Monday, October 6, 2014

Call to Action and Macklemore vs. Jesus and the Church

This is from Call to Action, a group that labels themselves Catholic but have, time and again, done things which suggest that they have removed themselves completely out from under the umbrella of Catholicism.

This graphic of course includes two same-sex partners with children, and cites one of the worst "rappers" I've ever heard - Macklemore - whose song last year "same love" took the country by storm as he noted that all love, whether between a married man and woman or two people of the's all the same, and it's all beautiful.

Call to Action, in the run up to the Synod on the family, is apparently hoping to ride the tidal wave of Macklemore's "theology" by picking off people who understand very little about what Love really is when Jesus, St. Paul, the Church etc. speak of the word.  

Of course people can think they are loving each other even if they aren't actually expressing what Christ means by the word Love.

Everyone acknowledges that love means so many different things, and yet this graphic seeks to pretend that there AREN'T different types of love.

People love cinnamon rolls
People love their pets
People love the NFL
People love their siblings
People love their friends
God loves all of us
God and Jesus and the Holy Spirit love each other
a Man and wife love each other

These "loves" aren't the same thing...unless you work for Call to Action...then Love means whatever you want it to mean and all loves are the same.

I'll take the Bible, the teachings of Jesus and St. Paul, the writings of the saints, popes, theologians, the Church, etc. over the theology of Macklemore.


  1. The poster displays many forms of families, and all are worthy of dignity and respect. Apparently that is in opposition with Catholic theology, which if find puzzling, but I guess institutionalized inequality is why I'm not Catholic. Tara

    1. Every person has dignity and respect because they are made in the image and likeness of God. That fact is the foundation of all Catholic teaching.

      People like yourself who want to redefine marriage to mean whatever you want it to mean always commit the same fallacy: "Oh, the evil Church hates people in these situations"

      NOPE - the Church says marriage is between a man and a woman, and in saying that they are not judging a person, but they are doing what has always been done by the prophets, by saints, by holy people in the Scriptures, by Jesus, and by the Church - it stands up and says "That, over there, is a sin, steer clear of it."

      There is an infinite difference between saying
      1) It is wrong to allow two people of the same sex to marry or adopt children and
      2) Dave and Steve don't have diginity and are, at their core, bad people because they have married and adopted children.

      If you can't see the difference then I don't know what else to say.

    2. "Every person has dignity and respect because they are made in the image and likeness of God. That fact is the foundation of all Catholic teaching."

      You compared the love between a same sex couple to the love of cinnamon rolls. That is not respecting another human being.

      "There is an infinite difference between saying
      1) It is wrong to allow two people of the same sex to marry or adopt children and
      2) Dave and Steve don't have diginity and are, at their core, bad people because they have married and adopted children."

      When you support public policy aimed at destabilizing their relationship, make their children more vulnerable, and cause undue burden by increasing the amount of taxes they pay, those two statements become identical. If you cannot connect actions to those words then I don't know what else to say.

      "Redefinition" how? Was it a redefinition of voting to expand the right to women? Expanding civil marriage laws to include gays is not a redefinition. In fact, the literal redefinition of marriage in my state occurred when the explicitly denied gays from getting married. That was the actual, literal redefinition. Your using cheap scare tactics. There is no rational basis to not allow gays to marry. They do not harm society, they do not harm children, they do just fine as parents. SSM bans as public policy make as much sense as introducing policy aimed to reduce high speed traffic accidents by not allowing green cars on the freeway, even if green cars do not cause an increase in accidents. SSM bans are not protecting anyone, only discriminating against a small group of people and families in very significant, expensive, destabilizing ways.

      I know that Catholics do not believe in SSM, but your solution is easy. Just don't marry gays. No one is forcing you to marry divorced couples, non Catholics, or interfaith couples. No one will force you to marry gays. Trying to influence civil laws to allow for discrimination is deeply immoral and evil, even if you believe SSM is sinful. These bans are wicked, dehumanizing, and humiliating. Tara

    3. 1) I did not compare two men loving each other to the love of cinnamon rolls. Read it over again. There are different types of ways that the word love is used, and they DON'T mean the same thing.

      2) So any public policy that "destabilizes a relationship" is bad? Every law destabilizes anyone who wants to act contrary to it.

      3) They aren't "their children". We tell lots of people right now that, because of the way they are living out their lives at the moment, they can't adopt.

      4) so what, exactly, is your definition of marriage?

      5) The Church teaches that every Catholic is to be extremely concerned and extremely active in working to protect the institution of marriage not just "in Church" but in our civil societies in which we live as well.

      Paragraph 229 of the Church's Compendium of Social Doctrine states: "The solidity of the family nucleus is a decisive resource for the quality of life in society, therefore the civil community cannot remain indifferent to the destabilizing tendencies that threaten its foundations at their very roots. Although legislation may sometimes tolerate morally unacceptable behavior, it must never weaken the recognition of indissoluble monogamous marriage as the only authentic form of the family."

  2. 1. You were attempting to humiliate gays by making their relationship inferior.
    2. Laws are meant to protect people. There is a solid basis to criminalize theft or fraud, ect. There is no rational basis to ban SSM. I have yet to hear compelling objective evidence for the ban. Only religious or poor philosophical arguments. This is key, unless you can prove that SSM harms society with objective evidence your argument must be dismissed as animus. Laws meant to destabilize harmless, productive citizens is discrimination.
    3. What do you mean? You now can decide parentage? I thought that was what birth certificates and governments are for. I'm gay and have 3 kids. I don't remember asking your permission.
    4. Marriage is a legal partnership between two people. Beyond that the meaning is defined by the couple. What is your definition of civil marriage? Does it have to include religion? Does it require procreation? Neither of those issues apply to civil law, should they?
    5. Oh, really? Pray tell, what's next? Are you planning to ban remarriage of divorced couples? Deny marriage to Catholics and non Catholics? Deny marriage to surgically sterilized people? Because it is my understanding that those marriages should not be allowed in the Catholic faith. But then again, if you were going to do that you would have tried by now so it's hard to take this point seriously. Face it, This whole SSM ban is nothing but a scape goat to you. Your picking on a small, already stigmatized group of people. Before you ask me to define a word again, I'll just say that this is my definition of cowardice. Tara

    1. 1) If a gay guy is friends with another guy, it isn't inferior, it just isn't a marriage

      2) Yes there is. The family is the nucleus that a civil society has to protect for the rearing of children. We don't let children go in to lots of environments. Two people of the same sex having sexual relations and calling themselves parents should be one of those environments.

      3) I can't decide parentage, but the Church can advocate that a government makes rational laws on such matters. Of course the government can totally ignore the Church (at its own peril), many have in the past, and some have actually persecuted the Church for offering advice on how to run its society. I wouldn't be shocked to see that happen here soon enough.

      4) Why 2 people?

      5) Your understanding of what the Church teaches about marriage is way off.

    2. 1. Again, you are humiliating gays who say that their spouse is someone of the same sex by comparing them to "friends". I'm tired of repeating myself.
      2. This statement falls under the saying "You are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts". There are over 150 studies that show that children from same sex families do as well as children raised in heterosexual families. The evidence is so overwhelming that it has led to all major pediatric medical and psychological associations to support same sex families. There is no harm, and you have not provided any objective evidence to the contrary. Your opinion is disconnected from reality.
      3. "I wouldn't be shocked to see that happen here soon enough." What do you mean by this?
      4. Sigh...Unless one's sex is related to the number of people a individual is then this argument is irrelevant. Expanding civil marriage to include same sex couples does not influence anti-polygamy laws. I'll go further and say that polygamy as a social construct is harmful and disruptive to society. These societies are composed mainly of one man collecting many women. His wives are nothing but sex objects and baby machines. His children are cheap labor where many of the boys are thrown out eventually, and the girls become a valuable commodity to trade with his neighbors. They are so valuable in fact, that many of these girls are forced into child marriages. Gay marriage, as I have been saying, is not harmful to society. SSM bans, in fact, are what is harmful.
      5. Care to elaborate? Will you also please give examples of what civil laws are being changed/influenced to expand the Church's teaching of marriage in ways other than SSM bans? Tara

    3. 1) I'm tired of repeating myself as well
      2) Of course there are sociological studies out there. People can always do crackpot research to further their agenda. Look at Planned Parenthood...they've been conducting "science" through the Guttmacher Institute for years that claims everything PP does is great. HELLO...does that strike anyone as odd...Planned Parenthood doing research on their agenda?

      Could you imagine if the Catholic Church produced data from studies? People would scream foul...but alas we live in odd times don't we.

      Of course there are studies that go AGAINST gay "parenting"...I remember one coming out a year or so ago, it might be this one -

      and it was roundly mocked by all who disagree with its findings.

      3) I suspect members of the Catholic Church will be persecuted for holding to the teachings of the Church in the United States sooner rather than later.

      There are 5 stages of persecution...guess which one Catholics in the United States are at?

      4) There are ZERO arguments for 2 dads but NOT 3 dads. Since you love quoting scientific studies, do you have anything that suggests 3 dads is worse than 2? Of course not. There's no science that says that, and there are no rational arguments that say that.

      5) you said:
      "Deny marriage to Catholics and non Catholics? Deny marriage to surgically sterilized people? Because it is my understanding that those marriages should not be allowed in the Catholic faith."

      That is completely wrong. Your understanding about such marriages is completely wrong. That's what I meant.

    4. Religious persecution? Such as those pastors in New York who were arrested for performing SSM according to their religious beliefs? The numerous Presbyterians, UCC, ELCA and others whos religion supports SSM but cannot marry their parishioners, do you mean them? Or is the Catholic Church the only one that counts?

      I soundly debunked your whole "SSM leads to polygamy" slippery slope argument. You wanted to know why, and I explained the issues behind polygamy that aren't relevant to SSM. Unless you can logically connect the two it is not worth my time discussing your ignorant question. Honestly, the whole argument is pathetically desperate. What are you going to say next, SSM will lead people to marry their TVs or dogs? Cause this argument is just as ridiculous. Time for a new scare tactic Fr...

      Thanks for trying to elaborate on the CC position on marriage. Now, please give other examples of how the CC is using civil law to further their agenda on marriage, or is SSM the only problem and that's why you are ignoring my question?

      "Crackpot" research? Over 150 studies done by numerous researchers for a variety of institutions and universities, the AMA, and APA, and many others are crackpots? Sure, keep telling yourself what you want to here. But, I have some good news! The Catholic Church does do its own research, it's just through surrogate organizations. Ever heard of the Witherspoon Institute? They did that Regnerus Study you cited that was exposed in open court as a fraud (no, not mocked, but dismissed entirely). And, no, that study proves nothing as it never even studied children raised in same sex homes. The study was concocted to try to influence the prop 8 decision in a despicable, evil way to mislead the public. It didn't work, and now is an infamous example on how biased organizations attempt to influence public policy with fraudulent studies. I think you owe Planned Parenthood an apology. The Catholic Church as a whole should apologize to all SS families for attempting to lie and dehumanize them while subjugating them by exploiting civil law, but I'm certain that will never happen in my lifetime. Tara

    5. 1) Religious persecution has always been evaluated in regards to foundational first principles. If a pastor wants to cut off peoples heads, that doesn't quite work. If a pastor wants to marry two men, that doesn't quite work either. If we all get together and decide that what has been a first principle since the foundation of our country is now going to be rewritten (i.e. Animal Farm) then yes, there will be persecution of the Catholic Church. Check out the 5 stages article I sent you - we're already pretty far along there.

      2) You all love to call the SSM --> polygamy a slippery slope argument when it isn't at all...they are the same points on the same slope! You have nothing you can say to that, and you know it. You can in no way talk about a man's right to marry a man without talking about his right to marry two men. (unless, of course, you wanted to say "well marriage has always been two people...but then that wouldn't work because your side can't appeal to "what marriage has always been in the past")

      3) no idea what your third paragraph is saying

      4) crackpot research. That is correct.

    6. 1. Our country's first 1st principle is equality. It is by virtue of our 1st principle that SSM is inevitable. It is you that is attempting to redefine and interfere with that principle, it is you that is persecuting.
      2. Nope, no logical slope. Not even skiing on the same mountain. If your don't mind I'd like to digress a bit. Have you ever considered what the arguments would be in support of polygamy? I would say they would be religious freedom due to polygamy appearing in many religious texts, the argument to tradition since most societies have/had polygamy (no, SSM supporters make no argument to tradition. Where did you get that?), and the nature/natural law argument due to the number of children polygamists have and the fact that all other higher order primates have "polygamous"/communal type societies. Sound familiar? Yup, they are the same as "traditional marriage" supporter arguments. Great job guys. YOUR legal interpretations would lead to polygamy.
      4. Why pick on gays? There are so many bigger fish to fry, so fry them! Not us! Don't exploit civil law because you failed to sell your theology, it's immoral and frankly lazy.
      4. Lol! Well, that settles it! Never mind that pediatricians and child psychologists heal children every day, they have crackpot opinions. Most days even I'm surprised at the speed which marriage equality is spreading-and then I read arguments like this. Yeah, awesome! Please, keep up these sort of retorts. The more you make these type of arguments the less I have to work. Tara

    7. 1) So every person that wants to do whatever they want can just appeal to equality? Equality has to do with how we are created...all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights...that would be God. We are created equal by God.

      2) Of course it is the same slope even though you say it isn't. That's why people are already moving forward with appeals for other marital arrangements. There is no difference.

      4) You can't use words like "immoral". You can't use our words if you don't believe in what they mean. By "immoral" what are you referring to? Against the moral code that you and your friends have agreed upon? If you are a logical atheist, you can't use such words because such words assume there is a moral code in the first place.

      4) I'm not surprised by the speed that "marriage equality" is spreading at all the plan has been brilliant
      a. introduce contraception as a way to divorce the sexual act from being open to life
      b. introduce abortion as a back up for failed contraception so that sex becomes only about the pleasure that a person can get from it
      c. watch the family implode as spouses continue to look for only their pleasure
      d. watch divorce rates soar
      e. watch the Catholic Church completely clam up in cowardice, shirking its duty to preach about such things
      f. step forward and say "Hey, look how disastrous marriage is...let's let whoever wants to get married get married."

      I agree about one thing with you...the Catholic Church has been almost completely silent as all of this has happened and has been completely ineffective in doing what Christ asked the Church to do.

    8. 1. Fr. Hollowell, we've been through this already, like, 3 times. No one can do whatever they want if whatever they want hurts someone else. Equality cannot exist if its expression subjugates someone else. This has always been a part of American laws, why is it so hard for you to understand? My freedom includes SSM, your freedom is not affected by SSM as you can still have your life without such obstacles. We are equal, and should be TREATED equally (14th amendment). Your interpretation of civil law is unequal, and therefore unconstitutional.
      2. I am unaware of any legal lawsuits, let alone appeals, that deal with legalizing polygamy. What are you referring to? There is a lawsuit asking for legalized cohabitation which is criminalized in Utah, but that has nothing to do with marriage let alone SSM. BTW, cohabitation is fine in most states. No SSM lawsuits are asking for multiple marriage, so you are not logically connecting the two. Seriously, this argument is played out.
      3. Umm, No you don't own the meaning or application of morality. The suggestion implies that ancient Americans, Hindus, Chinese, Atheists, ect. did not know right from wrong, and that is plainly untrue. Atheists do not understand morality, seriously? One of the greatest, if not greatest, modern day humanitarian (Borlaug) was probably an atheist. It is completely self absorbed to believe that Catholics created all morals and ethics. And yes, it is immoral to exploit civil law to subjugate, humiliate, or dehumanize a human being.
      4. SSM is not a response to divorce, contraception, or anything you are referring to. It is the demand of those who are gay, discovered someone whom they love and declare as their next of kin, who go forward and create a family and life together and wish to participate fully in society with all the privileges and responsibilities, and would like the same recognition and protections as anyone else in the same situation. Your response to this section is my confirmation that SSM is nothing more than a scapegoat to what you see is wrong in society and marriage. You think that by denying equal marriage rights that it will help fix underlying marriage problems, but it doesn't. It only harms innocent people. Here is a suggestion, focus on poverty, war, equal access to health care, and income equality and you will have a much better time dealing with divorce rates and abortion. SSM has nothing to do with your problem list. Tara

    9. 1) I know we've been over this, like, three times. You've already won the award for most return visits to my blog by a marriage opponent. Congrats. Let me know where to send the prize!

      2) We agree on one thing at least - your world view is based on Hobbes and Locke and that law only exists to keep us from hurting each other. The Church's understanding of civil law is always that law has the value to elevate a society. The Church posits that we a community (city, state, country) must be MORE than just a collection of people whose laws only exist to keep them from killing each other. We agree - there are two competing views for what a civilizations laws are for - and if your side wins, then the Church will be persecuted.

      3) Trust me, I know your side WANTS the "SSM and four people marrying each other is the same thing" argument to go away. It isn't. Because there is no response.

      4) Polyamory is gearing up its legal push. The Atlantic recently had an article on a polyamorous lawyer whose firm works on making polyamorous "marriages" legal:

      "Diana Adams...thought about that for a moment. I said, ‘No, you can be my gay lounge singer friend. That’s much more fun.’ I’ve always liked boys. I just like them better in groups.”

      Over the years, the aspiring ballerina/surgeon/TV host shifted her focus to law. As a lawyer, Adams now runs a Brooklyn-based legal firm oriented toward providing traditional marriage rights to non-traditional families like the one she imagined as a kid."

      Here's a site devoted to the cause. I love the picture!

      Here's lifesite on the push in New Zealand:

      Here's an article from Slate on the legal push titled "Marry me. And me."

      Let me know if you need more showing there is NO difference between SS"M" and Polyamorphous "marriages"

      4) With regards to morality, then, what do you mean? What is it that you use as your standard to determine right from wrong?

      5) I don't think denying SS"M" will help fix actual marriage, it will just keep it from completely imploding. As far as wanting all of those things - who doesn't want to have society endorse their actions? Everyone does. Society doesn't endorse everything nonetheless - we endorse those things that are in accordance with the natural law and which lead to the betterment of our society. Sinful acts, and placing children in such environments, does not do that.

    10. 1. Wow, you're a first class narcissist if you keep count over how often someone visits your blog. Let me guess, my prize would be being chased by Priests with nettles through the streets just like they did last year at the Georgian pride parade. Or maybe it's lengthy imprisonment that the RCC supported in some African countries. Thanks, but the tens of thousands of extra tax dollars, the unnecessary vulnerability of my children, and daily humiliation that you brutally inflict is enough.
      2. No, you are not persecuted. See above.
      3&4. Umm, where is the appeal you promised? You didn't even cite a lawsuit, just some fringe opinions that are not related to any real SSM cases. Your argument gets weaker and weaker with each exchange.
      5. Social ethics, religious beliefs (ELCA, my postings on your blog are a Lutheran thing), parents, personal experience. Moral beliefs are never identical from person to person, so a single source is completely illogical. So, RCs don't own morality, and frequently do immoral things.
      6. Living openly and honestly and creating a family with someone you love while being a productive citizen is not sinful. Subjugating, humiliation, and causing overwhelming burden to someone while attempting to destroy their family is horribly sinful. Tara

    11. I am a first class narcissist…at my rectory I had all the windows replaced with mirrors.

      If you answer this question satisfactorily, I'll post your response. Let's cut to the chase:

      "What argument for redefining marriage CAN'T be used by 5 people who all want to marry each other?" There isn't such an argument. The #2 is arbitrary, and you know it. If you have a satisfactory answer, though, I'll post it.

  3. Regarding gay marriage and the decision of the supreme court to not hear any gay marriage cases.....THE LORD HAS SPOKEN. God likes gay folks too and wants them to have equal rights to marry. All of you who prayed about this, yesterday God gave you his holy answer. God is great!

    1. Of course God likes "gay folks"...he doesn't want them to have equal rights to marry...but lots of things have happened in governments this side of Heaven that God did not wish. Things will be set straight when the trumpets ring out from Heaven, the Lord returns, and we shall see Him as He is. It will be a day of rejoicing for some, and a day of great terror for others.

    2. Man I think it's funny when people don't get their holy way on something, they threaten the opponent with God's holy punishment. What a joke. Wanna know something Fr. Hollowell? You know who needs some good punishment? That's your God. You know, the one who created ALL things. The one who created the homosexual orientation in the first place(because it just didn't pop out of nowhere),cancer cells, deadly bacteria, deadly viruses--including EBOLA, HIV, AIDS, and all sorts of germs, and filthy microscopic parasites along with other deadly/poisonous creatures, plants and even trees. Didn't God also create the devil, to whom everybody detests? can see God as he is right now. You don't have to wait for the huge trumpets to sound in the sky. It's rather obvious...

    3. I understand your frustration at God...and He can take it. It is quite natural to ask "why suffering" if God is all powerful and all-loving.

      The Church teaches that suffering is a mystery we will never comprehend completely until the end of time, but what we do know is that Christ suffered to, and so we as Catholics teach that suffering is actually something that is somehow leads to my becoming a more holy person. I have barely sat down the last two days, and I'm getting ready to run Communion to about 20 different people over the next 5 hours or so before an evening Mass tonight at 8 pm. I'll be honest, it hurts and it is hard. I'd rather not do it. But I also believe that the suffering makes me a better person, makes me less selfish, and brings me closer to Christ.

      As for the Devil, well God could have made us without free will, but He didn't. Life would be quite odd and quite dull without free will it seems. At some point, we'll have to give an account of how we've used that freedom, and so will the Devil.

    4. God bless you Father Hollowell. I'm thrilled to see a priest openly discuss homosexual marriage in a homily and on a blog. It's refreshing since too many stay away from the topic.

      I do think the Church teaches that all are called to chastity. The priesthood is called to give witness that they are married to God and are waiting for heaven. The married couple gives witness since marriage can hold sickness and tragedy that prevents the couple from having sex.

      When it comes to sex outside of marriage we see evidence that it hurts people. Statistics on STD's are rampant and within the homosexual community are even higher. There are some, like AIDS, that can be deadly if proper medicine is not available.

      God is a loving God and puts commandments in place for our good and the good of the world. He isn't saying no because we want us to be miserable but He calls us to an abundant life. It can be hard and there are sacrifices but in the end it is worth it.

      We give our lives to God and ask Him to guide us and help us through the day.
      This world seems to think chastity is impossible but our Catholic faith witnesses to it within the religious life. Priest and nuns are to be missionary which can put them in situations where they are persecuted. Jesus says, "Take up your cross and follow me."
      Jesus went to the cross for us and our sins and we too are to love God first and foremost and sacrifice and to the best we can to follow God.

      Chastity is a virtue that we need to work on. Due to a lack of chastity there are babies be killed. Due to lack of chastity marriages are divided and ended. Due to lack of chastity there are numerous problems we did not have 50 years ago. We must get back to teaching chastity for all. We don't just call homosexuals to chastity.

  4. Oh, and as far as the argument that letting same sex couples marry because then they would be more's one of many articles:

  5. Another article...