Here we go! (One of?) the first major misinterpretation(s), misapplication(s) and machination(s) of Pope Francis’s statements.
From The Christian Science Monitor:
After months of false starts, the Illinois House of Representatives on Tuesday voted to legalize same-sex marriage, and Pope Francis’s recent comments about homosexuality may have played a small but significant role, reports suggest.
At least one Catholic lawmaker cited the pope’s statement as she explained her recent decision, and Speaker of the House Michael Madigan, also a Catholic, used the pope’s words to articulate his own reasons for supporting the bill. Previously, he had been criticized for not pushing hard enough to rally support for the bill.
But according to The Chicago Tribune, Pope Francis’ comments “sparked a wave of soul-searching by several Catholic lawmakers who had battled to reconcile their religious beliefs with their sworn duty to represent their constituents who were increasingly supportive of gay rights even as Cardinal Francis George remained opposed.”
State Rep. Linda Chapa LaVia (D), who had spent much of the summer undecided, voted for the bill on Tuesday, telling the Tribune, “As a Catholic follower of Jesus and the pope, Pope Francis, I am clear that our Catholic religious doctrine has at its core love, compassion, and justice for all people.”
Rorate Caeli has reserved but very honest commentary:
No, the Pope’s words on homosexuality do not change the doctrine of the Church, and in no way excuse what these ‘lawmakers’ have done. At the same time, this does not bode well for those who have argued that the Pope’s strategy of putting the accent almost exclusively on inclusion and compassion will do little harm to the Church, while miraculously attracting large numbers back to the faith.
No doubt, people of a different “mind” than Christ Jesus (cf: Phil 2:5) will misinterpret what Pope Francis said. At the same time, I also pray the Pope comes to realize that with his new responsibility he needs to weigh his words well before he speaks–seeing how the whole world is listening!
I don’t understand this uproar over same sex unions. They are asking for the right to access a legal contract, not a religious ceremony. Calling a civil contract marriage is a semantic act. Call it a civil union if that helps, but when a country has a separation of church and state, no one religious belief should dictate civil laws. Everyone condemns the Muslim effort to give status to sharia law, how is the stand of some religious groups against same sex unions different?
Canada was the first country to legalize same sex unions in 2004. Since then there has not been a decrease in religious activity, our divorce rate is half that of the U.S.
From articles I have read coming out of Canada,it seems to me that the liberal pc crowd has high jacked the school system with compulsory teaching and normalizing the GLBT behavior to the extent that even private Catholic schools are forced to teach this as a alternative behavior,not in addition to heterosexual unions but in lieu of God’s natural law man and woman.Also, read an article of a principal in a Catholic shcool warned NOT to teach Catholic doctrine as part of the curriculum.
This IMO is the natural consequence of normalizing a disordered sexual preference.
Massachusetts Supreme Court legalised homosexual marriage in 2004. In 2006 parents in Lexington, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit because their second-grader was a read a book about two princes who fall in love called The King and King. There was no opt out from the class. That lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge. Federal appeals court affirmed that saying
It is a fair inference that the reading of King and King was precisely intended to influence the listening children toward tolerance of gay marriage
The son of the father who filed the lawsuit was later beaten in school and the father speculated it had to do with the lawsuit
There are secular arguments to not legalise homosexual marriage
Catholic schools in Ontario are publicly funded. The approach to teaching sexuality is faith based. If you’re interested the following site gives a good overview of the approach used. catholiccurriculumcorp.org/resources.asp#3029
The following excerpt is indicative of how little input the ministry has on religious issues.
"Concerns about Broten’s comments extended beyond the Catholic community. Faye Sonier, legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, said the idea that Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life is a form of bullying “would leave someone with even a rudimentary understanding of law reeling.” She noted that the law does not provide a “right-to-abortion” contrary to Broten’s press conference claims and that 60 per cent Canadians do not support the status quo of abortion-on-demand that Broten defends as necessary to avoid being misogynistic. She wondered if that made the majority of Canadians women-haters.
The National Post reported that constitutional lawyer Eugene Meehan said Broten’s position makes Bill 13 vulnerable to a constitutional challenge because it shifts teaching on morality in the Catholic school system from the church to the ministry of education, a breach of the Constitution Act of 1867.
In this age of deception and agenda-driven motives, I would think what is truly needed from the Church is absolute clarity. It appears there are so many misquotes from so many sources that the Vatican cannot possibly correct them all.
None of this dealswith the issue that civil unions are contracts governed by secular laws. In a country where there is a separation of church and state, laws cannot reflect religious beliefs, even if those beliefs are in the majority.
As the U.S. works under a separation of church and state, the government must uphold the values contained in the Constitution. One of thre roles of a constitution is to ensure that minorities are not subject to discriminatory laws. The argument against civil same sex contracts, must be made at the court level, with your SCOTUS being the final arbiter. So even if you could convince legislators to pass laws against same sex unions, those laws can not be contradictory to the Constitution. The Constitution is a country’s doctrine. I don’t know if same sex unions have been challenged and deemed constitutional. If they have, your only recourse is to change the constitution.
Just constantly talking about the evils of same sex marriage, accomplishes nothing and it takes energy away from more serious issues, such as the upcoming battle against euthanasia , we will all soon be fighting in most countries.
Your stats are based on divorce rate per 1000 population. If you look at divorces per 100 marriages the rates are 37 per 100 in Canada and 57.8 per 100 in the US. The point here is not so much that the marriage survival rate is poor in BOTH countries (and it is) though markedly worse in the US, but this shows nothing about whether legalizing SSM has negatively affected marriage in Canada because we don’t know what the rates were prior to legalization. Nor do you show why there exists any correlation between divorce rates and same sex marriage approval. Why do we have any reason to think that divorce rates are a valid indicator of whether SSM has been beneficial to Canada? That benefit would need to be shown much more comprehensively than merely by existing divorce stats, which seem to have little, if anything at all, to do with the benefits of SSM.
The premise of your argument is that SSM is merely a religious issue. It isn’t. Marriage is, at base, a biological relationship between a male and female for the purpose of procreation and laws surrounding marriage have traditionally been concerned with protecting that fundamental biological pairing. The question of SSM has to do with whether governments have any kind of legal authority to redefine what is fundamentally a non-political reality. To say marriage also has been recognized as a religious concern does not mean it is strictly a religious reality, either. Both political and religious definitions are grounded in the biological reality.
Marriage may have religious and political significance, but that does not mean marriage is fundamentally a religious or political entity. It isn’t. There are necessary features of what makes marriage, a marriage and one of those is potential to procreate. This is why marriage became recognized by both political and religious entities. On the political side because marriage is the ONLY means by which new native-born citizens of a political system come into existence. That is the only reason why the state has any jurisdiction - new citizens are involved and protection of citizens is precisely the responsibility of government. The government has no jurisdiction in the affections or loyalties of its citizens. If marriage is strictly about “loving commitment” as SSM proponents insist, then the government has no jurisdiction to be involved. It is like the government telling you who you can or cannot be affectionate with. Do you think the government SHOULD have that kind of power?
There is only one justification the government can possibly have for involving itself in a relationship - to protect vulnerable third parties (children) who can result from that relationship.
What defines a marriage is not a religious question at all. Neither is it political. At ground, it is about human reality or human nature which cannot, ultimately be altered by any political authority no matter how all-encompassing that authority believes itself to be.
A redefinition of marriage by a political body is akin to a collective of astrophysicists deciding that the Moon will now be considered a star just because they have been persuaded by strong voices telling them that they MUST do so in order for the moon be given equal status with the Sun. It is a logical non sequitur. The fact that the moon is considered less important by some, or even all people, is not a reason to misappropriate a fundamental concept.
To argue that calling the moon a star will in no way harm science is simply missing the point. It is still doing bad science, just as redefining marriage is bad governance because it is assuming that a ruling elite has jurisdiction where, in reality, they have none.
Pardon me, but the bold faced line has to be one of the most ludicrous statements I have ever read anywhere.
If laws cannot reflect religious beliefs, then any religious belief would be illegal by definition. Do you get what you are implying here?
If anyone has a religious belief that murder is wrong, then the law could not reflect that belief so murder would have to, ipso facto, be made legal so it didn’t reflect a religious belief, because, as you insist, laws CANNOT reflect religious beliefs.
To make same sex marriage illegal, then, it would only require some religious body somewhere to subscribe to a belief that same sex marriage is good and the state would thereby be compelled to make same sex marriage illegal.
The misuse of someone’s name in support of an idea or proposal they clearly oppose is fraudulent, at best.
It is like a company using the name of a celebrity or sports figure to endorse their product when they haven’t been given permission to do so. In this case, the product was not endorsed but clearly viewed as unacceptable by the “celebrity.”
If only we didn’t hear constantly that entities, including churches were being sued for not wanting to provide services for believing the opposite of ‘support’ for the subject, your statement here might hold a little water.
Reality is that in many cases they are not just trying to access a legal contract.
They want their Church wedding in the Church of their choice, with cake from the place that doesn’t support their choices, etc.
If they want to be respected, they should respect the choices of others.
That is not the case. Their ‘rights’ don’t extend to infringing on other’s ‘rights’ to carryout their daily activities in peace.
Of course, it should always be mentioned that the efforts by the loud ones, are also hurtful toward the many good gay folks trying to live good lives with their cross, in accordance to the moral and natural laws.