Posted on July 5, 2015, in Aphorisms, Catholic, Christianity, Faith, Law, News, Pensee, Politics and tagged Archbishop Donald Wuerl, Same Sex Marriage. Bookmark the permalink. 8 Comments.
Good for her!
This is pretty damn obvious.
Is this not completely obvious?
Wow, never mind that one key difference between a free citizen and a slave has always been the abili
That has to be my favorite quote from Thomas Sowell.
I am really going to miss her no nonsense attitude and dry wit.
Perhaps, but Groucho Marx droll demeanor sells the charming verbal cut.
Oscar Levant said that about Doris Day - not Groucho.
District of Calamity 
sure they aren’t turned away because of their sexual identity, they just have their relationships compared to alcoholism or pedophlia, and are only allowed to stay in if they make a vow of celibacy that forces them to ignore their basic humanity.
tjromonov Obviously from your stated barbs against Catholics, it is a dialog with the deaf. Didn’t you read Wuerl’s acknowledgement of Church doctrine that homosexual tendencies are OK, but acting upon them is sinful. As for your “unnatural” challenge, men are biologically motived to spread their seed. Yet under a (traditional) vow of marriage, they restrict themselves to one mate. Isn’t that unnatural? Enjoy reading your Jack Chick comics.
except that people choose marriage. it isn’t right to say that the only way to avoid sin for somebody who is gay is to ignore their sexuality entirely which is what you are asking them to do. At least when you speak of sexual practices like beastality or pedophlia you can point to the harm that is caused that is caused by these practises. but with gays you insist on celibacy for the sole reason that it is your church’s teaching. that’s why the love the sin hate the sinner rhetoric is a bad argument in this instance. You wouldn’t argue against the love, commitment, and the spirituality of a heterosexual couple, so why do you boil down homosexual acts into mere physical enterprises.
The catholic church is only arguing for dialogue because it is starting to loose. it didn’t care about dialogue in an era before ssm, so why should gays talk to you now. or is the catholic church ready to repent against the harm it has caused gay people for millennia
we all need to acknowledge that we all are different..and therefore my idea may not be yours..
ronnie Your pluralistic sentiments are appreciated; however the question is whether such a laissez faire approach is appropriate for a church leader. Wuerl is concerned about religious liberty . It is reasonable to expect that the SCOTUS decision will be used as a cudgel against those who dissent from the SCOTUS imposition of legislative power. Moreover, a spiritual leader should be obliged to oppose civil law which abrogates natural law and 2,000 years of Christianity.
prove it. prove that ssm advocates will use it as a cudgel against religious liberty.
tjromonov What Wuerl proposed was not dialog, but walking with someone. This is an Ignatian concept which would be in vogue during this papacy. This is a pastoral approach, not because the Church is “losing” (or loosing its tenants). As for celibacy, that was in response to your contention that the faith was asking for unnatural expectations.
Usually when someone leads with pedophilia, alcoholism and unnatural celibacy, it represents a heap of baggage.
As for people choosing marriage, this is a redefinition of a institution by judicial fiat by a slim majority with tenuous legal reasoning. From a canonical perspective, same sex couples are not eligible for the sacrament. But that does not mean that those who have same sex attraction are not welcomed in the Church.
During the SCOTUS arguments, the government postulated that tax exempt status may have to be withdrawn from those entities not adhering to this new constitutional right.. Several examples of same sex couples pressing non-compliant churches to marry them.
Thanks for sharing your challenges but the dialog has stagnated and is too narrowly cast to continue.