Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[edwest2]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

That is totally incorrect. A plan was established and carefully executed in stages - step by step. I watched it unfold. Nothing was lost, but the outsiders did as much damage as they could. God is with us, both then and now. The war against sexual deviancy is not over. The war against abortion is not over. They are reaping what they had sown.

Ed

 

[JimG]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

I agree. The casualties of the war are detailed in Mary Eberstadt’s book.

 

[edwest2]

Yes! The dissent and the outright rejection of Church teachings outlined in Humanae Vitae by clergy and lay people alike has left an indelible mark! And reading some of the postings here and other places, that dissent is still strong, ever present and growing some 47 years later!

Peace, Mark

That is incorrect. The old dissenters have died out and their replacements aren’t very good.

wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704586504574654282563939764

Humanae Vitae requires the assent of all the faithful, It, not the secular world, is indelible.

Ed

 

[SavannahGal]

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!

Thank you darlin’. I appreciate your welcome.

I’ve actually been a Catholic for more than 50 years. Suppose I should stop calling myself a convert at this point. I was baptized on April 22, 1962 to the outrage of my entire family. I was raised in the south by a proud, prominent, southern Baptist family to whom converting to Catholicism was tantamount to treason, especially when you take into account my involvement with the civil rights movement. They were very supportive of segregation and were fond of the refrain, “separate but equal,” which of course is not truly possible. I haven’t forgotten where I came from and what I rejected, so I guess that’s why I still think of myself as a convert.

 

[SavannahGal]

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.

Well, we’re in the same boat on that one hun. I’m not an apologist or theologian either. You may be right, or maybe we’re both wrong. But I believe that divorced people are not allowed to participate in the sacrament of communion because they are considered to be in a state of sin…that unless you are married in the Church, you are committing adultery. That’s my understanding of these situations.

 

[Havard]

With all due respect to the Archbishop - the War on marriage started long ago with the advent of artificial birth control followed by the full assault during the 1960’s with the “free love” movement and the 1970’s assault on the unborn with the passage of abortion on demand … as soon as that happened the War on Marriage was lost … its been lost for a long time now

What we are reaping is the result of that lost War

Oh trust me, he knows. He’s given talks about everything from fruits of the Enlightenment to postmodernism to the rise of contraception to no-fault divorce, etc. We’re talking about a man with an STB in sacred theology from the Pontifical North American College and a doctorate in canon law from the Gregorian, who’s headed the USCCB Subcomittee on the Promotion and Defense of Marriage. When it comes to what’s wrong with marriage today, this bishop knows his stuff.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Thank you darlin’. I appreciate your welcome.

I’ve actually been a Catholic for more than 50 years. Suppose I should stop calling myself a convert at this point. I was baptized on April 22, 1962 to the outrage of my entire family. I was raised in the south by a proud, prominent, southern Baptist family to whom converting to Catholicism was tantamount to treason, especially when you take into account my involvement with the civil rights movement. They were very supportive of segregation and were fond of the refrain, “separate but equal,” which of course is not truly possible. I haven’t forgotten where I came from and what I rejected, so I guess that’s why I still think of myself as a convert.

Oh I understand now. You’ve actually been Catholic almost as long as I’ve been a baptized one. Gosh I’m gettin up there. Seriously my Catholic family has had some experience with a Catholic-Southern Baptist situation. In our case a marriage. Some on both sides of the aisle had some difficulties at first. Some of us didn’t. But it’s eventually all worked out and hope things did for you too. Still nonetheless welcome and God’s continued blessings and peace in your faith of 50+ yrs!

 

[Sy_Noe]

“Leave!’ Hazel Motes cried. ‘Go ahead and leave! The truth don’t matter to you. Listen,’ he said, pointing his finger at the rest of them, ‘the truth don’t matter to you. If Jesus had redeemed you, what difference would it make to you? You wouldn’t do nothing about it. Your faces wouldn’t move, neither this way nor that, and if it was three crosses there and Him hung on the middle one, that wouldn’t mean no more to you and me than the other two. Listen here. What you need is something to take the place of Jesus, something that would speak plain. The Church Without Christ don’t have a Jesus but it needs one! It needs a new jesus! It needs one that’s all man, without blood to waste, and it needs one that don’t look like any other man so you’ll look at him. Give me such a jesus, you people. Give me such a new jesus and you’ll see how far the Church Without Christ can go!”

― Flannery O’Connor, Wise Blood

I’m not going to take the time to decipher all of this but I see a smiley in there so it can’t be all bad. All I know is although I did leave the practice of your faith, that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t redeem me on the cross. Or that He is not where I am. None of us are where we are along our walks with Him if not for the grace of God.

 

[religioussoup]

There’s no theological basis to believe this teaching could change.

I think religioussoup and his like are a lot more consistent in being up front in saying that they are “picking and choosing.” My friend’s (protestant) church in Germany broke up over gay marriage, but interestingly a lot of the backlash came from liberal-minded young people, because they knew the change in theology was a last-minute cobble-job to justify the result that the decision-makers wanted. It’s blatantly clear when people decide upon their conclusions first and then working backwards towards their arguments. And since the young people were already open about what beliefs they picked and chose, such as gay marriage and cohabitation, the whole business about this “new development” was clearly, embarrassingly dishonest.

I am about to say something about Catholics in general, and I am not specifically targeting this at you.

The reason why I can be up front in saying that I am picking and choosing is because there are literally so many Catholics, such as my grandparents, who literally believe in every single word written down about the Catholic faith. They have literally blindly accepted every single part of the faith, even if they don’t actually believe in it. If I were to look at Catholic teachings, for example, about SSA, I would not blindly accept it just because it’s Catholic teaching. I would evaluate it based on what I personally believe. And I have. I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. And that is that.

 

[religioussoup]

I presume that your aunt and uncle, being man and woman, were able to have conjugal relations—marital sex. So yes they are capable of marriage. They do have complementary reproductive systems. Only man and woman are capable of engaging in marital relations. Fertility is not an issue. Man and woman can have conjugal sex; same sex couples can never have conjugal sex.

I guess what I’m asking is what does it matter? Like if my aunt and uncle can have conjugal sex without producing children, and homosexuals can have sex without producing children, why does it have to matter if it’s conjugal sex or not?

 

[Sy_Noe]

Reading thru replies about abominations and so forth, I understand we all don’t accept various arguments on both sides. And scholars in various faith communities have arrived at different interpretations. And I understand the Catholic faith has brought many of you profound peace. Praise God! But for me for most of my life it has been much the opposite. In any case do Catholics take every word in the Bible literally? I know you do “This is my body” and eat of it. But do you take every word literally? I don’t.

 

[Dwyer]

The Socialists from Europe in the late 19th century and early 20th century wanted to get rid of what they called “bourgeois marriage”:

Sointula, which means “place of harmony” in Finnish, is a small community of roughly 1,000 residents. A short ferry ride from northern Vancouver Island, it was founded in 1901 when a charismatic socialist named Matti Kurikka led a group of 200 Finnish miners to remote Malcolm Island, where they hoped to build their own socialist utopia.

Cultivating farmland out of B.C.’s (British Columbia, Canada) coastal wilderness, the Finns lived communally, sharing food, clothing and land . . .

What proved challenging to many of the traditional Finns was Kurikka’s determination to alter notions of marriage, by allowing men and women to engage in sexual activity with anyone they loved. Kurrika also insisted that the settlement have no police, no alcohol and no church.

cbc.ca/news/canada/finnish-actors-plan-epic-journey-to-stage-musical-in-b-c-town-1.1401337

 

[religioussoup]

Reading thru replies about abominations and so forth, I understand we all don’t accept various arguments on both sides. And scholars in various faith communities have arrived at different interpretations. And I understand the Catholic faith has brought many of you profound peace. Praise God! But for me for most of my life it has been much the opposite. In any case do Catholics take every word in the Bible literally? I know you do “This is my body” and eat of it. But do you take every word literally? I don’t.

I do not take every word literally. I think that leads to a blind acceptance. “Well, it’s written in the bible that Adam and Eve were the first humans so that must be true.” “The bible says homosexual relationships are wrong, so that must be true.” Some people actually accept every single word in the bible only because they are written in the bible. They don’t ever stop and ask themselves if they actually believe in it, they just assume they should because they have blindly accepted everything. I do not take every word literally. I have determined what I do and do not believe in and I am still working some stuff out. But I believe in God and spread love to everyone, so I figure that if I don’t believe that gay marriage is wrong, I’m not necessarily a bad Catholic or a bad person.

prepares for bashing on my personal opinion

 

[edwest2]

I am about to say something about Catholics in general, and I am not specifically targeting this at you.

The reason why I can be up front in saying that I am picking and choosing is because there are literally so many Catholics, such as my grandparents, who literally believe in every single word written down about the Catholic faith. They have literally blindly accepted every single part of the faith, even if they don’t actually believe in it. If I were to look at Catholic teachings, for example, about SSA, I would not blindly accept it just because it’s Catholic teaching. I would evaluate it based on what I personally believe. And I have. I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. And that is that.

I spent years in a Catholic school. Everything was explained to me except blindness. My eyes were opened at all times. You may choose to believe what you want but I literally believe every single word written down by authentic teachers of the Catholic faith. I was there in the late 1960s and I heard, “All you Catholics do is listen to the Pope. Why don’t you think for yourselves?”

Translation: “Why do you pay attention to men of God and not believe us!?” Yeah, I’m going to believe people who want to live their way on their terms and they were remarkably alike. Call them Hippies, anarchists, whatever. THEY were their own god. I rejected and continue to reject that. All they wanted was lots of sex, lots of dope and to reject the rules of religion. Christianity was replaced with Eastern mysticism. They tried yogis and gurus and all the rest.

Ed

 

[JimG]

I guess what I’m asking is what does it matter? Like if my aunt and uncle can have conjugal sex without producing children, and homosexuals can have sex without producing children, why does it have to matter if it’s conjugal sex or not?

Well, start with the fact that non-marital sex is sinful. Pre-marital sex, cohabitation sex, adultery, fornication are all wrong, even when engaged in by opposite sex couples. Non-conjugal relations such as homosexuals sex are also wrong. So is masturbation. A sexual relationship is right and good within marriage and nowhere else. But two persons of the same sex are not equipped to marry, because they can never engage in conjugal relations. They do not have complementary sexual natures. They can only engage in forms of illicit sex, never marital sex.

When it comes to fertility, it cannot be a requirement for marriage, since women are only fertile at particular times, and men may sometimes lose their fertility, and the moral law does not require that sexual relations among married couples be limited to only known fertile times.

As long as a couple—man and woman—are capable of engaging in marital sex, they are capable of marriage. An infertile couple can be capable of sexual relations whether or not they are fertile.

The human race is composed of male and female for a reason. They are sexually complementary and capable of marriage, and thus of continuing the human race. That doesn’t mean that all are obligated to have children. It does mean that sexual difference is the reason for marriage in the first place. Civilizations going back to the dawn of history have recognized this. We ignore it at our peril.

 

[Havard]

I am about to say something about Catholics in general, and I am not specifically targeting this at you.

The reason why I can be up front in saying that I am picking and choosing is because there are literally so many Catholics, such as my grandparents, who literally believe in every single word written down about the Catholic faith. They have literally blindly accepted every single part of the faith, even if they don’t actually believe in it. If I were to look at Catholic teachings, for example, about SSA, I would not blindly accept it just because it’s Catholic teaching. I would evaluate it based on what I personally believe. And I have. I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. And that is that.

Re you: That is refreshingly honest, it’s nice to be able to clearly grasp where a person stands on things, and why.

Re me: In appreciate that you said that you didn’t mean to target me, but I will say that I haven’t always believed what I believe now. Actually, I really hope you get a chance to hear more stories from people on here, because many of us have had some interesting faith journeys.

 

[estesbob]

I am about to say something about Catholics in general, and I am not specifically targeting this at you.

The reason why I can be up front in saying that I am picking and choosing is because there are literally so many Catholics, such as my grandparents, who literally believe in every single word written down about the Catholic faith. They have literally blindly accepted every single part of the faith, even if they don’t actually believe in it. If I were to look at Catholic teachings, for example, about SSA, I would not blindly accept it just because it’s Catholic teaching. I would evaluate it based on what I personally believe. And I have. I believe homosexuals should have the right to marry. And that is that.

Your grandparents are very wise.You can learn a lot from them.

 

[LisaA]

This is the modern thinking - any thing and every thing goes and to expect self control and responsibility is somehow - un-American and judgmental … and cruel - inhuman

I think history shows - in fact the opposite is true …

With the advent of ABC - especially the introduction to the pill …

Rates of out of wedlock births increased with the introduction of the cheap and effective “Pill” Why would this be … if you can prevent the pregnancy?

Also - the number of abortions skyrocketed … with the easy availability of the Pill beginning in the 1960s …Why would this be … if you can prevent the pregnancy?

Marriage rates - 1900 = 9% Divorce rate - <1%
Marriage rates - 1930 = 9% Divorce rate - 1.6%
Marriage rates - 1960 = 8.5% Divorce rate - 2.2%
Marriage rates - 1990 = 10% Divorce rate - 4.7%
Marriage rates - 2009 = 7.3% Divorce rate - 3.6%

of course we now have co-habitation and is partner serial co-habitation as well -

Ask yourself why we have so many out of wedlock births in America today … and what enables this -

Is cheap effective birth control available - Yes … even free …

In America there are approximately 62 million women of childbearing age - of which 62% are using the pill, IUD, condoms, diaphragms, etc.

In America today -the overall illegitimacy rate is almost 41% overall - in 1960 that rate was under 6%

Births to unwed mothers by demographics -
Caucasian 29% 1980 = 20%
African American - 72% … 1930 = 17%, 1960 = 21% 1965 - 24%
Hispanic 53%
Native American 66%
Asian 17%

So with the advent of acceptance of ABC in marriage for couples with in the intervening years - that included - easy cheap access to birth control, acceptance of co-habitation and children out side of marriage, legalized abortion to kill off unwanted children … Marriage rates are declining divorce [and serial co-habitation - the unmarried equivalent of divorce]

We still manage to have over one million children aborted in America each year?

ABC - took the need to CONTROL out of the equation - which meant that the consequences were hidden and people did not have to face up to RESPONSIBILITY …

A partner on the journey was moral relativism … don’t judge and social morals are inhibiting … so now we have social acceptance of all behaviors [read the news lately a daughter is marrying her father in Mew Jersey where incest is legal ] and you can see that Marriage lost the war a long time ago …

You can believe the facts of history or ignore them …

Bravo and spot on. Our dear Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke of the evil resulting from moral relativism, proudly on display everywhere it seems. I have the advantage of having come over from the dark side, an atheist, feminist, pro abortion Leftist. Although it took a while, my brain could not accept the kind of inconsistency and relativism needed to support any of those evil agendas.

Our Church HAS the truth, and again those who argue aganst the Church’s teachings reveal their ignorance of them. The kind of scholarship, review and the intellectual power behind these teachings that have stood the test of time is compelling. In reality people dismissed the Church’s teaching on birth control, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, divorce etc because they wanted to indulge their passions and desires rather than honoring the gifts they were given to be men or women.

 

[edwest2]

Bravo and spot on. Our dear Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI spoke of the evil resulting from moral relativism, proudly on display everywhere it seems. I have the advantage of having come over from the dark side, an atheist, feminist, pro abortion Leftist. Although it took a while, my brain could not accept the kind of inconsistency and relativism needed to support any of those evil agendas.

Our Church HAS the truth, and again those who argue aganst the Church’s teachings reveal their ignorance of them. The kind of scholarship, review and the intellectual power behind these teachings that have stood the test of time is compelling. In reality people dismissed the Church’s teaching on birth control, abortion, homosexuality, adultery, divorce etc because they wanted to indulge their passions and desires rather than honoring the gifts they were given to be men or women.

Self-control, respect, clean fun < --------------------------------- 40 years ------------------------------ > pleasure and who cares about rules or religion? Which usually leads to bad to very bad things.

Ed

 

[Thorolfr]

Self-control, respect, clean fun < --------------------------------- 40 years ------------------------------ > pleasure and who cares about rules or religion? Which usually leads to bad to very bad things.

Ed

The past was not always that wonderful. Let’s try some other timelines:

Women not allowed to vote, black people prevented from voting, segregated schools, segregated drinking fountains, black people lynched <-------------------- 40 years --------------> women and black people allowed to vote, integrated schools, no more lynchings