Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[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

For another example of how the past was not always that great, try reading Michael Lesy’s book Wisconsin Death Trip. Here’s the blurb from Amazon:

The last decade of the 19th century was, for some Americans, a time when great fortunes were to be made. For many others, however, the period was a time of economic dislocation, when the gap between city and countryside, rich and poor, grew ever wider. As the Indian Wars ended and the Gilded Age extended into America’s first Imperial Age, social critics such as Mark Twain and William Dean Howells began to examine the dark side of the American dream: violence, poverty, degenerate behavior, suicide, and insanity.

In the late 1960s, another desperate time, historian Michael Lesy took a long look at fin-de-siècle America. Examining a collection of several thousand glass plate negatives and historical documents from Jackson County, Wisconsin, he concocted a sprawling treatise on a past that had been willfully forgotten, a brooding rejoinder to Edgar Lee Masters’s Spoon River Anthology. First published in 1973, Lesy’s Wisconsin Death Trip, now reissued in a handsome paperbound edition, became a key text of the counterculture, a book to shelve alongside Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee and Custer Died for Your Sins–and it sometimes reads like a hip product of its time. Lesy documents the unsettling record of one small corner of rural America, turning up accounts of barn burnings, attacks by gangs of armed tramps, threatening and obscene letters, death by diphtheria and smallpox (the Wisconsin townsfolk had, some years, to attend several funerals a week), alcoholism, madness, business and bank failures, and even a case or two of witchcraft.

After reading Lesy’s texts and viewing the sometimes unsettling images he’s turned up, you would be forgiven for thinking that no one in small-town Wisconsin in our great-great-grandparents’ time was well-adjusted–which is, of course, not the case. Hyperbole notwithstanding, this is a remarkable study, one that Lesy himself rightly calls an experiment in both history and alchemy.

amazon.com/Wisconsin-Death-Trip-Michael-Lesy/dp/0826321933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422247254&sr=8-1&keywords=wisconsin+death+trip

Here’s another review at Amazon from Library Journal:

As the title suggests, this is a truly strange book. Published in 1973, it is essentially a collection of photos taken in Black River Falls, WI, by Charles Van Schaik between 1890 and 1910. The subject matter ranges from children in coffins, to farm animals, to family portraits of some of the grimmest-looking people imaginable; the photos are accompanied by snippets from newspapers. The whole package seems to confirm that the good old days were actually awful.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

I read this and I see a lot of talk about 1 thing: Sex between men and women. But surely there are so many other fruits of what constitutes a faithful sound marriage. Fruits of love, joy, fidelity, kindness, gentleness, self-control etc. Components that 2 people who are so deeply committed to one another whose hearts and souls are so bound together to each other, are more than capable of working together in union as 1 to produce. Regardless of their plumbing so to speak. And we ignore Biblical civilizations all the time. Surely you’ve read all the goings on in the OT. The human race is composed of male and female. But it is also composed of gay and straight, And of persons with all sorts of differences. All among God’s Creation nonetheless.

 

[Havard]

For another example of how the past was not always that great, try reading Michael Lesy’s book Wisconsin Death Trip. Here’s the blurb from Amazon:

amazon.com/Wisconsin-Death-Trip-Michael-Lesy/dp/0826321933/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1422247254&sr=8-1&keywords=wisconsin+death+trip

The comments about the past refer to respect for the sacrament of marriage. It is possible to get some things right and other things wrong - at the same time.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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

States banning interracial couples from marriage…

 

[pete_29]

Yeah, things sure are better now. Body counts in cities resembling war zones. Terrorists blowing people up all over the world. No morality at all in the world. Yeah, it’s a good thing that none of those awful 1950’s values are around.

 

[LisaA]

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.

You don’t seem to understand the Church’s teaching on marriage. Divorced persons are not sinful because they divorced but only if they are engaging in sinful behavior…such as sexual relations with another, cohabiting etc. If someone is divorced and does not have a certificate of nullity (annulment) and marries someone else, then yes it is considered adultery as in the eyes of the Church. The original marrige IS recognized but the civil divorce is NOT recognized. Marriage is considered a lifelong bond and only death of one of the parties ends the marriage. You do not have to be married in the Church to receive the Eucharist. Again the Church recognizes legal marriages even if not in the Church just as the Church accepts baptisms from other trinitarian churches.

Divorced persons who are remarried or contemplating remarriage must receive an annulment before their second (or third or whatever) marriage is considered valid.

What I find is that those who object to the Church’s teaching don’t understand it for the most part. They hear theories or claims “divorced people can’t take communion” and since that doesn’t seem fair, object without bothering to find out whether or not it’s true and if it’s true what are the circumstances and the reasoning behind the teaching. It helps to really study your faith to gain an understanding and appreciation for its amazing wisdom and truth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

States banning interracial couples from marriage…

And “we the people” using the ballot box to democratically enact change to the Constitution unlike the insidious, slow creep erosion of gender- balanced, heterosexual marriage.

 

[LisaA]

I read this and I see a lot of talk about 1 thing: Sex between men and women. But surely there are so many other fruits of what constitutes a faithful sound marriage. Fruits of love, joy, fidelity, kindness, gentleness, self-control etc. Components that 2 people who are so deeply committed to one another whose hearts and souls are so bound together to each other, are more than capable of working together in union as 1 to produce. Regardless of their plumbing so to speak. And we ignore Biblical civilizations all the time. Surely you’ve read all the goings on in the OT. The human race is composed of male and female. But it is also composed of gay and straight, And of persons with all sorts of differences. All among God’s Creation nonetheless.

You keep expressing your own opinions and trying to convince us your opinions are as valid as the Church’s teaching on these subjects.

“Plumbing” as you so delicately put it IS IMPORTANT. It is an innate and immutable characteristic you have at conception (one is conceived male or female) and have throughout your life. As male or female you are ordered (designed) for a specific purpose. Males are ordered (designed) to have female mates. Check biology 101 if you are unaware of this fact. Men are not designed to have male sexual partners and aside from the complete lack of procrative potential in every same sex relationship, these activities as it were are unhealthy and self destructive. You can couch it in all the flowery words you want and talk about bonding at the level of the soul but in reality that can be done without a sexual component in the relationship. In fact many philosophers speak of the hierarchy of love and the non-sexual philia and the highest of all agape have no sexual component to them. What you grandly describe as the “fruits” of a same sex relationship are all possible without the sexual component. As CS Lewis describes it the love between friends is the least “natural” of all because it’s not biologically driven. Eros which is the actual impetus of homosexual relationships is not nearly as lofty. Nor is Eros between males and females without the other components.

No one is saying that the bonds within a SS relationship cannot be loving, deep, self sacrificing and devoted but it is not equivalent to Natural Marriage because it lacks the complimentary nature, the procreative potential and the unitive nature of a man and woman where the two become one in every way.

 

[Thorolfr]

And “we the people” using the ballot box to democratically enact change to the Constitution unlike the insidious, slow creep erosion of gender- balanced, heterosexual marriage.

Interracial marriage was not declared unconstitutional using the ballot box. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia

 

[Thorolfr]

What I find is that those who object to the Church’s teaching don’t understand it for the most part. They hear theories or claims “divorced people can’t take communion” and since that doesn’t seem fair, object without bothering to find out whether or not it’s true and if it’s true what are the circumstances and the reasoning behind the teaching. It helps to really study your faith to gain an understanding and appreciation for its amazing wisdom and truth.

I also think that there are a lot of people who do understand the Church’s teachings and still don’t always find them convincing

 

[Sy_Noe]

And “we the people” using the ballot box to democratically enact change to the Constitution unlike the insidious, slow creep erosion of gender- balanced, heterosexual marriage.

And I only know I thank God “we the people” are learning they don’t have the right to deny rights at the ballot box just because “we” don’t like it. “We” in this case I use loosely. As I myself voted several yrs ago for gay rights on this issue and am grateful to see so many courts affirming I voted correctly with the Constitution as to what civil law should be. Since that’s what I was voting on. :

 

[Sy_Noe]

I also think that there are a lot of people who do understand the Church’s teachings and still don’t find them convincing

That’s true but maybe some people who hold to the Church’s faith, beliefs and interpretations just think somehow they can convince them if they just keep repeating that their church has the truth.

 

[Lion_IRC]

Interracial marriage was not declared unconstitutional using the ballot box. It was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in Loving vs. Virginia

Discrimination on the basis of race was enshrined in the Constitution by democratic vote. Loving vs Virginia is a just a recognition of the will of the people.
How many US states voted for SSM?

 

[SavannahGal]

You don’t seem to understand the Church’s teaching on marriage. Divorced persons are not sinful because they divorced but only if they are engaging in sinful behavior…such as sexual relations with another, cohabiting etc. If someone is divorced and does not have a certificate of nullity (annulment) and marries someone else, then yes it is considered adultery as in the eyes of the Church. The original marrige IS recognized but the civil divorce is NOT recognized. Marriage is considered a lifelong bond and only death of one of the parties ends the marriage. You do not have to be married in the Church to receive the Eucharist. Again the Church recognizes legal marriages even if not in the Church just as the Church accepts baptisms from other trinitarian churches.

Divorced persons who are remarried or contemplating remarriage must receive an annulment before their second (or third or whatever) marriage is considered valid.

What I find is that those who object to the Church’s teaching don’t understand it for the most part. They hear theories or claims “divorced people can’t take communion” and since that doesn’t seem fair, object without bothering to find out whether or not it’s true and if it’s true what are the circumstances and the reasoning behind the teaching. It helps to really study your faith to gain an understanding and appreciation for its amazing wisdom and truth.

My apologies. I thought it self-evident, based on our previous discussion, that we were speaking of divorced and remarried Catholics that had not been granted an annulment. Even the language that came from the Church regarding the recent synod referred to the discussion of “divorced” people “receiving communion.” Since your assumption is that I am just misinformed about Church teaching, in the future, I will provide the more detailed explanation, as apparently unless I make it abundantly clear, it will be assumed that I simply misunderstand Church teaching.

As I am sure you are aware, one cannot obtain an annulment from the Catholic Church just because one wants not be married anymore and perhaps remarry. Annulment invalidates the marriage from the beginning, but certainly not all Catholics are able to receive an annulment. With that in mind, let’s get back to the actual question I asked, shall we? If the Church has no objection providing benefits to a legal spouse that in the eyes of the Church is considered nothing more than an adulterer, why is providing benefits to a same sex couple any different. Neither constitutes a true marriage in the eyes of the Church, yet it is somehow a violation of religious freedom to provide benefits to the same sex couple. Why is that?

 

[estesbob]

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

Are you contending there is a link between desegregation and civil rights and the huge increase of promiscuity, illegitimacy , divorce and abortions???

 

[estesbob]

I also think that there are a lot of people who do understand the Church’s teachings and still don’t always find them convincing

And often make church shop until they find a church that is in alignment with their feelings . And if they can’t find such a church they just found their own. And it is always amazing that they end up finding a god who just happens to believe in everything they do.

 

[zz912]

I think it should be accepted as the sacrament of matrimony. Realistically, I believe the church will not allow this for a long time, but I think it’s about time that at least the states recognize it.

Who would I be to judge people who are in love?

You simply don’t know the Catholic faith if you believe same-sex “marriage” can ever be accepted as a sacrament. It CAN’T happen.

You’re also confusing true love for emotional attraction. True love is wanting what is good for the other for their benefit. Encouraging someone in a same-sex relationship is not love, it is the opposite of love.

 

[zz912]

Amen! There are people (on this site) who imply that if you believe in homosexual marriage, then you are a poor Catholic.

The person who does that is a Catholic who rejects the faith.

As someone who goes to mass every Sunday and believes in god, I have never understood how wanting two people in love to be happy makes me a worse Catholic in their eyes.

Because you are confirming and encouraging them in sin. That is an evil thing to do. God has given authority to His Bride, the Church, to speak in His Name. The Church has spoken that this is sinful behavior. Why do you reject the teaching of God if you believe in Him?

 

[zz912]

Since six of the nine Justices are devout, practicing Roman Catholics and the other three are Jewish I think the gay community has good reason to worry.

Could you support this claim of the six Justics being devout? I’ve seen several votes and stances that are in direct contradiction to Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

I know that I am probably going to get bashed by some people on this site, but I am a cafeteria Catholic to an extent and I’m not afraid to admit it.

Thank you for at least being honest about it. I prefer honestly admitting it instead of some who claim to be faithful but are nothing of the sort.

I am at a time in my life that I am doubting my faith a bit, but I think doubt in religion is healthy,

Depends on the doubt. Questioning is highly encouraged so you can learn the faith even stronger. Persistent doubt that refuses to consider you just may be wrong, or obstinate doubt, is simply pride getting in the way of learning.

instead of blindly accepting whatever’s written just because it’s the “Catholic law”.

I hope you aren’t ascribing “blindly accepting” to anyone here. That would be overtly offensive if so. Where do you get this opinoin that most Catholics blindly accept anything?

Yes, I pick and choose some of the things I believe in my faith. But I do know this: I believe in God

Here is where I would question you. Do you beleive in God, or believe in yourself? When God has spoken through His Church, do you submit to Him or to your own beliefs?

and God loves everyone.

Yes He does. And like a loving Father, He will not encourage or approve of us doing things that are harmful to ourselves.

The bible was written (not by Jesus) during a time of persecution towards homosexuality. If the writers of the bible were to come out and say that it was totally okay to be gay because God wants everyone to be happy, they themselves would probably be persecuted.

Yes, the same men who were crucified, beaten, imprisoned, stoned, tortured and eaten by lions were worried about being persecuted…

If you would like to know how I “get around this”, I simply don’t. I refuse to admit that I think homosexuality is wrong, since that’s not what I believe. I don’t accept all of the Catholic teachings. Just because it’s written in the bible doesn’t mean I believe it. I know that probably doesn’t make me a good Catholic, but I don’t think it makes me a bad person.

So who is it you believe in? God or yourself? When a belief of yours contradicts what God has decreed, which view wins out? Yours or God’s?