P
pnewton
Guest
I can sometimes be obtuse and miss exaggeration. I don’t even attempt sarcasm.
Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage
- Status
G
gus
Guest
There will be law suits forcing the church to marry gays.
This is about the secular agenda to destroy the church
Wake up
This is about the secular agenda to destroy the church
Wake up
P
pnewton
Guest
It is not the Church’s definition, but humanity’s definition througout all of human history. Once this definition is changed, there is no logic reason it can not be changed to included brother and sister, man and goat, woman and potted plant or even children. This is not a slippery slope argument, but rather that the logic used by the homosexual community does not contradict any other circumstance.
T
Tigg
Guest
Yeah…those bishops just doing their job and carrying on the Mission of the Church! Really…whatever are they thinking?
I absolutely love the way that in our current troubles with an over-reaching government and the misconceptions Catholics have regarding separation of Church and state, we are finding out that we’ve had the truth all along in the form of those dusty old papal documents - the names of which most of us have forgotten. The truth will prevail and this current administration is providing us with a silver lining by forcing Catholics to take another look concerning the correct ordering of the State which remained unscathed by Vat II.
C
Cider
Guest
The law does not establish Catholicism as the state religion, ergo your argument is moot. Even if we grant the concept of separation of church and state it does not mean that Catholics can’t vote their well formed consciences IE that of church teaching on morals.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
I’m sorry, you have misunderstood me, perhaps I should have written more. I was saying that objections to civil rights for same sex couples is religiously based, and also, (not the same as, but another factor) comes from personal prejudice.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.
No one I see is stifling anyone’s opinions. I’d say everyone is making themselves heard quite openly. And while I staunchly defend Freedom of Religion, this by definition is also Freedom from Religion.
You may not have been around when it was illegal in many states for a white person and a black person to have sex and they certainly could not marry. During a raging national debate over striking down these laws as unConstitutional, we heard a lot of the same arguments being used as are used against same gender civil union.
It was not only “common sense” it was against “natural law” and against the Bible: Scripture citations flowed endlessly. In the end it was a pretty simple decision: all adult citizens should have the same rights. That was it. I do not see how this has changed.
The correct legal and Constitutional alternative is to get government out of the marriage business altogther. There should be no benefits for spouses, or laws of inheritance or anything else that comes with marriage. People can then be married in the Church of their choice or just live together or whatever. We could just call it the experiment that failed and move on.
L
Leegal
Guest
Let me clarify, because it’s in the original article and I quoted it. Here it is:
“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.”
If a law is under consideration, the Church can lobby for or against, until it’s passed and signed (as this one is). Once signed, the Church cannot lobby for repeal as that puts the Church in jeopardy with the state.
It’s a known principle that the Church cannot “preach politics from the pulpit.”
Secularly, the same Catholics can sign the petition in any other forum where the petition is being circulated. They could sign it in a supermarket if someone was passing it around, or at their own front door – they just cannot do it from a parish with the parish acknowledging or allowing circulation from within the parish – and these 4 parishes are trying to prevent that so as to protect the Church from secular punishment.
C
Corki
Guest
Source?
I got my info from the IRS.
irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,id=163395,00.html
If what you said were true, Churches could not advocate for any social cause where there were already laws on the books - such as immigration reform.
There are restrictions on “substantial lobbying” but it is not delineated by the status of legislation. Lobbying for or against pending legislation or the repeal of already enacted legislation is treated the same.
irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf
page 5
See? This is exactly the kind of educational effort needed in our parishes.
Z
zab
Guest
No, the photo tthat I am refering to is more recent.
sspx.org/miscellaneous/communion_in_the_hand/what_is_rome_saying_today_about_communion_in_the_hand.htm
F
fix
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
I see this is what the paper is saying. I think this is yet another place the paper got its facts wrong, perhaps expressing the wish of the journalist more than reality. A recall petition (for a law) is a referendum. This has never been considered political campaigning. I think this is rather a case of a secular world not wanting to hear anything about morality.
Note that even this journalist does not say that the Church would lose its status, as it would if it engaged in political campaigning, only that it would put it in jeopardy, whatever that means. You can be certain that this action has been weighed by the Church’s lawyers and found acceptable.
We will always have those that tell the prophets of the world to cease their prophecy when it condemns their own pet sins. I think this is what we are hearing today from the various factions that want the Church, along with other people of faith, to shut up and let them be.
B
BenedictFTW
Guest
There are always ways around these things. Get petition signed somewhere nearby. Is this possible?
R
RACJ
Guest
Why in the world did these guys become CATHOLIC priests in the first place? To sabotage the faithful? Theses blasphemers should leave and find a place where they think that God sanctifies variances from ordinary human nature. 
Rob
Rob
C
comrade1789
Guest
It now appears that there is a growing movement in the Seattle Archdiocese among the faithful suspending their Annual Catholic Appeal contributions and refusing to participate in future Appeal commitments until Fr. Mike Ryan is removed as pastor of St. James Cathedral, due to his comments on gay “marriage” and homosexuality over the past several days. A comment by the Assistant Director of Annual Catholic Appeal for Seattle, Maggie Stiles regarding Fr. Ryan that she has “been receiving phone calls and emails about the issue as a whole, and in just these first two days of the week the range of responses is mesmerizing.”
I think things are going to get pretty rough for Archbishop Sartain, as he is surrounded by counsel that do not share his views.
I think things are going to get pretty rough for Archbishop Sartain, as he is surrounded by counsel that do not share his views.
C
comrade1789
Guest
Below is a response received from Fr. John Whitney, SJ, pastor of the overtly liberal parish St. Joseph in Seattle that I obtained from a man who inquired about Fr. Whitney who “has decided that no petitioning will be permitted anywhere on the campus of St. Joseph”
I must say, I don’t pretend to understand Fr. Whitney’s theology at all…
"Thank you for your questions and comments. There are several issues involved in you comments here: why St. Joseph is not permitting signature gathering at its doors on Sundays, if we are dissenting from the “teaching authority” (a term usually referring to the Magisterium) of the Church, and whether or not my reasoning is “legitimate”. Let me take those issues one at a time.
The reason St. Joseph will not allow petitioning on its grounds is that, in my pastoral discretion, I believe that the gathering of signatures for a political referendum is inconsistent with the unitive function of the Mass. People come to church for worship and to gather around the altar as one community. The educative role of the Mass is primarily a function of its liturgical action, and to bring this extremely divisive element into the church is to undercut the fundamental role of the liturgy. it is, in my opinion, a poor idea. Thankfully, I am able to exercise that discretion without violating the call of the Archbishop.
As for the “teaching authority of the Church,” I would note that that authority is exercised in various ways around various issues–thus, the authority in matters of dogma, such as the divinity of Christ, is different than the teaching role of the Church in matters of civic action. Because the matter under consideration concerns not sacramental marriage but civil marriage–not a matter of Church teaching but a matter of civil application–I have consistently taught that the laity, who have the first responsibility for the civil sphere, should listen respectfully and diligently to the Archbishop, but should follow their conscience. A Catholic could, I believe, in good conscience, oppose Referendum 74 without dissenting from the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage.
As to the “legitimacy” of my reasons, that is a term I do not completely understand. My reasons for barring those who would gather signatures are pastoral and theological. But I need not have any reasons and they would be legitimate–from the root of that term, “within the law”–given the discretion offered to pastors by the Archbishop. Yet, legitimacy is not a primary concern of mine, except as it refers to consistency and cogency. If, by legitimate, however, you mean that they exactly coincide with the thinking of those in positions of authority within the Church, I would have to say that they are not “legitimate” in that sense–otherwise I would have come to a different conclusion.
I am concerned, in your note, *(name withheld), * that too much deference is given to authority at the expense of conscience. There is nothing wrong or schismatic about dissent from authority. Indeed, real discernment requires dissent and disagreement, as well as listening and hearing. As one who has held a position of Ordinary in the Church, I note that obedience is more complex than silence; it is rooted in the honesty that comes from expressing the Spirit of God, who blows where it will. To extrapolate the authority of a bishop–or even a Pope–into areas over which others have both insight and proper voice is to do no favors for the Church, but to reduce her to the clergy (which Vatican II, as well as the teaching of Christ, seem clearly to oppose). The Church is not a democracy–it is too often said–but it is also not a corporation with a CEO and regional vice-presidents. It is a communion in Christ, in which all are called to discernment and action.
I hope this helps. Let us continue to pray for our Church and her leaders, and pray that we might know God’s will and always seek to attain it.
John, SJ"
I must say, I don’t pretend to understand Fr. Whitney’s theology at all…
"Thank you for your questions and comments. There are several issues involved in you comments here: why St. Joseph is not permitting signature gathering at its doors on Sundays, if we are dissenting from the “teaching authority” (a term usually referring to the Magisterium) of the Church, and whether or not my reasoning is “legitimate”. Let me take those issues one at a time.
The reason St. Joseph will not allow petitioning on its grounds is that, in my pastoral discretion, I believe that the gathering of signatures for a political referendum is inconsistent with the unitive function of the Mass. People come to church for worship and to gather around the altar as one community. The educative role of the Mass is primarily a function of its liturgical action, and to bring this extremely divisive element into the church is to undercut the fundamental role of the liturgy. it is, in my opinion, a poor idea. Thankfully, I am able to exercise that discretion without violating the call of the Archbishop.
As for the “teaching authority of the Church,” I would note that that authority is exercised in various ways around various issues–thus, the authority in matters of dogma, such as the divinity of Christ, is different than the teaching role of the Church in matters of civic action. Because the matter under consideration concerns not sacramental marriage but civil marriage–not a matter of Church teaching but a matter of civil application–I have consistently taught that the laity, who have the first responsibility for the civil sphere, should listen respectfully and diligently to the Archbishop, but should follow their conscience. A Catholic could, I believe, in good conscience, oppose Referendum 74 without dissenting from the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage.
As to the “legitimacy” of my reasons, that is a term I do not completely understand. My reasons for barring those who would gather signatures are pastoral and theological. But I need not have any reasons and they would be legitimate–from the root of that term, “within the law”–given the discretion offered to pastors by the Archbishop. Yet, legitimacy is not a primary concern of mine, except as it refers to consistency and cogency. If, by legitimate, however, you mean that they exactly coincide with the thinking of those in positions of authority within the Church, I would have to say that they are not “legitimate” in that sense–otherwise I would have come to a different conclusion.
I am concerned, in your note, *(name withheld), * that too much deference is given to authority at the expense of conscience. There is nothing wrong or schismatic about dissent from authority. Indeed, real discernment requires dissent and disagreement, as well as listening and hearing. As one who has held a position of Ordinary in the Church, I note that obedience is more complex than silence; it is rooted in the honesty that comes from expressing the Spirit of God, who blows where it will. To extrapolate the authority of a bishop–or even a Pope–into areas over which others have both insight and proper voice is to do no favors for the Church, but to reduce her to the clergy (which Vatican II, as well as the teaching of Christ, seem clearly to oppose). The Church is not a democracy–it is too often said–but it is also not a corporation with a CEO and regional vice-presidents. It is a communion in Christ, in which all are called to discernment and action.
I hope this helps. Let us continue to pray for our Church and her leaders, and pray that we might know God’s will and always seek to attain it.
John, SJ"
E
edwest2
Guest
So far, same-sex marriage does not involve the people, just judges and politicians. It’s been voted down by the people at the ballot box consistently, twice in California.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I think attempting to redefine a global way of doing something for thousands of years is more serious and this is the topic at hand.
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
I invite you to read Church teaching on this subject:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Peace,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
“marriage business”? What does that mean? Of the People, By the People and For the People I understand. Government is there for a number of reasons including protecting the common welfare regardless of who you are.
Peace,
Ed
- Status