Catholics in US overwhelmingly support homosexual unions [CWN]

  • Thread starter Thread starter CWN_News
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
StAnastasia said:
Yes, the myth of Lucifer has a long and fascinating history. See Jeffrey Burton Russell’s *Lucifer, the Devil in the Middle Ages *(Ithaca, N.Y. : Cornell University Press, 1984).
Click to expand...
“The Devil’s greatest achievementis convincing the world he does not exist”–Fr. Dave Morrier, TOR.
Lucifer is hardly a “myth”
 
I do think a lot of modernists; lay, priestly, heretics apostates and unbelievers alike, might benefit from attending an exorcism or two. Put the books down, turn off the internet and the TV and get out in the field.
 
StTommyMore said:
“The Devil’s greatest achievementis convincing the world he does not exist”–Fr. Dave Morrier, TOR.
Lucifer is hardly a “myth”
Click to expand...
Indeed…of course, for some “theologians,” God is myth. 😦

Here is a bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church…I realize this means nothing to non-Catholics and heterodox Catholics, but here you go:
II. THE FALL OF THE ANGELS
Click to expand...
391 Behind the disobedient choice of our first parents lurks a seductive voice, opposed to God, which makes them fall into death out of envy.266 Scripture and the Church’s Tradition see in this being a fallen angel, called “Satan” or the “devil”.267 The Church teaches that Satan was at first a good angel, made by God: "The devil and the other demons were indeed created naturally good by God, but they became evil by their own doing."268
Click to expand...
392 Scripture speaks of a sin of these angels.269 This “fall” consists in the free choice of these created spirits, who radically and irrevocably rejected God and his reign. We find a reflection of that rebellion in the tempter’s words to our first parents: "You will be like God."270 The devil “has sinned from the beginning”; he is “a liar and the father of lies”.271
Click to expand...
393 It is the irrevocable character of their choice, and not a defect in the infinite divine mercy, that makes the angels’ sin unforgivable. "There is no repentance for the angels after their fall, just as there is no repentance for men after death."272
Click to expand...
394 Scripture witnesses to the disastrous influence of the one Jesus calls “a murderer from the beginning”, who would even try to divert Jesus from the mission received from his Father.273 "The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the devil."274 In its consequences the gravest of these works was the mendacious seduction that led man to disobey God.
Click to expand...
395 The power of Satan is, nonetheless, not infinite. He is only a creature, powerful from the fact that he is pure spirit, but still a creature. He cannot prevent the building up of God’s reign. Although Satan may act in the world out of hatred for God and his kingdom in Christ Jesus, and although his action may cause grave injuries - of a spiritual nature and, indirectly, even of a physical nature- to each man and to society, the action is permitted by divine providence which with strength and gentleness guides human and cosmic history. It is a great mystery that providence should permit diabolical activity, but "we know that in everything God works for good with those who love him."275
Click to expand...
 
larkin31 said:
Where is his “Fall” story from?
Click to expand...
Larkin31, try Gérald Messadié, Histoire Générale du Diable. translated into English as A History of the Devil by Marc Romano. New York : Kodansha International, 1996.

"Messadie’s book is the finest of the legion of recent books released about the archfiend and his cohorts. Using a comparative and phenomenological approach, the author traces the idea of the Devil from ancient Greece and India to contemporary Western culture. What emerges from Messadie’s explorations is that the Devil is a very recent concept, arising primarily out of Zoroastrianism in Persia in the sixth century B.C. In that religion, a personified evil being is coexistent and coeval with a personification of the good, and Messadie examines how that dualism has slipped into Christianity, in particular. Thus the author concludes, on the basis of careful historical study, that the Devil does not exist in societies where the need for a force opposing the good is absent. Finally, Messadie aptly demonstrates how people in contemporary culture, in the absence of the personification of evil, use the Devil to vilify their enemies and to promote hatred. "
 
StAnastasia said:
Larkin31, try Gérald Messadié, Histoire Générale du Diable. translated into English as A History of the Devil by Marc Romano. New York : Kodansha International, 1996.

"Messadie’s book is the finest of the legion of recent books released about the archfiend and his cohorts. Using a comparative and phenomenological approach, the author traces the idea of the Devil from ancient Greece and India to contemporary Western culture. What emerges from Messadie’s explorations is that the Devil is a very recent concept, arising primarily out of Zoroastrianism in Persia in the sixth century B.C. In that religion, a personified evil being is coexistent and coeval with a personification of the good, and Messadie examines how that dualism has slipped into Christianity, in particular. Thus the author concludes, on the basis of careful historical study, that the Devil does not exist in societies where the need for a force opposing the good is absent. Finally, Messadie aptly demonstrates how people in contemporary culture, in the absence of the personification of evil, use the Devil to vilify their enemies and to promote hatred. "
Click to expand...
Larkin31,

By now it should be clear to you that StAnastasia’s posts don’t represent Church teaching. If your purpose here is to learn more about the Church and understand what the Church teaches, she can’t help you.
 
I don’t suppose our remote ancestors thought it necessary to identify a particular agent of evil distinct from their own capricious gods. Unless you count Loki, Set, Moloch, Ahriman, Cernobog, Pan etc.
 
StAnastasia said:
That text is referring to a Babylonian king, not to Satan.
Click to expand...
Actually it is referring to both. It is called typology, here one thing is actually referring so something else on a deeper level. On the surface it is about a Babylonian king, but on a deeper level it is also referring to Satan.
 
StTommyMore said:
Actually it is referring to both. It is called typology, here one thing is actually referring so something else on a deeper level. On the surface it is about a Babylonian king, but on a deeper level it is also referring to Satan.
Click to expand...
Can you tease out that typology for us? Show us which verses in particular contain the hidden typological meaning.
 
NewEnglandPries said:
Actually you’d be surprised how many weekly (and even daily) mass attendees are in favor of gay marriage,.
Click to expand...
Back to the topic of this thread, I am opposed to gay “marriage” because the idea makes no biological sense. However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.

For example: "The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay. “It’s just so unfair,” said Ms. Windsor, who is 81.

Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.”

nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/09marriage.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a22
 
StAnastasia said:
Back to the topic of this thread, I am opposed to gay “marriage” because the idea makes no biological sense. However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.

For example: "The civil liberties union filed suit on behalf of Edith S. Windsor, whose spouse, Thea C. Spyer, died last year of aortic stenosis. The two women, New Yorkers who had been together for 44 years, married in Toronto in 2007. New York officially recognizes same-sex marriages performed in other states. Had the two been man and wife, there would have been no federal estate tax to pay. “It’s just so unfair,” said Ms. Windsor, who is 81.

Taken together, said Mary Bonauto, the director of the Civil Rights Project for the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, the cases show same-sex couples “are falling through the safety net other people count on.”

nytimes.com/2010/11/09/us/09marriage.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=a22
Click to expand...
usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml
What is the Church’s position on legislation to allow civil unions or domestic partnerships?
Click to expand...
On two different occasions, in 2003 and 2006, the USCCB Administrative Committee stated: “We strongly oppose any legislative and judicial attempts, both at state and federal levels, to grant same-sex unions the equivalent status and rights of marriage – by naming them marriage, civil unions, or by other means.”

In 2003 a statement from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stated: “Every humanly-created law is legitimate insofar as it is consistent with the natural moral law, recognized by right reason, and insofar as it respects the inalienable rights of every person. **Laws in favor of homosexual unions are contrary to right reason because they confer legal guarantees, analogous to those granted to marriage, to unions between persons of the same sex” **(Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons, n.6).
**
**
Click to expand...
 
StAnastasia said:
Back to the topic of this thread, I am opposed to gay “marriage” because the idea makes no biological sense. However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.
Click to expand...
There’s a timely thread on this in World News (the NY Times story that you also linked). Probably discussion on that particular story should be there, simply because it can be specific to the story you referenced, and this is already a long thread.

But as to your comment about economic and social justice, the answer is not protections for an additional class of people that excludes other people that are not in romantic relationships but want to designate specific others for things like inheritance and insurance coverage. Policies should be written as open-ended-designee. If I’m a wealthy person, my next door neighbor is not, but he or she is the salt of the earth and I want to reward her and exercise some philanthropic social justice, I ought to be able to. In that sphere, he or she is then my legitimate dependent, legally, for that particular purpose – and proportionally so for taxes, btw. If I never had family dependents, or they are all independent or deceased, I ought to be able to take out an insurance policy (or expand an existing one) to include whomever I so select. To demand that legal contracts be limited to romantic interests is what is unconstitutional, because that limits economic freedom as well as freedom of association. If we can designate amicus briefs of third parties in court cases every day, then there is no constitutional prohibition which would work legally against redrafting legal contracts. That’s what the court order should be: to require compliance for all legal contracts to be nondiscriminatory across the board, period.

It would have no negative impact on business. If you additionally have legal relatives who are already included in those same contracts, then either the benefits become diluted under the same premium, or you purchase a larger premium to cover all the people you want to include (just like straight people do all the time, and have for years). If you have no legally-recognized relatives/spouse, you substitute (designate) a different person other than what is usually the default spouse or child.

That would be non-discrimination. Anything else is just a different form of discrimination, ***if you are truly being a purist about discrimination ***and not actually pursuing a social agenda to “require” moral recognition.
 
StAnastasia said:
This sort of legislation would only succeed in a theocracy or an episcopocracy. We inhabit neither.
Click to expand...
That’s just plain ridiculous. The voters and their representatives would still be the ones to pass such legislation, not the Church or the bishops.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
But as to your comment about economic and social justice, the answer is not protections for an additional class of people that excludes other people that are not in romantic relationships but want to designate specific others for things like inheritance and insurance coverage. Policies should be written as open-ended-designee. If I’m a wealthy person, my next door neighbor is not, but he or she is the salt of the earth and I want to reward her and exercise some philanthropic social justice, I ought to be able to. In that sphere, he or she is then my legitimate dependent, legally, for that particular purpose – and proportionally so for taxes, btw. If I never had family dependents, or they are all independent or deceased, I ought to be able to take out an insurance policy (or expand an existing one) to include whomever I so select. To demand that legal contracts be limited to romantic interests is what is unconstitutional, because that limits economic freedom as well as freedom of association. If we can designate amicus briefs of third parties in court cases every day, then there is no constitutional prohibition which would work legally against redrafting legal contracts. That’s what the court order should be: to require compliance for all legal contracts to be nondiscriminatory across the board, period.

It would have no negative impact on business. If you additionally have legal relatives who are already included in those same contracts, then either the benefits become diluted under the same premium, or you purchase a larger premium to cover all the people you want to include (just like straight people do all the time, and have for years). If you have no legally-recognized relatives/spouse, you substitute (designate) a different person other than what is usually the default spouse or child.
Click to expand...
I’m neither a lawyer nor an insurance expert, but this sounds like an excellent solution!
 
StAnastasia said:
However, as long as opponents of gay marriage refuse to grant even civil union protections to LGBT couples, there will be a push for gay “marriage” rights. It’s a simple matter of economic and social justice.
Click to expand...
I think it’s a simple matter of pushing the definition of words to the point of meaninglessness. It will make a lot of money for lawyers. It will also help normalise a perversion.
 
Layman said:
I think it’s a simple matter of pushing the definition of words to the point of meaninglessness. It will make a lot of money for lawyers. It will also help normalise a perversion.
Click to expand...
If you read what I wrote, you’ll see that I am not aguing for gay “marriage” as I regard that as an impossibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top