I am not trying to shut you up. I am calling upon you to speak courageously in your capacity as a Catholic deacon. I do not do this out of disrespect. You have vows and obligations and I do not think I should refrain from pointing that out to you any more than I would refrain from doing the same with the deacon in my parish or with my pastor. You are part of the Catholic family and so am I.
I recently referred a deeply troubled Catholic woman to you and to a more conservative deacon simultaneously with the suggestion that her problems were beyond my limited abilities and in my judgment she needed to hear two Catholic views represented by you and the other deacon, that two heads are better than one and that such problems ought be handled privately and not in the glare of the internet and by competent clergy. I do not make such references out of disrespect nor do I make them, obviously, because of complete agreement with you on all things Catholic.
Secondly, on the post to which you responded and on this one, I did not summon the posse.
Thirdly, despite obvious differences, we probably agree on more than we often admit. Who would have imagined a reasonable agreement on liturgy that both Tridentine and Novus Ordo should be available?
Fourth, I do not, for the life of me understand why you persist in this support of "civil rights" for homosexuals as such or in supporting their political and judicial supporters or how this squares with Catholic doctrine particularly after this recent document from Ratzinger.
I have written publicly since I am responding to your post and I do not want others to misunderstand this situation.
It's not civil rights for homosexuals. All I argued against was the Texas law, which punished homosexuals for the same actions that many heterosexuals engage in.
You wanna ban sodomy for both, fine (though I don't think the law has any business in the bedroom of two consenting adults).
I am calling upon you to speak courageously in your capacity as a Catholic deacon.
As a Catholic deacon, I don't give up my political judgment, and in my judgment, the two conservative candidates have no chance in this election. Now, I don't get to vote, so I won't have a say.
But, if I did, I'd vote for Arnold in a heartbeat. My saying that is not going to influence anybody in California to support or not support him.
I've voted for Kay Bailey Hutchison three times, even though she's pro-choice. Now, she's always run against a pro-choice Democrat, but, even if she had run against a pro-life Democrat, I would still vote for her.
I won't vote for a Democrat under any circumstances.