“If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married!”

… at least, that’s how simple so many advocates of gay “marriage” make it seem. Have you heard that line before? It’s been practically a tagline for some of the commenters around here.

But it isn’t that simple. Marriage is a fundamental institution to society. The recognition and celebration of a marriage has ramifications for the individuals’ families, any children, employers, the businesses involved, and beyond.

Like cake makers who retain a conscientious opposition to the practice.

GRESHAM, Ore. (AP) — The state attorney general’s office is investigating a consumer complaint filed against a Gresham bakery that declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.

The Oregonian and KATU report that Laurel Bowman wrote the complaint against Sweet Cakes By Melissa after she and her fiancée went to the bakery Jan. 17.

In her complaint, Bowman said the owner refused to make the cake when he learned it was for a same-sex wedding and called the couple “abominations unto the lord.”

Bakery owner Aaron Klein told The Oregonian he sells cakes to customers of all sexual orientations, but same-sex marriage goes against his Christian faith.

He denies calling the couple “abominations.”

The attorney general’s office is waiting for Sweet Cakes’ official account before deciding whether to take action.

The “abominations” comment most likely was Klein saying gay “marriage” is an abomination unto the Lord, and not the ones who pursue it, but that distinction between the action and the person who partakes in the action is frequently lost on the willfully aggrieved.

“If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married.”

The couple could have observed this axiom, left alone the cake maker whose is conscientiously opposed to gay marriage, and taken their business elsewhere. They did not do that. Instead they decided to report the actions of the cake maker simply for disagreeing with their view of marriage.

Truth is, “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married,” is not the guiding principle of the gay marriage movement. That guiding principle is to force everyone to accept gay “marriages” as exactly the same thing as actual marriages in every way.

And frankly, once marriage, sex, and procreation are untethered from one another, they have a point. Tough to insist on marriage-before-sex-which-must-be-open-to-children when the underlying anthropology and theology that explain why are ignored and so many who oppose same-sex “marriage” have no problem with contracepted sex within marriage.

But be that as it may, that does not mean anyone deserves to be discriminated against; nor does it mean marriage can or should be redefined by governmental fiat.

These are not contradictory statements.

Just today a prelate at the Vatican called for greater protection of homosexual persons, noting in particular those who identify as a couple. As Deacon Greg Kandra notes:

Archbishop PagliaA high-ranking Vatican official on Monday (Feb. 4) voiced support for giving unmarried couples some kind of legal protection even as he reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s opposition to same-sex marriage.

Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal.

In his first Vatican press conference since his appointment as the Catholic Church’s “minister” for family, Paglia conceded that there are several kinds of “cohabitation forms that do not constitute a family,” and that their number is growing.

Paglia suggested that nations could find “private law solutions” to help individuals who live in non-matrimonial relations, “to prevent injustice and make their life easier.”

Nevertheless, Paglia was adamant in reaffirming society’s duty to preserve the unique value of marriage.

“The church must defend the truth, and the truth is that a marriage is only between a man and a woman,” he said. Other kinds of “affections” cannot be the foundation for a “public structure” such as marriage.

“We cannot surrender to a sick egalitarianism that abolishes every difference,” he warned, and run the risk of society becoming a new “Babel.”

All emphases mine.

All protections due to all persons, plus some method of recognizing in contract law a relationship or agreement between two persons regardless of gender.

But we do no one any favors by calling up, “down;” black, “white;” or same-sex couples, “married,” with all rights and expectations appertaining thereto.

The reason? One major reason is the rights children have vis-a-vis their parents.

The family unit, that fundamental unit of society, is, in its essentials, a mother, a father, and the children they produce in their committed, loving relationship. Circumstances beyond our control can alter families in various ways—infertility, illness, death—but intentionally messing with the essentials of the family unit to satisfy the wants of a few people tears away at the fabric of society.

They say, “if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married,” but it really isn’t that simple.



112 thoughts on ““If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get gay married!”

  1. Grisha357 says:

    Hi Tom ~ Rep. Nadler just re introduced the Uniting American Families Act. It would be a real confidence building measure if the USCCB were to endorse it. – Pax tecum, Greg

    1. FatherTim says:

      I would hope that all God’s faithful would support it.

      1. DivineWordRadio says:

        I would hope that we could have all priests teach Catholic teaching, instead of their own. God bless your soul.

        1. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

          J.M.J. Agreed, Divine Word Radio.

    2. Frantastic1 says:

      I can’t follow this thread with all these deleted comments.

  2. David Hart says:

    By the way, that baker is a PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION. If I open a restaurant or a store I have to serve skinheads. If I don’t like that, I should choose a different line of work. People in the South used to say “God did not intend for the races to mix” when they denied service to black people.

    1. Joe M says:

      Your statement is false. If a person comes in and asks for a skinhead cake, the baker is perfectly within their rights to refuse to do so.

      1. Paulspr says:

        No, you can not refuse to serve a skinhead, just like I could not open a bakery and refuse to serve Catholics. I can’t refuse to bake a first communion cake if I bake bar mitzvah cakes.

        1. Patrick says:

          anti -gay marriage types like JoeM open their mouths and betray the truth that they don’t even understand our CURRENT laws. And then they have the temerity to spout off about them.

          1. DivineWordRadio says:

            I am opposed to so-called gay “marriage “, I do understand the current laws, and I understand calling good evil, and evil good. Abortion is legal in this country too. Should the cake baker have to make “Happy Abortion” cakes with dead babies on it as a public accommodation?

          2. Patrick says:

            You’re contradicting yourself: your last sentence indicates that you do not, in fact, understand our current public accommodation laws.

          3. DivineWordRadio says:

            Not at all. It is referred to as the Socratic method of education. It is used frequently in law schools.

        2. Joe M says:

          Serving a skinhead is not the same thing as making a skinhead cake. As a business, you are within your rights to define what services you are willing to provide.

  3. David Hart says:

    Blah, blah, blah. It really IS that simple. Spain is still attached to the Iberian peninsula and Massachusetts still has the lowest divorce rate in the country. Iowa’s corn still grows while a Maryland team won the Superbowl. Meanwhile, NOBODY can say that their marriage has been affected in any way due to marriage equality. France, the UK and the United States are all going to be be equal marriage countries. It is inevitable and unstoppable. Get over it and obsess over more important things like education and the tens of thousands of children who go to bed hungry each night.

    1. Joe M says:

      I find it ironic that you bring up education in your rant about how things haven’t changed for the worse.

    2. abadilla says:

      Well you see David, we don’t take the words of the Holy See as blah, blah, blah, and your lack of respect for Catholicism is showing!

  4. Paulspr says:

    Hey Tom. You left out some important facts. If you navigate over to the bakery’s website you will see the following: “are you looking for a wedding came of for ANY OCCASION?”, “we do cakes for ALL OCCASIONS”, “Cake is what makes the day special, WHATEVER YOU ARE CELEBRATING”.

    It seems that the bakery advertised that they would bake a cake for a gay civil union.

    PS: gay people are banned from marriage in Oregon. So this has NOTHING to do with gay marriage, clearly.

    1. Joe M says:

      How does this change the point that gay marriage laws do affect people that define marriage differently?

      1. Paulspr says:

        You understand that gay people are banned from getting married in the state where this bakery operates. Right?

        Banning gay people from marriage didn’t allow this company to continue to discriminate against them.

        1. Joe M says:

          How does this change the point that gay marriage laws do affect people that define marriage differently?

        2. Frantastic1 says:

          Lol. You are fighting irrational prejudice and bigotry with logic and fact paul!

          1. abadilla says:

            If you think Paul is “rational” and has no “bigotry,” especially against the Roman Catholic Church, you are living in fantasy land.

      2. John Resch says:

        Can you even give one, just one example on how gay marriage laws will effect you in any way. You can’t? I didn’t think so. Your just making this up,

        1. Joe M says:

          Your argument is very common and has been answered multiple times on this site. Here is one example:

          If a Christian opens a bakery and does not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding due to their religious beliefs, they will be vulnerable to being sued.

          1. Patrick says:

            But JoeM you are raising a point that our country has dealt with already. In your home, you may discriminate against who may enter and sit at your table. In your private club, you may also so discriminate. And when you go out into the public, you may discriminate and choose the bake shop you like based on almost anything. But if you open a public accommodation, there are certain ways in which you may not discrminate against your fellow citizens. None of this is new. And it doesn’t HAVE to affect you. If you open a public accomodation, you’re agreeing to not disccriminate and you should EXPECT the laws to change occasionally and expand the groups of people against whom you may not discriminate. If you don’t like it, then you’re in the wong country. In this country, if don’t want to serve dinner to a jew you dont have to – unless you open a restaurant, of course.

          2. Joe M says:

            Again, you’re falling back on this idea that you get to determine for other people what changes they have to agree with. Disagree and make your case for what you want. But, “in this country”, we are each free to do that for ourselves.

            I have not contested that there are requirements for providing public services to people. That is not the same issue as enforcing by law a definition of marriage that people must observe in order to do public business. Under one definition a person can continue their career as a wedding cake baker consistent with their Christian beliefs. Under another definition they can’t. Thus, they are affected by the law.

            My point clearly stands that John Resch is wrong to claim that gay marriage laws don’t affect people that hold a different definition of marriage. Go ahead and make a case for changing marriage laws. But, have the decency and intellectual honesty to reject arguments that are untrue, even if they are “on your side.”

          3. Patrick says:

            I’m not talking to John Resch. I’m talking to you. You are holding on to your amorphous and meaningless concepts of “I don’t agree with” and “I shouldn’t have to accept.” What can you even mean by that? I have to “accept” the fact that some pop singer once had a valid 3 hour marriage in Vegas to a stranger, but I do. It’s true. It’s a fact. A valid marriage with all the benefits and obligations of my own marriage!! I’m forced to accept that that’s how our marriage laws work. But that doesnt bother you, does it? No, your panties only get in a bunch when 2 old Vermont lesbians get hitched after spending 40 years together caring for each other.

          4. Joe M says:

            You responded to my reply to John Resch. So, maybe it is you that needs to take note of who is talking to who.

            The concept that I am applying to your arguments is logical scrutiny. Maybe you think that logic is amorphous and meaningless. But, I think that most people would agree that the arguments that justify laws should stand up to logical scrutiny.

            Your false characterization of what bothers me only illustrates that you wish to avoid the actual arguments made by traditional marriage advocates.

          5. Patrick says:

            Your last post is merely a complaint. Doesn’t add to the argument. Don’t complain here. Complain to your wife. And the very fact that you use words like “what bothers me” indicates why our courts and our legislators should ignore you. It BOTHERS you? How insulting. And yet, it’s consistent with the import of your argument: it bothers you that gay people want to marry each other. It bothers you that some people want to include committed gay couples under the umbrella of protections that marriage affords. It bothers you that you will have to live in a world like that. And you want the fact that it “bothers you” to have a meaningful impact on our laws. How insulting.

          6. Joe M says:

            What do you think your comment was? I don’t see an argument in there. It’s also a complaint. Look in the mirror before telling other people what to do.

            I used the words “what bothers me” in reference to YOUR statement about me! Not only that, I clearly indicated that your explanation of what bothers me is false.

            It looks to me like you are frustrated by the actual arguments that I have made. So, instead want to knock down straw-men arguments that have nothing to do with me or anything that I have written.

          7. Patrick says:

            J, M and Holy Saint J, you are too bloody much. Are you 12? The argument in my last post is that what “bothers” you as a citizen doesn’t matter all that much when it comes to deciding what’s fair and legal. Sheesh.

          8. Joe M says:

            Oh? And “most people would agree that the arguments that justify laws should stand up to logical scrutiny” is not an argument?

            Remember, you were the one who made up the “bother” argument. So, you’re arguing with yourself now?

          9. Patrick says:

            I think you realy might be 12 years old. read your own posts. they are filled with this sentiment: “The religious freedom problem of changing the definition of marriage is that it forces religious people to accept a definition that is against their beliefs. Divorce laws do not force anyone to accept a definition.”
            All you are saying is that it bothers you. that’s it. Sure, i first used the word “bother” to accurately boil down your ONE argument: it bothers you. What else could it possibly mean that you don’t want to “accept” gay marriage. . Go back and read your bloody posts. that’s all you’re really saying. You’re just miffed because I’ve correctly identified your only argument. “It bothers me. It bothers me.” You are a child in a man’s world.

          10. Joe M says:

            Being forced to accept something is more than being bothered. I’m not “miffed” because I don’t think that your characterization is accurate at all. It’s an attempt to avoid confronting the actual arguments that have been made.

            I’m the opposite of “miffed”. I think that this exchange has been very fruitful at demonstrating that logic is not on your side of this debate.

  5. Paulspr says:

    And banning gay couples from thousands of legal rights, protections, and benefits for their families is a rational way to avoid baking them a cake? All you are saying is that your right to refuse to serve a gay couple baked goods is more important than their right to be treated equally under the law. Your religious freedom to discriminate against them is more important than their right to lead their lives based on their beliefs.

    Jesus fed and clothed those that were less fortunate. You want to refuse to bake them a cake. I think you need to reevaluate what it means to be a “Christ”ian.

    1. Southern Catholic says:

      Your rhetoric is getting old. Yes, Jesus helped the less fortunate, but he helped those that were seeking Him and His mercy. He taught “Go, and sin no more,” not “Go and do whatever pleasures you because you will be forgiven anyways.”

      1. abadilla says:

        “Your rhetoric is getting old.”
        Oh yes, it is getting very, very old!

      2. Paulspr says:

        Weird. All I see is a company refusing to sell a cake to a gay person. I don’t see any Christian act of kindness.

        1. DivineWordRadio says:

          There certainly was no Christian act of kindness in attempting to force him to make the cake either.

          1. Frantastic1 says:

            No one forced him to make a cake. He was offering services in exchange for cash. When the gay person came in, he flipped the sign to say closed for people like you. There is nothing Christian about that disgraceful action.

          2. DivineWordRadio says:

            Actually there is. It is pointing out to someone that their actions are sinful. That can be both loving and quite Christian. The baker should not have to make a cake celebrating your latest abortion either, just as a physician is not obligated to perform one.

          3. John Resch says:

            See this is where your problem is. Just because you think it’s sinful and the baker thinks its sinful does not mean it is sinful. If you think its sinful, so what. Just because you think its sinful does not give you the right to govern other peoples lives. It boils down to that you want others to live by your set of rules. So what if its sinful.

          4. DivineWordRadio says:

            It does matter whether the activity is viewed as sinful by the Catholic Church. Religious freedom under the first amendment to the US Constitution protects freedom of religious expression. Since religious freedom applies to the states as it does to the federal government, states cannot place restrictions that unreasonably limit religious freedom. A customer under public accommodation laws does not have the right to make a Jewish deli serve ham.

          5. John Resch says:

            You have the right to expression. You do not have the right to make your expressions into law.

            No you cannot make a Jewish deli serve ham because they are protected by law. But this is not about ham. This is about serving people and a Jewish deli cannot refuse to serve a non Jewish customer. See the difference. We are people, not a piece of ham. If this baker does not want to hang around gay people, fine. But he cannot refuse to serve them in most states based on the public accommodation laws. Besides the law. It’s not the right thing to do.

      3. Frantastic1 says:

        Your anti-gay bigotry is getting old.

        1. DivineWordRadio says:

          Your anti-Christian bigotry is getting old.

    2. Joe M says:

      A traditional definition of marriage is no more a ban from benefits for gay couples than farming subsidies are a ban of benefits from non-farmers.

      1. Paulspr says:

        That’s stupid. Gay people make the same commitments and contribute the same to society as straight people. It’s as if you have a farm subsidy to any farm with an address with an even number and refused to give the subsidy to the farms with an odd numbered address. First, it makes no sense. Second, it creates a disadvantage for those people that live on farms with an odd numbered address.

        Keep spinning buddy. This is funny.

        1. Joe M says:

          Many non-farmers contribute to society like farmers do and do not receive subsidies for their contribution.

          My point stands.

          1. Frantastic1 says:

            Non farmers don’t own farms. Gay couples have marriages, refusing to admit that doesn’t protect anyone except prejudice and bigotry.

          2. Joe M says:

            You’re admitting a point that I have been making on this site for some time. Gay couples already are free to have a ceremony, wear rings, call each other married, live together, etc., etc.

            Changing the definition of marriage is not about the ability to marry, protection or legal benefits. It’s about the ability to punish people who don’t accept their relationships as marriages.

          3. Paulspr says:

            Yeah, but once a gay couple has a ceremony, the government ignores it, treats them as strangers, deports their spouse if they are from another country, makes them file additional tax forms, charges them extra taxes, refuses them social security benefits for their spouse and children…

            There is nothing about this that is the “equal treatment of our laws” that the constitution requires, and frankly it is just completely inhumane that we allow it to continue.

            Why are you so intent on having our government stigmatize and discriminate against gay couples in such a manner?

          4. DivineWordRadio says:

            The government can only take one of three option: it can permit something, it can promote it, or it can outlaw it. Marriage was promoted for the societal benefit, not individual benefit.

          5. John Resch says:

            ……Marriage was promoted for the societal benefit, not individual benefit….,

            Wrong, so very wrong.

          6. DivineWordRadio says:

            You have the right to be wrong.

          7. John Resch says:

            LOL. History shows and will show again that you are wrong.

          8. Joe M says:

            I’ve already pointed out that this argument does not stand up to basic scrutiny. Our laws are full of discriminations that treat different actions in different ways.

            According to your logic, straight people who choose not to be married are also being discriminated against and treated inhumanely.

          9. John Resch says:

            No one is punishing you for not accepting their relationships as marriage.
            Stop with the “I am being persecuted” crap.
            No one is saying you have to accept it. What we are saying is that it’s none of your business and that marriage is a civil contract. Nothing more, nothing less. It’s also not changing the definition of marriage, it’s adding to it. So we add to it, so what. Your marriage and your life will not be effected.

          10. Joe M says:

            If marriage is defined by the state as including gay marriage, can I open an adoption agency that does not adopt children to gay couples?

          11. John Resch says:

            No. That would be discrimination. Gay singles already adopt in most states and gay parents are just as good as straight parents and you know this you just don’t like it.

          12. Joe M says:

            Then do you want to walk back your claim that gay marriage does not affect me since we have just gone over one way that it does?

          13. John Resch says:

            No, adoption by a gay person or a gay married couple does not effect you. Nice try.

          14. Joe M says:

            If I want to run an adoption agency according to my religious beliefs, I can be sued for not adopting children to gay couples.

            Do you want to walk back your false claim that gay marriage laws do not affect me?

          15. John Resch says:

            ……If I want to run an adoption agency according to my religious beliefs, I can be sued for not adopting children to gay couples……

            GOOD, as you should be sued. Until you learn to accept us gays and accept the fact that we are also part of Gods creation (not just the out of touch with reality Catholics) you should have your pants sued off.

            We are gay, we were born gay, we don’t care if you think it’s a sin. We are human beings and we live and breath, cry and laugh, love and die. and go to the toilet the same way you do. DEAL WITH IT.

            If you can’t deal with it, go crawl back to the miserable cave you live in.

            You and many of you Catholics are so un Christ like.
            I hope you can sleep at night.

          16. Joe M says:

            So, now the truth comes out. The gay marriage movement really IS about punishing people who do not accept their definition of marriage.

            Why did you initially deny this?

          17. abadilla says:

            Wow Joe, talk about taking a pouncing for your audacity to believe what the Catholic Church believes. It is incredibile this garbage comes from “tolerant” open-minded people!
            Would you go into the house of a gay activist and call him names? Of course not, but some folks here feel very free to come into CV and insult us right and left, but the moderators, if you have noticed, have been taking care of business.

          18. Joe M says:

            I welcome the debate. Despite years of talk, there seems to be a lot of remaining misunderstanding about it.

            There is a lot of vehemence. And not always just coming from their side. I think it’s best to try not to be distracted by that aspect and focus on the arguments.

          19. abadilla says:

            There is a lot of misunderstanding of the faith but I often wonder if it is “accidental” or “on purpose.” Take the lady that gets offended because supposedly I belittled her marriage because she is infertile. The accusation does not make sense because I carefully explained that infertile couples are not looked down upon by the Church because of their infertility because they CAN’T have children, yet this lady took affense at what I wrote. It is moments like that when I wonder if people read carefully our responses.

            Another accuses the Church on pouncing on homosexuals and forgets that the Scriptures, the moral teaching of the Church, the Magisterium are binding to us, and we know such sexual relations are simply sinful. Instead of just living their lives and accepting the fact the Church can’t change her teaching, accusations of hate, bigotry, fly all over the place.

            Vehemence? You bet it’s coming from me. I don’t mind explaining concepts. I’ve been a teacher almost thirty years, but when insults begin to fly, I can respond with vehemency too.
            Also, the idea that someone can come into a Catholic forum and be so disrespectful of the Catholic faith and of those who are faithful to her is bewildering to me. I simply would not dream of going into another forum and insult them simply because I disagree with them.

          20. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Abadilla, when Frantastic1 claimed to be a woman who is infertile and who was offended by your comment, this was the springboard for his or her increasingly unkind remarks about the Church and those people who post here.

          21. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, and I had been utterly clear about the position of the Church on infertile couples. It’s as if “she” never read what I actually wrote and suddenly she took offense. I was bewildered by her comments but now more and more I’m wondering if Frantastic1 is actually Paul or Marvin in disguise to continue their campaign of falsehoods and lies against the Church.

          22. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Abadilla, thank you. I must admit that while I disagreed very much with Marvin, especially in relation to his repeated claim that a baby in the womb does not have human life and, therefore, does not possess human rights, I found him to be generally respectful.


          23. abadilla says:

            I agree. Marvin could be irritating to me but at least he was respectful in his dealing with me and others. I don’t think he ever hurled insults although his position on abortion would just drive me crazy

            Last week I was teaching my students that the Church is like her Master, “a sign of contradiction” and I found this article I thought you might want to read,

            Reading some folks here makes me realize how much a sign of contradiction we really are.

          24. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Thank you, Abadilla. I appreciated the link to an excellent post. Msgr. Charles Pope and I are classmates.

          25. abadilla says:

            Hi. Monsignor, I hope you also read the comments because they are a reflection of the confusion in our Church.

            I do love to read Monsignor Pope’s comments and find them really informative. I asked my students to read the article I just sent to you to back up my assertion that the Church is indeed a sign of contradiction, something we witness in this forum almost daily.

            I’m glad you were classmates. That tells me a lot about your orthodoxy.

          26. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Thank you, Abadilla. Yes, the comments are often a “glimpse.” It is great that you are providing such leadership to your students.

          27. abadilla says:

            Hi. Monsignor.
            Well, the “glimpses” get to me yet, they are the very proof that we are a sign of contradiction. It also shows me that many “Catholics” uncritically embrace Western culture rather than the teaching of the “sign of contradition,” the Church.
            My students are young teenagers and I do a great deal of story telling to make the class interesting but I try to provide for them a Catholic education so needed in these days of confusion and the dictatorship of relativism.

          28. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Thank you sincerely, Abadilla.

          29. abadilla says:

            You are quite welcome Monsignor, and I’m wondering how you have reacted to the news of our Pope resigning from the papal office. I for one, I’m stunned!

          30. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Thank you, Abadilla. I am surprised, too, yet I guess that we knew this was possible. We will deeply miss this holy man. I wonder if the Moderators here will move in on Tranxtian, who has been very disrespectful towards the Holy Father throughout the day.

          31. abadilla says:

            Monsignor, Tranxtian like Paul and others do not fool anybody. They despise this Pope as they do the previous 264 Supreme Pontiffs of the Catholic Church because they are the guardians of the Catholic faith, a Catholic faith they rejected long ago or never accepted. Folks like Tranxtian would feel more at home with the flaming liberals who populate the Episcopal church today, where one finds very little of Christian tradition left.
            As for the moderators noticing Tranxtian, it’s only a matter of time before they get fed up of his insolence as you and I are.

          32. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Yes, Abadilla, the errors of Tranxtian and his ilk will never stand. I hope that the Moderators will seek to curtail the damage that they have done here.

            I don’t understand the anger of and the insistence displayed by “Roman Papabile” on “First Reactions to Pope Benedict’s Resignation (Update)” that the Holy Father is making a mistake. By claiming that the Holy Father is making a serious mistake, doesn’t this person realize that he only emboldens the enemies of the Church, some of whom post here, who are unable to make the distinction between sinful decisions and those of prudence? I think that Roman Papabile is the one making a big mistake by injecting his opinion in a forum ill-equipped to handle such delicate distinctions. The Holy Father has made his decision. Don’t judge it but honor it. He has every right to do as he did. “Roman Papabile” is, in his own words, infuriated. I, for my part, am sad. Yet, I completely accept and honor this decision of His Holiness. Vivia il Papa!

          33. Roman Papabile says:

            I don’t argue his right to do this, never have. I’ve argued it’s a prudential error, as in wrong.

            The ironic thing Msgr. …. is we actually know eachother… at least we did 20 years ago. I have no intention of helping the Church’s enemies. In afct, I know more than a couple of the bloggers personally.

            Maybe you saw my sarcasm in my first post, but I certainly meant what I said. I don’t think that he should have done this.

            You are right that some cannot make the distinction between sinful and prudential decisions. That argues for active editing of comments. But I think it’s an actual risk that’s taken when we start talking about any of this in the public fora.

            Miser, theologia, non amplius discussa latinam solus.

          34. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Yes, Abadilla, the errors of Tranxtian and his ilk will never stand. I hope that the Moderators will seek to curtail the damage that they have done here.

            I don’t understand the insistence of the person who posted on “First Reactions to Pope Benedict’s Resignation (Update)” that the Holy Father is making a mistake. By claiming that the Holy Father is making a serious mistake, doesn’t this person realize that he only emboldens the enemies of the Church, some of whom post here, who are unable to make the distinction between sinful decisions and those of prudence? I think that it is a big mistake to inject one’s opinion in a forum ill-equipped to handle such delicate distinctions. The Holy Father has made his decision. Don’t judge it; honor it. He has every right to do as he did.

            Though I have sadness, I completely accept and honor this decision of His Holiness. Viva il Papa!

            (I sent this to you this morning but it doesn’t seem to have gone through.)

          35. abadilla says:

            Yes, I’m trying to figure out what he is so upset at the Pope’s decision. Only the Holy Father knows about his infirmities and his limitations at this point in his life and I would not dare stand on judgment of what he has done. I love the Holy Father and think he did a wonderful job in a church so fractured by dissention and outright division, and we witness their divisions here daily.

            You stated, “(I sent this to you this morning but it doesn’t seem to have gone through.)”
            Well it isn’t the first time that I write something in CV only to see it disappear in cyberspace. I don’t know why.

          36. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Yes, Abadilla, the
            errors of Tranxtian and his ilk will never stand. I hope that the
            Moderators will seek to curtail the damage that they have done here.

          37. abadilla says:

            Well, folks like Tranxtian and others will never cease to amaze me. I just don’t understand why they are so adamant at spewing their venom against the Church and everything we hold sacred. What is to prevent them from joining whatever church they will and be happy there rather than harping on Catholicism as if their diatribes will make the Catholic Church change anything.
            I also hate it when they try to pose as “concerned” Catholics when in fact they hate the Church and everything the Church stands for, and they think we are so idiotic, we buy their so-called concern.
            Sooner or later the moderators will do what they have already done to other dissenters.

          38. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Abadilla, thank you for your service to so many. I think that I won’t post during Lent. Please be assured of my Prayers.

          39. abadilla says:

            Hi. Monsignor, I will miss your comments during the Lenten season. Do continue to pray for our Holy Father and his successor. I’m apprehensive about the new conclave, but hopefull that all will go well for Holy Mother Church.

          40. Msgr. Charles M. Mangan says:

            J.M.J. Thank you, Abadilla, for your three comments. Yes, we pray fr the great Holy Father and to his Successor. “Ad multos annos” to them. And the same to you.

          41. abadilla says:

            “You and many of you Catholics are so un Christ like.
            “I hope you can sleep at night.”
            But of course you are not judgmental. And we sleep very well at night.

    3. Chris says:

      So, you may not realize that you are saying that the positive law of the state trumps the more fundamental and real rights of conscience and religion. But if that’s so, then who are you to say that the current law against homosexual “marriage” is wrong and should be changed? What authority are invoking to say that someone’s personal beliefs are greater than the law and merit changing it? It sounds as though you are just “pushing your personal beliefs on others.” One could also say you are being uncharitable and judgmental of the baker. You should be more “tolerant” and “open-minded.” Or why is your claim to charity greater than someone else’s who wants to defend the baker? As usual with the tolerance crowd, you ultimately resort to name-calling and demonization, blanket judgments and condemnations of anyone who disagrees with you. That’s very loving and non-judgmental too…

    4. DivineWordRadio says:

      They are treated equally under the law. They cannot marry their siblings or relatives within a certain level of consanguinity. They cannot marry someone who is already married. They cannot marry someone underage. And they cannot marry someone of the same gender.

  6. abadilla says:

    “Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, head of the Pontifical Council for the Family, also said the church should do more to protect gays and lesbians from discrimination in countries where homosexuality is illegal.”

    I like this statement very much. I think we as Catholics should do everything possible to make sure gay people are not treated badly or in any way strip them of their dignity as human persons, and any legal protection I welcome for that community in the interest of justice. At the same time, the Church has to maintain its position on marriage between a man and a woman, even as it openly admits the problem some heterosexual couples have in their marriages.

    1. Paulspr says:

      The church should have done more to protect gay people decades ago. Instead at every opportunity, the church railed against the rights of gay people. They were against repeal of DADT. They were against anti-bullying bills designed to protect students. They were against a UN resolution designed to make it more difficult for foreign countries to execute a person because they are gay. The Catholic Church has spoken against EVERY SINGLE domestic partnership/civil union law that has EVER come up for a vote anywhere.

      The bishop’s words are empty and hollow as the Catholic Church has spent millions of dollars and decades of pain promoting and defending anti-gay laws that caused ACTUAL harm on ACTUAL people. The Bishop should be ashamed. The Bishop should DO SOMETHING instead.

      1. CoastRanger says:

        You’re just making things up here. To make it easy for you, just provide some evidence that either the Vatican or the USCCB issued a statement against the repeal of DADT.

        1. Paulspr says:

          I’m not making any of this up. The Vatican representative, in arguing against the 2011 UN resolution against executing homosexuals, stated “certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law”. His name is Archbishop Silvano M. Tomasi.

          Those are facts. Our church’s behavior against basic legal protections for gay people over the last few decades is atrocious and we should all be embarrassed.

          1. CoastRanger says:

            I asked about DADT. Provide some context for your example. The Church is officially against the death penalty so why would Tomasi argue for executing homosexuals!

          2. Patrick says:

            Ask Tomasi!

          3. Joe M says:

            I looked up the quote that Paulspr offers from Tomasi. It appears to be picked from a speech in which he says that gay people should not be punished or subjected to violence: http://protectthepope.com/?p=2795

            Is it possible that you two have become so zealous that you’re willing to throw away the simple principle of honesty if it serves your desires?

          4. Paulspr says:

            It was a speech on the floor of the UN assembly where the Vatican’s official position was against the UN resolution that would have protected homosexuals from being executes by foreign counties. This is the same BS that we heard from Mr. Peters. The church claims that they are against violence against homosexuals but then opposes the UN resolution that would stop countries from executing people because they are homosexual. It cognitive dissonance and makes no sense. You can’t claim to be against violence why simultaneously supporting that violence.

            Shame on anyone that is trying to cover this up.

          5. Joe M says:

            From the same speech: “The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviors.”

            Sounds to me like you just don’t know much about this event.

          6. Frantastic1 says:

            You don’t affirm someone’s dignity by arguing that governments should be allowed to murder them.

          7. Joe M says:

            I agree. Clearly, Tomasi did not do that. (See his quote: “condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviors.”)

          8. abadilla says:

            And “who” may I ask is arguing for governments to do that?

          9. Paulspr says:

            I don’t know. Yet they did. Sad huh?

          10. Joe M says:

            Can you point out where Tomasi has argued for the execution of homosexuals?

            Back up your claim or admit that you are dishonestly slandering a person to serve your agenda.

          11. Paulspr says:

            I did. See the quote above. If you are arguing against a resolution against the execution of homosexuals, as the Vatican did, the. It can logically be assumed that you support the execution of homosexuals.

          12. Joe M says:

            Apparently, your logical assumption process involved taking Tomasi’s words out of context. From that same speech:

            “The Holy See takes this opportunity to affirm the inherent dignity and worth of all human beings, and to condemn all violence that is targeted against people because of their sexual feelings and thoughts, or sexual behaviors.”

          13. CoastRanger says:

            You are being dishonest.


            Tomasi was referring to pedophilia and incest.

          14. Paulspr says:

            The bill being argued against was one which simply made it more difficult for nations to execute homosexuals. It said nothing about pedophilia.

      2. CoastRanger says:

        On reflection, “Asserted without evidence; dismissed without evidence.”

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.