Yeah, but if it’s an add-on, web geeks could just cut and paste. Anything to make updating more efficient!

Father, I think there is more money in making this device I have a smartphone app. ……it could even do translations in real time.

Andrew, any way you could make your translator a FireFox add-on?

Insofar as government is concerned, a person has much more freedom in making a decision than he does insofar as the Catholic or Orthodox Church is concerned. Moreover, judicial or man-made law tends to change or be amended periodically; ecclesiastical or divine law tends to be more permanent — even lasting for millennia.

Actually, a person is free to make any decision he wants with respect to government, provided he does not break the law. If a person does break the law, then — and only then — does the government have the right to take punitive action against that person.

Some laws — for example, smoking marijuana — may be irrelevant or outdated. Nonetheless, a person must continue to abide by these laws, unless Congress or a state legislature changes or abolishes them. I believe that California and a couple of other states have passed laws allowing their residents to smoke marijuana.

Perhaps a better question, George, is what types of decisions should a person in our society be free to make without fear of the government taking punitive action against them? It seems you’re saying that one cannot allow for certain liberties as a politician and remain a good Catholic (or a good Orthodox). Just as I do not expect the government to impose the virtue of generosity and charity by imposing draconian levels of taxation, I do not expect the government should be able to impose the perfect model of chastity upon a married couple by threatening them with fines or worse for choosing to utilize contraception. Divorce is another issue: I know very well that many couples divorce for reasons other than infidelity (the only true “out” permitted in Scripture). Nonetheless, to suggest the government should be able to force a woman (or man) to remain in any particular civil marriage against their will just runs contrary to everything I believe as an American (even though I firmly believe in honoring one’s commitments when one makes them.)

Although I tend to be Libertarian in most things, the area where I’m torn is on drugs. Although I’ve never taken an illegal substance, I have a problem with imprisoning along with violent criminals people who have done nothing more than smoke a few marijuana cigarettes (a substance admittedly less addictive and dangerous than alcohol). At the same time, some drugs have such terrible power and take such a toll on human life (heroin and crystal meth being just two) that I’m not sure I can take the route of Ron Paul who favors removing all restrictions on drug use.

In general, though, I think the notion that government is the means by which virtue is enforced is a faulty one.

“79th Street says there may be a pan-orthodox consensus on same sex marriage. But “consensus” is such a complicated term (wink, wink) the GOA and its leadership do not have an official political position on such legislative issues. The only legislative issues we discuss are related to the special race “omogenia”. We have no desire to offend the politicians who support us and we are very scared of being labeled traditional and anti-gay marriage lest protesters and news crews show up at our door. We do not want to make the politicans angry and jeopardize our Greek Independence day parade, our annual visit to the White House and our invitation to the UN and we wont say a word to cause you any trouble. We do not want to do anything to jeopardize our invitations to cushy political dinners and events. And our the head of Our office of Church and Society….. well he wont be a problem because there is this thing called facebook that keeps him distracted all day.”

The severity of the issue of violating the teachings of the Christian Church that a legislator votes for must be considered, so that the legislator is punished accordingly. For example, same-sex marriage or abortion support by a legislator must be considered to be more serious than support for the sale of condoms. Determination of punitive action, then, must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

In fact, a bishop in Rhode Island criticized and punished former U.S. Rep. Kennedy (D-RI) about two years ago for supporting abortion in Congress. The bishop forbade then-Rep. Kennedy from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, until he repented and asked God to forgive him for this sin.

The bishop of Brooklyn, New York last week forbade New York Gov. Cuomo and legislators, who voted for same-sex marriage, from attending any Catholic school or church function in his diocese. I, personally, believe he should also forbid them from receiving Holy Communion in the Catholic Church, unless they repent for voting as they did, and ask God to forgive them.

In short, a legislator needs to use his conscience when voting for or against an issue relating to his religion. I believe that it would behoove a legislator — when deciding how to vote on a religious issue — to ask himself, “How would God want me to vote on this issue?” and then vote accordingly.

George, do you believe that Catholic/Orthodox politicians are obliged, upon penalty of sin and/or excommunication, to vote against laws that decriminalize sinful conduct or for laws that criminalize them whenever they come up, or does it vary depending on the gravity of the sin involved? If so, to whom must they refer when determining the “official” Church position on it? Are there no other considerations permitted for a politician?

For example: we all know the official RCC position on the use of contraception (even within marriage). The problem is that not all denominations in our representative republic share that view (just as some liberal denominations do not categorically condemn homosexual conduct). Nonetheless, would a Catholic politician have been obliged to vote against the legalization of the sale of contraceptive devices when the issue first arose?

For example, the Catholic bishop of Brooklyn has forbidden New York Governor Cuomo and New York legislators, who voted for same-sex marriage, from attending any Catholic school or church function in his diocese. AOI blog readers can read about this Christian catastrophe — including its antithesis to Christianity — in more detail by reading a commentary I wrote last night titled “N.Y. Governor, Legislators Renounce Teachings of Christ.” Readers can access it on my Theology and Society blog at where it appears on the first page.

Isaac, we don’t live for the state so the notion of doing the state a favor shouldn’t enter into the discussion. (I’m not a liberal hence the notion of serving the state as substitution for loving your neighbor is repugnant to me.) Further, the state “validates” marriage only in the sense that legal benefits accrue to those married in accordance with the traditional definition of marriage. These laws are simply a reflection of culture, nothing more although they implicitly affirm the importance of the traditional norm. Gay activists recognize this too but go at it from the other direction. They want to change the law in order to change the culture.

You are correct that Christians themselves have become secularized. This is true of Orthodox believers as well.

Imagine if all the Christians who only had Church marriages had very low divorce rates compared to the larger culture. That would be a far more powerful witness than trying to get people who don’t care about God to live as if they do.

The gay rights lobby wants marriage not for the legal benefits (that can be obtained other ways) but for the social sanction that legal recognition would provide. They want to shift the culture. And you’re right, the serial marriages of people like Rush Limbaugh and other well known people have contributed to the erosion.

Don’t draw too strong a distinction between Christian and civil marriage. Marriage predates the Church. It even predates the Fall. Marriage is within the order of creation which is why we see heterosexual monogamy even in non-Christian cultures. It cannot be separated from family and procreation, something which our condom culture has great difficulty comprehending in any positive way. Christian marriage ties the marriage vocation to salvation in Christ and thus extends the teleology beyond the assurance of survival in old age that children provide. But the non-Christian marriage cannot be reduced to a civil contract alone. Only we moderns who see children as either a consumer item or liability tend to think this way.

This doesn’t even address the confusion caused by pastors like Ken Hutcherson of Antioch Bible Church who blessed the fourth (and clearly unbiblical) marriage of celebrity commentator Rush Limbaugh.

Given the above facts, is it really any wonder why gays question why they should be barred from entering into a contractual agreement that, for quite some time, has had barely any similarity to the Sacrament the Church actually regards as marriage?