<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cardinal: Politicians Who Support Marriage Equality Are No Longer Catholic</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391</link>
	<description>News, analysis and fact-checking of anti-gay rhetoric</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 03:06:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.4.2</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Edward Miessner</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62753</link>
		<dc:creator>Edward Miessner</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Feb 2010 05:45:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62753</guid>
		<description>The RCC needs to research its old, old documentsto see if there are any ecclesiastical documents sanctifying same-sex unions. If there are (and there definitely are, HAHAHA) the RCC needs to lead, follow or get out of the way.

But I don&#039;t expect them to do what they need to do. I fully expect them to declare the actual state of being LGBTIQQ (homosexual in RCC lingo) to be an unrepentable and unforgiveable sin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The RCC needs to research its old, old documentsto see if there are any ecclesiastical documents sanctifying same-sex unions. If there are (and there definitely are, HAHAHA) the RCC needs to lead, follow or get out of the way.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t expect them to do what they need to do. I fully expect them to declare the actual state of being LGBTIQQ (homosexual in RCC lingo) to be an unrepentable and unforgiveable sin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: soren456</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62566</link>
		<dc:creator>soren456</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 19 Feb 2010 01:02:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62566</guid>
		<description>. . . “God forbid, we will, at the proper moment, give the necessary directives” 

. . . .he hissed. 

This, coupled with such things as the Manhattan Declaration and the Catholic decision to quit aspects of its charitable activity in Washington, D.C. in response to gay marriage, grants permission to attack us. Physically.

When &quot;spiritual leaders&quot; vow openly to ignore law (and deliberately misstate the law in their vowing), the effect is tacit permission to their followers also to ignore law. 

This God-vs.-law tripe is new, cancerous and very worrisome ways.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>. . . “God forbid, we will, at the proper moment, give the necessary directives” </p>
<p>. . . .he hissed. </p>
<p>This, coupled with such things as the Manhattan Declaration and the Catholic decision to quit aspects of its charitable activity in Washington, D.C. in response to gay marriage, grants permission to attack us. Physically.</p>
<p>When &#8220;spiritual leaders&#8221; vow openly to ignore law (and deliberately misstate the law in their vowing), the effect is tacit permission to their followers also to ignore law. </p>
<p>This God-vs.-law tripe is new, cancerous and very worrisome ways.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frijondi</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62561</link>
		<dc:creator>Frijondi</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 23:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62561</guid>
		<description>It seems to me the Roman Catholic hierarchy used to be a lot more cautious about using excommunication as a political tool.  (At least in recent decades; I&#039;m not talking about the middle ages.)  

But for some reason, they appear to have lost a lot of their inhibitions about it in recent years.  The optimist in me hopes it&#039;s a sign of desperation; as a pessimist, however, I&#039;m more inclined to think it&#039;s a sign the hard-line traditionalists are becoming bolder.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me the Roman Catholic hierarchy used to be a lot more cautious about using excommunication as a political tool.  (At least in recent decades; I&#8217;m not talking about the middle ages.)  </p>
<p>But for some reason, they appear to have lost a lot of their inhibitions about it in recent years.  The optimist in me hopes it&#8217;s a sign of desperation; as a pessimist, however, I&#8217;m more inclined to think it&#8217;s a sign the hard-line traditionalists are becoming bolder.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jimmy Mac</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62557</link>
		<dc:creator>Jimmy Mac</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 22:51:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62557</guid>
		<description>Dowager empresses might want to be careful when they bash others.  Their backgrounds may not be squeaky clean.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dowager empresses might want to be careful when they bash others.  Their backgrounds may not be squeaky clean.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rene van Soeren</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62531</link>
		<dc:creator>Rene van Soeren</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 19:13:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62531</guid>
		<description>This is really nothing new, as far as I know. In 2003 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - headed by then still cardinal Ratzinger - published a document in which it is alreaddy stated that it is the duty of catholic politicians to do anything possible to block legalizing or even to sabotage legal same sex relations. Not doing this was considered a sign that those politicians where questionable catholics. As far as I know excommunicaton of such questionable catholic politicians is mentioned in this document. 

That does not make this a part of the official catholic teaching - that is right, but - as far as I can see - it is part of the official Vatican policy.

By the way - almost immediately after the publication of this document a Dutch gay christian-democrat MP married his male partner quiet deliberately as a political sign of protest against this Vatican document. Of course - nothing happened...he was not excommunicated.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is really nothing new, as far as I know. In 2003 the Vatican Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith &#8211; headed by then still cardinal Ratzinger &#8211; published a document in which it is alreaddy stated that it is the duty of catholic politicians to do anything possible to block legalizing or even to sabotage legal same sex relations. Not doing this was considered a sign that those politicians where questionable catholics. As far as I know excommunicaton of such questionable catholic politicians is mentioned in this document. </p>
<p>That does not make this a part of the official catholic teaching &#8211; that is right, but &#8211; as far as I can see &#8211; it is part of the official Vatican policy.</p>
<p>By the way &#8211; almost immediately after the publication of this document a Dutch gay christian-democrat MP married his male partner quiet deliberately as a political sign of protest against this Vatican document. Of course &#8211; nothing happened&#8230;he was not excommunicated.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Elphaba</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62526</link>
		<dc:creator>Elphaba</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62526</guid>
		<description>The Catholic Church made similar comments when Canada was in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage, with some even going so far as to threaten excommunication of any Catholic politition who supported it.  And, suprise, suprise, when we legalized it, the Church did nothing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Catholic Church made similar comments when Canada was in the process of legalizing same-sex marriage, with some even going so far as to threaten excommunication of any Catholic politition who supported it.  And, suprise, suprise, when we legalized it, the Church did nothing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: CPT_Doom</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62524</link>
		<dc:creator>CPT_Doom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 18:12:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62524</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;I am beginning to believe that there are two types of Catholic elected officials, the Kennedy Catholics who value separation of church and state, and the Santorum Catholics who dream of a time when the Pope dictated law and kings kneeled in the snow begging their favor.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Timothy, as a former Catholic who was raised in a very Irish household, I totally agree. We were taught to venerate Kennedy, not because he was a perfect person, but because he represented the pinnacle of success for Roman Catholics, especially Irish ones. 

Anti-Catholic sentiment in this country has been strong enough that, shockingly, Joe Biden is the first Roman Catholic since Kennedy elected nationwide. It pains me to say it, but pronouncements like these, and those of the Rhode Island bishop regarding Representative Patrick Kennedy, are likely to reinflame that anti-Catholic bigotry, but this time from the left. Although most such pronouncements have been regarding abortion and birth control, if they were broadened to all Catholic theology, they could prevent RC Justices of the Peace from officiating at weddings of the previously divorced, for example. 

I believe in the separation of church and state, and if these pronouncements continue, I feel we will have to get a commitment to that from all Roman Catholics running for office or important appointments. The question will have to be asked, &quot;if caught between an issue of theology and civil rights for non-Catholics, will you risk excommunication to support the Constitution, or will you resign your office.&quot; Legislating from a specifically RC theological point of view is simply unAmerican.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>I am beginning to believe that there are two types of Catholic elected officials, the Kennedy Catholics who value separation of church and state, and the Santorum Catholics who dream of a time when the Pope dictated law and kings kneeled in the snow begging their favor.</p></blockquote>
<p>Timothy, as a former Catholic who was raised in a very Irish household, I totally agree. We were taught to venerate Kennedy, not because he was a perfect person, but because he represented the pinnacle of success for Roman Catholics, especially Irish ones. </p>
<p>Anti-Catholic sentiment in this country has been strong enough that, shockingly, Joe Biden is the first Roman Catholic since Kennedy elected nationwide. It pains me to say it, but pronouncements like these, and those of the Rhode Island bishop regarding Representative Patrick Kennedy, are likely to reinflame that anti-Catholic bigotry, but this time from the left. Although most such pronouncements have been regarding abortion and birth control, if they were broadened to all Catholic theology, they could prevent RC Justices of the Peace from officiating at weddings of the previously divorced, for example. </p>
<p>I believe in the separation of church and state, and if these pronouncements continue, I feel we will have to get a commitment to that from all Roman Catholics running for office or important appointments. The question will have to be asked, &#8220;if caught between an issue of theology and civil rights for non-Catholics, will you risk excommunication to support the Constitution, or will you resign your office.&#8221; Legislating from a specifically RC theological point of view is simply unAmerican.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nevada Blue</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62520</link>
		<dc:creator>Nevada Blue</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:46:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62520</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s rich.  The Catholic church is expert at circumnavigating their own rules (hello anullment).  They could do it here as well.  But then again, doing what is right has never been relevent to them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s rich.  The Catholic church is expert at circumnavigating their own rules (hello anullment).  They could do it here as well.  But then again, doing what is right has never been relevent to them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TonyJazz</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62514</link>
		<dc:creator>TonyJazz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 17:02:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62514</guid>
		<description>Civil marriage is not a religious statement, so what has that got to do with Catholicism?

The church has often said that the act of gay sex is the sin (of course, there is no justification for that view...), so why would a legal construct that has nothing to do with the number of gay sex acts be considered immoral?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Civil marriage is not a religious statement, so what has that got to do with Catholicism?</p>
<p>The church has often said that the act of gay sex is the sin (of course, there is no justification for that view&#8230;), so why would a legal construct that has nothing to do with the number of gay sex acts be considered immoral?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: customartist</title>
		<link>http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/02/17/20391/comment-page-1#comment-62508</link>
		<dc:creator>customartist</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:34:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=20391#comment-62508</guid>
		<description>Following up on Timothy Kincaid,

Sadly, this now applies to the highest arbiter of American Justice:

The United States Supreme Court</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Following up on Timothy Kincaid,</p>
<p>Sadly, this now applies to the highest arbiter of American Justice:</p>
<p>The United States Supreme Court</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
