Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[FollowChrist34]

From the Vatican document:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

I would hope that Catholics would engage in massive resistance in every way possible to the recognition of same sex marriage.

The real victims are the kids caught up in this celebration of alternative sexuality and identity; they are denied the presence of their natural, biological mother and father. We’re making it really tough for them.

 

[PTL]

Sorry if I am sounding pessimistic today, but I think that the outcome on this one is clear. “Gay marriage” is on the same social fast track that contraception and abortion were in the past (and for the exact same reason). I simply cannot see any other way out of this. Those who oppose gay marriage are about as “out of it” as the Amish. I actually always kind of liked those white outfits; maybe I’ll order one and have it ready for the day the 5-4 (6-3?) landmark decision is announced in the media…

I am with you. When even some Catholic bishops are for gay “marriage”, what can we hope for those judges sitting on Supreme Court? Is the chief justice still a real Catholic? We don’t know. We just have to wait and see. I am not optimistic either. But, God may surprise us, hopefully.

 

[LisaA]

The real victims are the kids caught up in this celebration of alternative sexuality and identity; they are denied the presence of their natural, biological mother and father. We’re making it really tough for them.

But this resulted from the focus on “duty, honor, country” to “if it feels good do it.” We used to stay married for the children. We used to think children were the result of the mutual love of a man and a woman who were married. Now children are a commodity to be purchased or bred like animals. We have become selfish, self absorbed and self interested to a fault. I suggest this is due to the loss of religious and traditional values. Our faith teaches us to think of the other first, to self sacrifice and love others. Our culture tells us think of ourselves, what we want, what makes us “happy.” I was part of the generation that grew up in the 1960s and things went upside down then, and not for the better of our country or its citizens.

 

[FollowChrist34]

But this resulted from the focus on “duty, honor, country” to “if it feels good do it.” We used to stay married for the children. We used to think children were the result of the mutual love of a man and a woman who were married. Now children are a commodity to be purchased or bred like animals. We have become selfish, self absorbed and self interested to a fault. I suggest this is due to the loss of religious and traditional values. Our faith teaches us to think of the other first, to self sacrifice and love others. Our culture tells us think of ourselves, what we want, what makes us “happy.” I was part of the generation that grew up in the 1960s and things went upside down then, and not for the better of our country or its citizens.

Nailed it.

People don’t like to hear that though. Isn’t it amazing how many “Catholics” subscribe to this philosophy, seeing no contradiction with their faith (i.e., pro contraception/choice/gay marriage, etc.)? I am so perplexed by that, honestly I am. I would love to know what the attraction of orthodox Catholicism even is. Maybe a means to get beyond their secularism at some future date? Light at the end of tunnel? Who knows.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Folks have already used the “pregnant man” lie, though it was just a woman pretending she was a man. Saying, “the coming war on marriage” is like saying, “the coming second world war.” It already happened…and we lost the marriage war, unfortunately. Well, against what secularism decided marriage was, not real marriage.

The war on marriage was lost a while ago with no-fault divorce and the acceptance of the idea that marriage could end whenever one partner just felt like it.

 

[edwest2]

But this resulted from the focus on “duty, honor, country” to “if it feels good do it.” We used to stay married for the children. We used to think children were the result of the mutual love of a man and a woman who were married. Now children are a commodity to be purchased or bred like animals. We have become selfish, self absorbed and self interested to a fault. I suggest this is due to the loss of religious and traditional values. Our faith teaches us to think of the other first, to self sacrifice and love others. Our culture tells us think of ourselves, what we want, what makes us “happy.” I was part of the generation that grew up in the 1960s and things went upside down then, and not for the better of our country or its citizens.

Very true. I was there in the 1960s and I watched the changes imposed by others in disbelief. The 5 year plan to destroy the family began with opposition to the Church reaffirming its teaching against artificial birth control in 1968 while those opposed started the Sexual - without love - Revolution, followed by Porn (Adult) Bookstores, strip clubs and topless bars everywhere. WHO planned and financed this? Who manipulated the media with lies and distortions that led to legalized abortion in 1973? Who were the strangers in our neighborhoods that kept preaching to us that illegal drugs were cool? to live with and have sex with your girlfriend? or anyone else who was willing? And who created No-Fault Divorce out of thin air? Cable TV? Great idea, right? Until they started showing porn on cable.

It wasn’t us.

Outsiders turned everything upside down and it pained me to see it, but God kept reminding me – the more God and His truth are discarded or even called bad, then society suffers. Living abnormally is not “freedom.” The fruit is rotten.

Ed

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

The war has been here for a while now. One suggestion has been for two steps to Matrimony.
Step 1. A civil contract between two people which involves the state.
Step 2. A sacramental union between two people which involves the Church.

I believe this is the model in a number of European countries already, and probably elsewhere too. It’s easy to see this coming to the U.S., although with a special twist because of the “lip service” paid to the First Amendment: Only those churches willing to perform “marriages” consistent with whatever politically correct legislation is in force will be considered “agents of the state” for civil purposes. Other church weddings would not be recognized by the state and would require a civil ceremony to be legally recognized. That way the state could say that they are not interfering with a religion’s right to perform marriages consistent with its teachings. The legal theory would be that in acting as an agent of the state, a religious institution would have to abide by all applicable legislation. A church that exercises its right to regulate marriages according to its faith traditions could not serve as an agent of the state, and such weddings would require the additional “civil” step.

 

[LisaA]

I believe this is the model in a number of European countries already, and probably elsewhere too. It’s easy to see this coming to the U.S., although with a special twist because of the “lip service” paid to the First Amendment: Only those churches willing to perform “marriages” consistent with whatever politically correct legislation is in force will be considered “agents of the state” for civil purposes. Other church weddings would not be recognized by the state and would require a civil ceremony to be legally recognized. That way the state could say that they are not interfering with a religion’s right to perform marriages consistent with its teachings. The legal theory would be that in acting as an agent of the state, a religious institution would have to abide by all applicable legislation. A church that exercises its right to regulate marriages according to its faith traditions could not serve as an agent of the state, and such weddings would require the additional “civil” step.

The assault on freedom of religion and freedom of speech and freedom to be safe within our persons is going to be substantial. Your theory makes some sense and might help protect churches from this destruction.

 

[FollowChrist34]

I believe this is the model in a number of European countries already, and probably elsewhere too. It’s easy to see this coming to the U.S., although with a special twist because of the “lip service” paid to the First Amendment: Only those churches willing to perform “marriages” consistent with whatever politically correct legislation is in force will be considered “agents of the state” for civil purposes. Other church weddings would not be recognized by the state and would require a civil ceremony to be legally recognized. That way the state could say that they are not interfering with a religion’s right to perform marriages consistent with its teachings. The legal theory would be that in acting as an agent of the state, a religious institution would have to abide by all applicable legislation. A church that exercises its right to regulate marriages according to its faith traditions could not serve as an agent of the state, and such weddings would require the additional “civil” step.

I like where this is going…

 

[boar2roar]

I still think that the catholic church should be aboslutely silent about critcising Russia’s ban on homosexual propaganda or people trying to defend marriage in Africa because the Church has utterly failed in protecting marriage almost anywhere in the west and often the defense was so week and disjointed that it makes you wonder if church leadership even cares about upholding marriage anymore . So don’t play for both sides with this “no discrimination its against catholic teaching” in places where it isn’t accepted yet because we all now how wonderfully its been defended here.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Every time people put the word “gay” with the word “marriage” and talk about “gay marriage,” they have lost the battle even if they don’t support such a notion. By constant repetition, it makes it sound as if those two words can go together.

Every time someone interjects with the notion of upholding marriage using the term “traditional marriage” they already lost because you’ve grouped marriage as either traditional or non-traditional. Marriage is marriage. The definition of what it is has been clear for centuries.

 

[LisaA]

Every time someone interjects with the notion of upholding marriage using the term “traditional marriage” they already lost because you’ve grouped marriage as either traditional or non-traditional. Marriage is marriage. The definition of what it is has been clear for centuries.

I use the term Natural Marriage instead. It is from Natural Law, from nature and is not so subject to the whims of culture as are traditions.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

Every time someone interjects with the notion of upholding marriage using the term “traditional marriage” they already lost because you’ve grouped marriage as either traditional or non-traditional. Marriage is marriage. The definition of what it is has been clear for centuries.

Kinda like opposite sexed marriage, as if there is any other. Same sex “marriage” is counterfeit marriage, like fake currency in the money supply. Can’t be good for the health of the economy.
,

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

On January 16, the Archbishop of San Francisco, Salvatore Cordileone, warned of a growing war on the “essential meaning of marriage,” as defining “a bond which unites a man and a woman to each other and to any children who come from their union.”

catholic.org/news/hf/family/story.php?id=58477

The poor archbishop fails to realize the war started centuries ago and was won decades ago when decadent heterosexuals triumphed over Christian morals in the process paved the way for gay marriage.

 

[InSearchofGrace]

The poor archbishop fails to realize the war started centuries ago and was won decades ago when decadent heterosexuals triumphed over Christian morals in the process paved the way for gay marriage.

You continuously shift the focus to heterosexual wrongs. Are Christians pushing to codify adultery or violation of a child? Do practicing Catholics openly justify or defendi abortion and no fault divorce?

No question, this juggernaut gay “marriage” is poised to claim complete victory with the SC which may just finish the legal question. As with abortion and divorce laws, the legal departs from the moral.

The Church and those who don’t capitulate on gay “marriage” may be fewer in number, but distilled and purer the Church will be, like Benedict XVI said. The country will revert to being mission land once more, but there is no wiping clean the conviction in the truth of what marriage is and what it means. How tragic that society has to throw more souls into the pit of this form of idolatry.

The poverty I see is not with Cordileone but with the practitioners of and sympathizers to the lie that is gay “marriage.” Even if the Supreme Court rules against the four states and for the claimed “right” for gays to “marry.”
,

 

[edwest2]

The poor archbishop fails to realize the war started centuries ago and was won decades ago when decadent heterosexuals triumphed over Christian morals in the process paved the way for gay marriage.

The Church does not view it that way. Yes, there were various named and unnamed people who provided the West with greater access and encouragement to “enjoy” decadent things. These things were not asked for or wanted. Least of all by Christians.

Ed

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

You continuously shift the focus to heterosexual wrongs. Are Christians pushing to codify adultery or violation of a child? Do practicing Catholics openly justify or defendi abortion and no fault divorce?

No question, this juggernaut gay “marriage” is poised to claim complete victory with the SC which may just finish the legal question. As with abortion and divorce laws, the legal departs from the moral.

The Church and those who don’t capitulate on gay “marriage” may be fewer in number, but distilled and purer the Church will be, like Benedict XVI said. The country will revert to being mission land once more, but there is no wiping clean the conviction in the truth of what marriage is and what it means. How tragic that society has to throw more souls into the pit of this form of idolatry.

The poverty I see is not with Cordileone but with the practitioners of and sympathizers to the lie that is gay “marriage.” Even if the Supreme Court rules against the four states and for the claimed “right” for gays to “marry.”
,

Marriage was originally a permanent union for the production and rearing of offspring, after contraception, abortion and no-fault divorce it is neither although to be honest marriage had already gone off by George Bernard Shaw’s time who described marriage as an institution that brings together two people “under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions. They are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition continuously until death do them part.”

The real issues is that heterosexuals broke marriage and they are going to use gay marriage as a scapegoat because being human it is far easier to blame others than to take actual responsibility, but they should know that God is not fooled .

 

[Havard]

The poor archbishop fails to realize the war started centuries ago and was won decades ago when decadent heterosexuals triumphed over Christian morals in the process paved the way for gay marriage.

Waaaaaait a second now…

You’re talking about the chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, who holds a doctorate in Canon law from the Gregorian in Rome, and who has written and spoken on this particular issue more than any other. I don’t think you can just assume he fails to realize anything on this issue.

From this 2011 interview, you can see he is well aware that gay marriage is not the beginning of this at all:

So how has the contraceptive mentality eaten away at this essential definition?

With the contraceptive mentality, we saw sexual promiscuity, which led to the novel concept of so-called “open” marriages. That strikes down the good of fidelity in marriage. Then we saw couples entering into marriage without any intention of having children, so that strikes down procreation. And in the early ‘70s, we had states passing laws allowing for no-fault divorce. When we’re in a divorce culture rather than a marriage culture, that strikes down the permanence of marriage.
So, this erosion of the meaning of marriage has been going on for a very long time.

And now we’re facing same-sex “marriage.”

It’s the latest and, I would say, most drastic, episode in this long-term erosion of the meaning of marriage.

Read more: ncregister.com/daily-news/bishop-cordileone-fights-to-save-marriage#ixzz3PUMilyZu

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

The poor archbishop fails to realize the war started centuries ago and was won decades ago when decadent heterosexuals triumphed over Christian morals in the process paved the way for gay marriage.

That does not, in the least, justify or legitimize gay “marriage”.

Two wrongs do not make it right.

 

[edwest2]

Waaaaaait a second now…

You’re talking about the chairman of the USCCB Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, who holds a doctorate in Canon law from the Gregorian in Rome, and who has written and spoken on this particular issue more than any other. I don’t think you can just assume he fails to realize anything on this issue.

From this 2011 interview, you can see he is well aware that gay marriage is not the beginning of this at all:

That’s right. Marriage was under a very well coordinated attack over the last 40 years. No-Fault Divorce out of thin air in the 1980s.

amazon.com/Marketing-Evil-Pseudo-Experts-Corruption-Disguised/dp/1935071254

Legalize sexual perversity. And praise it in the media. For year after year, after year. Forget about “those values on which we used to rely.” In the Advocate, one person referred to Pope Francis’ definition of marriage as “mythology.”

Ed