Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: New poll
Next Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
Posted in:
* Sun-Times…
The spiritual leader of Roman Catholics in the state capital Tuesday urged the Illinois Senate to vote down legislation authorizing gay marriage and offered pastoral help for gays and lesbians to “live a life of chastity.”
“As the bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Springfield in Illinois, I strenuously object to this legislation and hope our elected officials will see the value marriage contributes to the common good of our society,” said Bishop Thomas John Paprocki, who testified against the same-sex marriage legislation. […]
“The Catholic Church has great love and compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction and offers pastoral help for people dealing with this condition to help them live a life of chastity,” Paprocki said in a written statement issued late Tuesday afternoon.
“This is a separate issue, however, from the definition of marriage as a natural institution between a man and a woman committed to an exclusive and life-long relationship open to the potential to bring new life into the world,” he said.
Discuss. But remember that “separation of church and state” doesn’t mean that churches have to be silent on public policy issues. Some of y’all are often unclear on that concept.
posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:01 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: New poll
Next Post: *** LIVE *** SESSION COVERAGE
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
So “compassion” means gays are supposed to live a life of chastity, while straight people have the option to get married. Sounds fair.
Comment by reformer Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:13 am
Just based on my observations, our Mass in Springfield is down in numbers. I have heard many fellow Catholics say they want the Bishop to get out of politics. He is not helping to increase the flock. I guess I will see how Ash Wednesday service looks tonight.
That being said; the time for marriage equality is now. I know the Senators read this blog, please do the right thing.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:18 am
At least they’ve gotten past the point of seeing “same-sex attraction” as demonic posession, or mental illness. No more forceful conversion therapies, severe penance, or exorcisms, I guess.
It’s relatively high-minded of them to aim for a life of chastity as a way to avoid this perceived “sin”.
Good luck with that, both with clergy, and unmarried parishioners.
Comment by walkinfool Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:20 am
I absolutely don’t think that separation of church and state requires churches to be silent on public policy. But I wish they wouldn’t try to force law on everyone to fit their own religious teachings. If he doesn’t want Catholic gays to marry each other, he should tell them so, but not force his religious beliefs on my non-Catholic partner and me.
And I also think he has his hands full with his own issues (like his “self bondage” priest who called 911 for assistance), so he might find better things to do with his time.
Comment by ChicagoR Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:23 am
“…offers pastoral help for people dealing with this condition…”
This is beyond tone deaf. My goodness.
Comment by The Doc Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:26 am
He’s entitled to his opinion. Polling has shown that it is out of step with what the public believes, and even with what self-identified Catholics believe. Just another sign of the Church’s growing irrelevance, which is a good thing in my opinion.
Comment by Snucka Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:27 am
I believe that until Catholic Church change their internal Canon Law to mandate that all accusations of child sex abuse in the clergy be reported to criminal authorities, and that all priests convicted of such crimes are automatically defrocked; then Paprocki and the rest of the US Bishops can take their phony sexual moralizing and shove it straight up their keister.
Comment by ILPundit Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:30 am
It’s unfortunate that the Bishop feels that this is a “condition” which warrants the Church’s help.
Comment by B2Chicago Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:31 am
If it is out of step with polling in Illinois, it is also indicative, once again, that Illinois is out of step with much of the rest of America. Is the current roll call of states, 31 opposed to same sex marriage and 9 in favor? Illinois pols want to do this legislatively because they probably have concerns that this would not pass during a statewide referendum. Across the river in Iowa, voters sent three state supreme court justices packing after the judges issued an opinion creating a right to same sex marriage. If Illinois voters were given the opportunity to decide this issue in the privacy of the ballot box, it might be a close call.
Comment by Esquire Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:34 am
Maybe the Catholics could start marching in parades with their clothes on as acts of religious freedom.
Comment by Liberty_First Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:36 am
Forgive me if this is off topic. If, under separation of church and state, a religious organization has a right to input on political and government policy issues – then they should also contribute financially to the support of the government. Churches should pay taxes (in my opinion). Not all of their revenue is used for charitable works. What portion is can be used as a tax deduction. If they are going to be political power players, then they should pay their share to support the system.
Comment by Waldi Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:36 am
The Bible (yes not Jesus but Paul did address it in New Testament) believes homosexuality is a sin, so his views makes sense. The Catholic Church’s handling of child abuse and Pap’s most recent claims on the priest in cuffs and his letter to the congregation that was not entirely true does not help his credibility.
Comment by M Smith Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:39 am
–“The Catholic Church has great love and compassion for those who experience same-sex attraction…”
No kidding.
I’m a man of faith, and I was taught by my folks to have respect for the faith of others.
But the princes of the Catholic Church creep me out when they talk about sexuality and the “natural institution” of marriage.
Dudes, you have a problem, a big one, a criminal one, and have had this problem at the highest levels for decades.
Best to get your own house in order before you go peeking in your neighbors’ windows.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:41 am
Apparently the Catholic Church is more concerned about trying to maintain adherence to what they believe are Biblical Principles than in being popular.
The role of the Church (Catholic or otherwise) is to convince man to turn from sin to God. It’s not to say “Despite what we believe God’s instruction are, we will abandon our principles. Having read the polls, we will now run our church as a democracy and we will open and accepting of almost everything. So everybody please please please please come join our church now. We promise never to tell you that you are doing anything wrong.”
Comment by BleugrassBoy Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:49 am
Catholic doctrine should have no bearing whatsoever on whether the state of Illinois recognizes same-sex civil marriages. It’s really that simple.
Comment by TooManyJens Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:49 am
To clarify, the Bishop or anybody else is welcome to bring secular arguments to the table in support of positions on particular legislation. But “the Church has this position on marriage” is not an argument that the government should take into account when deciding on civil marriage.
Comment by TooManyJens Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 10:57 am
Per one of the interviews in the recent HBO documentary “Mea Maxima Culpa” the practicing celibacy rate in the Catholic clergy is 50%. Not using the same term as the term “chastity” that he suggested for gays, but close enough. Maybe the Bishop’s attention would be better spent cleaning up his own house. I also echo the additional concerns above about the criminal pedophilia within his clergy.
Comment by Bird Dog Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:03 am
I object to the Catholic church trying to impose its will on me. The government should represent all beliefs, not just the Catholics.
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:11 am
The Bible says homosexuality is wrong. Why make a statement that makes it look like you need to take a position on what the Bible says. The catholoic church of all people lacks credibility on moral issues. You can’t cover up hundreds of cases of sex abuse, never rectify that problem, then condem others for sinful conduct.
Churches pay taxes is pretty ignorant. Churches do not have special treatment by the governemt. They have to comply with the same not for profit rules and regs as every other charity. So if you want to tax Churches, then you are arguing to do away with all not for profits and charities.
I can’t speak for all churches. But in our church we have 3 basic expenditures. 1 Salaries to paid staff, all of who pay taxes. 2. Expenses such as water, electric which either go to the government or to companies that are taxed, 3 ministry programs that benefit the community locally and around the world.
I wish our churches spent as much time and resources working on the breakdown of the traditional family unit as they do the gay issue. Let’s face it, heterosexual couples breaking vows and parents not being responsible for their children has a much greater impact on our world than the relatively few homosexuals there are out there.
Comment by the Patriot Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:13 am
@BluegrassBoy Catholic Church history has hundreds of examples of the Church changing and updating with the times. Most recently the inclusion of women in Mass, and the changes that took place after Vatican II.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:22 am
As a catholic and someone who views herself as a conservative republican, I support Same Sex Marriage.
If I’ve learned one thing from going to parochial school and mass all these years…it’s: Who am I to judge? This love “thing” is tough enough; I just don’t believe it’s right to dictate who can/can’t love and commit to each other.
Comment by LadyKane Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:23 am
Every gay/lesbian couple I know would agree with this part of his statement. It’s just a shame he doesn’t recognize the irony when he says it: “…hope our elected officials will see the value marriage contributes to the common good of our society.”
Yes, that’s all gay people want. To get married and continue to contribute to the common good of our society.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:25 am
The Bishop has every right to express the views of his religion. But those views should not get to dictate public policy. And, as a gay person I’m often offended by religious people who constantly judge me. It’s why I don’t go to church. I don’t need a bunch of people telling me that I can’t be a gay Christian and condemning me to hell simply because I’m gay. I don’t need any counseling, Bishop. I’m fine with the way I am, don’t believe it’s a sin, and don’t need to be lectured by people who have no understanding of what it is to be gay. It’s ok to be gay as long as you are celibate? What nonsense.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:27 am
How’s the “life of chastity” thing been going for those already sworn to it?
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:28 am
Just before last year’s election, Bishop Paprocki went on record in Springfield’s Catholic newspaper listing the “intrinsic evils” he found in the Democratic platform and adding he found “nothing in (the Republican platform) that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.” He added, “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”
If that isn’t a partisan political endorsement, I don’t know what it is. And now he’s dabbling in politics again?
Paprocki has the right to ponticicate on whatever public policy issues he chooses, but I have the right to ignore him whenever he strays into partisan politics and says my standards and beliefs are evil.
Comment by olddog Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:30 am
@BleugrassBoy:
The Church is free to believe whatever it wants. It’s free to comment on issues. But you don’t get to bring your religion outside of the walls of your church and impose those beliefs on others. I’m not Catholic. I don’t have to adhere to their beliefs. And, frankly, those beliefs are irrelevant when it comes to public policy unless Illinois is part of the Holy See and I’m not aware of it.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:33 am
the Roman Catholic church practices discrimination against women. Not listening to anything they say.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:35 am
Here’s the confusion I often have with regard to this issue. So long as a church isn’t being forced to participate in a gay marriage and so long as an individual isn’t being forced to attend a gay wedding or to be married to a gay person then I really have no idea why anybody cares. It’s really nobody’s business. I wish I had the time to be so concerned with other people’s lives and who they are in love with.
Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:38 am
–Just before last year’s election, Bishop Paprocki went on record in Springfield’s Catholic newspaper listing the “intrinsic evils” he found in the Democratic platform and adding he found “nothing in (the Republican platform) that supports or promotes an intrinsic evil or a serious sin.” He added, “a vote for a candidate who promotes actions or behaviors that are intrinsically evil and gravely sinful makes you morally complicit and places the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy.”–
Indeed he did. Here’s the whole thing.
http://ct.dio.org/bishops-column/59-think-and-pray-about-your-vote-in-upcoming-election/text.html
He has a right to express his opinion like any other citizen. But it’s the height of arrogance to claim to speak for God on public policy just because you go to work in a funny hat and a dress.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 11:55 am
There’s nothing requiring the Roman Catholic Church to become the 21st Century equivalent of the Flat Earth Society, so I don’t understand why they choose to do so.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:00 pm
I wonder if all the anti Catholicism here is leftover British nationalism, the anti Catholic French enlightenment or simply a band wagon mentality accompanying social moral decline.
Comment by Liberty_First Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:02 pm
Resisting the attempts of the Catholic Church to impose their doctrine on non-adherents by force of law is not “anti-Catholicism.”
Comment by TooManyJens Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:03 pm
Liberty First, (ironic handle), disagreeing with the bishop on public policy doesn’t make one anti-Catholic. Plenty of Catholics disagree with him as well.
No, we’re probably just intrinsically evil, and the eternal salvation of our souls are in jeopardy. Because we didn’t vote for Romney.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:09 pm
I was not suggesting that the Catholic Church get to dictate government policy. But they certainly have a right to inform everyone what the Church’s beliefs are.
Public policy will be established not by the church but by elected leadership and the constituencies that fund and reelect them.
Comment by BleugrassBoy Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:10 pm
I would remind everyone that the Catholic church does not stand alone on this issue. Those who accept the bible as God’s innerrant word cannot deny the several references to abberant sexual behavior as “sin” against God, self, and others. Further, a believers right to petition for their beliefs is no different that the non-believers. Faith in God does not limit civil rights. Except among most of you tolerant posters!
Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:23 pm
==== to same sex marriage and 9 in favor? Illinois pols want to do this legislatively because they probably have concerns that this would not pass during a statewide referendum===
Binding referenda do not exist in Illinois. This ain’t California. Your comment makes no sense.
Comment by Rich Miller Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:34 pm
No anti-Catholicism here, @Liberty_First, I love my Church. We have extremely conservative Bishops currently. The leaders of the Church are not the Church. As others have noted, the current Bishops don’t even speak for the majority of their parishiners.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:34 pm
If he believes and “hopes our elected officials will see the value marriage contributes to the common good of our society” he must surely believe voting FOR same-sex marriage would only further stabilize and contribute to the common good.
No? Well then, I’m confused and have a goat to go and sacrifice.
Comment by yokoOHno Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:36 pm
@Anon12:23am This has been said about a billion times, but as a reader and believer in the bible, I don’t take it at it’s literal word. If I did I would be stoning a lot of sinners for such acts as eating lobster and wearing cloth of two different fabrics. God is love. God is love for all his people.
**Sorry to get all religous-ey on your blog Rich. I just want to buck the trend and show there are plenty of people devout in their faith that are for equality.
Comment by SpfldCatholic Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 12:39 pm
Waldi:
I don’t think that’s off-topic, it’s relevant to the issue of what can and can’t be said, and Rich did allude to the issue of assuming incorrectly that the bishop, or the Church in general, can’t express opinions.
That said, I don’t actually think this case–his statement–is an Establishment Clause issue. I am not an expert on the relevant laws but I think this is just generally lumped in with the restrictions on political activity of ANY nonprofit enjoying tax breaks. That’s one of the reasons I’m generally annoyed by those pastors insisting they can endorse politicians (and flouting the IRS in the process). They are essentially insisting that they be allowed to break the rules everyone else has to follow, to take political action while retaining tax exemption.
I’m not sure what the best approach with churches and taxes is, though I do think genuine charitable work should remain exempt and some things should be taxed, including the parsonage allowance (and that one actually is a ridiculous establishment clause violation). But I have long suspected that many churches would actually be happier forfeiting tax exemption; they would be able to embrace political action fully and, I suspect, draw in more new revenue than they lose to taxes. I’m not saying I actually would like the result, but I’m a little surprised this hasn’t started happening.
Comment by jaranath Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 1:42 pm
FYI:, Ash Wednesday mass at 12:05 ar Cathedral was full… Just saying
Comment by IBE Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 1:51 pm
I’m not sure why people say he’s trying to impose his will on others any more than anyone else, since, as a citizen, he has the right to attempt to sway others to his viewpoint. He gets press because of his position…Just like John Tillman, whether he’s speaking as a private citizen or as spokesman for that non-partisan IPI organization. I not only don’t listen to what John Tillman says, I use it as an initial indication that I should be taking the opposite position. You can do the same with the Bishop. Many Catholics do.
Comment by PublicServant Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 1:52 pm
Keep talking, Bishop. Keep talking.
Comment by David Ormsby Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 1:59 pm
==FYI:, Ash Wednesday mass at 12:05 ar Cathedral was full… Just saying==
Listen, just because Catholics disagree with the “higher ups” doesn’t mean we don’t feel guilty about it. If there’s one thing the nuns beat into us at their schools were is guilt and a good Act of Contrition.
Comment by Darienite Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:00 pm
===That said, I don’t actually think this case–his statement–is an Establishment Clause issue. I am not an expert on the relevant laws but I think this is just generally lumped in with the restrictions on political activity of ANY nonprofit enjoying tax breaks. That’s one of the reasons I’m generally annoyed by those pastors insisting they can endorse politicians (and flouting the IRS in the process). They are essentially insisting that they be allowed to break the rules everyone else has to follow, to take political action while retaining tax exemption.
Pastors are free to endorse politicians, but if they want tax exempt status for their church, they cannot do it from the pulpit. The are free to do it on their own outside of the non-profit just as any head of a non-profit is. The confusion of many who try and argue this is an imposition on their first amendment rights is that the churches are not being treated any differently from any organization seeking 501 (C) 3 status. If they want to be an organization free to make political endorsements, there are other types of tax statuses they can apply for–those are not completely tax exempt however. One can even set-up similar organizations to their churches under a different tax status and do those activities under the umbrella of that incorporation. However, if the Church and the building are part of the 501 (c)3 they cannot make endorsements of candidates on that property. This is the same condition for any organization under 501 (c) 3 status.
A Catholic Bishop or priest is the same–they can say what they want about electing specific individuals on their own time. In this case they are taking a position on an issue and so it’s not the same as advocating for a candidate though. In this case, a C3 official can take a position core to their mission and lobby on it as long as it isn’t too large of a portion of their activities–and given the breadth of the Catholic Church, that’s not a hard standard for them to meet.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:15 pm
@ wordslinger
“just because you go to work in a funny hat and a dress.”
That’s not anti-catholic? Please
Maybe dashiki’s are dresses too. News seem to live “funny hats” You seem to be revered on these pages. I like you less after posts like this.
.
Comment by Lobo Y Olla Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:22 pm
I’m not ok with the Taliban imposing their religious will on the Afghani people and I’m not ok with the Catholic Church trying to impost their religious will on Americans. Simple as that.
Comment by Joe Bidenopoulous Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:31 pm
ArchPundit:
You appear to know a lot more than me, but I agree. Any sense why they don’t seem to go the political route when so many seem to want to?
Lobo Y Olla:
“Anti-Catholic” is a somewhat loaded phrase. I suspect different people will give different definitions of it. I’m not going to try to parse Wordslinger’s humor, but I will point out that public criticism, and even mockery, are not equivalent to oppression and one does not have a right to be protected from them.
Comment by jaranath Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:43 pm
This church leader called gays’ romantic love a “condition,” like it’s a disease or a disorder. Many other religious leaders don’t feel this way, and they are helping gay people strive toward rights that should be guaranteed in America.
I for one do not want to dictate to a religion what it should or shouldn’t follow. If a church doesn’t want to have a gay marriage ceremony, that’s its right. Gays can go elsewhere to get married.
Comment by Grandson of Man Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:50 pm
Simply white noise from a sector of society growing in irrelevance every day.
Comment by veritas Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:58 pm
Lobo, I’m sorry I offended you. Let me rephrase: The bishop does not get extra points in the political arena for his collar.
But as long as we’re being offended, I take issue with a bishop who claims “the eternal salvation of your own soul in serious jeopardy” if you don’t vote his way.
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 2:59 pm
I suggest members of the Church seek help for the condition of intolerance.
Comment by Wensicia Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:14 pm
@Liberty First, go watch Mea Maxima Culpa. It’s not being anti Catholic to make comments. It’s being Anti Vatican.
Comment by Amalia Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:26 pm
The Bishop is right.
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:28 pm
The Bishop can say what he wants. He is trying to be consistent with Church dogma in a world that is blowing by him.
Comment by zatoichi Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:29 pm
=== Any sense why they don’t seem to go the political route when so many seem to want to?
I think the Catholic Church is pretty happy dealing with issues only-which is what they are doing here. In terms of evangelical churches, they are running a bunch of test cases right now. I don’t give them much of a chance at success, but some churches are essentially committing civil disobedience on the issue because they argue they should be able to not be taxed and make candidate endorsements because of the first amendment.
I don’t find that argument persuasive at all–I argue that nothing in the First Amendment suggests you cannot tax a church as long as it is consistent with other institutions and doesn’t discriminate against them as a church. So they have a choice to make. The primary difference in effect is whether donations can be tax deductible. I don’t see that as a violation of the first amendment since tax deductibility for anything isn’t required.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:34 pm
As a somewhat lapsed Catholic, I can understand the Bishop’s position, but I don’t have to agree with it as a condition of going to Mass.
More telling than Mass attendance, though, may be a slow but steady decline in contributions at many parishes and to the Diocese of Springfield. The economy and demographics may be causal factors as well.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 3:54 pm
ArchPundit:
Yeah, I’m familiar with the organized efforts to tweak the IRS and/or draw a precedent-setting legal decision in (they hope) their favor. And there is now one against the IRS for not enforcing the law.
It just seems odd to me that apparently very few have tried simply embracing the established legal methods to do what some pretty clearly want to do, and instead are trying to force reinterpretations of their current regs. I think this is the harder route, but maybe I’m wrong.
Comment by jaranath Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 4:04 pm
I think the church would have more influence if it made more people feel welcomed in their pews. You are not going to be effective with individuals when you make a political statement condeming them and then turn around and ask them to church. It makes it hard to add to the flock.
They have a right to speak out but the church usually comes up on the short end when it comes to politics. Better to preach from the pullpit.
Comment by Country Boy Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 4:14 pm
== hope our elected officials will see the value marriage contributes to the common good of our society ==
I read this as saying more marriages are good, so more people should be allowed to get married, so that means the Bishop is now in favor of the bill! Yippe!!!!!
Comment by Not It Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 4:28 pm
==It just seems odd to me that apparently very few have tried simply embracing the established legal methods to do what some pretty clearly want to do, and instead are trying to force reinterpretations of their current regs. I think this is the harder route, but maybe I’m wrong.
I would agree–it’s kind of strange given the tax deduction is all they would really miss. I can’t imagine it would cost them that much in terms of donations.
Comment by ArchPundit Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 4:46 pm
As a former member of the Cathedral Parish it seems to me that much of Bishop’s comments have been a very public job interview for his next assignment. He certainly says all the “right” things. If he does get a promotion I wish him well,
Comment by Anon3 Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 5:57 pm
“Liberty_First” said…at 12:02 pm:
I wonder if all the anti Catholicism here is leftover British nationalism, the anti Catholic French enlightenment or simply a band wagon mentality accompanying social moral decline.
Out of touch, you are Lib. I’m Irish and Italian lapsed Catholic. Altar boy and everything else…married in the Church. Problem is that it is not 1985 anymore. Social moral decline? Really? How about we are tired of seeing the Church turn a blind eye to issues like clergy abuse, like spousal abuse, like the low incidence of health care, and so forth.
Believe me, here in me there is no leftover British nationalism, and certainly nothing French. I am aware enough to know when someone is not with it though…Paprocki and the Church both qualify!
Comment by mongo Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 6:12 pm
I meant chastity, not celibacy. Same difference I guess.
Comment by Robert Lincoln Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 9:25 pm
Sounds like a lot of haters on here! That is, many people commenting seem to hate anyone who has the courage to state the obvious - that marriage is, and always will be, the union between a man and a woman. Even if the State decides otherwise, it won’t change the truth, and a new term will inevitably be used to mean heterosexual marriage. Because a union between two people of the opposite sex is inherently different than that between two people of the same sex. And this still what most people believe not only outside of Chicago but nationwide and worldwide.
Comment by Being real Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 9:34 pm
“I wish I had the time to be so concerned with other people’s lives and who they are in love with.”
Amen, if a heathen can use that word.
Comment by wishbone Wednesday, Feb 13, 13 @ 9:57 pm