The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionGay Catholic challenges Dolan to debate marriage
Dec. 07, 2011
In this 2005 file photo, Joe Murray, wearing a rainbow-colored sash, is denied Communion during Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington. (CNS/Bob Roller)
Catholic gay rights advocate Joe Murray has challenged Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York to a debate on gay marriage.
Murray is the executive director of the Rainbow Sash Movement, which advocates for acceptance of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Catholics within the church.
Through a post issued Wednesday on Rainbow Sash’s blog, its board of directors state that Murray has challenged Dolan, president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, “to meet him in the public square at any Catholic university in the United States to debate gay marriage. Such a debate will not only be informative, but could highlight reason over homophobia.”
“… [Dolan] seeks to shield Catholic bishops from transparency and accountability. Many lay Catholics have been exploited financially as well as spiritually in [the bishops] rush to deny GLBT people the right to marry, this money should have been used to help the poor rather than to promote a political agenda of discrimination that is not rooted in Catholic tradition.”
The archdiocese is aware of the debate request, but appears unlikely to accept.
“You don’t invite someone to dialogue by resorting to cheap ad hominem attacks on the person with whom you wish to debate and posting that invitation on a blog,” said Kate Monaghan, assistant communications director for the New York archdiocese.
“The movement states that it is interested in ‘a mature exchange of ideas’ but by employing the following, stating that Archbishop Dolan is an ‘accomplice’ in ‘soul murder,’ ‘more comfortable taking cheap shots from his ivory tower,’ ‘lacks courage’ and will likely meet the request with ‘arrogance,’ you run contrary to the very nature of your appeal for civil, respectful dialogue.”
The Rainbow Sash movement began in 1998 in Australia, where 70 people wearing rainbow sashes attended Mass at St. Peter’s Cathedral, in Melbourne. Since then, the group has extended into U.S. cities, including New York, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Chicago and Los Angeles.
The wearing of rainbow sashes to Mass has become the group’s signature protest. Bishops and pastors in many U.S. dioceses have denied the Eucharist to people who present themselves at Communion wearing a rainbow sash, because they said, the act politicizes the Eucharist and is a break with church teachings.
In September, Dolan and Bishop William Lori, of the Bridgeport, Conn., diocese, issued a joint statement expressing concern that a series of conferences at four universities – two of them Catholic – would encourage dissent from the church’s teachings on human sexuality.
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
The presidents of the two Catholic schools, Fordham University and Fairfield University, assured Dolan and Lori that the intent of the conferences, titled “More than a Monologue,” was to generate dialogue, not dissent.
[Brian Roewe is an NCR intern. His e-mail address is broewe@ncronline.org.]
Just go away dude. Marriage
Just go away dude. Marriage is not about religion.
Get over it dude. Find another issue...
Cheers, Joe Mustich, CT USA
Marriage Officiant and Justice of the Peace.
My parents are non-practicing Roman Catholic Christians but I belong the the First Congregational Church of Washington, CT.
What a breathe of fresh air!!!!!!!!
In America,and Europe too, marriage licenses come from City Hall, not churches, mosques or temples....
"Marriage is not about
"Marriage is not about religion."
Marriage is about religion. Marriage is a Sacrament, which makes it very much so about religion.
People like the idea of marriage, however people do not realize that marriage is more than a union of a man and a woman.
The Council of Trent, 1563, affirmed marriage as a sacrament.
Catholic teaching also says that the natural purpose of marriage and sex is procreation; thus, any union or sexual act where procreation isn't theoretically possible isn't in accordance with natural law and is intrinsically immoral.
In the Catholic Church, however, marriage is more than a natural institution; it was elevated by Christ Himself, in His participation in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), to be one of the seven sacraments. A marriage between two Christians, therefore, has a supernatural element as well as a natural one.
MATRIMONY is a sacrament.
MATRIMONY is a sacrament. Marriage is a human (largely economic) institution.
Years ago, it was explained
Years ago, it was explained to me that among Coptic Christians there are three levels or stages of matrimony: betrothal, civil marriage, and then the sacrament. All three are fully celebrated ritually by the community.
In the first two stages, the couple is in full communion with the community therefore there are no barriers to the other sacraments or life within the church. In these two first stages, annulment and/or divorce is possible.
The final stage of the sacrament is usually not celebrated until much later in the marriage when it has been sustained over years, most of the time after children have been born and raised. Much like our 25th Anniversary celebrations. This stage of marriage cannot be divorced.
I can't verify if this institution of matrimony is in fact the practice among Copts today - if it is, it would be significant since Copts are [I believe the word is] "uniate" with Rome. But it still seems to be a tremendous improvement on the state of marriage as practiced in western societies.
None of this addresses the central problem that marriage is a social institution where in many, if not most, societies women are still considered the property or under the legal guardianship of men. Marriage as it developed in the west was first fundamentally an economic and political matter - that is certainly one of the roots of the custom of the dowry.
My personal pet peeve about the way marriage is practiced is the modern invention where the marriage ceremony is designed and conducted reenacting European royal weddings among aristocrats. The whole white dress and veil thing, the handing over of the bride to the groom by her father, etc. just escapes me. I struggled to embrace these customs at my own wedding.
If the Catholic Church really wanted to get ahead of the curve in the 21st century, it would be good to institute changes in its practice of matrimony/marriage that enshrines the concept of equality of the two human persons who are wed, as distinct from the procreation of children.
Yes, Catholics will have to envision ways to acknowledge the loving relationships of women with women and men with men. This evolutionary shift in thinking is most obvious when you look at the near unanimity among younger people, including Catholics.
Dear Mr. Jenkins, A very
Dear Mr. Jenkins,
A very sound argument, as usual. And it touched a painful spot: all my life I heard my father, when he was in a bad mood, to accuse my mother for not having brought a dowry, as he had expected (her family was rich, but all its wealth was lost during the war); and I've watched my mother crying silently, deeply wounded but not daring to answer. For me, it was the worst lesson I could have: no love, just domain; that's not by chance I chose to remain single. When I hear the praises of the sacrament's holliness and the role of the family in society - wich I don't deny -, I preferr to stand with those who defend a union based on Love.
Only to comment or your
Only to comment or your reference to the Copts or Coptic Christians as 'Uniate' with Rome... They are not at all (only exception is the eastern Catholic Coptic rites aka 'Coptic Catholics who are very small in number. As regards the Coptic orthodox practice. the sacramental marriage ceremony does not take place as you describe it, and in fact it allows for divorce in cases of adultery. You can read better about this at the following link (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/6_matrimon...)And from what I have experienced myself in knowing Copts and their marriage arrangements.. it is today for them (their families)'an economic matter'.
Are you serious. You said
Are you serious. You said absolutely nothing. You just spouted off the same banal, uneducated, unconvincing arguments. I'm a priest . I know those silly arguments too. They don't work.
I take it Father that you
I take it Father that you don't hold to what the Church teaches regarding sacramental marriage.
There are three, and ONLY three elements (bona) to a valid, sacramental marriage. 1) Fidelity, 2) Permanence, and 3) Openness to children. I hope you don't buy into the mumbo-jumbo of the fourth bonum - the community of life and love - which is still spewed forth from most US tribunals, in order to invalidate and nullify true marriages.
Dromig10 on Dec. 09,
Dromig10 on Dec. 09, 2011.
You stated:
"I take it Father that you don't hold to what the Church teaches regarding sacramental marriage.
There are three, and ONLY three elements (bona) to a valid, sacramental marriage. 1) Fidelity, 2) Permanence, and 3) Openness to children. I hope you don't buy into the mumbo-jumbo of the fourth bonum - the community of life and love - which is still spewed forth from most US tribunals, in order to invalidate and nullify true marriages."
--------------------------------------------
And I take it that you have never been in a vicious, life-threatening marriage?
Ah, Little Bear, I have been
Ah, Little Bear, I have been married to a woman who is not very nice. That does not change the fact that we had a valid marriage.
The contrived "Fourth Bonum" - a community of life and love, does make a marriage better and more happy, but it does not change its validity or invalidity.
The Fourth Bonum is a personalist contrivance taken from the Vatican II document "Gaudiam et Spes". It is not objective in the least. If the first 10 years of marriage were filled with wonderment, marshmallow pies and clear blue skies, and were to change drastically on the first day of the eleventh year, would that in itself invalidate the marriage? NO.
It is the intentions of the man and woman, on their wedding, as to what they vowed to each other, namely - fidelity, permanence and openness to children. If one or more of those elements were lacking, and can be proven, with moral certitude, through a tribunal investigation, invalidity may be declared. Falling out of love does not reach the level for invalidity to be declared.
Based upon the Christian anthropology, marriage is simple, but it may not be easy. It is like so many other Church teachings.
Dromig10 on Dec. 14, 2011.
Dromig10 on Dec. 14, 2011.
You stated:
"Ah, Little Bear, I have been married to a woman who is not very nice. That does not change the fact that we had a valid marriage.
The contrived "Fourth Bonum" - a community of life and love, does make a marriage better and more happy, but it does not change its validity or invalidity.
The Fourth Bonum is a personalist contrivance taken from the Vatican II document "Gaudiam et Spes". It is not objective in the least. If the first 10 years of marriage were filled with wonderment, marshmallow pies and clear blue skies, and were to change drastically on the first day of the eleventh year, would that in itself invalidate the marriage? NO.
It is the intentions of the man and woman, on their wedding, as to what they vowed to each other, namely - fidelity, permanence and openness to children. If one or more of those elements were lacking, and can be proven, with moral certitude, through a tribunal investigation, invalidity may be declared. Falling out of love does not reach the level for invalidity to be declared.
Based upon the Christian anthropology, marriage is simple, but it may not be easy. It is like so many other Church teachings."
-------------------------------------------
Sorry, but you don't work in a diocesan marriage tribunal either.
Considering the fact that more children than you can imagine are growing up in households where there are not two parents who are married----fewer and fewer have the models to follow as to how husbands and wives relate to one another or to children.
Its fine to preach what a marriage is to be. It is another thing for adults of today (who are living longer) to understand that marriage is supposed to last for the rest of their lives together.
Oh, they may have the best of intentions (at the time), but their own experiences with family, friends, and society in general teachs them that marriage often does not last.
As many of us sadly know----Catholic marriages have a 50-50% chance of not lasting. And Catholics, like other Americans, are postponing marriage, co-habiting (but not planning on marrying), just like the rest of society.
The Church can proclaim its teachings all that it wishes---but if the majority of the people don't follow those teachings---it isn't binding on them.
Sorry---that is in canon law and is called the 'sensus fidelium'.
I always wonder how the RCC
I always wonder how the RCC can marry two people over the age of 60 years. Are they forbidden to have sex????? We all know they will NEVER produce children. Seems by your definition and that of the church they will be LIVING IN SIN!!!!!!!
A couple (i.e., a man and a
A couple (i.e., a man and a woman) who are no longer capable of producing children of their own participate in the work of procreation by the example their love and dedication to each other give to younger couples. Marriage is an inherently difficult and intimidating proposition, requiring, as it does, that a male and a female accommodate their physical and psychological differences. The example of a senior couple is encouraging and helpful to younger couples. The example of a man and a man, or a man and a dog, or a man and a corpse is not capable of this.
I know a number of male-male
I know a number of male-male couples and female-female couples who are in fact raising children. Some of them are biological children, and some are adopted. And they are doing a very good job of it, thank you very much.
As far as the dog and corpse go, I don't think either of them is able to provide legal consent to any binding contract (marriage being just such a contract), so your example is nonsense.
Homosexuality goes against
Homosexuality goes against "natural law." And anything that goes against natural law is singufl, period.
Dear Anonymous, "A man and a
Dear Anonymous,
"A man and a dog, a man and a corpse"?!
Your argument about
Your argument about procreation is incredible.
And non-credible.
(but, hey, i've got a west coast orange bridge to *give* you this xmas season; just send $100 to cover shipping & handling; believe me, it'd be a steal)
Actually, it's closer to red
Actually, it's closer to red if I'm thinking about the same bridge. :-)
Bob
Homosexuality is not the same
Homosexuality is not the same as beastiality or necrophilia. Please get a dictionary and learn what the difference is. You lose all credibilty when you make such broad and ignorant statements. One does not lead to the other anymore than heterosexuality leads to beastiality or necrophilia.
Anonymous, I read your post
Anonymous, I read your post several times and I still can't quite see it as saying what you seem to want it to say. And all efforts to try to connect to your thinking completely collaspes when I read your equating a love relationship between two members of the same sex with that of a man and a dog or a man and a corpse. Whatever you think of the Christian value of a loving relationship between to members of the same sex, it is discredited when you put them in the same sentence with the two others. Is shows a severe lack of understanding what two members of the same sex who are in a loving and committed relationship experience.
respectfully yours in Christ,
John David
WOW you give straight people
WOW you give straight people a loophole in your previously unyielding definition of 3 parameters for marriage! Isn't that the way of those who would choose to control other peoples lives always making loopholes when it's convenient or too threatening to hold to the core principle!
I guess that means that in
I guess that means that in your mind, when non-baptized people or atheists or non-Christians or people who have been divorced and remarried without the death of their spouse or an annulment from a bishop marry, they are actually receiving one of the sacraments. Perhaps the nuns and priests who taught me in grade school, high school, college and theology school were mistaken when they said that the sacrament is matrimony.
All marriages, whether
All marriages, whether sacramental or otherwise (Justice of the Peace, other than Catholic denomination) are considered valid in the eyes of the Church. For those who have married and divorce without the prior benefit of a Catholic marriage would need to show where they were married, that it was not subsequently blessed by the Church can easliy receive a declaration of nullity if one or both of the parties now wishes to be married in the Church. These are "documentary" cases for the tribunal to adjudicate.
Those you enumerated do not have a sacramental marriage. I cannot attest to what the nuns and priests told you. Maybe they presupposed that the couple married in the Church.
When has the purpose of
When has the purpose of marriage been reduced to procreation? Procreation is certainly the purpose of mating among animals, no doubt. But is there more to the human institution than procreation??
In Catholic grade school, we were taught that the purposes of marriage - not Catholic marriage, just marriage - were these:
Purpose 1. Companionable love, mutual respect and support. Married people without kids could express this purpose of marriage. The Catholic extension of this purpose was that companionable love in a sacramental marriage reflected the love between Christ and his people, his church.
Purpose 2. Generative love. Care for the next generation, and living in a way that would benefit future generations. Married people without kids could express this love in various ways. Procreation would also be an expression of this love, but procreation without proper care and nurturing of the children did not fulfill this purpose of marriage. The Catholic extension of this purpose was that Christ's love for his people, for the communion of saints, extends from generation to generation.
3. Community love. A commitment to join and help build the health and welfare of a community. This included making economic provision for one's family and joining in mutual neighborly assistance and providing charity for the poor. The Catholic extension was that all Christians must help to build the church and the society they live in in order to leave a good world to our descendants.
I realize that teachings like these must be gone from the Catholic church since gay marriage could meet all these purposes.
Dolan embarrassed himself and all Catholics by insisting on teaching the false mantra that "marriage is always and everywhere a union of one man and one woman." Has he ever heard of Muslims?
an outstanding example of the
an outstanding example of the evisceration of the catholic faith accomplished by the failed religious education system of recent years .
there is a list of laudable goals replacing the definition of marriage . this system deprives the student of key formulations of church doctrine , honed through centuries of thought . these formulations are very valuable in thinking out issues such as the one addressed in this conversation
an outstanding example of the
an outstanding example of the evisceration of the catholic faith accomplished by the failed religious education system of recent years.
-----------------------------------------------------------
For some, who don't know history, old times are always the "good old times". Haven't you heard about the forced sterilizations that happened in 30 states of the US, since the end of the 19th century until the 70's? And afected, at least, 6.000 persons? Indeed, what a golden age.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization...
Marriage can be a stabilizing
Marriage can be a stabilizing force in society. It has been greatly undermined by the "No-fault divorce" culture. Therefore, marriage, when properly ordered is a good. It no longer is protected by for its purpose.
The 3 elements of a valid sacramental marriage are 1) Fidelity, 2) Permanence, and 3) Openness to children. The two goods, or ends, of marriage are the good of the spouses and the education and upbringing of the children. By the very fact that homosexual marriage is sterile, it violates the third element - Openness to children. These concepts are very simple, but not easily put into action in our marriages.
It appears you were given a bill of goods from your teachers. It sounds so warm and fuzzy. It doesn't appear they wished to pass on the hard Truths of what the Church stands for. I am not discounting that we, as Christians, must help the downtrodden and marginalized. We are not to push aside the homosexual who wishes to join the Church, but welcome him or her. This does not means we are to accept an aberrant lifestyle someone wishes to lead. One of the most charitable things we are to do is to assist them to their natural end - to be joined with our God in Heaven for all eternity.
With regard to the Muslims, the adherents of Islam, believe in polygamy (for man only). But know this, their founder, married a nine year old girl. Although he stated that he did not have relations with her until she was thirteen, it should call into question his manliness. Couldn't he attract someone closer to his own age? This example is followed by a sizable portion of the adherents to Islam. Secondly, these adherents have no problem, whatsoever, with sentencing, and actually executing practitioners of homosexuality. You provide a bad example.
I think you confuse openness
I think you confuse openness to children with procreation. Surrogacy, adoption and raising children from previous relationships are matters of fact when it comes to these couples.
So we have all three elements of sacramental marriage in same-sex relationships.
The openness to children is
The openness to children is understood to be putting no contrived impediments in front of the procreative act AND its natural consequences. That would include contraceptives, abortion, sterilization for the purpose of not conceiving, vasectomies, and homosexual acts, which in and of themselves are sterile. Adoption would not contravene the marital act if the couple could not procreate of their own. Surrogacy does stymy the act by bringing a third party into the picture, thus you have a union of a man and a woman and a woman, or a union of a woman and a man and a man.
If a husband and/or wife does not have to capacity to procreate through any fault of their own (disease, injury or age), their marriage may still be valid, that is, a sacramental marriage. Homosexual marriage is an oxymoron. It does not fulfill the third element for validity, therefore the Church won't recognize it as such.
So same sex relationships are
So same sex relationships are invalid because they cannot generate offspring, yet offspring raised by these couples suffer because you do not recognize the union because they cannot raise children. That is a circular argument the like of which we've not seen since "All In The Family" went off the air. But it appears you have clarified your term "openness to children" to mean procreation.
I always find it amazing that we believe in a "personal God," right up to the point when it allows individuality. Then we suddenly shift into preaching biology, and not grace. I am not qualified to say whether these unions express God's Love any less (or more) than those I've seen in the community at large.
It is not a valid marriage in
It is not a valid marriage in the Christian sense of marriage. It does not discount the relationship that the two men or two women may have. It may be a union and a contract.
This is like arguing that the Eucharist is only a piece of bread. If you are a Protestant or non-Christian, this is what you believe. It is not what we Catholics believe. You are trying to get us to accept abberrant behaviour as something good, and in the process are helping the homosexuals to condemn their very souls to Hell. These are not easy teachings, with all the foibles of us dumb humans. What you ask for is tyranny of a very small minority, 2 - 3%, which, statistically speaking, is near or outside three standard deviations. It is not normal. This does not mean that we should marginalize them. They are to be accepted as humans.
I don't condemn them for what they are, but their actions go against the natural law, which is written in each of our hearts. Pray for homosexual couples.
I am not trying to get you to
I am not trying to get you to accept anything. I merely pointed out that your definition of "openness to children" was open to multiple interpretations. You state that accepting relationships would create tyranny of the 2 - 3% (homosexuals). How is this tyranny? Accepting that some of the population has beliefs that are different from yours is not tyranny, it is called plurality. And it is something that God has tried to remind his people that he expects (see Exodus 22). Using terms like "aberration" and "condemn their souls to hell" is marginalizing people. They are hurtful terms, and do not further a different point of view.
Natural Law has been (mis)used over the centuries to separate races, keep Jews in the Ghetto, and condemn those who teach that the earth is not the center of the universe.
I do pray for homosexuals. I also pray for you, sir.
There is nothing more set
There is nothing more set apart than Heaven and Hell - the ultimate marginalization, one could say. The good choice is what we all hope and pray for.
the example is valid when
the example is valid when people or a person or institution try to define what marriage is by saying it is what I say it is because it has always been this, the same, throughout history. Marriage has not even always been the same within the Catholic Church - and if it can be changed even once or defined/codified by a council, then it can be done again. You say the example of Muslims is a bad one because of the choices made by the founder, the sexism, the violence done to violators/homosexuals. There are lots of similarities between the histories of the two religions - you have touched on a few. In your reasoning their differences (from the way you see marriage) and unfairness delegitimizes their tenants and beliefs but you seem to be arguing that your hurting other people, damaging and oppressing them is the very thing that legitimizes your position.
The Council of Trent and
The Council of Trent and Catholic canon law have no control over the Constitution of the United states, its laws, or the laws of any of its states. "Sacrament" has absolutely nothing to do with the civil aspect of marriage in this country. And Timothy Dolan lies when he attempts to claim that New York civili law allowing marriage between people of the same gender in any way influences the theology, the canons, or the practices of his church. Catholic clergy, like all other clergy, are deputized by the state to fill the role of official civil witness to marriages approved by state license. Catholics are not obligated under state law to marry in church ceremonies, nor are Catholic clergy required to witness marriages of people of the same gender. So Dolan and his cohorts at the USCCB are interfering with our civil legal system when they lie and distort the meaning of laws such as New York State's that recognizes the legality of same-sex marriage. Even Catholic "queers" are not required to have church ceremonies, and there was never any intention of obligating Catholic clergy to extend their state authority to witness marriage to people of the same sex. Marriage is a sacrament only for members of churches who consider it as such. But marriage is also a civil contract for everyone. Try marrying without the civil license to enter that contract! Any clergyman who pretended to preside over such a ceremony would/should have his license from the state to preside over marriages withdrawn. Such an act would still be a sacrament in Catholic theology, but it would not be legal.
True, it wouldn't be legal,
True, it wouldn't be legal, unlike abortion - which IS legal and just shows the level to which your once noble country and the rest of hell-bent humanity has sunk. The mangling and abuse of the Creator's gift of sexuality and the frustration of His purpose in the design of sexuality, is an insult to the Creator and an abomination to Him. It is impossible to make holy and pleasing to Him an act that is an abomination to Him - by definition. Rubbish is rubbish and will be burnt in the end. He has given us free choice and He will not interfere with this gift either - but the consequences are purely in His domain. He will judge and the sentence will be carried out - swiftly, irrevocably and eternally. Humanity, realize your limitations - you are not all powerful, that is the nature of the Almighty God alone.
Gail Ramplen on Dec. 10,
Gail Ramplen on Dec. 10, 2011.
You stated:
"True, it wouldn't be legal, unlike abortion - which IS legal and just shows the level to which your once noble country and the rest of hell-bent humanity has sunk. The mangling and abuse of the Creator's gift of sexuality and the frustration of His purpose in the design of sexuality, is an insult to the Creator and an abomination to Him. It is impossible to make holy and pleasing to Him an act that is an abomination to Him - by definition. Rubbish is rubbish and will be burnt in the end. He has given us free choice and He will not interfere with this gift either - but the consequences are purely in His domain. He will judge and the sentence will be carried out - swiftly, irrevocably and eternally. Humanity, realize your limitations - you are not all powerful, that is the nature of the Almighty God alone."
----------------------------------------------------
It seems that you have totally bought into the 'theology of the pelvis'. Your comments are more Jansenist than Christian.
Relationship. Marriage is
Relationship. Marriage is all about RELATIONSHIP. That is what all of life is about. Love God = a loving relationship with God. Love others = loving relationships with others. Love self = realizing and nurturing an ever-growing loving - and wise - relationship with one's BELOVED self.
Relationship. Remember that word. It's key.
Think of the image of Christ 'being married to' the BELOVED PEOPLE of GOD. There is no physical 'pro-creation' here. It is, rather, the birthing of virtues and holiness that happens.
Think of marriage in that sense ... it is about RELATIONSHIPS - the Value of Relationships. It is how God created us, for and in RELATIONSHIP/s.
Well said!
Well said!
Anonymous on Dec. 08, 2011.
Anonymous on Dec. 08, 2011.
You stated:
("Marriage is not about religion."
Marriage is about religion. Marriage is a Sacrament, which makes it very much so about religion.
People like the idea of marriage, however people do not realize that marriage is more than a union of a man and a woman.
The Council of Trent, 1563, affirmed marriage as a sacrament.
Catholic teaching also says that the natural purpose of marriage and sex is procreation; thus, any union or sexual act where procreation isn't theoretically possible isn't in accordance with natural law and is intrinsically immoral.
In the Catholic Church, however, marriage is more than a natural institution; it was elevated by Christ Himself, in His participation in the wedding at Cana (John 2:1-11), to be one of the seven sacraments. A marriage between two Christians, therefore, has a supernatural element as well as a natural one.)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
God initiated Marriage in the Garden of Eden, stating that "It is not good for the man to be alone." Nothing then was stated about marriage being about procreation.
Jesus,did not chcnge marriage to be anything more than God intended it to be. Scripture says nothing about Jesus and the Apostles coming to the official marriage CEREMONY. They came to the wedding FEAST, to rejoice with the couple, to dance, to eat and to drink.
And as far as Matrimony being one of the seven sacraments---that did not occur for many centuries (Council of Trent---and not before). Jesus did not give us a pre-packaged, pre-fabricated Church. God has always allowed humans to figure out how to operate the societies and institutions on this earth---and to further develop them as time when on.
In the Middle Ages---only the royality and nobility were married in church. All the rest of the people (peasants) had common law marriages. In fact, right up to the year 1100 CE and beyond, many parish priests had common law marriages. Several powerful bishops (often selected by powerful noblemen or the emperors themselves---a practice called lay investure), spent much of their time in the imperial courts, fighting against the Holy Roman Emperor's enemies---and gaining more prestige and power. They WERE married in Church---and the bishops were concerned about giving THEIR sons parishes when the boys came of age.
Marriage, for many centuries, had more to do with purity of noble blood-lines and alliances between powerful families, then with being seen as a sacrament. Therefore, the powerful wanted their sons to be well placed and their daughters to be married off to an equal place in society or an even higher place in society. And bishops were no different.
Common law marriages were for the serfs and peasants (and many parish priests came from that class. Many bishops permitted their priests to have common law marriages, but the children born of such unions could make no claims to any parishes or church buildings in the diocese.
It was the Council of Trent that first set the number of sacraments to seven. It also confirmed traditions that had been in practice since the 12th Century, although not from the Apostolic period. The Council of Trent taught that the primary end of marriage is about the procreation and education of children. Secondly, it is about, on one hand, the mutual aid of spouses and on the other hand as a remedy for concupiscence {sexual desire}.
However, during the Second Vatican Council (October 29-30, 1964), it was Cardinal Dearden of Detroit, who presented marriage as first ordered toward God, then the love of the couple for each other, then lastly, the procreation of children. Cardinal Leger of Montreal added that it is love that leads the couple to marriage and it is LOVE that leads to intercourse.
It was Cardinal Ottaviani (who was not pleased with the concepts that married couples can determine the number of children that they were to have) who came out on November 2, 1964 with a world-wide news conference. He stated that the Church's teaching on this matter will never change because that teaching is based "on the natural law and several scriptural texts."
However, one sage participant of the Council (Patriarch Maximos IV Saigh (of Antioch)stated, "can the official positions of the Church in this matter not be reviewed in the light of modern theological, medical, psychological, and sociological science?....And are we not entitled to ask if certain positions are not the outcome of outmoded ideas and , perhaps, a BACHELOR PSYCHOSIS on the part of those unacquainted {the hierarchy} with this sector of life."
Patriarch Maximos rightly predicated that this will become an "urgent problem because it lies at the root of a great crisis of the Catholic conscience."
It is a reflection of God's love that draws the couple to each other. It is that love that unites them in Matrimony. And it is that love that binds them together in good times and in the bad. If there are children---they are the fruit of that love.
The Church did not consider
The Church did not consider marriage a sacrament for 1500 years (up UNTIL Trent). Even so, marriages were not celebrated in the Church. Marriage was always considered the lesser of two states, the greater being chastity (permanent chastity) which is not the natural state of humans.
Marriage has always existed as a means of property transmission and legitimization of children (and today to provide a proxy for one's life-mate to make medical decisions for one such as ending aggressive medical care). Period. That is why there are dynastic marriages, and marriages of convenience. That is why arranged marriages work in some cultures. That is also why skeevy cult leaders like to select underage young women as their "wives" and leave "lesser" men in the community to select amongst the "lesser" women.
Let's not make of marriage more than it is. Whatever significance and depth there is to an individual marriage is due solely to the two partners in it. THAT is where any holiness happens. Frankly, I think marriage as an institution (such as it is) is hurt more by people like the Kardashians than my married gay neighbors.
--Andy Jo--
The Old Catholic Church is
The Old Catholic Church is the place for LGBT,same valid sacraments minus the politics.
dude, just come to the
dude, just come to the Spanish Mass. No one notices. No one questions. All are glad to see you show up, with love. None turned away from the table.
Bring some love, and leave with much more!
No, just come to the Polish
No, just come to the Polish Mass. No one inquires. No one cares. We have a long and arduous history, facing at different times many forms of serious persecution. Why settle for the Spanish Mass when you can experience the Polish.
Bring some love and fight for justice! You won't be disappointed...
No, dood, just come to the
No, dood, just come to the Episcopalian service. No one inquires. No one cares. We have a long and fatuous history, expressing at different times many forms of serious cultural imperialism. Why settle for the Spanish Mass when you can experience the Episcopalian service? Heck, we even got chicks as priests & bishops!
Bring some love and fight for the rainbow flag! You won't be disappointed...
Yes, join the
Yes, join the Do-it-my-way-crowd - they are in the majority! And the majority is powerful - in this world, but not in God's Kingdom.
By their actions, the
By their actions, the homosexual act, they have cut themselves off from the saving grace of God. Have you no heart? Do you wish to relegate them to eternal damnation?
There is a typo in this
There is a typo in this article:
[the bishops] should read [the bishops'] (assuming that the reference is to the bishops as a whole; if not, move the apostrophe appropriately).
Anyway, onto actual content. His Excellency is not the same as the Magisterium. There are already many Church documents publicly available dealing with homosexuality and LGBT issues. What purpose will a debate with a single individual serve? Furthermore, the spokesman for the archdiocese is spot on -- it is hardly appropriate to invite someone to civil discourse with more-than-caustic words.
This issue is
This issue is significant.
Not marriage. But human rights. The significance of celibacy. The significance of love over lust. Of the Other over self. Of aligning one's actions in caritas and humility.
Abba Theodore of Pherma also said, "If you are temperate, do not judge the fornicator, for you would then transgress the law just as much. And he who said, 'Do not fornicate' also said 'Do not judge.'"
Abba Nilus said, "Happy is the monk who thinks he is the outcast of all."
Abba Sarmatas said, "I prefer a sinful man who knows he has sinned and repents, to a man who has not sinned and considers himself to righteous."
It seems to me that in such issues we politicize gravely. When we deny the Holy Eucharist on the basis of a piece of fabric we are not forgiving, we are judging. And we are assuming a sanctimony that, through blind idolatry of rote, comes close to the damning sanctimony of the Pharisees as portrayed in the Gospels.
After all, Jesus himself boldly pronounces to such-minded holier-than-thous, in Matthew 21:31: "Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you."
In the Divine Liturgy of the Catholic Churches of the Eastern Rite, the priest again and again (in the ritual laid down in the 5th Century by Saint John Chrysostom): (from, Luke 18:9-14) "God, have mercy on me, a poor sinner"... In the Lord's Prayer, we ask to be forgiven/or not by God according to our actualized abilities to first do to others what we ask of God for ourselves.
I only hope that we, as a Church, still have the ability to cloak ourselves in the mantle of humility, to worry gravely about our trespasses, which are too many to warrant any salvation, except through the merciful Grace of God, and knowing this, pursue unrestricted love, not only to the self-proclaimed chosen, but to the marginalized, the persecuted, even to our enemies, as if our salvation depended verily upon such.
Be careful of quoting out of
Be careful of quoting out of context. The point Jesus made in Matthew 21:31 wasn't "holier than thou..." it was that the person who hears the truth and after rejecting it, accepts it and acts accordingly. There is a difference in interpretation and the meaning can be confused.
"After all, Jesus himself
"After all, Jesus himself boldly pronounces to such-minded holier-than-thous, in Matthew 21:31: "Amen I say to you, that the publicans and the harlots shall go into the kingdom of God before you.""
You know perfectly well Jesus meant those publicans and harlots who repent first!!! No one unclean enters the kingdom of God for nothing unclean can behold the face of God and live.
"When we deny the Holy
"When we deny the Holy Eucharist on the basis of a piece of fabric we are not forgiving, we are judging."
This is a perversion of the Eucharist. It is not a matter of judgment, but a matter of respect and dignity of Christ in the Eucharist. There are people unworthy of receiving, for example, those in a state of mortal sin. They are not worthy to receive Christ into their bodies at that point in time. If you think that the Eucharist is political, then you fundamentally do not understand it.
I have noticed that so many
I have noticed that so many of those who rail against "judgmentalism" are themselves very quick to judge others--especially the bishops by ascribing to them the worst possible motives for their words and actions. You can't have it both ways. If it is always wrong to judge others, then it is wrong to judge the bishops. It is also wrong to judge nazis, ku kluxers, Republicans, "hobophobes" and everybody else that "tolerant" liberals hate while pretending that they don't.
I amongst many believe Christ
I amongst many believe Christ would never turn anyone from the table
Also when priests wearing the cloth, having sexually tortured children for their own pleasure, then celebrate the Eucharist ...what does that say about respect and dignity?
It has always been of interest to me (a non Catholic) - does the state of the priest impact at all on the celebration, if the priest is in a state of sin - can the base elements be sanctified?
You can believe whatever you
You can believe whatever you want. Jesus made it clear in the Bible that God is always welcoming, but that does not meant that we are unable to turn against him. He is open to us, but we in turn must be open to him.
"if the priest is in a state of sin - can the base elements be sanctified?"
Yes.
Re: "if the priest is in a
Re: "if the priest is in a state of sin - can the base elements be sanctified?"
It is not the priest who sanctifies the 'base elements' but God Himself through the ministry of His priest. In His mercy, Jesus comes to the rest of us even though the priest may be in a state of mortal sin. None of us are worthy to receive Him, even less those that are in a state of unrepentant rebellion to Him. How many times must He say to us: "Repent!" for His message to us to penetrate our consciousness?
I think that you are in danger of worshipping man instead of his Creator when you think that all power comes from man. Such blindness is spiritually crippling and is in contravention of the First Commandment.
Re: "When we deny the Holy
Re: "When we deny the Holy Eucharist on the basis of a piece of fabric we are not forgiving, we are judging."
Whoever said this has seemingly not considered that this piece of cloth is worn as a public protest against God's law, so the wearers are clearly in rebellion against God. As such, why do they seek to receive Him except as an act of blasphemy and self-worship, to insult Him, in fact? Surely, God's representatives would not be acting in His Will to enable such a blasphemy. When did God say that we should not judge between good and evil? He tells us not to judge our neighbour because only He can read and so judge the heart of a person - but He did teach us the difference between good and evil; we have the Commandments, Moses and the Prophets, Jesus' teachings and the Church He established to continue His work. Think a little deeper. In any case, the insult is to God – it is not up to us to forgive such an insult – that is God’s prerogativ
if you follow the law of
if you follow the law of Moses are you ot ignoring the reason for Christ to come to earth. Doesn't the fact of Christ nullify the law of Moses?
Well said!! I hope that other
Well said!! I hope that other readers will read your excellent comments and learn!
You took a lot of thought to
You took a lot of thought to write this response. IT is excellent in many ways. There is something i noticed though, that disappointed me. You refer to Scripture a few times, however you never once refer to any scripture regarding the underlying issue(GLBT) lifestyle. DID you NOT think your response through enough and plainly forgot or is this an attempt to polarize/mislead in an act of ommission?
"What purpose will a debate
"What purpose will a debate with a single individual serve?"
Reply: It will serve elevate that person's arrogance and ego and unworthily celebrate his rebellion to God's law. "They have Moses and the Commandments..." Let them pay attention.
Gail Ramplen on Dec. 10,
Gail Ramplen on Dec. 10, 2011.
You stated:
("What purpose will a debate with a single individual serve?"
Reply: It will serve elevate that person's arrogance and ego and unworthily celebrate his rebellion to God's law. "They have Moses and the Commandments..." Let them pay attention.)
----------------------------------------------------------------
Was Jean Buridan (1300-1358) French artist/scientist being arrogant when he wrote to the Vatican telling it that the presuppositions on which theology was based did not fit with the actual movement of heavenly bodies.
Was Galileo being arrogant? It was the rigidity of church authorities that forced Galileo to recant on a discovery that he had made in regard to the physical world---a discovery that has been proven and verified as CORRECT.
In dealing with gays/lesbians---for decade now the Catholic hierarchy has declared them to be "objectively disordered". But to this date, the church has not produced one iota, one shred of verifiable evidence to support its claims. It either refers to the Bible or to the "Doctors of the Church" for its 'proof'. The Bible contains the core message of God's love for creation, and especially for human beings. It speaks to people of all cultures. But the Bible was not written to be a book of astronomy, nor a textbook of biology, nor a handbook of genetics. The Bible cannot PROVE that homosexuality is CHOSEN.
The official Church also like to use the works of the Doctors of the Church to support its claims (e.g. natural law). But as brilliant (and saintly) as they were, these individuals were:
1) person born and formed by their own societies and times---influenced by their own century (not the current time).
2) were paid and supported by the church for which they wrote their works---as members of the hierarchy or members of religious orders.
3) their writings DO NOT constitute OBJECTIVE and TIMELY evidence.
From the scientific area however, we have the research and evidence that animals of all species have some members who select as mates those of the same gender. We also know that animals do not act according to volition.
The work of the acclaimed biologist and linguist, Bruce Bagemihl, demonstrates this so conclusively that his book "Biological Exuberance" (1999) was submitted as evidence in the landmark case before the U.S. Supreme Court {Lawrence vs. Texas--2003}. The legal case concluded that homosexual activity is 'natural'. Bagemihl's work has been corroborated and expanded through further studies by Joan Roughgarden in her 2006 book, "Evolution's Rainbow."
The "why" behind homosexuality is currently being investigated through more research by medical scientists looking at those pre-natal conditions affecting human development such as hormones and genetics as well as the effect of early home environment upon children. But enough is known about homosexuality to determine that it is no more a CHOOSEN state than in being born a redhead, with green eyes and with a left-hand dominance.
The church, through Timothy Dolan, would do well to study proven scientific studies on homosexuality---before opening their collective mouth to put their collective feet into it.
Why follow the investigators
Why follow the investigators when you can listen to the Designer? The investigators of what already is - the catcher-uppers of the design are so far behind! There is still so much that the investigators don't even know that they don't know. The Lord calls these things His Mysteries that are to remain mysteries - we can go round and round and round but we will never crack them this side of eternity. But nevertheless, the activity is fascinating to many - especially those who think humanity is the all in all.
Now that's a debate I'd like
Now that's a debate I'd like to listen to! Unfortunately, the hierarch thus challenged is sure to take any means to avoid having to defend his indefensible position.
Seriously, he should talk
Seriously, he should talk with Dolan about his former dicoese of Milwaukee - which declared bankruptcy in Jan 2011 due to the endless HIDDEN molestation of children.
Besides the worst of the crimes the hiding and even moving priests around to new locations, the group catholic culture published a summary of the report on the bishops requested for 1.8 mil $$
It said that as more gay priests engered the priesthood in the 70s and 80s, the molestation rate went down .
Easy to understand -the gays did it as consenting adults. the str8s kept on raping childre, they didnt have any other outlet
If even now you let your kids near a priest, you should be ashamed of yourself.
You are kidding right. The
You are kidding right. The head of the diocese during most of that time was Weakland. Oh by the way he has come out as gay after it was discovered that he paid off a gay lover to be quiet
Re: "Easy to understand -the
Re: "Easy to understand -the gays did it as consenting adults; the str8s kept on raping children, they didn't have any other outlet."
Easy to understand - yes, for somone who worships (places as first) his need for sexual gratification.
"Consenting adults" - since when did consent to immorality and evil become an excuse? Perhaps you should take up the cause of consenting murderers or even consenting thieves, etc. They could use a break being so cruelly judged by all of us self-righteous people - and especially by those who place love of money as first(false god). The latter seem to think that love of money should replace love of God when they think that taking money from the Church should serve as a more poignant lesson and motive for refraining from evil than the fear of God who is almighty.
"They didn't have any other outlet" - it is difficult for people who worship their sexual gratification to imagine any other pleasurable outlet, like love of God, service to Him through service to others, wholesome activities that develop mind and body in line with the Creator's purpose, bringing them into a delightful and rewarding relationship with Him. Ask for His help and inspiration - He is only waiting for your request to be gracious to you.
Furthermore, even the worst statistics prove that the vast majority of priests are innocent of raping children or adults - consenting or otherwise. I guess that example of theirs is what galls you so.
Marriage as an institution
Marriage as an institution precedes all other human institutions, including the state and religious institution. In fact, it is the source of all other institutions. As such, it has the following major constitutive characteristics from its very beginnings: a union between a man and a woman for the procreation and upbringing of children and for the mutual help of spouses.
As one can see the definition and description of this eminently important institution, by the virtue of its stated goals and assumed role in the development of human society and humanity itself, is inherently discriminative: it clearly defines who can and who cannot participate in this institution. Gay people, as men and women, were and are not excluded as long as they appreciate the above-described two main goals of marriage. On the other hand, people, despite their ability to love another person, who lacked the aptitude for the fulfillment of procreative and unitive goals of marriage (except for existing medical condition or disability resulting in infertility) were excluded, for example: siblings, parents-children, adult dependents (people who lacked the mental and emotional aptitude to support a spouse or a child). In other words, the main reason for discrimination in who can get married is aptitude and not gender.
Society continues to discriminate according to aptitude even if it has gender, racial or cultural connotations. We have separate schools for boys and girls (the aptitude there is determined primarily by social standards: how boys and girls are able to relate to one another at certain age, and only in a secondary way, how that influences academic performance). We have male female sports and sports teams. We discriminate culturally (and so, implicitly racially): I can belong to a Japanese cultural club only if I do not demand that the club’s customs and traditions will be changed in order to accommodate my own ethnic customs and traditions). In other words, we always have and continue to discriminate in our institutions, and we do apply the separate but equal principle when it is necessary.
Therefore, the efforts of the gay lobby to turn the issue of the redefinition of marriage into a human rights issue are utterly despicable. It is a strategic and political move and it has nothing to do with the truth about marriage.
The fact is that same-sex couples, by default and not by exception (for example, because of existing medical conditions), cannot have children without the involvement of a third person. Therefore, a same-sex couple either cannot satisfy the requirements of marriage and family without either turning it into a polygamous relationship or depriving children from their biological parents.
A redefinition of marriage that does not include the procreation of children will turn this institution, by definition, from a child-centred institution into an adult-centred institution.
Joe Murray and the gay lobby know all this, but they do not give any attention to this. They are hell-bent to redefine and so destroy marriage for their selfish reasons.
Dear Anonymous, You post so
Dear Anonymous,
You post so many comments in response to various NCR pieces, that I'm not sure you'll see my reply. I hope you will.
You write, "The fact is that same-sex couples, by default and not by exception (for example, because of existing medical conditions), cannot have children without the involvement of a third person."
The fact is, many opposite-sex couples cannot have children without the involvement of a third person.
Have you ever met any of those, by chance?
And did you discover that they were denied the right to marry because they were incapable of procreating?
Or is it a fact that our culture and churches marry non-procreative heterosexual couples, and have done so for centuries now--so that the ability or willingness to procreate has NEVER been a precondition of being married in our culture and churches?
Yet, unwillingness to
Yet, unwillingness to procreate nullifies marriage.
Post new comment