sames Sex Marriage, you need to go back to Kindergaren (just to make a point).  King Henry VIII took away the Authority of God on Marriage, where a Man and a Woman are joined together in UNION with God’s Blessings.  The rebelious King Henry gave it to the State Government instead to satisfy his self-interest.  It’s just like by saying, it is better to use Marijuana than Cocaine.  Why try to justify the distinction at all, if you know either one will make you ill or kill you in the long run?  I don’t know what was the true motive of our Pope, when he said that when he was just a Cardinal, but why don’t we all wait and see if he would have some explanations to what he said.  For those who are in favor of Civil Union or Same Sex Marraige, remind yourself of God’s Divine Law, Natural Law and Moral Law.

“I am trully sad to see in our genration, that a lot of people in the Catholic Church being drawn into the side of Devil.  Some without even recognizing it, and some just realy want to show off how in favor they are of the Devil, rather than their Creator.”

MLD, there are people in this world who do not believe in the Devil. To many, the concept has been put forth by religion in order to scare people out rejecting religious authority. Needless to say, most of these people also do not believe in God, his moral law or Natural Law. Many of them feel that your views are such an insult to their intelligence that they cannot argue with someone like you without becoming belligerent. I see no reason to be like that, but I strongly disagree with your ideas of God as Creator and the Devil as a real person.

There is no inherent Right to engage in acts of any nature that are demeaning because they do not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person. To recognize the self-evident truth that our inherent, unalienable Rights have been endowed to us from God, is to recognize that the purpose of our unalienable Rights can only be, what God intended.

Wow, Nancy D,

So you are in favor of denying people any rights that are, in your opinion, not what God intended. And you are so sure that you know this God and what he intended that you support civil laws that ban same sex marriage. But you live in a country that doesn’t make laws based on your religious beliefs even if you think that it should. So when reason prevails, and you can’t have your way and it becomes illegal for you to discriminate against people because of your religion, then you will suffer persecution for living according to your conscience and you can offer that suffering to God and be rewarded for it in Heaven. Why don’t you just leave other people alone and keep your religious righteousness to yourself?

Bill, human persons are male or female, thus assigning personhood to sexual preference or orientation, does not change the self evident truth that all persons have an inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect. One should never underestimate a Loving friendship, which desires only that which is Good for the other, and is thus oriented towards authentic Love.

“human persons are male or female, thus assigning personhood to sexual preference or orientation, does not change the self evident truth that all persons have an inherent Right to be treated with Dignity and respect.”

So, would that dignity and respect extend to not interfering with same sex couples’ right to marry?  Or are you saying that they are not treating each other with dignity and respect if they marry?

YOUR COMMENT THING STINKS!! IF U PUT A WRONG LETTER IN YOU LOSE YOUR COMMENT…WHATS WRONG WITH YOU FOOLS?

Just save the comment (select all and copy) before hitting the submit button.

There should be NO compromise on Homosexual Marriage—- such as civil unions (registered partnerships) because in the end it will ultimately lead to exactly what they want Homosexual Marriage and may ultimately lead to other immoralities.  So I strongly disagree with your statement “If he privately floated the idea of civil unions as a way of stopping full-blown homosexual marriage, I would see this as a last, desperate expedient and not suppose that he viewed such unions as a positive thing, just as a less-horrible thing.”  As confirmation to my statement, please see article from CHRISMANEWS – article titled “Holland Discusses ‘Group Marriage’ as Next Step” (http://www.charismanews.com/world/38744-holland-discusses-group-marriage-as-next-step) which clearly CONFIRMS my statement that civil unions will only lead to the full acceptance of Homosexual Marriage.  So if Pope Francis, the then Cardinal Bergoglio did see it as a way of stopping homosexual marriage he was sadly mistaken.
Quotes from the article:  “The politician who masterminded the gay marriage campaign in Holland says that “group marriage” is now being discussed in the country.”
“Dittrich was speaking to a French gay news agency, and he revealed that he softened public opinion to gay marriage by first introducing registered partnerships.
He said, “We thought it might be psychologically better to first introduce registered partnerships.”
It was a good decision, he said, because people got used to legally recognized gay unions and called them gay marriages.
The next logical step was to introduce full gay marriage by law, he said. Now he admits there are discussions about marriage for more than two people.”
There is NO compromise to God’s word because if you do, you open yourself up to other untruths.  And where does it stop?

“There should be NO compromise on Homosexual Marriage—- such as civil unions (registered partnerships) because in the end it will ultimately lead to exactly what they want Homosexual Marriage and may ultimately lead to other immoralities.”

Susan M. You obvious have no understanding of how the political process works. If you can’t get everything you want, you try to get as much out of the agreement as you can. As it turned out, the same sex marriage law was passed without any compromise. This is due to the fact that governments do not need the approval of the Catholic Church in any decisions they make.  Catholics need to concede that the Church does not make the rules for anyone but those who choose to obey them. The impact that gay marriage will have on society is insignificant.

the greatest societal harm that will arise from civil creation of so-called same-sex marriage will be done to children.  when government says that the natural relationship that occurs between mothers and fathers and children is no more important than the relationship between any two human beings, it is teaching its citizens that the procreation and the raising of children is no more or less important than two buddies gaming the system for financial benefits.  we may yet get to see what happens to a society that decides its continuation is of NO SPECIAL SIGNIFICANCE.  this is in no way meant to diminish the tragedy that is the loss of the souls of those who are swayed toward performing or supporting acts that defy almighty God’s will and plan.

“this is in no way meant to diminish the tragedy that is the loss of the souls of those who are swayed toward performing or supporting acts that defy almighty God’s will and plan.”

Why bring up all the other straw man arguments when the only one that really matters is that homosexuality is a direct affront against the Catholic Church and its authority over others. It’s not about the children. Children have been placed in foster care with just about every kind of household, including with two people of the same sex and even single parents for generations. Why all the concern now?  Because the Church abhors the very thought of lovemaking between people of the same sex. And it can never change its stand on the matter. It is institutional homophobia and bigotry. So it tells its followers that it is against God’s will and those people will go to Hell. It’s really silly when you think about it. Shame!

Bill S,

There are plenty of non-religious arguments against gay marriage. You are the one that has hijacked this thread and every thread with non-stop ranting. It’s very annoying.

I will re-affirm that there is no such thing as same-sex marriage. There is nothing in international law that says it MUST be legalized. Most people worldwide will not accept it, so it’s being imposed with arguments such as “right” It’s up to those who make these arguments to prove their case not the other way around.

Let’s just give the greenlight to everyone who wants to marry one, two, three persons, family members, children, dogs, cats, sheep…heck, the possibilities are endless! Then everyone will accept each other; peace and harmony will reign if we never ever tell anyone that they are wrong, their lifestyle is unhealthy or their choices are more selfish than beneficial for mankind.
Yes, let’s break down all the “barriers” that keep people so unhappy and see what shakes out in the end.

“Most people worldwide will not accept it, so it’s being imposed with arguments such as “right” It’s up to those who make these arguments to prove their case not the other way around.”

And so they are in the Supreme Court. A favorable ruling should silence all the naysayers. Maybe then the Church can stop wasting its time and money fighting state referenda and direct it to more worthy causes.

Bill S,

The church is not the one that is trying to impose gay marriage globally.

There are still many more cases of clergy sexual abuse and the cover ups by Bishops
and Cardinals, that,  indeed, the Church should stop wasting money on these lawsuits
And give it instead to innocent victims of abuse.

The problem with voting for the lesser of 2 evils is that it always fails to prevent the evil. It compromises truth. At times it actually bridges into greater evil. Take abortion, for example. Many states have laws that impose restrictions, yet these laws are consistently overturned after passage, thereby entrenching it further. We’re constantly signing petitions favoring this restriction or that, and since 1973 where are the gains in the prolife movement? It’s a bridge to nowhere. Civil unions were passed in a secret session in Illinois last year; all that did was open the door to gay marriage. Next, I expect there will be a loophole for Plan B.

Javier,

You do realize that the sex abuse lawsuits are being filed by the victims themselves, who have received millions in compensation.

Hat Lady,

At this point, we have no choice. The thing is people have been sleeping their way through this all. This is why we have come to this stage.

Bill S,

Political scientists claim that these this is being driven by ideology and not science. You might want to see this.

how do you unsuscribe? there is NO link on the emails or on this page… I DONT CARE WHAT ANYONE SAYS ANYMORE!!

Dear Mr Bill S,
Catholics will never accept homosexual acts, as legitimate, come what may. Even if the whole world were to universally accept homosexual acts Catholics will never accept it! Homosexual acts are abominations.
Catholics are in fact doing the world a favour by fighting vigorously the global agenda pushing homosexual acts. By this fight we are in fact holding back the wrath of God, to give as many people as possible time to repent.
This wrath will sooner than later descend on the world as similarly recorded in antiquity.
A word, as the saying goes, is enough for the wise. But, then…

“Catholics are in fact doing the world a favour by fighting vigorously the global agenda pushing homosexual acts. By this fight we are in fact holding back the wrath of God, to give as many people as possible time to repent.
This wrath will sooner than later descend on the world as similarly recorded in antiquity.”

Chris,

These are the words of a religious fanatic, not of a sane and rational person. Catholics are holding back the wrath of God???  As similarly recorded in antiquity?  What?  The Deluge?  Sodom and Gomorrah? You do realize those are old folklore and not historical events. Right?

There are many serious discussions on this blog but this isn’t one of them.

i am not trying to win an argument. i am merely stating the facts. Catholics (and indeed all true christians) live in the world but we dont belong to the world. We are not here to follow the bandwagon but to be light of the world and the salt of the earth. Even if it requires us to go back into the catacoombs we are ready, even if we are thrown to the wild beasts, even if we are crucified upside down, we are ready, but we will not bow to the tyranny of the father of lies. We will not accept the global agenda championing homosexual acts. We will never separate ourselves from the Lord Jesus.
Dear catholics and christians, dont doubt it, we are on the eve of a bruising battle with the enemies of the cross of Christ

“Even if it requires us to go back into the catacoombs we are ready, even if we are thrown to the wild beasts, even if we are crucified upside down, we are ready, but we will not bow to the tyranny of the father of lies. We will not accept the global agenda championing homosexual acts. We will never separate ourselves from the Lord Jesus.”

Chris,

What are you talking about?  Is this what gays are expected to deal with?  Religious extremists?

Seriously,  How could any Catholic entertain the idea of mortal sin being permissible in any way, shape or form for any reason?  Whether two Homosexuals “marry” or fornicate civilly, they are living in mortal sin.  How could the idea of advancing mortal sin be a consideration in preventing mortal sin?  What ever happened to Blessed are the pure of heart?  There is nothing blessed about homosexual fornication or any fornicationI will gladly receive any responses with the humility our Holy Father deserves.

“How could the idea of advancing mortal sin be a consideration in preventing mortal sin?”

You see it as mortal sin but they do not. We can’t have governments making actions that you or the Church consider to be mortal sins illegal.  The Cardinal was not dealing from a position of strength.

Bill S,

We are not discussing govt views on sin, but what the Cardinal actually said, as opposed to what the NYT claims he said.

My question was in regard to a Catholic advancing mortal sin for any reason.  Catholics are not supposed to have any traffic with evil.  They are to oppose it where ever it is found or being proposed or advanced.

BILL S.,

Why don’t you reply to my 2 points:
Homosexual FAKE marriage is destructive.  You don’t have a come back for my 2 points:

Bill S., said, “Oh, please!  Why can’t we just leave these people alone and let them live their own lives?”

BECAUSE THEY DON’T LEAVE US ALONE!

1) Once gay “pretend” marriage becomes the law of the land, they (liberals) will go into the classrooms and teach kids sexual experimentations and sow sexual confusion. And we will be ripe for judgement just like Sodom. And STDs and AIDS will spread its destruction.

WE HAVE A HISTORY OF THIS IN THE 80’S WITH THE AIDS EPIDEMIC!!!!!

2) The Homosexual elites who are 1%-3% in populations will reap all the benefits as traditional marriage couples, YET they won’t produce any TAX PAYERS.
If the ELITES crowd do adopt (OR they may not adopt-most likely they won’t) children or give us their test tube babies, due to the VERY SMALL percentage of this people producing the next generation of TAX PAYERS, they should not get the benefits (tax breaks) as the Traditional marriage couples because they don’t produce enough tax payers to pay into the Social Security System.

The elites crowd don’t care about the rest of the country.
THE HOMOSEXUAL CROWD are TRUE ELITES!
And SIN is NOT a civil right!

There’s a good deal of spiking the ball happening here, and—judging by the trends—there’s a good deal more likely to happen in the future, on the part of those who advocate legal glorification of same-sex mutual masturbation.

That’s all very natural: One likes to see one’s team win, even if one’s “team” is a political party or movement, rather than a convocation of sportsmen.

But let’s understand a few things, here:

1. The Catholic Church has already ruled definitively about this, in a Magisterial way. There is not the least hope—now, a thousand years from now, or fifty thousand years from now if the Lord tarries—that the Catholic Church will suddenly rule that same-sex mutual masturbation is anything other than a sin, let alone a focus for union which can or ought to be treated as equivalent to the sacrament of marriage in either Church doctrine or civil law.

If the Church reversed this, then the Church would thereby violently reverse doctrinal statements already held to be infallible and irreformable. Doing so would demonstrate conclusively either that the Catholic Church was not the Church Jesus Christ founded, or that Jesus could not keep His promises and thus is not God. Even if I thought the Catholic Church was a merely human institution, I would not expect that to happen.

2. It is therefore entirely likely that, oh, a pantload of bad things will happen that the ball-spikers trumpet to us with such relish: They young folks will abandon the faith in droves; the pews will be empty; the words of the faithful clergy and laity treated as anathema in public discourse; and they will all endure various levels of official and unofficial harassment, occasionally rising to the level of real persecution. No doubt all this is correct.

But if so…what of it?

If the Catholic faith is false, then Catholics ought to be treated that way for their complicity in foisting the heinous false hope of Christianity on the world.

And if the Catholic faith is true, then every person who gives up family or home or work advancement or who endures scorn or abuse or torture or death will be repaid a hundredfold by treasures in Heaven, and the abusers, if they do not go to hell, will wind up with lengthy stays in purgatory. For God is not mocked and the Judge of all the earth will do right. These “light and passing afflictions” are storing up for us a reward that moth and rust cannot destroy, and the blood of the martyrs (or, hey, their ability to get a job and earn a living) is the seed of the Church.

So it seems to me that all this ball-spiking is…well, it’s a bit toothless, you know? Cowalker, Bill, Rover? I mean, in twenty million years we’re all either going to be nonexistent, in hell, or in someplace far better than earth. You’re telling me that things are turning against the Church for the next few decades that I’ll be here, and I’m like, “This blink-of-an-eye bit of disappointment is supposed to, what? Scare me?”

I’m sorry to disappoint, but when one is adopted into the family of the God who died and rose again, having someone be mean to you is something to smile or shrug about, and having the popular, worldly crowd ignore you is just par for the course. “Strike me down, and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine” was mere shameless stealing by George Lucas; Christianity’s been saying it for two thousand years and every time the Church looks dead she suddenly springs up to life again, like her Lord. The classic Christian in many ways is St. Lawrence. He was being grilled to death on a gridiron for being a Christian and—in view of the Heavenly compensation in store for him—joked with his persecutors, “Hey, turn me over! I’m done on this side!”

Not that I expect, oh, you know, lions and such. I don’t think the current crop of anti-Christians could find it in themselves to exert such bold, decisive, earnest expressions of their feelings about Christ and His body. The HHS mandate is more their style: Mere economic sanctions against the faithful. “Violate your faith, or we’ll drive you out of business. Violate your faith, or we’ll deny you the opportunity to work as a therapist, as a counselor, as a schoolteacher, or in academia.”

But again, what of it? “These light and passing afflictions…” says St. Paul and I’m with him.

And I’m with St. John the Revelator, too. The gist of the last few verses of his Apocalypse can be summed up in two words: “We win.”

So I’ll stay at my post—Jesus doesn’t approve of his soldiers going AWOL—but I’m not overly concerned about how the war’s going, from the perspective of eternity. There’ll be sadness along the way and I’ll bet even St. Lawrence winced at his predicament at the time, but it isn’t like giving in to discouragement makes much sense in the long run.

So you guys just keep on spiking that ball. And the Church will just keep on defending to the death the intrinsic dignity of homosexuals (just like she does with fornicators and tax-cheats and gossipers and gluttons and overly-wordy-combox warriors) while disapproving their sins.

But if in your crowing you’re hoping to discourage, well…you’d be better served to save your breath, while you still have it.

Isabel,

Civil union laws are not based on who fornicates with whom, but with giving rights such as inheritance, etc, to gays, who would not be able to get them without a marriage. It’s more like finding a way to separate unions from marriage, regardless of any bedroom activities.

BILL S.

DON’T PLAY STUPID!

Bill S., said, “Oh, please!  Why can’t we just leave these people alone and let them live their own lives?”

Point #3

Gays will demand that bakeries, photographers and other services cater to their FAKE gay weddings.  Gays will bring in law suits if anyone objects to their life styles.

WHO IS NOT LEAVING WHO ALONE???

I have a hard time dealing with someone who posts under the name: “Repent and Believe in God” and uses all caps to make a point.

I don’t think you are of the right frame of mind to have a productive discussion. To me you are just a religious fanatic.

Perhaps I am naive but if homosexuals are living together and want to institutionalize their relationships they are not based on anything other than sexual practices.  If that is not so, then all relationships deserve the same status that they have. They want the State to recognize that their sexual acts are legitimate and deserving of legal protection. Catholics can’t do that because homosexual acts are mortal sin and we are called to fight against Sin.

Isabel,

Yes all relationships deserve the same status. Hence the state should stop marrying people, and just regulate civil unions for everybody. This will pull the rug out from the equality brigade.

States that have long financed unmarried co-habitation are suddenly pushing for the right to marry because marriage is supposed to be good for everybody??

The State has an interest in how children are brought into the world, how they are raised and how they are cared for.  Children have rights too and their rights must be protected. They have a natural right to a mother and a father. If the state negates this right the State is no longer an authority we have to obey because it is obligated to protect the rights of children above the sexual practices of homosexuals.

The government has financed unmarried co-habitaion on the backs of taxpayers.  Behind every welfare mother there is a father that put her there. Force fathers to care for their own children no matter what the cost to themselves. If you fornicate, you should pay the consequences.  We should stop making children pay for the sins of their fathers and mothers. Whenever I see a poor child in America, I think, where is her dad?  Why did he do this to his own daughter or son.

Isabel,

You are right, this is the reason why certain countries do not permit those in civil unions to adopt.

So the State is saying that civil unions are not equal to marriage but have legal protection for what? What rights do homosexual people have that the state is protecting. It seems to me the State is arguing that homosexuals have the right to fornicate and that right must be legally protected.

My question is, Why would a Catholic Cardinal even think to recognize a right to fornicate?

Isabel,

Providing someone with certain legal rights such as inheritance, etc is not the same as recognizing a right to fornicate. Unless you are arguing that two gays cannot love each other without engaging in sodomy. This is not a stance taken by the church.

There seems to be some confusion as to the spiritual difference between the heterosexual and the homosexual act. The sex act was created by God to model the inner life of the Trinity. The heterosexual union is described as the one flesh union. The intimacy of the one flesh union models the intimacy of the union between the Three Persons of the Trinity, an intimacy that is so complete, total, and perfect that They are One in Substance. Eve was made from the rib of Adam so that she would be consubstantial with Adam. From a spiritual perspective this universe is incarnational, and the heterosexual union is a form of living iconography. In the one flesh union of the heterosexual act there is an authentic, intimate, physical joining of the husband and the wife, where they form one flesh, and are face to face.
The relationship between God and the Church is said to be spousal. To be in intimate, spiritual, divine union with God is the way to most fully see God face to face.  Only the heterosexual union provides the true image and likeness of this face to face union. Every other way is the way of the iconoclast, destroying the sacred imagery that God gave the heterosexual act.

No, savvy, I do not believe a homosexual couple can love one another. To love another is to sacrifice the self for the well being of the beloved.  To place another in even the near occasion of sin is a sin. If two homosexual persons want to share an apartment, that’s their business and between them and God. If they want Catholics to say it is a union worthy of legal protection that is my business and I say no because if you are not fornicating, you are not in an intimate relationship deserving of legal protection and if you are fornicating, your actions should be condemned.

GregB,  Beautifully stated.  However I am definitely not confused regarding homosexual fornication and the marital act of love that reflects the love of the Blessed Trinity. I am confused as to why a Catholic Cardinal would do anything to advance the grave sin of legitimizing homosexual unions for any reason, whatsoever.

Isabel,

You need to look into church teaching on chaste friendship.  The church used to have a rite of Christian friendship, between people of the same-sex that was not considered to be a marriage. Off course, it takes a mature person to enter into one.

Chaste friendship doesn’t have the legal protection of civil unions or marriage.  I have seven sisters and many female friends since I attended all girls schools and a woman’s college.  I don’t need the protection of the state or a rite of the Church to foster these friendships.  I may not be mature enough to enter into a relationship with my six sisters or the friendships I have been blessed with over the years but I believe Jesus would approve of them and be glad that I received them with love and a spirit of gratefulness. These are divinely ordered friendships and not disordered.  Homosexual relationships are disordered, un natural and against the Divine will of God. They are sinful. There just isn’t any other way of putting it.

” I am definitely not confused regarding homosexual fornication and the marital act of love that reflects the love of the Blessed Trinity. I am confused as to why a Catholic Cardinal would do anything to advance the grave sin of legitimizing homosexual unions for any reason, whatsoever.”

See. This is why we can’t have Catholics involved in decisions that involve human rights. The Concept of the Blessed Trinity has no place in any discussions about same sex marriage and whether or not it should be legal. I never heard of anyone relating the two.

Fornication is not a human right.  It is a sin. And yes, Catholics are citizens too with the right to speak, to teach and to impose their values on those who have none.

Posted by Isabel Kilian on Saturday, Mar 23, 2013 10:05 AM (EDT):
“Fornication is not a human right.”
Say what?  Who can take away the right to have sexual relations with another consenting adult which would include fornication?  It would be really scary if what you people call sin were to be made illegal. Hopefully, that day will never come.

Fornication is to have sex with a particular individual without caring about the good of the body, the soul, and the spirit of the individual; and not taking responsibilty for the consequencies(immediate or long-term) of the particular sexual act.

Bill S,

I take it you are opposed to any person of faith, from expressing their views, except atheists right?

“Fornication is to have sex with a particular individual without caring about the good of the body, the soul, and the spirit of the individual; and not taking responsibilty for the consequencies(immediate or long-term) of the particular sexual act.”

Chris. You’re making it too complicated.

for·ni·ca·tion (fôr n -k sh n). n. Sexual intercourse between partners who are not married to each other.

If a gay couple marries, it will no longer be fornication. Not that it matters because it is not illegal.

“I take it you are opposed to any person of faith, from expressing their views, except atheists right?”

No. If I didn’t value your opinions and others, I wouldn’t be posting on this blog.

Fornication has consequences for the society as a whole.  Let those who choose to engage in this behavior take the consequences upon themselves.

One of the worst consequences is unwed mothers and more welfare babies. But what are the consequences for married, monogamous same sex couples?

Bill S,

So you are opposed to fornication now, because it has consequences? These consequences only exist because states have long financed unmarried co-habitation and encouraged it by giving benefits.

The same states are now pushing for the right for homosexuals to marry. They have a different standard for heterosexuals and homosexuals, it seems.

people lets stay focused. The aim of the Global Gay Agenda is to make homosexuality a free for all. in short the objective is to turn the whole world into a Sodom and Gomorah.
If they have their way it will impossible to open a bank account without evidence of support for same-sex union. if they had their way it will be impossible to buy shares on wall street without evidence of endorsement of same sex marriage.
the list goes on and on. they are gunning for the jugular. The only thing standing between them and their objective is the Holy Roman Catholic Church.
So what do they do? they are trying to infiltrate the church and trying to bring her down from within.
We must stay vigilant, stay awake and watch over our mother: the catholic church. with prayers and mortifications.

I agree with you that unwed mothers and the poverty they impose upon their children is a grave sin. However, behind every welfare mother there is a man who put her there.  When “partners” as you call them choose to fornicate, conceive a child and then abandon their responsibilities to that child, they are committing a crime against the human rights of that child to be conceived, born and raised by a mother and a father within a family.  Whenever I see children in poverty, I usually can be certain that their mother and father had no regard for the economic, emotional or social wellbeing of their children. They are also committing a crime against those of us who will be forced to deplete our family resources due to their negligence or abuse of family obligations.  We will be taxed to pay for medical, dental, prenatal, birth, child care, mother’s education and or job training, vaccines, pre school, school lunches, school breakfasts, and a monthly monetary indulgence. Recently, it was estimated that fornicators with one child cost the taxpayers $50,000/year in benefits they are afforded.  This robs from parents that need to use their income to raise their own families.  Therefore the term crime is appropriate.  If the fornicators choose to kill their child in the barbaric act of abortion murder, the society becomes base, without a regard for the dignity of life or the right to life of any one.  This is where we are now. Fornication is mostly responsible for poverty and abortion.  As for homosexual fornicators, they impose a host of extremely dangerous diseases upon one another and their communities and society at large. They debase the natural rights families and the fundamental order of society.  There is nothing good in the act fornication and therefore it is an intrinsic evil leading to greater evil.

“The aim of the Global Gay Agenda is to make homosexuality a free for all. in short the objective is to turn the whole world into a Sodom and Gomorrah”

Chris,

Your credibility is shot.  Global Gay Agenda?  Sodom and Gomorrah?  Please. You need help.

Bill,  I agree with you that unwed mothers and the poverty they impose upon their children is a grave sin. However, behind every welfare mother there is a man who put her there.  When “partners” as you call them choose to fornicate, conceive a child and then abandon their responsibilities to that child, they are committing a crime against the human rights of that child to be conceived, born and raised by a mother and a father within a family.  Whenever I see children in poverty, I usually can be certain that their mother and father had no regard for the economic, emotional or social wellbeing of their children. They are also committing a crime against those of us who will be forced to deplete our family resources due to their negligence or abuse of family obligations.  We will be taxed to pay for medical, dental, prenatal, birth, child care, mother’s education and or job training, vaccines, pre school, school lunches, school breakfasts, and a monthly monetary indulgence. Recently, it was estimated that fornicators with one child cost the taxpayers $50,000/year in benefits they are afforded.  This robs from parents that need to use their income to raise their own families.  Therefore the term crime is appropriate.  If the fornicators choose to kill their child in the barbaric act of abortion murder, the society becomes base, without a regard for the dignity of life or the right to life of any one.  This is where we are now. Fornication is mostly responsible for poverty and abortion.  As for homosexual fornicators, they impose a host of extremely dangerous diseases upon one another and their communities and society at large. They debase the natural rights families and the fundamental order of society.  There is nothing good in the act fornication and therefore it is an intrinsic evil leading to greater evil.

Bill, what you fail to admit is that homosexual people have the exact same rights to marry as anyone else. Any homosexual male can marry any female he chooses to marry and any homosexual female has a right to marry any man of her choosing.  All is equal, see!

“Any homosexual male can marry any female he chooses to marry and any homosexual female has a right to marry any man of her choosing.  All is equal, see!”

That’s cold.

That’s true!

Isabel,

You are one of those types that I would hate to see in any kind of position of power. You would make many people miserable with your strict adherence to Catholic teachings. It probably works for you in your happy little world, but it would be disastrous for others.

Jimmy, I totally agreement with what you have stated in this article. As a matter of fact, I had said this very same thing, before reading your article, to a Catholic friend who had brought this issue to my attnetion.

BillS,  I would hate to see you in any position of power because you would not respect the natural rights of others to practice their religion everywhere. You would promote all that is ugly, immoral and false.  Your little world would look something like Syria does today.  You might be happy but the suffering you would impose on the innocent would be grave indeed.

“You would not respect the natural rights of others to practice their religion everywhere.”

It depends on what you mean by practicing your religion everywhere. Judging by your other posts I would have to agree with you on this one.

“You would promote all that is ugly, immoral and false.”

I would not make everything that you consider ugly, immoral and false illegal. I wouldn’t force your views on anyone.

“Your little world would look something like Syria does today.”

I don’t know how that would happen. I have no interest in being a dictator.

“You might be happy but the suffering you would impose on the innocent would be grave indeed.”

I don’t know how you can know all that about me from a few posts on a blog.

Bill S, It means, I want to practice my religion everywhere.  I am definitely not going to be told I have a right to worship ( in the local church on the corner).  I want to practice my religion everywhere I am and everywhere my tax dollars are used.  How’s that?  Everywhere.  You say you wouldnt force your views on anyone but I don’t believe you. I have seen the views of anti Catholics being imposed on us for years.  I want to finally impose holiness on everyone. I want to teach everyone about chastity, holiness and Jesus Christ.  I want to teach everyone about the natural right to life that all human beings have from conception to natural death.  I want to teach everyone about the extreme dangers of fornication, contraception, divorce, homosexuality, liberalism, lying, worshipping false God’s, stealing and not respecting your parents.  That’s ok with you right?  I think you do want to be a dictator. You want to dictate to me that there is a made up right for everyone to think as they please and to do as they please.  If you are not interested in dictating, I am sure you will agree that I have a right to do all that I have written.  God Bless!

“If you are not interested in dictating, I am sure you will agree that I have a right to do all that I have written.”

Go ahead. Knock yourself out.

No, I don’t.  No one has a right to do wrong.

With divine Grace, one never tires.

Bill S.,

You have no comback for any of my points.  You can’t even make a sound argument, you have to go with your lame personal attack with “you are just a religious fanatic.”

I believe that you are just a TROLLING CLOWN.
And, yes I will use my CAPS.  Go ahead and support your progressive agenda of SODOMY, MUTUAL MASTERBATION FAKE MARRIAGE and destroy the whole society as well as your soul.

Oh you’re so hip, you’re so progressive!

Maybe this is too simplistic and I’m sure smarter people than me have kicked this around… but why not have civil unions be available to all people who co-habitate, regardless of sexual orientation. There are certainly plenty of Americans these days (sisters and brothers, parents and adult children, long-term roomates, etc.) who would benefit from being able to pool financial and legal resources. In this way, civil union is an equal right, not just a gay right.

i do not believe there is any principles in american law that currently prevent people from making contractual agreements about virtually any activity, except where the agreement would result in conspiracy to commit a crime.  civil unions are unnecessary.  what i wonder about is why the government should be concerned, support, encourage or sanction private relationships that are unrelated to the procreation and raising of children and that also provide no benefit of any sort to society?  why does the government even want to go there?  i undertand the government involving itself in and sanctioning the relationship between one man and one woman.  afterall, that relationship is the foundation of society.  any other private relationship should be kept private.  the government has no business involving itself in such relationships.  the only reason the government involves itself, even in traditional marriage, is because of its relationship to the unique male female relationship which is the foundation of society. in addition, as a taxpayer, i see no reason why my taxes should be used to benefit relationships that provide nothing to society in return.

i may be mistaken, but i think there is a moral principle that, when faced with two options, both of which are evil, a person must choose the option that is less evil.

“what i wonder about is why the government should be concerned, support, encourage or sanction private relationships that are unrelated to the procreation and raising of children and that also provide no benefit of any sort to society?  why does the government even want to go there?”

The government is not doing this. The plaintiffs are bringing their cases to the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of Prop. 8 and DOMA.

Regardless of what the courts decide, the church will still continue to honour and uphold marriage between a man and a woman. The biggest obstacle will not be from without, but from those in the church, who won’t back down on pushing these things.  The Anglicans already have a global schism.  LGBT politics and theology is divisive and causes division and schism.

“The biggest obstacle will not be from without, but from those in the church, who won’t back down on pushing these things.  The Anglicans already have a global schism.  LGBT politics and theology is divisive and causes division and schism.”

All that means is that some religious are supportive. At least the Anglican Church doesn’t crush all dissent like the Catholic Church with its 2,000 years of unchanged policies.

Bill S,

You should talk to my Anglican friends. They would disagree with you. This article might help too.

http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17351#.UVHp_Zj7D-s

Bill S,

The church cannot invent a new Gospel. No church run by feminists and gays is going to last too long.

A Catholic politician who tolerates the “lesser evil” of reducing the number of abortions per “Evangelium vitae” is in no way analogous to a Catholic prelate playing a game with semantics with “civil unions,” as opposed to “same-sex marriage.” The intrinsic evil of Sodomite unions which are permanent and public in the very body politic of the State can in no way be tolerated…

Carl,

Murder is different from civil unions. The CDF document holds that civil unions are to be opposed only if are treated like marriage.

Saint John Chrysostom says that Sodomy is worse than murder - Quo vadis?

“The intrinsic evil of Sodomite unions which are permanent and public in the very body politic of the State can in no way be tolerated.”

Carl,

What happens between consenting adults in a private setting is no one’s business but theirs. Civil unions are not for the purpose of regulating or deregulating sexuality. That is just you Prohibitionist-like misperception of the purpose of these laws.

Bill S writes,

“I don’t think you are of the right frame of mind to have a productive discussion” nor do I think you ever intend on having “productive discussions here at NCR and elsewhere after reviewing your numerous comments.

“To me you are just a religious fanatic”
and Bill you are just as fanatical as those you attempt to label religious. Actually, you are definitely fanatical whereas your suggestions of others as such, are, well, knee-jerk retaliation. 

I’m finding it harder and harder to believe you are married to a practicing Catholic and desire NOT to leave the community merely basing the decision upon niceties. You seem not to be the person will not speak their mind at every turn and in the public place (including amongst church folk at Church) and speaking it abrasively. You’ve mispresented me at least once already on this forum and I’m new here so get off the high horse partner, you are transparent! 

Thinker,

Bill is a coward in the closet, who cannot speak his mind elsewhere, so he goes to sites like this and drives everybody else crazy with his ranting.

“To me you are just a religious fanatic”

I regret making that statement. It was someone who I didn’t want to take on because of his extreme religious views. Savvy has got me pegged. I can’t discuss these issues with my family and friends so I discuss them on sites like this. Sorry for being such an irritant to you.

I personally believed prior to reading this that civil unions with benefits of hospital visitation, inheritance, etc. are a more accurate characterization of homosexuals living together than “marriage.” Two friends who take care of one another in a completely non-sexual way may want those rights as well. Civil unions are the answer, not marriage. That being said, what matters is that churches are never forced by law to perform gay marriages against their beliefs. Any Christian church who blesses gay marriage is only fooling themselves as there is no biblical evidence God is OK with it. Civil unions honor the friendship of the people, and don’t show approval for incompatible sexual relationships which by nature, do not result in families. I feel sorry for gays, but those who are pushing it as marriage are pushing for something that doesn’t naturally exist.

I’m surprised that people have a problem with Pope Francis having suggested that civil unions would be more acceptable than marriage. Whereas marriage implies a sexual relationship, civil unions do not. A couple could enter into a civil union for the same benefits as a marriage. Whether the couple has sex or not would be their own personal business.  So it would make perfect sense for him to consider it as the lesser evil (if it would even be considered evil). I mean, really, what does the Catholic Church want. Is it so incapable of any kind of compromise?

Tony,

It would have to be civil unions without adoptions. The thing is even in countries where civil unions are legal, the fight for marriage still continues, because the issue is not the right to marry or equality, before law, but the right to re-define marriage. Gay marriage, is the way to get the stamp of approval on homosexual sex.

Bill S,

I agree with you. However, its not the church that is not open to compromise, as I have pointed out in my response to Tom.  Even in countries with equal benefits in civil unions, the fight for marriage continues. This is not about the right to marry or equality, but about the right to redefine marriage.

Bill, I said “permanent and public,” not private and consensual. Your inattention is appreciated…

I wrote it before on another post—
.
I thing the real resentment the Catholic Church as against secular government is that secular government has no legal restrictions to prevent people from <u>not</u> being Catholic.
.
There is absolutely no threat to “traditional marriage” if law also allows for same-sex marriage. The only reason for Catholic abhorrence of homosexuality and same sex marriage is that it grosses them out to think of two guys kissing.

Catholics can define “Catholic marriage” as one man and one woman united for the purpose of raising a family of Catholic offspring. Secular law can define marriage in secular terms—the arrangement that same-sex partners have the same legal rights and conditions as mixed-sex partners. Catholics are just P***ed off that they can’t stop people for choosing to be not Catholic
.
Homosexual marriage is here to stay.

We were fed the same lines in Canada. Gay marriage would not affect traditional marriage etc. Now the active war on religious schools and on parental rights, that denies parents and religious schools the right to teach their own views on marriage and family.

“Catholics are just P***ed off that they can’t stop people for choosing to be not Catholic”

Hogwash!

.

Marriage is a sacrament. It exists outside of the civil sphere. Of course, Christians must oppose redefining marriage as being other than one man and one woman. There are, however, some very deep issues here wrt the links between Church and State, issues which highlight the complete inadequacy of the modern liberal West. The problem is the prior legitimizing of secularism per se. Suppose Mormons or Muslims want to have polygamous marriages recognized by the civil government, and Christians object. If America is not, formally, a Christian nation, then what really are the grounds for Christian Americans to forbid polygamy among non-Christian Americans?

“Same-sex marriage” is a cultural assault on Christianity understood not merely as a private faith, but as a collective civilization. Until we stop looking at issues from either the “private sentiment” or “God’s Natural Law” perspectives (the former is wrong; the latter unpersuasive to non-Christians), but instead look at the effects of various proposed policies on our collective way of life, I think we’ll all just be butting heads to no avail.

One cannot condone same-sex unions without condoning same-sex acts. If it is true that Pope Francis condoned same sex unions we are in serious trouble as we have elected a Pope who s not in communion with The Catholic Church

“One cannot condone same-sex unions without condoning same-sex acts.”

Says who?  A civil union is based on issues that do not include sexual relations. That’s an entirely different and private matter that requires no one to condone or condemn it. How presumptuous for Catholics to now poke their noses into civil unions which in no way redefine marriage which is supposed to be Catholics’ main concern.

Leon,

Most rational people oppose polygamy and group marriage. The legal implications are also plenty. The chances are that if everything is marriage, nothing will be marriage. In countries where gay marriage has been legalized, marriage rates have already gone down. Once you rob something of it’s meaning and significance, nobody sees the point anymore.

Nancy D.

He’s not condoning civil unions. You might want to read the article.

That should read one cannot condone civil unions for two men or two women without condoning same-sex sexual acts. Catholics do not compromise The Truth of Love. Our call to Holiness, is a call to Love according to The Word of God. Pope Francis needs to address this issue least it appear that Catholics do not worship The True God, The God Who desires we overcome our disordered inclinations, including our disordered sexual inclinations, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more, The God of our Salvation, the ordered, complementary communion of Perfect Love that is The Blessed Trinity.

“Catholics do not compromise “

Compromise is an important part of good diplomacy. If Catholics can’t compromise then they will have no say in any serious decision making process. Nancy, what this world needs is less religious extremism and more cooperation between people with different worldviews. And I find it humorous that you would question the Pope. I thought people like you were not supposed to do that.

“And I find it humorous that you would question the Pope. I thought people like you were not supposed to do that.”

You thought wrong Bill S.

Nancy D,

The Pope did not say these things in his official capacity as Pope. He is not proclaiming a doctrine, his opinions can be ignored.  He’s just making it hard for his critics to argue against doctrine, when he reaffirms it.

You might want to see FrZ’s take on this.

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2013/03/what-is-pope-francis-really-saying/

Catholics do not have opinions on The Deposit of Faith, as they are converts to and thus in communion with The Body of Christ. Communion is not a matter of degree.

Nancy D,

I am tired of this on both sides.  First of all there is endless arguments over whose feet MUST be washed, when the rite itself is optional, and now his opinions are seen by some as an attack on the deposit of faith. Stop the self-appointed magisterium. The Holy Spirit runs the church, not you or me.

We have all grown weary of the division in Christ’s Church. As servant to the servants of God, Pope Francis as Pope, must serve only to unify, not divide.

Nancy D,

As long he does not touch doctrine, I am fine. The thing is you cannot please everybody. Sometimes nobody wins.

Our only desire should be to please God, and thus desire only that which is Good for ourselves and others.

It is time for the pope to speak up about the church’s true teachings on homosexual unions. We can’t call it “gay marriage,” because that is saying that homosexuals can have a marriage. The fact is, no matter how much homosexuals want to be married they can’t. I believe that it’s time we stop calling it something that can’t physically exist.

I am a high school student at a Catholic high school, and everywhere I look my peers are extremely confused on homosexuality. I have heard this quite often, “I want to agree with the church, but my feelings don’t match up.” 

It is time for the pope along with the bishops, priests, and deacons to start preaching the truth. What is there to lose? Remember, if they persecuted me, they will also persecute you.

Our goal is heaven. So the question is… Why should we not speak the truth?

“We can’t call it “gay marriage,” because that is saying that homosexuals can have a marriage.”

In my state, Massachusetts, homosexuals do have marriages. Gay marriage is accepted by just about every public figure including many Catholics like Boston Mayor Menino. The Archbishop and Bishops oppose it, of course, but even some priests are openly tolerant of it.

You are too young to be so prejudiced against gays. The Catholic Church has done you a disservice by brainwashing you into believing that homosexuality is disordered and that you shouldn’t be tolerant of gays. Shame on your teachers and others who have poisoned your mind.  I am 61. I was once brainwashed as well and it has taken a long time for me to learn to not believe everything people try to push on me.

Bill S,

Shame on you, for picking on the young ones, just because they do not the drink the kool-aid of faux diversity and relevance, seeking what is real instead.

And for the nth time, tolerance is different from approval. We tolerate you on this blog.

Paula,

You are very brave for speaking up and refusing to be bullied. God Bless you!

“Shame on you, for picking on the young ones, just because they do not the drink the kool-aid of faux diversity and relevance, seeking what is real instead.”

It’s not “faux”. It is real diversity and relevance.

And she might be truly seeking what is real for all you know.

To accept something on faith without questioning is to truly “drink the Kool-Aid”. You’ve got it totally backwards. And “tolerance” is indeed the right word for what is needed.

We are not called to tolerate our sinful inclinations, we are called to overcome them through The Word of Love, so that we are not led into temptation, but rather, sin no more. We cannot transform The Word of God, Christ transforms us.

“We are not called to tolerate our sinful inclinations”

The tolerance that I am talking about has nothing to do with our inclinations and everything to do with people who are different from ourselves. It’s just simple civility and common courtesy. Accepting gays for who they are should be taught in Tolerance 101. Do we want to get along with or alienate one another?

The Argentine situation did not fall somewhere between the two, as neither same-sex “marriage” or same-sex unions were established law, and both the recognition of same-sex “marriage” and same-sex “unions” affirm and condone same-sex sexual acts that demean the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person, and can thus never be acts of Love. By failing to speak out against both same-sex “marriage”  and same-sex sexual “unions”, simultaneously, it appears that one can be Catholic while condoning acts that demean the Dignity of the human person.

“both the recognition of same-sex “marriage” and same-sex “unions” affirm and condone same-sex sexual acts that demean the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person”

You should add to that “but are no one else’s business”

Nancy, has anyone ever told you to keep your nose out of other people’s personal lives?

You have a strong Prohibitionist mentality. You want the government to make any act that goes against your morals illegal. People can’t even have civil unions?  Really?

Those who condone same-sex sexual acts, which demean the inherent Dignity of the human person, deny the truth about the essence of being male or female, the essence of being a husband or a wife, the essence of the marital act that is Blessed by God, and if children are introduced into the same-sex sexual relationship, deny the essence of being a father or mother, and thus having denied that human persons are created in The Image and Likeness of God, equal in Dignity, while being complementary as male and female, as a reflection of Love, deny the essence of God, and are thus apostates to The One Body of Christ.

Bill S,

We have had these conversations in the past. It’s your side that has no evidence, just ideology and a lot of shouting.  We are discussing actions here. If everybody were in line to jump of the brooklyn bridge would you do the same?

If I have a friend, that abuses drugs, I will not affirm it and call it a good thing, because this is who my friend is. If you think this is hate, so be it.

Actually, Bill, I do not want our Government condoning any sexual act other than the Marital Act, which is Life- affirming and Life-sustaining, and thus Good for the posterity and prosperity of our Nation and The World.

“If I have a friend, that abuses drugs, I will not affirm it and call it a good thing, because this is who my friend is. If you think this is hate, so be it.”

Abuse of drugs is a self-destructive lifestyle that has no relevance to our discussion of Pope Francis having suggested, when he was a Cardinal, that civil unions would be a lesser evil than marriage for gays. He was right in a sense that civil unions neither condone nor condemn gay sex while marriage would out and out condone it. 

Nancy D. Is so obsessed about sex that she can’t even accept civil unions. The sex is going to happen regardless of marriage or civil union or nothing.

Nancy D. If you are worried about declines in population, what does that have to do with gay marriage? If anything, gays who marry can have children through artificial insemination and surrogate mothers. So your argument is not valid.

Nancy D,

I agree with church teachings, but civil unions has nothing to do with sex. It’s a legal contract.

Bill S,

Your response on surrogate mothers and IVF fathers, puts the dent in the AAP, argument about two-stable parents, since there are going to be more than two parents. Another reason to oppose gay marriage. Children need a mother and a father. This is a social engineering experiment.

Savvy,

In the case of two women having a baby, it would be artificial insemination not IVF. but either way, the point I was trying to make is that Nancy D cannot use population decline as a valid reason to oppose gay marriage. She is probably implying that, with gay marriage legal. The incentive for a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex and raise a family is taken away. It’s a ridiculous notion and I’m not really sure how her mind works.  All I know is that Catholic arguments against SSM are deficient to say the least.

“All I know is that Catholic arguments against SSM are deficient to say the
least.”

No, they are not.

Rebuttals to arguments for same-sex marriage

http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage.aspx

All I can say is that I am proud to live in a state that allows same sex marriage. Gays living in states that don’t allow it will have to wait for the Supreme Court decisions.

Bill S,

You’re a lost cause.

Unfortunately, people have taken it upon themselves to rewrite the ten commandments to suit their own lifestyles in favor of worshiping the false gods of materialism, secularism and relativism which is why we have the mess we see in the world today.  The unacceptable has become acceptable—relativism at its worst!  Satan has the upper hand right now as was written in the Bible, but his time is coming to an end, hopefully sooner rather than later.

Nancy Gagne,

I couldn’t agree more with you!

Dear Bill S,

I am not at all prejudiced against homosexuals. I just want to make that clear. I know a lesbian girl at my school and we are friends. She knows where I stand on the issue and I will always be there for her both with my prayers and by helping her find the truth if she ever asks for it.

The thing is, we should be tolerant of homosexuals but to an extant. Homosexuals are human beings made in the image of God. As catholics we love all human beings. Since we love all human beings including homosexuals then we want people to go to heaven since that is our overall goal! It’s our duty to tell them that the lifestyle they are living is wrong. It’s going to be hard but we have to. If we truly love them then we won’t go the easy route of saying love is love and they can do whatever they want. Since we love them we are going to tell them the truth.

“Since we love all human beings including homosexuals then we want people to go to heaven since that is our overall goal! It’s our duty to tell them that the lifestyle they are living is wrong.”

Oh no, please, don’t do that. You’ll probably think that I am evil if I try to talk you down from the ledge you are on. Don’t hurt her and ruin a friendship because of what you’ve been taught about heaven and about the sinfulness of homosexual practices. You are just so misguided.

This is why atheists say that religion poisons everything. It is poisoning your friendship. The truth is that none of us is going anywhere. When it comes to dying we’re not that different than any other mammal. Christian morality might have a lot of good ideas but some of them can be destructive to our friendships and our self esteem. I’m not trying to sell you on atheism. But I beg you not to push your religion on someone who needs to be told that she is not a bad person just because she happens to have different sexual preferences. People like you can destroy the self esteem of people like her. It would be better for you to just let her be herself and not try to “save” her, which is a ridiculous notion.

One does not have to be religious to understand that Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate for the sake of self-gratification. Same sex sexual acts, like any act that does not respect the inherent Dignity of the human person, and is thus demeaning, can never be acts of Love. Love desires that our beloved be treated with Dignity and respect.

As the mother of a daughter that identifies as being “gay” , I have watched my daughter grow and develop and know that she is suffering with an emotional developmental issue. My daughter was developing normally until the perfect storm occurred that included a date rape by a boy she knew her freshman year of college, who told her and her friends that she must be “gay” because she was and continued to be traumatized. I Love my daughter, as I Love all my children, and because I Love her, I will never lie to her, just as I will never lie to her siblings, and claim that demeaning sexual acts serve the Good of those persons engaging in demeaning sexual acts. Bill S., it is those persons who sexually objectify the human person who destroy the self esteem of human persons, not those persons who believe every human person deserves to be treated with Dignity and respect. If it is true that Pope Francis supported civil unions for those men and women who have a disordered same sex sexual inclination, I am more than just disturbed, I am frightened!

“it is those persons who sexually objectify the human person who destroy the self esteem of human persons, not those persons who believe every human person deserves to be treated with Dignity and respect.”

Nancy D. I see where you are coming from and I sympathize with you. I was very religious when I found out that my son was gay. You don’t want to be an element of the perfect storm for your daughter to end up with severe psychological problems. From what you have been saying on this blog, it is clear to me that you need to broaden your worldview to allow your daughter to find her own way through this. What she needs most is to speak to a non-religious psychologist. Please don’t have her talk to a priest. That would really mess her up. If you insist on being so religious, the best advice comes from my great grandmother’s cousin, Francesco Forgione (Padre Pio) “Hope, Pray and Don’t Worry”.

I know. How can a relative of a saint be an atheist. It’s complicated.

This is for the catholic politician and the catholic clergy: It is clear that gay marriage (and gay civil union) is a no-no for the vast (overwhelming) majority of Catholics. Having made our stand crystal clear; for the sake of going the extra mile and not being dubbed unreasonable bigots we could sponsor and support legislation for official registration of Next-of-Kin. Such that this Next of kin could benefit from insurance policies of the principal as well as benefit from stipulated inheritance laws. In this way the actual relationship between the principal and his (or her) Next of kin is irrelevant to others. And also this registration will be done (each and everytime) by single individuals not couples. Next of kin could mother, son, cousin, uncle, father, grandmother, wife, nurse, gardener, etc, whatever.
This Next-of-kin registration would be the perfect compromise with the atheists and secularists; and a way out for sympathetic clergy.

“Having made our stand crystal clear; for the sake of going the extra mile and not being dubbed unreasonable bigots we could sponsor and support legislation for official registration of Next-of-Kin.”

You want gays to register their partners as “next to kin”. And you are proposing this as an alternative to same sex marriage.

Errr. No.

Sorry. “Next-of-Kin.”

Bill S., those who contributed to the perfect storm did not care about my daughter’s well being. It is because I Love my daughter, that I refuse to lie to her and tell her that engaging in behavior that is physically, psychologically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually damaging can be Good for her or any person.

If it is true that Pope Francis supported same-sex sexual unions which is a serious violation against The Catholic Church’s teaching on our call to Holiness, then we have a serious problem that needs to be addressed. I would suggest that someone meet with our Holy Father Benedict and verify that he is safe and in Good hands as something is not quite right in the Vatican these days.

Nancy,

I’m sure you have done your own research, but I found this helpful:

“While there are those who still hold the view that homosexual activity is “unnatural” or “dysfunctional”, research has shown that homosexuality is an example of a normal and natural variation in human sexuality and is not in and of itself a source of negative psychological effects. Prejudice and discrimination against homosexual and bisexual people (homophobia) have, however, been shown to cause significant psychological harm, and are especially damaging to children who are homosexual or bisexual.”

I’m not trying to say that your daughter really is gay, but if it turns out that she is, you might want to consider not insisting that the teachings of the Catholic Church provide the most up to date guidance on the issue. The Catholic Church is absolute poison to homosexuals. They don’t need it to persecute them with its guilt trips. It is your faith but you have the freedom in this country to decide that you are not going to let the Catholic Church dictate how you and your family are going to live. We live in a brave new world. You should check it out.

“I would suggest that someone meet with our Holy Father Benedict and verify that he is safe and in Good hands as something is not quite right in the Vatican these days.”

A sense of humor. That’s always a good thing. Keeps us from taking things too seriously.

Nancy D, i perceive you truly love your daughter who following a traumatic experience now identifies herself as gay. Well apart from doing all you have been doing viz counseling, cajoling, explaining, blogging etc. Don’t forget the most important thing of all, viz, praying with faith in the name of the Lord Jesus. if you would want us to join you in prayer please feel free to indicate. With God on our side we will win no matter how daunting things may look.

I’m undecided on this issue.  I have both straight and gay friends and classmates.  All are beautiful children of God and deserve someone to share their lives with.  If the Catholic Church does not choose to recognize these unions, it can continue to place restrictions on who it marries as it has all along.  Raised in a home with an abusive, addicted single mother where I had at least five fathers in the first 14 yrs of my life,  I can strongly say that I would have much preferred living with someone, ANYone who would have given me some security and a feeling that I was loved.  I don’t think it would have even crossed my mind what their sexual orientation was.  And where is the Love of Christ that we’re supposed to take out into the world?  More and more of late,  I encounter members of the Body of Christ exhibiting vigilatiism,  shouting out against gays against immigrants against “others ” when we should be shouting out the love Christ has for all of His Children.  If I believed that these comments were truly representative of Catholic Teaching, I would run as fast as I could from the church (as many of my peers have) . If we are the Body,  why aren’t our hands, our feet and our lips spreading His Love?  We need to follow the example of Pope Francis.  To we young Catholics,  his message is one we’ve been waiting to hear!  His message is what will bring some of our brothers and sisters home,  not endless vitriolic finger pointing!

Emma,

We need to love the sinner, but still call sin, sin.  This is not easy.  We all have a God shaped void in our heart, that we often try to fill with all kinds of things. You had an unstable mother. I had an unstable father. So much of the world is hungry for love, but is looking for it in the wrong places. Christ came that we might have life to the fullest. A lot of actions rob us out of the life that Christ came to bring.

Bill,

It’s not up to you to decide what kind of a place the Catholic church is for homosexuals. There are quite a few chaste catholic homosexuals. You might thing they are crazy, but as Christians their identity in Christ, comes before any other idols, including that of self-worship.

Secular Psychologists can help to a certain extent, but they cannot deal with the roots of something, they can only put a bandaid over it. They cannot heal the way God can.

Tolkien, the author of the Lord of the Rings, once told his son, “The eucharist is the romance of the spiritual life.”

“We need to love the sinner, but still call sin, sin.”

That sounds so noble, but it is anything but. Calling gays sinners but then saying that you love them anyway is a cunning way to try to make gays repent and become beholden to these “nice Christians”. They are wolves in sheep’s clothing. As soon as they gain you allegiance they will walk all over your personal feelings about homosexuality and turn legitimate lovemaking into something vile and despicable.

Nancy D,

Have you contacted courage? You also might want to try Melinda Selmys. She is a lesbian convert to Catholicism. She brings a balanced perspective, on how to deal with this issue.

This is her blog.

http://sexualauthenticity.blogspot.ca/

Bill S,

The point is we are ALL sinners. I disagree with your views on legitimate love making. There is more to life than gay sex.

“Love the sinner, hate the sin ” is so condescending.  What if the people called my sins out in the public square?  In what way would that lead me to God’s Love?  It would shame me and push me away.  It would further validate my belief that Christians are extremely harsh judges.  Our actions should lead others to Christ.  Do you honestly believe that gays need to be told yet again that they are sinners?  Do you think they haven’t heard it all already?  Believe me,  they have.  They don’t need the Body of Christ to tell them over and over again. So,  how does evil do it’s work?  It plays on fear,  that’s how. It takes fear and it then finds an “other ” for the frightened to project that fear onto.  Sound familiar?  I hope so because we’ve just passed through Lent and Holy Week. I may be an exception to the majority on this site as I was drawn into the Catholic Church through Scripture.  What I recall is Jesus ’ instruction to the disciples.  Go out into the world, if any do not receive you,  shake the dust off your feet and move on. Nowhere did he say, “Tell them that they are sinners over and over again until they capitulate! ”  Because he knew that it would lead to nothing except anger and division.  Preach the Good News to all,  yes,  then trust the Holy Spirit to do the rest.  By Grace are we saved,  not by our own doings.  If we are judged by the standards by which we judge others,  may God have mercy!  Trust the Captain to steer the ship.  He’s the one who has charted the course.  We need to live our faith and by so doing demonstrate the peace and joy that that brings.  Then pray for our brothers and our sisters,  then,  get out of God’s Way!  What are so many so afraid of?  and why are those who shout so loudly of God’s love and forgiveness the most fearful?  Our Heavenly Father loves all of His children.  We don’t have to be afraid.

Bill S, one should never underestimate a loving friendship that only serves the Good of the other. Savvy, the only way to deal with an issue such as this, is to try to get my daughter to recognize the importance of developing respect for herself and others, and see herself as the young woman God desires her to be.

Emma, “When The Son of Man returns, will He find Faith on Earth?”
We should be fearful for our Loved ones who turn away from God and we should desire Salvation for them.

Nancy ....of course we should desire salvation for them!  But this “Go and sin no more “....a person must desire salvation. They must come to a heartfelt desire for Christ in their lives.  We must pray for them,  but as for telling someone to “Go and sin no more “?  Don’t we have priests to grant that dispensation?  By what authority does anyone on any blog say those words?  I do desire that my loved ones come to Christ.  I just believe that actions speak louder than words. Before I would dare point my finger at someone else’s faults,  I’d be darn sure that I had none myself.  I support church teachings on marriage by joyfully participating in my own marriage,  keeping it open to life and together my husband and I demonstrate how richly rewarding that is. That’s how I witness to my faith.  But, no.  I won’t point my finger at anyone else.  If we are called to be in this world but not of it,  then why waste our one short time here worrying about earthly laws?  We answer to a higher authority.  Knowledge of that should lead us on to joyfully live our lives as a witness to that,  not allowing ourselves to be distracted by the latest cause of the day.  There are extremists on both sides of this debate.  Both sides harm those they purport to be helping and along the way,  hurt themselves also.  We were also warned, “Our battle is not with earthly powers, but with principalities “.  So why are we wasting precious time being sucked into a battle with earthly powers?  “The blind lead the blind and they all fall in the ditch “.

Nancy D.
You are obsessed with your religion. Your poor daughter doesn’t have a chance with your concepts of sin, hell, the second coming, etc. the Catholic Church has spread its homophobia and you are right in the thick of it. Have you even researched non-religious information sources to learn more about human sexuality?  The love that you preach is psychotic and not helpful. You simply have to stop being so obsessed with Catholic teaching and acquire some real world knowledge.

Bill S, desiring that my daughter as well as all my children learn to develop healthy and Holy relationships and friendships that are respectful and dignified does not make me or anyone else “psychotic”.

Nancy D. Some people’s concepts of “Holy” turn out to be psychotic.  Friendships can be dignified and respectful without being “Holy”.  Even gays and atheists are capable of such friendships. I’m only saying this out of a genuine concern for your daughter’s psychological wellbeing. Your religiosity poses a real threat to that wellbeing.

I just came into this site for the stimulating discussions. I had no intention of injecting myself into anyone’s personal life. But I feel compelled as the father of a gay child to warn you against doing psychological harm to your child. Read up on human sexuality from secular sources before you do or say something that does more harm than good. There is no worldly wisdom in Catholicism and that is what you need right now.

Emma,

Relax. I agree with you. I do not go around randomly picking on people or pointing out their sins. I just live my life. But, if someone asks me a question about the church’s views on xyz, I should be able to give them an informed answer. Don’t you think?

Bill S,

You are resorting to emotionally blackmailing Nancy D.  Psychological angst is part of the human condition. This is not unique or special, it’s life.  Homosexuals are no more special then the rest of us. The church cannot subject them to special rights it does not give others.

Since, you do not have the courage to practise what you preach in your own house, you should not be lecturing others either.

“Homosexuals are no more special then the rest of us. The church cannot subject them to special rights it does not give others.”

You know what your problem is, Savvy?  You honestly think that Church teaching is infallible and must be strictly adhered to. Any trained psychologist will tell you that it isn’t and it doesn’t. Jesus berated the Pharisees for laying a heavy burden on the people with all their laws. What makes you think they were any worse than the Magesterium is today?

Your my dear are a Catholic Pharisee. And then you will say that we are all sinners. Well don’t be. Otherwise, stop setting out ridiculous requirements that people can’t possibly comply with. So they have to be beholden to the Church for forgiveness. Sounds like a scam that Jesus called out in his time.

Nancy D,

Contact Courage. Atheists are not going to understand your views.

My response is under review. Here is part of it. 

“Homosexuals are no more special then the rest of us. The church cannot subject them to special rights it does not give others.”

You know what your problem is, Savvy?  You honestly think that Church teaching is infallible and must be strictly adhered to. Any trained psychologist will tell you that it isn’t and it doesn’t. Jesus berated the Pharisees for laying a heavy burden on the people with all their laws. What makes you think they were any worse than the Magesterium is today?

You, my dear, are a Catholic Pharisee.

Savvy…of course,  if someone asks we should share our faith!  I make no secret of my Catholic Faith.  What floors me is just how many of my peers are surprised by it!  Most see Catholics as pious, judgmental, exclusionary and just not very much fun to be around.  Not surprising when I read comments posted on Catholic Blogs! What also puzzles me is how with innocents being slaughtered and maimed all over the world,  people dying of preventable disease,  homelessness, live birth abortion, human trafficking,  world hunger, etc. a vast majority choose homosexuality as “the ” issue to get all fired up about.  Why do you think that is?  The same people screaming out now about the destruction of the family are those who stood by while laws were passed that weakened the family structure.  Now they point the finger at a very small minority of the population as a threat to families.  But, relax?  No. I won’t be quiet and relax.  I’m young and I’m Catholic and I’m not going to be silenced. I think it’s about time more of us spoke out. We have no right to pick and choose. When the Holy Spirit speaks to the lost, then and only then will they be moved.  As for me,  I have enough of my own sin to reconcile without singling out anyone else as “more sinful” than I am just to make myself feel better!

Bill,

You are missing the point. The issue is not the genesis of homosexuality. Genetic pre-disposition is not the same as determinism. It still leaves the ability for free-will. This is different from blood type or eye colour, which is fixed.

Psychologists are not concerned with the objective nature of actions. This is not their job or line of work.

As for being a Pharisee, why are you ignoring what Jesus said, on marriage and heterosexual marriage being the only place for sexual activity?

As, Emma, says we cannot pick and choose. I also have a question for you. How would you know, what Jesus said or did not say, if it was not for a church that compiled the Gospels. The church did not come from the Gospels, the Gospels came from the church.

“The same people screaming out now about the destruction of the family are those who stood by while laws were passed that weakened the family structure.”

Emma, I agree. In Canada, where I live tolerance is now a one way street. Religious schools are being forced to NOT teach their sexual ethics, for fear of offending xyz.

These things only happened after gay marriage became the law of the land.

This is intolerance in the name of tolerance. I was in favour of gay rights. I no longer am.

“The issue is not the genesis of homosexuality.”

I think you mean genetics. I did not say anything about it, but as long as you brought it up, some people are just gay. There is no need for any explanation of why they are. They just are.

“Genetic pre-disposition is not the same as determinism. It still leaves the
ability for free-will. This is different from blood type or eye colour,
which is fixed.”

I’m not an expert on this. Not are you.

“Psychologists are not concerned with the objective nature of actions. This
is not their job or line of work.”

You were going to downplay the utility of psychology no matter what I say. The truth is that we should all turn to the secular psychologists if we want an honest and reliable opinion on human sexuality.

“As for being a Pharisee, why are you ignoring what Jesus said, on marriage
and heterosexual marriage being the only place for sexual activity?”

Oh. Please tell me what he said about this subject. I’m dying to see how you pick and choose from his teachings.

“As, Emma, says we cannot pick and choose.”

See above.

“How would you know, what Jesus said or did not say, if it was not for a
church that compiled the Gospels.”

I’m using the Gospels for your sake since they are true to you. You would ignore any legitimate sources that I could reference instead of the Bible. But even the Bible doesn’t back you up completely.

Bill S,

“The truth is that we should all turn to the secular psychologists if we want
an honest and reliable opinion on human sexuality.”

It’s just an opinion, since they are not concerned with morality.

This comes from Holy Scripture, when Christ dishes out a stinging, clearly-not-hip-and-with-it, insensitive Rabbi-slap:

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “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’?

Throughout all of history,  God took the most horrible of governments actions and the most despicable of men and turned their actions to good : King David,  the Apostle Paul,  the Crucifixion!  So why do we worry so much about the actions of those who govern?  In His Time. In His Way. Myself,  my faith, my God,  changed my life!  That’s what I want others to know!  I did not change myself and then find God!  I found God and then slowly I was changed!  He can turn anything to good.  Anything.  When we so cavalierly accuse and judge, we are not only judging others, but also questioning God. I want to share the Good News, not condemnation and fear!  Christ also, btw said, “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. ”  We were commissioned to lift people up, not beat them down!  Also, there are many secular psychologists who are also Catholics.  Just saying,  not all Catholics are employed solely by the church.

Emma,

I take it you agree with the church’s views on these issues.

BTW Emma, I agree with you completely.

“It’s just an opinion, since they are not concerned with morality.”

Yeah. Silly me. They are concerned with the well being of the affected individual in this life, which is more important than the dumb notion of saving the patient’s soul from eternal damnation. Give me a break. 

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “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’?

That is Jesus’ condemnation of same sex marriage?  Even if the Bible was a reliable source from which to draw morality, there would have to be a more specific prohibition of it than this. I believe this teaching pertains to divorce, for which it is not that useful either.

Savvy….yes,  I do. Both my husband and myself are fairly orthodox in our beliefs.  That said,  I also believe that we focus waaay to much energy on politics and government and far too little bringing the Light of Christ out to those most in need!  Rather than light a candle,  we are the ones running about with a fire hose trying to put out the flames!  It wasn’t too long ago that I first walked into a church alone, feeling unworthy and frightened of what would happen.  I still remember the feeling that I had,  slunched down in the back pew, hoping that no one would see me.  It shouldn’t be that way. Not for anyone.  We’re involved in a music ministry outreach for at risk youth.  Many have never been to church, but they are beautiful children of God!  We don’t proselytize. All are welcome, no matter their situatoni. My husband gives free music lessons to all. Our hope being that we can bring them together and give them an interest in something besides current social pressures.  Some ask about our faith and a seed is planted.  That’s the best we can do, then trust God to do the rest.  We laugh ...alot!  My prayer is with Pope Francis especially in his efforts to get more people involved in their communities.  There is such a great need!  More truly are being called to step out from the doors of the church, outside their comfort zones and be living witnesses.  When we argue over political issues and become embroiled in controversy over secular laws,  we’re taken away from doing God’s work. Then, who wins?  Who truly wins when we make others feel unwelcome and unworthy?  Not Christ!  He is calling them home! We should be demonstrating and speaking of His Longing for them,  His Forgiveness and the Fullness of the peace they will find in Him.  To h—l with the gov.  We’re here to serve a higher authority!

Bill S,

“they are concerned with the well being of the affected individual in this life”

So, is the church, if only you were open enough to see this.

“That is Jesus’ condemnation of same sex marriage?”

It’s Jesus affirming marriage as ONLY between a man and a woman. Just because he did not say something, this does not mean that he approves of it. This is an argument from silence.

Bill, you are very angry, let me know when you stop being angry. We are through.

Emma,

Thanks. Yes internet debates are a waste of time.

Emma,

The issue is those who want the church to change to suit them. I am tired of all the endless complaining, wah, wah, boo, boo, esp, from disaffected Catholics.

Bill S,

I also do not see them as heavy burdens, but as the truth that sets me free. I also do not see the point of a church that resembles the culture. It would cease to be a sign of contradiction, the Gospels speak off. I would sooner be an atheist, and be honest about it.

Emma,

I personally think that current civil marriage itself is a sham, never mind gay marriage. In fact the government would never have got involved in marriage, if it was not for Queen Elizabeth 1 trying to stop Catholics from getting married, 400 years ago.

I should have also clarified that being gay is not a sin, engaging in homosexual actions are, but then so are other things such as artificial contraception among heterosexual Catholics, and divorce and re-marriage.

So, yes the church does not single out gays.

savvy….what I see as a major cause of marriage failure,  be it civil or sacramental, is that many many no longer know what marriage is.  My husband and I were not “in love ” when we decided to marry.  We were good friends who both wanted a family and a partner who we could count on. We chose,  consciously chose each other.  Because of a shared faith and because we liked each other!  Not exactly the stuff movies are made of!  We read church teachings on marriage.  We had many heartfelt conversations about our individual expectations, then after serious thought agreed to live by those teachings and to ACT lovingly towards each other. Funny thing is,  when you actively love another,  the romance follows.  We put God first, then decisions we make are made always with the defining criteria of “What is best for our marriage? ”  Not what would benefit either of us. Surprisingly,  when disagreements are approached from that pov resolution is usually easy to attain. But marriage,  the “two become one ” symbolized in sexual union,  is so much more than that!  Two very different people, each with their own gifts, strengths and weaknesses, bring that all to the altar and when joined all of those make a new whole hardly recognizable from their prior selves!  That is what the bestowing of the Sacrament creates!  So two years ago, our friends thought we were crazy.  “Why do you want to get married? ”  etc. etc.  Now there are a few saying, “If it was like yours,  maybe it wouldn’t be so bad.”  But, civil marriage is no more than a business contract .  Minus the sacrament,  it’s nothing but. Heck,  I witnessed three of my mother’s “marriages “.  Easily entered into,  a trip over the state line into Nevada.  Easily gotten out of no fault CA divorce,  doesn’t even require a lawyer,  just $200 filing fee. But bring God into it, not quite so easy to explain to “Him ” that “you just don’t feel like it anymore. ”  Besides,  I want so very much more for my children than what I grew up with!  That was no way to bring up a child.  Sad that so many people refuse to ask people like me what we experienced growing up in a modern evolutionized culture.  Boy could I ever give them an earful!

“I should have also clarified that being gay is not a sin, engaging in homosexual actions are, but then so are other things such as artificial contraception among heterosexual Catholics, and divorce and re-marriage.
So, yes the church does not single out gays.”

If these things are sins, then the whole concept of sin is suspect. People can choose to let their lives be ruled by the Catholic Church and have to get its forgiveness or just ignore it and realize that its forgiveness is not needed.

Bill S,

People can choose to live their lives without your opinion, or just ignore it and realize your opinion is not needed.

I never said otherwise. Same goes for your opinions, even when you are citing Catholic teaching.

Look, Bill. I feel like you are as hard hearted as a rock. So I do realize nothing is going to get through to you. I am not wasting my time.

Emma,

I am assuming you are a lot younger. Hippie values have destroyed your life. One of the reasons why we younger practising Catholics are rejecting them.

In my view this analysis does not sufficiently take into account the binding nature of moral absolutes.  John Paul II’s statement above is taken out of context.  The proposal offered by the “elected official” to limit the harm of a pro-abortion law, cannot violate moral absolutes by say, explicitly permitting abortion.  Such a proposal would be intrinsically unjust in such a way that one could “never” support it.  The one sentence paragraph in Evangelium Vitae which immediately precedes this quote above says exactly this.  It states: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it.’”

Therefore, incremental proposals are fine, insofar as they do not permit the intrinsic evils like abortion, or in this case, “civil unions.”  No one has the authority to support grave intrinsic evils under any circumstance.  Thus, this analysis misses the mark.

Blessed Bucky,

The CDF document says, that only if civil unions are to be treated like marriage. That being said, civil marriage is already a sham. The church should not be conforming to it, since the current definition already goes against everything it stands for. Just pull out.  Go back to before the council of Trent, where the church did not have public weddings, but only had sacramental marriages.

@Bill…I think you misunderstand the Sacrament of Reconciliation, as did I.  We don’t need the church’s forgiveness.  We can go directly to the Source.  Reconciliation is for my benefit,  it’s like talking over your worries with someone who you can trust to not “spread it around and have them offer up an “it’s ok ” and provide an avenue to clear your conscience so that you can move past it.  That’s really what sin is. It’s any action that eats away at you.  Personally,  I don’t see why more Catholics don’t take advantage of it.  It’s truly liberating!  As for sexual actions,  any sex outside of marriage is a sin. Not only homosexual acts.  Why is that?  From a practical pov,  look at the rise in STD’s. That’s not the sole domain of homosexuality. Look at the rise in unparerented children and the impact that has on them and society as a whole.  Do you think that those children are happy?  Myself and many of my friends would beg to differ!!!  Any sin defiined by the Catholic Church has direct negative impacts on us individually and as a society.  I’m not forced to follow these teachings because I fear some boogeyman living up in the sky.  I choose to follow them because they have intrinsic personal value. We are all blessed with free will.  We have a choice,  do what has proven itself over the ages to benefit us or do it our own way. We all fail repeatedly.  If not in carnal actions,  in our own way.That’s why I have objections to singling out one specific group and one specific action to “gang up on “.  It provides a scapegoat for the rest to assuage their own guilt.  Believe me we ALL have skeletons in our closets!!  But,  when we focus oon others and make them a scapegoat,  it draws our attention away from the fact that Jesus did that already for us!  We need to celebrate that!  AND,  he did it for all of us!  I believe so that we would not continue to do it to each other.  Sadly,  many forget that.  We’re all human,  I know,  but if anyone here has said anything to cause you to doubt that (or your son)  I apologize to you both.  It shouldn’t be that way. He died for all of us.  He came for all of us. If you have time,  please visit usl at the People For Others Blog at Loyola Press. There you will find a group of ““sinners ”  of all persuasions just trying to navigate this world under an umbrella of Christ.  We would love for you to share your thoughts with us. All are welcome.  Only criteria is that we treat each other with love and respect and do not judge.

Thank you Emma. It’s good to read something by a Catholic without a giant stick up her #+%!  Even though I am presently an atheist, I did turn my life around by attending a Catholic retreat in 2009 called Cursillo (“little course”). Then I did a 180.

I will check out your blog but I don’t think it will change my worldview.

“I certainly wouldn’t see it as evidence that he was ‘seeking compromise’ or being ‘flexible’ or open to ‘dialogue’ on established moral principles.” Well, first read how Bergoglio describes in his book ‘Sobre el cielo y la tierra’ the divorce law discussion which took place in his country in the 80’s. He seems clearly to like more the ‘flexible’ or open to ‘dialogue’ way of discussing these issues of public morality.

European Catholic,

You are right, that Americans are a bit confused. In the Catholic context, there is no such thing as gay couple per say.

The CCC, talks about disinterested friendship.  Such a friendship would presumably be based on mutual interests, sharing ideas, activities and pursuits, affection without expectation of return or romantic commitment.

Since the meaning of “affection,” “relationship” and “intimacy” have almost lost meaning in our culture except as they relate to sexual activity, we are probably looking at the need to go back to the classical philosophers and saints for the traditional definition of friendship.

The church used to have a rite of Christian friendship, that celebrated affection, relationship, and intimacy, that was not sexual.

An informative article, needed to give clarity to an emotive and worrying headline. Evangelium Vitae suggests that a person can SUPPORT proposals if it meant lessening evil effects and I presume this means a Cardinal could MAKE proposals? It seems logical although the essential thing would seem to be to ensure that that Cardinals opposition to Homosexual Unions was VERY well known if it were being promoted as a ‘lesser of two evils’ alternative to same-sex marriage.
My question would be if the right of homosexuals to legal union was not a national reality would it be licit to suggest this? The directive of the Congregation For The Doctrine of The Faith does state that licit action could only be where it is not possible to repeal the law completely. Was this the case?

No, this was not the case as Jimmy has already stated. I just purchased the recently released book, “Pope Francis, on Heaven and Earth”, a dialogue with Jorge Mario Bergoglio and Abraham Skorka. In regards to same-sex unions, here is what Pope Francis said on page 117:

” If there is a union of a private nature, there is neither a third party nor is society affected. Now, if the union is given the category of marriage, and they are given adoption rights, there could be children affected. Every person needs a male father and a female mother that can help them shape their identity.” - Jorge Mario Bergoglio

There is no mention that same sex sexual relationships should never be condoned, or that these relationships are harmful to members of society.

I think you are wrong.
Church teaching is explicit as the article says ‘cannot in anyway lead to approval of homosexual behaviour’.
Same sex relationships are by nature harmful to all members of society (i.e. all sin is harmful to ALL) and should NEVER be condoned. When Bergolio says ‘nor is society affected’ he means directly and this is infinitely removed from saying the relationships are not harmful to members of society.

John,

The issue is same-sex sexual behaviour, cannot be condoned. I doubt the church is doing this. Same-sex friendship on the other hand is something else.

The concern is how this will affect redefining marriage, since arguments for gay marriage are arguments against marriage itself.