Posted on 05/10/2012 2:50:36 PM PDT by NYer
.-
Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan is charging President Barack Obama with undermining the “very cornerstone of society” by supporting “gay marriage.”
Cardinal Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, described the president’s endorsement as “deeply saddening.”
The bishops “cannot be silent in the face of words or actions that would undermine the institution of marriage, the very cornerstone of our society,” he said in a May 9 statement. “The people of this country, especially our children, deserve better.”
Cardinal Dolan said that the announcement was “not surprising” based on the Obama administration’s previous actions, which “erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.”
He called for prayer and efforts to “promote and protect marriage” in order to “serve the true good of all persons.”
In an unprecedented move, Obama announced his support for “same-sex marriage” in a May 9 interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts.
“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” he said.
The announcement came just days after U.S. Vice President Joe Biden told NBC's David Gregory that he is “absolutely comfortable” with the idea of homosexual couples marrying.
Previously, Obama had stopped short of endorsing “gay marriage,” saying instead that he opposes discrimination against gay individuals but that his views on the question of marriage were “evolving.”
However, his actions as president have won the praise of gay advocacy groups.
His administration announced in Feb. 2011 that it would not uphold the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman for federal purposes.
He also signed a law repealing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military.
Obama’s latest statement places him in firm disagreement with presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney, who has signed a pledge to uphold marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Romney was quick to voice his opposition to Obama’s stance.
"I have the same view on marriage that I had when I was governor and that I’ve expressed many times,” he said at a May 9 campaign event in Oklahoma. “I believe marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman.”
He explained that states can “make decisions with regards to domestic partnership benefits, such as hospital visitation rights,” but “marriage itself is a relationship between a man and a woman.”
Acknowledging that the issue is “a very tender and sensitive” one about which “other people have differing views,” Romney reiterated his own conviction, which he has held “since running for office.”
Several political commentators have suggested that Obama’s support for “gay marriage” does not reflect the views of the American people and could have a significant political impact in the November 6, 2012 election.
“Marriage was created long before any government came into existence,” said Catholic Advocate president Matt Smith.
He warned that if Obama’s advocacy for same-sex “marriage” succeeds, “Catholic institutions could be forced once again to violate our beliefs.”
“Many faithful Catholics were fooled by clever political rhetoric in 2008,” added Smith. “This year, the anti-Catholic record of the Obama administration should inform their vote.”
So far, 30 states have passed constitutional amendments banning “gay marriage,” including North Carolina, where voters approved such a measure by an overwhelming margin on May 8.
Tony Perkins, president of the D.C.-based Family Research Council, pointed to the recent North Carolina vote as evidence that “redefining marriage remains outside the mainstream of American politics, especially in the critical battleground states and among minority voters.”
He observed that the North Carolina amendment received over 60 percent of the vote in majority-black counties.
A Pew Research Center survey in April 2012 found that only 39 percent of African Americans are in favor of “gay marriage.”
Perkins noted that 10 of 16 key battleground states have passed amendments to protect marriage. He said that Obama’s announcement “ensures that marriage will again be a major issue in the presidential election.”
Don't forget that for liberals, the history of mankind began this morning...
The battle needs to be waged in the states through voter initiative. That should divert economic resources from the gay sector into pro gay marriage efforts and away from campaign contributions to Obama. This just happened in North Carolina with Amendment 1. Washington State has Initiative 1192 and Referendum 74 collecting petitions at this time for the November ballot.
On the perversion of the family issue, we need to formulate a clear message that defends monogamous heterosexual marriage. We have a huge electorate who does not know the implications of normalizing homosexual relationships and has been dumbed down by the Hollywood media. You see them clapping on shows that promote homosexuality and same sex marriage. Most American have no clue what the battle is about. The media indoctrination for same sex marriage has been irresponsible and non-stop. How we stop the propaganda campaign will be a challenge.
Basically, same-sex marriage violates the natural parent-child bond in every family, and the right of the family to protection by society and the state. It will discard the fundamental understanding that the family based upon the heterosexual marriage is very foundation of society. Same sex-marriage will de-naturalize the family by rendering in their entirety familial relationships as ever changing expressions of law. That universal understanding for thousands of years that the family is a small society (a sovereign state) with unique rights and responsibilities independent of the state will be no longer. Instead, the family will become mere policy relationships, defined and imposed by the state. The family (this society) founded more immediately in nature--the proles (procreation or fruitfulness)--will no longer have the distinction of sexual difference, with its distinctive quality of generative power. The family must continue to be the natural and fundamental group unit of society. With a change in the definition of marriage the family will have no direct connection to nature. This leaves the parent-child relation open to increasing intervention by the state. And with the possibility of the state being influenced by foreign forces, the definition of the family could be expanded to include such barbarous practices as marriage to children and polygamy.
With the definition of marriage redefined, the state with its new found power, will undermine further the sovereign nature of the family, and the sphere of the church or religious community as well—the two spheres where divine and human rights independent of the state are located. This will come as an all out assault on hetero-sexism, or anything that seems to privilege the male-female binary or the nuclear family. It will enable the state to indoctrinate our children and deprive us of the power to intervene. The individual--men, women and children--will be reduced to be subjects of the state with no divine rights. We must understand the serious nature of this fight. There will be no peace is to be had by capitulation.
The big question is can this fight be fought in the midst of a presidential campaign? Could it backfire and be used against our candidate? Remember, we are dealing with an indoctrinated public who is ignorant of the real issues and their consequences. Can smart minds formulate the argument sufficiently that they will not be painted with the wide brush of political correctness?
This fight must be be vigorously taken up by Christians who can boldly declare that marriage is a gift—something we receive with creation, not something we invent—and that only what is capable of being a marriage act is natural sex. I believe that this issue can be fought on the moral level as it presents itself to the sovereignty of the family. It should be made a human rights issue. Then, it ceases to be a Republican or a Democratic cause, and spun to justify an attack against our presidential candidate.
The Bishop’s have been backed into a corner.
They MUST stand up, or close down.
For years they pushed illegal immigration, they pushed for Universal Health care. Hopefully they have now seen what happens when you get your wish. They should have been working to save souls and discipline Catholic Universities all along.
They allowed pedophiles to escape civil punishment and did not purge the Church of the diseased clergy, Now they see what happens when these Pedophiles and homosexuals grow strong. Same sex marriage must never be allowed in a catholic Church, despite what Pelosi says.What a despicable human being she is. She Biden, Hoyer, and others who call themselves catholics should be banned from the Sacraments.
The Bishops coasted too long and now we have an unholy mess.
Foreced birth control insurance, same sex marriage,Naval Chaplains cannot mention Jesus Christ, soon free speech in the Church will not be allowed due to hate crime laws.
I agree 1000%. The Church will undergo a civil war.
Now if only all the Bishops would come out against this like they did the HHS mandate.
I’d love to see it.
since when do we have a society to undermine...or i should say a decent society. people dont raise their own kids, ship them off to daycare at 6weeks..people get married/divorce/married/divorced or not married at all.
And it was a half a century ago.
I think we had this discussion once before. Declaring one's self "staunchly pro union" just because one's father was a "union man" is a quaint sentiment but hardly the sort of principle that a Prince of the The Church should nourish. It belies bias and stubbornness but alas, if I may borrow your logic, growing up Catholic in a place like St. Louis as Dolan did would make anyone that way; indeed, would make one a typical American democrat(catholic). Again, to each his own; but I don't think failing to outgrow that sort of blind obedience to habit is healthy thing for anyone; I think it's absolutely unacceptable in a leader.
In any event, however "pro-union" Dolan is, he made the remarks to send a message to what he presumed was the makeup of Catholic New York. In other words, alongside his remarks about being "a Yankees fan", it was PR. He's a PR man. His methods are quite of this world. He places machine-gun toting guards outside his Church. He's a Prince alright.
Incidentally, while you're asking him about his advocacy of universal healthcare, ask him if he was a Yankees fan when he was in Milwaukee.
I hate it when he comes back to Hyde Park/Kenwood because the entire place is filled up with cops roaring this and that way, helicopters hovering overhead. A giant pain in the ass.
Leni
Until recently excommunication was of two kinds, major and minor.
(a) Minor excommunication is uniformly defined by canonists and by Gregory IX (cap. lix, De sent. exc., lib. V, tit. xxxix) as prohibition from receiving the sacraments, what theologians call the passive use of the sacraments. In order to receive the Eucharist and the other sacraments, those who had incurred this penalty had to be absolved therefrom; as it was not reserved, this could be done by any confessor. Indirectly, however, it entailed other consequences. The canon law (cap. x, De cler. excomm. ministrante, lib. V, tit. xxvii) taught that the priest who celebrates Mass while under the ban of minor excommunication sins grievously; also that he sins similarly in administering the sacraments; and finally, that while he can vote for others, he himself is ineligible to a canonical office. This is readily understood when we remember that the cleric thus excommunicated was presumed to be in the state of grievous sin, and that such a state is an obstacle to the lawful celebration of Mass and the administration of the sacraments. Minor excommunication was really identical with the state of the penitent of olden times who, prior to his reconciliation, was admitted to public penance. Minor excommunication was incurred by unlawful intercourse with the excommunicated, and in the beginning no exception was made of any class of excommunicated persons. Owing, however, to many inconveniences arising from this condition of things, especially after excommunications had become so numerous, Martin V, by the Constitution "Ad evitanda scandala" (1418), restricted the aforesaid unlawful intercourse to that held with those who were formally named as persons to be shunned and who were therefore known as vitandi (Latin vitare, to avoid), also with those who were notoriously guilty of striking a cleric. But as this twofold category was in modern times greatly reduced, but little attention was paid to minor excommunication, and eventually it ceased to exist after the publication of the Constitution "Apostolicæ Sedis". The latter declared that all excommunications latæ sententiæ that it did not mention were abolished, and as it was silent concerning minor excommunication (by its nature an excommunication latæ sententiæ of a special kind), canonists concluded that minor excommunication no longer existed. This conclusion was formally ratified by the Holy Office (6 Jan., 1884, ad 4).
(b) Major excommunication, which remains now the only kind in force, is therefore the kind of which we treat below, and to which our definition fully applies. Anathema is a sort of aggravated excommunication, from which, however, it does not differ essentially, but simply in the matter of special solemnities and outward display.
Excommunication is either a jure (by law) or ab homine (by judicial act of man, i.e. by a judge). The first is provided by the law itself, which declares that whosoever shall have been guilty of a definite crime will incur the penalty of excommunication. The second is inflicted by an ecclesiastical prelate, either when he issues a serious order under pain of excommunication or imposes this penalty by judicial sentence and after a criminal trial.
Excommunication, especially a jure, is either latæ or ferendæ sententiæ. The first is incurred as soon as the offence is committed and by reason of the offence itself (eo ipso) without intervention of any ecclesiastical judge; it is recognized in the terms used by the legislator, for instance: "the culprit will be excommunicated at once, by the fact itself [statim, ipso facto]". The second is indeed foreseen by the law as a penalty, but is inflicted on the culprit only by a judicial sentence; in other words, the delinquent is rather threatened than visited with the penalty, and incurs it only when the judge has summoned him before his tribunal, declared him guilty, and punished him according to the terms of the law. It is recognized when the law contains these or similar words: "under pain of excommunication"; "the culprit will be excommunicated".
Very true.
Excellent points! I think I need to memorize your post!
Excellent, insightful and on-target post. Thank you.
The big question is can this fight be fought in the midst of a presidential campaign? Could it backfire and be used against our candidate?
Since O does not have a positive economic record on which to run, his tactic appears to be one of distraction from issues of importance to the american people. So far, with mainstream media assistance, he has diverted public attention to the "Republican war on women" by means of free contraception, marriage via his announced support of same sex marriage while dredging up an incident with Romney from 49 years ago! - and we are only in the month of May. This election is evolving into one of the ugliest battles we have ever witnessed.
With 24/7 news, the public now relies on sound bites to make their decisions. Few are those americans who will take the time to read and research key issues. IMHO, it is important for the Republican candidate to develop a list of key issues that can be addressed in short, simple statements that will garner and hold public attention. He will need to stay on topic and not allow himself to be pulled into the deceitful web of discord carefully calculated to distract. We have just experienced 4 years of growing socialism under Obama and know, from his open mic comment to Russian president Dmitri Medvedev, that he plans on winning and how Russia will benefit under a 2nd term.
It will take a concerted effort on behalf of the few (like us) to protect our nation or risk facing the same future as Greece and now, God help us all, France. Can Obama's progressivist agenda be halted? Yes! Seven years after being voted into power, Spain's Socialist Party, was voted out last year. I credit Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Spain last summer as key to rallying the catholics and opening the eyes of others who had been lulled into a false sense of security. The pope will not be visiting the US this year, so we must rise to the challenge of defeating O and his socialist policies.
I was talking to a priest about a quote from Leo XIII I was going to put in the weekly bulletin and he said to me, "You can't go wrong with Leo XIII." :-)
Funny that Obama can assert with a straight face that he's for the marriage of men to men because of his understanding of Jesus Christ and the Golden Rule; but when Timothy Dolan or Franklin Graham say they're against it for the same reason, they get faulted for "arrogantly claiming to know the mind of God."
This convinces me even more that in the public debate we need to focus on Natural Law rather than Revealed Law. As a species we exhibit reproductive sexual differentiation. Across all the centuries, cultures and continents this has determined the way we extend ourselves and our societies across generations. Our marriage laws and customs have always been shaped by this fact.
That would be a good place to start.
BTW, I just tried to google "Manhattan Delaration" and got a series of random redirects: one to "Rihanna's Fringe Bikini," one to "A Sexy Career in a Chancy Economy," and one to "What'll Justin Bieber Do Next?"
Cyber Pranksters.
Think somebody out there feels threatened by Natural Law?
Define "natural". We are that far down the drain.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.