Chik-fil-A Stands Up for Traditional Marriage

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicanne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
estesbob said:
Opposing homosexual marriage is lecturing people about their sin? Again why can’t I oppose homosexual marriage and lead people to the Church?
Click to expand...
It’s not can you do both things-it’s which thing do you lead off with and what do you put the majority of your energy into?

I was lucky. The first people who knew about my orientation were my Confessor and one of my teachers. My confessor didn’t lead with the Church’s position, it wasn’t the first or the loudest thing he said. The FIRST thing he did was work on my understanding of God’s love for me. Yes, we got to the Church teaching, but not until he made sure that I understood God’s love and the reason that the Church teaches the way it does. My religion teacher (a Sister of Charity) went further, giving me things to read and reinforcing the reasons for Church teaching. Those two people built a foundation for me and it was that foundation that lasted and eventually brought me back to the Church after a time away. Even after sin, I still knew in my heart that God loved me and was waiting for me to come back to Him and He would give me the strength to live for Him.

While I was away, I learned a lot about what the Church and it’s members look and sound like to the outside world. I didn’t meet a single gay person that didn’t know what Church teaching was on homosexuality, but I met quite a few that had no idea that they were still loved by God. They had no idea that God loved them right now as they were, but that He loved them too much to leave them there. Nobody had ever bothered to show them that. Everyone did a bang up job of presenting Church teaching, but nobody bothered to introduce them to the head of the Church. As a result, many had turned off the idea of God, because they had been convinced very well that they could never be accepted. I have good friends that I’m still working on, but when I went back to the church I lost more than one because they couldn’t understand why I would return “to a place that thinks so little of you”. The noise about the rules was so loud that they couldn’t hear the voice of Jesus.

As someone who has lived on both sides of this issue, my plea is that the first thing we show people is not the rules, but the reason for the rules. Lead people to Christ FIRST, show them His mercy and love FIRST-the behavior will change once people understand that they have a God who will give them strength and a community that will stand beside them and encourage them.

When we stand before Christ at the end of our lives-what do you think will mean more to Him? That we lectured well on the teachings of the church or that we led people to His embrace so that He could give them the strength and desire to obey the teachings of the Church?
 
I wonder how many people that are spewing forth all of these rants actually have heard what was said by the CEO of Chick-Fil-A.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Lead people to Christ FIRST, show them His mercy and love FIRST-the behavior will change once people understand that they have a God who will give them strength and a community that will stand beside them and encourage them.
Click to expand...
Amen. 🙂
 
vz71 said:
I wonder how many people that are spewing forth all of these rants actually have heard what was said by the CEO of Chick-Fil-A.
Click to expand...
Spewing forth rants? :hmmm:

I’m guessing that everyone has heard what was said…why do you ask?
 
The problem with your post #259 is that it is limited to the Catholic setting. Estesbob (and the subject of the thread) is not addressing the pastoral approach to leading those with SSA back to the Church (or even to the Church, or to God, to begin with).

There are issues being discussed in the public square which are being presented in a secular setting, not a religious one. In fact, I will suggest (because this had played out in the media, often), that to interject a limited religious argument or appeal in such secular settings definitely backfires – on both the argument and the religion(s) making those arguments. In the secular mindset, what it does is further stereotype “religion” (generically), and Christianity more specifically as being “hateful” or “oppositional” or “unwelcome” or (name-your-stronger-epithet). It relegates any religious message to irrelevance, most often.

Further (more importantly to me and to many who are vigorously dedicated to opposing the deconstruction of Traditional Marriage in the West), the argument is ultimately not a “religious” (or sectarian) one, but a social argument, a philosophical argument, a values argument, and a legal argument. (Together) That doesn’t call for “bringing people to Christ” as the central strategy, but bringing people to universal truth and understanding as the primary strategy. Traditional Marriage is about The Common Good, not primarily about bringing society as a whole to the Head of the Church.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
Further (more importantly to me and to many who are vigorously dedicated to opposing the deconstruction of Traditional Marriage in the West), the argument is ultimately not a “religious” (or sectarian) one, but a social argument, a philosophical argument, a values argument, and a legal argument. (Together) That doesn’t call for “bringing people to Christ” as the central strategy, but bringing people to universal truth and understanding as the primary strategy. Traditional Marriage is about The Common Good, not primarily about bringing society as a whole to the Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
Just so. What is fundamental is understanding that the importance of traditional marriage transcends whatever particular religion one chooses to follow. Indeed, an emphasis on following Christ can have a negative effect, especially on those for whom He is just a symbol of a particular religion.
 
Elizabeth502 said:
The problem with your post #259 is that it is limited to the Catholic setting. Estesbob (and the subject of the thread) is not addressing the pastoral approach to leading those with SSA back to the Church (or even to the Church, or to God, to begin with).

There are issues being discussed in the public square which are being presented in a secular setting, not a religious one. In fact, I will suggest (because this had played out in the media, often), that to interject a limited religious argument or appeal in such secular settings definitely backfires – on both the argument and the religion(s) making those arguments. In the secular mindset, what it does is further stereotype “religion” (generically), and Christianity more specifically as being “hateful” or “oppositional” or “unwelcome” or (name-your-stronger-epithet). It relegates any religious message to irrelevance, most often.

Further (more importantly to me and to many who are vigorously dedicated to opposing the deconstruction of Traditional Marriage in the West), the argument is ultimately not a “religious” (or sectarian) one, but a social argument, a philosophical argument, a values argument, and a legal argument. (Together) That doesn’t call for “bringing people to Christ” as the central strategy, but bringing people to universal truth and understanding as the primary strategy. Traditional Marriage is about The Common Good, not primarily about bringing society as a whole to the Head of the Church.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I don’t see that argument as working very well either. A tradition/values argument always leads back to where your values and your tradition come from-which in the case of most of those arguing against allowing civil marriage for gay people-comes from their faith. The legal and historical arguments haven’t been persuasive either for most outside the faith traditions that already oppose it.

“Universal truth” is extremely hard to prove without bringing religion into it at some point. As many states and countries already have civil marriages for gay people it’s getting harder and harder to make the case that it is going to bring the disasters to society people predict. At least not any more disaster than what already exists from what goes on in so called “traditional” marriages. There just isn’t enough evidence to prove that allowing gay people to have their unions established as marriages under civil law has had a negative affect on “The Common Good”. I don’t see a lot of folks that aren’t already committed to the religious reasons for opposing gay marriage jumping on that bandwagon.

This is why my opinion remains that the ONLY way to change our society is to fulfill our commission to lead people to Christ and then let Him take over and change the hearts of those we bring to Him.
 
Seeker1961 said:
This is why my opinion remains that the ONLY way to change our society is to fulfill our commission to lead people to Christ and then let Him take over and change the hearts of those we bring to Him.
Click to expand...
I agree. Only Christ can bring about metanoia. Let us pray for this.
 
Chick-fil-A has been bringing people to Christ for well over 60 years.
 
CatholicBoy1957 said:
Chick-fil-A has been bringing people to Christ for well over 60 years.
Click to expand...
How do you know? How many? Does it post the statistics on its website or in the stores? And, to what faith are people led? Fundamentalism? Catholicism?

The numbers would be interesting to see.
 
The actual result of legalizing same sex marriage will be the entrenchment of anti-Catholic persecution. Catholic moral positions will be officially and legally deemed to be civil rights violations. Catholics will no longer be fit for careers in health, charity, nursing, adoption, and a host of other businesses. We may be called hateful bigots now for opposing same sex marriage; soon such epithets will have the force of law.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Honestly, I don’t see that argument as working very well either. A tradition/values argument always leads back to where your values and your tradition come from-which in the case of most of those arguing against allowing civil marriage for gay people-comes from their faith. The legal and historical arguments haven’t been persuasive either for most outside the faith traditions that already oppose it.

“Universal truth” is extremely hard to prove without bringing religion into it at some point. As many states and countries already have civil marriages for gay people it’s getting harder and harder to make the case that it is going to bring the disasters to society people predict. At least not any more disaster than what already exists from what goes on in so called “traditional” marriages. There just isn’t enough evidence to prove that allowing gay people to have their unions established as marriages under civil law has had a negative affect on “The Common Good”. I don’t see a lot of folks that aren’t already committed to the religious reasons for opposing gay marriage jumping on that bandwagon.

This is why my opinion remains that the ONLY way to change our society is to fulfill our commission to lead people to Christ and then let Him take over and change the hearts of those we bring to Him.
Click to expand...
But we cannot stop teaching the truth. The two are not mutually exclusive.

Also, look at the OP. Mr. Cathy didn’t decide to get up on some fire and brimstone soapbox and scold the sinners about gay marriage. He was asked to give his opinon and he gave it. **He was being interviewed by the Baptist Press. ** The fact that anyone even remotely expected him to use that venue to voice support for same-sex marriage or to say anything divergent from traditonal Christian teaching just shows how stupid some people are.

This statement is about as newsworthy as the Pope saying in an interview with L’Osservatore Romano that he believes that Jesus is the Son of God and that all the Bishops are in the direct apostolic line.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Honestly, I don’t see that argument as working very well either. A tradition/values argument always leads back to where your values and your tradition come from-which in the case of most of those arguing against allowing civil marriage for gay people-comes from their faith. The legal and historical arguments haven’t been persuasive either for most outside the faith traditions that already oppose it.

“Universal truth” is extremely hard to prove without bringing religion into it at some point. As many states and countries already have civil marriages for gay people it’s getting harder and harder to make the case that it is going to bring the disasters to society people predict. At least not any more disaster than what already exists from what goes on in so called “traditional” marriages. There just isn’t enough evidence to prove that allowing gay people to have their unions established as marriages under civil law has had a negative affect on “The Common Good”. I don’t see a lot of folks that aren’t already committed to the religious reasons for opposing gay marriage jumping on that bandwagon.

This is why my opinion remains that the ONLY way to change our society is to fulfill our commission to lead people to Christ and then let Him take over and change the hearts of those we bring to Him.
Click to expand...
Both approaches (pastoral and “secular”) have utility depending on the circumstances. A pastoral approach may not work when dialoguing with someone like Dan Savage, for example; but it is probably appropriate when speaking with a gay relative or close friend.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Honestly, I don’t see that argument as working very well either. A tradition/values argument always leads back to where your values and your tradition come from…
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree. These assertions are based on assumptions, and refer back to labels and associations (just as the secular media does). Yours is not an argument based on ideals and The Common Good. It also frankly gives not nearly enough credit to those non-believers who are capable of embracing values outside of sectarianism.

It may be that you and I, and many other believers, understand & revere the specifically religious sources of values, but it does not mean that others do not honor different sources.
 
Chick-fil-A owner wants Rahm chat
The owner of Chicago’s sole Chick-fil-A restaurant wants to talk to Mayor Rahm Emanuel after he said the fast-food chain’s stance on same-sex marriage disrespects Chicagoans, according to a report
Click to expand...
Lauren Silich, the owner of a Chick-fil-A near the Magnificent Mile, said in a statement that she hoped to meet with Emanuel at her restaurant, and that she’s “dedicated to serving all of our guests with honor, dignity and respect.… We alone created 97 jobs this past year and our passion is building leaders for future generations, regardless of sexual orientation or beliefs”
Click to expand...
“I just want people to know there’s a local face to this controversy,” she told the Chicago Tribune
Click to expand...
. “We’re not a corporate face. We love our city”

Silich said in her statement that the Chick-fil-A franchise was independently owned and operated

politico.com/news/stories/0712/79031.html

Will Courts Support a Ban on Chick-fil-A?

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=33621

Billy Graham backs Chick-fil-A, plans to ‘Eat Mor Chikin’ Aug. 1st

lifesitenews.com/news/billy-graham-backs-chick-fil-a-plans-to-eat-mor-chikin-aug.-1st
 
Even the ACLU is saying that from a Constitutional standpoint this is an open and shut case. If either of the mayors were to try to block Chik-Fil-A from opening with zoning restrictions a judge would take about a whole ten seconds to side with the restaurant. How funny that these two guys of all people are being corrected by the ACLU. 😃
 
FromTheAshes777 said:
Even the ACLU is saying that from a Constitutional standpoint this is an open and shut case. If either of the mayors were to try to block Chik-Fil-A from opening with zoning restrictions a judge would take about a whole ten seconds to side with the restaurant. How funny that these two guys of all people are being corrected by the ACLU. 😃
Click to expand...
The ACLU is quite correct, but why shouldn’t they be? Funny how they’re attacked whether they’re defending a right of Nazis to march or supporting some liberal cause.

What we have here is a typical case of blowhard politicians. Give each one an enema and they’ll shrink down to the size of a hand puppet.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The ACLU is quite correct, but why shouldn’t they be? Funny how they’re attacked whether they’re defending a right of Nazis to march or supporting some liberal cause.

What we have here is a typical case of blowhard politicians. Give each one an enema and they’ll shrink down to the size of a hand puppet.
Click to expand...
I agree Rich, and I do try to acknowledge and make known that the ACLU does do some very good things sometimes, though obviously I don’t agree with them all the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top