Skip to comments.
Staten Islanders react to Archbishop Dolan's statement banning gay marriage from Catholic churches
silive ^
| November 4, 2011
| Maura Grunlund
Posted on 11/05/2011 1:19:24 PM PDT by NYer
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
To: NYer
"The marital union between one man and one woman was universally accepted by civil law as a constitutive element of human society, which is vital to the human family and to the continuation of the human race," Archbishop Dolan said in the decree dated Oct. 18. This did not stop Archbishop Dolan from making a fawning presentation in front of the rabidly pro-gay marriage ADL two days ago.
To: the invisib1e hand
With some of our clerics, they must be told exactly what to do. He is leaving the odd ones no choice but not to comply.
22
posted on
11/05/2011 4:27:57 PM PDT
by
RobbyS
(Viva Christus Rex.)
To: Salvation
He should go a step further and excommunicate Gov. Cuomo and every Catholic legislator who voted for same-sex marriage.
23
posted on
11/05/2011 5:02:44 PM PDT
by
rzman21
To: heartwood
That’s what I thought too. One lesbo makes a statement, presumably for all Staten Island. Yea right.
24
posted on
11/05/2011 5:07:20 PM PDT
by
stevio
(God, guns, guts.)
To: NYer
25
posted on
11/05/2011 5:29:29 PM PDT
by
Mr Rogers
("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
To: NYer
Good! This shouldn’t need stating, but knowing some of the clergy in NY (even in the NYC...St Joseph’s, anyone?), it’s a good idea to make a preemptive strike.
26
posted on
11/05/2011 7:19:22 PM PDT
by
livius
To: savagesusie
Just curious: what do you mean by "Wittgensteinian"? Is it a reference to Ludwig Wittgenstein's thoughts about the nature of language language (which, as I understand it, shifted very considerably during his philosophical career)?
I'm not looking for a deep or detailed explanation (because very frankly, I don't understand Wittgenstein AT ALL) --- but just in simple words, what do you mean to convey by associating Wittgenstein with the concept of "sodomy as a civil right"?
27
posted on
11/05/2011 7:31:48 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Whisper sweet words of epistemology in your ear and speak to you of the pompitus of love.SteveMiller)
To: the invisib1e hand
Of course the Cahurch forbids it. I think he's trying to make that so excruciatingly clear that even idiots can understand it.
The gay-activists are of course goung to keep gnawing at all the edges: trying to schedule receptions at KofC halls or Church-owned retreat centers, trying to rent facilities on some false pretext and then springing a wedding there, utilizing Catholic university campuses not under the direct control of the Archbishop, etc. You watch.
It's only going to escalate. But Dolan, God bless him, is saying "Bring it on."
28
posted on
11/05/2011 7:37:48 PM PDT
by
Mrs. Don-o
(Whisper sweet words of epistemology in your ear and speak to you of the pompitus of love.SteveMiller)
To: Mrs. Don-o
gnawing at all the edgesgreat metaphor.
But Dolan, God bless him, is saying "Bring it on."
The man is certainly an enigma.
To: NYer
30
posted on
11/05/2011 9:17:49 PM PDT
by
little jeremiah
(We will have to go through hell to get out of hell.)
To: NYer
I’m glad he spelled it out!
31
posted on
11/05/2011 9:27:48 PM PDT
by
Sun
(Pray that God sends us good leaders. Please say a prayer now.)
To: NYer
"What I don't understand is why religious organizations try to interfere with the civil rights of people as they have done in New York and California. I especially wonder how many of their members approve of the fact that their donations are being used to wage these legal battles." No. honey, what you don't understand is that marriage is NOT a civil right. It is a privilege granted by first religious, then civil authorities, and there have always been restrictions of one sort, or the other.
Of course, after the restriction on homosexuals being 'married' is lifted, it's only a matter of time before the polygamists start pushing to get their 'marriages' legalized, then all bets are off as to what other instances come before the courts, claiming theirs is a 'civil rights' issue, as well.
32
posted on
11/06/2011 6:42:31 PM PST
by
SuziQ
To: SoJoCo
The state of New York, in its wisdom, says that same sex couples may marry in civil ceremonies. That doesnt mean that religions are forced to do the same. I predict that before the end of the decade that at least one state will be trying to force churches to do so.
33
posted on
11/07/2011 8:06:12 AM PST
by
Straight Vermonter
(Posting from deep behind the Maple Curtain)
To: Straight Vermonter
I predict that before the end of the decade that at least one state will be trying to force churches to do so. They can try but I don't see the 1st Amendment allowing it.
34
posted on
11/07/2011 5:10:10 PM PST
by
SoJoCo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-34 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson