Bookmark and Share
My Photo


    Opinions expressed on the Insight Scoop weblog are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions of Ignatius Press. Links on this weblog to articles do not necessarily imply agreement by the author or by Ignatius Press with the contents of the articles. Links are provided to foster discussion of important issues. Readers should make their own evaluations of the contents of such articles.


« Jesuit philosopher and legendary rock vocalist agree on something about nothing | Main | "Truly You are holy and most holy, and there are no bounds to the majesty of Your holiness..." »

Friday, April 01, 2011


Steve Brown

I am loving your articles on good bishops. Keep it up.

Anne Rice

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to run schools and hospitals and other institutions in this country it must abide by the laws of the United States. It does not enjoy a "special pass" to discriminate against gays, blacks, women, or any other minority that is protected from discrimination by law. No institution that will not abide by our laws is entitled to receive federal funds in our country. Catholics must abide by the laws of this country like everybody else. There is no justification at all for Catholics campaigning against civil Same Sex Marriage. The Catholic church doesn't recognize anybody's civil or secular marriage. So what right has it to actively campaign against Americans who are seeking the right to Same Sex Marriage? If you want to preach discrimination and bias in your church, you have a right to do that, but when you come into the secular arena you enjoy no special privilege to impose your religious views on others. If you continue to campaign against Same Sex marriage I think you should lose your tax exempt status.

Peter M.

Dear Ms. Rice, I would encourage anyone who takes the position you just described above to read Robert George's paper entitled "What is Marriage?". The church is not imposing anything by campaigning against a redefintion of marriage. A redefinition with no basis in reality.

Deacon Harold

Ms. Rice: Being black or a woman is not a lifestyle choice or a violation of natural law. The eternal, divine and natural law trumps perverted positive law.

Charles E Flynn

Marriage, the union of one man and one woman, is the oldest human institution, predating all forms of government. The government has the right to regulate it, but no created being has any right whatsoever to fundamentally redefine it. The attempt to redefine marriage is an attempt to usurp God's authority, an activity with a long, sad history.


"All these things are on the radar . . ." Sadly, there are far worse things on the radar. S/S 'marriage' is a Pandora's box; once opened what won't escape? As we saw with most of the abusive priests, gays don't just want to redefine marriage, they want to lower the age. Already, they are attempting to lower the age of consent; marriage will be next, if NAMBLA has anything to say about it. We must stand firm. If we bow to one perversion there will be no right to complain of any other.


I can see why Ms. Rice is so fed up with you folks. Marriage has been redefined again and again throughout history. People were polygamous for thousands of years and still are in many places. Yet they consider their arrangements marriages just as we do. For hundreds and hundreds of years marriages were arranged for political and/or financial gain. You're going to tell me THAT was God's intention? Marriage, like all parts of society, is constantly changing and will continue to do so. You have no more right to tell consenting adults of the same sex that they cannot marry than you have to tell a male and female atheist couple that does not plan to have children that they cannot marry. You have every right to say you do not approve of such marriages but none whatsoever to interfere in the legal system and the lives of consenting, non-Catholic, adults.

Regina Sabin

RE: Biship Tobin's statement "it is an attempt to redefine the institution of marriage as it has been understood since the beginning of time". Might one interpret the "beginning of time" as being inclusive of pre-historic man? The historical religions chronologically form only the tip of the religious iceberg. Historical religion spans less than 4,000 years as compared with the 3,000,000 years or so of the religions that preceded them. Do we know that the primal or tribal religions recognized an "institution of marriage"? Might the word of God, as given and received by prehistoric man indeed have been subjected to "redefinition" by historical religions? Might homosexual unions also have existed since the "beginning"? Indeed, the Church and all other religous institutions are not exempt from the secular laws of government. Rightly so, the secular laws apply to medical benefits, adoption procedures, rental of "reception halls". This separation of Church and State requires us ALL to be team players and abide by the law. I find it very disturbing that the Church insensitively accepts as a main tenet, the belief that only when all religions convert to Catholicism will salvation be possible. Perhaps it is this systemic principle, which ignores the beliefs of others, that is the crux of the problem. There are many children of God in the playground with different beliefs. We need to learn to play fairly, respect each other, and accept that no one team is superior to the other.

Regina Sabin

@Charles E. Flynn RE: "the oldest human institution" please read my comment to Bishop Tobin. "No created being has any right what so ever to fundamentally redefine it"..logically, what can not be "redefined" also can not be defined. Before the advent of historical religions, or perhaps even before non-historical or tribal religions, we simply do not know if mankind lived a totally secular lifestyle. Perhaps it was religion that "redefined" God's authority in originally creating us without organized religion. Why have the Catholic bishops of England, Wales, and Scotland warned their 5,000,000 worshippers that the Bible is "not totally accurate" and is this not "redefinition"? Might it not be religion that "usurps" God by presumptiously pontificating over MANKINDS view of God's will?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Ignatius Insight


Ignatius Press

Catholic World Report


Blogs & Sites We Like

June 2018

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Blog powered by Typepad