Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[JimG]

This New York Times article is actually pretty interesting:

The NYT article takes the sanguine view that we can continue to depopulate indefinitely with no adverse effects.
I disagree. Most western countries will end up with aging populations relying on social welfare programs that they will no longer be able to afford. Economic activity will decline, deflation may become a permanent aspect of the economy, further leading to a permanent recession. Nations which maintain below-replacement level fertility rates indefinitely will eventually disappear or be absorbed.

But time will tell. I noticed that they commented that Ehrlich had been discredited in his overpopulation claims, something which seems to be not widely recognized.

 

[LisaA]

As far as I know, they weren’t distributing the Body and Blood. They were singing in the choir and playing the piano and he said that they could no longer do so. Also, they had been members of this congregation for 11 years and it was well known that they were gay, but the previous priest had not demanded that they separate. According to the article, “Closer to home, he heard from a priest in Montana who told him that if the couple had been in his parish, he would not have subjected them to censure.”

I cannot seem to get the article to come up other than a photo of the two men with a headline so I do not know the details. It sounds from your excerpt that it was the “marriage” that created the issue. As we all know if all of the sinners were removed from the Communion lines, they would be shorter than the line for Reconciliation. However as many have noted even if a priest believes someone presenting themself for Communion is in a state of sin, he/she is given the benefit of the doubt. So even though it’s clear that other priests and parisioners knew the men were gay and likely engaged in a sexual relationship, it was not until their “marriage” did it become an issue. There have been a number of similar cases where parishioners whom everyone knew were gay became very public about their situation, and/or “married” and then thought that the Church would allow them to continue in public ministry in the parish. They could not.

Again this would be the same for a heterosexual who was known to be engaged in grave sin. As some know our frustration with the pro abortion politicians who march up and receive Communion very publicly. But in some cases, courageous priests have confronted these politicians (one of them former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) and told them NOT to present themselves for Communion until and unless they repented, promised not to engage in the sin, and received Absolution after Reconciliation. My point is that it’s not they were gay but that they were publicly in a state of grave sin and to let them remain would cause scandal.

That one of the men received second or third hand reports that other priest would not have required them to divorce is not very credible. Tales have a way of changing as they move along the food chain.

 

[LisaA]

This New York Times article is actually pretty interesting:

In reality, slower population growth creates enormous possibilities for human flourishing. In an era of irreversible climate change and the lingering threat from nuclear weapons, it is simply not the case that population equals power, as so many leaders have believed throughout history. Lower fertility isn’t entirely a function of rising prosperity and secularism; it is nearly universal.

And rife with assumptions such as the statement above. There is some perverted approach to humanity that fewer of us make for a better world and that more children are a liability rather than an asset. Not true. As noted below the populations with low growth and bloated social services programs (that might apply to us quite soon!) are facing a death spiral as there are fewer younger workers to pay for Granny’s old age. Soylent Green here we come

Irreversiable climate change…talk about a “glacial progress…” As soon as some sweeping statement such as this appears, the article loses about 90% of its credibility. We also went through an era of the world to be destroyed by The Coming Ice Age and there was that comet that was going to take out the earth on its way through. Of course the poster child for this was “The Population Bomb” that thankfully has been totally discredited.

The irony of course is that the educated, prosperous societies are having the fewest children and with the carnage of abortion in this country you have to wonder how many Steven Jobs and Andrea Bocelli’s were sucked down a sink in the past 40 years.

 

[Thorolfr]

And rife with assumptions such as the statement above. There is some perverted approach to humanity that fewer of us make for a better world and that more children are a liability rather than an asset.

There are times when I think that having fewer of us would be better, especially when I’m stuck for hours in a traffic jam or looking at acres and acres of what used to be farmland or orchards that has now been turned into acres and acres of new housing developments. Or what about the water shortages we have been having where I live. I’m not sure we have enough water to use both for farming and to water a lot more new golf courses and lawns and for drinking water, etc. We don’t have enough natural resources to supply an endlessly growing population

 

[JimG]

Human beings are just as much a natural resource as oil or water, and it is human beings who find and increase other natural resources. Civilization is the story of human beings harnessing natural resources to make them more plentiful and productive.

 

[LisaA]

There are times when I think that having fewer of us would be better, especially when I’m stuck for hours in a traffic jam or looking at acres and acres of what used to be farmland or orchards that has now been turned into acres and acres of new housing developments. Or what about the water shortages we have been having where I live. I’m not sure we have enough water to use both for farming and to water a lot more new golf courses and lawns and for drinking water, etc. We don’t have enough natural resources to supply an endlessly growing population

You’re drawing grand assumptions based on ideology rather than fact. Again I do not know how old you are but I lived through the “gas shortages” of the 1970s where we were told we’d run out of fossil fuels by the end of the century. As it turns out that was far from the truth. Not only are there more fossil fuels than estimated (by huge proportions) but new technology has allowed us to get far more energy and cleaner energy than was ever anticipated.

Water “shortages” are a misnomer. We’ve massively expanded development in areas that are actually desert, built water sucking golf courses, lawns and landscaping only to find that as there are dry cycles some extending a number of years, water is in scarce supply. Are you in California? How much water was diverted from crops to keep a stupid fish alive? How much water could have been retained in resevervoirs that washed out into the sea? Water is recycled it doesn’t just disappear forever. That it hasn’t dropped in sufficient quantities in certain areas is more a function of the natural climate being ignored when planning expansion. As it is people adapt, change their landscaping and move crops to areas with more consistent water supplies. Ditto with food production. I grew up hearing about population bombs and mass starvation. Instead we now produce so much food that massive quantities spoil and are thrown away. Technology allows us to do more with less and again, how many Steven Jobs were sucked down a sink in this nihilistic secular approach to life…or non life?

Anyway this is a far cry from the OP. I suggest fears of too many babies is hardly a good reason to support sterile same sex relationships.

 

[LisaA]

Human beings are just as much a natural resource as oil or water, and it is human beings who find and increase other natural resources. Civilization is the story of human beings harnessing natural resources to make them more plentiful and productive.

I guess God was right after all…choose life.

 

[Sy_Noe]

There is homosexuality practiced in Sodom; does God approve? He is a little less ambiguous there I would argue, wouldn’t you? The Bible is a little rough on gays

I realize this was not addressed to me and I can’t speak for Thorolfr. And I understand Catholic teaching may be as you say that Sodom was about homosexuality.

But as far as some of us other Christians myself included, no we would not necessarily agree. In Ezekiel 16:49 we are told the sins of Sodom were arrogance, gluttony and unconcern. they did not help the poor and needy. (Douay Rheims)

And all the townsmen surrounded the house and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.” usccb.org/bible/genesis/19

Given how unlikely that every man in a town is a homosexual, what some of us other Christians have come to tend to understand and believe is more likely what God disapproved of was not homosexuality but these townsmen’s inhospitality and their desire to rape.

 

[Thorolfr]

I realize this was not addressed to me and I can’t speak for Thorolfr. And I understand Catholic teaching may be as you say that Sodom was about homosexuality.

But as far as some of us other Christians myself included, no we would not necessarily agree. In Ezekiel 16:49 we are told the sins of Sodom were arrogance, gluttony and unconcern. they did not help the poor and needy. (Douay Rheims)

And all the townsmen surrounded the house and they called to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have sexual relations with them.” usccb.org/bible/genesis/19

Given how unlikely that every man in a town is a homosexual, what some of us other Christians have come to tend to understand and believe is more likely what God disapproved of was not homosexuality but these townsmen’s inhospitality and their desire to rape.

Lack of hospitality was was one of the greatest sins that anyone could commit. According to Luke 10:

1 After this the Lord appointed seventy others and sent them on ahead of him in pairs to every town and place where he himself intended to go 2 He said to them, ….10 But whenever you enter a town and they do not welcome you, go out into its streets and say, 11 ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet, we wipe off in protest against you. Yet know this: the kingdom of God has come near.’ 12 I tell you, on that day it will be more tolerable for Sodom than for that town.

 

[DrTaffy]

Lack of hospitality was was one of the greatest sins that anyone could commit.

Also, gang raping people to death is generally frowned upon.

But if people want to insist that merely ‘being gay’ was the worst sin of Sodom, so be it. I will make my own judgement about them based on that.

 

[DrTaffy]

This problem can be solved if the incestuous couple agree (perhaps by voluntary sterilization) not to have kids, or to have kids the way gay couples do, by adopting or enlisting the help of a third party.

So you basically agree that there is a need to restrict such couples in some way, but are trying to suggest a better way of doing so? If so, I would be happy to see a reasoned, referenced concrete suggestion.

Should such a couple be denied the right to marry?

Produce a reasonable sample of the couples you are talking about and it might be possible to answer that. No one is going to change the law for the alleged benefit of hypothetical imaginary people.

Nor is marriage necessary if the incestuous couple wants to “shack up” and have children without the benefit of marriage. Denying them the right to marry does not keep them from having sex.

Well, obviously. That is what is happening in the case referenced here.

 

[DrTaffy]

I thought the criteria was two people in “love”

Who exactly has argued that only and all people in love should be allowed to marry?

Or, if this is clearer, consider the statement:
“I thought the criteria was two people ‘open’ to procreation”

Does that fairly show that the Catholic view wholeheartedly approves of incestuous heterosexual couples marrying?

What right do we have to determine if a relationship is “healthy”?

That is what states do. If you want to argue for full scale anarchy in your country, that is an experiment I shall watch with great interest.

So there should be no problem with denying a mother and daughter marrying as long as they are in " love"?

Again, produce a reasonable sample of such couples and it may be possible to answer.

 

[DrTaffy]

But I guess my point is can you show me a culture that has embraced gay marriage and same sex unions that has succeeded, that has built a strong, healthy culture that can withstand the pressure and threats from opposing forces? Do we not see a trend here of succumbing to cultures that do not embrace same sex unions as an alternative to heterosexual unions? Most of the many accepting cultures to which you refer seem to have disappeared.

The modern Native Americans might be surprised to learn that they have apparently ‘disappeared’!

But as regards your Darwinian theory of sociology, are we not having this discussion precisely because the secular liberal cultures are overwhelming the conservative anti-gay ones?

 

[DrTaffy]

Since incest has been practiced among related people in the past, and certain effects were observed, we now go to the present.

"The Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children (WISC) was used to measure the verbal IQ (VIQ), performance IQ (PIQ) and full scale IQ (FSIQ). Family pedigrees were drawn to access the family history and children’s inbred status in terms of coefficient of inbreeding (F).

"Results

“We found significant decline in child cognitive abilities due to inbreeding and high frequency of mental retardation among offspring from inbred families. The mean differences (95% C.I.) were reported for the VIQ, being −22.00 (−24.82, −19.17), PIQ −26.92 (−29.96, −23.87) and FSIQ −24.47 (−27.35, −21.59) for inbred as compared to non-inbred children (p>0.001). The higher risk of being mentally retarded was found to be more obvious among inbred categories corresponding to the degree of inbreeding and the same accounts least for non-inbred children (p<0.0001). We observed an increase in the difference in mean values for VIQ, PIQ and FSIQ with the increase of inbreeding coefficient and these were found to be statistically significant (p<0.05). The regression analysis showed a fitness decline (depression) for VIQ (R2 = 0.436), PIQ (R2 = 0.468) and FSIQ (R2 = 0.464) with increasing inbreeding coefficients (p<0.01).”

Next study:

“Consanguineous marriage was highly significant in autosomal recessive diseases (78.8%). It was detected in 93.4% of cases of sensorineural deafness, 89.4% of cases of Phenylketonuria, 78.1% of epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica patients, 70% of cases of mucopolysaccaridosis, and 69.8% of neurodegenerative disease cases…”

Ed

I try not to quote long posts just to say “” but consanguineous breeding is not funny.

So

 

[FollowChrist34]

The modern Native Americans might be surprised to learn that they have apparently ‘disappeared’!

Bit of a misquote, yes? I said most of the many gay marriage friendly cultures. The native Americans have not disappeared. There are slightly over 5 million people in the US out of a total of 316 billion US citizens. Their culture is ravaged by alcoholism and secularism. I hope that is not your model. (btw, they are also of course mostly straight or they wouldn’t still be here, and many would be quite horrified to claim any sort of kinship with you on the issue, absolutely horrified, most I would say ) I grew up near several reservations - don’t remember a single gay Indian person. (not saying they don’t exist, just that I never saw one in their community - they actually get pretty redneck - pick-ups, whiskey, partying, etc. I dated one in high school.)

But as regards your Darwinian theory of sociology, are we not having this discussion precisely because the secular liberal cultures are overwhelming the conservative anti-gay ones?

Actually, I think the pattern in history is “anti-gay” or “pro-life” cultures (as long as we’re using loaded inaccurate phrases) overwhelming corrupt ones. I do agree with you that classical, pagan societies were much more permissive of gay relationships (once described to me as voluptuous relationships vs. fertile ones by a gay person), but they never put the two on the same level, or allowed for gay marriage. This notion would be absurd to them, completely opposed to their concept of social order. I would also add that the Gods of this same culture practiced rape and bestiality. Lastly, this culture did not, in fact, prevail.

However, I also agree with you that, yes, pagan culture is returning in the form of Western secularism, and growing in strength. Based on the Darwinian model we see in history, this culture will face the same demise and decay. I am not aware of a successful model, unless you can point it out to us. The ongoing conflict with Islam I think will intensify, and it is questionable if the West can withstand these forces (i.e., Sharia Law). (The believers vs. the unbelievers.) I think the effects of the Western demographic winter will play against us too. Our people are not reproducing at the same rate as other populations. Euthanasia, suicide, abortion, gay marriage, disintegration of family life, these trends are all undermining our health as a culture.

Honestly the question in my mind, and I am really being truthful, is this - is this effort by homosexuals calculated to harm the whole of society or is that just an unintentional side effect? (you don’t need to answer) I go back and forth on what I believe in that regard. This gay marriage effort does confirm my sense of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. But, in a broader cultural sense, I am more worried about the widespread heterosexual acceptance of the practice of homosexuality than the small number of people who actually engage in it. With this group I think charity is in order. Straight acceptance is indicative of a more dangerous malaise.

One interesting development I would point out is the rejection of Islam in African countries and the embrace of orthodox Catholicism (against gay marriage). Catholicism is also growing in Asia. In other words, the above described trends in the West are NOT happening everywhere outside of Islam. There is some wriggle room between the decay of the West and the spread of Islam.

 

[FollowChrist34]

There are slightly over 5 million people in the US out of a total of 316 billion US citizens.

That’s 316 million US citizens - sorry I am exaggerating a bit there on the US general population. Just saw that. Typo.

 

[gilliam]

Honestly the question in my mind, and I am really being truthful, is this - is this effort by homosexuals calculated to harm the whole of society or is that just an unintentional side effect? .

I don’t think there are many people who want homosexual marriage to be the law of the land who are out to ‘harm the society.’ There are some anarchists out there, but people who have homosexual desires range the political spectrum. They reflect in most areas, the same politics we see in the society at large. There are some very conservative homosexuals out there who can quote the constitution from memory; belong to the NRA, etc. etc.

 

[DrTaffy]

There are slightly over 5 million people in the US out of a total of 316 billion US citizens.

316 billion US citizens? Whodathunkit?

Their culture is ravaged by alcoholism and secularism.

Because of course those two are equivalent.

(btw, they are also of course mostly straight or they wouldn’t still be here, and many would be quite horrified to claim any sort of kinship with you on the issue, absolutely horrified, most I would say )

Kinship with me? Because I am welsh? Or a ginger? :ehh:

I grew up near several reservations - don’t remember a single gay Indian person. (not saying they don’t exist, just that I never saw one in their community - they actually get pretty redneck - pick-ups, whiskey, partying, etc. I dated one in high school.)

How do you think you would you know one if you saw them?

Actually, I think the pattern in history is “anti-gay” or “pro-life” cultures (as long as we’re using loaded inaccurate phrases) overwhelming corrupt ones.

Well, ‘corrupt’ is a little harsh, but I am not fond of the “anti-gay” cultures myself.

I do agree with you that classical, pagan societies were much more permissive of gay relationships (once described to me as voluptuous relationships vs. fertile ones by a gay person), but they never put the two on the same level, or allowed for gay marriage.

Never? Do you have any proof of this sweeping assertion?

This notion would be absurd to them, completely opposed to their concept of social order. I would also add that the Gods of this same culture practiced rape and bestiality.

Which specific culture are you talking about now?

Honestly the question in my mind, and I am really being truthful, is this - is this effort by homosexuals calculated to harm the whole of society or is that just an unintentional side effect? (you don’t need to answer)

Is your crusade intended to harm society as a whole, or is that just an unintentional side effect? (you don’t need to answer)

 

[LisaA]

Honestly the question in my mind, and I am really being truthful, is this - is this effort by homosexuals calculated to harm the whole of society or is that just an unintentional side effect? (you don’t need to answer) I go back and forth on what I believe in that regard. This gay marriage effort does confirm my sense of homosexuality as a psychological disorder. ** But, in a broader cultural sense, I am more worried about the widespread heterosexual acceptance of the practice of homosexuality than the small number of people who actually engage in it. With this group I think charity is in order. Straight acceptance is indicative of a more dangerous malaise.**One interesting development I would point out is the rejection of Islam in African countries and the embrace of orthodox Catholicism (against gay marriage). Catholicism is also growing in Asia. In other words, the above described trends in the West are NOT happening everywhere outside of Islam. There is some wriggle room between the decay of the West and the spread of Islam.

Bolded above, very interesting and comports with my concerns as well. We are told to be “nice” and not offend people, not to be “bigoted” or judgmental which in realit forces us to either tell or accept lies as truth so as not to offend someone. Right now the gay movement is ascendent because its promoters have done a great job in laundering the reality, invariably portraying a desire to redefine marriage as fair or as the cause celebre among the glitterati akin to marching with King to Selma. The vast majority of the public think in terms of themselves…gee I guess it doesn’t hurt me if Joe and Sam get married, and indeed it doesn’t. Just as someone else’s quickie divorce doesn’t hurt you or a woman next door getting an abortion doesn’t hurt you…the larger impact on society is ignored until it’s too late. As you said I am not so disturbed by Joe and Sam as I am with the seeming tolerance of this movement’s violation of others civil rights…most notably speech and religion. I guess we have to see enough oxes gored before people wake up to the real impact on society but like no fault divorce and abortion, it will likely be way too late.

 

[DrTaffy]

DrTaffy;12711453:

Zoltan Cobalt;12710299:

DrTaffy;12710251:

Many many cultures, including many of those existing in the current USA before christians arrived, had definitions of marriage that included same sex cultures.

UN-Civilized cultures…remember?
No, I recall very well that you claim that even modern day Native Americans are ‘uncivilised savages’, I just don’t agree that this justifies dismissing their religion or culture.
Nice to see an atheist standing up for religion and the culture of religious societies.

Actually, secularism is endemic in the atheist community from what I have seen.

Now DrTaffy, is it OK for the democratic majority in countries with Judeo-Christian (or Islamic) cultural values, to enact laws that favor gender-balanced marriage and nuclear families?

Ooh, new euphemism for me: “gender-balanced”

Your own coining or is this the new trendy phrase in anti-gay marriage circles?

But in general I would say that unjustified discrimination is not ‘OK’. Would you say it is ‘OK’ for the ‘democratic majority’ in countries with Islamic cultural values to enact laws that punish catholics for attending mass?