Billy Hallowel at The Blaze:
St. Francis Xavier in Acushnet, Massachusetts, isn’t afraid to insert its voice into the contentious gay marriage debate. The church, which posted a controversial sign voicing its disapproval of gay marriage, is reportedly receiving violent threats as a result of it’s anti-gay marriage messaging.
“Two men are friends, not spouses,” read the contentious sign, which was clearly intended to drive home the church’s view that marriage is an institution that should be reserved for men and women, exclusively.
Monsignor Gerard O’Connor, the head of pastoral services, said that the message was posted to reiterate the Catholic Church’s views on the sanctity of marriage. Additionally, he claimed that the original intention was for the church to offer a response to President Barack Obama’s recent gay marriage endorsement.
... “That’s what the church teaches,” O’Connor said in an interview with CBS Boston. “We understand people disagree with us, but we do it out of love. We never said we hate anybody.”
The message, which was intended to capture attention, has certainly grabbed attention. According to staff members at St. Francis Xavier, authorities are keeping a close eye on the house of worship after someone called and threatened to burn it to the ground.
46 Comments
Let's hope they keep their protest peaceful. It's good the police station is across the street. Either pro or con, the first amendment protects freedom of speech. The church has the right to post messages. I've seen worse messages on the other side. And rocks being thrown at Church goers before during Prop 8 protests In CA.
Doesn't Massachusetts have ssm?
More proof that this movement is anti-Christian.
Sad that so many churches have caved and given in to humanistic, immoral, unbiblical worldly views. I'm glad to see this church standing up for what is biblical.
Always the "aledged" threats and no arrests, why is that?
I am never surprised by the militant homosexual response to peaceful statements of faith and doctrine like these. The premise the homosexual agenda operates on is not freedom of choice, but rather our way or the highway. They do not want freedom, they want power.
When I was growing up people never talked about sex-it was a private subject that was to be discussed inside the home. When I was growing up everyone found it repulsive that two men or two women would share a bed. It is really sad how much mankind has hardened their hearts towards the will of God. God tells us in his word that this would happen but so few listen to his word.
The video shows a voice-mail the Churh received that threatens to both "bomb" and "burn down" the Church.. People should not comment before actually reading the article and clicking and listening to the links provided.
I wonder how many hours NOM spends scouring the news for even the suggestion that some GLBT person has done something bad. As for this particular story, does it make sense for a church to show open hostility to a group it presumably believes needs to brought into the fold?
Bruce..
How is that sign "openly hostile"?
What is openly hostile is threatining to burn down and bomb someones house of worship..Certainly consitutive of "something bad"..
The sign simply defends marriage and reaffirms the Churchs position that friendship is the proper name for relationships that are same-sex, while spouse is the proper title for married people.
Come on people, burn down a house of worship for an opinion??? That is tyranny compounded. As a Jew I stand with the church. The covenant of marriage was given in the beginning, before father Abraham. It was Adam and Eve, there is no room for Adam and Steve. You have your opinion and the church has their's. Let it ride already.
I am not hateful or racist. There is the freedom of speech for all, and it should be done tastefully and respectfully. I support marriage between a man and a woman, the way GOD intended it to be. I know first hand what that kind of lifestyle does to people and families. NOM does not have to go looking for people to do bad things. People of all kinds do bad things everyday. The church should not be getting threats of any kind for standing on what they believe in.
It just amazes me that those that state their position for traditional marriage are viewed as bigots and hostile, while those making the assumptions and name calling are not.
"Group" is an awfully narrow term to apply to all males world wide.
Evidently,the homosexuals are afraid of open debate.And the hatred by homosexuals toward the people of this country is doing more harm than good.Obama is the great divider,and he is doing a wonderful job at that.However,dangling carrots for votes is not very Presidential,but the community agitator in him could not resist his evil temptation.
I wish the homosexual community would spend their time more productively. Go work in a soup kitchen. Go visit someone in a nursing home. Quit wasting precious time and dollars on advocating an immoral lifestyle.
Always nice to see liberals being so intolerant as they claim they are otherwise...conservatives peacefully protest in our their own way, and they threaten to burn the place down and toss death threats...who's tolerant and who's intolerant here??
If homosexuals want people to treat them right, they should treat other people with love, even if the other people disagree with them or aren't very nice to them.
What the heck? This church calmly stated an opinion with no hate. Then someone pulls a death-threat stunt?
And they call US intolerant?! =.=
With what "love" should those who claim to be homo treat others? What's the source of that "love"?
I appreciate the lady condemning any threats or acts of violence. But I do think she is being provocative by gathering in front of the church. I understand that she has told those who will gather with her not to yell or become aggressive with any churchgoers. But going to the church is provocative in itself. What’s the point? The church disagrees with her on ssm. Get over it. Don’t try to browbeat them by lurking around their premises.
If congress does not act soon, to inject sanity into this situation, this could easily escalate into all out civil war
Whatever people believe personally, two men can be legal spouses, however, by being declared legally married and given the legal rights of spouses to engage in sex and conceive offspring with each other.
That's not an abstract meaning thing, that's an actual thing that being spouses means - it means being approved and allowed to have sex and procreate offspring together. We don't have to approve and allow any couple to do that, if there are supportable basis, and there certainly are reasons to keep procreation natural and require one person of each natural sex for sustainability and stability and equality's sake.
yes they should act soon and pass a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and woman.
@Ash,
Does this same reasoning apply to Christianists, preaching against homosexuality and civil marriage equality in the Castro? Or are they simply victims of homosexual intolerance?
Pete, Just because no arrests have been made doesnt mean that the threats are made up, plus... what else do you think is happening in the "wonderful" state of Mass? Occupy. Where do you think most of the cops are? Containing the crazy occupiers. Plus, if cops arrested them, could you imagine the ramifications. The Police would get a hate crime just like anybody who stands up against Obama is a racist!
Bruce, how is it open hostility? Are you suggesting that the church should tear its "hostile" books from the Bible because it disagrees with Mass' cultural "morals?" I mean you have to be kidding right?
For the SSM supporters on here, just please step back from your emotionally driven agenda, and look at this scenario. Mass. has give you gay marriage, which is what y'all claim to want and thats it. Yet, people are STILL not satisfied... How can one expect religious freedom to exist if people/groups still threaten church's freedom of speech despite having its new found privileges given by humans (obviously not by God)
John Colgan: Please... oh please dont tell me you consider Westboro to be Christians... Please!
@ Darren Crook
You said it, “power”. But I think that it is the western world economic interest leaders who are garbing for power. And that the homosexual movement is only the useful tool that they let off its leash to attain it for them.
@ James Dempsey
Yes all talk of sexuality in the public square is a form of 'manipulation'. That is why it was, and is, such a sign of respect and dignity when a community does not do so.
Every single time that the word or the subject of “homosexuality” is being used, whether in kindergarten or anywhere else. First, and before anything else (before any idea of rights, equalities and other such things), what is being talked about, evoked and put up high onto a pedestal is the subject of SEX. The western world leaders are manipulating big time; and they pulled out the big guns this time – sex.
@ John Howard
I still think you have to work at correctly expressing all that you are trying to. For there is very important material in it. But I see a big hole in how you are express your idea.
Because if marriage is really what we approve and allow it to be. In your example; approving and allowing sex and offspring. Then this truly means that in 20 years a government can come along and “approve and allow” something else. And if it is only the approving and the allowing that makes marriage what it is, than they will have legally and legitimately changed what marriage is.
While we (me and any one other agreeing person) know that marriage cannot, in reality, be changed to mean a same sex union (even if they allow and approve this couple to make babies and have sex).
A fisherman does not need a license to go fishing. He can very easily do so without one.
A man and a woman do not need government approval (or allowing) in order to, have sex or to have babies in a life long committed union, (in order to be married). They can very easily do so without it – and it is the definition of this man and woman's relationship that has to be given the word marriage (or another word to name it).
At the foundation level, we are not looking to define what a fishing license authorizes or allows the fisherman to do or not to do. We are looking to define what fishing itself is! That's how deep in the hell whole they have brought us.
It depends on the situation, John C. I'd say that if the situation were in full reverse (a church posted support for ssm, and a preacher--or anyone for that matter--planned a demonstration in front of the church), yes, that would be provocative.
There could be some underlying philosophical differences that may or may not make any difference to you. I would presume that a pastor would confront the church out of fear for their souls; provided that they stood in front of the church in a calm matter saying peaceful things. But I can't reason that this woman has a concern for the souls in the church. I see her--though attempting to be civil--as trying to change political opinions for political (not spiritual) reasons.
The scenario I describe above is the only one remotely applicable to the headlining story. I can't say for sure whether my reasoning applies to every scenario under the sun; such as if a pastor runs through a gay pride parade screaming. (I have seen a video of that before!)
How dare a church express their opinion on their own property? We need to get Obama to handle this 'hate' language right away, before he loses the election. If those opposing the sign (on whatever basis) weren't so used to cussing vulgarities, they could call this church something which really relieved their acid ire. But vulgarities have lost their punch, being now so familiar. How about 'You should die!'... (the latest in vogue) Well,. . . we all will, so what's new? Actually, putting a rainbow colored parachute near the sign only makes it much more visible. Bad move. Take some 'Phillips' Milk of Magnesia for the stomach ache, and keep hating those haters! Or lighten up.
Re: the priest's comment in the accompanying clip, I believe everyone knows the RCC's stance on same sex unions. The sign was not necessary. Sorry that people don't see that it is indeed meant to be provocative--and insulting--to anyone involved in a committed same-sex relationship. "You're just FRIENDS." That IS denigrating, hardly "loving."
@Good News, you are making it much more complicated than it is. Marriage is government approval of offspring. People do need government approval to be married, they need to be married to be married. we are talking about legal marriage here, city hall, eligibility, legal meaning, etc.
If you want to call unmarried people married,or married people unmarried, well, you may as well call a dead guy alive, or call a criminal that is on the loose locked up in jail. We are talking real things the government does here, not our preferred definitions. Some states do call them married after so many years, but its the law that makes them legally married, not their own feelings. We are talking about legal marriage here, and it does have legal effects and protections and benefits.
It's treue, you do not need a fishing license to fish, but you need a fishing license to be allowed to fish, its what makes fishing legal. Sure, lots of people don't bother to get one, but they could be told to stop fishing and be fined. People with a license are allowed to keep fishing.
And you don't need a marriage license to have sex and procreate, but we could tell unmarried people to stop and fine them for fornicating, whereas people with one are never fined for fornicating. The fact that we don't enforce fornication is irrelevant, marriage still makes sex legal and approved and should continue to do that.
Same-sex couples should not be approved to conceive offspring. Instead they should be prohibited, like siblings are, and fined if they try to make offspring together or create a clone or genetically engineered person (a huge amount like 10 million dollars and twenty years in jail). Do you not agree with that? If you think we should let labs make babies for same-sex couples, then you ought to agree to let them marry, to be consistent. Or you should just agree to prohibit same-sex conception.
@ John Howard
Anyway I think we've gone as far as we can with this form of communication.
I know we both agree on what is humanly important here.
While it seems to me that you are more on the legal and courtroom definition.
I am more on the natural definition.
Of course I understand what your saying, we just see things from different views.
It seems for you that government and laws make marriage.
While for me (in the most natural sense) one does not need a government or laws to be married, only a committed spouse. (At a natural and functioning level. Of course one would register the marriage with the state and or church and get any license, privileges and other goodies from the state. But that is not, nor it is what makes or defines (in a natural sense) what marriage. But being law abiding people the married couple would adhere to all the restrictions and limitations that the government laws might have placed on marriage.)
Another way to look at it that might help express my point. Around the world countries allow and authorize different things to the married people in their country. It is the unchangeable universal things that define marriage for me. That China only allows and permits one child to a marriage does not make a Chines friend consider me not married because I have three children...
Well we can only do so much with post communication.
We're both fighting the same fight. Maybe on different battle fields that's all.
Anyway I think we've gone as far as we can with this form of communication.
I know we both agree on what is humanly important here.
While it seems to me that you are more on the legal and courtroom definition.
I am more on the natural definition.
Of course I understand what your saying, we just see things from different views.
It seems for you that government and laws make marriage.
While for me (in the most natural sense) one does not need a government or laws to be married, only a committed spouse. (At a natural and functioning level. Of course one would register the marriage with the state and or church and get any license, privileges and other goodies from the state. But that is not, nor it is what makes or defines (in a natural sense) what marriage. But being law abiding people the married couple would adhere to all the restrictions and limitations that the government laws might have placed on marriage.)
Another way to look at it that might help express my point. Around the world countries allow and authorize different things to the married people in their country. It is the unchangeable universal things that define marriage for me. That China only allows and permits one child to a marriage does not make a Chines friend consider me not married because I have three children...
Well we can only do so much with post communication.
We're both fighting the same fight. Maybe on different battle fields that's all.
I wish you a successful continuation in working to improve and protect our civilization.
"While it seems to me that you are more on the legal and courtroom definition.
I am more on the natural definition."
Sorry, but I am "on" the natural definition even more than you are, and you don't seem to care what the legal definition is. You don't seem to care if we let same-sex couples try to create offspring, or if marriage continues to protect a couple's natural conception rights. The "natural definition" of marriage MUST allow the couple to have children!!! I can't believe you don't care about preserving that, are you a Transhumanist who wants to strip conception rights from marriage?
I'm appalled that you think that people should be allowed to marry their sister or father, as long as they are 'committed' that is disgusting. And I can't believe you think that couples marry first, and THEN go get legally married. You advocate shacking up?? Pre-marital sex?? Couples don't become 'committed' until they are legally committed, they don't consent until they legally officially consent, in front of witnesses. This is the way its been done for 6000 years. You seem to have been perverted by the sexual revolution and free love movements.
I think you are fighting for the Transhumanists and Eugenicists who want to strip procreation rights from marriage and make marriage meaningless, while trying to keep same-sex procreation and genetic engineering legal, but are doing this by pretending to be fighting for marriage. It is a reprehensible strategy and I think a criminal conspiracy against humanity.
If you are not fighting to stop legal same-sex marriage and same-sex conception and to preserve the ight of married couples to have sex and children together, then we are not on the same fight, not one bit.
The universal meaning of marriage around the world, even in China, is that it approves and allows the couple to have sex and make offspring together. (China is violating human rights by limiting marriage to one child, but at least they allow one, eugenicists like Sanger would not even allow one to an "unfit" couple). Countries can have different benefits or rules, but they all agree about that core meaning.
This has gotten so far out of hand on both sides it is ridiculous. It should not be discussed in this manner in the first place. As was pointed out earlier, when I was young, sex -and that IS what this is about- was not discussed publicly, Now it is SHOVED in our faces, and in the faces of our children, whether or not we like it. Whether it be fornication, homosexuality, or otherwise, SEX outside of marriage. I agree,, marriiage should be between a man and a woman, it was designed for procreation, not homosexuality, which is an abomination unto God in Romans in the Bible. It is likened with incest, man laying with man; son laying with father's wife (mother), and even man laying with beast (sex with animals) It is not natural or normal.
I just called the Acushnet police, identified myself as a reporter and asked whether it is true that they are keeping a watch on the church because of violent threats. Police officials told me they have no knowledge of this.
Are you a "reporter," in the common understanding of the term that they would have?
I don't understand why homosexuals like to cause problems, you state your opinion and if it against them you are a bigot, and a hater, the other day I was even called a racist for my views against ssm, even though this has nothing to do with race. I even found a page on facebook called "Protect Marriage: one man, one woman" and when I entered thinking it was a group I supported I found it to be a page that is actually for ssm and are using the name to pull unsuspecting people into a plain of conflict and just trying to use it to further their agenda and when you tell them they should change the name as it is false advertising they again call you haters and bigots although they are using my values to pull me into the page and then dance all over them and then they try to play the victim.
Well, Irene, you'd best get used to it cuz they ain't gonna stop.
And they'd best get used to out opposition, too, cuz IT ain't gonna stop.
out ---> our
Irene, just tell them you like sex, and they shouldn't hate sex. They really do hate sex, they can't stand that people reproduce so pleasurably, so easily, and so freely. They can't stand that it requires morals and law and authority to reconcile the pleasure of sex with the costs of sex and the responsibilities of sex. They want to use the law and genetic technology to do away with sex, at least as far as reproduction goes. They want to keep the orgasm and athleticism and competition and the hedonism and pornography and the bondage and masochism of sex, but they don't want the babies, at least not with birth defects and poop, and they certainly don't want having to be in a relationship with people you had drunken sex with just because she got pregnant. They hate fertility, and they hate sex. They hate that people are one sex and not both sexes, they can't see why there should be any constraint, they encourage six year children right now that they can be either sex, they don't have to be the sex they biologically were born as. And they will tell kids that even if they stay the sex they were born as, they don't have the right to reproduce naturally as that sex, they might be gay and only have the right to use genetic engineering labs to have children.
We need to wake up and get Congress to enact a law that preserves sex.
Yes, John Howard. Same-sex sex is not really sex. They pretend it is. What they cannot attain is a relationship with a person of the opposite sex. It is not they so much like their illusion of 'sex'. It is that they are incapable of handling the opposite sex. I don't blame them. It's not easy to combine with your biological opposite. But sexually it is the real thing.
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context), and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: the Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God who created Adam, a man, and then made Eve, a woman. This is what God has ordained as the normal means by which we carry out his command to fill the earth (Gen. 1:28). What God has set up is what is right -- not what sinful man sets up.
However, unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: they are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:24). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing, and then they go and promote it and condemn others who don't participate in their sin. So, without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation. Without salvation, there is only damnation in eternal hell.
What should be the Christian's response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin, and like any other sin it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross and repented of.
Please understand that I don't hate homosexuals. I wouldn't care if my neighbor were gay. I've had homosexual friends and have loved them the same as I would anyone else. But, the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. And, like all sinners, the person needs to be forgiven. That can be found in Jesus. He is the Lord, the Savior, the risen King. I would say to gays that if you want to love another man, love Jesus -- not in a homosexual attitudinal sense, but in one of respect and trust. After all, Jesus is God in flesh (John 1:1,14) and he died to save sinners. We are all sinners.
We Christians should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as we would for any other person in sin. It is not an issue of arrogance or judgmentalism. It is a loving thing to do. We don't want anyone to be lost due to their sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God -- even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, we should show homosexuals the same dignity as anyone else with whom we come in contact. Don't injure them. Don't hate them. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially acceptable opinion that is void of godliness and biblical truth. Instead, stand firm in the word that God has revealed and patiently love him/her biblically, and pray for their salvation.
Finally, if you are a homosexual, please understand that I do not hate you nor do I judge you. Sin is sin and the solution is found in Christ.
If NOM cares so much about reactions to messages - why hasn't it commented on the preacher who wanted to pen up all gay men and women? So threats of violence against gays is fine but threats of violence against a catholics is not? The simple fact is both are unacceptable but NOM would only report one and not the other.
We call this hypocrisy.
We don't live in a theocracy and the Catholic church's opinion on any subject is irrelevant in a secular government.
SHOWS WHAT LIARS THE SO CALLED "CHRISTIANS" ARE. SAME SEX MARRIAGE IS LEGAL IN MASS. TWO MEN ARE NOT FRIENDS. TWO MEN FALL IN LOVE - YOUR MINISTERS FILLS HIS GAS TANK AND PAYS HIS HOUSE PAYMENT W/ THE MONEY THE SHEEP THROW IN THE BASKET THAT GETS PASSED AROUND EVERY SUNDAY. YOU GUYS HAVE CHURCHES ON EVERY ST CORNER AND ONLY OPEN YOUR DOORS ON SUNDAYS TO GIVE A SHOW AND COLLECT MONEY.... WHAT GOOD DO YOU DO FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOODS??? IF YOU DID ANYTHNG GOOD FOR SOCIETY IT WOULD BE EASIER TO GET BEHIND YOU ...
AND YOU GUYS SHOULD KNOW BY NOW THAT JUST BECAUSE THE POLICE STATION IS ACROSS THE POLICE STATION IS ACROSS THE STREET MEANS NOTHING. GAY ACTIVISTS ARE WILLING TO GO TO JAIL TO ACHIEVE CIVIL RIGHTS AND AND ARCH THE CURVE OF HISTORY.
You people already got civil Rights. You people may marry as the rest of us may marry. The law that defines "marriage" as the union of a man and a woman doesn't require the man and the woman to be heterosexual.
The Priest should not have posted the message if he was not willing to stand by it. He should have taken pictures of the protestors so that if something did happen, police would have a place to start. Instead he changed the message and of course it did not satisfy them. They want validation and retribution and every aquiescence makes them stronger.