Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter estesbob
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joie_de_Vivre said:
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.”
Click to expand...
I’m not surprised the father of the holocaust gas chambers was also against the sacrament of marriage.
 
Havard said:
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:
Click to expand...
He thinks it started decades ago, it started much further back.
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
That does not, in the least, justify or legitimize gay “marriage”.

Two wrongs do not make it right.
Click to expand...
Gay marriage is a logical extension of what heterosexuals have done to marriage just like infanticide is a logical extension of abortion.

It should be clear from my comparison that I am not saying that gay marriage should become law, I am saying me must resist it and also undo the profound damage heterosexuals have done to the institution. I am also not saying gay marriage is equivalent to baby killing.
zz912 said:
I’m not surprised the father of the holocaust gas chambers was also against the sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
Marrying for love is still a terrible idea and marrying for love less than two years after beginning to date them is insanity.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
Gay marriage is a logical extension of what heterosexuals have done to marriage just like infanticide is a logical extension of abortion.

It should be clear from my comparison that I am not saying that gay marriage should become law, I am saying me must resist it and also undo the profound damage heterosexuals have done to the institution. I am also not saying gay marriage is equivalent to baby killing.
Click to expand...
But it seems like you are saying that a gay relationship is equivalent to marriage.
 
Joie_de_Vivre said:
He thinks it started decades ago, it started much further back.
Click to expand...
I’m baffled as to why you’re continuing to split hairs to impute an ignorance to His Excellency when it’s not even found in what he said. He said the 60’s were when the contraceptive mentality really took off, which is really hard to disagree with… But stating this does not mean he thinks it all happened out of nowhere, that there wasn’t growing problems and erosion taking place prior.
 
Havard said:
I’m baffled as to why you’re continuing to split hairs to impute an ignorance to His Excellency when it’s not even found in what he said. He said the 60’s were when the contraceptive mentality really took off, which is really hard to disagree with… But stating this does not mean he thinks it all happened out of nowhere, that there wasn’t growing problems and erosion taking place prior.
Click to expand...
Erosion by what means? The radicals, dissidents and sexual perverts were feeling uncomfortable because too many around them called sexual perversity dirty, as in morally dirty. So, in order to feel comfortable, millions of dollars, and unwanted laws were passed, to make them feel better. To influence normal, God-fearing people, gradually, very gradually, to sell them perversion disguised by the word “freedom.” To make as many as they could slaves to sexual perversity. Only the last 40 years contain the most visible signs of “pushing the envelope,” breaking down barriers," “shattering taboos” so that instead of a man controlling his passions, he was always encouraged to lose control of his own body. Perverts would become the norm. Celebrating sexual deviancy was and is the goal.

It’s plain for anyone to see.

So, the Church will stand strong on marriage and defend it. It will also remind those who imagine the lie that “I can’t control my body” to get rid of it. It’s not true.

Ed
 
LisaA said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
gracepoole said:
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.
Click to expand...
Yes, but two married women is the issue. Gay marriage is the issue.

Ed
 
Zoltan_Cobalt said:
But it seems like you are saying that a gay relationship is equivalent to marriage.
Click to expand...
It is equivalent to marriage primarily based on love where children are totally optional which is what society has now. It is not however equivalent to a marriage primarily about children and in a world where that is an almost universal rule the concept of gay marriage simply doesn’t make sense.
 
edwest2 said:
Yes, but two married women is the issue. Gay marriage is the issue.

Ed
Click to expand...
I do understand that. I was just noting that all involved in same-sex marriage aren’t acting out of selfishness or a desire to avoid self-sacrifice.
 
Words are words.
Opinions and politicization of the language don’t change reality.
When people use words to try and redefine reality, only bad things can happen.
 
There has been a war on marriage ever since the dissent to Humanae Vitae washed through the Church and society. There was war on marriage before that, but it intensified with the sexual revolution which wanted contraception, free sex, cohabitation, abortion, and no fault divorce. No commitment, no kids, no permanence. But the war is about to get more vicious.

The out of wedlock birth rate went from 5% to 41% and over 70% in some communities. That shows just how much we care about children–not much. There is no longer a stigma attached, where there was before, so we get more bad behavior not less.

In the area of morality we need more judgmentalism, not less.
 
gracepoole said:
I do understand that. I was just noting that all involved in same-sex marriage aren’t acting out of selfishness or a desire to avoid self-sacrifice.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that is not what the Archbishop was focusing on. Good works are good works.

Best,
Ed
 
estesbob said:
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.”
Click to expand...
“Since man always remains free and since his freedom is always fragile, the kingdom of good will never be definitively established in this world. Anyone who promises the better world that is guaranteed to last forever is making a false promise; he is overlooking human freedom. Freedom must be constantly won over for the cause of good. Free assent to the good never exists simply by itself. If there were structures which could irrevocably guarantee a determined and good state of the world, man’s freedom would be denied, and hence they would not be good structures at all.”
― Pope Benedict XVI, Saved in Hope: Spe Salvi
 
zz912 said:
I’m not surprised the father of the holocaust gas chambers was also against the sacrament of marriage.
Click to expand...
Yes, and do you know which church gave the exemption that allowed his consanguineous parents to get married? :eek:
 
edwest2 said:
Erosion by what means? The radicals, dissidents and sexual perverts were feeling uncomfortable because too many around them called sexual perversity dirty, as in morally dirty. So, in order to feel comfortable, millions of dollars, and unwanted laws were passed, to make them feel better. To influence normal, God-fearing people, gradually, very gradually, to sell them perversion disguised by the word “freedom.” To make as many as they could slaves to sexual perversity. Only the last 40 years contain the most visible signs of “pushing the envelope,” breaking down barriers," “shattering taboos” so that instead of a man controlling his passions, he was always encouraged to lose control of his own body. Perverts would become the norm. Celebrating sexual deviancy was and is the goal.

It’s plain for anyone to see.
Click to expand...
I’ll never understand why people blame the 60s and 70s for that sort of thing. The only thing that really changed was that people rejected the hypocrisy of prior generations on those matters and publicly acknowledged what had been happening behind closed doors for centuries.
 
EmperorNapoleon said:
I’ll never understand why people blame the 60s and 70s for that sort of thing. The only thing that really changed was that people rejected the hypocrisy of prior generations on those matters and publicly acknowledged what had been happening behind closed doors for centuries.
Click to expand...
The out of wedlock birth rate didn’t really change? It’s kind of hard to hide. It went from 5% to 70% in some places, destroying families and institutionalizing poverty. I recommend this book which gives all the facts.
 
JimG said:
The out of wedlock birth rate didn’t really change? It’s kind of hard to hide. It went from 5% to 70% in some places, destroying families and institutionalizing poverty. I recommend this book which gives all the facts.
Click to expand...
I think the purity of the 40s and 50s was a myth. There were some significant gaps between the age of first childbirth and average age of marriage. In other words, there were a lot of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and child births. People might have been more likely to get married afterwards.
 
JimG said:
The out of wedlock birth rate didn’t really change? It’s kind of hard to hide. It went from 5% to 70% in some places, destroying families and institutionalizing poverty. I recommend this book which gives all the facts.
Click to expand...
Shotgun weddings are highly effective at reducing the number of out of wedlock births.
 
“It’s hard to imagine how the essential meaning of marriage as between the two sexes, understood in our nation for over two hundred years, and consistent with every society throughout all of human history, could be declared illegal,” a statement from the Archbishop said.
Click to expand...
Illegal? Is anyone trying to outlaw marriage between people of the opposite sex? I’m afraid he comes across as rather histrionic in his assessment. It seems pretty obvious that same sex marriage is soon going to become legal in all 50 states…civil marriage that is…big difference. And personally I don’t understand how that hurts anyone’s marriage. The distinction between religious and civil marriage is never acknowledged in these arguments. Why is that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top