Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[FollowChrist34]

More Lutheran info I just found:

What’s the difference between the ELCA and the Missouri Synod

On the surface one might notice certain similarities between the ELCA and LCMS before one notices differences. Both churches do have the name “Lutheran” on their front signs after all. The services used in both church bodies are very similar. The hymnody sung in both churches is very similar. The robes of the pastor, the colors on the altar, the layout of the churches all might be much the same in ELCA and LCMS congregations.

With a little closer look one might see a few apparent differences. For instance, one might notice that ELCA congregations have women pastors where LCMS churches do not. One might also see members of Methodist, Presbyterian, the United Church of Christ, or Episcopal churches going to communion at ELCA altars, where one wouldn’t see that in the LCMS. For that matter it would even be possible to see pastors from these other denominations officiating at ELCA services where one would never see a non-Lutheran pastor serving an LCMS congregation.

A little deeper look uncovers yet more differences. If one examined the teachings of the ELCA in regard to homosexuality and compared those to the Missouri Synod one would see that the ELCA allows for practicing homosexuality even among its clergy and does not condemn homosexuality as sin. The Missouri Synod says that homosexuality is a sin. If an LCMS clergyman is found to be a practicing homosexual he is removed from office.

Other points of difference one might notice include: the LCMS has very strong statements condemning abortion as a sin against the 5th commandment; the ELCA does not take a stand against abortion as sin and allows for it as a viable option in various situations. The LCMS believes that the Lord’s Supper is the actual body and blood of Christ and says that those who deny the real presence of Christ are holding views contrary to Scripture. The ELCA, while saying the Lord’s Supper is the body and blood of Christ, also grants as valid other views which deny the Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

 

[Thorolfr]

I wondered about this too. I will tell you what I know as a Catholic who knows some Lutherans here and there (in family and elsewhere). The ELCA is totally pro gay marriage, etc. (I would be shocked to hear I am wrong); they are (to us) a lot like the Episcopalians. The Missouri Synod are very orthodox, traditional Lutherans. No women priests, no gay marriage, etc. I don’t see a lot of communication between the groups, but again, I could be wrong. My (distant) relation is Missouri Synod and observed that the ELCA was “kind of out there.” The ELCA thinks the Missouri Synod are like Puritans (or maybe Catholics…). Take my views with a grain of salt, please, I am surmising here. Plus I think there are additional groups or denominations than just these two.

But I do wonder if things are so rosy and thriving in the ELCA what would inspire all this dialogue and posting here on CAF. The ELCA is an oasis, an absolute oasis, for the gay person. Why not reform the Missouri Synod? Or just celebrate gay life in the ELCA? (My guess is if you tried to “enlighten” the Missouri Synod you would get your hide tanned.) I have read a lot of Luther myself and I feel pretty comfortable saying that the ELCA would make his head explode… The Missouri Synod he’d be fine with. But we are digressing, off topic.

There is actually quite a lot of diversity in the ELCA with some congregations being more liberal and others more conservative. Not everyone in the ELCA is in favor of gay marriage or thinks that homosexuality is OK. My own congregation of about 1200 has only a handful of openly gay members (I’m one of them) and I know that some members think homosexuality is a sin since they’ve told me so. As for people from the ELCA posting here in CAF, I’m the only one I’ve seen so far. Most Lutherans here in CAF are from the Missouri Synod or even Wisconsin Synod. I only started posting here in CAF because I became curious about Catholicism after reading in the news about the Synod of Bishops on the Family which Pope Francis convened last October in which they had discussions about how to treat homosexuals in the Catholic Church.

 

[FollowChrist34]

There is actually quite a lot of diversity in the ELCA with some congregations being more liberal and others more conservative. Not everyone in the ELCA is in favor of gay marriage or thinks that homosexuality is OK. My own congregation of about 1200 has only a handful of openly gay members (I’m one of them) and I know that some members think homosexuality is a sin since they’ve told me so. As for people from the ELCA posting here in CAF, I’m the only one I’ve seen so far. Most Lutherans here in CAF are from the Missouri Synod or even Wisconsin Synod. I only started posting here in CAF because I became curious about Catholicism after reading in the news about the Synod of Bishops on the Family which Pope Francis convened last October in which they had discussions about how to treat homosexuals in the Catholic Church.

There is an ELCA Lutheran Church in my neighborhood where I volunteered at the food bank for a number of years. (I wanted a shift in the evening after work and my Catholic parish just has Sunday dinners.) I got to know a lot of people, went to Mass a number of times. I just loved the Pastor. He was fantastic. He was so kind to me always. No one ever pressured me to join; they had a number of community volunteers; I wasn’t the only one.

But the parish was very liberal, very liberal. Gay clergy; I didn’t see any gay members I don’t think, but they would have been totally welcome. That could just be my area. Other ELCA Churches around here are like that too, though. A lot of Scandinavian heritage - that is why we have all of these Lutheran Churches.

I hope I don’t get banned for saying this but I love Luther. I read him right when I was realizing I was a Christian (the word is converting I guess). He had such an impact on me; I will always love his work and remember that time in my life. Do I think he is a little crazy and over zealous? Yes. I do. I can see that side as well.

 

[Thorolfr]

But the parish was very liberal, very liberal. Gay clergy; I didn’t see any gay members I don’t think, but they would have been totally welcome. That could just be my area. Other ELCA Churches around here are like that too, though. A lot of Scandinavian heritage - that is why we have all of these Lutheran Churches.

My church has a lot of Scandinavians, too. We have a dinner every year where they serve lutefisk and we have a kind of Scandinavian festival every year that is put on by the Sons of Norway. Even though I was raised Baptist, I have a lot of Swedes and Germans on my mother’s side who were Lutherans, so I feel very comfortable in my Lutheran church and like being a Lutheran much more than being a Baptist. Because of my Scandinavian heritage, that’s why I picked the username Thorolfr which is a name in Old Norse which was common among the Vikings and means “Thor’s Wolf”.

 

[FollowChrist34]

My church has a lot of Scandinavians, too. We have a dinner every year where they serve lutefisk and we have a kind of Scandinavian festival every year that is put on by the Sons of Norway. Even though I was raised Baptist, I have a lot of Swedes and Germans on my mother’s side who were Lutherans, so I feel very comfortable in my Lutheran church and like being a Lutheran much more than being a Baptist. Because of my Scandinavian heritage, that’s why I picked the username Thorolfr which is a name in Old Norse which was common among the Vikings and means “Thor’s Wolf”.

Yes, I think you gravitate back to where you belong. I started out Catholic as a kid and went back eventually as an adult. (Irish on my mother’s side) I just decided that was where God wanted me - couldn’t leave it for the life of me, and I tried .

 

[Havard]

So what? How does that invalidate in any way the assertion that the word originally referred to a civil legal arrangement, not the modern christian sacrament? Or that it was used to refer to same sex couples?

I never mentioned the Christian sacrament, nor did I not say it wasn’t a civil legal arrangement in Rome. That is clearly evident in my response to you - I don’t know why you even bring it up. I expanded on what you said for good reason, your comment about Roman marriage was overly broad.

That marriage has been in part an instrument for producing children of (hopefully) known parentage, and moreso for providing as stable an environment as possible for rearing those children, is undisputed. At least by me. But lesbian couples make very good mothers, and the idea that etymology defines a word is nonsense.

If you want to persuade those outside the religious right to support or even tolerate your crusade against gay couples you need to come up with something better.

It’s an offense to good manners, let alone forum rules, to make this personal about me. You obviously haven’t even read many of my posts, because these comments are *non sequitur *to my beliefs and concerns. I’m not sure what’s going on here, are you lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a muddled caricature?

 

[Lion_IRC]

Are you saying that you also have a grudge against the nice homosexuals?

I haven’t called any homosexuals “nasty”.
Use the quote function and don’t verbal me again!!!

 

[JimG]

Approval of same sex marriage leads inevitably to suppression of religious freedom.

 

[Thorolfr]

Approval of same sex marriage leads inevitably to suppression of religious freedom.

But doesn’t banning same-sex marriage lead to the suppression of the religious freedom of those Christians who support same-sex marriage (they do exist)

 

[LisaA]

But doesn’t banning same-sex marriage lead to the suppression of the religious freedom of those Christians who support same-sex marriage (they do exist)

No one is telling a church it cannot perform same sex weddings.

 

[Thorolfr]

No one is telling a church it cannot perform same sex weddings.

Neither are supporters of same-sex civil marriage telling the Catholic Church that they must perform same-sex weddings. I know that you’re going to bring up the cake bakers and the florists, so the solution is to pass laws protecting their right to refuse to provide their services if it violates their religious beliefs.

 

[JimG]

“The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative. It was about the state denying the right to speak one of the most obvious truths about human nature. It was about a conspiracy to enforce collective madness, cultivate psychological dependence and achieve totalitarian control.”

From an article by Joe Bissonette, speaking about same sex marriage in Canada

crisismagazine.com/2015/totalitarianism-sex-marriage

 

[FollowChrist34]

“The legalization of same-sex “marriage” was about prohibiting a definition of heterosexual marriage as normative. It was about the state denying the right to speak one of the most obvious truths about human nature. It was about a conspiracy to enforce collective madness, cultivate psychological dependence and achieve totalitarian control.”

From an article by Joe Bissonette, speaking about same sex marriage in Canada

crisismagazine.com/2015/totalitarianism-sex-marriage

Sadly, I agree with this. It is about normalizing sickness and disorientation. A war against health and life.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No one is telling a church it cannot perform same sex weddings.

A nonsensical argument to me. If the couple can not obtain a marriage license for the clergyperson of their church to sign, you are indeed denying their religious beliefs of the right to marry if their marriage is not deemed to be legal under civil law. Catholics who obtain Sacramental marriages even get a marriage license. And at least as Thoroflr said no one is forcing the CC to marry SS couples. But at least don’t take away the right of others who hold different beliefs than do you.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

A nonsensical argument to me. If the couple can not obtain a marriage license for the clergyperson of their church to sign, you are indeed denying their religious beliefs of the right to marry if their marriage is not deemed to be legal under civil law. Catholics who obtain Sacramental marriages even get a marriage license. And at least as Thoroflr said no one is forcing the CC to marry SS couples. But at least don’t take away the right of others who hold different beliefs than do you.

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law, but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.

Every humanly-created law is legitimate** insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason,** and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.

Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the** State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.**

 

[Sy_Noe]

The scope of the civil law is certainly more limited than that of the moral law, but civil law cannot contradict right reason without losing its binding force on conscience.

Every humanly-created law is legitimate** insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason,** and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person.

Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex. Given the values at stake in this question, the** State could not grant legal standing to such unions without failing in its duty to promote and defend marriage as an institution essential to the common good.**

Sounds like this takes us back to the Catholic argument that the main thing about what makes a marriage is if 2 persons of the opposite sex can have intercourse and procreate.

 

[DrTaffy]

Agreed- I feel so bad for the bakers, bed and breakfasts and other businesses that have been forced out of business by homosexuals activists and their supporters.

Ahm, yes, those many many thousands of bakers and B&B owners who have been forced out of business because they didn’t realise that anti-discrimination laws applied to them too. Whereas we all know that there are at most a handful of same sex couples around the world who would like to marry but are prevented by judeo-christian prejudice.

Also, let us not forget that being forced to bake a cake or rent a room when you have voluntarily chosen to make a living by offering this service in the public arena is clearly a much larger imposition than being forced to spend the rest of your life being told that you are not married, being forced to sell your home to pay death duties when your partner dies and so on!

Those who stand for morality and marriage are indeed an oppressed minority in today’s culture b-ut then being oppressed for supporting the truth has been the norm for eons.

Like Galileo supporting the truth that the earth goes around the sun. Of course, that was an objective truth, not a subjective belief.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12706981:

Havard;12704364:

DrTaffy;12704075:

No, while any word could

mean anything in principle, ‘marriage’ means the same thing it has since Roman times - a civil legal arrangement covering two (or more) people who are coming together to form a new family unit. And in roman history it was even used several times explicitly to refer to same sex couples.

Matrimonium comes from mater…
So what? How does that invalidate in any way the assertion that the word originally referred to a civil legal arrangement, not the modern christian sacrament? Or that it was used to refer to same sex couples?

I never mentioned the Christian sacrament, nor did I not say it wasn’t a civil legal arrangement in Rome.

I didn’t say you did, I mentioned the fact that it originally referred to a civil, not religious, arrangement, and you (apparently) dissented. Your objection may seem crystal clear to you, but it is not me.

For example, if (as you say) you agree that it originally referred to a “a civil legal arrangement in Rome”, what do you disagree with? That it was used to refer to same sex couples? Cicero explicitly argues in court that Marcus Antonius and Curio are as married as any heterosexual couple!

DrTaffy;12706981:

If you want to persuade those outside the religious right to support or even tolerate your crusade against gay couples you need to come up with something better.

It’s an offense to good manners, let alone forum rules, to make this personal about me. You obviously haven’t even read many of my posts, because these comments are *non sequitur *to my beliefs and concerns. I’m not sure what’s going on here, are you lumping everyone who disagrees with you into a muddled caricature?

‘You’ need not mean you personally. One can say ‘one’ all the time,but then one sounds like Prince Charles with gold plated stick inserted somewhere incondign.

Bear in mind that you interjected into an ongoing discussion, and the post to which you responded was:

So if you want to say that people are not free to marry someone of a given [race/sex] you need to justify this restriction to the rest of society or we are going to tell you to mind your own business and leave the [same sex/interracial] couples to get on with their lives.

…]

Now if you want to use it in a more restrictive religious sense, feel free. If you want to come up with a new word, copyright (or whatever the appropriate intellectual property term would be) it, use that in a more restrictive sense and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, feel free.

But if you want to seize ownership of the preexisting word ‘marriage’, tell the rest of us that we may only use it as you dictate, and prevent the nasty homosexuals from using it, then no. Indeed no.

Under the circumstances, given the sheer number of repetitions of if ‘you’ [whatever], I don’t think it was unreasonable of me to assume that this was understood to be the general nonspecific use of ‘you’.

But fine, if you took offense, apologies.

 

[DrTaffy]

I haven’t called any homosexuals “nasty”.

I have not said that you have.

Use the quote function and don’t verbal me again!!!

Such comments as this should, at the very least, be kept to private message. I don’t see that I have 'verbal’ed you in any way. Or the relevance of the quote function.

If anything on this thread you make a number of uncharitable insinuations about a fellow catholic, then vanished when asked to justify them. Care to answer now? :ehh:

 

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC:

I haven’t called any homosexuals “nasty”.

I have not said that you have.

Thankyou for reversing your previous post regarding my supposed views about "nasty homosexuals."

…If anything on this thread you make a number of uncharitable insinuations about a fellow catholic, then vanished when asked to justify them. Care to answer now? :ehh:

If you want to accuse me of uncharitable posting, take it up with the Mods.
I don’t have to justify posts which are perfectly true and perfectly reasonable and well within the rules of the forum.