- Status
R
Rosebud77
Guest
Given that more and more abuse revelations are coming out still… given that all seem to ignore the fact that nearly 40% voted no… given that the majority of the clergy are too old to work miracles which fact as the decline of the clergy is due to the child abuse… I think folk are theologising the vote far too much and thus will miss the real causes. Also bishops are ineffectual as they are scared of losing priests and so discipline is lax as we see from ACP and the newer Irish Catholic Society… which is as lax and pro “inclusive” as ACP…Few can now speak with any authority… and Archbishop Martin is the only sane and humble voice to be heard
J
JackVk
Guest
I’m disappointed, but not surprised. The fight to uphold traditional marriage has long since become a lost cause. I don’t approve of sodomy, but we’re deluding ourselves if we think it’s just going to go away by legislation.
2
27lw
Guest
Yes, I was deeply saddened. My daughter, who attends Catholic high school, heard it mentioned on the news this morning, and couldn’t understand. “Wait - - I thought Ireland was very Catholic?” This whole year it’s been appalling things like this on the morning drive to school. What will next year bring, I am afraid to ask.
Also, our pastor said nothing about this on Sunday from the pulpit (his last name is Sullivan, no less). I know our former pastor would have, so no one in his parish would have had any doubt over how wrong this vote was.
I guess the lesson we can take is that Ireland has become primarily secular, like the rest of Europe.
Also, our pastor said nothing about this on Sunday from the pulpit (his last name is Sullivan, no less). I know our former pastor would have, so no one in his parish would have had any doubt over how wrong this vote was.
I guess the lesson we can take is that Ireland has become primarily secular, like the rest of Europe.
J
Johann_du_Toit
Guest
I was disappointed by the vote but not surprised, given the amount of advertising and resources poured into the referendum by the pro gay marriage advocates.
That, and none of the major political parties in Ireland were willing to take a stand in favour of traditional marriage, perhaps out of fear of being branded as “homophobic” and “hateful”.
The american writer and Jounralist Christopher Caldwell once remarked the gay rights brigade doesn’t want to debate same sex marriage, they want to browbeat their opponents and accuse them of being “bigots” and “intolerant” and sue them if they do not agree. You can tell a lot about the moral legitimacy about a cause by the conduct and tactics of it’s advocates.
That, and none of the major political parties in Ireland were willing to take a stand in favour of traditional marriage, perhaps out of fear of being branded as “homophobic” and “hateful”.
The american writer and Jounralist Christopher Caldwell once remarked the gay rights brigade doesn’t want to debate same sex marriage, they want to browbeat their opponents and accuse them of being “bigots” and “intolerant” and sue them if they do not agree. You can tell a lot about the moral legitimacy about a cause by the conduct and tactics of it’s advocates.
M
Mintaka
Guest
It was ridiculous, and in fifty years nobody will believe all this stupidity ever happened.
Remember Prohibition? The progressive groups spent fifty years browbeating everybody into banning liquor, hundreds of local breweries and distilleries had to close their doors never to open again, the government poisoned hundreds of thousands of people, and within twenty years it was all behind us as just a forgotten national embarrassment.
(Except for all the dead people, and the rise of organized crime, and all the brewers who died of broken hearts when their livelihoods were taken away. And then there was the way it took nearly a hundred years for American brewers to build up expertise again instead of making nasty water…)
Remember Prohibition? The progressive groups spent fifty years browbeating everybody into banning liquor, hundreds of local breweries and distilleries had to close their doors never to open again, the government poisoned hundreds of thousands of people, and within twenty years it was all behind us as just a forgotten national embarrassment.
(Except for all the dead people, and the rise of organized crime, and all the brewers who died of broken hearts when their livelihoods were taken away. And then there was the way it took nearly a hundred years for American brewers to build up expertise again instead of making nasty water…)
M
Merrick
Guest
No, I am not sad or surprised. This is inevitable and I see no good reasons to prevent secular same-sex marriage and I’m tired of seeing all these threads about it. May as well just grit your teeth and bear with it because it’s coming to the USA nation wide, too any day now.
Secular marriage just doesn’t follow the teachings of the Church. There are no fault divorces, remarriage, you can even get married over night in some places. Just accept that the state has a different idea of what marriage is than the Church and get over it.
Secular marriage just doesn’t follow the teachings of the Church. There are no fault divorces, remarriage, you can even get married over night in some places. Just accept that the state has a different idea of what marriage is than the Church and get over it.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
I really… really, hope it only takes fifty years.
I expect it to take far longer though.
This is apathy and sloth. We will not bear with it any more than we will bear with abortion, or bear with murder, or bear with child abuse.
As for you not seeing any reason to renounce it, there are a myriad or reasons, not least of which is that when the public accepts it, those who continue to uphold reality and reject the farce are inevitably persecuted. We’re already seeing it in European nations, as well as Canada; and we here in America are not immune from it. There are tons of other reasons as well, ranging from how it affects the popular understanding of just what marriage is and is meant to be; to the fact that by passively allowing it we are being lukewarm in our faith and may be spit out from the mouth of the Father at our particular judgment.
M
Merrick
Guest
Well I don’t see anyone on the bandwagon to protest divorce, remarriage, contraception, etc. Meanwhile not recognizing same-sex marriage whether or not you agree with it is affecting families and children. It’s not apathetic to think of what happens when a partner dies and the child is ripped from his mother’s arms because she is not the legal mother. You will probably encounter the child is exposed to the gay lifestyle but there are plenty of children in unusual situations – some are in polygamous families, some have parents who are not married, etc. And I don’t think they should be ripped from their homes by the state, either.
I have been gay all my life. I suspect that you don’t know anything about what that’s like. I highly doubt there is anything wrong with it. Whether there is or not there is no secular reason to oppose these marriage rights as the good outweighs the bad. It doesn’t matter anyway because there is no way this trend will be reversed whether you like it or not.
G
GEddie
Guest
It will be reversed, because homosexuality is not just sin, it is inimical to civil society.
A society without homosexuals is not weakened in any way, but if everybody were homosexual, it would perish.
So the pendulum will swing back, but possibly not before the EC and NA both collapse.
ICXC NIKA.
A society without homosexuals is not weakened in any way, but if everybody were homosexual, it would perish.
So the pendulum will swing back, but possibly not before the EC and NA both collapse.
ICXC NIKA.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
Then you are really, really, not paying attention. This issue gets the most attention because it is advancing with the greatest speed at the moment. Even with this focus, there are numerous groups still constantly working to overturn abortion laws and reaffirm the realities of marriage. The fact that you don’t see them tell me you’re just not looking for them.
I really hope you understand how poor an argument this is. You’re saying that because the child being in an immoral situation leads to a secondary bad outcome, we should somehow ignore that the initial situation is immoral… If the child was living with her mother and her father as God intended, it wouldn’t be an issue. Instead, homosexual couples use sperm donations to get themselves pregnant (because their union is incapable of such a feat), bringing a child into a situation that is already shattered beyond recovery, and then claiming that we should legitimize their immoral situation to prevent the child from being further harmed by their decisions. This is the same as drug users saying that drugs should be made legal because they experience negative effects in prison. (A notion that is, unfortunately, likewise gaining speed in our nation…)
A child has a right to a mother and a father, a man or a woman does not have the right to a child. our priorities are backwards because it’s the adults who vote and the adults who pay for things, so we pay attention to the adults, instead of the people who actually need protecting.
Then you suspect incorrectly. I may not be homosexual, but I have my own illicit desires that I have struggled with for years, desires that I can never morally fulfill. Do not presume that your situation is unique or can’t be identified with simply because my experiences do not directly correlate to yours.
There is nothing immoral about being homosexual, just as there is nothing inherently immoral in experiencing any kind of attraction. What is immoral is allowing those desires to overwhelm our moral integrity; or using them as an excuse to ignore the moral law that God has given us.
In the whole of human history, there has thus far only been one group or set of ideals to make that claim and actually be able to stand by it. That is the Catholic Church. Every other religion, every other ideology, every other civilization, empire, philosophy, “ethics”, and social drive has been subject to change or outright destruction by the power of popular opinion and ideology. The Church is the only institution in existence who’s dogmas have remained constant over any extended period of time (on a historic scale, not a human scale).
This tide, likewise, will pass with time. Not a short amount of time, no; but we’ve been here before in the past, and I’m sure we’ll be here again in the future.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
Nobody is forcing anybody to become a homosexual. All the laws in the world would not stop it. But with just a little light from the Divine, the eyes of the homosexual will be opened and they will quickly turn from their evil ways.
2
27lw
Guest
I have to say, I have wondered whether the Church will at some point take this view. It seems to me that that is the view of the Church on divorce, that sometimes civil divorce is useful or necessary to protect one spouse and the children. So, sadly, I can imagine the Church saying that while SS"M" is not the ideal, sometimes it is useful to protect the financial / custodial well-being of children.
Although that scares me - - I am not in favor of SS"M".
K
KyleOfOrigen
Guest
Something I have always believed, and was surprised to hear that Pope Pius V also said was “All the evil in the world is due to lukewarm Catholics”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
We have no right to point at homosexuals when the Church has failed. It is the same here in America too. We now live in a culture that is obsessed with the concept of love but inaccurately defines it- because of the example of Catholics.
“and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” -Numbers 32:23.
When Catholics started using birth-control they sent a silent message to the ungoldy that marriage was about sexual pleasure and being happy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_scandal_in_Ireland
We have no right to point at homosexuals when the Church has failed. It is the same here in America too. We now live in a culture that is obsessed with the concept of love but inaccurately defines it- because of the example of Catholics.
“and you may be sure that your sin will find you out” -Numbers 32:23.
When Catholics started using birth-control they sent a silent message to the ungoldy that marriage was about sexual pleasure and being happy.
M
Merrick
Guest
We will just have to agree to disagree. I don’t believe in the state taking children out of families of gay couples, the divorced or remarried, polygamous families, or what have you – not on the basis of those things alone.
I don’t see any reversal of state recognition of gay unions happening. It has spread to countries around the world and isn’t slowing down.
I don’t see any reversal of state recognition of gay unions happening. It has spread to countries around the world and isn’t slowing down.
U
utah_rose
Guest
Let me get this straight. You don’t believe in the state taking children from polygamous families?? Then you must not be aware of the plight of children in Colorado City Utah or Arizona. Do you also approve of child brides, 12 and 13 years of age forced to marry older men? The children of such unions frequently go hungry because Of other jealous wives. They don’t receive an education and know nothing of the outside world. If you’re a girl, expect to be a child bride. Worse if you’re a boy, by the time he’s a teen he’s thrown out of the community because you see he’s a rival to the older men. These boys are called lost boys because they have no home. Oh, and the police in this town are not impartial. The children of such unions also suffer beatings.
If the wives run away, every effort is made to get them back, even through the courts. So once again you’re not on top of things. The children of such unions as well as the wives are forced to remain hidden.
Furthermore, when same sex marriages divorce, and children are involved child custody fights abound, just like heterosexual marriage only now the lines are blurred. Two mothers, two fathers? I really feel sorry for the children of these unions.
If the wives run away, every effort is made to get them back, even through the courts. So once again you’re not on top of things. The children of such unions as well as the wives are forced to remain hidden.
Furthermore, when same sex marriages divorce, and children are involved child custody fights abound, just like heterosexual marriage only now the lines are blurred. Two mothers, two fathers? I really feel sorry for the children of these unions.
P
ProdglArchitect
Guest
The Church has always held that it is sometimes necessary for a person to separate from their spouse for health or safety reasons, that’s nothing new. What’s new is the culture’s immoral conclusion that this means they can get remarried. In those instances, the marriage is presumed valid, but has become untenable. Even if they divorce, the marriage is still valid. This is the not same as SS"M", where the marriage is incapable of being valid to begin with.I have to say, I have wondered whether the Church will at some point take this view. It seems to me that that is the view of the Church on divorce, that sometimes civil divorce is useful or necessary to protect one spouse and the children. So, sadly, I can imagine the Church saying that while SS"M" is not the ideal, sometimes it is useful to protect the financial / custodial well-being of children.
J
JimmyG88
Guest
This vote was on a matter of CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM not a referenendum on Church Doctrine. Many priests voted in favour as it was a matter of civics rather than religion.
A
Andre1000
Guest
I am not surprised when I look how eager the bishops in Europe work to destroy the Catholic Faith and replace it with feel good theology. By saying that homosexual intercourse is sin, I am already isolated in the German Catholic Church.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Plenty of things have ‘spread’ and have then. . .disappeared.
Where are the followers of Arias?
At one time I would have asked “Where are the Albigensians” as that heresy also died out hundreds of years ago. . .but lately I rather suspect that it’s sprouted up again, and is attempting to take over current society. However, it will fail again. A pity that it will once again need a Crusade to unite Christians against heretics of all stripes. . .and by ‘against’ I don’t necessarily mean that we’ll need to protect ourselves and our Faith with swords, although for some it may come to that (those facing the jihadists). . . I mean that against such moral turpitude and evil masquerading as truth, our best weapon will BE the Truth of the Catholic Faith, lived out to the best of our ability.
- Status