Senior Catholic clerics weigh in on gay marriage

[epan]

I just saw the interview of Cardinal Wurel (spelling?) with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday this morning. My oh my, did they ever take his words out of context to make it sound like the cardinal was soft on Church teaching on gay marriage.

I wish I had a link to the actual interview but I’m not skilled enough to do it. Please … sombody out there get a link going for us.

Cardinal Wurel did well. Mr Wallace dug a nice pit for him trying to get him to step in and say something that could be interpreted as “unloving” towards SSA Catholics but Cardinal Wurel was too smart to step into it.

About midway down the page is the actual video of this segment:

rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/31/cardinal-wuerl-lgbt-people-should-make-room-catholics-who-oppose-marriage-rights/

 

[RobbyS]

About midway down the page is the actual video of this segment:

rawstory.com/rs/2013/03/31/cardinal-wuerl-lgbt-people-should-make-room-catholics-who-oppose-marriage-rights/

What I find interesting is the hatred of the Church expressed by the commentors. So much false history, showing how much of history has been written by those who hate the Church. Most specifically, it begins with Gibbon and his set, which was just the refined version of the Black Legend spread by Elizabethan apologists and enhanced by the antipapalism that extends into the 20th Century. And there is an unwllingness to listen to the defense, to the other side of the changes,because they have the mind of a hanging jury. And on that jury many ex-catholics and liberal Catholics who are the worst haters of all. They are the “Walking Dead” of this society.

 

[RobbyS]

Yes, especially on these observations and extensions of your observations:

*the abandonment of the universal (non-discriminatory) aspects of the oriignal underlying constitutional principles

The replacement of those foundational concepts with a modernistic philosophy*, which then controls the assumptions

The subjectivity of such assumptions as the invisible “new” Constitution.

The elevation of selected, contextual principles and assumptions into absolute principles

A disrespect for historical and legal continuity and arbitrary adoption of a functionally different “constitution”
IOW, crummy, unconstitutional law.

One unmentioned consequence of that has nevertheless been apparent – at the very least since 1973: the public’s increasing cynicism over the branch of government that was intended by Our Founders to be beyond politics and politicking, to be independent and as neutral as possible. The public now really gets it that the Court is up for grabs, politically, has become a tool to manipulate and sculpt, by politicians and by interest groups.

All the Founders are turning in their graves. All of them.

Indeed. We see today in our post-modern world a contempt for history, as if the experiences of our ancestors meant nothing.

 

[Faithdancer]

The matter at hand is not whether homosexuals should be allowed to “love” each other, where love is as described above. Of course they should, as should we all. And a marriage “certificate” is not required to do that. The approval of society is not required to do that.

The matter at hand is “sex outside of marriage.” And here I’m talking about marriage as defined by God (“become one flesh…go forth and multiply”) Gay marriage is impossible, since the marriage cannot be consummated. There are no “2” persons (male and female), there are 2 of the same “person”, and so they cannot combine to become “one” person / flesh. And neither can they multiply, not even theoretically.

Homosexual “sex” acts are not acts of love. They are disordered desires manifested as disordered acts. Instead of this sex act potentially resulting in a seed planted in fertile “ground”, the seed is intentionally planted in a location designed for defecation. Like all of our disordered desires, the truth is turned upside down and mocks God and his creation, and his commands

It is indeed a mockery, ricmat, and since marriage is a Holy Sacrament between one man, one woman, and all Roman Catholics must accept all Seven Sacraments without question, then for a Roman Catholic to obstinately oppose Church teachings and publicly support same sex “marriage” is heretical, since “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” 'Nuff said.

 

[Holly3278]

I think it is very important that all of us Catholics remain orthodox and also remain opposed to any and all legal recognition of same-sex unions whether it be “gay marriage”, civil unions, or domestic partnerships. After all, I think it is already clear that same-sex couples are not going to settle for civil unions or domestic partnerships. They want nothing short of marriage. According to the teaching of the Church a marriage between two men or two women is simply not possible in the eyes of God and of course there is very good reason for this such as the argument from Natural Law.

I’ll be honest, I really do think that if we, as citizens of the United States, cave and allow “gay marriage” or any other legal recognition of same-sex unions then it is only going to be a slippery slope and that eventually people will want polygamous and polyamorous “marriages”. It may even go so far as people wanting to legalize pedophilia. I certainly hope not and I can’t see into the future but I honestly see this as a slippery slope and that such a thing might be possible if we continue redefining marriage.

That said, we most definitely should treat those who struggle with same-sex attraction with compassion but treating them with compassion does not equal condoning “gay marriage” or even same-sex sexual activities. In my opinion, the loving thing to do is to condemn “gay marriage” and same-sex sexual activities. The reason behind this is because if you condone it then you are condoning mortal sin. Mortal sin will send a person to Hell if they die in a state of mortal sin.