Cardinal Dolan And Vp Biden

[Fidei Defensor]

And, of course, the likewise is true (on both statements).

 

 

I also forgot to mention, the link I previously posted (http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage) contains 10 replies to common arguments for same sex 'marriage'.

The difference is, allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriage is not forcing or replacing anything, it is granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief.

Edited March 28, 2013 by tardis ad astra

[4588686]

The difference is, allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriage is not forcing or replacing anything, it is granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief.

yep

[CatholicCid]

The difference is, allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriage is not forcing or replacing anything, it is granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief.

It is forcing a societal acceptance of a practice that is currently not accepted, or attempting to at least replace the current accepted societal practice. And, it is not granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief, but attempting to alter that meaning.

 

The secular institution of marriage is tied to procreative meaning of marriage, one which both encourages having and raising children in a stable family setting. Altering this as suggested undermines this understanding.

Edited March 28, 2013 by CatholicCid

[Fidei Defensor]

It is forcing a societal acceptance of a practice that is currently not accepted, or attempting to at least replace the current accepted societal practice. And, it is not granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief, but attempting to alter that meaning.

 

The secular institution of marriage is tied to procreative meaning of marriage, one which both encourages having and raising children in a stable family setting. Altering this as suggested undermines this understanding.

Wrong. Here again we reach the real problem — society's changing views on marriage.  You are facing the problem of your beliefs becoming more obscure.

 

But here's the thing, and I will say this until I get blue in the face — its about equal access, not replacement.  Your life would literally be exactly the same tomorrow as it is today if same-sex couples were allowed to be granted secular marriage licenses. Nothing about traditional marriage would change. The only change would be the Federal government saying that it has no right to favor one belief about marriage over the other, and thus would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  That is not superseding your form of marriage, it is adding another form of marriage. It is not contingent upon your approval because it doesn't affect you.

[4588686]

It is forcing a societal acceptance of a practice that is currently not accepted, or attempting to at least replace the current accepted societal practice. And, it is not granting access to the secular institution of marriage regardless of belief, but attempting to alter that meaning.

 

The secular institution of marriage is tied to procreative meaning of marriage, one which both encourages having and raising children in a stable family setting. Altering this as suggested undermines this understanding.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

[CatholicCid]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

 

"While several jurisdictions have legalized same-sex marriage through court rulings, legislative action, and popular vote, nine states prohibit same-sex marriage by statute and 30 prohibit it in their constitutions."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States

 

If public opinion is to decide this issue, would you support courts overturning majority votes by constituents banning homosexual marriage in a state? (e.g. Prop. 8)

[CatholicCid]

Wrong. Here again we reach the real problem — society's changing views on marriage.  You are facing the problem of your beliefs becoming more obscure.

 

But here's the thing, and I will say this until I get blue in the face — its about equal access, not replacement.  Your life would literally be exactly the same tomorrow as it is today if same-sex couples were allowed to be granted secular marriage licenses. Nothing about traditional marriage would change. The only change would be the Federal government saying that it has no right to favor one belief about marriage over the other, and thus would grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples.  That is not superseding your form of marriage, it is adding another form of marriage. It is not contingent upon your approval because it doesn't affect you.

 

To the first point, refer to my response to Hasan (or, my Wikipedia page response to his Wikipedia response  :hehe2: ).

 

And, I disagree. Equal access already exists. Any man and woman are free to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. What you are suggesting is to change/replace the traditional understanding of marriage, which is a contract between a man and a woman, to a new understanding of marriage, which is a contract between two individuals (Why limit it to two? Why set age restrictions?). This would be, by definition, superseding our current understanding of marriage.

 

As to same sex marriage 'not affecting me', I've previously addressed this with a link in Post #58. Federal endorsement of acts naturally affect both my family and myself as members of the society. 

 

And, as previously mentioned, the Federal government does have a reason to favor one belief about marriage over another. The secular understanding of marriage is intimately tied to the procreative aspect of marriage. The benefits granted to married couples are to encourage procreation and the forming of stable family units in which the children born to the parents shall be raised. This stance supports the common good.

 

 

Also, to again link to this article (http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage), which offers rebuttals to arguments for same sex 'marriage', #2 ("Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality") would be of interest to this post. 

[HisChildForever]

And quite honestly, the original purpose of this thread wasn't to debate how laws are made and which morality is acceptable.  We are disappointed in a Cardinal of the Church who not only gave communion to a pro-abortion politician but also gave him special attention.  That goes against the laws of the Church and secular society has no say in that.

 

A public welcome isn't "special attention." If the Cardinal reserved a pew for Biden and insisted that Biden be the first on line for communion, that would be a different story. Dolan has a very welcoming, warm, and jolly personality. I'm not surprised that he pointed out the VP and don't think it's a big deal. Say it was VP Paul Ryan instead - if he got a shout out, would that bother you?

 

I'm not sure if the Cardinal himself distributed communion to Biden, but again, how can we possibly know the state of his soul at the time he received? What if he repented beforehand?

[Nihil Obstat]

Canon 915 is actually quite complex. The answers, unfortunately, are not nearly as straightforward as we might like.

That is not to say that the current situation is a good one. It clearly is not, and I would argue that our bishops collectively need to lead a major effort in sorting this mess out. But it is not a quick fix.

 

Dr. Ed Peters again: (Sorry for the occasionally broken formatting- I do not have the energy to comb through it to correct such minor discrepancies.)

 

 

TUESDAY, JUNE 28, 2011

Questions over Canon 915 are not going away

 

As long as Canon 915 is so widely misunderstood and virtually ignored, neuralgic controversies over the public reception of holy Communion by certain notorious figures are going to keep arising, over, and over, and over again.

And not just in America.

Robert Mugabe went to Communion at John Paul II’s beatification Mass and the photo of his taking the Host went world-wide, of course, occasioning, besides p. r. problems for the Church and deep disappointment among Mugabe’s victims (or their survivors), more flawed explanations of the canonical norms for reception of holy Communion. These latter attract my attention (I have no opinion on whether Mugabe should have ever been invited to the rites themselves, what do I know of such things?).

Before addressing those mis-explanations, however, let me say that it’spossible that the priest actually administering holy Communion to what looks like a nice old man in a business suit did not know that the apparently nice old man in a business suit claims Hitler as his role model. Such ignorance would suffice to defend the priest from charges of disrespect toward the Eucharist.

Now, about those flawed explanations of Communion discipline.

From Vatican Insider (English, 28 June 2011) we read: Cardinal Wilfried Napier tried to throw water over the firestorm of problems, explaining that “for any Christian, the reception of communion is a personal matter, consciously made in front of God. As such, it is a matter for the ‘internal forum’, in other words the space between God and the believer. No one, except Mugabe, and perhaps his confessor, can know if he was in a state of grace when he presented himself to receive communion in St. Peter’s Square. It is not up to us to ask Mugabe about his ‘internal forum’.

That’s mostly* true, but it’s also mostly beside the point.

Not all Communion-reception questions are answered by resort to Canon 916. Canon 915 is also relevant, and Canon 915 does not operate in the internalforum, rather, it operates in the external forum. One’s eligibility, or lack thereof, under Canon 915 to receive holy Communion does not depend on the state of one’s soul, it depends on whether one’s public actions manifest obstinate perseverance in grave sin.

[Cdl. Napier] continued “Also, since Mugabe is not under interdict (as are some pro-choice politicians in the United States, at the discretion of local bishops) he can continue receiving communion. We should hope that his personal chaplain will provide him with adequate spiritual guidance”.

First, to my knowledge, no politician in the USA is under interdict, but if one were, it would not have been as a function of episcopal discretion, but as a function of objective canon law. Second, interdict (specifically, imposed or declared interdict) is not the only disqualifier for the reception of holy Communion under Canon 915, for excommunication or obstinate perseverance in manifest grave sin also disqualifies one from reception of Communion.

As I have said many times before, none of the above relies on “canonical rocket science”, nor does it take special divining skills to see that, someday, the chronic discrepancies between canon law and pastoral practice regarding Communion reception are going to have to be reconciled. + + +

* For example, no human being, not even a confessor, can ever know whether a sui compos adult is in the state of grace.

 

 

[Fidei Defensor]

To the first point, refer to my response to Hasan (or, my Wikipedia page response to his Wikipedia response  :hehe2: ).

 

And, I disagree. Equal access already exists. Any man and woman are free to marry, regardless of sexual orientation. What you are suggesting is to change/replace the traditional understanding of marriage, which is a contract between a man and a woman, to a new understanding of marriage, which is a contract between two individuals (Why limit it to two? Why set age restrictions?). This would be, by definition, superseding our current understanding of marriage.

 

As to same sex marriage 'not affecting me', I've previously addressed this with a link in Post #58. Federal endorsement of acts naturally affect both my family and myself as members of the society. 

 

And, as previously mentioned, the Federal government does have a reason to favor one belief about marriage over another. The secular understanding of marriage is intimately tied to the procreative aspect of marriage. The benefits granted to married couples are to encourage procreation and the forming of stable family units in which the children born to the parents shall be raised. This stance supports the common good.

 

 

Also, to again link to this article (http://www.osv.com/tabid/7621/itemid/10339/Rebuttals-to-arguments-for-samesex-marriage), which offers rebuttals to arguments for same sex 'marriage', #2 ("Same-sex marriage is primarily about equality") would be of interest to this post. 

Heterosexual couples will procreate regardless of whether homosexual couples are allowed to marry.  Allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriages will not negatively affect procreation—homosexuals don't suddenly cease to exist just because they can't get married but then reappear with vengeance when they can and force straight people to stop having sex.

[KnightofChrist]

Heterosexual couples will procreate regardless of whether homosexual couples are allowed to marry.  Allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriages will not negatively affect procreation—homosexuals don't suddenly cease to exist just because they can't get married but then reappear with vengeance when they can and force straight people to stop having sex.

 

Your rebuttals aren't the strongest, nor are they very direct in response. Do you have evidence that the claims of negative effects, described in #58, from the legalization of homosexual unions did not happen? Do you have evidence similar negative outcomes will not effect Christians in the United States should those unions be legalized?

 

=====

 

Three of the greatest problems the Church is facing today is the great lack of discipline, the false notion that we can divide ourselves in two having our faith life separate from our work life, and then there is the want to make excuses.

[Papist]

The article is wrong re the Catholic League. I do not believe it is Catholic League's mission to call out errors with Church leaders, but rather call to task those that attack the Church.

 

The article is correct in regard the scandal of Dolan.

[Fidei Defensor]

Your rebuttals aren't the strongest, nor are they very direct in response. Do you have evidence that the claims of negative effects, described in #58, from the legalization of homosexual unions did not happen? Do you have evidence similar negative outcomes will not effect Christians in the United States should those unions be legalized?

 

=====

 

Three of the greatest problems the Church is facing today is the great lack of discipline, the false notion that we can divide ourselves in two having our faith life separate from our work life, and then there is the want to make excuses.

Do you have evidence that the decline in marriage is directly related to same-sex marriage and not just general changing views of marriage?

 

I'm having a hard time understanding why you think gay couples marrying has anything to do with how straight couples view marriage and procreation. If a couple wants to marry and have a kid, they're going to do it regardless of whether gay couples can marry or not.  And denying marriage to gay couples won't make decide to marry a straight person and have a kid with them.

 

Your problems reside with the changing views of marriage by society as a whole, not specifically gay marriage.  People don't view marriage as a duty, finding someone to start a family with as an imperative.  Marriage is something that happens as a way to pledge love and devotion.  So if you want to complain about anything, complain about straight people not taking marriage seriously as a procreative  institution.

[CatholicCid]

Heterosexual couples will procreate regardless of whether homosexual couples are allowed to marry.  Allowing secular recognition of same-sex marriages will not negatively affect procreation—homosexuals don't suddenly cease to exist just because they can't get married but then reappear with vengeance when they can and force straight people to stop having sex.

I am not suggesting that allowing homosexual marriage will stop procreation. What I am suggesting, however, is that the government has a vested interest in couples procreating and forming stable families and their response to this has been the secular institution of marriage.

 

To use your logic, rejecting same sex 'marriage' will not prevent homosexual couples from forming.  What benefit is it to the government and society to replace the traditional understanding of marriage with one that encompasses same sex 'marriage'? In other words, why must we allow same sex 'marriage'?

[thessalonian]

"Do you have evidence that the decline in marriage is directly related to same-sex marriage and not just general changing views of marriage?"

 

Actually  I would say it is the other way around.  There was an article last week out that said that lesbianism is more prominent in black women.  Hmmmm...Now let's see, black children to the tune of 60% grow up in fatherless homes.  Whites about 30%.  This of course happened after 30 years of no-fault divorce where  white single parent families went from less than 10% to over thirty and black went from over thirty to over 60%.  Now at the time of no fault divorce would anyone have said that single parent families would increase by such a huge amount?  Certainly not.  What you are asking for is evidence that does not yet exist and are saying let the social experiment begin.  We say God hates divorce and look what happened.  Now a 50% diviroce rate, way more children out of wedlock, abortion to the tune of 50 million dead babies.  A better America?  Likewise God says homosex is an abomination and we should pay attention to what he says because when we don't children suffer.  They will.  Mark my words.