D.C. Archbishop Wuerl Fears Catholic Marriage Beliefs Seen as Hate Speech

Newsmax ^ | Sunday, 31 Mar 2013 03:25 PM | Greg Richter

[Olog-hai]

The archbishop of Washington says that while the church is welcoming of everyone, including gay people, he fears the possibility of the church’s position that marriage is only for a man and a woman will be seen as bigotry or hate speech.

Cardinal Donald Wuerl, appearing on Fox News Sunday, said the church can be welcoming of gay people who are legally married without recognizing those marriages within the church itself. …

[Tax-chick]

How can he welcome gay people without welcoming sodomy?

He cannot. He is deluded by Satan.

[clearcarbon]

"The archbishop of Washington says that while the church is welcoming of everyone, including gay people, he fears the possibility of the church’s position that marriage is only for a man and a woman will be seen as bigotry or hate speech."

Not to worry, that perception would merely get lost in the background noise of all hate and bigotry already being directed AGAINST the church by those same special rights goups.

[Tax-chick]

If they are “tolerant” of homosexuality, they do not have a proper understanding of matrimony, and their mockups of “marriage” would be as scandalous as the relations of many Church of England clergy.

[Ransomed]

“It is time these Catholic priests start talking about marriage for priests.”

The liberal Catholics who dig ‘gay marriage’ all hate the discipline of celibacy and talk about it constantly. They are all for doing away with it. In any case it would never be ‘marriage for priests’ but married men becoming priests.

Freegards

[mosesdapoet]

Protesters Question Clergyman’s Loyalty
At Archbishop Jose Gomez Residence

Dozens of protesters have shown up at Archbishop of Los Angelus Jose Gomez residence many carrying American flags and bearing signs questioning his loyalty to the US not Mexico along with many signs demanding equal rights for American citizens in Mexico.

The protest was apparently triggered by the clerics decision to push forward with his predecessors decision the disgraced Cardinal Mahoney with offering amnesty thus citizenship to Mexicans crossing the border illegally while thousands of Americans in Mexico struggle under 2nd class citizenship unable to own property and suffer indignitys let alone participate in Mexican elections while living there in Mexico.

A spokeswoman for the group, Harriet Hildegarden insisted her group consists of Catholics loyal to the church. “We will be protesting at other locations where prominent clergy of the church have sided with the Obama regime. “Hildy” claims the church is supporting the democrat party which denied God at their convention and declared what she claims is war on the Catholics but would collude with it on”social engineering” issues including “amnesty” .

When asked if she may be denied communion for her activities her reply was “Well it’s been known that when that happens quicker when clerics get personally attacked than when some politican challanges the church on the grounds of faith and morals” .

from http://theusmat.com/natldeskdatire.htm

[Mrs. Don-o]

"I am beginning to think of Cardinal Wuerl as the John McCain of Catholicism."

"Beginning"? What took you so long?

[Heart-Rest]

'I love you, too': Cardinal Dolan says Catholic Church must embrace gays and lesbians

It seems that some of our U.S. Bishops had some kind of meeting recently to discuss this issue, as this related article about Cardinal Dolan (link above) says "Despite the appeal for inclusiveness, Dolan said the Church is unlikely to reverse their position on same-sex marriage".

(Please keep in mind, however, that the source here is NBC, which is certainly not the most reliable news source in the world.   I hope that what Cardinal Dolan actually said, or what he actually meant to say, was that the Church IS NOT GOING TO reverse their position on same-sex marriage!)

As the Bible says,

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?   Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.   1 Corinthians 6:9-10

(St. Paul is referring to unrepentant sinners who knowingly and willfully persist in their sinful behaviors.   Love the sinner, hate the sin.)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Celibacy has nothing to do with it. Catholic vowed celibates (priests, brothers, sisters) number about 100,000 in the USA, so they are approx. 0.032% of the U.S. population.

I mention that only because the vast majority of people who are supporting the deconstruction of marriage are not vowed celibates. An amazing number of them are married straights.

There's not much about marriage (apparently) that inclines public opinion away from gay pseudomarriage. Married people themselves increasingly support gay pseudomarriage

Too many married people just say "Marriage is good for us, why wouldn't it be good for them, too?"

That's what all the Republicans who are flipping over to the LGBT agenda are saying. "As a husband and a father, I love my gay son who just wants the kind of lasting bond with his partner that his mother and I have" etc. etc.

It's incredible. Jaw-dropping. But true. You cannot count on "normal" married people, even Christian married people, to be your allies anymore.

[Mrs. Don-o]

No, the Catholic Church is never going to change its teaching about the thing mis-called "gay marriage," But can it be called a "teaching" if it is not actually taught?

And that's the danger. Not that the "teaching" will ever change (you'll always be able to find it in the internet-searchable Catechism) --- but it will simply be a dead letter. Nobody will say anything. Like nobody says anything about contraception. Silence conquers all.

[OpusatFR]

To the Church in Sardis: “I know about your activities: how you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were one or the other,

16 but since you are neither hot nor cold, but only lukewarm, I will spew you out of my mouth.”

Apocalypse 3

There can be no compromise. The Bishops can be one or the other and not both.

[Heart-Rest]

Ralph Martin has been going on a lot of talk shows recently promoting his latest book, "Will Many Be Saved?"

I have not read that book yet, but from his discussions about it, he believes that Jesus clearly often stated that many will sadly be lost.

We do not know how many pointy skulls of bishops will line the blazing floors of hell, but I think it behooves our Bishops to seek to perfectly align all their teachings with the teachings of our Risen Lord, and not try to weasel their way into popularity in today's warped and sinful culture, leading untold numbers of other people astray.

[Olog-hai]

That was the Church of Laodicea.

What was said to the Church of Sardis was the following:

I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead. / Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die: for I have not found thy works perfect before God. / Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. / Thou hast a few names even in Sardis which have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy. / He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

(Rev. 3:1-5)

[OpusatFR]

Of course.

I’m in a chocolate coma right now.

[SuziQ]

Churches SHOULD be welcoming to sinners. How else would any of us be welcome there? Granted we may not be BIG sinners, but sin is sin, and we're all in need of God's Grace to overcome it. If sinners aren't there, where else will they hear God's Word?

The problem comes when Churches start to mitigate their message so as not to offend those sinners. The Episcopal Church and some of the Methodist and Lutheran churches have done this, to their detriment. If the Church doesn't change the message, I don't see the problem with inviting those who are public sinners to be there to hear it.

[jonrick46]

Dishonest celibacy among Catholic priests is just as wrong as dishonest matrimony between protestant clerics. In the Catholic church, it has had disastrous results with young boys. Mandatory celibacy may be the root cause of two billion dollars to victims of priest-perpetrated sexual abuse.

What needs to be addressed is the practice of mandatory celibacy. Christ said it was never intended to be mandatory but was for a few chosen by God. This thinking needs to balanced with the idea that a few men are also chosen for the priesthood and marriage. This practice may have had its origins in the 12th century, where before, some popes handed the pope-hood to their sons.

The Catholic Church has had bizarre notions about sexuality from its early history. For instance, in the year 400, Council of Carthage decreed that bishops, priests and deacons abstain from conjugal relations: “It is fitting that the holy bishops and priests of God as well as the Levites, i.e. those who are in the service of the divine sacraments, observe perfect continence, so that they may obtain in all simplicity what they are asking from God; what the Apostles taught and what antiquity itself observed, let us also endeavor to keep... It pleases us all that bishop, priest and deacon, guardians of purity, abstain from conjugal intercourse with their wives, so that those who serve at the altar may keep a perfect chastity.”

We also know about the practice of castrating young boys so their voices would continue to sing in high notes when in 1599, Pope Clement VIII gave the ok for the production of castrati for such purposes. Why did they do this? Because of the Catholic Church’s distorted view of women and sexuality. This practice was done for about 280 years because women, who did have the vocal range, were forbidden to sing in the Catholic Churches.

What is important here is that the Catholic Church has held traditions that has lived in the fantasy world of utopian ideals. However, because of a learning process, the Catholic Church has learned that the earth is round and not the center of the universe. For the most part, it has grown to be an important force for the good of mankind. It is because of the church’s history of faults that its critics use to attack it. I just want the church to continue its positive role in human history by doing better.

I give the best Catholic teaching on marriage. It is called CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI ON CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE DECEMBER 31, 1930. If the Catholic Church would uphold the teachings of this encyclical, it would continue in its best traditions of upholding what is important for human destiny:

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius11/P11CASTI.HTM

[SuziQ]

It's incredible. Jaw-dropping. But true. You cannot count on "normal" married people, even Christian married people, to be your allies anymore.

Sad, isn't it? Folks have gotten so worried about appearing bigoted, or even worse, in today's culture, unsophisticated, they'll go right along with it.

I think that one reason the younger generation is so easy with it is that they have a keen sense of 'justice', and they've been told that homosexuality is a 'civil right', so to deny homosexuals whatever they want is discrimination. Younger folks have only ever seen homosexuals presented in positive manner in the media, so to be against them must be bad.

[SuziQ]

Christ said it was never intended to be mandatory but was for a few chosen by God.

Any man who is considering the priesthood knows full well that celibacy is part of the deal. There are many years of preparation, so a man has many chances to change his mind. I'd say that by the time a man is ordained, he CAN be considered 'chosen by God'.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It's unspeakably discouraging when wafflers like Cardinal Wuerl (DC) and Cardinal Dolan (NY) rise to positions of huge prestige in the U.S. Church on the basis of their ability to grin and give away the store.

I've deleted line after line here, casting about trying to express my disgust for their studied ambiguity and straight-ahead surrender. How in the devil's name did they get to be where they are? We're doomed.

Are we doomed?

:o(

Not good thoughts for Easter.

[ApplegateRanch]

And open adulterers and fornicators, too, right? How about open racists? Thieves and perjurers?

Where does the “welcoming” of open and unrepentant sinners end?

---

A little east of Kennedy-sized bank accounts; and a bit west of Pelosi-sized political power.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Jonrick, your observations here are interesting and of course well-intended, and deserve to be considered thoughtfully. I'm afraid I won't do it justicve, because I'm soon to bed. But let me tuck in here jut a bit.

I am not convinced that celibacy is at the root of the homosexual problem. I think a vow of celibacy and a vow of marimony are about equally hard to live long term and in the right way. Neither vow provides impervious armor against unchastity, but both help --- with the grace of God.

In my opinion, as many men have sought "cover" for their homosexual liaisons under cover of wedding vows as under vows of celibacy. Surely in milieux where almost all adults were married and there was no real option for clerical celibacy (say, in Victorian London--- the Uranian pederast poets --- or in early 20th century England --- the Bloomsbury Group), most of the active gays were married men and woman. Oscar Wilde. VIrginia Woolf. John Maynard Keynes. Need I say more?

The phenomenon of castrati singers was far more complicated than you have written: and it was not a matter of the uptight Medieval church ideals warping the society, but of worldly Renaissance standards (especially the ideals of high art) infiltrating and warping the Church.

You must be aware that intentional castration was always against Church law. The practice was canonically condemned. But because a particular type of music dramatically benefited from castrato vocal qualities (sweetness, power, range), they became highly valued both in church choirs and in increasingly lavish secular musical productions.

This was not a a product of the Church Fathers --- you know that castrati were not eligible for clerical orders, and those who maimed boys could be excommunicated and turned over to "the secular arm" for dire punishment. Nor was it a product of the requirements of Medieval Music and the Gregorian Chant. The demand came from worldly Renaissance culture. It happened in violation of, not in accordance with, Church law.

Was there ever a vice that was not propagated by disobedient Catholics, swayed by their Zeitgeist, despising Divine and Natural Law, and given license by corrupt clerics? (Men of their times!!)

Good sport, though: citing people (including popes) who coarsely violated Catholic faith and morals, and then abhorring the corrupt creatures and blaming --- of course! --- Catholicism. I could go on, but --- sorry, Ive got to get to bed. Up early tomorrow.

Thanks for sparking this discussion.