“We pledge to each other, and to our fellow believers, that no power on earth, be it cultural or political, will intimidate us into silence or acquiescence,” it says…
They want to signal to the Obama administration and to Congress that they are still a formidable force that will not compromise on abortion, stem-cell research or gay marriage. They hope to influence current debates over health care reform, the same-sex marriage bill in Washington, D.C., and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation…
The document says, “We will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia, or any other antilife act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent.”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Registration is currently closed. That means if you're not already registered, you can't comment. We will let you know if and when registration re-opens. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Separation of church and state. We know this is something libs feel very strongly about, so I guess the church can expect their full support on this issue.
Sharke on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM
Good. Let the Battle be joined.
Holger on November 20, 2009 at 3:06 PM
It’s not even debatable.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Lib Headline: Churches are Outlawing All Marriage
LibTired on November 20, 2009 at 3:08 PM
9000 comments or bust
fiatboomer on November 20, 2009 at 3:09 PM
You can have my gay marriage when you pry it from my cold, dead fists.
fronclynne on November 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
I didn’t know forcing churches to recognize gay marriage was even on the radar. Why would the government even attempt such a thing?
Even if gay marriage were to be federally recognized, only a fool would argue that the 1st ammendment doesn’t protect religions from being mandated to do the same.
JCred on November 20, 2009 at 3:11 PM
Many of them around these days.
publiuspen on November 20, 2009 at 3:12 PM
Anyone who doesn’t think churches won’t be pressured by the government to accept gay marriage is delusional… it will be done with employment law… it will be done with non profit law… etc etc etc…
ninjapirate on November 20, 2009 at 3:13 PM
So, I guess Sullivan to say exactly that (as soon as he finishes mouthing the words to Palin’s book).
fronclynne on November 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Eh, anyone who does think churches will not be pressured…
ninjapirate on November 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Nor should they. Goverment should stay the hell out.
tetriskid on November 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Are they going to interview Hasan and get his views on ‘gay marriage’?
ThackerAgency on November 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM
Cripes, I signed on just in time, huh?
Somehow I don’t think this is the kind of “civil disobedience” King talked about…
Who exactly is saying that gay marriage would, by law, require any church or religious institution to “bless or recognize” same-sex unions?
There may be some wacked-out gay groups out there (well, there ARE wacked-out gay groups out there) but it’s nothing but scare tactics on the part of these religious leaders to frighten people into thinking that any church would be forced to comply legally with any recognition of gay marriage.
It’s a civil, legal, and constitutionally ethical fight. Not a religious one. Heck, I’m Roman Catholic, but I would never want to legally force my Church into performing or recognizing gay marriage. Only the state. Period. And the vast majority of gay marriage advocates believe the same.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM
sorry, I posted before I read the article. It’s just advertising for Catholics.
ThackerAgency on November 20, 2009 at 3:16 PM
I’ve been warning my father, who pastors a very small, rural church, that churches should look closely at what they are accepting by being tax-exempt.
fronclynne on November 20, 2009 at 3:17 PM
LMAO!!
You sir, are a pip. A regular pip.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Only in the mind of some. I didnt realize that Catholic priests have been forced to marry Jews…
Churches, unlike justices of the peace, have 100% discretion on who they marry, most Churches have an extensive set of requirements. Churches have expelled gay members from their ranks for violation of church rules and the courts have upheld it.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Would you support it if it meant the government would collect a ‘gay tax’ to help pay for AIDS treatments so prevalent in the community? How about instead of trading rings, you trade cute and VERY sexy pink triangle patches that you would be required to proudly display on your couture to show your devotion to each other every where you go?
ThackerAgency on November 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Robert P. George helped write it. Good.
Do some background reading on EEOC Nominee Chai Feldblum who has said:
INC on November 20, 2009 at 3:19 PM
Churches hire people. You know, like janitors, secretaries, parking-lot stripers?
fronclynne on November 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Churches do more than marry people… and there views on gender roles and sexuality shouldn’t be confined to just marriage ceremonies…
There are no rights, there are only practices…
ninjapirate on November 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM
Yup. Right.
Daggett on November 20, 2009 at 3:20 PM
That argument is so not in line with legal thought on the topic that I am in disbelief as to how prevalent it has become.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM
How many times do I have to link to this?
A boardwalk pavilion in the seaside town of Ocean Grove, N.J., that has been at the center of a battle over gay civil union ceremonies has lost its tax-exempt status because the state ruled it no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:21 PM
A churched mission statement can be quite clear on the types of people it accepts as members, it can expel whomever it chooses, the courts are clear that churches have this right. They also have the right to hire from within their ranks.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:22 PM
Obama tries yet again to throw the Freedom of Religion under the bus.
“Equal protection clause, equal protection claus” yaddayaddayadda…
The Bill of Rights is very clear that every citizen has a Freedom of Religion. It does NOT say that anyone/all have a Freedom FROM Religion or that there’s some crime involved when individuals exercise their Rights as enumerated the Bill of Rights.
“Gays” are insistent that their homosexual behavior takes precedence over our very Rights (especially the Freedom of Religion). I continue to conclude that a lot of mental illness exists in that behavioral group for these very erratic reasons.
Be ‘gay’ – do what you chose to do – leave the rest of us alone.
To be married in the Catholic Church, one has to be agreeable to the theology of the Church before the SACRAMENT is provided. This is (still) an exercise of the Freedom of Religion in the U.S. If you approach the Church like a vending machine, you’ll find yourself with a lot of complaints.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
How many times do I have to keep telling you…
That was a “public use” pavillion, NOT A CHURCH!
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:23 PM
I don’t know enough about this area of law, but it might be that if a church hires, say a female secretary, and offers health benefits to married people, the secretary’s wife would have to be allowed the health benefits.
So while the marriage might not be recognized in the pulpit, in the back office it might have to be.
rbj on November 20, 2009 at 3:24 PM
It appears that the rules were quite clear when they accepted the tax exempt status for a structure other than their church. I would imagine that this organization is a 501(c)3 not a Church for tax purposes.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Was the church itself forced to marry gays?
dedalus on November 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
More on Chai Feldblum:
EEOC Nominee signed ‘Manifesto’ that Praised Polygamy
INC on November 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
Once again I will point you to Canada, once again you will ignore the examples it provides of a country further along the leftist grievance identity politics track than ours, and once again the discussion will go nowhere.
Your good intentions (assuming they are in fact good) aside, I remain unconvinced that the gay community will be happy with marriage. Next it will be hate speech to claim that gay sex is morally wrong.
There’s a clear pattern of behavior to observe here.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:25 PM
OK, does that mean they have to marry them? They have the right to hire from within their own ranks as well.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Look at where this WH is headed.
That’s why those evangelical, Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christian leaders signed the document.
INC on November 20, 2009 at 3:26 PM
Yeah, so? What does that have to do with forcing them to recognize gay marriage? Perhaps as an employer, but not as a church.
A “gay tax for AIDS”? Where did that come from?
As for the rest, like I said…I realize you’re a bit conflicted on whether or not to support these churches since the Catholics are involved, but try to think clearly.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
You’re completely erring, in all those perspectives you just wrote.
Oh, riiiight, I get it, “man made disasters” (”no such thing as Terrorism”) and there’s nothing theological about marriage, it’s all just “a civil, legal, and constitutionally ethical fight…”
IF you want to RECEIVE THE SACRAMENT OF MARRIAGE in the Catholic Church — how the Church regards and defines marriage — then it is, indeed, a theological situation and a consideration of such.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
A settlement has been reached in the case of Eric McKinley, a gay man from New Jersey, who filed a discrimination suit against eHarmony Inc. when the site refused to accept his same-sex personal ad and the online dating site has agreed to accept gay couples.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:27 PM
Are Churched is Canada required to marry gays?
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Another very good point.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:28 PM
Honestly I don’t know. But there have been ministers fined ruinous amounts for simply reading passages from the Old Testament condemning homosexuality. If we’re at that point, it wouldn’t surprise me at all.
Do the math.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM
Well, I agree with that but the foremost attack is, indeed, on the issue of marriage as sacramental in Christian theology.
It’s a further malignment culturally to condemn, silence and eradicate Judeo-Christian theology. On a social level, people are breezy and “legal” about it all but at the heart of this, there’s a far bigger story.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:29 PM
You would have been one of those people back in the day saying “If we give women the vote, next thing they’ll want equal pay!”
As for pointing to Canada…Come on. This ain’t Canada. How about I point to all the countries where gays openly serve in their military? All the doomsday naysayers here claim morale and enrollment would drop dramatically…yet in those countries it never happened.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Many pastors have degrees in counseling- marriage, juvenile etc. What will the pastors be allowed/disallowed to say if a court judge orders a gay couple into counseling ?
journeyintothewhirlwind on November 20, 2009 at 3:30 PM
Odd issue for me, because I don’t recognize church organizations (and you know how I feel about the RCC’s history of threatening civil authorities)… BUT as a Constitutional matter, they do have a right to have their own beliefs and values…
Therein lies the rub.
If the church janitor is on the payroll and he gets a civil gay marriage, the government WILL force the church to “recognize” said marriage in terms of benefits, etc. They will also allow the janitor to sue said church.
So, no, the government won’t force the churches to perform any ceremonies or recognize the religious union in any way… but LEGALLY, they will be forced to “recognize” the marriages.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Awesome!
BobH on November 20, 2009 at 3:31 PM
And? Churches also have utility accounts and pay for their phone lines and mimeograph machines and printer ink and some of them even have roofs!
I don’t get whatever the point is. Churches are supported by donations by those who opt to give money to support a center-place where they can ceremoniously enjoy that Freedom of Religion. That usually involves some degree of infrastructure and employee expense…
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM
I still confused why it is illiegal for private entities to discriminate. They should reap the benefits, or, more likely, the negative consequences of their decision.
WashJeff on November 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Still waiting for something relevant to the topic at hand. The statutes and common law are very specific when dealing with churches, that is why you really need to come up with an on-point case to make your argument relevant.
As for e-harmony, they settled out of court, there is no way to know how it would have ended up if taken to trial and appeal which is the only thing that would have made precedent. All you have here is someone who didnt really care enough to go through the trouble and instead settled for a non-monetary remedy or performance.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:32 PM
Well, we force pro-life pharmacists to dispense the morning-after pill, and they’re talking about forcing Catholic hospitals to perform elective abortions, so why is this any surprise?
Nethicus on November 20, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Here’s your reasoning:
“Just because it’s happening all over the world, it will never happen here.”
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Some of you who should know better are being obtuse – deliberately, I wonder.
The goal is not gay marriage per se. The true, ultimate goal is to find a way to SILENCE that churches still do so from preaching the Word of God on the subject of sodomy, and whatever other subjects deemed off-limits to dissent. They will accept nothing short of that. So while it may take a convoluted path, but passing gay marriage WILL lead to exactly that.
splink on November 20, 2009 at 3:34 PM
For those who do not think that no matter what “rights” are given a group will not push for more needs to read their history.
Everything expands or dies.
A very recent example is the Boy Scouts. The Supreme Court agreed they had the right to associate and hire whomever as scoutmasters, but localities (Philadelphia) citing city ordinances prohibiting exclusion policies started to kick them out of their publically owned meeting halls and not allow them to use public land.
These same practices can be used against the Church,
“Sorry but to have a parade you must be inclusive, it’s a city ordinance”
‘Sorry but to get a building permit you must be an approved organization, it’s a city ordinance”
“Sorry but to have police security…”
And on and On
And as for Gay scoutmasters; one problem and the Scouts are looking at a multimillion dollar lawsuit.
Say Lorien is in charge of a Girl Scout troop He’s a good guy, loves his wife, but would you trust your young nubile 16 yd old daughter to him for a weekend of camping?
LincolntheHun on November 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM
“the churches that still do,” etc
splink on November 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM
I dont see how that really effects the church one way or the other. Many churches dont offer benes to the Janitorial staff, they subcontract with services, likewise for maintenance, etc. The clerical staff are mostly members and the clergy are the only consistent recipients of a benefits package.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:35 PM
That whole attempt to equate homosexual behaviors and those engaged in them with “women” and the tired “racism” (as to being the equivalent of the “Black experience” as to slavery and such) is woesomely irrational, also dumb.
HOmosexuality is behavioral. WHY it is has yet to be proven by any science, but it’s not “inate” as to some condition anyone is bound to live out or act out, it’s an option, it’s chosen behavior. Eventually a cultural imperative takes over among those so engaged an it becomes cultural, but it’s not inate to any human being as to their biology.
Race and gender ARE inate. Plastically manipulating behavior and using bleaching cremes to look differently than one inately is are cosmetic approaches to accommodate PSYCHOLOGICAL desires, but they do nothing to modify the underlying biology involved (inately a man is still a man and a woman is still a woman by way of chromosomes, that’s inate — changing the packaging does not change the chromosomes).
So the attempt to reason it differently is nonsensical.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:36 PM
Lawsuits. Neither conscience nor Scripture will be an acceptable defense.
splink on November 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
First of all, to your first statement, no I would not. I resent your attempt to tar me like that and reject it utterly.
What does gays serving in the military have to do with this topic? It’s a different issue and a poor attempt at a rhetorical dodge.
But thanks for reacting exactly as I predicted you would. It can’t happen here, after all. It’s not like we have hate crimes legislation that could be easily used for that purpose and an army of PC nazis willing to implement that code of behavior. Oh wait, we do.
YOU FAIL.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
And here is your reasoning:
I am goign to post a bunch of articles only loosely related to the point I am attempting to make and hope people buy it.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:38 PM
They don’t contract out secretarial services.
And some churches have umpteen sub-pastors (music, youth, etc.). What if one declares he’s gay and gets a civil marriage? Will that church be forced to “recognize” that marriage and keep him employed… with marriage benefits?
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
In your mind perhaps.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Wedding businesses are waiting for the flood of lawsuits when marriage is changed.
PrezHussein on November 20, 2009 at 3:41 PM
WRONG.
Scripture represents an aspect of the Freedom of Religion (what Scripture respectively to what aspect of denomination, etc.).
If it’s THEOLOGICALLY identified in a religion to believe as someone does, it remains an aspect of their exercise of their Freedom of Religion.
If you don’t CARE for what those beliefs are, fine, go pursue whatever does appeal to you. But you nor any one group or individual has no priority over the Bill of Rights provided for all individuals.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
As I said, most churches hire secretaries from within their ranks. In fact, even here in Jacksonville, Mega-Church capital of the south, I have yet to see a secretary not also a member of the church.
As for the pastor. Churches are entitled to set their own membership requirements. If they can kick out a guy for blogging about a pastor, they can kick out a guy for marrying another guy.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Talk about your “rhetorical dodging”…that’s all you did there!
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:42 PM
They have been in other church membership cases.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:43 PM
So, you conclude, then, that the Freedom of Religion represents “discrimination”?
OOh, boy, clearly you missed the bus.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:44 PM
If he is a member of the ministry, unlikely.
dedalus on November 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
splink on November 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
But…if a church acts as a general employer, they only need recognize that marriage as an employer. Nothing else. Although, I’m not really sure how that works now…if churches are seen that way. I’d honestly have to look that one up.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
\
Case law is pretty clear on the topic, so is statute. But if it is as you say, then the courts will ignore precedent and do it anyway, why worry, shut yourself up in your church and grab you pitchfork, there is nothing you can do.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Simply put, gays and their enablers in other western nations have enacted legislation to criminalize speaking idea that their behavior is morally wrong.
I see no fundamental difference between Canadian leftists and Canadian gays and their American counterparts. Therefore I see no reason that given the opportunity, American leftists and gays would not pursue the same course of action.
These people see “intolerance” as an evil that must be confronted and stamped out – by force if necessary – even if that “intolerance” costs them not a whit of actual liberty. They are not willing to live and let live. They don’t respect individual liberty and they certainly don’t respect the constitution (it’s a “living document” to them, remember).
For the record, I don’t think the government should “marry” anyone. I think that that language should be conceptually privatized. That said, two people should be able to conjoin their affairs as they wish. I’m not a traditionalist in that respect, but I do not trust leftist or the gay lobby to respect individual liberty or the constitution. That in mind I think they should be given as little power as possible and as few electoral victories as possible.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Related is related, however loosely. Churches are under attack for taking Christian stands against evil. Businesses are being sued because their owners’ religion forbids them from sanctioning evil.
Those examples are related to this topic. Thank God that these churches are taking a pre-emptive stand to stop evil at the door rather than trying to shoo it out once it’s inside.
The Catholic Church is paying dearly for not dealing with sodomists in collars properly. Oh sorry, they weren’t sodomists, only sodomist pedophiles, which is only loosely related.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM
But it’s so clever to pretend that the church community is wacko because “no one is saying this means they have to pperform gay marriages.”
Did people forget the RCC somewhere in the NE getting grief because their adoption agencies didn’t support adoption by gays? Why should a church that doesn’t recognize gay marriage be required to pay spousal benefits to a gay worker – or are you going to allow them to not hire someone if they are gay?
katiejane on November 20, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Liberty of Conscience
jp on November 20, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I’m curious why someone who disrespects and loathes a certain theology — say, that of the Catholic Church — would even WANT to work at a Catholic Church.
But aside from that, the Church has an option to hire who they chose to. Most won’t often hire someone who disrespects and/or loathes the theology of the Church, and, the theology of the Church is that homosexuality is behavioral and that a marriage is a sacrament, to be engaged in between one man and one woman for eternity, unless there is demonstrated sin or sins involved that the Church also clearly defines, that violates that sanctity (and thus, destroys the vows involved).
Churches don’t provide abortions, they don’t marry “gay” people, most Catholic Priest/Dioceses rarely marry anyone who has not gone about demonstrating a devout approach to and understanding of the sanctity of the Holy Sacrament of Marriage. If someone demands a marriage ceremony by the Church despite behaviors offensive to the Church theologically, they are not likely if ever going to get a Priest to respond to their demand.
Non-theological demands are that marriage is “mere” “civil” or “legal” entanglement. The Catholic Church, as also many other Churches (Orthodox Judaism, Protestants of a variety of denominations) also define marriage as “holy” or otherwise, theologically defined by their respective theological tenets.
Therein lies the difference from the complainers about the exercise of the Freedom of Religion as it goes about being enjoyed by others.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Look, since you’re too simple to understand why what you said has no bearing on the discussion, let me break it down for you.
The prognostications about gays in the military have to do with how straights would react to openly gay people in their midst. That is, frankly, kinda hard to predict absent data, which we have.
My scenario is simply taking the past behavior of an ideological group and projecting it to a different (but rather similar) setting. Those are categorically different things.
I know what leftists and the gay lobby want, because they have it in Canada. What in the world makes you think they’ll change their stripes in this country?
Take off the rose colored glasses.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Whoooo! A church should be able discriminate however it wants to. If you want a church that only allows hispanics. GO for it! A business that only serves homosexuals. Good luck! A government that encroaches on my right to discriminate is too intrusive.
This philosphy doe snot apply to governments. Our government should not discriminate.
WashJeff on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
You pretty much proved my point. You can not find an example in American Common Law or British Common law of a SINGLE church being ordered to perform a same sex marriage against their will. You have not even been able to provide a single case of a church not being allowed to execute its own membership requirements. But e-harmony settling proves your point exactly.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
One aspect of this pronouncement is abortion, which is being overlooked here. What of a Christian hospital that refuses to perform them, or Christian personnel who refuse to participate?
The Dems want to throw us in jail for not buying their health insurance. You think they’ll quibble about matters of conscience over abortion? In Reid’s bill, everyone will pay a portion of their premium for abortion coverage.
These people are tyrants. I don’t look for mercy from them, or understanding.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’m gay…pro gay marriage…and Catholic, at mass every Sunday, so I certainly do not “loathe” the Church.
But I do agree…If someone did loathe the Church, why work there?
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:47 PM
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 3:45 PM
There is more to a church than just the congregation. A there is a million little ways a city can screw with an organization indirectly.
What if the police stop directing traffic before and after services so that people can safely get in and out of the parking lot? (it has happened)
What is the city does now allow the zoing for building or repair (yes you need a permit for a fence in many places) of a church
Or the refuse to allow food worker licenses to be renewed
and on and on
Are you really going to tell me and everyone else here that citys do not harrass citizens and treat different groups differently?
LincolntheHun on November 20, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Scan up, we have gone over that ad nauseum.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
31-0. Same-sex marriage is not acceptable anywhere its been attempted. Period.
Oh, and civil unions are perfectly sufficient. Its just that homosexuals want their agenda to be crammed down everyone’s throat. Sorry. It ain’t gonna happen.
Andy in Agoura Hills on November 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
What a great way to manufacture paranoia. And even the NYT plays along. Bravo, Chuck. 40 years after Watergate, you’ve still got it!
RightOFLeft on November 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Another one of the Left’s ongoing horror stories routinely reintroduced when the Left can’t correspond on any other level about issues it demands.
Sexual abuse is not tolerated by the Catholic Church, not by Priests, not by employees, not by members in the Church or out of it.
The problem has been in the past that Catholic Seminaries were badly managed and, an irresponsible process of “fascilitarors” began admitting persons to the Priesthood who had no place being admitted. Thus, they became offensive afterward in practice.
The Seminarian admissions’ process has been being improved and has changed, and continues to be modified to ensure that there is a genuine, and holy, appreciation by applicants of chastity and celibacy.
Both, by the way, are aspects of the Priesthood.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:58 PM
wow I’m glad they’re not worried about shrinking pew numbers…
go ahead bash on gays to get some dollars, in time your churches will all be empty and gays will still be around.
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
For each of those horrible sins, there are far more Priests who are not engaged in those horrible sins nor never will be.
Evil is like that. It infects holiness and corrupts the body, if allowed to do so.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 3:59 PM
Unlikely what? That he wouldn’t up and marry another guy? Where have you been? What’s next, it’s “unlikely” that they’d molest children?
Statistically, yes, but it WILL happen. Some Music Minister or Youth Pastor will LOVE his job, but want to marry his secret lover… and then he gets fired… yeah, like there won’t be a very expensive lawsuit. I think that is what the churches fear.
I don’t care about the churches, the only dog I have in this fight is the concept of liberty of conscience (deemed “madness” by Pope Gregory XVI, by the way – wink wink).
PS: Has anyone ever heard of a gay virginity pledge? Didn’t think so.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Oh yeah, and there is no such thing as “hate speech crimes” . Seems to me Congress snuck that through in a military funding bill recently. We are seeing the bill of rights eroded right before our eyes.
Christian Conservative on November 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Please provide a link to where that has happened and why.
Living in a city with alot of very large and powerful churches, that is far more about political clout from church to church than objectionable beliefs.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:00 PM
The nature of this manifesto is pre-emptive. It didn’t arise from out of the blue, but given recent court cases, given sodomists’ desire to plunge into the Boy Scouts with impunity, given that Obooba has declared that this is no longer a Christian nation, reasonable people may be forgiven for their alarm at what might be coming down the pike.
If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Strangely, for many people issues of conscience aren’t decided by the popularity of one’s stance on the issue.
I know it’s weird, but do try to keep up.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I guess you’re not aware that people involved in homosexual behavior are something like 2% of the human population. Not like your advocacy is something most human beings are rushing to participate in.
On the other hand, Church membership isn’t based on quantity, but quality.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM
That’s why Cardinal Law was dealt with so harshly and immediately turned over to the civil authorities.
/s
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:01 PM
Well put.
JetBoy on November 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Exactly.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM
And it will fail pretty handily based on the body of case law.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:02 PM
Grunions. Grunion running.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:03 PM
It’s not about being forced to perform the marriage, it’s about being forced to recognize it.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:04 PM
Yes, you’re right about that.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:05 PM
I went through a pretty long set of examples, nowhere could I find an instance where a church would be “forced” to recognize a gay marriage.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
I am not anti-Catholic, first of all.
Second, you understate the RCC’s problem by miles, and had people listened to early warnings from with the Church, many lives would not have been wrecked nor the church lost hundreds of millions of dollars.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Of course they shouldn’t, white supremecists aren’t forced to smile at minorities either. Bigots can be bigots as long as they do no harm to another.
Of course this Jesus character, he seems a little “sweet” to me, you know “light in the loafers”. I mean look at the guy, hangs around with twelve guys that are following him around all the time, he’s washing and massaging their feet, never have you seen him in a relationship with a woman, the only time you see him with a woman she is usually dolling him up with perfume and such, and his sermons have all the special effects of a broadway show. Even when Judas had him reported, he said “you’ll know Jesus, he’s the guy I’ll be making out with during the dinner party”. Yup, definitely gay.
LevStrauss on November 20, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Despite the FACT that 75% of House Democrats voted AGAINST the Stupak amendment but NOT ONE REPUBLICAN voted against it (176 yeas & 1 “present”), a bulletin from the US Catholic bishops credited “a growing contingent of pro-life Democrats” with championing the passage of the amendment.
I know for a fact that the US Catholic Church, led by the bishops, had the opportunity in 1987 to effectuate the reversal of Roe v Wade, which would have become a reality by the early ’90s, but instead they continued to partner with the Democratic Party, making permanent America’s acceptance of abortion as a right.
Democrats have spent the last 50 years corrupting and weakening the American Catholic Church. In its current state, Obama could easily crush what is left of the Church like a bug, and I have little doubt that he will do this before too long.
jay12 on November 20, 2009 at 4:08 PM
Ha, the latest Leftwing apologetics about that is that “the military planted the medications” (Hasan’s apartment stash included anti-viral medication usually provided to those infected with HIV and another antibiotic that is usually prescribed for those with HIV for bronchial infections) AND/OR (what I’ve read) that “the military always tries to describe it’s rejects as homosexuals”.
The homosexual “community” has these various memes they trudge out (some do, anyway, mostly those on the Left) whenever someone who is homosexual is identified as being responsible for/involved in some grave offense, as in Hasan’s case.
Not that he didn’t acquire it or couldn’t from a female, but, seems like his “rage” is multifaceted.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM
The glbt lobby doesn’t give a fig about marriage in the church. They can get “couple” status in numerous ways. The attack upon the church is about tearing down impediments to progressive agendas. Tradition is the biggest barrier to liberalism and one world totalitarianism. Weaken the church and they will be too busy trying to heal the wound to “interfere” in the commie takeover of your life.
Texas Tom on November 20, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Pitt is private but “state-realted” which complicates this a little.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM
But yet you make a conscious, decided point to type out the creepy distortions about Catholic Priests and the Church as you have, as if it’s “all and any” (which sexual abuse is not in the Church – no more than it is in human society overall, as in, it’s a horror that occurs by demented people among all walks of life and all populations, it is not unique to some who were Catholic Priests nor to the Catholic Church).
If you’re “not anti-Catholic,” I’ve yet to read such.
Wait, I know, you just gossip about whomever because you ‘CARE’ about them.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM
eHarmony shouldn’t have settled.
Of course not. Ministers can be fired for moral misconduct or breaching with the church on any substantive issue.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Yes, exactly.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Correct, again, Esthier. Nice to see you around
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
If you’re “not anti-Catholic,” I’ve yet to read such.
Wait, I know, you just gossip about whomever because you ‘CARE’ about them.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Revealing.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 4:14 PM
Yet.
I gave the example of a Music Minster at a large church (big salary) who gets a civil union and wants to keep his job and receive marriage benefits.
The point is to auger against that eventuality.
The lawsuits will come. They will start with private colleges that receive students on Pell grants and go from there.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:15 PM
You are such a tool.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:16 PM
That and more hate-crime laws.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Yeah. Today. What about after a few “hate crimes” laws and civil union laws are passed?
They are just trying to stay ahead of the curve.
Again, I don’t care for organized churches, but they have a right to function as they see fit.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Ok, I’ll try once more. The pre-emptive nature of this effort is justified, in that had the RCC taken Fr. Rueda’s advice in 1980, they would have begun to root out of the sodomists in their midst.
If I’m a gossip or a bigot, then so is Fr. Rueda, diocese of Rochester.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:17 PM
And not even a terribly creative one either. As if it’s the first time we’d seen that rant so we’re supposed to be shocked by it. How droll.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
Hey, Meat! How ya been? I pop by the cave sometimes, but it’s harder to access here.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
This is not “a Church” issue, per se, or limited to exclusively a problem that beset the Catholic Church, it is a mental illness (sexual abuse, of any kind) that besets humanity.
Sexual abuse has been identified in all walks of life and it’s far more likely to be found in professioins where abusers can have access to likely victims.
Teachers, even law enforcement, pastors, rabbis, Priests, ministers, babysitters, home health care workers, nurses, even some physicians…
The point to focus on is that it’s ACCESS TO LIKELY VICTIMS THAT ATTRACTS PEOPLE WITH MENTAL AND MORAL SICKNESS that defines those who engage in sexual abuse.
So they seek out – and manipulate trust – in order to gain access to “likely victims”. They’re sneaky and fool many others, thus, they then victimize.
Few people would ever allow a sexual abuser to have access to family members, children, to anyone they knew, but the process is one of manipulation of trust by which abusers gain access to likely victims.
THAT’S the process there, and Churches victimized by sexual predators are no different in that regard than other organizations who are.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:18 PM
This old Atheist agrees with the stance taken by the churches. If one has a set of rules – play by them.
OldEnglish on November 20, 2009 at 4:19 PM
It wouldn’t be a hate crime anymore than a strip club is committing one in only hiring female strippers. Being gay, if the church itself considers it (or acting on it, as the case may be) a sin, makes it impossible for a minister to perform the job properly.
It’s no more a hate crime than refusing to hire Muslims as ministers in a Baptist church.
Of course they do, but gay marriage shouldn’t prevent them from being able to do that. The government would have to overturn the First Amendment first.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:21 PM
And I told you in no uncertain terms that there is 200 years of case law that says that churches may set their own membership requirements, he may be kicked out at any time so long as they follow the procedures agreed upon when he became a member.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM
Which is why you are demanding that the Vatican stop hiding Cardinal Law, fire him from his cushy job, strip him of his right to cast a vote for the Pope, and face civil justice in the US for enabling countless pedophiles and child rapists.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:22 PM
A child is much more likely to be molested by a public school teacher than a RC priest. In either case, when pre-emptive action is not taken despite warning signs, (as e.g. we all wish would have occured with Nidal Hasan), we would have been spared a loit of grief. It’s undeniable.
Ergo, we shouldn’t be surprised that religous institutions are manning the bulwarks even though the enemy is miles away. Maybe they’ve learned their lesson.
I’m on your side. Chill.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM
It’s not even the first time we’ve heard it from him. Lev rails against “bigots” by playing one.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Pretty good. Marriage threads are always fun!
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:23 PM
Oh, so precedent will protect churches just like it did fetuses. Gotcha.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
You write as though the leftists recognize either the Constitution as settled or social issues as private.
Roe v. Wade seemed an impossible leap to make, but they made it.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:24 PM
Yes, you’re a gossip.
I never wrote you were a “bigot” but you took it upon yourself to declare you were “not anti-Catholic…but…” then continued on with gossip of the inflammatory and inexact kind, that negates the Church.
So, yes, you’re a gossip.
As to sexual abusers and sexual predators, the Church is not unique in that regard, among human organizations. All organizations, all professions — MOST OFTEN THOSE WHERE ‘LIKELY VICTIMS’ ARE FOUND — are afflicted by sexual predators.
They live next to parks. They’re teachers, nurses, pastors, whatever…the point is THE BEHAVIOR BY THEM, not that the Church somehow involved in that, but the Church has been as victimized BY sexual predation as any organization and/or profession has been.
It’s not an isolated problem to the Church. The one area of contention IN the Church, however, has been in a theological effort to “contain and isolate” sexual predators due to spiritual concerns, but, since it’s not a prison, it’s failed largely at trying to contain predators as it has.
The IDEA theologically is to “contain” or keep removed from society sexual predators. Cloister them, continue to minister to their sins, but remove them from access from likely victims.
I don’t know if that’s a good plan or not or has been but it’s been attempted by some more cloistered orders, in order to remove people like that from access to the public.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM
If you’re “not anti-Catholic,” I’ve yet to read such.
Wait, I know, you just gossip about whomever because you ‘CARE’ about them.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:25 PM
I don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re referring to or suggesting, sorry.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Roe was not an impossible leap, quite the contrary. Griswold was already there. Roe was a poorly reasoned case but Griswold was not.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Especially one with marriage AND Catholics.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Who, exactly are you referring TO and then directing the comment toward in regards that?
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
How is that statement anti-Catholic?
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
By unlikely, I meant that it’s unlikely the minister would prevail in the lawsuit. As a minister, taking some level of vows, he’s treated differently by the government than a janitor or office worker.
dedalus on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Very little precedent conradicted Roe, most of it supported it.
But if not, like I said, get your pitchfork and head to your church, because youve already lost.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:29 PM
No, you’re not. I’m not on the Gossip Side.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM
@Lourdes hmm quality eh? well on the protestant side you have the flat earthers and the insta-creationist (who believe that T-rex ate coconuts) and on the Catholic side you have people who see jesus and mary in toast and bridge muck. I’m sure the quality folks are some where in the middle?
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Just don’t get MaxCon on here to slam the Catholics for their abominations /s
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Ok, if I’m a “gossip” for repeating what’s been in the news for 25 years, then so is Fr. Rueda who tried to warn your co-religionists in 1980 with a copiously footnoted 500+ page book.
Had his warning resulted in a purge of the child molesters before they could do their dirty work, the world would be a better place.
Call me any name in the book, it won’t change the facts. Based on the facts, I’m happy that RCC’s and Prots are working together pre-emptively on this issue. I guess you’re horrified by this cooperation, given your apparent inability to grasp a simple argument.
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I know lots of gays that kept their virginity long after their straight friends.
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM
Centrist Christians? Aren’t they called Lutherans? /s
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM
You. You’ve convinced me that the RCC is determined to root out the pedophiles and those responsible for the wickedness of the last 50 years… so I’m assuming you’ve written to the Vatican demanding Law return to the US to face the truth.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I would think that if one was gay in a community where that wasn’t accepted, it MIGHT be harder to lose their “gay virginity.”
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Look at through a comedic example:
– You survive a bad experience, you are recovering, you go out and find a smiling face.
– Smiling face says, “Oh, gee, don’t you look just awful? I know you’re having such a hard time, boy, it’s really taken a toll on you, now, hasn’t it, you look terrible.”
– Smiling face then grabs your shoulders and turns you around to face a table of other smiling faces and says, “let him/her know how much you care, doesn’t he/she look just awful? Did you know what HAPPENED to him/her? I mean, boy, I’m surprised they survived that!”
– you don’t feel so great about yourself any more…
Or, the tale of Debbie Downer.
There are edifying things to write about and express, then there are the isolated aspects to difficulties and even horrors that, out of the blue, can be introduced and then reiterated that attempt to, literally, benefit the evil and not the blessing.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Except the laws in, what, 40 states?
Akzed on November 20, 2009 at 4:34 PM
We don’t live in caves… and apparently you haven’t read much about the arguments used for Roe. That little 10th Amendment didn’t stop them from “finding” that the Founders intended to insure the “right” of a woman to torture and kill the child in her womb.
They said that would never happen either.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:36 PM
You won’t undue the gossip by continuing to gossip.
Knock off the gossip – BY YOUR GOSSIP, then, however, because some sexual predators abused and manipulated their way into the Priesthood, then, presto, Church responsible?
And that’s supposed to rationalize “gay” marriage and the overriding of the Freedom of Religion?
See how far afield you took the article issue here toward your need to gossip and why gossip is, actually, a sin?
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM
How is that supposed to prove anything? Knowing lots who kept it until marriage might be relevant, but for all we know, your gays’ straight friends were just promiscuous.
That said, I have heard of gay virginity pledges with some saying they will stay virgins until marriage. They’re not as common as straight virginity pledges, but then again, gays aren’t as common as straights.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:37 PM
So pointing out the evils and horrors (i.e. flaws) of say for example, the Catholic Church, is anti-Catholic? Wouldn’t this potentially spurn reform and hopefully make the Catholic Church (for example) better? In some ways you might be right. Reforming say the current Catholic Church is by definition anti-current-Catholic-Church.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
How may waited for marriage… and committed to only one partner for life?
Every single gay person I’ve known and know says he/she “experimented” with his/hersexuality to “confirm” it. Yeah, I tried that line in college with the sorority girls… “I think I’m a heterosexual. Please help me confirm it.”
It didn’t work.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:38 PM
It’s almost inevitable that he’ll show up here eventually.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t get your issue here. I don’t want to speak for him but by saying precedent didn’t protect the unborn, he’s only arguing on your side, saying that it’s unlikely that precedent will help Catholics on this issue and that Catholics have every reason to be concerned.
The two of you agree here. He doesn’t support gay marriage.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM
No, but if I quoted the Popes and Councils that formally taught anti-Constitutional sentiments… now THAT would be “anti-Catholic.”
Heaven knows that only a rabid anti-Catholic would quote a Pope.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Cookoo, cookoo, cookooo…
You wrote earlier that I or whomever you imagine is your Boogey Man Catholic somehow allowed someone to vote for the Pope, ….. ?
You’re cookoo…
I’m not the “RNC” by the way.
There are as many sexual predators in ALL walks of life as there have been identified in some Priests. In all churches, schools, professions in general that involve “access to potential victims.”
Don’t you understand that? ANY “church” ANY “school” ANY hospital or home or wherever PREDATORS perceive an opportunity to victimize, they try to work their way into those locations for that purpose and some do.
Yes, I write the Vatican. Do you?
“Wickedness of the past 50 years…” you write. Are you including MANKIND in that? Mankind has a lot of wickedness, it exists everywhere.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:41 PM
:/
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Apparently you havent read much case law at all. 10th Amendment is dead, it was dead long before Roe in both commerce and civil rights cases. If the commerce clause didnt kill it, the 14th amendment did. In the view of the court, the RTP discussed in Griswold is irrespective of state boundries.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:42 PM
Prolly was more on account of your winning personality than your lousy pickup lines.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:44 PM
Well marriage wasnt an option, but of those I know that comitted to only one partner after a time remained faithful (as far as I know) with one exception.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM
The issue originally has been lost BECAUSE gossipers and other nuts on this thread with great big nasty sentiments about the Church have introduced the creepy, creeping evil of gossip in order to create a big, scary depiction by way of more gossip about the Catholic Church.
IF the complaint for some here is sexual predators, then, the statistics I’ve read is that there are as many if not more sexual predators been discovered in Protestant, Jewish, and non-denominational groups as there have been among Priests in the Catholic Church.
I MEAN BY THAT that the statistics reveal an issue OF SEXUAL PREDATORS AMONG HUMANITY…the one thing they all share is that these are individuals (sick ones) who have opted to FIND AND INFILTRATE human organizations of all kinds that pose an opportunity to victimize.
Access to likely victims is the attraction for predators. Not the Church exclusively, not schools exclusively, not health care nor Jewish schools nor any destination exclusively, BUT ANYWHERE WHERE THEY PERCEIVE POSSIBLE VICTIMS, or, the OPPORTUNITY TO VICIMIZE (”access to likely victims”).
And now the thread’s been taken into the “wickedness for the past 50 years” category directed sickly toward the Church.
If it’s not The Joooos, you all bash the Church.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM
Telling me that pedophiles are found in every profession is not an answer. How is hiding Cardinal Law (who gets to vote for the next Pope and did so in Benedict’s selection) excused because school teachers do it to?
I didn’t say RNC, jackass, I wrote RCC.
If “ANY “church” ANY “school” ANY hospital or home or wherever PREDATORS perceive an opportunity to victimize” was hiding an administrator (in this case a “prince of the church”)… and promoting him… who repeatedly enabled child molesters and child rapists to have access to victims, I don’t think you’d excuse that by saying “everybody does it.”
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:46 PM
If the Jews were hiding a pedophile enabler, I’d be critical of them as well.
By the way, do you believe that the RCC should be the religion of the state to the exclusion of all of forms of worship?
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:48 PM
Connecticut tried to have the state regulate all church finances. It was an outrageous proposal which was eventually shot down but the very idea that it was brought up was chilling. They say it was because of corruption (as if the state itself isn’t corrupt and what business is of the states anyway?) but that was a bunch of bull. To those of us who live here we know it was about gay marriage because the catholic church had gone on record not too long before stating they would not recognize any gay marriages recently granted by the state.
Daemonocracy on November 20, 2009 at 4:48 PM
@Esthier was not bashing the Church (by which I am to assume the Roman Catholic Church). Further, the Catholic Church may receive more blame for past issues/problems than other religious/civic/public organizations. That said, one not immediately pointing out the mistakes of other institutions does not make one a Catholic Basher.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 4:50 PM
PS: You might want to note the Church’s historic position on the Joooooos from Pope Paul IV to the present.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I see no hope — except by eradicating the Freedom of Religion in denying the Catholic Church (nor any other churches) their ability to exercise their faith — in somehow forcing the Church to engage in behavior it deems theologically offensive.
The goal is, indeed, to replace the Constititution with something else, because much that is declared in that document is contrary to what most on the Left want.
They don’t want Freedoms to exist as we, the rest of us, undertand them as Constitutionally declared.
Also explains the Left’s ongoing demand (Sotomayor, for example) that the Constitution is “living” and therefore CAN BE MODIFIED BY CULTURAL WHIM and not a fixed declaration.
Also, Pope John Paul was an arch anti-Communist, so the Left continues to target the Church in some blood-vengeance fashion about the changes he inspired in that regard.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Separation of Church and State is a one way thing. Church has to stay out of State’s business. But EVERYTHING, including the Church, is the State’s business.
Dark Eden on November 20, 2009 at 4:53 PM
PS: This is just one of the reasons I tend to side with evangelicals over leftists. The leftists are far more proselytizing and in your face about their religion than the tolerant, open minded, laid back evangelicals.
Dark Eden on November 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Now you’re cookoo, cookoo again.
I guess all those Catholics didn’t actually DIE in labor camps along with Jews in Europe in the last century, for trying to protect their lives.
What you’re afflicted with is too much Supremacy crud you’ve read on the internet and been indoctrinated with.
Leave the Jooooos and us Catholics alone. Please. And broaden your horizons on both.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:54 PM
Obviously, you’ve missed declarations wherein Pope Paul IV has been honored by Jews for NOT being “anti Jew” as to history. You should read more.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:55 PM
^^ Sick.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Which was the historic position of the RCC into the last century.
And its concept damned by Gregory XVI and Pius IX
See Gregory XVI (Marari Vos) and Pius IX (Syllabus of Errors)
Anti-Communist, but not Anti-Socialist. He called for (among other things) the adoption of a world “Living Wage” and for national debt forgiveness without penalty.
I’ll save you some time… “BASHER! How dare you point out facts! Only a BASHER would do that! Did I mention BASHER!”
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:57 PM
Um … the church covered some stuff up, I guess. At least, that’s why I assume they gave some families a big pile of money. I’m open to hearing why you think they gave out cash though.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM
OK. Then all those other Pope were wrong.
And Benedict was wrong for equating Israel with Hezbollah.
Just can’t trust those Popes on anything!
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:58 PM
I really don’t want to hear any lefty lecture the right about anti semitism.
Dark Eden on November 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM
But true.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM
You won’t have to… I’m a hardcore conservative.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 4:59 PM
My apologies then!
Dark Eden on November 20, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Force as in it actually stating it in law? No. However, the Catholic Church was forced to choose between arranging adoptions for gay couples or shutting down their adoption agency. Look at the backlash against Mormons and the outcry to take away tax exempt status. Powerful and vocal gay advocacy groups would love nothing better than to legally and financially ruin churches who disagree with them.
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM
No worries.
I’m pretty sure an antisemite wouldn’t name his daughter “Moriah” as I have.
mankai on November 20, 2009 at 5:02 PM
I think a lot of people have a lot of fantasies about a Church that they’ve defined by Hollywood and gossip standards and they do a great deal of social denigrating based upon these fantasies.
There’s nothing wrong in pointing out problems but making comments about acting-out on those coookooo fantasies illustrates an underlying need to destroy that which is not understood or accepted (for whatever influences, I can only imagine).
If anyone actually WANTS to know what is what and what the theology is as to the Catholic Church, let them attend a Catechism class and ask questions from an knowledgeable source.
Politically, the Church is a hot potato for just about everyone to kick around, and they do. And it’s pure gossip (which is sin) to again introduce coookooo perceptions and malformed, badly informed, perspectives just to vent animosity for that which is least understood by some.
The place to discuss “problems with the Church” is among persons who are affiliated with it in a sincere manner. Otherwise, it’s gossip for a far more dreadful purpose than seeking solutions.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:07 PM
Well if gay marriage were legal there might be more takers …but predicating your sex life on the hope that people stop using you as a get out the vote tool doesn’t seem to be working…
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 5:08 PM
No Conservative is “hardcore”.
No Conservative writes crap like you have here: you allege dreadful crap as if you’re sure “it” even exists.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM
Church charities and actual churches are two very different entities under the law.
And dont confuse backlash and caving into demands to actual legal remedies.
Squid Shark on November 20, 2009 at 5:10 PM
THAT is extremely sick stuff, what you wrote there.
Upon questioning you, you write you directed that toward me. Inexplicably. Out of the blue. Not based on reality.
Utter crap, utterly allegations out of some crappy imagined, mysteriously irrational space (yours).
You may CALL yourself a “hardcore Conservative” but you’re indecent.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM
@Lourdes
christ… give it a rest, the catholic bishops routinely moved priests that were abusing kids to new parish’s after they ‘pledged’ to reform. Guess what it was a horrible strategy and wrong and ruined the lives of thousands of kids. than to make matters worse the catholic church wanted to keep their priest out of the hands of the law and actively hid them from law enforcement or sent them to Rome.
Stop defending the indefensible. your just being an apologist to monsters.
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 5:12 PM
More of your sick negativity that’s utter fantasy stuff.
Read more and enlighten and inform yourself. You’re airing nonsense declarations that more informed people know to be more of those baseless allegations intended to, recklessly, destroy other people, to disregard a far more broader scope of understanding than you are willing to exercise care to understand.
You’re generalizing in isolated references without regard for the full measure of what you’re writing.
Which is why I write that you are, indeed, writing sick stuff here.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Rather, human beings ought to mistrust “mankai” in these comments.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Zzzz…the banality of evil.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM
I’m not sure how that translates into saying that people can’t comment on what happened within the Catholic Church. There doesn’t seem to be any debate on whether or not priests who molested children were hidden instead of turned in to police.
Likewise, it seems understood that this is something that is no longer tolerated.
It shouldn’t matter where the abuse happens. We should still be able to condemn it.
I’m really not bashing anyone.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Have never “defended the indefensible” nor been an “apologist to monsters.”
THAT is a monstrous and exceptionally sick thing to write, by the way, which makes you the sick monster. Get to know “mankai”…
After all I’ve written here, you have the audacity to lie that I’d even suggest a defense of sexual predators. I can’t imagine a more evil lie than that.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM
This I acknowledge.
I can’t speak for @mankai. He may or may not have cookoo fantasies about the Catholic Church. I will say, he doesn’t appear to be extremely bigoted toward the RCC.
I disagree; however, if this is what you believed, then I would think you would not talk about the Church at a blog such as Hot Air which is known to have a wide array of individuals posting here. I understand that you may want to defend your church, but it is about as fair of you to make accusations about @mankai being a gossiping sinner as it is for @mankai to make accusations about corruption in the Catholic church. There will be disagreement here and you can’t hold others to your standards on what you deem to be gossip.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Anyone who bases decisions on a piece of paper isn’t living with conviction. Whether or not they get legal marriages many gays do get “married” in their own terms.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I’ve got to agree with you here. I can understand why one would want the law to recognize some sort of union for certain legal benefits, but how can the law justify love?
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Unfortunately, I make an error in even attempting to comment on crazy, distorted gossip and other amoralities written by nuts. When one first opines, no way to know that such are loitering here or anywhere.
But it’s a process by which opinions are attempted to be silenced, by some. They just lie, wait for comments, then continue on with amplified lies. I can think of few things that disgust me more than that.
So, perhaps the better tact is to just state an opinion and ignore those of others. Or just lie about others? I mean, that’s what seems to pass by some here as to “commenting”.
There’s a lot of nasty propaganda that goes around about the Church. Obviously, the Church is in the way of certain “Progressive” goals, as it is also beset with many Marxists who claim to be Catholic and thus, ruin the Church by representing “counter theological perspectives” TO the Church (Pelosi, Kerry, Dodd, Biden, etc.).
But being lazy intellectually to accept amorality and sin as representing a beautiful theology — Catholicism — is not respectable.
I suppose the rest of us could dig up dirt on the millions of sinners who are not Catholics and write about all the abusers in other religions, groups and institutions who are not/were not Catholics. I don’t do that because it’s not edifying.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:24 PM
Gossip is sin, ergo, one who gossips is a sinner.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:25 PM
Good to know.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Another thing, and that is that more “non Catholics” ought to read more news about the ongoing learning taking place between Israel and the Vatican, and the Church in that regard.
Every time I read the tired stories about “the Pope was anti-semitic, Catholics are…” etc. I know there’s a closet liar or someone utterly malformed responsible.
More information becoming apparent is casting light on some of those woefully awful and nasty stories.
Lourdes on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
So you are ok with gay advocacy groups bankrupting the ‘charity’ portions of churches and whatever else doesn’t count as part of the ‘actual’ church? I wonder how much of a church can be separated from what an ‘actual’ church is…
I find no comfort in your assurance that one could ever bleed into the other.
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 5:27 PM
I don’t know what to say. This is HA, and many commenters here say some pretty outrageous stuff. I’m sorry if you have been offended by others. I believe there are some here who would seriously like to discuss the issues, and others here that simply want to denigrate others – sometimes it is hard to call.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM
I don’t believe the Vatican is anti-Semitic. There may be Catholics that are, but current Catholic leadership doesn’t appear to be anything close to anti-Semitic.
MeatHeadinCA on November 20, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Exactly. Either you’re committed or you’re not.
Esthier on November 20, 2009 at 5:36 PM
What about when a church has a Christian school? If they accept students who are not church members, but refuse one because he has two men who are “married,” then what? Does their religious conviction trump the law that the two men are legally married?
Bluntly, there has been no same-sex marriage before, so it’s pretty obvious that it would not be hard for a court to set aside precedent.
Say that same church has a college that grants four-year degrees. A student decides he’s gay, and “marries” another student. Will the courts uphold the college administration’s decision to drop the student? Or will they maintain that as a somewhat public institution, they can’t deny the rights of their students to “marry” others of their same sex.
Your assurance that “This could never happen” is worthless. Even if you believe it, you can’t really promise it. If we wind up with same-sex “marriage,” there will be new precedents set almost immediately.
In fact, one of the chief arguments against same-sex marriage is that in itself it constitutes a huge disregard of precedent. There’s probably no bigger precedent in the world than the idea that marriage is for men and women, not two of the same sex. A nation that disregards the precedent of marriage is not too likely to stand by any other precedent they don’t like.
tom on November 20, 2009 at 5:48 PM
having debated this with other gays for years I would disagree. It’s not the paper that matters, it’s feeling that you have a part to play in society at large, as well as the actual responsibility and obligations that go along with ‘real marriage’. For gays to live together for long periods of time is pretty common, long term relationships are much more healthy than short term one night stands and those people tend to die young anyway. However there is very little legally binding the two people together, so when they have issues (as all long term relationships do) there is nothing forcing them together through the bad times. Besides that many gays just never consider themselves married and use it as an excuse to leave. It has a long term degrading effect on people and relationships when you are never totally sure of your place in life or a relationship.
A significant portion of gays don’t think that gay marriage is worthwhile, but I’ve come to believe that it’s caused by massively low self esteem and belief that they are damaged goods. Some just don’t want to settle down and commit. but i think the church does itself a disservice by dismissing it’s possible role in revitalizing the place of the church in marriage but I’m not religious so I don’t care if they shoot themselves in the foot.
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 5:55 PM
@Tom, how many active gays are in your church right now?
Zekecorlain on November 20, 2009 at 5:58 PM
It’s not the role of the state to pass laws to suit the self-esteem issues of it’s citizens or to ensure the role of whatever ‘group’ they belong to in society is respected by others. This is precisely what concerns me about government recognizing gay unions as marriage.
The gay community might make more headway if it was pushing for no government involvement in the question rather than for government sanction and ‘protection’ of their definition of ‘marriage’.
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You’ve already said you’re not religious so I hope this response doesn’t come across as condescending: Religious people don’t tend to view things from the viewpoint of what will make them popular or bring in more people but rather with what is right and good – the will of God.
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 6:03 PM
None that I know of. But then, it would be a little hard to engage in an act that is considered sinful while continuing to attend.
Of course, I would have no way of knowing if there are members who engage in homosexuality and hide it.
At any rate, there is certainly no one advocating gay “marriage,” which I believe is the topic.
tom on November 20, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Why would a church which believes homosexuality is a sin be looking for a role in advocating it?
katiejane on November 20, 2009 at 6:19 PM
Push for no gov involvement? I’d like that, but then opponents could correctly claim that they were defending marriage–or at least the gov’s version of it.
States do pass laws based on self-esteem of various groups. It is dumb, but legislators like to get re-elected and will pander where it helps.
Equal Protection is a Constitutional guarantee not a self-esteem question.
dedalus on November 20, 2009 at 6:41 PM
I didn’t say it would convince everyone – but it they would find more allies.
Equal Protection is a Constitutional argument and not a self-esteem one – but as you said the latter does unfortunately play a role. Equal Protection would be the foot in the door and the rest would burst right in.
gwelf on November 20, 2009 at 6:47 PM
I understand your civil/legal argument but if you don’t think that once gay marriages are legal that churches will be sued to be made to conduct these marriages and recognize them via equal protection or some other garbage argument than you are being naive about the left.
LtBarnwell02 on November 20, 2009 at 6:50 PM
Being officially forbidden to say you know with 100% certainty that you won’t go to Hell…THAT is beautiful theology?
Wow.
splink on November 20, 2009 at 6:56 PM