In a clear statement in support of traditional "one man-one woman" marriage in the United States, the Vatican has put Southeastern Pennsylvania at ground zero of the debate over gay marriage. The Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia, which includes Roman Catholic Churches in Philadelphia and the surrounding suburbs, has announced it will host the Vatican's 2015 World Meeting of Families.
The selection of Philadelphia came as Philadelphia Archbishop Charles Chaput attended this year's World Meeting in Milan, Italy over the weekend. The meeting is held once every three years.
In making the announcement, the Archbishop also made his position on gay marriage clear, saying in a news release:
"The family is founded on a deep and loving union between one man and one woman for mutual support and the nurturing of children. This meeting in Philadelphia will be a wonderful opportunity to highlight the family as the basic evangelizing unit of the Church. Every effort to promote marriage and the family serves not only the Church, but also the common good."
Politics, Gay Marriage and the Media
The announcement comes just weeks after President Obama officially changed his position and came out in support of same sex marriage. The World Meeting of Families is usually attended by the Pope, assuring major domestic and international media attention for the Vatican's position on marriage and families.
Archbishop Chaput acknowledged as much in a statement released on Sunday, saying:
"It's fitting that this gathering, which celebrates the cornerstone of society, will take place in America's cradle of freedom. The Holy Father's choice is a gift to the local Church in Philadelphia and to the whole nation."
What do you think of the announcement and the Archdiocese's position on marriage and the family? Is Philadelphia a fitting place to stage the debate? Tell us in the comments section at the bottom of this article.
As I stated before, instead of the name-calling and the derogatory remarks spouted by the many sides, sitting down and talking out our concerns would be the better way of handling this situation. Yes, it would be a volatile topic but it can be done. There is an innate goodness in all of us and, with the right people at the table, things can be settled. That is at least my hope.
What has changed and changed profoundly is the nature of marriage between straight people. Instead of being a relationship between unequals as it was for centuries, it evolved into a relationship between equals based on love and commitment not on dominance and pre-arrangement. That transformation is what makes marriage equality -- or if you prefer, gay marriage -- a logical consequence.
The court ruled that the Christian facility cannot ban same-sex civil union ceremony. No one was forced to allow a reception and no financial penalties were imposed.
I definately agree that any discussion of this subject, and others, should be friendly, respecful, and without insults being made. If I sounded otherwise, I apologize, and it was my passion coming in a manner which I did not intend. I did read some comments by others, and it does seem that this topic has unfortunately broadened into a broader attack on the Catholic Church, Even though I am Jewish, I have a lot of respect for the Catholic Church and Christianity. One of the issues in my divorce is that my wife tried to make me out to be crazy and confused because I wanted to expose my children to the messages of Christ and Christmas. Even though I do not (and I am sorry if this offends) believe that Christ was the son of God, I believe there was tremendous value in his teachings and messages, and given that we live in a country which is mostly Christian, I wanted my children to be exposed to Christianity, especially that which Christianity has to offer which is wonderful and beautiful. I even took my children to a unitarian church one Christmas Eve and I had a wonderfukl christmas. So it is a shame if this issue has to become derrogatory and degrading and insulting, and again if I was perceived as having any part in that, I regret it and apologize. Sincerely, David M. Ginsberg
It is difficult for everyone to keep the first amendment for all. The point I am making is in an example of the three wise men and the nativity scene. Shepherd's were the lowest of the cast system. They had to pay someone to go to the city and pick up their goods. They were not accepted by the public. It is no mistake the nativity scene shows kings in the same company of shepherds. Christ brought all together. We will always have this problem. We are humans. Some people were excommunicated from the Catholic Church because of their beliefs. Galileo was one of them. He recently was accepted. Christ looked out for all souls not just the faithful. No one is one hundred percent faithful, or we wouldn't need forgiveness. My point is Catholics aren't the only true religion. People have personal relationships with God. There should be no debate about this. If a soul is certain no one will be able to destroy someone's belief system. I appreciate your opinion. I just have a different view about acceptance.
David, thank you, and, no, I have not noticed anything derogatory in your replies. Thank you. I also am sorry for what happened. It is a noble effort on your part to expose your children to various religions. Christ had a very positive message to share whether you believe or not that He is the Messiah. While I do not have every religious belief committed to memory, I do have books available to me for reference and value learning about them in reference to my own religion.
I'm not sure what you're asserting by way of the permanence of God but it is certainly odd to suggest that we return to the social and sexual mores of an eastern backwater of the Roman Empire. Have you any notion of how brutal society was then? No one from the present day in his or her right mind would wish to return to a society that, say, regarded stoning or cutting tendons as a perfectly fine way to punish crime. By your view, God seems frozen in amber.
Moving on to your comments about an unchanging will. Let's note that not even inconsistent with the doctrine of a New Covenant. I'll leave it to you to provide your certainty-filled rationalizations to paper over this obvious inconsistency.
1. You have noted that the Catholic church views marriage between a man and a woman with the goal of procreation. What about post-menopausal women? Are they allowed to get married in a Catholic church? What about an Iraq veteran who is paralyzed from the waist down, or missing necessary body parts. Could he get married? What about women who have survived cervical cancer but are now sterile from the chemotherapy? Or does the procreation thing just not apply to them? 2. How does the church define a man and a woman? I know this seems like a silly question, but it isn't. What about transgender people? Are they considered their orginal gender, or the changed one? Does the church go by genetics or outward appearance? Some people are born with an XXY chromosome defect (they have an extra sex defining chromosome), or they are born with parts of both genitalia. Are they allowed to get married? Who could Chaz Bono marry? A man or a woman? I don't mean for these questions to be rude or patronizing. I really want an answer from someone who knows about religion.
We are most certainly to judge. Matthew 7:1 is so often taken out of context. In the next verse, Jesus says, "For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." He is just warning us to be prepared; that the same criteria we use will be used to judge us. (BTW, I count 17 judgements in your comment.) Yes, Jesus taught love and acceptance of the individual, which I fully embrace. But he condemned sin. Jesus (and Wm. Penn) NEVER taught that same-sex unions were okay. To me it's obvious. It just goes against creation. That can't be argued.
1. Post-menopausal Woman: born a woman with the potential to have children (Can Marry); Injured Iraqi Veteran: born a man/woman with the potential to have children (Can Marry); Cervical Cancer (Can Marry). All of us have the ability to procreate, including homosexuals, but only heterosexuals have the willingness, the intention, to procreate with a spouse of the opposite sex which permits the creation of human life out of love. If you cannot love someone of the opposite sex and can only love someone of the same, then that love, as much as it seems similar, cannot create a life out of a truly, loving sexual relationship. 2. Man and woman are the true, physical forms of man and woman as naturally created by God. There are exceptions as Jesus noted some are born eunuchs or in a different manner and they are unable to procreate. So, as you noted some are exceptions and have to be taken on a case by case basis. Chaz Bono should not be able to marry within the Catholic Church given my current knowledge of the situation.
Now, if they told us all that we had to go to church services on Wednesday and we need to meet in the township building instead of our church buildings, or worse, took over our church buildings and renamed them to the Church of Pat, then that would be where your concern for for Freedom FROM Religion should take place. Because you disagree with a religion or religions does not permit you to silence us or permit you to try and stop us from practicing our religion or following our faith. If you truly believe in something, then you will vote according to your belief. You are doing this yourselves although it is not "religious". Just because our belief coincides with our religion, doesn't mean you can tell us how we can or cannot vote. "You can't vote that way because that's your religious belief... Can't include it!" YES WE CAN!
Wouldn't it be crazy if we're at the pearly gates, and God says "I told you not to worship anything but me. So why did you worship a book that I did not write, and take everything in it so literally??"
Our society is better because we have slightly more Freedom FROM the clergy of multi-billion-dollar tax-free corporations. We must do more to protect homosexuals from the clergy’s discrimination and to protect children from the clergy’s sexual adventures. At times, we have to choose between our superstitious beliefs that support immoral behavior and doing the right thing for other citizens. We have to choose between church and state--between anti-thinking servitude and Freedom FROM the harm caused by beliefs imposed by the clergy.
http://www.wnd.com/2012/08/arab-spring-run-amok-brotherhood-starts-crucifixions/