Pelosi Demonstrates, Yet Again, that Her Faith

…is not the Catholic Faith.

Sorry, Nancy, but the Catholic faith is not esoteric. It is not “whatever I feel deeply in my heart”. It is the faith once given to the apostles and handed down to us through the Holy Catholic Church.

Here is what your faith *actually* teaches about marriage:

1601 “The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament.”84

I. MARRIAGE IN GOD’S PLAN

1602 Sacred Scripture begins with the creation of man and woman in the image and likeness of God and concludes with a vision of “the wedding-feast of the Lamb.”85 Scripture speaks throughout of marriage and its “mystery,” its institution and the meaning God has given it, its origin and its end, its various realizations throughout the history of salvation, the difficulties arising from sin and its renewal “in the Lord” in the New Covenant of Christ and the Church.86

Marriage in the order of creation

1603 “The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws. . . . God himself is the author of marriage.”87 The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity,88 some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. “The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life.”89

1604 God who created man out of love also calls him to love the fundamental and innate vocation of every human being. For man is created in the image and likeness of God who is himself love.90 Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man. It is good, very good, in the Creator’s eyes. And this love which God blesses is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation: “And God blessed them, and God said to them: ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it.’”91

1605 Holy Scripture affirms that man and woman were created for one another: “It is not good that the man should be alone.”92 The woman, “flesh of his flesh,” his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a “helpmate”; she thus represents God from whom comes our help.93 “Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”94 The Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning”: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh.”95

Here is what your faith *actually* teaches about homosexuality:

Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.”142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

If you feel something deeply in your heart that is directly contrary to the faith handed down to the Church, that is not a confirmation from the Holy Spirit that you are right and the Church is wrong. It is confirmation that you are in rebellion against Jesus Christ and should repent. You are also, in this case, giving public scandal (i.e. tempting others to sin) and stand in grave danger of tying a millstone around your own neck as you tempt little ones to sin. God forgive you.

Oh, and by the way, Nancy, don’t try the trick of suddenly turning around and saying that the Church has no business sticking its nose into marriage now. You are the one who decided to play the “I’m saying this because I’m Catholic” card. Don’t want to be corrected about what that Catholic teaching is? Don’t lie about Catholic teaching.

  • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

    I feel like standing up and applauding, but my co-workers would probably look at me funny.

  • Ben the Atheist

    Statements like this will become more and more common as the homophobe position becomes more and more unacceptable in our culture until its akin to viewing racial segregation as a good thing. If the teaching doesn’t change 99.99% of Catholics will just ignore it like they do with contraception and usury.

    Count on it. People don’t want to be looked at like they’re Klan members.

    • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

      No, and I admit one of the most powerful playing cards of the Left has been the ability to define the debate as ‘be liberal, or be evil.’ And all the while condemning as zealots and fanatics those who would insist their own values are absolute and the only truths that demand conformity. It’s not easy to label intolerance as one of the greatest sins while at the same time being proud of not tolerating those who do not obey to your own dogmatic definitions of diversity, but the Left has managed to do so nicely.

      • Ben the Atheist

        No, it’s not “be liberal or be evil”. It’s be for equal rights under the law or be a bigot. Those who want more tax cuts or fewer regulations on businesses or a bigger military or any of the other conservative shibboleths are not going to be regarded as evil. But those who want to enshrine discrimination in the law will be.

        Besides, it’s not like you aren’t trying to the same thing with abortion. “Be “pro-life”, or be evil”. I’m sure you’d agree with that, no?

        • Chris M

          “It’s be for equal rights under the law or be a bigot.”
          Not quite. Homosexuals have the same rights already. Now you’re just moving the goalposts by redefining a word to mean something it doesn’t.

        • SteveP

          Ben the Atheist: I’m not sure you’ve shown that homophobia or bigotry is a choice. That is, are you sure the behaviors are not innate and immutable? If they are then they must be accepted. If the behaviors are indeed chosen, then “don’t believe in bigotry? Don’t be a bigot!” seems to be the best course of action for you to take.

        • Mark H.

          Ben, you bring up “equal rights under the law”. I’ll ask this: What makes homosexuals so special? What about bigamists, or polygamists? What if a mixed group of people wanted to marry each other? Out of all the different possible sexual inclinations a person may have (and there are some I won’t mention), why is denying same sex marriage the one that violates the idea of equal rights under the law? If same sex marriage is permissible, why aren’t the others? I don’t see where you can make a moral distinction.

          • Ben the Atheist

            That’s easy. Polygamous relationships are inherently exploitative of and unfair to women and should not be made legal. Also men and women are roughly equal in the population and even just a few “Solomons” could have an impact on that, with many heterosexual men unable to find wives.

            • Dave Pawlak

              Perhaps, but the polyamory movement (which may involve polygamy, polyandry, or various other combinations of consensual group relationships) has been shilling for acceptance. I would not be surprised if group marriages were legalized in the future.

              As it is, I am one of those who believes that the government should get out of the marriage business, and allow for any two consenting adults to enter a civil partnership, which does not need to be defined by a sexual relationship. For example, two unmarried siblings could benefit from this arrangement.

              • Ben the Atheist

                Again, polygamy is inherently exploitative and demographically damaging. Gay marriage is neither.

                • BenM.

                  I hope BenTheAtheist can chime in here, because no one from a non-religious background has been able to give me a convincing answer to this question:

                  Why is marriage necessary to being with?

                  And for any reason that you list, isn’t it possible to accomplish it without a piece of paper (a marriage certificte)?

                  • Maria

                    I’m not sure if your question is “Why is marriage necessary to being (sic) with?” asked in regards to the actual institution, or whether it needs to be recognized by the state. But this article (written from a secular perspective, one of the authors self described as gay) answers many of the questions about why gay marriage is bad for society.

                    http://catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/ho0064.html

                • Dave Pawlak

                  I’m not talking specifically about polygamy. Polyamory can consist of two men and one women, two men and two women, or any given combination.

                  Also, do you see any harm in removing the sexual relationship factor for civil unions/partnerships? I’ve known siblings, a widowed/divorced parent and child, and even platonic friends who could benefit (or could have benefitted) from such an arrangement.

                • Hezekiah Garrett

                  But polyandry isn’t, by the very specific criterion you provided.

                  I mean, I guess 4 husbands could exploit a wife between them, but it seems if they had that kind of power, they’d each exploit their own. In truth, women are quite powerful in polyandrous relations.

                  Jeeze, you are so uninformed. Go learn some shit, dude.

            • Mark H.

              “Polygamous relationships are inherently exploitative of and unfair to women”
              Many people would make that argument about traditional marriage, too. Feminists have been doing it for years.
              I’ll grant your point that several Solomons could skew the population balance, but that seems like more of a demographics concern than an issue of civil rights, or whether it’s morally right or wrong.

              • Ben the Atheist

                There are some marriages that are exploitative and unfair to women, that’s true Mark, but monogamous marriage *can be* made to be an equal partnership. That’s just not possible with polygamy. It’s always done in cultures where women are subordinate, whether it is Islam or fundamentalist Mormonism.

                • Luna

                  Ooh, B. the A., you know which relationships that are inherently exploitative and unfair can be transformed into equal partnerships, and which ones can not. How do you know this? Why is two better than three, or four, or five?

                  What are the first principles you run to when somebody makes you actually defend your arguments? If a person’s sex is irrelevant, why is the number of individuals in the relationship a settled matter for you? How do you defend what will probably one day soon be retrograde morality? Perhaps in ten years, if you retain this value, you’ll have to join the bigot club.

        • Tim

          Every law “enshrines discrimination.” Even the same-sex “marriage” advocates are advocating for discrimination (they will not allow marriage to multiple persons). But I guess you are fine with enshrining your hatred of polyamorous relationships… bigot.

          • Ben the Atheist

            Polygamous relationships are exploitative of women and have bad demographic effects. Read above.

            Why do you think there are so many angry, unmarried men in Saudi Arabia? Polygamy is legal there.

            • Tim

              I thought it was Islam. But it doesn’t explain why there are so many angry unmarried men in America (no polygamy here).

            • Joseph

              I think you’re a bigot because you disagree with allowing a woman who likes to have intercourse with her Great Dane to marry it… or the morgue employee who likes to “play” with corpses… bigot.

              • Ben the Atheist

                *sigh*

                That’s animal abuse. Animals can’t consent to sex. Neither can corpses.

                • BenM.

                  “Animals can’t consent to sex”
                  How do you know this?
                  A zoophile might beg to differ with you.

                  What does consenting to sex have to do with marriage? Is it possible to have sexless marriage? Isn’t marriage just about love, or is there something more to it?

                  • Rosemarie

                    Animals can’t consent to being killed for food either. Yet both carnivores and humans do that; is that as wrong as bestiality?

                    As for corpses, they aren’t alive so do they even need to consent to s*x? By that standard, wouldn’t it also be wrong to use “adult novelties” because they can’t consent to have s*x with the user?

                    Anyway, isn’t “consent” an act of the will? I know many atheists don’t believe humans have free will – do you? If there is no such thing as free will, can we really be said to “consent” to anything?

                • http://agapas.me Bob LeBlanc

                  Overheard during a similar dialog:
                  “That poodle humping my leg? He’s consenting!”

            • Hezekiah Garrett

              Polyamory IS NOT mere polygamy.

              And you sound either extraordinarily ignorant or dishonest when you keep repeating that line in response to questions about polyamory.

        • Ted Seeber

          “No, it’s not “be liberal or be evil”. It’s be for equal rights under the law or be a bigot”

          Which in and of itself is a bigoted anti-Catholic position to take. Do you want equal rights for cannibals too? If not, then don’t pretend to be for “equal rights” without discrimination.

        • http://davidgriffey.blogspot.com/ Dave G.

          Ben,
          If conservatives and those holding to traditional values were known for advocating tolerance, and diversity and live and let live in the form of ‘you can’t legislate morality’, and ‘who’s to say what’s normal’, and ‘everything is just an opinion’, you’d have a point. As it stands, most who aren’t part of the post-war liberal movement had no problem saying there was such a thing as good and evil, right and wrong. Liberalism, if we may call it that, on the other hand, promoted ideals such as those mentioned as the highest form of enlightened society. And, FWIW, it was just that notion of ‘no absolute morals, everything’s just opinion’ that the gay rights movement grew out of. That was why I used to support gay rights. Not that I thought it was a natural human action, but because I had been weaned in a culture that said the highest ideal was to respect those who were different and had different beliefs, that nobody can legislate morality, and that tolerance and diversity were more important than oxygen and water. So imagine my surprise when those advocating for gay rights began to sound more and more like those old, gray haired, fundamentalist, self-righteous, fanatical types in their exclusive clubs trying to tell us what to think and impose their absolute moral truths on everyone else. To me, it’s those on the Left, or liberals if you prefer, who have some explaining to do.

  • Ben the Atheist

    BTW, Mark, what would you do if one of your kids turned out to be gay? Would you seriously look them in the eye and tell them they must be celibate, lonely, and miserable for the rest of their lives because of how they were born while their straight friends can marry, make love, and have families? Would you really be able to bring yourself to do that?

    • Mark Shea

      Ben: You appear to be a newbie here. Search for the name “Perry” on this blog and familiarize yourself with my views. I do not believe that Same Sex Attracted people need to be miserable, nor do I believe that chastity is a death sentence. If one of my kids were SSA, I would tell him what I tell anybody: the happiness you seek is in Jesus Christ. Accept no substitutes. My friend Perry lived this joyfully. So do many others.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        Perfect, Mark. I’ve had a lot of suffering in my life (if only by wealthy yuppie American standards) and sometimes people ask me how I can walk around with a smile on my face. It’s because of Jesus Christ. Yeah, life can be hard, and it certainly seems to provide enough crosses for all of us, but God loves me, and I’m part of the family of God. With the truth and beauty that is in Christ and in the universe He created, how could I *NOT* have a smile on my face?

    • Ted Seeber

      I would seriously look them in the eye and say “you need to be celebate but you don’t need to be lonely; human sexuality is only one small aspect of human love and a rather unimportant one at that. It’s only real use is heterosexuality, and even then, only in marriage for the purpose of making the husband and wife one”.

      Because THAT is the real truth, as opposed to the lie.

    • Ted Seeber

      Nothing a homosexual person can do will allow them to “marry, make love, and have babies”. Those three things require biological facts that are impossible in a homosexual relationship, regardless of what the law says, biology itself is against it.

  • dpt

    This is not merely a Catholic and a Christian issue, but marriage is recognized as being between a man and woman expands many faiths and cultures throughout the world. And reducing this to being a “homophobe” is a lie.

    • Ben the Atheist

      All cultures once accepted slavery and absolute monarchy too. Both the idea of all humans having a right to liberty and the practice of representative government are very new ideas only lived out by a tiny minority of humans in history. Yet I don’t think you see any wisdom in slavery or absolute monarchy.

      Widespread practice doesn’t make something correct.

      • LUKE1732

        …like contraception?

      • Hezekiah Garrett

        All cultures once accepted slavery and absolute monarchy?

        You are an astoundingly myopic bigot. Let me guess, college-educated, upper-middle class American of European extraction?

        I’d sue for my tuition back.

        • Joseph

          He would… but it was financial aid at the University of Phoenix.

      • dpt

        “All cultures once accepted slavery and absolute monarchy too. ”
        Not sure of the reasoning behind putting a fundamental family structure on par with slavery and monarchy, though in a consumer and materialistic world people are often reduced to their utilitarian value.

      • fra

        “All cultures once accepted slavery and absolute monarchy too. ”

        That’s not only silly, it is also totally untrue!
        Slavery has been around a long time but it was hardly universal. Not every ancient culture had slaves. It did die out in Western Europe at some point betwen the early and the high middle ages and resurfaced only in the colonies. Only a few countries had colonies or were involved in the slave trade. And it was abolished in the Americas in the 19th century. That’s hardly “all cultures” or “all times”.

        It gets more absurd with “absolute monarchy”, which did exist only for a couple of centuries, at best from the 14th, so really more since the 17th century to the early 19th century. Since not even monarchy was the universal form of government, absolutism was even less of. Again, hardly “all cultures” or “all times”.

        Marriage, heterosexual marriage, on the other hand … search out ANY culture of ANY time you can think of you will have a 99,9% chance of finding it there. NOWHERE will you find same-sex marriages, even where homosexual intercourse (as one cannot speak of homosexuality until quit recently) was condoned. Not even in Sparta, where it was most prevalent!

    • Ben the Atheist

      And, I might add, why haven’t these horrible disasters that are to befall us if we legalize SSM happened to Canada? Or Argentina? Or Norway? Or the states in Mexico and Brazil that have legalized it? They don’t seem that much different to me than they were before.

      • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

        What were you expecting? An asteroid from the sky? Give it 20, 30, 40 years and then get back to us. I will add, though, that gay marriage is more of a SYMPTOM and a MILEPOST of our decline rather than a cause of instant destruction.

        • Ben the Atheist

          Funny, it seems to me some of the best places to live in the entire world (Norway, Spain, Canada, the New England states) have legalized SSM well some of the worlds worst places (Iran, Saudi Arabia) do exactly the opposite and criminalize homosexuality. If anything acceptance of LGBT individuals seems positively correlated to a high standard of living and educational attainment (it was the counties with the LEAST amount of college graduates that voted for Amendment One in NC).

          • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

            For now, those are some of the better places to live, but if you can’t see that the West is in major decline, I’m not sure we are going to have a very productive conversation. Check back on Spain in 30 years, and it might look uncomfortably like Iran.

            Using Iran and Saudi Arabia as examples is self serving. We are not compelled to choose either extreme between embracing homosexual acts as normal and healthy, nor jailing or killing those who engage in such acts.

            Is it really a surprise that there is a correlation between “education” and acceptance of LGBT? The term “liberal arts” has taken on a new meaning that it wasn’t originally meant to have.

            • Ben the Atheist

              So Spain and New England and Canada and Argentina and several Brazilian and Mexican states are going to somehow turn into Iran? WTF? How ’bout South Africa? They have marriage equality as well. I thought you were always telling us how it would do the opposite and lead to public orgies and pedophilia and polygamy or something.

              • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

                Spain may turn Muslim due to demographic trends. Norway would take a bit longer. I didn’t say anything about the others. The things you mentioned are a milepost further down the road. Some places you mentioned may reach it.

                • http://confederatepapist.blogspot.com/ Confederate Papist

                  I say let’s take up a collection for a one-way fair for our friend Ben. Delta is ready when you are.

          • Marion (Mael Muire)

            Catholic Christians don’t worry about what social trends get underway in Argentina or in Iran, in Sweden, or in Saudi Arabia. Nor in Oshkosh, Kumquosh, or Tierra del Fuego, not in North Cupcake, South Cupcake, Cupcakeport, Cupcake-by-the-Sea, Cupcake Harbor, or Cupcake Center either.

            Disciples of the Master don’t worry if the only non-Catholics who agree with them are an assortment of Portugese-speaking Japanese balloonists, some descendants of Welsh-speaking coal-miners in Kentucky, and those who like to play Parcheesi while simutaneously playing Sousa selections on the kazoo. It is OK with us if many of those who disagree with Him are among the ones whom the elite like to meet and greet. Catholics don’t mind not being invited to cocktail parties, soirees, and yachting weekends. Catholics increasingly don’t expect to be accepted among non-Catholic academics.

            Whom we keep our eye on is Jesus Christ. And Him, crucified.

            He is “the One” for us – the only One.

            He is our Master and Commander, our King and Our Lord. He is where our hearts are. No one else; no where else.

            If we have Him, we have everything and everyone we need.

            • LUKE1732

              …or as He Himself put it, “the way is narrow and few find it”.

              • Marion (Mael Muire)

                Right you are!

                It’s our job, though, and He expects it of us to be “a voice crying in the wilderness ‘make straight the way of the Lord!’”

                So in that sense, we do care what others are doing, and it does matter what they believe.

                The path we are carving for others; the light we are shining on that path for them . . . is it work we can be proud of? Or, is it less than what a good workman would be satisfied with?

                I’m not sure Gandhi had it exactly right when he remarked, “if Christians were what they should be, then all the world would be soon converted to Christianity. . . ” For, after all, during His earthly lifetime the Master was undoubtedly all that He should have been, and yet He was rejected and despised by many. Nevertheless, Gandhi’s words are well worth turning over in our minds.

          • Roberto

            “Best places to live” according to what criterion? The Christian Faith tells us that a “good life” is quite different from what a secular approach considers as such. Maybe that is where we see things differently.
            From my point of view I already see many negative effects of the libertine culture we live in. For instance, what are the role models that our society offers to us?

            • Ben the Atheist

              “Best places to live” according to what criterion?

              The standard of living, healthcare outcomes, women’s rights, political democracy and transparency, and crime, just to name a few.

              • Hezekiah Garrett

                If those are the things that matter to you, then go ahead.

                I’m not about to judge a human culture on such stupid things as indoor plumbing and getting to mark a check on a pre-approved list of government leaders. Talk about your stunted standards.

              • Chris

                The only standard of living is measured by Christ and the Church He built. By your estimate, everyone living in a penthouse has achieved nirvana.

                • Ben the Atheist

                  The only standard of living is measured by Christ and the Church He built.

                  Yeah, we tried constructing a society based on that ideal. It was called the Middle Ages, I believe.

                  • LUKE1732

                    Oh, the horror! Over eighty universities were founded in Western Europe during the Middle Ages before the beginning of the 15th century. This was well before the emergence of Protestantism and the ‘Enlightenment’. The quality of training of engineers, designers and craftsmen may be judged by the high standards of the beautiful Cathedrals, Abbeys, sculptures, paintings and glass work which have survived. Church teachings motivated many to dedicate their lives to nursing. At the beginning of the 13th century a particularly good hospital was established in the south of France. Pope Innocent III summoned its creator to build a model hospital in Rome. Then, as each bishop paid his regular visit to Rome, Innocent drew their attention to the hospital and urged them to copy it when they returned home. A comprehensive welfare system, based on parishes, guilds and monasteries, cared for the old and the sick with a free service for the poor. The great achievements of the Middle Ages are all the more remarkable when we consider the chaotic state of Europe during the preceding ‘Dark Ages’.

                  • LUKE1732

                    Has there ever been an atheist culture? What were its accomplishments? (No cheating by referring to a culture that’s merely consuming the capital accumulated during its Christian past.)

                    • Ben the Atheist

                      There are plenty of modern and civilized cultures that are not and never have been Christian. Japan for starters.

                    • Ben the Atheist

                      And the ancient Greeks and Romans accomplished a heck of a lot without Christianity.

                    • LUKE1732

                      I said atheist.

                    • Marion (Mael Muire)

                      Yes.

                      The former Soviet Union. The present-day People’s Republic of China.

                  • dpt

                    ‘Yeah, we tried constructing a society based on that ideal. It was called the Middle Ages, I believe.”

                    Is our age really more enlightened when compared to the Middle Ages? In the past century or so, we’ve had WWI, WWII, Gulags, communist massacres, Mao’s China, Stalin’s Soviet Union, North Korea, Pol Pot, Rwanda, Congo, Algeria, extreme material disparity between rich & poor globally, etc.

                    Have we really left the dark ages behind us?

          • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

            Spain is a great place to live? How uninformed can you be? The economy’s imploding. It’s got several separatist movements, It’s depopulating under the strain as people leave for other places. How can you be taken seriously on matters of sexuality and marriage if you’re so delusional about major, long running crises that have been in the headlines?

      • SteveP

        Homosexuals desiring marriage is indeed a disaster of education: it now takes a college degree for one to declare there is no difference between a male-male pairing or female-female pairing and a male female pairing. It seems that sterile minds follow sterile coupling.

      • Ted Seeber

        It did happen in Canada. And Kansas. In both places, people have been jailed and fined for going against the gay political correct nazis.

  • Ben the Atheist

    BTW, it’s not just liberal arts. Plenty of STEM majors in Raleigh-Durham. They don’t call it the “research triangle” for nothing.

    Silicon Valley also overwhelmingly voted against Prop 8 in California.

    • Tim

      I agree with the commenter above who said “[w]idespread practice doesn’t make something correct.”

    • Andy, Bad Person

      Silicon Valley also overwhelmingly voted against Prop 8 in California.

      And black people overwhelmingly voted for it. Are you trolling the NAACP message boards, too?

      • Ben the Atheist

        That’s a pernicious myth. Black voters voted roughly the same as the population at large.

        And the NAACP didn’t spend millions to enshrine bigotry in the state constitution–no, that was “thanks” to Rome and Salt Lake City.

        • Marion (Mael Muire)

          I don’t know whether what Andy wrote is “a myth,” or not.

          If you are going to accuse someone of lying, you really ought to provide documentation.

          But for the record, Catholics believe all deliberate efforts, even the intent, to deceive is pernicious.

        • LUKE1732

          Source: Washington Post, November 6, 2008

          “Seven in 10 African Americans who went to the polls voted yes on Proposition 8, the ballot measure overruling a state Supreme Court judgment that legalized same-sex marriage…”

          “…no ethnic group anywhere rejected the sanctioning of same-sex unions as emphatically as the state’s black voters, according to exit polls. Fifty-three percent of Latinos also backed Proposition 8, overcoming the bare majority of white Californians who voted to let the court ruling stand. “

          • Ben the Atheist

            Look at the link above. When controlled for church attendance and education, it’s no different from the general population.

            • David

              Only non-religious blacks and latinos count, eh?

          • Ben the Atheist

            From the link:

            “In other words, people of all races and ethnicities who worship at least once a week overwhelmingly supported Proposition 8, with support among white, Asian and Latino frequent churchgoers ACTUALLY BEING GREATER than among African Americans.

            Emphasis mind. And the Board Chairman of the NAACP strongly opposed Prop 8.

            It was the Catholic and Mormon Churches driving this, not black people.

            • LUKE1732

              Great – statistical hocus-pocus from the liberally-educated authors of a pro-SSM website? What a creative resolution of cognitive dissonance.

              So, if you attend church or are undereducated, you’re not really black? Was it the mobs of black Catholics and Mormons who skewed the results?

              • Ben the Atheist

                You know one of the better things about Catholics used to be that, unlike evangelicals (who often don’t even require their pastors to go to college, let alone seminary), they held education in high regard. But now with Rick Santorum’s comments and many of the anti-education remarks here it seems like they’re following evangelicals down the rabbit hole of anti-intellectualism.

                • LUKE1732

                  That’s what happens when you redefine “education”.

                • Some Guy

                  Ben,
                  Just an off topic question:
                  If disapproving homosexual practice makes one a homophobe, does disapproving religious practice make one a theophobe?

                  I’ll wait for the answer off-line. Thanks!

                  • Ben the Atheist

                    If I were pushing to have Cathedrals dynamited and priests shot like in the USSR I guess you could call me that. Or even if I just thought the Catholic Church should be declared an illegal organization. Though I think misotheist is the more proper term.

                    But I’m not. I believe in freedom of religion just as much as I believe in the freedom of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals to marry.

                    • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

                      An atheist once told me that I was committing child abuse by raising my kids Catholic. Is that theophobia, in your opinion?

                    • fra

                      So, Ben, you don’t want to persecute believers? Fine, neither do we want to persecute homosexuals? So it seems we are even on that part.

                      However, you insist on homosexual relationships being sanctioned en par with traditional marriage, even though society has no interest in the former while it has in the latter?

                      But apart from the fact that you’re hypocritical in demanding for one non-traditional relationship what you would deny others (polyamory), if one has to make ALL things equal in order not to be a hater, I suggest you start a campaign to make canon law the (alternative) law of the land. Hey, give yourself a push and stop being a hater.

                  • Marion (Mael Muire)

                    Theophobe!

                    (Wiping iced tea spatters from keyboard) I gotta remember that.

            • David

              Do they lose their racial identity for being Catholic, Mormon, or another denomination?

        • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

          You really should be careful about providing links, somebody actually might read them. According to your link, black people voted more for proposition 8 than white people. In other words, what you said is untrue according to the very source you gave.

          If you had been less intent on name calling and more intent on the truth, you could have had a real point. Instead you got sloppy and revealed yourself something of a bigot.

    • http://www.rosariesforlife.com Dave

      Didn’t say “liberal arts” MAJORS….regardless of major, most people have to attend plenty of brainwashing sessions in their first two years.

    • dpt

      “Silicon Valley also overwhelmingly voted against Prop 8 in California.”
      Surprisingly not…yes, San fran, Berkeley, Oakland did, but towards the heart of Silicon Valley and other parts of the bay area it was closer:

      10th Congressional distract was 49.9% pro Prop 8, 50.1% against
      13th district 47% pro/53% anti
      15- 46% for/54% anti
      16th- 48%/52%
      Hardly overwhelming when compared to San fran or Oakland where is was65 to 80% voting against.
      And individual state assembly districts in the heart of Silicon valley voted pro prop 8.:
      Assembly district 15= 51% pro Prop 8
      District 20 (Alameda & Santa Clara counties)= 51% pro 8
      District 23 (Santa Clara county)= 51% pro 8

      Check results here:
      http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2008_general/

  • Mark R

    It is great to bring up Church teaching, but may not apply to all marriages (the real one man one woman variety). Marriages in other traditions are as traditional as any can get, but the added bonus to the Christian marriage is that Christ is present with the couple. We cannot expect as much from non-Christian traditions, even though they can be a great witness since it is the same institution.

  • Pat

    Hey Ben the Atheist,
    I am a practicing Roman Catholic. When I need to know what the church teaches about something I can consult the Cathechism or Ludwig Ott’s Fundamentals of the faith or many other sources. These resources state the teaching of the Church BUT they also provide references to how these teachings were arrived at throughout nearly 2000 years of history. The arguments from not only faith but from reason are clearly available to me as a Catholic. I suspect you appreciate something like this because you seem to have a degree of intelligence and education. I’m wondering if you are aware of any such coherant, consolidated and reasoned kind of “cathechism” of sorts that represents your views. I do not doubt that such a thing may exist. What I notice about your line(s) of thinking is that they are scatter-shot. You bounce around a lot. If you are as educated as you seem to be then you are surely aware that the intellectual patrimony of christianity- especially Roman Catholicism- is quite expansive and most erudite. Catholic thought throughout the last 2000 years is very detailed and completely thorough in everything it teaches. This makes discussions like this in a combox a little challenging. Put another way, when we say here and now in the year 2012 that the Catholic Church teaches “X” about something; one would do well to understand that this is in no way flippant or based on “feelings” or ‘Hang-ups” or “bigotry” or most of the categories we use today in arguments not only in comboxes but in day to day politics etc… I suspect you have an idea, at least, that this is true regardless if you believe what is taught or not. So, in order to be fair, is there any such historical, comprehensive body of thought supporting your position on this matter?

    • Joseph

      He got his certificate of completion at the University of Phoenix. Anything with more words that People magazine will fry his brain. Starve the troll.

      • LUKE1732

        C’mon Joseph – take the high road. Ben is seeking truth and we’re giving it to him.

      • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com JoAnna

        Hey, don’t diss the University of Phoenix. My husband is currently going through a bachelor’s degree program there and he works HARD.

      • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

        When I attended a traditional college, I had all sorts of oddball teachers including an out and out pro-soviet communist and a flake who actually attempted a defense of suttee (hindu wife burning) in class. I floundered and eventually put college aside. I finished off my degree at University of Phoenix where I met people from all sorts of points of view but very little of the offensive, evil, and incoherent variety that was such a distraction to me before. Ben would not have fit in very well at UoP. Not enough epistemic closure at that school.

  • John

    It’s false to claim that what the LGBT crowd want is “equality” – inasmuch as there is no similar heterosexual analogy to their demanding a re-definition of a word of such vast historical, socio-political importance like “marriage”.

    Now, if us hetereosexuals casually enjoyed the right to re-define words like “state” or “person” or “property” or “rights” and high-fived each others’ sovereign power to so re-define words, with the follow up that the state swiftly adopts our novel new definition and imposes this new definition on everyone else via fiat…. then they’d have a point about “not being equal in the re-definition of words thing”.

    But as it is, when we want to re-define something or grant ourselves some new right or power, we have to go through the cultural persuasion route and the legal route via courts or constitutional amendments.

    To be sure the LGBT group are taking a two pronged approach – they have spent 20 odd years in the long march through the institutions advancing their cause via the means of communication, arts, academia etc. and using the schools and now the military to great effect. But at the same time they’ve moved court cases along into uncharted waters in the name of this mythical ‘equality’ that they keep talking about.

    It’s the latter that’s provoked the peoples’ reaction in the 32 state constitutional amendments.

    I suspect it’s probably a combination of impatience (impulse control issues? no way!), and a sense of demographic ‘writing on the wall’ with respect to the aging and dying West as we see a rising East and Islam that doesn’t look too friendly. So this “inevitable historic succcess” they assure us is coming down the tracks is not quite so ‘inevitable’ after all.

    We’re at a cross roads – will they go kinentic via Government imposition and possibly spark an even greater backlash…or will they rachet down the heat and try another 30 years of slow drip drip drip erosion…. we’re about to find out.

  • Ben not the athiest

    Obvious trolls are obvious. Showing up in a combox to proclaim that all the denizens therein are bigots and that your children will approve of x,y and z inevitably so you should just shut up about it are clearly troll tactics. Stop feeding.

  • John Graney

    The Democrats are now as certain as the Republicans that God is on their side. Lovely. I wish that this were merely a sarcastically ironic anti-liberal remark, but it’s completely true: I’m beginning to feel like I live in a theocracy.

    • Marion (Mael Muire)

      To believe that God is on “our” side is not the point.

      Your side. My side. His side. Their side. Our side.

      The point is: are we on God’s side? Am I on God’s side.

      Is God my all? Or are certain other things more important? My wealth? My ego? My agenda? My autonomy? My social life? My status? My power?

      To the extent that any of these things is more important to me than God’s kingship over me, I am not on God’s side.

      I hope I may be forgiven for saying so, but there are line items (written or written between the lines) upon both party platforms that place each party firmly outside any notion of being “on God’s side.”

      As Catholic Christians, it is our job to ask ourselves, “how can we fix that?”

      • John Graney

        I agree, and I do have humility problems, so perhaps I’ll tone the sarcasm down a bit. But I really do find it frightening that our civil authorities now use God to back their every statement. I’m not a Republican, but I am a Catholic, and I think that it’s fair to ask, for the sake of those who might be deceived, who these authorities think that they are. Obama isn’t an ordained minister even in his own hyper-liberal denomination, and Pelosi isn’t a priest or even a nun.
        Perhaps I’m overreacting a bit, and perhaps someone else’s blog isn’t the best place to fume, but I’m in the military, and (while not claiming to speak officially on behalf of anyone) it makes me very uncomfortable to see people in direct authority over me developing pretensions of divine authority.

  • Telemachus

    Please note, people, that Ben the Atheist only deals in one-liners. He’s not here to discuss or debate, he’s hear to lob word-bombs at Catholics. Stop encouraging him.

    • Marion

      But, Telemachus!

      If Ben didn’t come on here and inform us Catholics what low-account, no-good, mean, backward, shap-shiftin’, horn-swogglin’ lyin’, thievin’, backward, mean-spirited, Klan-loving, Inquisition-promotin’, pitchfork-totin’, expectoratin’, dejected, rejected, neglected, Fascisistic, caustic, callow, no-goodniks we are, then wouldn’t we go on, thinking as we had been in our naivete, that we were on the right road, and everything with us was all right?

      And then where would we have been?

      No, Ben the Atheist has been most enlightening! Most!

      • Marion

        P.S. Yes, yes! Attribution: Brooks, Mel Blazing Saddles

        • Mark H.

          I don’t think that’s a fair characterization. I don’t agree with Ben on the gay marriage issue, but I think he has stated his opinions without being insulting or rude. There’s no need to be condescending. I would hope we could all try to keep this a reasonable and respectful discussion.

          • Telemachus

            Mark H.,

            Weren’t you here? http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2012/05/its-a-consolation-after-last-week.html. Please read over the posts.

            I think it is a good characterization. Ben’s extremely insulting, and extremely rude, and he won’t engage people’s arguments. He simply asserts things constantly, and in a various contemptuous fashion.

            God bless,
            Tele

            • Tim

              To his credit, he did coin the word “othering.”

            • Mark H.

              I remember reading quite a bit of that discusson, and I’m not making an argument about one person being singled out and unfairly targeted. My previous comment was directed to the current discussion. If he crossed the line with some of his comments in the past, he’s not the first or only one that has done so in the comboxes here. That’s why I almost never comment. It’s too frustrating to see how some discussions can fall apart into “gotcha” comments and one upmanship. People get offended, they get excited, they sometimes say things they regret later. Even if you think someone did something wrong in the past, try to let it go. Arguing should not be about shaming or embarrassing the other person. It should be about convincing him of the merits of your ideas. You’ll never bring someone around to your way of thinking by being insulting. (That goes for both sides).
              Anyway, I’ve had my say on this issue, and don’t have anything else to add, so I’ll bow out of this particular discussion. Carry on (Respectfully, please) :)

          • Marion

            I feel my remarks above were the very essence of all that is reasonable, fair, and respectful, and as far from being “condescending” as the East is from the West.

            This is what you get what you try to communicate in ASCII instead of in person, without the nuances of body language, tone of voice, . . . and presence or absence of “Theocracy Now!” tattoos on display!

  • caroline

    To what extent do single people–never married and not co-habiting–have to pick up on the tax burdens married folk whether hetero or homo escape? I understand that there are economic benefits granted by government to the married and that getting them is one of the reasons why homosexuals want to marry. Maybe it is time we heard of a justice for singles movement.

    • jolly

      The reasoning is that children (which in addition to being a blessing are quite expensive) provide a base to take care of those who are elderly either directly through their social security/medicare payments or indirectly through the preservation of a society which will take care of the eldery rather than placing them on an ice flow.
      Same reason that everyone pays for schools even if you don’t have children (or homeschool as we do).

    • http://chicagoboyz.net TMLutas

      Of reasoning like this the “marriage penalty” was born. The state engages in projects that transcend the present generation. To make these projects a success, there need to be sufficient cohorts in future generations to make society work. It’s perfectly legitimate to ask whether society’s swung the incentives too far over in favor of family formation and natality but I suggest a session with google might help you get informed here are suggested terms to get you rolling:
      United States TFR rate
      birth dearth
      social security collapse
      medicare collapse
      not enough taxpayers

      I’m sure that others can add some more search terms. So far as I can tell, your concern is not borne out by actual US public policy.

  • phil

    In a related story, Obama also apparently ignored his own spiritual advisor:
    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2018175582_apusobamagaymarriagepastor.html

    The dogma of these pols is determined but whoever their party’s current donors happen to be.

  • Nathan

    Mark Shea has his own orthodoxy issues. He says you can be gay and orthodox at the same time. He is a public figure. So why is the pot calling the kettle black?

    • Mark Shea

      No. He says you can be gay, *chaste*, and orthodox. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X