Conor Rogers, Editor
Ideology: Moderate Republican | Writing from: New Jersey
A gay marriage supporter defends religion’s right to define marriage and express religious freedom.
Our civil rights and our freedom to worship as we so choose are priceless, uncompromising and eternal American values. These values, essential to the nation’s founding, have shaped the republic’s development countless times over and still occupy the front pages today.
Yet as same-sex marriage takes center stage in the so-called culture war, the nation finds the two ideals – civil equality for all, and the freedom to express one’s religious views – diametrically opposed as never before. When it comes to debates over same-sex marriage, religious passions and civil rights demands clash in a million-dollar, high stakes battle that seems to pit American values against one another.
A balance must be found between those who fight for the civil rights of marriage for all couples and those who seek to uphold traditional marriage in all levels of our society and government. Civil Unions, according to gay rights groups, do not work and are not equal, yet to expect all religious populations to embrace gay marriage is impossible and far fetched.
As a Christian, I’ve seen the state reach its hands far too deep into the religious expression of students in our schools, families in their town squares and even into our homes. As a supporter of marriage equality, I see, what is in my opinion, religion reaching too far into civil rights.
While understanding both arguments, I still find fault with each side of the marriage debate. Marriage equality advocates who wish to end “discrimination” by religions that do not allow gay marriage mistake a church or temple’s right to establish their own moral codes in regards to marriage for deliberate discrimination against same-sex couples. Similarly, traditional marriage advocates mistake the majority of equality advocates who seek civil unions or civil marriages recognized by the state as extremists planning an attack on marriage itself. Both of these ideas are false, and at best represent only a fringe of each group. Most Christians (or followers of any religion) do not hate gay people, and similarly most gay people and most gay marriage advocates do not hate the religious nor do they wish to take apart the meaning of marriage.
Though I believe same-sex couples deserve the exact same civil rights as their heterosexual counterparts, I hold that each religion has the absolute right to define marriage however it sees fit. This right cannot be infringed, edited or restricted, or else we risk compromising our nation’s cherished religious freedom. There is a constitutional right to marriage (see Loving v. Virginia) and the state must recognize marriage for all adults wishing to enter a relationship, but at the same time, each and every denomination religion and church should be allowed to set its own requirements for who get married, and even who can marry who.
Currently, the Catholic Church does not marry previously divorced individuals, some sects of Judaism do not permit marriage without conversion and some evangelical denominations require that husband and wife is of the same religion, yet others, like the Episcopalian church, have no such restrictions. I mention all these differences to point out that differences in the definition of marriage already exist around our nation. The Catholic Church does not marry divorced individuals, but city hall does. Sects of Judaism and Islam may not allow a woman to marry her husband should he not convert – but town hall will.
This very pattern is why, as a supporter of marriage equality, I find no reason, legal basis or reason to demand (as some LGBT advocates do) that religions must recognize gay marriage, or any form of state-imposed marriage at all. Recent same-sex marriage laws in Maine and New Hampshire reflect this view – every religious group in these New England states has the full right to refuse to marry whomever it so chooses and so it should be. Denying the civil rights of marriage to same-sex couples is unfair and wrong – but there is nothing right about forcing the religious to accept, condone or perform these marriages. To do so would only exacerbate the tensions that already exist.
Laws like those passed in Maine are the perfect balance, and indeed a uniquely American balance that separates what our religious groups are allowed to do with what our state is allowed to do. Same-sex marriage should be performed at city halls and courtrooms, but should they be performed at St. Mary’s? Leave that up to the church itself.
I would also point out that current laws banning same-sex marriage deny religious freedom to members of the Episcopal Church, the Metropolitan Community Church, some Lutheran Churches, many progressive Jewish denominations, and numerous individuals and independent churches which do not subscribe to any mainstream religion.
I find it rather odd that a gay union will be sanctioned by the “National Cathedral” which was commissioned by Congress and is used for national memorial ceremonies and will be sanctioned at St. John’s Church, known often as “the Church of the Presidents” and attended by every President since James Madison, but will not be recognized by the governing officials who have such investment in those churches.
I would like to point out that in Loving, the decision states “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.” Opponents of marriage equality would point out that marriage being ‘fundamental to our very existence and survival’ means that the two in the relationship should be able to procreate, which many people assume gays and lesbians cannot. (Although it is a big misconception as there are now many ways they can.) I think you have to counter what opponents would point out as supposed flaws in your argument, simply just mentioning Loving and applying it to homosexuals. This would make the piece stronger.
Excellent piece, Conor.
John: I agree that would have made it stronger. Gay couples, however, adopt the most children (where it is allowed). Gay couples take in children that have been for various reasons abandoned by their birth parents and give them oppurtunities that they wouldn’t have otherwise had. Therefore, it could be argued that gay couples are just as essential as straight couples for the “success of the species” because they care for children that otherwise might not be cared for and thus strengthen the entire society.
I say scrap government marriage entirely. Its existence as an institution violates the civil rights of people who choose not to marry.
The government, just as it cannot favor religion over irreligion, gay over straight, or white over black, should not be permitted to favor marriage over single. I have no interest in being married. And I’m entitled to the same thing from government as everyone else under the 5th and 14th amendment’s guarantees of equal protection.
Conor, this is a wonderfully written post. Your arguments are well thought out and take both sides into account. I agree with you fully. No church or other religious institution should be forced to perform gay marriage if it is legal. That is for City Hall or religious denominations who deem it to be acceptable.
“A balance must be found between those who fight for the civil rights of marriage for all couples…”
Mr. Rogers, are you only concerned with The “civil rights” of couples? What about polygamists? How can you draw the line in one area and not another?
The “threat” to religious freedom posed by marriage equality has been overblown by the so-called religious right. When was the last time you heard of a man and a woman suing a rabbi or a priest for refusing to perform an interfaith marriage?
I appreciated Rogers’ sensible argument, but when all loving couples have the basic right to get married and share their lives together, all the recent chatter about an imagined threat to religious freedom will seem like the ridiculous fearmongering that it is.
Wow I completely agree with Tim…usually that doesn’t happen
… marriage does favor married over single, and while this was instituted likely for the sake of children, that often doesn’t happen, and since having children also leads to continued overpopulation problems, I agree we should just leave behind the financial benefits. (although there will still have to be a way to have power of attorney and visitation rights)
That said, really great post! I completely agree… a societal movement toward gay unions should not attempt to encourage the Church to change its ways, except internally. If a gay person who is Catholic wants to fight that battle, he should, but without government involvement.
I’m in full agreement with Steve. Though I of course agree with Conor on principle, the reality is that all of this stuff about religious freedom is being paraded around as a red-herring argument against marriage equality. Apparently granting full rights to all Americans necessarily involves the violation of the First Amendment rights of conservative “Christians” (the same ones who lie about their sex lives, abuse drugs, hire prostitutes, and make millions off of religion, by the way).
Colin, that’s a good point. The hypocrisies are endless.
Tim, getting rid of civil marriage is probably the most constitutional plan… but probably the least likely. Government sanctioned marriages are the norm in our society, and it would be difficult to remove something so ingrained.
Steve and Noah, I agree that the religious freedom argument is mostly a red-herring, but we can’t ignore it. In today’s world, a couple suing a church for the right to marry in it isn’t really that hard to imagine.
Colin,
I agree with that point, but chose more to focus on the opposite side of the debate (Those claiming their freedoms are being infringed by the advancement of other people’s rights)
Tim,
While that may make constitutional sense, I do not think it is socially possible. I personally think families and marriage are important, and I think gay or straight single parent, whatever, they are important to the society.
Noah & Steve,
I agree that much of it is fabricated, there are many people who actually believe that gay marriage would harm religious freedom. This article was intentionally directed at them, and to provide evidence of how marriage equality can move forward without hampering religious freedom.
Ian, I agree with your comment back to Noah and Steve, that’s the exact reason I wrote the article. We can’t ignore sentiments simply because we don’t think they are true.
Mel,
Frankly, that is a tough question. Primarily, I am concerned with how the government is treating one couple (a straight one) versus how they are treating a same-sex one.
I think these two are much easier to compare from a constitutional standpoint, because they involve the same amount of people trying to achieve the same end (a family, a home etc). Whereas polygamous couples involve a different number of individuals, and therefore could receive different status.
Conor,
Though of course I agree with you to an extent, I worry that pandering to such concerns essentially allows “Christian” fundamentalists to feel vindicated in their persecution complex — for example, it wasn’t that long ago that a Catholic group compared the San Francisco board of supervisors to “Nazis” paving the way for the extermination of the Jews. (Which can be found here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/06/09/BABD183R7G.DTL) In reality, what the city of San Francisco did is pass a non-binding resolution in which it condemned one of the bigoted policies of the Catholic Church.
The Church can be as indignant as it wants about being called bigoted, but at the end of the day, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and talks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.
Oh, and, anyone? Irony about the Church invoking the Holocaust? Major LOLZ.
http://www.mcgath.com/catholicchurchandnazi.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Nazi_Germany#Catholicism
Noah,
Not to redirect the debate, but to say the Church participated, encouraged or in any way supported what happened during the holocaust is ludicrous, insulting and without basis.
Perhaps individual bishops, priests or members may have, but considering the fact the holocaust counts hundreds of thousands of Catholics among it’s victims, you’d be hard pressed to say that the Church was okay with what was going on.
Noah,
The Pope was the only leader in Europe to stand up to and speak against Hitler. Please tread lightly before so enthusiastically insulting someone else’s religion. Thanks.
Noah,
The point of this article was to find common ground among religions and marriage advocates – why flare it up with a comment about the catholic church like that?
Also, there were about five million Christians killed in the Holocaust. The Church may not be perfect, but it does a lot of good for this world. Just because there are a few on the fringe saying outlandish things doesn’t make the entire organization “bigoted.”
Michele, I didn’t say that the Catholic Church didn’t do any good things in the world. Obviously, that’s false. But the reality is that the Catholic Church has done plenty of horrible things as well, including, but not limited to, complicity in the Holocaust, the atrocities committed during the Crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition. The fact that five million Christians (not necessarily Catholics) were killed in the Holocaust does not ameliorate this: the vast majority weren’t killed for being Christians, and even fewer were killed for being Catholics. These people were killed for being Socialists, Communists, homosexuals (three groups which the Church has and had an official position against), disabled, or mentally retarded. In fact, it should also be pointed out that the Church was not a particular fan of non-Catholic Christian groups either who were targeted in the Holocaust, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
The historical evidence to back up my claims (which I cited, by the way) is not only present — it is widely accepted within the historical community.
I apologize if Catholics found what I said offensive, but that doesn’t make it untrue.
As for Conor’s comment — at what point does something become, for all intents and purposes, institutional? If many bishops, priests, and cardinals were complicit in the Holocaust — if the Pope signed an agreement with Mussolini which permitted his fascistic regime to reign in Italy with his stamp of approval — doesn’t that rise to the level of “institutional”? I “flared up” the discussion by pointing out the hypocrisy of the group.
The reality is that the Church has had a long history of being anti-Jew (though it might not be so today) — if it wants to overcome the long shadow that its pogrom-instigating, Jew-burning, Inquisition-having past has created, it should avoid invoking the Holocaust willy-nilly. Jews tend to disapprove of people comparing the denunciation of a bigoted policy position to the extermination of six million of our relatives and friends.
And, yes, I dared to call some of the Church’s positions bigoted, because that’s exactly what they are. When you make the entirely unsubstantiated claim that someone is a fundamentally inferior parent as a result of their sexual orientation, when you claim that the physical expression of same-sex love is something akin to a disease, when you attempt to send kids to “gay camps” to “cure” them of their homosexuality — that’s all bigotry, and it doesn’t matter what religion you are.
I don’t really have much to comment on the gay marriage argument, mainly due to the fact that I myself have not came to the conclusion that I would consider marriage a civil right. However I will comment on the side discussion that seems to be brewing on this blog. Mr. Baron I want to address your statement’s regarding the Catholic Church’s “complicity” in the Holocaust. Granted they’re many Jewish scholars and even some Christians who believe your theory, however it is my belief and the beliefs of many others that state the opposite. Pius XII had his hands tied when it came to dealing with Hitler and Mussolini. It is seen in numerous examples that anytime any ranking member of the Church spoke out again the evil deeds of the Nazi’s it would result in the killing of more people. “As an example, the Catholic Archbishop of Utrecht in July 1942 protested in a pastoral letter against the Jewish persecutions in Holland. Immediately the Nazis rounded up as many Jews and Catholic non-Aryans as possible and deported them to death camps, including Blessed Edith Stein (Lapide, p. 246).”
Pius XII was stuck between a rock and a hard place, yes maybe publicly he would of looked better if he had been more outspoken, but wouldn’t that of hindered any of his efforts? I would put more blame of not acting on our own government for not intervening sooner. Some have speculated that we only entered the European theater because we feared Soviet control if they successfully defeated the Germans. I just think u should really review the facts and put into perspective the situation at that time before you make bold accusations against an organization that was known to aid Jews in WWII.
Tony,
I’m majoring in political science and history. I’ve read plenty of history textbooks, and plenty of history books specifically about WWII, the Holocaust, and this issue. While your theory about the vast Jewish conspiracy to fabricate the Vatican’s complicity in the Holocaust (and, indeed, perhaps the Holocaust itself!) is fascinating, reality contradicts your assertions.
While individual Catholics did do quite a bit to help Jews during the Holocaust, at an institutional level, the Vatican did not remain silent on Mussolini or Hitler, but rather publicly expressed approval; meanwhile, in private, the Vatican remained inactive in subverting the Nazis or Fascists.
Noah, I could go back and fourth with you, I’ll agree that maybe the Church was against the creation of an Israel Sate, however one can only understand why, its their past as well. To say that the Church as a whole was complacent and involved in the Holocaust is as outrageous and disgusting as the people who agree with the Nazi’s actions. The bottom line was it was horrible that it happened, but in all the research I’ve done on this topic indicates that the Church did not have an active role in the Holocaust. Please cite me some non biased sources, and ill concede my point. However I just want to state the same hatred and anger your expressing towards the Church is the same hatred and passionate anger that brought on the Holocaust.
Quite frankly, Tony, I’m offended that you’d equate my (historically grounded) belief that the Catholic Church was complacent in the Holocaust with Nazism. As a Jew, I am unspeakably horrified. Furthermore, I’m not expressing any hatred of the Church — merely espousing a widely-accepted historical viewpoint.
As for the Church’s opposition to the creation of an Israeli state: what was the concern? That a bunch of angry Jews would finally get their hands on some guns and “get the Church back” for torturing, murdering and expelling us from countries for the past millennium? I’m quite frankly at a loss for words as to what you mean by what you said there.
As for “unbiased sources” — everyone has an agenda. Every history book has a “point” to it, the prove its point using historical evidence. I’d recommend “Hiter’s Pope”, a book by John Cornwell (a review can be found here: http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/99oct/9910pope.htm)
To say your view point is highly accepted is false. Frankly I am unmoved by your offensive. Regardless of your religion, hate is hate. You come on this page that is dealing with Civil Rights and gay marriage and trash the Catholic Church. You may not have hateful feelings but from what Im reading your a man with an agenda or at least come off as a person who does. Now Im the first person to say the Church isn’t perfect however to say they helped with the deaths of millions of innocent people is just disgusting.
As far as the Israeli state you jumped to the conclusion of some radical idea, I was merely acknowledging some of your point and I just acknowledged that they have a past there as well.
I never said that the Church *aided* in the Holocaust. That is obviously not supported by historical evidence. However, the Church did aid in the establishment of Mussolini’s regime (not necessarily connected to the Holocaust, but definitely unacceptable), and the Church as an institution stood largely idly by while the Holocaust was being carried out.
Meanwhile, Tony, I haven’t seen a single link or citation from you demonstrating to me that: 1. my point is even vigorously contested; 2. that my point is not widely accepted.
Lastly, I’d like to point out that it is exactly this Catholic indifference to the Holocaust that is getting it in trouble with Jews to this day. By equating the Holocaust with things which are in no way on the same level, the Church devalues what happened during the Holocaust.
However Im no longer going to take part in this discussion, I know where this will end up, my words being twisted into those of an anti semitic, making me out to be a holocaust denier. I have never denied the Holocaust or the sufferings of the Jewish people. Many PEOPLE died with aid of many people. One should only know I come from Polish ancestry, so I am not so far removed from the travesties of the Holocaust.
Noah.
Normally, we disagree based on an ideological basis, but the claims you are making are unfair and yes, while Pius did not send his Swiss guards out to attack the Nazis, the church saved thousands of Jews from the Holocaust, and even hid them in the catacombs of the Vatican.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0901016.htm
Say what you want about the Church and gay marriage, but to say that one of the most charitable and fundamentally good organizations on Earth was complicit or okay with the massacre of millions of people is simply wrong.
NEW YORK TIMES, 1942: Pope Pius, the lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent. The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever like the Rock in which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed and surrounded by a sea of war.
“”
Pope Pius XI, who had condemned Nazism in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge, died in February 1939, and Pope Pius XII followed him as the successor of St. Peter on March 12. Think of the world—and the Church—Pope Pius XII had inherited.
To make matters worse, by 1940 Hitler controlled Europe and Northern Africa, and was planning the invasion of Britain. The Vatican, officially a neutral country, was isolated. Hitler had plans to depose Pius XII, appoint his own “puppet” pope, and move the Vatican administration to Germany, plans which would have been executed if the war would have gone in the Nazi’s favor. Who then was to come to the aid of the Vatican? Pius XII, who had to insure the survival of the Church, was very much alone.
Nevertheless, Pius XII spoke out. After the invasion of Poland in September l939, he denounced the aggression of the Nazis and proposed a peace plan. In 1940, he called for the triumph over hatred, mistrust, and the spirit of “cold egoism.” The following year, he pleaded for the rights of small nations and national minorities, and condemned total warfare and religious persecution.
In his Christmas message of 1942, he specifically denounced the extermination of the Jews: The New York Times praised this message, writing, “This Christmas more than ever Pope Pius XII is a lonely voice crying out in the silence of a continent. The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever like the Rock in which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed and surrounded by a sea of war… When a leader hound impartially to nations on both sides condemns as heresy the new form of national state which subordinates everything to itself; when he declares that whoever wants peace must protect against ‘arbitrary attacks’ the ‘juridical safety of individual’; when he assails violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human beings for no reason other than race or political opinion; when he says that people must fight for a just and decent peace, a ‘total peace’–the ‘impartial’ judgment is like a verdict in our high court of justice.”
Besides these worldwide pleas for peace, the Vatican persistently issued communications to protest to Hitler which were attested to by Von Ribbentrop at the Nuremburg war trials, who said, “I do not recollect [how many] at the moment, but I know we had a whole deskful of protests from the Vatican. There were very many we did not even read or reply to.”
Pope Pius XII also acted. According to Israeli archives, papal relief programs saved at least 860,000 Jews, more than any other agency or organization. His Holiness also allowed the Vatican diplomatic corps, which were protected by diplomatic immunity, to carry messages between the allied powers. Vatican Information Services also sent over 5 million messages for soldiers.
“”
Noah,
Stop attacking the man responsible for saving the lives of over 800,000 people, and the organization responsible for feeding millions of people on this earth every day.
There are much more deserving figures deserving of attack, like 1930s/40s politicians etc.
But to get back to the comment that sparked this whole holocaust debate – yes, invoking the Holocaust in relation to a board of supervisors is silly. But as you said, this was a Catholic group, not the Church.
Conor,
I could quite easily cite equally damning passages from a variety of books — including “Hitler’s Pope”. Alternatively:
In October 1941, the Assistant Chief of the U.S. delegation to the Vatican, Harold Tittman, asked the Pope to condemn the atrocities. The response came that the Holy See wanted to remain “neutral,” and that condemning the atrocities would have a negative influence on Catholics in German-held lands.(7)
In late August 1942, after more than 200,000 Ukrainian Jews had been killed, Ukrainian Metropolitan Andrej Septyckyj wrote a long letter to the Pope, referring to the German government as a regime of terror and corruption, more diabolical than that of the Bolsheviks. The Pope replied by quoting verses from Psalms and advising Septyckyj to “bear adversity with serene patience.”(8)
On September 18, 1942, Monsignor Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Pope Paul VI, wrote, “The massacres of the Jews reach frightening proportions and forms.”(9) Yet, that same month when Myron Taylor, U.S. representative to the Vatican, warned the Pope that his silence was endangering his moral prestige, the Secretary of State responded on the Pope’s behalf that it was impossible to verify rumors about crimes committed against the Jews.(10)
Wladislaw Raczkiewicz, president of the Polish government-in-exile, appealed to the Pope in January 1943 to publicly denounce Nazi violence. Bishop Preysing of Berlin did the same, at least twice. Pius XII refused.(11)
—
Pope Pius XII is not nearly the saint you make him out to be.
Actually, I think this is my favorite:
The Pope’s indifference to the mistreatment of Jews was often clear. In 1941, for example, after being asked by French Marshal Henri Philippe Petain if the Vatican would object to anti-Jewish laws, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.(16)
This conversation has gotten sufficiently off topic. Please, let us keep any further comments related to the specific arguments of Conor’s original article and minimize tangents. Thank you!
Noah – look at the following if you are really interested. These are writings contemporary with the events you blithely pass offf with a “LOLZ”. They are written by people who lived through the times in question, not by someone with agenda from present time (ie. “The Atlantic” or this fellow McGrath)
“MIT BRENNENDER SORGE”
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE CHURCH AND THE GERMAN REICH
TO THE VENERABLE BRETHREN
THE ARCHBISHOPS AND BISHOPS OF GERMANY AND OTHER ORDINARIES
IN PEACE AND COMMUNION WITH THE APOSTOLIC SEE. 1937, the end of which was written by the man who became Pius XII
Three Popes and the Jews, Pinchas E. Lapide, Souvenir Press (London), 1967. Lapide was with the Israeli press corp in post war Israel.
The Conspiracy Against Hitler in the Twilight War, Harold C. Deutsch, University of Minnesota Press, 1968. An account of a conspiracy to unseat Hitler in which Pius XII was a major conspirator.
The Vatican in the Age of the Dictators (1922-1945), Anthony Rhodes, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
Assessing common knowledge or making grandiose statements about the judgment of history or “widely accepted fact” is no substitute for a trip to the library to track down those facts. There is some information that is not available on the Internet and yet still rests in libraries. Broaden your scope before you chastise a whole religion.
It seems from your responses to other comment that you are convinced of your prejudices and then accusing others of cherry picking passages proceed to cherry pick your own. I think all would agree that the whole world, not just Pius XII could and should have done more in retrospect. We weren’t there and we didn’t see. I hope you become more circumspect in your condemnations
The fact that many people didn’t do enough to prevent the Holocaust from happening doesn’t excuse the Church from its lack of action. What I was attempting to point out was the fact that a Catholic group was complaining about having its bigotry pointed out to it via comparing the San Fran board supes to the Nazis preparing to exterminate the Jews.
Perhaps if such Catholic groups had been as outspoken and ardent as they were in this case during the 1920s and 1930s, they wouldn’t have any Holocaust to compare abortion, homosexuals, or liberal cities to. I could continue to argue about this all day, but, really, this is not really relevant to my original point.
The reality is that Jews and the Catholic Church aren’t — and have not been — exactly buddy-buddy. The blame there lies largely at the feet of the Catholic Church. The Holocaust is invoked far too often by people who want to paint their enemies as “evil”, whether those people are liberals demonizing Bush or conservatives demonizing Obama. Most of those people are fairly radical and “out there”. But for a religious institution to invoke the Holocaust, and the multitudinous crimes committed against Jews, socialists, homosexuals, etc., goes beyond offensive, especially when that institution persecuted all three of those groups for centuries (and continues to persecute the last two whenever possible).
Noah – My concerns are fulfilled. There was no attempt to excuse anyone from lack of action. You suggest that if Catholic groups had been outspoken there wouldn’t have been a Holocaust?!? Think about that. You also say that a religious “institution” invoked the Holocaust. Try to imagine that. Regarding the Church continuing to “persecute” socialists and homosexuals, taking a stand against something antithetical to your beliefs is not persecution. If it were then you would be persecuting Catholics.
My concerns are fulfilled because you continue to choose to condemn Cathoilcs and the Church by inventing their malfeasance and refusing to broaden your knowledge. I believe the situation is presently hopeless but I certainly hope that in time you might come to see a little more of what others have been trying to tell you in these comments. Goodbye, Good luck, God bless you (no offense meant)