Cardinal Ambrosic

[red]

Or whatever is name is. What a disappointing letter from someone who should know better.

[xarir]

Or whatever is name is. What a disappointing letter from someone who should know better.

While I personally disagree with the sentiment in his open letter, I don't find it surprising that he or any other high-ranking individual in the Catholic Church would call for "traditional marriage". The Catholic Church for centuries has only allowed marriage between a man and a woman, so why would they change now? Remember, the Church lives in a different reality. (Which is why I personally find the Church to be largely irrelvant in my own life.)

In any case, I'm pleased with Paul Martin's response which was basically that the Cardinal is entitled to his opinion but so is everyone else. i.e. He basically brushed the letter aside.

[yychobbyist]

Calgary's Bishop Fred Henry wrote a Pastoral letter about homosexuality and there are groups in the city who are investigating making a complaint against him under the hate crime provisions of the Criminal Code.

[The Scholar]

Folks:

If same-sex marriage legislation is passed by Parliament, Canada becomes only the third nation in the world to legalize such marriages.

This is a threat to the Catholic Church. Consequently, I am not surprised to see His Eminence writing such a letter. It only confirms that there was enormous pressure from the Holy See on the Cardinal to do everything he can to prevent this legislation from being passed. Mind you, the Cardinal's letter was powerful ammunition for the pro same-sex marriage lobby as it reinforced the argument that the powers of the State and the Church must be separate.

One only need look at Maurice Duplessis and his collusion with the Catholic Church in Quebec during his tenure as Quebec Premier.

Btw, this Cardinal really needs to retire. He has undone so much of the progressive work of Cardinal Carter over the last 15 years. It is such a shame.

NOTE: It is interesting to see the silence on the part of the Catholic Bishops in Canada. I suspect that many have decided that it is best to let things happen, as it will anyways, and focus on preserving their own diocesan power.

Regards.

[langeweile]

I am in agreement with the notion of a same-sex marriage. However I do disagree that any church should be forced to embrace it.
This decision has to be made by each of the churches and their members.

[Cardinal Fang]

The Supreme Court of Canada has answered this question. Religious institutions are NOT required to perform marriages to gay couples if they choose not to.



The Cardinal's thoughts are proof once again how the church is completely out of touch.

[ocean976124]

Folks:

NOTE: It is interesting to see the silence on the part of the Catholic Bishops in Canada. I suspect that many have decided that it is best to let things happen, as it will anyways, and focus on preserving their own diocesan power.
Having worked for Catholic institutions, I would counter that most are remaining silent because they see no real gain from speaking out. Most Catholic leaders I've come into contact with don't really care what the government does regarding same sex marriage. Yes they are against it, but they don't feel like losing political capital on an issue they are likely to lose. They'd rather focus on other national policy issues that are more up in the air. Not to mention, they already constantly make a big stink about abortion so they don't want to appear to be constant complainers on every issue. They'd like to keep abortion as their main #1 complaint and focus for big stinks they'd like to throw.

[red]

I am in agreement with the notion of a same-sex marriage. However I do disagree that any church should be forced to embrace it.
This decision has to be made by each of the churches and their members.


I am not asking them to embrace it, but be tolerant like our lord jesus christ

[antaeus]

The RC church is irrelevant. Developed countries eliminate organized religion as a legislative authority, limiting it to individual souls' ministration and delivery of social welfare services. Occasional missives will always be ignored. In developing countries they are preaching to the converted, hence irrelevent.

Modern times' knowledge and accepted morals aided by global instantaneous communication of scandal and reparation debt, entrenched misogyny and racism will continue to diminish RC into irrelevancy. South America, SE Asia and southern Africa are the bastions of RC and will always be servants to the Vatican.

[n_v]

Or whatever is name is. What a disappointing letter from someone who should know better.
He does know better. At least from you. The man should be given the respect he rightly deserves. Thinking he would deviate his opinion from Rome is silly to think.

[ocean976124]

So basically what this thread is saying is that one can form a political opinion based on anything except the sayings of Jesus? One can use Freud, Jung, Buddah, Mohammed, Locke, Jefferson, etc. but not Jesus?

[red]

He does know better. At least from you. The man should be given the respect he rightly deserves. Thinking he would deviate his opinion from Rome is silly to think.

He has a duty to god and to be compassionate with the people on this earth. I think his letter is misguided and will cause him to do some explaining in the hereafter. He should know better - means -as a professed man of god - he should follow the teachings of jc and be understanding, forgiving and not judgemental

[n_v]

He has a duty to god and to be compassionate with the people on this earth. I think his letter is misguided and will cause him to do some explaining in the hereafter. He should know better - means -as a professed man of god - he should follow the teachings of jc and be understanding, forgiving and not judgemental
Thing is this is where you are wrong. He isn't a man of god. He is though, a man of God. If you know the difference then there may still be hope for you too.

And where does it say he doesn't have and show compasion? He is not supporting hate of any nature. To draw the conclusion he is incompasionate because he doesn't want the definition of traditional marriage tinkered with is seriously reaching by anyone who thinks that.

[red]

Thing is this is where you are wrong. He isn't a man of god. He is though, a man of God. If you know the difference then there may still be hope for you too.

And where does it say he doesn't have and show compasion? He is not supporting hate of any nature. To draw the conclusion the is imcompasionate because he doesn't want the definition of traditional amrriage tinkered with is seriously reaching by anyone who thinks that.


not sure where you are going re capitalization, but- you may think that by not changing the definition of marriage and waiting five more years to discuss it - is compassionate- but I don't. I didn't say his comments were promoting hate, just they were not compassionate

[n_v]

not sure where you are going re capitalization
Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you.

[red]

Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you.

i see - i didn't capitalize the word god- so I am going to hell.

[someone]

Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you.
If you are really that religious, how do you reconcile your hobbying with the bibe?

[cyrus]

If you are really that religious, how do you reconcile your hobbying with the bibe?
hey hobbying actually make ones faith stronger!

[n_v]

i see - i didn't capitalize the word god- so I am going to hell.
No I didn't say that. But what I do find amusing is your quickness to chastize others for not being compasionate, respectful and understanding when you yourself didn't show those qualities.

[red]

No I didn't say that. But what I do find amusing is your quickness to chastize others for not being compasionate, respectful and understanding when you yourself didn't show those qualities.

lets see: you said "Thing is this is where you are wrong. He isn't a man of god. He is though, a man of God. If you know the difference then there may still be hope for you too."

I said: "not sure where you are going re capitalization"

your response was:
"Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you."

what does any of this have to do with being compassionate?

I started this by questioning how he can consider himself to be compassionate when he was unwilling to see how is actions and words were hurting others. Its unclear how a discussion of my compassion or lack thereof should enter into it. You seem to want to take a discussion and turn it back on the debater rather than discuss the issue or public figure at hand.

[baci2004]

Anyone have the link for the letter?

I was confirmed by Ambrosic when he was a Bishop, seemed like a good guy....that's all.

[red]

Anyone have the link for the letter?

I was confirmed by Ambrosic when he was a Bishop, seemed like a good guy....that's all.


it was in the globe as an op ed a few days ago.

[wop]

Has anyone stopped to think how this will impact those who never marry?
Unmarried people, by not being "married" really lose out on transference of benefits and inheritance. Estate law decidedly favors "married couples". Let's not even get into the numerous tax benefits like income sharing etc.
This is a great idea to have the right to express and recognize one's love for one of the same sex.
Admittedly I am not an expert in all the financial ins and outs that apply to married folk but it seems to me that others who are not into same sex marriage,will be at a big financial disadvantage.
So, by instituting same sex marriage without looking at the impact it has on same sex friends who are unmarried, or on singles, are we in effect helping one group at the expense of another? Are we not forgetting a whole other group of people (those without the political clout)? Should we not redefine ALL aspects of marriage and insurance/benefit/inheritance laws to allow EVERYONE the same right?
I am not speaking against same sex marriage, just against leaving behind a silent many, against singles having to pay more, against creating a not very level playing field...period.
And oh, I forgot, who really cares what the Church thinks? If you agree, then fine, if you don't...then you may just go to Hell!

[xarir]

Interesting points wop. I think the classic legal definition of marriage is so worded from a tax perspective because it's expected that married people (man + woman) will eventually have kids. Once a family unit is established, the financial burdens clearly increase. A child obviously cannot be expected to provide for himself / herself so it is incumbant on the parents to perform this duty for several years.

In today's world though, there are many married people (man + woman) who choose not to have kids. And with gay marriage, it is of course, a biological impossibility that kids will be naturally made as a result of this marriage.

So from a tax perspective, it may be useful to redefine the laws to benefit those with children. i.e. Base the benefits on the familiy unit as opposed to union of 2 individuals.

[Coach]

While not a Catholic, I agree with the Church on this one. To me same sex marriages are just plain wrong. If two people want to engage in a homosexual relationship, they can do so in their own lives, they can live together...just don't call it a marriage.
One can show compassion yet believe something is wrong.There are many people who believe same sex unions are wrong. This does not make them "homophobic" ( what the ***does that mean anyway?), only that they do not agree with a practice or activity. It is possible for individuals to "tolerate" (another misused word) homosexual activity, yet not believe in same sex marriage. The Catholic Church does not believe in divorce, so why would anyone be surprised that they come out against same sex marriages?

[xarir]

As I've grown up and considered and reconsidered my own personal beliefs, I've increasingly found it odd that the RC Church deigns to advise individuals as to the best course of marriage. This is an institution which forbids its own senior members (priests, bishops, cardinals) to enter into marriage themselves. While I can objectively understand this (they are supposed to be 100% dedicated to delivering the word of God) it just goes to show that there is no basis in reality for what they are saying.

Some will say that this is, of course, the whole point. Religion at one level is supposed to represent that which we do not physically have. Faith is just that - faith. But for me, I just need my faith to have an element of real world reality. To that extent, I can't see myself taking counsel on marriage from a person (priest etc) who has never been married himself.

So when the RC Church says that gay marriage is Very Bad, I just can't bring myself to lend a whole lot of weight to their argument.

[n_v]

lets see: you said "Thing is this is where you are wrong. He isn't a man of god. He is though, a man of God. If you know the difference then there may still be hope for you too."

I said: "not sure where you are going re capitalization"

your response was:
"Then you shouldn't be posting about anyting religious. Grab a Bible.
If you do then there is some hope for you."

what does any of this have to do with being compassionate?

I started this by questioning how he can consider himself to be compassionate when he was unwilling to see how is actions and words were hurting others. Its unclear how a discussion of my compassion or lack thereof should enter into it. You seem to want to take a discussion and turn it back on the debater rather than discuss the issue or public figure at hand.
The issue you suggested was that he is not compasionate for some reason beyond me. I simply stated you lack the compasion in this debate to offer an objective opinion. The issue, put another way, is you'll look to put down the RC Church no matter what it's stand is on anything. Therefore I find your comments nauseating at best.

[wop]

Think about it...why does same sex marriage need legal recognition, if not to have access to all those financial advantages of being married.
Spiritually, 2 people can call themselves "married" have a ceremony, and behave as if they are "married".
Legally, they can even have a pre-nuptial Agreement that defines the relationship in legal terms and if things go bad, the "divorce" can take place.
Politically, The Charter of Rights guarantees people will not be discriminated against.
Socially, same sex couples are already successfully adopting and raising children.
So why the need to have this legislated were it not for access to those financial benefits?
Besides, with marriage comes a 50% chance of divorce, and who would wish that unless there was something to gain in the gamble?

[wop]

So is this really a human rights issue, or is it about the cash?

[red]

The issue you suggested was that he is not compasionate for some reason beyond me. I simply stated you lack the compasion in this debate to offer an objective opinion. The issue, put another way, is you'll look to put down the RC Church no matter what it's stand is on anything. Therefore I find your comments nauseating at best.


I will send over some eno for your stomach. While you still have not explained your problem with not capitalizing the word god, I was not putting down the RC church, but debating the public statements of a public figure.

I have not made any other comments with respect to other RC teachings or doctrines- so the basis for your statements is more than a little unclear.

I do not believe he is acting in a compassionate way to the those who are gay, because he is attempting to take away from them a right to marry. Why? who knows. His article which he had published in the Globe and Mail was designed to win public support for his position that gays are not entitled to marry and that allowing gays to marry somehow denigrated the sacrament of marriage. I believe that Jesus Christ would have embraced gays as an oppressed group, and would not have tried to allow them to be further persecuted. Every time a right is denied, it makes further discrimination that much easier.

[Coach]

I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.

[yychobbyist]

I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.

They deserved to be able to marry because, among a ton of other reasons, if we want to live in a country that is truly free and truly does not discriminate then homosexuals should have the same rights that heterosexuals do. Homosexual marriage won't do any more damage to the institution than heterosexuals have done to it.

[n_v]

I get tired of hearing about "gay rights" as it relates to marriage. Every man in this country has the right to marry a woman, and every woman has the right to marry a man. Same rights for all. Now, you may not choose to marry, which is your choice.You may choose to live with someone of your own gender, that is your choice. Nowhere does it state that a person has to be married. Where is the discrimination? Actually there is discrimination everywhere in our society and every person practises it. We may discriminate on the basis of intelligence, gender, height, weight, personality, nationality, religion, age, hair colour, musical taste, favourite sports team...and so on. We select people as our friends based on criteria we choose; maybe we do not want a$$holes as friends..we discriminate against them; maybe we only want intelligent people in our social circle, so we discriminate against the stupid; yes this is a reach, but the fact is when we select people based on certain criteria we discriminate against those who do not fit our criteria.
Marriage was deemed to be between a man and a woman, not a man and a man, or a woman and a woman. It isn't between a man and a monkey, a woman and a horse, or between a brother and sister, nor is it between first cousins. There are a myriad of reasons that marriage was defined to be between a man and a woman. Leave it as is. If homosexuals want to live together, fine. Just don't call it marriage.

</Stands up and applauds> woooo wooooo!!!

[n_v]

Homosexual marriage won't do any more damage to the institution than heterosexuals have done to it.
Then why are they soo stubborn to have the ceremony/event called marriage? Call it something else.

[yychobbyist]

Then why are they soo stubborn to have the ceremony/event called marriage? Call it something else.

Why shouldn't they have the right to try their luck at it? Why should they have to call it something else? We don't make black people call their ceremonies something else.

[n_v]

While you still have not explained your problem with not capitalizing the word god, I was not putting down the RC church, but debating the public statements of a public figure.
By not capitalizing God it is indeed disrespectful to not only the RC Church but christians in general around the world. People from the as far as man can rmember have had faith in god or gods. To some a god was the sun, to other a cow, or tree or whatever. For the most part these people had a belief in many gods. RC's and christians believe in 1 almighty Lord the God of all gods. Capitalizing acknowledges that there is one God that rules the universe. Not doing it is disrespectful to those that believe in Him.

[n_v]

Why shouldn't they have the right to try their luck at it? Why should they have to call it something else? We don't make black people call their ceremonies something else.
2 dongs don't make a child, nor do 2 pussies. Please compare apples to apples.

[yychobbyist]

2 dongs don't make a child, nor do 2 pussies. Please compare apples to apples.

Please take your own advice. What's marriage got to do with children?

My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. THey're born that way like I was born ambidextrous and Donovan McNab was born black. I get to marry eventhough I can bat left and right handed and Donovan McNab can marry eventhough he's black. So what's the difference between us and homosexuals?

And in answering that question please notice that I showed an awful lot of respect for you and didn't use a Patriot as my example of a black person.

[Coach]

" My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. "

Many disagree with that, there is plenty of evidence show it is a choice. Comparing Blacks to homosexuals is not a valid argument.Not even close.

[yychobbyist]

" My reference to black people was this: I do not believe homosexuality is a choice. I think it's a genetic thing. I think they're born that way. "

Many disagree with that, there is plenty of evidence show it is a choice. Comparing Blacks to homosexuals is not a valid argument.Not even close.

In your view. Regardless. Why should they be treated any differently?

[baci2004]

By not capitalizing God it is indeed disrespectful to not only the RC Church but christians in general around the world. People from the as far as man can rmember have had faith in god or gods. To some a god was the sun, to other a cow, or tree or whatever. For the most part these people had a belief in many gods. RC's and christians believe in 1 almighty Lord the God of all gods. Capitalizing acknowledges that there is one God that rules the universe. Not doing it is disrespectful to those that believe in Him.

Soooo then if I were not to capitalize god.... That would mean that I respect the fact that non-Christians may believe in another god or maybe three.

Oh and BTW GOD gOd goD Gawd and DOG :eek: are just words; the church is just a building. Christianity is a way of life, not something you just do on Sundays. I'm a Christian seven days a week twenty-four hours a day; God knows this by my actions, not by the way I spell. God also sees how we treat others on terb...I haven't read one post of yours (in any thread) that would indicate that you are a Christian. You are an angry ball-breaking SOB, listening to you pontificate makes me want to puke!

[wop]

Can somebody please explain to me what those who want same sex marriage will gain that they don't already have?
It certainly is not equality...theoretically we all are already equal.
I really think that this is an issue of political power-grabbing by a well organized lobby group pushing the envelope as far as they can, without any regard for equality and all the other nice touchy-feelie things that have been discussed.

What is in it for those who want it that they don't already have?
I do not understand? :confused:

[yychobbyist]

Can somebody please explain to me what those who want same sex marriage will gain that they don't already have?
It certainly is not equality...theoretically we all are already equal.
I really think that this is an issue of political power-grabbing by a well organized lobby group pushing the envelope as far as they can, without any regard for equality and all the other nice touchy-feelie things that have been discussed.

What is in it for those who want it that they don't already have?
I do not understand? :confused:

They get to feel more like us, they get to be treated equally in the eyes of the law in all regards, they get to do all those things that we get to do. You're right, theoretically they are equal to us now but it's only a theoretical equality.

There are also some legal minutae (to you and I anyway) that getting married gives them. For example, if they are legally married in a country then, if they move to a country which does not recognize same-sex marriage, private international law requires that the country they move to treat them as a married couple. That entitles, for example, a surviving spouse to certain rights that they would not have had they not been married.

My question to you who oppose gay marriage is this: what's so bad about gays marrying? What's so special about marriage in this age when children are born out of wedlock, when half of all marriages end in divorce, when people get married by a fake Elvis in Vegas and then annul the next day because they were too drunk or stupid to realize what they were doing?

[someone]

By not capitalizing God it is indeed disrespectful to not only the RC Church but christians in general around the world. People from the as far as man can rmember have had faith in god or gods. To some a god was the sun, to other a cow, or tree or whatever. For the most part these people had a belief in many gods. RC's and christians believe in 1 almighty Lord the God of all gods. Capitalizing acknowledges that there is one God that rules the universe. Not doing it is disrespectful to those that believe in Him.

Fine, if they are that sensitive, let it be disrespectful. The fact is that god or gods is a concept created by man (or Man/Women, if you want to be PC). Unless, you capitialize other concepts created by man which are not pronouns (e.g. named after the person that created them, such as Marxism, Keynesian, Stalinism, etc.) capitalizeing god is inconsisent.

[red]

Can somebody please explain to me what those who want same sex marriage will gain that they don't already have?
It certainly is not equality...theoretically we all are already equal.
I really think that this is an issue of political power-grabbing by a well organized lobby group pushing the envelope as far as they can, without any regard for equality and all the other nice touchy-feelie things that have been discussed.

What is in it for those who want it that they don't already have?
I do not understand? :confused:


equality. justice. they want the same freedom to control how they and their relationships that you do. why do you oppose it? really- how will effect you?

[red]

By not capitalizing God it is indeed disrespectful to not only the RC Church but christians in general around the world. People from the as far as man can rmember have had faith in god or gods. To some a god was the sun, to other a cow, or tree or whatever. For the most part these people had a belief in many gods. RC's and christians believe in 1 almighty Lord the God of all gods. Capitalizing acknowledges that there is one God that rules the universe. Not doing it is disrespectful to those that believe in Him.


I feel sorry for you. Peace unto you, my brother.

[Cardinal Fang]

As a Catholic Red, I was not offended.

[yychobbyist]

As a Catholic Red, I was not offended.

You're Catholic?

[Goober Mcfly]

You're Catholic?He also shits in the woods.

[yychobbyist]

He also shits in the woods.

If a Catholic shits in the woods but no one is around does it still stink?

[The Doctor]

Of course not, our shit doesn't stink in the first place.


</tounge in cheek>

[Cardinal Fang]

You're Catholic?

I have my membership card on me.

[yychobbyist]

Wonder if they're written in Latin

Wonder if they include instructions on preventing your priest from buggering you?