Archbishop Dolan Urges Obama: End Campaign Against Marriage, Religious Freedom

[_Abyssinia]

What’s this have to do with anything? He may not be your type of Christian or my type of Christian, but that doesn’t mean he’s not Christian

Then why was he sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years?

You say you are Catholic, you should understand what a Christian believes, and Obama rejects central tenants of the Christian faith.

 

[Rock_Happy]

This is from The Vatican website and was approved by John Paul II:
The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

It will be interesting to revisit this statement in 20 years to see how it withstands the test of time.

 

[Trader]

In a remarkable letter to President Barack Obama, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York strongly criticized “recent actions taken by your Administration that both escalate the threat to marriage and imperil the religious freedom of those who promote and defend marriage.”

More…

Yesterday at the United Nations, in the midst of a possible worldwide financial crisis and the danger of a global recession brought on by excessive debt, the President of the United States found time to speak out for gay rights, but not for religious liberty or measures to strengthen families, the foundation of every human culture.

I think the President will be hearing a lot more from courageous Catholic leaders like Archbishops Dolan and Chaput.

 

[manualman]

Then why was he sitting in Jeremiah Wright’s church for years?

That’s an incredibly weak argument. Obama’s own religious views seem pretty vague, but I’m inclined to say he’s the one who gets to define them, not his critics. But let’s also recognize the simple truth that his time in Wright’s church was a time when Obama was scrambling HARD to establish himself as a real Chicagoan, not an outsider horning in. Being a member in a prominent local black church (a demographic, believe it or not, that was not a shoe-in for him when he was a political unknown) was rather helpful to his political career.

Hopefully, that shallow motive wasn’t his main reason for attending. But he sure jumped ship FAST when that membership became a political liability instead of an asset, didn’t he?

But ultimately, his personal convictions aren’t relevant. What really matters is that the ACTIONS of his administration have been hostile to people of faith like few administrations ever before him.

 

[jam070406]

That’s an incredibly weak argument. Obama’s own religious views seem pretty vague, but I’m inclined to say he’s the one who gets to define them, not his critics. But let’s also recognize the simple truth that his time in Wright’s church was a time when Obama was scrambling HARD to establish himself as a real Chicagoan, not an outsider horning in. Being a member in a prominent local black church (a demographic, believe it or not, that was not a shoe-in for him when he was a political unknown) was rather helpful to his political career.

Hopefully, that shallow motive wasn’t his main reason for attending. But he sure jumped ship FAST when that membership became a political liability instead of an asset, didn’t he?

But ultimately, his personal convictions aren’t relevant. What really matters is that the ACTIONS of his administration have been hostile to people of faith like few administrations ever before him.

Based on some comments you’d think he was the vicar of Christ.

 

[Gift_from_God]

That’s an incredibly weak argument.

Attending a church for two decades doesn’t mean you are a Christian?

 

[manualman]

Sitting in this office for 12 years hasn’t made me a Bic pen either.

Haven’t you ever met somebody who divorced after 20 years, examined the putative marriage with the tribunal and had it declared null? It’s weird, but there ARE people out there who have been together 20 years and really never truly married as God defines it. Same goes for the faith. But I agree with you that it’s dumb for people to argue about who is or isn’t a christian. Better to argue about the effects their actions have than their motivations.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I think the President will be hearing a lot more from courageous Catholic leaders like Archbishops Dolan and Chaput.

These are two very powerful men - the archbishops of New York and of Philadelphia. What they say is worth listening to and heeding, but given their positions and influence, they don’t need courage to say what they want to say.

 

[Rock_Happy]

That’s an incredibly weak argument. Obama’s own religious views seem pretty vague, but I’m inclined to say he’s the one who gets to define them, not his critics. But let’s also recognize the simple truth that his time in Wright’s church was a time when Obama was scrambling HARD to establish himself as a real Chicagoan, not an outsider horning in. Being a member in a prominent local black church (a demographic, believe it or not, that was not a shoe-in for him when he was a political unknown) was rather helpful to his political career.

Hopefully, that shallow motive wasn’t his main reason for attending. But he sure jumped ship FAST when that membership became a political liability instead of an asset, didn’t he?

But ultimately, his personal convictions aren’t relevant. What really matters is that the ACTIONS of his administration have been hostile to people of faith like few administrations ever before him.

He is the President of all the people, regardless of their faith, or lack of it.

I think it would be inappropriate for him to be talking about his personal faith other than in very general terms. Certainly, it is refreshing not to have a President who used religious groups to political advantage as his predecessor did. That was how Rove got the previous president into his first high political office.

It is probably a sign of a good president, if every group thinks they are not getting enough from him. It would be very worrisome indeed, if gays were happy with him, or if conservative Christians were delighted. Since both sides are disappointed, he might be walking exactly the right line as our President.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The threat is when the government is stamping approval on immoral actions, especially in such a way that compels others to give approval also. The problem is when I have to pretend that what two men are doing is moral or face legal consequences

You don’t have to pretend a thing, you have to comply with the law. The separation of Church and State, which completely empowers the Church in America, also demands we not make laws based on the theology of a religion. You don’t have to “pretend something is moral.” Believe as you wish. Comply with the law.

when I have to let my children be told that these immoral acts are ok in school,

Your children go to Church and you explain morality to them. They will see all sorts of immorality in life, they will come to understand people have different beliefs. They will find out people preach against lying but them n lie, anyway. They will have to deal with all sorts of conundrums of human behavior belief as opposed to teaching and belief. You were always in this position, nothing has changed.

and when I have to allow two men who are living an immoral and unhealthy lifestyle take over the care of a child from my agency and involve that child in the immoral and unhealthy lifestyle, or be fined and/or shut down.

But that isn’t the choice. The choice is to be a government contractor or a private service of the Catholic Church. As the latter, the Church decides to whom the children are entrusted. As a government contractor, they go by other regulations. How many children are you wiling to adopt and foster for Catholic Charities to be able to operate as a private religious organization? How much money will you give them to replace government funding?

It is what it is: what will you do to fix it?

Two men want to live in the same house, say warm and fuzzy things to each other, and engage in immoral acts? Well that’s their choice, I suppose. But there is no way that I should be pressured to act as though that’s the same thing as the sacrament of matrimony or pretend that it’s even ok

You don’t have to do any of those things. You have to comply with the law.

 

[livnlern]

Your children go to Church and you explain morality to them. They will see all sorts of immorality in life, they will come to understand people have different beliefs. They will find out people preach against lying but them n lie, anyway. They will have to deal with all sorts of conundrums of human behavior belief as opposed to teaching and belief. You were always in this position, nothing has changed.
You don’t have to do any of those things. You have to comply with the law.

Yes, children will come in contact with people of varying beliefs. But when they’re in school, they’re forced to sit and listen to what the teacher says, and to learn what is taught. They’re expected to memorize what they’re taught and will be tested on the same. The idea is to get concepts and ideas across to them. I don’t want my children learning that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and is just an alternative to heterosexual households. So, if the law is changed to say gay marriage is okay, children will be taught about it in school. How can we just close our eyes to immorality that could be taught to our children?

 

[Julia_Mae]

Yes, children will come in contact with people of varying beliefs. But when they’re in school, they’re forced to sit and listen to what the teacher says, and to learn what is taught. They’re expected to memorize what they’re taught and will be tested on the same. The idea is to get concepts and ideas across to them. I don’t want my children learning that the homosexual lifestyle is okay and is just an alternative to heterosexual households. So, if the law is changed to say gay marriage is okay, children will be taught about it in school. How can we just close our eyes to immorality that could be taught to our children?

The law protects civil rights and doesn’t make moral judgement. That is not the function of civil law.

Pretty sure your children can understand just as well as they can understand that the law allows women to use birth control and the Church teaches it is wrong to do so.

And speaking as the parent of several adult children: they have the habit of deciding whatever they want for themselves, anyway.

 

[livnlern]

The law protects civil rights and doesn’t make moral judgement. That is not the function of civil law.

Pretty sure your children can understand just as well as they can understand that the law allows women to use birth control and the Church teaches it is wrong to do so.

And speaking as the parent of several adult children: they have the habit of deciding whatever they want for themselves, anyway.

So you’re saying we should accept whatever laws are passed by our government and go on with our lives. Put our blinders on and ignore what’s being passed into law.
And just say that gay marriage is made lawful. Do you think they’ll stop there? They’ll keep pushing for more. Churches could be penalized for not performing ceremonies for gay marriages. Why not, it would be discrimination if they were unwilling to do so.

 

[Wolseley]

So you’re saying we should accept whatever laws are passed by our government and go on with our lives. Put our blinders on and ignore what’s being passed into law.

The way I see it, if Obama can instruct the Justice Department to ignore the law (as he did with DOMA—“We’re not going to enforce this”), then we as Catholics certainly have every right to ignore those laws which are against our moral principles and natural law.

In fact, we are required to do so: Pope John Paul II clearly stated that there are “crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection…From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that ‘we must obey God rather than men’ (Acts 5:29). In the case of an intrinsically unjust law…it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”…Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God’s law. Indeed, from the moral standpoint, it is never licit to cooperate formally in evil… Such cooperation occurs when an action, either by its very nature or by the form it takes in a concrete situation, can be defined as a direct participation in an act…or a sharing in the immoral intention of the person committing it. This cooperation can never be justified either by invoking respect for the freedom of others or by appealing to the fact that civil law permits it or requires it." (Evangelium vitae, # 74-74, 25 March 1995.)

The Holy Father was talking about cooperating with government-permitted abortion, but what he said is equally applicable to any other law which opposes the infallible teaching regarding faith or morals.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

So you’re saying we should accept whatever laws are passed by our government and go on with our lives. Put our blinders on and ignore what’s being passed into law.
And just say that gay marriage is made lawful. Do you think they’ll stop there? They’ll keep pushing for more. Churches could be penalized for not performing ceremonies for gay marriages. Why not, it would be discrimination if they were unwilling to do so.

While I’m certain some groups would advocate for this, it would be clearly unconstitutional. The government cannot restrict Catholics in their free exercise of Catholicism, anymore than the government can restrict other religions from providing marriage to gays (in the absence of a demonstrable harm.)

 

[livnlern]

While I’m certain some groups would advocate for this, it would be clearly unconstitutional. The government cannot restrict Catholics in their free exercise of Catholicism, anymore than the government can restrict other religions from providing marriage to gays (in the absence of a demonstrable harm.)

Remember this case?
"A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their “civil union.”
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general’s office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.
“The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869,” Scott Hoffman, OGCMA’s chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com."
lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/jul/07071011

The lesbian couple were suing because the retreat assoc. wouldn’t allow them to have their “marriage” ceremony at the Pavilion owned by a Christian group. The fact that the owners of the Pavilion were opposed to homosexual unions based on religious beliefs didn’t seem to matter to the lesbians.
If gay marriage becomes recognized in our country, what’s to prevent a gay person from joining a Catholic or other Christian church and then suing when the church won’t allow a gay marriage to take place in their church or on church grounds?

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

Remember this case?
"A New Jersey lesbian couple has filed a civil rights complaint against a Christian seaside retreat association that refused to facilitate their “civil union.”
Harriet Bernstein and Luisa Paster filed the complaint June 19 with the state attorney general’s office on the grounds of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation after the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association declined the use of their Boardwalk Pavilion for their civil union ceremony, planned for September.

However the OGCMA has stated that it must adhere to the rules of the United Methodist Book of Discipline, which forbids homosexual civil unions from being performed in churches and other areas for worship.
“The facility that they requested is a facility we have used exclusively for our camp meeting mission and worship celebrations since 1869,” Scott Hoffman, OGCMA’s chief administrative officer told LifeSiteNews.com."
lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2007/jul/07071011

The lesbian couple were suing because the retreat assoc. wouldn’t allow them to have their “marriage” ceremony at the Pavilion owned by a Christian group. The fact that the owners of the Pavilion were opposed to homosexual unions based on religious beliefs didn’t seem to matter to the lesbians.
If gay marriage becomes recognized in our country, what’s to prevent a gay person from joining a Catholic or other Christian church and then suing when the church won’t allow a gay marriage to take place in their church or on church grounds?

So? What was the outcome of the case? People can certainly sue, women could sue the church because they can’t become priests but that is no reason to make female priests illegal.

A more pertinent case is this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boy_Scouts_of_America_v._Dale The supreme court decided it was unconstitutional for courts to force private organizations to admit homosexuals.

 

[Darryl1958]

Attending a church for two decades doesn’t mean you are a Christian?

Attending a Black liberation church with a highly politicized message that was highly in sync with what Farrakhan of the Nation of Islam preached too means that the GD AmeriKKKa message of that United church is one that most Catholics or Christians don’t even recognize as Christian.

The rules of the forum are that Obama is a Christian because he says so. The same would hold true for the devil himself no doubt, if he says so too.

 

[Darryl1958]

Political forums however show the practical side of the faith, as the values of one;s faith are put into action. Catholic teaching is quite clear on what values Catholics hold, and being Catholic, the Church presumes to speak for Christianity. There is but one Church, and not a thousand Christian denominations As Catholics and Christians, we are all at one degree or another falling short of being full Catholics. Obama on the other hand, is following the leftist course in a direction completely counter to what Catholicism teaches Christianity to be.
So whatever Obama says he is Christian or not is moot. His values are anything but Christian, and Catholicism alone has the authority to decide where those values lie.
So if he is a Christian, so what?
His values are not Christian, and that is what is relevant to a political forum and the Archbishops statement too.

 

[Julia_Mae]

So you’re saying we should accept whatever laws are passed by our government and go on with our lives. Put our blinders on and ignore what’s being passed into law.
And just say that gay marriage is made lawful. Do you think they’ll stop there? They’ll keep pushing for more. Churches could be penalized for not performing ceremonies for gay marriages. Why not, it would be discrimination if they were unwilling to do so.

So, first, civil union* is* the law where I live, the governor signed it into law last year I think.

The separation of Church and state means that the Church, or some other church, can practice it’s beliefs freely amongst it’s own adherents as long as those practices are not dangerous to society at large. That is: you can’t practice human sacrifice.

IF the Church, as a corporate body, wishes to act in part as a government agency, then the Church must adhere to government regulations in order to get government money.

The mistake was taking a penny from the government in the first place. The Church, acting solely as church, is not required to follow civil law.

Let’s talk about this marriage business. The Church requires and has always required certain things to marry any couple. In fact, if a couple goes through pre-marriage discernment and the Pastor feels they are a bad risk for marriage, he doesn’t have to marry them at all. The Church decides if divorced people can remarry. This is because these practices are part of our doctrines and beliefs. We are a Church, not a democracy.

BUT - if a priest takes a part-time job at City Hall performing civil union ceremonies, that is, marrying couples in civil ceremonies, then he will marry whoever has a valid license or lose his job. As it should be. But I doubt that will happen. Or could.

It is not our job to bring hate and fear into a world that has quite enough. It is our job to be Christ to one another.

Civil union is a law long overdue necessitated by treating people in disgusting and shameful fashion. All laws that had to be enacted to protect people from the hateful acts of other people, were necessitated by sin. And not the sin of the people the laws protect.