"Catholycs" for Equality are chortling about their belief that a "majority of Catholics in Maryland stand by Governor O'Malley". They opine in the context of O'Malley's intention to push for "gay marriage" in Maryland. I'm not going to banter as to whether or not a "majority" of MD Catholics have swallowed the politically-correct koolaid of "gay marriage". When one speaks of "Catholics", one can mean those who were baptized Catholic as children and that's it, those who attend Mass only on Easter and Christmas, and even those who call themselves "recovered Catholics". It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the aforegoing sub-groupings of Catholics probably would support "gay marriage" (assuming that they care one way or the other about the matter). However, morality is never defined by consensus, but only by God's laws.
The article goes on to criticize Archbishop O'Brien for a "bad use of his time" in defending traditional marriage. That's interesting. If these people don't recognize a bad definition of marriage, who are they to determine whether or not the Archbishop is using his time badly? As for the archbishop being "out of line", I suggest it is the gay activists who are "out of line" for their attempt to mangle the meaning of true marriage to suit their warped purposes.
While I certainly congratulate Archbishop O'Brien for speaking out, I do suggest that this article may indicate the results of years of neglect in teaching authentic morality and placing that before other matters, such as so-called "social justice" which is nothing more than wimpy attempts to placate progressives. Archbishop O'Brien and Cardinal Wuerl MUST start obeying Canon 915 and deny Holy Communion to Governor O'Malley, Barbara Mikulski and all the other politicians who dare to call themselves Catholic while using their high positions to tear down authentic morality.
If morality were not defined by consensus, slavery would still be widespread. It is repeatedly condoned in both Old and New Testament, and God never wrote His Congressman on the issue in the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteSo if the majority condoned slavery, it would be ok? Careful - don't confuse "morality" with "legality". Those words are not synonyms.
ReplyDeleteThomas, let's let the voters vote -- but hey the voters in D.C. CAN'T vote on "gay marriage" - only their council representatives who are bought off by corrupt gay thugs can vote. In California, the GAY JUDGE gets to over-rule the voters. So much for consensus. It will be civil war - and every last stone of the temple constructed by these evil CATHOLIC King Herods and their corrupt evil high priests will be overturned. God rules!
ReplyDelete1)@moderator True, "moral" and "legal" are not synonymous. But you argue that morality is only defined by God's laws. I disagree, since many immoral behaviors, such as slavery, are condoned and encouraged in the Bible. So either the Bible is always right, and slavery is still moral, if not legal, or people determine the morality of their time.
ReplyDelete2)@anon Citizens didn't get to vote on the 1964 Civil Rights Act either. What's your point? If you don't agree with the actions of your legislator, you vote them out. Regarding the judiciary, if you want to appeal JUDGE WALKER'S Prop 8 ruling, where's it going to go? The majority CATHOLIC Supreme Court! Who should get over-ruled then?
Good luck with your civil war. Delusional much?