President Obama’s comments today in support of the redefinition of marriage are deeply saddening. As I stated in my public letter to the President on September 20, 2011, the Catholic Bishops stand ready to affirm every positive measure taken by the President and the Administration to strengthen marriage and the family. However, we cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society. The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better. Unfortunately, President Obama’s words today are not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage. I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman. May we all work to promote and protect marriage and by so doing serve the true good of all persons.
Home › T19 Categories › * Culture-Watch › Cardinal Dolan: President Obama's Remarks on Marriage 'Deeply Saddening'
Cardinal Dolan: President Obama's Remarks on Marriage 'Deeply Saddening'
5 comments on “Cardinal Dolan: President Obama's Remarks on Marriage 'Deeply Saddening'”
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
T19 Access
Search
Categories Main
Categories Exhaustive
T19 Resources
Likewise, TEC explicitly defines marriage as between a man and a woman – in the canons, and in the BCP (the marriage rite itself, and the catechism).
It’s shameful that even one TEC bishop would ignore this in promoting SSBs and/or the marriage of homosexuals.
While I hardly agree with the idea of changing the definition of marriage in the canons and the BCP, that (at least) would be a proper, logical first step.
Likewise, TEC has no written doctrine on the sinfulness of homosexual practice. While the Roman Catholic Church’s position on that is explicit in its catechism, all we have is Lambeth I.10.
[blockquote]2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[/blockquote]
The TEC homosexual activists need to get busy writing doctrinal statements that can be voted on in General Convention, and adopted in the depraved dioceses.
In his statement, Cardinal Dolan reiterates an oft-made point: Gay marriage would “undermine the institution of marriage.”
Perhaps I’m blinded by my homosexual agenda, but I honestly don’t get how that would work. Would straight folk be less likely to get or stay married as a result of same-sex weddings? Would opposite-sex couples view their vows as any less sacred simply because same-sex couples were now making them too? Wouldn’t the overall married population, and percentage of children reared by married parents, more likely increase than decrease if marriage were open to gay couples as well?
I understand the that some folks object to gay marriage because it would imply a social sanction of homosexuality, but that strikes me as a different point.
#2– It’s because homosexual unions aren’t marriage. Once you start calling them that, then you no longer have marriage in a society. And then you begin insisting that all young people in school must be taught that it is marriage. And then you start making it a rule that anyone who tells you homosexual unions aren’t marriages loses their jobs for being “homophobes” and “fundamentalists.” And then you start requiring churches to allow homosexual unions to be performed on their properties (already an issue here), even though the Bible and Jesus specifically say a marriage is between a man and a woman.
It’s as if you start insisting that everyone must believe that 2 + 2 = 5. Of course it doesn’t equal 5, but if you do that, pretty soon all calculations are messed up and none of mathematics works any longer.
#2,
Not exactly tangential to the discussion, but any real estate office
in this country is required to display an official government-worded
poster stating that that real estate office does not discriminate
in it real estate sales or sales practices accorfing to race, ethnicity,
religion, etc. Furthermore, the poster states that non-display
of the poster is considered prima facie evidence of discrimination
or the intent to discriminate. What are the churches to do if
the U.S. government mandates that religious organizations must
display a poster in their churches which state that the church does not discriminate
in its religious observances and rituals on the basis of sexual orientation ?
The homosexualist agenda neither admits nor allows that the
conscience of a religious community or an individual can be
granted tolerance – it must be overturned and extirpated.
The fraudulent notion that homosexual couples are “just folks
like us” is what they seek to perpetrate on society and to enshrine
in its legal system.
The objective reality as understood in biological evolution and the
utterly overwhelming evidence and experience in the natural world
and human societies throughout history argue that homosexual
practice is sterile, aberrant, and abhorrent.
What is significant is the fact that someone must ask what difference it makes if a word used to refer to one thing now refers to something else.