What exactly qualifies you as a "Catholic" columnist? You don't even understand the most basic teachings of Catholicism.

Homosexuality is a psychological disorder. That is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Marriage is between a man and a woman for life. Read _The Theology of the Body_. "In the beginning, God created them male and female." It's the teaching of Genesis; it's the teaching of Jesus.

The Church teaches the principle of subsidiarity: that the *main* purpose of civil government is to protect the nuclear family.

Oh, the comments about marriage being about procreation.

Since we are well past any chance of procreation again, and our children are all in their thirties, I'd like to thank the church for giving me the basis for a legal divorce from my wife of 40 years.

I guess we've done well, with 50% of marriages ending in divorce - well we made it 41 years. Oh btw, where gays can marry or civil union, only about 1% of these marriages have failed. The state with the lowest total divorce rate in the USA btw happens to be "gay marriage legal Massachusetts".

But don't rush screaming dear church. We would continue to live together. Whether we have sex is non of your business. And the whole reason to divorce plays into our particular economic situation, to prevent the other partner from being bankrupted if one of us ends up in a nursing home. As did both our mothers, their minds wasting away. And you are the guys who would let this terrible condition continue, by banning stem cell research which appears to be the only path to some sort of a possible solution. Just so you can have your POWER, which is what it is all about.

The same people who opposed blacks being allowed to marry, women voting, integrating our armed forces, and legalizing in all of America are at it again, with their worn out moral values.

Straight to the church - you have zero right to use your religious beliefs to deny equality UNDER OUR LAWS TO other people. My church will do gay marriages, as will about 4-5 other denominations, and several will do something similar - committment ceremonies.

But the whole battle is about equality under the law. It is none of the church's damned business. If I was gay,the last place I would want a religious marriage ceremony is in a catholic or baptist church. You can do what you want in the church, you can stay out of peoples lives outside of your church.

Unless you want to turn America into a Christian Saudi Arabia, with public beheadings, chopping off hands for stealing, and breeding people who fly airplanes into buildings because they believe they will be rewarded in heaven.

And turning sex into a puritanical no-no. Which, when applied to alter boys at age 13, just when youth start to become aware of sex, ultimately turns them into perverts. And psychology teaches that people like this pickup at the mental age where sex was suppressed.

Which explains the great crime of the Catholic, and some of the right wing christian churches.

But it doesn't explain why the church hid these criminals for decades. Of course that is simple - they know that if the truth comes out, people will start to question the church. And they will see the truth about the church - that it is really about power, money, and control - mankinds greatest evils.

And the whole rotten house of cards will come tumbling down, and with it the job and power security of the church hierarchy.

And the gay marriage - legal equality under our civil laws movement came along just at the right time for the church to try and use it to spout what is really venom at the idea that these 15 million people in our country should continue to be legal non-entities under our laws, subject to the whims of a religion which most of them do not believe in, and many have left.

As a great man said some years ago before he was murdered in another civil rights battle, with time our gay citizens will be able to say "free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, we are Free at last.

And if the church doesn't change it will become part of history. A very very ugly party of history. But the people don't have another 1000 years to rectify the crimes of the church.

zjr78xva :
The distortion of the institution of civil marriage by so-called same-sex "marriage" furthers the deep moral confusion of a sick society. It must be opposed because it is profoundly harmful to the common good and because it puts souls at grave risk.+
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How is it harmful to the common good for my gay friends who have been faithful to each other for the past twenty years, stood by each other through hell and high water, in sickness and in health, in abundance and in poverty, to be able to legalize their commitment to each other? They have lived the very vows that are spoken in some form in traditional weddings, but are not allowed the legal recognition of their bond that heterosexual couples receive from the signing of a marriage license.

As for endangering souls, the welfare of the soul should be left to the owner of said soul to worry about. You don't save souls by denying civil rights.

The distortion of the institution of civil marriage by so-called same-sex "marriage" furthers the deep moral confusion of a sick society. It must be opposed because it is profoundly harmful to the common good and because it puts souls at grave risk.

Mary_Cunningham :
Does anyone have any idea of the *number* of gay marriages we are talking--no shouting--about?

In Britain where it is legal, with a host population of 60 million, there were 16,101 in 2006 and 8,728 in 2007. This is agains a hetero background of about 275,000 in both years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The numbers aren't the point.
Would you say that the Loving vs Virginia decision (which struck down state laws barring inter-racial marriage) would have been a waste of judiciary time and effort if only a few inter-racial couples had married after the decision? Or would you say that the important thing is that inter-racial couples have the right to marry if they so desire.
Same principle.

PaulC2:
It is you anti-gay folks who cheapen marriage, who treat it as though it were something like paper money, which has no intrinsic value and whose only value is conferred by society based on its rarity. It is you who cheapen sex, by reducing its value to breeding alone. It is you who cheapen love, by making it less important in the marriage bond than breeding ability and genitalia balance. It is you who demean and insult heterosexual marriages, by suggesting that they need a special exclusive privileged status in order to survive and be worthwhile. It is you who hurt children, by telling children of gay people that they do not deserve the stability and comfort that legally-married parents can provide.

And you do not have the right to tell your neighbors that they must follow your religion's rules about what is right and what is "perverse" in the forming of their families. Loving vs. Virginia determined that. Many people thought interracial marriage was just as "perverse" as you find gay marriage - but they did not have the right to take away their neighbors' marriages and hurt their families because they didn't want to have to "sanction" something they thought was wrong. It is not your place to "sanction" others' private behavior, to play Mommy and Daddy to your adult neighbors, as if they were children and needed your approval to run their own lives.

After all, the Catholic church believes that the marriage of heterosexuals who don't want to or can't procreate is wrong - are you next going to bar the heterosexual marriage of my friend who has had a hysterectomy and cannot have kids? Does that marriage take anything away from the sacred special wonderfulness of yours or mine? And since the Catholic church bars the marriage of divorced folks, can you then step in and tell Sen. and Mrs. McCain, say, that they aren't really married legally? Doesn't his calling his second marriage valid while his first wife lives cheapen the eternal nature of "real" marriage? If you are allowed to tell your neighbors what to do in their private lives based on what your religion finds "good" and "perverse", where does it stop?

It is very dangerous to give one religion the power to set rules for others' lives and marriages. If your religion finds one sort of marriage "perverse", then DON'T DO IT. But you have no more right to ban it for everyone else than your Orthodox Jewish or Muslim neighbor has to ban your eating pork chops, because their God calls pork an abomination.

Look at Pagan threatening violence:

To wit, you want to bully people and whine when you get a bop in the nose. Boo hoo.

How typical for these homosexual fascists...

PS - calling homosexuality biologically and socially backward is not "bullying" - it is stating the facts.

Your individual extreme rights do not trump the collective and normative goods found in functioning cultures.

You are looking to call what is evil, good - while this is your choice, you can not force your abhorrent views on greater society.

PPS - being a former Catholic does little to advance your credibility or critique...

Oh. I forgot this bit:

"Look at the Catholic adoption agency in Mass which was forced closed due to state mandates for homosexual marriage."

No, they weren't *forced* to close, they *chose* to, because they put their homophobia above whatever 'high principles' had them running adoption agencies with Federal money in the first place.

Gays didn't 'force' them to close. They *chose* to, rather than even *possibly* be confronted with a gay Catholic couple, or, if they didn't like it so much, just... Not take Federal funding to show how 'virtuous' they were.

Frankly, I'm glad they closed, if they thought dogma was more important than children. A certain percentage of any adopted kids are gay, ...making it so that only homophobes get those kids to try and 'fix' is not my idea of goodness or charity, anyway.

So happens I was raised Catholic. It ain't pretty for anyone involved, if parenthood has anything to do with any notion 'God Says No One Is Supposed To Be Gay.'

So, frankly, Catholics can go elsewhere.

Unwanted children have no choice.

If the 'catholic Charities' prioritize homophobia over the good of a child, well, they can either stop taking my tax dollars and find the money elsewhere from these charitable Republicans, ...Or go ahead and shut down.

But no illusions they didn't make their choice.

With melodrama, I might add.

Boo hoo.

" speed123

"Also, the state has an obligation to maintain order and stability in the land.
Stability relies on reproduction and this, in turn, relies on pro-life, pro-family policies."

Stability is not served by *over- reproduction. *

Ever.

"Homosexual unions do not produce children without extreme measures "

What, like the infertility treatments straight people spend billions on just to breed personally yearly while countless children go unwanted?

You know, those queer couples are 'unfit' to take care of, never mind do like you do.

"- therefore, it is the right and obligation of the state to protect the sacred, special nature of traditional marriage."

Which is what in the practicalities of government, again?

"PS - civil unions should be upgraded and discrimination should NOT be allowed; however this does not change the unique nature of male and female union."

They're all unique. Violating equal protection under the law in the United States of America has never enhanced sacredness. It only hurts people.

And children.

"Homosexual advocates who say otherwise are extremists who look to silence all dissent from their opinions."

Nooooo.... You may be as loud as you like, if you are willing to accept the consequences you visit upon others.

This does not make you extra-special-sacred citizens in America, though. No one is proposing to take anything away from you.

Look at the Catholic adoption agency in Mass which was forced closed due to state mandates for homosexual marriage.

"What is next? Schools, hospitals?"

No, that's part of parenting and being married, whether you like it or not. When your daughter has an emergency in school, and you can't do anything cause you are queer, or when you can't see your dearest in the hospital or even inherit property from them cause any straight is better than any queer in our justice system... Then maybe you'll see it's not about *special rights.*

It's about *human* rights.

'Gay people' can't help it if some of us get convinced at some point in our lives that convinced that holding our noses and getting preggers or impregnating someone will 'fix' us, but, *sod all* if you get to hurt our kids over it.

You wanna know about parenting, *ask.* You don't outlaw what you don't like. The fact you don't like it is what *hurts our kids* in the first place.

"Perhaps all Catholics should be attacked/outcast as dissenters from official homosexual party line..."

Perhaps you should realize that your claims of being 'virtuously persecuted' if anyone says, 'Hey, stop persecuting us' are neither Christian nor American.

To wit, you want to bully people and whine when you get a bop in the nose. Boo hoo.

" Mary_Cunningham Author Profile Page:

"Does anyone have any idea of the *number* of gay marriages we are talking--no shouting--about?

How bout one? Mine. How about the next, and the next, and the next?

"In Britain where it is legal, with a host population of 60 million, there were 16,101 in 2006 and 8,728 in 2007. This is agains a hetero background of about 275,000 in both years."

Let's compare divorce rates, if you want to go there...

Meanwhile, where gay marriage is legal, hetero marriages are the *strongest,* as opposed to the sky falling.

And that's when most gay people have been raised to believe getting married was *never* in the cards for them, and if they did it, it'd expose them to any of the petty, but very damaging, homophobias that 'going on record' might expose them to.

More than that, though....

How 'small a minority' are you willing to hurt to perpetuate an injustice?

Justice isn't a popularity contest.

"PaulC wrote:"For most of us, the gay marriage issue isn't about denying rights to our fellow country men and women, its about community sanction of an act that many consider perverse."

Unfortunately, there seems to be a fundamental lack of 'understanding' that unalienable rights are not subject to the whims of a religious authority's 'consideration.'

That's why, unlike in Europe, we're even considering religious radicals part of our nation, rather than a dangerous atavism.

speed- better a radical than a religo-fascist I always say, because believe me, no one is more radical than them. i never said anything about the USSR being a secular paradise- that's you putting words in my mouth to make a bad argument. at least with Trotsky there wouldn't be the hypocricy of the religious right, who yammer about G-d's love on the one hand and hammer you to death with it on the other.

you said "As for the separation of church and state - you should understand the constitution before you lecture others on it. The document states that the government shall not promote one religion over all others.

It does NOT state that religious people are to be denied their voice in the political process."

Indeed, exactly. So where do you come off trying to deny others their voice? Your idea of denial is not being allowed to write the law according to your religion. My idea of denial is being forced to follow laws written that religious fundamentalists have forced on the rest of us. You aren't satisfied to freely practice your religion in your home and your church. No, you want to freely practice your religion in my home and in my synagogue or mosque or temple. And the worst is that you cannot even understand the difference.

But I'm totalitarian? I guess that makes you a religo-nazi. Several steps past the religo-fascists.

PaulC wrote:"For most of us, the gay marriage issue isn't about denying rights to our fellow country men and women, its about community sanction of an act that many consider perverse. With that said, I'm sure that the gays on this board will be very quick to say that what they are doing is natural to them and should be not only sanctioned ...While I fully understand their feeling about this and the burden that chastity can be, I also feel that it's not in society's best interest for individuals to act on every impulse they have."

PaulC- 2 consenting adults who love one another, whether or not it involves reproduction, have just as much right to be a married couple as a man and a woman who marry simply to reproduce. You are confusing the spiritual with the physical, and you are confusing opinion with the right to force it on others. You simply can't accept that yours is an opinion, not a factual truth. And you keep thinking you can speak for G-d, when in fact NO human being can do that.

On one point you're right, individuals need self-discipline, but why point a finger at gay people? How about religious folk who are against medical care for their children even if their child dies because of that lack? Yet I'll wager you define that as religious freedom.

PS - equality does not equal sameness.

There is no possibility to for a same sex marriage to equal the true biological functions of a true marriage.

As for homosexual marriage "not hurting others," ask the charities shut down in Boston due to their religious opposition to same-sex marriage.

Gays in CA have ALL the rights of other citizens via civil unions - the push for homosexual marriage is simply a way to FORCE their unique views on the rest of society.

False biological equality will become the new totalitarian propaganda.

Sparrow has confirmed her radical nature:

"You obviously can't stand that. but to tell you the truth- I'd rather live under a Trotsky, than a Religo-fascist regime."

60 million killed under the reds who ran Russia - and you think that it is a secular workers paradise.

Sparrow, you are an extremist.

As for the separation of church and state - you should understand the constituation before you lecture others on it. The document states that the government shall not promote one religion over all others.

It does NOT state that religious people are to be denied their voice in the political process.

Sparrow, your totalitarian tendencies are showing...

"For most of us, the gay marriage issue isn't about denying rights to our fellow country men and women"

The same would have been said about Jim Crow laws, or the KKK - they weren't about denying rights, it was about protecting the virtue of white women.

"its about community sanction of an act that many consider perverse."

If you being forced to marry a gay person, you'd have a point. I think you know that isn't what gay marriage is about.

"So why do people consider homosexual acts a perversion? Because sex is a sacred bond between a man and a woman and it entails great responsibility because its purpose is to create life"

If the only purpose of sex was to create life, women would be fertile 365 days/year. If the only purpose to human sexuality was making babies, than we'd be like the animals, with seasons in rutt and otherwise not wanting sex. I believe that you are well versed in the arguments for your side, but maybe you should investigate the arguments on the other side?
Moreover, basing one's sexuality on pre-Islamic thinking doesn't make any sense to me. Biblical restrictions on sexuality are primative and often silly (do you kick your wife out of the bedroom when autn flo pays a visit, as the bible recommends?) I believe the CC has no business in sexual matters, because the behavior the CC advocates is not healthy nor does it lead to a better marriage, period.

Does anyone have any idea of the *number* of gay marriages we are talking--no shouting--about?

In Britain where it is legal, with a host population of 60 million, there were 16,101 in 2006 and 8,728 in 2007. This is agains a hetero background of about 275,000 in both years.

I beleive (strongly) that people should be able to keep company with whomever the wish. They should be able to write contracts or simply agree to share their wealth in anyway they wish. There should be no reason that anyone can't define power of attorney to anyone they wish and I have no problem with any beneficiary or care arrangements they might want to create. Any fair minded person should agree with these principles and no one should be discriminated against. I really don't want to know what they do in the privacy of their own homes, either.

For most of us, the gay marriage issue isn't about denying rights to our fellow country men and women, its about community sanction of an act that many consider perverse. With that said, I'm sure that the gays on this board will be very quick to say that what they are doing is natural to them and should be not only sanctioned but embraced by the community. After all, they were born with same sex attraction and they need an outlet to act upon it. While I fully understand their feeling about this and the burden that chastity can be, I also feel that it's not in society's best interest for individuals to act on every impulse they have.

So why do people consider homosexual acts a perversion? Because sex is a sacred bond between a man and a woman and it entails great responsibility because its purpose is to create life. It is the most profound and most intimate thing two people can do together. Homosexual sex, on the other hand, can not create life and therefore has none of the responsibilty or sacredness inherent in married sex and thus cheapens the act. By cheapening the act, it leads society to understate the awe and responsibility that sex requires, turning it into cheap recreation for both homo- and heterosexuals. This in turn leads to STDs, unwanted pregnancies,and abortions, which of course are societal in addition to individual problems.

This elaborated resistance to gay marriages is so much like how you think when you are a teenager and trying to make sense of the world - all rules and no maturity and experience. When you are very young, you can be very strict and understand very little.

But the Church is very old and so are usually the popes and cardinals, so they have no excuses for their childish behavior and ridiculous need for control. They are causing people tremendous heartache and troubles over something that is only in their heads. Gay encounters and marriage, sex and all, hurt absolutely nobody, as long as they are agreed on freely.

The church must become wiser, more loving, more intelligent and more grown up.

Ah speed"Sparrow,

Ah yes, the Catholic hating extreme secular - I remember you from past bile that you spread against Catholics.

As for the "state" - we live in a representative democracy and Christians happen to make up the vast majority our the population."

FYI- I don't hate Catholics. I just want them to stay out of my business. As for extreme secular- you must have hallucinated that because I have never it. I just have no use for any group that wants to discriminate against another. And frankly, too bad if christians are the numerical majority. In this country the laws are made and must be held constitutional. the catholic Church,
and many others such, haven't accepted the fact of separation of church and state keep trying to make the government all about them.

I argue with their tactics and their unjust impulses, not the religion. You obviously can't stand that. but to tell you the truth- I'd rather live under a Trotsky, than a Religo-fascist regime. After all, Nazis were christians too. And you'll understand when i say this- anyone who can equate the kinds of discrimination and vitriol many christians spew with the teachings of Jesus is as much a christian as Mao Tse Tung.

"When a man takes a wife, he will leave his family and cling to her and the two will become one flesh."

The principle behind the forgoing Gospel saying is that when two people are married, their families no longer have a say in their lives. Rather, their spouses do. When one is of the same flesh, they are like they are the same individual. This is why Terri Schaivo's husband (with or without evidence of stated intent) could do his duty and end his wife's suffering and why my wife could do the same in the same circumstances (God forbid), even if my mother would have otherwise. My brother, who has a husband, does not have that right as his marriage is only before God, not the state or the community.

Civil marriage is a poor substitute for the real thing, at least for those of us who are religious. Marriage is the joining of two families. If my brother and his husband were allowed a celebration where both families could join before the community, including the community of faith, it would be a sign of our consent to the rending of our rights to our brother and his husband's family's rights to their son. As it is now, the Church's teaching has my brother-in-law not even tell some of his family he is even gay - which is sad and tragic.

The Church owes our family the same celebration it provided for me and my wife and our families when we got married. That celebration would truly honor what Jesus said about marriage.

For that matter, gay people DO have kids, and banning gay marriage hurts those kids, without doing a thing to get ANY kid, ANYwhere, a heterosexually-married pair of parents that they wouldn't already have. It hurts some kids to ban gay marriage. It makes some gay people less likely to have kids. It benefits NO child, ANYWHERE. How on earth can you call that a "pro-life, pro-family" policy?

Speed123:
How does banning gay marriage make my marriage any more sacred or special? That's my husband's and my job, not the government's, and we can handle it ourselves without needing to hurt others' families and without special favors for us. How does it encourage anyone to reproduce who wouldn't normally? (For that matter, do we want people to reproduce if they don't want to be parents?) Are we, in fact, in ANY danger of not reproducing ourselves as a species?

Gay people in this day and age don't generally get heterosexual marriages because they can't marry the person they actually love - and if they do, they'll fail and hurt everyone involved, including the children. Nothing is helped by forcing people into loveless marriages.

Straight people aren't going to avoid marriage or stop having children because THEIR type of marriage isn't given special, elite status by government. I mean, really, how low IS your opinion of straight folk? If gay marriage is allowed, we in heterosexual marriages retain everything we had before - except a sense of exclusive special privilege, and if you need that to love your spouse and raise your kids, you're an awfully mean and selfish person.

And as a matter of fact, heterosexual marriage rates are higher and divorce rates lower in Massachusetts and Vermont than in the Bible Belt. Funny, that.

Oh! the mixed message from the church - it's okay to boink boys (but don't get caught, wink wink) and goodness, you certainly can't marry one!

Okay, I promise I won't get married in the catholic church. The catholic church or any church or religion has the freedom to deny me that. But the GOVERNMENT does not have the right to deny me and my husband all of the rights and responsibilities that it grants to Hetros who marry. I don't care what you call it - marriage, a civil union, a potato or a potatoe - as long as my husband and I have the same rights granted to us by our government as my breeder neighbors do, I'm fine with it.

Let Catholics discriminate by not letting me in their club, it's okay with me. I left them years ago anyway.

Also, the state has an obligation to maintain order and stability in the land.

Stability relies on reproduction and this, in turn, relies on pro-life, pro-family policies.

Homosexual unions do not produce children without extreme measures - therefore, it is the right and obligation of the state to protect the sacred, special nature of traditional marriage.

PS - civil unions should be upgraded and discrimination should NOT be allowed; however this does not change the unique nature of male and female union.

Homosexual advocates who say otherwise are extremists who look to silence all dissent from their opinions.

Look at the Catholic adoption agency in Mass which was forced closed due to state mandates for homosexual marriage.

What is next? Schools, hospitals?

Perhaps all Catholics should be attacked/outcast as dissenters from official homosexual party line...

Sparrow,

Ah yes, the Catholic hating extreme secular - I remember you from past bile that you spread against Catholics.

As for the "state" - we live in a representative democracy and Christians happen to make up the vast majority our the population.

Therefore, it is you - not Catholics whom you love to scape goat - who are attempting to force your extremist policies on the majority of the population (who view marriage as one man, one woman.)

Perhaps you wish for a dictatorship - Trotsky is probably your ideal....

What do Catholics say about the children of gay couples? Should they be treated differently because their parents are gay? Doesn't withholding the right of marriage between parents punish their children? Are we trying to teach the children of gay couples a lesson here? Are we trying to persuade them that they have sinned by having same-sex parents?

By the *way,* if any Catholics out there would caer and try and console my dear Ma about the completely-uncalled for drama involved in whether or not my Ma gets to live to panic about me dying and completely violate my corpse, name, memory and legacy, or if she goes first and I get to turn up and try and make it all make sense to people she keeps pretending I'm straight and Catholic to....

This is why I'm angry at you, Christians.

It's not about me, or sex, or political parties, or anything so mundane, ...not when you make all these demands... You make these demands on the faithful to impose at whatever cost to basic human decency... But you. Do. Not. Help.

People like Spidey can scream about Hell for queers. 'Mainstream Christians' deny that's what they're about.

But *where *are* you, mainstream Christians?

You're so much better than me, where are you for *my Mom?*

Professor?

Any of you?

You just impose abuse of innocents as a *surrogate* for truth and good parenting, family values, whatever you say...

But when have you done more than scapegoat for when things go wrong, and claim credit when they don't seenm to be so bad?

Seriously.

Professor wants to attribute things to 'a pagan culture' bold-face,' and all the rest wanna say it's one manner of defamation or excuse or another.

Pardon if I observe that in terms of 'family values' the Church has had since the reign of Brian Boru (that's a neat thousand years) to get a damn thing right with *my* family, and still... Everyone's pointing nukes at each other, and someone being gay 'oppresses' the Catholics.

Or whatever Christians.

I mean. Look around.

Exactly what in the ten thousand names of the Lady have you *done* to justify getting picky about what sex someone else has?

Why do you even think you're even on this *level?*

You can't even cope with simple realities.

Never mind geopolitics.

It's not for me to prove something to *you.*

Other way around.

Well, Sparrow, maybe if they could get over themselves, some Catholics could see that it's just possible that ripping families apart over 'trying to get people to Heaven' against the horrible screaming cosmic injustice and shame of acused terrible parenting if, by some demonic conspiracy, anyone's born quee....

Well, may make good politics, but hey. Color me non-monotheist.

paulc2: "I must say that most of the people in this thread just have no clue as to what drives the Catholic Church. It's an organization with the sole mission of helping people get to heaven. You somehow think that its all about domination and suppression because it doesn't happen to agree with your world view."

Actually no, that's not it. You can't seem to accept that the catholic church is not everyone's church and neither you nor the Church wants to accept that this is America, not Rome, and the Church has no right to force its views on the rest of us.

you also wrote:"I know you won't want to hear this, because its inconvenient, but perhaps instead of trying to silence the bishops, you should simply heed their advice for the good of your souls." And again, just because you believe in Catholicism that doesn't mean everyone does. It's not my religion, and the G-d I believe in doesn't demand you believe as I do to get to heaven. the G-d I believe in judges you based on your good deeds, not your beliefs. You can't get to heaven by quoting scripture and oppressing gays. You get to heaven by the compassion and good works you do.

"You somehow think that its all about domination and suppression because it doesn't happen to agree with your world view. I'm sorry but the Church can't neglect its charter or change the apostolic teachings just because it doesn't sanction your way of life. I know you won't want to hear this, because its inconvenient, but perhaps instead of trying to silence the bishops, you should simply heed their advice for the good of your souls."

Seems to me, good Catholic, that it's *you* finding my *life* inconvenient, and justifying it based on some idea of what's 'good for some souls.'

Wanna bet?

It may be an 'inconvenience' to you, but I'm long since all in.

None of this justifies, never mind commands, civil injustice.

Or even a diversion from the fact that the bishopric's endorsed candidates have drawn blanks on actually governing, despite the Holy Church threatening to support anti-Catholic Fundies over some influence-peddling.

No one noticed they brought the stuff up about blaming me and my sweetie the morning after McCain threw snake-eyes?

You want faith, I'll tell you bout faith.

Don't try and tell me my life is about your most tawdry imaginings.

Seriously.

" hakafos44:

"Honestly, at this point this issue is belabored."

Hey, I'm over it. Can I have my civil rights, now? You guys could maybe work it out among youserlves.

We now begin to understand why homosexuality is the biological destiny of a certain percentage of humanity, and many other species, in every generation. Human beings are sexual beings, whichever their orientation. They are not to be psychologically maimed through abstinence to make them suitable in the presence of their creator. Papal infallibility exists as the remedy the Catholic church has for difficulties in its version of natural law. Let the Catholic church use this remedy now, and as soon as possible, else be condemned as an exclusionist faith.

Honestly, at this point this issue is belabored.

I am more interested in the depth of spiritual devotion and formation of the faithful. There are many people who are Christians in name only who need support from the clergy in these troubling times to reconcile their bleak lives with the promise of God's love of his Creation, as they lack spiritual education. I would ask that we focus on how to make the church relevant to a postmodern era. This marriage debate can wait.

I must say that most of the people in this thread just have no clue as to what drives the Catholic Church. It's an organization with the sole mission of helping people get to heaven. You somehow think that its all about domination and suppression because it doesn't happen to agree with your world view. I'm sorry but the Church can't neglect its charter or change the apostolic teachings just because it doesn't sanction your way of life. I know you won't want to hear this, because its inconvenient, but perhaps instead of trying to silence the bishops, you should simply heed their advice for the good of your souls.

It's quite Orwellian- Love is Hate, Less is More (apologies to Mies), everything turned on its head and inside out.

Btw, before anyone lumps in dissident people the Church still claims to represent with *Protestant* 'Catholic-bashing' ...make no mistake, I'll turn right around and kick your bits up into your throat, cause you just excuse trying to take your whole dysfunction out on people who had the temerity not to fit the model of uncontained 'lust' the lot of you think is more important than actually living.

On this basis, it's kinda family business.

Doesn't make it right for the either of you.

Don't confuse this for anything else.

I'm starting to get this wild idea that the Catholic Church has some kind of idea that they're in power in America in some way that implies they're being 'oppressed' if their own oppressive dogmas aren't made the law on the land at the hand of any given trooper's nightstick or lawyer's pen...

Poor oppressed souls. (trotting out the brogue) Oh, wee poor blessed things, how troubled are you, by someone not begging to Jaysus, Muire and Joseph for forgiveness not being quite like the 'Father' says of ye......

When one studies European history the stance of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality makes sense until today. During the early time of Christiandom it made sense that the purpose of Christian society was to multiply, and quickly, in order to survive. Whether it was childhood attrition, public persecutions and/or executions, the survival of early Christians relied upon the ability to replicate. It was imperative that a rather simple minded people understand the clear need to produce offspring and homosexuality could not accomplish that simple societal goal. In Dark Ages in Europe one in three people were wiped out by a massive plaque that set society back several hundred years. Christianity was again threatened with extinction if the population were allowed to dwindle. Homosexuality as a matter of practicality once again flew in the face of this need for survival of the religion and culture. And European plaques continued well into the Middle Ages. Today, however, the need to replicate Christians is no longer a social priority to survive. As a society, we have reduced childhood attrition dramatically and lengthened the human lifespan. We struggle with the prospects of an over-populated planet consumming more resources than we can replenish.

Isn't it time the Catholic Church realized that homosexuality poses no danger to the growth and survival of its institution? Isn't it time that the Church recognize that homosexuality has been around for centuries, that it is NOT a matter of choice, that many priests practice it and that Jesus really didn't devote his life to stand in stoic judgement of others but rather to compassionately accept and love mankind with all his frailties and flukes?

DrPat2001- Interesting.

However I would say that despite the definition of "majority rules" in a democracy, Ayn rand wrote:"Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and the smallest minority on earth is the individual)"

the Church and its allies may form a majority, but they still have to deal with the Constitution and the Bill of rights. In this country those documents are still more powerful and the day they aren't, we will be living in Nazi Germany.

Mary,
I'm relatively new to blogging so I don't have a lot of insight on good Catholic websites. One I did come across is http: forums.catholic.com.

I personally find the ON Faith site quite stimulating. Its important not to take any of it personally, but frankly, if you can find that you can answer the critics on this board, it can't help but strengthen your own faith. Many times they bring up good points, forcing me to research the church position to understand the counter arguments. I find this stimulating and beneficial. In addition, the Catholics that do frequent this blog (like yourself, Thomas Baum and Ryan Haber) are very insightful.

Keep the faith....

the catholic church, following Aristotle believes in an objective morality. That is, there are universal laws. Communism and liberal democracy (see Universal Declaration of Human Rights which are regarded as foundational state moral orientations that must be translated into law) believe in universal law also. They both sought to conquer the world and in the process drove billions of people into the ground in their proxy wars. The communists emphasized the social, economic articles, the "west" emphasized political rights. while both were willing to establish dictatorships to achieve their goals, only the "west" claimed that it was on a holy mission. so now, under liberal democracy and communism the state, not god is the lawgiver. In communism, a vanguard rules. In liberal democracy the state is majority ruled, it's laws are decided by untilitarianism, the utility of the majority. all universalist morality other than that of the UDHR is not permitted in the public sphere. so there is a direct clash between the two perspectives of universalist relgious churches and the universalist liberal democracy. if the evangelicals plus the more fundamentalist Catholics form an alliance to create a majority, then the new minority (for today the liberal nihilism that says anything goes, rules), there would be a serious rift within the state, one that could lead to more than a culture war as did the issue of slavery at one time, as was the case during the war of religions, though now we are looking at religion versus the religion of liberal absolutists who demand that the state only permit laws that agree with their perspective. So in order to preserve peace in our society, it is the obligation of the Churches to back off on this issue, since it is a single issue politics. i could hold on to other universalist principles that it could push on society, e.g. social justice which is not a single issue. in this regard, it could create a widespread alliance, or true majority that might be able to influence the state lawgiver. in last analysis the church must accept it's privatization, and cherry pick among its universalist principles in order to survive as a church. otherwise, it will go down in flames, and who is to say, but given the way organized religion is behaving at the present time, that might be the best thing. they a new jesus might emerge to renew the earth.

I see you missed me Mary- but no, trust me I am not avoiding the discussion. I was out and about and have just now gotten in.

Missing me is not the only thing you miss. when will you realize that On Faith is a place for discussion- like the discussion or not. this is a free and open blog and although I usually disagree with Mr. Stevens-Arroyo on many points, the fact that he posts here indicates he wants to express what he believes and he also believes in freedom of speech. And I respect him for that because he has been raked over the coals often enough.

You make everything personal- it never occurs to you that anyone could possibly have a legitimate complaint about the Church and what it tries to do. You have no issue with insulting and with holding the rights of gays and women because the Church says you should. Excuse me, the Pope says. You see no correlation between demanding a group of Americans should be treated like second class citizens, or that women should have the right to privacy and medical decisions taken away from them with the anger and bitterness expressed here, not only by non-Catholics, but any person of good conscience who cares about other people.

You care only for the literal translation of scripture. You see no beauty in what Jesus taught, you don't see any of the love he tried to teach his followers. You aren't a catholic, Mary- you're a fundamentalist and it's people like you who strangle the light and life out of their respective religions. It's people like arminius, paganplace, lepidopteryx, and many others who in refuting you prove over and over again that there is still good in the world. (yeah, arminius- she pissed me off too). -sparrow4

Mr. Arroyo,

Oh, where to start with you?
For one thing St. Paul condemns same sex activity NOT because it’s part of the culture of paganism, but because it’s a sin. Your argument comes straight from homosexual activists’ books. St. Paul does link paganism with homosexuality, but not in the way that you say. St. Paul calls all sin a form of idolatry. What St. Paul is saying is that when the human soul worships a false god, a god of this world and not a god of the spirit, that we are lead into all sorts of sins, and among them is homosexuality. But in many other places he makes it clear that the thinks that all sin is a form of pagan idolatry, and it is.

Col 3:5, “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.”

We all know that money can be a person’s god, as can food, drugs, alcohol, anger, even work. The consequence of a life in the flesh is sin and more sin. That is St. Paul’s understanding of the origin of homosexuality.

You also say talk about the Greco-Roman practice of pederasty, which was known to be exclusively between an older man and a younger boy. But in his letter to the Romans St. Paul also condemns lesbianism.

I’ll skip the errors you made about St. Thomas Aquinas out of time constraints.

What you said about the Christian idea of marriage is just so wrong that it’s hard to believe you’ve ever read the Bible. You make is seem like it’s only since Vatican II that the Church even considered love as part of Christian marriage. Mr. Arroyo, where do you get ideas like this from? I’m very serious about that. Do you get them from all sorts of liberal groups who want to distort what the Church teaches?

The Catholic idea of marriage is the “the two become one flesh.” That in Genesis, that’s throughout the Old Testament. That’s repeated by Jesus in the Gospels. Marriage is the union of man and wife into one body, soul and mind. From that union children come. The union is total and it’s not restricted to only couples who can have children. Can you cite me any place where the Church has denied marriage to couples who are past the age of childbearing?

What’s more, marriage between one man and one woman is the model for Christ’s love for all of us. Jesus says many times that he’s the groom and that the Church is the bride. St. Paul says in 1 Corinthians that when a Christian marries an unbeliever that the union between them consecrates their children to God. In Ephesians 5:31-32, St. Paul gives his ultimate teaching on marriage in quoting Genesis, “"For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is a profound one, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church…” Marriage mirrors on the earthly realm the great mystery where Jesus left his Father in heaven to be joined with us in communion with him.

You talk about the Church separating what it believes from what it wants codified in secular law, and that’s worth talking about. Yes, the Church relented in making divorce easier, but has than been good for society? Do people still argue that divorce is really good for the kids? A lot of us remember these arguments from the 1970’s that said that divorce was not just not bad for kids but was actually good for kids. Does anyone still want to say this? The Church speaks for the good of all mankind, for our happiness, not to take away all our fun. The real truth which you want to ignore is that homosexuality causes nothing but unhappiness in people. This will take time for it to be known by most in this society. I suspect that in a generation or so, once people have become less intoxicated with the idea of homosexuality and once they know more about the reality of it, people will see the Church’s opposition to it more clearly.

What you’re arguing for is that the Church should allow society to self-destruct because it should be concentrating on the issues that you worry about more. What’s more important than the foundation of society, which is how children are raised? I don’t speak for the Church but I think that divorce laws need to be strengthened to make the family more secure.

The Catholics and the Mormons both want to impose their religious dogma on those outside of their churches ... yet, both would see the leaders of Islam as extremists in doing the very same thing in the Middle East!

(snappy quips aside, but no, I'm not cruising for the Catholic 'excommunication' ritual, even if it *would* stop the Church from claiming to represent half my family as obedient to them when it comes to politics. Actually, to get excommunicated, well, that would involve lies which would be morally-repugnant to me, too. Maybe they ought to recognize those who've moved on in a good faith manner instead of claiming we've embraced 'evil' and all the other nast in that ritual. )

"I do think that "Catholic America" is remarkable Paul--for having almost no Catholics!"

Well, take heart, Ms. Cunningham. According to the Church, I still *am* counted as Catholic.

What's a gal gotta do to get excommunicated, these days, anyway?

Um, wasn't it our friend Paul who advised slaves that they should obey their masters, and advised women on how to best allow their husbands to dominate them?

And this is our source for social wisdom?

Why is it none of you using Paul to demonize gays is willing to quote Paul on slavery or women's rights?

I do think that "Catholic America" is remarkable Paul--for having almost no Catholics! Think about it. I am in England and Soja in Australia. We are both immigrants. That leaves only you and Speed as American Catholics. That's four. Maybe Judy in Tx is 5.

Where are the rest? Probably on other sites.

Anyway, thanks for the intervention. I'll be off now.

Oh, btw. Ms Cunningham. As someone involuntarily raised Catholic, I feel entirely qualified to rant all I want about a Catholic theologian starting off an essay by blaming a 'Culture of paganism' (in bold type) for a 'Christian society's' own failings.

"We don't beliee that Gay should be descriminated against, but we also feel that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women."

Why do you think that bond is only made sacred by profaning the bonds between others under civil statutes?

The real question is why aren't they using their time, money, and resources to fight poverty, disease, and such, as Christ commanded.

Christians the world over spend untold millions fighting against gay marriage,against the ability for gays to get health care, decent jobs, decent housing, etc.

How many millions of kids in Africa could be helped with that money?

What would Jesus do? Would He really let a child die in Africa so He could instead use His time and resources to prevent two aging lesbians from getting social security benefits or decent health care?

It sounds like several people here would like to ban "yucky marriage," in which case my parents would not be married, and neither would most of the people I see eating dinner on Sunday afternoon at the Golden Corral buffet. "Yuck" is not a legal argument, or a religious argument, it's a personal preference. I personally think Brussels sprouts are yucky, but I've spent very little energy having them made illegal.

"AS for the non-Catholics who are responding about the Catholic Church pushing its positions into the secular government, you need to step back a second and think about what power the Catholic church in America really has to initiate public policy. It has no vote or veto power, no way to coerce others to do its will."

Well, except of course by withholding Communion and damning and discrediting any disobedient Catholic politician eternally if he doesn't represent the view a bishop wants, even if it's his job to represent *all* the people, not just those who think obedience to reproductive policies of a religious sect is all that matters in today's world...

But why split hairs?

Paul2C,

Could you suggest a better website where Catholics in America can discuss things sans slander? There is a good one here in the UK, Damian Thompson's "Holy Smoke", mixed, atheist/CofE/Catholic but very little abuse. (add www)blogs.telegraph.co.uk/damian_thompson/

Best,
Mary

Mary Cunningham,

Of course Swift was right up there with the best of them. But Aristophanes was better.

All I am saying is that I am really disappointed in your rant. I agree that there are a boatload (garbage scow load?) of Catholic bashers here. But I am not one of them, and neither is Paganplace. You really could have said all that better, without being so defensive and sounding like a victim.

I wish Ryan Haber were here. He is Catholic, and probably the most polite and civil poster of all. He is compassionate even to the bashers. We can all learn from him.

Mary,
I know you are frustrated with this thread but it is different than the normal Cahtolic America thread, in that it is mostly being used by Gays to defend their right to marriage. The anti-Catholic slant is mostly frustration that the Catholic Church is actively opposed to what they see as their rights. The only thing we can do is calmly explain why we (and the Church) have taken our positions. Maybe in that way, the audience will have a better appreciation for what Catholicism really stands for. If you are looking for a pure Catholic discussion, this is not the website for you.

AS for the non-Catholics who are responding about the Catholic Church pushing its positions into the secular government, you need to step back a second and think about what power the Catholic church in America really has to initiate public policy. It has no vote or veto power, no way to coerce others to do its will. It only has the power of persuasion and the moral authority that comes from being the Apostolic Church. Because Catholics are only about 25% of the US population, any law that might be enacted would have to have the concurrence of at least as many non-Catholics.

As for the point that Catholics shouldn't worry about civil gay marriages. Well, that's not entirely true. First of all the bishops do have the responsibility of teaching Catholic morality, whether you agree with it or not. And that needs to be public because it needs to be very clear what the Church teaches. Secondly, there are implications of secular social policy that can be seen to force the Catholic church to go against its teachings. For instance, if there are laws enacted that force Catholic hospitals to provide birth control or abortions or for catholic institutions to recognize gay marriage. Earlier in this thread, there was a discussion about the oldest Catholic adoption group having to close because it didn't want to provide children for Gay couples but was compelled to by Massachusetts state law. So it does matter because it effects how Catholics conduct their lives. We don't beliee that Gay should be descriminated against, but we also feel that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a women.

Btw, Ms. Cunningham:

On your short form demonstration of how much you seem to get out of this.

"Paganplace: ugh! Endless! But no insults. She is a gay pagan."

Actually, you'd think out of all the 'endless' talk on this subject, you'd have somehow absorbed the fact I'm actually *bi.* I've just been in a long-term same-sex partnership for a lotta years, now. I think men are a great idea, just seems it hasn't been tried, lately. :)

"Paganplace: just a home-loving gal"

'Just?' Maybe not. But, yes, this 'issue' of yours is first and foremost about 'home,' for me. Certainly any sequel to my colorful tales of running the streets on pure brass, spirit sight and adrenaline would be a little disappointing to watch.

The issues that are abstract and theological to *you* are real enough that, unfortunately, I spend a lot of my days here in a chair yapping at *you.* When I'm *not* here, generally it's either *really* bad healthwise, or I can be off with my better-things-to-do.

I'm sure that if we can work out some civil justice, here, we can return you to your regularly-scheduled shame, guilt, and recrimination.

We apologize for any inconvenience.

Arminius,

So what? You have a terminal tendency to rush towards judging someone of whom you know not a thing. You've disowned me, apologized, now disown again and I could not care less.

The quote was from Jonathan Swift, "Draper's Letters". Thought you would recognize good satire, but no,eh Arminius? Swift is one of the greats. IMHO.

This blog is called "Catholic America". It should perhaps serve as something other than an opportunity for all and sundry to beat up Catholics, however, as it does not, I merely suggested to Prof S-A that it should be renamed "Anti-Catholic America", that would suit its putative participants better.

Hi, Paganplace,

Still battling it out with the Confused Croissant, I see. Good for you - his posts keep getting further down in the gutter.

Have you read Mary Cunningham's rants? She thinks I'm gay because I am Episcopal and we have a gay bishop. That got a chuckle out of me. But she also insulted my friends, including you, and that pissed me off.

" CCNL Author Profile Page:

"Hmmm, with respect to two guys(gals) going at it, IMHO, one is reminded of a dog humping somebody's leg."

Well, there's *one* person for whom that image leaps to mind, though... Is there a second?

I'm getting the notion here you're frustrated in some way.

To put some cute animal speak to it, 'Sex: UR doing it wrong, ' CCNL. :)

Mary Cunningham,

I once thought you were an OK person, but your recent rants have changed my mind. You have, apparently acting out of bigotry, wrongly labeled me as gay. You have insulted my friends here.

Yes, this blog is about Catholics. Now please explain exactly why a non-Catholic would be unwelcome here. This blog, and all blogs on On Faith, are open to all. Something about that boring old First Amendment, one might suppose?

Can't even complain,eh Sparrow? And you loving freedom and all.

"...for those who have used power to cramp liberty, have gone so far as to resent even the liberty of complaining: although a man upon the rack was never known to be refused the liberty of roaring as loud as he thought fit."

Mary Cunningham,

You wrongly said, "Arminius: great gays of antiquity (he is a gay Episcopalian)".

Episcopalian, yes. Gay, no. I definitely support gay rights, but I'm straight. IMHO, woman is God's greatest and most beautiful creation.

Ms. Cunningham: please refrain from misrepresenting my views. I do not despise Catholicism, contrary to your statement in this forum. I simply ask that Catholics and others respect my legal and moral right to exercise my religion without coercion to adopt the religious beliefs and practices of others. I also ask that Catholics and others respect the Constitution of the United States as the supreme law of the land.

Oh Mary Cunningham, you're talking out of your hat again, no? You have no idea what religion people are (think you called me an athiest in your loud mouthed ignorance). Many of us love much of what the Catholic Church stands for and has done and at the same time we can see bad things the Catholic Church does as well. Interfering in American politics that don't effect the CC at all is one of them. Maybe in your mind the only REAL CATHOLIC is one who never critisizes the church, but here in American we call that kind of person 'an enabler', like the 'mom' who tells her kids 'daddy has the flu' when his real problem is he gets drunk every morning. The CC can be improved, and many of us who care about the CC want to help improve it. Clearly you'd rather see the CC become less and less important in our lives by sticking to it's pre-Islam values.

Dear Prof Stevens-Arroyo,

Here is a brief from some of the usual suspects who people the blog:

Starting from the bottom:

Mary Cunningham: [that’s me!} Explained Judaic origins of Church’s position
Paganplace: ugh! Endless! But no insults. She is a gay pagan.
PaulC2: another Catholic, explains
Paganplace: more, very long
Paganplace: A PS
Paganplace: more
Mike K: church and infertile couples. Good question.
Paganplace: just a home-loving gal
Paganplace: more
CCNL: an atheist who criticises Church for not investing in anti-passion pills. Trying to be funny.
Paganplace: answers
Paulc2: quotes catechism, to the point
Paganplace: Paulc2 and catholics violate the constitution
Paganplace: more
Arminius: great gays of antiquity (he is a gay Episcopalian)
Paganplace: more
CCNL: gay sex is “yucky”
And more...Arminius &Pagan discuss sport
Observer12: A new entrant! “Catholic church has too much power.” Calls CCNL an anti-semite among other things
Pagan and observer discuss CCNL
Observer12: an ex-Catholic. Quotes Aquinas who along with CCNL is anti-Semitic.
Soja John Thaikattil: a Catholic from India living in Australia. New saint, St. Alphonsa, from same church as she!
Pagan/Observer: gay sex is good.
Pagan: can’t recognize holy. Catholic Church is awful, defames gay people
Observer: agrees
Soja: “Paganplace, this is a Catholic blog. I thought American Catholics might be interested to know a little detail about the first Indian saint from someone who belongs to the same Catholic denomination as the saint and who is originally from the same state.”
Observer12: Church should “atone for its long history of sin”; should be shut
Soja: explains the concept of sainthood [Soja, don’t talk to these people!]
Pagan: church doesn’t have a moral leg to stand on
Soja: to Observer, how does that accord with your belief in religious freedom?
Observer: Only wants to see the Church when its clergy is being arrested
Soja: leaves. “the discussion is leading in the same direction as all the countless earlier discussions on this blog. It get nowhere”
Observer12: [celebrates her departure]:Gee. It feels good not to be outnumbered by them for once. On the other hand, unlike your Christians or Catholics, one of whom I was, I'm not a natural born gangster.
Sparrow enters: Normal anti-Catholic cant
6 atheists/pagan
Paulc2: attempts explanation
15 anti-Catholic posts
Speed123: complains anti-Catholic and homophobic (CCNL) comments
Speed123: libertarian bias
Spidermean2: Evangelical. Catholics are hypocrites (in capital letters)
Sparrow4: “Catholics have no right to make decisions” for rest of us. (Who is us? This is supposedly a Catholic blog).
5 Atheist/pagan
PaulC2: tries again: “the Catholic church is not trying to become the state religion of Connecticut or of the US. There is a huge difference between what it is doing, voicing an opinion on a moral issue, and establishing itself as the state religion.”
5 Atheists
Mary Cunningham: That’s me! Complains at Prof S-A eliciting so many anti-Cath. Comments
MightySparrow: very angry at Paul.
Sparrow4: Complains that MC “whines”. Finds her attitude “despicable”

So you see Professor, all your articles do is elicit tremendous hostility to Catholicism from all those who despise her. I can’t understand how you honestly think this is serving our Church? Do you really want * to do this? It’s pretty clear Catholics don’t visit so you are serving the atheists and all who hate the Church. Your attitude puzzles me.

Yours problematically,

Mary Cunningham

The bishops need to stay away from pro-active involvement in government decisions.
They are participating in discrimination.
Civil marriage in law is one thing; sacramental marriage in the Church is quite another.
I can conceive of a situation in which a man and a woman could be married sacramentally without registering that marriage civilly.
That's the area the Church controls.
As a result, people can obtain a legal divorce, without losing their sacramental status within the Church.
If it decides not to allow marriages, for example, of underage children, or to allow marriages between people of different religions under the sacramental system of the Catholic Church, after certain standards are met, that's the perview of the Church.
In America, the melting pot, certain laws recognize marriages.
America makes laws for numerous minorities.
If America wants to civilly recognize a same-sex marriage, it has a right to set up a civil system to regulate that legal bond, just as it has a right to set up a system to prevent polygamy.
Would the Church oppose a movement to make polygamy legal for Mormons?
Or to keep polygamy illegal in America?
That's up to the Mormons, not the Catholic Church.
That doesn't deter the Church from outlawing both polygamy and same-sex marriages in its sacramental system.
The Church must be very careful about intrusion in the political realm.
The day could come when the Church would be ordered by the government to allow sacramental performance of marriages it outlaws.
We don't want that to be an issue, either.
The government has no business ordering Catholics to change the practice of their religion to suit the laws of the country or to have the practice of religion by Catholics be outlawed by the laws of the land.
This type of intrusion can go both ways.
Currently, the Church is coming smack up against this problem in the election cycle.
It operates under tax-exempt status.
Yet, it intrudes on public discourse when it denies political candidates the sacrament of the Eucharist in a very humiliating public announcement in an obvious attempt to affect votes of Catholics in the election on the basis of a single issue.
A recent diocesan letter was circulated warning Catholics that they must consider this one issue over all others when voting.
This diocesan letter stands in direct opposition to the statement by the USCCB that Catholics should feel free to vote their own judgment in conscience.
After 2,000 years, you would think the Church would figure this out.

paulc2 writes "Again, the Church is taking a stand on an ISSUE: it is saying it does not support Gay marriage. This is not a Catholic only position. There are many non-Catholics that also support this position. This is not the same as forcing a religion on you"

If the CC doesn't support gay marriage, aren't they free not to have gay marriages in the CC?
The difference that you are ignoring is that the CC doesn't want to not have gay marriages in the CC, it doesn't want to have gay marriages in any church, period. The government's part in marriage is like that in any contract (and marriage is a contract), and denying a contract based on race or sexual orientation seems to me to be Un-American. Rights are not something government gives us, Rights are what we have, period. In short, the CC IS trying to enforce it's narrow interpretation of scripture on the entire country. The CC has a right to do this, but doing this isn't right, and you ought to know this.

What I'd like to know is how two gays marrying is any harm to any other straight marriage anywhere. I'm sure you can answer that.

You know, Mary- every post from you is a whine about how Catholics are so underrepresented or so discriminated against. You never understand that those of us who don't believe as you do don't want you or your church dictating to us.

Understand something else- most of us are not denigrating Jesus or his teachings. we are protesting the twisting of those teaching by people like yourself who think prejudice against gay people is OK because the "bible tells you so." I find that attitude despicable. And unAmerican.

paulC2: "Again, the Church is taking a stand on an ISSUE: it is saying it does not support Gay marriage. This is not a Catholic only position. There are many non-Catholics that also support this position. This is not the same as forcing a religion on you. In the same way, the church takes positions on other moral issues. It stands against abortion, for instance. It is also against the death penalty.. It has as much right to stand against Gay marriage as you have to support it. In fact, I could have the same complaint about you wanting to force your morality on me. In the end, the decision will be made by the will of the voters (and hopefully not by the will of a judge)."
-----------------------------------------

PaulC2: Once again, the Church is not merely voicing an opinion or taking a stand against gay marriage. You are not being entirely honest when you say that. As the original poster said, the Church in Connecticut, and elsewhere, is telling all of us that THE LAW MUST BE CHANGED to comport with the "truth of Jesus Christ" as you put it. That is simply unconstitutional, plain and simple. That is very different from espousing a SECULAR reason for enacting a policy into law.

We are supposed to believe in this country, unlike the Iranian Mullahs and the Taliban, that everyone should be free of coercion in matters of religion. It is now clear, as I said earlier, that the Catholic Church, and a large number of American citizens, want the right to force their religion on everyone else. Well, I will fight all of you with every ounce of strength I have for the rest of my life, to protect our Constitution and our freedom of religion in this country.

Dear Prof Stevens-Arroyo,

Congratulations on eliciting your usual quota of anti-Catholic bile. Why don't you rename this particular blog *anti*-Catholic America. They certainly are far better represented. Let's see of the 96 posts, there are four-count them, four!--Catholic posters. Catholics seem to be giving WaPo's idea of 'Catholic' America a big miss!

Thus, hardly truth in advertising to call it 'Catholic' America, better described as ANTI-Catholic America, ATHEIST America, also, would be good, but not as descriptive..

The catholic church has to be the most hypocritical organization in the world. At least 70% of the clergy is gay -- albeit most in the closet. So the church routinely discriminates against its own. And why would a straight man want to give up sex to join a celibate clergy? It makes much more sense for gay men -- lifetime job security and plenty of non-procreative sex. I even think that Jesus must have been gay. He hung around with 12 men and a prostitute (read fag hag.) I am sure that there were many hot nights in the inn with 13 horny men.

paulc wrote:"The sole reason that the Catholic church exists is to bring the truths of Jesus Christ to the people so that they can be saved. It has every right to do so. You, on the other hand, because you don't agree with those truths, would make the solution to deny the Church its constitutional rights by censoring it. Isn't that what you are in effect saying?"

That is not what he was saying at all. You do indeed have a right to free speech and those who practice catholicism have every right to their opinion. where you are wrong is thinking the church has a right to push those opinions into law. that is unconstitutional and against the separation of church and state.

Paul C wrote "In the end, the decision will be made by the will of the voters (and hopefully not by the will of a judge)."

Should we vote on whether or not mixed race couples should marry? Should we vote on whether overweight couples can marry each other?

Should we vote on freedom of speech? Should we vote on what clergy can preach from the pulpit? What about the tax-exempt status of churches?

Should we vote on gun ownership?

If we shouldn't vote on those things, what is the defining difference?

Hmmm, with respect to two guys(gals) going at it, IMHO, one is reminded of a dog humping somebody's leg.

The Catholic church (and Methodist, and Lutheran, and Baptist, and everyone else) is full of gays and homosexuals, or hasn't anyone been paying attention the last ten years as one after another church clergy was being sued for gay acts with boys and destroying lifes. Not men, boys.

Take your heads out of the bible and think for yourself for a minute. The bible was written by man for the benefit of man. It's a book. Nothing more or less. Some choose to believe this book is a reflection of God himself. Others choose to look at the book as a book, nothing more or less.

So, are the ones who take this book called the Bible so literally as to make them right about issues such as this? Or is it just as likely that those who view this book as a novel better suited in the science fiction section - that they may be right?

What happens when science proves that homosexuality is no more a choose for a person than whether they have b rown eyes, have dimples or not, have brown or blck hair, or crooked teeth?

What happens?

Again, the Church is taking a stand on an ISSUE: it is saying it does not support Gay marriage. This is not a Catholic only position. There are many non-Catholics that also support this position. This is not the same as forcing a religion on you. In the same way, the church takes positions on other moral issues. It stands against abortion, for instance. It is also against the death penalty.. It has as much right to stand against Gay marriage as you have to support it. In fact, I could have the same complaint about you wanting to force your morality on me. In the end, the decision will be made by the will of the voters (and hopefully not by the will of a judge).

paulC2 said: "The sole reason that the Catholic church exists is to bring the truths of Jesus Christ to the people so that they can be saved. It has every right to do so. You, on the other hand, because you don't agree with those truths, would make the soltution to deny the Church its constitutional rights by censoring it. Isn't that what you are in effect saying?"

No, paulC2, that is not what I am saying. What I am saying is that the Church's attempt to make it's religious beliefs into law (that is what they are doing) is NOT protected free speech under the Constitution. You are incorrect about that. I am NOT in favor of censoring the church! I never said I was in favor of censoring the church. What I merely pointed out is that the EXPRESS LANGUAGE of the 1st amendment prohibits the government from turning religious doctrine into law.

It's right there in the 1st amendment in plain language- what the Church is doing, and what you support, is forcing it's particular religion on the public at large, which is exactly what the 1st amendment's establishment clause is meant to prevent.

Mightysparrow:
Please, the Catholic church is not trying to become the state religion of Connecticut or of the US. There is a huge difference between what it is doing, voicing an opinion on a moral issue, and establishing itself as the state religion. The church is actually exercising its right to free speach, a right which you apparently seek to deny.

The sole reason that the Catholic church exists is to bring the truths of Jesus Christ to the people so that they can be saved. It has every right to do so. You, on the other hand, because you don't agree with those truths, would make the soltution to deny the Church its constitutional rights by censoring it. Isn't that what you are in effect saying?

CCNL writes
'Bottom line: homosexual affairs approved by the state or not, are still in the "yuck zone".'

If you're going to pass that kind of judgement, please post a picture of yourself, so we can judge if your affairs are in the 'yuck zone' or the 'hot zone'.
Thanks!

"The universal reaction against gay marriage by the Church is understandable. In fact, the Vatican just refused credentials to a French ambassador because he is married to another gay man. All bishops are expected to maintain Rome's line of reasoning. However, the Church is simultaneously against discrimination and denounces depriving gay and lesbians of most civil rights or exposing them to persecution. Thus, Catholicism affords dignity to homosexuals, but opposes laws about homosexuality. The two stances are compatible, but complicated."
--------------------------------------------

The above is all self-contradictory nonsense. How can you say the Church is against discrimination, when it is trying to force its religion on the entire population of Connecticut and the USA?!

The Church is attempting to violate the 1st amendment, regardless of what speed123 said. Outlawing gay marriage is not an exercise of religious freedom for those discriminated against! It is really a violation of the 1st amendment's prohibition of government establishment of religion, and a violation of the equal protection clause and the 5th and 14th amendments.

Hi, Lep, you said,
"I know our Flummoxed Pastry is a troll, and I have less than a snowball's chance in the Sahara of getting through to him, but if my responses to his trolling cause someone else to stop and think, then I consider it effort well spent."

And, of course, you are quite correct.

Speed123:
Also, they have every legal right under civil unions that others do - their desire for marriage rights is simply to force acceptance of their unique views of society at large.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Actually, civil unions don't provide every right that legal marriage does.
For example, my husband and I were married in Louisiana, but if we travel to any other state, we are considered married, and have all the legal rights thereof in that state as well. My lesbian friends who were legally married in Massachusetts and now live in North Carolina are not considered married by the state of North Carolina. Child custody, power of attorney, and inheritance of jointly held property in the case of a legal spouse's death, for example, are not guaranteed to same-sex couples with civil unions the way they are to legally married couples, especially if the couple moves to a state where such unions are not recognized. Ensuring those things requires a trip to a lawyer's office and expensive legal fees for same-sex couples, whereas hetero couples get those benefits at no extra cost when they sign the marriage license.

There are federal rights that come with legal marriage that are denied to same-sex couples, even if they reside in a state where same-sex marriage is legal - joint federal tax returns and inheritance of a deceased spouse's Social Security benefits come immediately to mind.

Arminius,

I know our Flummoxed Pastry is a troll, and I have less than a snowball's chance in the Sahara of getting through to him, but if my responses to his trolling cause someone else to stop and think, then I consider it effort well spent.

speed123 wrote:"The Catholic population has every right to protest homosexual marriage recognized by the state because this is a social contract that will lead to direct discrimination / legal actions against any citizen who disagrees on religious or communal groups.

Homosexuals feel it is their individual "right" to marry; however, they forget that marriage is not an individual act - it is a social act that has social implications."

I think you've fallen off the cliff of religious hysteria. The government has every right to be in the marriage business because marriage has legal, financial and social implications that cut across all lines. If anything, the church should mind its own business and not tell the government what a civil marriage is. that still leaves you to practice your faith and religion as you see fit. It also leaves the government the right to say I don't have to give you money to practice discrimination against American citizens and taxpayers.

Let's put it in terms you might actually understand- if you don't want me to tell you what faith you can follow, stay out of my bedroom. Marriage is a contract between 2 people that is legally binding. It is a personal contract regulated by the state. Not a social contract that your church, or mine, has any business sticking their nose in. fine- you don't want them to have a religious ceremony in your church- that's what freedom of religion is for. However, you and the Church have no right to make those decisions fro government or for the rest of us.
-sparrow4

Bottom line: homosexual affairs approved by the state or not, are still in the "yuck zone".

"Today Catholicism continues to oppose gay marriages "

Ironically it is where Catholics comprise the majority GAY MARRIAGES are allowed. HYPOCRISY, BIG TIME.

That should read: the govt. should NOT be in the marriage business.

PS - Government should be in the marriage business in the first place.

This would nip the problem in the bud, as individuals could get married within communities of their choosing.

As usual, the govt. gets involved and causes mayhem.

I.e. the mayor of S.F. presiding over a lesbian wedding as a class of preschoolers participated in as a "fieldtrip".

Is this what is taught in school now? Are you arrested by truant officers of the state if you protest?

Brave new world!

Lovely anti-Catholic and homophobic comments below.

I assume that ravitchn, observer12 and arni have issues with their own sexuality and therefore project their fears/desires onto others.

Grow up, kids.

The Catholic population has every right to protest homosexual marriage recognized by the state because this is a social contract that will lead to direct discrimination / legal actions against any citizen who disagrees on religious or communal groups.

Homosexuals feel it is their individual "right" to marry; however, they forget that marriage is not an individual act - it is a social act that has social implications.

Also, they have every legal right under civil unions that others do - their desire for marriage rights is simply to force acceptance of their unique views of society at large.

If you think I am wrong about social implications, ask the nation's oldest Catholic adoption agency in Boston, MA that was forced to close it's doors because it violated the "rights" of homosexuals via exclusion on religious grounds.

What do you think of that Arroyo?

This is an attack on religious liberties - nothing more, nothing less...

Arminius notes:

"Actually, priests wear robes, more like a dress."

Robes are harder to carry off. They're good on long lanky types who can glide arround in divine disarray. Dresses might be the bishops' best bet.

Observer12 observes,

"Personally, I think men look very good in skirts"

Actually, priests wear robes, more like a dress. But not so bad as a robe. Skirts? Nope. But men look great in kilts, and that is different.

"Pro gay-marriage or anti gay-marriage: there is no reason to ask bishops about it. These men in skirts are hardly the ones to ask. They are all gay and denying it."

Personally, I think men look very good in skirts. Of course, taste is important. Not that many of us can wear chartreuse, for instance. Perhaps, the bishops could attend more to fashion and leave marriage up to the states.

Pro gay-marriage or anti gay-marriage: there is no reason to ask bishops about it. These men in skirts are hardly the ones to ask. They are all gay and denying it.

Hi, Lep,

I see the Confused Croissant, our favorite internet troll, is back to his old tricks. He is doing this deliberately, making pointed remarks that he hopes will goad people into making a spirited reply. He will soon come back with another - you are just playing into his game, not imparting perfectly good information (which you definitely are doing) that will be appreciated by such as he.

lepidopteryx writes
"Same-sex marriages are inherently neither stronger nor weaker than heterosexual marriages."

All indications are that same sex relationships are stronger than hetero relationships because the communication between same sex couples is better than in hetero couples. If ya wanna I'll look up the study that confirms this. As I recall, the longer hetero couples argue the further apart they get, while the opposite is true with same sex couples.

CCNL:
Just ensuring that same-sex marriages are not considered something stronger than the natural child-opportunity type of marriage.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marriage is not a "natural" state - it is a social construct. Like so many other social constructs, it should be malleable as a society evolves.

Same-sex marriages are inherently neither stronger nor weaker than heterosexual marriages. Like hetero marriages, the strength of the relationship depends entirely on the personalities of the individuals involved.

Marriages are not weakened by the lack of opportunity for creating progeny unless making a baby from scratch is a deal-breaker for either spouse. And quite frankly, I would not want to marry anyone for whom my having a functional uterus was a non-negotiable requirement. I would hate to think that was what he thought would be my most important contribution to the relationship.

"In Hellenist times, physical sex with young boys was comparable to how we might think today about 30 minutes on the treadmill. Homosexual sex then was a macho's therapeutic release of tension."

This is perhaps the most preposterous thing I have ever read about the act of "preposterous venus." I would suggest that the author actually read some more recent works of scholarship on this subject, I'm thinking, and I know this is a stretch for most Christians in America, not only Catholics, of things written since the 13th century, such as John Boswell's "Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality: Gay People in Western Europe from the Beginning of the Christian Era to the Fourteenth Century." Yes, this author was a homosexual man. Perhaps that is why he cared so much about this academically recognized and awarded piece of work. But then, it really sounds like Mr. Stevens-Arroyo would benefit from reading any of the ancients Greeks.

And as for your post-Aquinian thinking and those philosophically messy works of Scholasticism upon which the Catholic church yet builds its increasingly irrelevant beliefs, beliefs that most of the Church's parishioners don't live by or are trying to figure out how they actually can live by these contradictions and conundrums, well, good luck with that.

As for myself, lustful pagan that I am, I will always love like the Greeks, a people that have always understood the word "love" in its varied manifestations of that language with a deeper consciousness and understanding than most anyone writing today.

lepidopteryx,

Just ensuring that same-sex marriages are not considered something stronger than the natural child-opportunity type of marriage.

CCNL :
Hmmm, are "married, legally or otherwise", lesbians who cheat on their partners considered adulterous? Ditto for male "yucky doers"??
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say that anyone who breaks a promise of sexual fidelity would qualify for that title. Of course, adultery, while it is a really crappy way to treat someone you claim to love, isn't a criminal offense, so I'm not sure what the point of your question is, other than the fact that you relish the role of gadfly.

Hmmm, are "married, legally or otherwise", lesbians who cheat on their partners considered adulterous? Ditto for male "yucky doers"??

Observer12:

"Solution to problem under discussion: To be legally married in the US, couples must be pronounced wed by a civil servant. If they choose to have some sort of religious ceremony afterwards, that's their private business."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My husband and I did it that way even though we didn't have to. I am not comfortable with members of the clergy functioning as government representatives. We had a religious wedding ritual in our home, in which we wedded ourselves to each other in the presence of our gods, family, and friends, and at a later date had a JP sign off on the papers. So we have two wedding anniversaries - one spiritual, one legal.

Paul:

"observer12 and Pagan place,
While the Catholic Church has no jurisdiction to make secular laws, it does bear the responsibility to spread the teachings of Christ to the faithful. While you and others may not agree with those teachings, it is unreasonable for you to expect the church to abdicate its teaching responsibility.

For the record, the church has been consistent in its view that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and should be treated with Love."

The lobbying the Church does in opposition to secular same-sex marriage is manifestly discriminatory. It is up to those of us committed to separation of church and state to see to it that the church becomes ineffective in its efforts.

Observer12:

"Solution to problem under discussion: To be legally married in the US, couples must be pronounced wed by a civil servant. If they choose to have some sort of religious ceremony afterwards, that's their private business."

Absolutely. Amen. Selah

CCNL writes
"Lights on, lights off, lights turned low, homosexual activity is still yucky"

So would sex between ugly people, old people, fat people, etc. Not sure what your point is.

Hey PaulC -
Its kind of hard to take advice from celebate men about human sexuality. Personally I believe that every person has a right to pleasure, and the teachings of the Abraham based religions certainly don't reflect a healthy or positive view of sex. I highly doubt God has the same shriveled attitudes towards human sexuality that his representatives on earth do.

"For the record, the church has been consistent in its view that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and should be treated with Love."

Love as in "tough Love?" This is like John McCain saying Obama is a decent man but he hangs around with terrorists. You can't pay lip service to love and equality while insisting on real discrimination and preaching that homosexuality is an abomination. If the church really cared about such things, it would remember the gospels were written over 2000 years ago and times have changed. some things change for the better- like equality and human rights. We look at these things very differently today and remaining mired in the past makes the Church look cold, uncaring and passe.

How ironic the Catholic Bishops who protected priests having sex with boys are against gay marriage. And it's based on the writings of Paul? Come on - nobody knows what Paul wrote, there are no original copies. Just like in Islam, Christianity started out with one message and over the centuries "authorities" inserted their own prejudices and inclanations into 'scripture'. Hence Catholic Dogma clings to the silly assertion of Mary's virginity, despite Jesus having brothers, despite what kind of terrible message that must have left for Mary and Joseph (I can only hear Jesus asking "Mom, why does dad spend so much time locked in the bathroom?")
None of the Abraham based religions have a healthy or normal attitude towards sexuality.

observer12 and Pagan place,
While the Catholic Church has no jurisdiction to make secular laws, it does bear the responsibility to spread the teachings of Christ to the faithful. While you and others may not agree with those teachings, it is unreasonable for you to expect the church to abdicate its teaching responsibility.

For the record, the church has been consistent in its view that homosexuals should not be discriminated against and should be treated with Love.

ccnl needs to get a life. Often when a person is that concerned with other people's sex lives, it means they don't have much of one themselves.

CCNL:

You seem to be unduly concerned with what combination of appendages, toys, and orifices other people like to utilize when they make love. I can assure you that every combination used by gay men and lesbians is also used by straight couples.

And I don't know about you, but when my friends, regardless of orientation, introduce me to their spouses or significant others, I don't immediately summon up a mental picture of the two of them knocking boots.

Infamous "yucky doers": Rock Hudson (AIDS/HIV poster boy) and Al Capone (yuck comes in all forms to include STDs due to adulterous behaviour)

For homosexual, yucky passion "how to's", strap-ons and other toys go to?? Google of course!!!

There is same-sex love in the Bible, long before Paul.

2 Samuel 1:26

[After Jonathan's death, David said,] "I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women."

I strongly believe that same sex marriage is an issue of civil rights and not of faith and so I would say that the Catholics and other religious groups should understand that they should respect the rights of others, those that do not adhere to their belief, as their faith is respected by others. A law must be created for the reason of harmonious existence. And we cannot achieve this if one is dominating and persecuting over the other. Marriage should not be defined merely as for procreation purposes but rather for the union and happiness of two people who wants to stay together.

"However, the Church is simultaneously against discrimination and denounces depriving gay and lesbians of most civil rights or exposing them to persecution. Thus, Catholicism affords dignity to homosexuals, but opposes laws about homosexuality. The two stances are compatible, but complicated."

The church affords dignity to homosexuals? Honestly, what blather. it pays lip service to civil rights because it must, but then spends time and energy trying to insure they are not treated equally. honestly- how does someone fix his face to to say this stuff? The two stances are not compatible. You don't give dignity to someone like a gift, nor do you deny them the truth of their relationships. If the church thinks marriage is simply for procreation, then there are many of us who would not be allowed to marry as we are biologically unable to have children. would the Church deny me marriage because my uterus is subpar (and now non-existent)?

I have never understood the insistence of the Church or any one for that matter, to feel it is their business to be in their neighbor's bedroom. I have homosexual friends whose relationships are far better than my hetero friends. My cousin has been in a homosexual relationship for over 30 years and the man he is with is a saint. He has stood by my cousin through everything including terrible illness. My husband of 18 years left me when I nearly died from an ectopic pregnancy and was told I couldn't have children. How is that so damn superior to my cousin's relationship? when I look at my cousin and his partner I see a relationship anyone would envy between 2 mature adults who truly understand what love is.

No one, especially not the Church, has the right to judge them or deny them the right to marry.

Gee. It feels good not to be outnumbered by them for once. On the other hand, unlike your Christians or Catholics, one of whom I was, I'm not a natural born gangster. Then, too, they get so much practice. But, evidently, one can make them go away. Deo gratias.

Okay. No worries, you only interrupted CCNL wondering why no one makes a pill to abolish sex, anyway. :)

Paganplace & Oberserver12, the discussion is leading in the same direction as all the countless earlier discussions on this blog. It get nowhere. So I must leave it here.

Thanks for your responses.

s_j_thaikattil :
"Paganplace, non-Catholics are not expected to share the religious views of Catholics. So you shouldn't feel pressurised for any reason"

I was raised Catholic. They said a lot of things about how I shouldn't feel about things that I saw and suffered.

Get it out of my government, and stop with the Scripturally 'justified' defamation, and I won't feel 'pressurized.'

The former would do for a start.

"Paganplace, non-Catholics are not expected to share the religious views of Catholics. So you shouldn't feel pressurised for any reason.

Catholicism lays great emphasis on suffering with grace, suffering silently. Many saints have shown that as one of their important virtues.

In Catholicism, saints are meant to be role models, that is all. They are not worshipped. Catholics merely ask them to intercede on their behalf, just as one would ask living persons to pray for a particular need."

Really? Suffering silently? They seem to make an awful lot of noise, actually. Saints are the same as human beings? Contradictory, of course. Also, despite recent hype untrue. No ritual, rigaamarole involved in asking a friend to pray for us.

Best for all if the church would keep its mouth shut so those of us who want no part of it don't have to be so endlessly bothered. The sole place of the public should be in arresting and prosecuting pedophiles, child abusers of other sorts, prosecuting clergy for violating tax laws, etc.

Oberserver12, as to shutting up the Catholic Church, isn't that asking for too much, considering you believe in freedom of speech and freedom of religion?

Eh, well, that's fair enough in a way, SJ. 'Separate but equal' may be all that could be voted for, now, but the Church doesn't have to lend support to the notion the *courts* can't stand for true fairness and equality, just cause people want to call a 'definition' of marriage 'sanctified' above all others.

Doesn't mean I think the Church has a moral leg to stand on, never mind coming along ans saying who's 'holy.'

Observer12, you misunderstood my comment. I was referring to marriages conducted in Churches. A legal marriage and a marriage in Church are two separate things.

Divorced Catholics are not allowed to remarry in the Church as long as the ex-spouse is alive. That doesn't stop many Catholics from remarrying in civil ceremonies.

Paganplace, non-Catholics are not expected to share the religious views of Catholics. So you shouldn't feel pressurised for any reason.

Catholicism lays great emphasis on suffering with grace, suffering silently. Many saints have shown that as one of their important virtues.

In Catholicism, saints are meant to be role models, that is all. They are not worshipped. Catholics merely ask them to intercede on their behalf, just as one would ask living persons to pray for a particular need.

"If a Christian denomination/religious group does not consider it proper to award them the status of a married couple, they can still be given a blessing and the rest left to God."

God doesn't run the local, state, and national legislatures. The Catholic Church, the Pentacostal, no church, nowhere, nohow has any business getting its sticky fingers in the laws of this land.

"I mean, 'suffering silently?"

Suffering silently would be an excellent exercise for the the Roman Catholic Church. In keeping it's mouth firmly shut, the Vathican would enable human progress, even as it atones for its long, long history of sin.

Paganplace, this is a Catholic blog. I thought American Catholics might be interested to know a little detail about the first Indian saint from someone who belongs to the same Catholic denomination as the saint and who is originally from the same state.

"I mean, is it just me, or does it take some kind of beans to wander in advertising a saint when people are defending the Church's presumptive right to defame and give innocent people a hard time?

I dunno."

Answer: Yes, it takes some kind of beans to wander in....

I mean, 'suffering silently?' I could give you an earful about people who 'suffered silently' cause the Church thought the things said here about gay people, or anyone who could be called gay.

Didn't see no sainthood for *them.* Could be a growth industry, though. Pope doesn't see em as human, may as well make em effigies. Pah.

Paganplace, my stand on homosexuals and my support for them I wrote about in the blog of Archbishop Tutu: Blessed are the Persecuted.

Legal unions which affords a homosexual couple all the rights accorded to a heterosexual couples is a positive development. If a Christian denomination/religious group does not consider it proper to award them the status of a married couple, they can still be given a blessing and the rest left to God.

I mean, is it just me, or does it take some kind of beans to wander in advertising a saint when people are defending the Church's presumptive right to defame and give innocent people a hard time?

I dunno.

s_j_thaikattil

"The first Indian nun, Sister Alphonsa of Immaculate Conception, (Mother Theresa is an Albanian) who was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on 12 October 2008 belongs to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in Kerala."

Eh, sorry. can't seem to venerate. Too 'objectively disordered' for it. If I can't even get married cause someone dysfuncitonal like CCNL thinks I'm 'icky,' how am I supposed to know 'holy' when I see it?

Links on information about Saint Alphonsa of the Immaculate Conception:

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/saints/2008/ns_lit_doc_20081012_alfonsa_en.html

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1013/1223680464922.html

To me, my little sister, Alphonsa, is a little saint in her own right, because she knew nothing but suffering in her short life of only five months. As far as I can remember she suffered silently.

I do have to say, though, ...Ive met a few straight men in my life. Some of my best friends are straight men. Men think about sex a lot. They *usually* don't have a lot of time left over to think about sex they *don't* have a drive to think about.

Never mind worry how 'yucky' it is to think about.

For what it's worth. If you really wanted to chemically castrate yourself, it could be arranged, no need to try and rule the country over it.

Is there no way to make clear to this Confused Christian Bagel that he's not wanted, not here, not anywhere that humans tread, read, write, walk, talk, etc.

The first Indian nun, Sister Alphonsa of Immaculate Conception, (Mother Theresa is an Albanian) who was canonized by Pope Benedict XVI on 12 October 2008 belongs to the Syro-Malabar Catholic Church in Kerala.

St Alphonsa's life story resembles that of St Theresa of Lisieux in some ways - the long years of illness and death at a young age - although St Theresa had a happy childhood in spite of losing her mother at the age of four.

Sister Alphonsa had been considered a saint by Syro-Malabar Catholics in Kerala long before she was beatified by Pope John Paul II, 8 February 1986. My mother had taken me on a pilgrimage to Bharananganam (where she lived as a nun) when I was a child. For two years I attended a convent school run by her order, Congregation of the (Syro-Malabar Catholic)Franciscan Clarists . My little sister, who passed away aged five months, was named Alphonsa, after the now canonized St Alphonsa. My little sister is

"In the Middle Ages, Thomas Aquinas included Aristotelian philosophy in order to appeal to a universal natural law that could be accepted by reasonable non-believers, such as Jews living in Christian cities or Chinese living at the other end of the world."

Would that be this Thomas Aquinas?

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae 1-2.102.1-3. at http://www. ccel.org/a/aquinas/summa/home.html

The anti-semitic one? Sounds like he's right up CCNL's-Ahem-alley.

Ask me why I left the church, CCNL Bagel.

Ah, whatever sinks your submarine, I guess, CCNL. :)

Lights on, lights off, lights turned low, homosexual activity is still yucky!!!

Last line below should read, 'If it's not sacred, it's not sex.' Whatever CCNL's damage is, well, probably no need to picture anything. :)

"The thought of CCNL sexually engaged is bad enough. With lights on, it's intolerable."

What, he's ever let on he did more than 'look' in the first place? Apparently he must convince himself something is 'forever yucky' to look at. Thus must be suppressed lest he 'look' again. Whatever. But that's boys and vicariousness, right?

Only sex that's 'yucky' to me is when someone's not actually there and trying to use a gal for some 'sin' to go beg forgiveness for. *That's* yucky to me. Doesn't much have to do with plumbing, to be honest.

Doesn't have to be a big deal to be sacred, but it does have to be that. Folks with CCNL's attitude wouldn't get a thing out of me i I *weren't* attached. He keeps begging for a pill to eliminate his frustrated sex drive.

They actually make that, it's called 'chemical castration.' They give it to other people who can't hack sexuality with respect.

To me, if it's not

Paganplace-

"I assure you, there's other ways to look at both homosexuality and heterosexuality... That is, if you like the lights on."

The thought of CCNL sexually engaged is bad enough. With lights on, it's intolerable.

" CCNL Author Profile Page:

No matter how you look at homosexuality, said activity will forever be "yucky"."

I assure you, there's other ways to look at both homosexuality and heterosexuality... That is, if you like the lights on. :)

And as for the Sox, Arminius, it's no fun if 'you' win *all* the time. :)

"However, the Church is simultaneously against discrimination and denounces depriving gay and lesbians of most civil rights or exposing them to persecution."

Anthony, do you mean to say you find the church self-contradictory? Jeez, could of fooled me.

Problem: The Catholic Church has too much power in this country, which claims it separates church from state.

Solution to problem under discussion: To be legally married in the US, couples must be pronounced wed by a civil servant. If they choose to have some sort of religious ceremony afterwards, that's their private business.

Gay men and women are citizens. If they are citizens they must have the rights of citizenship.

A passing thought on the stenching CCNL. Nothing could be "yuckier" than the thought of a creature like you married. There's nothing so yucky as an anti-semitic, anti-Islamic racist homophobe. The stench alone is dangerous to moral thought.

Paganplace,

Read and weep - Rays 10 to 1 in the 6th, bases loaded, 1 out... stay tuned.

No matter how you look at homosexuality, said activity will forever be "yucky".

Paganplace wrote,

"Quotes from whatever they call a Baltimore Catechism, these days. :)
As for the 'Rays,' who's that? :)"

'Baltimore Catechism? Some kind of death wish?

The Rays. The Underdogs. The Cinderella Story. I try to follow a dying American custom of cheering for the Underdogs. 6-1 Rays at the moment in the 5th.

"I'm not sure what prompted that"

Quotes from whatever they call a Baltimore Catechism, these days. :)

As for the 'Rays,' who's that? :)

Paganplace, you wrote,

"Well, that may be so, Arminius, ...though I'm thinking that if any 'objective' point of view wanted to 'disorder' a marriage, there's no quicker way to go about it than to tell a given couple their kids will die and be eternally tortured unless they're made 'straight' by whatever means necessary."

I'm not sure what prompted that, but I agree.

Meanwhile, very important news break! Rays lead Boston 3 to zip in the first! YEE-HAH for the underdogs!

I mean, seriously, the first time I had to admit to my Catholic family that I needed help showing up for a date, (and it was with someone of the opposite sex,) you would have thought archangels descended amidst cavalcades of divine grace that I'd turned out 'straight' after all... For about twenty five seconds, till, of course, that 'grace' gained, it was OK to start to scream at me for being a more familiar kind of (word meaning (loose woman we can't say here)

Disordered? Objective? Gimme a Mother-loving break. We're talking about people who can't *handle* Happy Days.

Well, that may be so, Arminius, ...though I'm thinking that if any 'objective' point of view wanted to 'disorder' a marriage, there's no quicker way to go about it than to tell a given couple their kids will die and be eternally tortured unless they're made 'straight' by whatever means necessary.

To an objective observer, anyway.

If you believe in that sort of thing.

Hi, Paganplace,

I think the Confused Croissant may feel that his 'manhood' is threatened by gays. Sad.

Here are some thoughts about gays and lesbians.

I'm sure that you are familiar with Sappho. A long time ago, in another galaxy, I actually read some of her stuff in the original Greek. Stunning poetry.

As to the ancient Greeks. In another post, I think on another thread, you set forth on that. By and large, you were correct. But two footnotes here -

One: in 371 BC/BCE, an outnumbered Theban army, led by the brilliant general Epimaniondas, crushed a superior army of Spartans. First time Sparta had ever suffered a major defeat in battle. The final blow was delivered by the Theban Sacred Band - 300 very well trained warriors, consisting of 150 pairs of homosexual lovers.

Two: a great view into heterosexual ancient Greece is hysterically available in Aristophanes' 'Lysistrata'. This comedy, even today, is well worth the read. The scene with the Athenian guard and the Spartan herald is priceless.

"This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial."

No trial you don't unnecessarily subject us to, I might add.

As for 'objectively disordered,' frankly, I'd put my 'lesbian' relationship against Christian or Catholic levels of dysfunction any night of the week...

If you were allowed to do that in America.

Which you're not.

If you missed that bit.

And this entitles you to violate the Constitution how, again, PaulC2?

Here is the official Catholic view of homosexuality from the Catechism:

==> Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,140 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."141 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

==> This is what the Catechism teaches about marriage: 1601 "The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament."

==> This is what the Catechism has to say about civil divorces. As you can see, it is far from what Dr. S-A claimed: After all, a generation ago U.S. Catholicism decided to accept civil divorce for Catholics

Catechism view==>
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ - "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery"158 the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God's law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.

Still, Concerned Christian, you seem to be in some kind of desperate position for someone to find a pill to eliminate sexual drives or intimacy.

Is it that your own don't meet the demands of the dogma you so stridently try to deniably-command?

Seems to me that if you had a healthy *straight* sexuality, that might occupy you quite well enough... but instead you seem to be demanding someone find a way for 'everyone' to be compelled to be just as you want.

You OK, there, guy?

Err, CCNL, if it's 'irregular DNA,' there's no justification at *all* to pretend you aren't being bigoted.

If you want science, there's no reason to believe that some of us being gay to one extent or another isn't actually an integral part of our species.

Sex or 'passion' isn't a problem. Whatever you think 'causes' reality not to meet your little codified demands.

Ignorance and fear *are.*

Hmmm, yucky activity because of irregular DNA, sums it up when talking about homosexual passion sessions. Another use for anti-passion pills?? You would think the RCC would invest some research money into the development of these multipurpose pills!!!

And, err, not that we don't stand with the gay guys, but even Biblical literalists are doing some pretty creative interpretation to include we lesbians in their condemnations based on some idea that gay men are just out to make the Virgin Mary cry in some gym.

"Will the church stop marrying infertile couples or is the ability to produce children really not the reason it opposes same-sex marriage?"

It might be beyond the reach of my usual cynicism, but I can't help but notice the correlation between the fact conservative religious and pols keep getting the gay sex they like in a cheap, exploitive, and shadowy manner, and keeping on passing laws and promoting theologies that just happen to serve the end of keeping it that way.

My partner and I really just want to make a home. Honest.

"Today Catholicism continues to oppose gay marriages on the premise that since gay sexual unions cannot produce children, they are "unnatural" and must be opposed."

Sexual unions where one partner is infertile cannot produce children either. Will the church stop marrying infertile couples or is the ability to produce children really not the reason it opposes same-sex marriage?

I mean, that thing just falls down right there, even before the Religious Right didn't bat an eyelash when Palin's daughter got pregnant from premarital sex and her Mom still claims 'abstinence only' education and telling gay people, who are insistently called 'unfit parents' when in stable and loving partnerships, ...turn around and pretend to be straight and get preggers or impregnate someone with someone they don't love... will 'protect the sanctity of marriage.

It's nonsense. And, furthermore, just your religious observance, not something to abridge civil rights or good policy over.

Forget about it.

"Furthermore, marriage has always been about procreation."

Has not. Seriously, now. Since when have they demanded fertility tests to get a marriage license?

Anyway. I know well there's some hot-button stuff, there, but having grown up, (maybe really too soon) among people using those very premises to silence and triply-traumatize victims of clergy abuse based on those very premises, (that it's about sin or anyone actually being gay when a priest or someone else abuses their power amidst a context of really, utter confusion about the divergence between sexual maturity and social and mental maturity, glossed over with simplistic definitions and condemnations of 'sin'... )

Well, I think it's the responsibility of adults, particularly those of us called clergy, to do better than to try and ignore biology and just slap sexuality into submission until one's old enough to make poor decisions for onesself.

Abuse and exploitation, whether in the guise of some ancient pederastic custom, or institutionalized by a Catholic Church, ...isn't actually about what the Bible may say about homosexuality.

It's not just about boys when it comes to abuse of power and institutionalized conflict about sexuality, ...girls' virginity may be a thing of value, but if you're in a situation where you won't be listened to anyway, you're fair game, too.

So, Professor, if, as you (thanks) want to differentiate between gay adult life and love and rights and Biblical-clinical definitions of 'Sin,' on behalf of the Church, don't turn around and make the same accusations about 'Pagans' in ancient times, or project the same kinds of authority structures onto a very different society.

It's this one we need to deal with, not necessarily by justifying what Paul did with his damage and an imported set of tabooes. Much of the absolutism and rationalistic philosophy that the Church turned toward a unitary authority of Biblical literalism and authority was actually inherited from the same place as some of the very customs Catholics use to try and portray ancient cultures as empty and hedonistic until Christianity came along and sanctified the same stuff...

Plato and Aristotle weren't just the founders of what we modernly call 'reason,' these days, ...they're also part of the legacy of the Church thinking an idealized 'Perfect order' was more important than how things actually happen in real life. Like Galileo found out when he dropped a couple of balls off a tower. Like Augustine used when he decided things weren't grim enough, yet, etc...

Like when, enraptured by the power of newfound forms of reason, some of the ancient luminaries of greek philosopy were apparently said to believe mice arise spontaneously from 'filth,' rather than just having sex.

Prof S-A:
You are making this much more complicated than you need to. The Catholic church is and always has been opposed to extramarital sex. This includes heterosexual as well as homosexual sex. Furthermore, marriage has always been about procreation. Therefore, don't expect the church to embrace same sex marriage. And saying that the church embraced civil divorces is a bit of an overstatement, don't you think? Although the church has nothing to do with contractual matters between two parties, it will still not recognize a second marriage as ecclesiatically lawful, even if the state does.

I appreciate the Professor here's take on modern realities, but, frankly, he's got the history a bit messed-up.

"Begin at the beginning: homosexuality is fiercely condemned in Paul's Epistles. But these condemnations are as much about the culture of paganism as they are about sin."

Possibly, but no less virulent, defamatory, hateful, and violent toward both homosexuals and Pagans for it.

" In Hellenist times, physical sex with young boys was comparable to how we might think today about 30 minutes on the treadmill."

No, it *wasn't.* That's ridiculous. Greek pederasty wasn't even based in Hellenic theology, (rather, on occasion, the custom was projected onto the Gods, much like anything else: the context for this was not one in which sex was a sinful violation in the first place, you have to understand. For starters, as opposed to pedophilia, this was about *pederatsy* ...pubescent males in that culture as well as monotheistic ones, were actually considered *youthful adults,* not children.

Just like monotheists have rites of passage to manhood and womanhood at ages that are now considered childhood by modern standards, a certain point in puberty was considered the start of adulthood, not the middle of our modernly (and I think in some ways rightly) extended childhood. (Accordingly, pederasty and pedophilia are conflated in modern society, even though they are different things in some ways)

Parts of Hellenistic culture, particularly the more philosophical and rationalistic end, rather than so much the earth-centered Pagan end, developed a *huge* emphasis on abstract 'love' for masculine youth and beauty, (and in the process didn't think so much of women, quite often. Paul inherited this misogyny well enough,) ...for diverse reasons, this was considered purer love than mere breeding, and an initiation into adulthood, not exploitation or abuse of power as it would be today. It was also a matter of *class* rather than religion.

All of which isn't to endorse such practices for modern times, but the ancient idea of that area and time was not based on the premises of sin and shame and extended childhood in the first place.

" Homosexual sex then was a macho's therapeutic release of tension."

I think this projects the mores where the word 'macho' comes from onto something unrelated.

" Because Hellenistic paganism detached physical sex from marriage or love,"

No, it detached *breeding* sex and marriage from certain *kinds* of love. This is not to say that the way they *did* see and do things was above reproach, but it's meaningless to project your own dogmas which hadn't even taken this form backwards.

" Paul wrote against separating the emotions of the soul from the actions of the body. He argued for a holistic Christian sexuality that joined love and marriage."

But, he decided to embrace a different idea of what constitutes 'soul' and divide it from his *own* definitions of sexuality *according* to tabooes about bodies. ...then accordingly villify homosexuals based on what was actually kind of an affectation of the philosophical classes because he wanted to elevate some gross bodily functions above others.

In a modern society, especially *given* that we've extended a sort of childhood years past physical maturity, (Again, I think there's merit to this,) we need to be more aware than blaming homosexuality for abuse of power.. Forms of power that weren't so institutionalized and forced to the shadows in ancient times, ...and to the point of view of certain Greek citizens, there was no inherent shame in the 'pederasty' of the time.

Even if, as I suspect of Paul, every time I hear some Christian screaming his writings, ...I don't see a messenger of any 'Ultimate order,' ...I hear, 'Someone hurt this guy. Bad.'

And that crosses all times and cultures.

His words didn't stop the hurt. They made it far worse. And in the case of gay people or victims of abusive clergy who take advantage of the resulting confusion, exploiting the fear and shame and shadows to silence victims, now taking a double helping of shame from the 'righteous' on account of the *stigma,* ...well, definitely, we get back to whether adult gay people deserve the same kind of abuse just cause of Paul's invective. .

Greek pederasty, like you actually find in a few African tribes, wasn't seen as 'homosexuality' in the adult sense, it was something else. And not inherent to Pagan belief. Roman Pagans, for instance, found it almost as unmasculine as do moderns: an affectation of intellectual classes, actually.

In modern times, it'd be no more appropriate than marrying girls off at first menses would be, as done by many Biblical peoples well into the previous millenium. But that doesn't mean it was in the context of Paul's polemics. He kind of *invented* those.

I don't think this piece by Prof S-A is going to fly. Mostly because the history is wrong IMO. The Prof. is no ancient historian (even if Sally Quinn does like his posts),

From what I've read (in Martin Goodman's, professor of ancient history at Oxford, "Rome and Jerusalem"), Paul's animosity towards homosexual acts came directly from his Judaism. Ancient Jews held the mixup of sexuality characteristic of Hellenistic culture to be decadent. Remember during Paul's time the emperor Nero had his favourite boy slave castrated, formed into a girl, then engaged in some kind of wedding ceremony with him/her. Of Julius Caesar it was written: "He was husband to every man's wife, as well as wife to the every woman's husbands". (OK, his prowress is somewhat exaggerated!) Similarly Prof Goodman writes Jews were scandalized by Greeks performing naked in the gymnasium, as well as by the fairly 'loose' morals of women of the Roman aristocracy.

Prof. S-A's writing accords very well with episcopal theology, in fact, it could well have been written by opening gay bishop Gene Robinson or any of the Anglican liberals who divided the CofE last summer. However, Catholics disagree with Anglicans in this matter.