Ash Wednesday: Feel so weird keeping ashes on, but feel guilty washing them off!

[Anonymous]

Look, the bottom line, as far as gay marriage is concerned, is that for many people (myself included) it is unjust and discriminatory to deny gay people the right to marry. If a church, such as the Catholic church, is lobbying against gay marriage then they are arguing an unjust position regardless of the reasons they have for that belief. There are people out there who use their religious beliefs as a reason for holding racist beliefs; does that mean I owe them my understanding because it is their religion? In my personal opinion the Catholic church (and the Mormon church and Southern Baptist) are lobbying for an unjust cause when they lobby to keep gay marriage outlawed. For me personally this colors everything else the church does. Maybe at some point, when gay marriage hopefully becomes legal despite the efforts of the church and others, they will stop pursuing this as a cause and confine their teachings on homosexuality to their own flock.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always interesting to me that people rant and rave that religious groups and people of faith shouldn't lobby according to their beliefs. Never mind that lobbying by non-faith groups and atheists can result in changes in our laws that the rest of us might not like.

Just an observation here but I've been attending Catholic services at various churches for 40 years and I've never heard a priest call on parishioners to vote for a specific candidate. If anything, Catholics are very much swing voters because they are pro-life but they are very liberal on other social issues (serving the poor, death penalty, immigration, etc.). In fact, in the last presidential election, the majority of Catholics voted for Obama. The PP who was ranting about Catholics only voting for Republican candidates really needs to get her facts straight (and her head examined).

In the closing months of the presidential race, several Catholic bishops skirted close to endorsing the Republican candidate for president, Senator John McCain, by proclaiming that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights.

In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson's website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist.

The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as "the present democratic (sic) candidate."

"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.

[Anonymous]

Most Bishops opposed Obama because of the abortion issue, and used their platform to encourage Catholics to vote against someone who supports abortion rights. Now whether you think that is right or wrong is one thing...but it is disingenous to suggest that Catholic leaders aren't trying to influence the way their parishioners vote.

From: Bishop Robert W. Finn, Diocese of Kansas City, St. Joseph Can a Catholic Vote in Support of Abortion? Oct. 17, 2008.“

When a candidate regards the unborn child as unworthy of the defense of law, then he or she asks us to join them in ignoring the lessons of history by which African Americans in this country were once regarded as non-persons; or the Jews of Europe were once marked for genocide or racial purification. Had we known, would we have supported the “choice” to enslave or destroy these brothers and sisters of ours? Can a candidate expect us as Catholics to ignore the classification of the unborn as non-persons? Will he or she expect us to look aside while these babies are quietly exterminated at a rate of 4000 per day? This is precisely what they are asking us to do.“

A PASTORAL LETTER FROM BISHOP MARTINO, Diocese of Scranton, Respect Life Sunday

“Abortion is the issue this year and every year in every campaign. Catholics may not turn away from the moral challenge that abortion poses for those who seek to obey God’s commands. They are wrong when they assert that abortion does not concern them, or that it is only one of a multitude of issues of equal importance. No, the taking of innocent human life is so heinous, so horribly evil, and so absolutely opposite to the law of Almighty God that abortion must take precedence over every other issue. I repeat. It is the single most important issue confronting not only Catholics, but the entire electorate.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's always interesting to me that people rant and rave that religious groups and people of faith shouldn't lobby according to their beliefs. Never mind that lobbying by non-faith groups and atheists can result in changes in our laws that the rest of us might not like.

Just an observation here but I've been attending Catholic services at various churches for 40 years and I've never heard a priest call on parishioners to vote for a specific candidate. If anything, Catholics are very much swing voters because they are pro-life but they are very liberal on other social issues (serving the poor, death penalty, immigration, etc.). In fact, in the last presidential election, the majority of Catholics voted for Obama. The PP who was ranting about Catholics only voting for Republican candidates really needs to get her facts straight (and her head examined).

In the closing months of the presidential race, several Catholic bishops skirted close to endorsing the Republican candidate for president, Senator John McCain, by proclaiming that Catholics could not in good conscience vote for a candidate who favored abortion rights.

In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson's website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist.

The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as "the present democratic (sic) candidate."

"If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.

And then we get back to the subject of abortion. Many of us think it's morally wrong. Especially now that babies are born and survive with smaller birth weights (1 lb. 3 oz), or they're delivered after as short a period as 24 weeks gestation and survive . . . I mean, at what point can even a person in favor or abortion view them as no longer "just a fetus?"

[Anonymous]

And then we get back to the subject of abortion. Many of us think it's morally wrong. Especially now that babies are born and survive with smaller birth weights (1 lb. 3 oz), or they're delivered after as short a period as 24 weeks gestation and survive . . . I mean, at what point can even a person in favor or abortion view them as no longer "just a fetus?"


^^^

And that's fine that you think abortion is wrong, and fine if you wouldn't vote for someone because they are pro-choice. But for bishops to take an official position on that and then encourage parishoners to vote only for pro-life candidates borders on inappropriate conduct for a tax exempt institution (there were several bishops investigated by the IRS for this very issue back in 2008). Also, no one can say with a straight face that the church is only interested in having it's followers follow their rules...they do want everyone to follow these rules as well. I understand the gravity of the issue to people, but when a male bishop belonging to a religion I am not part of, is fighting to deny me rights I believe are constitutionally guaranteed...I find it upsetting. And to the poster who insists that one consider the nuances of an issue, well, I wish the church would consider that about this issue. They really don't. I mean, when you think a nine year old victim of incest and pregnant with twins should not terminate a pregnancy if she and her parents and doctors feel she should...then yes, you have dispensed with nuance about abortion. If you insist that, despite the medical opinion of doctors at a Catholic hospital and a nun, a woman dying unless she terminates a pregnancy should be allowed to die...yes, you have dispensed with nuance, and are taking a position that in my opinion certainly borders on misogynistic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look, the bottom line, as far as gay marriage is concerned, is that for many people (myself included) it is unjust and discriminatory to deny gay people the right to marry.

And in my opinion, anyone over the age of 18 is afforded the option of marriage. Being married is not being denied to you. I don't see it as unjust to say that I'm not okay with revising the definition of a concept that has remained unchanged throughout all cultures throughout all of history to meet your particular desire. I also don't agree with polygamy or polyamory, although there are segments of the population that would like those constructs of marriage legalized as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the bottom line, as far as gay marriage is concerned, is that for many people (myself included) it is unjust and discriminatory to deny gay people the right to marry.

And in my opinion, anyone over the age of 18 is afforded the option of marriage. Being married is not being denied to you. I don't see it as unjust to say that I'm not okay with revising the definition of a concept that has remained unchanged throughout all cultures throughout all of history to meet your particular desire. I also don't agree with polygamy or polyamory, although there are segments of the population that would like those constructs of marriage legalized as well.

I'm sorry. Your "reason" isn't good enough. It's bigoted. Period.

Hiding behind "the definition" that hasn't not changed throughout all of history (which is incorrect) is simply not enough and doesn't pass the constitutional smell test.

BTW, what do you care? Don't give me the bullshit about how it cheapens marriage, etc. Give me a concrete reason how you are harmed.

Also, you might read Ruth Marcus' recent column on this issue and how Mike Huckabee actually makes the best case for gay marrage, inadvertently.

[Anonymous]

This marriage debate saddens me. It honestly seems like you posters expect atheists and agnostics to live and let live when it comes to you and your beliefs but show no willingness to practice it. And, you wonder why some would call the people of your faith bigots.

[Anonymous]

Would you prefer a world with no laws or regulations? A world in which everyone just sorta hangs out and does his or her own thing? Or would you like the world to have the laws and regulations that agree with YOUR world view? I'm guessing the latter, right?

[Anonymous]

I asked this question on the previous page and no one answered it: why does my family not deserve the same legal protection as yours?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I asked this question on the previous page and no one answered it: why does my family not deserve the same legal protection as yours?

I think your family does deserve the same legal protection, insurance protections, etc. I just don't think it should be considered a marriage in the traditional sense, more of a civil union.

[Anonymous]

Dear OP...thanks for posting...I was just saying the same to my family.....I will go to a later Mass.....ignore all the Catholic bashers...I would never bash another faith online.....try a later Mass and wear your ashes well

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I asked this question on the previous page and no one answered it: why does my family not deserve the same legal protection as yours?

I think your family does deserve the same legal protection, insurance protections, etc. I just don't think it should be considered a marriage in the traditional sense, more of a civil union.

And I think that government should get out if the marriage business and leave that word to the churches if it means that much to you. The states should offer only civil unions.

And my respect for the religious has fallen after this thread. I'm honestly surprised by the responses I've read here. But, wear your ashes and be proud of all it represents.

[Anonymous]

One last thing and then I'm done with this thread. You're saying no to marriage for us. Your church fights marriage for us. But, it doesn't seem like either party is doing anything to bring civil unions about.

There is no protection for gay and lesbian families in many states. If your husband walked out the door with your children and you had no legal recourse, would you want a law to change that? This is the reality for families like mine. And your "but that's our word!" argument against gay marriage is just sad. Current laws put us at risk of losing our kids. Current laws harm us and you're hung up on a word. How is that what's best for kids and families? Your stance is heartless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look, the bottom line, as far as gay marriage is concerned, is that for many people (myself included) it is unjust and discriminatory to deny gay people the right to marry.

And in my opinion, anyone over the age of 18 is afforded the option of marriage. Being married is not being denied to you. I don't see it as unjust to say that I'm not okay with revising the definition of a concept that has remained unchanged throughout all cultures throughout all of history to meet your particular desire. I also don't agree with polygamy or polyamory, although there are segments of the population that would like those constructs of marriage legalized as well.

Ok, I'm the "ranting" poster from before and thank you for elucidating you position. I just think you are wrong, and I do think this is a civil rights issue and that you will eventually (hopefully) see the light.

Do you realize that the definition of marriage, not so long ago in the US, was not what it is now? People of different races could not marry. In a Gallup poll in 1967 only 20% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. Loving v. Virginia changed that. The Supreme Court has said over and over that marriage is a fundamental right. Seperate is not equal! When the supreme court has talked about marriage they have said it's an "associational right, a liberty right, a privacy right, and an expression of your identity, which is all wrapped up in the Constitution." The right to marry the person YOU choose is a fundamental right.

We already have determined that marriage IS a malleable institution shaped by shifting notions of gender, race, and property, while sexual orientation is innate. It also goes without saying that if you are going to deny citizens a basic right (the right to marry whome they choose) you have to show that it's of benefit to somebody and you are going to have a hard case to make that because homosexual couples may marry, that heterosexual couples will n ot/can not.

If you as a Catholic disagree with gay marriage or with gay people that is your right I suppose (regrettable though it is) but what your church is seeking to do in denying gay people the right to choose their partner and marry will eventually be found unconstitutional and thank goodness for that. And yes, it is one of those things that errodes good feelings toward your religious institution and that does not make ME a bigot.