Does anyone here, that believes in God, actually think that God accepts gay marriage?

[EasterJoy]

…The Church is always talking about being “compassionate” - in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense (given that the Church claims to know Truth, the irony here is incredible). When it comes time to repeal laws that send gay people to jail, the Church is either last to enter the cocktail party or protesting in the lobby…

So it is uncompassionate to pass laws that regulate prescription drugs? Why is it not an example of compassion “in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense”, when the government passes laws that put harsh penalties on people doing things that are self-destructive and destructive of social mores? How is it that contemporary philosophers or political theorists–or the average voter, for that matter–is trusted to know “the truth”, but the opinion of religious people following age-old mores is rejected out of hand as an ironic claim?

The dissenting Justices pointed out that the decision in question opened a very big can of worms, a can of worms that says “my sex life does not and cannot affect anyone else not compelled to join me in it, therefore my sex life is beyond the purview of legislators.” Mind you, you can’t build a house, paint it, choose plants for your yard, dig a well or cut down a tree on your own property, or do any number of things without the legislative branch putting its nose in to your life for the public good. You can’t brew up drugs in your home for your own use. There are even laws pertaining to how you’re allowed to commit suicide–and those laws that even admit that suicide could be the act of a rational mind are the most permissive in the world!

Is it really so obvious that private sexual conduct ought to be always and forever off-limits to legal boundaries? I don’t think it is, and I think this is one of the most unexamined axioms floating around in the minds of voters today. It may be impractical to enforce laws that pertain to sexual conduct by incarceration, but that is a long ways from saying that we each have a right to do whatever we want with no outside interference from anybody. Yet voters who talk like you do seem to think that this is the either/or choice we have: Either eradicate all ability of the state to have any legal say about private sexual conduct OR ELSE throw people in prison for the kind of sex acts they commit. Why does it have to be either/or?

 

[JimG]

Since the Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v Texas has been mentioned several times here, I think it should be noted that the case was based on a lie, rather like Roe v Wade. The real story behind Lawrence v Texas is mentioned in this article.

 

[Rau]

Is it really so obvious that private sexual conduct ought to be always and forever off-limits to legal boundaries? I don’t think it is, and I think this is one of the most unexamined axioms floating around in the minds of voters today. It may be impractical to enforce laws that pertain to sexual conduct by incarceration, but that is a long ways from saying that we each have a right to do whatever we want with no outside interference from anybody. Yet voters who talk like you do seem to think that this is the either/or choice we have: Either eradicate all ability of the state to have any legal say about private sexual conduct OR ELSE throw people in prison for the kind of sex acts they commit. Why does it have to be either/or?

I understand where you’re coming from, but I struggle with the merits of criminalising Homosexual acts. I cannot imagine that a coherent debate would even be possible, given the extent to which the law has shifted to enable and support “family” structures built on same sex couples, commercial sperm banks, surrogacy, same sex “marriage”, etc. Should one fight ground skirmishes to win back land bit by bit, or go the “nuclear” option? I think it has to be the former.

 

[EasterJoy]

If I had to explain it in a totally secular way, it would be this:

Reproduction sets up certain relationships which are hard-wired to be meaningful among mammals: mother-child, father-child, cousin-cousin, grandparent-child, and so on. The institution of marriage, seen in a purely secular light, puts legal protections in place surrounding the relationships that reproduction ordains.

Sexual mores, in turn, are set up to support the institution of marriage, which is to say in order to strengthen and formalize the duties inherent in the biological relationships that arise from reproduction.

When sexual mores are rejected out of hand as an intrusion on individual liberty, then the individual is declared to be superior to the relationships that every individual comes from. Marriage and the relationships it was set up to foster are declared secondary to the license of the individual. From this we have no-fault divorce and other laws that rob spouses of a reliable partner, rob children of stable homes, and basically put everyone and all their natural family relationships at the beck and call of individual desire. Because of this attitude, it only takes a single person acting in self-interest to ruin an entire family.

Reproduction and the relationships it sets up have now been declared secondary to the status of marriage. We are already seeing gay couples pursuing reproduction that is totally divorced from their sexual relationships. That puts everything backwards: That is, there is no sexual mores, marriage is a matter of status given to individuals who for the moment have a commitment to each other (which is as transitory and only one of the couple wants to make it), and the relationships inherent to reproduction are falsely declared to be a social construct apropos of nothing.

It is all a lie. The parent-child relationship is vital. The ability of one parent to rely on the other to stay and raise the children is vital. The ability of children to rely on parents to stay together to raise them with their siblings is vital. It is hard enough when fate keeps families from honoring the relationships that nature has ordained are important to every animal with a brain larger than a garbanzo bean. How is it that the most “brainy” animal that breathes has talked itself out of this obvious truth? It is the lie that the individual exists independently of the family and society that produced him that did it.

Lies are powerful things. Bad philosophies are powerful things. They don’t just die and fail. No, the errors thought up by the mind are capable of perpetrating all sorts of ruin. That is just what this latest set of lies is already doing.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand where you’re coming from, but I struggle with the merits of criminalising Homosexual acts. I cannot imagine that a coherent debate would even be possible, given the extent to which the law has shifted to enable and support “family” structures built on same sex couples, commercial sperm banks, surrogacy, same sex “marriage”, etc. Should one fight ground skirmishes to win back land bit by bit, or go the “nuclear” option? I think it has to be the former.

That is just the point. The issue is not whether or not it is a good idea to make this act or that illegal. The issue is whether it is legally correct to make this act or that something that cannot be made illegal because it has been decided that individuals have a right to act in that way.

For instance, should it be illegal to cut a tree in your own yard is an entirely different question than whether or not cutting a tree in your own yard ought to be considered a civil right, something that in all justice cannot be made illegal. Do you see the difference?

This is what is being tried with same sex marriage. Advocates are going to courts and saying not that the state has an interest in treating same sex partners in the same way as it does heterosexual partners, but is instead arguing that the state is duty-bound by justice to encourage same-sex partnerships exactly as it does opposite-sex partnerships.

Now tell me, how on earth is it possible to hold that the state cannot possibly have a different interest in opposite-sex relationships than in same-sex relationships? Why on earth would justice require that the law treat opposite-sex relationships no differently than same-sex relationships, except by concluding that there is no substantial difference between the two?

If justice requires treating opposite-sex relationships no differently than same-sex relationships, then why, pray tell, would justice allow sexual relationships to be given priveleges that nonsexual relationships do not get? Why would justice allow limiting favored status only to relationships between two people instead of three or more?

Do you see the rift that is developing? By inventing a right based on the lie that there is no substantial difference between sexual partners of the opposite sex (including heterosexual acts) and sexual partners of the same sex (including homosexual acts), logic has to ask immediately why sexual partners deserve any favored treatment at all. If sex is not about reproduction, if it is not about public health, if it is not about anything about which the public has a legitimate interest to so much as limit, then it is not about anything that society has a legitimate reason to encourage or discourage.

 

[josh987654321]

See above. Actions speak louder than words. The Church is always talking about being “compassionate” - in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense (given that the Church claims to know Truth, the irony here is incredible). When it comes time to repeal laws that send gay people to jail, the Church is either last to enter the cocktail party or protesting in the lobby.

Well, as for my understanding, I wouldn’t support criminalizing sodomy as I believe it’s a consensual act, so I don’t see any need for it to be criminalized.

And as I quoted in my previous posts linked #168, in the Gospels about the Adulteress, Jesus said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” than he said “I wont accuse you either, but go and sin no more.” and I believe the sexual act of homosexuality should be seen likewise.

So in that case, I wouldn’t criminalize sodomy, as I wouldn’t throw stones at a homosexual who gave into their desires out of weakness, but I will be in opposition when people try to claim it as righteous and just.

If you still want to talk about those other areas in trying to make accusations against us, than feel free, but I’ll try and steer away from them because I believe it will only send us around in circles over this issue of same sex marriage.

If you could get something from us, what would it be? what would you like to see happen on our side of this debate?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[Rau]

For instance, should it be illegal to cut a tree in your own yard is an entirely different question than whether or not cutting a tree in your own yard ought to be considered a civil right, something that in all justice cannot be made illegal. Do you see the difference?

This is what is being tried with same sex marriage. Advocates are going to courts and saying not that the state has an interest in treating same sex partners in the same way as it does heterosexual partners, but is instead arguing that the state is duty-bound by justice to encourage same-sex partnerships exactly as it does opposite-sex partnerships.

Now tell me, how on earth is it possible to hold that the state cannot possibly have a different interest in opposite-sex relationships than in same-sex relationships? Why on earth would justice require that the law treat opposite-sex relationships no differently than same-sex relationships, except by concluding that there is no substantial difference between the two?

If justice requires treating opposite-sex relationships no differently than same-sex relationships, then why, pray tell, would justice allow sexual relationships to be given priveleges that nonsexual relationships do not get? Why would justice allow limiting favored status only to relationships between two people instead of three or more?

Do you see the rift that is developing? By inventing a right based on the lie that there is no substantial difference between sexual partners of the opposite sex (including heterosexual acts) and sexual partners of the same sex (including homosexual acts), logic has to ask immediately why sexual partners deserve any favored treatment at all. If sex is not about reproduction, if it is not about public health, if it is not about anything about which the public has a legitimate interest to so much as limit, then it is not about anything that society has a legitimate reason to encourage or discourage.

Yes, I follow and concur. You mentioned earlier I think a proposal that was around to create a form of civil union constructed around the idea of mutual care. Is that something you’d accept? Do you know details of precisely what objection the gay lobby had with this? Was it simply the fact that it was “different” to marriage?

 

[EasterJoy]

Yes, I follow and concur. You mentioned earlier I think a proposal that was around to create a form of civil union constructed around the idea of mutual care. Is that something you’d accept? Do you know details of precisely what objection the gay lobby had with this? Was it simply the fact that it was “different” to marriage?

Yes, and from what I understand of what our archbishop said, the Church would accept it, too. The gay lobby’s objection seemed to be that they did not want to be “second-class” couples. IOW, they want their sexual relationships to be treated as being exactly the same as heterosexual ones. They want their sexual relationship to be treated as one that the state encourages just the same as sexual relationships between heterosexuals, and they want the status of their couples to be the same as that of married couples.

 

[EasterJoy]

I understand that everyone needs a place to live and needs work, and I’m not willing to discourage all adults of the same sex from cohabitating because it might encourage someone into a same-sex relationship! If two adults of the same sex take care of each other and provide companionship for each other, that is a positive thing. It can be supported by law without supporting the sexual aspect, which is problematic from one moral perspective but which even from a more permissive view is private, at best.

I can see where it is in the interest of society to support a commitment of mutual care, which would include a sort of “chosen sibling” or a monastery of two. I can see where the state might not want to get into whether there is a sexual relationship because the means by which that kind of investigation is done requires invasiveness that carries a societal cost.

My contention comes with the false premises that a) homosexual sex and relationships are the same in terms of its impact on society as heterosexual sexual acts and relationships and b) that the state has some interest in encouraging sexual relationships between homosexuals. The relationship of mutual care, sure, but not the sexual relationship. It could be just as easily argued that those sexual acts present a health danger without the pay-off of procreation, and therefore are more to be discouraged than anything else. (I mean all of this from a secular view, for the sake of those arguing that the objection to equating homosexuals and heterosexuals is a purely religious matter.)

Of course, it is also my contention that if true marriage is to enjoy special advantages, the state ought to be able to hold the married to conditions that make a life-long family bond the goal. I think that no-fault divorce has all but destroyed that. So while I am critical of what gays want the state to do for them and the status they want for their relationships, I think that their complaint that heterosexual marriage is not particularly “family-friendly” is a fair one. From a fairness point of view, the advantages of marriage ought to also carry duties and responsibilities. I also think the state could fairly hold that children conceived out of marriage, whether by natural or artificial means, are being deprived of a childhood that includes daily contact with both parents, and that to do so is an abuse of parental power. All of this “any parent is as good as a biological parent” talk reduces the raising of children to animal husbandry, where “what is produced” or how the child “turns out” is all that is of interest, and the natural relationships of the child are held to be something that can be withheld at the whim of a parent.

 

[josh987654321]

Thank you for articulating that so well. I absolutely agree.

Josh

 

[stewstew03]

I agree with the first point, maybe, and not the others.

You are missing the point. Lawrence v Texas decriminalized homosexual conduct in the USA. The Church, by opposing that outcome, is implicitly saying that homosexual conduct should remain criminal. And what do we do with criminals? We send them to prison. That’s why I say that the Church supports imprisonment of practicing homosexuals. *De facto? * Maybe, but it still is.

Opposing a particular behavior is not tantamount to supporting penalties for that behavior. I support laws that limit certain kinds of speech, but that doesn’t mean that if someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater that I think they should be imprisoned.

 

[stewstew03]

I agree with the first point, maybe, and not the others.

You are missing the point. Lawrence v Texas decriminalized homosexual conduct in the USA. The Church, by opposing that outcome, is implicitly saying that homosexual conduct should remain criminal. And what do we do with criminals? We send them to prison. That’s why I say that the Church supports imprisonment of practicing homosexuals. *De facto? * Maybe, but it still is.

See above. Actions speak louder than words. The Church is always talking about being “compassionate” - in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense (given that the Church claims to know Truth, the irony here is incredible). When it comes time to repeal laws that send gay people to jail, the Church is either last to enter the cocktail party or protesting in the lobby.

Oh ho ho, anger burns like a hot coal huh? I’m not mad, but it must be warm where you are.

EasterJoy I read your post and mean to get back to you, but I’m short on time.

By the way - I’m actually surprised you don’t agree with that second bullet in the previous post (that states have an interest in regulating sexual activity). You might want to re-think that…

 

[kolya111]

If you read the dissenting opinions, you know that it is not so cut-and-dried as “If you oppose the action of the Supreme Court in striking this law down, then that means you want gays in jail.” It is not that simple, and I really don’t believe you are incapable of understanding that.

From lawnix.com/cases/lawrence-texas.html

Dissent (Scalia)

Nowhere does the Court’s opinion declare that homosexual sodomy is a “fundamental right” under the Due Process Clause; nor does it subject the Texas law to the standard of review that would be appropriate (strict scrutiny) if homosexual sodomy were a “fundamental right.” Thus, while overruling the outcome of Bowers, the Court leaves strangely untouched its central legal conclusion: “D would have us announce . . . a fundamental right to engage in homosexual sodomy. This we are quite unwilling to do.” Instead the Court simply describes petitioners’ conduct as an exercise of their liberty and proceeds to apply an unheard-of form of rational-basis review that will have far-reaching implications beyond this case.

Dissent (Thomas)

If I were a member of the Texas Legislature I would vote to repeal this law. Punishing someone for expressing his sexual preference through noncommercial consensual conduct with another adult does not appear to be a worthy way to expend valuable law enforcement resources. But I am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My duty is to decide cases agreeably to the Constitution and laws of the United States. I can find neither in the Bill of Rights nor any other part of the Constitution a general right of privacy, or as the Court terms it today, the liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.

This is not a responsive argument. The Church did not object to the verdict on these grounds - they were lamenting the outcome itself, not the reasoning used to get there.

Opposing a particular behavior is not tantamount to supporting penalties for that behavior. I support laws that limit certain kinds of speech, but that doesn’t mean that if someone yells “fire” in a crowded theater that I think they should be imprisoned.

You still don’t get it. The Church didn’t just “oppose a particular behavior.” They supported criminal penalties for that behavior. Ergo, they do think people should be imprisoned. If they say otherwise they are either lying or incredibly stupid, because they are on record supporting the laws that impose those penalties.

 

[PRmerger]

Oh, good, Kolya. You’re online.

Can you please provide the correct pope or name of the document or date of its release that you believe taught that homosexuals must be executed?

Thanks.

 

[kolya111]

So it is uncompassionate to pass laws that regulate prescription drugs? Why is it not an example of compassion “in a 1984 Ministry of Truth sense”, when the government passes laws that put harsh penalties on people doing things that are self-destructive and destructive of social mores? How is it that contemporary philosophers or political theorists–or the average voter, for that matter–is trusted to know “the truth”, but the opinion of religious people following age-old mores is rejected out of hand as an ironic claim?

The dissenting Justices pointed out that the decision in question opened a very big can of worms, a can of worms that says “my sex life does not and cannot affect anyone else not compelled to join me in it, therefore my sex life is beyond the purview of legislators.” Mind you, you can’t build a house, paint it, choose plants for your yard, dig a well or cut down a tree on your own property, or do any number of things without the legislative branch putting its nose in to your life for the public good. You can’t brew up drugs in your home for your own use. There are even laws pertaining to how you’re allowed to commit suicide–and those laws that even admit that suicide could be the act of a rational mind are the most permissive in the world!

Is it really so obvious that private sexual conduct ought to be always and forever off-limits to legal boundaries? I don’t think it is, and I think this is one of the most unexamined axioms floating around in the minds of voters today. It may be impractical to enforce laws that pertain to sexual conduct by incarceration, but that is a long ways from saying that we each have a right to do whatever we want with no outside interference from anybody. Yet voters who talk like you do seem to think that this is the either/or choice we have: Either eradicate all ability of the state to have any legal say about private sexual conduct OR ELSE throw people in prison for the kind of sex acts they commit. Why does it have to be either/or?

I don’t think that the state should regulate many of the things you mention. The fact that it does regulate them does not provide justification for regulating sex. Furthermore, some of those things do impact others concretely - drug manufacture is a safety risk to the neighborhood, how you paint your house may give others an eyesore, etc. Drawing concrete impacts to neighbors from your private sex life is more abstract than most of what you mention. Ultimately you can make these sorts of arguments for regulation of any kind of human behavior - where does it end? Are we all wards of the State? If you believe in human freedom (and therefore minimal regulation) than it would be hypocrisy to support the regulation of sex.

Yes, and from what I understand of what our archbishop said, the Church would accept it, too. The gay lobby’s objection seemed to be that they did not want to be “second-class” couples. IOW, they want their sexual relationships to be treated as being exactly the same as heterosexual ones. They want their sexual relationship to be treated as one that the state encourages just the same as sexual relationships between heterosexuals, and they want the status of their couples to be the same as that of married couples. (emphasis added)

That’s right. In your other posts you discuss marriage and heterosexual sex as an institution that produces children and argue that this relationship is deserving of special recognition. Why exactly? You say that it is the only “natural” family situation, but the state recognizes plenty of marriages between the childless and the infertile and the already-thrice-divorced. It also recognizes the marriages of the those who use IVF, surrogacy, etc. In an equal-rights society then arguments made on the forgoing premises are not sufficient to deny homosexuals marriage. You can argue that man-man is not as good as man-woman for the kids, but even then a state that allows children to be adopted by single men and woman can hardly be justified in denying them to two men or two women.

Oh, good, Kolya. You’re online.

Can you please provide the correct pope or name of the document or date of its release that you believe taught that homosexuals must be executed?

Thanks.

The full title is Constitution Cum Primum, April 1st 1566. I read about it in this book: amazon.com/Catholic-Church-Homosexuality-Atila-Guimaraes/dp/0895556510/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1386543434&sr=1-2

It was an apostolic constitution and wouldn’t appear in a listing of Encyclical letters. I emailed my local Diocese and asked where I could get a full text copy. The letter doesn’t say “kill the gays” it says “hand them over to the secular authority” - which amounts to the same thing.

 

[Rau]

Koyla - same sex “marriage” is not an institution that builds the society. It is simply not of the same character as Marriage. That statement is not to denigrate anyone - it is just an observation of reality.

Why do you reject an institution of the kind described earlier - a legal arrangement that provides for mutual care of the partners?

 

[EasterJoy]

… If you believe in human freedom (and therefore minimal regulation) than it would be hypocrisy to support the regulation of sex.

That’s right. In your other posts you discuss marriage and heterosexual sex as an institution that produces children and argue that this relationship is deserving of special recognition. Why exactly? You say that it is the only “natural” family situation, but the state recognizes plenty of marriages between the childless and the infertile and the already-thrice-divorced. It also recognizes the marriages of the those who use IVF, surrogacy, etc. In an equal-rights society then arguments made on the forgoing premises are not sufficient to deny homosexuals marriage. You can argue that man-man is not as good as man-woman for the kids, but even then a state that allows children to be adopted by single men and woman can hardly be justified in denying them to two men or two women…

Man-man is not as good for kids–whose kids? Which two men have ever produced a child? Which two women? Can you really not see any value at all to encouraging and preserving relationships between blood relatives? Again: a bird with a brain the size of a garbanzo bean gets this. This knowledge is so basic that it is hard-wired, if you only understood that!

I bring these other issues up in order to show that our opposition to gay marriage does not have to do with opposing gays as persons, but with defending marriage and the family unit that nature ordained. I am pointing out that the Church’s view is internally consistent as a political view even from a secular perspective. Even if we did not understand these issues from a religious perspective, we can see the societal problems that come from divorce, IVF, surrogacy, sex outside of a permanent couple open to procreation, and so on. That is not only why we oppose them, but also why we do not think it at all unreasonable for a secular society to take a similar view. This whole “you’re trying to push your religious views on me” complaint is a bunch of hogwash!

As for “You can argue that man-man is not as good as man-woman for the kids, but even then a state that allows children to be adopted by single men and woman can hardly be justified in denying them to two men or two women”, you’re making an excellent case for why marriage shouldn’t get any recognition or advantages from the state at all, not a case for why gays ought to be able to marry. If marriage has nothing to do with procreation or being there to personally parent the children one begets, to live to help parent one’s children’s children, then what business does the state have to give people a tax break because they have a sexual partner? Why isn’t it, “You have a sex partner? Well, how nice for you. That has nothing to do with us.” I tell you, if marriage does not have to do with procreation, then there is no reason it ought to have to do with sex. It doesn’t even make sense.

This “equal rights” society you’re talking about is a society of license, a society that falsely believes that people ought to be allowed to do whatever they can think of to do, without any regard for whether they ought to do it. Human freedom is not the same as human license, and human license is not the best recipe for either individual or societal welfare.

Human freedom is not a matter of minimal regulation, but the maximal ability to avoid what is wrong and do what is good! The immoral person is not free, but is rather enslaved! Human beings are not individual animals, but social animals, herd animals. Even from a secular perspective, discipline and socialization of the individual self is absolutely necessary for human happiness. Society cannot function–and therefore individuals cannot function–with an “each one for himself” attitude. This attitude about “we’re all our own persons” is a great big lie, and it does not work.

Even the ancient Romans understood this, or they did before their society collapsed! This is what stable societies have always known, the ones that have lasted hundreds or even thousands of years. Societies based on “each one for himself”, OTOH, do not have staying power. The social fabric is far too weak, so that these “societies” are doomed to unravel into chaos. Honestly, American society never in greater peril than when such extreme individualism is taken as an axiomatic element of “freedom”. It is based on a very flawed understanding of human society and the human person.

 

[EasterJoy]

I want to apologize for getting off of the topic of the thread. The question was not, “Should people who do not believe in God or who don’t want God in their politics still be able to accept that gay marriage is contrary to the most stable and truly free expression of human society?”

The question was whether or not gay marriage is can ever be seen as acceptable in the full light of divine law. Unless someone has a conception of God that is not in submission to either the Apostolic Tradition or the plain meaning of the Bible, I think the answer has to be “no”. The extension of the concept of marriage to include sexual partnerships between homosexuals is to be found nowhere in any traditional expression of our faith. It is a human invention, a thing unknown to Christianity as anyone knew it or taught it until our time.

 

[meltzerboy]

However, it is acceptable in certain faith traditions, including those of Native American cultures, who view homosexuality as one’s individual life destiny, as well as Quakerism, Reform (and, in many instances, Conservative) Judaism, Unitarianism, and probably others, such as the Baha’i faith perhaps. These religions would claim that G-d does allow gays to marry, no doubt for different reasons based on the specific religious teachings, and would also claim this is not merely a human invention any more than other religions’ interpretation or inspiration of G-d’s will–albeit to the contrary–is a human invention. From the Church’s perspective, gay marriage is forbidden; but this is simply not true of every religion’s perspective.

 

[PRmerger]

It was an apostolic constitution and wouldn’t appear in a listing of Encyclical letters.

The listing I gave you does include Apostolic Constitutions.

papalencyclicals.net/Pius05/index.htm

Pope St. Pius V
Jan. 7, 1566 - May 1, 1572

Exponi nobis nuper [Latin] July 25, 1571
Ereader files: [MOBI] [EPUB]
Quo Primum (Promulgating the Tridentine Liturgy) July 14, 1570 Apostolic Constitution]
Ereader files: [MOBI] [EPUB}
Consueverunt Romani (Call to Prayer) September 17, 1569
Ereader files: [MOBI] [EPUB]
Regnans in Excelsis (Excommunicating Elizabeth I of England) March 5, 1570 [Papal Bull] Latin / English
Ereader files: Latin - [MOBI] [EPUB] English - [MOBI] [EPUB]

Peculiar that Pope Pius V wrote an Apostolic Constitution entitled *Quo Primum * that is referenced here; and you are proposing that he wrote another Apostolic Constitution entitled Cum Primum, that is not listed on this website.

I emailed my local Diocese and asked where I could get a full text copy. The letter doesn’t say “kill the gays” it says “hand them over to the secular authority” - which amounts to the same thing.

Your allegations against the CC are full of “amounts to the same thing”.

Would that you would actually be able to provide evidence for your accusations, rather than nebulous “amounts to the same thing” references.