Attending a Ceremony for a Same-Sex Union

I noticed a post at the Deacon’s Bench on the question of a Catholic deacon attending a same-sex wedding/ceremony.

Greg goes into great detail on his reply. My own sense is that nearly any situation would be unique. The number of such unions will always be relatively small, especially since SSA people are not forcing married heterosexual couples into divorce in order to marry someone of the same sex.

If a close family member of mine (daughter or sibling) were gay or lesbian, I would probably avoid scandal in the domestic Church and attend. My attendance signifies my approval of same-sex unions to the degree that my American citizenship and tax payments indicate I support adventurism in southwest Asia, Guantanamo not-closing, or welfare CEO’s.

I might not take an official role in the proceedings. But then again, at my daughter’s wedding, I’ve already mentioned to her I don’t believe in the father “giving away” the bride. She will be an adult woman–she gives her own consent when she marries some guy.

I think that if one is going to take a moral stand by non-involvement, one has to be thorough in the degree of immorality that has entered into the world. If Catholics, or anyone else, was so focused on not “supporting gay marriage” that they only boycotted lesbians and gays, that person might have genuinely moral heft behind their view. But they would also be prejudiced against SSA persons, to the degree they did not boycott people involved with other grave sins against common decency.

I could foresee being asked to provide music for a same-sex religious service. I will admit I have played music for Catholics marrying outside of the Church. Those instances are discerned on a case-by-case basis. I have also declined to be involved as a minister, and have just attended non-Catholic ceremonies.

Some people might think that by attending that my position as an “official” Catholic staff person compromises the Church and our teachings on various things. I prefer to look at it in another way.

Most people realize that the Catholic Church does not move in lockstep. My presence says nothing about Catholic approval or disapproval of something, and most adults know it. But my presence is also a Catholic one in the sense that I’m always open (or trying to be) to share my faith and encourage others to explore the Catholic faith. I have had many sparkling conversations with non-Catholics, inactive Christians, and even non-believers in the most interesting of settings in which a deacon or priest would perhaps decline to be caught dead.

I try to be on the lookout for ways the Holy Spirit inspires me to engage with people. So while I’m not representing the institution in a mistaken gesture of approval, I am going as a sinner among sinners. Or, if you prefer, as a disciple among potential seekers.

It’s complicated. And there are no easy answers.

About catholicsensibility

Todd lives in Minnesota, serving a Catholic parish as a lay minister.
This entry was posted in Commentary and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

48 Responses to Attending a Ceremony for a Same-Sex Union

  1. +1.Very compassionate thoughts, my dear friend, I applaud you for being the first blogger to my knowledge to broach this all too real and all too difficult a subject. Lord help us.

  2. Chris Sullivan says:

    I do not see anything per se immoral in a state same sex marriage – a pledge to love each other faithfully cannot be morally wrong (but to love is the heart of faith) – although intimate acts might be (which also applies to heterosexual marriage). State marriage is not Christian sacramental marriage (and has not been for a very long time) so it seems clear that one would not be attending a marriage but a state ceremony to recognise a relationship outside marriage – and such state legal recognition of same sex unions is supported by our bishops. The case to attend seems solid in Catholic theology (barring scandal) without questioning Catholic sexual morality or opposition to legalising same sex marriage.

    God Bless

  3. FrMichael says:

    CS, it is not Catholic teaching to believe that sacramental marriages are the only valid marriages. Two Hindus marrying each other for the first time are participating in a valid natural marriage and a Catholic friend would do well to attend the ceremony (if you’re lucky it will only be 3 hours, not 22 like a wedding of a good friend of mine). To equate the attending of a “same-sex wedding” with attendance of a heterosexual wedding of nonbelievers is a severe category mistake.

    And it is well-established Catholic teaching that civil laws contrary to the natural law are not laws at all but acts of tyranny which Catholics are under no obligation to obey. A government can no more declare “same sex marriages” valid as it can say that the sun is made out of a million incandescent light bulbs. It is an act of hubris on the part of legislators and judges. I would just as soon not participate in the mockery of a divinely-instituted relationship and would expect bishops to look askance at their clergy who would attend such ceremonies.

  4. Jami Michael says:

    While same-sex marriage and workplace discrimination against gays have been attracting headlines recently, there’s another, lower-profile front in the gay rights battle: the fight over second-parent adoption for same-sex couples.

  5. Pingback: In the E-mail: Should a Deacon Attend a Gay Wedding?—UPDATED

  6. Thanks for offering another perspective. And you are correct: this issue is complicated. Each case is unique. But the presence at a gay wedding of a Catholic clergyman—a man who regularly witnesses and presides over marriage ceremonies in the Catholic Church—implies a kind of consent, whether it’s there or not.

    One argument people have made to me is: “But Jesus dined with tax collectors and sinners,” to which I say, “Yes, but his purpose was to convert them.” I may be wrong, but I don’t think a whole lot of converting will be going on at the celebration of same-sex nuptials.

    Finally, a priest or deacon who wants to take part in these celebrations should also be forewarned that this kind of event is a minefield. A few years ago, I attended the second wedding of my divorced sister-in-law. I found the experience moving and, in fact, inspiring. I made the mistake of blogging about it. The upshot? Several readers threatened to report me to my bishop for causing scandal.

    Yes. It’s complicated.

    • Jim McCrea says:

      Does dining with a divorced Catholic imply a kind of consent? Same-sex marriages are a civil secular activity and have nothing to do with sacramental matrimony. The bishops in the UK are debating whether to follow the practices of France and Belgium Belgium and stop performing the civil element to marriages ( This would mean Catholic couples would undertake two ceremonies: one civil and one religious. This, then, would be the action of Catholics entering into same-sex marriage: a civil ceremony.

  7. The New People’s Army of the Philippines conducted the country’s first same-sex marriage in 2005. However it was not recognized by the government. Within the government there has been some debate on the issue of same-sex unions. The Roman Catholic Church stands in fierce opposition to any such unions. But since 1991 the Metropolitan Community Church Philippines has been conducting Same Sex Holy Unions in the Philippines. As of 2010, the issue of same-sex marriage is not “under consideration” in the Philippines. The only thing under consideration is a possible ban on same-sex marriage, including refusal to recognize marriages performed overseas. political parties such as the Gabriela Women’s Partylist are actively lobbying and advocating for lesbian and gay rights and to insist that society not discriminate on the basis of sexual preference.

  8. Bruce T. says:

    I humbly submit that I find mistakes in your logic.
    First, your analogy. You are not compelled by law to attend a same-sex union. You are compelled to pay taxes. Just try not doing it. Meanwhile, it is virtually impossible to figure out what percentage of your tax money is going to government ventures and programs to which you are opposed. But, you know exactly where you are going and what you are celebrating when you attend a same sex union.
    Jesus’ own example is instructive, but we must remember that He could read hearts. Sinless Jesus spent time with sinners, but never when they were celebrating sin. He did attend dinners of sinners knowing they would repent. But, when faced with erroneous points of view, Jesus corrected them. We must never sin ourselves (for example, by congratulating someone on doing something sinful), even if we think good will come of it. (Rm. 3:8)

    • Todd says:

      Close, but not quite.

      My analogy is focused on association, not action. Just by being in the United States, I personally benefit from actions and policies that are objectively immoral.

      Suppose I do attend the same sex union ceremony of a niece. She might be happy and fulfilled. I can celebrate that.

      We don’t know that those dinners Jesus was invited to weren’t provided from ill-gotten resources. Jesus’s specific corrections listed in the Bible were to apostles and religious authorities. Sinners he encouraged not to repeat the sin. Or they experienced dramatic conversion in their lives.

      And finally, on the point about “natural” marriage, if people are born gay, then the fulfillment of their natural state may indeed be a union. Such unions happen in the animal kingdom among creatures that are “designed” for heterosexual mating. I consider the possibility that natural law provides for same sex unions, but that tradition that predates Christianity might have gotten that wrong.

  9. FrMichael says:

    Todd, your last point bears correction.

    Natural marriage consists of the ends of procreation and unity. By the divine will, there is no procreation possible in a same-sex coupling, therefore there is no marriage possible. The odds of Scripture and Tradition being wrong this basic point of what marriage is nil. A person’s felt same sex attraction speaks nothing to the situation of what marriage essentially is.

    • Todd says:

      Procreation doesn’t always happen biologically. Otherwise, you are condemning marriages such as mine, or that of older couples to the non-marriage state, simply because we are unable to have children. Additionally, such an exclusive focus on producing children lowers human beings to the state of animals–domesticated breeding animals.

      Scripture and tradition have gotten it wrong on biology plenty of times. If they’re wrong again here, it’s time to take a collective deep breath, correct for the way the natural state of human beings really is, and offer a sincere apology.

  10. FrMichael says:

    “Procreation doesn’t always happen biologically.” Very true that. The moral question is why.

    Some marriages, because of the age of the couple or other medical reasons, have proven not to be fertile biologically. These reasons are connected with the Fall of Man and the resulting moral and physical disorders (illness, aging, death, concupiscent desires) in human beings. In other words, if Adam had never sinned, there would be no aging or other medical causes of infertility as the human body would have remained perfect and all humans retained perfect reproductive powers.

    Homosexual activity is by its essence infertile. Even if Adam had not sinned no procreation could have occurred by two males or two females trying to couple.

    • Todd says:

      Procreation was a consequence of the Fall. It was not part of the Eden experience of human beings before the Fall. That fertility would have been a possibility before the Fall is speculation.

      Now, if one takes a wholly natural view of the human being as a biological specimen, then one must concede that same-sex attraction or even same-sex unions apart from a sexual expression are part of the created natural world.

  11. FrMichael says:

    “Procreation was a consequence of the Fall.” Where in Sam Hill did you get that from?

    Take a look at Genesis 1:28 and 31 and then take a look at Genesis 3. The procreative powers of the human species are proper to it by God’s creating will expressed prior to the Fall. One of the nuptial blessings has the beautiful line I’ll paraphrase by memory since I don’t have the wedding ritual at hand: “Marriage is the one blessing that was not forfeited by Original Sin or washed away in the Flood.”

    I learned in debate with an Episcopalian priest several years ago over same-sex marriage that the more theologically knowledgeable SSM supporters held heretical views of Original Sin. I’m not accusing you of being a heretic, but you might want to review a sound theological source on the essence and effects of Original Sin. You will not find the ability to procreate as one of the punishments mankind suffers as a result of it.

    • Todd says:

      Fair point on Genesis 1:28 and 31.

      But procreation in fact didn’t occur until after the Fall. The post-Fall existence of humankind hasn’t been totally bereft of grace, as we know from Christ’s Mission and ministry to us.

      That said, I can’t say I find the procreation point to be totally satisfying in the case of older couples. Nor does Natural Law have a convincing answer to the possibility that some human beings may be born gay.

      While I have no problem upholding and teaching Church tradition on same-sex genital activity, I also have serious pastoral qualms about the knots tied by reducing human sexual activity to that of breeding animals (as seen by the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob, much to the detriment of their families), of the seeming inability of “defenders” of marriage to get past the insults and insensitivity (sometimes seen in your “enthusiastic” posts), and the problem of the post theme: conflating support for a person with the acceptance of the behavior of that person.

      For some Catholics, the answers come a little too easily–for both sides of the issue. That’s not a matter of heresy. It’s a search for truth and compassion.

  12. FrMichael says:

    “I also have serious pastoral qualms about the knots tied by reducing human sexual activity to that of breeding animals (as seen by the patriarchs Abraham and Jacob…)” Without prolonging the debate, you might want to consider why Abraham would have refrained from taking a second wife and Jacob’s years of work in order to marry Rachel. I think there was more to the patriarchs’ love for their wives than simply considering them breeding mares.

    I don’t know any living Catholic theologian or commentator who reduces marriage to procreation alone. It’s not a theological position I am familiar with.

  13. Oh how often “it’s complicated” smacks of “Did God say, ‘You shall not…'” (Gen 3:1)

    Let us, then, lay out what is in no way complicated:

    1) Not only are homosexual acts intrinsically and gravely evil, but homosexuality is intrinsically disordered

    2) Same-sex “wedding” ceremonies celebrate homosexuality, and invite their attendees to do likewise as the implicit meaning of their attendance

    3) To celebrate sin is itself sin

    4) In so far as an attendee submits to the implicit meaning of attendance, namely to celebrate homosexuality, he also sins

    Now 4) is where the fudging happens. I will certainly grant that it is conceivably possible that one may attend such a ceremony while taking measures to ensure that his attendance does not amount to the celebration of homosexuality that is usually taken for granted by simply attending– he could make an announcement about his views to everyone there; refuse to clap after the vows or congratulate the couple; etc. I wonder how often that is the case.

    If your child, sibling, or other close relative or friend hosted a party to celebrate his love of self-inflicted wounds, would you attend and go with the flow at this event? Of course not; you would love this person too much to permit your attendance to say to him “that is fine; go for it.” You would refuse to go, or you would go and make your opposition known. If only Catholics today could see with the eyes of Faith, they would recognize that spiritual dangers (involved in things like homosexuality) are so much worse than the physical dangers that we readily muster up all our zeal to oppose.

    “But when the Son of Man comes, will He find Faith on Earth?”

    • Todd says:

      “homosexuality is intrinsically disordered”

      Not if people are born gay.

      On your #2, union ceremonies do celebrate a bit more than that, namely the virtues of commitment, stability, and joy.

      #3, people must be conscious of serious sin, and indeed a troubling point for many who might consider attending.

      The difficulty with your metaphor is that it might hold if a heterosexual person were uniting with a person of the same sex. That would be setting most if not all participants on the road to tragedy.

      But if people are born same-sex attracted, and it is part of their biological and genetic makeup, then Natural Law would suggest they may well be following their God-given composition.

      This is hardly a matter of faith. But maybe the Son of Man is also looking for mercy.

      • It would have been helpful if I knew from the onset that you dissent from Catholic teaching! My fault, I suppose, for making that assumption. The Church authoritatively teaches that homosexuality is objectively disordered (whether or not one can be born gay is a moot point). (See CCC 2358) I will pray for you, my friend. Pray for me too.

  14. Todd says:

    Dissent? You have to prove that, my friend.

    If one is made gay by God, that is hardly a disorder. I don’t believe that God intentionally would place such obstacles in the path of human virtue and fulfillment.

    Honestly: I do not know God’s purpose in putting such challenges and suffering and difficulties along with joy and happiness in people’s lives–speaking now of those who struggle with homosexuality. I feel relief I am not the Last Judge. But I’m unprepared to offer an outright condemnation. Nor do I need to.

    By the way, you have misquoted the Catechism.

    • Yes, I did misquote. I meant “objectively,” not “intrinsically.” Same difference. If you reject the fact that homosexuality is objectively disordered, you thereby dissent (rejecting a teaching contained in the Catechism is an act of dissent).

      • Woah, hold on. I didn’t misquote; I did previously say “objectively.” CCC 2358 specifically refers to the inclination (the homosexual inclination) as “objectively disordered.” If you don’t have one on hand, feel free to Google “CCC 2358”

  15. Todd says:

    The Catholic Church presumes that all human beings are made male and female with opposite-sex attraction. This is not a biological fact.

    I can certainly accept that for a heterosexual person that both sexual inclinations and acts are gravely wrong. So I personally have no problem adhering in practice to CCC 2357-2359. Nor do I have a problem counseling Catholics to reflect on the prescriptions of that text and adhere to Church teaching.

    However, neither the interpretation of the Scripture passages Gen 19:1-29, Rom 1: 24-27, 1 Cor 6:10; and 1 Tim 1:10 nor the CDF pronouncement are infallible teachings. CCC 2357-2359 is the starting point for Catholic doctrine, not the finish line.

    • So you dissent. You would be well advised to inform those to whom you minister of this fact before they are fooled into thinking it is a faithful Catholic who ministers to them.

      • Todd says:

        I congratulate you on your sleuthing ability. Care to begin the dialogue now that you know where you stand? May I ask what brought you to a four-month-old post?

      • Jim McCrea says:

        Discussing Vatican II, Benedictine Bishop B.C. Butler acknowledged that if a teaching “failed in the end to enjoy reception on the part of the church, this would prove it had not met the requirements” for enforcement. And in 1969, the theologian Joseph Ratzinger (currently Pope Benedict XVI) spoke about even infallibly proposed teachings: “Where there is neither consensus on the part of the universal church nor clear testimony in the sources, no binding decision is possible. If such a decision were formally made, it would lack the necessary conditions and the question of the decision’s legitimacy would have to be examined.” What Butler and Benedict are getting at is the very real possibility of legitimate non-reception.

        While the pursuit of truth requires making presuppositions – there’s no way of pursuing truth from nowhere – these presuppositions may be an aid to the exploration or they may be an obstacle. Or they may be both. If we pursue the truth earnestly and responsibly, then no presupposition should achieve an untouchable status, a position where we hold it as unquestionable and beyond critique and contestation. To do so is to cease the pursuit of truth, and at most to pursue a particular way of thinking about it.

        As more time goes on, it is becoming more obvious that there is not consensus within this church on the subject of homosexuality, its causes and effects and the consequent situations in which LGBT find themselves … including marriage.

  16. It did require sleuthing. Here you are having a discussion that ostensibly presumes the validity of Catholic teaching, and unbeknownst to us you do not hold the entirety of Catholic teaching, as expressed in the Catechism (about which Pope Francis is constantly saying “Church teaching is clear… the Catechism is clear on this… I am a loyal son of the Church…”). That is not very honest.

    I stumbled upon this post as I was scouring the internet to see if there were any respectable, faithful Catholic voices out there advocating for the legitimacy of a Catholic attending a same-sex “wedding.” I found none (I thought I may have found one – you – when I stumbled upon this site, but I now see that this is far from what I was looking for.) I am, in fact, relieved that no faithful Catholic I can find is coming to the conclusion that attending a gay wedding is okay.

    Anyway, I am sorry if I have come across as rude; I do just get agitated when people who dissent carry the Catholic banner, which implies a full submission to Church teaching as contained in the Catechism. I really do hope and pray you make it clear where you are coming from, to the people to whom you minister at your midwestern university parish, so they do not fall into thinking that your conclusions and advice are those of a faithful (submissive to the Catechism) Catholic.

    That being said, I am always up for dialog. I don’t think I’ll have too much time to get into it here, so do not be offended if I am unable to return here for further replies, but here goes:

    Even if one can be born gay (a debate I do not desire to get into), that does not prove that such a state is according to nature. Since the Fall of Man, many disorders have been evident, including those arising at the very conception of a person. Just Google “common birth defects” for a list. Now these defects are of the physical type and therefore obviously impute no culpability to anyone; but they are disorders nonetheless, and their existence serves to refute your argument that “whatever is so from birth must be according to nature as God intends.” Indeed, before the Fall, if anyone were to be born with any inclination, then that quality would automatically be rightly considered according to nature. Since the Fall, people are born with all sorts of disordered inclinations; if people are born gay, then all that proves is that homosexuality is among them.

    If you want a more in depth explanation (but still only introductory), you can see my post here:

    God Bless,

    • Todd says:

      “That is not very honest.”

      That is untrue. You will have a more difficult time proving this. Better to withdraw the comment.

      You are incorrect that “a full submission to Church teaching as contained in the Catechism” is required to be a Catholic. Even a faithful Catholic. I’ve stated that I adhere to Church teaching, and that I counsel others to do the same.

      In the realm of biology and theology, things are far from clear. As someone with training in both biology and theology, I find the Church’s teaching on homosexuality incomplete. As I said, what we have is a start. Not a finish.

      “I don’t think I’ll have too much time to get into it here …”

      I’m not surprised. I think you came off, at least to me, less as rude and more as someone with an agenda.

      For the record, I do google things, but I also have documents linked online as well as books on my shelves both at work and at home. I am very familiar with the Catechism.

      The matter of people being born gay, of being made that way by God is also far from determined, one way or the other. This is where more theology, more discernment is required.

      The tension you are sensing is between catechesis and theology. Fr Ron Rohlheiser had a recent column that explained it as well as anyone I’ve seen. There’s not a problem with living in a situation with tension. It’s happened before in the Church, and I suspect we are far from done with it.

      • You do not merely see the Church’s teaching as incomplete; you see it as incorrect, and that makes you a dissenter. You may very well be far holier than I, but objectively speaking, you are nonetheless a dissenter, and I repeat: those to whom you minister *must* know that. Bl. JPII presented that Catechism as a *sure* norm for teaching the Faith (meaning morals as well), and it asserts in no optional terms that homosexuality is objectively disordered. Rejecting that is dissent; the very *definition* of NOT adhering to Church teaching.

      • Todd says:

        Again, you are chafing with the difference between theology and catechesis. Also, attending to what is going on in the discussion and not looking to score points: this will be more helpful.

        But if you want to write up a submission for the parish bulletin, have at it. Deadline is Tuesday 5pm.

        Time for bed for me.

    • Liam says:

      FWIW, sleuthing of this sort ends up coming across more like this than witnessing to the Faith:

  17. “In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.” -The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

    • Todd says:

      That argument seems predicated less on biology or the actual truth of why human beings and other animals exhibit same-sex tendencies in minorities of the population. Given the wording you’ve presented, it almost seems a reaction to the “overly benign interpretation.” I’d be a lot more confident in the CDF approach is it had more depth, and a better exploration of why a significant minority of people are called to chastity, ordinarily thought of as a spiritual gift from God.

      • How exactly is it that you see yourself as adhering to Church teaching?

      • Todd says:

        “How exactly is it that you see yourself as adhering to Church teaching?”

        I don’t engage in homosexual genital activity. I don’t urge others to practice sex outside of a sacramental marriage.

        Is that a serious question, my friend? Are you suggesting that theological inquiry is somehow unfaithful? You certainly can’t be accusing me of seeking some loophole so as to satisfy my own secret desires. May I ask what motivations you are ascribing to me?

      • I haven’t spent one moment pondering your motives. I was truly just curious to see how someone who rejects what is authoritatively taught in the Catechism, by the CDF, and in countless other Magisterial documents, considers himself as “adhering to Church teaching.” (Your answer was radically insufficient.)

      • What is your interpretation of today’s Gospel?

        And how many times must the Magisterium teach something before you (you who “adhere to Church teaching”) submit to it?

      • Todd says:

        Daniel, the documents are not “countless.” And since the Catechism is only referencing particular interpretations of Scripture and one CDF analysis, I think the “authoritative” teaching can be easily and fully ascertained.

        Since we seem to be at a yes-you-did/no-I-didn’t impasse, I would be interested in your interpretation of Matthew 21:28-32.

  18. What is your interpretation of today’s Gospel?

    And how many times must the Magisterium teach something before you (you who “adhere to Church teaching”) submit to it?

    • Todd says:

      Being in a position where people look to me, as a spouse, a parent, a teacher, a mentor, Luke 17:1-6 is cause for serious pause. But I’ve stated my stance on this fairly clearly. And you have avoided my question. What do you make of Matthew 21:28-32, in which a person is presented in parable as adhering in practice after an initial pause.

      And as I said above, the Magisterium’s teaching on homosexuality is a work in progress, fairly incomplete in its approach to biology, chastity, celibacy, Scripture, as well as tradition.

      I don’t reject CCC 2357-2359. And I don’t transgress it personally or in counsel. I’d like a direct answer to my question, as well as an exaplanation of why I need to adhere my thinking to yours.

      • If you do not reject CCC 2358, then you assent to the teaching that homosexuality is objectively disordered, and this whole debate has been pointless :-)

      • Todd says:

        I’m a skeptic where homosexuality can be described as objectively disordered. That is largely a biological discernment, not a theological one. The CDF lacks competence where no authoritative science can be determined in this regard.

        If your intent, Daniel, is to make a convert or to out a heretic, then yes, this “debate” has been pointless. It’s also been pointless in that I’m unwilling to enter into a debate with you. This site isn’t about debate in its better moments, but about discussion, and ultimately, hopefully, discernment.

        More recently, you have been unwilling to answer my question. So yes, for now, the discussion has also come to a pause.

      • Liam says:

        One problem with “objectively disordered” is that, in its attempt at technical precision, it’s misunderstood by even folks like Mr O’Connor, who betrayed a very common confusion with his slip “intrinsically disordered”. Various curial and prelatial folks over the years have had to kinda walk back the confusion caused by the technical phrase. (That the Catechism did not is not surprising because it was in early stage of the process of being prepared when the 1986 letter was released.) And there are tons of self-proclaimed faithful Catholics in Catholic blogdom who question formulations in the 1992 Catechism, fwiw. Todd’s monikor of “Catholic Sensibility” is much less self-promoting in that regard; it’s much less self-aggrandizing than other, perhaps worthier, targets. And that’s as much as I need to say on this matter here.

  19. You shall be in my prayers, my friend; please keep me in yours. One final thought: strive to regard the Church as your true mother, which she is. I know as a child my mother loved it when she didn’t have to say something again and again for me to obey, or make something already perfectly clear even more so.

    In Christ, through Mary,

    • Jim McCrea says:

      You realize, of course, that one can approach Christ without going through Mary.

    • Baseballmom says:

      Thank you Daniel for your faithful witness to the Truth. I too was looking for Catholic teaching re marriage. And stumbled on this site which I thought was faithful to the Magisterium. Clearly it is not, and I greatly appreciate your contribution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s