The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Printer-friendly version
PDF versionCatholic NY state senators face gay marriage vote
by Jamie L Manson on Jun. 13, 2011
Mr. Lanza, who is Roman Catholic and voted against same-sex marriage in 2009, found himself on the phone recently with a priest he has known for three decades. The priest was adamant. Redefining marriage, he told Mr. Lanza, “would cause more harm than good for everyone involved,” he recalled.
In an article in the regional section of today’s New York Times, Michael Barbaro examines four members of a group of New York State Senator’s who have come to be known as the “Undecided Eight.”
They are “undecided” about how they will vote this week on the legalization of gay marriage. Their eight votes will determine the outcome.
Three of the four senators profiled in this piece are Italian Catholics. One of them is Staten Island’s Andrew Lanza, who shares a story about an exchange that he had with his priest. The striking account of their conversation not only shows Lanza using his primacy of conscience, but also overcoming his own internalized clericalism:
Mr. Lanza objected, politely but pointedly. “My faith is an important part of my life and always has been,” he recalled telling the priest. “But nowhere can I find there being anything in my faith that is inconsistent with people being able to pursue their true selves.”
It was the first time he can recall sparring with a priest, and the experience seemed to have left him slightly rattled.
Follow your conscience & vote
Follow your conscience & vote no, please!
Why?????????? Dan Pickett
Why??????????
Dan Pickett
You can't tell someone to
You can't tell someone to follow their conscience and then tell them what that is.
Would this not be the
Would this not be the establishment of religion, forbidden by our US Constitution?
The sacrament of Matrimony is inviolate, and apart, and unaffected by whatever bizarre legal arrangements the secular state provides for the testamentory sake of those who choose otherwise.
Our only recourse is conversion, and so far we do not really make ourselves look very attractive, or welcoming . . .
If "marriage" is inviolate,
If "marriage" is inviolate, so too should be divorce.
Four senators are known as
Four senators are known as The Undecided EIGHT? What are they undecided about - math? Is there any independent corroboration of the conversation with the priest? Journalism 101 would require that. And how did you decide that the opinions of one priest constitute clericalism? If the priest had supported gay marriage, would that also have been clericalism? Is Anthony Weiner's sexting an example of "lay-ism?" Is irresponsible journalism an example of the new feminism?
No. The article reads:
No. The article reads: "Michael Barbaro examines four members of a group" of eight senators. Barbaro examined only half of the group, which is four.
No. The math is decisive.
let me further research the rest of your questions and get back to you, Lidia, unless you are not really expecting a response here.
ok, having resolved for you
ok, having resolved for you the thorny math problem by revealing in the text that the reporter only "examined" half of the group, let us move on to the third of your questions.
Apparently the phone line was not tapped, and we must trust the senator's account of the phone conversation, unless you wish to call the priest for his recollection.
Have you taken Journalism 101? Where? What were the requisites?
Clericalism is not being defined here as the opinion of one priest, but the internalized psychological control phenomenon within the senator, I think, as suggested by the phrase "overcoming his own internalized clericalism." CLericalism thus may be suggested here as hearing fearfully the priest, right or wrong, no matter what one may clearly conclude from other sources. This theredfore is not the "opinions of one priest" but a phenomenon of fearful obedience to any priest. It is not the opinion in itself, as you ask "If the priest had supported gay marriage, would that also have been clericalism?" but the fear and anxiety in response to Father.
You then ask "Is Anthony Weiner's sexting an example of "lay-ism?" and I can find no basis for this in the article and must therefore leave the answer to this question to someone with greater familiarity with what it is to which you refer. I also find the question "Is irresponsible journalism an example of the new feminism?" equally obscure, but have found this writer's articles always highly responsible, ethical, necessary, just, insightful, straightforward, and helpful.
In fact, wait a minute, does Jamie teach Journalism 101? Or is that Heidi? Both are very fine and responsible journalists, and a great grace to this journal, and your slur upon a suggested "new feminism" based solely upon the reporter's gender suggests in turn you worship at the dark high altar of the unholy Saint Misogynist, who requires women keep silent in the kitchen.
If anything I find the closing phrase "slightly rattled" bears too subtle a qualifier.
Perhaps you prefer the rather shabby journalism over at Mr. Winter's blog?
Lydia may find this fact
Lydia may find this fact answers at least two of her questions here:
"(Manson's) columns for NCR earned her a first prize Catholic Press Association award for Best Column/Regular Commentary in 2010"
Lydia might also visit Manson's column called "Priest's pornography case reveals clericalism of the laity" for a deeper understanding of the definition of clericalism.
Secular common sense forbids
Secular common sense forbids any treatment of same-sex sexual relationships as of enough worth to be treated as marriages.The evolution of sexual dimorphism in a species necessarily determines opposite-sex sexual relationships to be exclusively normative for that species.As a reasoning species we must comprehend that all failures to adhere to that norm are to be deplored,and as a civilization we must convey that they are to be discouraged.
Marriage either serves the purpose of guaranteeing opposite-sex relationships the preferential treatment to which their being opposite-sex entitles them,or it serves no purpose at all;and as a lifelong New Yorker I will never marry in this state if same-sex marriage is not stopped.
There is no necessity to invoke matters of religion,or of reproductive intent or capacity,or the sex acts involved;the public interest begins and ends with upholding the pattern of relationships being opposite-sex and leaving all else to take care of itself.Neither can those minded to violate this fundamental standard of conduct legitimately claim that their desire to violate it should exempt them from it or render the standard "discrimination" or an act of hatred.
Nice position paper, Lou, but
Nice position paper, Lou, but can you please fill in the blanks in the reasoning here:
"The evolution of sexual dimorphism in a species necessarily determines opposite-sex sexual relationships to be exclusively normative for that species.As a reasoning species we must comprehend that all failures to adhere to that norm are to be deplored,and as a civilization we must convey that they are to be discouraged."
Must we comprehend this, as a reasoning species, when so many reason otherwise? The compulsory nature of your reasoning eludes me.
What happens in some animal species in severely overcrowded environments with limiting resources?
What is the antecedent for your final "they" in this citation? "failures?"
How do you convey this discouragement?
" . . .as a lifelong New Yorker I will never marry in this state if same-sex marriage is not stopped."
and I shall hold my breathe until coal driven power plants stop polluting the atmosphere, bringing on global warming . . .
the "they" refers to "all
the "they" refers to "all failures to adhere to that norm."
I don't necessarily agree, but that is what Lou is saying.
“But nowhere can I find there
“But nowhere can I find there being anything in my faith that is inconsistent with people being able to pursue their true selves.”
Our faith is all about pursuing our true selves. Our true selves are children of God who has given us the free-will to know Him, love Him and serve Him so that someday we may be with Him in heaven.
Post new comment