Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is "A Crime "

[amcalabrese]

condan:

Certainly property is acquired throughout marriage or brought to it and the civil authority has the duty of assigning rights if there is a dissolution of a marriage. However, the division of property is an effect of marriage, not a defining characteristic. People get married, not to divide property, but to unite and form a home for children.

Which is why I distinguish between civil and sacramental marriage. To me, gay marriage can never be a sacrament, but it can be a civil recognition of shared property rights.

The question seems to be who in the states decides: The people or the judiciary?

The people, noit the judiciary. And if the judiciary decides, it should be the state courts, not the federal courts.

Further, if the definition of marriage is left to the individual states, what else can each individual state define? Can my state redefine the meaning of the phrase “human being” to exclude certain undesirables so they will be denied rights (like freedom, the ability to own property, etc.)? If so, then it seems that we fought the Civil War for naught. While we may leave mundane legislation to the individual states we, as a nation, have decided that there are some ideas and philosophies that are so repugnant to the common good that we must decide them as a collective. Slavery and segregation are two that pop quickly to mind.

So, as a Federalist, are you willing to allow certain states to reinstistute segregation?

The difference is that in those cases you describe, there were constitutional amendments binding the states. For example, before 1865, slavery was legal each state could decide whether or not to allow it.

As for segregation, there is a constitutional amendment which gives Congress the power to define race relations. So no, a state could not decide to impose segregation.

But if Conneticut wanted to recognize civil unions between same gender relationships, that is constitutional. New York does not have to recognize them.

 

[condan]

amcalabrese:

Which is why I distinguish between civil and sacramental marriage. To me, gay marriage can never be a sacrament, but it can be a civil recognition of shared property rights.

The public at large is unconcerned with the sacramentality of marriage. The issue is the redefinition of marriage to include normalizing and sanctioning same-sex unions. Whether or not an individual distinguishes between the civil and sacramental aspects is irrelevant to the argument of what fundamentally defines marriage.

amcalabrese:

The people, noit the judiciary. And if the judiciary decides, it should be the state courts, not the federal courts.

You are exactly right. It should be the people, not the judiciary. Sadly however, the judiciary is usurping the rights of the majority.

amcalabrese:

As for segregation, there is a constitutional amendment which gives Congress the power to define race relations. So no, a state could not decide to impose segregation.

Which amendment is that? And, my question was: As a Federalist, would you be consistent in your thinking and consent to allow the individual states to decide whether or not to re-institute the concept of segregation or permit the owning of human beings as chattel?

amcalabrese:

But if Conneticut wanted to recognize civil unions between same gender relationships, that is constitutional. New York does not have to recognize them.

By allowing a compromise of state sanctioned civil unions between same sex couples, we are in effect redefining marriage by giving the same societal acceptance, benefits and priveledges as those warranted by marriage. Doing so undermines the fabric and infrastructure of our society by allowing virtually any configuration of humans to be deemed a “marriage” simply because it suits the couple’s (or group’s) immediate needs. A society can only prosper when the greater good is satisfied. Condoning relationships that are by their very nature twisted is a concept that makes no sense and one which will ultimately do us (the BIG us) absolutely no good at all.

Civil unions does not seem to fulfill the desires of those pushing the homosexual agenda. They see it for what it is: an appeasment by those who want to make everyone feel loved and accepted, even when the behavior in question is unacceptable.

 

[Trelow]

sweetchuck:

that’s a good article. i’d like to understand theologically why gay marriage is such a threat to the family, though. I don’t doubt that it is, I just want to better know the Church’s explanation

Just look at Holland.

 

[amcalabrese]

condan:

The public at large is unconcerned with the sacramentality of marriage. The issue is the redefinition of marriage to include normalizing and sanctioning same-sex unions. Whether or not an individual distinguishes between the civil and sacramental aspects is irrelevant to the argument of what fundamentally defines marriage.

I am aware of that. My point is that I see a difference bwteen sacramental and civil marriage and that if civil marriage is defined as rule respecting shared property rights, so be it. If people can distinguish between civil and sacramental marriage, I think it would be better.

You are exactly right. It should be the people, not the judiciary. Sadly however, the judiciary is usurping the rights of the majority.

I do not argue with you there.

Which amendment is that? And, my question was: As a Federalist, would you be consistent in your thinking and consent to allow the individual states to decide whether or not to re-institute the concept of segregation or permit the owning of human beings as chattel?

The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments. Both the text and intent of which were to end slavery and ensure citizenship rights. They gave Congress powers to enforce such intent.

By allowing a compromise of state sanctioned civil unions between same sex couples, we are in effect redefining marriage by giving the same societal acceptance, benefits and priveledges as those warranted by marriage. Doing so undermines the fabric and infrastructure of our society by allowing virtually any configuration of humans to be deemed a “marriage” simply because it suits the couple’s (or group’s) immediate needs. A society can only prosper when the greater good is satisfied. Condoning relationships that are by their very nature twisted is a concept that makes no sense and one which will ultimately do us (the BIG us) absolutely no good at all.

Civil unions does not seem to fulfill the desires of those pushing the homosexual agenda. They see it for what it is: an appeasment by those who want to make everyone feel loved and accepted, even when the behavior in question is unacceptable.

There are lots of things I find unacceptable but that are not necessarily illegal. Enforced virtue is not virtue.

 

[norbert]

ElizabethAnne:

I and many other Catholics would say instead that the Church is at her best when teaching about sexual matters. The Catholic Church is is one of the only organizations that stands up for the truth about these issues every time. Church leaders speak up in support of the Bible’s teaching on fornication, adultry and homosexuality.

The Church confirms over and over again that sex is a wonderful thing that has its place – within a marriage between a man and a woman.

How can we trust the Church in its teaching on sexual matters, when the clergy and the bishops have never had sex (except for the small % which has had gay sex and/or sex with kids)?

 

[fix]

norbert:

How can we trust the Church in its teaching on sexual matters, when the clergy and the bishops have never had sex (except for the small % which has had gay sex and/or sex with kids)?

How can we trust those who have had sex with sexual matters? What is the abortion rate today?

 

[amcalabrese]

norbert:

How can we trust the Church in its teaching on sexual matters, when the clergy and the bishops have never had sex (except for the small % which has had gay sex and/or sex with kids)?

FIrst off, you do not have to be a horse to be a jockey.

But I think more of the priests have had sex than you think. My experience with preists is that the old way of becomeing a priest (namely, you are an altar boy, picked out by a priest and encouraged to become a priest at an early age) is gone.

Rather, it seems to me that more priests today are people who went to college, had jobs (and yes had sex) and then decided to become a priest.

My problem with the Church’s position on gay marriage is not on the sacramental side, but rather the civil law side. And while I agree with the chruch worrying about materialism, I also worry when the church seems to equate communism and the pluralism of liberal democracy.

 

[Lisa_N]

norbert:

How can we trust the Church in its teaching on sexual matters, when the clergy and the bishops have never had sex (except for the small % which has had gay sex and/or sex with kids)?

Right. I guess a psychiatrist who’s not been paranoid schizophrenic or bi-polar couldn’t possibly counsel someone who has this problem. Come to think of it, most of my doctors haven’t HAD a heart bypass but they manage to do three or four a day.

Come on Norbert, you don’t have to experience something to learn about it. Further why would experience provide anything but some basic technique? We aren’t asking priests to tell people HOW to have sex but how to treat what is a gift of God. They are pretty astute on those God questions.

Lisa N

 

[norbert]

Lisa N:

Right. I guess a psychiatrist who’s not been paranoid schizophrenic or bi-polar couldn’t possibly counsel someone who has this problem. Come to think of it, most of my doctors haven’t HAD a heart bypass but they manage to do three or four a day.

Come on Norbert, you don’t have to experience something to learn about it. Further why would experience provide anything but some basic technique? We aren’t asking priests to tell people HOW to have sex but how to treat what is a gift of God. They are pretty astute on those God questions.

Lisa N

Actually, doctors who have had medical problems are usually much more sympathetic and understanding than doctors who haven’t. A doctor who’s had an acute lumbar disk herniation and experienced that pain will be much more inclined to take seriously someone complaining of sciatica. A psychiatrist who has battled depression will be more understanding of his depressed and emotional patients. A doctor who’s had cancer will be better able to relate to the fears and hopes of cancer patients. I could go on and on. The doctor analogy is very good here.

I have certainly appreciated the wise counsel of several priests in the past on various issues. But I think, in general, I have a hard time accepting rigid sexual teaching from Rome, because the Pope and his celibate entourage have never experienced sex or tried to raise a family. This is one reason I am very hopeful for a married priesthood one day.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

norbert:

How can we trust the Church in its teaching on sexual matters, when the clergy and the bishops have never had sex (except for the small % which has had gay sex and/or sex with kids)?

Never having had sex is not a requirement for clergy.After all, some have been ordained late in life after losing a spouse. Others have had an intersting life before conversion and ordination, remember Augustine.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

fix:

How can we trust those who have had sex with sexual matters? What is the abortion rate today?

Would you trust Larry Flint or Caligula?

 

[Lisa_N]

norbert:

Actually, doctors who have had medical problems are usually much more sympathetic and understanding than doctors who haven’t. A doctor who’s had an acute lumbar disk herniation and experienced that pain will be much more inclined to take seriously someone complaining of sciatica. A psychiatrist who has battled depression will be more understanding of his depressed and emotional patients. A doctor who’s had cancer will be better able to relate to the fears and hopes of cancer patients. I could go on and on. The doctor analogy is very good here. .

Nice try Norbert but you claimed that not having had sexual relations a priest would not be able to counsel on such matters. My point is that you don’t HAVE to experience something to be of benefit. A sympathetic approach is great but does not determine if a doctor has the technical skills to do surgery. And a doctor does not have to have HAD a surgery to perform it. After all he was probably asleep at the time and remembers very little of the experience. Sorry but you have made my point, not yours.

norbert:

I have certainly appreciated the wise counsel of several priests in the past on various issues. But I think, in general, I have a hard time accepting rigid sexual teaching from Rome, because the Pope and his celibate entourage have never experienced sex or tried to raise a family. This is one reason I am very hopeful for a married priesthood one day.

“Rigid” sexual teaching? Oh that you can’t engage in sodomy or group sex or sex outside of marriage? Yes those activities certainly add to one’s life experiences and are positive. You know the rebellious spirits here cannot point to a single ADVANTAGE or benefit (other than some kind of transient pleasure) to sinful sexual activity yet they think these ‘rigid’ teachings ought to be removed so they can continue to get their short term kicks without regard to the detrimental long term after effects.

So norbert maybe you can provide all of the benefits of adultery, sodomy, etc?

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

norbert:

because the Pope and his celibate entourage have never experienced sex or tried to raise a family.

Who knows for sure? I wouldn’t be absolute one way or the other - also, none of my business.

 

[Gabriel_Gale]

norbert:

Actually, doctors who have had medical problems are usually much more sympathetic and understanding than doctors who haven’t.

I don’t know that this is proven. I’m in mental health, I have found that some who have had significant emotional problems and relationship issues make lousy therapists because they can’t maintain an appropriate perspective.

I have certainly appreciated the wise counsel of several priests in the past on various issues. But I think, in general, I have a hard time accepting rigid sexual teaching from Rome, because the Pope and his celibate entourage have never experienced sex or tried to raise a family. This is one reason I am very hopeful for a married priesthood one day.

Then I guess that you would have a hard time with Christ. But that’s the whole flaw with “they haven’t had sex argument.” John Paul II, Aquinas, St. Paul never based Church teachings on merely their own experience. We can use such arguments to justify any evil.

Many priest have never been poor so I can’t accept their teaching on stealing.

The churchman have never had a lousy husband and too many children or lived in China and limited to one child, that’s why I can’t accept their teaching against infanticide.

The justification by experience is a poor refuge.

 

[fix]

Gabriel Gale:

Would you trust Larry Flint or Caligula?

Exactly. They were both experienced, so they must be good teachers.

 

[mlchance]

amcalabrese:

There are lots of things I find unacceptable but that are not necessarily illegal. Enforced virtue is not virtue.

But it is a step in the right direction. The first function of the law is to instruct the populace about what is right and wrong. That’s from Aristotle. It isn’t possible to legislate morality, but it is possible to regulate behavior. That’s Martin Luther King Jr.



And property right issues, whether involving hetero- or homosexuals, are best solved by a will, not by redefining marriage into a meaningless concept.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[ElizabethAnne]

mlchance:

And property right issues, whether involving hetero- or homosexuals, are best solved by a will, not by redefining marriage into a meaningless concept.

– Mark L. Chance.

Exactly. The state didn’t start recognizing marriages because they involve property issues. If that’s all marriage is about according to the government, it really would be meaningless. It’s in societies best interest to sanction marriage between a man and a woman when obviously heterosexual couples will raise the vast majority of the next generation and need stability for the best success.

norbert:

I have certainly appreciated the wise counsel of several priests in the past on various issues. But I think, in general, I have a hard time accepting rigid sexual teaching from Rome, because the Pope and his celibate entourage have never experienced sex or tried to raise a family. This is one reason I am very hopeful for a married priesthood one day.

If you really have received good advice from priests, I wonder that you doubt their advice on certain matters. The “rigid” sexual teaching is not from Rome, it’s from God. It’s outlined in the Bible. These priest are holy men who have read the Bible and dedicated their lives to God. They know what they’re talking about.

You also seem to be implying that celibacy is easy and experiencing sex somehow gains a person knowledge and wisdom. Celibacy is not easy, and I’m sure that many priests struggle with it. Their vocation is equally difficult as our calling to chastity. They know what it is like to struggle, but they also know what it is like to, in the end give in to the will of God. Now that’s wisdom!

 

[Zosimus]

Top Vatican Cardinal: Gay Marriage is “A Crime Which represents the Destruction of the World”

This is what the bible says:
Rom 1:21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator --who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

 

[amcalabrese]

mlchance:

But it is a step in the right direction. The first function of the law is to instruct the populace about what is right and wrong. That’s from Aristotle. It isn’t possible to legislate morality, but it is possible to regulate behavior. That’s Martin Luther King Jr.

To me, the first function of the law is to ensure civil society and protect the individual from physical harm. Hence, to me, the most important parts of the government are the police and the military – they protect the individual from physical harm.

Everything else is secondary and part of the political process.

And property right issues, whether involving hetero- or homosexuals, are best solved by a will, not by redefining marriage into a meaningless concept.

But what about property rights before death? Marriage as we understand it today is a relatively modern middle class concept. Traditionally, only the ruling class was married, and it was a way to seal a bargain between two families. While many common folk were officially married, most marriages in the Middle Ages were simply understandings between two people or two families.

If anything, we have defined marriage up over the last several hundred years.

I do believe that marriage is under threat. But the threat is from Vegas weddings and no-fault divorces and the idea of “starter” marriages. The number of homosexuals in the US is maybe 3% of the population – a small minority.

And those who wish to get married represent an even smaller minority of that already small minority. I do not find that a threat.

And remember, I am not saying the Catholic Church has to recognize gay marriage. It will not and should not. But the civil law can recognize the property rights that a civil marriage brings.

One interesting outcome will be that companies that have benefits for same gender partners will probably require the partners to be married in order to get the benefits.

 

[condan]

amcalabrese:

I do believe that marriage is under threat. But the threat is from Vegas weddings and no-fault divorces and the idea of “starter” marriages…

How do “vegas” weddings and no-fault divorce threaten marriage? Even “quickie” weddings and “starter” marriages involve one man and one woman. The meaning and characteristics of marriage are NOT redefined in either case.

Quite simply, despite protestations to the contrary, marriage is not about property rights, wills, or visitation rights. Those are benefits of marriage. Marriage is about perpetuating our society. It is about building a foundation for continuing our race where its members will be protected. Your idea of granting civil unions to those not eligible for marriage, (i.e, same-sex, blood relatives, multiple partners) grants rights and priveledges that are reserved only for those who qualify for marriage because the environment created by marriage is deemed to be important to the proper functioning of our society. Establishing such unions now means that any relationship can get those same benefits and priveledges and eradicates the special status bestowed on one man and one woman for the procreation and education of children.

Some food for thought:

townhall.com/columnists/dennisprager/dp20050412.shtml