In Maryland, a 21st century church-state exchange

Gov. O'Malley appears to be and sounds very much like a Catholic with a well-informed conscience. I cannot presume to know or judge the merits of his intentions but his reasoning is both credible and moral. The Church may need to admit it is not the only organization that possesses a moral compass and lately, theirs is in need of repair.....

Now there's a model for how a politician should conduct a disagreement with a churchman: no shouting, lots of courtesy, and clear and reasoned arguments. Megaphone diplomacy has limited value.

Sounds like the Governor understands community needs better than the Bishop.

Aleluia! This is indeed a dialogue bethween two MEN, not a monologue from a feudal landlord to his serf. I hope the example set by both can multiply and fructify.

In the 19th century, especially where the new wave of secularism and anti-clericalism was running strong (the influence of the French Revolution's ideas), the Church objected to states (duchies, republics, kingdoms, city-states, etc.) getting involved in marriage "licensing" -- and authorizing civil wedding services where they had not been previously permitted.

Then, many years ago, when the Church stopped objecting to society having "civil" weddings available, it was not seen as an admission by the Church that the state could administer the sacrament of matrimony. And the Church has always invited those who are living together via a civil marriage to regularize their marriage (e.g., if they are converting, or wish to return to the sacraments). In that sense, the Church has clearly not stopped its disapproval of civil weddings. But the Church has not been condemning legislators, when they pass legislation that affects civil marriages: in that sense, the Church has stopped objecting to civil weddings and marriages.

Perhaps some such approach by the Catholic clergy's hierarchy towards Catholic legislators, executives and jurists whose civil duties involve them dealing with issues associated with single-sex unions (by any name, including "marriage") will be found. We don't need Catholic government figures publicly barred from the sacraments because they decide to either (a) vote in favor of there being such unions; (b) funding the offices of judges who perform such ceremonies; or (c) act to include data gleaned about such ceremonies in population censuses, (d) etc.

I think we all know some mature adults who believe that they themselves will benefit from the sense of stability that such ceremonies may help provide them. And we can say this without becoming heathen.

Let me turn from mature adults to young children. Here, I reserve my opinion about having minors raised by a single-sex couple. (And of course, we are talking about infants and other young minors.) I have not read enough to have an opinion; thus, my reservation on this point is not from lack of charity or innate nastiness. I just don't know enough. Therefore, when bishops and the others (opposing the bishops) start talking about same-sex couple adoptions, I will listen to all points of view. The bishops by this time should know that as a group, they now lack moral authority, in the minds of most baptised Catholics, to address anything associated with child raising, sex and sexuality, and so I do hope that they are careful in presenting their considered arguments. The others will have to be careful, too. ("Get with it!" and "It's our right to raise children!" "Equal protection!" are insanely inadequate arguments.) People like myself will be listening.

This is not about the adults. This is about the very youngest in our society. Let's be very, very careful.

What a polite argument and how refreshing! Oh, each gets his digs in. Bishop O'Brien accuses Governor O'Malley of acting out of political expediency. Governor O'Malley calls him on it, talking about injustice under the law.

But politely, no name calling, no demonizing. Maybe all politicians should only be allowed to argue in writing.

I say let's go tit-for-tat Maybe all references to any bishops' motive for doing anything should end with the phrase. "we think your only reason for doing this is that it will help the climb up the episcopal ladder'

Maryland Gov. O'Malley to Baltimore Archbishop O'Brien:
“… I respect your freedom to disagree with me as a citizen and as a religious leader without questioning your motives”. Oh, how it rings of dry Irish wit.

What a marvelous comeuppance the Governor gave to the Archbishop.

Is the motivating force “mere political expediency” verses “homophobia on steroids’? No.
Rather, it is a governor showing true Christian Values verses the archbishop’s adherence to the institutional church’s Current Teachings.

Our Lord and the RCC are not consubstantial. I stand with Christ.

Render to the state that which is civil; and to the church, that which is sacramental.
Treat and respect them and theirs as you would have them treat you and yours.

Church vs. State and Christian