When the OFFICIALS of the INSTITUTION (The True Church of the Lord is not AN INSTITUTION)project themselves as THE CHURCH, for some reason or other, CHURCH becomes and functions as the WORLD. The rest of the story is only it’s continuation.

We need to return to the pure APOSTOLIC ORIGINS when every CHRISTIAN was an APOSTLE and all lived and worked in the atmosphere of the WORD OF GOD. For this THE WORD OF GOD has to become THE FOUNDATION of the CHURCH and the SACRAMENTS secondary, and related to it directly.

Thomas Poovatinkal SSP

The devil is a liar.  THE CHURCH WILL NEVER DIE. JESUS IS LORD.

mikehorn writes: “Can we isolate a soul, show that it is distinct from a brain, measure its affects on the physical world, teach about its properties in a science class?  If it truly affects the real world, we should be able to do all that and more.”
.
Thus your position on “sexuality”, specifically “homosexuality,” fails your own test.  Yet you believe in it and want to force others to believe the same.  Have you not been scolding others about the inapplicability of belief in the public square? 

@mikehorn: “The Church relied on Aristotle for many centuries, and Aquinas tried to flesh out some of Aristotle, but basing your views on philosophical ambiguities and gripping but meaningless phrases like “animating life force” is a ridiculous way to approach anything.” Mikehorn, you are free to believe you have no essence, soul or life force. The Supreme Court told the atheist Madalyn Murray O’Hair: “She can go her own way.” This decision does not give the atheist the right to impose atheism on our culture or on individual persons.
@ mike horn: “Where is the more accurate research on a soul?” To answer your query, in the Catholic Church, in the catechism of the Catholic Church. The First Amendment to our Constitution guarantees to each and every citizen the right to believe and respond to the gift of Faith from God in the freedom of choice. The principle of separation of church and state points directly to the human being as composed of human body and rational, immortal soul, with the endowed, unalienable right to respond freely to our Creator. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” is our First Amendment. To deny the innocence and virginity of the newly begotten human being, body and soul with legal and moral innocence, who constitutes our nation with his unalienable, endowed sovereign personhood, endowed by our Creator, is to deny our nation. If you are going to live forever and constitute our nation forever, that is you alone. You, mikehorn, cannot deny to other sovereign persons the freedom and right to constitute our nation. God bless America.

Aristotle was not a scientist in the modern sense - he was a philosopher.  He got to his notions by reasoning and philosophy, but had exactly zero proof, no empirical data, and no one followed up to try and prove his ideas through study and experimentation.  His concept is based upon the understanding of his day (2400 years ago) that the breath was the animating force, and this affected our official ideas of dead and alive until very recently.  Our notion of dead/alive is still fuzzy but is significantly better than in Aristotle’s day.  Aristotle didn’t have CPR, for instance, though some in history might consider that witchcraft, or sharing of souls, or some such gibberish from minds stuck in the superstitious distant past.  For a good CGI depiction of Aristotle’s idea of the soul, see the third Harry Potter movie, where Harry’s god-father nearly dies by having his soul sucked out of his mouth.  But without empirical study and anything less fuzzy than “animating life-force” we are exactly nowhere.  At best Aristotle framed a question about what makes life, especially human life, special.  What has happened since then?  Can we isolate a soul, show that it is distinct from a brain, measure its affects on the physical world, teach about its properties in a science class?  If it truly affects the real world, we should be able to do all that and more.  We have bupkis on souls.
.
For a parallel development, let’s look at the ancient Greek and Indian notion of an Atom, which started a couple centuries prior to Aristotle.  We traditionally attribute Democritus, but the Greek start was his teacher Leucippus, and philosophers in India had the concept a century or two prior.  The word “atom” means the basic unit which cannot be divided further.  Democritus and his teacher reasoned, without proof but much philosophy, that matter could be cut and cut and cut but at some point there had to be a basic unit that could not be cut.  While this was a brilliant first step and helped to frame the question for later minds to think on, this notion is FALSE.  Ask the people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, more recently Chernobyl and Fukushima, whether or not the atom can be divided.  Not only can the atom be divided, so can its three major sub-atomic particles, and some of the zoo of particles underneath that.  Democritus’ idea could not parse the term “sub-atomic”, because in the original meaning, adding the prefix “sub” forms a basic contradiction.  We no longer care what the greek Atom meant because we moved past the ancient Greek ideas centuries ago, and really started going the last 150 years.  We now know that the concept of an indivisible unit is not really what happens at all, so that the ancient concept of Atom is a good start, and does credit to the minds of 2500 years ago, but does not stand up as accurate now.
.
Where is the more accurate research on a soul?  Aristotle gets you a C for effort, but if you want to make a living on something or base your life goals on something, grade C work will not get you very far.  The Church relied on Aristotle for many centuries, and Aquinas tried to flesh out some of Aristotle, but basing your views on philosophical ambiguities and gripping but meaningless phrases like “animating life force” is a ridiculous way to approach anything.

Book II of Aristotle contains his scientific determination of the nature of the soul. By dividing substance into its three meanings (matter, form, and what is composed of both), he shows that the soul must be the first actuality of a naturally organised body. This is its form or essence. It cannot be matter because the soul is that in virtue of which things have life, and matter is only being in potency. c.f. Wikipedia article.
See Roe v. Wade

@mikehorn: “But this comes back to what exactly is a soul?” The rational immortal soul is the form of the body. Aristotle (400 b.c.) Aristotle’s book “On The Soul”

He holds that the soul is the form, or essence of any living thing; that it is not a distinct substance from the body that it is in; that it is the possession of soul (of a specific kind) that makes an organism an organism at all, and thus that the notion of a body without a soul, or of a soul in the wrong kind of body, is simply unintelligible. (He argues that some parts of the soul—the intellect—can exist without the body, but most cannot.)  c.f. Wikipedia’s article

Mike Horn: I asked “Please link to the empirical evidence indicating males who self-identify as ‘gay’ have bodies that do not perform meosis or, rather, do not perform gametogenesis in the same manner as “straight” males – you know the basis of sexual complimentary-ness.”
.
You have not provided any evidence.  Based on the evidence I have, an iota of which has been reviewed here, the conclusion is that “gay” is a subjective mental state.  This is what you want to base law upon.  I expect you will continue to get opposition and will only be able to “win” if Executives and Attorney Generals continue to step aside, permitting the denigration of empiricism.

Mary,
.
Einstein was talking about energy and matter being essentially the same thing, and other parts of his theory talk about space and time being the same thing.  While this doesn’t disprove any god, it makes some very serious problems for any faith.  Einstein believed in a “steady state” eternal universe that was the standard of his time, but later minds, starting with Hubble, proved that time and space were finite.  Ironically, a Jesuit Priest who was an astrophysicist came up with Big Bang Theory, which Einstein’s Relativity implied even if Einstein didn’t grasp that at first.  The irony is that a Jesuit came up with a valid scientific theory that destroyed many of the classic arguments for any god.  For instance, the “first cause” argument no longer makes sense - the question itself is incoherent because cause and effect rely upon our evolved human perception of spacetime and that common sense linearity of understanding time that the “first cause” is based upon falls apart when you talk about the start of the known universe.  Then came Quantum Theory and even our everyday sense of cause and effect is at some level not entirely correct.  If space and time both began at a singularity, the question of “what caused it” no longer parses as sane because it relies upon a sense of linear time as it exists now on Earth that didn’t exist prior to starting.  This is where common sense leads to false conclusions about reality, and a demonstration of why common sense cannot be trusted outside of the narrow realm it evolved as a mental shortcut to help us survive - think of early humans evading predators in the African Rift Valley.
.
This also brings us back to the idea of a soul.  One thing I have not heard explained well is that if a soul affects things here in the physical world, we should be able to detect and study the effects that interaction has.  In that sense any hypothetical soul should have natural properties we can study.  Where are those people studying the natural effects a soul has upon they physical universe?  Anyone?  Bueller?

The HTML codes didn’t work—the equation means that energy is equal to mass times the square of the speed of light.
.
Look it up.

Mary DeVoe
.
Einstein’s equation E=mc² is mathematical proof that the existence of any god physically impossible.  Space and time are not separate—all existence is in space-time. To say that god is outside of space-time is to say that god is nothing.
.
You believe nothing is sacred—that’s why your religion is dangerous.

Steve P,
.
What is your point?
.
Human gamete production occurs, obviously. Humans are also among a small number of animals fully capable of intercourse when no child will result. The effect of this is that humans and a small number of other animals use sex for objectives unrelated to children by satisfying the other aspects of sexuality. It happens millions of times every day.

Mike Horn: Sexual reproduction is a numbers game which starts in meiosis.  E.g. the number of recombinations during gametogenesis to produce, statistically, a viable gamete.  Of course, even with a viable gamete there may not be a viable complimentary gamete or the two selected gametes may not produce a viable zygote.  I.e. compare the number of blossoms on a common squash plant to the number of fruits produced.
In humans, the same occurs: a single episode of coitus may not result in conception due to non-viable gametes or complimentary gametes producing a non-viable zygote.  Increasing the episodes of coitus increases the likelihood of a viable conception.  Thus it’s reasonable to conclude that the pre-coital level of dopamine and testosterone in males and the post-coital level of oxytocin in both males and females were selected.  E.g. those who “enjoy” copulation passed on those traits to their offspring.  Those who did not “enjoy” copulation did not successfully reproduce.
Thus the contemporary use of the word “sexuality” as a synonym for “enjoy.”  Likewise, “homosexual” and “heterosexual” are meaningless terms as there is no difference between oogenesis in a “homosexual” female and oogenesis in a “heterosexual” female.  Likewise there are no different hormones involved in a “homosexual” human female engaged in pseudo-coitus and a “heterosexual” female engaged in coitus.

Mary De Voe,
.
What is a soul?  Where is it?  Does it have weight, a charge, a spin?  We can measure a brain, a physical structure.  We are starting to get to know which parts do what, but the brain is astoundingly complex the study of the brain in an objective, scientific way often leads to more questions than are answered.  This is one way science is so exciting, when we start figuring out an amazing puzzle of nature.  From what we know so far, the best guess is that human intelligence is what we term an “emergent property” of the physical brain, though as of now we are far from understanding it except in very general terms.  This is significantly more than could be said even 20 years ago.  100 years ago our understanding of the brain was truly primitive, hardly better than it had been for thousands of years.  This area of study is still young, with much left to discover.
.
As for your talk of creation is not Catholic except in the broadest sense.  Catholicism teaches something called Directed Evolution, where animals evolve over time through natural processes as described by Darwin and the rest of modern Biology that starts with Darwin, using bits of earlier stuff like parts of Linnaeus.  Catholicism then teaches that the evolution of modern man is as described by the science.  The list of kingdom, phylum, etc, that I gave earlier in a sense describes our descent from the earliest forms:  We are a multicellular animal with a spinal cord that is warm blooded and gives birth to live young and has fore limbs that can grasp and manipulate and also has a progressively larger brain in ratio to body size.  That list of gradually more specific things delineates what makes us a distinct species but also gives a brief outline of our evolutionary line.  For instance, at some point one of our distant ancestors started developing a series of nerve cells in a cord-like structure along the length of the body.  We share that common ancestor with every other animal that has a spinal cord.  What Catholicism still debates in light of Evolution is at what point a clever ape became a human.  Biologists also debate this, and to a large extent it is a matter of opinion.  At what point is the animal able to understand different concepts?  Chimps and whales can remember events over multiple years, where other animals cannot.  Chimps and Bonobos have a complex social structure that includes empathy, simple tool making, and what can only be called a basic sense of morality.  Should they be considered equivalent to humans morally?  I actually don’t have an answer to that, but the very Catholic nation of Spain has declared that some higher animals have rights equivalent to humans, including Chimps, our closest cousins.
.
But this comes back to what exactly is a soul?  Can we demonstrate one exists?  Current scientific criteria for alive/dead is higher brain function (more than the basics of heart and lung function).  The functionality of the brain seems to be our best criteria for what makes us human and alive.  I don’t have any way to conceive of a soul that exists separately from the brain.  Everything I’ve heard is assertion, circular logic, and magic wand waiving.

@mikehorn: ” The Theory first proposed by Darwin and much refined since is also accepted by the Church as the best description of how we got here that we know of.  You and I are:  Animal kingdom, Chordate Phylum, Mammal class, Primate Order, Hominidae family, Homo genus, either Sapiens or Sapiensapiens on the species.  “We are an animal.  The Church has big debates on when this animal acquired a “soul”, but that soul has no scientific definition, and so cannot be studied in any objective way.” All creation worships the Supreme Sovereign Being by being who they are created and brought into existence. Man is the epitome of creation brought into being in the image of God, that is: free will, intellect, innocence and virginity. Roe. V. Wade was accorded the “right to choose” for who would deny the right to the exercise of free will and freedom? It is not possible that some human beings have souls and others do not have souls. Therefore, the newly conceived sovereign person has a soul created especially for him by God. Man’s soul cannot be denied and scraped from the womb. Your position that since science, the study of creation cannot describe the metaphysical world, the metaphysical soul can be acknowledged or dispensed with as one wills, but it is not so. Man the human being, homo-sapiens, means man of wisdom. Wisdom is a virtue enthroned in the metaphysical soul of homo-sapiens. When homo-sapiens was named homo-sapiens, the virtue of wisdom was acknowledged in his soul. The virtue of Wisdom, free will, sovereign personhood, intellect and all other endowed, unalienable rights are acknowledged by science when the created, evolved man was accorded his place in science as homo-sapiens.

SteveP,
If sex were merely reproduction, then every sex act would produce children.  Based on that you could argue that men still fertile that are married to infertile women are not really having sex, since there is zero chance of reproduction.  I’m hoping you recognize the emotional and intellectual aspects of sex? Human sexuality is more than a yearly season of rut, in our case that would be Summer, with a Spring birthing season.
.
There was some expressed consternation over the presumed activities of homosexual sex.  While I am straight, my homosexual friends have expressed a similar diversification of preferred activity as my straight friends, where some activities are preferred and some are viewed with either indifference or distaste.  I’m thinking some here would be surprised that many gay men have exactly zero desire for any type of anal penetration?  Their sexuality is much more, and is in large part satisfied by a close, long-term relationship with their loved partner, regardless of detailed sexual preference.  They get tired, cranky, sick, etc, so they also experience the same periods of no activity that any straight couple would.  Intellectual, personal preference, emotional, intimacy of the most positive kinds.  Those goals of straight couples are the same for gay couples.

Mary De Voe,
Even among conservative Catholics you are in the minority concerning Evolution and humanity’s place in the animal world.  The Church accepts Evolution as scientific fact and the Theory as solidly ensconced as Theories get.  Evolution is a fact in that it has been demonstrated genetically that you and I are one of the species of Great Ape, and that we share a fairly recent common ancestor with Chimps and Bonobos, and those two and Humans share a slightly older common ancestor with Gorillas.  Chimp/Bonobo/Human ancestor was between 5-7 million years, and one of the earliest types of humans to exhibit the drive to explore and expand is perhaps 2 million years old (homo erectus), which is a good point in my mind to declare the start of humanity, though that is a subjective line.  Homo Sapiens itself is considerably younger, maybe 160K.  That is demonstrable fact. The Theory first proposed by Darwin and much refined since is also accepted by the Church as the best description of how we got here that we know of.  You and I are:  Animal kingdom, Chordate Phylum, Mammal class, Primate Order, Hominidae family, Homo genus, either Sapiens or Sapiensapiens on the species.  We are an animal.  The Church has big debates on when this animal acquired a “soul”, but that soul has no scientific definition, and so cannot be studied in any objective way.

Mike Horn: sex *is* reproduction; humans are sexual rather than asexual organisms. The root of *sexuality* of an individual, then, is not a subjective experience of well-being after an attempt to breed or a similar subjective experience of excitement to breed.  While I know it is popular to say “there are as many sexualities as there are people” the phrase is quite inaccurate: indeed two individuals may have differing subjective experiences but, as the experience is subjective, there is no way to objectively compare the two experiences.  Objectively there are only two “sexualities” – oogenesis and spermatogenesis.  How a person feels before, during, and after a breeding urge is not relevant.  Any “science” saying otherwise is selling something.

I am in Rio Brazil on my summer getaway.  The pope will be here soon.  Gay relationships are recognized In Brazil, the largest Catholic country in the world.  People do not understand why this issue is a big deal.  I have not heard anything negative about gays since I arrived.  I could be wrong, but I would bet anyone that the pope will not say anything negative about gays at all except for general statements in support of traditional families.  He is more likely to focus on the law of love which we are all obligated to follow.

@MaryC: “The ultimate sin for a Catholic is to not believe in Jesus, and you are contending it’s possible to be good without god.
.
The majority of people here have expressed the opinion that a person has to be Christian to even be considered worthy of god’s love. You owe an apology for most of the people who write on this Website.”
Why do you provoke us by writing God with a small “g”, maryc?

@mikehorn: “the modern human animal” I am not a human animal. You, mikehorn, may consider yourself a member of the Planet of the Apes, and you very well may be.
“But a barren straight marriage, even one that will surely be barren prior to the marriage vows, has always been valid.” Equal Justice is predicated on intent. Marriage equality is based on equal Justice. You know, those virtues that inhere in the human being’s rational, immortal human soul. If you use your human soul to deny your human soul, how smart is that?

Steve P,
.
Unless i misunderstand you, you are arguing for a definition of sexuality that is entirely reproductive in nature?
.
My argument, based on the state of current science, is that sexuality is made up from several components and also serves several functions in the modern human animal as well as the societies that we build. That sexuality is more than simple physical attraction should be obvious to most adults.  If it was just physical, every marriage would fail.  This is how many homosexuals manage heterosexual marriages, by overriding parts of their sexuality. The success or happiness of those “curtain” marriages varies widely. But the social, emotional, and intellectual aspects of marriage are not fundamentally different in a gay marriage than in a barren straight marriage - neither is physically capable of producing children without outside help. But a barren straight marriage, even one that will surely be barren prior to the marriage vows, has always been valid.

@Mary:  I’m sorry.  I didn’t know the gospel was Catholic or Protestant.  If you truly think Christ is fictional then I cannot be of help to you.  It would thus be non productive for us to continue any discussion.
.
So why do you continue to engage people on this site?  What’s the point?

Your preaching belongs on some Protestant site, not this one.
.
Still, Christ did not come to me at all—He is a fictional character.

@Mary:  [“but when you look at most of the posts around here, you can see how much they hate unbelievers.”]
.
Assuming these people posting really are Catholic, they would not be true to the gospel of Christ Jesus.  Jesus did not hate anybody.  He did, however, unabashedly point out the hypocrisy of Jewish Pharisees (local leaders of the Synagogues) and their prideful folly of trying to justify their own “goodness” with respect to keeping Jewish law.  He pointed out that while obedience to say, the Ten Commandments was important, at the heart of the Law was NOT keeping church rules and regulations—but that we love the Lord with all our heart.  Conversely, Catholics who seem more concerned with toeing the mark on every church rule themselves are also missing the heart of the gospel.  To tell you that they are “in” and you are “out” (and are unworthy of God’s love) is patently untrue.  You are not hearing truth —the truth of Jesus Christ.  Jesus calls all men and women to Himself.  We know not everyone will come, yet the offer remains even if you have resisted Him for decades.
.
[“The ultimate sin for a Catholic is to not believe in Jesus, and you are contending it’s possible to be good without god.”]
.
Such a person would thus not be Catholic nor a Christian to not believe Jesus is the Messiah,—the Christ.  And yes, even people without Christ can be good. (Again, Jesus has a totally different standard for what is “good”).  The caveat is that man’s goodness alone is insufficient to obtain eternal life.  Christian faith rests upon the sufficiency of Jesus to pay for our sins.  His death on the cross was payment in full.  He exchanged His sinless life for ours.  We have no standing on our own merit despite all the “good” we think we might do.
.
If we rely upon our “good”—then someone needs to quantify how much “good” we need to do?  How much we need to “give.”  To ascribe to this belief one will become frustrated “doing” and “giving” without ever knowing how much.  The point of the gospel is that we rest in Christ—not to be lazy, but to rely upon Him, His mercy, His love and to act as He would do towards our neighbor.
.
[“You owe an apology for most of the people who write on this Website.”]
.
No, I do not.  I will not apologize to people who do not understand the gospel or have been poorly taught or are judgmental which is contrary to the gospel.  My hope is that someone who thinks eternal life is based upon my own performance rather than the sufficiency of Christ to handle everything,—then they either they have a sin pride or they were never taught correctly.
.
Mary, if you have been mistreated, judged or condemned either here or for a long time in your life, such people are/were not acting as Jesus would have were you (Mary) to have met Him in His day.  His arms are always open to you regardless of what some people may say to you.  John 3:16 is the heart of the gospel.  Christ did not come to judge you, but rather that you have eternal life in Him.  May you be blessed this day.

Many people ask me this question, but now I’m asking you.
.
Why are you on the ultra conservative Catholic hate site when you are not Catholic? This site is dedicated to the Catholic church, not Jesus. I’ll agree that the name of Jesus is ubiquitous, but when you look at most of the posts around here, you can see how much they hate unbelievers. The ultimate sin for a Catholic is to not believe in Jesus, and you are contending it’s possible to be good without god.
.
The majority of people here have expressed the opinion that a person has to be Christian to even be considered worthy of god’s love. You owe an apology for most of the people who write on this Website.

@Mary:  First, Jesus has a different definition of what is “good” but I’ll leave that aside.  However, of course one doesn’t need to be a Christian to be good, decent, perform charitable works or even be a nice person.  So no, you needn’t follow Jesus to be what mankind would define as “good.”
.
So what’s the problem?  Did someone tell you only Christian people can be good?  Perhaps someone in your past was too judgmental about this topic and created the wrong impression?  If that’s what happened, they would be incorrect and thus you are owed an apology.  If this is true, then please accept my apology on behalf of that person.

Casting Crowns—you are really dense, aren’t you? OK—the “no true followers of Jesus” fallacy is stale. Can’t you do better?
.
There are people who are honest and good, but not followers of Jesus. Do you think that people can only be good if they follow Jesus?

@Mary, if you’re going to quote me, then do so accurately and not with your own spin.  I said “true” followers of *Jesus.*
.
If your assumption is that everyone who says they are Catholic or Protestant is a follower of Christ, you would be totally incorrect.  It’s no different now than in the time of Jesus.  He also called some church officials in His day hypocrites.

Casting Crowns—that “no true Catholic” fallacy is really stale. Can’t you do better?

@Mary:  True followers of Jesus are not responsible for hypocrites (one or many) in Catholic-owned publishing houses who also profit by selling porn nor are we responsible for the abuse of clergy gone astray.  Likewise, corruption within the Vatican Bank and the church bureaucrats responsible are all accountable to God ultimately.  While we can be extremely disappointed over their bad example, we who follow Christ place our faith in Him,————above men or any individual man.

@Casting Crowns-
Germany’s biggest Catholic-owned publishing house has been rocked by disclosures that it has been selling thousands of pornographic novels with titles such as Sluts Boarding School and Lawyer’s Whore with the full assent of the country’s leading bishops.
.
Mary De Voe: you seem to be hysterical. Calm down.
.
Are you the angel because you are Catholic, and don’t give in to your concupiscence? Angels are messengers from god, and you seem to think you’re gods messenger. Your posts are quite delusional—you need rest.

@Mary: “Pornography, prostitution, and abortion (i.e. birth control) are distractions that keep believers from seeing the mortal sins of the society they created.”
Who is “they”? of “they created”? You do not suffer from concupiscence? Then, perhaps you have no human body and are an angel. Are you an angel, Mary? Or do you have a destiny in the human race and share in the struggle against evil and man’s fallen human nature?

@Mary (just “plain”) Mary:  Are there no companies run and managed by Christian people of integrity, faith and love of Christ?

The economy is not based on “pornography prostitution, and abortion.” The economy is based on Greed, Profit, and Power. These sins are intrinsic to corporations and Wall Street Bankers and Hedge Fund operators.
.
Corporations and politicians use the sins of avarice, lust, envy, wrath, and pride in human life. Pornography, prostitution, and abortion (i.e. birth control) are distractions that keep believers from seeing the mortal sins of the society they created.
.
Corporations promote the sins of society, which destroyed our economy and make us unable to realize our ideals. Corporations make sins available so that they can overwhelm faith.

@David Guard: Your post sounds as though it is written by Tokyo Rose.

@Mary Cambridge: It is the sins that have created havoc in our society. The economy cannot be based on pornography, prostitution and abortion.  The economy is the symptom not the cause.

Homosexual marriage is a false target. The real destroyer of marriage is the economy and the industrial revolution. Women have to work, or their children will starve. Men who have lost their jobs—especially in their 40s and 50s—cannot get work. People forced on to welfare do not get enough to live on so they can get training for new careers.
.
We can’t go back to traditional marriage until the economy gets fixed. We can’t have traditional marriage when it seems too expensive. That’s why immoral behavior is rampant in this century.

@David and Sam:  These people enjoy the debate, enjoy distracting you with quasi, the absurd and examples which are off the wall.  They enjoy attempting to tie you in knots defaming one’s faith in Christ, the Church and placing you in a defensive position.
.
Sometimes they appear inquisitive and you (being well intentioned) engage them.  These people really are frauds.  One person a few months ago tossed in a hypothetical regarding Lent and Catholics eating meat on Friday—but suppose you were on a jet airline and crossed the International Dateline? 
.
What they keep missing is that the Church contains sinners from top to bottom.  One’s faith does not rest upon the instituional church but rather in Christ Himself.  As long as humans are involved sin will exist.  Down through history the Bible is replete with great men of God who also were sinners.  We do not hide this fact.  There are no perfect people.  If the Church only had perfect people, you and I would not be allowed entry.  And that includes clergy.
.
The point is these people are not interested, never have been, and likely never will be.  They will point to sins of the Church past and present.  No one is denying sin has, does and will continue in the Church.  Sin in the Church is as old as Ananias and Sapphira in ACTS and in the Church at Corinth.
.
As well meaning as it is to continue engaging these people, it’s best to move on and ignore them.  It’s difficult because we stand convicted to defend the faith.  But let’s remember that even Christ told His followers to shake the dust from their feet and move on from such people.  Jesus knew such individuals had no interest.
.
Save your time and energy for those who truly are interested.

Mary - it is the height of arrogance rather to believe that you can figure it all out on your own. So you want to exclude belief from the debate but instead we nee to have belief in what Mary says? I’ll take God over you and other people that seem to only believe in themselves rather than in Truth. You want to annihilate us? Try, if you can. It may seem that you are victorious for awhile but in the end truth will triumph and all will be forced to see the glory of God and of His Church, the Catholic Church. I know that outright persecution is coming. That is obvious, but the forces of evil will not win in the end.

Mary I just noticed you asked me to respond about the sex abuse problem.  You said that there aren’t many proven cases.  Yet the courts and the number of accusations are showing otherwise.  The millions of dollars the church is paying to victims is also evidence of a huge problem.  To Graeme it is indeed true that elitists favor gay marriage.  There is no sense in denying this reality.

Many of the comments above are written evidence proving the attitudes and intentions of
vested interest groups representing evil and chaos rather than goodness and order.
Those commenting are by no means necessarily homosexual themselves but rather representatives
of those of the elite who are pushing the same sex marriage agenda on a GLOBAL scale as
a way of demoralizing society so that they can gain great influence and power over society.
Same sex marriage is a globalization agenda; and globalization is a newest word for
One World Government that comes to us via its network of essential government coordinating
and controlling think tanks.
The elite controlled main media pushing all this, have also supported and advocated
fornication which is now on a huge scale.
They care not to advocate that fornicators should marry, but rather, they advocate marriage
for same sex people.
Their goal is to destroy the traditional families which have been the building blocks of nations.
Their goal is ‘not’ to foster human dignity, goodness, humility and respect as it must be
under a banner of civilization.
The number of fornicators is immense compared to
the miniscule number of same sex people who say their sodomy qualifies
them for equality to those in genuine Sacramental Marriage.
If couples living in fornication because they reject personal committment and self giving
to one another - can live without marriage,
then obviously, so too can same sex people live without marriage!
The fact is that if you take sex and self interest out of either of these catagories,
then such relationships soon collapse.
Opposite sex couples are called to Sacramental Marriage which means procreating and
starting a unique family between them.
That’s what qualifies them for true marriage.
Homosexuals on the other hand, with their routines such as placing penises into the
anus of one another and ejaculating life giving semen into the parts of their bodies
that God has designed to rid the body of waste products is certainly not going to
produce children as in normal marriage where the seed of life is ejaculated into the vagina
possibly resulting in conception and new life.
Not even animals via their God given instinct inject their semen into the waste removal
parts of other animals.
So what’s that say about humans that operate below the standard of the instinct of wild animals?
Nevertheless, they say their actions warrant marriage.
What rubbish they spruke!
While we have political parties dominated by those who control the credit and thus
control the financial system, and manipulate it to their own desires, are thus above governments, and
bankrupt countries to their own advantage,
and put people into the slavery of debt to themselves;
who control political parties and stand in candidates for the people to elect for them;
and who appoint a majority of judges whom they know will bend things their way in
overturning just laws and to support immorality, we have a situation which is
understandable if studied; but particularly,
it’s geared to steam roll the people for the desires of the elite.
That’s what’s happening!

Mary writes: “The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.”
.
I can sympathize – the folks who claim “born that way” invoke the god named “Fate” with that same utterance.  Personally I find fatalism repellant but I think it is better, for the common good of course, to simply do what I can for those folks.

@Mary: “It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.” This sounds like a call to annihilation of the species. Peace on earth to men of good will.

Believers claim to know everything! Not just to know that god exists, and that he created and supervised the whole enterprise, but also to know what “he” demands of us—from our diet to our observances to our sexual morality. In other words…has the sheer arrogance to tell us that we have all the essential information that we need. Such stupidity, combined with such pride, should be enough to exclude “belief” from the debate. The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species. It may be a long farewell, but it has begun and, like all farewells, should not be protracted.

David Guard,

Its great to hear that you attended a Reform service and found it to your liking.  Sounds like that there msut have been an excellent rabbi leading the service. You (and everyone) are alwasy welcome at any synagogue for any service, for any study offerings, for any event.

Yes absolutely!

@David Guard:  Excellent response and I agree.  The mission of the Church is to share the “Good News”—the gospel of Jesus Christ.  THAT is their primary mission.  Ancillary objectives of extending all manner of charity in terms of corporal and spiritual works of mercy, education, hospitals, et al are the fruit of our good works for us having first heard the “Good News.”
.
And as we have been so richly blessed, we have an obligation to bless others.  The difference between the Church and secular charities and governmental agencies is that we make the gospel known to the lost.  All institutions perform similar work to help people.  The Church, however, is in the business first of saving the souls of men and women.  This is a much higher calling.  This is what Jesus commanded right before He ascended.

mikehorn: If you want to argue natural law, you must argue that meosis is not the final cause of gametogenesis and that gametogenesis is not the final cause, eventually, of dopamine production and oxytocin production in specific circumstances.  That is you must argue that a human’s urge to breed is not caused by being a sexual animal but by being an attracted animal.
.
By analogy you are arguing that because a specific human *likes* trans-fats, their ability to metabolize is *different* than a person who is not attracted to trans-fats; therefore trans-fat ought not be outlawed.
.
Ain’t science great?

I’m continuing my answer to Casting Crowns.  In addition to the Gospels, the sacraments, and our excellent educational and medical institutions, we belong to the oldest and largest church in all of Christianity.  There are more Catholics than all other Christians combined.  Catholics should be proud of this heritage and unique status in the world.

In my humble opinion, the Catholic justices who voted to kill the institution of civil marriage, Anthony Kennedy and Sonia Sotomayor, should be excommunicated.  I don’t see why Christians and especially Catholics would want to get a civil marriage license and associate themselves with this mockery and disgrace. Why not just be married in the Church?  The Church can recognize and bless the marriage. The Supreme Court has stripped civil government of the moral authority to do so.

To Casting Crowns:  thank you for your question!  The mission of the church is to spread the Gospel and to minister the sacraments.  We also have traditions and a culture which are uniquely ours.  I forgot to mention education.  We have first rate schools second to none.

@ Sam: Upon reading, I am happy to learn that Louis Pasteur is included in the list of Catholic scientists.

@ Sam with a capital S

@am: This is Mary De Voe. I do not now where Mary II came from.  I do know that natural law is based on nature. And our Creator endowed people with nature and common sense. And for the person naming Catholic scientists, he forgot to mention Louis Pasteur who said the ROSARY every day and who discovered pasteurization and vaccination. Some other thoughts for arrested developmenters: Human sacrifice, the destruction of human life, as is abortion, is the foremost form of worship to the devil, Satan. Fornication is the next sacrifice offered to the devil. What homosexuals do is assault and battery of their partners. Even the devil does not want what homosexuals do. 

Mary and Mike horn - the Natural Law is not based on Catholicism. It is based on philosophy. You keep insisting on this misconception and keep calling it “Catholic Natural Law. THis is not what it is.
  Science is supposed to look at all the facts. If you deliberately start by ignoring anything of religion and/or God in the quest then you are also starting with a bias. It works both ways. A bias against God in your studies is still a bias and can lead you to erroneus conclusions. Were you aware that some of the greatest scientists in history were Catholics? Some of the many include: Gregor Mendel, Louis Pasteur, Leonardo de Vinci, to name but a few. Both science and Religion aims at Truth. If you claim they are contradictory then you are either wrong about science or wrong about religion. When both are true (ie on the correct path) they cannot contradict each other. To claim otherwise shows ignorance of one or the other.
Mary - if you exclude one you are ignoring some of the facts. You cannot do that in true unbiased research. Also the government is not really being unbiased when it comes to religion is it? They are trying to force business owners and religious organizations to provide services or things (ie contraception) to their employees against their conscience/religious beliefs. It doesn’t matter that the employee may not have the same beliefs. For the business owner who knows that contraception is immoral - it isn’t just immoral for him or her to use it personally, it also goes against that person’s faith to provide it to anyone - being an accessory if you will.
It is very ironic to be talked to as if I don’t know what science is and/or consists of since I am in fact a scientist. Mary, there is no science that is truly correct (and not someone’s half-baked theory) that contradicts the Catholic Faith.

@David Guard:  [“At its best the church does very well when the flock sticks to priorities:  feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked, showing compassion, preventing unwanted pregnancies which leads to abortion, and standing up to hatred which is all around us.”]
.
Since there are numerous secular charities and tax supported government agencies which provide the same services, please contrast the role of the Church versus these other institutions.  In your view, what should be the mission of the Church?

Thank you to Lisa Kaiser and Mike Horn for your insights.  Please keep writing because I am learning a lot from you.  Lisa I attended another Reform service this weekend.  It was awesome!

I am wary of anyone who claims to have The Truth.  Of course truth exists.  But do any of us have a monopoly on it?  Certainly the RCC does not when it comes to sex.  There is no credibility.  If we want to talk about truth, let us do it.  Do we truthfully practice what the church teaches on sexual matters?  Do Catholic parents truthfully teach their sons not to masturbate for fear that they will sin if they do?  Do we truthfully want married couples to avoid all artificial forms of birth control which can lead to many children in poor families that cannot afford to raise them?  How many of us think that the clergy are role models for our families on sexual matters?  Do we really believe that the “true” Catholic faith had it right when it taught that scientific discoveries were false? 

At its best the church does very well when the flock sticks to priorities:  feeding the hungry, healing the sick, clothing the naked, showing compassion, preventing unwanted pregnancies which leads to abortion, and standing up to hatred which is all around us.

Sam and Steve P,
.
Catholic Natural Law is distinct from science, and since it was a system of thought mainly brought to full flower through Thomas Aquinas, it predated what we today would call science.  One telling aspect is that it has as its foundation the assumption that a god exists and that the god is the Christian god.  After that it relies primarily upon reason and some forms of logic.  The first brands it as a religious mode of thought, specifically a Christian one.  The second has basic flaws from a modern viewpoint in that it starts its line of inquiry with certain conclusions already formed.  This means that in Natural Law the conclusions can often lead the evidence.  From a modern view this is profoundly irrational and again puts it in the realm of religion.
.
A more rational approach has been forming since the Renaissance and only really reached its mature form in the 20th Century, and that well into it.  This approach turns Natural Law on its head, where the evidence leads where it will without regard to previous conclusions.  If you are asking the right questions, it often overturns previous conclusions.  See:  Darwin, Einstein, Hubble, discovery of DNA, proof that there is more out there than the matter and energy we see (generically called “dark”, but we don’t really know yet).  In this approach to thought, reason has its place but reason can always be trumped by evidence and math.  Many things we can demonstrate very much violate what we would consider common sense because our common sense evolved to determine events in a very narrow frame of time, space, speed, and size.  Reason alone should often be viewed with skepticism.  You can see how Catholic Natural Law and the 800 year old ideas of Aquinas seem a bit off.
.
As for Steve P, what you describe is a part of sexuality to be sure, but only a part.  Sexuality is part basic mechanics of tab A into slot B, part unseen chemistry of the body and of the senses, part intellectual, part emotional.  The mechanics alone do not come close to explaining human sexuality.  For instance, where in your thoughts does the human that looks female in every respect to the eye, but if you look at her DNA is very much male?  This can happen if the mother during pregnancy has certain things either occur or fail to occur, so that the human body defaults to female in physical presentation.  This flies in the face of theology, for one, because there is no default the other way - it seems like the default human form is female.  But this physically female but genetically male can have attractions either way - my personal experience is a very tomboyish woman who likes guys.  Is this person heterosexual based upon physical presentation or homosexual based upon genetics? 
.
The obsolete idea of a “gay gene” came up earlier, as well, but that person should realize their understanding of the topic is at best decades out of date.  Early genetics proposed the idea that one gene would cause one trait or behavior, but the evidence didn’t lead there and instead showed a very complicated interaction between genes where one gene can often serve multiple functions based on many factors, from age of the organism to where the gene is located relative to other genes, and many more influences.  One famous study changed one gene known to affect eye color, producing a breed of pink-eyed fruit flies (humans have the same gene - common descent) that were easily identifiable visually.  The point of the experiment was something else, but a striking result was that the flies with the altered gene had males that ignored the females and instead courted and mated with other males.  A purely physical change in one aspect of body structure also affected sexual behavior - it was a watershed moment in genetics and sexuality.  We still don’t know precisely what does and does not cause homosexuality, but we can demonstrate at least a few possible sources. 
.
This “I don’t know” answer, by the way, is characteristic of scientific thought.  It has as its assumption that if we don’t have a demonstrated answer that can be replicated and explained, then it demands more questions, more inquiry.  It means that we have very interesting things yet to find out.  This approach is far more productive than what came before.

Posted by Sam on Monday, Jul 15, 2013 11:12 AM (EDT):
Mike horn - This is supposedly a Catholic blog by the way. So you shouldn’t be surprised that Catholic arguments will also be used.
.
Sam, that means Catholics and scientists are on different playing fields—science by definition excludes god and/or other beings that do not exist in spacetime. You are ignoring this. A religious “expert” is not a science “expert” and has no authority to involve god in scientific discussion.
.
This includes social sciences. It’s true that Catholics and homosexuals cannot live together peaceably in the same society, but the same is true of Catholics and atheists, Catholics and Muslims, Republicans and Democrats (in these times) and any other opposition groups. The U.S. government is supposed to be a non-religious entity that governs society, and it is directed by the Constitution to not favor any one religion over any or every other. If you had your way and involved your religion in government, this would not the the same United States that guarantees civil rights to every citizen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM
.
Catholics only know enough science to keep their faith. They ignore any science that contradicts their beliefs.
.
SteveP—have you ever heard of hormones?

Mikehorne writes: “Catholic ideas of natural law are neither science nor US law . . .”
.
Wow!  Astounding science news!  Please link to the empirical evidence indicating males who self-identify as “gay” have bodies that do not perform meosis or, rather, do not perform gametogenesis in the same manner as “straight” males – you know the basis of sexual complimentary-ness.
.
And, I hope not to ask too much, do you have a case law citation showing that Social Security Survivor benefits were instituted to, you know, oppress someone else?

Mike horn - This is supposedly a Catholic blog by the way. So you shouldn’t be surprised that Catholic arguments will also be used.

Lisa Kaiser and Mike horn - I am very familiar with and have studied logic and philosphy. You continue to ignore the non religious statements I have made. You also are rejecting basic philosophical principles principles because they support what I am saying and accuse them of being religious. Since you reject religious, biological, philosophical, and logical arguments there is nothing that will convince you and you are merely stubbornly holding onto ideas that have been shown to be false. The natural law and the principle of non contradiction are philosophical arguments not religious ones however you keep ignoring them and saying that they are religious arguments. You are incorrect.
I am also arguing on the unnaturalness and immorality of said actions and you keep mentioning the supreme court and the laws of the United States. THis is a red herring argument because the laws that have been passed by a nation have nothing to do with the rightness or wrongness of an action, only whether you could be punished by the government or not. So, whether the Supreme Court has spoken or not does not change the fact that these things are wrong and not how they should be.
You both are very clearly rejecting all non religious arguments and trying to dismiss them by calling them religious. That won’t work. You have not proven anything. Please come back when you have a coherent, logical, and philosophiocal argument.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God died as the Son of Man. If Jesus was not the Son of God, Jesus could not have made reparation to God for man’s sins. Noo human being, other than the Son of God Who took on man’s human nature in the Hypostatic Union, could make reparation for man. Jesus had two natures, human and divine. If Jesus was not a human being, Jesus could not make reparation for man. Man cannot save himself from perdition. Only with the grace of God is man saved, a perfectly free and loving gift. “ALL American have equal rights under the law.” Perjury, lying in a court of law is not a civil right. Calling a male anus a “bride” is perjury in a court of law and punishable by two years in Federal Prison.

Man-made Church only DIES.
And it is good that it dies.
So much of the PRIDE and VANITY of man too go with it.

Sam,

Mike Horne ahs expressed the right idea.  Bravo!  RCCs feel that they have special rights and special privileges to impose their teachings upon the rest of us.  The USA is NOT and NEVER will be an RC theocracy. ALL American have equal rights under the law.  Catholic have no right to expect to impose their teachings upon the rest of us.

Sam,
.
I’ve answered it several times, but here again:  your notions of Truth through revealed religion are beside the point when discussing the law of the USA.  When discussing US law, what matters is…. US law.  The Constitution is not a Catholic document, the USA is not a Catholic nation.  The details of Canon law are not relevant, and neither are the pronouncements of any bishop or Pope.  This is the USA, where Catholics are free to practice as they choose, but so are Hindus and Navajos and Buddhists. 
.
I have a second point that many of your posts are fine as far as they go when trying to convince other Catholics.  Any time you assert Truth or have any other sort of presupposational argument it is a type of shorthand when discussing with other believers, or with those that will accept that type of thing on face value.  But in making an argument about US law, or when discussing with a number of people who obviously disagree with you on very basic ideas, those assertions get you nowhere.  Try another route.  Marshall some facts.  Study logic and how that can help you construct a coherent argument.  Know the topic, which on a Supreme Court of the USA case can be nothing other than the Constitution and related precedents and history - not Catholicism.  You can make a Catholic argument in this framework, but it requires more than a Catholic notion of natural law.  Catholic ideas of natural law are neither science nor US law, so you end up again where you started, which is no where.
.
Good luck.

Lisa Kaiser and Mike Horn - The problem is that you are rejecting the Truth. Just because you don’t believe in the truth of the Catholic Faith does not make it any less true. There is only One True Church. I have written about how opposing views can’t both be true and you have conveniently ignored that and continued to spout this relativist nonsense.

Julian,
.
Here is the great thing about a free nation:  you are free to live here, but you are also free to leave.  Poland, Chile, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Nicaragua might all be more to your liking.  They are modern theocracies, or as close as Christianity gets these days.
.
Otherwise, maybe Iran or Saudi Arabia?
.
Given the examples of what religious countries are like vs free countries, give me the free.

Jesus told the apostles if the town will not listen to the word shake the dust of the town from your feet and leave. Their fate will far worse than Sodom. Have mercy on us and the whole world.

Mary,
.
About condoms and STD’s, including HIV, you are flatly wrong on the basic facts of your assertions.  The Church teaches what you say, but they are less than honest.  Their numbers for effectiveness and particle size vs barrier permeability are simply not accurate if talking about modern condoms.  In “modern” I include any latex condom that has met US regulatory standards since WWII.  That is most of them.  The Church, knowing that modern condoms are not included in the studies they cite, teaches statistics and information that are hopelessly out of date.  Where I come from, that means the Church is blatantly and knowingly lying about condoms for the purpose of convincing people to not use them.  From the perspective of HIV and other STD infections, this is killing people in the name of ideological purity, and they are doing so by words and arguments so dishonest that I wonder how they can sleep at night.  Willful ignorance is a horrible thing in context.  That is not even the worst part.  By teaching using the power of their god that condoms are ineffective, and then refusing to even discuss how to use a condom and in many places actively fighting that teaching or even forbidding it, they lower the rate of condom use.  This causes more infections directly, but also causes those that still use condoms to have a higher rate of misuse.  This lowers the effectiveness of condoms out of sheer ignorance caused by a dishonest Church lying about basic facts in the pursuit of ideological purity.  Most us moral folk would call that acts of evil consciously chosen.  Religious people would even call it sinful.
.
Those who take the Church at face value on these items also suffer from willful ignorance, and certainly on the subject of condoms a horrifically misplaced trust.  The data is out there and not even difficult to find.  The Center for Disease Control has it in plain English:  Latex condoms form an impermeable barrier for objects the size of the HIV virus and other viruses, which are both significantly smaller than any bacterial STD.  Learning to use a condom can be tricky to the novice, especially if they don’t learn until the moment when they actually want to use one - they aren’t entirely thinking straight at that point, if they were doing things right to get there.  But repeating a lie when the actual facts are out there is also a lie.  You can have a different conclusion based upon correct facts, but you are not able to make up your own facts.  If you think so, read a definition of fact again.

The First Amendment are the civil rights of all people without, again I say without government. With or without government the First Amendment frees all people to love God and their neighbor as themselves. Some of the posters here would be very happy to see every citizen’s First Amendment civil rights eradicated, the constitution changed according to the laws they want. TRUTH is the rockbed for the Supreme Court, yet TRUTH is not in gay marriage. If the marital act cannot be consummated by homosexual behavior, the secular government has no authentic authority to legalize gay unions as marriage.

Sam,
.
In the USA, who’s god very much matters as a matter of law and who gets to live as they are free to do so.  You are free to follow your god, for the most part, but you are NOT free to make others follow your god.  Freedom of religion is a shield, not a sword.  While you are free to believe yours is the one true faith and truth, and you are free to assert it, under US law you are required to provide evidence and coherent argument to back up those assertions.  When trying to demonstrate things or convince people, bald assertions can be rejected baldly.  They don’t stand on their own.

Sam,

you do know of course that the bigoted ideas of the RCC have no impact on or relevance to other christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, atheists, etc?  You and the RCC are just sputtering soundlessly in the wind.

Heck the RCC as even had to launch a “new evangelization” just to try to convince RCs back into the pews.  Not even most RCs buy into the bigotry anymore.

Sam,

Yawn ,yawn.  You know of course Islam woudl your faith a false religion.  They would say that Islam IS the superior religion.  So RCs pouting, stamping their feet and holding their breath over this discredited/outdated/obviously false idea is boring.  The fact that you and the corrupt RC hierarchy think RCism is the superior to all other faith traditions and is the “one true faith” does NOT make it so.  It is just bigotry.

There are many paths to God.  RCism is NOT superior to anything other faith tradition.  And thankfully in America, we are NOT an RC theocracy.  You will have to peddle your bigotry elsewhere—maybe Saudia Arabia???  Perhaps you and the Saudis can endlessly argue this silly idea with each other.

Of course the Protestants (other, non Catholic Christians) disagree. They rebelled and broke away from the true Church with Martin Luther. THis does not change the fact. Catholicism IS superior to all other religions because all others are false religions. Your comments show a religious indifference that is unfortunately all too common today even among Catholics. We must proclaim the Truth despite whatever accusations you may throw at us. Just because many people think one religion is as good as another does not make it so. THere is absolute Truth. THere is the One True Faith. To believe that contradicting faiths can all be good, valid, and true is not something a rational person can seriously adhere to. Something can’t be both true and not true - therefore if there are conflicting ideas only one can be right. For example, if I say God exists and you say he doesn’t one of us must be wrong.

Sam,

too bad you are wrong about the equality of religions.  There is nothing special about Christinaity.  Christians do not have the right to impsoe theri beliefs or their god on all American society.

Heck even other Christians disagree that the RCC is the “one true church”—which it is NOT.  Chrisatins cannot even agree among themselves what christianity is.

The USA is NOT a christian or RC theocracy.  RCism and christianity are but two voices among many in the USA.  Christinity or RCism is NOT superior to or triumphant over other American voices.

Thankfully we live in a Democracy, NOT a theocracy of taliban/shiite RCs.  You need to get used to the fact that RCism has no special rights in America.  It has equal rights—euql to those of Jews, Muslims, buddhists, Hindus, Jains, atheists, etc.

There is no question of whose God. There is ony one God. Also not all religions are equal. If we say opposing things they can’t both be right. THe principle of non contradiction of Aristotle states this. It is injustice to equate error with Truth. The Catholic Church is the One True Church and will last until the end of time despite all the assaults the world is today hurling at it.  Just because others think there is some other god does not make it so.

“Tolerance is the virtue of a man without convictions.”—author G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936)

Sam,

First of all God’s law is NOT the same thing as the rules, laws, organization of the RCC.  The rCC ahs NO right in the USA to impose its teachings upon all Americans, to insist that all Americans abide by its rules.  We have freedom of religion, and thankfully that includes freedom of the corrupt hierarchy of the RCC.  Secondly, we have to ask, whose God?  The laws of the God of the RCC are vastly different than the laws of the God of Islam, of Hinduism, etc.

As an American citizen I will do everything in my power to prevent the RCC from codifying its teachings into the laws of the USA.  The USA is not and never will an RC theocracy.

Randall - because no country’s laws trump the Law of God regardless of whether everyone believes them or not.

” but there is a First Amendment that gives all human beings FREEDOM…”

And why is it that the catholic church demands the right to say we all have to follow their marriage rules?

Birth control is sinful because birth control does not allow two married persons from giving themselves to one another.

Mikehorn: Why is government working on a water purifier to remove contraceptives from our drinking water? Condoms do not prevent HIV/aids since the virus passes between the molecules of material and HIV/aids is a death sentence. At one time people wanted to try those who infected others on purpose with homicide. Let me point out that my last post said nothing about religion, man’s response to the gift of Faith from God(with a capital “G”) You seem to be hung up on man’s free will response to God for all of your misinformation. I referred to our civil rights with which man is endowed by his Creator.

Robert Hill,

You make three claims about the Pill that are either false or disputed.  I’ve seen all of those in various fundamentalist Christian (including hard Catholics), but none of them bear out when actually examined.  Do you have any proof of those claims?
.
One actually doesn’t even pass the simplest common sense BS test:  the Pill as a polluter.  Even a quick review of non-biased literature will show that the contribution of human synthetic estrogen is negligible.  For instance, the dairy farms in the USA use approximately 5 times as much synthetic estrogen to boost milk production as humans use.  There is also some in plant fertilizer, a much larger source than female human waste.  The list goes on.  The short version is, when you hear from a biased source with an anti-contraceptive axe to grind you should be suspicious.  The Vatican is not a reliable source - they still deliberately mis-state the effectiveness of latex condoms, instead using a study from pre-WWII as the source of their numbers (the US Army was the first to order condoms that had a required effectiveness, the start of modern condoms).  Lifesitenews is not a reliable source.  Stormfront.org is not only unreliable, it is also white-supremacist and Christian dominionist, yet they regularly spout this Pill Pollution misinformation.

France has accepted only a civil ceremony for the past two centuries and the state does not recognize the Church ceremony.  But then, the Church does not recognize a state ceremony for Catholics.  Practicing Catholics thus have both ceremonies.  This is what will probably happen here—the state simply won’t recognize the Church ceremony, but so what.  It is the Church ceremony that is critical for a Catholic.  The state won’t be able to stop a Church marriage, it just won’t recognize it. The state’s understanding of marriage is that it is simply access to state benefits.  For Catholics, it is a sacrament conferring supernatural benefits.

It feels like death,very black & so sad . . . final.  Please Lord, hear our prayers, may your will be done.  I ask this in Jesus’ holy name.  Amen

    mikehorn, the “pill” poisons people, promotes promiscuity and pollutes the planet. 
    Catholic “fundamentalists” (as you refer to them) are not willing to compromise on Truth. 
    He who has abandoned his moral moorings is governed by caprice, and what was once repugnant may today be accepted, and someday required (as the God-forsaken mandate requires employers to supply an evil, recreational drug to employees). 

†

    GAY IS AS GAY DOES.  Sodomitical activity is behavior.  “Gays” are those who have become habituated in this behavior.  (Atheist psychologists teach otherwise, but they have not and will never find a “gay gene.”)  May God have mercy on their souls and on the souls of all of us (sinners).  But woe to him who teaches that evil is good, leading little ones astray (pleasant as the prospect of fresh catamites no doubt is for the hardened sodomite). 

    “Gay marriage” is a lie promulgated by enemies of the Church and their minions. 

@mikehorn:

jacobum,
I think that many Christians and Catholics have a hard time squaring the circle of the dogma of Jesus being both completely human and also divine, part of the trinitarian Catholic god.

Church dogma is Christ was/is fully human and fully divine. It’s a mystery how but then again we are creatures and God is God. The bridge to this is Faith but a little thing called Pride gets in the way. We creatures devise all manor of excuses, denial etc in order to justify our actions/inactions and non response to Truth. It’s all about the battle within each of us. Vices vs Virtues. It’s about a little used expression today (even within the Church and Pulpit)...called “Sin”

Larry,
.
You are factually wrong about the HHS mandate.  The law as passed requires coverage of all preventive care.  As defined this includes inhalers and pills for asthmatics, insulin for diabetics.  It also includes contraceptives for women, by definition.  You can argue with including contraceptives here, but they have been in the “preventative medicine” category for years prior to the passage of healthcare.
.
What came after the bill were the accommodations the Executive branch made after people complained.  They were trying to both satisfy religious objections while also maintaining availability for those (a strong majority, even among Catholics) who want contraceptives covered.  One of the characteristics of this administration is the attempt to find common ground, a middle way both sides can live with.  One problem with this approach is that absolutists like the Catholic bishops and fundamentalist followers are not willing to give even an inch.  Worse, when the administration made reasonable compromise the first time, the absolutists only wanted more. 

The current compromise, as I understand it, from July 1, 2013, is that churches and religious charities are exempt completely.  This is no surprise as they are also exempt from the Workplace Discrimination laws - Catholics are not required to hire a Baptist as a priest, as a way to illustrate the reason for the exemption.  Schools, especially those receiving tax-dollars to run the school, are something of a middle ground.  Again back to employment law, hiring a non-Catholic to teach math or music is no big deal, but Catholic schools should be allowed to discriminate when hiring theology professors, or requiring administrators to be members of the clergy, and the law reflects this bit of common sense.  But students come from everywhere and every faith, so they also have rights.  On this middle category, the insurance providers or a third-party provider (one not funded in any way by the school) are required to cover any disputed items.  This satisfies the rights of both the institution and the students, as well as non-Catholic faculty.  There is another side to this, where some of those students are still covered under their parent’s insurance up to age 26 under the new law, and so many will not even be asking the Catholic institution for insurance.
.
What is still progressing are secular employers that happen to be Catholic, like owners of a hardware store.  Employment law prevents them from discriminating against employees or potential employees because of religion - they are not even allowed to ask.  But even here, it appears that the same third-party compromise is being applied.  This makes a certain type of sense, since there is already a mechanism out there and it is more important to expand healthcare, making it less expensive nationally, than to allow it to fall over Catholics whinging about contraceptives.
.
From the insurer’s point of view, this also makes sense, since the liability and actuarial tables state in cold math that contraceptives are less expensive than children.  Get the young folks educated, employed, then having children on their own dime and it is less expensive for everyone.

jacobum,
I think that many Christians and Catholics have a hard time squaring the circle of the dogma of Jesus being both completely human and also divine, part of the trinitarian Catholic god.  We recently saw this when the movie “The Last Temptation of Christ” came out, an exploration of what the “fully human” part would mean.  People howled and fought and protested.  Yet the Church had been using the older book (1968) the movie was based on in the seminaries as a tool to talk about the human side.  If Jesus was simply divine, his death was meaningless - how do you kill a god, even for just three days?  Similarly any suffering - how do you inflict pain and torture upon a god?  The lamb metaphor for blood sacrifice, the idea of pain and suffering, all require a fully human side.  A fully human side would have had hormones and mood swings and headaches and flatulence and B.O.  Hairy moles, warts, annoying infected cuts that take too long to heal.  It would have also been able to appreciate music, a good wine at a party (first miracle got people drunk and merry - just saying!), seen the beauty of a woman, felt lust, gotten angry, made mistakes, stubbed his toe and uttered harsh language.  He would have doubted, second-guessed himself, thought of ways out and alternative choices leading to different outcomes.  Without this banal human normality the very idea of the sacrifice and death is completely meaningless.  Yet somehow many Christians need a completely divine Jesus and never realize that merely divine Jesus is empty and without any merit, deserving no respect.
.
As an aside, I saw a bumper sticker after the movie came out that I found funny (and any human Jesus would have had a sense of humor - or not, since he could have been a humorless prat, though the wine thing makes me think not).  The sticker read:  “It’s easier to believe in Jesus if he was as ugly as Willem Defoe”.

The more LISA KAISER opens her mouth, the more she shows her extreme ignorance of everything Catholic. Lisa, you don’t have a clue what you are talking about and everything you say is so full of mistakes and fabrications one wouldn’t know where to start to clear them up. You also insist in remaining in your errors. You also don’t understand the difference between the official teaching of the Church and just writings of individual bishops or theologians who are say their own ideas. Just because they are a bishop doesn’t make every word out of their mouths official teaching. Fortunately, we have a test - if anything they say is not in line with what the Church has always taught then do not listen. There are many heretics out there especially today. In the words of Pope Pius IX and many other popes, if anyone does not believe this - LET HIM BE ANATHEMA!

The gays cannot consummate the marital act. The gays want marriage equality without marriage.
The atheist exists as a human being of body and soul. The atheist wants religion without God.
The newly conceived sovereign person is endowed with a will to live from the first moment of existence and unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness through his rational, immortal soul. Planned Parenthood has emasculated every unborn male member of our nation.
The human body has a brain. The human soul has a mind. Obamacare says the human being may have a brain, but the man does not have a conscience, or a mind to reason, or a soul.
Welcome to the Emasculated, Alienated, Penumbra of the United States of Atheism.

[“The gospel writers wrote interesting fiction re Jesus in order to try to convince people of a false idea.”]
.
The Torah writers wrote interesting fiction re Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Moses in order to try and convince people of a false idea.

@Lisa: No, Jesus was not God or messiah or savior.  He was a human being, he was a compelling teacher of Torah.  The gospel writers wrote interesting fiction re Jesus as God in orde to try to convince people of a false idea.

I am sure you need to believe this in order to excuse and or justify your personal situation, lifestyle,choices or whatever your animus requires. History and facts seem not important to you.

Thank you Larry for a balanced exposition of the TRUTH.

“Do you think Jesus was the only person, out the ten of thousand of people the Roman Empire crucified, who was crucified in the manner shown on the shroud????” Yes, I believe he definitely WAS the only one to be crucified “in the manner shown on the shroud,” because it was NOT the practice of the Romans to scourge the victim before execution. This is borne out by the Gospels which state that Pilate had Jesus scourged in order to satisfy the crowd, and it was only when the crowd was NOT satisfied that he gave in and ordered the crucifixion. It was also NOT Roman practice to crown the victim with thorns, as though the condemned had claimed to be a king. But never mind. It occurs to me that I could spend the rest of my life correcting your errors and mistakes—and I would never be done because you would just come out with more and more. You are not open to the truth, and may never be. But it edifies me that I have yet to argue with any opponent of the Catholic faith who was not laboring under numerous misconceptions and much false information—and even if they were unwilling to forgo lies for the truth, it at least confirms the truthfulness of what I believe in.

Larry,

I think its hysterical that so many right-wing RCs on this site and others go out of their way to deride what they call “cafeteria catholics”, but then have no trouble in dismissing the what RCs bishop publish about the Bible, claiming they (the lay RC) have “the right” to “discern” the truth about the Bible.  Your bishops say otherwise.  Your bishop assert they are the only authentic teachers of faith and morals.  They publish what they publish because it IS the teaching of YOUR RCC.  Your bishop may not agree that you have the right to so blithely dimiss what the bishops publish about the Bible—which is the work of of Biblical scholars (historians, linguists, etc).  but of course, you know better than your bishops or those pesky RC Biblical scholars.

As for the Shroud of Turin—nothing connects it with Jesus.  Do you think Jesus was the only person, out the ten of thousand of people the Roman Empire crucified, who was crucified in the manner shown on the shroud????  The Roman Empire was an efficient execution machine, they used the same methods over and over.  In fact, it was probably easy for the gospel it get those details right, not becaue they pertained to Jesus, but becasue they pertained to EVERY person crucified by the Roman Empire—including the 2 thieves crucifed along side Jesus.

And its get this clear, the RCC, YOUR RCC, teaches that it was the Roman Empire that crucified Jesus.  The Pharidess did NOT crucify Jesus.  Only the Roman Empire ahd the right of capital punishment/execution when it occupied Israel.

As for Jesus’s body—it has long ago decomposed,as all human bodies do.  as for image—scince has set forth a number of ideas.

No, Jesus was not God or messiah or savior.  He was a human being, he was a compelling teacher of Torah.  The gospel writers wrote interesting fiction re Jesus as God in orde to try to convince people of a false idea.

Commentary by theologians included in the latest editions of the Bible does not constitute infallible Roman Catholic teaching either. In fact there is no infallible teaching stating explicitly who the Gospel authors were or weren’t—so I am free to believe as I discern the truth to be—and I am inclined to scoff at the modern scoffers who discount the tradition. I repeat that the author of the Gospel of John states explicitly that he himself was present at the Last Supper and that he was an eyewitness of the things he describes. That’s good enough for me. “Many of the saying atrributed to Jesus re his being God, are fiction.” Oh—so you were there? “No observant Jew would have ever said such things.” That’s exactly the point the Pharisees made, wasn’t it? So Jesus must have been far more than an “observant Jew.” He was the Messiah who was also the Son of God. And in fact if he never said those things, he would never have been crucified by the Pharisees who felt threatened. But he WAS crucified. The pagan Roman historian Tacitus, who abhorred Christians and Christianity, confirmed the crucifixion in his “Annals of Imperial Rome.” “And of course, the writers of the gospels, your RCC teaches, did not know Jesus, never knew him, saw him or heard him speak.” That is NOT what the Catholic Church teaches, as I have pointed out. That is what many modern theologians claim—but I am not obliged to accept their claims. “But there is no evidence that the cloth has any connection to Jesus.” I didn’t say there was evidence—although a controversial claim has been made that an inscription purporting to indicate Jesus as the executed man has been detected. I’ll have no opinion on that until further information is obtained. “in fact, scientists still do not know what it is—the scientific jury is still out.” Really? Out about what? About whether it might have been the burial cloth of Jesus? But what if they DO find proof of a connection to Jesus? Do you realize what that means? It means not only that Jesus existed, but that every single detail listed in the Gospel accounts of the Crucifixion was accurate, because it’s all there—wounds in the head corresponding to thorn piercings, whip slash marks across the torso, a broken nose indicating a beating, etc. And there are the biggest questions of all: WHERE IS THE BODY? And HOW DID THE IMAGE GET ON THE CLOTH? You make a huge understatement when you say that scientists still don’t know what it is. In fact, they’re flabbergasted by the question of how the image appeared.

Larry,

Not even the RCC teaches that any of the writers of the gospels were any of the 12 apostles.  You might want to look at the USCCB’s website , where the RC bishops publish the New American Bible Revised Edition (published in 2011.

For Mark, the introduction to that gospel says that Mark “put together orla and possibly written sources.”

for Luke, the introduction syas, “Early Christian tradition, from the late second century on, identifies the author of this gospel and of the Acts of the Apostles as Luke, a Syrian from Antioch, who is mentioned in the New Testament in Col 4:14, Phlm 24 and 2 Tm 4:11. The prologue of the gospel makes it clear that Luke is not part of the first generation of Christian disciples but is himself dependent upon the traditions he received from those who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word (Lk 1:2).

Jesus was an actual perons, but the gospels are not history or biography.  Many of the saying atrributed to Jesus re his being God, are fiction.  No observant Jew would have ever said such things.  And of course, the writers of the gospels, your RCC teaches, did not know Jesus, never knew him, saw him or heard him speak.  But they were interested in convincing their audiences of a certain message.  So they put words in the mouth of Jesus.  his words are NOT “well-documented”.  In fact they are not documented at all.

so its you , Larry, who needs to study up on what the RCC teaches about the writers of the gospels.

As for the Shroud of Turin, its an interesting artifact.  But there is no evidence that the cloth has any connection to Jesus.  in fact, scientists still do not know what it is—the scientific jury is still out.

“As for the writers of the gospels—the earliest, Mark, comes some 70 yrs after the death of Jesus.” As usual, your “information” is wrong. The Gospel of Mark is thought to have appeared around 70 AD, which is about FORTY years after the death of Christ, not seventy. “None of the writers of the gospels, knew, heard or saw Jesus.” The writer of the Gospel of John identifies himself as an eyewitness of the events about which he writes and in fact as the Apostle John himself, who was present at the Last Supper. Luke, in his prologue, states that he personally researched the events of his Gospel in order that he might present an orderly and accurate account of Christ’s teachings so that the reader may be sure of them. “No one can be certain that any words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him.” Are you certain that any words attributed to Julius Caesar were actually spoken by him? Or Abraham Lincoln? Or Napoleon? Christ’s words are as well-documented as any other historical figure from the distant past. As for the Shroud of Turin being “medieval,” you ignore the fact that the majority of researchers dispute the results of the carbon tests which purported to date the Shroud to the Middle Ages—on the ground that the test material was contaminated by carbon smoke from a fire.

David Guard,

Its super to read that you have attended services at variou synagogues and have found good people there.  At my Reform synagogue, we occasionaly have RC folks join us on Friday night.  Its all good.  The more all of us know about different faith traditions the better.

Larry,

Its super to hear that you have been various synagogues and have liked the services. From a purely personal viewpoint (I do not claim to speak for all Jews or or Judaism, obviously.  And there is no dogma or doctrine in Judaism).  God is both knowable and unknowable. God is knowable in all human beings—since we are all made in the image of God. God is knowable through all of God’s creation—all things living, through systems that keep our physical planet functioning, through what we observe occurs in space, through evolution.  And all of that knocks my socks off.  In Hebrew, the opening line of Genesis can be accurately tranlsated in the present tense”  “In tge beginning of God’s creating..”  Leaving us to see that God’s act of creation is ongoing, still unfoling across the eons.  We can know God through the oeverarching message of love and covenant found in scripture.  And of course god is unknowable, so beyond our comprehension.  to Moses God said “eheyeh asher eheyeh”—which in the Hebrew can accruately be translated in the future tense I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE”.

I find it liberating that in Judaism God has never been confined to physical time or physcial space and that God has “no face”. 

As for Jesus—there is no “portrait”.  There are paintings that convey what a particular artist thinks Jesus may have looked like (and many of those ideas seem to come from the medieval Shroud of Turin).  As for the writers of the gospels—the earliest, Mark, comes some 70 yrs after the death of Jesus.  None of the writers of the gospels, knew, heard or saw Jesus.  No one can be certain that any words attributed to Jesus were actually spoken by him.  As for the bread and wine—even Christians among themselves do not agree on the meaning. 

Judaism is a faith tradition that does not seek converts. If God intends one to be a Jew, then one is a Jew. If people seek out Judaism and convert, that is good and according to God’s will, but there are no Jewish “missionaries” out in the world seeking to convince people that they should become Jews.

Thank you Lisa Kaiser!  I have attended services in Reform, Conservative, and Reconstructionist congregations.  I haven’t made it to Renewal services but would like to.  In my experiences during these visits, I met people who are intelligent, loving, reasonable, and clear thinking.  The overwhelming majority are well educated and successful.  Their successes are especially noteworthy when we remember that Jews have been pushed around for some 4,000 years.  Thank you again Lisa.  You have raised the level of our discussions a lot on this site.

To respond to Larry’s comment about abortion—I am as concerned as you are about this important issue.  Any clear thinking person knows that the fetus is more than a clump of cells.  It’s a life.  If we had more responsible heterosexual parents who made better decisions, we wouldn’t be seeing the awful numbers of abortions.  Gay couples are not contributing at all to this problem.

I did find this from the website of one David Bar Nahum—take it for what it’s worth: “Eighty-two percent of Jews vs. 71 percent of non-Jews grew up in an intact family. With 21 percent never having been divorced, the divorce rate among Jews is lower than all other groups except Asians (11 percent) and Catholics (20 percent) according to Dr. Tom W. Smith (Jewish Distinctiveness In America: A Statistical Portrait). The divorce rate is lower still among observant Jews.” I assume that “observant Jews” would include the Orthodox branches, which reject unisex marriage. Interesting that he (quoting Dr. Smith) has the Jewish divorce rate slightly higher than the Catholic one, although both are lower than all other groups except Asians. You say, “if you want to see a joyful
and faithful refelction of the covenant between God and Jews—then seek out a Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Renewal synagogue.” I take it you are Jewish—and since you have taken it upon yourself to come onto a Catholic site to comment, I will speak freely. I have attended Jewish services on occasion. They are indeed reverent—and reverence is sadly lacking in too many Catholic Churches today. The synagogue is holy and filled with much truth about God. But in the synagogue there is something lacking: a face. God is an unseen spirit, about whom much can be inferred from his words in the Old Testament—but he is still remote and unknowable—the Old Man on the Mountain, if you will. The human being’s ability to know a spirit is hampered by the man’s very physicality—he cannot grasp the immaterial world. But our God has a face. We know him from his own words and actions in the Gospel—written down by his friends who walked with him for three years in the dust of Palestine. We know his loving mother, his dutiful (earthly foster) father—we know his meddlesome relatives—we know his friends who were not only his contemporaries, but who met him through the Church up to our own day. We not only can look into his face through the medium of artists’ portraits—but we receive his body, blood, soul and divinity in the form of bread and wine in the Holy Eucharist. Our God lets us look upon him as a man like ourselves in all things but sin. So no—I don’t think I’ll convert to the synagogue. It’s much easier for me to relate to God in and through the human nature he assumed than to relate to him as pure spirit.

Given the change in society where the state has taken the place of a spouse in supporting the family, the need for marriage is all but eliminated. Many European countries are already seeing the effect of people being “married to the State” at birth. Even the Romans struggled when their decadence rose and their rates of marriage fell. They realized their mistake too late and the laws they passed to encourage marriage and children were not enough after their society had changed.

Larry,

First of all there are no “factions’ within judaims.  There are movements.

Secondly, in Israel most Jews are not religious, but are secular.  And juding the divorce rates for US Jews from watching a movies seems very weird.  Don’t you know any Jews?  Thought about doing some reading from reputalbe sources re Judaism in America?  Thought about talking to a rabbi (from the Reform, Conservative, Modern Orthodox AND Orthodox movements about the topic of marriage and Jews in the US?

Jews of the Reform, Conservative, Reconstructionist, Renewal movements are very accepting of all people. It makes us stronger, healthier, a greater refelction of the truth that ALL are made in the image of God.  The Orthodox have a different view, as is their right.  But if you want to see a joyful and faithful refelction of the covenant between God and Jews—then seek out a Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Renewal synagogue.

Don’t rely on the movies as a source of information on any topic.

“What can be more important than protecting our young people from sexual
predators?” Protecting them from being murdered in the womb? Protecting their right to be raised by a mother and father (that is, a male and female parent)? Protecting their right to a stable home not shattered by divorce and custody battles? You cite the acceptance by most mainline religious Jews of unisex marriage, saying “their families are strong.” According to the website Arutz Sheva-Israel National News, the divorce rate in Israel has climbed to 40% from 10% since the 1970’s, and in fact rose a full 5% within the past year. I don’t know about Jews in the U.S., but I don’t think Jewish divorce rates are much different from Gentile figures—at least judging from the movie “Heartburn,” concerning the doomed marriage of Nora Ephron and Carl Bernstein. If any Jewish factions are “smarter than we are,” in your words, I would assume it’s the Orthodox, whom you report have rejected unisex marriage.

I stand corrected about the former cardinal from Argentina!  Thank you.  I agree with you that his comments are truly reflective of what he believes on the issue of gay marriage.

I’m glad you are concerned about the sexual abuse scandal in the church.  What can be more important than protecting our young people from sexual predators?  As a youngster two priests “came on” to me.  Nothing happened, but it was clear to me that these two individuals wanted something sexual with me.  These same individuals also preached that birth control is sinful.  Absurd isn’t it?

It’s very noticeable to me that Jewish families are very strong.  Their institutions are very strong as well.  Most Jews accept gay marriage.  Reform and Conservative Jews are endorsing it.  The Orthodox don’t.  I just read a story that Rabbi David Wolpe, a conservative rabbi in LA, intends to perform same sex marriages.  Their families are strong, their educational rates and professional successes are well known, and their tolerance of minorities is well established.  Perhaps they are smarter than we are.

“The former cardinal from Argentina surely did warn people that there will be bad consequences of gay marriage. But he’s not the pope.” YES, HE IS THE POPE! Did you miss the papal election this past spring? At any rate, you had said that Pope Francis was trying to steer people away from condemnation of moral wrongs, in favor of love, love, love. I was just pointing out that you are mischaracterizing the man. “Has the traditional family been destroyed in these nations? No.” That’s debatable. The “traditional family” appears to have become increasingly the exception even BEFORE “these nations” legalized gay marriage. When I was an American schoolboy in the 1960’s, it was rare to meet a classmate whose parents were divorced. Now it is rare to find children whose parents are NOT. “Are we seeing a break down of morals or civilized values? No.” That’s debatable, too! “I’d be more concerned with and worried about priests who rape children.” Did anybody say they WEREN’T concerned about that?

I’d like to respond to Larry’s thoughtful comment.  Consider countries which have legalized gay marriage?  Has the traditional family been destroyed in these nations?  No.  Is the church required to perform same sex ceremonies?  No.  Is juvenile delinquency rising?  No.  Are we seeing a break down of morals or civilized values?  No.  You really are exaggerating the danger.  The former cardinal from Argentina surely did warn people that there will be bad consequences of gay marriage.  But he’s not the pope.  Nor are his predictions becoming true.

I’d be more concerned with and worried about priests who rape children.  I’d be more worried about cover-ups of these crimes.  That is a violation of God’s plan.  These scandals are going on in a church which teaches that all forms of birth control and all masturbation are sinful.  That is really shameful. 

@mikehorn: “Religious freedom has limits.  They end where the freedom of someone else, someone of another faith or none, begins.”
Homosexuals cannot consummate the marital act.The HHS Mandate was added AFTER congress voted Obamacare because Obama added a clause that lets him do whatever he wants to without consent of congress, the voice of the people. The HHS Mandate denies the human’s conscience and soul, the essence of unalienable rights. Withholding persons’ unalienable rights is totalitarianism and treason. Trust Obama after he has impugned our conscience rights and obliterated our unalienable civil rights? The reason man has unalienable rights is because our Creator, the Supreme Sovereign Being is infinite and has created man, body and soul. “or prohibit the free exercise thereof.” Obama has prohibited the free exercise thereof and all you wrote about another persopn’s freedom.

Mary,
.
About gay marriage, when talking about secular law in the USA, what the State ends up with matters a great deal.  As for truth, the State has a somewhat different definition than most religions.  For instance, “revealed truth” like the kind that religions rely on doesn’t really count.  If it can’t be backed up and corroborated, it is so much hearsay and will be dismissed as the subjective information that it is - the only way it could be different is if two separate people with no connection had the exact same revelation.  For instance, if ancient China had produced a duplicate set of scriptures as the Middle East, that would be strong proof.  What matters is objective truth as painstakingly researched and documented through the modern methods of inquiry.
.
About HHS mandate, rights are not absolute for the simple reason that we live in a society with more than one person, more than one religion.  Recently Leilana and Dale Neumann were convicted of killing their two children.  Their attempted defense was religious freedom, that things like insulin and antibiotics detract from the “glory of God”.  The parents have the right of religious freedom, but the rights of the parents do not rank above the rights of their children.  In this case, religious freedom has definite limits.
.
The HHS mandate is similar.  Churches are exempt, as usual.  Employers who happen to have a particular faith are not, though the President has been bending over backwards to accomodate even that.  Secular employers religious freedom is no greater than their employees.  If they hire someone who then divorces and remarries, do they have the right to fire the remarried employee?  How about the paycheck that went to legal fees to complete the divorce?  What if they remarry and now have kids from both the first and second marriage?  Or an employee who is single but dates and has sex on those dates, paying for the evenings with the money they earned from their religious employer?  Does the employer have the right to fire them?  These are all examples of employees not living up to marriage dogma from religious employers, but a secular business needs to recognize the rights of employees, and cannot fire them on the basis of religion.
.
Religious freedom has limits.  They end where the freedom of someone else, someone of another faith or none, begins.

@Lisa Kaiser and Mikehorn: Marriage is the consummation of the marital act, no matter what the state says. ONly the truth may be allowed in a court of law. the truth is that one man uses another man as a bride. In the HHS Mandate, the state imposes its non-religious definition of medical care, but there is a First Amendment that gives all human beings FREEDOM…“or prohibit the free exercise thereof”

David Guard has stated that Pope Francis “...is thankfully asking
people to look above and beyond our disagreements to focus on very basic
things like love, compassion, and humility.” For the record, then-Cardinal Jorge Bergoglio of Buenos Aires wrote the following in 2010 about the issue of same-sex marriage just before it was legalized in Argentina:
  “In the coming weeks, the Argentine people will face a situation whose outcome can seriously harm the family…At stake is the identity and survival of the family: father, mother and children. At stake are the lives of many children who will be discriminated against in advance, and deprived of their human development given by a father and a mother and willed by God. At stake is the total rejection of God’s law engraved in our hearts.
  Let’s not be naive: This is not a simple political fight; it is a destructive proposal to God’s plan. This is not a mere legislative proposal (that’s just it’s form), but a move by the father of lies that seeks to confuse and deceive the children of God… Let’s look to St. Joseph, Mary, and the Child to ask fervently that they defend the Argentine family in this moment… May they support, defend, and accompany us in this war of God.”
  Pope Francis obviously does not consider the issue to be a mere triviality, to be ignore in favor of amorphous feel-goodism. He has preached on “love, compassion and humility,” but he has very definite notions of what does and does NOT constitute the above.

There are really two issues in all of this.  First there is the question of whether the government can force churches to perform same sex marriages as the laws change.  The answer is clearly no.  Churches in other countries which have legalized same sex marriage do not force religions to perform these ceremonies.  Further, our Constitution is clear with respect to the separation between church and state.  It’s not realistic to think that churches will be forced to perform gay marriages. 

Second, there is the issue of church teachings on sexual matters.  It’s easy to see, based on the posts above, that people have made up their minds.  On religious matters people feel very passionate about what they believe and why.  One person claims to have the truth, and another person will disagree claiming that he or she has the truth also.  The pope is thankfully asking people to look above and beyond our disagreements to focus on very basic things like love, compassion, and humility.  So long as we emphasize that in our daily lives, we will be in good shape.

With respect to sexuality,  we have to remember that the church still teaches that ANY form of sexual behavior outside the bonds of traditional marriage is sinful.  This includes masturbation and the use of any artificial birth control.  Yet how many of us really believe that these behaviors are truly sinful?  We may say it, but do we believe this deep down?  I doubt it.  Just consider our behavior.  Consider what it is that we do.  When it comes right down to it, we are our behaviors, not our intentions.  We are what we do.  We’ll be a lot better off if we are honest with ourselves while keeping our eyes on the bigger picture.

Mary De Voe,

The reality is that parts of DOMA have been struck down and that same-sex marriage is legal in 10 or 11 states and in about 14 nations around the world.  The move toward marriage equality will not stop.  You can believe what you want to believe but it will not change reality

Homosexual individuals cannot consummate the marital act. Therefore gay behavior cannot be called marriage.

Is it the interpretation of the word “marriage,” or is it that the Church doesn’t want to support homosexuality by acknowledging the secular recognition (i.e. federal benefits/privileges and/or insurance benefits)of same-sex couples who happen to have one or both partners as employees of the Church?
.
For example, Dolan “reluctantly” paid the insurance premiums of union workers in the employ of the diocese, even though the insurance included coverage for contraception and abortion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/27/nyregion/new-york-archdiocese-reluctantly-paying-for-birth-control.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
.
Why can’t the Catholic Church run its own business without government benefits if the government policies contradict Catholic doctrine? Why should the Church cave to the “threat” of loosing tax breaks if it stands by its principles?

Posted by Casting Crowns on Friday, Jul 5, 2013 6:42 PM (EDT):
@jacobum:  What is your problem with the Novus Ordo Seclorum and why are you in disobedience to your diocesan Bishop?

CS, You must know by now that you are really displaying your ignorance. Pray tell what the Novus Ordo Seclorum has to do with my Bishop or any Bishop for that matter? Do you even bother to check anything out before you speak and confirm your embarrassment?

The N.O.S is about the Great Seal of the United States (link below) It has nothing to do with the Catholic Mass/Liturgy

http://greatseal.com/mottoes/seclorum.html

FYI Translating NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM

NOVUS means new, young, novel, or renewed.
ORDO means order, row, or series
SECLORUM means ages, generations, or centuries.
An accurate translation of Novus Ordo Seclorum is “A New Order of the Ages,” but the meaning of this motto is better understood when seen in its original context.
Discover the Source of Novus Ordo Seclorum.

@Casting Crowns:

@jacobum:  Sorry, —your “rants” clearly come from the seminary.  It was never taught in RC schools nor was it discussed or encouraged.  If you like tradition, then carry on—but it has no gospel value toward salvation.

You must have gone to a “Catholic School” or CCD Classes in 70’s & 80’s or thereafter. You tone is one of either a former or misinformed Catholic. Unfortunately, you have a lot of company..all of which is not necessarily their/your fault. 

Essentially the catechesis was/has been poor to non existent since V2. No Sin, Kumbaya and Church Nice became the norm. All Christ without the Cross. Just pablum and feel good mush. Look around. The results were very predictable and now highly visible. The Churches are empty. Can’t give what you don’t have and you can’t teach what you don’t know.

Much bigger problems within the Church than from without. It’s what Pope St Pius X called “Modernism” which he said was a compendium of all the heresies in the Church up to that time. He wrote an encyclical on it in 1907 called “Pascendi Dominici” I have attached a link to it at the Vatican Library for your convenience. It is prophetic just like “Humanae Vitae” by Pope Paul VI. If you are serious, you will take the time to read this encyclical.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_19070908_pascendi-dominici-gregis_en.html

As to “tradition”, what tradition are you speaking of? If you are speaking of “oral tradition” as it relates to sacred scripture then you are dead wrong again. It has everything to do with Truth and gospel value toward salvation.

CS, truth is objective. It’s not what you say or I say or what we want it to be. It’s not relative. You don’t have to go to a seminary to learn it.
But you do have to be sincerely seeking the Truth and sincerely open to it.

Take care.   

@Mikehorn: “The historical institution of marriage has been about children in many cases, but it has also been about a great many other things.” IN all these many things must inhere truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

@jacobum:  What is your problem with the Novus Ordo Seclorum and why are you in disobedience to your diocesan Bishop?

Jim,

Yes, I do understand why RCs beleive their faith is the “true” faith.  And RCs are free of course to believe what they want to beleive.  The quote you cite is fiction—something the writer of Matthew put in the mouth of Jesus.  Jesus was an obervant Jew, He would have never said anything like that.

As for Leviticus, etc:

1.  First, these quotes about homosexuality are about idolatry and rape.  None of the writers of any of the books of the Hebrew scripture or of the Christian scripture had any concept of being gay as we in the 21st century understand it.  Secondly, people love to cherry pick these passages while ignoring other rules found in scripture re sexual mores—for example, no one pays attention to the rules about forcing women to marry their rapists, selling women for a bride price, etc.  No one pays attention to the rules about stoning people to death for not observing the Sabbath (which in the context of Hebrew scripture is Friday night to Saturday night—so Christains would be in deep trouble if they took this literally!).  No one pays attention to the rule allowing parents to stone death a disobedient, drunken son.  No one today insists that scriputral rules re slavery (found in both Hebrew and Christian scripture) by observed. Re gay people and the Bible, its all about cherry picking and all about trying to adhere to flawed, ancient understandings of some aspects of the human condition.  Thirdly, my faith traditon is not Christianity, so Christian scriptures are irrelevant to me.  Since they promote Jesus, a human being, as God, such scripture promotes idolatry.  Christain scripute is an idolatrous repudiation of God as One.  Fourthly, one of the immutable rules of God’s creation is change.  We evolve, we need to constantly look at what workd and does not work in the world. Again, the repudiation of slavery is a good example of this.

Note, today a Chilean (I believe) cardinal called gay people “faggots”.  Making it clear once again that the primary message of the RCC these days is hatred, bigotry, intolerance, failure to respect that ALL people are made in the image of God.  So nothing the RCC has to say on the topic of gay people and marriage is worthy of consideration by people of conscience and intelligence.

@jacobum:  Sorry, —your “rants” clearly come from the seminary.  It was never taught in RC schools nor was it discussed or encouraged.  If you like tradition, then carry on—but it has no gospel value toward salvation.

@Casting Crowns

It’s only esoteric to those who don’t know their faith, it’s history and/or what they are talking about. Your rants confirm all three.

Take Care.

@jacobum:  And how is this esoteric understanding (underscore “esoteric”) relevant to people attending Mass?  How does this further one’s understanding of the gospel and of one’s relationship with Christ Jesus?  How does this warrant parishes spending unnecessary money on new Mass literature?  How does this warrant 2 years of unproductive clergy time tweaking the Mass?  Are we somehow more holy by using Consubstantial?  Does Jesus care if we now say “chalice” instead of “cup?”  Show me the ROI?
.
“Interest is growing rapidly among the young”  ???—-in your dreams.  That’s what you would have people believe but it’s not true.  Where is your evidence?  Young people will line up for what they are “trained to do” in Catechism or your parish school.  Employees of your diocese are paid to drive these things down from the Chancery office to the parishes.  “Interest is growing among rapidly among the young”  ???  I can tell you it’s not happening locally where I am.
.
Are you sure you’re really not among the secret Catholic sects who think the Tridentine Mass is the ONLY legitimate Mass and that every Pope from John XXIII forward is a bogus Pope?

@Casting Crowns.

“And everyone’s newly invented favorite “Consubstantial”...

What do you not understand about @Sam comment explaining “Consubstantial”? It’s a “newly invented favorite” from 1,688 years ago. To further clarify, the Nicene Creed was promulgated at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. It was in response to the Arian heresy which denied the divinity of Christ. Assume you have heard of Arian and the Nicene Creed or maybe you haven’t?

As to the rest of your response? It speaks for itself and confirms my original post. The only difference being your added dash of venom and a pinch of arrogance to your glaring ignorance.

As to the EF of the Mass? Interest is growing rapidly among the young. They are starting to get it. Namely, that the EF Mass/Liturgy has a sacrament/vertical focus versus the social/horizontal focus of the NO Mass/Liturgy. Therefore, if you are correct a lot of young adults, who are now in their 20’s, are going to be dead in the next 20 years. The insurance companies are going to be very upset. 

Take care and God Bless.

Lisa,

Catholics believe that their church is the true faith because in the Gospel of Matthew it is Jesus who tells Peter that he is the rock upon which I will build my church.  Jesus established the Catholic Church with Peter as its first Pope.

Secondly, as others have mentioned natural law says nothing about people from other races not being allowed to marry.  Whoever made that claim has no idea what they are talking about.

Thirdly, I see that you believe in God but how do you respond to the sections of the Bible that condemn homosexuality such as in Leviticus (see below)?  You believe in God but think the Bible is wrong?

Leviticus 18:22, 24
Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind, it is abomination. Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things
Leviticus 20:13
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination.
Romans 1:26-27
  And like wise the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

God’s word defines the men of Sodom as “sinning greatly” because of their men having sex with men (Genesis 13:13; 19:5).
God’s word also rebukes those who “approve of those who practice” homosexuality (Romans 1:32).

Casting crowns - consubstantial is not a new word at all. It has been in the Nicene Creed for centuries. It was not translated well in the 1960’s. They have finally rectified it. It is one of those good Catholic terms that is very specific in what it means. Some others are - hypostatic union, transubstantiation, annunciation, Immaculate Conception, transfiguration, etc.

Mike horn and Lisa Kaiser - it is a defect based on science. The fact that people are trying to change definitions to fit with their twisted notions of what is “normal” is clearly another sign of the pro gay people trying to force this “normalcy” down our throats.
Mike horn - the more you continue to insist on philosophy being religion and the natural law just being Catholic shows your ignorance of both.

@jacobum:  If you wish to fall on your sword no matter what they do, be my guest.  The rest of us do not think they walk on water.  Rather than checking on the history of 400+ years of liturgy, perhaps they should explain it at Mass or have held sessions for people to attend.  Maybe a half dozen of those interested elderly like you will bother to show up.  The fact local priests don’t really care one way or the other shows how unimportant all this is.  You talk like Vatican II was a few years ago.  In the next 20 years, most people who even remember the Latin Mass will all be dead.
.
The “new” Mass has been nothing more than a cash cow for Catholic publishing houses and Parishes were required to spend precious financial resources all in the promotion of “Consubstantial” with the Father.

@Casting Crowns “In the mean time, the USCCB and local Pastors have more important things to do like spending two years changing words in the Mass like from “cup” to chalice.  And everyone’s newly invented favorite “Consubstantial.”

Your ignorance is showing. Should do some checking on the 400+ years of the liturgy prior to Vatican 2 before making uninformed statements. 

Marriage as the Church knows it has been dead in the United States since the universal adoption of unilateral no-fault divorce. This decision isn’t what killed marriage…it’s just what’s forcing more people to notice that the body stinks.

In the mean time, the USCCB and local Pastors have more important things to do like spending two years changing words in the Mass like from “cup” to chalice.  And everyone’s newly invented favorite “Consubstantial.”

@mikehorn:  [“The churches are not required to perform gay marriages.”]
.
Not yet.  Obama and Eric Holder are still in office.  Only God knows the extent of damage this guy can do.  More appointments like Kagan and Catholic Sotomayor are coming.  Even in 2016, Hilary is pro gay marriage and Catholic Biden is also if he plans to run.
.
Bear in mind Catholic Pelosi wants to be Speaker again and Catholic Sen Patrick Leahy runs the Senate Judiciary Committee.  Both support gay marriage.  All the Boy Scouts did was cave and kicked the can down the road just like the Supreme Court did w/Prop 8.

@Mikehorn
Prop 8 was State constitutional amendment.  Not a US one.  No matter it should have been left alone.  Calif. won’t defend their own laws so its a mute point.  Amendments aren’t the only way free people can lose their rights.  The current health care law better known as Obamacare,  does end religious freedom.  If you have even an inkling of honesty left you will admit that also.  There is no way people can be forced to pay for things that their religion, read (10 commandments)  abortion, or abortion causing medicines, and not be considered a loss of religious freedom.  Like you, losing freedoms is a big deal to me.  My fear is this is only the beginning of far worse things to come.  Once the Feds can raise their laws above the constitution, you know the old “Inalienable right stuff” god given rights, we better all be worried.  What they gave you today maybe gone tomorrow.

Marriage is not dead, although many will be confused about the true nature of marriage as a result of certain legislative enactments and judicial rulings.

The nature of marriage cannot change.  The government could enact a law defining an apple as an orange, and this would be frightening in its irrationality, but it wouldn’t change the nature of an apple.

As distressing as these maddening changes are, they are a natural consequence of our culture’s continuing to elevate vice as virtue, and to reject and violate the Ten Commandments en masse.

Just as unthinkable as homosexual “marriage” would have been 10 years ago, in the next ten years we’re headed in the direction of what today would be unthinkable.

For example, parents may no longer have rights (recognized by civil law) to rear their children; they may be re-assigned by governments to other “families” or government institutions.  The definition of marriage will continue to evolve to include multi-party marriages, marriage with animals, objects and concepts.  And undoubtedly there will be equally evil concepts that may be adopted that we cannot even conceive of today.

For Christians who know that Christ is King and has already prevailed over Satan, we must do all we can (praying, fasting, converting, etc.) to be instruments of God’s Will, and not be overwhelmed/discouraged by Satan’s evils works being given a place of honor in our culture/government.

My retired pastor said so eloquently that the evil we see today is Satan’s dying gasps - never forget that he has already been defeated!  There are many names for Satan, perhaps one we should use more often is “The Defeated One.”

George,
.
You are correct.  The churches are not required to perform gay marriages.  A Catholic church can continue to deny marriages to couples for any number of reasons:  divorce, different religions, etc.  One of my brother’s married a woman who at the time was not yet Catholic, so the Church did not allow a full marriage with a mass.  They allowed the marriage because she was studying for her baptism.  If she was a practicing Mormon, like she was raised, the Church would have been within its rights to deny it completely.  A Priest or a Baptist minister, or an Imam, or Rabbi…  All of those can continue to perform marriages in the more restrictive and discriminating rules of their specific religion.  They are free to condemn those marriage practices of other religions, too.
.
My brother could have gone to a courthouse and gotten married in the eyes of the State.  Federal law only covers things a judge or justice of the peace could do.  Since those two positions are government offices, they are not allowed to discriminate for anything covered under US law.

AS FAR AS I KNOW ,THE CHURCH ISN’T ALLOWING SAME SEX MARRIAGES .

Larry—why are you so quick to call me a liar? If I’m mistaken, it’s because there is very little news about it, except on Catholic sites.
.
It’s very rude and also makes you sound paranoid. Do you live in a world where everyone is so against you?
.

Correction.  It looks like those numbers in my previous post are for the Child Labor amendment.  They are for the Equal Rights Amendment.  The Child Labor amendment got 28 out of 48 states, with lower percentages in Congress, and is evidently still pending should anyone want to pursue it.  Apologies for the mistake.  Poor sentence/paragraph structure on my part.
.
Both Child labor and ERA also won single houses in many additional States but failed in the other house.

Larry,

Small point of contention:  Congress cannot amend the Constitution.  Anyone can propose an amendment, and Congress is part of the ratification process, but there are additional steps.  Read Article V.  But you are correct that amending the Constitution is the ultimate step, the only one above SCOTUS.  I will note that neither DOMA nor Prop 8 were US Constitution Amendments.  California has “direct democracy”, so Prop 8 was an amendment if I remember correctly, to the California Constitution by direct vote requiring only a simple majority.  The Proposition system has made a mess of California, and is the single greatest reason they have such financial troubles when their economy is huge and roaring.  However, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, expressed at least twice in the document.

Changing the Constitution is amazingly difficult, by intent, so that the passions of a simple majority could not easily take away the rights of any minority.  The attempt to equalize rights for women failed due to conservative Catholics and hard-line Protestants.  Prominent among those responsible for its demise was Phylis Schlafly, a very, very, very, very conservative Catholic.  She might even be more Catholic than the Pope.  There was even a Child Labor amendment that has majority support but could not reach the very high bar for ratification.  In the House it passed 354-24, in the Senate it passed 84-8, and in the States it was ratified by 35 out of 50, and it still failed because you need at least 38 States.  I’d bet that the anti-gay crowd doesn’t have anything resembling that level of support.

The last time we ratified an amendment taking away rights from citizens was the 18th Amendment, and it was so hated that we ratified another to get rid of it.

@Mikehorn
Your like to talk about SCOTUS and constitunality.  That’s good.  But even they are not the final word.  Congress can change the constitution.  Difficult as it would be.  So basically that means a majority of SCOTUS determine constitutionality of matters.  And I believe it’s fair to say that 5 human beings can make mistakes.  You think that means something because it becomes law and somehow in your mistaken thinking all of the sudden that’s forever.  Your not ignorant of bad laws and what it can do to people, this is just another bad one. You’ll see. In time.

@mikehorn
Comparing addictions is not silly, it simply admits the truth.  You can be addicted to anything.  Even in committed relationships.  People can and do make terrible decisions during their addictions.  They ruin not only themselves but those around them.  This can and does happen in committed relationships.  Your the one who looks backwards when you try to separate the truth from your cause/argument.

Sam,
While you are certainly within your rights in the USA to claim your god as the only god, and even try to claim that no other god claims matter, that is not the point when we are talking about SCOTUS deciding a Constitutional matter in the USA.  The Supreme Court exists to judge whether or not something conforms with the US Constitution.  They are not there to judge your religious claims.  They are not there to discuss the fine points of Canon Law or Catholic Natural Law.  Their criteria is the US Constitution.  Based upon that, DOMA was clearly unConstitutional.  Whether it conforms with Catholicism doesn’t matter - that is for the Pope to speak on, or the Inquisition (yes, it’s under a new name I understand).  But get this - the Pope and the Inquisitors don’t get to decide American law.

Sam,

“Defect” is a subjective judgment based upon your “philosophy”, which is yet another term for your religion.  I’ve often heard Catholics disparage eugenics - subjective determinations like “defect” are exactly what eugenics are based on.  Modern psychological studies show that the traits that tend to be associated with homosexuality are part of the normal spectrum of gender identification (there are not two distinct genders in the same way as there are two distinct sets of biological plumbing - that notion was tossed about 20 years ago as unworkable, not reflecting reality) where in the male side some tendencies that tend to make hetero males stable partners for monogamous relationships also tend to show up in homosexual men.  This isn’t always true, because it is becoming apparent that many factors can lead to homosexuality.  This makes a large number of homosexual men very stable, caring people that tend to form long-term relationships.  This is hardly a “defect”.

Discussing natural variation, there are traits that tend to support the continuation of the species, traits that are neutral, and traits that tend to tear down a species.  The ability or desire to procreate is only one of many, many traits to consider.  Stable, caring males in a social species are often constructive additions to a social species.  Their sexual desires here are secondary, though some will be hetero and some homo.  This is hardly “defective” in any meaningful sense if you are looking objectively at nature.

Larry,

Comparing sex to drug addiction is a bit silly.  You can get addicted to anything, true, but having sex in a committed relationship isn’t exactly addiction.  Just saying, that argument not only gets you nowhere, it makes you go backwards.

@Lisa
    It’s your money to waste or spend as you wish.  I will tell you you are out numbered 97 to 3. 
You talk of equality of marriage, I get it that you do not have a clue about marriage but maybe in time you’ll understand. 
We all have our weaknesses.  Some people it is simply their own desires.  For some,  sex is all they can think about, like the alcoholic, the drug addict, these desires run their lives.  God gave us the bible to teach us so we could enjoy our lives to the max.  I would encourage you to hook up with a bible study group and never give up praying to God for help.  Like you, we all need it.

@Kathy
Last time I heard the Catholic Church has around 40 court cases against the federal govt.  These will go to the Supreme Court.  The gay marriage fight hasn’t started in the courts yet.  When you decide to be truthful, let us know.

Larry B: The Catholic Church is using your money to pay the “expenses” of its scandals and crimes. I doubt they will start a lawsuit to take to the SCOTUS in my lifetime—or anytime.
.
If you hear about any court case involving the Catholic Church or other religious entity as the plaintiff rather than the defendant, let us know.

Sam,

Its a hoot that you think “certain esatern religions” are “false” religions and that they “have no authroity”.  Islam would certainly say the same thing of Christianity.  And so Christains and Muslimns can stamp their feet at each other—no you’re wrong!  No, you’re wrong.  My scripture sayss..  No, my scripture says….-on and on until the cows come home.  Gets no one anywhere.  God is beyond understanding, beyond being contained in any one faith-tradition. The RCC is just being arrognat in its silly insistence that it alone os one true faith.  It is a path to God, but NOT the only path to God.

For example, there are 3 Abrahamic traditions—Judaism, Christianity, Islam.  Each founded by the God of Abraham, each exists because God wills it, each is equal tot he others, none is above or triumphant over the others.  god ahs made separate, ongoing, unbroken, valid covenants of love with each of the 3 Abrahmaic traditions.  So go ahead now an stamp your feet and pout, and stubbornly and wrongly insist that only the RCC is the “true faith”.  No one is convinced, least of all, the IW ILL BE WHO I WILL BE.

Larry B,

Please know that those of us who support marriage equality, human dignity, equality under the law will NOT stop either. And those of us who advocate marriage equlity, also give lots of money to our cause.  The forces of inequality, hatred, bigotry will continue to be defeated and will never prevail.

Sam,

First of all being gay is NOT a “defect”.  It is a sexual orientation.  Being born stright is not a defect, being born gay is not a defect.

Secondly, we are all amde in the image of God—everyone. That means gay people, straight people, autistic people, blind people, deaf people, people of of every race and ethnicity.  Everyone, no matter their sexual orientation, race, ethnicity, height, abilities, etc, reflects God. 

When Moses encounters God at the burning bush and Moses struggles to get God to name God, God says (in the Hebrew):  “eheyeh asher eheyeh.”  that is ofter translated as I AM WHO AM.  But in the Hebrew, that can also be traslated accurately in the future tense:  ‘I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE”. 

God does not seem to be eager to be reveal God’s name or to be pinned down into some category.  So all of us, made in the image of God, are vastly diverse (God’s creation is vastly diverse and ever changing—change is an immutable rule of God’s creation). So being gay or blind or deaf or autistic ore NOT defects. Such aspects of humanity are a reflection of God

Mike horn - the Natural Law is a philosophical concept. Also yes homosexuality exists in a minority percentage of species but as a defect. Some are born defective ie blind, missing limbs, etc. This doesn’t make it normal or natural. It is a defect. Homosexuality is the same. So yes the natural law is natural and is based on philosophical principles and yes it is rational. To try to make ok immorality and such is a degeneration of our human intellect and a descent into irrationality. THe Natural law is what it is. It is not something that can be changed. We can merely acknowledge that it is there even if mas tries to stifle it.
As for “which god” it is besides the point whether people belive it or not. THere is only one God and people refusing to acknowledge Him doesn’t change the fact. The truth is what it is. THe number of people who believe or whether the government upholds it or not is irrelevant. That is what people seem to miss the truth is first above all!

Sam,
Which god is not important among Catholics. If this were a Catholic or even o Christian nation, it wouldn’t be important. But we are a secular nation that does not appeal to any god at all. Constitutionally, we can not as a matter of public law. This nation exists for Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, Janes, pagans, and atheists. All are equal under the law. All religious claims during legal argument carry legal weight, meaning they cancel each other out.
.
About natural law, there is confusion here about terms. Catholicism has their ideas about Natural Law that are rooted in old, sometimes ancient, philosophers, scientists, and theologians. It is a mishmash built up over millennia that contains some fatal cognitive dissonances. For instance, it claims to draw upon some science while also claiming to know the final truth. You can’t claim both. Science is by definition contingent on new data, falsifiable, testable, questionable. If it weren’t so, it wouldn’t progress. It wouldn’t work. It wouldn’t be science. Make the logical opposite of that and you have theology and religious dogma. A claim to absolute truth cannot be scientific in any sense - it is religion by definition. Catholic Natural Law is religion by another term.
.
Nature itself as investigated and illuminated by modern science disputes Catholic Natural Law. As a matter of Nature, homosexuality exists in minority percentages in many species, including human, regardless of the animals intelligence, their ability to make a choice.  We have strong evidence it is genetically based, though the precise mechanisms are far more complex than thought even 30 years ago (one gene does not equal one feature). It is part of natural variation and , since it is not a fatal mutation, will continue to exist. We also don’t count “survival” at the individual level, but rather the aggregate. Homosexuals have been and will be productive members of society, contributing to aggregate survival I many ways, certainly as much as any celibate priest. Since many homosexuals also have natural children, I’d put them as more useful than most priests. But they deserve dignity and respect just as much as a priest or nun, and should be allowed to live as they were born. I’d even venture a hypothesis that homosexuality is far more natural than celibacy, though there are indications that a low level of asuxuality also exists naturally (see Isaac Newton, Susan B Anthony)
.
So, your claim to natural law is not terribly natural, and only vaguely rational in the strictest sense - at the least it needs a major refresh.  Natural Law is religion, not reason. So, yes, I dispute it. If you want to make a naturalistic argument, that I’d find worth hearing.

Lisa - First of all marriage between races is not against the natural law. So those arguing that it was are in error. Secondly those religions that you mentioned in certain eastern countries are false religions and so have no authority. Only the truth has this right- not falsehood.
....
Mike horn - you seem to think that “which god” you choose is arbitrary. It is not. There is either truth or error. If truth then it has every right. If wrong then none. Morality is not based on someone being harmed. If you want to ignore the law of God (and there is only one God, you can’t pick and choose)then we go with Natural Law. Homosexuality is against the Natural order of things. The end (sake for which) of sex is procreation. This cannot happen in two persons of the same sex. It is not ordered to this and never can be. This is totally different between two opposite sexes who may be infertile. THey are still performing the natural act meant to lead to children. Also, the evilness of actions harms the persons themselves evan if they refuse to admit it. Sin (all immorality) makes us less human and makes us act no better than the irrational animals who know no better. Therefore it is demeaning each time we do immoral actions. So, my comparison stands because they are all examples of immorality. This remains true regardless of whether yuo or anyone else agree. The truth doesn’t change just because we choose to ignore it. It is what it is!

@Kathy——-“Pat and Larry—if you’re so upset, take it to court”
  Your right that is why I have doubled down on my monetary gifts to the church, you see this is a group effort.  The church will win, maybe in the long run, but, it WILL win. God promises us that he will intervene.  This is a mere blip on his radar.  You see all that is required for us to never stop trying, never give up.  That is the true christian, never stop trying to help people who would hurt themselves.  We know that it is the individual and god who make up the church. without us, it’s just a bunch of buildings.

I knew we were in trouble when our Respect Life ministry hung a banner during Ministry Weekend that listed the 5 non-negotiables.  That was when our pastor asked us to change the banner and what we were handing out.  He said, “I understand why abortion and cloning are on the list, but why is homosexual marriage a non-negotiable?”

Pray for this misguided priest.  He is adrift and confused, and - as a pastor - he has led many others astray by what he teaches (and chooses not to teach).

If the religious “leaders” can’t even get these basic things right, what hope is there for the rest of the nation?  (For me and my family, we are moving to Chile or Malta, where the faith is still strong.)

Of course, Catholics themselves are contributing to the demise of the church. All the scandals are exposing the hypocrisy and corruption that is intrinsic in the organization. Catholics themselves are ignoring the impractical doctrines against contraception and abortion.
.
Most of all, they are complaining on blogs, but not doing anything else. They are indulging in the role of the victim and the persecuted.

Pat and Larry—if you’re so upset, take it to court. DOMA was defeated because of a lawsuit about a woman being forced to pay an estate tax on money/property left to her by her partner.
.
If you really believe the federal government is infringing on your religious rights, do something about it. We live is a democracy—one of the few left. Use the Constitution to defend your right. The god bit doesn’t work.

Greetings.
In case you haven’t noticed, the federal government is forcing the churches and everyone else to pay for abortions and things of the sort.  This means you no longer have religious freedom in America.  If you still had religious freedom you could opt out.  But the federal govt. now says,  what we tell you to do is more important than what God, the bible tell you to do.  The atheist have triumphed.

Lisa:

I disagree with your claim that there is no logical, rational, or scientific reason to be against gay marriage.  Children have a right to a mother and a father.  The mother and father each bring unique talents and attributes to the raising of children.  You think that the mother and father are replaceable in child rearing like changing tires on a car.  So, the mother and father play no special or unique role in child upbringing? It makes sense to me in the findings of Dr. Lopez that children raised by a gay couple could feel awkward in the presence of the other gender.  You keep mentioning rights but marriage is not a right.  No one gay or straight has a right to marry.  Finally, many people say celibacy is unnatural so why is gay sex natural?  Two gay people have the same genitalia but in contrast the male and female genitalia are complementary for self-giving and the production of children without using a third party to have children.  Only the male and female fit into each other naturally based on the sexual complementarity of their anatomy.   

Your name calling of people who do not agree with same sex marriage is a good example of the ad hominem fallacy.   

Right back at you Catherine.
.
Witty comeback, Mary De Voe—no one will ever guess about the lobotomy if you wear a wig to hide the scars and control the slobbering.

@Centrist: SOMEBODY has to get the message to Mary and her ilk that rational people are frustrated with their demand that everybody believe as she does. Rational conversation does not penetrate her skull. Her religion makes her terrified of independent thought.
.
She’s not encased in a “cloak, ” she is covered in porcupine spikes. Only other porcupines can get near her.

Lisa:

The state of Virginia must not understand natural law then because it is not part of natural law to forbid different races to marry.  I have studied natural law in theology classes and the state of Virginia must have taken things out of context.

Sam, 
Two problems.
.
First, whose god do we use to decide on right vs wrong?  A wise person once said “I mistrust those that claim to know the will of god. It usually resembles their own opinions.”. The fact is that the version of god Catholixs propose isnt the source the USA is allowed to use, Constitutionally. Neither is the Baptist version. Or Hindu. Or Muslim.
.
Second, the debate about what is objectively moral is one worth having, but asserting “gods will” without proof is a poor argument, and you will use. In the USA it is obliterated by a “not my god” response. The USA has religious freedom, and the govt is prohibited from taking one side over any other - all must be accommodated as much as possible, meaning that no one religion gets its way. Your examples compare homosexuality to rape, theft, and murder. After I dismiss your"gods will” as absurd, I will point out that, according to existing knowledge, dedicated monogamy either hetero or homo hurts no one, which is not the case in your other examples. A theft ceases to be theft if the person getting robbed consents to the action - at that point theft no longer exists, and you now have a gift. Homosexual sex between consenting partners is not rape in any sense, so the comparison falls apart. Even if you continue to argue it’s wrongness, it is in a distinctly different moral category. If you think homosexual sex and marriage is wrong, demonstrate why and who/what is harmed.  Current knowledge suggests I one is harmed.  There are older studies that have different conclusions, but their studies are demonstrably flawed.
.
Objective morality can certainly be claimed to exist, but our knowledge of it is incomplete though continues to improve. Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something. Usually either a get help book or a religion.

Sam,

You say above, “
The government doesn’t have the right to uphold things that are against either the law of God or if you prefer the Natural Law.”  why does this sound familiar???  Becasue this is the exact same “reasoning” the State of virginia used before int he SCOTUS in a case called Loving v. Virginia.  virginia used the same arguement you are uing in its vain attempt to uphold its miscegination laws (laws forbidding people of different races from marrying).  The State of Viriginia said that the law of God prohibited the mixing of people of different races.  The state of virginia argued that it was against “natural law” for people of different races to marry.  That is immoral, “against the law of God” to permit people of different races to marry.

Guess what? The State of virginia lost with that reasoning.  The reality is that marriage equality will continue to expand in the US and around the world.  If you want to pout about it, that’s fine, but it won’t change the facts.  If you dislike the facts, go to Iran or Saudia Arabia, or Somalia, or Yemen, or Pakistan.  The governments in those nations think like you do.  The RC taliban and its hatred and bigotry will always lose. 

Mike horn - A government has a duty to protect morals and to create just laws that uphold the truth. That is not how it works in this country unfortunately, but that does not negate the fact that their is objective Truth and objective morality. The government doesn’t have the right to uphold things that are against either the law of God or if you prefer the Natural Law. Certain things we know from our nature are wrong such as killing, rape, theft, etc. Homosexuality also falls under this category. It is against nature. No government has the right to enshrine any of these as prtected by law. How about we change the laws to say rapists have the right to rape and it is just my personal opinion that it is wrong so I should just shut up about it. This is no different. That which is false and wrong no amount of legislation can make ok. It is the duty of every citizen to fight against it. There may indeed be a consensus in passing laws and electing officials etc. but just because the majority want something or like something doesn’t make it right or morally ok. What gets me is that people can’t seem to make this distinction.

Sam,
What is your source for knowing Truth?
.
In the USA, revealed Truth doesn’t count much as an argument. We live under a consensus Constitution that outlines how to rule and live by consensus. We build this through argument, not fiat. Every two years we hold a day where citizens vote on the next version of consensus. That is how the USA works. That is why the claim of us being a Christian nation is either wishful thinking or just propagandistic rubbish from the far Right, an attempt to rally supporters, ironically to influence the next consensus.

Catherine and Mike, while I personally abhor most of the comments made by Mary De ....., I must say that calling her unkind names just shows your frustration level and really does not underscore your points of view.  We should try to remain civil even when we realize that people are irrational.  I fear that her “cloak of Catholic teachings ” is all she has to keep her warm.

Larry,
You seem to have “children, children, children” on the brain.  So, some things you obviously never considered:
Dynastic succession:  Doesn’t require children.  Could be to solidify the claims of an uncle, nephew, or cousin.  Sometimes this isn’t even to the bloodline of the male, even in the paternity-driven Europe of the time.  The very odd situation of Henry VIII and Catherine somewhat falls in here, because the two were married for reasons of alliance first and foremost.  In this case the Biblical ideas on who you could and couldn’t marry were ignored (Leviticus 20:21).  But dynastic succession in this specific case isn’t about children per se, it is about male children that survive.  Read the history of Catholic English kings and there are more examples.
.
Inheritance:  doesn’t have to be about children at all.  People marry for money, power, and inheritance all the time.

Larry,
Good luck.  It appears as if you are only willing to listen to those who agree with you.  Must be fun.

Mary,
You said:  “Precisely why the HHS Mandate is illegal and unconstitutional. There can be no religious test for citizenship to annul conscience, as you posted Article VI.”
.
You compare apples and oranges.  Article VI refers to any position of public trust, like military, congress, police, board of education, public notary, etc.  It does not include basic citizenship.  Article VI was included as a direct rebuke to the theocratic monarchies of Europe, like Protestant England and Catholic France and Catholic Spain, where you had to be a member of the official state church to hold any position in the government.  The Founders had witnessed centuries of brutal religious wars and brutal religious peace where your religion could protect you from prosecution or get you killed over arcane bits of dogma.  The USA consciously rejected the very notion of religion forming our laws, as this bit of Article VI attests to.
.
About the HHS mandate, it exempts religious institutions.  The challenge is actually an interesting one about secular employers with strong religious feelings.  I don’t think Catholics will win this one, because employees do not give up their religious freedoms to get a job, and the very notion of worrying about the religion of your employer in an application at a hobby store or grocery store should strike fear in all of us.  One notion of rights is that yours end precisely where mine begin.  The same logic about the HHS mandate can be applied to a paycheck, since in the US both are considered compensation for work done, a purely financial, secular transaction among people that might or might not be of the same religion.  Can the employer then also demand restrictions on how the paycheck is spent?  Pornography is legal, and the employee buys some - can the employer then claim damages and refuse to pay?  I don’t see Catholics winning this one.
.
Beware the HHS mandate because Catholics are not the only religion out there with views about modern legal medical practices.  Can other religious employers deny coverage for vaccines, blood transfusions, and antibiotics?  In recent case law, parents can be convicted of murder for denying their children modern medical care, regardless of religious belief.

Mike: You mention “children,” “dynastic succession” and “inheritance” among your list of reasons for state validation of marriage. They’re all basically the same thing: children, children, children. And I said that marriage of sexual opposites “may, and usually does, produce children.” You answer by saying sometimes it doesn’t. Same thing. You also mention “religious duty,” which could only mean raising more children for the Church, since no one is required by the Church to marry. (You can live single if you wish and are willing to remain chaste.) Your gibberish is tiresome, and I’m not dealing with it anymore. Go ahead and grind out as much doubletalk as you like. I’ll wait until somebody has something intelligent to say.

Mike horn - But there is a difference between truth and falsehood regardless of whether you want to acknowledge it or not. The fact that others agree or don’t has nothing to do with the fact that some things are morally evil. Morality is based on Truth not consensus.

Mary,
Are you a troll, or are you for real?
.
Catholic churches have protected status as religious institutions.  Most catering services are businesses.  We have different notions of fairness and free access when actions are in the secular public sphere rather than the religious one.  The law reflects this.  While I am not up on the specifics of business rights to refuse service, I assume it has many details and probably varies state to state, as long as it is in the general federal realm that qualifies as “equal access under the law”.

Sam,
You are free to call whatever you want a sin, I’m free to say you are a bigoted cretin.  That is what freedom means, people saying things you don’t like can continue to do so.
.
The big difference here is that it has passed beyond speech into litigation, law, and Constitutional questions.  Gay marriage has exactly zero impact on anyone other than the two getting married.  Demanding that the actions of others conform to your view where there is no harm to you other than some vague moral notion is most definitely bigotry, not to mention just ugly behavior.  Your views are based upon religion, which is fine, but others don’t share your religion and in the USA you don’t get to coerce others into adhering to your faith.  There are places in the world like that, but we don’t call them free.

Larry,
I have tried to answer your question about procreation at least once.  Did you even read it?  Your question:  “The only reason the state has EVER regulated marriage is because of the fact that the union of one man and one woman may, and usually does, produce children—and the state has a manifest interest in seeing to their stable upbringing. “
.
This assertion is false on the face of it, so anything based on that assertion is meaningless.  The State and even the Church recognize marriages where there is no prospect of children at all.  A 30 year old woman with a full hysterectomy can still get married both in the State and in the Church.  The reason for marriage could be seen as partially for children, but you assert that as the only reason “EVER”, even putting it in shout-capitals.  Marriages have been historically regulated for the following reasons:  political alliance, dynastic succession, financial, love, religious duty, children, inheritance, property rights….  The historical institution of marriage has been about children in many cases, but it has also been about a great many other things.
.
Your assertion is false.

I’m still waiting for reasoned answers—not evasions and excuses—to my questions.

I HAVEN’T HEARD ANYTHING ABOUT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVING TO BE FORCED TO MARRY SAME SEX PARTNERS. AS FAR AS I KNOW THE CHURCH CAN DO WHAT IT WANTS TO, WHICH IS NOT TO MARRY SAME SEX PARTNERS. HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF SEPERATION OF CHURCH AND STATE? THIS IS IT !!  THIS COUNTRY OF OURS IS GOING IN SAME DIRECTION AS SODOM AND GOMMORA. IT HAS ACCEPTED THIS LIFE STYE AND ONLY GOD KNOWS WHAT AND HOW HE WILL RESPOND TO THIS. LOOK AT RACIST ARIZONA AND THE INHUMANE TREATMENT OF IMMIGRANTS. LOOK AT THE FIRES AND THE LOSS OF LIFE OF THOSE 19 FIRE FIGHTERS THAT DIED. IT MAKES YOU THINK AND WONDER WHY?  WHAT GOES AROUND ,,COMES AROUND!! ONLY GOD KNOWS HIS ACTIONS OF DISCIPLINE . THERE IS A SAYING IN SPANISH THAT SAYS, DIOS CASTIGA SIN PALO NI CUARTA !!!! IN THE OLD DAYS ,PARENTS WOULD USE A TWIG FROM A TREE BRANCH OR A BELT TO SPANK THIER CHILDREN ,THIS WAS A FORM OF DISCIPLINE. .. NOW , THIS IS THE MEANING OF THIS SAYING.. GOD DISCIPLINES WITH OUT A TWIG OR BELT !!

Lisa Kaiser -It always astonishes me at the ignorance demonstrated in comments like yours. You clearly have no concept of morality and fail to comprehend that it is a duty to oppose evil. To call a sisn a sin is merely standing up for the Truth. It is not bigotry no matter how much you protest that it is. To continue to claim this just further shows how people of your mentality want to shove lies and evilness down everyone’s throat. You clearly are acting like you hate the Catholic Church and all that we stand for. That is the real bigotry in this country - Bigotry against Catholic teaching. You have not ground to stand on. Truth is truth. Evil is evil. Proclaiming it as such is NOT bigotry.

Posted by Catherine: “Mary De Voe has granted herself B.A’s (B!%ch of A$$holes) in Sociology and Psychology. I also suspect she is a member of Alcohols Anonymous and/or some other 12-step program.”

Right back at you Catherine.

@Mike horn: “Catholic sacramental marriage has no bearing on US law.”
Then the Catholic Church cannot be forced to rent, perform of otherwise acknowledge homosexual behavior as the sacrament of Matrimony. Why is the government forcing caterers to perform homosexual contracts if there can be religious test for citizenship?

@Mike horn: “A Bible is not required for an Oath. Not a single line anywhere in law requires a Bible. Any book, no book, both are fine. Military can “affirm” and omit any mention of any god. The Oath is valid without any religious involvement. The reason is in Article VI, prohibiting any religious test for office.”

Precisely why the HHS Mandate is illegal and unconstitutional. There can be no religious test for citizenship to annul conscience, as you posted Article VI.

@David Guard: Marriage is the marital act consummated. Gays cannot and do not consummate the marital act and therefore, for gays, calling homosexual behavior “marriage” is a lie.

You might be interested in knowing that there have been two legal developments since the Supreme Court delivered its rulings last week.  First, the Supreme Court put an end to an emergency appeal to stop gay marriage in California.  As we have seen gay couples are getting married in California now.  And second, a federal court in Michigan is now agreeing to consider striking down ban on same sex marriage in our state here.  In 2006 Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved this ban.  But now the public feels otherwise according to polls I have seen.  All of these trends seems to support George Will’s conclusion:  that opposition to gay marriage is literally dying in the United States.  Will is a conservative columnist from the Washington Post and appears on This Week on ABC.  Whatever views we have on gay marriage, we’re going to see more and more of it in the future.  A wise decision for us is to live with reality while keeping our religious views to ourselves.  Premarital sex is legal in the country and yet religious groups are entitled to oppose it.  Abortion is legal and religious groups are free to oppose it.  In fact Catholic organizations have done a fine job in promoting families and promoting adoption as a way to reduce abortion in the country.  Prayer in the public schools is illegal and yet we’re free to pray in our own private lives and in church when we please. Heterosexual marriage remains strong despite the divorce rate, and religious groups are free to advocate it exclusively. Freedom is a wonderful thing which I don’t take for granted.  When I think about events overseas, and the lack of freedom in many places, I realize that America is a beautiful place and that our liberties are extremely precious.  I don’t have to like all of the laws in this country.  So long as we have our freedom then we are in very good shape as a people.

Mary De Voe has granted herself B.A’s (B!%ch of A$$holes) in Sociology and Psychology. I also suspect she is a member of Alcohols Anonymous and/or some other 12-step program.

Mary,

I answered the source of rights in an earlier post:  an emergent property of the human animal, no reference to any god necessary.  Free will might or might not be real:  current research is starting to suggest it is an illusion, but that is not yet definitive.  Certainly the 19th Century version of free will the Church recognizes doesn’t exist in reality.  Whatever the truth ends up being on free will, intellect, and consciousness, those can be explained again as emergent properties of the physical brain, amazing and complex but explainable through rational methods.
.
Your attempt at a rhetorical question that I answered anyway depends on a Presupposational Apologetics argument, though I might somewhat misunderstand you and you really mean a First Cause/Cosmological argument.  Either one amounts to an assertion without proof, though the First Cause adds the problem of answering a puzzle with a mystery, which is an absurd foundation to build a philosophy on.  In Biblical terms, we are talking about building a house upon sand.

Mary,
Your ideas of purity in or out of marriage are important for the Catholic sacrament of marriage. US law does not change that. The other direction is also important:  Catholic sacramental marriage has no bearing on US law. Non Catholics can act in or out of there marriage as they choose, though their spouse has some say in the matter. The couple together can certainly engage in acts (or none) as they wish. Most certainly could care less what Catholicism has to say about it - not their religion.

Mary,
A Bible is not required for an Oath. Not a single line anywhere in law requires a Bible. Any book, no book, both are fine. Military can “affirm” and omit any mention of any god. The Oath is valid without any religious involvement. The reason is in Article VI, prohibiting any religious test for office.
.
The origins for some offices to use a book, usually but not always a Bible, are not clear. Today some consider it traditional, but that is the extent of its necessity.

because it is not Holy Matrimony unless the marital act can be consummated

“Constitution mentions religion very seldom, and then in the context of
saying it should not mix with US law (no religious test, no establishment).
Even the Oath of Office lacks any sort of appeal to any god. The story of
Washington adding it has no source, and is probably apocryphal. This godless
Constitution is what governs the decisions over gay marriage in US law. ” Religion is man’s reponse to the gift of Faith from God. Any oath is taken on the Bible.

@Mike horn: “So, where can rights come from?” Better still, from Whom do free will and intellect and sovereign personhood come from? From Whom do you come from?

@Mike horn: “About marriages being about procreation, what about a hetero marriage where one or both parties are sterile, either through age or other biological reasons?  Is that a valid marriage? What about loving hetero couples who enjoy actions not procreative in nature?  Are they still married?” Justice is predicated on intent. If couples are prevented from bringing forth another generation, they are willing when they are able. Purity is still a virtue in and out of the married state. The gays have sought “equality”. There is only Equal Justice in the court,

“First, the DoI could very much refer to the Hindu gods…(etc, etc)” Blah, blah, blah. This is called “being in denial.”
The Declaration of Independence refers to “their Creator” and Endower of unalienable rights among which is the sovereign personhood that constitutes the state. The Supreme Sovereign Being endows sovereignty without which man cannot constitute the sovereign state. Only “I AM WHO I AM” endows the newly begotten human being brought into existence through HIS will and with HIS name…“I AM” Existence.

Our constitutional posterity brings forth innocence and virginity into the community needing Justice as there can be no Justice without innocence, and there can be no innocence without the newly begotten morally and legally innocent sovereign person, the standard of Justice for the nation, ABRAHAM’S POSTERITY, OUR CONSTITUTIONAL POSTERITY, GEORGE WASHINGTON’S CONSTITUTIONAL POSTERITY. 
Abraham interceded with God to spare Sodom and Gomorrah. There were not forty innocent, decent virgins in Sodom. There were not thirty decent innocent, newly begotten, morally and legally innocent persons in Sodom. There were not twenty virgins in Sodom. There were not ten newly begotten sovereign persons in Sodom. Although begotten of man and woman, as innocent posterity, the inhabitants of Sodom refused to bring forth innocence and virginity of their newly begotten posterity. The inhabitants of Sodom refused to bring forth all future generations. The city of Sodom was a city of death and not of birth.

Mike horn: “Your premise about procreation being the reason to regulate marriage is unproven. Demonstrate that before the follow ups become relevant.” “and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity…” the Preamble. Our constitutional posterity are all future generations to come protected and promoted by our Law of the Land.

Larry,
Your premise about procreation being the reason to regulate marriage is unproven. Demonstrate that before the follow ups become relevant.
.
At one point marrying relatives was allowed. We changed that. Change happens.
.
On a general note, the occurrence of complications and details needing to be worked out has no bearing on the correctness of the decision, only that further work becomes apparent. Also, the thought that just because we used to do something obe way doesn’t require us to continue doing it that way.  Some traditions deserve to be discarded, not preseved-bad argument there.  This makes your argument a red herring, dismissible.

Let me state ONE MORE TIME, the questions which now MUST be answered, if not by the posters here, then by SOMEBODY. You may be able to evade them now, but sooner or later they’ll force themselves on you and all of us:

The only reason the state has EVER regulated marriage is because of the fact that the union of one man and one woman may, and usually does, produce children—and the state has a manifest interest in seeing to their stable upbringing. If two people of the same sex wish to have a relationship as sexual companions, what interest does the state have in requiring them to pledge lifelong exclusivity to each other—and why should the state require them to request a divorce from the courts in order to terminate their relationship? What business is it of the state?
New York State has changed its laws so that marriage will have nothing to do with the gender of the subjects. Otherwise, all stays the same. What happens when two gay men (or women)are turned away by the marriage license clerk because they are first-cousins or siblings? Is there any rational basis for denying a license to two closely-related gay people? What happens when the couple sues in court alleging discrimination? What will the court rule? What should it rule? If we say that unisex marriages must abide by the same restrictions as heterosexual ones—would that not be forcing an arbitrary and capricious rule on the gay couples? If we say that everyone can now marry a close relative—does that not encourage incest-related birth defects? If we say that gay relatives can marry but heterosexual ones cannot, then we have just created two classes of marriage: gay and straight. What would happen to “marriage equality” then? What should the answers to the above questions be? And why should they be what they ought to be?

In reading through a lot of the comments here, the theme seems to be a denial of the reality of the change in US law.  It seems some RCs want to pout about the idea that “those nasty gay Americans have the same rights as us nice straight RC Americans and we don’t want to put up with that.  So we will deny reality, stamp our feet and hold our breath until we turn blue. That will teach you”.

So for you RCs you want to pout about reality, go ahead.  The rest of us will get on with our lives knowing we live in a better America today.

Larry,
So, about the very real point that the DoI is moot, and that the Constitution is the ruling document?  Appeals to the DoI might be satisfying, but to borrow one of your ideas, DoI arguments are entirely sterile regarding US law.
.
About marriages being about procreation, what about a hetero marriage where one or both parties are sterile, either through age or other biological reasons?  Is that a valid marriage? What about loving hetero couples who enjoy actions not procreative in nature?  Are they still married?

Larry,

Hre IS the reality:  SCOTUS struck down parts of DOMA and struck down the challenge to prop 8.  Gay people are being legally married in 10 or 11 states.  the federal government will provide federal benefits to all legally same sex couples.  Now that DOMA’s bar to federal benefits has been struck down, the US military is providing equal benefits to legally married gay soldiers.  Eventually same-sex marriage will become the law in all 50 states.  The SCOTUS decision have paved the way for that.  The RCC’s bigotry or hatred will stop that.  The bigotry and hatred of some RCs will not stop that.  Love wins, RC bigotry loses—every time.

“First, the DoI could very much refer to the Hindu gods…(etc, etc)” Blah, blah, blah. This is called “being in denial.” Lisa Kaiser, of course, only confirms the fact that gay “sex” is sterile. A man cannot procreate by making love to another man—nor a woman-to-woman. It takes material from ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN to make ONE CHILD. The so-called arguments from the pro-gay marriage side are boring, repetitive and lacking in any substance. As usual.

Larry,
Three things.
First, the DoI could very much refer to the Hindu gods.  While there are thousands, only one is supreme and only one is a creator.  Most religions have a creation myth that involves a creator god, and most have some sort of judging god.  Know your religions.
Second, the DoI was written by, at best, a Deist who thought supernatural claims by Christianity belong to the “dunghill”, his word.  There were many flavors of Deist, from the almost-atheism of Jefferson to the almost-Christian of Washington, but that was the prevailing notion of the time.  The ideas that formed our nation had as much to do with ancient pagan Athens as they did with anything else, and relied heavily on early science and hard reason as opposed to faith or supernatural claims.  There were Protestant Christians heavily involved, but few Catholics, and their faith was only a small part of the events and ideas.  The Christian slant on the DoI did not happen till the Great Awakening several decades and about two generations after the DoI was written.  Also, anti-Catholic laws remained on the books for a while Ironically, Jefferson was instrumental in getting rid of religion interfering with civil law, freeing up Catholic activity.  Your interpretation of the DoI is way off historically, and very much colored by your religion.
Third, the talk about the DoI in relation to gay marriage is very much moot.  The DoI has little or no impact on what can and cannot be US law.  The US Constitution mentions religion very seldom, and then in the context of saying it should not mix with US law (no religious test, no establishment).  Even the Oath of Office lacks any sort of appeal to any god.  The story of Washington adding it has no source, and is probably apocryphal.  This godless Constitution is what governs the decisions over gay marriage in US law.  If SCOTUS cited religion at all in their decision they would be very much in error.  If they favored Catholic or Fundamentalist Protestant rosy view of the fictional marriage ideal of the 1950’s, they would be in error.  They must judge based on a godless Constitution that protects individual’s rights, shielding them from religions that might want to curtail the rights of people who chose NOT to follow those religions. 
.
Catholics have the right to their sacraments and their version of marriage as performed by the Church.  They do not have the right to enshrine Catholic sacraments in US law.  To do so would be a very clear Constitutional violation.  SCOTUS knows this far better than I, and so protected the rights of a minority in the face of attempted Christian coercion.  Catholic law does not rule here.  The godless Constitution from the Enlightenment and centuries of secular rule and secular amendments does.

Jim,

Sorry, but your statements about not being a hater doe not fly.  You want people to have sex in the way that you think is the “right” way.  By your own statements you think gay behavior is wrong.  So yes, you are biogted toward gay people.  You do not want to recognize that gay Americans have the same rights as straight Americans.  That is bigotry.  You want people to have sex in the way you approve of, that is bigotry.  You want people to not act on on their “hoemosexual thoughts”—that is bigotry.  You want people to act only on “straight thought—that is bigotry.  Sorry but oppostion to same-sex marriage is bigotry, because it is not rational, logical, or based in science.  it is based in ignorance, fear, and total prejudice. Its the biogted idea that gay Americans should not have the sem rights as stright Americans.  Its the same arugement George Wallace used to bar the school doors to black children.  Its the old “segregation now, segregation forever” mindset.

Also, please know that gay people do have biological children.  Adoption is not the only way a gay person becomes a parent.  Gay women become pregnant via spem donors (who they may or may not know) and give birth.  Gay men become parents by providing sperm.  Also, amny gay people have been in “traditional” marriages with opposite sex partners and have children from this.  Just because a child has gay parents does NOT mean that childern of gay paretns do not have role models of the opposite sex (from the gay parent) , or are not involved with a parent of the oppsite sex (from the gay parent).  See this is the problem with folks who do not acutally know any gay people (or think they don’t) and have no actual knowledge of how real gay people live.  Their vision is narrow, restricted, and disconnected from reality.

Your Robert Lopez seems to have talked to a narrow group of children—those who self-selected to talk to him.  So I think his findings are inconclusive at best, a reflection of his bigotry at worst.

Mike—They are obviously NOT talking about one of the Hindu gods, or one of the Roman or Greek gods—or one of any other polytheistic system—because they refer to God as a singular and all-powerful entity. They CANNOT be referring to nature itself, because they make that clear “the laws of Nature AND OF Nature’s God…” So nature itself is NOT God. Lastly, the God of the Declaration of Independence is real and personal, not figurative or allegorical, because they who are risking their lives by signing this Declaration can rely on his protection. What kind of idiots do you take people for, Mike? Don’t you think we can read the Declaration and see how you’ve misstated things?

The guy who said that people who believe in God are stupid and ignorant comes off as arrogant.  So, because we do not share your beliefs that makes us ignorant?  There are many bright Christians that are doctors, lawyers, professors, engineers, etc.  I have a doctorate in chemistry and I am Catholic.  Yes, there are some Christians that are not bright but the same thing could be said about some atheists. 

I disagree with the claim by gay marriage supporters that anyone who is against gay marriage is hateful.  I do not hate gays and if I owned a business, I would hire gays as employees.  There is nothing wrong with having homosexual thoughts but acting on them is wrong.  I am against gay marriage for religious reasons and practical reasons.  The practical reasons are that the male and female bodies are complementary to one another which allows for reproduction and this complementarity means they are natural for one another.  Next, if a gay couple adopts kids then this makes the role of the mother and father dispensable.  I think it is important that kids have both a mother and a father and this is what the evidence points to that I cited above.  Here is the evidence again: 

A Ph.D. (Robert Lopez) spent a year speaking with kids raised by gay parents and he had this to say,

“Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.”

http://catholicexchange.com/what-do-the-children-say/

Larry,

Which points of mine do you actually disagree with?  Are any out of context?

Larry,
Negative - all of those could be the Christian god, one of the Hindu gods, or Nature itself that has no god beyond the natural world.  Do not infer where there is no implication.

@Mike Horn: Your post is a masterpiece of doubletalk and gibberish which can be easily and conclusively refuted by lifting a few phrases out of the Declaration of Independence:
“...the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions…with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence…”
The Declaration could not be clearer—there is one God, He is Lord of all creation, including humankind—he is the “Supreme Judge of the world” and He is willing and able to give “protection” to those who rely upon His “Providence.” All of this is in the Declaration of Independence. I am not quoting either the Bible or any Catholic Catechism.

@Mary
Where the rights come from is not specified.  You propose your god, but the DoI doesn’t state either way.  “Their Creator” is non-specific enough to include the god of Abraham as well as many other gods.  It also includes any god Jefferson, the author, might have believed in.  Keep in mind that Jefferson rejected all supernatural claims in the Bible, going so far as to edit out all miracles or claims of divinity.  He referred to the process as finding the “diamonds in a dunghill”.  Note that all the supernatural stuff he left behind as belonging to the dunghill.  Jefferson was a complicated man, but he was most likely a Deist, believing in a god that created the universe but did not interfere afterwards.  A god that does not interfere is indistinguishable from no god at all, which is why many claim Jefferson as a proto-atheist.  That is your DoI author, so please do not insist that “Their Creator” refers to the god of Abraham. 
.
Further, the Constitution states that any and all treaties, once ratified and signed, become US law.  The Treaty of Tripoli, negotiated under Washington (possibly Christian, possibly Deist, very private man), unanimously ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by John Adams (Unitarian, who would later deny the Trinity and had no love for Catholicism) clearly states that “the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion”.  Note that two Presidents and a Senate full of Founders agreed with that statement and made it US law.
.
Talking about the “blessings of Liberty” in some sort of Christian context is nonsense, especially since at that time there was a movement to make Lady Liberty, as well as Justice, into some sort of neo-pagan gods of civil government and free democracies.  The Statue of Liberty (not to mention Blind Justice) isn’t exactly a Christian monument.  Just saying.
.
So, where can rights come from?  No god is required, but you are welcome to thank yours anyway.  It is possible to assert inalienable human rights as completely natural things.  Appealing to Nature alone works just fine, and avoids religious confusion.  Nature’s God could very well be the Deist god, which as I mentioned above is indistinguishable from no god at all.  But the Constitution mentions neither, and that is the more important document.  Under it, there is no specific source cited.  As Americans, we simply assume that humans have certain rights that cannot be taken away.  These include freedoms of conscience summed up by the religion, speech, press, and assembly clauses.  They also include freedom of privacy, summed up by the search and seizure prohibition, as well as self-incrimination and property rights.  Those both, together, mean that while you have the right to Catholicism and Catholics have the right to keep their sacraments as they will, non-Catholics have the right to believe and act as THEY will.  To paraphrase Jefferson again, since gay marriage neither picks your pocket nor breaks your leg, you have exactly zero claim to prohibit them from marrying under the US Constitution.
.
I’d also like to point out that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by many nations and faiths, as well as those who have neither, is a document that asserts rights belong to humans just because they are human and for no other reason.  Another way of thinking about this is that rights are an “emergent property” of humans, similar in concept to flocking behavior in birds in that it is explainable through entirely natural reasons.

Smae sex marriage is not an experiement nor has the SCOTUS or any state “dived in recklessly”  Its not an experiemnt because gay couple have lived in committed since time immemorial.

lisakaiser & Others: Obviously you have no answers for me. But my questions MUST be answered, whether you like it or not. Not because I asked them, but because the issues will come up and must be addressed. Just because you know of no gay couples who would be disqualified from marrying were they of opposite sex, does NOT mean they don’t exist and will not come forward. These issues MUST and WILL be addressed. Your evasiveness only tells all of us that you are completely unprepared to deal with them—as is the rest of society which has so recklessly dived into this experiment.

Lots of misquotes of the Dec of Independence and so close to July 4th too.  What a shame…  “...endowed by THEIR Creator…” A clear distinction that needs to be recognized.  THEIR Creator means that each person has their GOD or god. A clear recognition of different faiths.  Certainly, the Abrahamic God- Yahweh or Allah is one them, but What about Buddha and Vishnu? Mayans had Quetzalcoatl…
DoI not a legal document, so I digress.
I have to ask why all the hate toward same-sex marriage. I know more than a few gay couples and if they want to get married it is not going to have an effect on my 20 year marriage one bit.  So there must be more to it.
Nothing in the 10 commandments about it.  No we actually have to look to Leviticus for ‘man shall not lie with man’ language.  So, remind me; is that before or after the no tatoos or shaved heads language?  Does the prohibition come before or after the ban on eating pork and shellfish?  You see the irony here is that alot of the anti same-sex marriage crowd seem to be heavily tatooed bald guys eating bbq pork sandwiches. When are the parishioners at my parish going to stand up and not let the woman marry her bald (deliberately so) fiance because he also has a tatoo and they are serving shrimp appetizers at the reception? Also, who is going to protect him from possibly ‘consummating’ their marriage while she is “unclean”? 
You ask “what is my point?”. I am glad you asked. You CANNOT enforce one law while ignoring the others. Along with your NO Same Sex Marriage march, make sure you camp out in front of a Tatoo parlor, the barbershop, Famous Dave’s BBQ and Red Lobster as well.  Similar crimes taking place in these establishments. Either do this, or cite me chapter and verse where Jesus said it was ok to shave heads, have tatoos, eat shellfish and pork. (Gospel please not Paul or Peter’s interpretations)

Larry,

The example of 2 closely related gay people wanting to marry each other is silly.  It seems RC want to pose silly, the sky is falling kinds of questions as justification for bigotry against gay people and to oppose the recognition of the fundamental rights of gay Americans.  I have been out as gay person since 1979, have known lots and lots and lots of other gay people.  I have never known anyone who was involved with a gay relative.  However, the question does bring up another issue.  your question suggests that being IS a matter of heredity/ biology.  So that would seem to suggest that the RCC, other Christians need to get over their oppostion to gay couples.  Being gay is like any other immutable characteristic (race, for example)—something that is part of nature and not subject to change.  The reality is this:  All of us have advocate marriage equality have won and will continue winning on this issue.  love wins.  The hatred and bigotry of the RCC and of RCs loses—every time.

Barbara’s post seems so—judgmental. Not one person is suggesting that the public be legally compelled to accept the Catholic faith or any part of it. Catholic teaching says that marriage is a sacrament. We don’t insist that non-Catholics—even non-Christians—believe that. The fact that marriage involves one man and one woman is apparent from human nature itself—not from the Baltimore Catechism. After all—no one on this post has yet even tried to answer the questions I asked at the end of my 7:08 p.m. EDT post yesterday. And I’ll just bet that no one will have answers to any of the following: New York State has changed its laws so that marriage will have nothing to do with the gender of the subjects. Otherwise, all stays the same. What happens when two gay men (or women)are turned away by the marriage license clerk because they are first-cousins or siblings? Is there any rational basis for denying a license to two closely-related gay people? What happens when the couple sues in court alleging discrimination? What will the court rule? What should it rule? If we say that unisex marriages must abide by the same restrictions as heterosexual ones—would that not be forcing an arbitrary and capricious rule on the gay couples? If we say that everyone can now marry a close relative—does that not encourage incest-related birth defects? If we say that gay relatives can marry but heterosexual ones cannot, then we have just created two classes of marriage: gay and straight. What would happen to “marriage equality” then? None of these questions comes from the Catechism or the Bible. And yet, now that we have enshrined gay marriage—we are certainly going to have to answer them. What should the answers be? And why should they be what they ought to be?

@Barbara. Spoken like a narcissist? Farewell, Peace and God Bless You.

Thank you Barbara for commenting in such a wonderfully sane manner. I agree with your words completely. I too had stopped commenting because the hate in these posts is visceral and unhealthy to be subjected to for very long.
However, I could not pass up the chance to let you know that your words warmed my heart and made me proud and happy to have read them. Sure wish more even-minded people gave their views here.  Have a wonderful day.

Final post here because some just need to hear what they want to hear.  It has been insinuated that, due to my brief comments on a public forum,  I am not a REAL Catholic.  Feel free to judge.  I’ve studied greatly, know all of the documents inside and out, and don’t consider a public forum a place to divulge every belief or piece of personal history connected with me.  I’m sure those who feel I am not a Catholic know the mind of God and, therefore, know all about me.  The superiority with which so many post and the anger that goes with it will simply be the end of the Catholic Church in this country, not same-sex marriage.  I chose the Church for my own personal reasons.  Many posters here don’t seem to understand that not EVERYONE in our country believes in the Catholic faith.  Your anger and superiority coupled with the name-calling I’ve read here will not attract anyone into the fold.  Enjoy your own self-righteousness but understand it is exactly that attitude that those who are looking for God within a COMMUNITY are reviled by.  No one is even interested in learning about a faith unless they see loving, caring examples of it first.  And no, I won’t be quoting exact comments from posters that I disagree with.  I disagree most with the attitude and tone.  So if to be “Catholic” is to be like most of the posters here, then I’m fine with saying I attend a Catholic church but am not a “true” American Catholic.  God knows the truth and so do I.  Enjoy yourselves.

Seek Ye the TRUTH, the TRUTH will set you free. Consumate homosexual behavior, then call it marriage.

@Mike horn: “Rights in The USA were not given by any god, on of the things that made us unique back then. Our rights are granted by “We the people”. No other authority is cited, no other protector is enlisted. We give rights to ourselves through voting and our democratic republic.”
From Whom do the people get their sovereign personhood to constitute government? From Whom do the “unalienable rights” come? Thomas Jefferson said: “The rights the state gives the state can take away.” Unalienable rights can only be endowed by our Creator because God is infinite, without beginning and without end: infinite. Man and the state man constitutes is finite, with beginning and with end, and so our rights are finite, no longer unalienable. Our rights can come to an end. If you choose to trust yourself to a finite state instead of an infinitely good God, you are free to do so. and so, from Whom do the “Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity” come? from The Preamble, the unchanging purpose of our Law of the Land. You too can BLESS, but not as the infinitely good God, almighty God, true God.

@Jerry:Nature makes most people right-handed but a sizeable minority left-handed and an even smaller minority. ambidextrous

I am ambidextrous, not as you say “ambedextorious”. You keep blaming your birth as a same-sex attracted individual, all the time ignoring the fact that you indulge in same sex behavior through a free will choice to act. You further demand equality for you same-sex behavior with others who consummate their marital act, vows and covenant before God in Holy Matrimony, except that same-sex behavior cannot be consummated. How do you respond to you lack of consummation in same-sex behavior? When you no longer can “be” and you no longer “have”, you will find the will of God.
God’s name is “I AM WHO I AM”. God is existence. Jerry, you exit. Jerry, you are the very proof that “I AM” exists.

Jerry—In other words, anything I say to you is hateful—anything you say to me is not. You can’t rebut my arguments, so you simply attack. I don’t see any basis for continued dialogue here. Your demands amount to: “Will you Catholics PLEASE shut up about this?” The short answer is: NO, we will not.

Larry, you obviously don’t understand sarcasm or deliberately using an illogical fallacy to point out the ones you use, undeliberately but falsely.  Let me say it once and for all - we gay people are not out to destroy anything.  We want to, if we so choose (and I never would, because I’m a confirmed bachelor - I want to be the only one holding the remote control), get married.  We are conceived and born gay and it’s natural and normal.  You don’t believe that; fine.  You don’t have to believe that 2+2=4.  Nature made us gay just as it made you straight.  Nature makes most people right-handed but a sizeable minority left-handed and an even smaller minority ambedextorious.  None of them are wrong or unnatural.  That’s nature.  You don’t have to believe that and that’s fine, but keep your beliefs out of my civil, human and Constitutional rights.  When you, or your kind, state insulting things against me because I’m gay and say I should be denied my rights, I’ll throw the same thing right back in your face and see how you like it.  No one’s denying your religious liberty because we can now increasingly get married.  No one’s making you marry a person of the same sex.  No one’s making you go to a same-sex wedding.  No one’s going to make your clerics marry same-sex people.  Chill, Larry.  Live your life.  But keep your life to yourself.  Keep it out of my life.

Mary De Whatever (and I’m not saying that to be mean or disrespectful, I just can’t keep remembering how to say it), I’ll always spell god with a small g.  That’s because, first, there’s no proof of a god.  Second, you all appease different gods.  The god George Washington or anyone else among the Founding Fathers (the majority of whom would not be considered Christian by today’s standards) was not your god.  By not capitalizing the word god is not done by me to offend you (accept when you try to make me follow your god, and then I’ll offend you to the best of my ability).  But there are gazillions of gods appeased by their followers.  If you want me to capitalize your god’s name, then give me its name.

The fact is, regardless of desire or consent, same-sex sexual acts can never serve the Good of the other because it is a self evident truth that men and women are designed in such a way that it is impossible to engage in same-sex sexual acts without demeaning the inherent personal and relational Dignity of those persons engaging in demeaning same-sex sexual acts. The only way one can support same sex marriage and thus same-sex sexual acts is if one supports engaging in demeaning sexual acts that are not respectful of the inherent Dignity of the Human Person. The question for the Court is not about affirming a separate personhood, as a person’s sexual desire does not change the fact that they are male or female, the question is, how can same-sex sexual acts respect the Dignity of the Human Person when same sex sexual acts can only be demeaning?

The opponents of slavery were hardly “secularists.” The Reverend John Rankin (1793-1886), an Ohio Presbyterian minister who personally helped 2,000 slaves to escape to freedom over 40 years, is credited with having inspired many others towards abolitionism, including William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Abraham Lincoln evinced religious motives in his quest to free the slaves. And if rights are “inherent” in the human person, as you concede the DOI declares, from whom or what are they inherited? As for “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”—does unisex marriage advance or retard that cause? That is the subject of this debate, is it not? Unisex marriages do not, and never will, produce children. Offspring produced by organic material from one man and one woman would have to be adopted by the gay couple—and the result would be that the children would be deprived of having one parent of each sex. Does this contribute to or detract from the children’s “pursuit of happiness”? That is subject to considerable debate, is it not? There is evidence to suggest that such children may be put at a disadvantage. Why should this not be viewed with concern? And lastly, the only reason the state has EVER regulated marriage is because of the fact that the union of one man and one woman may, and usually does, produce children—and the state has a manifest interest in seeing to their stable upbringing. If two people of the same sex wish to have a relationship as sexual companions, what interest does the state have in requiring them to pledge lifelong exclusivity to each other—and why should the state require them to request a divorce from the courts in order to terminate their relationship? What business is it of the state?

Larry, two things, but first thank you for a reasoned tone, sadly lacking from some posters here.

First, the DoI is an historical document but not a governing one. It’s purpose was to declare that rights are inherent and not subject to the whims of royalty, which claimed authority through divine right and had at their back a church which ruled morality.  Even the DoI was inherently against dictates of religions trumping individual rights.  It said no one should be denied life, liberty, or the pursuit of happiness.  Enshrining a ban on personal liberty would violate two of the three expressed rights in the DoI. 
However, the words of the DoI have no authority over the laws of the USA. The only relevant document is the Constitution. Vatican law holds no sway. The dictates of priests, Imams, and clergy have the same weight as your average joe six pack. The Constitution says that no law may be passed that establishes one religion over another. This effectively moots your point of any god’s law, because I could find other religions who say the opposite, and in the eyes of the law, both hold equally little sway. Your quote of the DoI even undermines your argument, pointing out that it is the consent of the governed is the basis for power. A priest, a creed, or a foreign potentate do not, and a god does not. People do.

I also wonder what your example is where people rightfully revolted for the purpose of inhibiting the rights of others?  The Civil War?  That didn’t go so well. Oh, and in that one both sides claimed divine right, though the pro-slavery side had far better theological grounding. Good thing the Federal secularists won that one.

Mike Horn: You seem to be completely ignorant of the Declaration of Independence, which refers to: “the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle [the people]...” and which declares: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” The Declaration clearly states that the people have the right to overthrow governments which do not respect the rights that God has granted humankind. Thomas Jefferson could hardly be considered a Catholic—nor could most of the men who approved this document.

I think in the end what we must do is both love our opponents in this struggle and assume that love motivates our opponents.
.
We must assume that our opponents aren’t out to attack the Catholic Church but they see the Church as an impediment to love. I disagree. I disagree vehemently. But that’s how they see it. And as long as the Church stands in the way of what they see as people’s right to have their love codified by society, they will attack it.
.
Mind you, exhibiting love may very well be a handicap in a cultural struggle. Dehumanizing opponents is a pretty good tactic that obviously works well while assuming love and treating opponents like they are children of God limits your options a bit. But the desire to win the “battle” sometimes overwhelms us and we do and say things we might regret later.
.
But here’s the thing - we are not called to deliver the United States of America to heaven. We are responsible for what we do. We must love our opponents and assume that their anger comes from a place of real frustration and pain. It’s possible that we may not, despite every effort, be able to define marriage in our society but we can work on our own marriage and be examples of God’s love.

“I think in the end what we must do is both love our opponents in this struggle and assume that love motivates our opponents.
.
We must assume that our opponents aren’t out to attack the Catholic Church but they see the Church as an impediment to love. I disagree. I disagree vehemently. But that’s how they see it. And as long as the Church stands in the way of what they see as people’s right to have their love codified by society, they will attack it.
.
Mind you, exhibiting love may very well be a handicap in a cultural struggle. Dehumanizing opponents is a pretty good tactic that obviously works well while assuming love and treating opponents like they are children of God limits your options a bit. But the desire to win the “battle” sometimes overwhelms us and we do and say things we might regret later.
.
But here’s the thing - we are not called to deliver the United States of America to heaven. We are responsible for what we do. We must love our opponents and assume that their anger comes from a place of real frustration and pain. It’s possible that we may not, despite every effort, be able to define marriage in our society but we can work on our own marriage and be examples of God’s love.”
—Matt

Thanks for your concern and prayers for my children. It is very kind of you. BTW, did you also ask your priest about your new Catholic religious theory on “final choice” after your death but before final judgement? I am sure he would be most interested in your thoughts on that. But then again maybe not. If he believes it please contact your local Bishop and CDF at the Vatican. As to judgements? We make them everyday on multiple issues and choices. Only God can make eternal judgements of your soul. As Adults and Catholics we are required to be informed and know the Faith and to be charitable as well. To be Catholic and Charitable does not require us to be ignorant or stupid as well. It requires us to respond to blatant mis-truths which you have fulmigated on this thread while calling yourself “Catholic”. You can’t respond so you become snarky which is a non response. If you are going to claim to be “Catholic”, then please learn the faith or else have the decency to stop calling yourself “Catholic”. Take care and God Bless You.

@David Guard: “Yet leaders in the church have raped children.  These scandals have not only occurred in the United States.  They have occurred elsewhere.  Instead of bashing gay marriage, which the church loves to do, we might be better off reexamining the issue of priestly celibacy which is at the heart of these scandals.  While non Catholic denominations have had sex scandals as well, we rarely hear about their clergy raping boys.  It’s time that we become wiser, more candid, and more courageous than what we have shown.” IN the Jewish faith, child sexual molesters are judged “in house” according to rabbinic law, not in the media. In public school the statute of limitations is 90 days, over even before the victim knows he has been victimized. No news media there. The statute of limitations for child sex abuse in the Catholic Church was removed to infinity, Cain could be tried for killing Abel. Every news media reports it forty of fifty times, but never that the Pope has directed that child molesters be evicted from ministry, no, never, with positive proof. So, why is that? Every child molester must be prosecuted by the secular courts. Right? David Guard? According to the Catholic League’s Dr. William Donohue, there have ben 7 seven credible allegations of child abuse in the Catholic Church this year. Sadly, psychiatrists once believed that pedophilia might be cured and returned many offenders back into ministry, but since have declared pedophilia to be “NORMAL”, and have even tried to have pedophilia legalized in court in Baltimore, two years ago, See: B4UACT. All men are created equal in innocence and virginity. The state must protect and defend innocence and virginiy to deliver JUSTICE. Right now with pornography declared to be free speech, Obama refusing grants to Catholic Charities to help victims of sex-traffiking, with masturbation, fornication, sodomy and eradicating human existence through abortion being declared “normal” what rights do men created equal and endowed by “their Creator” realy have? Please respond.

Rights in The USA were not given by any god, on of the things that made us unique back then. Our rights are granted by “We the people”. No other authority is cited, no other protector is enlisted. We give rights to ourselves through voting and our democratic republic. If you cite a god for the rules to govern marriage, then you automatically disqualify that as law because our government is prevented from establishing one religion over others, or religion over non religion. That is what democratic freedoms mean, as expressed by the USA. Remember that Catholicism fought the “European Spring” of democratic revolutions every time it could. It even came down on the side of the fascist Franco in Spain. It banned the works of Thomas Paine. I don’t trust Catholicism with my freedoms, even before I lost trust with them over children.

“Yes, the Church has the guarantee that it will ultimately prevail, but that does not mean it will prevail in the United States.”
Don’t you know that even where Satan dwells there are still people who have faith in Christ and are prepared to die for their faith?
If you think that the battle is so real and we are lossing then why continue to fight. Marriage was it instituted by God or Man, if by God, then do you then you are more concern about the future of the world of the christian faith more than God. Let those who have faith in God, let then keep fighting for the triumph of the Truth and never give up. Only a non disciple of Christ will fail to see that this is not only a battle against any system of government but aginst the father of lies himself who pass via men to set bhimself in opposition to God. Read the prophet Habakkuk chater three and there you will hear what God is tell you to do if at all you a a watchman of Yahweh.

@Baltazar I. Bravo Jr. Beautifully said. One Hail Mary for you.

“The church teaches that all forms of artificial birth control, all masturbation, all premarital sex, and all homosexual acts are sinful.” Well, thank you David Guard, for at least stating the moral law far more clearly and succinctly than have 99% of our priests and bishops over the last 50 years—including, I am sure, the vast majority of those who have raped children. “It’s time that we become wiser, more candid, and more courageous than what we have shown.” Couldn’t agree more—and the best way to do that would be for priests and bishops to state the moral law as emphatically as you just did from the Sunday pulpit over and over until we finally get it.

Judging the free will acts of individuals is the official calling of the court. Bait and switching their free will acts with their existence and then back to whatever half-truth serves their purpose is the action of a dishonest individual. The atheist rejects God with his God-given free will. If that don’t beat all? Then demands from the state that which the state cannot and does not give him, equality with citizens who have accepted the gift of Faith from God. When the atheist does not get what he wants, he blames and demands from the state laws that make him equal to the people of God, making of the state and himself, equal to God. By not acknowledging the Supreme Sovereign Being, the atheist must fill that heavenly and earthly position. When the atheist dies, he goes to atheist heaven where there is no God, no virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, where the atheist wallows in despair and gnashing of the teeth.
The consummation of the marital act, the propagation of George Washington’s constitutional posterity, or at least the willingness to accomplish our constitutional posterity is called “marriage”, a vocation from God. Purposely conflating and confusing consummation of the marital act with the free will act of avoiding consummation, then demanding that the government valid and legalize their free will act of avoiding consummation of the marital act as natural marriage is deceptive at the least and perjury in a court of law at the most. Same-sex unions offered to ameliorate the benefits gap is rejected by the gay agenda, imposing the tyranny of strong arm tactics on honest and decent citizens by a group of frauds demanding equality of two free will acts that are diametrically opposed, and to the detriment of truth, Justice and the American way.

suggestions:Consecrate your family to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus and Immaculate Heart of Mary. Enthrone the Hearts of Jesus and Mary in your homes whether you’re single or a have a family. Do Communion of Reparation for the sins that we, our family members and others like the members of the Supreme Court, Obama and lawmakers passing this laws that perpetuate the Culture of DEATH (Divorce, Euthanasia, Abortion, Total denialof GOD and Homosexual activities). Go back to the basics of our Catholic faith. Take CARE (Confession, Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament, Rosaries, and Eucharist). This is not our battle it is our Lord Jesus and His Mother’s. They may define marriage but it is not the sacrament of Holy Matrimony even if the government does not recognize the Roman Catholic Church know in your hearts that it has the fullness of TRUTH. God bless you all! In the Hearts of Jesus and Mary.

@jacobum, I continue to feel sorry for your children.  Personal attack?  No, just a statement.  You obviously won’t forgive them anything.  Please let them know now the conditions of your love and that you are just being God-like.

“Judge not lest you be judged” is definitely dead on this board.  Very sad example of true Christian behavior.  I just discussed this with my priest who had his own opinions about most of the posters.  He is a charitable man and has respect for the National Catholic Register as a whole.  However, he has great “reservations” about anyone following most of the advice that comes from “pseudo-experts” who preach using incomplete and out-of-context quotes and statements on this board, and suggests everyone consult their own clergy and conscience.  Well advised, Father!

@Barbara:  As expected you continue to respond with obfuscation, dismissive distractions and snarky personal attacks. You do everything except support your personal statements about Catholic dogmas, doctrines, practices and beliefs while maintaining you are a Catholic. It is clear that you won’t because you can’t support what you evidently don’t know.

Please do not rely on your “final choice” theory after death. It’s the equivalent of a “redo”,“reset” or “do over” of the consequences of ones choices while alive. Clearly that has never been or will ever be in any Catholic dogma/doctrine/teaching. That’s not a judgment. It’s a rudimentary fact of the OTF. It is also a rudimentary fact of the OTF that God is both a God of Mercy and of Justice. Limitless Mercy while we are alive and equally full Justice when we die. There are no resets or second takes. Take care and best to you.

Many our our founding fathers were deists.  Thomas Jefferson, in his private papers, spelled God with a small “g.”  He believed that God is the force within nature that makes us better people.  He did not believe in a supernatural God at all.  Jefferson was part of a generation called the “Enlightenment.”  George Washington has been mentioned on this site.  He was a church goer and a dedicated Freemason.  He believed in God but was not especially devout.  As has been pointed out, Washington was a great man.  It’s very possible that the United States wouldn’t even exist had it not been for his courageous leadership.

I appreciate all of the views which have been posted here.  All I can say is that we have no credibility on the issue of sex as an institution.  There have been too many scandals for that.  Let’s get our own house in order before we tell others they are going to hell.  Let’s be honest and candid.  The church teaches that all forms of artificial birth control, all masturbation, all premarital sex, and all homosexual acts are sinful.  Yet leaders in the church have raped children.  These scandals have not only occurred in the United States.  They have occurred elsewhere.  Instead of bashing gay marriage, which the church loves to do, we might be better off reexamining the issue of priestly celibacy which is at the heart of these scandals.  While non Catholic denominations have had sex scandals as well, we rarely hear about their clergy raping boys.  It’s time that we become wiser, more candid, and more courageous than what we have shown.

@Jerry: My God has a place in my heart, so please spell God with a capital. George Washington, The Father of our Country, laid his life on the line in the Revolutionary War of Independence for our Freedom. Those who reject our founding principles reject their own freedom and citizenship.

Jerry—Well, you have a very odd definition of hate. You say that belief in traditional marriage is hate. You call me “stupid and ignorant,” yet you insist that it is not hateful to say such a thing to me. You say “I’m better than you,” even though neither one of us knows the other from Adam. You say that I believe in traditional marriage. That happens to be correct, but until now you would have had no way of knowing that. In my previous postings on this thread I had not said anything about how I believed on traditional marriage. I had spoken on several related issues instead. Go back and check the postings. Ironically, you told another poster that “...your religion can be decimated through logic, reason and rational thought” when it’s obvious that you don’t know the slightest thing about logic, reason or rational thought. Your post is an illogical, unreasonable, irrational rant. I’m sure you agree with me that it is NOT hateful for me to say that.

What about the experiences of kids raised by gay parents?  A Ph.D. (Robert Lopez) spent a year speaking with kids raised by gay parents and he had this to say,

“Those who contacted me all professed gratitude and love for the people who raised them, which is why it is so difficult for them to express their reservations about same-sex parenting publicly.

Still, they described emotional hardships that came from lacking a mom or a dad. To give a few examples: they feel disconnected from the gender cues of people around them, feel intermittent anger at their “parents” for having deprived them of one biological parent (or, in some cases, both biological parents), wish they had had a role model of the opposite sex, and feel shame or guilt for resenting their loving parents for forcing them into a lifelong situation lacking a parent of one sex.”

http://catholicexchange.com/what-do-the-children-say/

Jerry – “the right to believe” is absurd and you know it.  If you were sincere, you’d offer to fight for “Larry”’s right to act on what he believes—to act on those beliefs in a lawful manner in the public arena.

Jerry – “born that way” is indeed a faith statement uttered by the disciples of Fate.

“......no one is accustomed to obey CRAFTY AND CLEVER MEN so SUBMISSIBLY, as those whose soul is WEAKENED and BROKEN DOWN by the DOMINATION OF THE PASSIONS. There have been in the sect of FREEMASONS, some who have plainly determined and proposed that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with a BOUNDLESS LICENCE OF VICE, as, when this had been done, the multitude would EASILY come under THEIR power and authority for ANY acts of daring….”
              Pope Leo XIII - Humanum Genus Paragraph 20

Larry, one can always have opinions.  Yours is that marriage should be between only a man and woman.  That’s fine.  I’ll fight to the death for your right to believe that, just I’ll fight for the right of those who believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman of the same race.

Does that mean that someone who believes that marriage should be between only a man and a woman of the same race is hateful?  Yes, of course it does.  Does that mean that marriage should be between only a man and a woman and not between same-sex people is hate?  You betcha.  If you believe any and/or all that, I’ll support your right to hate.  This is America.  You have the right to believe what you want.  I happen to believe that people like you who believe in gods are stupid and ignorant.  Does that make me hateful?  In your eyes, it probably does.  So believe I hate people like you.  I don’t, but you can believe it.  But the thing is, I don’t believe stupid and ignorant people should be denied their civil, Constitutional and human rights.  You do.  That makes you more hateful than me.  I’m better than you.

Mary Van Dewhatever (I’m tired of trying to spell your name right, so forgive me), George Washington never mentioned anything about marriage.  You need to stop reading what you want into what other people said.  Our Founding Fathers were primarily non-Christian.  Many, if not most, were Deists (and a few were Atheists).  There was a smattering of Christians maong them, but they were the minority.  The Founding Fathers did not cater to your particular god.  Your god had no place in this great American Republic.  You need to deal with that.

Barbara: I see – I have a different understanding of history in that the historic period refers to that epoch after which written works are available for study.  The period before that is unknown through language and conclusions thereof are always speculative.

George Washington’s constitutional posterity comes into being through the consummation of the marital act by one man and one woman, through love and commitment, and unfortunately, through violence and crime, according to the laws of nature and nature’s God. One of the purposes of our Constitution is inscribed in the Preamble: “and to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves snd our (constitutional) posterity,” “Our posterity” are all future generations brought forth, through the actions of one man and one woman as a husband and wife and reared and nurtured in a family. Whatever homosexuals do, they may never co-opt the definition of marriage for their frustration of consummation, their assault and battery of their partner, their denial of the rational, immortal human soul.

@jacobum, you also continue to verify my original estimate of your character.  Thank you for verifying your need to judge.  When I see that, I know longer feel concerned about your judgement of me.  I take you for what you really are and that gives me great peace.  Have a happy life.  I’m sure we’ll both meet with a loving Father when this life is over.

Larry—that’s exactly why the Church has designated the word/concept of “blasphemy” is a mortal sin.

A lot of people seem to be laboring under the misconception that to disagree with them means to hate them. It seems rather egotistical to equate a contrary viewpoint with hatred. In fact, it’s what tyrants do.

Mary De Voie, I’m glad I’m unsettling you.  You need a bunch of unsettling.  You think your religion should rule everything.  Of course, your religion can be decimated through logic, reason and rational thought.  That scares you.  It should.  I know you’ve based your whole life upon it and when the rug is pulled out from under you you end up on your butt and that’s painful.  But pain is something that tells you that something’s wrong.

I’ve heard numerous times that you can’t pick and choose which parts of Catholicism to believe.  I’d like to ask what such “true Catholics” think about the social safety net, the death penalty, worker’s rights, a living wage, universal healthcare (minus contraceptives), etc.

I’ve also seen a lot of hate on this comment thread.  Many think that religious freedom means freedom to impose Catholicism on America, which is roughly 80& non-Catholic.  Do you support freedom of religion, a declared universal human right according to both Catholicism and international treaty?  Do you support the right to not only disbelieve Catholicism but also to oppose it?

For religious dogma dictating medical decisions, do you support the rights of parents to deny their children medical care, to include antibiotics, vaccines, blood transfusions, and CPR?

@Barbara: Again thank you for your kind remarks. They continue to confirm my original post. It’s still about you it seems. You claim to be a Catholic. If so then surely you know that you can’t just believe anything you want and still maintain that you are a Catholic. The OTF is not a grocery store or a cafeteria. Stating the truth is not being judgmental. It’s being charitable. It seems when someone points out your inconsistencies with facts you respond by attacking the messenger. Take care, I consider it a complement. Peace to you as well.

@jacobum, feel free to believe anything you want.  I will do the same.  Not to be unkind but I don’t find your posts lacking in hubris.  You might want to check yourself on that if you truly believe your words rather than your tone.  I’m sorry for your children who you would not forgive everything if they sincerely asked; it’s quite conditional love and a sad state for any child to grow up in.  If I’m wrong and you would forgive them, then it must be quite satisfying to be more loving and forgiving than our Creator (in your opinion).  Regarding all of the quoting that you and other posters do, I’ve had MUCH experience with that and have found that, if one truly knows the Bible, one can find a quote to match any sentiment one is trying to prove.
I wish you the best, hope your ability to judge is without error since it seems to be what you prefer to do, and am glad to spend my days and nights with sincere, loving people who make this world a better place for their presence rather than a place of fear and condemnation.  Peace.

Matthew Archbold has a different opinion; see the next blog. Apparently Matt thinks Catholics are not obliged to “save the country” or oppose the license for same-sex marriage. Instead Catholics are supposed to be shining examples so that people will learn that the Church is the “one true path” to salvation.
.
It’s about time Catholics realized they can only try to attract people to the faith, and cannot force others to comply. Hopefully Matt’s appeal to tolerance will finally stop Mary De Voe’s whining and fear mongering.

@Barbara. Thank you for sharing your personal belief and understanding of the Mind of God. Your response confirms my original post. Your hubris is showing a bit. In effect, you equate yourself with God. It’s all about you, your beliefs, feelings and opinions. It’s the classical “Me” centered religion that is so prevalent today.

What is missing is any sense of faith, humility, obedience or the cross. It’s more like a soft universalism….ie…belief that nearly everyone is going to heaven. You have even determined the means. I mean Christ just has to love us so much He just HAS to give everyone a final chance..
” I DO believe that we will all face a time when we will be asked to answer for our sins and then, if we truly wish it, we will be forgiven.”
We’ll since that we know that final time is immediately after death, I must have missed that “final chance” doctrine somewhere. I am sure all of us would welcome your specific citation/support/interpretation of Catholic Church doctrine for that belief.

Not to be unkind but it is preferable to follow the established dogmas/doctrines of the one true faith. They are Christ’s truths which are centered in the orthodoxy of His Catholic Church which He founded/ established together with the sacraments for our salvation. It is the Magisterium which protects and maintains His truth promulgated in Scripture and Oral Tradition. It is not an accident that not one dogma/doctrine has changed in 2000+ years. Reason? You can’t change objective truth no matter how inconvenient or unpleasant it may be to us personally.

St Thomas Aquinas said it best…

“Truth Himself Speaks Truly or There is Nothing True”

In the new testament, Christ spoke about Heaven 27 time versus Hell 90 times. Seems like a grand waste of His time, energy, humiliation and suffering if just about everyone is going to heaven anyway don’t ya think?

Pat,

I think the ever increasing drift towards acceptance of same-sex “marriage” by the culture is one more indicator that the church has failed (and continues to) to influence the culture.  In fact, as a Presbyterian who shares your view of traditional marriage, I sadly have seen my own denomination cave to our culture’s viewpoint on this issue. And while I agree with the need to legislate in favor of traditional marriage, I don’t think these efforts are where the battle is going to be won or lost.  Why?  Marriage doesn’t need government or its sanction - government desperately needs marriage. Having been instituted by God from the beginning and surviving the rise and fall of countless nations, marriage is not in any way dead.  The task then - and it is a tremendously difficult one - is to change the culture from the inside-out - not the outside-in; by all Christians (Catholic and Protestant) engaging the culture one person at a time and showing them how the Gospel of Christ alone provides real meaning and purpose to not not only their marriages but their lives.  Father in Heaven, help us to do that!

@Mary and SteveP, I guess this thread has become too long for you to keep track of the original basis for anyone’s posts.  I originally was refuting Pat’s statement that marriage has always been the cornerstone of society.  My “disassociating marriage and child-bearing” was a result of Mary contending that I and all other humans were produced by the “consummation” of a “love” relationship, hence marriage has always been in existence.  The act of “consummation” has little to do with marital status.  In fact, marriage as we know it has NOT been around for most of human history.  I’m sorry, Mary, but your “snarky” comment really didn’t sound that snarky at all, just ignorant.  You contend a knowledge of the Bible but were not around for the actual events.  Your “snarky” question to me just didn’t even make sense.  If anyone wants another source for the fact that marriage as we know it is a rather recent development and that the concept of family has been fluid throughout human history, please see
http://www.aaanet.org/issues/policy-advocacy/Statement-on-Marriage-and-the-family.cfm .
And no, Mary, these anthropologists were also not physically there for the history of which they speak but, let’s face it, if we were unable to learn anything for which we were not physically present, we’d still be living in caves.

barbara: Your comment disassociating marriage and child-bearing is quite strange.  The decision in Loving v. Virginia struck down the law prohibiting a non-white and a white person from mixing.  Are you laboring under the false impression that “mixing” referred to kissing, holding hands, having a joint checking account, or a couple’s movie night?

MARITAL LOVE IS CONSUMMATED IN THE MARITAL ACT OF WHICH NO HOMOSEXUAL ACT BEARS ANY LEGAAL OR MORAL RESEMBLANCE.

@barbara: “Mary, the “consummation” of which you speak has often taken place outside of marriage either by choice or by force.  Children born of rape are not that uncommon - not really an act of “two human bodies in love” is it? “
Consummation of the marital act outside of marriage is called fornication; by force it is the crime of rape of which I am intimately familiar. It is you, Barbara, who are disengaging the issue at hand.
“Marriage is not an essential part of it and, during most of history and in much of the world, has had no part in it.”
To be snarky I must ask you Barbara, if you were present at “most of history”. Without matrimony and the marital act, could there be a crime of rape or the sin of fornication? Science has proven that for every sender of impulse or hormone or seed, there is a receptor neuron cell, gland or organ in the human body. With the male seed there must the receptor of the female egg. Otherwise the twisting and corruption of the truth of homosexual behavior is all on you.

“I DO believe that we will all face a time when we will be asked to answer for our sins and then, if we truly wish it, we will be forgiven.” You’re half-right. Everything before “...and then…” is correct. Everything after it is wrong. Forgiveness is available from God only during this life.

@barbara: You may forgive your child even as God forgives all persons. The person casts himself into damnation. Can your child forgive himself? This is the question. Your forgiveness for him is laudable, but it will not keep him out of hell if he so chooses to go there. Time to instruct our children in the Ten Commandments. These are laws that God, Himself keeps.

@jacobum, as a Catholic, I believe that God is love.  I don’t believe in the veiled threats of so many on this board or those of so many clergy desperately trying to control their parishioners.  I DO believe that we will all face a time when we will be asked to answer for our sins and then, if we truly wish it, we will be forgiven.  This reckoning will happen to ALL sinners, including those who like to use veiled threats of damnation to make their points.  As a mother, there is NOTHING my child could do that I would not forgive if s/he asked me sincerely for forgiveness.  Am I MORE forgiving than God?  I think not.

“The consummation of two human bodies in love to procreate the beloved has been going on since the creation of Adam and Eve or you would not be here posting. Your mother and father consummated their marriage to bring you forth, Barbara. Everything else is fraud”

Mary, the “consummation” of which you speak has often taken place outside of marriage either by choice or by force.  Children born of rape are not that uncommon - not really an act of “two human bodies in love” is it?  Marriage is not an essential part of it and, during most of history and in much of the world, has had no part in it.  You can have your beliefs but your twisting of fact is sad.  Preach on but your responses often demonstrate a lack of understanding of the issues being discussed.

@Dreamer, Greg Colley, Jerry, Barbara:

“Better to say nothing and be thought a fool rather than speak and confirm it.”

The old adage..“The more things change the more they remain the same”.. is confirmed. The battle continues in it’s modern soap opera version. Namely, I am God vs God is God. In a word..“Pride”. It’s the taproot of all man’s problems. Today’s version is more sophisticated, subtle, pernicious and deadly. But dead is still dead and hell is still hell. Unfortunately, it seems most people don’t believe in the existence of hell anymore but as Bishop Sheen once told a woman…“you will when you get there madam”

@Mary De Voe: “TWO SAME SEX INDIVIDUALS MUST BE MARRIED TO APPLY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THEIR MARRAIGE AND THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THESE TWO CITIZENS ARE THE SAME SEX AND THEIR MARRIAGE IS IMPOSSIBLE.”
Consummation of two human bodies and two human souls in the presence of God cannot be accomplished by two same-sex individuals, therefore, those claiming to have contracted any form of marriage have deluded themselves and advance to delude the nation. Constitutional protection for swindle, fraud, make believe and especially untruth is not be forthcoming.

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/marriage-is-dead-and-the-church-is-next#ixzz2XcLp8iHb

Only the male and female are complementary physically and it is natural that they be together.  Also, gay marriage says that the role of the father and mother is dispensable since only one gender is represented in a gay marriage.

@Jerry, again. Your despair of God’s love and mercy is profoundly unsettling.

@Jerry: “Jesus is going to place you there.  You can count all the beads to try to avoid it, but none of it will do you good.  You’ll shovel coal forever.

If Jesus places me there to shovel coal, I will gladly go. But the individual soul casts himself into hell when the soul faces the Beatific Vision and sees God as God is. Pray that neither one of us violates the love of God.

@barbara: “However,  don’t say the Church should be able to define an institution financially supported by the government.  If you’re willing to take what the government hands you, you are complicit in its actions regarding marriage.”

Separation of church and state requires the government to acknowledge that the tax money used to practice the virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity, especially the virtue of charity in providing food, warmth and shelter for the people is an act of religion, not of government power, not of government credit for re-election. Charity is RELIGION, THE PERSON, THE SOVEREIGN PERSON’S RESPONSE TO THE GIFT FAITH FROM GOD, OUR CREATOR AND ENDOWER OF UNALIENABLE RIGHTS.

@barbara: “marriage as we know it, a promise of monogamous love between a man and a woman, is a relatively recent phenomenon. 

The consummation of two human bodies in love to procreate the beloved has been going on since the creation of Adam and Eve or you would not be here posting. Your mother and father consummated their marriage to bring you forth, Barbara. Everything else is fraud, swindle, usurpation of the truth and obliteration of facts, violence to law and order and the besmirchment of the culture; actually treason to America.

@Dreamer: “The ONLY objection to same sex marriage is religious indignation.”

Marriage is the consummation of two souls and two human bodies in the presence of the omnipresent Lord and God of creation, according to the laws of nature and nature’s God. Two same sex individuals are not capable of consummation fo body and soul before God, therefore homosexual use of the sacredness of marriage is a lie.

@Bernard McManus: The cathedral at Assisi collapsed and some people were killed pretty much right after the heretics came. God’s Justice is as fine as gold. The longer it takes, the finer it gets. The word “Catholic” means of use for all people. So, Catholic Justice is complete, whole and perfect Justice. Actually, prayer, the Rosary, Mass and adoration will win this, for God is King of creation, The Supreme Sovereign Being, The First Principle. God’s name is “I AM”. So, when an atheist says: “I AM” an atheist, the atheist contradicts himself after having used God’s name in vain. The atheist becomes a visible and audible fool. God is existence and God exists. If the atheist exists, the atheist is a liar and a fool.

Marriage is one man, one woman, and the children who come from their union.

The essence of marriage is commitment, not gender. I certainly hope that the idea that commitment is somehow the exclusive purview of mixed gender couples is dead. Want to identify the greatest threat to marriage in our culture? It is divorce, not “incorrect” gender combinations. We cannot increase the Kingdom of God by building walls around a “proper” definition of love. The Church will continue to shrink until more of the People of God understand where the real threat to marriage lies and set aside the hypocrisy of attacking people who wish to live in committed relationships while not lifting a finger to end the tsunami of divorce.

Bex, And also to all you separation of church and state types, the Catholic Church traditionally saw the U.S. as a masonic country (which it is and always has been) and Leo XIII actually sharply criticized “Americanism” in one of his many encyclicals. 

The thinking behind a Catholic state is that the State assists the Holy Church in guiding souls to Heaven.  How can we sit by and let ways to Hell be taught in public school and spew in our TV’s and come forth from the mouths of people like Bex and President Obama while hoping that one hour on Sunday with a priest just as likely to say that everything is okay as long as you work in a soup kitchen? 

The State, if lawful, is to be a Catholic State because 1) all other religions are false sects 2) the Precious Blood of Our Lord and Saviour saved mankind so the State should take a guardian role and guide souls on the path of the Catholic Faith. 

Of course, all this was put aside at Vatican II so since Pope John XXIII said that the Catholic Church does not have any enemies and that anyone who worried about the future was a worry-wort, and then John Paul II fully embracing pluralism and engaging in prayer with heretics at Assisi in 1986——well?  What do you expect to happen?

So, we have a real problem and it’s not going to go away on it’s own.  That was a precious theory of John XXIII and John Paul I - both of them thought heresies and these kind of problems would just go away on their own.  Then Paul VI openly siding with the communists. 

What’s a Faithful Catholic to do?

Well, I pray a lot, go to the Mass of All Time. 

And I post stuff like this on conciliar websites like this!

Mary De Voe—you might remember that our government was created “by the people, for the people and of the people.” SCOTUS does not “make” law; it interprets whether the constitutional validity of laws passed by the House and Senate, and the President.
.
The 10 Commandments tell people what they should not do; the Constitution is designed to ensure the freedom of people to follow their own conscious—so long as they do no harm to others.
.
The ONLY objection to same sex marriage is religious indignation. Nobody else is offended.

Posted by Mary De Voe on Friday, Jun 28, 2013 7:12 PM (EDT):
Naomi: Do not cajole the devil. He is not laughing.
.
Well, Mary—you must know the devil better than I do. Then again, the devil is another fictional character from the Bible. You obviously don’t know any other books.

@barbara: Mary, if you believe we feed the government then stop taking all of those financial perks you take as a married (I assume) citizen.”

barbara: You believe that the government donates all the perks from its own money and does not take citizens’ taxes for its own use.

@Jerry, God is a Person and “God” must be capitlaized. If you get to hell it will be for blasphemy and disrespect.

The vocation to the office of husband for a man and the vocation to the office of wife for a woman is a call from God Himself. A claim to vocation from God, without God, is a lie. Only man is called to serve God through vocation. Without a vocation, man comes to nought.
It is given to man to judge the free will actions of a man, vice or virtue. The gay agenda demands equality for the actions of man, rather than the man himself. Acts are not citizens or persons and may be judged.

“and the church is next.” The threat against the church is much greater than stated because of the real threat is politics and orchestrated arguments driving public opinion.  It’s what destroyed the old Soviet union, and is destroying America, and Europe.  Whatever political side sends you constant emails - unsubscribe. Throw the junk mail away and don’t read the garbage.

Thank you, Mary De Voe, for telling I’ll burn in your hell created by your god.  I’ll see you there for being judgemental.  Your Jesus said your kind will be there.  In the meanwhile, in this world, those who support equality will continue to win. Your god has lost, Mary De Voe.  It tried and we dropped a house on it - splat! 

I’ll keep a warm seat for your in your hell, Mary De Voe, if I get there first.  You save one for me if you get there first.  You can’t achieve playing harps because your judgementalism that goes against your Jesus is going to place you there.  You can count all the beads to try to avoid it, but none of it will do you good.  You’ll shovel coal forever.

Thank you for your post Barbara.  Very interesting.  I learned something today!  Thank you again.

“They rightly understood that marriage is the cornerstone of a society.”  Actually, Pat, marriage as we know it, a promise of monogamous love between a man and a woman, is a relatively recent phenomenon.  Marriage, up through the first quarter of the 20th century in this country, was a business contract intended to guarantee and control the distribution of property to future generations.  It had nothing to do with love and little to do with monogamy for the males - females were considered property so were held to a higher standard of obedience to their masters/husbands.  Women couldn’t own property or work outside the home.  The only way they could ensure that they would have a home should all of their male relatives die was to get married.  There always have been and still are societies in the world which have done well without formal marriage as we know it today in the U.S.  Even anthropologists will tell you that historically the idea of marriage, or coupling of any kind, has been a fluid rather than constant idea, changing with the needs of the society in question and the moment in history being considered.  It is NOT a “cornerstone” of a society in general.  And the exorbitant number of perks given to those who enter into the institution are, for the most part, expensive for our society and not at all justifiable when one considers that marrieds do MUCH less (as indicated by numerous studies) for extended family and their communities than their single counterparts. 

Mary, if you believe we feed the government then stop taking all of those financial perks you take as a married (I assume) citizen.  Either that or, as a fair-minded Christian, fight for ALL citizens who “feed the government” to get the same kick-backs that you do.  However,  don’t say the Church should be able to define an institution financially supported by the government.  If you’re willing to take what the government hands you, you are complicit in its actions regarding marriage.

I’m starting to wonder if it’s even worth continuing with the system we have, founded on Enlightenment secularist principles that it is, and if we should just try and separate from this land and build a Catholic country in North America.

Naomi: Do not cajole the devil. He is not laughing.

barbara: “you can’t bite the hand that feeds you.”
“We, the people, feed the government”

@Starzec: “Fascinating.  I knew a woman six months pregnant (and showing) and still got married in the church in white no less.  Priest was all for it. How does this differ from same sex marriage?  Same rules/ laws broken.  Just as sinful.”
The woman carrying a child can consent to a covenant: “two beome one” in body, in the flesh and in their soul, because she can. Same-sex cannot “two become one” even those who say that they have “two become one” because same-sex cannot “two become one.”.

To those citing Denmark:  THIS IS NOT DENMARK!!  We have the US Constitution which expressly FORBIDS the government at any level from interfering with the right to freely worship. I am certain someone tried to sue the Church for not being able to receive communion or other sacraments and the courts have said NO.
+
If your faith in God and the Jesus as your savior is so strong, why do you lament so?  “And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do” (Lk 12:3-5).  Methinks thou protests too much or ye have little faith.  Which is it? Or maybe you are expecting something more from God, like a smiting? 
+
Fascinating.  I knew a woman six months pregnant (and showing) and still got married in the church in white no less.  Priest was all for it. How does this differ from same sex marriage?  Same rules/ laws broken.  Just as sinful. 
+
Someone posted “Nothing can come except what God wills..” If people truly believed that, this blog post would not have been written.

If you don’t want same-sex couples to be married, you must advocate for the COMPLETE separation of Church and state.  But be aware, that would mean advocating for the COMPLETE removal of the over 1000 state and federal perks, financial and social, that are engrained in law.  You, as a married, would no longer enjoy insurance premiums that would include you, your spouse, and as many children as you might have for the same cost as single-parent families with one child (and don’t criticize single parenting; many are single parents due to widowhood).  You would no longer get tax benefits for yourselves as a couple or for having children (don’t bother with the argument that you get those breaks because you are raising future tax payers because MANY times those children don’t grow up to contribute much at all).  Your travel would be a la carte rather than under “family packages” whose costs are subsidized by the higher-per-individual costs paid by singles.  Your life would get a LOT more expensive.  If you are willing to advocate and vote for the dissolution of all of these benefits that marrieds get simply for walking down an aisle, then you will also get to define the status of marriage and you will have the control.  Until then, you can’t bite the hand that feeds you.

The government in Denmark has forced clergy to do same sex marriages.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages

Another interesting piece of information is that this year, Judge Solomon Metzger ruled a New Jersey Christian retreat house associated with the United Methodist Church could not refuse to rent its premises out for a homosexual wedding.

Come on—who is really being hurt by this? Why are you loosing sleep?
.
The right to marriage will not be taken away. You’ll just have to live with it.
.
It is true that the Church is threatened. It’s loosing it relevance in secular life—at it’s about time!

@The devil, prince of the world. Move over, prince, Jesus Christ, King and Sovereign of the world is here. You will love the Lord, your God with your whole heart, your whole mind, your whole strength and your neighbor as yourself” Jesus Christ, True God and True Man, Lord of all.

David Guard:
“Gay marriages which exist were not created by the Supreme Court.”
Gays call their relationship with God and another soul: “marriage”. Marriage is a covenant amongst two human souls and God their Creator and Endower of human and unalienable human rights; included is the constitutional amendments. Without God the atheist has nothing, not even citizenship. Without God the gay agenda has nothing not even a hold on our language and the usurpation of the definition of matrimony and the human being, body and soul.

nAoMi: .
“Pat Archbold’s hatred for Obama will earn him a place in hell.”

So, nAoMi: God put you in charge of Hell, that would mean that you are the devil. HMMMM just sayin’.

Legally Mary this isn’t true though I respect your views.  Gay marriages which exist were not created by the Supreme Court.  They were legalized at the state level, sometimes by judges and sometimes by the legislative process.  Further, a constitutional amendment is not required to legalize gay marriage.  It could happen through a variety of ways but it’s too early to tell.  I anticipate seeing a flood of litigation, and it seems more likely that the issue will be revolved through the democratic process we have in place.

The gay agenda is asking the USSC to CREATE marriage for them. This would be a new and different amendment that must be ratified by the states.

Mary de Voe:
.
Oh, boo hoo—you poor things!
.
Mary—that was a lot of logical twisting you just displayed to convince yourself that Catholics are victims.
.
In general, PA, you, and all the other fear mongers here are just expressing your lack of faith in the integrity of your Church.
.
Do you want cheese with your whine?

TWO SAME SEX INDIVIDUALS MUST BE MARRIED TO APPLY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTION OF THEIR MARRAIGE AND THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE THESE TWO CITIZENS ARE THE SAME SEX AND THEIR MARRIAGE IS IMPOSSIBLE. The gay agenda is seeking to have the Supreme Court redefine the equal protection amendment under the law. Only persons are protected under the Fourteenth Amendment not their free will actions. Roe said a woman could kill her unborn baby. Gay marriage says that a man is a woman/husband and a woman is a man/wife. Does the Supreme Court have the authentic power or authority to redefine the human being’s immortal soul? Isn’t that the realm of God, the church and the free will of the sovereign person? God does not contradict Himself, therefore, this is atheism unleashed on the people and against the establishment of religion, the First Amendment.

David,
That elephant’s inserted into every conversation on this website.I wouldn’t be overly concerned.

nAoMi:
The canon of the Catholic Church is the Rule of Law for the Church, just like the state has the Constitution. Working to draw souls to Christ, the Catholic Church has never approved or accepted the sins of man as a Rule of Law. That the Catholic Church has no statute of limitations on child abuse as compared to the public schools 90 days statute of limitation, I would say that discrimination against Catholic sinners is greater than prosecution of public school sinners.

There seems to be a lot of insecurity that is being posted here.  The only explanation seems to be that there is an elephant in the room that we aren’t talking about—the child sexual abuse problem in the Catholic Church.  I love the church.  I really do because I am a member of it.  But facts are facts.  The church teaches that masturbation, premarital sex,  and all forms of homosexuality are wrong.  Yet we know that countless young people have been abused by the institution.  The church therefore has little credibility on the issue of sex.  We’d all be better off doing what the Pope is urging us to do, and that is to love our neighbor and be compassionate.  Our Catholic faith, at its best, is very compelling when we do that.

If a pharmacist can refuse to dispenses contraception and a Catholic Hospital can refuse to abort—even when it is an inevitable miscarriage and the mother’s life is in danger—be assured that a Catholic priest can refuse to marry a same-sex couple.
.
Pat Archbold’s hatred for Obama will earn him a place in hell.

One individual here calls the Church “this outdated institution.” It seems rather hard to call an institution “outdated” which has survived the Roman Empire, the Dark Ages and a slew of other old and venerable institutions such as the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Third Reich, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union, the British Empire—you could go on and on. It seems rather to be curiously immune from outdated-ness. A better term for it would be “timeless.”

In addition Ignatz, Didn’t Henry VIII write an Act of Supremacy making himself the Head of the Church of England? The Queen is still the Head of the Church of England. Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Church of England is a woman pope. Now the U.S government will try to emulate that Act of Supremacy over the Catholic Church in America, but it will fail because the U. S. Constitution is the only form of government that guarantees FREEDOM on the face of the earth.

Ignatz: The government will force the Catholic Church to perform gay weddings, not for gays to be married, but for the Catholic Church to be destroyed, penalized to death and to impose tyranny upon the Sovereign Person of God. The State will impose itself on the Catholic Church without the principles of the separation of church and state.

James Cantrell “If the “Church becomes irrelevant”, it will because of the outdated religious nonsense and superstition that it teaches…...

Seeking to keep the masses in “Chains & Bondage of Fear” - all for it’s own power & glory.
A total throw back to the Dark Ages.

A positive sign is that many people are seeing thru this hypocrisy and rejecting this outdated institution.”

The Catholic Church is the Body of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. The devil has been trying to destroy God ever since his creation as Lucifer, the Great Angel of Light. Satan fell from the heavens as lightening into the bowels of hell. I can only surmise that homosexual behavior is man’s attempt to reach the bowels of hell. The devil will not accept homosexual behavior as worship. Not that I want the devil’s support, but the devil only accepts fornication as worship.

JERRY: The gay agenda and gays in particular are “USEFUL IDIOTS” to the devil who is jealous of the TRUTH, the Son of God, Jesus Christ. In perverting the TRUTH, the gays are doing the devil a favor whether they realize it or not. The devil’s favorite tool is to make people believe he does not exist. You will believe in hell when you get there. Mother Angelica.

KCThomas: It was so in St. Paul’s time. St. Paul said to drive our the man living with mother so that the devil could destroy his flesh.

Lisa Kaiser: The gay agenda has infiltrated the Military because GIs (government issue) must obey the government. Chaplains are being ordered to not read the bible that says that homosexual practice is disordered, soon to be the “our Father” since no gay individual is a father. West Point chapel was ordered to host a gay wedding. The matter is “WE, the people” own the public square in joint and common tenancy. West Point, and all. Government does not own anything and our taxes are owned by the taxpayer even as the taxes are administered by the administration. Therefore, “We, the people” must have say in how our money is spent. And it is the government that can perpetrate a coop to overturn our Constitutional form of government. The HHS Mandate has already proved that Obama can do anything he chooses including crown himself emperor. See you in the Gulag in the United State of Atheism.

CatholicHusker: I owe you a capital “C”
“The Prop 8 ruling was not on the merits—the people who appealed the case did not have standing to do so.  The combined effect of the two rulings is that states still have the ability to define marriage through their own processes.” The only people who have repudiated their citizenship are those claiming to be atheists, rejecting our founding principles, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The atheist disenfranchises himself when he rejects our Creator endowed unalienable rights for all citizens. The court said that the atheist “may go her own way” that is, only she can impose atheism on herself, not on us.  The court disenfranchised the citizens who brought Proposition 8 for appeal. Judge Vaughn Walker presided over the Ninth Circuit Court which ruled against Proposition8. Vaughn Walker is a practicing homosexual with vested interest and conflict of interest in the decision, who had NOT the decency to recuse himself, that is step down, power hungry dictatorship. To protect this miserable miscarriage of JUSTICE the court have said that the people have no standing. It is Vaughn Walker who has no standing and ought to be derided from the bench, driven out.  ONE CITIZEN WITH CITIZENSHIP HAS THE CONSTITUTIONAL BLESSING TO PROCURE TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR THE MANY.

atholicHusker:
While reading your comment, I recognized the bait and switch used by some homosexual activists. First, we argue the constitutionality of gay marriage and then switch to gay unions. Gay unions have been rejected by the gay agenda. Gay unions have been offered as a remedy in many states. No, this argument is about tyranny, calling something that can never be a covenant between two human souls, gay marriage, about the court validating that a man’s sphincter can legally be described as a “bride”, that a female can be legally introduced as a husband or father. The gay marriage agenda is an exercise is in absolute vacuity, in other words nonsense, or does it make sense to you that a man may legally be acknowledged as a bride?

I am not so convinced this battle is over. Our first effort should be to understand completely the narrowness of the rulings and no allow the opposition to frame it in terms other than what it was. This ruling does not say states cannot pass laws to restrict marriage to one man and one woman. It says if they do legalize same-sex unions at the state level, they must be recognized at the Federal level. This is a slippery slope because now any one state can pass ANY legislation for ANY purpose and then insist -by this ruling - that it should be recognized at the Federal level. This will by a tyranny of the nation by one state (most likely California or Oregon). 

The answer to the victory for marriage is for the Church to unite in prayer, Eucharistic Adoration and Eucharist processions in public, and constant novenas to Our Lady Help of Christians. You have St. Bosco’s advertisement to the right on your page. Well he predicted the Church will be safely anchored on the Eucharist and Marian devotion to Our Lady Help of Christians. Well, I say lets get going on this. Contact your priests and Bishops and request these in all the parishes and we cannot let up. The Church had its victory at Lepanto only because all the people prayed in unison with the Bishops for victory. When are we going to wake up and see that this is the answer to this dilemma. Don’t you all believe in the power of prayer anymore?

Hey, James Cantrell, the only thing keeping the masses in “Chains & Bondage” is sin-disobedience and rebellion against our Creator.  Things are so bad now that the average American puts their beloved idols, sins and vices even before their own health and well being and BEFORE THEIR OWN CHILDREN.  The only total throw back to the Dark ages is YOU my friend—you are spiritually blind and morally bankrupt!

If the “Church becomes irrelevant”, it will because of the outdated religious nonsense and superstition that it teaches…...

Seeking to keep the masses in “Chains & Bondage of Fear” - all for it’s own power & glory.
A total throw back to the Dark Ages.

A positive sign is that many people are seeing thru this hypocrisy and rejecting this outdated institution.

Anyone who is surprised by this decision is in denial about the condition of the Church and our morally bankrupt society. Once Humanae Vitae was ignored, pilloried and maligned by the clergy and Bishops the dye was cast. Sex was reduced to personal pleasure without responsibility or consequences. In 1973 contraceptive failure was corrected by abortion as a final solution to the problem. All of it was done in the name of personal freedom and “Choice”. Add surrender on the issue(s) by the “Church Nice” and the result is predictable. Church was a paper tiger on Irresponsible Sexual Behavior and this Godless administration knew. Sadly, this is only the beginning of a rapid downward spiral. We will not recognize this country by 2016. Transformation for sure. We have earned it and the Good Lord is allowing our wish to be fulfilled. This is not going to end well spiritually or economically.

The great CHAOs is not far away. There will be a great erosion of sexual morality. There will be marital combinations galore. It may not be far away when some will ask for animal wives or husbands; some may like to marry mother or sister or father or brother. Also there is no need for any permanence There will be plenty of fights, killings, cheatings, and diseases. Religions that stand against will be attacked and there will be a kind of lovelessness and dissatisfaction everywhere.

All the more reason why the government should never have had anything to do with marriage.  I have wondered for a while if the more prudent thing for all Christians to do is to reject state marriages and be content with church marriages. If I had it to do over I don’t think I would have registered my marriage with the state.  There are plenty of other ways to secure the same legal advantages state marriages afford.

[ The gay-agenda is not about normalizing homosexual behavior, it is about denying the human soul and the freedom of the human person to respond to God within and without the church. ]

And what is the divorce agenda about?

[The gay-agenda is about the atheism that will finally obliterate all unalienable rights of man, enslave man and make of him a beast of burden to the state. ]

Most of the gay people I know are Christians.  It doesn’t have anything to do with atheism, even obliquely.

Posted by Mary De Voe on Wednesday, Jun 26, 2013 8:58 PM (EDT):@Jerry: The gay-agenda is not about normalizing homosexual behavior, it is about denying the human soul and the freedom of the human person to respond to God within and without the church. The gay-agenda is about the atheism that will finally obliterate all unalienable rights of man, enslave man and make of him a beast of burden to the state. See communism.

Mary De Voe, I’m glad you clarified what it’s all about.  I’m gay and I didn’t know any of that.  I’ll have to tell my gay friends, most of whom believe in gods and are religious and belong to churches (a few belong to synagogues, but I imagine those don’t count).  I’ll have to tell them that they now must become Atheist (like me).  I need to inform them they must all become communist rather than being anti-communist (like me - I guess I now have to become communist).  Being gay and always hearing about this mysterious “gay agenda,” I’m glad you’re the one who finally told me what it was.  Every gay I’ve asked about the “gay agenda” had no clue about it.  I guess they were too busy trying to earn a living, pay their bills and their taxes, like me.  We were just too consumed with that to see what the “gay agenda” is all about.  Thank you, Mary De Voe, for letting us gays know.  If it wasn’t for people like you, us gays wouldn’t know about our “agenda.”  By the way, may I ask, how did you become such an expert?  We need people like you to make everyone Atheist and communist and deny inalienable rights because if the “gay agenda” says we must, well, I guess we must.

JD!

What lies and paranioa you speew. One has only to read the past decisions/records of each justice to knoe how he or she was going to vote re same sex marriage. There were no surprises. You seem to know nothing of yhe Courts past decisions that inevitably led to yesterdsys decisions on same sex marrisge.  Youmight want to do some reading on that topic

No one seems to consider the pressure that may have been brought to bear on the justices.  By that, I mean threats.  That’s how fringe groups or movements operate.  It would be nice if the media would look into any serious threats launched at the justices if they didn’t rule the left way.

Whoops, I menat Pat’s article above is silly, etc. Hard to tell the whackadoodles apart.

Jimmy Akin’s article is silly.  Marriage is not dead. The real danger to marriage is not gay people but all the straight people who divorce. The RCC has always been free to refuse marriage to people who do not follow or meet the RCC’s teachings . That is not going to change. If the RCC in the US is worried about that, it can bow out of the civil/legal aspects of performing marriges in the US?  The dangers to the RCCatenot external but internal.  The RCC’s corrupt hierarchy is its own worst enemy

One can only hope you are correct sir. The Vatican Rape Mafia needs to go away.

Mary Sue,

Satan absolutely likes equality.  It all started when he wanted to be equal to God & convinced Adam and Eve to become gods along with him.  Sounds like a socialist paradise to me!!  You’re asking for things which aren’t equal, which aren’t even the same thing, to be equal.  How can this lead to anything other than further disappointment and increased frustration?  Apples and oranges, my friend, apples and oranges.  And you and the gay/lesbian community’s frustration will only mount and increase as it realizes official recognition doesn’t bring it the anticipated satisfaction & fulfillment it expected.  In fact, the disparity between the increased dissatisfaction that will ensue, when compared to the feelings of satisfaction that was expected, will lead to further ravenous irrationality and rage aimed at those perceived as responsible.  Take it to the bank.  But congrats, I guess, on your “win”.

How much pressure is the Church receiving to ordain women based on laws that bar gender discrimination?  To my knowledge, basically none.  Your proof that Obama will come after the Church is that he says he won’t.  So by that logic we should all be thrilled that at any moment he’s going to become a great Pro-life advocate, since he keeps indicating the opposite. Civil marriage is redefined, but marriage isn’t dead, and such hyperbole doesn’t help.

I don’t think the Church will be forced to perform same-sex weddings.  Like when we refused to place foster kids with same sex couples, we were just kicked out of the game altogether.  Likewise weddings - priests will be prohibited from acting as agents of the state and signing marriage licenses, so that couples will have to have a civil wedding in addition to their church wedding.

Is this a bad thing?  That couples who were not very serious about religion anyway won’t be bothered to have both civil and religious services?  I don’t know.  It might deprive some lazy couples of sacramental graces they’d have otherwise.  But for those who actually make the effort, they’ll enter their married life knowing that it is both civil and religious.

I wonder if there is not a blessing in disguise! Now that the Serpent has got new adepts. Here in Canada we have had this reality for the past few years. Now the Parishes can start teaching the Community aspect of marriage. And they might just tighten up their requirements for marriage. Just because the Government says that there is no such thing as One man one woman marriage, God in his wisdom has not left us Orphans! Let’s start working our Catechesis of Marriage in the Parishes and start showing forth the Gospel reality of Marriage: Christ the Head of the Church, Christ the Centre of the Church, the Family the home of the Faith! Not so bad is it. Just that we will have to stand firm if we are to defend our turf! If the Muslims can have their laws, then so can we!! By George!

I will preach on marriage this Sunday. I will preach the truth given by Christ to his Church.

Many comments bristling for a fight. The continued assault on our faith and civilization is most infuriating, true. Unfortunately, we can no longer legislate our faith. The “right” side of the political spectrum does little these past 30 yrs but use the family values voters to advance its agenda of greed. The jihadists will eliminate the filth (and then try to crush us) when they fill the vacuum of values. To my mind, we can change the culture one soul at a time. It will takes decades, or even centuries to re-build our faith to where most see it as beneficial to the civilization. At mass this morning, the priest remembered hearing bishop sheen comment in 1973 that “Christendom” is dead. But “Christianity” lives on.  Keep the faith. pray. This is our chance to bring more grace upon USA.

All who support gay marriage should be ashamed of themselves. It is never to be permitted under any circumstances. Those who call themelves Catholics and won’t uphold the Truth - Woe to you. You should be especially ashamed. No one has the right to do evil. It is a duty to oppose gay marriage with all of our strength!

That Obama and his people got away with not defending a law passed by congress before the courts, and the Supreme Court ignored two votes of the people of California shows how far we have gone from our original concept of government by the people. Things will continue to get worse, as we have seen with the harassment of pro family organizations by the IRS and the Obama care mandate that requires religious institutions to pay for medical procedures that violate its teachings. Make no mistake Obama and his people are secularists who believe that religious people should keep their religion in their buildings of worship and submit to the authority of the government elite in everything else.

One answer is to do like Mexico does, where civil marriage is what takes place first, with the religious marriage that follows several days or weeks later.  The legal and civil are in a separate universe from the religious.

That being said, the abolition of hetero-normativity is likely to hurt children the most, and to completely disrupt family lineage, where children can trace their families back through the generations.  The Handmaiden’s Tale will become a reality, but unlike Atwood’s fiction, the young women with the fertile wombs will be exploited, not by Christian fundamentalist heterosexual couples, but by gay couples seeking children.

To Catholichusker - sorry about the name thing - I am not an attorney but I understand the reason the people who did not have standing took this on because the state would not. I just look around and I am so afraid for my grandchildren and for myself.Our country has lost it’s morals - not about gay marriage but 70% of all black children are born into single parent homes,abortion the day before birth is ok in many places, we have become a welfare state with obama phones, obama food stamps exploding, obamacare, unemployment,the IRS scandal, Bengazi,Eric Holder and on and on. I just feel in my soul this is not good. I have 2 close gay couple friends whom I love dearly. It isn’t about them it is about my Church. I am Irish and I know what the English did to my grandparents and great grandparents. They fought back but I am afraid the American clergy won’t have the courage or determination to fight back. I am just scared.

Why is it that those who are well off are the ones talking gay marriage?
Those who are not so well off..the poor and the unemployed are too terribly busy trying to deal with reality not fantasy.

See this paragraphy

If one looks at the countries which have totally legalized gay marriage, and if we do it honestly, we don’t see any destruction of family life.  Heterosexual married couples are not losing any rights with the legalization of gay marriage.  The quality of life for children in these societies is very high.  Consider countries like Denmark, Canada, and others objectively.  Moreover, religious institutions are not facing discrimination in any of these nations.  The Catholic Church, and other denominations as well, are able to limit marriage to heterosexual couples, and they are able to practice their faiths without government intrusion.  I’m more worried about the number of abortions in this country.  Europeans and Israelis are much more pro-life than we are.  These nations also have lower crime rates than we have.  Church communities should emphasize human dignity and the sanctity of life as a response to these problems.

@Anne Parks (I won’t insult you by changing your name as you did for me)

The Prop 8 ruling was not on the merits—the people who appealed the case did not have standing to do so.  The combined effect of the two rulings is that states still have the ability to define marriage through their own processes.

As for the Obama administration’s lack of respect for religious freedom, I agree with you.  The administration has not been a strong advocate for the Free Exercise clause of the Constitution in many instances, especially regarding the birth control mandate.  Although, to its credit, the Obama administration has been very strong proponent of federal grants to faith-based organizations, including Catholic organizations.

The Supreme Court, by contrast, has strongly supported the First Amendment.  The Hosanna-Tabor decision, which was unanimous, makes it absolutely, crystal clear that there is no chance—none, zero, nada—that the Catholic Church could ever be forced to perform gay marriages.  It simply is not going to happen, no matter what the Obama administration tries to do in its last 3 years.

To Catholichuckster- you can talk constitution and federalism all you want but Obama has proven he can do whatever he wants with executive order, through his czars,EPS,HHS and proclaimation. This ruling negated the democratic VOTE of the people in CA who did not want same sex marriage. So much for the Constitution and states rights.Wait until the govt declares it a “civil right” and churches will be forced to perform and recognize gay marriage or they will be in violation of Federal Law. It is my firm belief that this administration is trying to do all it can to remove religion of any kind from the entire culture.

In addition to prayers for religious freedom, see the USCCB action sites:

http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/marriage-and-family/
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/index.cfm

You can start your own group at your parish, check out the materials at
http://www.catholicwitnesses.org/

First of all, I am not Roman Catholic. Secondly, this article was posted on Real Clear Religion, which makes it a public web site. Therefore the public can comment. What I wrote is true, American mainline Protestantism has surrendered completely to the secular culture. There is a relationship between women’s liberation and gay liberation. When my wife, a PhD in history was teaching American Women’s History through the History Department at a major university in the Midwest, the Women’s Study Committee demanded to meet with her to tell her that they were concerned that she did not present a correct pro-Lesbian point of view during her classes. Women’s ordination leads to a fundamental distortion of the historic Christian Faith because the Priest is a image of Jesus Christ, especially during the Eucharist. If that image is changed our image of Christ and eventually of God Himself is changed. There is, however, a very important place for women in roles of real leadership in the Church. In the Orthodox Church women serve on the Parish Council that actually controls the non-spiritual affairs of the parish. They also serve as delegates to the convention and Board of Trustees of the Archdiocese and participate in the election of Bishops. It is a form of the heresy of clericalism to give all power to the clergy and to treat the Faithful as second class members of the Church. As far as the gay issue is concerned, the Bible and Holy Tradition could not be clearer. Indeed, nature itself is clear. Gay and Lesbian sex is unnatural, and therefore contrary to the will of God.

The doom and gloom of the article is completely misplaced and unwarranted.
And I say this from the perspective of a conservative, pro-life Constitution.

Our Constitution does two things that made DOMA untenable from a constitutional perspective.  First, it creates a federalist system that delegates most of the work of law-making to the states.  Second, by virtue of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, it guarantees that the law cannot treat different classes of people unequally.

The secular institution of marriage, which is separate and distinct from the religious institution of marriage, has traditionally been defined by the states.  The federal government has traditionally deferred to the states in this regard, and recognized whatever unions that the state government chose through its legislature to recognize.  DOMA overrode the principles of federalism that led to this deference, and decreed that the federal government would no longer recognize same-sex unions even if states, through the exercise of the democratic process, chose to do so in their states.

By doing so, DOMA also violated the Equal Protection Clause.  It dictated that lifelong unions between a man and a woman would receive state-sanctioned benefits that would not be provided to lifelong unions between two people of the same gender, even though the state legislature had chosen to recognize such unions as legitimate.  In other words, it institutionalized discrimination against a certain class of people.

So the Supreme Court simply upheld basic principles of federalism and equal treatment under the law.  This certainly does not mean that the Supreme Court is somehow poised to start forcing churches to marry gay people.  This simply will not ever happen, because the free exercise clause of the First Amendment guarantees that it cannot happen.  Indeed, just last year, the Supreme Court affirmed on a 9-0 basis that churches have absolute discretion to choose their ministers.  The principles articulated in that decision also dictate that churches have absolute discretion as to which marriages they will recognize.  That is why no one has ever seriously suggested that the Catholic Church be forced to marry atheists, or protestants, or muslims, even though unions between such people have long been recognized by the government.

what a load of Catholic bull !@#$%

So what are you doing here, troll?  Shove off, then!

This would not be happening had the large so called mainline Protestant denominations not surrendered to the secular society. Had they remained faithful to Biblical morality and taught their people to follow God’s teaching instead of a society in rebellion against all that is holy, this would not have happened. However, the Episcopalians, Presbyterian Church USA, the United Church of Christ, and Evangelical Lutherans Churches all first caved into the pressure to ordain women and that led to feminist theology and from that to the surrender to the gay liberation movement. This is all because they rejected Holy Tradition at the Reformation and then cast aside the Bible during the last century through allowing liberals to take over their seminaries and falling victim to the so called historical critical method of Bible study. Once they cast aside both Tradition and the Bible they had no standards and were easy victims to the secularists.

Ted,
You don’t stop loving a child or family member because of choices they make or whom they love.But it’s a presumption to believe a parent that disagrees with a child’s choice of partner or lifestyle can not still fully love that child/relative & at the same time,be able to respectfully state the parent’s opposing beliefs.
I know there are readers here who have experienced that very situation.And it doesn’t just narrowly apply to homosexuality.There are numerous other situations where family members hold differing views but still continue to love each other.

This shouldn’t change any of our deep commitment to our faith. In fact, it should enhance it. W took marriage, Catholic teachings and schooling for granted and now we are paying the price. God may punish with hurricane, I don’t know. But I believe he is punishing us now for our lax, casual and take it for granted attitude towards living our faith in every moment and everyday life. Buckle up. It’s only getting started. I’m to apocalyptic minded person, but any purge, great or small will first come with suffering and penance. This is probably ours. Some more will conform to the atheistic and secular agendas because its easy and means going along. Others will delve deeper into living the Faith. W all know how the story ends, so choose wisely.

what a load of Catholic bull shit

Oh Mary De Voe,
Right on cue and so very predictable ! :)

The standard of Justice for all nations is the newly conceived sovereign person who constitutes our nation from the very first moment of his existence. It is the duty of the state to protect and provide for the virgin’s innocence to deliver Justice to the citizens. Aborting virgins and innocence, the state has no Justice to deliver. Sanctions were removed from sodomy but the government could not change the sodomites.

@Centrist: you impugn pious individuals for their exercise of freedom in their relationship with the Supreme Sovereign Being, those suffering the slings and arrows of unbelievers such as yourself. You claim to be Catholic while rejecting Catholic teaching, then rant on about unhealthy people. What about your sick soul?

@Mike horn: “The churches have always had the ability to say no to marriages. A priest can refuse two Buddhists, for example. Nothing here changes that or even tries to.” Marriage is a Sacrament and a covenant of human souls over which the Catholic Church guards. Unbaptized persons my not receive other Sacraments. “This article is not worthy of a faith that claims to be thoughtful, profound. This article is absurd, hateful, fear mongering idiocy.” You have stopped thinking and become a bully.

The Holy Mother of God, the Blessed Virgin Mary is our Mother, given to us by the Son of God, Jesus. That you besmirch her virginity and innocence and refuse her immaculate heart does not change her love for us. It only shows the shallowness of your love for Mary. You proliferate the work of the Great Angel of Light, Lucifer, driven from heaven by St. Michael. “Legion” as he is called, and bully citizens into accepting your version of love and tenderness all the while you do not know love and tenderness and reject love and tenderness when you find some. Be careful. It is a long way down.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Herewith is the First Amendment: “...or prohibit the FREE EXERCISE thereof; “and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The FREE EXERCISE will be infringed by the inclusion of atheism, and/or same sex so-called marriage. Proposition 8 is the people petitioning Government for redress of grievances. The “Government” does not see or want to see that imposing same sex so-called marriage upon the people and our constitutional posterity, the “Government” inflicts a mortal blow to the truth. Gays call it civil rights but the gays have rejected civil unions, the only thing the state can sanction. Marriage is a sacrament of two souls, another belief that gays reject. A petition for the redress of grievances inflicted by the Government in removing sanctions against sodomy and make-believe male brides and female grooms, disenfranchises the whole truth in a court of law. It is an open lesion in the body legal and politic. God is Justice. The atheistic state has jettisoned God’s Justice for the Justice of Mob Mentality at Lenin’s leisure. After the earthquake, the tsunami, enough to raise Noah’s ark.

The chid-bearing argument is absurd. There were straight marriages between people who can not bear children that were blessed by the Church.

The churches have always had the ability to say no to marriages. A priest can refuse two Buddhists, for example. Nothing here changes that or even tries to.

This article is not worthy of a faith that claims to be thoughtful, profound. This article is absurd, hateful, fear mongering idiocy.

Abigail and Ted, thank you for your amazing comments. Yes, prepare to be hammered by the sanctimonious conservative lot who have nothing to offer but:  excommunication, heretic, satan, evil, woe, he’ll and other tired words. Sometimes when reading what can only be called rants, I have troubled distinguishing them from midde eastern zealots seen on television.
When I think of all the evil and misery perpetrated on mankind by religion (especially the Catholic church through the ages) , it is a disgrace..  Not our FAITH, but the organized exclusive club that organized religion has become.
No, I will not change to another religion because this is mine and I want to be part of the millions who will try to enlighten my Church to love, caring , and inclusivity .
Once again Abigail and Ted, you are both a bright spot on this very dark and hate filled comment page.
Ok all, I am ready for your tired, words to attack me but they really only show you as unhealthy people.

Ted:

You can still love a child without approving of their actions.  If one, or two, or all three of my sons told me they were gay, I’d still love them.  But I wouldn’t approve of their lifestyle, and I’d let them know that.  The same would apply if they became gangbangers, or drug addicts, or serial killers, or trial attornies (well, maybe not the last one…).  You love the sinner, and hate the sin.  With today’s LGBT movement, they will not distinguish between the two.

As a Catholic, my faith is not affected one iota by this.

Then maybe you should look into the Episcopalians.  They could use the membership, and something tells me you’d be a lot more comfortable there…

The Catholic Church sometimes refers to itself metaphorically as “holy mother church.”  Leaving aside the telling fact that the Church admits no women to positions of influence or authority, the hierarchy might find it enlightening to learn what real mothers with children can teach us, what real parental love can mean as far as gay women and men are concerned.

Mother and fathers react in different ways when they learn that their child is homosexual. Some are saddened or shocked by the news.  Being gay is not necessarily something they would have wanted for their child or expected.  Perhaps they don’t understand why or what it means.  Some may wish that it were not true. Incredibly in 2013, there are even some parents who reject the child for religious, social or other reasons. 

But after the initial confusion or shock, many parents respond to their gay child with love.  And since love is, among other things, a way of knowing it can lead to new understanding. It can allow parents to learn from their daughters and sons, to see the world through their eyes and their experience.  It prompts them to question old assumptions and values.  Love has the power to transform them. 

The same is true for other family members, friends, neighbors and colleagues.  Knowing and caring about someone who is gay changes you. That is because you know in the deepest way possible that your sister or friend or uncle is a good, decent person because you know them through love.  You know them as a human being and understand that being gay is part of who they are.

This explains the big change in attitudes towards homosexuality and gay marriage. The whole conversation shifts radially when it’s my brother, daughter or friend that you are talking about.  Judgments about being “intrinsically disordered” or “evil” or a “threat to traditional marriage” are seen to be the neurotic projections or cruel distortions that they are.

The people who honor the humanity of gay people are doing so not because they are being trendy or have succumbed to relativistic morals.  They do so because they themselves have become more human in the very finest sense of the word.

And so when a religious leader says in reference to gay people as New York’s Cardinal Dolan did recently on television, “I love you, too,” it’s hard to know what he means.  In the context of his Church’s teaching and actions that cause real pain and damage to gay people, that statement sounds grotesque.  In this context, Holy Mother Church is a mean mother.

But it makes you wonder.  Are any of the bishops close to someone who is gay? Do they love a gay woman or man as a friend? Could they look such a person in the eyes and say, “I love you.  But it is sinful for you to show your love to someone with your full humanity, to express it sexually with tenderness and affection?”

And this is the essential fault in the Church’s teaching about homosexuality:  It is heartless and inhuman.  And now many people, including many Catholics, know and understand this. 

The hierarchy and priests take a solemn vow to live a life without physical affection, romantic love or intimacy. Perhaps this void in their human experience explains whey they can only talk about gay sex but never about gay love.  In seeing homosexuals as being “intrinsically disordered,” they are denying the possibility that there can be such a thing as gay love.  In this respect, the Church is heartless and dehumanizes homosexuals. 

The good cardinal and his fellow prelates look at gay men and women and see intrinsic disorder and talk about sinful sex. Happily, real mothers and fathers and more and more people look at this same group and see fellow human beings and talk about love and equality. 

Holy Mother Church needs to love the way real mothers do.

And I don’t understand those who say that the state should get out of marriage altogether now, or that the church should stop performing legally recognized marriage.  What sense does that make?  So you don’t like the state’s definition of marriage, so you think no one should have it?

Why does the state need to define marriage in the first place? 

If you care about marriage, don’t you care about keeping those rights for the people who choose to enter into the institution according to the teachings of their respective religion?

Yes, and they can define it however they want.  It’s none of my business.  Personally, I don’t see why a civil partnership between two adults needs to be based on a sexual relationship. 

And how will making church marriages non legally binding encourage young couples to get married in the church?  Yes, lets make it harder and more complicated than it already is for young people to receive the sacrament, because…I have no idea why

And how does separating the civil from the religious make it any more difficult?  They still would have to apply for a marriage license, and would still have to follow the Church’s requirements.  Other countries keep the two processes separate.

...and so heretics and apostates continued to dump gasoline on the flames as the inferno engulfed the spiritual, moral, and economic foundation of the USA… 

And to their homeland said LUKEWARM Catholics: “O AMERICA, IF TO SMOKE YOU TURN I SHALL NOT CEASE TO FIDDLE WHILE YOU BURN.”

And I don’t understand those who say that the state should get out of marriage altogether now, or that the church should stop performing legally recognized marriage.  What sense does that make?  So you don’t like the state’s definition of marriage, so you think no one should have it?  Marriage comes with real legal protections and rights.  If you care about marriage, don’t you care about keeping those rights for the people who choose to enter into the institution according to the teachings of their respective religion?

And how will making church marriages non legally binding encourage young couples to get married in the church?  Yes, lets make it harder and more complicated than it already is for young people to receive the sacrament, because…I have no idea why.  Because social conservatives are bitter and vindictive.

I find the so called “defenders” of marriage on this board to not only be extraordinarily juvenile and vindictive, but a far greater threat to the legal stability of my own marriage than the gay couples who can now participate in that institution.

Grow up and get a grip.  If anything is a comfort reading these, its knowing its the last scream of the dying hyena that is American social conservatism and its 30 year threat to religious liberty and freedom in our pluralistic society.

What silly hyberbole.  Conservatives are becoming a parody of themselves.

Marriage is dead?  News to me and my husband.  News to our friends.  News to my parents.  We’ve been living in a state with legal gay marriage for years.  It also happens to be one of the states with the lowest divorce rates.  ALL of our 30 something friends are married with children.  Marriage is dead…give me a break. 

BTW, the only married gay couple I know are two presbyterian pastors.  Most of the gay marriage activists I know are protestant clergy.  Hardly the type to be waging a “war on religion.”

The legal definition of marriage in the US has never been aligned with the Catholic sacrament of matrimony, which is why couples can get married without the intention to have children and can divorce.  No one has forced the church to change its position.

As a Catholic, my faith is not affected one iota by this.

And Jill who said she feels as she did on 9/11 - you are a sick, sad human being without a moral compass, to compare the joy of some people getting federal recognition for their relationship which you happen to disagree with to the brutal mass murder of 3000 people, many who were burned, crushed, and fell 100 stories to their deaths.  There are no words for such a moral disconnect.  What a visceral example of how extreme political conservativism, how confusing one’s personal faith with the need to force that faith on others, is a disease in the soul that makes one incapable of empathy and humanity.  People like you are a threat to the stability and cohesion of our society.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

Three things:

1)  Prop 8 would have been dead in any case, as the current regime in the state of California had no interest in enforcing it, no matter how SCOTUS ruled.

2)  The SCOTUS ruling on Prop 8 affects not just gay marriage, but the ability of a state’s people to change laws via referendum.  Now the exercise is meaningless, as the state can arbitrarily negate the will of the people.

3)  The solution is twofold:  the Church should stay with sacramental marriages only, and the State should get out of the marriage business entirely.  As the State has no interest in marriage as traditionally defined, then it should instead sanction civil partnerships between any two consenting adults, without a sexual relationship as a basis.  This would allow siblings, a parent and a particular child, two business partners, or two close platonic friends more benefits and rights than currently allowed.

John,  we cannot be a better country if we fail to obey God’s commands.  You seem to be confused in thinking that we have a right to do what we want to do; that homosexuals should have the right to actively pursue a homosexual lifestyle and in so doing, marry whom they want.  You seem to think that implies love and respect for others, in this case, homosexuals.  However, we do not have the right to do what we want.  We have the FREEDOM, not the right, to do what we want, and guess Who gave us that freedom?  God Himself.  If we fail to live in the manner that He lovingly commanded us to live, we will have exercised the freedom He gave us, but neither peace, nor respect for one another,  nor stability will come out of it.  You assume homosexuals are born homosexual, but there is not a shred of hard evidence supporting that.  The most that can be said about the studies conducted is that there could be some people born with the predisposition for same-sex attraction.  No one is bound by a predisposition to anything, John.  You also confuse the pronouncement of truth with “hate”.  That is liberal hogwash.  To state that something is wrong and unacceptable is not equivalent to a show of hate.  If it were so, neither parents nor teachers would be able to “teach” their children or students the difference between “good” and “less than good” or “outrightly bad” behavior.  We are very free to choose to reject God’s teaching.  But, there will be grave consequences if we do so and neither you nor I nor anyone else will be able to escape them.

With that individual who now says same-sex reparative therapy is wrong and doesn’t work (I forgot his name but was on CNN) and today’s court rulings, it’s time that this country stop hindering people from marrying whom they love, and now see them as equals in the sight of man and God. Perhaps this will also make us a better country where we respect all peoples, now including whom they love-be it man or woman- and maybe help the economy. Let’s let time tell and the next generation won’t carry on the hate most of you are feeling by using the ‘one man-one woman’ nonsense and see nothing wrong with whomever they were born to love.

Attention must surely be drawn to “Mankind’s Hidden Enemy” - the secret society of Freemasonry, that via Supreme court decisions, has had great infuence in the re-interpreting of the constitution of the United States, while other agendas and decisions have had devastating influences in systematically restricting and removing religion - especially Christianity; through having great influence in such as the banning of religious devotion publically; and in nullifying religious institutions.
The following quote is from Saint Maximilian Kolbe—“The Freemasons follow this principle above all: “Catholicism can be overcome not by logical argument but by corrupted morals.’ And so they over-whelm the souls of men with the kind of literature and arts that will most easily destroy a sense of chaste morals, and they foster sordid lifestyles in all phases of human life. As a result, the once strong characters of men are weakened, families are broken up by guilt laden hearts and unhealthy sorrowfulness continues to grow. When such persons are unable to shake off the miserable yoke they carry, they avoid the church or turn against Her…....”                 
We could write many books on each of these points Maximilian Kolbe has made, based on what has happened since he made those comments.
They all add up!

Gentlemen:

Very well, very well. All is dark.

Very well. What will you do?

I am not asking, “how will you fix it?” There may be no repairing the damage done prior to the second Advent. There may not even be any way to reduce the damage to something better than intolerable.

Very well. But what will you do?

Will you even bother to pray? People who are too despairing—who have perhaps trusted altogether too much in this world rather than placing all their treasure in heaven—are often too discouraged even to pray much. Oh, I don’t mean that they don’t say their Our Fathers and Hail Marys with reasonable regularity. But to actually hassle and haggle with God in a truly patriarchal or Davidic way you have to actually have hope: Hope in God, specifically, whose glory might yet be shown all the brighter because only He has the power to rescue us.

I’m not seeing a lot of that hope, in the attitudes here.

But let us say you muster up the hope to pray with sincerity and vigor. What will you do then?

Are you planning to retreat into the catacombs or to be heard in the streets?

Of course, a pattern of abuses can, at some point, require a people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth a separate and equal station which is their just right, in accord with the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.

It is not implausible that this government will “pull a Henry VIII,” dissolving and confiscating the property of whichever monasteries and churches and church-run hospitals and church-run schools and church-run adoption agencies and church-run orphanages refuse to act in accord with that secular morality through which vice has undergone apotheosis. Should that day come, what will you do? Will you fight? Will you arm yourselves? Will you shoot a man and prevent him going home to his wife (or maybe his husband) because he came to evict your priest from the rectory and your parishoners from their church property?

Well, never fear: It won’t come to that. That is to say: It won’t be so obvious as that. They’ll just fine your church $1000 a month more than it can possibly pay for the privilege of continuing to teach and practice faithfully. You will have to either refuse to pay the fine—and be accused of refusing to pay your taxes, for which you will be pilloried in the court of public opinion—or you will attempt to pay the unjust levy, until you run out of money and are required to shut down and sell the property. And if you take up arms at THAT point, why, you’ll merely be some deadbeats who couldn’t pay the mortgage or the property taxes, and who refused to pay their just debts.

So, no Ruby Ridge for Catholics. It won’t be the ATF evicting your church; it’ll be a bank officer and his assistants.

It should be clear that I’ve no intention of painting the situation less dark than it is. I am not accusing you of being unduly pessimistic.

But what do you plan to do?

As far as I can see, the only solution to this problem is for 50%+ of all American voters to fervently and obediently Catholic. Once that happens, we’ll have no problems at all.

To get there, all the existing Catholics must first become fervently and obediently Catholic. That is Item #1. Two more things follow:

#2: Evangelize everyone, prioritizing those whom they are least comfortable evangelizing; and,

#3: Love everyone self-sacrificially. Do you give blood as often as you can? Do you loan and give to those you know, without interest? DO you volunteer in the community? “Tithing” at above 10% of your pre-tax income (with the segment over 10% being proportionate to one’s wealth) would not by itself be enough; but such a classic and time-honored level of giving would certainly be the first hurdle to clear, if one is intent on doing something. Beyond that you must also forgive, and then love, your enemies. How many gay couples’ lawns have you mowed, at no charge, when you found they were too busy to do it?

The problem with techniques of evangelism has largely to do with the fact that the evangelical message is mistrusted. And why is it mistrusted? Because you don’t really love the person you’re trying to evangelize. You would rather win an argument than pour your efforts out to bring happiness to a dingy human person whose sins happen to be more distasteful to you than your own sins are. You do not love your neighbor as yourself.

And I am just the same. I commiserate with you in the impossibility of the task.

Nevertheless it is not enough any longer to simply avoid bringing scandal to your neighbors by avoiding conspicuous moral failure. It’s true that you must not ever gossip again, or look at pornography again, or over-report your work hours again. But that’s not enough any longer, if it ever was. Now you must show superhuman virtue, which by definition you cannot do in your own strength. (But the Holy Spirit is quite anxious to lead you into the good works He providentially sets in your path, that you might walk in them.)

Then you will either win enough souls to fix the problem, or at least cooperate with God’s grace in your life in such a way as to win your own soul more fervently to Him, so that when life is over you may face Him and not be ashamed. And even if everyone else fails to participate, at least the fall of civilization will not have been because you failed to participate.

So.

What will you do?

[@Ignatz: False. Priests act as officials for the State. In other nations, same sex persons have cried foul on that, making the State no longer recognize priests or deacons as officials of marriage, as absurd as that sounds.]

That has nothing to do with the fact that the Government doesn’t force the Catholic Church to recognize marriages it doesn’t wish to recognize, nor to marry people they don’t wish to marry.  And that’s MOST of the married couples in the United States.  The idea that the Government will force the Catholic Church to marry two guys is ludicrous, paranoid and unworthy of comment.

And I don’t see the Catholic Church demanding that no-fault divorce - which ALSO is opposed by the Catholic Church - be made illegal.  Nor are they demanding that second marriages after divorce - which are ALSO opposed by the Catholic Church - be made illegal. 

So we’re being more than a little selective, aren’t we?  Why don’t you insist that ALL civil marriage conform to the rules of the Catholic Church?

[Most gay and sodomite relationships are NOT some loving, monogamous lifelong commitment irregardless of what the media wants to portray]

However, same-sex marriage IS.  It is the action of people who want stable, lifelong, monogamous relationships.

@Ignatz: False. Priests act as officials for the State. In other nations, same sex persons have cried foul on that, making the State no longer recognize priests or deacons as officials of marriage, as absurd as that sounds. They seem to forget that Christianity is the reason why western civilization exists…but I digress. Once the Church is sidelined there, they will go after our schools for teaching the truth about marriage and sex - claiming hate speech and discrimination, and they will go after our hiring policies as well.

But remember, you can’t win.

[The next battle will be to force Churches, most particularly the Catholic Church, to recognize and conduct same-sex marriage. The refusal to do so will result in a series of escalating legal and financial ramifications.]

Oh, nonsense.  The Catholic Church still refuses to acknowledge second marriages after divorce, and nobody makes them do so.  This is just paranoia.  It’s a civil law, and has no bearing whatsoever on sacramental matrimony in the Catholic Church.  Just like civil divorce and remarriage.

Civil war will come of this…like Spain in the 1930’s. Only this time the roles will be reversed….

The ONLY WAY to make the Church flourish is Following and obeying Jesus The Lord.

Jesus the Lord went on Promoting Apostleship : the seventy two whom he promoted as Apostles; the young man who wanted when called by Jesus the Lord to bury his Father and then come and follow; St.Paul who was earlier Saul and many more.

What is the use of mere Priests and Bishops who can only perform dead rituals and keep counting MONEY and are not empowered by the Spirit of Jesus the Lord to PROCLAIM the Lord’s WORD?

IF the Church is going to die, it is certainly NOT the Church of the Lord BUT MAN-MADE Church.

ONLY those who practise True Apostlleship can promote the Church of Jesus the Lord and not just any one.

Seriously now!  Did anyone really think the supreme court would rule any differently?  What will be interesting is to see all the same sex couples that previously had the luxury of simply moving on will now have to confront the decision to take advantage of this new “right”.  I’m betting there will be more than a few breakups over this decision.  And for those on our side who despair of the future, remember that God seems to have provided awakening and return a number of times in the past when humanity has lost its way and descended into the depths.  While sin will always be a part of the human condition, so redemption will always be extended by God.

Although, I agree that things look bad, I feel energized.  Both the Bishops, priests, many modern theologians and finally, us, the laity, played a major role in this debacle.  And pay we must for our feeble show of faith during the last 50 years!  Now it is up to us to work hard at reversing this trend that we helped create.  We must not only raise daily petitions to the Holy Trinity through Mother Mary’s intercession,  but start doing as many individual acts of reparation and penance as we can, never losing hope that-in a period of time deemed fit by God- these abominations will cease to be in effect.  This situation serves the purpose of reminding us all that no government EVER has been a real friend to the Church of Christ.  We have to snap out of that illusion!  Caesar and God have always and will always be enemies, simply because Caesar represents the interests of the “fallen world” and those interests have always been and always will be inimical to God’s.  While we must never cease our efforts to evangelize our government, we must never relax our guard and forget revealed truth that periods of apparent peace between Caesar and God cannot and will not ever last.

Most of the comments I have read are sound, but many seem to be making the same mistake in accepting the idea that there is any such entity as a homosexual. The Church has made a huge mistake by falling into that linguistic trap and getting into a discussion that was set up to make Catholics look intolerant and dismissive of the civil rights of a persecuted minority.  Church teaching on marriage and the family has nothing to do with homosexual inclinations or homosexual acts. By not insisting that those who call themselves Catholics in both their private and public lives practice their faith, which is to become like Jesus in the struggle agains the “kingdom of Sin” within themselves, people both within and without conclude that She is not serious about her moral teachings. We are to be like Our Lord, giving all we meet the love of God, but we cannot give what we do not have.  As a Russian Orthodox priest told me 50 years ago, “save yourself and others around you will be saved.”  As our Lord tells us, “physician heal thyself.”  If we become holy in our personal lives, and live the life of Christ in whatever our state of life, those around us will be saved and there will be repentance and conversions. Those Catholics who cut themselves off from the Mystical Body of Christ will either come to their senses or they will wither and die.

Wow - well articulated and hits the nail right on the head. But those with sense are now becoming the minority.

Ann is correct. The goal of the homosexual movement is to destroy the Catholic Church. Other forms of Christianity will simply go along with the flow in a short time.
Homosexual marriage is just a gateway into insanity. Basically, its a temporary sex contract. An extension of a society that has no self control. Having self control distinguishes immature males (that never learn responsibility or grow up) and grown responsible men who value the place that God’s plan has for them throughout life.
This is certainly an eye opener to the naive people who will finally learn the truth of: 1. ephidophilia and how this homosexual disorder is the real reason behind the priest sex scandals. 2. The notion that there is no God given gender at birth, that we can just float around until one day we decide which one best fits our future immoral lifestyle. 
The only way to combat this evil is to get away from our computers and organize million strong rallies every night until we get our message across of the real importance and the benefits of traditional marriage in society.

No more dialogue. Excommunicate the ultra-liberal trash from the church and don’t feel sorry for them. Leave mercy to God.

We are perfectly happy knowing that we have something persons of the same sex can never have: A real marriage.

Marriage is dead and the CHURCH helped kill it.

Remember when marriage was sacred?

Remember when divorce was a sin?

Remember all times the rich (think Kennedy) managed to get married in the church, have kids, stayed married for years and then…...

The high and holy annulment!

The sin of divorce was only a sin for weak, the powerless, and those without money.

Marriage is dead. Not because of gay marriage but because the church sold out on the basic tenets for money. They have been doing that since I have been alive and have probably been doing that long before any of us have been alive.

The sodomites must be expelled from the church. All of them.

I hope you are correct. Wake up people, the majority of Americans support what happened today. Who gives a freakin f… about the church!

This is not a shock to me. What I am worried about is not the definition of MY marriage but what is going to happen when Obama defines gay “marriage” a civil right and if the Catholic Church doesn’t perform them, she will be in violation of federal civil rights law. How long do you think it will be before a gay couple will present themselves for marriage at the Church? I bet not long.The best idea to me was to separate our church from legal marriages, from the govt totally. I agree the chances of the weak, spineless clergy doing something that radical is slim and none. They won’t refuse Pelosi, Biden or the abortion loving Kennedys the Eucharist. They pander to the democrats at every opportunity and we are reaping what they sowed. St. Michael pray for us!

@Palladio: Judge Vaughn Walker of the Ninth Circut court, a closet homosexual practitioner with a vested interest, did not recuse himself from Proposition 8. He later bragged abour his homosexuality. The damage was done and his decision became questioned. He tried to make himself relevant, but the fact that he hid his homosexual behavior took its toll and the decision was vacated. The gay agenda tried to vacate all heterosexual judges because they are heterosexual. Heterosexual judges have marriage licenses that are public domain as opposed to hiding the truth about one’s vested interest for finding for homosexual behavior.

The devil is real; evil is for real.  What is happening in our country is to the detriment of all of us.  No one can go against centuries old teachings in our Catholic Bible and not feel repercussions from above.  There is no global warming.  This is chastisement from the Almighty God, who exists from all time and forever.  Men do not lie with men or women with women.  This is corruption of the body and true immorality.  First, abortion, then same sex marriage.  What is honorable anymore???

Catholic Vote writes:

“What a morning. Time to exhale.

What you are reading in the news is not the whole story.

Moments ago the Supreme Court handed down two very narrow decisions. Both of them were wrong. But the marriage fight is far from over.

Let me explain.

In essence, the Court invalidated a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and rejected the right of the people to defend a law passed by millions of citizens in California. The Court ducked the question of whether Proposition 8 in California is constitutional – and most importantly, did NOT create a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

States that have protected marriage and those that seek to do so in the future cannot be stopped.

The Court did disenfranchise millions of voters with its decision on Proposition 8. Five Supreme Court justices effectively dismissed the votes of millions of citizens who twice voted to protect marriage. Nevertheless, the record in California is now plain: the people voted to protect marriage, but reckless politicians refused to respect the right of the people and enforce the law.

What is left is a single decision by a district court judge that applies to two couples. The legal fight to clarify what happens next will be critical and will be heavily contested by defenders of marriage in the courts. Same-sex marriage advocates touting immediate statewide gay marriage in California are misleading the public.

But wait. There’s more.

Today’s decision striking down portions of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was limited to only those same-sex “marriages” already recognized in the states that allow same-sex marriage.

Also, remember that other parts of DOMA protect states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriage in other states. That portion of the law was not challenged and remains in force – and in some ways was strengthened by today’s decision.

Thus, while today’s decisions were very disappointing, they do not represent a watershed moment for marriage as many are suggesting. Same-sex marriage advocates did not get what they wanted, namely a “Roe v. Wade” for same-sex marriage.

We have a clear path forward to protect marriage and respond to these rulings, in Congress and in the states, and in the hearts and minds of our fellow citizens. The future of marriage remains a dispute open to ‘We the People.’

The debate on marriage lives on and is up to us.

And you can count on CV to keep up the fight.”

@Centrist
“REALLY?!!”
The USSC has established atheism. The USSC has denied the will to live of the newly conceived human person. The USSC has denied the human soul wherein all covenants are consented to, also marriage. The USSC has approved the denial of the human being’s conscience in the HHS Mandate. Th USSC has invoked the devil and the devil has possessed the United States for some time. REALLY

Read more: http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pat-archbold/marriage-is-dead-and-the-church-is-next#ixzz2XNI9UeCa

I just looked at the headline - Hooray!!!!!
.
Just show me any family who will be destroyed because of this. Nothing will happen.
.
What’s next—Will you make it a federal offence to have sex altogether?
.
If the Church is the TRUTH, why do you keep asking for money?

As long as lukewarm Catholics (the majority) have all of the creature comforts and the bishops do not publically correct bad Catholics who support intrinsic evils, lukewarm Catholics will continue to say “What is the big deal?” This is how we got to where we are today.

Again, until bad Catholics are called out, all the calls for religious freedom will be ignored by lukewarm Catholics. It is time to draw the line, inform the bad Catholics that they have made mistakes, offer forgiveness, but tell them that they are not to approach the Eucharist until they publically repent and go have a good confession.

@Jerry: The gay-agenda is not about normalizing homosexual behavior, it is about denying the human soul and the freedom of the human person to respond to God within and without the church. The gay-agenda is about the atheism that will finally obliterate all unalienable rights of man, enslave man and make of him a beast of burden to the state. See communism.

I didn’t see anything in the SC decision that states:  “Marriage, as the union of a man and woman for the purposes of raising children and for mutual support as recognized in culture and law, has ceased to exist.”  You mean, because of the decision, a man and woman can no longer marry, have kids or support each other?  I missed that part; can someone provide a link to where straight people can no longer marry?  I have friends who are planning a wedding (they’re straight).  I need to tell them not to bother since it’s now illegal for them to marry.  I don’t want them wasting that downpayment for x-amount of chicken-or-fish dinners.

This is very upsetting and totally disgusting to see the USA go down the sewer in so many ways. I have to say, that a large part of the blame goes to our Catholic Bishops and Priests who either never talked about any moral issues in the last 40 years or they themselves support same sex “marriage”. There are very few clergy who will speak up and actually defend what the Catholic Church believes on moral issues like contraception, abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, in vitro fertilization, traditional marriage, etc. No, they would rather talk about Social justice (aka Socialism), climate change, support for illegal immigrants, etc and of course they are still in bed with the Democratic Party! All I can do is pray, fast and ask God to forgive so many many sins outside and inside the Church. St. Michael defend us in this battle. God help us.

“Note the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI for restoring the Latin Mass and attempting a reconciliation with the SSPX.” Didn’t some of those attacks come from SSPX? “See who opposed it.” SSPX did. That’s why his “attempting” to reconcile with SSPX did not succeed.

The objective has and always will be the destruction of the Catholic Church.  This is and always was a spiritual battle; therefore, our weapons must needs be spiritual.  Unfortunately, the enemy also knows this; hence, we have the VII council producing a document, “Dignitatis Humanae” which essentially jettisoned the traditional teaching of conversion to the One, True Church established by Christ for salvation.  Please read it for yourselves.  Also note the ensuing history of the Church since then…confusion, distortion and abandonment.  Those attempting to restore/adhere to the Traditions of the Faith are the “enemy”.  Note the attacks against Pope Benedict XVI for restoring the Latin Mass and attempting a reconciliation with the SSPX.  See who opposed it.  Our Lady of Fatima, in 1917, gave us the plan for world Peace, according to God.  Since this has also been disgtorted and opposed, is it any wonder where we find ourselves?  Return to what the Church has always taught; learn it, live it.  May God have Mercy on us.

I. Believe. And. Have. The. Cathlic faith.

I do not recognize same sex marriages,wolves in sheep clothing , well pray for peace and this nation, I believe our government downt know right from wrong , if Doctors beleave plan parent hood is the way to kill babies legally , then I have no faith in these Doctors , nor our government , nor our president . Peace with all Gods children in this country and through out the world , no one can take my faith from me as we Stand in unity as one body in Christ. Amen God Bless America

I know that every human being, homosexual and straight, came into existence through the operation of one female mother and one male father. I know that your father had a female bride and that your mother had a male groom. I know that since you had a beginning, that you are finite, and that you will die. I know that your will to live is a gift from God which was respected by your parents and the state. I know much more…. What kind of a human being denies this and sues in the Supreme Court to change the meaning of one female bride and one male groom?

While a decision such as that issued today may be the “legal” or “letter-of-the-law” correct decision, not every legally sound decision is necessarily a morally sound one.  Morality has never been something that could be forced upon people through legislation—it has to come up from the grassroots and inscribed into the hearts and consciences of individuals before it can be fully reflected in their laws.

With this decision now out, it won’t be long before anti-traditional-marriage advocates are able to obtain “equal protection” for other marital arrangements such as polygamy or polyamory, as they have now defined marriage as simply a loose legal agreement between two consenting adults (why not provide protection to *more* than two consenting adults?).

I don’t see marriages between adults and children or adults and pets ever happening anytime soon, as at least until now courts have repeatedly drawn the line at the threshold of consent, and legally (at least for now), unemancipated children under 18 and animals are not considered able to provide consent. The courts would first have to rule that minor children *can* provide acceptable consent before they can venture in to NAMBLA territory.

@dan h: What about out constitutional posterity, all future generations, George Washington’s constitutional posterity? The Revolutionary War was fought for FREEDOM for ourselves and our constitutional posterity to be given the light of truth. Truth is the first victim of this decision. The government through the Department of Justice owes the citizens the truth. People are free to petition for redress, but the government must see to truth before petitioning government for redress becomes necessary.

Catholics must very seriously prepare spiritually NOW for the coming persecution.

As always, our best will suffer the most.

We have been on this road before.

Rome.

England.

Ireland.

France.

Mexico.

Russia.

Spain.

Time is running out.

We must take Our Lord’s warning to Peter to heart.

Now.

@TOM SCOTT: That would make Obama an “autocratic dictator” Czar Nicholas II was an autocrat. Then came Lenin.

By failing to provide equal protection on the civil union, and the present govt’s hands off policy on DOMA, we who have heterosexual marriage are now at a disadvantage because marriage is now defined as marriage other than heterosexual marriage.  A time will come when the government, will say that we cannot have our equal protection because we do not have a same sex marriage.  We are now on the slippery slope of accepting polygamy, a person marrying his child, a person marrying himself, a person marrying his pet, a person marrying his house, car, a tree or just about anything you can think of, only for the simple reasons that it will never hurt anybody and that it is my inalienable right of pursuing my happiness.  So now we can say as much as we want, a triangle is a square.

and while I am at it: The state does not give life or unalienable rights to anybody. How does the state pretend to regulate how human beings come into being? “Human existence is the criterion for the objective ordering of human rights” Suarez “The rights the state gives, the state can take away” Thomas Jefferson. The state does not give us marriage and the principle of separation of church and state ought to have kept the state out of the covenant of human souls. Denying acknowledgement of the human soul to the human being is the ultimate outrage against human rights.

Gee, have we Catholics now come to the part where we’re supposed to say “THE SKY IS FALLING! LOOKOUT, THE SKY IS FALLING!” Isn’t a lot of what went on vis-a-vis the U.S. Supreme Court ruling today been anticipated by many already? And did anyone following the events subsequent to the passing of Prop. 8 really have any doubts that what transpired today through the bogus Catholic John Roberts and his liberal entourage (save for Scalia, Thomas and a few others) wouldn’t happen? I sensed that it probably would turn out this way, and I’m certainly no legal scholar. Because IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID! And it’s propbably only going to get worse for ALL Christians, but especially us Catholics. Lucifer I believe has been subtly (and sometimes NOT so subtly) inculcating a cauldron of HATE towards all those who vehemently oppose “gay marriage”, but especially so for us Catholics. And why would that not be so?  For among all the Christians who insist that “gay marriage” is a fraud perpetrated by diabollically disoriented liberal radicals, the absolute WORST TRATMENT is reserved for us Catholics. AND THAT’S BECAUSE WE’RE THE ONLY CHRISTIAN DENOMINATION FOUNDED BY JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF! The Lutherans, Presbyterians and Baptists can’t say that, ONLY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH CAN SAY THAT. So satan and his minions go after us Catholics in a sense reserved for us, because he knows we’re the only ones who believe in the TRUE PRESENCE OF JESUS IN THE CONSECRATION AT MASS. Now, how about a million-man / woman march of Catholics in D.C. against “gay” marriage right under the nose of “the one,” Obama? Anyone up for that? GOD BLESS ALL, MARKRITE

If the “equal protection under the law” is taken to mean what I think it does then same-sex marriages will ultimately have the same protections as interracial marriages acquired in the past. If the Catholic Church refused to marry an African-American man and a Caucasian woman based on their races, there would certainly be serious consequences and ramifications. Is not the same true for refusing to marry same-sex couples now in states where those marriages are legal?

To Mary De Voe:

REALLY?!!

Does this quote take into account that the Holy Spirit knows what the Spirit is doing and may have big plans ahead:

“...as a practical matter marriage as we knew it is over.”

Let’s not give-up.  This could be simply a reversal, with more to undoubtedly follow.  Reversals have a way of eventually going in the opposite direction.

@Centrist: When children, a captive audience of uninformed sexually uninitiated minors are indoctrinated in alternate lifestyles and seduced into vice, denied the acknowledgment of our Creator, endowed unalienable civil rights, denied the existence of their rational, immortal soul and their innocence and virginity is ravaged by a monstrous culture of despicable vice, how will these children mature into upright citizens? Already, the feminists have emasculated every man in America by denying to him his own offspring. Feminists have obliterated the language of a rational culture, so that male brides and female grooms are for real horrors. The culture is devoid of the Virtue of Justice since innocence and virginity are ridiculed and bullied out of the public domain. The human being’s body and soul are employed at being enslaved to the powers that have usurped their dignity and sovereignty. The Gulag does not have to be situated in Siberia. The Gulag is right here in the United States of Atheism.

Stand firm and do not let the devil own us.

The Church and her Holy Sacrament of Matrimony belong to Christ Jesus, and lawyers in robes can’t touch that, try as they might. But this is all still very upsetting. We need to go en masse before the Blessed Sacrament and pray for the conversion of our nation.

This issue is about using same sex persons as “useful idiots” to gain absolute control and ownership of the person, the citizen who, through his own sovereign personhood constitutes the government and is now owned by the government as a beast of burden, property of the state. Pay your taxes or else.
Religion is how individual persons respond to the gift of Faith from God. A personal relationship with our Creator and Endower of unalienable rights is called FREEDOM. God has been dismissed from the public square, evicted from the nation. Atheism and its absolute tyranny is taking hold of our civil rights. With God gone all hell is breaking loose.

Nigeria knows better. They banned same-sex marriage. The Catholic Church has been the target. Catacombs here we come. God help us.

Nigeria knows better to ban same-sex marriage

The Obama administration already took the position in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that the federal government could determine who was qualified to serve as ministers and teachers in churches.  Although rebuffed by the Supreme Court (one member during oral argument called the Obama Administration’s position “shocking”), why would anyone believe he will not attempt, directly or indirectly through allies at the state level, to force same-sex “marriage” on the churches?

Larry, must give you points for that one! You just may be right!
Blessings

To Hilt:  Your freedom of religion is intact, you are free to follow the tenets of your faith. Your freedom of speech is intact, you are allowed to voice your words and thoughts in this forum and others (as long as you don’t offend the Nat. Catholic Register and other sponsors ) So please allow the same right for people who do not necessarily agree with you on every issue.

The Catholic Church in America is reaping what it has sown for the last forty years.  By allowing pro-death democrats to hide inside of it for political cover, the Church has lost its moral authority.  A house divided cannot stand.

“Blessings for a softening of heart and mouth.” And of mind?

My freedom of religion and speech should not be taken ,because God is with us .no one can take my faith from

ahem is correct in flagging the statement “I would never expect a Catholic Church to be forced to perform marriages they don’t approve of.”  Catholic adoption services are already being forced to shut down in this country because they do not believe it moral to allow adoptions to gay couples.  There is no reason to believe that this will not progress as it has in other countries - the same people who say “freedom of religion” with one side of their mouths will be smirking at the legal web that is being woven with the other side.

Ok, the Supreme Court has weighed in with their decision.  Here’s my take, teach your children the good and true tenets of the Catholic faith and raise them up to UNDERSTAND why they believe them.  It won’t really matter what the marriage laws are since your children and friends who care to listen to you will live the faith.  Do we need more divisions in our lives or less? Living your faith in communion with other Christian faiths will show the populace that you are in deed, true and faithful Christians. Live and let live but change hearts and minds by example….not all the hatred bad bigotry.
It appears many of you are Catholics who have forgotten that you are CHRISTIAN Catholics first.
Blessings for a softening of heart and mouth

“don’t try to make everyone adhere to your faith” Bex

Let’s use that “brilliant” logic and go through the penal code with a fine tooth comb deleting any offense which has its foundation in moral law.

the founding fathers of america placed their trust in the workings of a benevolent Creator and america has prospered.  we will now see how america will do under the sole guidance of human beings.  i fear the hubris that is necessary to isolate your Creator from your country and its laws is not going to bring about a positive ending for this country.  but a word of hope to my fellow catholics, we will not be judged based on the actions of our government.  we will be judged based upon whether we advanced sinful policies or opposed them.

“I would never expect a Catholic Church to be forced to perform marriages
they don’t approve of.”

Then you haven’t been reading the newspapers in the UK. It’s only a matter of time.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of society because it assures that the children resulting from sexual union will be taken car of in a lifetime, responsible and loving family unit. Letting two guys marry so they can share an insurance policy is not marriage. Beside, marriage is a sacrament of the church. The state can’t redefine it without getting into the theology business and telling us what we should and shouldn’t believe—-which is exactly what is now happening. The state will ultimately use the issue as a way to make the church illegal, as it is doing in the UK.

I can’t wait until the state forces us to permit adoption to gay couples. Oh joy!

The problem with these decisions is .....the people who say they will never vote Dem because of…amnesty, homosexuality, DOMA, attacks on the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th amends. ....especially Catholics when angry, still keep voting for them in huge majorities. That is just inane. And if Evangelicals along with Catholics keep doing that, then America and our faith will be attacked into the future till both will look like a soviet prison camp!

“The next battle will be to force Churches, most particularly the Catholic Church, to recognize and conduct same-sex marriage.”

Is that what happened back in the 70’s when states began passing “No fault” divorce laws? Did the government try to force the Catholic Church to recognize and conduct marriages of people still married to other people in the eyes of the Church? Um, no.

Did Catholic businesses get prosecuted for refusing to serve marrying couples still married to other people in the eyes of the Church? I don’t remember Catholic business refusing the money of such couples. Did Catholic adoption services refuse to allow adoptions by divorced and remarried couples? I don’t know, but I never heard of such a case, which is odd if it was happening.

I don’t think the sky is falling as hard as you think.

we should all thank God again for the gift of the Catholic Faith.  we know that if we remain devout members of the Church we will never have to be involved in the illicit civil union concept.  we will never fall for the wiles and tricks of satan.  the Church will stand by the sanctitiy of Matrimony come satan or high water.  Thank Our Lord for that.

the Church should not be involved in the practice of sanctioning this new civil union concept (like Lincoln said calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg and calling a civil union of two members of the same sex a marriage does not make it a marriage).  witnessing Holy Matrimony is the Church’s responsiblity.  She has no obligation to participate in a blatantly sinful concept.

children have a right to both a mother and a father.  the autocrats of the scotusa cannot change that.  those who accept same-sex marriage are saying the government is right to declare that children do not have a right to both a mother and a father.  this decision is a direct and serious attack on the well-being of innocent children.  the government declares traditional marriage to be based on bigotry and evil.  there are few things that could be more harmful to all americans.

Mary Sue, “Cry some more tears fundies…you lose.”  What do we lose, and what do you lose?  Perhaps we “fundies” would rather win eternal life than lose our souls by choosing what God has declared to be sinful.

MBI, you are confusing being open to life with success in creating life.  There are sadly those who wish to have children but can’t; but they are open to life in that they are doing nothing to prevent conception.

@Cathy.  “Love is Love. “

Ok then, let’s back groups like NAMBLA or polygamists, let me marry my uncle or my brother marry his pet.

The flood gates are now open for anything defined as ‘love.’

” Once you move the definition of marriage to be based upon a choice of relationship to the exclusion of child BEARING and rearing, there is no valid reason not to allow other choices of relationships to be selected as a legal marriage.”

Adoptive parents aren’t really married, I see.

I don’t know why you fundamentalists are so disgusted by the marriage of straight people with adopted children.

Do not let your hearts be troubled - John 14:1. Only about 4% of the American population self describe as gay, lesbian or transgender in total, believe it or not. That means 96% of Americans are capable of choosing to continue to witness to traditional marriage. We can still overcome!

It is up to us, Chistians, to hold onto what we believe is right an just.  What the court and government does should not change us.

Oftentimes, Mary, Satan cloaks himself in things that seem “good” and “right.” He is called the master of lies, after all.

Deacon Tim O’callaghan,
I completely agree with you.  “Marriage” as defined by the state has no bearing on the validity or value of any couple’s unity.  I guess that’s one of the reasons i’m not too concerned about the legality of gay marriage in this country.
.
personally, when my legal marital status became a potential issue for getting a loan when going back to school, i seriously considered getting a legal divorce while still living with the woman who, in God’s eyes, is still my wife.
.
Maybe i’m just a product of my generation, but i have very little concern for what my country views as “legal” or otherwise.  Now that i think about it, the same is really true of my concern for my employer’s policies, guidelines, and corporate goals—I really have very little concern for any of these.  i try to only concern myself with God’s law and will in my life and trust that the rest will fall into place.
.
Come hell or high water, this means that i need to share my resources with my brothers and sisters, work diligently at my job, and love my wife and my children… and trust that God will take care of the rest.

These comments are absolutely ridiculous and comical. I might be mad at some of them if this wasn’t such a glorious day of victory. If Satan is behind all this he sure does like equality. Cry some more tears fundies…you lose.

“...Today’s ruling basically invalidates their [the states’] efforts and has opened the floodgate to approval of same sex marriage across the nation with no reasonable recourse.” Which just about guarantees, I believe, that a recourse to arms will occur—and it could be horribly devastating. God help us all!

It is not as if we ourselves as Catholics as a whole are without blame for the demise of marriage.
The marriage act has been made sterile between Catholics and even if we may have a child or children of our marriage, the intrinsic sterility of the majority of our marital acts are not readily distinguishable from the intrinsically sterile nature of the homosexual act.
When we first consummate our marriages, they are not often consummated and we expect others to readily see the difference between the holy marital act and a disordered act when we ourselves are falling short.
Take heart then, we ourselves can do a LOT to turn marriage around as we as a group do share responsibilty for the demise.
Teaching the true nature of marriage and the NATURAL Family Planning which WORKS ie not the calendar method our doctors taught us, is the road to mend true marriage. Repentance and TEACHING. Baptised Catholics are often so unformed they are having sex before understanding the nature of marriage and why they should wait. When we jealously guard the secret of marriage and responsible parenthood which includes NFP, we are obscuring from others the RIGHT path to follow. I say we should teach about Catholic marriage & NFP to ALL generously with the prayer and hope that ALL who are in sin including those who are promiscuous or gay will see there is another way & that it is a brilliant inspiring and holy way.

I have typed painstakingly two very on topic comments and they have been lost. Does this work?

Marriage is not their goal - power and destruction of our way of life is.  An open rebellion against God, the PURPOSE of homosexuality is to destroy the Church. 
Check out Scott Lively’s books for the truth about gays in history.  From ancient times - to Nazi Germany - to today in Washington. 
2012 headline in Denmark:  “Denmark Forces Churches to Perform Same-Sex Marriages”  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/denmark-forces-churches-to-perform-same-sex-marriages/
Thanks,

There is something of irony in the Cardinal’s statement about DOMA. Who brought us these politicians and judges that changed the meaning of marriage? Good Catholic Democrats. I didn’t hear the Cardinal blaming the Democrat machine in Chicago or New York for this woe. I didn’t hear him say a vote for Obama was a sin.Did you?

It is very difficult to legislate morality in a free society. Each of us gifted by God with “Free Will” to either choose God or not, to choose moral behavior or not and to choose to protect human dignity or not. Marriage in the secular community will be what it will be however this does not change the Sacrament of Matrimony in the Catholic Church. Today, in my ordained vocation I am an agent of the state with the authority to solemnize a civil marriage. However, I also have the authority to “Witness” the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony in the Catholic Church, that is a covenant between a man, a woman and God. Which one is valid in the eyes of God? The Sacraments belong to the church, the church determines who receives them.
My wife and I spend between 6 and 9 months preparing each couple for marriage, the couple chooses to go through marriage prep. It is our hope that in the time we spend with them we are fortifying and laying down a foundation for a marriage that will withstand the pressures of civil society and is more durable and everlasting than that piece of paper the civil marriage contract is written.
Finally, as we read these post be reminded, “When the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together, and one of them [a scholar of the law] tested him by asking, “Teacher, which commandment in the law is the greatest?” He said to him, “You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. The second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself.  The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.”” Matthew 22:34-40.

” If civilization is to return to the Father’s house, if the world is to be saved, it must, like the prodigal son, realize that there is such a thing as sin, and cry out from the depths of its soul, I have sinned. The world today is not living in heresy, but in paganism, for it denies the whole truth of Christianity, and if the Church is to assist in the return of civilization to the Father’s house the Chuch must come out of the catacombs to fight paganism as she did in the first century” Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen.  Bishops and priests must return to preaching against heresy and apostasy. Catholics who refuse to follow the laws of the Church ( God’s laws ) must be brought to task and if needed, excommunicated. It may mean nothing to them, but it will send a clear message to the faithful and to the world. Jesus told us in clear terms, ” No one can serve two masters. You cannot serve God and mammon.

To Michele and others:

Most gay and sodomite relationships are NOT some loving, monogamous lifelong commitment irregardless of what the media wants to portray.  Gay men rarely have one partner and the domestic violence among lesbians is very high.

And two of the same sex will never “be one”; it will always be a perversion of nature and offensive to God. Period.

And the sodomites will not stop here. They have been out to destroy and persecute anyone who does not bow to the pressure to give them everything they demand. THEY force their perversions on others and society. Don’t give me the “they just want to love” garbage!  It is lust and sexual addition that drives the homosexual agenda.

We will rue this.

IF it is going to be true The Official Church and the Clergy as a whole are responsible for it, for they in themselves do not promote APOSTLESHIP.

The law is a teacher.  Woe unto him who teaches that evil is good (especially when he knows what he does).  And sin usually carries with it its own punishment. 

It is now more important than ever that the bishops ensure that teachers in Catholic schools (including colleges!) are prepared to explain the difference between pagan “marriages” and the Sacrament of Marriage to children.  One means nothing other than public testimony of sinfulness.  The other is a partnership wherein husband and wife work to lead each other to salvation. 

†

Bex: The Catholic Church is not trying to impose its will on you.  You have free will to go to hell all by yourself along with the state that you want to separate from God.  I feel certain that you may regret your choice.
Fortunately for us, God has clearly indicated that His Church will prevail. He did not say there would be no travail we could not overcome by fervent prayer and penance.  We must pursue that path with all haste.

Jesus is coming again and the book of Revelation is infolding before our eyes.  Plain and simple.  Prepare yourself to stand before the Lord…

I have to say, I am extremely disappointed in the decision of the Supreme Court and I think some people are afraid because of this terrible decision. But we have to remember that in the end the Church will win because Christ has won. If we as Christians want to change society we need to start by focusing on our love for one another and for the Lord first, not just the wrongs of others. Then society as a whole can say with awe “Look how much they love each other” and change. The first Christians did this and there is no reason that we can’t.
“The Lord is my light and my salvation; whom should I fear?”- Psalm 27:1

Correction:
.
I believe that homosexuality does tend to separate people from God, but unlike, say, abortion, homosexual acts themselves do not harm other people directly and must not be discriminated against.
...

Pat, after a lot of thought on this issue, I really have to disagree with you.  This country, at its best, offers a space for people to do - literally - whatever they freely choose to do *as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.*
.
I do see some potential difficulties for the Church if gay marriage is legalized.  But those potentialities should not, in themselves, ever mean that we should restrict anybody’s freedoms to choose the paths of their own lives.
.
I believe that homosexuality does tend to separate people from God, but unlike, say, abortion, homosexual acts and must not be discriminated against.  I see it in much the same light as I see alcoholism.  Alcoholics must be allowed to drink if they so choose to drink as long as they don’t blatantly infringe on others’ rights (such as in drunk driving).
.
Salvation is not salvation if it is forced on anyone.  God wants us to FREELY choose him!

This world is going to hell in a hand bag! look to the next one and you will have peace in tribulation! Praise be to our Lord Jesus Christ!

President Barack Obama had used a form of “nullification” on DOMA, which has been federal law for decades. It simply said that for federal purposes, only a man and a woman are involved in marriage.

However, Obama, and his attorney general, Eric Holder, said they were not going to enforce it and they were not going to defend it as their oaths of office require.

Mathew Staver, chairman of Liberty Counsel, warned that that itself is a major threat.

By striking DOMA, he said, “It would set the precedent that the president can pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce and which ones he does not.”

That, he said, would make a president an “autocratic dictator” by default, as he no longer would be bound by his oath of office to enforce all laws. The possibilities? If a president didn’t like the tax code, he simply could order federal agents not to enforce it.

Pat, I too have thought of these affects and ramifications with sadness ... but then I choose to few it as an opportunity for the church and society to endorse the real marriage validation ... much like a birth and male circumcision was performed by secular doctors in secular hospitals ... but the baptism was conducted in house of our Lord ...so to can the two step marriage ceremony be done.  But we must explain to our members WHY it’s relevant.

It is intrinsically natural that marriage is between a man and woman. No one, including government can redefine what is of nature and God. Just as with the Roe v Wade decision, our courts are creating social chaos. Same sex “marriage” is as correct as murdering babies, whether unborn or born. We may have lost the battle for now, but the war goes on and I for one will continue to stand up for the last true defender of what is moral, right and of God, the Catholic Church.

I feel hurt while reading posts that liken the right for two loving same-sex human beings to marry into a partnership in which they wish to live whole, a life where they may become one with each other, to the horrors of the massive killings of 911.  What mercy does one need to call upon from God in this case?  How light these stones must feel that they can be hurled so quickly in judgment.  Who do they see when they see ME? I wonder.  My guess is that they don’t see ME at all because they are blinded with fear and ignorance.  How many times have we read stories about those who were blind?  This is a time for faith not despair.  Thank you Jesus for your unconditional love and compassion and for allowing others to see and to believe.

Many of the comments above reflect my thoughts…. save Bex who is clearly living in a world of his own making.

To add to this, the chances of the American Catholic hierarchy doing anything other than flap its gums is very low.

@Cathy.  Love is not Love.  God is love.

Well, this goes in the direction of 1 Timothy, chapter 4, verses 1 to 3 where Paul says :

The Spirit clearly says that in latter times some people will turn away from the faith. They will pay attention to spirits that deceive and to the teaching of demons. They will be controlled by the pretense of lying, and their own consciences will be seared. They will prohibit marriage and eating foods that God created—and he intended them to be accepted with thanksgiving by those who are faithful and have come to know the truth.

“Nothing can come except what God wills.  And I make me very sure that whatsoever that be, even if nothing has ever appeared so bad, it shall indeed be the best…” - St. Thomas More

As much as I like reading Pat’s column, oftentimes it seems as if it’s all bleak, and that there’s nothing good to look to. It seems somewhat contrary to our Catholic faith; instead, we *must*turn to God. We know that, in the end, we win. However, we were never led to believe that it will be easy. Now, I understand that today’s news is horrible. It is proof of the fact that civilization is declining in the US, much as it did in Ancient Rome: people are given over to lust, slaughtering of innocents, carnal sins, etc., etc. I challenge anyone to say that isn’t happening now. That being said, we need now, more than ever, to turn to prayer. Prayer for our Country, prayer for the souls being led astray by self-proclaimed “ardent Catholics,” and pray for ourselves, that we may never give up hope of Christ’s victory over all sin.

“Give me an army saying the Rosary and I will conquer the world.” - Pope Saint Pius X

Hey “Bex”: there is no “separation of church and state” in the constitution. And I have a question for you: should we now have polygamy recognized as legal marriage?

Jerry Joyce is completely correct in his assessment of what is to be done. If the Catholic Church in America dismantles its relationship to the state (no tax exemption, no state support for its institutions) it will be tremendously painful and difficult. But what will emerge from such a de-coupling is guaranteed to be an improvement on where we are headed.

It has always been said that if you destroy the family unit you destroy society as we know it. This is what we are leaving for our children and their children. The Bible does say that it is an abomination for man to lay with man and woman to lay with woman - the forces are fighting against God in our lives and nobody seems to care or wants to fight back. If this is true, then we deserve the punishment that will come for taking God out of everything and allowing the dark side to win.

How about we confer healthy relationships within marriage and after marriages dissolve? The Church does a poor job annulling marriages leaving women feeling more rejected and hurt. Stop fussing. Love is love.

I am not surprised by this Supreme Court decision. American society is sick and dying a slow and hideous death. It is time we take pre-emptive measures, such as those pointed out by Jerry Joyce (George Weigel’s suggestions).
God have mercy on us.

Bex,

There is no fear mongering going on.  Once you move the definition of marriage to be based upon a choice of relationship to the exclusion of child BEARING and rearing, there is no valid reason not to allow other choices of relationships to be selected as a legal marriage.

I’ve also been in the trenches on this battle in the church (protestant then Catholic) against the pro-gay marriage movement.  Believe me, once the legal position falls (i.e., protestant churches who have changed their position to bless same-sex marriage) it was not, ok, they’ve got equality, let’s move on.  It was, ok, you recognize us, now let stamp out the pockets of resistance.  Once one area accepts it, ALL must or else you end up dividing society.  And you think we were divided before?

There already have been cases where churches are forced to either acknowledge or allow same-sex wedding ceremonies on their property against their beliefs.  It will only grow now.

The Church always WAS the target.  All the churches will become either state-churches affirming whatever the secular government wants, or they will be marginalized and persecuted… and we thought the Roman Empire was big and bad… this will be worse.  But even the Roman Empire fell.

@Potamiaena, I’m thinking the same thing.  The thing I have to add—why?

Marriage is not dead. God created marriage. Just because the highest court in the USA has made some rulings, doesn’t mean what God has created is gone. Only God can decide that.

Didn’t your mother teach you that if everybody jumped off a cliff, you shouldn’t do it, too?

Now is not the time to whine and wimp out and bemoan. Now is the time to stand strong.

By saying don’t force your faith on me liberals have nationalized the murder of innocent children and thrown wide the doors on immoral behavior of any kind. Yep, as long as us orthodox Catholics just keep quiet and practice our faith behind closed doors we will be allowed to continue. NOT GONNA HAPPEN LIBS

I feel as sick in the pit of my stomach as I did on 9-11-01.

We the Church should take preemptive action and simply resign our role in secular marriage. George Weigel said as much shortly after last fall’s election (or before I cannot recall).  By not conferring actual legal marriage licensees we protect ourselves some from the legal scrutiny and lawsuits that will follow.  I think the we should take action and disavow ourselves from legal marriages.  That will allow us to make adoption decisions based on our religious definition of marriage, confer marriages based on our religious definition of marriage, employ based on our religious definition of marriage and so on.  Actions against that would be against religious freedom (yes I know that is under grave attack too and Satan attacking marriage is one theater of that attack).  But if we voluntarily resign that authority that will be step in the right direction.  Furthermore we should look at disavowing ourselves from all state support and resigning our non-profit status.  The support and money will still come from the faithful and we will be more prone to actually participate rather than just give money. It is time for radical action and that would be radical.

“We now view the purpose of marriage solely as the conferring of these legal and societal privileges, and thus they can be granted to anyone and anything.”

I’m pretty sure there still will be limits on who and what can have a marriage. I understand your faith doesn’t support gay marriage, but at least quit fear-mongering and making things up.

Second, as a pro-gay marriage ‘liberal’, I’d like to be clear that just as I don’t expect the Catholic Church to force their beliefs on me, I would never expect a Catholic Church to be forced to perform marriages they don’t approve of. There is a separation of church and state for a reason. I also did not view this political issue as a ‘war on religion’. I’m very happy for you to continue practicing your faith. Just please show me, and others the same courtesy and don’t try to make everyone adhere to your faith

all thats left is for the fire and brimstone to fall from the Heavens

There are no words.  God have mercy on us.

Holy Spirit please give us the strength to endure in the U.S.

The Democratic Party is now dying. Just like in the Roe ruling, folks left the Democratic Party now more will leave just as I have left and Republicans will probably win