Catholics in Washington State Defend Traditional Marriage in The Seattle Times

If you live or have lived in Washington state, particularly the western side of the state, you know what’s it’s like. You’re warned that we are the least churched state in the nation (a positioning we may have recently lost), that unless you’re using NARAL talking points there’s no place for your voice in a state that voted to make abortion legal before Roe v. Wade, and then voted at least two more times to confirm that vote. Despite the fact that you meet wonderful people both of faith and not of faith, who all share common human values, the secular progressive values are so pervasive that it can be daunting to even consider speaking out with a divergent view.

In my three years living in Seattle (yes the city where there are rumored to be more dogs than children) I’ve met enough people to realize that this conventional wisdom denies the reality.

This week a group of us, all lay leaders from across the state, decided that it was time to respond to a group of Catholics speaking out against the Church’s teachings on marriage. Sure, they have a right to voice their opinions; but it’s our responsibility to make clear that they don’t speak for us.

So here’s our op-ed in The Seattle Times. I expected the negative comments, but I wish we could have a civil conversation despite the disagreement on some very big issues. However, that problem is not particular to Seattle or Washington. It’s rampant just about everywhere.

We have a FaceBook page where you can see the list of leaders and sign on to show your support. We are joined by several groups including the Knights of Columbus for Washington State (17,000 members) and the Seattle Archdiocesan Council of Women.



147 thoughts on “Catholics in Washington State Defend Traditional Marriage in The Seattle Times

  1. abadilla says:

    Pia, “This week a group of us, all lay leaders from across the state, decided that it was time to respond to a group of Catholics speaking out against the Church’s teachings on marriage.” I never thought I would see the day when people who think they are Catholic, would ever speak against the Church’s teaching on marriage. To this day, such a reality is bewildering to me. How one can call oneself Catholic and do that is beyond the pale.

    1. B Wildered says:

      Yeah Yeah Yeah
      What is bewildering is how people can preach hate and try and disguise it as Catholic, and pretend that it is good.
      Unfortunately, I have seen this day too often.

      1. abadilla says:

        It’s very simple. If you think Catholic teaching on marriage is “hateful” and you are a Catholic, it’s time to say goodbye like the famous song says.

        1. Spirit of the Lord says:

          This really shows you inability to understand what Catholic means. There is not saying “goodbye” to Catholics who do not conform to the Abadillan standards. That is the cruelest insult to the Church that you have made yet, and your insults are legion.
          No one said CATHOLIC teaching is hateful, but yours and Pias uneducated defense of it is. Catholic teaching is just in that resistive phase. We just need to keep Galileo in mind when we look at Catholic development of the understanding of the world. The Bishops are always the last to realize what the saints on earth have already known.
          It is simple – love as Jesus. May God bless you and melt your heart and open your mind. Repent and believe. Turn from the darkness that you imprison yourself with.

          1. abadilla says:

            Catholic means universal and Catholic teaching is not up for grabs as if we didn’t have standars to follow. Anyone reading posts here can see lots of people or perhaps three under different names, are not conforming to Badilla’s standards but worse, they are not conforming to the Church’s standars since many comments here are a complete contradiction and denial of official church teaching.
            Neither Pia nor I have said anything about Catholic teaching that is “hateful” unless what is in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” papal encyclicals, pastoral letters, decrees and constitutions of councils are to be understood as hateful.
            Strange that you would mention the saints, because none of them hated either the Church, the Pope, or the bishops as trolls do here.

  2. Pride, prejudice and Pia says:

    “Our responsibility to make it clear that they don’t speak for us.”
    This is the same sentiment that many good Catholics want to make clear, that, Pia, you do not speak for the Church, but only for yourself and you collective bigoted group.
    What an awful blog. Please refrain from telling anyone you have any connection to the Church when you advance your hatred and prejudice. You are insulting all of us by your small minded view of the world, and your poor understanding of what it really means to be Church.
    Father, forgive her, she knows not who she is crucifying.

    1. Ashaq says:


    2. Albert Mendonca says:

      Pia does absolutely speak for the church and hundreds of thousands of Catholics in WA like me.

      “Father, forgive her, she knows not who she is crucifying.” – Let the Lord determine who needs forgiveness!

      1. Albert is bringing the nails says:

        The Lord has determined this already. You may believe it is alright to crucify others in the name of God, but the Church has abandoned that practice years ago.
        Pia may speak for you, but she does not speak for Catholics like you. There is nothing Catholic in her message. Shame on you and shame on her.

      2. This Catholic says:

        No she does not.

  3. Patrick says:

    I got as far as the first 5 words and couldn’t believe my eyes. “We are lay Catholic leaders….” I promise to go back now and read the article in full, but I don’t think there are lay leaders in the Catholic church. The leaders in the RC church are bishops. They are all male and they are not lay people.

    1. abadilla says:

      Patrick, I used to belong to an organization run entirely by lay leaders, “Catholic Action” and that is still the case. Right now I belong to an organization entitled “Hispanics for Life” and it is entirely run bu lay leaders. A priest, once in a while, celebrates Mass for us.

      1. Not an answer says:


        1. abadilla says:

          Patrick was making the argument that the Catholic Church is not run by lay leaders and I think for the most part that is true, but many organizations are run by lay people as I already explained.

          1. Catholics deserve better says:

            Actually you went off in a whole different direction.
            His point is really that she and the others do not speak for the Church.
            As you do not not matter what you call yourself and what you call you organization. You seem to want to find any reason to discredit someone rather than to hear what they are saying. You life and your experience are yours alone, and not representative of anything but you.
            Pia is trying to claim creditbility and wuthority that she does not have and has not earned. You and she are using a clever trick, but not the truth.
            She and you do not speak for Catholicism, but only for your particular brand of it, and one that is not very holy.

          2. MARA says:

            Catholics deserve better: excellent points. This is an ultra-conservative Catholic site. The vast majority of those who have chosen to follow the Catholic faith are not ultra-conservatives. It’s really important for anyone blogging on this site to keep this in mind. This site does not reflect the views of most Catholics. In fact, the posts on this site often attack those Catholics who are not ultra-conservative. abadilla is just one example. There are others too numerous to mention.

          3. abadilla says:

            Excuse me, let me ask if I have to go on an specific direction to reply to a comment. I can go in any direction I darn please!
            I understood his point, the leaders of the Church are the bishops, but there are lots of lay people leading lay Catholic organizations. is an example of that. That is all I was pointing to Patrick.
            We only speak for Catholicism in so far as we don’t contradict or misrepresent Church teaching. Pia wrote nothing in her article any Catholic can take issue with unless that Catholic is a Catholic dissenter and it is obvious in this forum some are.

          4. abbaschild says:

            Amen to that. You said it much better than I!!!

    2. abbaschild says:

      Obviously you know little, to nothing about the Catholic church! There are thousands of ‘lay Catholic leaders’.

  4. mominvermont says:

    Thank you for speaking the truth about the Catholic Church’s strong defense of marriage between one man and one woman.

    You’re correct that same sex marriage conflicts with religious freedom. Here in Vermont we already have SSM and a Catholic couple has been sued for declining to host the wedding of two New York women. Plus, their inn is no longer allowed to host any weddings no matter what the gender of the couple.

    Same sex marriage segregates people by gender and deliberately deprives children of either a mother or a father.

    Keep marriage pro-gender because gender matters to everyone, including people with same sex attraction.

    1. pammie says:

      Actually, the vermont inn was sued under anti-discrimination laws and had nothing to do with marriage. The gay couples was calling to have a commitment ceremony (not a marriage) and the whole incident occurred prior to Vermont permitting gay couples to marry. So, your attempt to somehow make it appear as though “gay marriage” was the cause of this lawsuit is what most people refer to as lying.

      Further, the inn admitted that their position was that they would simply refuse to return phone calls if a gay couple called to inquire about renting their place of public accomodation and that admitted that it was wrong in court. There is nothing respectful about refusing to call someone back. In fact, the Owner’s of the Inn were acting in a very un-christian manner. Remember that the innkeeper in Bethlehem welcomed Jesus and Mary and provided any accommodation that he could. He did not refuse to answer the front door.

    2. Justin says:

      Seriously man? Gay people can’t get married, because businesses would have to start treating them the same as everyone else? That’s a lame excuse, and exactly the problem.

    3. What about the Children? says:

      Conflicts with religious freedom? pro-gender marriage?
      Are you just confused or legally insane.
      You are not fighting for the Church position, but clearly one of your own imagination.
      I am wondering if you even understand what Gender means. God help your children as they grow up, you are clearly ill prepared to be a good parent if you use this crazed logic. You are aleady damaging their poor liitle souls.

    4. abadilla says:

      And one of the trolls pontificates against you, “You are aleady damaging their poor liitle souls.” And all you did was to defend marriage the way Pia and the Church does. Can you imagine what this “civil” people would do to you if they could? Oh yes, they are soooooooooooooo tolerant!

      1. Hey Kettle your black says:

        You need not condemn anyone else for ponitificating or for a lack of tolerance.

        1. abadilla says:

          Point to the “condemnation.” I don’t see it!

          1. Abadilla's eye surgery says:

            of course you don’t the log is your eye is too big.
            You will never see what you are not open to seeing.
            But with God all things are possible.
            May he heal your blindness and soften your selfhardened heart.

          2. abadilla says:

            “You will never see what you are not open to seeing.” Strange words coming from a troll that refuses to see clearly what Pia wrote, refuses to see that not supporting the sacrament of marriage, is, at best, ignorant, at worse a sin.

  5. This Catholic says:

    I have to agree with the othe poster. Your article states that gay couples should be treated differently because they aren’t as worthy as heterosexuals. Further, you take the unchristian approach that becuse there aren’t that many homosexuals, that we should t change our laws to include them. How may gay people does God have to create before you admit that he wants them around and that we should include them as part of our society? Your article comes from a point of complete disrespect for the rights of others and your position is that the majority abound be able to oppress a minority. There is nothing either American or Christian in your letter, and it certainly does not represent the views of this Catholic.

    1. mominvermont says:

      Marriage is not just about sexual orientation; it is also about gender and children. One of the problems with same sex marriage is that it segregates people by gender. That’s not equality, that’s discrimination. Don’t ALL children deserve their mother and their father?

      1. pammie says:

        So, you support a law that bans infertile couples from marriage?

        1. abadilla says:

          The Catholic Church has always been clear on this issue but your intention is to confuse people, not to bring clarity to the issue, so, let me try. One of the essential purposes of marriage is pro-creation. An infertile couple is UNABLE because of their condition to have children. It isn’t that they don’t want to have children, they can’t. In those cases the Church respects their marriage because the first end of marriage, love, is present there. They also have the opportunity to adopt and make their marriage fruitful if they want to do so.

          1. Vatican II says:

            Correction: the clarification on this issue is new, and only came into play when procreation and mutual love and support were both found to be equal purposes for marriage.
            You may be unclear because it has only been so for the last 50 years. It is the last official redefinition of marriage, the everchanging tradition

          2. abadilla says:

            No, the clarification is not new at all. I knew it as a teenger and I’m 63 now, so, there is nothing new about the clarification. However, many teachings of the Church are new for those Catholics who have an appalling understanding of Catholic teaching. Vatican II is in continuity with the tradition of the Church, and it is not a break with the tradition of the Church. Where we see a “change” if you must call it that, is in the emphasis on the first purpose of marriage “love,” and the emphasis used to be on the “procreative” aspect of marriage.
            I was writing about infertile couples because the troll that came in was trying to disfigure the Church’s teaching by making the Church appear uncompassionate when it came to infertile couples, and that is simply not true.

          3. 13 yr old Abdilla says:

            Maybe by the time you hit 64, you till be able to use the wisdom that should have come from your age. Of course you will need to let go of the hate in order to speak of love.
            The elevation of the Unitative postion of the Sacrament of marriage (and not anything to do with a historical or sociological understanding of the term (As our sacramental life is often at odds with the secular interpretation of our reality.)) did come with the Vatican II close inspection of our Sacramental understanding. Prior to that time, Procreation led the rationale, followed by Unitative purpose. As you were just an emerging sexual being, you probably were “taught” the new ideas, without even knowing that Vatican II had happened, or how it was redefining much about our Church.
            Just as Vatican II was about clearing out the cobwebs in our Church, you may need to do the same with that misinformation and the need for hatred that you have gathered in your 63 years.
            That 13 year old kid may have lost sight of the Joys and Hopes that were emerging. That is the saddest thing of all.

          4. MARA says:

            WOW! Where did you come from? Your words are on the money. I think you even woke me up and that’s not easy. Thanks!

          5. abadilla says:

            Funny you should mention “wisdom” because the people who really know me think that is one of my characteristics although I believe whatever is there of wisdom. life has taught me in this long life. As for you, have you not been told to respect your elders?

            “Prior to that time, Procreation led the rationale, followed by Unitative purpose.”

            Correct. I never said otherwise and I actually explained it to you but why should you pay any attention to what I wrote when you don’t have any respect for Pia’s writings?

            “Just as Vatican II was about clearing out the cobwebs in our Church, you may need to do the same with that misinformation and the need for hatred that you have gathered in your 63 years.”
            Where is the “hatred” part you keep writing about? We have disagreements in the interpretation of Vatican II and suddenly your disagreement with me is seen as “hatred.” Don’t be absurd! Who is now behaving like a 13 year old?

      2. Children deserve less Hate says:

        This is complete nonsense, and has nothing to do with the comments before. “Sedregates by Gender” What is that even supposed to mean? You may want to quarentine Gay people, but married gay people with or without children are living in the same neighborhoods with single mothers and absentee fathers, with grandma raising the kids, and even with the mother and fathers married or not.
        Change the Channell, you are watching the reruns of the Donna Reed Show, and even she would be more tolerant – and intelligent that you on this subject

        1. abadilla says:

          What does not make sense is your argument. No one, but no one wants to “quarantine Gay people.” All that has been said, every psychologist and psychiatrist would agree to, that a child needs a male and a female as role models, period. Now, sometimes the circumstances of life are such that a child end up with just one role model, but from the beginning of a marriage, that was not done by design. In the case of a gay couple, not having a female or a male role model is done by design by the re-definition of marriage or simply by having a child as part of a civil union. If a heterosexual couple of females or males wants to adopt a child, the Church would also object on the grounds that a child needs a male and a female role model.
          By stating that mominvermont should watch reruns of the Donna Reed Show, you are trying to belittle the person rather than engaging that person in a discussion. Shame on you!

          1. Keep it together says:

            You are quite in error, and only interested in arguing (as most all of your comments show) and not in responding. Please try again with facts and not assumptions, and keep it on course, not wandering off to talk about something else.
            Or else just stop commenting. You are not really saying anything.

          2. abadilla says:

            “You are quite in error.” You are going to have to be more specific and tell me in what it is I am quite in error.

          3. Abidilla fails again says:

            There is not need to be more specific, as you are well aware of your error. No matter how you dress it up, Hate is Hate.
            and Ignorance – along with the argument to accept Ingnorant thought remains what it is.
            mominvermont is a crusader for hate, misusing terms and trying to manipulate an argument so that she can feel justified in her hate.
            It remains hate. As well as ignorant use of facts.
            She has nothing compelling to say other than to expose herself as hating a group of people and trying to mask it as Catholic.
            God and many good Catholics know she is wrong. But you and Pia try to use these hysterics to promote your bad theology. Either you do not know God, or just Choose to ignore what Jesus commands us. I really doubt that you can continue to even fool yourself much longer

          4. abadilla says:

            “hate is Hate,” that’s all you have to offer as an argument? I find it amusing to say the least, when trolls like you pontificate on what is Catholic theology and what is not, given the fact that you won’t even use your own name.
            I suppose Jesus commands you to allow gay marriage and I suppose he also commands you to demand the Church bless sodomy as a Sacrament, and I supposed you call this “good theology.”

          5. Abidilla as Uncatholic says:

            Try your understanding of Catholic Theology and your grasp of the commands of Jesus.
            You offer nothing but irritation instead of logic, and hate masked within your psuedointellectual approach. But your errors are so blantant, that even you should be able to see them.
            Oh Wait, of course you see them, that is part of your strategy, to use the lies toadvance politics over religious thought.
            Now that is a strange way to support Religious liberty.

          6. abadilla says:

            “You offer nothing but irritation instead of logic, and hate masked within your psuedointellectual approach. But your errors are so blantant, that even you should be able to see them.”
            No, you get irritated because you wish Catholic teaching were Anglican teaching so what you want, the Church would approve yesterday.
            My “errors” are so blatant, no one in authority has pointed them out to me in 27 years of teaching theology. Precisely because of intellectual curiosity, I never accepted the Catholic faith, even as a teenager, without examining the arguments emanating from the Fathers of the Church, from Scripture, from the writings of the saints, from papal encyclicals, from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, from the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” from Church History, from pastoral or episcopal letters, etc.
            Pia’s article dealt with traditional marriage, not so much with religious liberty.

    2. Joe M says:

      Her article does not say that gay couples aren’t as worthy. I didn’t bother to read your comment past that falsehood.

      1. pammie says:

        actually it clearly does.

        1. abadilla says:

          No, it does not but I guess for you, “perceptions” ARE reality!

          1. Perceived reality says:

            This is true for everyone, and is not really something to use mockingly. Of course a persons perceptions are real. That is a no-brainer.

          2. abadilla says:

            No dear troll, perception is not always reality. Pia did not insult anyone in her written sttement but many of you take offense NOT at what she wrote, but at what you “think” or perceive she wrote. In other words, you have made your perceptions into a reality that only exists in your sick minds.

          3. Abadilla defined says:

            You seem not to know what the term Troll really means.
            You post are much more troll like than any other.
            Troll is the posting that is offensive or controversial in order to leave the conversation for a different argument.
            It is also the old man who lives under the bridge who comes out to scare those who want to cross over. In short in the old man who wants to keep people from coming together.

    3. abadilla says:

      “Your article states that gay couples should be treated differently because they aren’t as worthy as heterosexuals.” No Troll, if you are going to make an stupid accusation against the writer, quote her properly and make your case, but nowhere in the article did she write what “you” thought she wrote!

      1. Follow your advice says:

        If you are going to make comments, follow what the author asked and be civil. You are in violation of not listening to her words, unless that is not what YOU “thought” she wrote.

        1. abadilla says:

          No troll is going to give me advice, that’s what moderators are for. I suspect that it is two or at the most three trolls taking different names all over the place to attack Pia, Joe, and me, but it won’t work, We know too well your moves and by now, receiving insults we have gotten used to. We know “real” people don’t use such tactics, trolls do.

          1. Church Lady Abadilla says:

            This act was used on Saturday Night Life as the Church lady. It was funny when Dana did it, but he had the ability to carry out the humor.
            You are just dressing up in the dress and not even strutting to the beat well.
            But all you are offering is your hate. Go on and defend your trinity, while the rest will defend God and Church and Truth.
            You can be a little be superior on the stage of your mind.

          2. abadilla says:

            Your comments are meant to demean me as a person but that doesn’t affect the fact that I adressed church teaching, therefore your problem is NOt with me but with Church teaching. You claimed that all I offered is “hate” but your comments do not have anything to do with hate, right?
            Hey Church lady, what is your “real” name? At least I don’t hide who I am!

        2. Stuart Lindo says:

          Thank you. I am tired of abadilla/randall/Tom Crowe coming on here and being disrespectful and uncivil

  6. Paramor says:

    Pia, let’s be honest here. You wrote an article claiming that gay couples are inferior to straight couples and that gay couples should be treated differently by our civil laws and disadvantaged as a result. You wrote an article that said gay people don’t deserve legal protections that everyone else enjoys because there aren’t that many of them and therefore, they just don’t rate high enough to deserve our concern.

    Your article is the epitome of incivility and disrespect. Why should anyone show you more compassion than you have chosen to show to others?

    1. I read through the comments, and I honestly don’t see anything that’s not civil about the conversation. You seem to be saying that people aren’t civil because they disagree with you. Here are some of the comments.

      “Our former Republican governor Dan Evans says he backs R74.”

      “I would respect your opinion if you could give me an actual cogent argument why your beliefs against same sex marriage should trump equal treatment under civil law, but I’ve heard nothing of the sort.”

      “Referendum 74 to allow same-sex couples to marry maintains its large lead: Oct 18 poll – 56.3 percent “yes” and 35.6 percent “no””

      “As long as we’re trying to accurately represent the local Catholic population, my wife (confirmed Catholic and former Catholic school teacher) and I (regular attendee at Catholic mass) will be voting in favor of R-74. R-74 doesn’t have anything to do with the Church. Let the administrative state do its thing and the Church can do its thing. They don’t need to agree.”

    2. Pia says:

      It would be helpful to me if you would point out what was uncivil or disrespectful in our piece. People claim to be tolerant…until someone expresses a different viewpoint. We did not denigrate same-sex relationships. We simply stated that they are different from the heterosexual relationships that the law recognizes as marriage. In no way did we argue that they should be disadvantaged. As the article clearly notes, same-sex couples in Washington already have the same legal protections as married couples. At issue in Referendum 74 is whether the word “marriage” should apply to same-sex couples. Rejecting Referendum 74 will not undo Referendum 71 (the 2009 initiative which gave same-sex couples all the legal rights of married couples).

      Nor did we give any opinion as to the small number of registered domestic partnerships. The number is simply a fact and it is indicative that not a lot of Washingtonians in the state have availed themselves of the legal protections offered for registered domestic partnerships. We did not make any conclusions about that number. The number, large or small, does not make the case for or against legal rights. It’s simply a statement of fact.

      1. What was uncivil and disrespectful in your piece was clearly noted above. Please don’t be dishonest.

        PS: It looks like you deleted my other comment showing the very respectful comments that were on their website. Heaven forbid people know the truth – that there is an honest and civil discussion about your article and that most people simply disagree with your opinion, which you interpret as incivility.

        1. Joe M says:

          Louis. You contradict yourself. Pia disagrees with your view of marriage. You claim that represents an act of incivility in and of itself. Yet, in the very same paragraph you appeal to your disagreement on the same issue as being civil.

          1. WRONG ANSWER says:

            Joe – why do you always try to make a fight where none is needed. Try being Civil before you ever tell anyone else what civility is. There is not one comment you ever post that does not lead with hate.

          2. abadilla says:

            “There is not one comment you ever post that does not lead with hate.” See Joe, it isn’t that you might be wrong or right in what you write. It isn’t that perhaps you could not be as articulate as these trolls are. It must be that everything you post leads into “hate.” I ask the question I asked others, how do you have a dialogue with such a moron?”

          3. Abadilla supports Joes Hate says:

            Why don’t you just stop your stupid comments. Joe may be to only one who likes them. You need to either temper your attitude or just stay out of here. You are really not doing anything to support the writer.

          4. abadilla says:

            None of my comments are stupid, but attacking traditional marriage is, particularly because all of you came precisely from a marriage and you betray the very institution that put you into this world. Trolls like you need to temper your attitude, not me. The writer, I am definitely sure, would not have a problem with my writing, and if she does, she can say so publicly.

          5. Abadilla apology says:

            Alll of your comments are filled with hate, as that is your only motivation in this issue.
            You have a very weak understanding of both tradition and marriage. And the attempt to share your limited wisdom seems to only come across as bitterness and really quite juvenile.

          6. abadilla says:

            “Alll of your comments are filled with hate.” Really, and your comments are filled with the virtue of prudence, right? I thought my commments were filled with church teaching, but today people can’t have disagreements without someone pointing to “hate.”
            This morning I had a conversation with a flaming liberal who believes in abortion and Obama. We had a conversation, but I never accused him of “hate” nor did he accuse me of “hate” either. That encounter showed me that it is possible to disagree vehemently, without hurling the word “hate.” A nice lesson for trolls here.

      2. Catholic AGAINST LIARS says:

        Same sex couples in Washington state do not have the same rights as heterosexual couples. They can not get a marriage license at City Hall, they can’t get a green card for their spouse, they can’t file joint tax returns, and they can be forced to testify against their “domestic partner” in a courtroom. In fact, there are thousands of rights and benefits that are being withheld from gay couples, becaus they can’t get a marriage license, and you know it.

        1. mominvermont says:

          Gender integrated couples can procreate whereas same sex couples can not. There is a huge difference (social, biological, sexual, gender) between the two different unions and that is why the law treats them differently.

          1. pammie says:

            Infertile “gender integrated” couples are not able to procreate. Do you support a law banning straight infertile couples from marrying, or are you just wanting to discriminate against gay people?

          2. prayformominvermont says:


          3. abadilla says:

            Mominvermont, “HER HATEFILLED POSITION” It isn’t that the troll simply disagrees with you and your ideas, no, you must have a “hatefilled position.” Now, how do you dialogue with such a moron?

          4. Follow your advice says:

            Such intelligence is showing again.
            Mama must be proud.

          5. abadilla says:

            Indeed very proud and she would have gotten in my case if I ever played your game, becoming a troll!

          6. Unfaithful Abadilla says:

            Why would anyone want to get in your case?
            Why are you proud of your hate and deceit?
            Have you give up on God completely?

        2. abadilla says:

          Well, there you have it Pia, it is nearly impossible to have a decent argument with these trolls. Look at who writes to you, “Catholic AGAINST LIARS,” clearly implying you are a liar. The troll does not even consider that you might be mistaken in your understanding of the law, which I don’t believe you are, but the troll “immediately” assumes you are a liar. How can you, or I, or anyone else have a fruitful discussion after that?

          1. Sister Margaret says:

            Pia did in fact lie. I suspect that she knows better, but she chose to do it anyway.

          2. abadilla says:

            You must be from “the Nuns on the bus,” but a traditional nun, if you are a nun, you are not.
            No, Pia did not lie. She simply gave us in her article her understanding of gay marriage, period, A lie is the purposeful withdrawal of the truth. She did no such thing, but the topic is so emotional, you decided to make of Pia a liar! I hope you realize, once you accuse someone of being a liar, the conversation is over, a meaningful dialogue becomes “literally” impossible. That’s precisely why I am not known as a diplomat.

          3. Another abadilla insult says:

            Are you trying to get points for insulting the most people here?
            No one has accepted you either as expert or moderator, so play by the rules or go play by yourself.

          4. abadilla says:

            “go play by yourself.”
            Wow, talk about projecting!
            Now “trolls” play by the rules? Incredible!
            Did I ever claim to be a moderator. If I were, you would certainly not be here.

          5. Abadilla as Insulter says:

            You go to such lengths to defend your insults.
            You use the word troll as if you actually know what it means.
            You are such the “comic releif” only you are more tragic in outlooks and in compassion.
            Your fruits are very well known, and you are the cursed fig tree.

          6. abadilla says:

            I use the word troll as a demeaning term, pejoritavely, since I see trolls as cowards who come into a site to attack people who blog here under the cover of anonimity. If I were to go into another site and not use my name, I would be a troll, but I’m not a coward and that’s precisely why I would never go into any site I disagree with and hurl insults at the very people who write there without using my proper name.

          7. abadilla says:

            You must be from “the Nuns on the bus,” but a traditional nun, if you are a nun, you are not.
            No, Pia did not lie. She simply gave us in her article her understanding of gay marriage, period, A lie is the purposeful withdrawal of the truth. She did no such thing, but the topic is so emotional, you decided to make of Pia a liar! I hope you realize, once you accuse someone of being a liar, the conversation is over, a meaningful dialogue becomes “literally” impossible. That’s precisely why I am not known as a diplomat.

          8. Abadilla is the troll says:

            You know abidilla you have added nothing here except you same old lines. If you really have nothing to write, DON”T WRITE. No one really cares about you small minded observations. You have no interest in dialogue, so the insincere comments of support for Pia are just plain crap. Step it up or just step out.

          9. abadilla says:

            “You know abidilla” You might start by spelling my name correctly, and unlike you, I do have a real name at CV any moderator can testify to. Only trolls need to hide their real names. I call it cowardice.
            I will continue to write as much as I please, so if trolls don’t like what I write or have to say, they don’t have to read it or anwer me.
            I will let Pia decide whether my comments are sincere or not. Trolls and anti-Catholics do not have the slightest moral authority to decide who has good comments and who doesn’t. Who should write here and who doesn’t. You are just upset with me because you expect Catholics to be doormats and take your insults without defending ourselves. Well, neither Joe nor I put up with nonesense, so, get used to it.

          10. Jesus is Lord says:

            Then let them testify to your name. It is not the name that the rest of us will honor.
            That is Jesus the Lord. Who leads us in love and service, not to your dark reality, but into the unity of his Spirit.
            As for me and my house we will not serve Abadilla.
            How can you let Pia decide your truth? Do you not have any internal moral compass? Repent and beleive the GOOD NEWS. That Jesus loves you more than you can ever deserve.

          11. abadilla says:

            “As for me and my house we will not serve Abadilla.” Another absurdity! When did I ask you or anyone to serve me? What does your comment have to do with what Pia or I wrote?

          12. Abadilla on Lies says:

            So unlike the selfrightous Abadilla.
            Lies are his Golden Calf.

          13. abadilla says:

            “Lies are his Golden Calf.” Since my crime was like Pia’s, to echo “Catholic” teaching, I guess Catholic teaching is filled with lies. Where is your name coward?

      3. I am NOT PIA says:

        I agree Pia. We are simply pointing out that people are different. Everyone has the same rights as everyone else. White people sit in the front of the bus, black people sit in the back. We all get to ride the bus, and we all get to the same place at the same time. I really don’t know what all the fuss is about!

        1. abadilla says:

          “White people sit in the front of the bus, black people sit in the back.”
          Clearly you are not Pia because she would never entertain such prejudice and such stupidity so you do her the “favor” of putting these words in her mouth. If you are a Catholic, don’t you ever accuse yourself of calumny in the Confessional?

          1. I AM PIA says:

            But that’s exactly what she IS saying in her article.

          2. Abadilla humorlessness says:

            Someone can read very well.
            As you try to be witty, you are just being a fool.

          3. abadilla says:

            Yes, I read very well and as for the “fool” comment, what does that tell you about your cheap argument? You need to hurl insults because you have no words to argue your point.

          4. Abadilla in the mirror says:

            no Abadilla, you are descibing your self. You need to tone down your hatred and your jusdgment or you will just be the CV Clown.

          5. abadilla says:

            I could care less what a troll thinks, but I will defend the Church’s teaching always whether you like it or not. I will never “tone” down anything because the truth does not need to be tone down and as for the clown comment, please, stop describing trolls.

      4. QUESTION? says:

        Pia, please tell me, what important governmental interest is accomplished by banning gay couples from marriage under our laws?

        1. mominvermont says:

          Same sex marriage is anti-gender. It excludes women and motherhood in the case of male/male and it discriminates against men and fatherhood in the union of two women. By supporting pro-gender marriage we promote a gender-integrated environment for children to grow up in.

          Keep marriage pro-gender. Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same sex attraction.

          1. An Invitation says:

            Same gender marriage is not anti- gender. This is a senseless accusation. It only illustrates your confussion about sex and gender.
            I don’t know what island you chose to live on in your mind, but other people are not so scary as you make them out to be. Motherhood is not scaring your children or being paranoid in your parenthood.
            You are the only one trying to discriminate, and it leaves you out of the goodness of God’s creation.
            It is only amusing to think that you may actually believe what you write. SOmehow I hope that is not true. Hopefully you are not as evil as you want to appear in your writing.
            There is a big wonderful world waiting for you if you leave your hate of others beihind. Come out of your closet of hate, and be a full Christian, living in love.

          2. MORONAHE says:

            and that makes absolutely no sense at all. Allowing gay couples to marry doesn’t discriminate against anyone, in the same manner that allowing people with red hair to drive a car, does not discriminate against people with blond hair. Additionally, banning gay couples from marriage does not help one single child have a mother and a father. It will harm the children of gay couples by depriving them of the legal rights and protections that other children enjoy.

            The fact of the matter is that people that want to ban gay couples from marriage are the ones that are doing the discrimination.

      5. No Pity 4 Pia says:

        Pia – this is a bad defense to cover your awful offense.
        The very heart of your attack is uncivil, and has nothing to do with Catholicism.
        Your personal rigidity should disqualify you from being a leader in the catholic Church, as you can not lead people to God by demonstrating your hatred, no matter how well you try to dress it up.
        You offer nothing compelling to limit the rights of others, and have views of sexuality that are not healthy for anyone in the Church. We let the Bishops be bigots, because historically, the Bishops have been the last to abandon the yesterdays for a more full understanding of God and of God’s great love. SInce niether you education or your ordination qualifies you as Bishop you need to understand that you are in a disappearing minority – Catholics who think that hating Gays is still OK in society and church. Hopefully your attitude will change, but you are a dying breed THANK GOD!
        The most insane thing about your lament is that CV thrives on hate, and you pretend that you are offended by the hate of others. But the real evil is that you have some connection in spreading your disease of hate into a church. VADE RETRO SATANA.

    3. mominvermont says:

      Yes, the Catholic Church urges us to treat people with same sex attraction with dignity and respect. When the Church upholds marriage as a special union between one man and one woman, this honors people of both genders. We can love our gay friends and relatives AND still support gender integration in marriage.

      1. pammie says:

        It’s not respectful to ban them from having the same right as you do.

      2. No Holy Card for mominvermont says:

        Hey mominvermont – you are not talking about love in the least bit.
        Maybe you should learn what love is, what it really is, before you try hiding your hatred and prejudice in the Church.
        That is shameful!

      3. abadilla says:

        Mominvermont, What I find extremely weird is that these very trolls who attack traditional marriage, came out of a traditional marriage. They must hate their parents’ marriages very much. Talk about irony!

        1. Abadilla the bully says:

          That is the dumbest and most cruel comment yet.
          Please do not come into these blogs just to try and be a mean bully

          1. abadilla says:

            Again, “perceptions” are reality to you. Facts are not “cruel.” Neither you not others here, who despise traditional marriage, seem to understand that when you attack marriage, you attack the very marriage that made your coming into the world and your growth as a teenager possible. You attack the very institution that gave you life. Now, if that makes sense to you so be it. As for commenting on these blog, I will continue to do so because a) I am not a troll, 2) I am a member of CV and don’t need your permission to comment.

          2. St Abadilla of CV says:

            No facts are not cruel. But you use cruelty and not facts.
            Your defensiveness of the irrelevant is interesting. Perhaps if bothered enough, your conscience may actually awaken.
            Nice try to try and bait by insulting the “traditional marriage” that I came from. It is a good thing that God watches over all of us, and not a political hack such as your self. We would all be heading towards the gas chambers if you were in charge.
            Enjoy your membership in CV. I enjoy being a member of the Catholic Church of which CV has no official recognition nor authority. Even the Bishops are not that dumb.

          3. abadilla says:

            Don’t be absurd, where on earth is the “cruelty?” You get upset because I say and will continue to say that it is inconsistent for a person who came out of a marriage to attack marriage, just like it is inconsistent for anyone to defend abortion when his or her own mother once made the decision to give him or her life. There is no cruelty in pointing out the inconsistency of an argument.
            As for membership, I do enjoy my membership in the Mystical Body of Christ and my membership at CV, but at least I’m not inconsistent like you coming into a website you deeply disagree with.

    4. Joe M says:

      Paramor. Farmers get subsidies that nobody else does. According to your logic, our laws mean that society thinks everyone is inferior to farmers.

      1. pammie says:

        Do farmers that have penises get better farm subsidies than farmers with vaginas? Because, that’s a more accurate comparison.

      2. pammie says:

        Is there a law that states that gay people can’t become farmers? That would be a more accurate comparison.

        1. This Catholic says:


      3. GIVE IT A REST JOE says:


    5. abadilla says:

      I guess if you twist the meaning of what Pia wrote, and indeed you have done just that, that would be your understanding of that article. Why don’t you just accept that those who are pushing for gay marriage and those who denfend the traditional marriage between a man and a woman, simply have two very different positions on the subject of marriage.

      1. Abadilla finally Logical says:

        The most logical comment yet: two very different positions.
        But I think you were the only one who needed to know that.
        Most already do.

        1. abadilla says:

          “Most already do.”
          Then, why not leave it at that instead of attacking people personally for holding such positions?

          1. Catholics for truth says:

            Because holding a position – which in itself is fine – by use of hate and misinformation is wrong. This is a basic understanding of anything Catholic. I am surprised you do not understand that, being such a faithful Catholic and all.

          2. abadilla says:

            What is hateful and what is misinforming about what Pia wrote and what the Catholic Church teaches? Can Pia back her argument with Church teaching if she wishes to do so. I bet she can, but why should she do that when like me, she is accused of “hatred.?” What would be the point?

    6. abbaschild says:

      Boy, talk about having an agenda! Pia said NOTHING about gay couples being inferior to straight couples, nor did she say ANYTHING about how they should be treated differently by our civil laws & being disadvantaged. In fact, she stated the same civil laws apply to both couples, gay & straight, with the ONLY exception being the term ‘marriage’ which cannot be applied to gay couples. Truth is truth, whether you agree with it, or like it!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>



Receive our updates via email.