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

[RaymondJensen]

We need good courses in philosophy for all Catholics and no one should be allowed to be confirmed until they have completed such courses. Of course that would push Confirmation back until you’re about 20+, but at least Catholics would understand the systems and methods that the Church uses to judge a moral issue.

Although some people might see that a bit much it is quite practical in the long run so for your report card you get all A++'s

 

[Elizabeth502]

I believe that the impetus to gay marriage originates in the women’s rights movement which equated freedom from the restrictions of procreative sex to allow them freedom of choice in their lives and relationships. The desire to eliminate gender distinction in marriage has led in fact to the elimination of gender distinction in marriage under the law, and also to the irrelevance of procreation to the meaning of marriage under the law. If there are no legal gender distinctions in marriage, then there is no bar to gay marriage.

I understand the Church’s position. But it seems here that people think this whole issue arose out of thin air. It did not. It was the natural evolution of the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the freedoms of contraception and abortion.

Not really. That’s not how many people view what you call “a movement.” When you look at all of the language used by The Gay Lobby in this country, and all of the parallels they attempt to draw, it has little in common with the “feminist” movement, including contraception and abortion. But it has everything to do with an attempt to establish moral equivalency on a widespread (at minimum, national) basis. There have been some excellent articles written about this. The facts are that supposed legal/economic ‘equality’ (as couples) in not the thrust of the movement, by their own admission. It’s about society’s moral acceptance and the abolition of norms in sexual relationships and paired arrangements. The proof of this is that

(1) where legal unions have been established as co-equal with all marital rights in a particular region, the battle is considered still not won. The label is what’s important, not the content of privileges granted.

(2) where even “marriage” exists as a title, the battle is considered still not won if there is not a particular quantity of favorable press (advocacy) for the particular lifestyle. That includes, but is not limited to, educational activitism (school curriculum), “quotas” in all possible areas of public representation – from school boards to public office, etc. Again, the goal is to mainstream homosexuality, and to make sure that heterosexuality is no longer seen as normative, regardless of its being in the majority.

 

[JimG]

Not really. That’s not how many people view what you call “a movement.” When you look at all of the language used by The Gay Lobby in this country, and all of the parallels they attempt to draw, it has little in common with the “feminist” movement, including contraception and abortion. But it has everything to do with an attempt to establish moral equivalency on a widespread (at minimum, national) basis. There have been some excellent articles written about this. The facts are that supposed legal/economic ‘equality’ (as couples) in not the thrust of the movement, by their own admission. It’s about society’s moral acceptance and the abolition of norms in sexual relationships and paired arrangements. The proof of this is that

(1) where legal unions have been established as co-equal with all marital rights in a particular region, the battle is considered still not won. The label is what’s important, not the content of privileges granted.

(2) where even “marriage” exists as a title, the battle is considered still not won if there is not a particular quantity of favorable press (advocacy) for the particular lifestyle. That includes, but is not limited to, educational activitism (school curriculum), “quotas” in all possible areas of public representation – from school boards to public office, etc. Again, the goal is to mainstream homosexuality, and to make sure that heterosexuality is no longer seen as normative, regardless of its being in the majority.

Yes, the goal is to mainstream homosexuality as equally normative as heterosexuality, even though that it obviously is not. Heterosexuality is the norm.

Trying to make marriage “gender neutral” is laughable. It is like trying to make pregnancy “gender neutral.” Applying gender neutrality to an institution which requires gender complementarity indicates a sort of cultural loss of reason.

 

[GraceSofia]

… But it seems here that people think this whole issue arose out of thin air. It did not. It was the natural evolution of the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the freedoms of contraception and abortion.

I would say that it was the*** abnormal evolution of the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the evils ***of contraception and abortion.

The women’s rights movement was taken over by anti-family, anti-Christian, and pro-Marxist feminists, and then the homosexualist agenda was born of the convergence of this feminist movement, the rebellion against morality in the 60s, the the upsurge of pornography, the idea that if it feels good, then it is good, the drug culture, the oversexualisation of society through the media and the separation of sexual relations from love and family made possible by contraception and abortion on demand.

All predicted in *Humanae Vitae * in 1968. Hhmmm… maybe the Church knows what she teaches.

 

[GraceSofia]

Originally Posted by NewEnglandPries
The administration is not “at war” with the Church. It doesn’t care about the Church enough to be at war with it.

Good afternoon, NewEnglandPries,

You observation seems rather naive to me.

Anyway, I think that our President Barak Hussien Obama II and his cabal are America’s number one domestic enemy. That’s about the same as being at an ideological war with traditional Americans.

Don, I agree with you.
The Obama administration certainly does care about the Church and has gone out of its way to co-opt self-serving name-only Catholic politicians whenever possible. I believe Obama wants to take down the Catholic Church for the same reason the homosexualist activists target the Catholic Church. They know that the Church is the only thing that stands in the way of the steamroller of immorality and tyranny. Why did Hitler ruthlessly attack the Catholic Church first thing when he invaded Poland? Why did the communists try to destroy the Church?

 

[Mudgely]

Yes, the goal is to mainstream homosexuality as equally normative as heterosexuality, even though that it obviously is not. Heterosexuality is the norm.

Trying to make marriage “gender neutral” is laughable. It is like trying to make pregnancy “gender neutral.” Applying gender neutrality to an institution which requires gender complementarity indicates a sort of cultural loss of reason.

I am only repeating what the courts have said. The body of law is still small. It is not over yet and could go either way. Personally, I was surprised by the timing of the US Supreme Court challenge which is working its way up through 9th District. I would have expected them to have waited to see if Obama appointed a justice, or if Ginsberg retired for health reasons. The “separate but equal” rulings in the Black civil rights struggle set their cause back perhaps 20 years. The court has good reason not to reverse itself, as those who are trying to reverse Roe v Wade know very well. If the court were quick to vacillate, then there would be no confidence in its decisions.

Judge Walker was very explicit in tracing the line of thinking which I have outlined. His decision is readily available if you google it. It is about 110 pages, as I recall. I have only read excerpts of the Massachusetts decision. Some of the more interesting briefs on the topic were filed by friends of the court in the California Supreme Court ruling on the technical aspects of amending the California Constitution, in the first Prop 8 decision. Ken Starr’s was particularly eloquent, in my opinion. The Massachusetts decision was very clear that the nature of marriage is not primarily procreative. I see the origin of this in the “sexual revolution” and the widespread use of contraception.

 

[Mudgely]

I would say that it was the*** abnormal evolution of the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the evils ***of contraception and abortion.

The women’s rights movement was taken over by anti-family, anti-Christian, and pro-Marxist feminists, and then the homosexualist agenda was born of the convergence of this feminist movement, the rebellion against morality in the 60s, the the upsurge of pornography, the idea that if it feels good, then it is good, the drug culture, the oversexualisation of society through the media and the separation of sexual relations from love and family made possible by contraception and abortion on demand.

All predicted in *Humanae Vitae * in 1968. Hhmmm… maybe the Church knows what she teaches.

“natural” is a word loaded with meaning here. A better choice of adjective would have been “predictable”.

 

[Melissa]

The Obamacare’s mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance, the “preventive services” regulation would require all American Catholics to buy health care plans that pay for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortions — all of which violate Catholic moral teaching.
Since about 1/4 of all hospitals are run by Catholic Charities. If the Obama administration try to force them to do abortions or suffer heavy fines, the Church will have to close the hospitals. Who loses then? Do we needs more unemployed people ?

It’s not just that … but also consider that Catholic hospitals (I’m employed by one) consider it part of their mission to provide quality health care to the poor who cannot pay. It’s part of the mission statement on the badge I wear … “to continue the healing ministry of Jesus Christ … with special concern for the poor and vulnerable”. So who would really be willing to step in and provide health care for the poor and vulnerable (remember here that vulnerable also include those not-yet-born, elderly whose conditions are quite treatable, and so on)?

 

[GraceSofia]

“natural” is a word loaded with meaning here. A better choice of adjective would have been “predictable”.

Yes, okay.

 

[Elizabeth502]

I am only repeating what the courts have said.

That will tell you nothing about what the social agenda of the Gay Movement is, and it was your contention that you have a theory in that regard. I am telling you that your theory does not stand up to the twin barometers of both the language used (in a systematic fashion) and the political efforts engaged in. It is not judicial language that the Gay Lobby is interested in, but “moral” language.

Judge Walker was very explicit in tracing the line of thinking which I have outlined.

He has proved himself to have zero credibility in both the principles of American law (case law, constitutional law), in the principles of religious liberty as referred to by Brother JR above, and in the so-called “purposes” of religion which he manufactured out of whole cloth. In a word, the man is ignorant. I have absolutely no respect for him as a jurist. A decision should not be an incoherent, rambling, semi-rational polemical speech, but a structured legal argument – which his was not. He is flamingly prejudiced against religion, as well as having no historical understanding of it.

 

[Mudgely]

That will tell you nothing about what the social agenda of the Gay Movement is, and it was your contention that you have a theory in that regard. I am telling you that your theory does not stand up to the twin barometers of both the language used (in a systematic fashion) and the political efforts engaged in. It is not judicial language that the Gay Lobby is interested in, but “moral” language.

He has proved himself to have zero credibility in both the principles of American law (case law, constitutional law), in the principles of religious liberty as referred to by Brother JR above, and in the so-called “purposes” of religion which he manufactured out of whole cloth. In a word, the man is ignorant. I have absolutely no respect for him as a jurist. A decision should not be an incoherent, rambling, semi-rational polemical speech, but a structured legal argument – which his was not. He is flamingly prejudiced against religion, as well as having no historical understanding of it.

Who has no credibility in your opinion, Judge Walker or the Supreme Court of Massachusetts? Are you saying he had no historic understanding of religion, or that he had no understanding of the history of the law? My reading of the decision was that he laid the groundwork from a historic perspective quite clearly.

The prohibition against marriage in the Church is based on the definition of the sexual union to be procreative and unitive. This was accepted as a principle to guide legal definition, until the contraception movement and women’s rights movements strove to negate that definition in pursuit of personal liberty. The Federal Court spelled it out clearly. The Massachusetts Court also spelled it out clearly. Have you read the decisions? They are very clear. The jurist in the Massachusetts case was a female. I assume you are referring to Walker. On appeal, another court found that he showed no prejudice.

You are entitled to your opinion, even if you don’t think other people are entitled to theirs. I assume that is because you feel strongly about these matters. Is that the case here regarding Judge Walker? Does that account for the hyperbole in your speech? There may be some attorneys who agree with you. That is why it will be appealed. All of the attorneys whom I have discussed it with have agreed that it is a well reasoned and solid decision, which may be difficult to overturn. One of those attorneys clerked for Justice Souter, and he teaches Constitutional Law. I don’t see where you get the impression that the decision was “semi rational polemical speech.”

Would you mind giving an example of where the decision is “semi rational” or “polemical”, so I can understand better what you mean?

If it is as you say, then it should be easy to overturn in the next round. But then, it has already been upheld once, on the same grounds which you assert. So apparently, another judge disagrees with you along with a Supreme Court Clerk and law professor, and some very good attorneys. That is precisely what we have courts for, right? To resolve differences where people disagree. I can think of several attorneys who I am sure would disagree with the decisions to date.

At this stage in the game, there is not much case law to go on. Anything could happen. Is it also your opinion that Theodore Olsen and David Boies, the attorneys who argued the case in California, are ignorant of the law? As far as I know, they are highly respected attorneys. At least their US Supreme Court track records would lead one to believe that they have somewhat more expertise in Constitutional Law than anyone you are likely to find on this forum. I would venture the guess that they have delivered more arguments and written more briefs to the US Supreme Court than Brother JR. So, while Brother JR may well be a competent attorney, there are others who may have more expertise in this area who disagree with him.

 

[Wolseley]

I would say that it was the*** abnormal evolution of the women’s rights movement, which pushed for the evils ***of contraception and abortion.

The women’s rights movement was taken over by anti-family, anti-Christian, and pro-Marxist feminists, and then the homosexualist agenda was born of the convergence of this feminist movement, the rebellion against morality in the 60s, the the upsurge of pornography, the idea that if it feels good, then it is good, the drug culture, the oversexualisation of society through the media and the separation of sexual relations from love and family made possible by contraception and abortion on demand.

All predicted in *Humanae Vitae * in 1968. Hhmmm… maybe the Church knows what she teaches.

And Professor Unwin came to the same conclusions as the Holy Father did, thirty years earlier:

A friend recently asked: “How long do we have left as a society?” In answer to that question I informed her about an interesting and comprehensive study that a renowned British anthropologist, Joseph Unwin, PhD., presented to the British Psychological Society in 1935. Unwin sought to prove that the traditional monogamous model for marriage was not essential to the maintenance of a healthy society. After studying 86 different cultures, across time and continents –and much to his surprise — he came to the inescapable conclusion that the traditional male-female monogamous model for marriage was indeed the best foundation for a healthy and productive society.

Unwin found that societies that adopted this model typically took about three generations to reach their peak of productivity and progress. After that, frequently, a gradual development of complacency and licentiousness would take place and what he described as an ”outburst of homosexuality” would sometimes occur. When that happened, and the society started to move away from the traditional model of male-female monogamous marriage as its foundation, it would begin to unravel. It would then take another three generations of deterioration from that point for the society to collapse.

catholicexchange.com/2008/06/19/112901/

I think we can safely assume that the “outburst of homosexuality” has occured—or is occuring, as we speak. So if Unwin is correct (and I believe he is), we have three generations left before we cease to exist. How long is a generation? Usually, they work out to around 25 years. 3x25=75.

Should no other disaster intervene in the meantime, we will collapse and disappear from existance by 2076.

 

[Mudgely]

And Professor Unwin came to the same conclusions as the Holy Father did, thirty years earlier:

I think we can safely assume that the “outburst of homosexuality” has occured—or is occuring, as we speak. So if Unwin is correct (and I believe he is), we have three generations left before we cease to exist. How long is a generation? Usually, they work out to around 25 years. 3x25=75.

Should no other disaster intervene in the meantime, we will collapse and disappear from existance by 2076.

I just found his book on Amazon. A used copy is available for $993.12. amazon.com/SEX-CULTURE-J-D-UNWIN/dp/B000K7AQFC

Have you had the pleasure of reading it? I wonder if the local university library has a copy? At that price, it must be a rare book.

 

[JReducation]

Once again, the need to a better healthcare system which does not rely on one’s employer, or one’s ability to pay, becomes apparent. I don’t quite understand how paying an insurance premium legitimizes a relationship, but I accept that this is an issue which people have very strong feelings, beliefs, and opinions about.

If the money is set aside for employees and their spouses, that means a validly married husband and wife. If you extend those funds to non spouses, then you’re saying one tthing and doing another.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Elizabeth502]

I don’t see where you get the impression that the decision was “semi rational polemical speech.”.

Um, I read the entire decision. The content of that decision, its style, and its ignorant assumptions about religion and its narrow understanding of the legal foundation of marriage, have been noticed by other scholars. I stand by legal minds with far more intellectual honesty than he showed in his -]decision/-] diatribe.

Your other questions are off-topic for the thread, and speak to the motivations of the lawyers on the opposing side of Prop 8, so I mustn’t contribute to any more derailing of it.

Have a nice day.

 

[donsnow]

Don, I agree with you.
The Obama administration certainly does care about the Church and has gone out of its way to co-opt self-serving name-only Catholic politicians whenever possible. I believe Obama wants to take down the Catholic Church for the same reason the homosexualist activists target the Catholic Church. They know that the Church is the only thing that stands in the way of the steamroller of immorality and tyranny. Why did Hitler ruthlessly attack the Catholic Church first thing when he invaded Poland? Why did the communists try to destroy the Church?

Good morning, GraceSofia,

Thank you, so very much, for the courage to state the obvious resemblance of this Administration to Hitler and Communism. Thank you.

God loves you and yours,
Don

 

[Mudgely]

Um, I read the entire decision. The content of that decision, its style, and its ignorant assumptions about religion and its narrow understanding of the legal foundation of marriage, have been noticed by other scholars. I stand by legal minds with far more intellectual honesty than he showed in his -]decision/-] diatribe.

Your other questions are off-topic for the thread, and speak to the motivations of the lawyers on the opposing side of Prop 8, so I mustn’t contribute to any more derailing of it.

Have a nice day.

It is really uncalled for to use that sort of language in my opinion, simply because you disagree with him. All it does is discount your own point of view. That was the thrust of my argument, that the legal definition of marriage is changing. I understand you to be saying that it has not changed and your characterize the Federal courts and the Massachusetts courts as having a narrow view, while they would characterize yours as being out of date. Yes, I understand the Catholic position that this definition must remain static.

 

[donsnow]

It is really uncalled for to use that sort of language in my opinion, simply because you disagree with him. All it does is discount your own point of view. That was the thrust of my argument, that the legal definition of marriage is changing. I understand you to be saying that it has not changed and your characterize the Federal courts and the Massachusetts courts as having a narrow view, while they would characterize yours as being out of date. Yes, I understand the Catholic position that this definition must remain static.

Good morning, Mudgely,

Did you read Mr. Wolseley’s post # 151, on this page?

We aren’t talking about court rulings, but about natural law prevailing.

When the judges are out of line with natural law, they are no longer administrating the law, but rather legislating an agenda from the bench. Just a little cultural fact of civilization, nowadays.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Mudgely]

Good morning, Mudgely,

Did you read Mr. Wolseley’s post # 151, on this page?

We aren’t talking about court rulings, but about natural law prevailing.

When the judges are out of line with natural law, they are no longer administrating the law, but rather legislating an agenda from the bench. Just a little cultural fact of civilization, nowadays.

God loves you,
Don

Hi Don - I understand that. I am not defending gay marriage, actually. All I am really saying is that the argument is apples and oranges in some ways. I don’t see how the two sides can reconcile because we are talking about the meaning and essence of a sacrament for the Church on the one hand ( am I correct that marriage is a sacrament?), while the other side also has some deeply held convictions. I get it. I don’t think there is an amicable solution to this one. The Archbishop is right on target to point out that is has the making of an enormous conflict between Church and State.

Do you think it rises to the level of Henry VIII’s actions 600 years ago?

 

[Ender]

That was the thrust of my argument, that the legal definition of marriage is changing.

Yes, quite clearly this is true: the legal definition is changing, but the question remains “What is marriage”? If it is taken to be nothing more than “whatever we define it to be” then it has no particular meaning any more than an empty cup defines what is put in it.

If, however, it is understood that its meaning is inherent and not arbitrary, then its meaning cannot simply be voted on. That is, either “marriage” is a description of something real or it is just pure invention. That is what the battle is over: the meaning of marriage itself. In a sense it is similar to the battle over slavery where the meaning of what it meant to be fully human was thought to be legally definable, not inherent, and in that sense a “legal definition” of marriage makes no more sense than a legal definition of what people are human. Allowing the legal definition of marriage to mean a union of two men is like allowing a man to legally define himself to be a woman. What is legal ceases to have any connection to what is real.

Ender