Poll: California Catholics strongly support homosexual unions

[severus68]

It should come as no surprise, since Liberalism Is a Sin

Note the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

Noted and read. So a book written in the 19th century approved for publication as not being against Catholic dogma says it all about liberalism? I think not. Have you read about how that philosophy came about,about John Locke? What about social liberalism?

 

[lynnvinc]

My heart goes out to our homosexual brothers and sisters. They are more likely to be targets of hate, violence, and torture than others. Sometimes their own families disown them, but when they land in the hospital, their loved one cannot visit, nor do they have the various rights & privileges that adhere to a married person.

This might not be such a bad situation if we had universal health care and real welfare and mercy for the harmed and disadvantaged (instead we consider them losers, undeserving of our love and consideration).

Then there is the issue of the toxic chemical soup we have created and in which we live that produces all sort of gender and other anomalies and disorders – assuming the fetus didn’t miscarry. I know there have always been homosexuals, but these factors do contribute. So whose fault would that be. Of course, a homosexually-inclined person does not have to act on his/her impulses, but could live a celibate life.

Then there is the issue that civil marriage is itself a very grave sin. So even if those gays do get married, but not within the Catholic Church, they will still be in a state of grave sin, only at least they will be eligible for health and other benefits from their gay spouse.

I don’t know how I would have voted if I had lived in Calif; I do know I would have seriously deliberated all these pros and cons, and thought about the real people who would experience real harm or benefit. I live in Texas, so it’s pretty much a moot point here. My husband, maybe a better and stronger Catholic than me, is totally against gay marriage and refers me to Church teaching, but I have a lot of sympathy for gays, and I’ve had some good gay friends, as well.

There is also the gender factor re how one votes – men tend more to think in terms of abstract laws and principles, such as Church teachings and civil rights issues. I think many women (like myself) look at the situational complexities more, and our hearts are involved in our decisions.

I don’t condone homosexuality, or any other sexuality outside of marriage, but I also don’t think gay marriage would harm straight marriages between a man and a woman.

I guess we should actually be against civil marriages altogether – none of them are valid in the eyes of the Church, and all of them are wrought in sin, whether between a gay or a straight couple.

Most of all I am totally opposed to gay-bashing, torturing, and killing (often done by Catholics and those from churches strongly opposed to homosexuality). That is a much much worse sin than homosexuality or gay marriage.

 

[lynnvinc]

It should come as no surprise, since Liberalism Is a Sin

Note the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur.

That might be true. Of course, “liberalism” means capitalism (v. feudalism), and democracy (v. monarchy). There are lots of problems with both these. Money becomes the measure of a man, and the rabble voters scounging after as much money as possible vote for people who help them destroy life on planet earth, so they can temporarily enjoy whatever wealth they can muster off the backs of the oppressed and at the expense of harming life on earth and future generations. Gluttony, imprudence, licentiousness, and arrogance – and hard-heartedness towards others – appear to go hog-wild and win in these systems.

While there are some benefits to capitalism and democracy – and these could be done better, see natcap.org and as in subsidiarity and deliberative democracy – and there are lots of problems with feudalism and autocracy, as we all know, we should be ever vigilant to address the problems of capitalism and democracy as these are being practiced (which are not in the least pure, in fact they border on plutocracy, as practiced today), and never fail to do what is right, good, just, and merciful.

I guess the point is we are stuck with liberalism (capitalism and democracy), so we should strive to improve these systems and bring them into line with Church social justice teachings.

 

[sedonaman]

Noted and read. So a book written in the 19th century approved for publication as not being against Catholic dogma says it all about liberalism? I think not.

I don’t think any book covers “all” about its topic.

Have you read about how that philosophy came about,about John Locke? What about social liberalism?

I don’t think anyone read as far as the PUBLISHER’S PREFACE.

This book shows that Liberalism – at least here in America – is all-pervasive and is almost, as it were, universally victorious over the thinking of our people. Yet as a religious-philosophical tenet it is false! And woefully so! For, as the author points out, it leads to an eventual denial of any truth whatsoever by some of its adherents. For people hear first one religious “truth” asserted and then another that contradicts it, and soon they are so confused that they do not know what to believe. And often they end up believing nothing – or holding that nothing is certain, even in matters relating to the Natural Law, which all people know through the use of their reason alone. Regarding its source, Liberalism, as the author shows very clearly, is a direct result of Protestantism, with its tenet of private interpretation of the Bible. For if a person has a right to decide for himself what the Bible means, this says in effect that he has a right to choose whether he will believe or not believe certain revealed teachings. Then in effect, he also has a right to believe nothing at all.

Locke was good up to a point in time, but Liberalism, almost by definition, is ever-expanding.

Significant for our Western civilization is the fact, as Hilaire Belloc points out in Essays of a Catholic, that the people who had become protestant did not abandon their catholic moral customs. They continued to live by the truth which their Catholic forefathers had lived by for centuries. The only problem was that they no longer believed as true the religious-philosophical truths taught by the Revealed Religion, the Catholic Faith, which had created their customary and traditional ethic.

…
For Liberalism says in effect that there is no objective truth, which is patently absurd. And in the practical order – in our social and political lives – Liberalism leads to a practiced atheism, that is, to a situation in society where, though we do not deny the existence of God, we nonetheless must conduct ourselves vis-à-vis one another as if God did not exist, because we must in effect deny that He has a right to tell man what to do. This situation results from Liberalism’s denying in effect that there is one body of revealed truth, with which man must comply. Liberalism therefore destroys adherence even to the Natural Law, that law which we all understand to be true without the assistance of divine Revelation. But it also destroys the universal acceptance among people of divine Revelation. Adherence to both the supernatural and the natural order, therefore, breaks down under its influence, and the result is chaos in individual lives and anarchy in society.

Chaos in society is already on us; can anarchy be far behind? Do you believe in relativism? What about multiculturalism? How about polylogism?

 

[sedonaman]

…Of course, “liberalism” means capitalism (v. feudalism), and democracy (v. monarchy). …

That’s not the definition used in this book.

 

[GratefulFred]

I guess the point is we are stuck with liberalism (capitalism and democracy), so we should strive to improve these systems and bring them into line with Church social justice teachings.

I agree 100% on the duty to strive to improve C & D in line with the teachings of Christ and His Church. Many of our founding fathers expressed the relationship of Christian values and the democracy they were establishing.

We are in a time where there are more and more who want C & D WITHOUT constraint of Moral Laws. Those folks, the elites if you will, think they know better than God. As the poll on so called Catholic views suggests, it seems too many Catholics are buying into MAN FIRST, God somewhere else down the line of importance.

Sad. Very sad.

We need to VOTE our Christian values and encourage others as best we can to keep these values in their hearts and conscience as they vote.

 

[sedonaman]

My heart goes out to our homosexual brothers and sisters. They are more likely to be targets of hate, violence, and torture than others.

That’s right! Their chances are 1,000 times greater: 10-²º for them vs. 10-²³ for the rest of us.

Sometimes their own families disown them…

And you’re going to change their minds by passing a law? Have you read 1984?

… but when they land in the hospital, their loved one cannot visit, nor do they have the various rights & privileges that adhere to a married person.

Propaganda spread by the homosexual lobby. I’ve visited many friends in the hospital, and was never once turned away because I was not a member of the family. The last time was when my friend’s wife was dying and not expected to live through the day. When we arrived, my wife and I were escorted immediately [if not sooner] right to her room, no questions asked.

As far as making legal decisions, anyone can give anyone else power of attorney. In fact it is required in some states [like mine] even to allow a husband or wife to make decisions for you.

This might not be such a bad situation if we had universal health care and real welfare and mercy for the harmed and disadvantaged (instead we consider them losers, undeserving of our love and consideration).

If you think politicians have more of a heart than them greedy capitalists, you’ve led a very sheltered life.

Then there is the issue of the toxic chemical soup we have created and in which we live that produces all sort of gender and other anomalies and disorders – assuming the fetus didn’t miscarry. I know there have always been homosexuals, but these factors do contribute…

Where is the proof of the assertion that toxic chemicals cause homosexuality?

Imagine a house with a room and a closet. There is a man hiding in the closet, and a man in the room. How many men are in the house? The man in the closet comes out into the room. Now how many men are in the house? Look, the only reason there seems to be more homosexuals is that they have become more vocal, a lot more vocal, and consequently more visible than in the past.

… I don’t condone homosexuality, or any other sexuality outside of marriage, but I also don’t think gay marriage would harm straight marriages between a man and a woman.

I don’t think you are very well informed. There is nothing immoral [according to the Catholic Church] about being a homosexual. I posted this link earlier in the thread but here it is again so you don’t have to search for it: Why Same-Sex Marriage And Civil Unions Would Be Highly Destructive Of Society. Some people think the author’s theory is far-fetched, but then again, homosexual “marriage” would have been considered far-fetched also only 40 years ago.

…Most of all I am totally opposed to gay-bashing, torturing, and killing (often done by Catholics and those from churches strongly opposed to homosexuality). That is a much much worse sin than homosexuality or gay marriage.

And it’s happening all over the place all the time, too. Why, just this morning, a bunch of skin-heads with swastikas beat up a guy down my street, all the while screaming “die fa***t, die.” And every Sunday, the pastor stations some really tough Knights of Columbus at the door of my parish church to ferret out people who even look gay. C’mon; get serious.

 

[Dale_M]

Those are negative “endorsements.” They don’t mean that the book is accurate or that the Ordinary agrees with anything in it. They only mean that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma.

So, even as ridiculous a piece as the one referenced, dedicated to the “Glorious Promoter of the Inquisition” is, it didn’t explicitly contradict our faith.

QFT

A “nihil obstat” is not an endorsement of the book, it simply means the book does not contradict the Faith. Similarly, the imprimatur is simply a permission for the book to be published in the bishop’s diocese.

I would also point out that whatever the author considered to be “liberalism” was in 1880s Spain, is not necessarily the same as the “liberalism” in 2010 USA (or other countries.)

 

[sedonaman]

…
I would also point out that whatever the author considered to be “liberalism” was in 1880s Spain, is not necessarily the same as the “liberalism” in 2010 USA (or other countries.)

Just read the PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. It’s only a few pages long.

 

[Dale_M]

Just read the PUBLISHER’S PREFACE. It’s only a few pages long.

Would you care to summarize it? I just checked the online version, and the preface was quite short. And since it was from the last part of the 19th century, it didn’t address the situation of the 21st century, let alone the differences between Spain and the US. For example, in 1874 a coup d’etat overthrew the republic and re-established the monarchy of the Borbón dynasty. This doesn’t sound much like the US in the latter half of the 1800s.

 

[sedonaman]

Would you care to summarize it? I just checked the online version, and the preface was quite short. And since it was from the last part of the 19th century, it didn’t address the situation of the 21st century, let alone the differences between Spain and the US. For example, in 1874 a coup d’etat overthrew the republic and re-established the monarchy of the Borbón dynasty. This doesn’t sound much like the US in the latter half of the 1800s.

Maybe it was a version without the publisher’s preface, which, although short, is too long to post here. Try this link ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm [page down]. Note it was written in 1993.

 

[Dale_M]

Maybe it was a version without the publisher’s preface, which, although short, is too long to post here. Try this link ewtn.com/library/theology/libsin.htm [page down]. Note it was written in 1993.

Thank you for posting that link. I haven’t read the book, but according to the preface by the most recent publisher, liberalism would be best defined as relativism of faith and morals. Its a far cry from saying that liberalism, as in current American politics, is sinful.

 

[JimG]

Then there is the issue that civil marriage is itself a very grave sin. So even if those gays do get married, but not within the Catholic Church, they will still be in a state of grave sin, only at least they will be eligible for health and other benefits from their gay spouse.

Just wanted to address this: civil marriage is not a grave sin for everyone. It is a grave sin for Catholics, because Catholics are subject to Catholic canon law, which requires that marriages be performed in a church.

The Catholic Church does recognize civil marriages of non-Catholics as valid.

It would not of course recognize gay marriage, since marriage between same-sex partners is not possible, even from a natural standpoint.

 

[sedonaman]

Thank you for posting that link. I haven’t read the book, but according to the preface by the most recent publisher, liberalism would be best defined as relativism of faith and morals. Its a far cry from saying that liberalism, as in current American politics, is sinful.

I don’t think it’s all that far; there’s a lot of overlap.

 

[lynnvinc]

If you think politicians have more of a heart than them greedy capitalists, you’ve led a very sheltered life.

Politicians? Doesn’t everyone KNOW they are to a large extent bought & paid for, not by greedy capitalists (that would be putting a human face on it), but by multinational corps, which have only one motive, to gobble up resources and excrete products for profit and avoid paying for any externalities, such as pollution and other harms. These corps are above the law and even help write the laws; they can shift from country to country, according to where the laws are more lax, or are not enforced. The people working for them, even the CEOs, either tow the line on their behalf, or find themselves out of a job. It was a gross mistake in 19th c. America to give corporations legal standing and rights as persons. What you then get is frankencorps dominating the earth, and there’s not much legally we can do about that now. However, they don’t die like people do; in fact they can even hide their assets and dissolve, if faced with terrible lawsuits for the harms they’ve done, then reconstitute later under a difference name (sort of like corporation reincarnation).

So politicos, Republican or Democrat, are all the same – henchmen of frankencorps. Did you know in the 1992 campaign Clinton and Bush Sr. received about the same amounts from the oil industries. Frankencorps don’t care about our issues, such as abortion; they may even be contributing to miscarriages and birth defects from their products or pollution. They only want to have a door into the Oval Office. My senator receives the highest amount from the oil industries – higher than even the Bushes received.

And the people are pretty much brainwashed by the media, which are also bought & paid for by the multinationals. Sometimes it shows thru a bit – like when there are ads that are not for selling anything to the common person. These ads tend to crop up when there are legislative decisions involving the corp coming up. They buy these weird ads, then that medium’s spokepersons & newscasters (knowing who’s buttering their bread) will probably say good things about the corp…or it will fail to report the corp’s harms and problems. There’s no real democracy without a well educated, informed, and engaged public.

It’s hard being a Christian in this day and age. One has to be a shrewd as a serpent and as gentle as a dove. And seek first the Kingdom of God and its righteousness.

 

[lynnvinc]

Where is the proof of the assertion that toxic chemicals cause homosexuality?

---

Granted there are homosexuals who choose that path, but even in that category, some have been pushed in that direction by abuses they’ve suffered at the hands of the opposite sex – abusive fathers, husbands. I know several lesbians in that category. They have chosen wrongly, but others are partly to blame, as well. We all need to be more loving and show the love of Christ to our family members and neighbors.

Then there are homosexuals who have developed biologically in that way. Physical and behavioral anomolies can happen at all stages of development – chromosomal abnormalities, hormonally-caused disorders before and even after birth. And synthetic chemicals play a role in some cases. Biologists have found female-female birds nesting together (with sterile eggs), and such, who have been found to have higher levels of synthetic hormone disrupting chemicals – such as found in petroleum products, like pesticides, plastics, cosmetics, etc.

Some peoble are born hermaphrodite or intersex, some with physical configerations of both sexes. They sometimes get operations, and most live exclusively as one sex. This does not mean they are homosexual though. There are others, I suppose, who have no such chromosomal or hormonal-based physical abnormalities, but chose to have a sex change operation – which would be way against Church teachings; but then who are we to judge since it could also be from some behavioral disorder caused by disruption of normal hormonal developement, and not visible in physical abnormalities. BTW, some learning and other behavior disorders are also linked to this chemical soup, but since universities, even public ones, are heavily bought & paid for by the frankencorps who make these hormone disrupting products, there isn’t a whole lot of really good research being don on this (as far as I understand), at least not to the level such a problem warrants.

I don’t in any way condone homosexuality, or premarital or extramarital sex, and I know our culture (Freud and MMead onwards) has contributed greatly to sexual licentiousness; tho there is also this biological impact, esp after WWII, when synthetic chemical use grew exponentially. I would hope all those engaged in such sexual wrongdoings could come to understand Jesus loves them, and God will give them the grace to stop.

God has given us this great burden and blessing by making us the sexyist of all creatures – we don’t have mating seasons, but are receptive throughout the month or year – to help form strong marriage bonds for the welfare of the children. And maybe our chemical soup has augmented in some cases this high level sexual appetite, and in other cases deceased it, and/or caused sterility. God also gave us the smarts and abundant grace to deal with all these issues, and to deal judiciously and lovingly toward those who have a hard time staying within the bounds.

Let’s pray for our homosexual brothers and sisters, and others tempted by immoral sex.

Well this thread and my musings on this have convinced me that had I been in Calif I should have voted for Prop 8 and for any prop that disallows civil marriage altogether – so as to prevent both homosexuals and heterosexuals from falling into the sin of civil marriage, which I think is worse than the sin of having sex outside of Holy Matrimony (which could be due to difficult-to-control-passions, rather than cold-blooded forethought as in a civil marriage), a sin that can land hetero- and homosexuals in Hell. I might be wrong on this, but that is what a priest told me decades ago.

I also would vote for all sorts of measures to help people who need help so they don’t have to be tempted to get into a civil marriage or civil union to get help, security, stability, and tax-breaks.

 

[sedonaman]

…
It would not of course recognize gay marriage, since marriage between same-sex partners is not possible, even from a natural standpoint.

That’s why I think the Church should immediately [if not sooner] renounce its authority to perform marriages recognized by civil law.

 

[JimG]

That’s why I think the Church should immediately [if not sooner] renounce its authority to perform marriages recognized by civil law.

If it did, then people would have to get married twice, once in Church, and once civilly. I suppose some Catholics would decide to forgo the Church ceremony, in the hopes of an easier annulment if they desired it.

 

[StAnastasia]

If it did, then people would have to get married twice, once in Church, and once civilly. I suppose some Catholics would decide to forgo the Church ceremony, in the hopes of an easier annulment if they desired it.

A solution would be to restrict the state to granting civil union licenses, leaving the performance of marriage rites up to churches, synagoges, and mosques.

StAnastasia

 

[sedonaman]

A solution would be to restrict the state to granting civil union licenses, leaving the performance of marriage rites up to churches, synagoges, and mosques.

StAnastasia

No. The idea is to keep the state from telling religious organizations who they have to marry and threatening to remove their tax-free status if they don’t comply. I agree that it is not a perfect solution, but what alternative do religious organizations have?