Pelosi Says Her Catholic Faith ‘Compels’ Her To Support Gay Marriage - Page 37

St Francis · #**541** May 20, '12, 5:32 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMatt25

The institution of marriage is not in jeopardy either. It is only in jeopardy if people allow it to be in jeopardy in their own minds. Catholics will still have their marriages and marriage laws. Civil traditionalists will theirs. Jews theirs. Protestants theirs. Religions will still have their marriages as they define a marriage to be under their particular faith. Surely a religious marriage means more than just how the state defines a word. Heterosexuals will still be able to have a civil ceremony if that is their choosing. The only thing that will change is gays will also have theirs. Heterosexual marriage, religious or civil, nor society or the world are going to come screaching to a halt. The places allowing gay marriage now have not. I truly see nothing to fear.

We live in this society, and, in nothing else, we pay taxes and contribute to other benefits which married people receive because they are providing the future on our society.

Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

Moreover, those of us who have children do not wish to have those children given the idea that homosexual behavior is "just another lifestyle,' that whether one chooses a person of the opposite sex or the same sex is like choosing a flavor of ice cream.

While many say that homosexual tendencies are inborn and immutable, and that may be true, it seems that there are many people in general who have tendencies which could go either way. To present to those people the idea that either way is ok is to mislead them into a sinful and dangerous lifestyle.

And to present to those whose tendencies are thoroughly one-sided towards theor own sex as perfectly acceptable is also wrong. Society should be helping these people to live virtuous lives, just as society should be helping all people live virtuous lives, by tossing out the stupid idea that the problem with sexual activity is that one might be "caught" with pregnancy or stds, but that other than that, well, anything goes!

And society should do that, if nothing else, because that would be best for society and for the future of our society. Married people raising children is the best for the children. Single mothers, divorced parents, all show worse outcomes for the children in general. (IOW< this is not to say that single or divorced parents cannot raise children successfully, but that it is harder.)

I think that we can look at the destroyed lives since the sexual revolution, the acceptance of abc, no-fault divorce, and rise in illegitimacy and see that what we are doing now is not working, on a practical level, in our society. Why would we want to go further down that road? We should be reversing as fast as we can!

colmywaykurtz · #**542** May 20, '12, 6:10 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by St Francis

We live in this society, and, in nothing else, we pay taxes and contribute to other benefits which married people receive because they are providing the future on our society.

Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any "future for society" in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as "fungible" and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money's money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That's what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

Fiasco · #**543** May 20, '12, 6:15 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keith_W_OR_USA

As far as gay marriage be recognized by the State I am totally for it. The Church does not ever have to perform same sex marriage and can deny communion to any one that is Catholic and living in sin.

Have you ever heard of the thin edge of the wedge? i can`t believe that you haven`t noticed how the rights of us Catholics to say and do what the Church teaches have been eroded over the past 40 years.throughout the DEMOCRATIC West: eg "gay" adoption, "hate crime"!!! It`s been a steady step-by-step enemy advance.
Appeasement benefits the enemy only.
To call yourself a Catholic, and then to say you`re totally for so-called "gay" "marriage" is straining your standing with God. Sounds like something JF Kennedy might have said.

Quote:

But we can not let the Church dictate to non-Catholics or non-believers on how they should live. America is a plural society and every person has the right to enter into a contract with anyone they want.

The slide of Western society into the spiritual sewer is of concern to some of us!!!

Quote:

I have gay friends that are very dear to me and I support their right to be married if they wish. In the Church, not allowing gay marriage is fine. But outside of the Church other people have the right to live the way they see fit.

As immediately above.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CMatt25

That might be what Nancy Pelosi is saying too. I myself am not a Catholic here

When you started here you identified yourself as one. Correct me if i`m wrong.
It might pay you, and it would certainly pay N Pelosi and co to remember the words: "Outside the Church there is no salvation." In other words, if a person who`s been brought up a Catholic, and who knows what She teaches re Faith and Morals, gives the Church the flick (or mocks Her infallible teachings) because he personally decides that he knows better than the almost 2,000-years-old-Holy-Spirit-guided Church does......BEWARE!!!

To repeat: When we face God, our thoughts, words and deeds are what`ll matter. A name tag on its own is empty. And the (legal) argument re N Pelosi`s Church membershop is also ultimately empty. The scandal she`s caused isn`t, though.

Quote:

nor do I speak for the Catholic Church but I agree with you. Nothing about gay marriage or the state changing the legal civil definition of marriage affects Catholic Sacramental religious marriage whatsoever. No Catholic marriage would be in jeopardy because 2 gays get recognized by the state as being married under civil law. The Catholic Church would continue not to perform such ceremonies.

Like Keith W, you must have great faith in the good intentions of politicians and courts.

Most of us here don`t share your......er......optimism.

Quote:

Elizabeth I don't know why you roll your eyes. It's fine with me if the Catholic Church tries to influence people.

My background is neither here nor there though

Your salvation is though, and it`s up to us others to remind you of it. That puts the proverbial ball in your court. For your sake, it had to be said.

Quote:

The institution of marriage is not in jeopardy either. It is only in jeopardy if people allow it to be in jeopardy in their own minds.

And in the minds of anti-God politicians and judges!

Quote:

I truly see nothing to fear.

As above. i find it impossible to believe that you`re so naive. Give us a break!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by CatholicBoy1957

You do realize that statement is completely in opposition to Catholic teaching, don't you? Let's see how well you were catechized, and see if you can point out what the Church teaches on that.

A couple of folks here should remember that God isn`t fooled by "doublespeak", legal loopholes, politically-correct language or any other deceptive wording.

CatholicBoy1957 · #**544** May 20, '12, 6:22 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by colmywaykurtz

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any "future for society" in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as "fungible" and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money's money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That's what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

I think society has been digging itself into this ditch for a long time, what with it's degenerating attitudes about the family, and gender roles. 50 years ago, the idea of "Gay marriage" would have been unthinkable, but society has degenerated sufficiently to make it possible now.

I don't think it's a matter of cutting them off from government entitlements, it just should not be permitted in the first place, for the good of the order of society.

Jeanne S · #**545** May 20, '12, 6:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elizabeth502

Why do you insist on continuing to bring this up, CMatt? With whom are you arguing? The issue is dead. Again, as has been said repeatedly, the issue both on this thread and in general, is not what (a) Nancy Pelosi's technical religious identity is, (b) what your religious identity is, (c) what your debaters' religious identity is, or are. It doesn't matter if Nancy Pelosi has waived her baptismal certificate constantly during every un-Catholic statement she has made.

And I did not bring that up in the post of mine, above, which you just quoted. It's your attempt to derail the thread into a recalcitrant discussion of who is technically defined as Catholic by the Church, even while everyone else has left the subject. Therefore, your quoting me just now is non-responsive to the quote you cited. Drop it. My post had zero to do with Catholic identities on Catholic websites.

We get it that it's your agenda, and your way of avoiding the essential topic of just what is a Catholic position versus what is not a Catholic position -- instead of the straw man of "who is Catholic" and "who is not Catholic."

Yes!Amen!

St Francis · #**546** May 20, '12, 6:44 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by colmywaykurtz

I think this is going a bit far, St Francis. They may not be providing any "future for society" in the demographic, human sense, but a lot of them (perhaps most of them) work providing goods/services and pay taxes. They ARE providing for the future of society in a material, economic sense. The tax money they pay is as "fungible" and useful as that paid by any heterosexual. Money's money.

Are you saying that they should be cut off from entitlements and benefits (both governmental and private sector) that others are entitled to, simply on the basis of being homosexual? That's what it sounds like. Is that not the case?

I am sorry I wasn't clear. I wrote: Homosexuals can not, ipso facto, provide any future for society. Therefore, why sould they receive the benefits which are given to those who do?

By which I meant that families receive certain benefits from the government and from society (family rates on things, etc.) because families are providing the future of our society.

Homosexual "marriage" will open up family benefits for those who cannot provide children by the very nature of their relationship. Why should Mr X get a tax benefit for his non-working partner simply because they are "married"? There is no reason for them to be able to get this benefit, because the only ones who get anything out of this relationship is themselves. Society gainst nothing.

Other, non-familial benefits which accrue somply by virtue of being a member of this society is another issue. I in no way meant to imply that those benefits be removed from them, just that we not grant them familial benefits.

**Robert Bay** · #**547** May 20, '12, 7:34 am

MODERATOR NOTICE

This thread is wandering, please return to the topic of the original post.

Fiasco · #**548** May 20, '12, 8:10 am

A version of this might be appropriate for less-than-faithful politicians:
http://te-deum.blogspot.com.au/2012/...announces.html

Apologies if this piece of news has already been flogged to death.

heaintheavy · #**549** May 20, '12, 9:35 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dymphna82

I didn't ask for every member to be excommunicated, just her. But I really do think the Church should make an example of more people. If I was Pope, I'd excommunicate any person that has ever signed a petition in support of abortion or gay marriage. It's a good thing I'm born to be Dymphna, and not Pope.

But where does one draw the line?
If the church excommunicated a Catholic who signed a petition supporting abortion and gay marriage....what about others, unlike Pelosi, who are not in the public eye?
There are Catholics who have had abortions, for example.
There are gay Catholics who have had sex with someone of the same gender and continue to do so.
I assume these actions would be considered by the church to be of the same ilk--perhaps worse--than signing a petition. Should these people be "reported on" by friends and family and then excommunicated?

(I assume any priests who have confessed to sexual scandal, if there are any, are ex-communicated? Is that a given...?)

CatholicBoy1957 · #**550** May 20, '12, 9:45 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by heaintheavy

But where does one draw the line?
If the church excommunicated a Catholic who signed a petition supporting abortion and gay marriage....what about others, unlike Pelosi, who are not in the public eye?
There are Catholics who have had abortions, for example.
There are gay Catholics who have had sex with someone of the same gender and continue to do so.
I assume these actions would be considered by the church to be of the same ilk--perhaps worse--than signing a petition. Should these people be "reported on" by friends and family and then excommunicated?

(I assume any priests who has confessed to sexual scandal, if there are any, are ex-communicated? That would be a given...)

They don't need to be "reported on" to be excommunicated. They are excommunicated "latae sententiae".

That applies, of course, to sins which are an excommunicable offense. Gay sex is not necessarily so.

Dymphna82 · #**551** May 20, '12, 4:59 pm

There was, for example, news of a priest denying a gay woman the Eucharist at her mother's funeral.

Of course, anyone who doesn't understand the Catholic Church is going to be outraged. Still, if this woman is out and proud enough that even the priest knows about it, then he can't give the Eucharist to her.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...aced-on-leave/

And there we see that even then, gay rights advocates are trying to tell the Church what to do.

--

But overall, I do not like that so many are proud of sin. I sin all the time but I never dare say, "My Catholicism compels me to acts this way." That's what bothers me about this situation.

**LilyM** · #**552** May 20, '12, 5:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dymphna82

There was, for example, news of a priest denying a gay woman the Eucharist at her mother's funeral.

Of course, anyone who doesn't understand the Catholic Church is going to be outraged. Still, if this woman is out and proud enough that even the priest knows about it, then he can't give the Eucharist to her.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...aced-on-leave/

And there we see that even then, gay rights advocates are trying to tell the Church what to do.

--

But overall, I do not like that so many are proud of sin. I sin all the time but I never dare say, "My Catholicism compels me to acts this way." That's what bothers me about this
situation.

Indeed - it makes about as much sense as saying 'my citizenship of the US compels me to disagree that there is such a thing as a right to free speech/the vote/insert other Constitutionally protected right here'

Just doesn't compute.

ComputerGeek25 · #**553** May 20, '12, 6:27 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by heaintheavy

But where does one draw the line?
If the church excommunicated a Catholic who signed a petition supporting abortion and gay marriage....what about others, unlike Pelosi, who are not in the public eye?
There are Catholics who have had abortions, for example.
There are gay Catholics who have had sex with someone of the same gender and continue to do so.
I assume these actions would be considered by the church to be of the same ilk--perhaps worse--than signing a petition. Should these people be "reported on" by friends and family and then excommunicated?

(I assume any priests who have confessed to sexual scandal, if there are any, are ex-communicated? Is that a given...?)

All they would have to do is go to confession and confess their sins by kind and number. Simple as that.

Fiasco · #**554** May 20, '12, 7:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ComputerGeek25

All they would have to do is go to confession and confess their sins by kind and number. Simple as that.

And there`s the big difference between private sinning and blatant, scandal-causing public sinning.

onenow1 · #**555** Jun 1, '12, 9:03 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeanne S

Yes!Amen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth502
Why do you insist on continuing to bring this up, CMatt? With whom are you arguing? The issue is dead. Again, as has been said repeatedly, the issue both on this thread and in general, is not what (a) Nancy Pelosi's technical religious identity is, (b) what your religious identity is, (c) what your debaters' religious identity is, or are. It doesn't matter if Nancy Pelosi has waived her baptismal certificate constantly during every un-Catholic statement she has made.

And I did not bring that up in the post of mine, above, which you just quoted. It's your attempt to derail the thread into a recalcitrant discussion of who is technically defined as Catholic by the Church, even while everyone else has left the subject. Therefore, your quoting me just now is non-responsive to the quote you cited. Drop it. My post had zero to do with Catholic identities on Catholic websites.

We get it that it's your agenda, and your way of avoiding the essential topic of just what is a Catholic position versus what is not a Catholic position -- instead of the straw man of "who is Catholic" and "who is not Catholic."

Yes!Amen!

Being baptised in the Trinitarian form in the Church she has excommunicated herself from the Church. She will answer to the Lord if she does not have a conversion of heart in the confessional.