Last night on "Hardball," Chris commented on the funeral of his friend and colleague Tim Russert (may Tim rest in peace!) :
"I was at the funeral mass at Holy Trinity, which is a wonderful (church) in Georgetown. It‘s a Jesuit Catholic Church. The Jesuits run that church. It has a certain quality . . .
It‘s nice to go to a church. By the way, it‘s a Jesuit church. It‘s liberal. It‘s my kind of Catholic. It‘s really nice. They are very forgiving in that church. They‘re very forgiving at that church. The only sins in that church are nuclear war and racism. "
A "certain quality," indeed. Chris probably left out smoking . . . and mixing paper & plastic.
But a question: Why forgiveness if you don't believe in sin?
Posted by Gibbons
Friday, June 20, 2008
New York Bishop gets it on Same-Sex "Marriage"
That's Bishop William Murphy of Rockville Center, New York. Some excerpts from the Catholic News Agency story:
"In his column, Bishop Murphy explained that, “our new governor has decided to circumvent the legislature, the courts and any testing of the will of the people. He has decided by an administrative decree that unions of persons of the same sex which are recognized as ‘marriage’ in another state would be recognized and honored as such here in New York. This is just plain wrong . . .
The fact is what the truth is: this is wrong and no amount of trying to appeal to ‘fair play’ or ‘equality’ or ‘putting all relationships on the same footing’ can make this right . . .
He explained that the state is able to give “certain rights and privileges to married couples” because “the state has a vested interest in the bond that a man and a woman make to each other in public when they marry. That interest is the common good of society which is enhanced and stabilized by marriage as a public institution which is the basis of all other societies. That interest is in the present and future good of society that can be guaranteed in the long run only by stable married and family life which is possible only in the natural order of a union between a man and a woman.”
In all these levels, sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex does not pass muster. They do not serve the common good. They cannot do so because they contradict biological teleology and the natural law. (emphasis added). This does not impugn the motives or the goodness of any person. This does say that the truth must never become victim to misguided actions that seek to impose a false interpretation of what is real on our society.”
“In this case the governor not only sidesteps democratic process. He acts contrary to the common good and introduces into New York a phenomenon that corresponds to the desires of a few at the expense of the whole and at the expense of the good of New York.”
We can expect the good Bishop to be viciously attacked for stating these simple truths. He needs to know we support him! Here's an email link to his office.
Most Reverend William Murphy
bishopsoffice@drvc.org
Posted by Gibbons
"In his column, Bishop Murphy explained that, “our new governor has decided to circumvent the legislature, the courts and any testing of the will of the people. He has decided by an administrative decree that unions of persons of the same sex which are recognized as ‘marriage’ in another state would be recognized and honored as such here in New York. This is just plain wrong . . .
The fact is what the truth is: this is wrong and no amount of trying to appeal to ‘fair play’ or ‘equality’ or ‘putting all relationships on the same footing’ can make this right . . .
He explained that the state is able to give “certain rights and privileges to married couples” because “the state has a vested interest in the bond that a man and a woman make to each other in public when they marry. That interest is the common good of society which is enhanced and stabilized by marriage as a public institution which is the basis of all other societies. That interest is in the present and future good of society that can be guaranteed in the long run only by stable married and family life which is possible only in the natural order of a union between a man and a woman.”
In all these levels, sexual intimacy between persons of the same sex does not pass muster. They do not serve the common good. They cannot do so because they contradict biological teleology and the natural law. (emphasis added). This does not impugn the motives or the goodness of any person. This does say that the truth must never become victim to misguided actions that seek to impose a false interpretation of what is real on our society.”
“In this case the governor not only sidesteps democratic process. He acts contrary to the common good and introduces into New York a phenomenon that corresponds to the desires of a few at the expense of the whole and at the expense of the good of New York.”
We can expect the good Bishop to be viciously attacked for stating these simple truths. He needs to know we support him! Here's an email link to his office.
Most Reverend William Murphy
bishopsoffice@drvc.org
Posted by Gibbons
Thursday, June 19, 2008
"How can gay marriage hurt anybody else?"
...asks Rod Dreher. He answers by quoting from this story, from National Public Radio. Excerpts:
"As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.
"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.
Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups. A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court."
And Mark Shea comments: "The main result (and, in the plan of Hell, the principal goal) of the legitimation of gay marriage is to have a new weapon with which to attack the Church."
"As states have legalized same-sex partnerships, the rights of gay couples have consistently trumped the rights of religious groups. Marc Stern, general counsel for the American Jewish Congress, says that does not mean that a pastor can be sued for preaching against same-sex marriage. But, he says, that may be just about the only religious activity that will be protected.
"What if a church offers marriage counseling? Will they be able to say 'No, we're not going to help gay couples get along because it violates our religious principles to do so? What about summer camps? Will they be able to insist that gay couples not serve as staff because they're a bad example?" Stern asks.
Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups. A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.
A psychologist in Mississippi who refused to counsel a lesbian couple lost her case, and legal experts believe that a doctor who refused to provide IVF services to a lesbian woman is about to lose his pending case before the California Supreme Court."
And Mark Shea comments: "The main result (and, in the plan of Hell, the principal goal) of the legitimation of gay marriage is to have a new weapon with which to attack the Church."
Two Views on Same-Sex "Marriage"
Here are two opposing views on same-sex marriage: one from George Neumayr of the "Catholic World Report" writing in the "American Spectator" and the other from Professor Dale Carpenter, writing in the "Bay Area Reporter."
While each writer has a diametrically opposed view on the issue, they both share an understanding of the stakes involved and the civilizational importance of the issue. This is quite refreshing after the mainstrem media's "oh, isn't that cute!" coverage and even some rather weak statements by those who claim to be defenders of marriage.
Some excerpts are below. First, Professor Carpenter:
"It's impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are . . .
If Californians reject the amendment, it will be the first time voters anywhere in the world will have approved gay marriage. (emphasis added) They will have done so where the issue is squarely presented. They will have done so in a state inhabited by almost 40 million people, a state whose influence on the nation's culture and law is even larger than its share of the population. Vermont could be ignored. Massachusetts could be legally quarantined. But California can be neither disregarded nor isolated.
In future years, gay couples from across the country will be able to go to California – not to some foreign country – to have their relationships sanctioned. This alone will put enormous pressure on other states to move ahead and to do so more quickly than they otherwise would have. The federal government, too, will face increased political pressure to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in a state . . .
The stakes for the cause of gay marriage are higher than they have ever been. We are headed for a momentous battle in a full-scale culture war on the most strategic terrain in the country."
Now, Mr. Neumayr:
"'A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down,' wrote Soren Kierkegaard, 'but a revolutionary age that is at the same time reflective and passionless leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.'
Something like this seems to be happening in California. In the heat of revolutionary fervor, California's leftists once called for the abolition of marriage, which they regarded as an 'outmoded' and 'oppressive' tradition. But these days they praise marriage as a hallowed institution while they harness it to their original destructive purposes. (emphasis added).
What the open radicalism of the 1960s sought to accomplish overtly its more circumspect successors achieve subtly, leaving state marriage standing but trivializing and discrediting it. The Golden state that first took a cudgel to marriage with no-fault divorce takes a final swipe with same-sex marriage . . .
MEANWHILE, THE OPPOSITION to gay marriage seems depressingly wan, as a note of agnosticism about the immorality of homosexual behavior saps its drive. The case against gay marriage ultimately rests on the natural moral law, (emphasis added) but Republicans and conservatives seem to consider that too passe or embarrassing to be useful in the debate. Yet without that philosophical basis, the case against gay marriage appears arbitrary and strained . . .
Implicit in all these previous concessions was an acceptance of homosexuality that made the state's full embrace of it in gay marriage inevitable. Negotiating with the gay-rights movement at this point is obtuse. The revolutionary path blazed by the Summer of Love has terminated in the Summer of gay marriage, and there is no turning back unless the issue is engaged at a deeper level than politics."
Both men understand the nature of the issue. Supporters of same-sex "marriage" are well funded, supported at the highest level of government and business, and they are relentless.
Will we, as defenders of marriage, answer the call?
While each writer has a diametrically opposed view on the issue, they both share an understanding of the stakes involved and the civilizational importance of the issue. This is quite refreshing after the mainstrem media's "oh, isn't that cute!" coverage and even some rather weak statements by those who claim to be defenders of marriage.
Some excerpts are below. First, Professor Carpenter:
"It's impossible to predict now what the net political effect of all these gay nuptials will be. But it is possible to say what the stakes are . . .
If Californians reject the amendment, it will be the first time voters anywhere in the world will have approved gay marriage. (emphasis added) They will have done so where the issue is squarely presented. They will have done so in a state inhabited by almost 40 million people, a state whose influence on the nation's culture and law is even larger than its share of the population. Vermont could be ignored. Massachusetts could be legally quarantined. But California can be neither disregarded nor isolated.
In future years, gay couples from across the country will be able to go to California – not to some foreign country – to have their relationships sanctioned. This alone will put enormous pressure on other states to move ahead and to do so more quickly than they otherwise would have. The federal government, too, will face increased political pressure to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed in a state . . .
The stakes for the cause of gay marriage are higher than they have ever been. We are headed for a momentous battle in a full-scale culture war on the most strategic terrain in the country."
Now, Mr. Neumayr:
"'A passionate tumultuous age will overthrow everything, pull everything down,' wrote Soren Kierkegaard, 'but a revolutionary age that is at the same time reflective and passionless leaves everything standing but cunningly empties it of significance.'
Something like this seems to be happening in California. In the heat of revolutionary fervor, California's leftists once called for the abolition of marriage, which they regarded as an 'outmoded' and 'oppressive' tradition. But these days they praise marriage as a hallowed institution while they harness it to their original destructive purposes. (emphasis added).
What the open radicalism of the 1960s sought to accomplish overtly its more circumspect successors achieve subtly, leaving state marriage standing but trivializing and discrediting it. The Golden state that first took a cudgel to marriage with no-fault divorce takes a final swipe with same-sex marriage . . .
MEANWHILE, THE OPPOSITION to gay marriage seems depressingly wan, as a note of agnosticism about the immorality of homosexual behavior saps its drive. The case against gay marriage ultimately rests on the natural moral law, (emphasis added) but Republicans and conservatives seem to consider that too passe or embarrassing to be useful in the debate. Yet without that philosophical basis, the case against gay marriage appears arbitrary and strained . . .
Implicit in all these previous concessions was an acceptance of homosexuality that made the state's full embrace of it in gay marriage inevitable. Negotiating with the gay-rights movement at this point is obtuse. The revolutionary path blazed by the Summer of Love has terminated in the Summer of gay marriage, and there is no turning back unless the issue is engaged at a deeper level than politics."
Both men understand the nature of the issue. Supporters of same-sex "marriage" are well funded, supported at the highest level of government and business, and they are relentless.
Will we, as defenders of marriage, answer the call?
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Los Angeles Bishops' Statement
The Catholic Bishops of the United States have affirmed repeatedly that persons with a homosexual orientation "must be accepted with respect, compassion and sensitivity." Accordingly the Bishops condemn all forms of violence, scorn, and hatred -- whether subtle or overt -- against men and women who are homosexual.
All people, regardless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active role in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings. Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.
The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. "When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened." The state has a primary and fundamental obligation to protect and promote the family, which is rooted in marriage and sustained by it.
Some benefits currently sought by same sex partners can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent. Other desired benefits such as sharing in a partner's health insurance could be made available without the drastic step of a cultural or legal redefinition of marriage.
Let us strengthen our resolve to respect the dignity of each human being and to protect the sanctity of marriage, asking God's guidance in our efforts to promote the common good central to a free and democratic society.
All people, regardless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active role in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings. Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God's creation, joining a man and a woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.
The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition. Its meaning is given, not constructed. "When marriage is redefined so as to make other relationships equivalent to it, the institution of marriage is devalued and further weakened." The state has a primary and fundamental obligation to protect and promote the family, which is rooted in marriage and sustained by it.
Some benefits currently sought by same sex partners can already be obtained without regard to marital status. For example, individuals can agree to own property jointly with another, and they can generally designate anyone they choose to be a beneficiary of their will or to make health care decisions in case they become incompetent. Other desired benefits such as sharing in a partner's health insurance could be made available without the drastic step of a cultural or legal redefinition of marriage.
Let us strengthen our resolve to respect the dignity of each human being and to protect the sanctity of marriage, asking God's guidance in our efforts to promote the common good central to a free and democratic society.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Heroic Polish athlete dies to save life of unborn child
"Thousands of Poles lined up to say their final goodbyes to Agata Mroz, a young volleyball star who died on June 4 after postponing a bone marrow transplant in order to allow her daughter to be born."
It's a story of Christian love that has captured the imagination of an entire country. Read it here.
A friend from Poland says: "Everyone knew she had cancer, people were hoping she would get better, but she did not . . . When she died-- it was the front page story in ALL Polish papers, not just the sports papers. Literally, the whole of Poland has been following it. Her husband said at her funeral "...that he is not asking God why He took Agata, but that he is thankful that God put Agata in his life..."
We pray:
Niech cię przygarnie Chrystus uwielbiony,
On wezwał ciebie do królestwa światła.
Niech na spotkanie w progach Ojca domu
Po ciebie wyjdzie litościwa Matka.
(May glorious Jesus embrace you,
who has called you to the kingdom of Light,
May to the threshold of the Father's house,
Merciful Mother come to greet you.)
It's a story of Christian love that has captured the imagination of an entire country. Read it here.
A friend from Poland says: "Everyone knew she had cancer, people were hoping she would get better, but she did not . . . When she died-- it was the front page story in ALL Polish papers, not just the sports papers. Literally, the whole of Poland has been following it. Her husband said at her funeral "...that he is not asking God why He took Agata, but that he is thankful that God put Agata in his life..."
We pray:
Niech cię przygarnie Chrystus uwielbiony,
On wezwał ciebie do królestwa światła.
Niech na spotkanie w progach Ojca domu
Po ciebie wyjdzie litościwa Matka.
(May glorious Jesus embrace you,
who has called you to the kingdom of Light,
May to the threshold of the Father's house,
Merciful Mother come to greet you.)
Day of Infamy
Today's the day!
June 16, 2008 will certainly go down as a DAY OF INFAMY In California.
Gay Marriage is Legal!
How foolish we are in accepting as legal what is unnatural and contrary to reason. Let’s forget religion for the moment.
Common sense tells us that gay marriage is no marriage, because a main purpose of marriage is the creation of the family. And the family needs children. Gay marriages cannot beget children. Adoption won’t do. Kids need mother and father.
June 16, 2008 will certainly go down as a DAY OF INFAMY In California.
Gay Marriage is Legal!
How foolish we are in accepting as legal what is unnatural and contrary to reason. Let’s forget religion for the moment.
Common sense tells us that gay marriage is no marriage, because a main purpose of marriage is the creation of the family. And the family needs children. Gay marriages cannot beget children. Adoption won’t do. Kids need mother and father.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
"An institution to be dismantled, not pursued."
Amidst the San Francisco Chronicle's fawning coverage of the destruction of marriage in the state of California, we find this
"Jewelle Gomez and her partner, Diane Sabin, were plaintiffs in the case that granted same-sex couples the right to marry and, along with other couples, cheered the California Supreme Court's decision on the steps of the courthouse last month.
But in the moments after the decision was announced, Gomez still wondered - did she really want to marry?
That is a question many people who have long been part of the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement are asking after the court's ruling. For much of the movement's four-decade history, marriage was viewed by many activists as an institution to be dismantled, not pursued."
Unless California voters pass the Marriage Protection Act, the "gay activists" will have succeeded.
"Jewelle Gomez and her partner, Diane Sabin, were plaintiffs in the case that granted same-sex couples the right to marry and, along with other couples, cheered the California Supreme Court's decision on the steps of the courthouse last month.
But in the moments after the decision was announced, Gomez still wondered - did she really want to marry?
That is a question many people who have long been part of the modern gay and lesbian civil rights movement are asking after the court's ruling. For much of the movement's four-decade history, marriage was viewed by many activists as an institution to be dismantled, not pursued."
Unless California voters pass the Marriage Protection Act, the "gay activists" will have succeeded.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
Our Bishops Speak...
... on Stem-Cell research. Our bishops are way ahead of certain scientists who are still pursuing morally unacceptable Embryonic Stem Cell research, which has yet to produce a single cure, while adult and cord-blood stem cells are curing people right and left.
The statement opens with :
"The Catholic Church "appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects" (Pope Benedict XVI, Address of January 31, 2008). At the same time, it affirms that true service to humanity begins with respect for each and every human life.
Because life is our first and most basic gift from an infinitely loving God, it deserves our utmost respect and protection. Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong. Yet some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of research—and even that we should make taxpayers complicit in such killing through use of public funds. Thus, while human life is threatened in many ways in our society, the destruction of human embryos for stem cell researchconfronts us with the issue of respect for life in a stark new way.
And it concludes:
"The issue of stem cell research does not force us to choose between science and ethics, much less between science and religion. It presents a choice as to how our society will pursue scientific and medical progress. Will we ignore ethical norms and use some of the most vulnerable human beings as objects, undermining the respect for human life that is at the foundation of the healing arts? Such a course, even if it led to rapid technical progress, would bea regress in our efforts to build a society that is fully human. Instead we must pursue progress in ethically responsible ways that respect the dignity of each human being. Only this will produce cures and treatments that everyone can live with."
It's an excellent statement, and can be found here.
The statement opens with :
"The Catholic Church "appreciates and encourages the progress of the biomedical sciences which open up unprecedented therapeutic prospects" (Pope Benedict XVI, Address of January 31, 2008). At the same time, it affirms that true service to humanity begins with respect for each and every human life.
Because life is our first and most basic gift from an infinitely loving God, it deserves our utmost respect and protection. Direct attacks on innocent human life are always gravely wrong. Yet some researchers, ethicists, and policy makers claim that we may directly kill innocent embryonic human beings as if they were mere objects of research—and even that we should make taxpayers complicit in such killing through use of public funds. Thus, while human life is threatened in many ways in our society, the destruction of human embryos for stem cell researchconfronts us with the issue of respect for life in a stark new way.
And it concludes:
"The issue of stem cell research does not force us to choose between science and ethics, much less between science and religion. It presents a choice as to how our society will pursue scientific and medical progress. Will we ignore ethical norms and use some of the most vulnerable human beings as objects, undermining the respect for human life that is at the foundation of the healing arts? Such a course, even if it led to rapid technical progress, would bea regress in our efforts to build a society that is fully human. Instead we must pursue progress in ethically responsible ways that respect the dignity of each human being. Only this will produce cures and treatments that everyone can live with."
It's an excellent statement, and can be found here.
Friday, June 13, 2008
"How the Laity Can Save the Church"
And I always thought the Church was here to save us!
But that's part of the title of a talk being given as part of a Voice of the Faithful/USF Lane Center sponsored event this Sunday at USF's Xavier Hall. The full title is "Catholicism at the Crossroads: How the Laity can Save the Church" by Paul Lakeland.
Speaking of Voice of the Faithful/USF, tonight the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco is hosting Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, depite the fact that Archbishop Niederauer has asked Bishop Robinson not to speak in his diocese. So much for the faithfulness of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.
Posted by Gibbons
But that's part of the title of a talk being given as part of a Voice of the Faithful/USF Lane Center sponsored event this Sunday at USF's Xavier Hall. The full title is "Catholicism at the Crossroads: How the Laity can Save the Church" by Paul Lakeland.
Speaking of Voice of the Faithful/USF, tonight the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco is hosting Australian Bishop Geoffrey Robinson, depite the fact that Archbishop Niederauer has asked Bishop Robinson not to speak in his diocese. So much for the faithfulness of the (Jesuit) University of San Francisco.
Posted by Gibbons
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Most Holy Redeemer Update
It appears that our Archbishop, His Excellency George Niederauer, has asked MHR not to march in this year's "Gay Pride Parade." As far as we know, he is the first Archbishop of the Archdiocese of San Francisco to have done this, and we wholeheartedly thank him.
From "Lifesite News:
"SAN FRANCISCO, June 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The San Francisco Catholic parish that gave the homosexual movement its rainbow flag will have a new surprise in store at the upcoming annual gay pride weekend in San Francisco: they are not coming.
The San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese has asked Most Holy Redeemer Parish in the Castro district not to participate this year and the parish has so far agreed.
LifeSiteNews contacted the archdiocese after it was reported Tuesday by the California Catholic Daily that Most Holy Redeemer parish would once again participate in San Francisco's Pride Weekend - an event featuring sundry displays of obscenity, replete with floats and marchers celebrating all sorts of alternative sexual lifestyles from same-sex "marriage" to bisexuality to polyamory."
Readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" know that we have objected over and over again to some of the activities at Most Holy Redeemer. To read our posts about MHR, please click on the "Homosexual Agenda" label at the bottom of this entry. For a fuller examination of some of the objectionable activities at MHR, go here.
We completely support our shepherd, Archbishop Niederauer in his action. We continue to pray for him, and for our brothers and sisters in Christ at MHR. May they also pray for us!
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
From "Lifesite News:
"SAN FRANCISCO, June 11, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The San Francisco Catholic parish that gave the homosexual movement its rainbow flag will have a new surprise in store at the upcoming annual gay pride weekend in San Francisco: they are not coming.
The San Francisco Catholic Archdiocese has asked Most Holy Redeemer Parish in the Castro district not to participate this year and the parish has so far agreed.
LifeSiteNews contacted the archdiocese after it was reported Tuesday by the California Catholic Daily that Most Holy Redeemer parish would once again participate in San Francisco's Pride Weekend - an event featuring sundry displays of obscenity, replete with floats and marchers celebrating all sorts of alternative sexual lifestyles from same-sex "marriage" to bisexuality to polyamory."
Readers of "A Shepherd's Voice" know that we have objected over and over again to some of the activities at Most Holy Redeemer. To read our posts about MHR, please click on the "Homosexual Agenda" label at the bottom of this entry. For a fuller examination of some of the objectionable activities at MHR, go here.
We completely support our shepherd, Archbishop Niederauer in his action. We continue to pray for him, and for our brothers and sisters in Christ at MHR. May they also pray for us!
Posted by Gibbons J. Cooney
Jennifer Roback Morse on Same-sex "Marriage"
Excerpts from the article in the National Catholic Register:
"Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.
Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes . . .
Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.
Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.
Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.
The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent."
h/t Ignatius Insight
"Advocates of same-sex “marriage” present the idea as a step forward for tolerance and respect. But recent developments place that interpretation very much in doubt.
Legalizing same-sex “marriage” is not a stand-alone policy, independent of all the other activities of the state. Once governments assert that same-sex unions are the equivalent of marriage, those governments must defend and enforce a whole host of other social changes . . .
Marriage between men and women is a pre-political, naturally emerging social institution. Men and women come together to create children, independently of any government. The duty of caring for those children exists even without a government or any political order.
Marriage protects children as well as the interests of each parent in their common project of raising those children.
Because marriage is an organic part of civil society, it is robust enough to sustain itself, with minimal assistance from the state.
By contrast, same-sex “marriage” is completely a creation of the state.
Same-sex couples cannot have children. Someone must give them a child or at least half the genetic material to create a child. The state must detach the parental rights of the opposite-sex parent and then attach those rights to the second parent of the same-sex couple.
The state must create parentage for the same-sex couple. For the opposite-sex couple, the state merely recognizes parentage.
In her essay in The Meaning of Marriage, Seana Sugrue argues that the state must coddle and protect same-sex “marriage” in ways that opposite-sex marriage does not require.
Precisely because same-sex unions are not the same as opposite-sex marriage, the state must intervene to make people believe (or at least make them act as if they believe) that the two types of unions are equivalent."
h/t Ignatius Insight
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
