Article taken in its entirety from The California Catholic Daily;
“How prejudiced can a judge be?”
Hard-hitting pastoral letter from Bishop of Fresno
(The following is a September pastoral letter by Fresno Bishop John Steinbock published on the diocesan website.)
My dear people of God,
How is one to react to a single judge declaring that homosexuals have a right to be married, overturning the clear will of the majority of the people as expressed in proposition 8? Here are ten brief thoughts:
The judge, who is homosexual himself, ethically should have recused himself as he is in the position to benefit financially from a possible homosexual marriage for himself, with tax benefits, etc. His impartiality can certainly be questioned.
The judge redefined “marriage,” actually making it the same as “a committed relationship or friendship” between any two persons, with no relationship essentially to children or family.
The ruling by its very arguments is imposing the homosexual agenda on the rest of society, and is a form of social engineering according to the judge’s ideology.
It is incredible that the judge literally accuses the millions who voted for proposition 8 of having ill will and discriminatory intent in their vote. How prejudiced and condemnatory can a judge be who is accusing others of prejudice? This is insulting to every one who believes that marriage is a divine institution.
The judge is finding a right in our Constitution that is not present in any way.
Human law at many times can be at variance with divine law. This is just one example. Another example in our country would be the so called “right” to have an abortion; another example would be the so called “right” now in some states to euthanasia. Let us never mistake human law as the law of God.
We must emphasize all the more the true nature of marriage as designed by God, both to ourselves and to our children. Lord only knows what will now be taught in our public schools regarding marriage because of this ruling. It will certainly not be the traditional definition and understanding of “marriage.”
A “true” marriage is a unique relationship between one man and one woman and it is designed to procreate life and form a family, for the good of the children and of society. This is of divine origin and not of human origin.
We are seeing the result of society separating the gift of sex from bringing forth life, which can infect all of us. More and more people in our society now justify not simply homosexual relationships, but living together without marriage, fornication, sex before marriage, sex outside of marriage, prostitution, contraception, quick and easy divorce. All of these lead us to seeing children as secondary, and self-love becoming more important than self-giving love, which leads to a narcissistic society, with people never really growing up.
The good old Baltimore Catechism tells us: “The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: 1st, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; 2nd, to give them grace to bear with each other’s weaknesses; 3rd, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of God.” (BC#1 285)
Let us pray for this judge, for our children, for our society. Lord knows we all need it.
If you like this article, please click on the SUBSCRIBE button above (it's free) to receive e-mail alerts when a new article is published by this Examiner, or click here to add Kevin's News Portal Page to your favorites.
Comments
"Bigoted pice of filth"? So much for Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion, huh?
Do you normally go into an apoplectic rage over someone disagreeing with you? The answer is obvious.
Not exactly a large stretch to guess you would just love to see Bishop Steinbock rounded up and thrown into a "Hate Crime Concentration Camp".
The hypocrisy of you 'tolerant and loving' liberals always makes me chuckle.
Be off with you now, boy.
Bigoted, hateful sentiments. Aren't you supposed to be 'open-minded'?
festina lente,
Militant homosexuals and their supporters are 'open minded' only when it comes to those that agree with them. Anyone who even dares to even mildly disagree with them... they become down-right viscious.
While I do not agree with the Catholic faith/religion, I do agree with this article. It is a shame that one person can have so much power in what is supposed to be a democracy. The government was based on "by the people, for the people" and yet we see a trend where it is the minority who actually changes the institution, rather than the majority. Prayer was taken out of school because of the offense of one woman. And now this one judge clearly went against the majority to uphold a morally corrupt law. It saddens me to see the moral corruption taking over our once great and blessed nation.
It's perfectly fine w/ me that you may not agree w/ Catholicism. That's a different discussion for a different day.
As far as this particular article is concerned, you've looked at it objectively and commented intelligently.
I respect you for that.
That's my Obispo Juan!
Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Cindy Lederman Judge Gerald B. Cope Jr., writing the opinion for himself and Judges Frank A. Shepherd and Vance E. Salter have now overturned the ban on gays adopting children in Florida. They all use this school of rationalism which I bleive is errant when it comes to dealing with human lives. Rationalism is the methodology used by the homosexuals themselves. There is the convinence of having a 'best buddy' who is also a 'bunk buddy', why not, certainly it makes rational sense?
Rather than disagreeing with Kevin's opinion - try to get him fired instead. Unmanly? Yes. Cowardly? Yes, of course, but it's the way he prefers to handle things so follow his shining example.
LOL!!! I absolutely love the hypocrisy of this anonymous coward.
*Fire* me for my *opinion*.
Hey genius, in case you missed it, I never gave my opinion. I printed a letter in its entirety. You DID notice that.... didn't you?
LOL!!!
BTW, when did I ever try to get anyone fired? Please cite one of those "shining examples".
Just one.
Please.
I dare you.
Do you make this up as you go along? Yeah, we all know the answer to that particular question.
Well, there is a certain USMC Officer who you went on a personal vendetta against but i'm sure you barely remember him by now.
And I was referring to your first comment here defending YOUR first amendment rights - not your superlative job of copying and pasting.
Noooo.... there was a certain USMC Officer who violated the UCMJ. He chose to violate it... he can now live with the consequences of his actions. Simple, huh?
In the meantime, stop whining.
You don't like what I re=post (a common practice)... then leave. Simple, huh?
In the meantime, stop whining.
Oh, and any further comments by you deviating from the topic at hand, will be deleted. Simple, huh?
In the meantime, stop whining.
He posted something that was over the line. You disagreed with his opinion so you personally went after him to ensure a young Marine was punished for speaking his mind.
Of course, if he had posted the same comment about Pelosi or Obama, you would have been patting him on the back for standing up for what he believes in.
All I really wanted was confirmation you were responsible. Now I have it.
"A young Marine speaking his mind" -- No, when someone joins the Service, there are certain rights that one surrenders. Ref'ing to a senior retired Officer (as well as the same individual being a US Senator) as "disgusting" and a "bigot" is a violation of the UCMJ. If you were ever in the Armed Forces, you would know that. Obviously, you weren't. Gee, why is that not a surprise?
The individual in question claims to be a Marine Officer. If he really is, then he knows that as well.
So what's the problem?
BTW, it's speculation on your part what I would have done if he had said the same about pelosi or obama. Hence, your opinion carrries about as much credibility as your unwillingness to even post your own name. In other words... none.
In the meantime, do your worst. If you think you've intimidated me, you're wrong.
Mildly amused, but from from intimidated.
If anyone can please cite one article in any of my many Examiner.com articles where I have a "personal vendetta" against, or who I "personally went after" to ensure he "was punished", like I said... please cite this mystery article.
Please.
Just one.
I dare you.
*Crickets chirping*
Typical of liberals... accuse without facts. I love it.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!