The Pope and the Bishops says we need more Catholic Politicians but when one emerges the Church does not stand behind him. I am speaking of Senator Santorum. Has not Senator Santorum spoken up for the Family? Where are the Bishops supporting him? Where is the Catholic support? Where is Bishop Pataki? Where is Metropolitan Basil? etc... Should we not speak up against Homosexuality? Should we not defend the Family?

Here is the good Senators remarks: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/04/22/national1737EDT0668.DTL

Ouch.

The problem is not with Sen. Santorum's decision to take a stand against homosexuality (or sexuality in general). The problem is with his lack of logic.

His major premise is: if we allow people to do things in their homes that we don't like , then they will do them. If, however, we determine that certain things should NOT be do-able in the home, then we can provide strictures that will jail them for violating the 'common good' as interpreted by x, y or z persons.

The problem is twofold: who decides what is acceptable PRIVATE behavior? And, secondly: is there a framework for determining which 'private behavior' should be hunted down by the authorities?

By deciding that 'someone' (like Mr. Santorum) should determine what one can or cannot do in the privacy of one's own home, we destroy utterly the freedoms that the US Constitution has provided to all citizens. Unless there are 'victims', who are coerced or forced against their will, then there is no justification for allowing others to decide to intervene. Under Mr. Santorum's theory, the same used by J. Stalin against Christians, and Hitler against the Jews, gypsies and Slavs, and the Chinese Communist party against the Falun Gong, the government gets to decide what the citizens can do of their own free choice. Let's not forget the persecution and jailing of Roman Catholics in Ireland by the "Crown" for practicing sedition by praying the rosary. In the name of social regimentation, the citizens are supposed to acquiesce to the will of whoever is "in power" at a given time. Dangerous. And clearly 'un-American'.

As to the framework that decides what is acceptable or not: our Constitution and legal system state clearly that there must be a victim, a person who is clearly forced to do something that he/she would not want to do. In terms of 'civil liberties', if people are coerced, then they have the full weight of the law behind them. If people are NOT coerced, and do things of their own free will (like smoking, or drinking or getting fat and taking up two seats on the bus or airplane)- and there are no further victims - then the state must back off. It's called 'freedom'.

Santorum's linking of homosexuality with incest and other things is clearly off the mark. It's purely a political ploy since there is no substantiated linking of these issues except in the mind of the scared Senator.

Whether I agree with him or not on this particular issue, my experience in dictator-Greece (in the 70s), in Hungary under the communists, and getting 'searched' at the Berlin border crossing has made it very clear to me that if you truly value freedom, you've got to fight any and all attempts to quash the rights of individuals. It may not make for the cleanest or most upright of societies, but the alternative is potentially devasting both for the rights of the individual and the concept that like-minded people should be free enough to associate with each other, freely.

If this is not going to be the case, then any and all groups that do not toe-the-line of the prevailing power cadre will be potential victims. If fundamentalist Protestants and evangelicals get the power to rule the roost, we Catholics and especially we "freakin' foreigner Catholics" will be more than marginalized. Our icon-venerating 'idolatry' can be determined to be 'illegal' (cf. Ireland, Indonesia, the communist-dominated Slavonia, etc.) and our ability to come together to worship freely will be determined to be 'against the common good'.

My suspicion is that Johan is under 40, and perhaps under 30, and that he has not been 'overseas' to personally experience what government can do to Christians, and especially to those Christians who are not part of the kow-towing element. It's easy to stand for "morality" as one understands it; but one must be aware that standing for morality doesn't necessarily guarantee rights for marginal/minority Christians like us. Because our 'morality' may offend the majority and turn us into victims too.

So, I stand for political freedom for every person in the US to live as he/she deems right. And unless there is clearly a coerced victim, then the government should stay out of our homes and churches and let us decide how we live.

Christ is Risen!!

Dr. John,

"The problem is twofold: who decides what is acceptable PRIVATE behavior? And, secondly: is there a framework for determining which 'private behavior' should be hunted down by the authorities?"

1st. Question: "Who decides?" - Jesus Christ Lord and Saviour!

2nd. Question: "Is there a framework?" - The Holy Roman Catholic Church!

"By deciding that 'someone' (like Mr. Santorum) should determine what one can or cannot do in the privacy of one's own home, we destroy utterly the freedoms that the US Constitution has provided to all citizens."

Homosexual acts are against the law in Texas and 9 other states of the Union! Senator Santorum is just UPHOLDING the law!

"Santorum's linking of homosexuality with incest and other things is clearly off the mark."

How so? Both are Mortal sins and Both will led a person to Hell according to the Holy Roman Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox Churches. Also, according to Jesus Christ - God!

"Whether I agree with him or not on this particular issue, my experience in dictator-Greece (in the 70s), in Hungary under the communists, and getting 'searched' at the Berlin border crossing has made it very clear to me that if you truly value freedom, you've got to fight any and all attempts to quash the rights of individuals."

No worries this is American not some 3rd world nation ruled by a communist dictator.

"If fundamentalist Protestants and evangelicals get the power to rule the roost, we Catholics and especially we "freakin' foreigner Catholics" will be more than marginalized."

Then our Bishops better step up to the plate and support our Catholic politicans.

"My suspicion is that Johan is under 40, and perhaps under 30, and that he has not been 'overseas' to personally experience what government can do to Christians, and especially to those Christians who are not part of the kow-towing element."

You are incorrect.

"It's easy to stand for "morality" as one understands it;"

Then do it!

"but one must be aware that standing for morality doesn't necessarily guarantee rights for marginal/minority Christians like us. Because our 'morality' may offend the majority and turn us into victims too."

Sounds like excuses and you don't really believe what is taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church that if you follow God He will provide a way.

"So, I stand for political freedom for every person in the US to live as he/she deems right. And unless there is clearly a coerced victim, then the government should stay out of our homes and churches and let us decide how we live."

Nor I nor the Catholic Church believes in the seperation of Church and State. I see your point of view I just disagree with it...

The problem with this logic is that we, as a society, already prohibit what one can do in the privacy of one’s own home. We do not allow people to take certain drugs in the privacy of their own home. We do not allow adults to have consensual sex with children in the privacy of their own homes. This has never been considered to utterly destroy the freedoms that the people have ensured via that US Constitution. To argue that it does is utter nonsense.

Santorum's linking of homosexual sexual behavior with other deviant behaviors hits the mark perfectly. If we as a society discard traditional morality for one deviant behavior we must logically also discard traditional morality for all types of deviant behaviors.

Santorum’s exact words in the April 7th interview (as published in newspaper accounts) were: "I have no problem with homosexuality I have a problem with homosexual acts, as I would with acts of other, what I would consider to be, acts outside of traditional heterosexual relationships."

"And that includes a variety of different acts, not just homosexual," he said. "I have nothing, absolutely nothing against anyone who's homosexual. If that's their orientation, then I accept that. And I have no problem with someone who has other orientations. The question is, do you act upon those orientations? So it's not the person, it's the person's actions. And you have to separate the person from their actions."

He further stated that: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

His words are very consistent with the teaching of our Church, which considers homosexual tendencies to be disordered but not sinful and all homosexual activity to be sinful.

While our country’s Constitution and laws are based on English Common Law, which is turn based on the Ten Commandments we have never based our morality upon the Roman Catholic Church. To discuss the possibilities of changing our governmental form to one akin to a Roman Catholic theocracy is just plain silly.

You do raise a good point about the efforts of a small group of people arguing for societal acceptance of deviant lifestyles shoving their morality down our throats.

Dr John,

"By deciding that 'someone' (like Mr. Santorum) should determine what one can or cannot do in the privacy of one's own home, we destroy utterly the freedoms that the US Constitution has provided to all citizens"

No, this is not the issue. Where in the constitution is this right to privacy to do anything anyone wants as long as two adults consent to it? Polygamy is circumscribed in our nation. Man-boy love is still, thankfully, against the law, though several adults claim that it is almost always consensual. Would an agrieved spouse be disallowed from using a charge of adultery against his/her spouse simply because the sin was committed in the privacy of a home between consenting adults.

The "right" to privacy can never be seen as absolute.

Dan Lauffer

Gee Johan,
Didn't you claim just a few weeks ago to be a cradle Byzantine Catholic? I am...

Would you mind telling me what this "Holy Roman Catholic Church" is so that I might unite myself to it and save my soul?

Santorum should resign his office as Trent Lott had to. Prejudice against any group is not acceptable.

Eastern theology teaches that he first victim of any sin is the perpetrator of the sin.

That is why suicide is still a sin and still rightfully illegal almost everywhere. In addition to the primary victim, there are all of the others: family and friends, not to mention those folks who have to clean up the body.

Should it be legal for me to intoxicate myself each and every day with alcohol and drugs to the point where I ultimately become a medical burden to society?

My question really is, can sin be isolated to one person, or does it touch all of us in some way? Can someone give us an example of a sin completely isolated from the rest of society?

I also don't argue for a police state, having spent considerable time since the early 1980s in the depths of Soviet Russia. However, Christians must argue for the law to reflect universal right and wrong because the law is the primary moral guide for most of the secularized world. If we argue for or accept anything less, then we condone their sin.

If you don't believe me, then see Romans.

With love in Christ,
Andrew

Who actually inserted the word "gay" into his remarks? Hmmmmmmmm.

The senator stated: "And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery."

Who put the word "gay" in "consensual 'gay' sex"? This will tell us what is really going on. As Paul Harvey would say, "This is the rest of the story." This should be addressed too. Who was that reporter who mis-quoted the senator?

Dr. John wrote: "By deciding that 'someone' (like Mr. Santorum) should determine what one can or cannot do in the privacy of one's own home, we destroy utterly the freedoms that the US Constitution has provided to all citizens. Unless there are 'victims', who are coerced or forced against their will, then there is no justification for allowing others to decide to intervene."

What are you saying? You can't have it both ways. Your disclaimer sides with the senator's point and previous decisions of court cases. Will pornographers be able to continue their private home business if they and their 'legal' aged girls consent to sex? Will incest be protected? How about bestiality? What would St. Paul think - will he need to revise the beginning of Romans to adjust to the extensive privacy decisions that the U.S. Constitution provides?

Do we really live private lives when God is watching our every move?

As for 'freedom', do I really have freedom of speech? How about slander? libel? shouting "Fire!" in a movie theater? Obscene words and stories in high school newspapers? Does the Constitution protect me here? What about Christian principles?

Please define and qualify what freedom really is.

When the former President was having 'consenting' sex with a White House aide, were they simply excercising their Constitutionally protected 'freedoms' or engaging in adultery?

Joe

The bishops are still trying to deal with acts of pedophilia and homosexuality done in the privacy of their own rectories, seminaries, and homes between consenting(?) adults and man-boy relationships. They have much on their plate to expose themselves to further ridicule supporting the Senator's remarks. Can you imagine the backlash if they attempted to?

Was it because of 'prejudice' that Paul wrote in Romans 1:18-32 the following?

* * * * * * *

"The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

* * * * * * *

If anyone considers this unacceptable, please state your case.

As I said, "if you don't believe me, then see Romans."

Thanks again, Joe.

In Christ,
Andrew

I agree with Dr.John on this one.

Politically speaking, I tend to be Libertarian. What two (or more) consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home is none of the government's business, no matter how evil or disgusting. I don't understand this NAZI mentality that wants to dictate what people can or cannot do in the privacy of their own homes. Of course, anything that is not consensual, or is perpetrated against a minor is a different story.

Remember, in certain countries in the Middle East, Christians aren't aloud to read the Bible in their homes. Should we side with the government in that case as well since the Bible is banned material?

Columcille

Columcille,

Nice of you to be so willingly to side with the Evil One for consenting purposes. Obviously, "temptation" and what we do "in the recesses of our houses" don't mean squat in your Christian lexicon.

Can you comment on the passage from Romans I just gave?

Joe

This is why political talk should not occur here unless the participants can act like adults.

When people can not discuss the topic as intelligent Christians they should not reply or post.

When they resort to name calling it should stop.

So, rather than those who disagree with you just having a different view point or political ideal, they are Nazis?

I think it is time that many of us grow up around here.


David