How do you get 300,000 people to read your pro-marriage defense?


a) Be a sucessor of the apostles (as Bishop Thomas Paprocki is) and have something profound and urgent to say about a question in the public eye.

b) Collaborate with lay Catholics who use social media to promote good messages (like CatholicVote).

c) Since I posted Bishop Paprocki’s letter in defense of marriage and religious liberty, it has been read online over 300,000 times.

The fight to protect marriage, of course, does not end with simply proclaiming the truth. Bishop Paprocki is calling upon faithful Catholics to join him in Springfield, IL on February 20th for a Preserve Marriage Lobby Day at the capitol to oppose gay marriage and call out the hollow religious liberty protections being offered by the Democrats in the current bill.

If you live in Illinois, please take action to contact your representatives, and if you live near Springfield please show up and support marriage and religious freedom.

When lay catholics join in the mission of our bishops to protect the faith and stand up for the civil rights of all catholics and people of good will, we can and do win.

Or, to make this point visually…

This is his job:

This is our job:



35 thoughts on “How do you get 300,000 people to read your pro-marriage defense?

  1. Frantastic1 says:

    I guess it would be OK if we discriminated against catholic behaviors then? Can we charge an extra tax on fish if you purchase it on a Friday during lent? Can we ban anyone that drinks the blood of Christ from getting a drivers license? Can we make a law to stop women from buying birth control pills if they put ashes on their forehead?

    Your distinction is just a thinly veiled excuse for allowing prejudice to continue against gay people.

    1. NormChouinard says:

      Not prejudiced against people. Defininitely prejudiced against immoral behavior.

      1. Frantastic1 says:

        Some people aren’t prejudiced against Catholics. They are just prejudiced against people that pray the rosary. See how that’s the same thing?

        1. NormChouinard says:

          Sorry, I don’t. If someone has a view that the behavoir of praying the rosary is bad, I welcome that discussion.

  2. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

    J.M.J. Thank you, Rose. That book looks awesome.

  3. David Hart says:

    Actually, you don’t understand SCRIBD statistics. But I digress. It is the bishop who redefines marriage. The purpose of marriage is to create a marital estate and then to raise children (if there are any). The notion that the purpose of marriage is procreation is intellectual dishonesty to advance marriage discrimination arguments. The exercise is as transparent as it is sophomoric.

    The bishop is irrelevant to the issue which the Illinois Senate will conclude on the 14th. The Church has every right not to recognize same-sex marriages. Meddling in civil law is another matter. Other religions welcome same-sex couples. Their adherents have the same rights as Catholics.

    1. abadilla says:

      “The notion that the purpose of marriage is procreation is intellectual dishonesty to advance marriage discrimination arguments. The exercise is as transparent as it is sophomoric.”
      The notion that the purpose of marriage is procreation is NOT intellectual dishonest unless you are prepared to say that the Church and the Scriptures have always misunderstood procreation as one of the ends of marriage, the first being love.
      One thing is for you to come into a Catholic forum to defend what you think marriage is from a civil perspective, another is to come in here to lecture Catholics on the absurdity of what we have believed about marriage for the last 2000 years, based on Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium’s teaching.
      Basically your stand is, “The Church’s teaching on marriage is absurd and I don’t believe in it.” Well, if you are a non-Catholic your ignorance is forgiven. If you are a Catholic, well, you should know better than to make such erroneous remarks about what we Catholics believe.

      1. Frantastic1 says:

        I’m infertile. Thanks for belittling my marriage.

        1. Joshua Werth says:

          Thats by accident, not by design. Big difference. I pray that you will be healed.

          1. Frantastic1 says:

            God designed me to be infertile, I’m quite sure. I’m glad that there wasn’t a law banning me from marrying my husband because we can’t conceive. If you guys knew how offensive your comments were to people that aren’t gay, I think you might re-think your approach. It was this comment in particular that made me a marriage equality supporter.

          2. abadilla says:

            There is nothing offensive about lacking something common to most people. One simply has to be understanding of whatever the problem is and move on with life instead of trying to make everyone feel guilty for one’s problem. If infertility is the problem, there is always adoption. I was adopted and loved no less than if I had been a biological son. On the other hand, the Church has never condemned you or anyone else because of infertility issues.

        2. abadilla says:

          If you know the position of the Catholic Church on marriage, you also know that the Church does not, in any way, “belittle” people who are infertile. Those Catholics CANNOT have children but they have love for one another. It isn’t that they are REJECTING children.
          Why do you “personalized” my words?

          1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. You are right, Abadilla. I hope that Frantastic1 had adequate Marriage Preparation. I’m surprised that she wouldn’t know that infertility isn’t sinful if it wasn’t brought about intentionally.

          2. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, and that’s is precisely what is so insulting about posters like this one, that they act as if they know the faith, even, when in fact, they are ignorant of the faith, period.
            I teach in a high school where sports are very important. I know nothing about sports with the possible exception of soccer. I would not dream of giving my opinion on sports in general given my ignorance on the subject, but not here in this forum where people come in and freely share their ignorance of Roman Catholicism and then have the audacity to get angry when we correct their misguided understanding of the faith.

      2. Jerry Marko says:

        so it’s a sin for a heterosexual, fertile couple who do not want to have children to get married. Correct?

        1. abadilla says:

          Incorrect! A heterosexual couple who happens to be Catholic and buys into the Christian vision of marriage, can, with no pending impediments, get married in the Church and have children to make sure that union is fruitful. If a Catholic couple is infertile and decides to get married in the Church, indeed they can because they are not rejecting children, they just can’t have them.
          There is a third option, a Catholic couple decides to get married civilly. The Church would prefer that they get married sacramentally, but if they don’t, the Church does not label a civil marriage a sinful union.
          Now, is this explanation satisfactory to you?
          If you are NOT a Catholic, I understand your desire to know the Church’s position on this issue. If you are a Catholic and do not know this by now, I suggest catechesis is in order in order for you to understand the faith you profess, better.

  4. Karl Komara says:

    Marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It must be upheld that way, respected and protected. I stand against gay sexual activity and for marriage between one man and one woman.

    1. Paulspr says:

      Exactly. You don’t like the fact that gay people are allowed to live their lives based on their beliefs and you want to make it illegal. That’s discriminatory. It goes against basic freedom and liberty that are core values of our nation. This is what it’s really about people. Making it illegal for gay people to be gay and disrespectfully eliminating their rights.

    2. John Resch says:

      And guess what? You really have no say in this since marriage is first and foremost a civil contract, all God, religion and church is optional.

    3. Tara Saulnier says:

      I stand against people who believe they are God and can force their will on others!

  5. Veritas says:

    Bishop Paprocki is awesome! He Confirmed my daughter a few years ago. :)

    1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

      J.M.J. Thank you, Veritas. Bishop Paprocki is a bright light in the darkness that encumbers our world. He is a superb canonist–as is Dr. Ed Peters.

    2. Frantastic1 says:

      I wish he would show how great he is by doing what is right. We need more people on the church that are willing to protect gay families. Vatican representatice Vincenzo Paglia spoke about the need to protect gay families. All I see from this website and this statement is a desire to discriminate against them and not a single mention of what we can and should do to protect them.

      1. The Church will never protect someone’s desire to commit a mortal sin. Living the gay lifestyle is a mortal sin. So sorry, but it’s not going to happen the way you want it to happen. The Church loves everyone but not their sins, just as Jesus loves everyone but He does not love their sins. Jesus does not want anyone to stay in their sins.

        1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. Thank you, Sandra. You stated it very well: Jesus profoundly loves us, and He calls us from death to life, sin to virtue, darkness to light. Homosexual acts are always and everywhere immoral. So are acts of heterosexual impurity, abortion, contraception, stealing, blasphemy, etc. Let these coming forty days of Lent be the beginning of our deeper conversion–once and for all!

        2. Patrick says:

          What the heck is “living the gay lifestyle?” And is it sinful for the gay couple next door to me to send their daughter off to school everyday with a full belly and a warm coat? Or is everything they do sinful because of what they do in bed at night?

  6. Paulspr says:

    Just because someone reads it, does not mean that someone agrees with it. I read it. I found that it contained numerous outright lies and was a dishonest representation of the issue.

    Gay couples deserve the same freedom and liberty that straight couples receive under our country’s civil marriage laws. Anything less is simply un-American. How long is our Chruch going to continue to fight against the civil rights of hardworking gay Americans?

    1. Veritas says:

      You disagree because it is not of your own opinion. Well your opinion is erroneous indeed. What the Bishop said is all TRUTH and if your opinion does not match that of the TRUTH then your opinion is wrong. Marriage should not be redefined from what God made it to be. It is just not possible.

      The Church is going to continue to fight against gay sexual activity until the end of time. God is against gay sexual activity so of course HIS Church will also be against it. And since it is against gay sexual activity, it will of course be against gays getting together as couples in a union that is just not natural and against everything God has made.

      1. John Resch says:

        …….Marriage should not be redefined from what God made it to be. It is just not possible……..

        Huh? Of course it’s possible. It already IS a fact in 9 states with more to come.
        We are not redefining marriage, we are ensuring that everyone has the right to marriage according to our laws. Key words here. OUR LAWS. Not the churches laws. But mans laws. And if you think that’s redefining the word marriage. So what. Then we redefine it. So what. It’s not going to change your marriage so it’s really not a concern of yours.

      2. Tara Saulnier says:

        well if the church wants to get into politics then I’d appreciate the Church start paying it’s taxes since it’s a little behind. Give Caesar what he is due and all that.

    2. Sean Ahern says:

      Paul, I find it interesting that you say “our Church”. Our Church places a singular value on marriage between man and woman and talks about the conjugal union being an earthly reflection of Christ’s love for his Church. This simply disappears with the idea of a homosexual couple. Not only is it sinful based upon the Word, but it is completely opposed to the idea of a marital conjugal union.

      But I expect that none of those arguments are foreign to you. Given that you talk about “our Church,” how do you rectify your redefinition of marriage in the teachings of the Church, especially those about the meaning of marriage? In your answer, please note that we’re talking Catholic theology here, not civil law.

      1. Paulspr says:

        Promoting marriage based on our Church’s beliefs doesn’t require us to make it illegal for others to have a marriage based on their beliefs. It’s as if Tide laundry detergent had to “promote” their product by making it illegal for other people to call their detergents “laundry detergent”. Do you see how ridiculous that is? It’s exactly what you are saying.

        These arguments might have worked in the past as 30 second sound bites in a highly charged political campaign, but they fall flat on any rational review. More and more Americans see that everyday.

    3. CoastRanger says:

      You again? The guy who asserts with no facts or examples? What is one “outright” lie Bishop Paprocki made? You can’t say because he didn’t make any.

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.