Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage

[zab]

Fr. Lappe, pastor of Our Lady, Star of the Sea Parish, gave a homily giving the Church’s teaching on marriage and addressed this issue and addressed the objections that some have regarding the Church’s speaking out on this issue. He said:

"One objection that is often heard on this issue is that this is simply a civil matter and won’t effect what happens in churches…in other words that we should just mind our own business. "
"First of all- This attitude assumes the absolute irrelavancy of Christian thought and ideas for the world in a secular state. Again, it seeks to marginalize the believer simply because he or she is a believer and says that reasonable citizens who are believers should not have a voice in society and the promotion of the common good just because we happen to believe in human reason alumined by faith.
The second thing is, you don’t have to be a sociologist to be aware of the erosion of lasting, healthy happy marriages all around us…Our bishops have said n their letter, Marriage and the Common Good, “It has long been recognized that the stability of society depends upon the stability of family life in which a man and a woman conceive and nurture new life…”
" …if you can imagine this, the redefining of marriage would simply remove the ideal of having a mother and a father in a home. And only further undermines the imortance of motherhood, fatherhood, saying its not really necessary for the wellbeing of children. It takes away that ideal that it’s the best thing that we can give to our children…

 

[Corki]

I stand by my previous answer. It’s a known principle that the Church cannot “preach politics from the pulpit” or they can lose their tax exempt status.

What do you mean by “known principal”? Preaching politics from the pulpit has been an American tradition since before our country was founded. The abolishionists had this down to an art. The success of civil rights legistlation in the 1960s was largely due to preaching from the pulpit. For over 40 years Catholic priests have preached against the politics of legalized abortions and more recently against the HHS mandate. None of these actions have caused any ripple from the IRS. And those are federal issues. If preaching from the pulpit for or against federal legislation is not restricted by the IRS (which is a federal arm of the government) why would preaching about a state political issue be a problem?

I sense a double standard being used. Preaching from the pulpit is “good” when it suports some forms of legislation (immigration reform, civil rights, etc.) but “bad” when it suports other forms of legislation (traditional marriage, in this case).

 

[jwinch2]

lifesitenews.com/news/uzbekistan-forcibly-sterilizing-women-for-population-control-bbc-report

 

[Brendan]

They should respect his authority not to gather signatures on parish property. But nothing should stop people from gathering signatures on the sidewalk.

I agree that is what people should do.

Question was in regards to Fr.'s reaction to an attempt to gather signatures. Fr. John himself does not see a problem with a lack of respect for authority and for dissent from authority based on an individual conscience.

I was wondering if he would respect their dissent from HIS authority, or would he be hypocritical and try and stop them?

It’s an interesting question to me.

 

[mab23]

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

in the end , the catholic church will not recognize the marriage- just as they don’t recognize civil marriages (unless under special conditions)

 

[Corki]

in the end , the catholic church will not recognize the marriage- just as **they don’t recognize civil marriages **(unless under special conditions)

Why do you keep saying that? The Church recognizes almost all civil marriages.

 

[fix]

in the end , the catholic church will not recognize the marriage- just as they don’t recognize civil marriages (unless under special conditions)

The Church recognizes valid marriages outside the Church.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Why the Seattle Cathedral is WRONG to Refuse Petition to Preserve Marriage

catholicvote.org/discuss/index.php?p=29133

 

[pnewton]

I stand by my previous answer. It’s a known principle that the Church cannot “preach politics from the pulpit” or they can lose their tax exempt status.

As will I. From the IRS:

Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding** a candidate**; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena

The rules on how a church stays in compliance is all about political campaigns for candidates, not referendums. I think the diocese knows exactly what it is doing and that it is perfectly legal.

irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,id=161131,00.html

Here is the link if anyone is interested. Note that all of the warnings address campaigning for candidates, not issues.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

Nobody is talking about advocating that the church persecute or attack gay folks.
We’re talking about legalizing same-sex marriage.
I am 51, and sick and tired of hearing the refrain that this is all “only” about
state-recognition of these so called “marriages” and thus will NOT AFFECT the Catholic
(and other) Churches and synagogues.
I have been watching the Liberals for decades, have seen them in action REPEATEDLY, and I know, as do many here, EXACTLY what they are up to and EXACTLY where they intend, eventually, for these Laws to lead,
namely, to forcing the churches to PERFORM these so-called marriages
(and thereby commit apostasy by doing so) or else face huge fines and closures.
The Liberals will NOT limit this to state recognition of these unions.
At first they will, and then, with their “foot in the door”, they WILL make their move.
The Prez and Ms. Sabellius are doing that VERY THING with the HHS mandate to force the churches to pay for contraceptives and abortifacient contraceptives.
They, the LIberals, always swore that they would never do this, they would never force the churches to participate in things that violate their teachings.
What Liars. They intended this all along. I have watched them pull this garbage for decades now.
The old saying is 100% true:
IF YOU GIVE THEM AN INCH, THEY ARE GOING TO TAKE A MILE.
It is 100% True.
And it IS going to be done with the issue of Gay Marriage.
Just wait. You’ll see. It will happen.

As for the smart alecky retorts about bringing back the inquisition
and the hierarchy being more restrained and responsible than to take firm action,
their refusal to do so is brazen disobedience to the Word of God and therefore to the Holy Spirit, who commands that Catholics who advocate Sin BE EXCOMMUNICATED.
The governor of that state and the catholic politicos who supported enshrining deadly sin into law, should have been promptly excommunicated for doing so. Those who are refusing to do so, are disobeying the Lord himself, and that is not my opinion, it is the teaching of the morally-infallible New Testament.

 

[Jaypeeto4]

What do you mean by “known principal”? Preaching politics from the pulpit has been an American tradition since before our country was founded. The abolishionists had this down to an art. The success of civil rights legistlation in the 1960s was largely due to preaching from the pulpit. For over 40 years Catholic priests have preached against the politics of legalized abortions and more recently against the HHS mandate. None of these actions have caused any ripple from the IRS. And those are federal issues. If preaching from the pulpit for or against federal legislation is not restricted by the IRS (which is a federal arm of the government) why would preaching about a state political issue be a problem?

It will be a problem because of the leftwing politicians, many of whom are dissident/apostate Catholics, who know better and are in deliberate rebellion anyway.
In fact, for some of them, their disobedience to God and opposition to His mores, publicly and defiantly, has been going on for decades. These, I greatly fear, may well have gone too far to ever be ABLE to repent, inwardly, because **there is **such a thing as hardening your heart beyond the point-of-no-return. If you haven’t noticed, they are becoming more and more brazenly dissenting, more and more rapidly, every passing day. This is a very bad omen for them, but they don’t (or won’t) see it. The problem is going to come from THEM, from the modern day Judas Iscariots within our Catholic ranks, in the world of politics. THEY are going to cause the problems and USE the IRS and other gov’t agencies to try to force the church to shut-up.
That may very well trigger the fall of Supernatural Divine Rage that Mother Mary has been warning is going to happen since the 19th century in her APPROVED apparitions.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I disagree. Currently a Catholic Church wedding is recognized as a bindinding civil marraige. What will happen is Catholic couples will be required to have two cermonies.
Its the Civil portion that will be attack.

If I understand your position, it is that because a priest is empowered by the State to witness and sign the documents for the State, you believe the State will say: “You are providing a public service and so must do that service for all who approach you.”

But the courts would never accept that. The reason is that the Church will not marry anyone just because they want to get married. Including two baptized Catholics. Marriage prep is required in every place I know, by the Church. The Church has always reserved the right, through it’s priests, to refuse the Sacrament of marriage to anyone. No priests are allowed by the Church to complete the civil portion they are legally allowed without the accompanying Sacrament. This has been the constant practice of the Church in America, possibly worldwide.

So, the case is thrown out on it’s face because the requirement for offering a public service is not met.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Also, giving consideration to the needs of the community as a whole (society), as opposed to the supposed supremacy of the individual.

Elizabeth, believe it or not, people who support civil union are most definitely considering the welfare of the sate, that state being the citizenry as a whole.

Law, as written, is not about morality. Law addresses acts by persons, individual or corporate, that affect the welfare of the members or the body. Now, while it’s true that stealing is wrong, in terms of a moral code, it is also an objectively undesirable behavior.

In a free society, one religion may not impose it’s moral code on the society, or on certain individuals, through law.

 

[jwinch2]

Elizabeth, believe it or not, people who support civil union are most definitely considering the welfare of the sate, that state being the citizenry as a whole.

Law, as written, is not about morality. Law addresses acts by persons, individual or corporate, that affect the welfare of the members or the body. Now, while it’s true that stealing is wrong, in terms of a moral code, it is also an objectively undesirable behavior.

In a free society, one religion may not impose it’s moral code on the society, or on certain individuals, through law.

Marriage is and always has been an institute of religion. Civil authorities borrowed it from the Church, not the other way around. They did this because they recognized early on that marriage should be a protected institution within society because it could do something that no other group could, namely the procreation and raising of the next generation of citizens.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Nobody is talking about advocating that the church persecute or attack gay folks.
We’re talking about legalizing same-sex marriage.
I am 51, and sick and tired of hearing the refrain that this is all “only” about
state-recognition of these so called “marriages” and thus will NOT AFFECT the Catholic
(and other) Churches and synagogues.
I have been watching the Liberals for decades, have seen them in action REPEATEDLY, and I know, as do many here, EXACTLY what they are up to and EXACTLY where they intend, eventually, for these Laws to lead,
namely, to forcing the churches to PERFORM these so-called marriages…

Well, I’m 62 and I’m one of “these liberals” you have been “watching for decades” and I gotta say - Dude, get those eyes checked!

I have never heard ANYONE make the faintest reference to caring if the Catholic Church married same gender couples.

Ever.

I have no idea whence this sort of idea comes, but not from people advocating these changes.

Would some gay folks in the Church like the Church to do such a thing? Yes, I imagine they would. But it’s hardly something in the “agenda of liberals.”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Marriage is and always has been an institute of religion. Civil authorities borrowed it from the Church, not the other way around…

And marriage as a religious institution will still be exactly whatever it is to each religious institution defining it. As it should be. The laws governing domestic contracts between two people that are the purview of the state, will be whatever the state defines them to be. As that should be.

 

[gus]

If I understand your position, it is that because a priest is empowered by the State to witness and sign the documents for the State, you believe the State will say: “You are providing a public service and so must do that service for all who approach you.”

But the courts would never accept that. The reason is that the Church will not marry anyone just because they want to get married. Including two baptized Catholics. Marriage prep is required in every place I know, by the Church. The Church has always reserved the right, through it’s priests, to refuse the Sacrament of marriage to anyone. No priests are allowed by the Church to complete the civil portion they are legally allowed without the accompanying Sacrament. This has been the constant practice of the Church in America, possibly worldwide.

So, the case is thrown out on it’s face because the requirement for offering a public service is not met.

You have more faith in the courts than I do.
We will see who is right within 3-5 years.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, believe it or not, people who support civil union are most definitely considering the welfare of the sate, that state being the citizenry as a whole.

In which case their thought processes are flawed and ill-conceived.

Law, as written, is not about morality. Law addresses acts by persons, individual or corporate, that affect the welfare of the members or the body. Now, while it’s true that stealing is wrong, in terms of a moral code, it is also an objectively undesirable behavior.

Again, learn your history. Law is based on certain philosophical and moral principles. That was its genesis and remains its guiding foundation. It is a blend of the philosophical, acquired tradition, and utilitarian purpose. Its aim is order and justice within community.

In a free society, one religion may not impose it’s moral code on the society, or on certain individuals, through law.

Nothing is being “imposed.” That’s the same liberal tripe we’ve been hearing for years. The Catholic Church, and religious institutions in general, are not granted second-class citizenship when it comes to First Amendment Freedom of Speech. They get the same (unlimited) opportunity to address social issues (including making appeals to common morality) that atheists, secular institutions, and all private individuals get. The rest of the country gets to listen to religious and non-religious institutions and individuals (many of whom similarly care about morality and values) without being edited or muzzled by liberals and the lamestream media, who will just have to learn to deal with the fact that consitutional rights are not the exclusive property of The Left.

 

[master_catholic]

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

OH YEAH!!!
:nunchuk:

 

[pacr40303]

…l. **The Church doesn’t “marry” anyone in the legal sense. ** **The sacrament of marriage is, I suppose, a rite in which we engage and, **…

There’s no “secular agenda” to destroy the Church. Non-Catholics are hardly aware of the Church. I believe they do have an agenda to get more simultaneous taping on their DVRs.

I am speechless at your first response… rite you “suppose” we engage in? Maybe you should read Church teachings on the SANCTITY of marriage within the Church.

As far as no secular agenda…Where have you been, especially lately? Read comment after comment on articles about religion and the Catholic Church in particular, and the HHS mandate online (such as the Huffington Post and other internet providers), and you will shocked at the huge amounts of people who actually say religion is a cult and should be OUTLAWED! Non-Catholics are VERY aware of the Catholic Church, believe me. There is a considerable percentage who is VERY vocal in their disgust and outright hatred for it.