T
truetofaith
Guest
We care what people say they believe on this Forum because it affects what others learn about the Catholic Church.
- Status
E
estesbob
Guest
I Care because you are a Catholic publicly dissenting from the teachings of our church in a Catholic form.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
This is a tough one, I admit, I am for traditional marriage; but there are a number of Catholics, perhaps even a few Clergy, if I may say this, who are for same-sex marriage as well. If I were for same-sex marriage, this is what I would point to.
So, one presents the facts, the teaching, the doctrine and says, “See the Catholic Church is against Same Sex Marriage” and I agree with that.
But at the same time, we know there are a few issues, Popes speaking on Capital Punishment and so on.
So, one presents the facts, the teaching, the doctrine and says, “See the Catholic Church is against Same Sex Marriage” and I agree with that.
But at the same time, we know there are a few issues, Popes speaking on Capital Punishment and so on.
Good essay, still, I indeed do only recognize Traditional Marriage but I can see how it is a difficult issue, it is a difficult issue if say, you have a man who has had a number of failed marriages arguing for Traditional Marriage.
S
SilverLight
Guest
I was raised in a different manner then some other Catholics. In my mind and from what I have always been told is this. “Treat those as you wish to be treated. Do not force your views on them and make them feel bad. We are all different and we all have a right to live how we so choose. Do not let others make you feel bad or like you are lower then them for being who you are and what you believe in. In response to others be only peaceful and accepting of who they are even if they are not of you. We are all Gods children and he loves us.”
I may not agree with you but I am never going to tell you not to believe in what you do. That would be rude and I just do not have it in me to do so. I am happy with my life and have found a balance in this crazy world we live in. I need that to keep me from having worse anxiety like I once did years ago. Now please have a nice day and peace.
R
Rau
Guest
It is amongst the poorest attempts to justify same sex sexual relationships I have come across. Take for instance this statement:
*For example, Catholic thinking dictates that we should use the evidence we find in the **natural world **to help us reach our conclusions.
Many Catholics have reflected on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a natural variant in human sexuality, and understand that lesbian and gay love is as **natural *as heterosexual love.
Where does Catholic thinking tell us to look to the “natural world”? Perhaps the author is just entirely confused about the meaning of “natural law” (which has little to do with the “natural world”).
And what does a “natural variant in human sexuality” mean? As I understand it, those who suffer from SSA have male or female bodies, and with functioning sexual capacities equipped for procreation in the ordinary way. For reasons as yet unknown, Persons experiencing SSA have attractions that don’t match their bodily capacities. Does the author fail to see anything amiss in this?
And the most reprehensible stament of all:
*…in the quiet of their own consciences, millions of Catholics are arriving at different conclusions rooted deeply in the teachings of our faith. *
The deception and the arrogance is breathtaking.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
What I would feel objectionable is if it appeared someone was just parroting the leftist or liberal view, if one says I’m Catholic but have a certain degree of acceptance for abortion along with same-sex marriage, then, it just seems like they are taking more of a political stance.It is amongst the poorest attempts to justify same sex sexual relationships I have come across. Take for instance this statement:
*For example, Catholic thinking dictates that we should use the evidence we find in the **natural world ***to help us reach our conclusions.
Many Catholics have reflected on the scientific evidence that homosexuality is a natural variant in human sexuality, and understand that lesbian and gay love is as **natural **as heterosexual love.
Where does Catholic thinking tell us to look to the “natural world”? Perhaps the author is just entirely confused about the meaning of “natural law” (which has little to do with the “natural world”).
And what does a “natural variant in human sexuality” mean? As I understand it, those who suffer from SSA have male or female bodies, and with functioning sexual capacities equipped for procreation in the ordinary way. For reasons as yet unknown, Persons experiencing SSA have attractions that don’t match their bodily capacities. Does the author fail to see anything amiss in this?
And the most reprehensible stament of all:
…in the quiet of their own consciences, millions of Catholics are arriving at different conclusions rooted deeply in the teachings of our faith.
The deception and the arrogance is breathtaking.
R
Rau
Guest
If hearing a view contrary to one you hold yourself may lead you to feel bad, it may be better for you not to participate in debates and discussion forums. By their nature, these tend to involve the putting of opposing arguments, and that may be contrary to the philosophy you’ve outlined above.
R
Rau
Guest
I don’t understand this point (let alone how it is connected with SSM).
E
estesbob
Guest
If you were raised believing that it’s okay for Catholic to reject core moral teachings of the church you were indeed raised in a different manner. Did you really expect to come to a Catholic form, criticize the teachings of the church, and not be challenged?
R
Rau
Guest
If you are saying that some politicians “support” SSM simply because it may earn them votes, I agree. I’m certain many pro-SSM politicians would not have announced their “positions” had they not felt it would earn them favour in the electorate.
K
KSU
Guest
Rau, Sister Gramick is not an authentic Catholic. Path_Finder is just stirring the pot.
From ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/nugent.htm
The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the Church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of May 14, 1999, granted to the undersigned Secretary, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 1999.
In 2000, her religious congregation, the School Sisters of Notre Dame, told her to cease speaking publicly on the topic of homosexuality. Sr. Jeannine rejected the request, stating publicly, “I choose not to collaborate in my own oppression by restricting a basic human right [to speak]”.[4] After this, she transferred to the Sisters of Loretto, another congregation of Catholic women religious which supports her ministry of education and advocacy on behalf of the LGBT community.
In 2014, she was a signatory to an open letter to President Obama that urged him to expand U.S. funding of abortion services in foreign countries, currently prohibited under U.S. law by the Helms Amendment.[6]
In April of 2015, Gramick was banned from speaking in the Diocese of Charlotte by Bishop Peter Jugis. A Diocese spokesman, on behalf of Bishop Jugis, stated: "We are not going to have someone who opposes Catholic teaching to be teaching in a Catholic diocese,” The event titled Welcoming LGBT People and Their Families in Faith CommunitiesItalic text was scheduled at St. Peter Catholic Church before the Bishop intervened. The event, sponsored by PFLAG Charlotte, wcnc.com/videos/news/local/2015/04/23/26270159/ will take place on the same day, May 16th, 2015 at 9:00 am at Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC.
From ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/nugent.htm
The ambiguities and errors of the approach of Father Nugent and Sister Gramick have caused confusion among the Catholic people and have harmed the community of the Church. For these reasons, Sister Jeannine Gramick, SSND, and Father Robert Nugent, SDS, are permanently prohibited from any pastoral work involving homosexual persons and are ineligible, for an undetermined period, for any office in their respective religious institutes.
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience of May 14, 1999, granted to the undersigned Secretary, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, May 31, 1999.
- Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
- Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B., Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary
In 2000, her religious congregation, the School Sisters of Notre Dame, told her to cease speaking publicly on the topic of homosexuality. Sr. Jeannine rejected the request, stating publicly, “I choose not to collaborate in my own oppression by restricting a basic human right [to speak]”.[4] After this, she transferred to the Sisters of Loretto, another congregation of Catholic women religious which supports her ministry of education and advocacy on behalf of the LGBT community.
In 2014, she was a signatory to an open letter to President Obama that urged him to expand U.S. funding of abortion services in foreign countries, currently prohibited under U.S. law by the Helms Amendment.[6]
In April of 2015, Gramick was banned from speaking in the Diocese of Charlotte by Bishop Peter Jugis. A Diocese spokesman, on behalf of Bishop Jugis, stated: "We are not going to have someone who opposes Catholic teaching to be teaching in a Catholic diocese,” The event titled Welcoming LGBT People and Their Families in Faith CommunitiesItalic text was scheduled at St. Peter Catholic Church before the Bishop intervened. The event, sponsored by PFLAG Charlotte, wcnc.com/videos/news/local/2015/04/23/26270159/ will take place on the same day, May 16th, 2015 at 9:00 am at Myers Park Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC.
S
SilverLight
Guest
Oh I know I will be challenged. I never said what core moral teaching/s I do or do not believe in though. There are many I have always believed in and probably always will. I never said that the teachings of the church are wrong I just see them in a different light.
P
Path_Finder
Guest
lifesitenews.com/news/tens-of-thousands-take-to-street-in-mexican-cities-to-protest-gay-marriage
Good for them and God Bless Them. Hopefully, they can work it out for Traditional Marriage.
S
SavannahGal
Guest
Actually, your post offers not so much a summary of facts as it does a selection of verbatim quotes from varying dissents, minus the quotes and citations, that is, with a certain penchant for Justice Alito, if I’m not mistaken.
I should perhaps inform you that in addition to being a sometimes senile old lady, I am also a former Civil Rights Attorney and Professor Emerita of Constitutional Law. Had you provided such a response as a student of mine, firstly, I would suggest that you had done a great disservice to the dissenters who present a far stronger case than your selected quotes depict, with Justice Roberts presenting a very respectable argument, by far the strongest. Secondly, I would have you expelled from Law School for rather blatant plagiarism.
I am more than happy to discuss my assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the dissents, which I ultimately find deficient, as well as my critique of the majority opinion, with which I also find fault, despite the fact that I believe it is the correct legal determination. Please be advised, however, that I have absolutely no patience for those attempting to present the ideas of others as their own.
K
KSU
Guest
That’s a rather offensive, Ad Hominem reply, and ignores my introductory description of my post: viz., “The following is a factual summary of the dissents…” So, you would be better served to attack the dissents, not me. Your accusation that I attempted to present the “ideas” of the dissenting Justices as my own is absurd, and as an attorney you know it.
In any case, what type of “factual summary of the dissents” did you expect if not a factual selection of arguments from the dissents, including Justice Roberts? It is what I said it was, and it apparently struck home with you because it demonstrates that the majority opinion, which you believe to be the correct legal determination, simply isn’t. Nor can it be because it is grounded on “a deep corruption of [the Supreme Court’s] conception of constitutional interpretation”.Your five Justices broke the rues, as it were, to paint personal feelings with a veneer of constitutional law.
Your Professor Emerita of Constitutional Law title is impressive, but President Obama refers to himself as “a constitutional law professor,” and we all know what he thinks of the Constitution–the same thing your five Justices do. The fact that you are a Civil Rights Attorney is not surprising, but I’ll not bore or insult you with my opinion of that profession the last few decades where Ad Hominem attacks are a staple. Still, you certainly seem to an accomplished lawyer, and deserve congratulations.
And if you want to compare the length of our tassels, you win; I am not a lawyer. But, I began my career in the law in 1962 when I interned for a big-city Law Department, which included working on a bid rigging case, assisting with arguments before the State PUC and Federal Trade Commission, and a petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court ; worked on political campaigns; worked for over twenty years with a semi-judicial, semi-legislative Congressional agency where I sometimes lent technical assistance to Congressional staff drafting laws; very often wrote and promulgated implementing regulations for US statutes; drafted technical letters concerning those statutes and regs for the White House to be signed by the President; assisted State legislatures with their laws; and even acted as an informal agency law judge when parties to a dispute wanted a quick adjudication.
Now, to get down to cases, you say you would be more than happy to discuss you assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the dissents, but all I see is an attack on me as rationalization of why you won’t. I learned that trick from the politicians in 1962.
K
KSU
Guest
At least you have something akin to a sense of humor, even though it exhibits an inability to make your case on the level promised by SavannahGal.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
An important qualification for female appointees to the Supreme Court.
- Status