Pope Benedict XVI may no longer be occupying the Chair of St. Peter, but his far-reaching effects on the Catholic Church are just beginning. Take, for instance, his defense of marriage.
In his Christmas address to the College of Cardinals, the Pope highlighted the stress the prevailing culture currently places on the very definition of the nature of men and women and the essence of marriage.
Driving the point home, he posited how “the manipulation of nature, which we deplore today where our environment is concerned, now becomes man’s fundamental choice where he himself is concerned. From now on, there is only the abstract human being, who chooses for himself what his nature is to be.”
Catholics for the Common Good is a movement for Catholics that has taken the message Pope Benedict has given and are now in the process of equipping Catholics and non-Catholics alike to build a civilization of love and a culture of life through formation and coordinated witness. The group's booklet, Getting the Marriage Conversation Right, written by William May, president of Catholics for the Common Good, is an expression of the New Evangelization taught by Benedict’s predecessor, Blessed John Paul II.
In simple and concise language, May’s booklet not only defends marriage adroitly, but also provides readers with sober and powerful positions from which to engage people who might have a different view, similar to the prevailing trends identified by the Pope in his Christmas message. It’s not a how-to book on winning an argument, but, rather, a brief and thoughtful treatise that will make the reader a well-informed and well-prepared defender of marriage.
Your booklet reads like an NFL playbook for how to engage in the traditional marriage conversation. What was the inspiration for it?
It may come across that way, but the booklet is not a how-to for defeating those who propose redefining marriage. After leading the lay Catholic part of the Prop. 8 campaign to restore the definition of marriage in California, we continued to work and train volunteer leaders as marriage advocates. In the process, we found that embedded in the current dialogue are false premises and corrupting cultural influences that undermine communication for even the most well-catechized Catholics.
The booklet is meant for everyone concerned about marriage. It was written for use in small study groups as part of a formation program, to help train speakers and to serve as a handy reference when questions come up in conversations with friends and family.
According to the booklet, users need no special theological viewpoint to advocate for traditional marriage. Would you elaborate?
Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. We suggest memorizing this description of marriage. That’s what marriage is; this is what marriage does. It’s the same reality that has been recognized by every culture, every society and every religion, each according to its own competencies. It can only be recognized and not changed.
The Catholic Church did not create this reality, but, based on Revelation, she has given us a deeper and more beautiful understanding of marriage. Using religious language to describe marriage gives the false appearance that marriage’s definition is a religious issue, which it is not. The method in the booklet is to take the reality — the authentic teaching on marriage — and put it into language that can be understood in the culture by all and can be repeated in any situation.
What are the basic dos and don’ts of the marriage conversation?
Research shows that, today, the majority understand marriage to be merely the public recognition of a committed relationship for adults. However, in reality, we know that marriage is the institution that unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union. The dialogue should be about the public interest of each definition, which has nothing to do with homosexuality.
We cannot rebuild a marriage culture without recreating [that] common understanding. Properly understood, we must ask: “Do we need an institution that specifically unites kids with their moms and dads?” If “Yes,” it is marriage between a man and a woman. If “No,” then why not? How can banning the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads be justified?
So, in essence, this conversation is about human rights.
The adult-centric debate ignores the fact that children have an interest in marriage, particularly the marriage of their moms and dads. In fact, in Donum Vitae [Respect for Human Life in Its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation], the Church teaches it is a human right for children to be born into a family with their mothers and fathers united in marriage. That relationship is important and connected with our identity: knowing who we are and where we came from.
Recognizing this reality, we need to ask if anyone has a right to create children with sperm and egg donors with the intention of depriving them of knowing and being cared for by their mom, dad or both. Considering the rights of the child and growing human consequences of marriage breakdown and fatherlessness, promoting marriage must become an imperative of social justice.
How have current trends in social science harmed traditional marriage?
Social science is important for elevating awareness of trends that harm children and society, as with the breakdown of marriage. Studies demonstrate the need for policies that promote marriage before men and women have children and support them in their marriages.
But trying to use social science to justify the definition of marriage based on outcomes for children is problematic. It moves the conversation away from marriage to competency in parenting, which has nothing to do with marriage. It leads to false claims like “Don’t children parented by gay couples deserve to have married parents?” To find the false assumption for any argument offered in support of redefining marriage, ask the question, “What does this have to do with the only institution that unites kids with their moms and dads?”
Why not civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Civil unions and domestic partnerships are intended to be pseudo-marriage, equal in value but different in name. Effectively, they have the same consequences as redefining marriage because it becomes discriminatory to make a distinction and promote the unique value of men and women marrying before having children.
Pseudo-marriage requires teaching children in schools that alternative families, in which children are deprived of their mom or dad or both, should be considered role models or life-style alternatives. This undermines children’s understanding of the reality that marriage unites not only a man and a woman with each other, but with any children born from their union.
How does a Catholic use your booklet to optimum effect?
The booklet is purposely very short but is packed with a lot of concepts and insights that help us verify that what the Church teaches about love, marriage and family is true. It is not intended to be a guide for merely winning an argument or changing the other guy, but a guide to help us peel away the corrupting influences of the culture to help us see the beauty and goodness of God’s plan for creation through the eyes of the child within us so that we can share it with others.
As Jesus prayed to the Father, many things are hidden from the wise and learned but revealed to the childlike (Luke 10:21).
Robert Brennan writes from Los Angeles.
To learn more about Catholics for the Common Good, visit CCGAction.org
Comments
Post a Comment
16% of US citizens live in an equal-marriage state.
0% of US citizens can claim that their traditional marriage has been affected by gay marriage.
The good news about this book is that its defense of hate, bigotry, discrimination and intolerance will not prevail. What will prevail in the USA is marriage equality and the equality of gay Americans pursuant to the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. The good news is that this book will be moot be the end of the curent session of the US Supreme Court because the Court will strike down laws that that do not support the full equality of ALL American citizens. the good news is tha the USA is a nation of diverse faith traidtion, and that the hateful teachings of one faith tradition cannot be legally imp[osed upon all Americans. The good news is that the USA is not an RC theocracy.
Praise God! This is such a monumental breakthrough in our understanding of God-given, God-ordained institutions—marriage and family. I have long felt that when man makes laws for himself, and tries to re-define, update or improve upon God’ law, the perceived needs or interests of a vocal and powerful group inevitably take precedence over the needs and interests of a weak, vulnerable group, and the latter are silently ignored. “Marriage unites a man and a woman with each other and any children born from their union.” It is, in fact, the only institution that does this. It is the only institution that provides for children both a mommy and a daddy. Why should this institution be banned? these ideas put the entire matter of marriage in perspective. Thank you, authors, for this wonderful contribution
Lisa: This is not a permanent place we live in, and one day you will have to answer to God. How will you explain to Him why you rejected His definition of marriage?. His court has power over the Supreme Court that will make its second strike against America if it overrules His definition of marriage. I suggest you reconsider your position if salvation is what you seek.
God loves us so much that He wants us to make more of us. There is only one way to do this and since every child comes from a father and from a mother, it just makes sense for that child to be brought up by that mother and father.
Looking forward to this booklet, thanks!
The problem is created when gays push their lifestyle on others.
We shouldn’t even know someone’s gay.
I don’t want to explain sexual issues with my kids before they are ready but because they are shoving it down the publics throat we have to explain things before the appropriate time.
It’s just not natural and no matter what is said or what law is past it will never be natural.
What Lisa Kaiser is unaware of, quite obviously, is the hate and bigotry come from those trying to alter what is nature/natural. We are quite sad for you and for all who are so disingenuous about males and females, men and women…you may benefit by opening your heart/soul to a God who created you (in cooperation with your father and mother), who loves you, who wants so much for you…eternally!
Here is an interesting quote that I read recently from one of my favorite Pope’s…“People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being. They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves…”. Pope Benedict XVI
May God bless all those who deny their bodily identity and want all to follow such folly, such absurdity. May all of our eyes see Truth this day and always.
Pope Benedict’s description on marriage is exactly right. It’s just how I feel about marriage, but a lot of people these days don’t! Anyone who thinks differently, in my opinion is mentally deranged, and needs help! It’s very sad that our society is allowing same sex marriages, and this falsity in our world!!! Marriage is for man and woman only!
Robert Rowland,
God is the God of love. There is no hell or lack of salvation.Sorry you have bought into all that fictional scary punishment nonsense. That stuff is how the corrupt RC hierarchy tries to assert control over gullible RCs. Sorry you are controlled by illogical, irrational fear of gay people. Again, that is the messae of hate teh corrupt RC hierarchy wants gullibel RCs to buy into.
shelly332,
Gay people are not creating problems or “pushing” their lifestyle on anyone. Gay Americans have the right to the legal recognition of their rights as American citizens. We live in the USA where our Constitution is the law. ALL Americans, yes,even gay Americans have the right of equal protectionunder the law via the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.
The problem is not gay people. The problem are people who are bound by ignorance of gay people, by irrational and illogical fear of gay people. the problems are the people who buy into the message of hate against gay people being peddled by the RCC and other so-called ‘christians”. “Christians” are no longer known by what they love, but by their message of hate. Sad, very sad.
cheeriosinpocket,
The pope emeritus is entitled to his opinion, but just that-an opinion. His opinion about human beings carries no more weight than the opinion of anyone else. If Benedict was so concerned about the “bodily identity” of people, then he should have acted to protect children being sexually abused by priests and acted against the bishops and cardinals who covered up those crimes. He did nothing. He only cared about the institutional RCC. So even more reason why no one should listen to what Benedict ahad to say any topic related to sex, sexuality, “bodily identity”, marriage, etc.
I agree with Lisa and she is right in saying that the US isn’t a RC theocracy.Since there is nothing wrong with same-sex couples adopting children, it will mean very few children are in the foster care system and can be permenantly adopted.In fact if only the children in this country were all adopted,then our country would not be in so much of a financial crisis.Once is equal for all of its citizens,and not exclusive for hetrosexuals only while telling homosexuals to be chaste and celibate, then they can adopt more children and there will (hopefully very few) children in one-parent homes,regardless of the parents’genders.
Let’s put the children first! It is their basic human right to have a father and a mother. All of us reading and writing about this article have had such a right, let us not deprive others.
Our dear Pope emeritus Benedict always taught the importance of love AND truth. So we must understand the truth God has for marriage and say it with love. Although it is sadly true that many who we try to speak to even in love will not perceive love as some will only believe love is when we agree with them. And we cannot in truth agree with what we believe to be a lie. I have been personally more silent on this issue lately as I sometimes lack the right words to say in a clear understanding of the truth here and sometimes I lack the love to say it right. I plan to read this book and to do more study on this. Even if the culture lives a lie Truth is still truth and we must continue to have the courage to profess it.
I think Tom really answered Lisa’s comments. Lisa wants to make this a purely relegious argument and she obviously didn’t read the comments on the book itself. It’s not a relegious issue per se. It’s a natural law issue. A man and a women are made to reproduce and all children deserve to know who their mother and father all. Not sure where this messed up secular society will take this though. All of us who believe in God and His natural law must pray that we will be able to take our country back.
William May’s unifying, natural law description of marriage is just what I have been looking for. I plan to memorize it and have it ready for the next time I get to engage with someone on these issues. While there is life, there is hope!
lisa…understand that if a person believes in Jesus Christ and His revelation in Holy Scripture, Sodomy, same-sex depravity is an abomination to God, and those who insist on practicing this act of depravity and do not stop will answer to God, as we all will. Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God because of this moral depravity. If this offends you take it up with the Creator. Those faithful to the Words in Scripture are just believing what the words of Christ reveal…your version of moral depravity is your belief and your eternity. Those true followers of Jesus will follow what Scripture says about this depraved action and will not be swayed by laws giving the sodomites their rights. Gods words are true and are forever regardless if the world legalizes this hell-bound activity
Lisa, it is not out of hate and bigotry. It is out of love. Governments and laws are established in a society in order to make certain the society continues. No one would (except for our Supreme Court and other radical nations) establish laws that would be contrary to the continuation of the society. Sodomy is not nor was ever intended to be something to further the continuation of a society. It stops the growth of a society. It accepts a disordered behavior. Our republic was begun based on nature, what was created by God. If our sodomites feel so put down in our society, why not head on over to a muslim country, perhaps. Disorder needs to accept order and obey the laws of order.
What Lisa misses in her comment is that our Holy Father, and all those who agree with him because he is telling the truth, it is that “his opinion” is “God’s opinion” and that he has been entrusted to pass this on from generation to generation as we have been doing for the last 2013 years. When God reveals His will for humanity all other “opinions” have no value, including Lisa’s who, apparently, only lisents to her opinion; which, by the way, may only be 50 years old.
Francisco,
The pope does NOT speak for God. God is larger than the RCC and the RCC is not the sole source of God’s truth or will on earth. God has valid, ongoing, unbrlken covenants of love with Jews, with Christians (not just RCs) and with Mulsims. Only God speaks of for God. The pope is a fallible human being. And his opinion is the opnion of a human being—nothing more and nothing less. This idea that the pope speaks of r God borders on idolatry.
If my opinion is only 50 yrs old, then the opinion of the pope emeritus is only 85 yrs old.
robert Waligora,
Please go back to the Book of Genesis and read or re-read the story of Sodom and Gomorrah The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah had nothing to do with homosexuality. The idea that God was punishing people for homosexual acts is completely false—it is not how the scripture reads. If you are going to quote scripture, please do so accurately.
Again, sorry you are bound up in your strange, illogical, irrational fears about gay people. the kind of comments you post really make me happy that the RCC cannot codify its hatred in the laws of our great nation.
Lost in this conversation is a very simple truth. The First Amendment to the US constitution explicitly prohibits laws in recognition of religion. Moreover, it is arrogant to assume that Catholics have a moral monopoly that goes beyond the decisions that one makes (in contrast to affecting the decisions of others).
Liturgical Protestants accept marriage equality. So do most Jews. Many of their churches and synagogues are perfectly willing to solemnize gay marriages. They are no less entitled to do so than the Catholic Church is entitled not to do so.
The hierarchy is perfectly entitled to decide what happens in their churches. Attempting to impose that on others is contrary to good will. Imagine if Jews were running around trying to make the consumption of pork and shellfish illegal based on their religious beliefs.
Lisa, David et al, I quoted Pope Benedict XVI and now some feel they must address. It wasn’t that it was the Pope saying it…it was the Truth in what he said, or did you miss that idea?
Lisa, I suggest you go back to your Bible, unless you have one that is not of the Catholic Church for they are the ones who, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, decided what we call the New Testament.
God is fully Love. God is fully Mercy. However, I don’t know what faith you hold as Truth, but The one, holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church is the bride of Christ. Protestants are brothers who have not come into the faith fully because of error begun by Martin Luther. We do not and never would profess that other beliefs are based on Truth (especially Muslim) for we know that Jesus has revealed and clearly stated that He is The Way, The Truth and The Light. No darkness, no error.
And so, our country was founded on natural law…which is why I stated:
Governments and laws are established in a society in order to make certain the society continues. No one would (except for our Supreme Court and other radical nations) establish laws that would be contrary to the continuation of the society. Sodomy is not nor was ever intended to be something to further the continuation of a society. It stops the growth of a society. It accepts a disordered behavior. Our republic was begun based on nature, what was created by God. If our sodomites feel so put down in our society, why not head on over to a muslim country, perhaps. Disorder needs to accept order (to move toward it—not the other way around—order accepting a disorder and base laws on the disorder)and obey the laws of order.
Finally, it is not a mere matter of acceptance as David so blindly states. If not immediately, real soon down the road it will be that these false marriages should be done EVERYWHERE, NO MATTER WHO’S CHURCH, BY WHATEVER PRIEST I WANT. Sorry, that is forcing an abomination down the throats of people who will never accept it for that would be an absurdity.
Lisa,
You do not understand Catholicism and I wonder why you came to this website. Could it be to assuage your guilt about something?
There are now more than 40,000 other Christian religions. Perhaps you would like to join one of those, or come up with your own.
Cheeriosin the pocket,
the Bible I use is the New American Bible (which is an RC bible and it can be found online at the US Confernece of Catholic Bishops website). If you are speaking about the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, its you who needs to go back your Bible. The destruction of those cities had nothing to do with homosexuality—and that is what your RCC teaches as well. Take a look at the New American Bbile and the commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah found in the New American Bible—again which is Roman Catholic Bible. you will see that the RCC teaches that the destruction of those cities wYs NOT about homosexuality.
Karen,
I do indeed understand RCism—having spen about 5 decades as an RC, with 16 yrs of RC education and obtaininga BA in RC theology. Understanding RCism is not the same as agreeing with it. i understand. i do not agree with it (or agreeing with its march back to the Middle Ages—which is the viewpoint often represented by the Register)
cheeriosinpocket:
“real soon down the road it will be that these false marriages should be done EVERYWHERE, NO MATTER WHO’S CHURCH, BY WHATEVER PRIEST I WANT.”
The First Amendment prevents that from happening. It is a cherished concept in this country. That is JUST the point. the First Amendment includes the Establishment Clause. Freedom OF religion is predicated on freedom FROM religion.
By the way, our country was most certainly not founded on natural law. Quite the contrary. Natural law was the philosophical support system for European monarchs and aristocracies. Natural law held, for example, that God intended for blacks to be subservient to white people which was used to justify slavery. I think that you are confusing natural law with deism (which confirms the existence of God through nature). Many of our founding fathers were deists who had a disdain for organized religion. Deist reject the Trinity and miracles. You may know that Jefferson authored a bible free of the supernatural.
When I post to a public forum, I make a habit of using my real name. I often include my middle name to prevent ambiguity. I know nothing about you. I know neither your sex nor age. What I do know is that I hope you never have a gay child.
Feeling unqualified to provide an “Amicus Curiae” letter to the Supreme Court on DOMA? Then consider this proposal to promote an “Amicus Compatriotae” (a friend of fellow countrymen approach) to show the Justices through ongoing news stories—should they take on the marriage-related cases—that we God-respecting and Founders-respecting Americans have the only valid case!
.
Thanks to author Brennan’s noting that the respected “Catholics for the Common Good” (CCG) group is in the process of equipping, through their recent special booklet, Christians to provide formation and “coordinated witness” to properly battle the grave threats from any redefinition of marriage – I was reminded of this past connection which will surely aid the battle:
.
Yes, there is a practical and proven way to GREATLY accelerate across all America the crucial “coordinated witness” aspect should the Supreme Court shortly decide to rule on the several related cases.
.
As founder of a 3-year, well received Pilot Program called “Witnessing With the Poor” (WWP) taking place in upstate NY in the late eighties, early nineties, we repeatedly demonstrated to non-poor congregations seated for 6 minutes immediately after Sunday Masses that a small group of *ordinary parishioners* could intelligently research a specific problem of the poor, create a brief, informative talk on it and convey the importance of getting everyday parishioners interacting with their legislators to thus help solve specific problems or at least reduce the seriousness. One talk per month elevated community understanding and motivation on key problems. If coordinated over the 19,000 American parishes the means to make good changes is great.
.
The Pilot was a modern day application of what Christ expects from us: helping others to see how we all can better fulfill our duty to “improve the temporal order” as Vatican II charged the laity to do. Re the Catholic Church, I am Full-Magisterium faithful and protected the program that way and from those who sought to *use* the Pilot for “access”. Because of the closeness of politics to the particular nature of the problem and due to some effects of those dissenting-days plus the potential threat from the IRS, the initial, temporary USCCB approval could not be extended nationally.
.
In just a moment is Part 2— in light of the fact that the topics of attempts to trample on our consciences and attempts to redefine marriage cannot be held back from in-church discussions by the above mentioned circumstances and threats unfairly applied to the poverty problem.
Part 2: Proposed “Amicus Compatriotae” approach to opposing Redefinition of marriage and government trampling on sacred conscience. This generation of fellow countrymen will be responsible for the serious damage to the Republic in these four years if we fail to *effectively* use our resources.
.
Regardless of past resistance to expanding WWP nationally on the problems of the poor, a very practical methodology for informing whole congregations in about Nineteen Thousand Catholic parishes *across America on any planned weekend* was solidly demonstrated in the Pilot phase. Applied to sacred conscience and sacred marriage as topics, we can add many Protestant congregations of Christ followers who recognize the society-crushing threat in Redefining Marriage and the terroristic evil of Trampling on God-endowed conscience!
.
In these much greater Internet-power days, the simple “secret” for quickly getting Multi-thousands of congregations “up and running” across America “on any given weekend” is the independence of each congregation plus the convenient coordination via the Internet—which Catholics for the Common Good could use to prepare the “5 to 6 minute talk” *series* for the indigenous speakers *already planted by God in every congregation*. No need to line up paid speakers; there simply aren’t enough to cover all the congregations!
.
For that excellent Q & A series in CCG’s 70 page booklet written by CCG president William B. May, use of a *pair* of speakers can “illustrate” the key thoughts behind the booklet’s winning answers. In WWP, use of pairs brought several benefits. In the proposed application, with a pair, there can be a follow-up challenge to the booklet-answer speaker from the speaker asking the initial questions. Then the answer-speaker provides the clarifying response—thus increasing both deeper understanding AND confidence *in the congregation* on the key points of the exchange. If we’re under threat of a bad USSC decision I think every congregation and parish pastor would surely provide for at least two such talks per month as the Justices ponder.
.
In the TWO CURRENT MAJOR B ATTLES over sacred conscience and sacred marriage, we cannot afford to rely on parishioners listening once or twice to a pastor’s appeals or mainly reading a bulletin insert and then taking actions like emailing or calling their legislators. Nor is there enough time to gradually build up throughout America a large enough group to make political leaders and Justices* take notice* before handing down a decision. The existence of a swing vote can make all the difference in our endangered Republic. The greatest chance for saving the Republic and true freedom is to use the Witnessing Method as outlined. Then the “Turnout” of confidently acting Christians can be enormous and effective.
.
As always, prayer is ESSENTIAL.
.
The alternative is to needlessly face persecution by people like those in Sodom & Gomorrah days. Once the law is changed regarding the nature of marriage they will wrongly use the 14th Amendment to silence most by fining/jailing the few who dare to speak. If today’s USCCB will not allow this proven, respectful proposal to go forward, they will have no excuse because the topic is far from politics!
Lisa, Glad we’re on the Bible. Also glad you have one. You may want to see on Churchmilitant.tv that your education and theology B.A. may not have provided you nor any of us with the depth of Church Teaching. I would refer you to St. Jerome’s Biblical Commentary (which most likely predates any “social justice” ideas that conveniently are finding their way into our Bibles). Genesis (18:9-20:8), [2:29-32] 30 (iii) The destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot (19:1-29) 4-11 All the men of the town, young and old, seek to abuse sexually the two guests of Lot. There is indeed a basis for the outcry that had come up to God (18:21)! The inhabitants’ crime is twofold: violation of hospitality and forbidden sexual behavior. (Lev 18:22)...” Lisa, many of us have not received what we thought we had received. I’ll pray that our Lord and Savior, Jesus, reveals Himself powerfully to you through His Teachings in His Church, The Catholic Church. Blessings upon you!
lisa Kaiser…you need to take you depraved homosexual agenda and your interpretation of Scripture passages regarding sodomy and its filth and print your baloney in the mainstream media who will embrace your open view points…homosexual lifestyle has always been endorsed by its father..Satan himself…take your garbage and write in the catholic reporter
Hi David! I’m sorry to say, but that is exactly what is happening in courts in the states that are “voting for gay marriage.” The First Amendment is being stepped on, walked on, and basically danced on by those who choose to force laws down the throats of those who cannot, may not, will not and choose not to accept unnatural, disordered behaviors as equal and a right.
Just yesterday I attended a symposium addressing Religion and the founders of our Country. You may want to check into something called WallBuilders. The presenter, a Matt Krause, shared on the Black Robe Regiment and how critical the clergy were in establishing our then (except our slaves—how criminal—what they endured) “free” nation. Quite interlinked! No sir, not all were deists as our revisionists want us to believe! I’m sorry, I don’t know if this flows because I’ve had a few interruptions from my daughter (not gay, my 3rd of 4 children who has other challenges).
As to my real name on forums such as these, unnecessary. Female, 56 years old, married to not only the male God intended for me, but well beyond what I could have ever thought to ask for (not like those shallow hollywood deals they try to sell us on). Grateful child of God, with an Immaculate Mother, a spouse that reflects the Lord’s sacrificial love for His Church day in and day out, a truly blessed mother of 4 fabulous gifts—our children. My “name” comes from a day, years after the use during homilies, when I reached into my pocket and found deep down 4 or 5 cheerios. How those little leftovers touched my mind and soul of days gone by, how my children would never be in that stage of need again. So, what can I say except from your hope to God’s ear. I am blessed with other needs, other lifelong sacrifices. God knows that each and every soul He has created is ordered to be with Him eternally. Each and every soul has before him goodness and grace to choose it, as well as evil and temptation to overcome. I am, as all Catholics, are called to follow His commands and assist in any way I am able other souls by placing Truth before them and prayers to choose Truth. May God bless you, David Cary Hart.
Legalizing same sex marriage will result in this being taught in schools - and at younger and younger ages because we want kids to grow up thinking this is all just fine and dandy. Isn’t that what you want, Lisa? Now, we can lay the complexities of human sexual relations on childen at a younger and younger age. How selfish. Might I ask what will be next after we indocrtinate everyone about how wonderful same sex raltionships can be? Maybe we’ll see a push for lowering the age of sexual consent. After all, kids are so much more mature these days. Believe you and me, this will be the next frontier. The ultimate goal here is to turn back the hands of time to the pagan era, where realtions between men and younger men (young teenagers) is accepted and common. Early Christians went to their deaths opposing such things in the pagan world. But we here in the 21st century are so much more enlightened. We’re smarter because we have cell phones and all sorts of electronic gadgets! And, we have people like Lisa, who can twist the truth in all sorts of ways that it is no longer recognizable. When she gets done, there won’t be any “right” and “wrong”. It will all be relative - just like B16 said - “The Dictatorship of Relativism” is upon us.
I know. People will say I’m crazy and jumping to delusions and that no such thing would ever happen. But, how many people in 1973 thought that 40 years after Roe vs. Wade, we’d have 54 million abortions? And now we have “ethicists” introducing the concept of “post birth abortion” and a president who thinks a child born alive from a botched later term abortion has no right to live! Mark my words, if we accept same sex marriage across the US, we will be on the road to evetually accepting all the reprehensible pagan practices.
God help us.
I’m not afraid of gay people, if you want to be gay be gay. As Catholics, we believe marriage is for man and woman! I don’t want to see two men or two women getting married in my Church! I value my beliefs . Peace and Love be with you!
Lisa’s claim about the New American commentary (Gen 18:20)is FALSE.
She wrote: “The destruction of those cities had nothing to do with homosexuality—and that is what your RCC teaches as well. Take a look at the New American Bbile and the commentary on Sodom and Gomorrah found in the New American Bible—again which is Roman Catholic Bible. you will see that the RCC teaches that the destruction of those cities wYs NOT about homosexuality.”
Nowhere in the commentary is the sin of homosexuality denied. It simply points to other passages which list other types of sins: “as lack of social justice, Ez 16:46–51, as disregard for the poor, and Jer 23:14, as general immorality. In the Genesis story, the sin is violation of the sacred duty of hospitality by the threatened rape of Lot’s guests.”
Note first, that Lot’s guests were angels who appeared as men, and the perpetrators were “townsmen”
In my older version of the NAB, however, the commentary has an additional sentence: “According to the present account of the Yahwist, the sin of Sodom was homosexuality.”(1991)
That sentence was taken out for some unknown reason. However, the story continues in chapter 19, where in verses 4-7, the townsmen demanded to have “intimacies” with the men in Lot’s house. Lot described this as “this wicked thing.”
Therefore, the truth is that there are several sins that led to the destruction of Sodom, but no particular sin is excluded. The rape of Lot’s guest would have been homosexual acts. Homosexuality was clearly one of the included sins, given the context. That, my friends, is the whole truth.
Lisa needs to offer an apology for misleading the readers.
Thanks TJ!
I’m not going to even get into the whole gay debate. I will say what I personally had a problem with in this article. It states “That relationship is important and connected with our identity: knowing who we are and where we came from.
Recognizing this reality, we need to ask if anyone has a right to create children with sperm and egg donors with the intention of depriving them of knowing and being cared for by their mom, dad or both”
So what I get from this is that unless the biological mother and father are raising the child, the child is being punished in some way and that is wrong. I will be sure and apologize to my (adopted) son tonight. I am positive he would have been better off with his birth mother(who cares if she partied and did drugs and let him literally almost starve to death!) and his birth father(they were married, but he was too high to ever notice anything) I personally am not gay, my husband and I are about to celebrate our 20 year anniversary, and even if my son does not “know” his birth parents-we know that God placed this child with us and he is ours. Oh, by the way I guess I misspoke earlier, because I am going to say something about gay rights. God made us ALL in His image, He knit us ALL together in our mothers’ wombs, we are ALL fearfully and wonderfully made, God does NOT make mistakes. If a gay couple chooses to adopt, then they are at least thinking about and planning for a child(unlike the drunken, high idiots who just find themselves pregnant!) I personally would prefer that people who planned and who loved each other became parents! (I would prefer they were married, because marriage to me equals a commitment to each other and to your family. I personally believe that the straight couples who marry and divorce multiple times are a much bigger threat to the sanctity of marriage than a gay couple could ever be.)
Bravo, Angela!
Angela, I believe you missed the boat, and yet your trying to convince about not discussing the whole gay debate which you obviously intended to do all along or you could have hit delete from those comments. First, this is not about invitro fertilization…which is against Church teaching…did you know this? Second, the Church welcomes a husband and wife who are looking to adopt. They’ve been trying to help those who cannot conceive through adoption; that is, adoption into a family which is a husband and a wife, male and female. My husband was adopted! He is ever so grateful that his life wasn’t taken through abortion. His parents loved him so much, and he loved his parents so much. They were a family. Third, your premise is exactly proven wrong in the artlce above as regards to same sex couples. Sorry, but sodomy is sodomy is deviant behavior. God bless you and help you to see Truth.
angela…your compassion for gays raising children is misguided compassion. The new Pope Francis goes against your viewpoint and says it is a grave injustice to the child to be raised by members of the same-sex. The gay couple is only going to poison the mind of the innocent child into thinking they have a loving family. Satan is mocking the Holiness of the Holy Family and setting up his perversion from Hell as an equal of the Family of The Blessed Mother and St. Joseph. As the Commandments say “Honor your FATHER AND MOTHER”...it doesn’t say, honor your father and father,or,honor your mother and mother.
In response to Angela:
She wrote: ” God made us ALL in His image, He knit us ALL together in our mothers’ wombs, we are ALL fearfully and wonderfully made, God does NOT make mistakes.”
Totally true, but it doesn’t mean that humans are born in a perfected state. Witness children who are born with disabilities, or addictions to drugs. So it is not an excuse to say that a person is born in such a way, and therefore, it is right to act on their impulses. A child born with high levels of irritabilty and aggressiveness should not be encourage to act on his urges. Same with people born with homosexual tendencies.
Theologically, it is because of the fallen human nature that we are all born “defective”.
From the government’s perspective, gay marriage makes no sense. In fact, no gay advocate has been able to convincingly define marriage to include gays - marriage in a sense that the state should grant special privileges. the reason why the state grants privileges to heterosexual married couples is because, on the whole (not just in a few exceptional cases), married couples are good for society, even necessary. Gay couples, on the whole (not just in a few cases), do not. Every gay person already has the same rights to marry as anyone else, just not to a person of the same sex.
Here’s a challenge to gay marriage advocate: offer a clear definition of marriage that explains why the state should grant special privileges.
When I get the chance to reply, I’ll show you why the logic does not work.
Disclaimer: I don’t hate gay people, because everyone is made in God’s image and is every bit as valuable as any other person. Every person gay or straight, must be treated with the same respect. And BTW, to respect a person means sometimes to correct that person.
TJ,
No one is asking for"special privileges”. Gay Americans are seeking the legal recognition of their rights under the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Gay Americans are being asked to be treated as every other American citizen.
The sodomites are asking for special privileges…the 14th amendment guarantees LIFE (uh-oh, seems like abortion is against the 14th amendment—now there is an important finding), liberty or property.
The one and only definition of marriage is that it the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. Why? Because: the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. It is tied to society because it affects society through procreation. If you have a society that does not procreate, it will perish.
cherriosinmypoceket:
The 14th Amendment guaranteess equal protection under the law for ALL American citizens. so no, gay people are NOT asking for special privilges. they are asking to be treated as all other Americans are treated under the law re marriage.
Also, gay people do procreate. Lots and lots of gay people have children. so yes, gay people do procreate. Its a fallacy to say that gay people are not out there procreating. And there now about 7 billion people on the planet. So nobody needs to worry that the planet will be without people.
BUT equal protection…protection…they are protected, they are citizens they cannot procreate male/male? Their “choice” is a deviant behavior which is contrary to normal behavior. They want something that they are NOT entitled to…they want everyone to be “ok” with their choice of behavior.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Lisa,
Your appeal to the 14th totally fails. “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
No gay person is derpived of marriage, in just the same way that two close friends or room-mates are not deprived on marriage. Everyone (of age and in good standing with the law) may marry another of the other sex. However, to want to marry another of the same sex is asking for a special privilege, because there is no sub-category of citizens who have that special privilege. Therefore, every gay person is treated like any other citizen in regards to existing marriage options.
And unless English is not your first language, I fail to see how you can say that gay people procreate. It means “to beget or bring forth offspring - reproduce” MW Dictionary.
I am willing to bet that you are unable to offer a clear definition of marriage in a way that would compel the state to confer additional privileges to gay couples. Only the traditional definition of marraige works to benefit the state, and it consists of these elements: union of will and body of two persons, in a way that makes generation of offspring possible, and necessarily includes the elements of sexual exclusivity and lifelong permanence of commitment.
I look forward to reading your version.
Cheeriosinmy pocket,
Next week the US Suprem Court will two cases related to same-sex marriage. thi smenas the Court haas dtermined that is an issue about whether or not the 14th Amendment rights of gay Americans are being violated. So no, you are incorrect. The 14th Amendment rights of gay Americans remains an unsettled question. the Court will settle the question by June at the latest.
Gay Americans just want to be treated equally per the laww of our nations. It probably does not matter to any gay american if anyone else thinks that their rights are “ok”.
Again, gay people do reproduce. Lots and lots of gay people have children. One of my gay women friends just had a baby via artificial insemination. She and her partner have been together for about 15 yrs. they will raise this child in a stable loving home, surrounded by grandparents, aunts uncels, cousins, and friends. just like stright couples.
Yes, the RCC thinks that artificial insemination is wrong. Too bad that the RCC thinks some lives are better than others. My friend is not RC, so what the RCC thinks does not matter to her. However the very RC straight married sister of a a friend of mine had a baby last yr via in vitro fertilization. Becasue she and her RC husband were having fertility issues, they decided to ignore the RCC’s wrong-headed opinion and went ahead and brought a baby ino the world. Bravo to them as well.
TJ,
Please call the US Supreme Court immediately and stop them from hearing the same-sex marriage cases next week. The silly nine Justices of the US Supreme Court have determined that same-sex marriage IS a 14th Amendment issue and are hearing the cases on that basis. You better hurry up & tell them that they are wrong!
As for gay people having children, yes many gay people have children. as I mentioned above a lesbian friend of maine gave birth in Feb to a child. Sorry if you don’t beleive that gay people father children or give birth to children. Your error does not chnage the facts.
And sorry, marriage is about more than children. In law, marriage is a contract between consenting adults. To legally enter into that contract there is no condition that the couple has to have children. There is no reason why people of the same-sex cannot enter into the legal contract of marriage.
Lisa, I believe we are at an impasse. The U.S. Supreme Court will never be my Supreme Judge. They are the crown of God’s Creation, but they are not God. They have made some enormous blunders before on important issues. I do not put my trust in princes, but my trust is in the Lord.
I am astounded that people of intelligence have raised a behavior (a disordered one at that) to the level of the 14th Amendment. I would be insulted and would be marching on Washington D.C. if I were an African-American. The 14th Amendment was a slavery issue—it actually meant something that you obviously cannot begin to comprehend. Yes, this will be a new low should the Court rule as you “feel” they ought.
You misjudge the Roman Catholic Church. It is reprehensible to bring a baby into the level of disorder your lesbian friend has. This may interest you…a frequently have a word document open in case I need to check spelling or definition…I entered lesbian and the very first item that came up said lesbianporn, lesbian sex videos and ever more perversions.
As for supposed Roman Catholic couple…sounds as if they aren’t if they chose to go against Church teaching. They may not have taken the time to see the Wisdom in Church teaching. God bless them and their child. I will not be their judge. Sad, because there are so many, many children who need a loving home under the loving care of a Father and a Mother. Adoption is an excellent choice for a Husband and Wife.
Bye.
cheeriosinmypocketl,
The 14th Amendment,yes, was added tot he US Constituion after the Civil War. But it is about euqality for ALL americans. Sorry you do not support justice and equality, but instead support hate and inequality.
And who care what your Google search turned up—that means nothing. That you even mentioned it is bizarre. And since you do not know my friend, your crass judgment has no credibility. Its just another expression of hate.
And love how RCs condemn other RCs for having babies in ways the RC does approve of and yet RCs call themeselves"pro-life”. Really RCism is just about being pro-hate.
God loves gay people, God loves gay couples. God is about love, unlike right-wing RCs who are about hate.
Lisa Kaiser,
I think the Supreme Court will agree with my view in general, but we’ll see :-)
When you first wrote that gay people procreate, I read it as gay couples - and of course, gay couples don’t. To be precise, you should have written, “gay people can procreate, through IVF.” But it still remains that they are unable to as a couple.
Your definition of marraige is that “marriage is a contract between consenting adults.”
Therefore, two blood brothers may also decide to call their bond a marriage and acqurie special privileges. Two people living apart may also get married. But you offer no reason for why this definition holds, in regard to state interest. Two college roommates may declare themselves married even in they were in a non-sexual relationship, just to get benefits.
Why only two people? Does it have to be permanent, or can it be time-limited?
That’s my challenge to ANY gay marriage advocate. Present a clear definition of marriage in a way that would compel the state to confer additional privileges to gay couples. You haven’t done that.
BTW, my definition does not require the couple to have children, but rather, only that the bond makes the natural generation of offspring possible.
Take up my challenge?
One other point Lisa,
I believe that the homosexual lifestyle should be discouraged as a matter of public interest also. Why? Because it is a public health concern. Look up CDC and the stats for HIV/AIDS and STM. Why would anyone wish to encourage a lifestyle that significantly reduces the lifespan?
In sum, the heart of my argument is that gay marriage in general does not serve public interest, and the only support for gay marriage is (some) sentimental(including pity or sympathy). That IS the only real basis for gay marriage.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.