Cardinal: LGBT People Shouldn't Shun Catholics Who Oppose Them

[Mass]

Seriously? He is afraid bigots will be discriminated against? I had to check twice to make sure it was not an April Fool's day joke.

(Note: if he thinks that not accepting divorce is not a big problem, he should talk to people who had to go through an annulment to be able to marry again through the Catholic Church.)

http://www.feedly.com/home#subscription/feed/http://feeds.feedburner.com/crooksandliars/YaCP

The archbishop of the Washington diocese said Easter Sunday that he was concerned that Catholics would be shunned for opposing same sex marriage -- and that it was gay and lesbian Americans who need to "make room" for the very people discriminating against them.

During an interview on Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked Cardinal Donald Wuerl how the church would react to gay and lesbian members who wanted to get married if the U.S. Supreme Court found that state and federal bans on same sex marriage were unconstitutional.
...
"But we do that same thing with people who are married, divorced and remarried," Wuerl pointed out. "We say, you know, you're still part of the family, but we can't recognize that second marriage. It's never been a great problem. It's painful for all of us to have to realize that making our way through life is difficult and that we can't always be as perfect as we like to be."

The cardinal added that the definition of "marriage" was "when a man and woman commit to each other for the rest of their lives and generate and educate children."

...
"The only thing I worry about is someone saying to me, 'You, because you believe that sex is intended for marriage and because you believe that marriage is indissoluble and because you believe that marriage is between a man and a woman that somehow you don't belong here, that somehow this is bigotry or this is hate speech.' That's what I worry about. There has to be room enough in a society as large, as free as pluralistic as America to make space for all of us."

[AndyA]

1. Hypocrite.

If LGBT people shouldn't shun Catholics who oppose them, then Catholics shouldn't shun LGBT people. Since 'reject' is a synonym for shun, Catholics shouldn't reject LGBT people.

[Glorfindel]

2. He'll probably ask for money, next..."contributions" to help the church carry out their "good works"

What a despicable creature he is.

[el_bryanto]

3. Many Moderate or Liberal Christians/Catholics are worried about this

And right wing Christians Catholics play this up a bit. The basic idea being that their religion teaches that homosexual acts are a sin - while society says that we should be tolerant and accepting of homosexuals - a pretty strong contradiction.

Right wingers push this to suggest that the goals of society and faith are incompatible and therefor good Christians/Catholics have to choose faith over the values of their society. Some DUers more or less agree with this position (although they presumably want DU Christians and Catholics to choose good values over their faith.

In reality people of faith have to make compromises with society all the time - looking at this as a simple either/or situation is pretty destructive both for faith and for society.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Such affectation. Jesus said that a man who divorces is a whoremonger. You should know that.

Are these 'moderate and liberal Christians' stressed out about that? Do they treat divorced men as they would a pimp? What is done with that contradiction?
Each Biblical author who attacked gay people also supported slavery 'slaves, obey your masters'. How does the conflict about that play out?
Paul says 'gays are bad' then he writes for ages about women being subservient to men, submissive to their husbands, silent in public, never asking a question of anyone but her husband and then only alone in private. Yet I see many women asking lots of questions of men they are not married to in Churches across America. Contradictory as hell if Paul is so important, to ignore that which he writes about most and insist that the next bit is very important. 'My sin is not a big deal, but YOURS is huge'.
They are not dealing with conflict and contradiction, they are simply being hypocritical selective readers of the 'Word of God'.
I also can't find the verse where Jesus says it is your job to judge me because you are a Christian but not your job to judge the divorced or all of those women who speak in public and dress nicely, which Paul also forbade.
The Obama family was hilarious going on about Paul who said women are forbidden any clothing that shows off their beauty or is costly and that they should be silent. Michelle, in armless designer dresses, addressing masses including men, then they'd say 'we believe Paul gay is bad'. Hypocrisy and self service, that is all it is, that is all it is, it is nothing more.

[el_bryanto]

7. Well I've long been of the opinion that Christians/Catholics are worked up about Gays

because they aren't themselves Gay, and they may not know any (as the Gays they know are still closeted). It's much more fun to condemn sins that you aren't committing - but you are right fornication is clearly as bad as homosexuality, and adultery is far worse. But you wouldn't know that from the rhetoric.

It's not my job to judge you (the Bible condemns judging other), but it is my job to spread the good news of the gospel which has its own share of problems.

I take it that you are of the opinion that the Bible is incompatible with modern life, and Christians should just get off it and admit that they don't really believe it?

One possible way to finesse the issue is to say that the Bible contains eternal truths, but is cloaked in the issues of the days. Thus to live by it in modern days, one has to look at the principles underneath rather than living the surface text.

Bryant

[Bluenorthwest]

9. First, you are presumptous to think you have 'news' for me that I have not heard.

It is not my opinion that the Bible is incompatible with modern life, it is the lives of 'believers' that show that to be the case. They simply reject the vast swaths that do not fit their own desires. Slavery and the rules about women being subservient do not fit into modern society, nor should they. But those passages are there and can not be excised for convenience while repeating the verses that apply to others.
If a person lived by Biblical law, they'd be put in prison. Stone your kids for backtalk and the neighbor for eating shrimp. See where that gets you. Compatible? Not at all.
I have a question I always ask of the 'context of the day' crowd. Do you know that context at all? Tell me, what was considered funny in the time of Jesus? Would you be able to notice the humor of the era enough to not think a joke was serious? Honestly, have you ever even thought about that? Here's a hint. Exaggeration was the humor mode that was popular in that time and place. Now read the passage that says 'does your eye offend you? Then cut it out!' and tell me if it is all mystical or if it is mocking those who are overly pious. 'Gee if your hand is putting your soul in such peril, why not cut it off?' Why not? Because that is clearly absurd.
If you don't know a time well enough to spot a joke then you don't know that time at all. Had that ever crossed your mind? Doubt it.

[el_bryanto]

11. I apologize if I offended you - I was not intending to

You argument seems to be that we can't live by the literal interpretation of the bible, or we'd have to stone our kids and subjugate our wives and the like.

You also seem to argue that we are unlikely to understand the Bible's message because of the different culture that we live in now. If we can't even pick up on a joke, how can we understand what the Bible teaches about Charity or Judgement or the like.

Is that a fair summation of your argument?

Bryant

[Morning Dew]

4. "It's never been a great problem."

Well, there was that one thing with Henry the Eighth, but other than that....

[Bluenorthwest]

5. Cake and eat it too again. It amazes me how Catholics are so willing to replace belief with

affectation of belief. 'Our members just divorce anyway, no problem!' Cake and eat it too. 'We get to slander you constantly but it is wrong for you to criticize our attacks on your loved ones'.
Hypocritical, lying bigots out to enrich and empower themselves and their corrupt institution. This group, if they really wanted to get by pretending to be righteous, should not have protected all those child abusers for all those years, in all those places. Vile institutions have no standing to preach about how others should be.
RCC needs to clean its own house if it does not want to start hearing what people really think of their recent actions and history. If they were a corporation, we'd all be boycotting them for what was done to so many innocents, not to mention for the Chick Fil A like hate and bigotry.

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. by their definition of marriage, many of us hetros cannot be married

"when a man and woman commit to each other for the rest of their lives"

OK, Mr. Dixie and I are good there..

"and generate and educate children."

But we cannot breed.

Guess there is no point in being officially married....sigh

Oh, snap...gotta tell my 2 sons they cannot marry their ladies, either, since they have chosen not to procreate.

Looks like there is gonna be a LOT of folks who have to get a divorce because they cannot meet the church's definition of marriage.

Oh...wait...they can't get divorced, says the church.

Maybe annulled?

[Sheldon Cooper]

10. What a disappointment from Cardinal Weurl.

Prior to becoming a cardinal, he was the bishop of the Pittsburgh diocese. I remember him as someone who took a stand with the American group of bishops regarding the pedophile priest issue. IIRC he was a pretty stand-up guy when it came to a zero tolerance policy for priests who abused children. How disappointing to hear him say this.

[Arugula Latte]

12. Chickens should love the Colonel, too.