Marriage-unique for a reason

For those of us fighting for the real definition of marriage in society, as well as for those exploring this topic, the following website, hosted by our new Shepherd of San Francisco, Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone:

7 thoughts on “Marriage-unique for a reason

  1. The unfortunate thing about the Catholic Church in the USA is that albeit it claims that it defends marriage and children’s rights, the Church does so rather selectively.

    Fact: A child has a right to bodily integrity. Fact: Circumcision abnormalizes the marital act for both the wife and for the husband.

    When I have raised the issue of routine infant male circumcision in the USA with apologists for the Catholic Church, they hide behind the shibboleth that infant circumcision is “morally nuetral”.

    There is no moral nuetrality in mutilating an infant’s genitals for life. It is about power and control. The Church ought to condemn this medically unnecessary practice.

  2. Actually, you’re wrong, Larry, but thank you for counting. The Church does not defend marriage and ‘children’s rights’ selectively. She defends them totally.

    Circumcision is not required by the Catholic Church, it’s ok for parents to decide to do it, but it’s not required, nor has it ever been required. Even the New Testament, St. Paul calls baptism the new circumcision. So doctrinally, circumcision is not necessary. In fact, in Acts at the very first Church Council in Jerusalem, the entire Church decided that converts did not have to be circumcised to come into the church.

    Secondly, male circumcision is not mutilation. The Church does not condemn it because the practice is harmless. In fact, several large studies revealed a 60% decrease in HIV transmission in circumcised males compared to uncircumcised males.

  3. No, I am not wrong. Circumcision is a violation of a child’s right to bodily integrity and the Church fails to condemn this practice in the USA.

    Would it have been okay with you if your parents had decided to cut off the small finger of your right hand? Parents have no rights to mutilate their children.

    You are also incorrect when you say circumcision is harmless. It abnormalizes coitus which is an assault on marriage’s unitive aspect. Women have a right to natural husbands.

    Before you mindlessly back the Church – get informed. The Church does make errors. Does recognizing that fact make me an apostate?

  4. In what way am I “mindlessly backing the Church”? The Church has nothing to say about it. They don’t condone it, and they don’t prohibit it. It is no longer a Church issue.

    What I presented was a fact-STD hides inside the foreskin.

    Had my parent cut off my finger when I was a child, I wouldn’t know what I was missing, would I?

    Look, for 18 years, children depend on parents, for sometimes longer. We learn our morals, our religion, and a lot of what we know from them. At the time of birth our mother is “God” to us. And so shall it always be.

  5. David,

    Now, please read my words carefully and dispassionately.

    Beware of making parents into false gods.

    Make no mistake. I am not attacking the Catholic faith, but I, and many other Catholics, do recognize that the institutional Church is a major impediment to the spead of the Catholic faith in the modern world, and needs to correct its errors. (By the way, Jesus never gave the Church license to abuse its authority. The Church has a serious responsibility to not abuse its aurhority.) I do not have a heavy emotional (idolatrous?)investment in the institutional Church, but I do love and respect the Catholic faith.

    You say that circumcision is not a Church issue. 2 things to consider. This Church plays moral arbiter over all aspects of our lives. (How many mortal sins are there now? Not too long ago, I read a Catholic book on Confession and there were around 450 or so mortal sins!) So, there is nothing outside of its purview. One wishes that the Church was better at dealing with moral complexity,

    The second thing to be aware of is that in the USA circumcision was put forth, in the late 1800s by quack, ignorarant “doctors” of the time, as a cure for masturbation. The Church, at that time, decried and condemned masturbation as one of the greatest of moral evils. With the quack doctors, the Church was able to assert that masturbation also destroyed people’s physical health and was therefore a physical evil as well as a spiritual evil.

    Fast forward to your last reply above. No circumcision does not reduce the spread of HIV. I am familiar with that bogus claim and the flawed studies “in support” of it.. David, circuimcision has been a “cure” in search of a disease for the past 140 to 150 years. Here are the debunked claims: Circ does not prevent or stop masturbation, it does not reduce the spread of venereal diseases (STDs) – that claim surfaced during WW I, it does not prevent or reduce the incidence of cervical cancer, it does not increase or help hygeine as a natural (read uncut) man can wash his genitals easiliy as any woman can wash hers. Most recently, it has been recommended to reduce UTIs in men. UTIs, rare in uncut men, are simply treated with antibiotics.

    Using our God given reasoning abilities, many of us can point to flawed and erroneous positions that the Church clings to because ultimately it is not willing to admit error. But, it is a large bureaucratic institution staffed by frail, fallible human beings – not by demi-gods.

    If this gets you hot and bothered, then don’t view the essays on our site. We took on the Church on its failure to condemn circumcision for the assault on marriage that it is. We also took the Church to task on: how best to alleviate poverty; the futility of seeking “common ground’ with Islam; capital punishment for convicted capital murderers is not a pro-life issue; and on the Church’s flawed understanding of the unitive aspect of marriage (hint: sex in marraige was never intended to be exclusively nor even primarily for procreation – if that were so, we humans would have a mating season).

    Please take the last word, as this is your blog. But, do be aware that many educated and thinking Catholics are not mindlessly shutting down their thinking when they hear the ominous and grave words “this is what the Church teaches”.

    Please also forgive any typos as I was typing very rapidly.

  6. Pingback: Awards, Awards, Awards–Thank You, Thank You, Thank You | The Lamehousewife Blog

  7. OK! Point by point…
    I’m not making parents into false gods, but from a child’s point of view, the parent is their god. Dependent totally on the parent for existance. Parent chooses not to have the child, child is aborted, and so on. So the parent is lord and master.

    Next, you cannot say “I am not attacking the Catholic faith…” and then attack the Catholic faith. The faith is not an impediment. The institutional church is what grew from the mustard seed that Christ planted. The Holy Spirit protects the Catholic Church from teaching error. Regarding abusing authority, again, the Holy Spirit regulates that. I trust Jesus, thanks.

    To your next paragraph, It’s a mortal sin if it’s a)grave matter, b) you know it’s a sin and c)you do it anyway. It’s saying “I know what God expects of me, but I want to do what I want to do.” and then doing it. Aside from that, the Church makes no impositions, it makes propositions. These are the things you must do if you want to have eternal life with God. You can do them, or not. It’s your choice.

    Next, circumcision was a practice that grew out of Judaism. It may have come back into vogue through some doctor, I don’t know. Regarding masturbation, it is a grave moral wrong. Sex, and the spilling of seed, is supposed to be done with your spouse. If you’re pleasuring your self, it’s not what God had in mind. Just as you can use a butcher knife as a screwdriver, that’s not what it’s for. Same with masturbation. Does masturbation damn you to hell? Only if you don’t repent and confess your sin. Also, do you realize how many Catholics there were in the US in the 1800’s??? Meaning that the quack doctor was possibly not Catholic, so you’re arguing with the wrong person. And, in the 1800’s, I don’t think the Catholic Church had very much to say about science and medicine.

    Your next paragraph veers totally away from the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Church didn’t make any of these claims.
    The Church doesn’t cling to any claims about circumcision. The Bible, where the Church stems from, in Acts 15 says circumcision is not necessary.

    The rest of your response is simply to admit that you are no longer Catholic. Because if you hold that the Church is wrong in its teaching on faith and morals (the ONLY place the Church has any authority…) then why even claim to be Catholic???

What say you???

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s