Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage

[Lujack]

Standing one’s ground against a depraved and sinful generation is not the same thing as burning at the stake. What a ginormous strawman!

Well, I like that post was in response to the rather extreme “Excommunicate and defrock the priests involved, put the parishes under interdict and if anyone complains excommunicate them too! And make it so that only the Pope can let them back in! And do it immediately!” post.

Which is not typical of the how the hierarchy has handled anything, even in the Inquisition days.

 

[Cider]

It is way past high time to put an end to this dissent garbage.
WAY PAST high time.

Yes it is way past time. I’m not holding my breath though.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Employers would be required to include these partners in all benefits reserved for spouses such as health care and sick days. They would be expected to include these partners in activities for employees and their family members such as company picnics or Christmas parties.

I don’t know what you mean by “sick days.” And of course they get health care benefits, that’s sort of the point. And why would you exclude them from social events? And how would being in a civil union change that, anyway? If you have an event for employees and they are allowed to bring a guest, aren’t the single ones bringing dates, anyway?

It sounds to me like what you want is for gay people to be, at least, invisible.

A civil union only gives someone rights from the state. But the problem with business owners is that they would be expected or even required to extend services to same-sex “marriages”. This has already happened in other states with wedding photographers, bakers and caterers, bed and breakfast owners and receptiion venues.

Well, this is the same argument that was made about the “right” of a private business to pick and choose it’s customers: no Jews, no blacks, no Irish, no Catholics… the list goes on. The law says you cannot discriminate.

So? This isn’t an issue about religion. It’s about the institution of marriage and about morality.

No, this is most definitely an issue around religion. There are other religions, or people not in religions, who don’t think there is any immorality in either being gay or in relationships between same sex persons being recognized by the state.

You notice that the Church, in the person of the Bishop here, has involved itself. That’s religion. That’s the issue. And individual people’s personal prejudices. Wanting the state to define marriage as the Church defines it, is bringing religion into civil law.

 

[fix]

Wanting the state to define marriage as the Church defines it, is bringing religion into civil law.

No, it is common sense.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You notice that the Church, in the person of the Bishop here, has involved itself. That’s religion. That’s the issue. And individual people’s personal prejudices.

Newsflash: Catholic doctrine is not about “individual people’s personal prejudices.”

The doctrines on human sexuality pertain to all of society. It has nothing to do with their being, as doctrines, non-enforceable civilly. It has to do with applying legitimate voice, vis-a-vis First Amendment Freedom of Religion+Speech rights (afforded both to individual believers and to religious institutions, plural, as bodies) to issues which affect all of society and include a moral component. What it is illegitimate is silencing churches and individuals from involving themselves as participants in an open democracy.

 

[Hopemercy]

It seems to me that these folk “marginalise” themselves by forcing their demands on those who believe otherwise. Gay pride marches etc… in your face techniques.

They are never going to let up until the mythical day comes when everyone bows to their ideas and demands.

Pester power…

If you say anything they do not like, they call HOMOPHOBIA… A phobia is an irrational fear …

Seems to me that the only irrational ones are the gays in this matter,

I have never discriminated or shown lack of compassion to anyone. Lost count of the number of times I have been discriminated against, even assaulted. banned from online forums and shunned for being a Christian and responding WHEN ASKED DIRECTLY on these issues.

It really is time that there was a real line taken with priests on this.

If they want to say we are in a committed relationship, that is their business. Calling it marriage is another thing altogether.

They declare that we lack compassion… not true. To them compassion measn agreeing they can do exactly as they like and that we say it is OK.

Reminds me of the “liberal catholics” over here in Ireland.

 

[Bible_is_truth]

If these parishes REALLY ARE refusing to do what is right, then this should
happen immediately:

The priests should be given 48 hours to comply, in no uncertain terms.

If they do not ABJECTLY obey this order, then this should happen immediately
and without dialog, debate, or anything else:

(1) the four parish priests responsible should immediately be defrocked,
excommunicated, and their excommunications and defrocked be reserved
personally to the Holy Father for any future reversal.
(2) until new, orthodox priests are assigned to the parish,
the parishes should be placed under INTERDICT (yes, revive this practice)
and ALL it’s sacraments declared invalid.
(3) dissident parishoners who “protest” and howl should be immediately
excommunicated and their excommunications reserved to the Pope himself
for future reversal and
(4) the excommunications should not, ever, be reversed, until the ones excommunicated
sign a public document declaring their abject submission and obedience to
the moral laws of God as described in the Bible and the Catechism of the
Catholic Church.

It is way past high time to put an end to this dissent garbage.
WAY PAST high time. This is absolutely disgusting and gives fuel
to the antiCatholic fundamentalists who attack our church as allegedly “apostate.”
And frankly, the fact that the Church HAS allowed this kind of behavior to go on for so
long in other parishes, is disgusting and inexcusable.

Jaypeeto4

Even as A Non Conformist, I Highly agree, for me one cannot carry on in Abomination once coming to Jesus, one is and should be a New creation.

 

[zab]

Yesterday’s parish bulletin had a letter from the bishops giving the reasons why we should support Referendum 74. Here they are:

Why do we support Referendum 74 and ask you to do so as well? Briefly, here are the reasons:

1. The Referendum would place this matter before the voters of our state. We believe that the redefinition of marriage is such a far-reaching and radical decision that it should not be left simply to a vote of legislators and the signature of the governor.

2. It has often been said in recent months that the redefinition of marriage as a contract between two persons will give same-sex couples the rights enjoyed by married couples. It is important that you understand that same-sex couples in registered domestic partnerships in our state already enjoy the rights and privileges of married couples. These rights were previously enacted into our state law.

3. Marriage between a man and a woman is the foundation of our society. The key to understanding the Church’s view of marriage can be found in the two fundamental ends or purposes toward which it is oriented: the good of the spouses and the procreation of children. Man and woman are created as complementary in God’s plan, and God established marriage precisely so that man and woman could participate in his love, selflessly giving themselves to each other in love, and enjoy the benefits of their love. Married love is also life-giving: according to God’s plan, the crowning fruit of marriage is the bearing of children. These two meanings are inseparable.

4. It is important to remember that all Christians are called to chastity, and sexual intercourse is so intimate and significant that it is intended only for a man and woman in marriage. For married couples, chastity involves their faithfulness and respect for one another. For all unmarried persons, chastity means that they refrain from sexual relations. This is the constant teaching of the Church.

5. Some have suggested that the Catholic Church’s opposition to the redefinition of marriage amounts to discrimination. That is not the case. Treating different things differently is not unjust discrimination. Marriage can only be between a man and a woman because of its unique ends, purpose and place in society. The word “marriage” isn’t simply a label that can be attached to different types of relationships. Instead, “marriage” reflects a deep reality-the reality of the unique, fruitful, lifelong union that is only possible between a man and a woman. There is nothing else like it, and it can’t be defined or made into something that it isn’t.

6. Why does the Catholic Church care so much about marriage? Because marriage is a fundamental good in itself and foundational to human existence and flourishing. Following the example of Jesus, the Church cares about the whole person, and all people, and the common good. Marriage affects everyone and is never just a “private” issue; it has public significance and many public consequences.

7. Does the Catholic Church teach that people who experience same-sex attraction have equal dignity? Of course! Every single human person has inviolable dignity and worth. In keeping with this conviction, the Church teaches that persons with same-sex attraction must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. We recognize that they have been, and often continue to be, objects of scorn, hatred, and even violence in some sectors of society. An important Vatican document states, “It is deplorable that homosexual persons have been and are the object of violent malice in speech or in action. Such treatment deserves condemnation from the Church’s pastors wherever it occurs.” All persons should be treated with respect, sensitivity, and love. The Church calls everyone to holiness.

 

[Corki]

I don’t know what you mean by “sick days.” .

Many employers allow employees to take sick days not only when they are sick themselves but also when a family member is sick. An employer in Washington would have to extend that “family member” provision to same-sex partners or revoke it for all.

And of course they get health care benefits, that’s sort of the point.

"

Why is that the point? If an employer chooses to extend health care benefits for spouses, a Catholic employer shouldn’t be forced to extend them also to same-sex partners whether they have contracted a “marriage” or not.

And why would you exclude them from social events?

I didn’t say I would. My point is that it is false to say it won’t affect Catholics since Catholics will have to deal with these sorts of issues. If I was a Catholic employer and invited employees and their spouses to a dinner, I wouldn’t want same-sex couples included. Other events might not be so problematic but the point is that Catholic employers are being forced to do this or refrain from such events all together.

And how would being in a civil union change that, anyway? If you have an event for employees and they are allowed to bring a guest, aren’t the single ones bringing dates, anyway?

Sometimes. As noted above, some events are for employees and spouses. My past employer had a dinner every Christmas for senior staff and their spouses.

It sounds to me like what you want is for gay people to be, at least, invisible.

Not “gay” people; only those who insist on mocking the institution of marriage. I am sick to death of this being shoved in our faces at every turn.

Well, this is the same argument that was made about the “right” of a private business to pick and choose it’s customers: no Jews, no blacks, no Irish, no Catholics… the list goes on. The law says you cannot discriminate.

Federally, there is no law that says you have to treat those in same-sex “marriages” the same as others. Thank God. It’s not about discrimination. It’s about not being forced to offer goods and services that aid a couple in mocking the institution of marriage.

No, this is most definitely an issue around religion. There are other religions, or people not in religions, who don’t think there is any immorality in either being gay or in relationships between same sex persons being recognized by the state.

But there are also lots of people who do not adhere to a specific religion who are against the concept of “gay” marriage. It’s not like anyone is mandating Church attendance or outlawing yarmulkes

You notice that the Church, in the person of the Bishop here, has involved itself. That’s religion. That’s the issue. And individual people’s personal prejudices. Wanting the state to define marriage as the Church defines it, is bringing religion into civil law

But it’s the job of the Church, in the person of the Bishops, to inform the faithful on matters of morals that are in the public square. To organize the faithful, who should already all be on the same side of this issue, is a good thing. This is not the Church trying to “define marriage” as the Church defines it. The idea of marriage being one man - one woman is not a new idea that the Church came up with or is trying to push on anyone. It’s the traditional understanding of marriage since long before this country was founded. There is nothing inherently religious about promoting it and defending it.

 

[Lujack]

Many employers allow employees to take sick days not only when they are sick themselves but also when a family member is sick. An employer in Washington would have to extend that “family member” provision to same-sex partners or revoke it for all.

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want a sick person to have someone come home to take care of them.

Why is that the point? If an employer chooses to extend health care benefits for spouses, a Catholic employer shouldn’t be forced to extend them also to same-sex partners whether they have contracted a “marriage” or not.

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want more to people to receive health care benefits.

I didn’t say I would. My point is that it is false to say it won’t affect Catholics since Catholics will have to deal with these sorts of issues. If I was a Catholic employer and invited employees and their spouses to a dinner, I wouldn’t want same-sex couples included. Other events might not be so problematic but the point is that Catholic employers are being forced to do this or refrain from such events all together.

Would you want non-Catholics excluded? Or what about people who are divorced and remarried? Or divorced and dating?

Sometimes. As noted above, some events are for employees and spouses. My past employer had a dinner every Christmas for senior staff and their spouses.

Divorced and remarried without an annulment, your position on allowing them to come to Christmas Dinner?

 

[tm30]

Now that Pandora’s Box has been opened, the Church is between the rock and the hard place. The law was signed on Feb. 13th and goes into effect in June, so it’s not in effect yet – yet it’s not pending either. .

"Churches risk losing their tax-exempt status if they become involved in political campaigning, but the restriction doesn’t apply to initiative and referendum campaigns, which are considered legislation. Churches are permitted to lobby on pending laws."

It’s proper for the Church to have opposed the law when it was first under consideration. Now that it’s passed, the Church could find itself losing its tax exempt status if it made any showing on repeal of existing law – even one that is waiting to go into effect on June 7.

The Church has another option. There’s consideration being given to put on the ballot that marriage is defined as one man and one woman in Washington. The Church can get on board with this because it’s not yet law.

The Archbishop is walking a fine line here with the tax exempt status of the Church by pressing for the repeal petition. The parishes are right not to put the Church in jeopardy.

The Church is not going to lose its tax exempt status. That Boogie Man gets trotted out more than the Budweiser Clydesdales, in order to “scare” and condition the faithful into thinking the Church has no right to preach about moral and social matters that happen to be part of legislation or political platforms. If the state/federal gov’t wants to take away tax-exempt status, ignoring/fighting the HHS mandate would provide enough ammo, and the Church isn’t pulling its punches, in spite of that.

 

[zab]

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want a sick person to have someone come home to take care of them.

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want more to people to receive health care benefits.

Would you want non-Catholics excluded? Or what about people who are divorced and remarried? Or divorced and dating?

Divorced and remarried without an annulment, your position on allowing them to come to Christmas Dinner?

I think it is important to listen to what our bishops have said about this and not get distracted by misinformation and comments from individuals. See my post giving reasons why we should support Referendum 74 - POST # 27

 

[comrade1789]

Now that Pandora’s Box has been opened, the Church is between the rock and the hard place. The law was signed on Feb. 13th and goes into effect in June, so it’s not in effect yet – yet it’s not pending either. .

"Churches risk losing their tax-exempt status if they become involved in political campaigning, but the restriction doesn’t apply to initiative and referendum campaigns, which are considered legislation. Churches are permitted to lobby on pending laws."

It’s proper for the Church to have opposed the law when it was first under consideration. Now that it’s passed, the Church could find itself losing its tax exempt status if it made any showing on repeal of existing law – even one that is waiting to go into effect on June 7.

The Church has another option. There’s consideration being given to put on the ballot that marriage is defined as one man and one woman in Washington. The Church can get on board with this because it’s not yet law.

The Archbishop is walking a fine line here with the tax exempt status of the Church by pressing for the repeal petition. The parishes are right not to put the Church in jeopardy.

Actually, in the 1990s, Washington State did define marriage as One Man One Woman, the new law changes the definition to two persons. Also, there are many great and courageous priests in the Diocese, but one in particular is Fr. Harris of St. Mark in Shoreline. you can see him on the local news at these links:

Sunday: king5.com/news/local/Catholic-Churches-Divided-On-Referendum-74-Petitions–147516375.html

Friday: king5.com/news/cities/olympia/Some-Catholic-parishes-opting-out-of-anti-gay-marriage-drive-147396425.html

 

[tm30]

Wanting the state to define marriage as the Church defines it, is bringing religion into civil law…

The state doesn’t get to re-define marriage anymore than it can re-define you as just a clump of cells. The moral authority of the Church comes from Jesus Christ, and supersedes all civil powers. The conflict might not be pleasant, but we don’t get to punt on first down because we’re squeamish about the wildly misinterpreted concept of Separation of Church and State.

 

[Corki]

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want a sick person to have someone come home to take care of them.

The statement was made that allowing same-sex marriage does not affect Catholics in any way. My response was that Catholic employers would have additional costs and responsibilities. Visitin a sick person is not an employment issue. I don’t care at all who visits a sick person. But as has been stated hundreds of times on these forums, that is something that is easily covered with a power of attorney.

Give me a good reason why a Catholic would not want more to people to receive health care benefits.

The question is not whether more people have health care. The issue is that Catholic employers would have to pay for it if they pay for benefits for spouses that are actually married.

Would you want non-Catholics excluded? Or what about people who are divorced and remarried? Or divorced and dating?

No, because none of those situations affects the institution of marriage as one man-one woman nor does it force me, as an employer to accept something that is immoral. If an event was for spouses, someone who was divorced and dating wouldn’t be bringing someone along anyway.

Divorced and remarried without an annulment, your position on allowing them to come to Christmas Dinner

see my previous response.

But you are missing the point. I am not saying that we shouldn’t associate with homosexuals or even that we should not be welcoming and charitable to same-sex couples. I am not even saying it would be wrong to include same-sex couples in company events, if that’s what the employer wants to do. My point is that because this will be forced on us, it is false to say that the issue does not affect Catholics. It most certainly does.

 

[Tigg]

From the OP:

Yet in supporting the gathering of signatures in local parishes, Sartain went further than other bishops, some of whom more recently have backed off their opposition to same-sex marriage, or even come out in support of arrangements such as civil unions.

This is unequivocally contra to Church teaching:

**CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION TO UNIONS BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

LIBRERIA EDITRICE VATICANA**

The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.

ewtn.com/library/curia/cdfhomun.htm

 

[mab23]

I don’t know what you mean by “sick days.” And of course they get health care benefits, that’s sort of the point. And why would you exclude them from social events? And how would being in a civil union change that, anyway? If you have an event for employees and they are allowed to bring a guest, aren’t the single ones bringing dates, anyway?

It sounds to me like what you want is for gay people to be, at least, invisible.

Well, this is the same argument that was made about the “right” of a private business to pick and choose it’s customers: no Jews, no blacks, no Irish, no Catholics… the list goes on. The law says you cannot discriminate.

No, this is most definitely an issue around religion. There are other religions, or people not in religions, who don’t think there is any immorality in either being gay or in relationships between same sex persons being recognized by the state.

You notice that the Church, in the person of the Bishop here, has involved itself. That’s religion. That’s the issue. And individual people’s personal prejudices. Wanting the state to define marriage as the Church defines it, is bringing religion into civil law.

THIS X 10

No, it is common sense.

no its taking away separation of church and state

common sense… i don’t think you know what you were replying too…

 

[tm30]

no its taking away separation of church and state

Again, the moral authority of the Church always trumps whatever concept you have of Separation of Church and State. That moral authority comes from Christ Himself, and can never be subservient to human institutions. Catholics (the Church) have a moral obligation to disregard and work in opposition to immoral laws (the State).

 

[fix]

no its taking away separation of church and state

common sense… i don’t think you know what you were replying too…

I don’t think you know what you were replying too. It in no way interfers with the separation of Church in State.

Marriage is a natural institution that pre-dates the Church. The state would abuse its authority by redefining what cannot be redefined.

 

[fix]

if my being married civily does not mean 2 poops to the catholic church, and thus im committing a sin of cohabiting with my civil wife (not yet married through the catholic church)

what does it matter what the state recognizes as marriage since the state is not the catholic church… the State cannot force the catholic church to recognize gay marriage as a sacrament… and even if they tried. which they won’t, we all know darn right the Catholic church would Never do it

The Church is interested in all marriages, not just ones that follow Catholic form. She recognizes as valid, and even sacramental, certain marriages outside the Church.

don’t we have more Serious matters to worry about

Frankly, no.