I
irishpatrick
Guest
Makes your mind wonder…no doubt at all.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
This all began with the Sex without love Revolution of the late 1960s. All the ingredients were there. Personal pleasure was regarded as the final goal. Love, marriage? Why bother? It’s “just sex,” like going to the bathroom. And if anything got in the way of sexual pleasure - get rid of it, man or woman or baby in the womb.
We, as a society, are not totally guilty as some claim. Oh no. This was carefully planned. The goal was to overturn fidelity to Catholic teaching, and your spouse, by small groups. Catholic education had to be undermined. The sanctity and dignity of the marital act had to be undermined, and the totally wrong decision by the US Supreme Court - not the people - was based on lies and deception, the devil’s favorite weapons. The magic word was “freedom.” And we - I was there - did not recognize the wolves in sheep’s clothing. We welcomed the stranger, and found out, too late, that we had fallen into a trap.
Wake up my fellow Catholics. Look at how the groundwork was laid.
1966 National Organization for Women founded.
www.now.org/
1967 Some Catholic institutions of higher learning sign onto the Land O" Lakes Statement.
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
1968 Pope Paul VI issues Humanae Vitae and reaffirms Church teaching about artificial birth control. The reaction is an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.
“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”
Source: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=21122&se=362&ca=967&te=707
1969 A co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League begins his campaign by manipulating the media and turning the Catholic Church into a villain. He later becomes Catholic.
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402
1970s Just like the Opium Dens of years past, new opium dens open across America. They are called Adult Bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs. The planed addiction patterns occur. It costs millions of dollars for buildings, printing, distribution, models, photographers, filmmakers, employees and lawyers. And they add one more thing - a big magazine filled with hundreds of ads, most with nude photos, from people who are offering no strings attached sex.
1973 By non-scientific vote, homosexuality is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association.
amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0465030483
Also, by citing a vague right to privacy and “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution, the Supreme Court – not the people – legalizes permissive abortion.
In the years to come, the media will gradually adopt the “it’s all OK” view regarding sexual relationships. No more songs about love and romance, no more TV shows or movies about love and romance, save for a precious few.
And then, by the late 1990s, something never before seen in the history of the world - the internet.
Guess what? The land of Roman Orgies became home to the Vatican. Pray, speak up in love and charity, and live out your being Catholic in your everyday life.
Peace,
Ed
We, as a society, are not totally guilty as some claim. Oh no. This was carefully planned. The goal was to overturn fidelity to Catholic teaching, and your spouse, by small groups. Catholic education had to be undermined. The sanctity and dignity of the marital act had to be undermined, and the totally wrong decision by the US Supreme Court - not the people - was based on lies and deception, the devil’s favorite weapons. The magic word was “freedom.” And we - I was there - did not recognize the wolves in sheep’s clothing. We welcomed the stranger, and found out, too late, that we had fallen into a trap.
Wake up my fellow Catholics. Look at how the groundwork was laid.
1966 National Organization for Women founded.
www.now.org/
1967 Some Catholic institutions of higher learning sign onto the Land O" Lakes Statement.
catholichistory.net/Events/LandOLakesStatement.htm
1968 Pope Paul VI issues Humanae Vitae and reaffirms Church teaching about artificial birth control. The reaction is an event unprecedented in the history of the Church.
“Within 24 hours, in an event unprecedented in the history of the Church, more than 200 dissenting theologians signed a full-page ad in The New York Times in protest. Not only did they declare their disagreement with encyclical’s teaching; they went one step further, far beyond their authority as theologians, and actually encouraged dissent among the lay faithful.”
Source: regnumchristi.org/english/articulos/articulo.phtml?id=21122&se=362&ca=967&te=707
1969 A co-founder of the National Abortion Rights Action League begins his campaign by manipulating the media and turning the Catholic Church into a villain. He later becomes Catholic.
catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402
1970s Just like the Opium Dens of years past, new opium dens open across America. They are called Adult Bookstores, topless bars and strip clubs. The planed addiction patterns occur. It costs millions of dollars for buildings, printing, distribution, models, photographers, filmmakers, employees and lawyers. And they add one more thing - a big magazine filled with hundreds of ads, most with nude photos, from people who are offering no strings attached sex.
1973 By non-scientific vote, homosexuality is removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychological Association.
amazon.com/Homosexuality-American-Psychiatry-Politics-Diagnosis/dp/0465030483
Also, by citing a vague right to privacy and “penumbras” and “emanations” from the Constitution, the Supreme Court – not the people – legalizes permissive abortion.
In the years to come, the media will gradually adopt the “it’s all OK” view regarding sexual relationships. No more songs about love and romance, no more TV shows or movies about love and romance, save for a precious few.
And then, by the late 1990s, something never before seen in the history of the world - the internet.
Guess what? The land of Roman Orgies became home to the Vatican. Pray, speak up in love and charity, and live out your being Catholic in your everyday life.
Peace,
Ed
J
JimG
Guest
I agree with Ed that it began with the sexual revolution, but I would go back one step further. The sexual revolution was enabled by the contraceptive revolution wherein the consistent teaching of both Catholic and Protestant churches was opposed. The Anglican Church was the first to cave in to contraception, in 1930. That set the stage for the rest of Protestantism to follow. Widespread acceptance of contraception had all the results predicted by Pope Paul VI, and many more besides. Marriage was gradually destroyed as an institution, and that prepared the way for cohabitation, out of wedlock births, fatherless families, families dependent on government, and ultimately homosexual marriage.
It is not that God turns his wrath on society. It is that the actions of individuals cumulatively affect a society and bring it down into chaos. That’s what’s happening to us now.
“No man is an island; therefore ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
It is not that God turns his wrath on society. It is that the actions of individuals cumulatively affect a society and bring it down into chaos. That’s what’s happening to us now.
“No man is an island; therefore ask not for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
E
edwest2
Guest
There is still time. The Church has faced other catastrophic situations in the past. God is with us.
Peace,
Ed
Peace,
Ed
M
MarkInOregon
Guest
I thought he was concerned with the “go and sin no more” and with doing his Fathers will? I thought he called people to repentance? To receive his mercy don’t we need to ask for it? His love is extended to us all but don’t we need to accept it? It seems that many have this backwards–they seem to think that love and mercy means acceptance and affirmation of everything someone does–as if we are not called to conversion and repentance.
Does Christ not call us to repentance? Does he not call us to do his Fathers will? Does he not call us to live a certain way? To keep the commandments? Does he not call us to a new and radical way to live?
“Whatever town or village you enter, look for a worthy person in it, and stay there until you leave. As you enter a house wish it peace. If the house is worthy let your peace come upon it; if not let your peace return to you. Whoever will not receive you or listen to your words go outside that house or town and shake the dirt from your feet. Amen I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom & Gamorrah on the day of judgment than for that town” Mt. 10:11-15
“Then he began to reproach the towns where most of his mighty deeds had been done, since they had not repented.” Mt. 11:20
“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross and follow me.”
I will grant that at times these discussions get heated and people are not as charitable as they should be, but still the message needs to be given whether anyone will hear it or not. Love, mercy, forvgiveness, justice and humility do not mean that we affirm people in their sin–whatever it is. We need to call them to repentance with love just as we repent before God in humility. Often we do not succeed in this.
Peace of Christ,
Mark
E
edwest2
Guest
If even one person listens, understands and hears with his ears, then all this is worth it. No one is perfect - not one.
The woman who was about to be legally stoned to death? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Yes, as God, He forgave her but He also said, “Go and sin no more.”
If Jesus is Lord then read the following:
bible.cc/luke/6-46.htm
Peace,
Ed
The woman who was about to be legally stoned to death? “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.” Yes, as God, He forgave her but He also said, “Go and sin no more.”
If Jesus is Lord then read the following:
bible.cc/luke/6-46.htm
Peace,
Ed
E
Elizabeth502
Guest
In the vast majority of cases, it is those who challenge Church teaching (and the right of the Catholic Church even to have a position on the subject) who open these threads over and over, and in addition dominate them. You should take up your objection, or surprise, with those who have such an agenda on a Roman Catholic discussion forum.
Jesus was actually so concerned about personal behavior that he went to the trouble of redefining both the Fifth and the Sixth Commandments. (Mt. 5: 21-28)
The rest of sexual morality (including prohibitions against homosexual behavior) was contained in the Mosaic Code which Jesus embraced as a faithful Jew and which the early Christian Church also adopted. You don’t read about it in the NT because, to the evangelists recording the oral tradition after Jesus’ ministry, it was not “news,” as it wasn’t changed. What was recordable were additions to that Code, such as the above referenced verses, such as the descriptions of the indwelling Spirit, such as the gift of Eucharist, such as the great commission, such as the relationship of Jesus with His Father, etc.
OTOH, we read repeated references by Jesus to the diminishment of some of the most restrictive Sabbath laws, and to the expansion of table fellowship. Readers are not free to over-interpret these teachings as assuming more than what the oral tradition records. You cannot make a leap from there to some supposed erosion of the Judaic sexual code. That is not an authentic approach to Scripture, from either a religious viewpoint or a literary viewpoint.
S
St_Francis
Guest
It seems to me that homosexual couples went to Massachusetts to get “married,” so wouldn’t that raise the marriage rate diproportionately?
And then some of these couples moved out of state and got divorced elsewhere (which is a whole nother can of worms…)
W
wynnejj
Guest
Of course, dividing the divorce rate for a given year by the marriage rate for the same year bears no relationship to how many divorces ensued for those marriages of that year.
However, it is a frivolous claim to cite a divorce level decrease using the divorce rate for each year since 2004 when Massachusetts codified SSM if one doesn’t look at the decreases in marriage rate since 2004.
You are right about SSM immigrants, then emigrants.
Yet, I don’t think we have a method in place that tracks divorces from marriages in a given year, so all claims are frivolous … albeit, I claim divorce rate / marriage rate for a given year is more in line with what people are thinking when one is really talking about commonly perceived “divorce rate” percentage.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Same-Sex Marriage and Threats to Religious Freedom: How Nondiscrimination Laws Factor In
By Thomas Messner July 29, 2011
C
CopticChristian
Guest
St,
You raise a good point. Lawyers need money and they need work. Homosexuals marrying in any state that allowed it can be divorced in another state that did not allow it. This means more work for Family Law and it keeps the judges working. This whole homosexual marriage issue is underscored by the Family Law lawyers that see more work coming their way. Knowing this what will happen with the idea of homosexual marriage and divorce takes on a whole new flavor.
C
cargau
Guest
Peerhaps, but God is God and we must let him be God nI Genesis 18,WE citizens in the USA are corporately guilty for allowing the great sins of our day. There is absolutely nothing new about corporate sin. However, it must be stressed that corporate sin can only happen with a series of personal sins. When we collectively make ourselves accomplices to a grave sin, we collectively become guilty of that sin.
Insults never help btw.
We see the response to corporate sin in fall in the fall in the Garden, in the actions God took upon Sodom and Gomorrah, the actions God took during Noah’s flood, and even during the fall of the Temple–twice. We also see the opposite, when an entire nation repents, as did Nineveh, God retracts the consequence of the corporate sin.
“Suppose there were fifty righteous people in the city; would you really sweep away and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous people within it? 25Far be it from you to do such a thing, to kill the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike! Far be it from you! Should not the judge of all the world do what is just?”g 26The LORD replied: If I find fifty righteous people in the city of Sodom, I will spare the whole place for their sake.”
The context of many of the stories in Genesis were written during or just after the exile. It is important to read scripture, not as an historical novel but as a love story that chronicles the relationship between man and God. During the exile, for example, scribes were exposed to other near eastern literature and there were stories of a great flood.
Lastly, I believe in a God who is iincredibly loving and infinitely merciful. After all, Jesus went to the cross for us. If God in his wisdom saw fit to rain fire on the world, I’d say bring it on. In the immortal words of Sister Faustina, Jesus, I trust in you!
W
wynnejj
Guest
God is also 100% just which means that repayment for damages must be paid in full always. Sometimes man does such damage that repayment cannot be made. Only God can make that payment which Jesus did on the cross on our behalf as a free will gift. But only to the extent that we repent and to the proportional extent that we forgo repayment from others for damages done to our person. Too much emphasis is placed on God in loving and merciful without emphasis on our requirements for that mercy. If we expect people to repay what they can repay, then we must expect that we must repay what we can repay to God - for the measure by which you measure, you will be measured. Read Jeremiah 7 to get an idea of corporate sin and a people who presume a type of mercy that God does not provide.
C
cargau
Guest
I don’t think God is out to get even (pay the debt). I think God. like a loving parent will seek to provide corrections that are meant to draw us closer to him. I am all for that. If God deems that I must suffer in order to enter into a deeper and more meaningful relationship with him, go for it. I have no deep desire to suffer, but if my suffering can be redemptive for me or others then I would welcome it.
I think the real danger of the morally corrupt, self centered society we have become is self destructive on its own merits without God’s intervention. It is the function of religion (especially Catholicism) to keep us individually and collectively morally grounded
T
tgrath
Guest
Is this true? Is marriage not a civil contract in the eyes of individual states, which reserve the right to grant, or to recognize the contract? How can a divorced be granted in a state which fails to recognize the marriage?St,
You raise a good point. Lawyers need money and they need work. Homosexuals marrying in any state that allowed it can be divorced in another state that did not allow it. This means more work for Family Law and it keeps the judges working. This whole homosexual marriage issue is underscored by the Family Law lawyers that see more work coming their way. Knowing this what will happen with the idea of homosexual marriage and divorce takes on a whole new flavor.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
T
tgrath
Guest
It is understandable that some would challenge the Church’s opinions. But why would anyone challenge the right to have an opinion?In the vast majority of cases, it is those who challenge Church teaching (and the right of the Catholic Church even to have a position on the subject) who open these threads over and over, and in addition dominate them. You should take up your objection, or surprise, with those who have such an agenda on a Roman Catholic discussion forum.
Jesus was actually so concerned about personal behavior that he went to the trouble of redefining both the Fifth and the Sixth Commandments. (Mt. 5: 21-28)
The rest of sexual morality (including prohibitions against homosexual behavior) was contained in the Mosaic Code which Jesus embraced as a faithful Jew and which the early Christian Church also adopted. You don’t read about it in the NT because, to the evangelists recording the oral tradition after Jesus’ ministry, it was not “news,” as it wasn’t changed. What was recordable were additions to that Code, such as the above referenced verses, such as the descriptions of the indwelling Spirit, such as the gift of Eucharist, such as the great commission, such as the relationship of Jesus with His Father, etc.
OTOH, we read repeated references by Jesus to the diminishment of some of the most restrictive Sabbath laws, and to the expansion of table fellowship. Readers are not free to over-interpret these teachings as assuming more than what the oral tradition records. You cannot make a leap from there to some supposed erosion of the Judaic sexual code. That is not an authentic approach to Scripture, from either a religious viewpoint or a literary viewpoint.
W
wynnejj
Guest
It raises some interesting questions about how the Catholic Church would rule on such a situation. I was under the impression that the basic guideline on homosexual unions is that nothing should be accepted that legitimises homosexual unions - not marriage, not registered partners, not domestic partnerships. That is, a Catholic should consider themselves formally cooperating in intrinsic evil if they do anything that provides legal incentives for homosexual unions. A gay divorce in any state would provide an incentive for gay marriage, no matter where the marriage contract was issued.
C
CopticChristian
Guest
Wyn,
I had a hard time following your thoughts. This is what I see. Judges are lawyers. Judges see Lawyers bringing cases to court as fellow lawyers earning a living bringing cases to court. Lawyers presented with dissolution of a union in court are doing a job earning a living. This entire process is getting convuluted by Lawyers.
S
stewstew03
Guest
But lawyers have been around much longer than the idea of gay marriage. Methinks you’re much too skeptical of lawyers, CC. They’re (we’re) not all bad!
Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito, and Kennedy are all lawyers, and none of them (at present, though Kennedy’s position is unclear) support the right to gay marriage.
- Status