Pontifications

Pontifications


Cardinal to President: Outlaw adultery and divorce!

posted by David Gibson

Well, that’s one way to read Cardinal George’s Jan. 13 letter to Obama, in the post below.
In the letter (ZENIT text here) Cardinal George writes:

“We stand firm in our support for marriage which is a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman and must remain such in law.”


Amen! So, we can expect to see a church for for laws outlawing philandering? And divorce? No, I don’t think that’s what the cardinal intended. Still, I have to be convinced that infidelity and divorce aren’t much greater threats to the family than stable gay marriages. Problem is, how do we punish those things? Bring back the stocks?
Stocks.jpg



Advertisement
Comments read comments(12)
post a comment
Robert

posted January 22, 2009 at 11:44 am


And outlaw gay divorces in Massachusetts, too!



report abuse
 

Charles Cosimano

posted January 22, 2009 at 1:11 pm


The Cardinal has obviously lost some touch with reality.



report abuse
 

Tom

posted January 22, 2009 at 2:35 pm


“Still, I have to be convinced that infidelity and divorce aren’t much greater threats to the family than stable gay marriages.”
Perhaps, but what if our gay and lesbian brethren and sisteren do no better than we did in the arena of stable marriage? I’d hate to be one of those mapping out the ancestry trees a couple hundred or so years from now, wouldn’t you?
http://maureenmartinblog.blogspot.com/2008/05/gay-marriage-threat-to-those.html



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 22, 2009 at 7:51 pm


Guess what Cardinal George? Fortunately this country isn’t run by you or the church.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted January 23, 2009 at 10:02 am


I don’t think the cardinal meant what people are posting, just that marriage should be between a man and woman as God intended, but we also have to realize that gay couples are here to stay and should they remain true and faithful to each other they should have the same rights and privelges as straight couples, but don’t they already for the most part?



report abuse
 

pagansister

posted January 23, 2009 at 3:27 pm


Your Name 23 Jan 10 ’09:
Civil unions don’t give the same rights as marriage does. There are a few major differences, thus IMO gay couples should be allowed to marry…and gain the same rights as straight couples.



report abuse
 

dannyboy

posted January 23, 2009 at 5:45 pm


The Cardinal does not say in his letter that homosexuality or homosexual acts should be outlawed, merely that marriage should be defined in a particular way. Thus, extending your ‘reading’ to the idea that adultery should be outlawed is unreasonable. It is, to be sure “one way to read” the letter: a wrong way.
peace



report abuse
 

Janie

posted January 23, 2009 at 11:22 pm


pagansister, what rights are missing from civil unions?



report abuse
 

olmmac

posted January 25, 2009 at 12:19 pm


Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.



report abuse
 

Jimmy Mac

posted January 25, 2009 at 6:13 pm


Janie:
Civil unions have no bearing on federal benedfits (social security, etc.) Civil union benefits and rights apply only to the state in which they are granted. If a couple moves they most likely will instantly become disenfranchised. Any 2 opposite sex idiots can be married under any circumstances and INSTANTLY be granted benefits that my partner of 36 years and I cannot have.
Educate yourself before asking such a silly question./



report abuse
 

Abrazos!

posted January 26, 2009 at 12:34 pm


olmmac,
Amen, my friend! To be fair, though, let us also include the rest of the passage. After the would-be ‘stoners’ leave, we read in John 8:10-11, “Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and SIN NO MORE.'” (emphasis added).
Clearly, while Jesus shows His compassion, love and mercy first and foremost in warding off the woman’s attackers (the immediate threat to her mortal body), He then proceeds to show her the highest form of all compassion, love and mercy–and that is, (A) telling her the truth about her actions and (B) challenging her to live in that truth (“go, and sin no more.”), aka, not continuing living in sin (ie, avoiding the long term threat to her immortal soul).
To quote Jesus again as you did, “The truth will set you free!” (Jn 8:32). And, I think that’s what these bloggers are trying to do. After all, “love” without “truth” isn’t truly love…



report abuse
 

Greenman

posted January 28, 2009 at 11:40 am


It seems to me that outlawing divorce & adultry are the natural extension of using the Biblical Christian standards of marriage. I whole heartedly agree. For years divorces were rare because they were hard to get. One party had to prove infidelity (the only excuse Jesus allows) or cruelty (which is not a Biblical reason for divorce). Today’s “no-fault” is a cop out. I would be more willing to accept a ban on gay marriage if heterosexual couples had to work harder to make their marriages.
Oh and Janie, by law (The Defense of Marriage Act) civil unions cannot offer the same civil/legal/social rights & responsibilities as marriage.



report abuse
 

Post a Comment

By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.



Previous Posts

More blogs to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Pontifications. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here are some other blogs you may also enjoy: Faith, Media and Culture Prayer, Plain and Simple Happy Blogging!!!  

posted 2:38:01pm Aug. 27, 2012 | read full post »

Moving on, and many, many thanks...
So...my recent vacation and related absences also coincided with an offer from PoliticsDaily.com to cover religion for them, as editor Melinda Henneberger announces here in her roundup on the site's very successful first 100 days. That means, in short, that I'll have to sign off from blogging h

posted 8:29:24pm Aug. 02, 2009 | read full post »

Calvin at 500, Calvinism 2.0
If you thought you knew John Calvin--who turned 500 last week--you probably don't know enough. For example, that he was French, born Jean Cauvin. And if he was in fact scandalized by dancing, he was also a lot more complex than that. I explored the new look Calvin in an essay at PoliticsDaily, "Patr

posted 11:53:35am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

Apologia pro vita sua...Kinda
 In my defense, I've had computer outages and family reunions and a few days of single-parenthood, which is always a bracing reminder of what many parents go through all the time. And this weekend it's off for a week's vacation. Anyway, hence the long absence. Apologies to those who have chec

posted 10:51:36am Jul. 16, 2009 | read full post »

When Benny met Barry: "I'll pray for you!"
The first word via Vatican Radio and first image (that I saw) via Rocco: Speaking to Vatican Radio, Press Office Director Fr. Federico Lombardi said "moral values in international politics, immigration and the Catholic Church's contribution in developing countries" were key topics of discussio

posted 12:54:28pm Jul. 10, 2009 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.