Catholic bishops should read the writing on the wall for same-sex marriage

And one Catholic governor, Chris Christie, has vetoed a bill authorizing ss marriage in NJ, probably also for political reasons, with one eye on 2016 and the other eye on the Tea Party. But look what a mess the Republicans have created out of their ongoing primary season, how much scorn it is receiving now, and the redicule with which it will be looked back upon in the coming years. For whatever their public and private reasons, the Govs of NY, MD and Washington have placed themselves on the forward edge of the social curve. Christie likely will have won a Pyrric victory with his veto, because the USA will be more liberal on ss marriage in 2016 than it is now, given the evolving ethos of young people. Its such a shame that the Catholic hierarchy has chosen to ride in the insane Republican clown car on the road to oblivion.

Thank-you Maureen for this post. I would only disagree with you when you say that "the ultimate decision may be made by Maryland voters". I believe that this is a Constitutional issue and that the ultimate decision will be one day made by the Supreme Court.

I really don't know why Gay and Lesbians are being treated so differently by the bishops as those who are divorce and remarried. The remarriage goes against Church teachings, yet, the bishops don't try to make it illeagle for them to remarry.

If they want to preach their teachings, as much as I disagree with it, I see that as their right, but to insist on legeslating their beliefs on this issue, I believe, is a violation. And, as you pointed out, most are inceasingly feeling the same.

Yours in Christ,

John David

Ancient slavery was not the same creature as 18th century chattel slavery. Roman-era slaves of the time of the Apostles were not regarded as "sub-human" but simply as human beings with few rights. Big, big difference.

As for usury... the Church hasn't changed the teaching, it has accepted that some interest is proper - as did the ancient Jews (which is what Jubalees were all about).

What you are claiming is that the Church will change its sexual morals because the US and Europe - both facing demographic collapse - are post-Christian. Give both places 40 years and we'll see who's the majority. Europe will be a majority Muslim land in 2052 and the USA, if we're still around, will be mostly Hispanic. Liberals who have 2.1 children will be replaced by Conservatives who have 4.5 children. And the Church will still be preaching the Gospel of sexual purity, not sexual license.

But wait, you might say, the fully operational battle station of the Federal Government will unleash full, open persecution on the hated Church to force it to accept the Liberal sexual world view... I've no doubt it's coming. So is open, legal Prostitution and the lowering of the age of consent to puberty.

But the Church won't change. And the Church will survive and rebuild on the other side of the coming totalitarian dark age which you no doubt will cheer and place all your utopian hopes in.

If the USSR in all its pomp and glory could not change the Church's moral teaching... do you really think an American oppression will?

An American pope means an American would be head of an independent country. I wish Mr. Allen would walk us through the permutations of that possibility. Dolan's citizenship? His apointing bishops? American money following him? His ability to vote in American elections? His interactions with the president? His statements on: life issues including war, abortion, a just wage, distribution of wealth, care for refugees, and so many other "political" issues.

Please tease these out for me....

you left out captial punishment as an example of a rapid change.

Absolutely right. The truth is that "gay marriage" doesn't seems at all like the "marriage" that I have grown up and old understanding as between one man and one woman, either, and I would be happier if a civil union could solve the problem, giving gays all of the right of marriage. Under present law however, they would not. And there most certainly IS a question of civil rights here so I am perfectly comfortable to change my own understanding of that word "marriage"to insure those rights for these sisters and brothers of mine who are, in some ways different from me and yet still my brothers and sisters.

What the bishops don't seem to understand is that, although they certainly do have the right to define and proclaim authentic doctrine, the more they do so
regarding subjects where society has moved far beyond their positions due to the growth of deeper understandings of the human condition, the more they discredit themselves and the less they will be listened to.

DO BISHOPS READ/LISTEN? ........... Thanks, Maureen, for those prophetic words and the cite to your very relevant book. Judging by the pope and bishops' current "anti-contraception crusade", they do not listen when it comes to legislating sexual morality for all Americans, including non-Catholics. The pope has not heard, it appears, of the US Constitution's prohibition against establishing a State/Church and has apparently confused religious liberty with religious tyranny.

For more info on the pope and bishops' two year old masterplan against women's reproductive health rights, including contraception, as well as against gay marriage, please read the comment, including relevant cross-links, entitled, "Papal Ploy Planned in 2009", readily accessible by clicking on at:

http://ncronline.org/blogs/distinctly-catholic/gops-b-team

The Church has been against remarriage after divorce and hasn't changed on that. What has changed is they've learned to tolerate it.

I think this is a good way to deal with same sex marriage.

"There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader."

Thanks for this article. Gay marriage is coming for reasons of both God's love and because of ideals of our own constitution, that each of us is to be respected and treated equally with respect to rights and responsibilities as citizens. It took a long time to throw off "traditions" that taught us that slavery was not a sin and women were "inherently" incapable of ordering their own lives. Now we are seeing that gay people are, in fact, as natural as being left-handed or red-headed.

The Holy Spirit is at work.

You are obsessed with gay marriage. Many religious denominations are also against gay marriage in addition to the majority of African Americans. Christie has it right; let the voters decide. Whenever the question has appeared on a ballot, it has been defeated. According to you, no one listens to the bishops so how do you explain the ballot results?

Maybe the Church's prophetic voice on ALL issues of marriage is that of those who have received the Sacrament of Marriage--and have UNIQUELY experienced how the Holy Spirit works within a marriage. The voices of those who never have received this sacrament surely must be heard and respected, but as Catholics we must assign primacy on a "subject at hand" to those who have been guided by sacramental grace. Not asking for a poll, but am asking for respect for the voices that have been granted wisdom. The alternative is an arrogant, "What do those married people know about marriage?"

Words. In the English language often have multiple meanings Marriage can be a sacrament and or a legal action. leave to Caesar what is Caesars.

The young are accepting of SSM precisely because mainstream culture (and liberal catholics) have redefined it away from a presumably generative union of man and woman, exclusive and permanent in nature to an exercise in adult fullfillment, based on love. They've grown up in this week marriage culture, experienced divorce and see a basically worthless institution and figure why not allow gays? I mean they're not going to stand up for something that their parents won't even stand up for. Afterall their parents likely divorced and they've seen serial marriages and been the victim of them... marriage is sort of a joke to them so what's the fuss all about!?

Liberal catholics took marriage from a presumably generative union of man and woman, permanent in nature and exclusive to one partner to a squishy squashy adult fullfillment union based on the 1960s ethos of "all you need is love."
All you need to do is look at the time the divorce rates went up to see where the initial redefinition of marriage took place.

Gay/SSM is but a further push in that direction. In a sense if "gay marriage" is all about love between two adults (why stop there?), it started in the 1960s, just not with gays. I see this as a continuous assault starting in the 1960s and culminating in gay marriage.

I like my gay friends, but I also believe society and man, woman and child is better served by keeping the truth in marriage. Truth trumps a transient notion of equality.

It is scandalous to see the Bishops so eagerly riding this issue. They marginalize some of their own people and are complicit in teen suicides. I am tired of them seeking funding for the New Evangelization while wasting literally millions on destructive anti-gay programs that drive young people away from the Church.

Just a further redefinition from the left

In 1960 marriage was on average:
1. One man, one woman
2. Presumably generative
3. Permanent
4. Exclusive

In 1995 marriage was on average:
1. One man, one woman
2. Presumably generative
3. Not really permanent (see divorce rates)
4. Not really exclusive

In 2012 marriage is:
1. Not really a man and woman
2. Not presumably generative
3. Not permanent
4. Not exclusive

So what is left of marriage to aspire to in our young people? why would they ever bother to join. Don't you see? The equality issue is the trojan horse that makes us all feel morally superior and kind warm and fuzzy but all you're doing is killing off what young men and women used to aspire to. Good luck with the consequences of that...

What can ordinary catholics do to discourage bishops around the country from sending anti-gay marriage funds to Maryland, as they did to California and Maine, to name two other states?

The Episcopal bishops saw "the handwriting on the wall" and ordained a gay bishop and blessed same sex unions. The Episcopal church has lost hundreds of thousands of members because of its actions. If the present rate continues, there will be no more Episcopal church.

It would be encouraging to see the Bishops speak out against calumny with the same vehemence that they have thundered against women's reproductive rights, women in the priesthood and full communion for LGBT Catholics.
It is shameful to see Catholicism represented by the likes of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich who spew poisonous lies about the President's faith with not a word of reproach from the Bishops. WHY?
http://freecatholic808.com/2012/02/23/lenten-diary-1-ash-wednesday-calumny/

Quite frankly the issue of who one LOVES and wishes to commit to is a SECULAR PRIVATE DECISION protected by our freedom of association and other rights guaranteed by SECULAR law. The clash of Church and State is finally - thank God - coming to a head in our land. We have a feudal mindset within our institutional Church which still thinks Church authority is still primary and civil law is trumped. Under that feudal system much harm was done to innocent persons who dared disagree and to non-believers who were persecuted for the same. Church Law and teaching is"binding" on the Catholic Faithful and no other. Even then, as put forth in the Catechism concerning conscience - conscience is primary - not Church law or teaching - especially in religious matters. A person CAN NOT AND SHOULD NOT be coerced or forced to ignore conscience when it collides with Church thinking/teaching. Yet, our Bishops threaten excommunication, withdrawal of Catholic Charities' aid to the poor (as in D.C. last year when marriage equality became law). This is not Christlike - He NEVER condemned nor forced a single person to obey His teachings/directives.
The FINAL TEMPORAL solution will be secular and in the Supreme Court.

Maureen, it is like arm wrestling entrophy.

What has to change is the structure of the Church - it needs women and it needs married men integrated into the voices it is willing to hear. That means male and female, married and unmarried clergy, all the way up the line. It also needs the voice of the people of the Church, expressed in the election of bishops, in the selection of their own local parish priest, in ownership of the property of the Church that their local money created, and in the oversight of bishops and priests in how money is spent.

The Church of today is removed from life lived today - a high flying cloud over a desert at night - dissipating for lack of sun and moisture.

Increasingly (no pun intended) gay marriages often have children involved, adoption too. Oscar Wilde fathered two children, and was gay. Many in the world have a parent or grandparent who was gay. Gays often have children.

So gays are generative too, whether through adoption or being in a man-woman relationship for a time before acknowledging their same-sex reality.
I agree that same-sex marriage should be legal and have no discrimination.

Homosexuals and lesbians are a reality and part of God's plan.

If the government has the power to force the Church to pay for birth control through its health insurance coverage, why should I not worry that the government has the power to force the Church to recognize gay marriage? Will the government force the Church to recognize same sex marriage and require them to provide the same health care insurance to a domestic partner as they do to religiously married people? Will the government intervene if the Church fires a person for homosexual activity?

I am for gay marriage in a civil context as a Constitutional issue; but I worry that this government will make it into a religious issues.

I wish our recently retired bishop were still in office. He looked after his flock, guiding, encouraging. Before the 2008 presidential election our diocesan paper had several pages on the church's position on voting for a candidate. It was quite nuanced and said that only if the main reason you vote for a candidate is because he favors current abortion law -- only then might it wrong to vote that way. Or something like that. You could also factor in that the candidate most pro public welfare would reduce the number of abortions more so than the other candidate who pushed welfare cuts. And you could factor in other pro-life positions, such as no unjust war, no death penalty, and pro wealth redistribution by progressive taxation. It was not just one issue narrowly and simplistically considered. These were church guidlines, not his personal opinion.

How he would have responded to the current flaps, I don't know. But I don't see him circulating the anti-HHS letter and signing it as his own, as our new bishop did. He may have written his own letter that would have been gentle, caring, reflective and prayerful. He was a very effective administrator, but he never jumped directly into politics, as the whole lot of them have these days. He would have carefully considered the render to Caesar what is Caesar's biblical quote.

As long as the Church's leadership has a unyielding grip on Scripture and Tradition, it will resist the insights and knowledge of psychology regarding homosexual orientation. They may as well be in the 16th Century railing against Galileo and threatening him with excommunication because he claimed the universe was heliocentric. The Church somehow catches up, often too late and out of breath. Eventually I am confident that the issue of sexual orientation will be removed as an "intrinsic evil" however, I sincerely hope it doesn't take 500 years, lol. I vividly recall our previous pope restoring Galileo's status, wow, it only took the Church 500 years to acknowledge it made a mistake, that's courageous and humble!

Popes throughout the years have dictated from the Vatican the evils of man, and yet blood, bastard children, and cover ups exist through the history of the Papl office. Wars fought, the crusades, the burning of witches, the Spanish Inquisition, and even current events have Bishops throughout the country under fire for their roles in cover up operations of Child Abuse, and yet with Bibles in Hand they preach and try to effect the law when in fact their own infastructure could use a good audit itself.

As a gay man my marriage to my husband has outlasted the 2 wives and a few girl friends of my brother. We've helped our families financially, volunteered our time and money to many charities and our neighbors run to us when they are in troube. So telling me that our "Marriage" or the strength of our love or commitment is not worthy of the word marriage; and therefore we should settle for a Civil Union is Like Telling Rosa Parks, that the bus ride from the back of the bus in the colored section is just as good as the bus ride in the front of the bus, and if the bus driver moves that line, while so be it.

The ridiculous nature of telling someone that they are less of a child of God for simply being the person God Created Us To be is the same shame that only allowed black people to ride in the back of the bus, drink from seperate facets, use seperate bathrooms, and be allowed to serve but not to be considered equal.

I grew up Catholic, was very active at our church and now find myself now not contributing or participated in the Church. I have seen so many churches close, catholic schools shut down, and constant cutbacks in outreach. Dolan spent far too much time trying to influence the vote in Albany, and all the while the homeless huddled in the doorways of the churches throughout NYC covered in cardboard and hungry. The church has spent millions to prevent two gay people from being "married", I wonder how many lives that money would have saved. Millions of dollars spent by the Knights of Columbus to fight gay marriage, and yet people die of cancer everyday, and children die of startvation, but their priorities were to fight my love, and not feed the starving. I'd hate to answer to Jesus for that one, you fought the creation of a legal contract between two loving people, while others starved, cold and hungry were met with locked doors and now help. Hmmm ... not the best job annual review to say the least.

The Roman Catholic church considers many civil marriages to be sacramentally invalid: marriages between people previously divorced, marriages between non-Christians. Given that the Church is able to function in the civil sphere with these invalid marriages including people in a state of adultery and sexual sin, it is difficult to understand why the CHurch finds it so difficult to deal with one more example of civilly legal but sacramentally invalid marriage, ie that between gay couples.

Additionally, no church is forced to marry anyone; after all, when was the last time that you heard of a church sued by previously divorced people for the right to marry in the RC tradition? This fact shows that the hysteria over marriage between same sex couples as a "religious freedom" issue is entirely manufactured... and deliberately false, which reflects poorly on the Bishops.

Polls show that this obsession with sex issues is a major driving force as to why young people leave the RC Church. Civil marriage will come for gay couples. Some churches will choose to acknowledge this, just as some churches choose to recognize divorced couples remarrying. And the Episcopal parish I attend is growing in leaps and bounds, with about half of the new members disaffected RC. Many of them are young parents, wanting to raise their children in a liturgical church where all couples, gay and straight, are called to a life of faithfulness, commitment, and love.

(Not to mention one where women are welcome on the altar.)

IT