Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[DrTaffy]

Discrimination on the basis of race was enshrined in the Constitution by democratic vote.

I admit that I have made similair misstatements and typos myself, but may I be permitted a brief ?

No? oops

Loving vs Virginia is a just a recognition of the will of the people.
How many US states voted for SSM?

How many states voted for interracial marriage? The same principle applies. The majority voted for an abstract moral principle, such as equal protection. So even if a vocal minority manage to swing a vote on not granting a smaller or less vocal minority that right, the courts have every right to enforce that principle.

 

[zz912]

It has happened that candidates who gave speeches against gay marriage, once in office, changed their minds and voted for it. So you were tricked into voting for someone who did not adhere to his/her promises. Is it a sin not to vote, when it oftentimes happens that you are tricked into voting for something, but the promises made by the candidate are quickly forgotten after the election?

Yes, you have to vote. That is Church teaching. If you don’t like a politician, or a politician didn’t live up to their campaign promises, vote for someone else. Even if you have to write-in a vote. But you do have to vote.

Many politicians forget their promises, so changing out politicians is usually good policy.

 

[zz912]

It’s one thing for you to say Catholics are rejecting Catholic teaching. That’s fine if Catholic teaching opposes SSM. But incorrect to make a blanket statement about Christian faith.

No, it’s not incorrect to make that blanket statement about the Christian faith. The Church has the fullness of the Christian faith, adn there is ONE faith. Other Christian communities have varying degrees of this one faith. If a community believes something different from Catholic teaching, they have separated from the Christian faith on that issue.

There are Christian denominations that will perform SSM ceremonies. The United Church of Christ denomination, if I’m not mistaken, comes to mind. And the Episcopal Church diocese where I live now allows its priests to perform SSM ceremonies now that SSM is legal in the state. It’s bishop issued a statement encouraging clergy to embrace all who seek to be married. But no priest is required to perform ceremonies. There may be others yet. I’m not familiar with every Christian denomination. I thought I saw where the Presbyterian USA denomination is also giving consideration to SSM.

And those Christian communities have departed the Christian faith on that issue.

I realize you personally may question if these are Christian but they are still considered Christian ecclesial faith communities just to be clear.

They are considered Christian by their baptism. They are not proclaiming or living the Christian faith on that issue.

 

[zz912]

And why is banning artificial birth control for married couples the solution to all of these problems (children out of wedlock, rising divorce, acceptance of gay marriage, etc)?

Banning birth control would lead to a rise in birthrates, which will drain the social safety net, economy, and environment.

People change their behavior dramatically when the consequences for those behaviors change. Without the “safety net” of contraception and abortion, the sexual behavior of people would be much less promiscuous.

 

[zz912]

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

I hope you’re not attempting to paint those on here and most Catholics as blind followers of the Church. If so, that is extremely insulting.

 

[estesbob]

How many states voted for interracial marriage? The same principle applies. The majority voted for an abstract moral principle, such as equal protection. So even if a vocal minority manage to swing a vote on not granting a smaller or less vocal minority that right, the courts have every right to enforce that principle.

Surely you are not equating being a member of a race that was bought to here in chains, bought and sold at will, worked to death ,raped and discriminated against for 150 years(and counting) after they were freed with a group of people whos only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex?!

 

[edwest2]

Surely you are not equating being a member of a race that was bought to here in chains, bought and sold at will, worked to death ,raped and discriminated against for 150 years(and counting) after they were freed with a group of people whos only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex?!

Wrong comparisons is a common way to distract people from the actual, present day topic.

Ed

 

[estesbob]

Wrong comparisons is a common way to distract people from the actual, present day topic.

Ed

I personally believe it is a patently racist proposition. Trying to use the experiences of African Americans to advance a sexual agenda is disgusting.

 

[Sy_Noe]

No, it’s not incorrect to make that blanket statement about the Christian faith. The Church has the fullness of the Christian faith, adn there is ONE faith. Other Christian communities have varying degrees of this one faith. If a community believes something different from Catholic teaching, they have separated from the Christian faith on that issue.

And those Christian communities have departed the Christian faith on that issue.

They are considered Christian by their baptism. They are not proclaiming or living the Christian faith on that issue.

Yes I get it is your faith and belief that the Catholic Church has the fullness. And other Christians have departed from and are not living in the Christian faith on whatever matter of faith they differ from your faith community.

 

[JimG]

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.

Yes, there are many more graces of marriage. True conjugal love and fidelity does result in feelings of love, joy, kindness, gentleness, compassion. Many of these are gifts of the holy spirit and the sacramental grace of marriage.

That doesn’t change the fact that sexual complementarity is the first requirement of marriage. It is true the human race is composed of men and women, and it is for that reason that marriage exists. The biological facts of male and female sexual complementarity have been recognized for millennia in every civilization. It is only in our generation that we think feelings trump biology—a serious mistake.

 

[DrTaffy]

Surely you are not equating being a member of a race that was bought to here in chains, bought and sold at will, worked to death ,raped and discriminated against for 150 years(and counting) after they were freed with a group of people whos only distinguishing characteristic is with whom and the manner in which they engage in sex?!

I am comparing choosing to marry someone of a particular race with choosing to marry someone of a particular sex.

In both cases the relevant point being that voters passed a general moral principle, which was then applied by the courts when vocal opponents of the relevant minorities were able to carry votes denying equality.

If anything you are the one using pretended outrage to try to derail the topic.

 

[estesbob]

I am comparing choosing to marry someone of a particular race with choosing to marry someone of a particular sex.

In both cases the relevant point being that voters passed a general moral principle, which was then applied by the courts when vocal opponents of the relevant minorities were able to carry votes denying equality.

If anything you are the one using pretended outrage to try to derail the topic.

You are equating race with sodomy. Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand and a gross insult to African Americans.

 

[Sy_Noe]

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?

And yes btw it was evident to me what you were speaking of but I’m glad you cleared that up for those for who it apparently was not. I can’t answer why the Church is fine with providing benefits for one person they don’t consider to be in a true marriage and not another. I can only suppose the answer from my own discussions with Catholics on this thread about what the Church believes civil marriage should be, could depend on if the person has sex with the opposite sex. But I’m sure there will come some answer in time.

 

[LisaA]

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

You apparently do not understand the Church’s teaching, and I mean the Catholic Church. I am not speaking to you as a non-Catholic but to those who self identify as Catholics yet express misguided ideas of what the Church (Catholic) teaches, then argue against a fallacy. Not very effective.

 

[DrTaffy]

You are equating race with sodomy. Totally irrelevant to the topic at hand and a gross insult to African Americans.

Again, I am comparing choosing to marry someone of a particular race with choosing to marry someone of a particular sex.

You are the one trying to drag acts of sodomy into the discussion.

 

[estesbob]

Again, I am comparing choosing to marry someone of a particular race with choosing to marry someone of a particular sex.

You are the one trying to drag acts of sodomy into the discussion.

A absolutely disgusting comparison, to say the least.

 

[LisaA]

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?

Yes if you say divorced Catholics are considered to be sinners without the qualifying term “and remarried” it sounds as if you do not understand the Church’s teaching. Further while you think it’s pointless to clarify your words, realize that people who TRULY do not know will read them and think they accurately reflect the Church’s teaching. And you are correct, I know about annulments, in fact I went through the process and a dear friend works at the Tribunal so I have additional insight into the process.

I have NO idea what you mean about the Church providing benefits to legal spouses (divorced and remarried civilly) even though the Church considers this an adulterous relationship. I think you are trying to conflate providing employee benefits to certain Church employees and their being able to receive Communion. If so you are mixing apples and oranges. An employee benefit is a civil contract, not a Church teaching. Any employee of a Church related organization is entitled to the same benefits…Catholic, non Catholic (in fact we have a number of Muslilms working in our Catholic Hospital) married, divorced, single. These are completely unrelated issues.

 

[LisaA]

And yes btw it was evident to me what you were speaking of but I’m glad you cleared that up for those for who it apparently was not. I can’t answer why the Church is fine with providing benefits for one person they don’t consider to be in a true marriage and not another. I can only suppose the answer from my own discussions with Catholics on this thread about what the Church believes civil marriage should be, could depend on if the person has sex with the opposite sex. But I’m sure there will come some answer in time.

Because you like the other poster have completely confused providing employee benefits to employees of Church related organizations with a completely different issue, whether a divorced and remarried Catholic can receive Communion.

Do you not understand the difference between a civil contract and a Church teaching?

 

[Sy_Noe]

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.

I’ve seen this used many times on this forum as if Catholics seem to think it’s some sort of gotcha argument. It isn’t. It’s no more amazing or any different than faithful Catholics too believing you have found a church in which you believe and accept and have faith in that it matches God’s beliefs in fullness.

 

[LisaA]

I personally believe it is a patently racist proposition. Trying to use the experiences of African Americans to advance a sexual agenda is disgusting.

Further the underlying concept of protecting rights references those characteristics that are beyond the person’s CONTROL. I cannot control I was born female. My co worker was born black and female.

This is completely different than basing an identity on a set of sexual practices, clearly within a person’s control. Those who experience SSA were not born that way, it is not apparent from any outward characteristic (my co worker looks black every single day) and further they like every other human being can control whether or not to succumb to their feelings and passions. You could as easily claim that rapists are a protected class because they feel a compulsion to rape.

Further as the vast majority of blacks and other seriously persecuted minorities have said, you cannot equate what is fortunately a past practice of discriminating in hiring, housing etc albeit based on a self identification as gay/Lesbian with people who were enslaved and even when freed were restricted as to their movement, attendance at public events, schools, churches, and stores. Your right to use your genitals in a particular way is hardly being restricted in comparison.