New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan denounces Obama gay marriage stance

[trotsky]

NEW YORK - Former Milwaukee Archbishop and current New York Cardinal Timothy Dolan called President Barack Obama's comments in favor of gay marriage "deeply saddening."

In a statement, Dolan said that Mr. Obama's words are "not surprising since they follow upon various actions already taken by his Administration that erode or ignore the unique meaning of marriage.

"I pray for the President every day, and will continue to pray that he and his Administration act justly to uphold and protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

Source: TMJ4

[HockeyMom]

1. Dolan forgot (on purpose?) two words

according to the Catholic Church. FOR LIFE. Divorce is an "abomination" to them too.

[cindyperry2010]

2. why is his opinion deemed

of any merit anyway who cares what he thinks

[BeyondGeography]

3. Yeah, um

Whatever.

[Crow73]

4. Not so much...

Cardinal Timothy Dolan urged Gov. Andrew Cuomo and state lawmakers Monday to reject pending bills to codify abortion rights and open a window for victims of child sex abuse to sue for old incidents.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/12/cardinal-dolan-lobbies-gov-cuomo-to-show-restraint-on-expansion-of-abortion-rights/

Should he be lobbying and still not pay taxes?

[all american girl]

5. They act like marriage is a "special" club

Get over it. Rich coming from a man who chooses to remain single.

[bloomington-lib]

6. He should spend more time praying for himself

[geckosfeet]

7. There's a surprise -

institutionalized CATholic homophobia and bigotry.

[tanyev]

8. A man married to a male Bronze Age Canaanite deity doesn't have much room to talk.

[rug]

9. Any sex, straight, gay, or solo, outside a sacramental marriage is also "deeply saddening".

Dolan has no authority to pronounce on anything outside a sacramental marriage. He's showboating.

[trotsky]

10. I see. Will Dolan receive a reprimand from his superiors?

And how does a "sacramental marriage" differ from the standard definition?

[rug]

11. No. I'm sure he'll receve kudos.

A sacramental marriage is purely religious, defined as a particular means of grace. It really has no bearing on a civil marriage, which is regulated by the state and exists primarily to define property and child rights and obligations.

[trotsky]

14. What a great bunch of guys.

So what makes a sacramental marriage different from a natural marriage? Are Catholic officials allowed to comment on natural marriages?

[rug]

16. That's a big topic.

The Catholic Church has a very specific definition of a Catholic sacramental language, e.g., if you're Catholic, you must be married within the Catholic Church (I'm not), etc. The whole annullment process looks to see if any of those requirements were not present and, if not, it is declared null.

However, it also recognizes the sacramental nature of a marriage between two baptized Christians of another denomination. If a Catholic wants to marry a divorced non-Catholic Christian, that prior marriage must also be examined to see if it was a nullity within Church law. If not, no sacramental marriage is permitted.

But for your larger and more interesting question, natural marrage, the rules on sacramental marriage apply only to Catholics or baptized Christians. Natural marriages are considered to be valid marriages, although they are not considered to be sacramental marriages. (All seven of the Catholic sacraments are available only to those who choose to belong to the Church.)

Now if a Catholic wishes to marry a previously divorced nonChristian who had a valid natural (but nonsacramental) marriage? There would not be an anullment process, because it was not a sacramental marriage that required an anullment, but it was a valid marriage that required dissoultion before a sacramental marriage could take place. Then the Pauline or Petrine Privilege would apply.

I'm starting to wade too deeply through this, so here's a link (see #39 and #40 for the Pauline and Petrine Privileges):

http://www.archchicago.org/departments/tribunal/faq.shtm

[trotsky]

20. Could two homosexuals get a natural marriage within the church? n/t

[rug]

22. Any natural marriage exists only outside the Church.

[trotsky]

24. Your church automatically recognizes certain non-Catholic marriages to be sacramental...

doesn't it?

For instance, both my wife and I were baptized in trinitarian churches. She in a Baptist church, myself in the ELCA. Our wedding took place in a Lutheran church officiated by a Lutheran pastor. We were both atheists at the time, and still are.

Do she and I have a sacramental marriage?

[rug]

27. Yes, as I stated earler, baptized nonCatholics can have a sacramental marriage in the eyes of the RC

Although, in this case, if challenged, if either participant did not believe or intend that they were engaging in a sacramental marriage at the time, pastor or no, that would probably be a ground for declaring the sacramental nature of the marriage to be null and void. Otherwise, the presumption that it was acramental holds.

[trotsky]

38. So if two homosexuals marry in a Protestant trinitarian church...

is there a possibility their marriage would by default have to be considered sacramental?

[rug]

43. No.

[trotsky]

50. Why not? n/t

[rug]

54. You know the answer already.

Now, here's a question for you.

What does theology have to do with state regulation of marriage?

[2ndAmForComputers]

64. I'll jump in. The answer is:

Fanatics think the former should be the basis for the latter.

Additionally, there's too many fanatics and WAY too many of them wield some power.

[AlbertCat]

48. Any sex, straight, gay, or solo, outside a sacramental marriage is also "deeply saddening".

That hasn't been my experience! I've had some great times!

What's "deeply saddening" is ignoring reality.... the church's main mission these days.

[rug]

57. You should ask your partners.

[laconicsax]

66. Yes, but what do you think of his statements?

Do you agree with him or your church's position on same-sex marriage?

[E_Pluribus_Unitarian]

12. Wonder if Cardinal Dolan would like to explain this?

When Same-Sex Marriage Was a Christian Rite

Contrary to myth, Christianity's concept of marriage has not been set in stone since the days of Christ, but has constantly evolved as a concept and ritual. Prof. John Boswell, the late Chairman of Yale University’s history department, discovered that in addition to heterosexual marriage ceremonies in ancient Christian church liturgical documents, there were also ceremonies called the "Office of Same-Sex Union" (10th and 11th century), and the "Order for Uniting Two Men" (11th and 12th century).

These church rites had all the symbols of a heterosexual marriage: the whole community gathered in a church, a blessing of the couple before the altar was conducted with their right hands joined, holy vows were exchanged, a priest officiatied in the taking of the Eucharist and a wedding feast for the guests was celebrated afterwards. These elements all appear in contemporary illustrations of the holy union of the Byzantine Warrior-Emperor, Basil the First (867-886 CE) and his companion John....

http://anthropologist.livejournal.com/1314574.html

[rug]

13. Here's more on that.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis

[dmallind]

15. Hmmm. Unlike Dawkins, Harris etc, Dolan does speak for the group

It's his job. He was trained and selected for it. His pronouncements, unless corrected by more senior officials, are made as and reflective of group policy (as opposed to being made on unrelated subjects. Dolan's putative opinions on model aircraft are as irrelevant to the RCC as are Harris's on....well anything really).

[rug]

17. No, he does speak for the group.

The point you miss is, the group is not competent to speak on this topic of civil, state-regulated marriage. Its opinion carries precisely the same authority as yours.

[Goblinmonger]

18. So you think separate but equal is just fine?

Let's call it something else and make them happy?

[rug]

19. I don't see Plessy v. Ferguson as having any bearing on this discussion.

[trotsky]

21. On the contrary, I'd say Dolan's opinion carries quite a bit of authority.

As do the opinions of most senior-level Catholic clergy. Why else would his statement be news?

[rug]

23. Because the Church is flexing its, ahem, secular influence.

[trotsky]

25. But you said he isn't speaking for your church, at least with any authority.

???

[rug]

28. I also said he was showboating.

As a hierarch, his authority is limited to church matters. Consequently, he has neither competence nor authority in the realm of civil marriages. However, as a hierarch of a church to which one out of four Americans belong, he probably has more secular influence than a third of Congress. That is why the RCC, along with several other churches, have a tremendous secular role.

[trotsky]

37. Your earlier claim was not that your church had a secular role,

but that it was a secular institution. Which one is it?

[rug]

42. It's both.

Among many other things.

It's ludicrous to assert that an institution containing a sixth of the planet is neither a secular institution nor without secular influence.

Among many other things.

[trotsky]

49. I've never denied they are without secular influence.

But a secular institution, the Roman Catholic Church is not.

[rug]

55. It is one of the oldest, and largest, on earth.

Among other things.

[trotsky]

68. One of the oldest and largest religious institutions, yes.

Not secular. Sorry.

[dmallind]

30. So the church's raison d'etre should not, or does not, include social mores?

I'd love that were it true. If you think so, good for you, but the church definitely does not agree and considers speaking about secular morality, ethics and laws is a key part of its role.

Would 'twere not so.

[rug]

32. Morality is a large part of its raison d'etre, but far from its main purpose.

(I'd peg its raison d'etre as salvation, but that's another subject.)

It does teach and encourage its brand of morality to its members and offers it to all who want it.

But it's exceed its purpose if it tries to impose it.

That's the bright dividing line.

[trotsky]

39. "That's the bright dividing line."

However, your church leadership does not see this line.

[rug]

41. So, they're idiots.

[trotsky]

51. I'm glad you agree.

So why do you support them with your time, membership, and money?

[rug]

56. Because it is more than the hierarchs.

And it doesn't belong to them.

[trotsky]

67. And yet you still support them. n/t

[Humanist_Activist]

26. who pays this fuckers salary? oh yeah, its tithe paying catholics in his archdiocese.

Paying members of a known hate group, they must be so proud.

[rug]

29. Catholics don't tithe.

That's the least ignorant part of our statement.

[Humanist_Activist]

31. really? So the mailer my parents get from St. Cletus parish begging for money every...

Month isn't a demand for a tithe? Sure its voluntary, my parents refuse to pay it, but still a demand for money.

[rug]

33. A request for financial support is not a tithe.

Ask the DNC.

[Humanist_Activist]

34. Parish still calls it that, perhaps I should call it financial support or whatever.

Point is, Catholics who support the Church financially must be so proud.

[rug]

35. There's a lot about the Catholic Church I support. A lot I don't.

Same with the DNC.

What's your point?

[Humanist_Activist]

36. Do you get to choose if your money goes to support discrimination or not?

This isn't the DNC we are talking about. They are quite focused, and you can choose candidates to support or not support, do you have the same discretion with the Church?

[rug]

40. To a limited extent, less limited than my ability to keep my money awat from predator drones.

The regular collection is for the support of the parish, although I believe a portion of that gets kicked back to the diocese, unrestricted. The second collection is definitely earmarked for a specific purpose. This last Sunday if was for the care of elderly priests and nuns.

[Humanist_Activist]

45. So when your archdiocese supports an initiative to ban marriage equality somewhere...

in the country, some of that money came directly from your pocket?

How does it feel to materially support a hate organization?

[rug]

47. How does it feel to materially support predator drones dropping on Afghan villages?

How does it feel to materially support political advocacy for predator drones dropping on Afghan villages?

How does it feel to materially support ecodevastation by oill companies?

Your simplistic suggestion of a boycott is politically immature, though self-righteous.

[Humanist_Activist]

52. Bullshit comparisons because neither is a choice...

If I want to eat I have to drive, and if I want to stay out of jail I pay taxes.

[rug]

53. There were three choices.

[Humanist_Activist]

59. Sorry, I don't materially support the DNC, I'm an independent...

as far as voting, well, lack of choice means picking the lesser of two evils.

Again, the comparison to religions or churches is bullshit because of the amount of choices you have.

[rug]

60. And if you vote for Obama, are you materially supporting drone warfare?

Or don't you vote?

[eqfan592]

61. Sorry, but that still doesn't work.

It's still a poor comparison, because there was no viable alternative to voting for Obama for a progressive democrat. The same cannot be said in the case of supporting the RCC, because there are indeed other christian denominations open to your membership that have far more progressive stances when it comes to issues like gay marriage.

[rug]

62. Actually, that's not correct.

You will still be supporting drone warfare with your vote no matter how much you cry "I had no choice".

As to staying or leaving the RCC, theologically and ecclessiatically, there is no viable alternative. Religions are not fungible. But you won't hear me crying about it.

[eqfan592]

63. Yes, I will still be supporting it, and I did not claim otherwise.

However, as I said, the difference IS in the availability of a viable alternative. And there ARE viable alternatives to the RCC. Independent Catholic churches are in fact a thing, such as this one here.

St. Catherine is the sixth American National Catholic Church parish to open since the denomination was founded in 2008. Women are allowed to be priests. Annulments aren't needed. Communion is offered to anyone.

Bishop George Lucey, of New Jersey, who leads the national organization, said the services might not be for everybody, but he wants the churches to be a "viable alternative."

"Hopefully, by its existence, it will give balance to the Roman Catholic structure," Lucey said.

(Emphasis mine)

[rug]

65. I'm familiar with it. There are many others, including The Old Catholic Church.

There have been many similar breakaway movements, especially since Vatican I.

Still, despite their similarities, if you've studied the history and eccessiology of the Catholic Church, you'd see why they are not really alternatives.

[Humanist_Activist]

69. So you actually believe the mythologies and beliefs that were created to build up the church?

Honestly, I don't see how anyone can take those too seriously. But basically it boils down to your religion being more important than people, and that's just fucked up.

[rug]

70. Are you now moving on from attacking institutions to attacking people?

Let's be explicit.

[Humanist_Activist]

72. Quick, find the attack I made on you. Oh, and alert on it. n/t

[rug]

74. It's all over the place from your first comment.

I'll give you advice.

Bash the Catholic Church to your heart's delight.

Bash Catholics, or any other group, as a group at your own peril.

Bash me and we'll have an interesting conversation.

[AlbertCat]

75. Bash me and we'll have an interesting conversation.

That'll be the day.

[rug]

77. Sorry. It takes two.

[Humanist_Activist]

76. Not my fault you support a homophobic organization. n/t

[rug]

78. Not my fault you speak from ignorance.

That rapidly leads to bigotry.

Educate yourself.

[Humanist_Activist]

79. Prove it, show the ignorance. n/t

[rug]

81. I already proved it with tithes. Here's another:

"known hate group"

Known to who? The Vice President? A third of Congress? Members of Catholic Worker?

You should be careful throwing around bigoted statements.

[Humanist_Activist]

82. When an organization opposes same sex marriage on nothing more than the Bible, they are a hate...

on the same moral level as the KKK. Perhaps I should have said "In my opinion" before that, but frankly I don't give a shit what you think about my supposed bigotry, I'm intolerant of intolerance, unlike you, who defends it.

[rug]

83. I see. The Church that Biden and a billion others belongs to is "on the same moral level as the KKK"

Somebody should tell the President.

And I don't gve a shit about supposed bigotry, only actual bigotry.

[Humanist_Activist]

84. Does Biden run the Church? Or those billion others? n/t

[rug]

85. "Paying members of a known hate group, they must be so proud."

Dissemble away. You're bashing a group not just an institution.

[Humanist_Activist]

86. Actually I'm condemning their actions, if you can't tell the difference, I can't help you...

similar to someone who donates to the Salvation Army, even though they would like nothing better than the leave LGBT teens starving on the streets.

[rug]

87. So, you're condemning every Catholic who puts money in the basket at Mass?

Is that right? Is that the actions you're condemning?

Or are you also condemning anybody who throws a quarter in the kettle at Christmas too?

And are you hiding behind "LGBT teens starving on the streets" while you spew this shit?

[cleanhippie]

80. "Bash me and we'll have an interesting conversation."

[trotsky]

71. There are sadly a lot of people -

and they are found in all religions, but the Catholic church seems to have a particular type - who sincerely believe their church is the "one true church" against which all others fall short and no matter what the people who run the church are doing, it is vitally important to support the church institution itself, even if it means supporting the corrupt evil old men who run it.

As if god in any progressive, liberal sense cares what church you belong to. I'd think god would prefer you to find a church that supports what you want, and doesn't work against it. But that's just a crazy atheist talking.

[cleanhippie]

73. Homer said it best.

"Suppose we've chosen the wrong god. Every time we go to church we're just making him madder and madder" - Homer Simpson

[JustAnotherGen]

44. So glad

I'm a UU not a Roman Catholic - don't have to pay ONE IOTA of attention to any bishop, pope, priest, nun, etc. etc.

[AlbertCat]

46. Unique meaning of marriage????

Unique means there's nothing else like it. Which "unique" definition would he like?

Marriage has been many many things over the centuries and cultures. This is just another evolution from women being property, to arranged, to handmaids, to bigamy, to divorce....

[brooklynite]

58. He means the "traditional" meaning...

...the transfer of propety and "chattel"