"Nothing is more dreaded than the national government meddling with religion." John Adams

Featured Posts


Creative Minority Reader

Cdl. Dolan: A Tragic Day for Marriage and Our Nation

Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, and Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco, chair of the U.S. bishops’ Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage, released a statement on today's Supreme Court rulings on marriage.

The two called it a "profound injustice" and say the Court "got it wrong."

“Today is a tragic day for marriage and our nation. The Supreme Court has dealt a profound injustice to the American people by striking down in part the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The Court got it wrong. The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. The preservation of liberty and justice requires that all laws, federal and state, respect the truth, including the truth about marriage. It is also unfortunate that the Court did not take the opportunity to uphold California’s Proposition 8 but instead decided not to rule on the matter. The common good of all, especially our children, depends upon a society that strives to uphold the truth of marriage. Now is the time to redouble our efforts in witness to this truth.

These decisions are part of a public debate of great consequence. The future of marriage and the well-being of our society hang in the balance.

“Marriage is the only institution that brings together a man and a woman for life, providing any child who comes from their union with the secure foundation of a mother and a father.

“Our culture has taken for granted for far too long what human nature, experience, common sense, and God’s wise design all confirm: the difference between a man and a woman matters, and the difference between a mom and a dad matters. While the culture has failed in many ways to be marriage-strengthening, this is no reason to give up. Now is the time to strengthen marriage, not redefine it.

“When Jesus taught about the meaning of marriage – the lifelong, exclusive union of husband and wife – he pointed back to “the beginning” of God’s creation of the human person as male and female (see Matthew 19). In the face of the customs and laws of his time, Jesus taught an unpopular truth that everyone could understand. The truth of marriage endures, and we will continue to boldly proclaim it with confidence and charity.

“Now that the Supreme Court has issued its decisions, with renewed purpose we call upon all of our leaders and the people of this good nation to stand steadfastly together in promoting and defending the unique meaning of marriage: one man, one woman, for life. We also ask for prayers as the Court’s decisions are reviewed and their implications further clarified.”

*subhead*Injustice.*subhead*

Your Ad Here

47 comments:

William Meyer said...

Well. If the good Cardinal could make up his mind whether to cozy up to the politicians or to remain true to Church teachings, he might be more effective in making public pronouncements. Truly, most of us respond more positively when actions comport with words.

Elizabeth said...

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that this document was written by Archbishop Cordileone. I'm surprised that he got Dolan to sign off on it.

Elizabeth said...

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking that this document was written by Archbishop Cordileone. I'm surprised that he got Dolan to sign off on it.

Aged parent said...

It 's hard to dump on the Cardinal after he issues statements like this but alas I have to: Cardinal Dolan has helped bring about this sorry state by (his own admission) not preaching the Faith loudly and clearly and by "cozying up", as Mr Meyer puts it, to the swinish politicians and presidents who force these horrors upon us.

The Sodomy Juggernaut is not going to stop until the Church stops it. And the only way the Church can stop it is by ceasing to be "nice" and "politic" and start thundering again. We need less smiles and cheer from Popes and Bishops and more seriousness of purpose. Until that happens these monsters will swarm all over us and usher in a reign of hell on earth.

Sarah said...

"The federal government ought to respect the truth that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, even where states fail to do so. "

Really? Both are made up of human beings, and most of them are corrupt. Why does he suppose that the federal government SHOULD have been a more stalwart friend of traditional marriage than the governments of some states?

Pat said...

The case was decided correctly. Read it. The State of NY gets to decide who gets a marriage license.

Pat said...

So, legally speaking, Dolan is wrong. And culturally speaking, I think he's also wrong. "The future of marriage ... hangs in the balance"????? No it doesn't! My marriage to my wife isn't threatened.

Also, I think allowing the gays to marry will STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage.

Paul Zummo said...

Also, I think allowing the gays to marry will STRENGTHEN the institution of marriage.

Yes, and eating bob-bons all day will make me lose even more weight.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/simcha-fisher/can-we-save-infidelity

Dymphna said...

Sadly Cardinal Dolan can't speak and expect anybody to take him seriously. Even sadder, marriage was destroyed decades ago.

Pat said...

Paul: When we changed the law to grant women voting rights, was that good for voting in general or bad for voting in general? Did that hurt the institution or strengthen it?

Jericho said...

Pat is unaware that homosexual relationships do not mirror marriages in the slightest. Overwhelmingly, male+male unions are not exclusive, but rather open to other males. This is considered the norm and will spread to real marriages as well, damaging the institution further. In reality, non-conjgual unions (which are only friendships) do not require exclusivity since sexual acts cannot produce children. No need to be exclusive save for feelings, and if you're partner is down with it, why not? Among female+female unions, women tend to be "serially" monogamous. This means that they set up a train of relationships, each succeeding the other, with divorces in between. This is obviously disastrous for adopted children who get caught up in the wrecks.


Homosexuals claiming to be "married" will affect marriage as an institution - eliminating all connection with exclusivity and stability for the sake of children. This is a negative impact, to say the least.


Those of us who have done the research know better, Pat. This is not about feelings. This is about truth.

Paul Zummo said...

Pat:

Can you try again with an analogy that actually works?

Pat said...

Jericho,

If you show me credible, peer-reviewed research evidencing your bald assertions I will send you $100.

On the contrary, a recent peer-reviewed research report from Australia shows that children in gay families thrive. Shall I send it to you?

Also, Massachusetts divorce rates have PLUMMETED since gay marriage was made legal there.

And you have the nerve to tell us that 2 gay men getting married to each other is going to make you cheat on your wife with the town floozie??

Please.

Pat said...

Paul: You mean like when we changed the law to grant [interracial couples] [marriage] rights?... was that good for [marriage] in general or bad for [marriage] in general? Did that hurt the institution or strengthen it?

OK. There. But I still like the voting analogy, so feel free to answer all 4 questions, pal.

Paul Zummo said...

Well at least you're improving your analogies, so you get credit there.

Anti-miscegenation laws irrationally discriminated against couples that fulfilled the basic requirements of married life. There is nothing contrary to nature to individuals of different races marrying each other. In other words, their coupling can produce offspring, which is not in the case of same sex marriages.

But I still like the voting analogy

That's nice. I'll be sure to treat you to some ice cream and cookies next time we meet.

And you have the nerve to tell us that 2 gay men getting married to each other is going to make you cheat on your wife with the town floozie??

Since I can see that you are not really interested in good faith argumentation, I'm gonna bail out here.

susan said...

Pat...

http://www.citizenlink.com/2012/06/11/study-children-of-parents-in-same-sex-relationships-face-greater-risks/

http://voxspeak.co.uk/post/2013/01/27/Definition-Of-Consummation-In-Gay-Marriage-Renders-Adultery-Obsolete.aspx

http://protectthepope.com/?p=5293

You can direct deposit my acct. the $100.

Sarah said...

When the priests of this country are obligated by law to perform same-sex marriages under pain of heavy fines or incarceration, what example will Cardinal Dolan give then? Will he risk a more dire priest shortage by encouraging his diocesan priests to do the right thing and imitate St. John the Baptist, who went to jail for speaking the truth and not backing down from it? Or will he say something like, "Go ahead and perform the ceremonies. It's not like they're valid marriages anyway"?

David C said...

Totally subjective.

David C said...

Pat's definition of "peer-reviewed" research is one Left-Wing dingbat professor signing off on the "research" of another. It would be better if you didn't think us stupid, Pat. Go sell your propaganda somewhere else.

Proteios1 said...

I'm not a pat Buchanan or Jerry Falwell type of Protestant who says god is punishing us for things with hurricanes and earthquakes...
But..
God almighty is punishing us. Or no fault divorce. Our married 5 times. Or casual attitude towards a great sacrament...Because of our negligence He let it be taken away.
Are we going to let that happen to the Eucharist? Holy orders?
Because as we have seen our casual demeanor towards these two great sacraments suggests they are next.

Proteios1 said...

Who is "pat" commenting that gays will strengthen marriage?
Please don't promote your ignorance here. As a phd who feel very unwelcome in this blog, I can tell you a lot of research indicating gay couples and children of gay couples are very high risk for so many issues. It is not the same. It is not strengthening anything. In a culture of feminine progress we see more objectification and sexual abuse against women than during the "patriarchal" era. I suspect we will see the same. By lowering our expectations for children as we have done for women, the appearance of promotion may be realized.

akg41470 said...

"God almighty", if he exists, isn't punishing me at all. He's punishing you. I'm having a wonderful life and I'm very happy for friends of mine who can get married if they desire... Life is good. You, however, seem to be living a life of suffering under your god. Why is that?

David C said...

When sodomy wins, they come crawling out of the woodwork. Welcome akg41470! What brings an atheistic, pro-sodomy person such as yourself to a Catholic blog this evening?

Jericho said...

I'm glad that marriage is not sodomy, no matter how much they wish it was.

akg41470 said...

I've been here quite a few times, David C, but the general whining of the anti-equality populous today has been quite interesting to me: you are, to be blunt, a curio. So I come back and prod a bit to find out what's really in your heads. Fascinating, really.

But "pro-sodomy"? That's an interesting one. What makes you think I'm "pro-sodomy"? Honestly, I could care less about "sodomy" in this issue, I'm more concerned with people's happiness.

Jericho said...

People's "happiness"? Methinks you've never read a study on the rampant depression, substance abuse, domestic violence, and suicide that pervades the homosexual culture.


Laughable.

Pat said...

Paul:
A requirement of marriage is that a "coupling can produce offspring"??? Really? Not under our laws.

The eviscerates your argument 100%. You get an F.

As regards the voting analogy - why are you afraid to answer the question?

Lastly, as regards gay marriage causing you to cheat with the town floozie, that was directed to Jericho. Are you Jericho AND Paul? Are you Susan too? Are you Legion? Is this whole site just me arguing with a 14 year old zitty little girl in Montana? That explains everything.




Pat said...

Susan, your sources are not credible. They are laughable.

Pat said...

Jericho, your inability to meet my simple challenge to support your bald assertions is telling.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Will you next tell us the world is flat?

Pat said...

And let me say this also Paul, when you conflate intercourse and marriage, you're insulting me and all other married people. My married life is more than f***ing. If that's what you think marriage is, you're wrong. And I feel sorry for your wife. Marriage is about partnership and commitment. That's not some new radical thing I'm saying - all our marriage laws support that. Our parenting laws are separate. Your words suggest you haven't read any of them. You should.

Av8er said...

Pat, gay "marriage" isn't because it does not fit natural law. Since the beginning of man, marriage was a man and a woman, with some exceptions to polygamy. But even that still holds to the opposite sex pairing while demeaning women. Gay relationships have zero chance of producing offspring. Ever. Therefore it can not be called marriage.
Now, since you chose to pass your religious beliefs on a Catholic blog, you should understand that as Catholics, we find this ruling as illogical. We believe in God's word which tells us that a man leaves his mother and joins with his wife and two become one flesh. That's it. We do not hate those with same sex attraction but pray that they do not choose to act on those inclinations for the sake of their souls. Choose God not one's own "feelings" which is no where near the wisdom of Him.
As for the voting rights analogy, it is a non sequitur. There are no grave, soul threatening moral implications with voting rights as with same sex "marriage".

Rick said...

“If the government says that an apple is now the same as an orange, and the law requires everyone to call apples ‘oranges,’ the state would have the power to punish anyone who calls an apple an ‘apple’ instead of an ‘orange,’ but it would be a totalitarian abuse of raw power and would not change the biological reality of the nature of the fruit in question. So too with the definition of marriage.” Bishop Thomas J. Paprocki of Springfield, Ill., explained.

Paul Zummo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Paul Zummo said...

Pat, for someone who claims an air of intellectual superiority, your inability to actually engage points raised by others is quite telling. You erect a mountain of strawman, create woefully inadequate analogies, and basically ignore any research that contradict yours. You are simply not worth the time that too many of us have spent trying to engage with you. Pity.

David C said...

I'm sorry. You are "pro-equality"! The only problem is, you cannot separate that which they are(equal) from that which they do(sodomy).

C'estMoi said...

Pat said "On the contrary, a recent peer-reviewed research report from Australia shows that children in gay families thrive. Shall I send it to you?"

Yes, please do. Should be interesting since the Australian researchers you refer to are still in the process of collecting and analyzing data and HAVE PRODUCED ONLY A PRELIMINARY REPORT - though they've gone into the project with the intention of supporting ss marriage. Furthermore, they're using convenience and snowball sampling in their study, which means that the findings cannot be generalized beyond the sample used. In other words, their findings will mean exactly NOTHING (see "Recruitment" section at this article:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/12/646 ).

You also note that "Massachusetts divorce rates have "plummeted" since gay marriage was made legal there." Well, of course divorce rates have declined (though NOWHERE in the country have they "plummeted"). They tend to do that when marriage rates decline. When people don't get married, they don't get divorced. Marriage rates decline when marriage means nothing, as it has come to mean in Massachusetts, thanks, in part, to "ss marriage".

David C said...

Looks like Pat just got "outed". LOL!

akg41470 said...

Are you so obsessed with sex that you define people by their sexual habits? How about those who have no sexual habits - priests and cardinals, in theory - are they undefinable?

Av8er said...

@akg4147; i believe you have it backwards. The only group of people who insist on defining people is the gay community. If all people follow the natural law, there would be no controversy. By definition they define themselves by their sexual habits. If someone named Joe was attracted to someone named Bill but did not act on it, no one on the planet would know anything about either male's desires. It's whenn both these men act on it whoen they declare to the world their sexual habits. Priests and cardinals are celibate but that does not define them as priest/cardinal. They are ordained in the Catholic Church, minister to their flock, consecrate the Eucharist, preach the word of God. They practice celibacy because they are not planning on being married. Just like anyone who is not married, if they are Catholic, they need to be celibate or they commit the sin of fornication.

I hopr this helps explain the point better.

Av8er said...

Ugh. Sorry for the terrible spelling. It is late.

Pat said...

1. Aver:

This is an incredibly important issue and worth of clear thinking. You're confusing your religion with your country. Religions differ about what constitutes a "Grave, soul threatening" sin and that's why our civil laws leave that to the churches. Accordingly, the churches should extend a little bit more of the same courtesy to civic authorities. For example, my brother's church teaches that women should submit to their husbands and they mean that so strongly that the civil laws should reflect that and remove a wife's rights to challenge him in any way or ever divorce him. I'm sure you agree that we don't want that religious view enacted into our laws.

Also, you expressly state that a civil marriage requires the ability to produce offspring. That is 100% false. You clearly have NO understanding of our laws and public policies, So it makes sense that you're upset. You're applying 13 century beliefs to 21st century issues. I respectfully request that you read our marriage laws and our parenting laws to understand how they operate and then you will understand 2 gay men who apply for a government license to form a family should not be denied that license by our government.

2. Paul,

Oh, come ON. All you do is boldly ignore my reasoned arguments, my analogies and my specific questions. In reply, you've added no substance or counterargument, you've make intentionally broad and vague references to "important research" (i.e. the unaccredited rantings of foil-hatted zealots??) and then have the nerve to say that I can't be reasoned with, so you're taking your toys and going home. Just man-up and admit that this is an important issue and you weren't prepared to be challenged with facts and critical analysis.

3. C'est moi,

The preliminary report is still peer-reviewed. It is SCHOLARSHIP on this topic. You just don't like what is says. And marriage rates have declined in most US states while the fact remains that the state that had gay marriage first and has had it for over 10 years has a low divorce rate as compared to other states. The question YOU should be asking yourself is "how can I reasonably believe the anti-equality crowd when their baseless dire predictions never come to pass, and if anything, marriage is stronger in Massachusetts than in other US states?"


Av8er said...

Pat,
We as Catholics believe that there is only truth. That of Jesus Christ. There are portions of truth but two things can not be the same. For a great example read Fr. Ricks comment above. There is only one definition of marriage not two, therefore the one you support does not exist.

I have not commented on civil marriage as you suggest but on natural law. Your brother's religion, sounds harsh and it would certainly not conform with the truth of the Catholic church and that of God, has no bearing on the topic because it does not call for the redefining of the definition of marriage. We also have religious views enacted in our laws: thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc.
You are right about how important this is. Remember, the order is God then country.

Pat said...

Av8er,

But only civil law is at issue here. Not canon law, not religious law, not any of the theories of natural law (Aristotelean, christian, islamic, etc.)

What Jesus believed about marriage isn't dispositive.

Av8er said...

You are on a Catholic Blog.

Pat said...

Av8er,

There's no such thing as a Catholic blog. There is a RC church. And there are Roman Catholics.

You are using a blog in an attempt to influence civil law. That's fine, but at least admit it.

P.

Av8er said...

What I mean is that you come here to this blog which is for anyone but in particular those who are faithful to the teachings if the RC church. What other opinion do you expect to find? You certainly are using this blog to promote your agenda as well an influence civil law which is supposed to promote the common good. Same sex " marriage" does not promote the common good.
The bottom line is you're opinion, no matter how good it makes YOU feel, is wrong.

Pat said...

Av8er,

I participate in this blog not to light the fire of reason that God placed in your brain. I participate here for the 14 year old child who happens upon this blog and reads your baloney, which is unsupported by fact or reason and is harmful to Americans. She should be able to see counterarguments and facts and draw her own conclusions.

Also, I rarely (if ever) post my personal "opinion" on any matter, but I will review my prior posts to be sure. I try to post cold facts: For example:

1. My statement that what Jesus says about marriage isn't dispositive in USA civil law matters is not my personal opinion, its a fact about how our laws work.

2. The divorce rate in Massachusetts isn't my personal opinion, its a fact supported by empirical evidence.

3. That civil marriage does not require the ability to produce offspring is not my personal opinion, it's a fact about how our laws work.

You, however, have the temerity to print bald lies (see #3 above, for ONE example) for the dastardly purpose of influencing others with false info, and when called out on your bald lies, you fall silent.

Shame on you.

Post a Comment