tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post8698710607905788250..comments2024-03-09T00:51:33.602-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Stop moping around!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger134125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21736723638593470462011-07-06T23:14:05.189-07:002011-07-06T23:14:05.189-07:00Jan, I'm just catching up. Excellent questions...Jan, I'm just catching up. Excellent questions and clarity! Thank you!<br /><br /><br />Downtowner, I find your logic flawed in many areas, but let me at least clear up this. You said:<br /><br /><i>Keep in mind one last thing: heterosexual couples, not gay couples, have gay children. That's natural order.</i><br /><br />Heterosexual couples also have blind children. Nothing immoral about that fact, but you would never call blindness something that is ordered. You would see it as a disorder. <br /><br />Heterosexual couples also have children born without limbs. Nothing immoral about people without limbs (although the left is fine with aborting them), but you wouldn't see limblessness as something ordered. You would see it as a disorder.<br /><br />In the same way, the desire to have sex with one's own sex is a disordered desire. It is not natural order. Just because something occurs in nature does not equate to "natural order."<br /><br />Also, there are farms in Washington state where men do go and pay to have sex with animals. What if they demand their rights? And what of the NAMBLA types who are demanding their right to have "sweet love" with teens and kids? They say they were born that way. <br /><br />I hear over and over again that "there aren't large percentages of the population" who want pedophilia or bestiality legalized. But that begs the question that no one wants to answer: There was a time <i>very</i> recently, when no one wanted gay "marriage" legalized either. And no one ever mentions the fact that there are several respected academics and even the APA who have either endorsed or come close to endorsing pedophilia as an ordered desire. <br /><br />Melly Sue, I will just broadly explain to you that sex between men and women (whether it produces an actual child or not) is <i>ordered toward procreation</i>. Same sex couples cannot even have sexual intercourse. <br /><br />College student: Oral and anal sex is certainly some serious sexual activity, but it is not sexual intercourse. There is no marital union, no physical joining of persons wholly and completely, without sexual intercourse (penis penetrating a vagina). That is how the two become "one flesh". There is no consummation of a marriage when people play around the edges, so to speak. All that is is genital stimulation and mutual masturbation. Not consummation. And even the state understands that non-consummation of a marriage is grounds for a civil annulment.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-44841795347493572222011-07-03T18:01:01.280-07:002011-07-03T18:01:01.280-07:00Downtowner,
The specific laws I chose are sexua...Downtowner, <br /> <br />The specific laws I chose are sexual, usually involve consenting adults and do not have an obvious victim. Thus, these laws that are based on social norms, decency and morality. Therefore, these are other laws that some people could argue are also not anybody's business and should be or could be repealed. I did not list stealing, rape and the others on your list because they (hopefully) could not ever be legalized as there is an obvious violation of another person (well, except abortion which does have an obvious victim yet is somehow legal, but that is a completely different argument.)<br /><br />As to my own child being gay,your wolf scenario would never even cross my mind. I love my children. I am Catholic and I have been raised to be able to make moral judgments of behaviors, but have always been taught to not judge or condemn the person. Obviously if it is my own child, the loving part would be easy. However, it would not change my opinion about the morality of same-sex relationships and, my child, having been raised by me would already know that. They have already seen it throughout their lives...a parent that loves them ALWAYS but also teaches them right from wrong even when it is painful to both of us. So if they were in a same sex relationship, they would already know that I disagree, but they would never doubt that I love them.Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-33856192772704721782011-07-03T09:35:17.261-07:002011-07-03T09:35:17.261-07:00Jan, I still fail to see the connection between ho...Jan, I still fail to see the connection between homosexual unions and pornography, prostitution, nudity, polygamy, interfamilial marriage, and other similar laws. You may as well throw in stealing, rape, torture, lying, murder and abortion, to your list of laws that have to be reversed just because gays are tying the knot.<br /><br />Your position seems to be that homosexual unions threatens every single law we have in America that acts to preserve fundamental moral decencies. I just don't see that same connection, and I think that you and others with your opinion are severely over reacting on this argument.<br /><br />Keep in mind one last thing: heterosexual couples, not gay couples, have gay children. That's natural order. One day you may find yourself with a child who loves someone of the same sex. Now, when your child reaches the age that it comes time to address them directly about their developing behavior, does the wolf argument STILL seem like a completely rational and compassionate option that they are sure to understand?downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29581980787678979272011-07-02T18:18:05.049-07:002011-07-02T18:18:05.049-07:00Downtowner,
Thank you for your thoughtful reply. H...Downtowner,<br />Thank you for your thoughtful reply. However, you seem to either frequently misunderstand or misquote me. I am all in favor of renaming these unions...as I already stated marriage is between a man and a woman, so homosexual unions have to be named something else. So on that we at least agree. However, we obviously will not ever agree on the meaning of marriage.<br /><br />Please remember that YOU are the one who brought up the wolves...I never mentioned any beastiality at all. So, if anybody is stuck on this concept it is you. <br /><br />So, since you still just avoid the question I am going to tell you why I care. We have many laws that are based on decency, morality and natural order. If we cannot make rules based on these principles, then we have to be prepared to reverse our pornography, prostitution, nudity, polygamy, interfamilial marriage and other similar laws. Are you going to argue that there are not large demographic groups representing these views? Would you care if these all became legal?Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-39036896005666053502011-07-02T08:33:39.641-07:002011-07-02T08:33:39.641-07:00Jan, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will a...Jan, thank you for your thoughtful reply. I will attempt to lay out some truth the way I see it.<br /><br />Marriage IS just another entitlement program and boils down to the almighty dollar as it exists in America today. That statement could not be any more correct. Since marriage in its traditional form as you see it has been so deflowered I do not see why you are so against renaming the legal version civil unions, and returning the word marriage back to its religious community, where it can represent exactly what the church wants it to represent. Since civil rights for gays is not going away this would be the preferable method for religious America to retreat from the battle with their dignity intact.<br /><br />Also, you seem to be STUCK on the wolf/daughter argument. When you can show me some statistics showing a massive demographic that actually holds these beliefs than I will begin to care. Otherwise, lets focus on the TWO main demographic groups with financial supporters, lobbyists, and MILLIONS of Americans on their side. To be clear, I'm referring to heterosexual and homosexual couples--not wolves.downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55167048532447460152011-07-01T22:35:21.870-07:002011-07-01T22:35:21.870-07:00Downtowner,
Thank you for your response, but you d...Downtowner,<br />Thank you for your response, but you did not answer my question as you said you would. You actually more or less deflected it. <br /><br />Marriage is not just another "entitlement program" and I completely disagree that this argument boils down to the almighty dollar! It would be a lot easier to just change the tax code than re-define marriage if that was truly the primary concern.<br /><br />I would like to point out the irony with your "we already have laws that cover that" argument? We also have laws against same-sex unions...but they are happening. So you cannot dismiss questions regarding other sexual behaviors based on the fact that laws exist. <br /><br />Back to my original question. Ten years from now when the "Make sweet love to your wolf group" (as you so eloquently put it) wants to justify, promote and legalize their behavior...on what grounds, if any, would you stop it? Are you fine with the behavior/s (please consider the other sexual behaviors previously listed when Leila has asked this same question), or are you against it? If you are against it/them, then what basis would you use to restrict or forbid it?Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63077073485461591232011-07-01T17:34:49.164-07:002011-07-01T17:34:49.164-07:00Yes, those that contracept are also self serving, ...Yes, those that contracept are also self serving, however, their act can be ordered towards procreation and unification, and homosexual behavior cannot. <br /><br />I choose to follow the Church's teachings, one because they are true and two because they have 2000 years of tradition behind them and my own ideals do not. <br /><br />I also know for myself when a Church teaching struck a cord with me, I had to inform my conscience and pray more. Once I removed the tree trunks from my own eyes, I could see with a lot more clarity. (But I also still have a lot of tree trunks to remove.)Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136169986057927090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67177374461981859082011-07-01T15:32:09.862-07:002011-07-01T15:32:09.862-07:00Very good question, Jan. I will try my best to ans...Very good question, Jan. I will try my best to answer it with a specific, non-defensive and non-evasive response.<br /><br />The government should not be in people's sex lives, so it does not make since to define a civil union in sexual terms. It's really the least common denominator. Q: Who are the people most in need of tax relief/benefits? A: American families. Q: Who raises the children in a family and if they have no children who WOULD raise them? A: Parents/Guardians<br /><br />And there you have my answer. I don't care if you make sweet love to a wolf or your first cousin because we already have rules that make that illegal. I'm interested in answering the much more important question, how can we take care of American families by providing tax relief? How can we make sure America's parents aren't double taxed when trying to raise children? How can we make sure that American couples who choose to live as one aren't penalized for combining their resources and worth?<br /><br />The answer? Get rid of marriage and give them all civil unions.downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45303978833626394402011-07-01T14:36:57.496-07:002011-07-01T14:36:57.496-07:00Since marriage is between one man and one woman, t...Since marriage is between one man and one woman, the term is taken and, therefore, I am all for renaming these other unions. I still will not agree with them, but at least you will not be fighting for something that is semantically impossible.<br /><br />If your unions do not imply a sexual relationship then we already have terms for those...friendship, roommate and family.<br /><br />If these unions are sexual relationships then what combinations of ages, genders and numbers of individuals will our government have to accept? Who gets to decide this and if it is not based on morality or natural order then on what grounds can we limit anything?<br /><br />I would like a specific, non-defensive and non-evasive response.Jannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13067957367925160692011-07-01T13:41:36.769-07:002011-07-01T13:41:36.769-07:00I would have to argue that if we followed Vatican ...I would have to argue that if we followed Vatican direction, heterosexual couples, married by the state but without the ability to have children, and those unwilling to adopt should not receive any of the legal benefits of marriage - since they don't ensure the succession of generations either.<br /><br />I'm completely drawing a blank as to how we can over generalize the homosexual couple, stating that they all engage in selfish sexual relations when we are not over generalizing that heterosexual couples engage in selfish sexual relations as well. I'm assuming the reason for this "selfish" label is due in large part to their inability to give of their reproductive capabilities, but that would mean any marriage using condoms and birth control should not be legally recognized due to their selfishness. But heterosexual marriages that use pornography and strip clubs are about selfishness and we don't deny them marriages either.Melly Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14415137481679888744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-77906342627506183032011-07-01T13:11:14.544-07:002011-07-01T13:11:14.544-07:00Downtown you're right the Vatican doesn't ...Downtown you're right the Vatican doesn't and shouldn't determine civil rights.in this country however that doesn't mean what they say about what should or shouldn't be a civil right is wrong. Nor does.it mean we can't appeal to.the Vatican's reasoning on this issue. <br /><br />Truth is everywhere, some people have more.of it than others. -gaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-58301514633814417762011-07-01T12:43:28.604-07:002011-07-01T12:43:28.604-07:00"9. Because married couples ensure the succes..."9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good."<br /><br />Not buying it. Married couples in America are surely not doing any favors for the "common good" that gay couples aren't. #9 is a complete and utter joke of a position. It is also a lame excuse to justify legalized discrimination imho. Even if we did believe in this fantasy term "common good" (subjective as hell btw) I think 2 parents who commit to each other in raising a kid yet arent legally recognized as married are doing more for the "common good" than a married straight couple that gets divorced with young children. In return, they do deserve the same legal rights and recognition. But, still I don't believe the legal benefits of marriage are granted as some form of reward for this added "common good", i view it as more of a relief/welfare to help couples cope with the stress of raising a family. How generous of our government.downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24683700993131487552011-07-01T11:56:24.684-07:002011-07-01T11:56:24.684-07:00the vatican does not determine American civil righ...the vatican does not determine American civil rights nor should it. And my proposition is not arguing for SSM, it is arguing for SSCU and OSCU. You can limit what you want for marriage but I agree with the poster above, the US should stop recognizing marriage altogether and instead recognize civil unions. then you can stop complaining and you can take your word back.downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-22844621081596243202011-07-01T11:41:23.539-07:002011-07-01T11:41:23.539-07:00Actaully, the facts are that men and women were de...Actaully, the facts are that men and women were designed for each other, not man/man or woman/woman. Man and woman complement each other.When we go away from that, is when homosexual relationships become self centered, which is the essence of what that sexual relationship is, it doesn't seek to satisfy the other, just the self. This is not an appropriate situation to raise children, in a self serving relationship. <br /><br />SSM is not a civil right. These rights would be the right not to be discriminated against for jobs, places to live, etc. <br /><br />Here is a quote from the Vatican document on SSM that explains this position way better than I could:<br /><br />"From the legal order<br /><br />9. Because married couples ensure the succession of generations and are therefore eminently within the public interest, civil law grants them institutional recognition. Homosexual unions, on the other hand, do not need specific attention from the legal standpoint since they do not exercise this function for the common good.<br /><br />Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens. In reality, they can always make use of the provisions of law – like all citizens from the standpoint of their private autonomy – to protect their rights in matters of common interest. It would be gravely unjust to sacrifice the common good and just laws on the family in order to protect personal goods that can and must be guaranteed in ways that do not harm the body of society.(17)"<br /><br />You can read the entire document here:<br />http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.htmlEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136169986057927090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-55199118941074996252011-07-01T11:01:45.573-07:002011-07-01T11:01:45.573-07:00Marriage should be a religious term only. The fede...Marriage should be a religious term only. The federal and state government should never use the term in legislation or any sort of legal definition. Give the word back, strip all legal rights tied to marriage as null and void and then grandfather everyone (both straight and gay couples) in the current system over to civil unions, which would then offer all of the same legal benefits previously guaranteed by marriage. Then everyone would have equal rights under civil unions and marriage would stay in the church where it belongs. The church would be free to define marriage who they want without infringing on the rights of gay couples to receive the same legal benefits that married couples currently do. it seems like a no brainer and makes both parties happy.downtownerhttp://google.com/downtownernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-37357111114116947752011-07-01T10:19:28.718-07:002011-07-01T10:19:28.718-07:00For the record Cuomo excommunicated himself. A bi...For the record Cuomo excommunicated himself. A bishop publicly declaring his excommunication would just be like am official announcement. The priests know better but I'm sure Cuomo, if he attends Mass attends it somewhere that is accepting of sacrilege. Maybe not, but I'm sure it would be all over the news if his pastor did refuse him communion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-46158088899912691742011-07-01T09:28:59.311-07:002011-07-01T09:28:59.311-07:00I would first like to say that I prayed for months...I would first like to say that I prayed for months about whether or not I could support my friend’s gay marriage. My heart was freer and happier at their marriage ceremony than it has been at some of the heterosexual marriage ceremonies that I have attended. So you can judge my prayers and answer to God if you’d like, but I got a green flag and not just because I’m a liberal and decided for myself that I didn’t care what God thought. Despite my friend’s sexual life, the two woman are great souls. They have a positive outlook on life. They are currently caring for their nieces while their parents are serving in Iraq. They teach the blind and the deaf. So despite their sexual relationship I think they are terrific people and they should have the same legal rights as heterosexual couples. I also think that the two sisters I know that are in their 60’s should have the same rights as married couples and receive the tax breaks that exist for married couples.<br /><br />Maybe the issue here isn’t whether or not homosexual couples can get married. Maybe it would be best for the state to stop acknowledging marriage all together. From the states point of view, they don’t actually care if a husband and wife are having sex. They don’t care if there is adultery or if the husband and wife are simply closeted gay folk trying to fit in. The states only concern is blood lines, and that is hardly the only relevant information needed for any form of marriage that is being discussed her on this thread. All states really care about is the paper between the people, in which case they should only issue civil unions. Marriage should be for a church to decide, then the state would merely be offering tax breaks, health insurance coverage, and end of life benefits to those legally bound to benefit from the civil union. Children and adults already have these benefits, animals can’t get these benefits, and the individual churches can decide who they want to allow to be “married.” Laws will still be in place to prevent incest. And then all huge leaps from homosexual marriage to bestiality will be gone.<br /><br />After that we can stop spending money on the issue and churches can decide for themselves. Catholic Churches won’t perform gay marriage ceremonies, Pagan churches will perform handfastings which are only a bond for one year, and Unitarian Universalists will perform marriages for all. Then the religious communities can fight over who is right, say that Unitarian Universalism doesn’t have the authority and stake claim to being the only people who are able to communicate clearly with God. Then we can focus on the fact that this nation was formed on the ideals of personal freedom, free from persecution regardless of one’s own religious beliefs.Melly Suehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14415137481679888744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-29816357444977554502011-07-01T06:38:12.198-07:002011-07-01T06:38:12.198-07:00Could someone delve deeper in too the concept of n...Could someone delve deeper in too the concept of no fault divorce. I assume this means the couple doesn't have to site a reason for divorcing? I imagine you are not okay with this? May I ask what you want to replace it with? Do you think a couple should have to prove in front of someone that they have to get divorced? Doesn't that seem like it could foster abuse? <br /><br />Personally if someone told me they didn't want to be married to me anymore and it was because they didn't find me attractive or didn't find me interesting anymore or a fairly superficial reason I would still want to divorce them. I wouldn't want to stay married to someone who didn't want to marry me.do you think others think differently? <br /><br /><br />Also a question about the definition of sex. If it is only for a penis and a vagina. Do you think we should call oral sex and anal sex something else. I know a few catholic girls who would only do oral and anal because these things weren't sex. The rest of all rolled our eyes. My mother and I also got in a fight in high school she contested that oral sex was not sex, like most high schoolers I disagreedCollege studentnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-84746263269847338272011-07-01T06:13:27.723-07:002011-07-01T06:13:27.723-07:00To be clear, these people you talk about are not p...To be clear, these people you talk about are not people I support politically. Just had to say that. You asked if now wasn't a good time to excommunicate them then when would be and I guess for me it all comes down to the fact that I'm a lay person so I guess I just don't feel comfortable saying when. Maybe I'm a wimp. What can I say :) Like I said, I would support whatever the authority says on this. I did read the article you linked to. I think you better articulated your points. Just my opinion. The best I can do is talk to my kids about these things and let them see me not going up to receive when I feel I should not, and believe me,there are weeks my children have seen me sit in the pew instead of taking the Eucharist. A friend once remarked that I was scandalizing my kids by doing this. I was kind of shocked by her statement. My kids learn their faith first at home and all I can do is show them how absolutely serious I am about approaching Communion. If I have done something extremely hurtful to separate myself from God and can't get to reconciliation I won't go up and receive. Hopefully as my kids grow they will learn to also be respectful because they see me being mindful. And that's all I feel I can do now - just deal with my little corner of the world. <br />Ann MarieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-38132597309947771182011-06-30T20:29:00.913-07:002011-06-30T20:29:00.913-07:00E, that is so important and I hadn't thought a...E, that is so important and I hadn't thought about reverence! We are so lacking in any kind of reverence in our culture. Everything is base and coarse, and we have no sense of the sacred. Thank God for Holy Mass and Adoration… AND confession!!!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-74692452093357851132011-06-30T20:20:46.844-07:002011-06-30T20:20:46.844-07:00Yes, and also our lack of reverence for God. For w...Yes, and also our lack of reverence for God. For when we know and live that God is God and I am not, than everything is more ordered. For if we all had reverence, then we wouldn't want to do anything to harm our relationship with Him. But, I guess that is pride, wanting to follow our own foolish desires and not God. I am also not saying that I don't have a ton of pride, because I sure do, but confession really helps me to try to keep it in check.Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136169986057927090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-31379455790525074462011-06-30T20:11:50.228-07:002011-06-30T20:11:50.228-07:00E, you are so right about materialism. It threaten...E, you are so right about materialism. It threatens to take us so far away from God, and the core of who we are. In nations where they wonder where their next meal is coming from, they don't sit around worried about gay rights, and they don't have the luxury of debating all this on a blog. When all the "things" and "I want more"s are stripped away, the soul is right there with God, face to face. There is a reason that the poor have such a deep relationship with God.<br /><br />Even Mother Teresa, who loved and cared for the poorest of the poor, declared that the spiritual poverty of the wealthy west was a much worse poverty, and much more alienating and lonely, than the physical poverty of the Third World.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53369216282282061802011-06-30T19:56:36.266-07:002011-06-30T19:56:36.266-07:00“God did not give any of us the authority to judge...“God did not give any of us the authority to judge anyone's love.”<br /><br />I just wanted to address this. Actually, as Catholics we can call behavior sin (such as homosexual behavior, etc) but we cannot judge the state of someone's soul. We can pray pray pray for a conversion of heart for them that we may or may not see. This is what God only sees. And actually through our own prayers, our own hearts become changed, all good stuff.<br /><br />Also, the definition of love from the Catechism is wanting good for another person. And really, that is salvation. As a Catholic, I am called to preach the Gospel and the Truth and sometimes to our secular society that can seem like "judging." But really it is not.<br /><br />One last thought, I invite all (especially Catholics) to check out the Courage apostolate website http://www.couragerc.org/, it is an apostolate of the Catholic Church that helps Catholics live out the teachings of the Church on Chastity for those with same sex attraction (and also help for those with family members). Fr. Harvey's books are also very wonderful. <br /><br />And just my two cents, I think that materialism (a manifistation of the sin of pride) is the basis of why our society is becoming a society of "whatever you want is fine." What would our society be like if there was way more humility and less pride? For one, there would be more true love.Ehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09136169986057927090noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-25084541814455580192011-06-30T19:18:51.896-07:002011-06-30T19:18:51.896-07:00Ann Marie, I understand what you are saying, but r...Ann Marie, I understand what you are saying, but remember, this is about public scandal. It's about a witness to the world. If Judas and his ilk were out there preaching heresy for decades on end, and saying that they were good Catholics just to get votes, then I think he would have been refused Communion. In fact, I don't believe Judas even stayed for the Last Supper. He had the "decency" to leave, if you will. And in the early Church? These politicians would be out of Communion so fast their heads would spin! Remember, these are savvy politicos, not confused Catholics. They know what is going on, and they understand what they are doing. About a zillion articles and discussions have been had on this subject, and constituent letters, and Catholic media calling for their ouster, etc., etc. If this isn't the time to excommunicate someone, then when would be?<br /><br />If it sends someone further away? How much further away can they get then voting to shred millions of unborn babies in their mothers' wombs, and changing the entire understanding of marriage, and exalting sodomy as a virtue? I don't know how much farther away they could go? Maybe they would have the integrity to not call themselves Catholics anymore? Integrity would be a step in the right direction. They've been told so much that they are in serious error that at this point, they clearly know they should not be presenting themselves for Communion anyway. Heck, I know teens in my parish who know enough not to go to Communion when they have sinned gravely. That I can respect.<br /><br />Anyway, rambling now. :) Sorry. :)Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-14149496036818586612011-06-30T19:04:51.345-07:002011-06-30T19:04:51.345-07:00Ann Marie here
I do respect that you speak exactl...Ann Marie here <br />I do respect that you speak exactly what you think, no mincing words. And yes, it does remind me of the way a man communicates. My husband is blunt and sometimes I like it and sometimes I tell him to pipe down, although I suppose I say it in less kind terms than that if you were asking him. I will read the article that you linked to. I feel like I can see the point you are making, but then I keep thinking "what would Jesus do." Judas was at the Last Supper and Jesus knew full well what Judas was planning on doing and still he allowed him to stay. I can't help it - my mind works like that. I'm not trying to be a wise guy. Do you see what I mean though? I know excommunication is not final if the person repents and shows remorse and I understand what you are saying about it perhaps getting people to turn around but what if it only sends someone running further away. <br />Ann MarieAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com