Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[jomoco]

Compassion is not forgivness.
Christ acted freely and was compassionate, but forgivness only comes with our request.

Howeve,r it does logically teach that only those without sin, like Jesus, have any right to cast stones at their brothers and sisters in sin.

jomoco

 

[jomoco]

Compassion is not forgivness.
Christ acted freely and was compassionate, but forgivness only comes with our request.

However it does logically teach that only those without sin, like Jesus, have any right to cast stones at their brothers and sisters in sin.

jomoco

 

[wisdomseeker]

However it does logically teach that only those without sin, like Jesus, have any right to cast stones at their brothers and sisters in sin.

jomoco

But Jesus tought repentance. We must repent and sin no more. That is according to Jesus. And if he doesnt repent, Jesus said to treat him as a tax collector.

 

[wisdomseeker]

However it does logically teach that only those without sin, like Jesus, have any right to cast stones at their brothers and sisters in sin.

jomoco

Jesus was only giving her an opportunity to repent which she did. That is why He said: go and sin no more. Jesus promised punishement for those who refuse to repent.

 

[jomoco]

Jesus was only giving her an opportunity to repent which she did. That is why He said: go and sin no more. Jesus promised punishement for those who refuse to repent.

Jesus punishing sinners is not the same thing as you, a sinner punishing sin.

jomoco

 

[Elizabeth502]

Jesus punishing sinners is not the same thing as you, a sinner punishing sin.

Refusal to validate sin, evil, and disordered behavior is not the same thing as actively punishing them. Jesus does not ask that we approve of unacceptable behavior, merely that we validate the personhood of others. We cannot allow others to define such validation to equal or include the approval of immorality and other behaviors toxic to society, just because they are subjectively defining an objective evil as good.

 

[JimG]

As I recall Jesus picked up a stone offering it the prostitute’s persecutors, asking which among them without sin will cast the first stone?

And as I recall His actions were not dependent on them repenting before receiving His compassion.

jomoco

This is getting way off track. Of course Jesus has compassion on sinners—thieves, adulterers, pedophiles, murderers. He does not ask us to throw stones. Neither does he ask us to accept all behaviors as equal or to enshrine every behavior as equal under the law. If that were the case we would have no laws. Is this what you are advocating here?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

They need close relationships, and there are certain societal advantages to recognizing such relationships legally. This isn’t about sex.

Precisely. Marriage necessarily includes at least the possibility of sexual intercourse, but the kind of legal structure you’re proposing is not condemned by the Church because - unlike with gay civil unions - there’s no equivocation whatsoever: it wouldn’t even be about sexual activity.

What we need to do is to take the civil union debate out of the context of the sexuality debate altogether … The best way to preserve this is to create a broad category of civil unions that does not have anything necessarily to do with sexuality.

I couldn’t have said it better myself, Contarini.

As it stands, many people find the Church’s position cruel and immoral because the genuine human needs of people who cannot get married are being rejected along with the disordered sexual inclinations of the largest and most vocal group of such people.

Yes, this point of yours is, I think, of critical importance and merits consideration by our society at large.

But it’s not clear that the Vatican has even considered the line of argument I’m suggesting.

You’re right; I don’t believe they have. In fact, though, Princeton professor Robert George essentially agrees with your assessment in this academic paper he wrote not too long ago.

Contarini, you are deeply intelligent, thoughtful, and compassionate (judging from this and other threads, too). I wish so much that more people - especially Christians - in this world thought and expressed themselves like you do.

Thank you for proving my point. You have just stated that the best way to give homosexual couples a marriage equivalent is to shift the argument to a “broad category of civil unions.”

No, you’re wrong. The above quote’s response is guilty of ham-fisted equivocation: Contarini has not advocated “civil unions” in the sense in which you’re taking them: as a recognition of a same-sex sexual relationship that apes marriage in other characteristics such as monogamy, fidelity, etc.

Rather, he’s talking about the construction of a legal category that would in no way be based on sex or sexual activity of any kind, nor on monogamy, nor even necessarily on other aspects we associate with marriage. What they would include would be some of the same benefits that we now reserve to married partners, but this can be done in a way that does not implicitly condone sexual immorality.

Indeed, if a society wishes to recognize homosexual marriage as equivalent to heterosexual marriage, there is no reason whatever not to extend the same benefits to any persons wishing to obtain the benefits of marriage for their particular variety of union–polygamists, polyandrists, non-sexual unions such as business partners, mother-daughter, mother-son, or other family member groupings. Those living in a commune might wish to all enjoy the benefits of group marriage.

That is very true, but it actually supports Contarini’s point: it is precisely the heart of the matter that such a legal category need not base itself on sexual activity or mimic any of the attributes of marriage.

 

[JimG]

That is very true, but it actually supports Contarini’s point: it is precisely the heart of the matter that such a legal category need not base itself on sexual activity or mimic any of the attributes of marriage.

I disagree. If other relationships are given the same societal and legal recognitiion as traditional marriage, traditional marriage is thereby devalued. If all relationships are equal, there is no point in giving any of them special benefits.

But all relationships are not equal. All relationships are not capable of conceiving and raising families, of bringing future citizens into existence and forming them with the influence of a mother and a father. Societies for millenia have thought marriage important enough to surround it with special benefits.

The fact that Western civilization now devalues marriage is simply the first indicator of that civilization’s decline.

I recommend this article for an overview on how we have lost our way in the matter.

 

[rlg94086]

No, you’re wrong. The above quote’s response is guilty of ham-fisted equivocation: Contarini has not advocated “civil unions” in the sense in which you’re taking them: as a recognition of a same-sex sexual relationship that apes marriage in other characteristics such as monogamy, fidelity, etc.

Rather, he’s talking about the construction of a legal category that would in no way be based on sex or sexual activity of any kind, nor on monogamy, nor even necessarily on other aspects we associate with marriage. What they would include would be some of the same benefits that we now reserve to married partners, but this can be done in a way that does not implicitly condone sexual immorality.

The ham-fisted equivocation is coming from your side of the argument. No one…NO ONE…was calling for a special legal category for unions separate from sexual activity of any kind, until after the idea of civil unions for homosexual couples was shot down by the Church. It is an attempt to use a “they may not be committing a sinful act” loophole. Ridiculous.

There is a reason that marriage is both unitive and procreative in nature. It is good for society. There is no point in creating a non-sex, civil union.

 

[jomoco]

There is a reason that marriage is both unitive and procreative in nature. It is good for society. There is no point in creating a non-sex, civil union.

According to who?

You? Or the church? Or society?

jomoco

 

[The_Reginator]

Prof. J. Budziszewski gives a pretty good explanation of the importance of traditional marriage here:

touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-06-022-f

Thanks for the link Jim!
An excellent article. I stopped and read to the end before slogging through the rest of the posts to date.
(I also linked to it via Farcebook.)

• Reg.

 

[rlg94086]

According to who?

You? Or the church? Or society?

jomoco

The Church, certainly. Society, as well, until very recently.

 

[Santi2]

The assumption seems to be that any legal recognition of same-sex couples is putting them on the level of marriage and is approving sexual behavior.

That is precisely the legal personality of our law on civil partnership. Whilst legislation stated that it is not to be treated the same as marriage, a judicial ruling in Hall & Preddy v Bull & Bull (on appeal) stated that there is no material difference between civil partnership and marriage (para 35 judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/hall-preddy-bull-judgment.pdf)

But it would be quite possible to create legislation that allowed people who are deeply involved in one another’s lives to have certain kinds of benefits as a couple or group. This legislation could be used by same-sex couples, by cohabiting couples, by polygamists–but it could also be used by people who have no sexual relationship with each other at all. It is not clear to me that such an approach is condemned by the Church, although the document to which you linked doesn’t consider it as a possibility.

There are existing provisions within Equity, Wills and Trust Laws enabling legal status and it was argued that legislation creating civil partnership was unnecessary i.e. joint tenancy, Power of Attorney, assignment, etc. However, the law was enacted all the same in order to give same sex union legal recognition akin to “family” relationships. It is on that basis civil partnership is condemned by the Church because same sex unions are not recognised as a family units, as are co-habiting and polygamous relationships.

 

[vz71]

However it does logically teach that only those without sin, like Jesus, have any right to cast stones at their brothers and sisters in sin.

jomoco

Unacceptance of the sin of another is not casting stones.
I invite you to point out any instance, other then your own, of people casting stones in this thread.

 

[vz71]

Refusal to validate sin, evil, and disordered behavior is not the same thing as actively punishing them. Jesus does not ask that we approve of unacceptable behavior, merely that we validate the personhood of others. We cannot allow others to define such validation to equal or include the approval of immorality and other behaviors toxic to society, just because they are subjectively defining an objective evil as good.

 

[jomoco]

The Church, certainly. Society, as well, until very recently.

So boiled to its essense, you’re position equates dis-ordered, or intrinsically disordered homosexuals with the devil or satan?

Thereby whether it’s the homosexual’s actions being disordered or the homosexuals themselves, the effective outcome is they are viewed by you as evil, dis-ordered, of satan, committing sins to a degree that demands you to shun, denounce and deny them the societal rights that you enjoy as a heterosexual christian?

And while you deny them these rights, because of their practice of disordered devilish actions, you magnanimously allow them the right to join our military and risk their dis-ordered and devlish lives in defense of your right to discriminate and denounce them?

Am I anywhere close to reading you right Rig my friend?

jomoco

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Gay people are not asking you to use their services either. All they ask is the same equal rights that you enjoy, in not being shunned.

jomoco

What rights are gays being denied?

 

[ComputerGeek25]

So boiled to its essense, you’re position equates dis-ordered, or intrinsically disordered homosexuals with the devil or satan?

Thereby whether it’s the homosexual’s actions being disordered or the homosexuals themselves, the effective outcome is they are viewed by you as evil, dis-ordered, of satan, committing sins to a degree that demands you to shun, denounce and deny them the societal rights that you enjoy as a heterosexual christian?

And while you deny them these rights, because of their practice of disordered devilish actions, you magnanimously allow them the right to join our military and risk their dis-ordered and devlish lives in defense of your right to discriminate and denounce them?

Am I anywhere close to reading you right Rig my friend?

jomoco

I’m straight and highly attracted to women. Is it ok for me to go rape women, or not pay child support if I (name removed by moderator)regnate a woman on a one night stand? What about my rights?

 

[simspt]

Rather, he’s talking about the construction of a legal category that would in no way be based on sex or sexual activity of any kind, nor on monogamy, nor even necessarily on other aspects we associate with marriage. What they would include would be some of the same benefits that we now reserve to married partners, but this can be done in a way that does not implicitly condone sexual immorality.

.

How would this work??