Vatican takes strong stance against gay marriage after US election

You misread Pius XI, Gearoid4. He meant to subordinate women; that purpose is clear in text. Some Anglicans (I'm not one of them) have admired the theology of Augustine, who condemned birth control as well as sex for infertile couples. But Pius XI's 1930 encyclical is the first official RC stance against birth control. So unless you equate "Christian doctrine" wholly with Augustine's writings, there never has been a "Christian doctrine" opposing birth control. It's a modern problem; in former ages, high infant mortality rates and epidemic diseases kept population growth slow. Recent advances in medical science, however, made safe, reliable birth control not only possible but necessary. Before 1930, as Lambeth understood, we had fulfilled the Creator's instruction to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Welch succumbed to post hoc reasoning. The rise in divorce and infidelity preceded the pill, which is not poison but nature's own hormones, LOL.

As regards the true nature of marriage, Eiriamach, Christ said this: “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?”(Matthew-19:4-5) This leaves room for little doubt as regards the teaching of Jesus on the natural criteria for marriage.

Pope Pius X1 in "Casti Connubii" was speaking of the conjugal affection and filial bonds that are broken by the use of artificial contraception. At the end of the day, it is about a false liberty which the contraceptive pill has given women over half a century or more. One of the celebrity Hollywood actresses, who seen the effects of the so called "freedoms" brought about by the Pill, was Raquel Welch. She unambiguously viewed it as a curse on marriages, because of the correlation between it's widespread use from the 60's and the rise of infidelity and divorce. It has become a mantra for the pro-contraceptive and pro-abort lobby that women should have "control over their bodies", no matter what the social cost. No-one wants women to have multiple births but self-control and the co-operation between marital couples in using the natural biological cycles of a woman's body to conceive, have far more benefits than the use of the poisonous Pill.

You're confused merefalow. Gays and lesbians do not have "parity in civil law." A primary reason they don't have it is the well financed opposition of Catholic bishops to marriage equality. It's churchmen doing the "forcing" "theocratically," not gays.

good.i just cant believe that a union of this nature is good or natural ,but seeing it has achieved every parity in civil law, why are they so focused in forcing their veiws on a faith that believes it to be wrong and a sin be forced to accept something it has preached as wrong morally and theocratically for 2000 years or longer.

More from Casti Connubii: "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honorable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many even go further and assert that such a subjection ... is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women.... (We have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime)." Gearoid, why do you not uphold Pius XI's demand that women be obedient to men along with his prohibition of birth control? Were the Anglicans wrong for rejecting his demand for female obedience, as well as his contraceptive prohibition? BTW: with the USA version of the Book of Common Prayer adopted soon after the American Revolutionary War, ECUSA's marriage ceremony has never included any vow of obedience. (Those Anglicans are such rebels!)

Christ never spoke of birth control or same-sex unions, Gearoid. From 1611, the word "homosexuality" did not appear as English translation in bible passages referring to sexual immorality. Women priests practiced in the early church; the evidence is undeniable, and we've discussed it on IC before now. The Lambeth statement on contraceptives rejected no Christian doctrine but only then-recent papal letters. This is not the first time I've quoted to you from the 1930 encyclical that condemns contraceptives: In Castii Connubii, Pius XI taught that "this false liberty and unnatural equality [of a woman] with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself" as well as harming marriage, children, and society. Against Christ's teaching, he preached that women develop humanity only when completely obedient to men. With the same authority and on the same grounds, Pius XI claimed birth control was wrong and women are incapable of self-governance. If his birch control reasoning is infallible, his obedience-to-men mandate is infallible-- right? Be consistent please.

Where has the Catholic Church departed from Christian doctrine in opposing artificial birth control, Eiriamaach? Christian churches were uniformly opposed to it throughout the history of the religion until the anglican communion decided to break away from this traditional morality, when they lifted their objections to it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. This was effectively a rejection of Christian teaching in relation to the interdependence of the unitive nature of the sexual act with the procreative intent, as God so designed. The legal attempts to change the intrinsic criteria for marriage across the US and western world is completely at odds with the Christian definition of marriage. The pope would be failing in his duty if he did not re-iterate Catholic teachings in all of these areas and these cannot be compartmentalized into boxes marked "private" or "public", as they effect all of society. @Bignevemo, Indeed the O.T does mention instances of polygamy, which was a tribal social practice in ancient Israel and surrounding lands. But where possible, the authors of the bible cautioned it's practitioners to treat their wives with respect and tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of it. Polygamy was wiped out in western lands by the 19th century and it was only confined to parts of Asia and Africa. It's demise in Europe and the US was largely down to the prevailing Christian influences. Polygamy has always been very much the exception to the rule, that marriage has been consistently seen as the sacred union between one man and one woman in different global societies down the centuries.

Where has the Catholic departed from Christian doctrine in opposing artificial birth control, Eiriamaach? Christian churches were uniformly opposed to it throughout the history of the religion until the anglican communion to break away from this traditional morality, when they lifted their objections to it at the Lambeth Conference of 1930. This was effectively a rejection of Christian teaching in relation to the interdependence of unitive nature of the sexual act with the procreative intent, as God so designed. The legal attempts to change the intrinsic criteria for marriage across the US and western world is completely at odd with the Christian definition of marriage. The pope would be failing in his duty if he did not re-iterate Catholic teachings in all of these areas and these cannot be compartmentalized into either boxes marked "private" or "public", as they effect all of society. @Bignevemo, Indeed the O.T does mention instances of polygamy which was a tribal social practice some of the tribes of Israel and populations of surrounding lands. But where possible, the authors of the bible cautioned it's practitioners to treat their wives with respect and tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of it. Polygamy was wiped out in western lands by the 19th century and it was only confined to parts of Asia and Africa. It's demise in Europe and the US was largely down to the prevailing Christian influences. Polygamy has always been very much the exception to the rule, that marriage has been consistently seen as the sacred union between one man and one woman in different global societies down the centuries.

It looks like word has gone out from Rome for the bishops to double down on Church politics. At a USCCB meeting today, Cardinal Dolan echoed the Vatican's intransigence and said, according to the NY Times, that American bishops will never comply with the HHS mandate for employers to offer insurance that covers birth control. They will file more lawsuits and lobby harder against it. This is another area where RC cuts itself adrift from Christian doctrine, the bible, and the sensus fidelium (without whose agreement there can be no infallible teaching) to impose the pope's will on our laws. These political changes in marriage equality and access to contraceptives help ensure freedom of conscience for all, and while they may offend the pope's sense of political control, they limit no one's religious freedom. They represent progress toward equality and respect for human dignity.

gear...so not true that marriage has always been between one man and one woman. This is from Lawrence O'Donnell...: "O'Donnell noted that the Old Testament made numerous references to polygamy. King Solomon, for instance, was said to have seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines. The Prophet Muhammad also practiced polygamy and having multiple wives is still legal in many parts of the Muslim world." so ya see...it aint so!

Obviouisly the Pope still beleives in the Bible.

Marriage has been based since time immemorial on the unitive love with it's procreative potential, between one man and one woman. This has been consistent across all generations, ethhnic and religiou/non-religious populations around the globe for well nigh on 2000 years. Regional variations like the practice of polygamy, as evidenced in Africa or Asia during different times, does not nullify this fact. To extend marriage to same-sex couples would undermine the criteria which has consistently defined marriage, and then it would be marriage no more. Marriage, as it has been well understood had maintained the common good and demographic health of societies for centuries and the series of ill-advised legislative attempts to change it across the western world, will have a detrimental effect on marriage as we know it.

Marriage has been based since time immemorial on the unitive love with it's procreative potential, between one and one woman. This has been consistent across all generations, ethhnic and religiou/non-religious populations across the globe for well nigh on 2000 years. Regional variations like the practice of polygamy, as evidenced in Africa or Asia during different times, does not nullify this fact. To extend marriage to same-sex couples would undermine the criteria which has consistently defined marriage, and then it would be marriage no more. Marriage, as it has been well understood had maintained the common good and demographic health of societies for centuries and the series of ill-advised legislative attempts to change it across the western world, will have a detrimental effect on marriage as we know it.

Why does the church feel so afraid of two people loving each other? What if say, two catholic women find they love each other, even romanticly and want to make it honest by way of marriage. Somehow that's wrong? Love is wrong? Sooo.... atm anyway, the heads of the Catholic church are against true love in it's purest form. :-/ Srsly guys, grow up.