There is an enormous difference between and "deep and abiding friendship" and a sexual relationship that the Church, Sacred Tradition, and Sacred Scripture say is sinful.
Publius | 01.30.04 - 1:05 pm | #

Time to rev up the Inquistion methinks.....
TK | 01.30.04 - 1:21 pm | #

I cannot bring myself to believe that buggery expresses "deep and abiding friendship."
anon | 01.30.04 - 1:27 pm | #

I have heard this argument before. "Why can we bless a cross, or a rosary, but not two people?"
The difference is that an object, be it cross, dog, or automobile is neutral in terms of morality. A homosexual relationship is not morally neutral, and is forbidden by Christianity.
The priest's argument is either sophism or stupidity.
Robin | 01.30.04 - 1:53 pm | #

It is annoying the way advocates of same-sex "marriage" abuse language in the service of their cause. The Church does not have a "ban" on gay "marriage", as though such a thing existed before the Church came around and put a stop to it. The Church doesn't need to ban same-sex "marriage" anymore than it needs to ban marriage between dogs and cats or ban square triangles. In all three cases, there just isn't any such thing. Marriage is now and always has been a sacramental union between a man and a woman.

The fact that the gay movement debases the language as a matter of course is a red flag, to me, that something very wrong and fundamentally false is going on here.
David | 01.30.04 - 2:02 pm | #

The news about Sweden yesterday, provides a disgusting answer to the question Mark often brings out: "is there anything more wonderful than homosexuality?"

yuck! too bad we may find out there "is".
dpt | 01.30.04 - 2:09 pm | #

Divorced people cannot validly contract a second marriage, the old and the sterile cannot bear children, those who practice birth control are certainly not open to the transmission of life, non-procreative sex occurs in many a relationship, yet Roman Catholics regularly call these relationships marriage while NO-ONE in the laity or hierarchy speaks of banning divorce, banning second marriages, banning contraceptives, banning marriage of the elderly or sterile or reinstituting and enforcing sodomy laws against married couples. So why do two guys going through a ceremony in an Episcopal church get so many Catholics bent out of shape? There wouldn’t be this hue and cry from Catholics if this was a 5-times-married couple, or two 80 year olds, or a man with a vasectomy. All of this is, while not approved of by Catholics, is regularly accepted as a fact of life in our pluralistic society. Yet two guys in love and committing themselves to one another brings cries of, “buggery!” and, “bring back the Inquisition!” Anyone up for a little scapegoating?
Brian Hagan | 01.30.04 - 2:58 pm | #

Mr Hagen,

About getting "bent out of shape": for the mostpart, you are simply mistaken about what does or does not anger conservative Catholics. Hang around these comments boxes a little longer and you'll see.
alias clio | 01.30.04 - 3:06 pm | #

Brian apparently missed my row with NRO.
Mark Shea | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 3:10 pm | #

"..partners, not husband and wife"
This verbiage makes me chunder. Whenever anyone asks me '..and do you have a partner?', I reply as emphatically as I can "No, I Have a WIFE"
When will we get rid of all this PC crap. Brings out the agressive worst in me!
Thank God I get more moderate as I get older.
Don (Kiwi) | 01.30.04 - 3:14 pm | #

>>Divorced people cannot validly contract a second marriage, the old and the sterile cannot bear children, those who practice birth control are certainly not open to the transmission of life, non-procreative sex occurs in many a relationship, yet Roman Catholics regularly call these relationships marriage>NO-ONE in the laity or hierarchy speaks of banning divorce, banning second marriages, banning contraceptives, banning marriage of the elderly or sterile or reinstituting and enforcing sodomy laws against married couples.
Seamus | 01.30.04 - 3:17 pm | #

Haloscan garbled my post. Let's try again:

>>Divorced people cannot validly contract a second marriage, the old and the sterile cannot bear children, those who practice birth control are certainly not open to the transmission of life, non-procreative sex occurs in many a relationship, yet Roman Catholics regularly call these relationships marriage
Seamus | 01.30.04 - 3:18 pm | #

I give up. Haloscan did it again.
Seamus | 01.30.04 - 3:19 pm | #

I'm sorry, but is (or has) anyone proposed, "...banning divorce, banning second marriages, banning contraceptives, banning marriage of the elderly or sterile or reinstituting and enforcing sodomy laws against married couples"?

If these things are accepted in our society for the sake of civil peace, why not a gay marriage in a non-Catholic church?
Brian Hagan | 01.30.04 - 3:23 pm | #

So, the priest sees no difference in blessing between animals & inanimate objects which cannot reason or make moral decisions and "blessing" the activities of men and women who deliberately choose to live contrary to the Gospel and moral teachings of the Church?

Geesh, I am so glad the NYT stays on top of this to indoctrinate us all.
Peggy | Homepage | 01.30.04 - 4:13 pm | #

Brian:

Orthodox Catholics do object to divorce, second marriages, artificial contraception and hetrosexual sodomy. You also forgot masturbation and all forms of pornography.

You are of course totally incorrect theologically about marriages which are open to children, but sadly unable to conceive because of circumstances of age or medical condition.

If you actually want to know more, go and have a look at Zenit and the Catechism.
Tess | 01.30.04 - 4:33 pm | #

Thanks Tess, perhaps I should have said approve versus endure. I think my posts were quite clear that I understood there to be disapproval of these actions. As I said, I hear of no-one proposing legislation against the aforementioned. Surely consistency would argue for legislative action against these acts that are a greater, more direct threat to life-long unions open to conception? Since I see no-one proposing such state action, I question why the question of state intervention rests soley upon gay unions.
I'm not in any way questioning the right of anyone to disapprove of gay unions, preach against them, etc., I just don't understand why opposition to this action (which, after all, took place in a non-Catholic church) is viewed with such hostility. I also don't understand why, if the things I mentioned can be endured (if not approved of) by Roman Catholics in a pluralistic society, legislative oppostion to same-sex marriage has been made such a touchstone for orthodoxy.

As for the sterile and infertile, by what logic are they not required to live in sexless unions or denied marriage? I've read the arguements, I just think they make no sense.

Thanks,

Brian
Brian Hagan | 01.30.04 - 5:11 pm | #

Brian, because the Church, in its generous way, often gives the benefit of the doubt to its members in things such as marriage. The Church, short of conducting an investigation, has no real knowledge of what is happening between to heterosexual people neither before nor after they are married, so it does not know if they are commiting any sin. But homosexuality in itself is a sin, and a homosexual 'union' would be endorsing and encouraging such.

When the Church marries a man and a woman, it is endorsing and blessing their marriage only, not all of their sins commited in the marriage.
Jason H | 01.30.04 - 5:59 pm | #

Brian,

You have things completely backwards. It is the state - moved by activist judges - that is aggressively taking the initiative on behalf of homosexuality. Christians opposed to gay marriage are not proposing state intervention, we're resisting it. As citizens, that is our right. On the question of whether we should support legislation outlawing other evils that undermine the family, we probably would if they shared the same character as the current campaign on behalf of homosexuality. Divorce, for instance, is legal, as it should be, though we are morally opposed. But, then, homosexuality is legal, too, as it should be. If, however, the state were to began aggressively intervening in the culture to promote divorce, as it is now doing on behalf of homosexuality, we would resist that intervention
Mark Gordon | 01.30.04 - 11:53 pm | #

Actually, I'm sure that the Church would have loved a ban on second marriages, contraception and the like in the law. But the Church cannot touch secular law. Homosexual "marriage" is yet to become a law, so the Church opposes with all Her might lest it become one.
JonathanR. | 01.31.04 - 3:50 am | #

i ahte the way naqzis, claim gays are dogs, and bully them, and humiliate them in schools, i hate the way catholic church stands for satanism, and bullies gays, i hate the scumbag catholic church it is a cia organised load of rubbich, and is as crap and pointless and as much an enemy of love and humanity as human sacrfice is, they are both horrible bullying things that hate people and treat gays like dogs, while they worship the strong l;ike the nazi arnie,
down with the nazi bullies | 09.23.05 - 3:26 pm | #

people who hate gaysm, should be executed, they are horrible. trhey bully innocents, and then act klike they are being discriminated for doing it
down with the nazi bullies | 09.23.05 - 4:17 pm | #