Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Lion_IRC]

And it is…?

That we should learn from our mistakes.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Maybe it’s not necessary to be a practicing Catholic to get to Heaven

“Maybe” is a dangerous word when relating it to ETERNAL salvation.

Remember…the Church’s teaching on homosexuality and marriage is Catholic because it is true, not true because it is Catholic.

 

[zz912]

Which precisely is one reason I don’t practice the faith.

Which is sad to hear. Pride is always the first sin.

 

[zz912]

That’s because hospitals, social service organizations, etc. are not strictly religious in nature and often receive money from the federal government. I’m a Protestant but have been treated in a hospital (the closest one to where I lived) that was bought out by a Catholic owned hospital chain. Nothing about my treatment had anything to do with religion, most of the doctors and other employees were not Catholic. Why should Catholic moral teachings now be applied to the operations of such a hospital?

Interesting. So you leave your Christianity at your church building? I thought the Christian faith impacts every part of our being and life.

 

[clem456]

That we should learn from our mistakes.

Can you flesh that out in any degree of specificity?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Then how in the hell are you going to get to Heaven,?

Same as you. If I get there, by His mercy. And as another poster alluded to, I don’t believe only practicing Catholics get into heaven. I surely pray and hope we see each other there! God’s blessing and peace!

 

[SuperLuigi]

I definitely don’t wholly disagree with you. Our culture has become extremely self-absorbed, which is antithetical to true Christianity and Catholicism. Yet just today, two married lesbian friends announced that after two years fostering a child since he was 2 days old and born to a drug-addicted schizophrenic single mother, they’re being allowed to officially adopt him. This doesn’t sound selfish. In fact, it sounds like the opposite. This child has developmental delays and my friends have worked tirelessly to advocate for him and ensure he receives the necessary care to help him grow mentally and physically. It may be that his bio mom was acting selfishly (though honestly I think she’s too sick to be conscious of much of what she does) but in this instance, on a practical level, the lesbians involved are demonstrating selflessness. Honestly I can’t imagine a better outcome for this child. I am not discounting the import of male influence in his life. Yet of all the alternatives he might face and all the legitimate possibilities available, this seems like the best possible conclusion.

There’s a lot of things that sound good on the surface.

First of all, the prior post assumes that the lesbian “parents” would be good caretakers because all the focus is on the mentally-ill biological parent.

I ask this repeatedly—why do advocates for so-called gay “marriage”, parenting or whatever need to have a bad example of another style of relationship to justify their cause?

The fact is there is evidence suggesting that not having a father figure around is detrimental to children and the findings so far do anything but glorify same-sex parenting to the level that its advocates hope for.

Secondly, if one thinks lesbian “parenting” is okay, then one is by default downplaying the role of a male in the family structure.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Which precisely is one reason I don’t practice the faith.

That’s selfish to say the least. What could one possibly gain by doing that? Adulation from friends and family members?

God must come first.

 

[gracepoole]

I ask this repeatedly—why do advocates for so-called gay “marriage”, parenting or whatever need to have a bad example of another style of relationship to justify their cause?

They don’t. As I explained, I used this example because it had just happened that day.

As for father figures being important, no one here has disputed this. I even acknowledged as much in my post. That doesn’t mean the child in question is worse off for having two lesbian moms, as he was at risk and wouldn’t have had a father in his life regardless. It really is okay to acknowledge that this is an exception – there’s no shame in doing so and it won’t detract from your position.

 

[SavannahGal]

You ignore the reality that divorced persons who haven’t received a certificate of nullity do not have the kind of activist cohort of the gay “rigts” supporters. We have seen NUMEROUS Catholic and religious schools, hospitals and social services organizations sued, threatened with loss of tax exempt status for not accommodating gay “marriages” among other contractual breaches. Further gays and Lesbians who feel they have been discriminated against (a gay EM who “married” and then was told he could not longer serve) have threatened, petitioned, picketed, and publicized their situation within the secular media that loves to take a poke at the Church.

This is NOT A SCARE tactic. It is occurring right now, inch by inch, case by case.

The comment I was responding to was:

Because once “same sex marriage” becomes a constitutional right the Catholic Church COULD BE FORCED TO PERFORM MARRIAGES OR LOSE THEIR TAX EXEMPT STATUS. This is a direct attack on religious freedom by the secular left. It always has been

Suggesting that the Catholic Church is on the verge of being forced to perform same sex marriages or lose its tax exempt status IS A SCARE TACTIC, a completely absurd suggestion, and supported by ZERO legal precedent.

And your comment about divorced people only supports my point that the Catholic Church is legally free to set the requirements for marriage it deems necessary without interference from the government. After all, a divorced person has every legal right to remarry civilly (just as gay people will have the right to civil marriage), but the Church is under no legal obligation to grant a divorced person an annulment that would allow them to remarry within the Church, just as it has no legal obligation to marry same sex couples.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That’s selfish to say the least. What could one possibly gain by doing that? Adulation from friends and family members?

God must come first.

Huh? I’m selfish because I don’t believe it’s my place to oppose civil laws providing SS couples the civil right to a civil marriage? And because Catholics are called to, that’s one of the reasons I don’t practice? Why would I practice something where I was called to do something I don’t believe in. But O-kay if that’s what you believe about me. Btw I actually have friends and families, practicing Catholics, non practicing Catholics, non Catholics, non Christians in my circle. Love them all dearly. But I never even have given it thought to gain their adulation above God’s. Just sayin. Anyway blessings and peace to you.

 

[Sy_Noe]

That’s selfish to say the least. What could one possibly gain by doing that? Adulation from friends and family members?

God must come first.

Huh? I’m selfish because I don’t believe it’s my place to oppose civil laws providing SS couples the civil right to a civil marriage? And because Catholics are called to, that’s one of the reasons I don’t practice? Why would I practice something where I was called to do something I don’t believe in. But O-kay if that’s what you believe about me. Btw I actually have friends and family, practicing Catholics, non practicing Catholics, non Catholics, non Christians in my circle. Love them all dearly. But I never even have given it thought to gain their adulation above God’s. Just sayin. Anyway blessings and peace to you.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Can you flesh that out in any degree of specificity?

Yes. Could you be a bit more specific about what you would like me to explain.

…actually, you might need to start a new thread if that’s the case.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The comment I was responding to was:

Suggesting that the Catholic Church is on the verge of being forced to perform same sex marriages or lose its tax exempt status IS A SCARE TACTIC, a completely absurd suggestion, and supported by ZERO legal precedent.

And your comment about divorced people only supports my point that the Catholic Church is legally free to set the requirements for marriage it deems necessary without interference from the government. After all, a divorced person has every legal right to remarry civilly (just as gay people will have the right to civil marriage), but the Church is under no legal obligation to grant a divorced person an annulment that would allow them to remarry within the Church, just as it has no legal obligation to marry same sex couples.

I agree. But what Lisa seems to fear as I read her posts is the gay rights lobby. And divorced persons don’t have such a lobby.

 

[SavannahGal]

Precisely. This is already happening in Europe as the CofE allows gay pastors but as I understand will not perform a gay ‘wedding.’ Two wealthy gay men are suing to be wed in the church. Of course this IS Europe but given the way administrative laws, regulations and the Obama administration is attacking religious freedom, it would not suprise me if such cases are not already being contemplated. If they insist nuns furnish birth control and abortifacient drugs, there is little doubt of their intention.

You’re failing to acknowledge that the Church of England is an official state religion, whose “Supreme Governor” is the Queen of England. I think you will find that other legal challenges in Europe that you allude to involve challenges to state religions. Big difference.

 

[SavannahGal]

I agree. But what Lisa seems to fear as I read her posts is the gay rights lobby. And divorced persons don’t have such a lobby.

Yes, but my question would be: What legal rights are divorced people lacking that necessitates lobbying power they don’t have? I don’t understand what she feels is being denied to divorced people that gay people somehow possess.

 

[SavannahGal]

What’s behind the change in thinking? They’ve been running their institutions this way since their inception. Why is it seen as an imposition now? Just curious.

That would be my question as well. What is behind the change in thinking?

Let’s say I am a nurse working at a Catholic hospital. Perhaps I am even Catholic myself. I get a divorce, do not qualify for an annulment from the Church, but remarry another man civilly. Now in the eyes of the Church, I am committing adultery, but no one seems to object to the hospital’s recognition of my new husband as my legal spouse, eligible for spousal coverage under the hospital’s health insurance plan. Why all of a sudden is it a problem when it is a civilly married same sex couple? In the eyes of the Church, these are both morally objectionable, so how is one a violation of religious freedom and the other not?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Yes, but my question would be: What legal rights are divorced people lacking that necessitates lobbying power they don’t have? I don’t understand what she feels is being denied to divorced people that gay people somehow possess.

I get it. You already answered your own question. Both divorced people and gay couples already possess and don’t possess the same things. They have the right to a civil marriage and not to a Catholic Sacramental marriage. And life goes on…

Peace be with you and I don’t know how long you’ve been a convert, but God bless you in your new Catholic faith! And seeing you’re new to CAF, welcome!

 

[FollowChrist34]

That would be my question as well. What is behind the change in thinking?

Let’s say I am a nurse working at a Catholic hospital. Perhaps I am even Catholic myself. I get a divorce, do not qualify for an annulment from the Church, but remarry another man civilly. Now in the eyes of the Church, I am committing adultery, but no one seems to object to the hospital’s recognition of my new husband as my legal spouse, eligible for spousal coverage under the hospital’s health insurance plan. Why all of a sudden is it a problem when it is a civilly married same sex couple? In the eyes of the Church, these are both morally objectionable, so how is one a violation of religious freedom and the other not?

I think the remarriage without an annulment just disqualifies you from full sacramental participation in the Church; you’re still part of the Church; the Church recognizes the remarriage in the legal sense if not the sacramental sense. The Catholic Church does not recognize gay marriage in the legal sense. I think this is right. I am not an apologist or theologian; just winging it here.

 

[Sy_Noe]

I think the remarriage without an annulment just disqualifies you from full sacramental participation in the Church; you’re still part of the Church; the Church recognizes the remarriage in the legal sense if not the sacramental sense. The Catholic Church does not recognize gay marriage in the legal sense. I think this is right. I am not an apologist or theologian; just winging it here.

I’m certainly no apologist either so you might be right about the CC recognizing a Catholic couple’s heterosexual civil marriage for purposes of such things as spousal benefits but not for homosexuals. But aren’t Baptized or confirmed Catholic homosexuals who live outside the Church’s teachings or for that matter even a heterosexual couple shacking up, in the same boat when it comes to the Church? Part of it, but disqualified from sacramental participation. It’s hard for me to fathom denying health care benefits to any people. People get sick. Gay, straight. Married, singles or shacking up. Rich, poor, inbetween. Faithful Catholics and everyone else. Black, white, brown and so on. Liberals, conservatives & on and on. Needing various things prescribed for their health. Jesus didn’t put conditions on which sick to care for that I know of.