Supreme Court Decision On Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President Of Catholic Bishops’ Conference

From the USCCB

June 26, 2015
WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court decision, June 26, interpreting the U.S. Constitution to require all states to license and recognize same-sex “marriage” “is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us,” said Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).

The full statement follows:

Regardless of what a narrow majority of the Supreme Court may declare at this moment in history, the nature of the human person and marriage remains unchanged and unchangeable. Just as Roe v. Wade did not settle the question of abortion over forty years ago, Obergefell v. Hodges does not settle the question of marriage today. Neither decision is rooted in the truth, and as a result, both will eventually fail. Today the Court is wrong again. It is profoundly immoral and unjust for the government to declare that two people of the same sex can constitute a marriage.

The unique meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman is inscribed in our bodies as male and female. The protection of this meaning is a critical dimension of the “integral ecology” that Pope Francis has called us to promote. Mandating marriage redefinition across the country is a tragic error that harms the common good and most vulnerable among us, especially children. The law has a duty to support every child’s basic right to be raised, where possible, by his or her married mother and father in a stable home.

Jesus Christ, with great love, taught unambiguously that from the beginning marriage is the lifelong union of one man and one woman. As Catholic bishops, we follow our Lord and will continue to teach and to act according to this truth.

I encourage Catholics to move forward with faith, hope, and love: faith in the unchanging truth about marriage, rooted in the immutable nature of the human person and confirmed by divine revelation; hope that these truths will once again prevail in our society, not only by their logic, but by their great beauty and manifest service to the common good; and love for all our neighbors, even those who hate us or would punish us for our faith and moral convictions.

Lastly, I call upon all people of good will to join us in proclaiming the goodness, truth, and beauty of marriage as rightly understood for millennia, and I ask all in positions of power and authority to respect the God-given freedom to seek, live by, and bear witness to the truth.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

66 Responses to Supreme Court Decision On Marriage “A Tragic Error” Says President Of Catholic Bishops’ Conference

  1. And how long will it be before someone brings a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, because it “discriminates” against those who want to enter into same-sex “marriage”?

  2. johnhenrycn says:

    RJB asks: “…how long will it be before someone brings a lawsuit against the Catholic Church, because it ‘discriminates’ against those who want to enter into same-sex ‘marriage’?”

    Let’s see, today is Saturday…

    In the same vein, I posit the following scenario:
    A rich young virile cisgendered man goes to Las Vegas, gets slightly inebriated (but not plastered to the point of mental incapacity), becomes infatuated with a stunning she-male chorus girl, weds her at one of those 24 hour drive-through chapels, and then proceeds in his slightly inebriated condition to ‘consummate’ their marriage, thus sealing the bargain. Trannies, just like your boring run-of-the-mill homosexuals, are allowed to marry. A few weeks later over their morning coffee, ‘Caitlyn’ breaks the news to our foolish foppotee (who honestly didn’t know, having failed to exercise pre-nuptial due diligence) that they can never have children.

    Now, seeing as hubby has no grounds for a civil annulment (the marriage being consummated, our theoretical Caitlyn having gone the full monty), can he obtain a divorce without payment of alimony or division of family assets? The legal maxim, caveat emptor comes to mind. Cases like this are bound to arise. I look forward to being entertained by the mental contortions that our learned jurists go through solving them.

    I’d be grateful to hear what our learned Raven’s take is on this, if he hasn’t flown the coop😉

  3. GC says:

    Rocco Palmo has been providing a sterling service keeping us up with various pronouncements of Catholic bishops in the US, including Archbishop Chaput and the bishops of Nebraska and Michigan, at Whispers in the Loggia.

  4. Michael says:

    For the benefit of anyone (ahem) who may doubt the significance for the wider culture of the Supreme Court’s decision, Fr. Z has helpfully posted a CDF document from 2003 – http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/cdf-in-2003-considerations-regarding-proposals-to-give-legal-recognition-to-unions-between-homosexual-persons/

    The document overall provides a very comprehensive assessment of the wrong-headedness of the movement to recognise homosexual unions as legally equivalent to marriage, but here are some particularly pertinent excerpts. First, from Section 6:

    It might be asked how a law can be contrary to the common good if it does not impose any particular kind of behaviour, but simply gives legal recognition to a de facto reality which does not seem to cause injustice to anyone. In this area, one needs first to reflect on the difference between homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon and the same behaviour as a relationship in society, foreseen and approved by the law, to the point where it becomes one of the institutions in the legal structure. This second phenomenon is not only more serious, but also assumes a more wide-reaching and profound influence, and would result in changes to the entire organization of society, contrary to the common good. Civil laws are structuring principles of man’s life in society, for good or for ill. They “play a very important and sometimes decisive role in influencing patterns of thought and behaviour”. Lifestyles and the underlying presuppositions these express not only externally shape the life of society, but also tend to modify the younger generation’s perception and evaluation of forms of behaviour. Legal recognition of homosexual unions would obscure certain basic moral values and cause a devaluation of the institution of marriage.

    and also from Section 8:

    Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. The inevitable consequence of legal recognition of homosexual unions would be the redefinition of marriage, which would become, in its legal status, an institution devoid of essential reference to factors linked to heterosexuality; for example, procreation and raising children. If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible form of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good. By putting homosexual unions on a legal plane analogous to that of marriage and the family, the State acts arbitrarily and in contradiction with its duties.

  5. toadspittle says:

    “Modern Philosophy,” – by Prof. Scruton – is a little gem. Highly recommended.

    Of course, there will be far-reaching – and possibly socially ground-breaking – results from all this “Gay Marriage,” stuff. Same as there was over women’s suffrage. Will these upshots be good or bad? No way of knowing. Maybe both. Maybe neither. Bit of both, most likely.
    We must just wait and see.
    …No problem for me.
    Isis will probably decapitate me while I’m waiting, anyway.

    “Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.” ….maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t. But what is certain is that “society,” will continue in existence, in some form or the other, no matter what happens – as long as the planet keeps on mindlessly spinning.
    It may not be a “society” Michael (or even Toad) would think much of.
    Still – we can’t have everything, can we?
    .
    ..Must try to see the funny side, as we all agree.

  6. ginnyfree says:

    Used to be a day when throw them both in the coop till they figure it out themselves kinda justice woulda done but one thing else: as soon as they let them loose again, both would have to catch a train for the next town………………The good ole USA. I’m warming up to sound like the bigot I got labeled as bein’ on Friday. Houze it soundin.? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  7. ginnyfree says:

    I printed this one out not too long ago and it is still on my desk. Good stuff. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  8. ginnyfree says:

    It is a good little piece. Thanks. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  9. ginnyfree says:

    Just put one on my Amazon wish list. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  10. Michael says:

    Will these upshots be good or bad? No way of knowing.

    No, of course not – there is no way of predicting, fairly confidently, the sort of things that are likely to happen. All opinions on this matter are relative after all I suppose, and we have no data from the past few decades that show the effect related decisions (i.e.; ones that separate sexual relationships from procreation and family, and reduce our understanding of relationships to a flimsily defined ‘love’ – itself tantamount to a mixture of emotional argument and contemporary discourse about rights). Neither do we have any cases from other countries to suggest what might happen to people who fail to fall into line and ‘celebrate’ the Supreme Court decision. No way of knowing – none at all.

    “Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage.” ….maybe it does, and maybe it doesn’t. But what is certain is that “society,” will continue in existence, in some form or the other, no matter what happens

    ‘Maybe it does and maybe it doesn’t’? Are you seriously saying that you do not see the family as something central to all human society, even for the most basic reasons, nor that the difference the understanding contemporary culture seems to have about relationships, parenthood, etc, will make on what we in the West have taken for granted about the role of the family in society will, if allowed to continue, be very likely to be negative? And if you do have even some inkling that the consequences will be negative ones, how can you be so indifferent to it all?

  11. Michael says:

    Glad you enjoyed it Ginny. Here are another couple of interesting posts on the issue – written from quite different perspectives, but both shine a light on the sort of things that may have paved the way for the SCOTUS decision:

    http://truthvsreality.com/2015/06/the-supreme-court-decision-does-it-matter/

    https://yardsaleofthemind.wordpress.com/2015/06/28/asbestos-handbasket-sales-reach-all-time-high/

  12. Tom Fisher says:

    we have no data from the past few decades that show the effect related decisions (i.e.; ones that separate sexual relationships from procreation and family, and reduce our understanding of relationships to a flimsily defined ‘love’ – itself tantamount to a mixture of emotional argument and contemporary discourse about rights)

    In terms of, say; death from TB, child literacy, gum disease, life expectancy, and the odds of being beaten before adolescence, — how would you rate the last 50 years as opposed to the 50 year period before that?

  13. Michael says:

    In those terms, better obviously. But what is your point – are you saying that because we have made clear progress in medical and technological terms, that we should pay no attention to, nor warn against, other types of change in society? Unless you think I’m simply saying ‘all change is bad’ (which I find hard to extract from what I’ve written, albeit from an admittedly biased standpoint), I don’t see what you’re getting at.

  14. Michael says:

    Sorry, not just medical and technological, but my question still stands – what are you saying other than that there have been some changes for the good in recent years?

  15. toadspittle says:

    It’s a reaction, from me, to the common contemporary lament that, “The sky is falling! The world’s gone mad! The lunatics are in charge of the asylum! Let’s all join hands and panic! Persecution! Gays married! God forbid! Thin end of the wedge! End of the world, latest!!!” ….sort of carry-on, Michael. Yes, not all change is good – far from it. Bit more sense of proportion needed, I think – is what I’m saying. But then, I would, wouldn’t I?

  16. Tom Fisher says:

    Michael, I’m just considering your last comment to Toad. Marriage, in a specifically Catholic sense, was last normative in England in 1558. So it’s surely reasonable to ask what metric you have in mind when you suggest that divergence from a Catholic norm will have deleterious effects upon children?

  17. toadspittle says:

    “Are you seriously saying that you do not see the family as something central to all human society, ”
    No. All human societies form families of some variety, Michael. Not all societies have regarded marriage in the same fashion.
    Very often indeed, marriage has (or had) very little to do with “love.”
    You know that.

  18. toadspittle says:

    OK, consider this : The “straight” couples will go on getting married, and divorced, like they have for the last century or so – regardless of whether the “gay” couple next door have gone through a ceremony they insist on calling “marriage,” or not.
    The straights couldn’t care less.
    And I think the ‘straights’ are right.
    Nobody’s asking them to do anything different.

  19. Tom Fisher says:

    The sky is falling! The world’s gone mad! The lunatics are in charge of the asylum! Let’s all join hands and panic!

    Those responses do no good. Civil marriage in the western world is no longer premised on the partners being of a different sex. It’s been pretty clear since the late 90s that this was inevitable. Catholic marriage has always been distinct from civil marriage, and will remain so. It is now more important to stress its distinctiveness. Mainly things are much the same.

  20. Michael says:

    I’m not specifically suggesting that divergence from a Catholic norm will have such effects, but divergence from a.) a Christian norm, which has been normative in the West for quite a while since 1558, and b.) from the commonly held belief that marriage be something contracted between men and women, primarily for the procreation and upbringing of children. I didn’t specifically mention Catholic teaching at all.

  21. Michael says:

    Not all societies have regarded marriage in the same fashion.
    Very often indeed, marriage has (or had) very little to do with “love.”

    True indeed, but there have been some very important common factors (which I mentioned in my last reply to Tom) – it is those factors which are at issue here, and the alteration of which will most likely have significant consequences.

  22. Michael says:

    The problem is that a.) you are, in that case, reacting to something that is not actually being argued here (noone has been arguing in the extreme way you suggest on these threads), and b.) you are not actually introducing a sense of proportion (for an example of this, see the link from truthvsreality.com above) but advocating indifferentism. Suggesting that significant cultural changes are of no matter, and even if they are, then so what, does not introduce proprortion to the debate – it makes out that there is either no debate to be had, or even if there is, that there is no point in worrying about the outcome.

  23. Michael says:

    It’s been pretty clear since the late 90s that this was inevitable. Catholic marriage has always been distinct from civil marriage, and will remain so. It is now more important to stress its distinctiveness. Mainly things are much the same.

    I agree with all the above, with the caveat that what is different is highly significant:

    1. There is now a legitimacy for those arguing the essential sameness of all romantic/sexual relationships which was not there before – as we nowadays get most of our sense of what is right from what is legal, SSM advocates can now point to the change in law and use this as a way to further their position.

    2. Following from this, any barriers that may have existed to prevent the teaching of wholesale affirmation of homosexual lifestyles to children is now gone. Sex education can and will be made even more explicit on this point (and others).

    3. Anybody who, outside the privacy of their own home (particularly in the workplace), voices support for the traditional view of marriage can now be subject to punishment under law. We have already seen cases of this in parts of the UK, US and elsewhere, where businesses and jobs have been lost because people did not affirm same-sex relationships as ‘marriage’. It seems almost inevitable that Catholic priests will have legal cases brought against them at some point for failing to do the same.

  24. Tom Fisher says:

    Anybody who, outside the privacy of their own home (particularly in the workplace), voices support for the traditional view of marriage can now be subject to punishment under law.

    I don’t dismiss your points 1) and 2), but I think that your point 3) is the most disturbing, and you might be right.

    It seems almost inevitable that Catholic priests will have legal cases brought against them at some point for failing to do the same.

    I agree. It will happen

  25. ginnyfree says:

    Thanks for the links. I commented on the first, but the second, well, hardly worth my efforts. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  26. ginnyfree says:

    But Toad, God so loved mankind that He elevated the natural marriage to a Sacrament after explaining to the them the true nature of marriage: one male, one female in love and in Christ for life and as He said, unless the marriage is unlawful, it should be till death. If you’ve never seen the beauty of a true marriage lived as God wills in those around you, you truly are either blind, totally living in a swamp where there are only worms and toads and gators or both. I’ve seen some whose marriages are stunningly beautiful and I’ve seen those where things aren’t exactly right. Marriage as God wills cannot be compared to anything else. The Sacrament of Matrimony lived radiates God’s light throughout our world and because of the turn of events in our country, we who live the Sacrament will need to make sure our Light shines all the brighter so those who see it will desire it for themselves. I am sorry for you for your sharing that this wonder in life passed you by. It truly is a tragedy and a loss. However, you can still see the light of others who choose to live the Sacrament and thank God for their witness. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  27. Tom Fisher says:

    living in a swamp where there are only worms and toads and gators or both

    It’s worse than you think! All those critters and more. Take a vacation in Louisiana or Florida, you’ll be horrified😉

  28. ginnyfree says:

    Toad, are you aware of how hard this has hit children in foster care situations and who await adoption? Would you say that a child who lived a really hard and tragic life and wound up in foster care and spent say, two years awaiting adoption because mom died of an OD and dad isn’t coming home from jail any time soon and signed away his parental rights is going to have a safer, saner, and loving life when two men take him home with them to live with them as if they are his two dads is now better off? Hello? I suggest you do a little research on the massive tragedy of a little boy who was called the Little Boy Blue until they found out who he was and the tragedy of his life. he was Stutzman’s son. http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/stutzman-eli.htm I suggest you read his story then answer the questions I posed. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  29. Michael says:

    …but the second, well, hardly worth my efforts

    Interesting! Well, I’m glad you liked the first one anyway🙂

  30. ginnyfree says:

    P.S. There will be many more Little Boy Blues and children will get hurt in other such ways because of this decision. It is inevitable and will be one of the very tragic natural outcomes of this “freedom.” The children it impacts don’t matter one little bit. As my Pastor said yesterday in his homily, the “rights” of adults to live anyway they wish are more important than those of the children. The Court has decided that the pursuit of personal pleasure and “happiness” carries a greater right than that of children to live safe and stable lives or as is the case of abortion, to live at all. The message our young people are given by all this is that they have no rights till they grow up. God bless. GInnyfree.

  31. Michael says:

    Yes, this is certainly the most immediate of the changes we can expect to see. More long-term my worry is that there will be an intensification of the sort of thinking about the family that sees marital relationships as solely about what the two people involved happen to desire at a given point in time (and with this, an increasing tendency to see children as a ‘right’ or lifestyle choice, not the natural product of marriage and one of its primary concerns).

  32. Michael says:

    The children it impacts don’t matter one little bit. As my Pastor said yesterday in his homily, the “rights” of adults to live anyway they wish are more important than those of the children.

    Yep – that’s right on the money. I think this affirmation of the priority of pleasure (and the right to indulge one’s desires regardless of the consequences for self or others) is also part of the same cultural impulse that has led to the increasing sexualisation of much in popular culture. The entrenchment in law of something that flows from and is shaped by this affirmation can only, IMO, make it harder to rebut such impulses effectively in the future.

  33. Tom Fisher says:

    I’m generally sanguine about changes to civil marriage laws, but I do agree that your long-term worry is serious and troubling.

    Michael I hope you don’t mind me saying this; but many of your comments are good enough to be posts of their own. I understand that you’ve put Journey towards Easter on hiatus. Brother Burrito should conscript you as a contributor to this blog.

  34. Michael says:

    Here’s a suppose: Suppose a mixed-race couple, back man, white woman, adopt a child? The child might have to deal with unwanted tensions (from outsiders anyway) as a result of that. Should he (or she) be allowed to be adopted by them?

    Yes, of course they should. You’re either assuming here that concerns about same-sex couples raising children is because of what people think, which it isn’t, or that the move to prevent homosexuals adopting children is a simple prejudice like racism, which it isn’t. The example you cite is irrelevant to the actual issues at hand here.

    Also, if a girl is adopted by a couple then abused sexually by the man – how do we prevent that happening? Ban all adoptions, in case?
    Come to that, how many children are sexually abused by one of their very own, natural, parents? Far more than ever come to light, I suspect. Stop incest by banning families?

    We stop such things happening by trying to cultivate procedural transparency and accountability in adoptions, and by trying to counter the things that contribute to the sexualisation of children in our culture, whilst recognising that such problems can never be wholly eradicated. We do not do away with or alter marriage because it can and has been abused – when discussing something such as marriage, it is important to focus on its proper usage, not its abuse. Again, these examples are not actually relevant to the question being discussed, which is whether or not the ordinary means of raising children should be experimented with in the name of a skewed understanding of both individual rights and the nature of the family.

  35. Michael says:

    Thank you Tom – that is very flattering (and a bit embarassing)! But I think my hiatus from actual blog-writing/posting may go on for a fair while longer now.

  36. ginnyfree says:

    Hello Toad. Here is another little incident in the life of those of us who favor marriage as God intended. http://www.straight.com/blogra/625211/anti-gay-us-speaker-allowed-enter-canada-anti-abortion-conference More of this has happened and more of it will happen and those of us who support God’s idea of marriage and are vocal about it are moving closer to open persecutution. It is expected and anticipated. What will you say when more of these arrests happen? How about his one? http://catholicexchange.com/catholicism-a-hate-crime-in-canada Now all that will go on here in the good ole USA, no matter how many Americans are actually appalled by homosexuals and their behaviors. No matter how many lying statistics stake themselves up on the media, most people are heterosexual and do not think homosexual behaviors are acceptable. The natural law written on men’s hearts tell them the truth and no amount of politics will eradicate. No, they’ve simply use the homosexuals as focal point for another agenda. Now, don’t be a toad and change you mind around a bit. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  37. ginnyfree says:

    Michael, first off I have to say I like quite a bit of the things you share here, however you’re stretching a bit thin here. Marriage has been a human institution since Adam and Eve and no society has doubted that as we have these days. Whatever do you mean about 1558 changing the definition of marriage? That is part of the other side’s agenda and is a distortion of history with a purpose. Can you clarify? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  38. ginnyfree says:

    Righto! Michael. It already underway in the other countries that have legalised gay marriage already. Check them out and see what we’re in for. And it will get worse, a lot worse. It will morph from protections for gays to anti-Christian hate crimes in a short time. Cardinal George said as much a while back and those in the know know so. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  39. ginnyfree says:

    When he finished his homily there was applause for a few minutes. I’m grateful he spoke up and relieved. God bless. Ginnyfree

  40. ginnyfree says:

    Supposing still doesn’t trump an actual reality. I and many others were moved deeply by the tragedy of the Little Boy Blue. If you research the entire story of his short life you will only see the tip of the iceberg regarding the tremendous suffering he went through. His poor body told the tale of what he’d lived – a sex toy for daddy and daddy’s friends. It is a deeply disturbing story and our society has other Little Boy Blues in them who survive and live lives of intense pain and sorrow all because someone takes their pleasure any way, no matter what harm it does. There will be more Little Boy Blues. Their side of the debate is startlingly missing from all the public debate. It is the children who will suffer the most. And most aren’t even considering them at all. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  41. Michael says:

    Whatever do you mean about 1558 changing the definition of marriage?

    I’m not quite sure how you got this from what I wrote Ginny. I was responding to something Tom wrote just above, to the effect that marriage, according to Catholic teaching, was last normative in England in 1558. My response was to say that despite the end of the Church’s role in English life, a Christian view of marriage had continued to be widely held since then until very recently, and also that there is a wider view of marriage held by all cultures (a human institution, as you say yourself), which is undermined by the recent attempts to alter its meaning as well.

  42. Michael says:

    Some more interesting thoughts on the SCOTUS decision, this time from a philosophical perspective:

    http://edwardfeser.blogspot.co.uk/2015/06/marriage-and-matrix.html

  43. ginnyfree says:

    Okie dokie Michael. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  44. ginnyfree says:

    A nice safe moral middle ground of a lilypad for you then Toad, where no one will ever disturb your endless consumption of flies and whatever else Toads feed on. You’ll be safe. The rest of us aren’t and won’t be. Tolerance is a fly that has left you a little bloated. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  45. ginnyfree says:

    Sorry that I’ve upset you Toad. Truly. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  46. ginnyfree says:

    Okie dokie Toadie. I’m neither a cynic nor snitty nor disillusioned. I simply pointed out that it isn’t just about two guys finally getting to kiss in public without consequences. It’s about all the other persons surrounding those two guys kissing and how society will be impacted. I am simply saying that children will be the most impacted and in negative ways no matter how much the public school systems try to lessen or eliminate the impact on their lives by falsely teaching that homosexuality is normal and acceptable, etc. Those who watch such things have closely scrutinized the curricula of these institutions. They’ve exposed the indoctrination and agenda that passes for education now. There is a larger impact on society and you’d have to be blind to not see this. I know you’re an educated man Toad, and so you have a working knowledge of the actual academic needs of students. Ignoring the impact will not change and personally I think it is beneath you to continue to do so Toad. God bless. Ginnyfree.
    P.S. When I say God bless you Toad, I really mean it. And may Mary keep you too.

  47. johnhenrycn says:

    Why anyone would commend a blog that permits Bozoboy87 to post articles (not merely to leave comments) like this
    anti-Catholic hate propaganda is a mystery to me. The owner, Jessica Hoff, must think it’s fair comment and that Bozo, a long time member of her circle, is not mentally ill.

  48. ginnyfree says:

    Oh he is mentally ill John Henry. There’s no question about that. The dangerous ones are those who think they are fine. AATWT is a fun place to hash it out sometimes. You should visit more often and not diss it because of some of its’ contributors. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  49. johnhenrycn says:

    “You should visit [Hoff’s blog] more often…”

    Thanks, but no thanks. To paraphrase Fr Zuhlsdorf, when slime balls and snakes slither out of the tall grass, it’s time to raise the drawbridge, release the gators in the moat, and boil the oil.
    http://wdtprs.com/blog/2015/06/note-to-readers-registration-and-comments/

  50. Michael says:

    Why anyone would commend a blog that permits Bozoboy87 to post articles…is a mystery to me

    Because I thought it was a good article. I agree that continuing to allow Bosco to comment there is something that should have been nipped in the bud a long time ago, and I have concerns about what occasionally seems like an endorsement of Indifferentism (at least with respect to ecclesiology and confessional allegiance) over there as well. But I don’t see that as enough of a reason not to link to articles written there, and there are many good ones.

    P.S. Jessica took leave of overseeing the blog quite a while ago – she was unfortunately taken very ill, but (miraculously, by all accounts) recovered, thank God, and is now pursuing a religious vocation.

  51. Michael says:

    And so it begins… Thanks for the link. Another good one here at Catholic Answers:

    http://www.catholic.com/blog/trent-horn/marriage-has-been-redefined-now-what

    I particularly like the description of marriage licenses (according to our current understanding of marriage) being tantamount to ‘municipally regulated dating certificates’.

  52. Michael says:

    Another good one here, from Fr. Longenecker:

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/2015/06/the-roman-empire-strikes-back.html

    Particularly germane to some of the debate on this thread, as it focuses on the fact that decisions made seemingly with respect only to private relationships can be a sign of and contributor to wider cultural decline.

  53. ginnyfree says:

    Nothing to add but ribbit ribbit. BTW, how long have you had the delusion you’re a toad? Got any feelings you’dl like to share on about ponds and flies and things toadish? God bless. Ginnyfree.

  54. Good article, but bad history (sigh, the whole Fall-of-the-Roman-Empire-Myth, again).

  55. ginnyfree says:

    Why my little Toadie, I’m worth my weight in gold. Let’s see at if today’s price for an ounce is $1,174.47, then I’m worth approximately $3,758,304.00. God bless. Ginnyfree.

  56. JabbaPapa says:

    Such lawsuits have already been attempted, multiple times — and have so far always been thrown out as irreceivable.

    What’s just a matter of time is — when will some idiotic judge permit a Court case to proceed upon such “grounds” ?

  57. JabbaPapa says:

    … right up to the point when some ghastly social worker turns up, and arranges to have their children forcibly removed from them because the household is “homophobic”.

  58. JabbaPapa says:

    Oh !! Very glad to hear of her vocation !!

    AATW is a de facto ad hoc ecumenical group, that Catholics are normally forbidden to participate in, unless so authorised by a competent Bishop.

  59. JabbaPapa says:

    The Western Roman Empire did in fact cease to exist.

  60. When? I’ll tell you- in 1918.

  61. JabbaPapa says:

    We’ve gone over these ludicrous claims of yours once before, and it was tedious enough the first time …

  62. I’m not going to argue my case again. I believe my first arguments still hold up pretty well if you actually know your history.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s