Sure, I can link to a McCain post twice (or more) in one day!
In this one, McCain (who swears that he's some sort of Scots/Irish Protestant sectarian) writes a line which could have come directly from the pen of Bp. Fabian Bruskewitz, or Bp. Charles Chaput:
The decline of the traditional family caused the rise of same-sex marriage, and not vice-versa. It was America's embrace of the Contraceptive Culture -- detroying the natural connection between love, sex, marriage and parenthood -- that has made possible the radical triumph.
That's not exactly news. But it IS exactly correct.
Here's Abp Burke's thought on the issue:
8. At the same time, the fundamental society, that is, the family, upon which the life of our nation is founded and depends, is under attack by legislation which redefines marriage to include a relationship between two persons of the same sex and permits them to adopt children. In the same line, it is proposed to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. At the root of the confusion and error about marriage is the contraceptive mentality - which would have us believe that the inherently procreative nature of the conjugal union can, in practice, be mechanically or chemically eliminated, while the marital act remains unitive. It cannot be so. With unparalleled arrogance, our nation is choosing to renounce its foundation upon the faithful, indissoluble, and inherently procreative love of a man and a woman in marriage, and, in violation of what nature itself teaches us, to replace it with a so-called marital relationship, according to the definition of those who exercise the greatest power in our society
Longer--but precisely what McCain said.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Let me get this straight, DaddyZero -- no contraception for you and the Mrs.? God will tell you how many little rugrats you have to raise? I know that you drink the Kool-Aid, but do you drink ALL of it?
I didn't know that you thought of your wife as a sex machine, Anony.
And children are gifts, not diktats nor burdens.
And, anon, have you ever heard of NFP?
Dad is precisely right. Any man who would require his wife to fill her body with synthetic chemical contraceptives is abusing her nature and her dignity as a person.
Is a condom a "synthetic chemical contraceptive"? Question is posed to either of you two goofballs.
What a load of bull.
First of all, McCain somehow thinks that the traditional family has some sort monopoly on love, sex, marriage and parenthood. Who the hell is he to assume such a thing. And people wonder why this guy had a problem connecting with the voter last year?
As for Burke, I have no doubt his "nature" argument is mostly just a deep-rooted disdain for homosexuality and it's general acceptance in our society. Maybe he should worry more about the outragous percentage of failed heterosexual marriages in this country rather worrying about whether or not a couple gay guys disturb the "natural" order of things. That's the only "arrogance" I gather from Burke's piece.
Is a condom a "synthetic chemical contraceptive"? Question is posed to either of you two goofballs.No, but it is a barrier, and I'm willing to bet becoming increasingly less common with the variety of pills/patches out on the market.
Nothing says, "I love you baby, now let me suit up" before sex. It denies your wife's fertility and says you don't want to commit to either respecting her natural cycles or don't want to create children with this person you are supposed to love unconditionally.
J. Strupp. There is a natural order to things. And, as designed, the love between a husband and wife in the traditional family structure IS the only natural way to express sexuality and love. PERIOD.
Homosexuality goes against that. We do not have to accept what we believe is immoral - much in the same way you don't accept Burke doing his job (to teach on matters of faith and morals).
As for divorce, it IS part of Catholic teaching that a marriage is indissoluble. A couple that divorces civilly, but not canonically (annulment), cannot date or remarry within the Church until said annulment is processed. Anyone who goes outside the Church and remarries in such an instance is living in mortal sin.
And, for your information, couples that DON'T practice unnatural contraception actually have significantly lower divorce rates than couples who do - as it goes with couples who don't fall into cohabitation or engage in sexual relations before marriage...all things the Church has been adamant against. So your argument that the Church doesn't do its part to lower divorce rates is a straw man. We do, and our teachings are proven to work. Time and again.
DaddyZero never answered the question: Do you practice what you preach or do you use contraception? Simple question. Answer it, dude.
Saw your blog in my Sitemeter. Stop by my page and we'll get you linked up in the weekend roundups!
P.S. McCain's the master blogger!
"As for divorce, it IS part of Catholic teaching that a marriage is indissoluble. A couple that divorces civilly, but not canonically (annulment), cannot date or remarry within the Church until said annulment is processed. Anyone who goes outside the Church and remarries in such an instance is living in mortal sin."
If this be the case, Amy, why do you worship Charlie Sykes, the twice-divorced adulterer? A little consistency, please!
While you are at it, please let me know where my heathen Protestant soul will be headed when my end comes? Can I hope for more than Purgatory?
Anony, it's possible that your mother (and/or father) never taught you the phrase "It's none of your business." That would explain your rude question--which I will not answer on principle. Unlike you, I had a mother and father who were willing to teach me a few things about civil discourse.
By the way, to my knowledge, Amy does not "worship" Sykes. There is only one proper object of worship: God. As to listening to him (or anyone else)--I listen to NPR for the ideas and content. It's called 'using the intellect.' You might sharpen up those skills.
Strupp, my man: the McCain who wrote the blogpost is NOT the failed demi-Lefty candidate.
And if you actually read what Burke said, you'll discover that he's opposed to sin, not 'homosexuals.'
Wrap your mind around that, instead of your asinine (thus incorrect) interpretation of the actual text.
If this be the case, Amy, why do you worship Charlie Sykes, the twice-divorced adulterer? A little consistency, please!Anon - I don't "worship" Charlie Sykes. I listen to him. I also listen to Dave & Carole on WKLH - does that mean I "worship" them, too? I worship God, period.
In the interest of full disclosure, my son shares a name with Sykes, but that happens to be a coincidence - we named him for his paternal great-grandfathers. Is that what you're referring to?
No one is without sin. If your standard of "consistency" is for us to never listen or pay attention to anyone who's sinful, then there are lots of Christians who would be left without pretty much any means of communication or human contact...which isn't an edict of Catholic teaching.
So what's your answer to the Purgatory question, Amy? And, yes, I wondered if you named your kid after Sykes.
So what's your answer to the Purgatory question, Amy?Out of genuine curiosity, why do you care? You obviously have no use for Catholic teaching so why does Purgatory matter to you?
But, to answer your question, salvation - ultimately - is denied no one IF that person repents and atones for his sins. I, personally, would be completely satisfied with Purgatory because 1) it's not permanent and 2) it's like Heaven's "mud room" - wherein you are fully cleansed of your imperfections before entering paradise. In short, you make it to Purgatory, Heaven's next.
But I am not your pastor, nor am I God. So I don't know the state of your soul or your relationship with God - that's up to you to determine and rectify, if you see fit. I will not determine where you are going because it's not my place.
And, yes, I wondered if you named your kid after Sykes.Wow. Thanks for making me laugh. Of all the accusations leveled at me, that's probably the most unhinged and unfounded. Why in the world would I name my son after a radio personality that I listen to in the background, and have not met?
I believe, at one point, my husband may have written that we named our son after his paternal great-grandfathers' MIDDLE names because naming our son Wilbert Thaddeus was out of the question.
But I guess this scraps plans to name #2 "Rush"...good gracious.
Amy...I thought we had discussed this...we were going to name the kid "Savage", remember? Goes well for a boy or a girl...
So, let me get this straight -- heaven awaits, but only if I renounce Martin Luther and his evil thinking? Are we Protestants doomed to hell otherwise?
Salvation is granted those who repent and atone for their sins, Anony.
Seems clear to me.
Ditto what Dad said.
And, for what it's worth, I was raised Lutheran and about 1/2 of my family is the same. So your attempts to get me to condemn you aren't going to work. For a variety of reasons.
Amy -- How about naming your next child Rembert? That seems to cover all possible orientations.
Post a Comment