The previous battleground was mostly limited to debates over the right to life, which is seen within Catholicism as a primary, inviolable value. But it is new that church leaders such as DiMarzio would include legislation on gay rights as sufficient cause to ostracize politicians.
we have to ram this message into our CINO's heads and so too in the various denominations.
The politicos want the Church to not comment on these sins, but they want to interfere with us? hypocrites
PROGRESS IS BETTER THAN THE OPPOSITE.
Well, the Church shouldn't try to mess with legislation. For one thing, that would be beneath the dignity of the Church, IMHO. It is not her role to minister to temporal, secular considerations.
But I don't think that's what DiMarzio is doing. His is an appeal to Catholic conscience, and the duties appertaining thereto.
Which, of course, will give the atheists, the Randians, and other ill-sorted distorted types a rash.... :^) NO RELIGIOUS INSIGHTS OR CONVICTIONS WHATSOEVER can ever intrude on the so-called "perfect societies" they are constructing in their minds....
On the other hand, I am sickened when self-described "Catholic" politicians — who presumably ought to know better, if they understand and live in the moral authority of the Church — not only sign legislation making gay marriage "legal" in New York; but then hold forth in full-throated, passionate cry for some ten minutes at least, about how "equality" has been extended to formerly persecuted American citizens. It's all about "Social Justice," you see!!!
Andrew Cuomo's orchestration and legitimization of gay marriage in New York necessarily involves the rejection of the very definition and justification of marriage that first emerged (according to a commonly accepted anthropological account) at the onset of male–female bonding, thought to have first occurred some 40 millennia or so ago....
On this account, "marriage" has been from the first about male protection of females, the bearers of their progeny; and the progeny born of their union in the reproductive act; i.e., the children produced within this exclusive bond.
Now, in New York — as in my home state, Massachusetts — "marriage" has nothing whatever to so with such considerations. Now, it's all about "legally" expressing one's personal sexual preferences. Or gender identification. Whatever. The emphasis here seems to be the rule of immediate self-gratification trumps all concerns about families and children.
Which, of course, has enormous social implications. The best way to undermine the foundation of American society, it seems to me, is to attack it at its basic unit — the family.
Which, of course, the "gay"–"rights" movement has been doing ever since it got started....
I sort of think that was about the 1930s, under the Weimar Republic, in Germany. Two films are useful viewing on this question: Bob Fosse's Cabaret, and Blake Edwards' Victor/Victoria.
Victor/Victoria is more to our point. But Cabaret perfectly captures the fundamental culture of total amorality, which as an historical fact actually produced — by "democratic means" — the total nightmare of Hitler and Nazism, and the furies of Hell he released on the world....
Good movies sometimes can tell you some useful things. Personally speaking, I find Cabaret and Victor/Victoria have been well worth viewing.
My sympathies are with DiMarzio on this question.
Thank you so much for writing, dear Cronos!