Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

,

Homosexual activists excited by softer tone of U.S. cardinals

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

ROME, April 4, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Experts say, despite an apparently softer tone on homosexuals from two leading American cardinals, the Roman Catholic Church will not and cannot shift its moral teaching on same-sex "marriage" or the grave sin of homosexual acts.

Cardinals Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York, and Donald Wuerl of Washington D.C., both said in separate interviews that the Church would not be altering its position on “gay marriage” but both are being praised by Terrence Weldon, a British homosexual activist and author of the blog “Queering the Church”.

In an interview with This Week on Easter Sunday, Dolan was asked what he would say to “a gay couple who told him: ‘We love God. We love the Church. But we also love each other, and we want to raise a family in faith.’”

Dolan replied, “When it comes to sexual love, that is intended only for a man and woman in marriage, where children can come about naturally.”

“We gotta do better to see that our defense of marriage is not reduced to an attack on gay people,” Dolan added. “And I admit, we haven’t been too good at that. We try our darndest to make sure we’re not an anti-anybody. We’re in the defense of what God has taught us about…marriage. And it’s one man-one woman, forever, to bring about new life.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In a Fox News interview this weekend, Cardinal Wuerl commented that “gay” Catholics fall into the same kind of category as those who have divorced and remarried, a situation that normally precludes them from receiving Communion.

Fox’s Chris Wallace asked, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules that there is a constitutional right to same-sex "marriage,” what Cardinal Wuerl would say to “gays who are good Catholics…who believe that God made them that way and who want to commit to a partner?”

Wuerl responded, “The Church is probably…with 20 centuries of experience…probably the most understanding of the human condition of any institution. But at the same time it does remind not only gay people but heterosexual people, straight people, ‘You’re not supposed to be following a moral law apart from what Christ has said to us.’”

When asked if the couple would be allowed to continue in the Church without clerics recognizing their "marriage," Wuerl said" “Well, we do that same thing with people who are married and divorced and remarried. We say, ‘You’re still part of the family, but we can’t recognize that second marriage. We do that, and it’s never been a great problem.”

He added that people in such unions should continue to “walk as close to Christ as you can. That’s why we’re here. Come to Mass. Participate in the life of the Church.”    

Whether these comments were intended as a softening or a distancing from the Church’s official teaching on the nature of marriage, they are being taken as such by homosexual activists seeking to force the Church to change and secular media.

Terrence Weldon, an organizer of the notorious Soho Masses in London, wrote on his blog “Queering the Church” that the language used by Wuerl moves the Church a step closer to accepting “gay marriage” and homosexuality.

Thus far, Weldon said that the “orthotoxic” language usually used by churchmen about homosexuality, “especially the description as an ‘intrinsically disordered’ condition, leads many of us to assume that Catholic doctrine is especially discriminatory towards us.”

But Weldon said Wuerl’s comments, taken together with Dolan’s, do “point to part at least of a workable response.”

“Cardinal Wuerl’s recognition that married gay Catholics are in a position no different to those who have remarried after divorce, ‘and it’s never been a great problem,’ is a helpful step forward,” Weldon said. The key, he said, is that in practice, the “formal rules,” are “ignored” in most parishes where “a more sensitive, pastoral welcome applies instead.”

“I hope that married gay and lesbian Catholics will take Cardinal Wuerl at his word, and take their places in Catholic parishes alongside other married couples – and expect the equal treatment, without encountering ‘great problems,’ that the Cardinal has given them grounds to expect,” he wrote.

But Fr. Peter West, Vice President for Missions of Human Life International, said that any suggestion to the contrary, Cardinal Wuerl’s comments cannot be taken as any kind of softening by the Church on homosexuality or “gay marriage.”

“Despite what some anti-Catholic activists wish he said,” Fr. West told LifeSiteNews.com, “Cardinal Wuerl simply restated the Church’s long held position that the Church preaches love for sinners -- which includes all of us -- but a hatred of sin.”

The issue of how the Church deals with those who openly flout its moral teachings has always resolved onto the pinpoint question of reception of Communion at Mass.

Asked whether persons in same-sex unions would be refused Holy Communion, a spokesman for the cardinal told LifeSiteNews.com today, “The interview speaks for itself. We’re not doing interviews on what the cardinal said.”

But Fr. West clarified the Church’s official teaching.

He told LifeSiteNews.com, “Catholics of good will are welcomed to Mass, but only Catholics in the state of grace are allowed to receive the Holy Eucharist, which is a statement of communion with the Church. Catholics who publicly reject Church doctrine and are living in grave sin are called to repentance out of a pastoral concern for their souls, and a desire for their return to communion.”

Wuerl himself, however, has long been a leading voice among the U.S. bishops who “refuse to refuse” Communion to those who publicly flout Catholic moral teaching.

Despite clear instructions from Rome and multiple criticisms from prominent Catholics, including the Vatican’s chief canonist Raymond Cardinal Burke, Cardinal Wuerl’s responses have been consistent on the issue of whether he will refuse Communion to those in a state of what the Church’s Canon Law calls “manifest,” or publicly known, “grave sin.”

In 2007 Wuerl, was asked, as the bishop closest to the national political scene, whether he would discipline the strongly pro-abortion Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi by refusing her Communion. Wuerl told California Catholic Daily reporter Allyson Smith, “I will not be using the faculty in that, in the manner you have described.”

When Smith pressed him on whether he would tell priests to refuse her Communion, the archbishop said, “You’re talking about a whole different style of pastoral ministry. No, thank you.”

And Wuerl has backed up his convictions with actions. In March last year, he stripped a priest of his faculties to celebrate Mass for refusing Communion to a woman who was known to have been living in a homosexual relationship. Fr. Marcel Guarnizo was “placed on administrative leave” by the archdiocese after he refused to distribute Communion to Barbara Johnson, a self-identified Buddhist who had reportedly introduced her lesbian “lover” to the priest in the sacristy right before her mother’s funeral Mass. The Archdiocese issued an apology to Johnson and said that Fr. Guarnizo’s actions were “against policy” and that an investigation was underway.

Wuerl’s position on refusing Communion closely follows that of his predecessor as Cardinal Archbishop of Washington, Theodore McCarrick, who told the business news site Bloomberg on the weekend that he has “no problems” with homosexual civil unions.

Bloomberg’s interviewer asked McCarrick the same question that Wallace presented to Wuerl, given that “the majority of Catholics according to polls now favor same-sex marriage. If two gays or two lesbians came to you for counsel, what would you tell them?”

McCarrick responded, “Well, I would tell them to try to be as good as they can, to try to be as -- as faithful as they can. They can be good friends. The difficulty is we believe that the sacrament of marriage is made for a man and a woman.”

Asked if he has “any problems with civil unions?” McCarrick responded, “No. I have no problem if this is the situation that…I certainly would prefer that to…what I would call a 'marriage' in quotes.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, then then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook