The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionGay marriage, bishops and the crisis of leadership
An NCR editorial
Jul. 05, 2011The vote approving same-sex marriage in New York is the latest and most glaring confirmation of some gloomy news for the Catholic church in the United States, and it’s not that gays have achieved the right to marry.
Rather, affirmed in the recent vote is the disturbing reality that the Catholic hierarchy has lost most of its credibility with the wider culture on matters of sexuality and personal morality, just as it has lost its authority within the Catholic community on the same issues. There are reasons -- and they have little to do with secularism, relativism or lingering influences of the wild 1960s -- why people are no longer listening to the bishops.
While we don’t want to minimize the seriousness of the concern of some over a societal redefinition of marriage, there are reasons we think the bishops’ hyperbolic reaction to laws such as that enacted in New York are not only wrong-headed but counterproductive.
First, even if bishops retained the stature they once had in the wider culture, it is evident in polls and politicians’ votes that neither most of the Catholic world nor the wider culture buys the church’s teaching that homosexuals are disordered and are thus relegated to sexless lives in order to remain in the Christian community.
A recent Quinnipiac University poll of registered New York voters found that 70 percent of voters say protestations of the law from religious leaders made no difference in their decision to support or reject it. According to Maurice Carroll, director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, “On gay marriage, many of the people in the pews split with their bishops.”
That attitude does not spring so much from a stance of defiance, as some bishops would assert, but more from the experience of gays and lesbians themselves and their parents and siblings, extended family and friends who increasingly understand gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered persons as far more than the sum of their sexual orientation while also understanding that sexuality is at the core of a person’s identity.
To parents of a gay child, the idea that a group of men can claim to know the mind of God so perfectly that they can proclaim with unyielding certainty that God deems a significant portion of creation “disordered” is absurd. The label is not only demeaning but to contemporary Christians has no resonance with the heart of the Gospel.
To be sure, legislative battles are messy affairs. In Albany, the state’s bishops were embarrassingly outmaneuvered by Gov. Andrew Cuomo, a divorced Catholic and parent; by the pro-gay-marriage lobby; and by both Democrats and Republicans. The bishops’ lobbying apparatus is a fangless relic. It is not a formidable opponent to seasoned political operators and elected officials, and it lacks any real threat of reprisal, the currency of politics.
NCR: February 17-March 1, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- Conscience Roundup
Hear what theologians, commentators, and our editors have to say about the contraception mandate
- Special Section: Religious Life
Work of missioners, past and future; African meetings; and more
- Tribute to a Peacemaker
New York's Pax Christi fetes Daniel Berrigan
If the bishops actually want laws to reflect Catholic values, they need a new, more sophisticated and potent model of legislative engagement.
Second, even if the bishops had a persuasive case to make and the legislative tools at their disposal, their public conduct in recent years -- wholesale excommunications, railing at politicians, denial of honorary degrees and speaking platforms at Catholic institutions, using the Eucharist as a political bludgeon, refusing to entertain any questions or dissenting opinions, and engaging in open warfare with the community’s thinkers as well as those, especially women, who have loyally served the church -- has resulted in a kind of episcopal caricature, the common scolds of the religion world, the caustic party of “no.”
As if on cue, after the vote Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio declared by fiat that his diocese is “not to bestow or accept honors, nor to extend a platform of any kind to any state elected official, in all our parishes and churches for the foreseeable future.”
In their reaction to the vote, the Catholic bishops of New York wrote: “While our culture seems to have lost a basic understanding of marriage, we Catholics must not. We must be models of what is good, holy and sacred about authentic sacramental marriage.”
The statement might raise legitimate alarms if, indeed, the state law signaled that the Catholic ideals and sacramental life were actually under attack. They aren’t. Nicholas Cafardi has some excellent advice for the bishops (see story) regarding their ongoing battle over same-sex marriage: “We need to give it up. This is not defeatism. This is simply following Jesus in the Gospels, who besides telling us not to act on our fears, also told us to render to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s. Civil marriage is Caesar’s. If Caesar wants to say that you can only get married on Tuesdays, wearing a blue suit and a red tie, that is Caesar’s call. The sacrament of matrimony is God’s. It is valid only when invoked between a baptized man and a baptized woman, in the presence of two witnesses and the spouses’ proper ordinary or pastor or his delegate. Caesar has no say in this.”
The larger problem for the hierarchy, of course, is not persuading the secular culture of its point of view on sacramental marriage, but persuading its own adherents, and particularly young Catholics who now tend to drift off in scores before adulthood, that staying attached to the church is a compelling good, that the church is in fact relevant and will draw them closer to Christ and thus the freedom and fullness of a life of faith.
The bishops have little credibility in the wider culture and diminished authority within the church because in the case of sexual violence against young people by members of their clerical culture, they responded in ways that any reasonable and healthy segment of society would have considered disdainful.
Archbishop Timothy Dolan, he of the wide smile, ready handshake and outsized laugh, was to be the church’s antidote to the cool and distant manner of his predecessor, Cardinal Edward Egan, who was a public relations nightmare from the start. But a love for beer and a hot dog from the cart outside the cathedral will only get you so far.
Dolan’s rising star presumably carries with it a stamp of papal favor. The show “60 Minutes,” in its own hyperbolic burst, dubbed him the “American pope.” And senior NCR correspondent John Allen, who has conducted a book-length interview with Dolan, has written that in other circumstances the archbishop of New York “could easily have been a U.S. senator or a corporate CEO.”
That may or may not be the case, but as senator or CEO, Dolan would be held to standards of accountability that no bishop will ever face. Politicians, we know, can be run out of office and business leaders are held, however imperfectly, to standards of performance and ethics. Some of them land in jail.
In reaction to the marriage vote, Dolan stretched to call up the specter of what remains of the Red menace. On his blog he wrote that in China and North Korea “government presumes daily to ‘redefine’ rights, relationships, values and natural law.” In those countries, he says, government dictates the size of families, who can live and die, and what defines marriage. “Please, not here!” he begs. The comparison, of course, is absurd on its face, a kind of hysteria that demands that someone listen when so few are.
The vote in New York sends a strong message to Catholic leadership. The danger is not in the vote itself. The danger they face is far deeper -- a crisis of leadership and authority for which they have only themselves to blame.
Related coverage:
- Bishops condemn NY marriage law, other Catholics celebrate, Joshua J. McElwee and Zoe Ryan
- RI bishops: No civil unions for Catholics, Catholic News Service
- Civil marriage is for Caesar to decide, not the church, Nicholas P. Cafardi
- Gay marriage, bishops and the crisis of leadership, an NCR editorial
This opinion piece was echoed
This opinion piece was echoed at the many July 4th gatherings I atended here in NY. Everyone was angry at the interference the bishops tried to make during deliberations on the issue. People from other faiths wondered why the bishops would try to impose their view on their churches which had no problem with gay marriage. Catholics wondered about their bishops opposition since this was a civil manner and the state was protecting the church from having to perform same sex marriages. The sad part was that everyone agreed the bishops should mind their own business, and get their own house in order first. The bishops interference only increased the anger and disgust that people, both Catholic and non-Catholic, feel about the church.
We need to start electing our bishops!
Bishops giving us lectures on
Bishops giving us lectures on denying communion to gays and politicians who vote for gay marriage when these same bishops permitted their own clergy to continue to say Mass and dispense the sacraments knowing they had not repented of their crimes against children, continued to lie to the police and the district attorney, or used diocesan funds to keep victims quiet is a mountain of sacrilege. They are living lives of perfidious behavior, an example of a whitened sepulcher in a purple dress at work.
Very well said!
Very well said!
Do as I say do not as I do
Do as I say do not as I do would seem to be the guiding principle for the bishops. Hypocrisy has no limits. Thank you for your comment.
I agree with your
I agree with your comments.Quite apart from the impotence of the Catholic hierarchy, gay rights is another issue that came with the original American promise of equality that was only true then for white men, then included black men, then fianlly women and now lastly gay people. It was an elastic promise whose fullfilment took time. The hierarchy of the Church is completely out of touch with both the American promise and more so Jesus' promise " Love thy neighbor as you love thyself." I have dear gay friends who have been together for more than 25 years, more time than most marriages last these days and for whom my husband and I, both committed Catholics, are happy. They will get married as this is important to them. Life is complicated and Jesus was not a conventional person with easy promises.... Bishops, please reflect a bit more and " check in" as our littel grandson often says.
All the "writers" that seem
All the "writers" that seem to think their opinion is worth reading are only projecting a wordly "sheep" view of the whole problem of what is right and wrong morally. The bishops are projecting the moral view as to keep their "flock" from thinking that just because "ceaser" has proclaimed a "right", it makes it ok for everyone to do it. This has been the case of abortion. And I might say, the heirachy did not put out their message of morality soon enough on that issue!
All people of faith should realize that there definitely is a devil, the same as there is God and he is working overtime to sway souls to his side -so to speak. I believe the bishops do not bring morality and the devil, into the issues as much as they should.
I am adding this -you may want to delete it if you think it is too outspoken -there is not much difference between a gay lifestyle and contraception, they are both mutual masterbastion.
The bishops and priests do not speak out enough on the contraception issue because 1/3 or more of their flock are following the guidelines that "society" has proclaimed ok and many of their flock are going to lose their souls because of it. The bishops will be directly responsible for those souls if they do not lead their flock instead of following and letting the wolves in to mutilate souls for the devil's glee! They are finally speaking out and it's about time!
It seems to me that comparing
It seems to me that comparing abortion with sexual orientation is not morally rational.
Catholic morality clearly admits that one does not choose one's orientation, thus no choice, thus no moral dilemma. Abortion is a moral decision to terminate a potential pregnancy (the church herself does not even claim that we know EXACTLY when life begins and thus errs on the side of caution, however, my sense is that the majority of abortions are done AFTER pregnancy is confirmed).
I know, some will say as does the church, the decision to be sexually active is a moral choice. True enough. For gay, straight, single, divorced, widowed, adolescent, etc. My response, every human being is called to love and be loved. How we live that out, I believe, is the heart of our discipleship. It follows, therefore, that when one chooses to be sexually active and becomes pregnant one has already made her choice.
For me, a practicing Catholic mother of a wonderful gay son who is coming up on his tenth anniversary with his wonderful partner, the issues of gay marriage are a about civil rights, things that pertain to hospital visitation, employment and housing, etc.
Those who fear that marriage will be undermined and society ruined might want to look at the state of marriage in heterosexual unions. I'm guessing most have plenty of stories of marriages that were anything but holy let alone "ordered."
So, perhaps each of us might look into our own hearts and when we have the courage and wisdom to see that if something frightens us (which I believe for many that is the underlying motivation for anti-gay rhetoric) or hurts us, perhaps OUR quality of life will be greatly enhanced if we can just have the humility to see the good in others (even when they hurt or frighten us) and in the name of all that is holy refrain from anything that even comes close to violent speech towards those who are gay, immigrant and even the bishops, etc. Perhaps praying for them, and ourselves, when we're tempted to condemn might actually bring about the change that only G-d can bring. I think it's called conversion.
BTW, one of my greatest joys comes from seeing the faithful, joyful, mutual, committed love between my son and his partner. Too bad my Catholic husband and I did not have that kind of union. Go figure. Most people do the best they can. For me, being Catholic means I have a faith community that both challenges and consoles me in that journey. It's made me realize too that for some of our bishops, they are just as frightened and broken as the rest of us and I remember that it is the Spirit that makes the church holy, not us who too often give in to sin.
Thanks for listening.
"The bishops and priests do
"The bishops and priests do not speak out enough on the contraception issue because 1/3 or more of their flock are following the guidelines that "society" has proclaimed ok and many of their flock are going to lose their souls because of it."
One does not "lose' one's soul because one is not willing to submit to Catholic teachings and thus wind up in labor and delivery on an annual basis.
And if that is still some gold standard in the church, you know, threatening hell for those who will not bend over and submit to Rome and the hierarchy, then one does not have to go far in realizing the demise of the church, as we type, because of their sick obsession with absolute obedience to them.
Who is going to wind up in hell (in accordance with your context of hell, the afterlife, etc, --not mine--)?? Those obsessed with power and control over their adherents and thus using people as commodities for their institutional goals.
Those who act responsibly with respect to family planning effective that is)??
None at all.
Typical "Anonymous" reaction:
Typical "Anonymous" reaction: "...and many of their flock are going to lose their souls...[t]he bishops will be directly responsible for those souls..."
This is "orthotoxicity" in words.
"And Jesus continues to weep over all those who make the Father into a mean-spirited s.o.b."
God's love is *unconditional*!
What is it about this reality you don't understand???
Just keep on trying to
Just keep on trying to terrorize people with your comments. Fewer and fewer are listening
You should instead be screaming blue murder at how the catholic hierarchy gave the world the hatred of the Jews, because they wouldn't convert.
A hatred that hitler leveraged to gain power and 55 million died.
And the church has yet to EXcommunicate that monster, born and baptised catholic in very catholic Austria in 1888. The reasons are obvioous - it would have to Excommunicate the church as well
www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm shows the connection between the hierarchy and why the church was untouched during the war.
And go read Benedict - his battle with the modern world - by Gibson.
who explains how Benedict is a totalitarian who would take the church backwards to the dark ages.
Our whole extended catholic family - 43 people - only a couple of the older folks still go to church.
the rest of us find happieness and support for our gay and lesbian brtothers and sisters in the Episcopal and Evangelical Lutheran and Presbyterian USA churches.
Free at last.
What is very disturbing to me
What is very disturbing to me is the statement made by the editorial writer that "some" may be concerned about the new law in New York. Have we gone so far in our Church that only "some Catholics" are disturbed? The answer is, yes.
To blame this state of the Church on our bishops is the human thing to do. after all, we cannot blame ourselves. That would be going too far!
We Catholic Americans have bought totally into the American "ideal" of the human being as a complete entity unto himself. We do not recognize as Buber stated, that without the "you" there is no "I". And as Ratzinger stated, there is also no "we".
Until Catholic men and women return to the belief that Jesus founded one Church grounded on the apostles and that the bishops, sinners though they be, are the legitimate successors to the apostles, we will struggle against an "enemy" (the hierarchy) that really is not our enemy but our friend who tries mightily to bring each of us to salvation.
Jesus wasnt a corporations,
Jesus wasnt a corporations, he didnt layout political leadership with Bishops, Cardinals and all those who protect the secrecy of the Vatican. If something is of the Light there is no reason to have secrets or deceptions. The Church needs to keep its own steps swept off or they should have their coushie Tax Exempt Status pulled. Preach but dont mandate laws against human rights.
These bishops are unfit to
These bishops are unfit to serve any longer. It would be better if they all stepped down before they embarrass themselves and the Catholic Church further.
Edward Lewis, Bishops,
Edward Lewis, Bishops, whether they are "successors" to the apostles or not, are capable of poor leadership or no leadership at all. They've demonstrated that abundantly in recent years as they often have in the history of Church. The gospels and the patristic writers as witnesses of the gospels are the rule of faith, not these pompous, arrogant pontificating charlatans who continually set themselves up as the guardians of "orthodoxy".
You want "orthodoxy"? You'll more likely to find it by spending a little time in a good public library before you find it in episcopal ukases emanating from these self-serving bureaucrats. The age of the "teaching Church",if it isn't over, it is surely dying a quick death on the vine.
Thank you,sir. No one at NCR
Thank you,sir. No one at NCR is concerned about gay marriage or the gospel. All they're concerned about is trying to survive until, hopefully, this pope dies and the tide of history goes their way. So they pander to the fringe element in the church by writing whatever it takes to keep their subscription base happy. In this case, they want us to believe that Jesus endorsed [gay sex]. That's OK with them, because they don't really believe anything. They don't really do anything. All they can do anymore is whine about anything that doesn't endorse their lifestyle. It's a damn shame, because NCR used to stand for something.
Oh those "terrible they's"
Oh those "terrible they's" !!! Those "terrible they's" surely can't be Roman Catholics.....but surely "those they's" were loved by Jesus.
"Without you there is no I"
"Without you there is no I" -- this could be a nice slogan for gays who want to marry.
Well said, Edward, but
Well said, Edward, but methinks NCR is far more Anglican in its wooly-mindedness on such quaint old notions as obedience to rightful authority.
Edward, You are absolutely
Edward,
You are absolutely ----twisting---- Buber's statement way, way beyond belief to justify obedience and submission to the hierarchy in the church. In no way was Buber defending the institutionalism of faith that the catholic church has done to its laity for centuries. And especially, in no way was Buber defending relationships based on a top-down and hierarchical model of humanity.
Start with Buber's "I and Thou" and do some research on his background before trying to use him to bolster your ideologies. He would be diametrically opposed to your usage here.
Some 15 or 20 years ago, I
Some 15 or 20 years ago, I wrote a letter to the (NCR) editor pointing out that there are many groups of faithful Catholics who have been faced with a perhaps unchosen celibacy and are making of their lives "something beautiful for God". The convictions I held then remain. There are the divorced and widowed, single people who have not found or been chosen by a partner, some perhaps who lack the emotional or physical attributes that make for one's being a "desirable choice". And, there are also consecrated religious keeping their vows of chastity. Somehow, many of these people are living admirable, fruitful, godly lives, managing without the solace and support of a spouse. It is possible. "If anyone would be my disciple, s/he must take up the cross and follow Me." We listen to the arguments that priestly celibacy is untenable, and, hence, the decline in vocations. We listen to the unending demands of homosexual couples insisting on not only civil unions, but "the right to marry". Have we lost touch with the "cost of discipleship" in this age of preoccupation with individual/"human rights"? There is more to life than even the beauty and sacredness of marriage. When the bishops, imperfect though they may be, try to be a voice for this, the rabble stones them. In this battle, methinks our society is veering further and further from what Jesus Christ had in mind for us.
With all due respect, I ask
With all due respect, I ask only if this is a choice you have made in your life, or are you asking others to do something you have not had to do yourself in order to "pick up your cross?" Are you certain that this is what Jesus meant when he used those words? It is not in the Bible that religious celibacy was a requirement to be a disciple.
"It is not in the Bible that
"It is not in the Bible that religious celibacy was a requirement to be a disciple."
Or even a priest, for that matter.
Rev. John, thanks for your
Rev. John, thanks for your gentle inquiry. Yes, I have had to walk this road - and, as noted, know many others faced with managing life without a partner and doing so chastely. Being divorced at a young age with small children was not easy on any level. A good priest pointed me to Nouwen's writings on silence, solitude and prayer, and I learned a good deal... more than I can say in this brief reply. It is 30 some years without a partner now (though that would have been nice) but not without love. Christ has loved me as no man or woman ever could and life has been and is deeply fulfilling and meaningful with him, with his grace. I realize many say they do not have the gift to live celibately. I don't judge anyone. But, I don't mind being a rare voice amid NCR readers to say that I have found peace in all this, this sometimes costly discipleship, as I see it, as I experience it. You ask if I chose this path. The state of singleness was thrust upon me, not exactly "chosen"; but, with time, I learned to accept it lovingly as part of the mosaic of a beautiful life, complete with joy and pain. Peace.
I too found myself in the
I too found myself in the same situation, but having a child, I never considered myself alone in the sense my gay friends did. I had, after all, at least one experience of not living alone, and still had the child that resulted from that union to share life with me. This has not been a particularly heavy cross, but then crosses are in the eyes of those who carry them.
Single mother says "methinks
Single mother says "methinks our society is veering further and further from what Jesus Christ had in mind for us."
In reply I say methinks the bishops and other RCC heirarchy have already veered too far from what Jesus Christ had in mind for us.
Your comments only make sense
Your comments only make sense if the population of our state or country was Catholic or at least Christian. The Church has every right to make rules for Catholics to follow, but why should the Church tell other people how to live? We do not need Christian Sharia law here.
There is no cost to
There is no cost to discipleship anymore. There is only the cost of a subscription to NCR, where you can read that Christ teaches us to have sex with anyone we want, and to blame the church for not blessing our adventures.
With all due respect, m'am,
With all due respect, m'am, you know how to write but apparently don't know how to read. I have yet to read anything from NCR telling us that (your words) "Christ teaches us to have sex with anyone we want."
You are engaging in eisegesis, i.e., reading (or trying to read?) something into a text that simply isn't there.
I appreciate your comments as
I appreciate your comments as they reflect a sincere and thoughtful tone. I believe, however, that our bishops have lost their way and within that when they do speak to specific issues and injustice their voice isn't heard; their own credibility has been so diminished by their own actions.
I agree wholeheartedly that "our society is veering further from what Jesus had in mind for us." Indeed, our society has never embraced or even begun to integrate what Jesus had in mind for us, and cannot because it doesn't listen to Jesus; our society is not about faithfulness to Christ or living out the gospel. In the US, that is Constitutionally an individual's choice. The need, then, for the Church to speak to the gospel direction and to the life of Jesus is vital. Yet, it too has strayed.
I do not support gay marriage. And I agree with you that individuals can lead a celibate life if need be. I believe people can live in deeply loving relationships. And I believe, as I think your response indicates, we need to re-examine the Word that Jesus gave us and see, first, if we are individually adhering to it, and then secondly how do we incorporate it in today's society. The US has a long, long ways to go before it can begin to assert that its ways resemble anything of the message of Jesus. If we begin to think our society is reflecting his word, or that our society is more up to date with the gospel, then we have missed his word. Having a group of Christians standing inside a garage does not make the garage a church or a holy place or a Christian garage.
My hope is that the Church
My hope is that the Church and its leaders do a better job communicating their beliefs to their congregations as opposed to relegating what they are unable to communicate effectively in our Wider Society's laws. In other words, it seems as though our leaders have given up on the moral high ground and decided to take the "low ground" by enshrining their beliefs in our civil laws. Civil laws should not be used as a weapon because our priests can't effectively get their views across to their congregation!
methinks our society is
methinks our society is veering further and further from what Jesus Christ had in mind for us.
Dear Single Mother,
I think, at least I hope that our society is veering away from a misunderstanding of what Jesus Christ had in mind for us.
There was a time, let it be never forgotten, when women who described themselves as 'single mothers' would have been abandoned by their families and ostracised by society. Thank Christ we have veered away from that sort of cruelty, along with other cruelties once perpetrated in the name of Christ.
Yours in the loving Christ,
Gerry.
and where is the support
and where is the support community for people who do not have a call to celibacy but are in this situation? Seems to me we just dust our hands off and say "do the right thing", and they're on their own....
It seems to me that if gay
It seems to me that if gay people marry, they will, like all married couples, at times carry tremendous crosses. Evangelical poverty, chastity, obedience, celibacy - these make their demands, but loving, cherishing, honoring, in sickness and in health, for richer, for poorer, forsaking all others until death is a strong mandate for selflessness...and that's before considering mortgages, squalling babies, cranky kids, troubled teenagerss and the costs of their education,career worries, medical bills, in-laws, personality quirks, moods, and all of the troubles of life. As one dear pastor joked with me more than once, spending time with families taught him to value his holy bachelorhood and celibacy - it was a lot less stressful than married life. If you weren't in love, how could you even consider such a life?
God is Love, says Saint John. Only Love. If all of our loves somehow emanate from that reality, then it seems logical that homoerotic attraction and love - the love that has had no name" - until now - are somehow included in, "abiding in" God's nature. Because of our fallen condition, all our love - of spouse, friend, child, parent, work, country,the wide world - is tainted in some way by egotism and selfishness, however virtuous a life we may seek. We all need God's grace to persevere in our Christian vocation to love.
So why pick on gay people? The bishops could seize this teachable moment in history and emphasize the self-sacrificing nature of Christan marriage. Instead of inviting dialogue, persuading a balky secularized population to reflect deeply on our shared complex humanity, they sound like soft-core bigots, Archie Bunker in clerical robes.
Sigh. If only....
As the mother of a wonderful,
As the mother of a wonderful, gay son...with this pardner for 22 years, I say AMEN!! WHo says the Church has to marry them? Let them have civil marriages for now so they can have the rights of other married couples. The Church is way behind in their thinking on this matter and others. No wonder so many of us no longer go to Church. Thanks for the article.
At least Anglicans were more
At least Anglicans were more willing to come to grips with a troubling image of gay marriage. Even clergy who opposed gay marriage were willing to deal with the liturgical dimension by conducting engagement or betrothal ceremonies for gay couples. Rome with it's customary rigidity and hypocrisy preferred to wrap itself in sacerdotal hand-wringing and phariseeism of the worst kind.
It's little wonder Catholicism is now dismissed by so many educated and younger people as little more than a police state run by kill joys. Party poopers going the way of the Puritans, and, like them, in search of that shining city upon a hill. Take me back to that golden age when the old men in the episcopate made life simple for everyone. The bishops do the thinking for you while all you have to do is obey.
A great life if you can get it,especially for those sitting on a throne with the funny hat.
So many of "us" no longer go
So many of "us" no longer go to Church. That's the way to defend the faith! Is the Mass, with holy Scripture and the Eucharist, no longer necessary for truth Catholic participation? PRACTICING Catholics are in accordance with the faith and the bishops' magisterium and authority. Further, your position, that the Church is sooo far behind the times, reflects not the Truth, nor the popular opinion. Look to the states that put gay marriage up to a public vote. There was an overwhelming decision in favor of traditional marriage. It seems the American public votes differently than NY legislators and non-Mass attending "Catholics."
Thank you for this thought
Thank you for this thought provoking article. It is too bad that the American legislature had to take the lead over our American bishops to live out the Gospel values. Come on guys, wake up!
During the civil rights
During the civil rights struggle of the 1960's we used to say: "The bishops were a tail light not a head light." How history repeats itself.
NCR, as always, gets it wrong
NCR, as always, gets it wrong on matters of sexual mores. What more is there to say?
"What more is there to say?"
"What more is there to say?" Well for one thing NCR didn't get it wrong.
I believe in rendering to
I believe in rendering to Caesar's what is Caesar's, too. Civil marriage and sacramental union are two very distinct concepts. In America we have brought these two realities together. This ongoing issue of "same-sex marriage" should aid in bringing this practice to its proper end. (Anyone notice how the royal families of Europe marry civilly before religiously?)
What I believe to be very apparent in all of this discussion is: If the word and concept of "marriage" in society is the committed union of a man and a woman for life, then to call same-sex unions a "marriage" is off the mark. I'm not against committed same-sex unions for life, but to call it "marriage" is not in line with the definition. Are we as a society willing to keep the "old" definition and define same-sex unions under another word, or are we ready to change the definition of marriage to include "any two persons, regardless of gender"? This seems to be the practical question and challenge in today's society.
I am tempted many times to dismiss the official Catholic Church's present stance on this matter, as they always manage to operate by the fear factor instead of by the charitable factor.
Anonymous, I agree with much
Anonymous,
I agree with much of what you have said. However, the definition of marriage has already begun to change as the following three definitions illustrate.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
Definition of MARRIAGE
1
a (1) : the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2) : the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
Dictionary.Com:
mar·riage
[mar-ij] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a.
the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b.
a similar institution involving partners of the same gender: gay marriage.
LawInfo:
What Is The Legal Definition Of Marriage?
Marriage is defined as a civil contract between two people who meet the legal requirements for getting married established by the state, which vary from state to state. Generally, to be married, two people must be of opposite gender. However, some states are in the process of changing the different sex requirement.
While what you wrote is true,
While what you wrote is true, it is recognized that the majority of people (including secular and religious leadership) must accept this understanding of the shifting definition of marriage before it will be embraced by the general population. Currently, because the definition in itself is in transition, people are reluctant to deal with the reality. As soon as our society separates the civil ceremony from the religious ceremony, much of this tension will cease.
When Maryland politicians
When Maryland politicians were weighing whether to recognize a proposed gay marriage bill, I wrote to the Archbishop suggesting that, since a gay marriage bill will inevitably become law in this state, the Catholic church would do well to distinguish between "marriage" and "sacramental marrige," the latter being what takes place between a man and woman within the form accepted by the RC tradition. He responsed that he and his counsel would take this into consideration. There is no way "we" will recover exclusive use of the term "marriage." The institutional Church could salvage the day with the prefix "sacramental."
The Constitution makes no
The Constitution makes no distinction between "sacramental" marriage and marriage. Most protestants don't recognize marriage as a sacrament and a growing number of Catholics don't either. They couldn't care less.
This distinction is necessitated in a vain attempt to extricate the Church from an
embarrassing loss of prestige and power, thanks to the bishops and their blundering incompetence in making a case nobody buys any longer. They've lost the anti-gay marriage war not only in America, but even in Europe's most Catholic country, Spain. The hierarchy has demonstrated it's weakness and irrelevancy. It has become a one dog and pony act, a corny old Vaudeville performance. Something to reminisce about, perhaps, and grow nostalgic over, but it indicates they're as toothless as a newborn babe.
Archbishop Dolan's hammy bonhomme and failed PR campaign wasn't so much a turn-off as it was ineffective in stopping the irreversible course of the bill in Albany. The voters were solidly supporting gay marriage and were much better organized to lobby the state Senate in support of it than was the archbishop and other opponents.
Amen to this!
Amen to this!
WOW...bulls eye... and if the
WOW...bulls eye...
and if the bulls of the hierarchy arn't seeing beyond their bubble world vision, there are many more sad days ahead for them and for our church...
FMP
"...their [the bishops']
"...their [the bishops'] public conduct in recent years — wholesale excommunications, railing at politicians, denial of honorary degrees and speaking platforms at Catholic institutions, using the Eucharist as a political bludgeon, refusing to entertain any questions or dissenting opinions, and engaging in open warfare with the community’s thinkers as well as those, especially women, who have loyally served the church — has resulted in a kind of episcopal caricature, the common scolds of the religion world, the caustic party of 'no'.”
.
Not to mention their inexcusable behavior as accomplices and enablers of the sexual abuse of minors, along with their paradoxical tacit endorsement of rightwing Ayn Rand politicians as part of their "single issue" perspective of being "pro-life" ...and yes indeed, the bishops of the RCC have only themselves to blame for their predicament. Just imagine if the bishops had spent as much time straightening up their own house as they do meddling in the affairs of others, Catholics and non-Catholics alike. Maybe these royal "princes of the Church" would be taken seriously as something other than hypocritical "common scolds". Instead they choose to blame the sheep because they don't recognize the voice of a true shepherd — even sheep aren't that stupid.
.
senior NCR correspondent John
senior NCR correspondent John Allen, who has conducted a book-length interview with Dolan, has written that in other circumstances the archbishop of New York “could easily have been a U.S. senator or a corporate CEO.”
Regardless of whether or not that is true, can one imagine Dolan as a loving parent or spouse? How about any of our other hierarchs? Or would we pity the families under the thumb of such controlling personalities?
This reminds me of what my
This reminds me of what my dear mother used to always say: If a son of hers wants the priesthood, he better possess all the qualities of a good husband and father first. If not, he will be a terrible priest!
Brigid Rauch is right. The
Brigid Rauch is right. The constitutive element for any priest's character is whether he or she is capable of being a loving parent and spouse.
Unfortunately, many, if not most priests and bishops today couldn't meet that standard.
The sad reality, as Brigid points out, which Catholics daily confront is that Dolan and other hierarchs are nothing more than corporate political hacks in the world's oldest all-male feudal oligarchy.
John Allen seemingly knows a politician when he sees one. He has lots of experience hanging around Vatican curia.
This is very simple, since we
This is very simple, since we have the separation of Church and state in the U.S. The Church cannot dictate marriage policies of the state, and the state cannot dictate marriage policies of the Church.
If the Church was founded by
If the Church was founded by Jesus, He never said anything about gay marriage or anything gay for that matter. The Church does not "see" divorce, but they grant annulment to people who have many children and married for a long time--the "marriage" is not recognized--ah, the children don't count? Yet, the Church wants women to stay in an abusive relationships, etc. How do these annulments come about? Yes, I know, but won't write it. If the Church believes in God's goodness, then they must accept that God makes people gay. Since the Church has its own moral problems, they should not be in a seat of judgment. When the Church decides to come into the 20th Century (I know, but it takes time for them to move forward to THIS century) then I may decide to "come back." Until then I have faith, but no religion.
"Yet, the Church wants women
"Yet, the Church wants women to stay in an abusive relationships, etc."
I don't know where you got this idea---maybe in the mid-20th century, but no one in a position of authority today advocates that women stay in abusive relationships. Such sweeping (and untrue) generalizations detract from any genuine message you may have to offer.
Amen, amen! As to what to do
Amen, amen!
As to what to do with these bishops; throw the bums out.
In far too many aspects of
In far too many aspects of sexual ethics, the magisterium seems unable to cope persuasively with empirical evidence that challenges its traditional positions. At its best, the Catholic tradition is called upon to do so. There is nothing to fear from truth.
I agree wholeheartedly with
I agree wholeheartedly with this article. I found Archbishop Dolan's 60 Minutes appearance both embarrassing and lacking the dignity of the church. His analogy about not marrying his mother was beneath his station and pointless to the debate. The bishops waited and carefully did little as the sex abuse spiraled all around us. There are many prayers to be said and forgiveness to be sought. There are no heros among them and clearly no saints.
Thank you
PROPHETIC EDITORIAL... THANK
PROPHETIC EDITORIAL... THANK YOU NCR.
if only YOUR "common sense" voice was heard by
all the Pew Folk... POSSIBLY they could figure
out how to SAVE our self-destructing and un-loving
so called church. We need COMPASSION as our overiding
call... see Karen Armstrong's writings. We do not want
to throw out the Baby JESUS... but DO throw out the BATHWATER,
please !!! PEACE TO ALL... PRAISE THE LORD !!
I would go so far as to
I would go so far as to suggest that all of the bluster may not be coming so much from deeply-held beliefs on the part of the American episcopate, but rather:
Of course the irony is that, if we're to believe Richard Sipe, a significant number of the bishops and priests raising this hue and cry are themselves homosexual in orientation and not chaste.
I think we need to understand
I think we need to understand a very important distinction about the points in your last paragraph. We seem to have a significant number of bishops and priests who see themselves as 'same sex attracted' as distinct from gay. This more or less allows them to mentally keep their sexual acting out on the shallow end of lust. They can confess this 'behavioral sin' and move on as if they were pure as the driven snow. This mentality is all over the abuse crisis.
Until the hierarchy is willing to see homosexuality as a real and definitive orientation, and not just an attraction of lust, there will be plenty of hypocritical clerics willing to throw stones at 'gays'. I could also write the same thing about too many 'heterosexual' men.
Great article, spelling out
Great article, spelling out the many aspects of Bishops' responses to the N.Y. vote, responses that are out of sync with Jesus' teachings, lived experience, and strong church leadership.
In addition to parents of gay men and lesbians, we need to look at the lived experience of the straight men and women who unknowingly marry gay or lesbian persons who entered a heterosexual marriage as the "right thing to do" according to church teachings. Many of these closeted husbands or wives, after a long internal struggle, eventually disclose their sexual orientation, causing their wives and husbands to experience a trauma of their own identity, integrity and faith. Most of the couples divorce and their children suffer the pain typical of all children of divorce. As a result, the institutions of both marriage and "the family" are weakened. At an individual level, both the gay and straight spouses who are Catholic question church teachings about homosexuality and many leave the church because of the mismatch of teachings and the reality of normal discerning human beings.
Were gay men and lesbians able to marry with all the legal rights and relationship responsibilities of civil marriage, the institution of marriage itself would be strengthened. The Catholics among them would maintain their faith in the universal love and truth that Jesus taught and more would continue to participate the sacramental enrichment of Mass.
Well stated.
Well stated.
Amity points out a great
Amity points out a great irony. If a gay or lesbian person follows the church's teaching and gets married to an opposite sex partner, it could actually weaken the institution of marriage and "the family." The same could be said for those gay/lesbian people who enter religious life because they believe they have no other choice. Their assumed lack of freedom makes their commitment less free and more problems can result for those individuals who did not have the "gift" of celibacy in the first place. That's not to say that gay/lesbian people shouldn't enter religious life. But they should do so only if they are genuinely "called" to that way of life. They should not do it if they perceive it to be their "only option."
NCR says - "If the bishops
NCR says - "If the bishops actually want laws to reflect Catholic values, they need a new, more sophisticated and potent model of legislative engagement."
I would respond - "The bishops need to look inward and see where and why they are so out of step with the current thinking of the people."
Until the hierarchy, and
Until the hierarchy, and theologians, take a good look at the church's teachings on sex itself, it cannot change. In the 'olten days', sex was seen as only for the procreation of children. Now we know that it also creates an emotional bond between the two people, regardless of gender. Until that bond is given equal emportance to procreation, there will be trouble with the church's teachings, and young and old alike will drift away.
The church's teaching on sex
The church's teaching on sex (human sexuality) can't just stop at accepting sex for procreation and for the creation of the moral bonding. It also has to come to terms with not defining homosexuality as intrinsically disordered. Then it also has to come to terms squarely with the total equality of women with men as it relates to ordination. There is a very good Marriage and Family therapist who has proposed that unless there is radical equality between men and women in marriage, real love is not possible. Perhaps that is a good explanation as to why 50% of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce.
Thou art Peter, and upon this
Thou art Peter, and upon this rock...
and thus we were founded as one, holy catholic and Apostolic family. Sadly, our Pope and his brother bishops, successors to the Apostles, present themselves first and foremost as apostolic holy rulers, hierarchs with a divine right of succession. Gone, or at least unnoticed, are the concepts of "servant of the servants of God," pastors who with the Good Shepherd came to serve not to be served. Jesus chided the scribes and Pharisees for imposing the six hundred plus rules and laws on God's family. Unmentioned today are the volumes of Canon Law, Church law, the Catechism and countless other "thou shalt not's" that issue from the Vatican and cathedrals around the world.
At least in this country, the loudest episcopal voices serve more as sirens of intimidation and exclusion, projecting a reactionary image of our Church. They have fallen back to the style and practices of the Caesars and scribes and Pharisees Jesus challenged. The are disregarding the radical message he proclaimed, not ex cathedra, but standing before all in the synagogue: The spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring glad tidings to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim liberty to captives and recovery of sight to the blind,to let the oppressed go free, and to proclaim a year acceptable to the Lord. (Lk. 4:18-19)
May our Pope and pastors set aside their miters and croziers, and with Jesus compassionately feed and tend the lambs and sheep God has entrusted to their care.
Paz y Bien, Rolando, SFO.
AMEN!
AMEN!
Amen! And thank you,
Amen! And thank you, Rolando!
Rita, S.F.O.
Bravo, editorial! But I fear
Bravo, editorial! But I fear that if you applied your new detailed guidelines to NCR itself, you'd have a very thin and boring newspaper. Nonetheless, I'll do my best to be a good boy (oops! too sarcastic?).
While our Bishops seem to regard apologetics as theology's highest form, they seem to lack any spiritual depth and reflect little love for the faithful at all. For them, the faithful are not the questioners but only those who confuse faith with certitude, and who adore the Institution and the hierarchy more than God and His Son. This might bring great joy to the few ancients who follow the bishops rules and still cling to the Nine First Fridays. Young people think very, very differently from us. Admiring people for their assumed power and institutions for their ninteenth century discourse is not part of their approach to reality. Experience has more appeal to them than metaphysics; credibility depends for them on the concrete not the abstract, on the human rather than the episcopal. Condemning a group of people rather than loving each of them makes the mitred-ones more theatrical than holy.
Post new comment