National Catholic Reporter: Same-Sex "Marriage" Couple 'Persons Of The Year'
#1


Caitlyn Jenner, who's only been a "woman" for a few months, won Glamour Magazine's "Woman of the Year" award.  Aydian Dowling, a trans-man, made the cover of "Men's Health" magazine and was runner-up for their "Ultimate Guy 2015" contest. And now, there's this, from the Huffington Post. It's starting to seem that all one has to do to win big contests and get fame and fortune is to switch genders or be homosexual, doesn't it?

Most here know about what I think about the truly "transgendered," those with true biological issues, such as CAIS, etc. But so much of this stuff isn't that, and in any case, these people are outliers. The modern trend of making the "not normal" or typical seem commonplace, and, as in these examples, holding them up as the ideal is just insane. I mean, consider the Caitlyn issue here. Even if Caitlyn had/has a true biological basis for gender dysphoria (which I don't believe to be the case), what has Caitlyn done to earn the "Woman of the Year" award? Did Caitlyn cure cancer? Fly to Mars? Feed the hungry? Shelter the homeless? No. None of that. And whatever Caitlyn did do was done during the few short weeks Caitlyn was considered a woman before the award was announced. It's one thing to have compassion and empathy for people with biologically-based gender issues, and even for those who don't have such a biological basis but are messed up in the head in some way. But it's another thing altogether to push all of this as an agenda, as "the new norm," and to treat sex and gender as mere social constructs that can be changed at whim.

In the article below, we have that sort of thing going on -- with the double kick to the head that this is being done by a purportedly Catholic magazine, and concerning a very Sacrament of the Church.




Catholic Newspaper Names Same-Sex Marriage Plaintiffs 'Persons Of The Year'
Last year, it was the pope.
12/28/2015 01:03 pm ET


The National Catholic Reporter has named two of the men at the heart of the Supreme Court's landmark same-sex marriage case its "persons of the year."

Greg Bourke and Michael DeLeon were two of the several dozen plaintiffs in the case Obergefell v. Hodges. In June, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of these couples and legalized marriage equality nationwide.

"Bourke and DeLeon are emblematic of this major challenge facing the church today, because they force us to ask not how will we live out a hypothetical situation, but how will we live with Greg and Michael. They give flesh to an abstraction," the National Catholic Reporter wrote in an editorial Monday.

"The answers the church is giving now are con­fused, uneven and often cruel," it added. "Greg and Michael -- and countless gay, lesbian and transgender Catholics -- deserve better."

Vox Wrote:In what possible way is Church teaching "confused" or "uneven"? I can at least imagine how some, wrongly, think of Her teaching on this as "cruel," given that the ability to have sex is seen as the greatest good, but "confused" and "uneven"?

The National Catholic Reporter is an independent weekly paper that covers topics related to the Catholic Church, and has long called for the church to be more accepting of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals. Last year, Pope Francis received the Reporter's "person of the year" honor. Other past honorees include Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who was in the minority in Obergefell, opposing legalized same-sex marriage.

Bourke and DeLeon have been together for 33 years. In 2004, they traveled with their two children to Niagara Falls, Canada, and got married, at a time when conservative legislatures and then-President George W. Bush were pushing for marriage equality bans. The marriage wasn't legal in the couple's home state of Kentucky, which meant the two men couldn't be recognized as the parents of their children, Bella and Isaiah.

That legal distinction made itself felt in day-to-day life in unexpected ways, the couple said. For example, when Bella and Isaiah needed passports, DeLeon was the one to go with them, because in the eyes of the law, he was their only parent.

Vox Wrote:
The horror! And the sort of thing that happens all the time in step-parenting situations, or in cases in which a couple lives together and one has kids from a previous marriage or what have you.

Both men have been active in their Catholic parish, Our Lady of Lourdes, for nearly 30 years. In March, The Huffington Post spent an evening with Bourke and DeLeon in Louisville as they worked a Friday fish fry during Lent.

"I've been here almost four years, and there might be a handful of people who are uncomfortable," Father Scott Wimsett, the pastor of Our Lady of Lourdes, said at the time. "But [Bourke and DeLeon] are loved and respected and people call them. They're involved, and you see how they fit in."

"They're just good people," Wimsett went on. "And that's kind of what it's all about, isn't it?"

Vox Wrote:
So, Protestants are right after all -- at least with regard to how the human element of the Church in the post-conciliar era deals with things:  we do work our way into Heaven...

Bourke said he and DeLeon were "surprised and deeply moved" to receive the honor.

"The Catholic Church has long created a climate of shame and exclusion for LGBT Catholics," Bourke told The Huffington Post Monday, "and this bold statement by the National Catholic Reporter could be an important step in changing policies and rhetoric in the Church about God’s LGBT people who seek only to be included and treated with the same dignity as anyone else."

"Our warm and welcoming parish make it easy and joyous to stay," DeLeon added. "We are blessed to practice the faith of our birth, the faith that we have shared for 33 years."

Bourke and DeLeon's marriage was in the spotlight long before the Supreme Court case. 

In 2012, the Boy Scouts forced Bourke to give up his leadership position with the local troop due to his sexual orientation. At the time, the Boy Scouts banned openly gay members and leaders. Bourke had led local Boy Scout and Girl Scout troops for years, and he and DeLeon had both been active in scouting themselves. Their son Isaiah was an Eagle Scout.
 
Although Wimsett and the local troop stood up for Bourke and refused to force him out, the Boy Scouts eventually threatened to revoke the troop's charter unless he left.

"So because I love the troop and I love the boys and I love scouting ... I resigned reluctantly," Bourke told The Huffington Post in March.

After the controversy, Bourke began speaking out more frequently on equality issues, which made him and his family more comfortable being in the limelight when Bourke and DeLeon became Supreme Court plaintiffs.

The National Catholic Reporter noted that Bourke and DeLeon are luckier than many other gay Catholics, because while they are parishioners and volunteers, their "livelihoods do not depend on the institutional church," which still opposes marriage equality.

Vox Wrote:I just "love" the lie in that labeling:  "marriage equality." As if neither of these guys could've married women, just like any other man. As if the Church sees marriage as not involving either openness to procreation or sexual continence.
 
The publication said there should be "church personnel policies that ensure that employees can en­ter into legal, civil marriages without fear of losing their jobs."

"Changing the law was a one-time event. Change comes to peoples and communities slowly," wrote the editorial board. "As ordi­nary people -- and one hopes Catholic bishops -- come to know more people in same-sex marriages, hearts and minds will change. Acceptance will re­place fear."

Vox Wrote:LOL Yeah, because "fear" is what the "problem" is with people who don't accept gay "marriage." Uh-huh. The Left is always trying to pathologize the Right, aren't they? If conservatives don't agree with progressives, then conservatives are mentally ill in some way.

"The Catholic Church has a great opportunity here and now to embrace change," Bourke said Monday, "and move forward in creating God's church based on Christ's teachings of equality and inclusion for all."

Vox Wrote:Christ isn't an egalitarian. Christ taught about marriage, too. Christ is extremely "inclusive"; He wants everyone, people of all races, creeds, and colors, people who are mentally and emotionally healthy, and people who are sick in the head, to come to Him. That doesn't mean He wants them to persist in sin. How hard is that to understand?

Reply
#2
Michael Voris had to stop using the "Catholic" for "Church Militant TV" but the National Catholic Distorter can claim to speak for Catholicism with its heterodoxy and complete nonsense.

When will the bishops, the princes of the Church, start defending orthodoxy with consistency?

Reply
#3
(01-04-2016, 09:28 AM)ConceptJunkie Wrote: Michael Voris had to stop using the "Catholic" for "Church Militant TV" but the National Catholic Distorter can claim to speak for Catholicism with its heterodoxy and complete nonsense.

When will the bishops, the princes of the Church, start defending orthodoxy with consistency?

Well the NCR is in Kansas City.

That used to be Bishop Finn's territory until when he tried to reign in the liberals in the diocese, they found a way to get even.

Cf. Here and here.

Certainly Bishop Finn was not a particularly good administrator, and admittedly made some legal missteps, but never tried to cover-up anything if one actually examines the whole case. Yet the liberals, and especially the NCR pushed the line that he was as guilty as the pederast or perverted priests who he had both a duty to handle like a father (as his clergy) and in civil legal ways as well.

To close down the NCR or at least get them to remove the "Catholic" you'd need a squeaky clean, traditionally orthodox, cunning and politically-savvy bishop in Kansas City, with the support of a diocesan curia that was ready to pursue the necessary legal remedies to make it happen.

Voris (for whatever biases he may have now) is at least a good-enough Catholic to listen when his bishops legitimately ask him to do something. Unfortunately the unfaithful or apostates at the NCR would not do the same, so they get to keep the name until they could be sued.
Reply
#4
(01-04-2016, 03:17 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I just "love" the lie in that labeling:  "marriage equality." As if neither of these guys could've married women, just like any other man. As if the Church sees marriage as not involving either openness to procreation or sexual continence.

Wouldn't a strong homosexual inclination be considered an impediment to marriage?  It wouldn't make gay marriage real, but can most homosexuals really just get married to a member of the opposite sex like anyone else?

(01-04-2016, 09:28 AM)ConceptJunkie Wrote: When will the bishops, the princes of the Church, start defending orthodoxy with consistency?

When the bishops become orthodox and consistent.
Reply
#5
(01-04-2016, 10:11 AM)Melkite Wrote: Wouldn't a strong homosexual inclination be considered an impediment to marriage?  It wouldn't make gay marriage real, but can most homosexuals really just get married to a member of the opposite sex like anyone else?

There are probably certain psychological factors in certain cases.

A homosexual inclination (coupled with frequent homosexual acts), strong enough to preclude the consent or proper ends of marriage would be an impediment to marriage. Several tribunal cases from before Vatican II of which I know, include declartions of nullity on account of a serious inclination and homosexual practices. These are of the sort where it was clear there could not have been proper consent in the first place.

Certainly in the case where one had such strong inclinations that he was unable to have normal marital relations, he would be effectively impotent, and thus there could not be a valid marriage.

Yet, the radical equality of everyone to marry (in the proper sense of that word) would still would exist.
Reply
#6
(01-04-2016, 10:44 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Yet, the radical equality of everyone to marry (in the proper sense of that word) would still would exist.

That's ridiculous.  A right that cannot be realized is not a right.  The Church can't say in one breath that a person has the right to marry and in the next that they cannot be validly married.

*I'm not arguing that it is unjust.  The idea that some people have the right to marry and others don't doesn't bother me. 
Reply
#7
(01-04-2016, 12:34 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2016, 10:44 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: Yet, the radical equality of everyone to marry (in the proper sense of that word) would still would exist.

That's ridiculous.  A right that cannot be realized is not a right.  The Church can't say in one breath that a person has the right to marry and in the next that they cannot be validly married.

*I'm not arguing that it is unjust.  The idea that some people have the right to marry and others don't doesn't bother me.

Nevermind, I realized where I was wrong.
Reply
#8
(01-04-2016, 10:11 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2016, 03:17 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I just "love" the lie in that labeling:  "marriage equality." As if neither of these guys could've married women, just like any other man. As if the Church sees marriage as not involving either openness to procreation or sexual continence.

Wouldn't a strong homosexual inclination be considered an impediment to marriage?  It wouldn't make gay marriage real, but can most homosexuals really just get married to a member of the opposite sex like anyone else?

(01-04-2016, 09:28 AM)ConceptJunkie Wrote: When will the bishops, the princes of the Church, start defending orthodoxy with consistency?

When the bishops become orthodox and consistent.

Yes, it would be an impediment for a man or woman with strong same sex attraction to marry someone of the opposite sex. I know many priests who wouldn't even consider marrying them, as years later they may leave their spouse for someone of their own sex.
Reply
#9
As someone who use to support same-sex "marriage" and "rights", I will admit the support for LGBT "marriage" is bizarre. Then again it's the basically the perfect model of what is deemed "progressive." It makes one feel good. It makes one feel self-righteous. It makes one part of the collective. How can you not support such a demographic. Find out the underlying heartache for them would be a fascinating sociological study.
Reply
#10
(01-04-2016, 04:16 PM)demoslider Wrote:
(01-04-2016, 10:11 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(01-04-2016, 03:17 AM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: I just "love" the lie in that labeling:  "marriage equality." As if neither of these guys could've married women, just like any other man. As if the Church sees marriage as not involving either openness to procreation or sexual continence.

Wouldn't a strong homosexual inclination be considered an impediment to marriage?  It wouldn't make gay marriage real, but can most homosexuals really just get married to a member of the opposite sex like anyone else?

(01-04-2016, 09:28 AM)ConceptJunkie Wrote: When will the bishops, the princes of the Church, start defending orthodoxy with consistency?

When the bishops become orthodox and consistent.

Yes, it would be an impediment for a man or woman with strong same sex attraction to marry someone of the opposite sex. I know many priests who wouldn't even consider marrying them, as years later they may leave their spouse for someone of their own sex.

This happened to my university roommate's parents, though I do not know at what age. The way he talked about I think it probably happened during his early teenage years since he talked about his high school days as if the dad wasn't present.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)