The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionGroup aims to mobilize Catholics for equality
Sep. 29, 2010
People gather near the U.S. Capitol during a gay rights demonstration in Washington Oct. 11, 2009. (CNS photo/Molly Riley, Reuters)
In recent state ballot initiatives about marriage laws, the Catholic church and Catholic allies have used deep pockets and organizational strength to speak out for state laws that would define marriage as between a man and a woman.
But a group of politically savvy Catholics say the bishops are out of step with the majority of Catholics on this question, and on Sept. 14, they launched a new effort that plans to use grass-roots organizing and community building “to mobilize the 62 percent of American Catholics who support freedoms for all people regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity ... [and] channel that support into action for legislative, political and cultural change.”
The group is called Catholics for Equality.
Fr. Joseph Palacios, a founding board member of the group and a sociologist and adjunct professor at Georgetown University in Washington, cites a May survey by Gallup that found that 52 percent of Americans say that gay and lesbian relations are morally acceptable, the highest acceptance rate since 2006. Among Catholics, support jumps to 62 percent, up from 46 percent in 2006.
Most American Catholics, Palacios said, “want to do the right thing from their American core values and the heritage of Catholic social justice values. We want to move the best of those Catholic values and American values toward voting for [lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered] freedoms and we want to help them have a cultural voice in helping shift the American community to a more open, pluralistic society.”
During a teleconference unveiling the new group, the organizers talked about the technology one has come to expect in today’s political environment: social media, blogs, Web sites, and smart phone aps. But the technology has a very personal aspect, according to Phil Attey, the acting executive director. “We are finding creative ways to have dialogue in places where it is being suppressed.”
As one strategy, the group is asking people to organize “Equality Sunday Brunches” and invite fellow Catholics, friends and family to meet and hear from community leaders, parish leaders and pro-equality supporters, said Aniello Alioto, another founding board member.
“The brunches and people getting to know their neighbors are a critical aspect,” Palacios said. “One of the key findings in politics right now is that [homosexual] rights and freedoms will only be won when people know someone who is gay, lesbian or transsexual.”
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
Attey said, “We have to trust that ordinary Catholics know love, commitment and family when they see it. They see lesbian and gay parishioners bringing their kids to Mass and raising them in the Catholic church. They see their gay and lesbian family members forming families and raising them Catholic. They know love when they see it.
“So to counter the messages of the hierarchy is very easy,” he said. “We just have to provide the truth of these relationships, and let Catholics make up their own minds.”
Other principals of Catholics for Equality include: Anne Underwood, a leader in Maine’s Catholics for Marriage Equality; Patsy Trujillo, a former state representative from Santa Fe, N.M.; Eugene McMullan, lead organizer of Catholics for Marriage Equality in California; Charles Martel, a clinical social worker and co-coordinator of Roman Catholics for Marriage Equality in Massachusetts; and Tony Adams, a resigned Catholic priest who writes for Queer New York and South Florida Gay News.
The group’s immediate goal is “getting our message out there that we exist and that we can provide information and some guidance in how to approach the conversation of [gay] equality as it relates to the Catholic church,” said Alioto.
Outreach this year, he said, will allow the group to have an impact on state legislative campaigns, national issues and state ballot initiatives in 2011.
Catholics for Equality will have much to counter.
The U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference has made “strengthening marriage” one of its top five priorities through 2011, with the stated goal “to work for laws and public policies that recognize marriage as a union of a man and a woman.”
Last year, the Portland, Maine, diocese issued an appeal to U.S. dioceses and collected money from 50 to contribute more than $550,000 to a campaign to reject a Maine law that extended civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Maine voters rejected the same-sex marriage law 53 to 47 percent.
In 2008, a California voter initiative, known as Proposition 8, overrode a California Supreme Court ruling that had enlarged the definition of marriage to include all couples. Proposition 8 defined marriage as limited to a man and a woman and it passed by 52 percent to 48 percent.
A major organizer on the side of traditional marriage in California and Maine was the National Organization for Marriage, a 501(c)4 organization, a tax-exempt nonprofit that can engage in lobbying or political campaigning. The Catholic fraternal order of the Knights of Columbus reports that it gave $500,000 to the National Organization for Marriage in 2008 and $1.4 million in 2009. In 2008, the Knights also gave $1.15 million to the California group ProtectMarriage.com, which was endorsed by the California Catholic Conference.
The Knights gave $418,000 to the U.S. bishops’ Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage in 2009. This summer, the committee launched “Marriage: Unique for a Reason,” a campaign using print material, the Internet and DVDs to “catechize and educate Catholics on the meaning of marriage as the union of one man and one woman.”
The battle over Proposition 8 may be reemerging. In August a federal judge overturned Proposition 8. Chicago Cardinal Francis E. George, president of the U.S. Catholic bishops’ conference, called the ruling “tragic.”
In late September, the bishops of Minnesota mailed DVDs to Catholic households with a letter about the dangers of legalizing same-sex marriage. See related story below.
The bishops suggested that Catholics contact their state legislators and tell them to stop any action that would expand the legal definition of marriage. The Web site, CatholicNewsAgency.com, reported Sept. 19 that the St. Paul and Minneapolis archdiocese had brought in Maggie Gallagher, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, to discuss strategies for opposing the redefinition of marriage.
[Dennis Coday is NCR managing editor. His e-mail address is dcoday@ncronline.org.]
Minnesota bishops' DVD campaign urges traditional marriage be protected
By Catholic News Service
ST. PAUL, Minn. (CNS) -- Minnesota's Catholic bishops have sent a letter and DVD to Catholics in the state about the church's response to measures recently introduced in the state Legislature that would change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples.
"As the chief pastor of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis, I am writing to let you know of an important development that, if successful, will profoundly impact families throughout Minnesota," Archbishop John C. Nienstedt said. "That is, the organized effort to redefine marriage in our state."
During the 2010 legislative session, five bills to redefine marriage were introduced.
"Defining marriage as simply a union of consenting parties will change the core meaning of marriage in the public square for every Minnesotan," the archbishop said. "At best, so-called same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment and, at worst, it poses a dangerous risk with potentially far-reaching consequences."
If same-sex marriage were legalized in Minnesota, the law would require public schools to teach children that same-sex marriage and traditional marriage are the same, the archbishop wrote.
In the video, Archbishop Nienstedt calls for an opportunity for citizens to vote on a state constitutional amendment to preserve the traditional definition of marriage.
"At best, so called same-sex marriage is an untested social experiment," he said. "And at worst, it poses a dangerous risk with potentially far-reaching consequences. An exercise of caution should be in order."
The cost of producing the DVD, titled "One Man, One Woman -- Marriage and the Common Good," was covered by an anonymous donor covered the cost of the campaign.
In a column in the September issue of his diocesan newspaper, The Courier, Bishop John M. Quinn of Winona urged Catholics to talk to their legislators and urge them to oppose any effort to redefine marriage.
"Any other kind of relationship simply is not a marriage," he said. "This is our time to stand up and defend marriage as a unique institution that, from the beginning of human history and in every culture, is the union of one man and one woman for the propagation of the human family and the upbringing of children."
Thirty-one states have adopted constitutional amendments defining marriage as a union of one man and one woman, Chris Leifeld, executive director of the Minnesota Catholic Conference, pointed out.
"The Minnesota Catholic bishops agree that Minnesota should follow this lead and let the people of Minnesota decide this issue, not our judges or legislators," Leifeld said.
In a related development, the Star Tribune daily newspaper reported that the rector of the Basilica of St. Mary in Minneapolis suspended a woman from her part-time job there because she said she planned to collect the DVDs sent to Catholics and turn them into a protest sculpture.
Artist Lucinda Naylor told the Star Tribune she had to stand up for what she believes and while she was disappointed about her suspension, she was not surprised. Naylor, who has been an artist in residence at the basilica for 15 years, disagrees with the church teaching against same-sex marriage.
Archdiocesan spokesman Dennis McGrath told the newspaper that the rector, Father John Bauer, made the decision to suspend Naylor, but said the archdiocese supported it.
McGrath called the priest's action "pretty logical" when someone who works for the church lobbies against church teaching. He said he doesn't know of any organization that would keep someone who opposes "the main thrust of what you're doing."
Related stories from NCR on poverty:
- Catholic Charities writes, pushes legislation to end poverty, by Jerry Filteau
- Radical individualism and the poverty rate, An NCR editorial
- Priest presents bitter truths as well as hope, A book review by Arthur Jones
- The attorney for the poor, An NCR editorial
God bless the group Catholics
God bless the group Catholics for Equality. Their push for justice and equality for people is noble. They, with the workings of the Holy Spirit, are making the "sense of the faithful" known to the world. Most Catholics are bright, compassionate, and open to scientific discovery and knowledge of the human predicament; only a small group is closed minded.
As a cradle Catholic, I
As a cradle Catholic, I believe in "loving God and neighbor" and as such equality of rights and responsibilities for all should be the goal of all Catholic Christians. I support and applaud Catholics for Equality.
Historically, marriage is an
Historically, marriage is an institution that predates any other institution, including state, church, etc. It is the one institution that “gave birth” to all other institutions, and to society itself. Its main purpose since its existence has been two-fold: procreation and rearing of offspring, and mutual support of spouses. Throughout its long history it had different form, polygamous, monogamous, arranged, not arranged, etc.
However, in all its variations, marriage has been fundamentally and consistently a child-centred institution. This is what is changing. The late 20th century social engineering is proposing to change marriage from a child-centred institution into an adult-centred institution. To identify same-sex relationships with marriage is only a symptom, and example of this innovation. The consequences of this unprecedented move are long-term and they are yet to be discovered. One obvious first sign is that the majority of western countries, without the constant influx of immigrants would show a negative birthrate and population growth. |Another, more subtle sign is the growing individualism and self-centeredness, indicated, for example by the constantly widening gap between the rich and the poor and the abuse of environment.
The undeniable relevance of marriage as a long-standing institution as a male-female relationship has been established by its own merits, based in its service to society. As such it is its due to be protected by law.
If we, as a society, want other relationships to be accepted and perhaps protected by law, such as same-sex relationships, we should do so based on their own merits (based on their service/relevance to society), and not at the expense of something else, namely the institute of marriage. Any weakening of the institution of marriage by not giving the protection what is its dues is simply unjust!
According to the UN Charter, marriage is not a fundamental human right, and it cannot be. There are all kinds of reasons for which society discriminates who can or cannot get married, and rightly so. The relentless push to change marriage from a child-centred institution, into an adult centred institution (including redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships) is unjust to the institution of marriage, short-sighted and selfish.
What we need as well-reasond dialogue on this issue and not political and ideological posturing.
Marriage historically has
Marriage historically has been seen as heterosexual in nature for two reasons:
a. In olden times, it was seen as necessary for survival against nature & enemy and getting the family work done, and
b. Heterosexuals came (understandably) to accept marriage as heterosexual in nature.
No wonder the UN Charter might not have included marriage as a "fundamental human right" --- seeing as how the folks drawing up the charter back in the day were themselves products of a time when it likely would not have occurred to most (heterosexual) people to extend marriage rights to gays & lesbians.
Marriage itself has no rights. It's *people* who have rights (or are denied them). Marriage is merely a means to (a) officially recognize marital status and (b) officially extend benefits of same to such couples.
Marriage has always been an "adult-centered institution". Why? Because it has been *adults* (of whatever age in a particular socio-historical culture) who have gotten married, and because not all married couples have chosen --- or been able --- to procreate. Furthermore, marriage per se has not been --- and is not today --- necessary for propagation of the species.
Catholic teaching on marriage is so very limited and timebound today --- to the point that folks simply pay no heed to the magisterium. The pope and his lackeys have no moral credibility.
It's time for Rome to deal with reality.
Something it doesn't demonstrate today.
'Anonymous' ends his
'Anonymous' ends his presumption-laden defense of marriage (which could be challenged by even a cursory reading of the anthropological history of marriage) with a plea for "dialogue on this issue and not political and ideological posturing."
The problem, Anonymous, is that marriage at its very heart, even in its ancient past, and especially as it has developed in western societies, fundamentally represents a particular politics and ideology.
The politics being there is an arrangement or exchange where males insure their genetic progeny continues and women gain economic and social protection within the group for themselves and their children.
Remember there are fundamental evolutionary impulses at work in much of human behavior. Only in modern times, and in cultures where women have access to education and economic independence, have women gained the economic power that threatens this ancient political exchange between men and women.
The ideology that undergirds most of our notions about marriage is the dominance of patriarchy. As good as we can tell generally starting after the last Ice Age, patriarchy has become the dominant social ideology.
What went before seems from the anthropological and fossil record to have been at least a parity between patriarchy and matriarchy, with abundant evidence that many ancient aboriginal cultures where definitively matriarchal - some even in modern times, especially in their religious iconography and social structures (i.e., fertility goddess cults).
Let's be careful about the assumptions we make about marriage that many times are culturally and religiously bound.
And if we do, we then can understand that we have choices to make about what in social institutions like marriage we want to discard and what we would like to embrace.
Please try to be accurate in
Please try to be accurate in the information. As a good Catholic father of 4 children and 6 grandchildren who is also a macro-level sociologist who has studied the development of societies from Hunter-Gatherers to late modern societies, I can tell you the picture is much more complex than your words imply. You would be correct to say that KINSHIP and marriage were the foundation of hunting and gathering societies, in fact the only social institution was kinship. As we have seen the development of different types of societies, we see that the public role of the family has receded. I would argue that in modern societies, family-marriage-kinship is only one among a number competing institutions. We need to look deeper into the actual development and place of kinship-family-marriage in real societies.
With regard to marriage itself, the same type of investigation is in order. Compare the 1918 and the 1983 Code to see which speaks of "mutual love." Before the 1200s Catholic practice of marriage in northern Europe and Rome varied in significant ways. For example, in northern Europe marriage was understood as a process and once a couple was betrothed they were allowed to engage in sexual intercourse and were wedded months or a year later. And it was not until the Council of Trent that marriage was defined as a Sacrament.
My only point is that what "happens on the ground" must be understood in its current and historical reality. It must be an essential element in formulating and applying moral principals and cases. So, let's be complete in our understanding.
I am a long time practising
I am a long time practising Catholic. I have a number of friends in the senior complex where I live who are lesbians and gays, wonderful people. Marriage gives right of voice in determining health outcomes when the other is incapable of decision and communication. It also allows sharing of income as decided without additional legal documentation and cost. It endorses full close loving relationship.
BRAVISIMO!
BRAVISIMO!
>>>>Bishop John M. Quinn of
>>>>Bishop John M. Quinn of Winona urged Catholics to talk to their legislators and urge them to oppose any effort to redefine marriage.
"Any other kind of relationship simply is not a marriage," he said. "This is our time to stand up and defend marriage as a unique institution that, from the beginning of human history and in every culture, is the union of one man and one woman for the propagation of the human family and the upbringing of children.”<<<
I can only assume that Bp. Quinn is familiar enough with the Hebrew scriptures that he knows this statement to be patently false. If the hierarchy has to resort to bold face lies to support their position, perhaps the position is unsupportable.
Please assure me that you are
Please assure me that you are not quoting John Quinn, the former Archbishop of San Francisco, a man dedicated to his Church and the essence of a human being. A lettered man, in both scripture and theology, embued with the love of Christ, His teachings, His compassion for all human persons, an advocate of justice without being 'judgmental or condemning'.
No. no. This is the Bp.
No. no. This is the Bp. Quinn of Winona, quoted in the article above. I share your respect for the former Archbishop of SF.
Please, don't try to confuse
Please, don't try to confuse Catholic Bishops with facts. They have a point to make. I find it interesting that marriage is usually defined by the hierarchy as a union between a man and a woman. Yet, the Catholic Church teaches that it is an indisssoluble union beteeen a man and a woman. Bishops seem to leave the first part out. Maybe they see that it wouldn't be good "politics" to proclaim the fullness of the Church's position on this matter. If the bishops want to protect marriage they might want to consider a push for a constitutional amendment prohibiting divorce, if not for everyone (remember the first amendment?) then certainly for catholics. Cold day in hell before we see that happen!
The issue of "gay marriage"
The issue of "gay marriage" is not really a question of equality. Rather it is an attempt to undermine the institution of marriage itself. When you say marriage, what comes to mind? Two guys in tuxedos standing on top of a cake? Hardly, when you say the word marriage you think of a man & woman. The combination of man & woman is at the heart of the concept. Only a man & a woman united together in sexual love can procreate children.
So the reservation of marriage to a heterosexual pair is not discrimination against gay couples. The nature of the institution requires a heterosexual pair. The heterosexual pair is at the heart of the concept. So whatever you may think of the issue of gayness, it should not cloud the logical observation that the requirement for marriage excludes gay couples. They simply don't qualify for this particular institution. So to exclude them is not a matter of discrimination. The discrimination claim is a false claim. Case closed!
If procreation, or the
If procreation, or the presumed capability of procreation, is an essential qualification for valid marriage, why are senior citizens, beyond all possibility of procreation, allowed to marry? The typical reaction is "Aren't they sweet!", not "They can't DO that!" In their case, a long term commitment to love and companionship is fully approved. Where's the consistency here?
Let me give you a simple
Let me give you a simple example. You have a retired baseball player, who cannot play ball anymore. "You don't tell them, you cannot call yourself a baseball player animore, you don't kick them out of the club house, you cannot wear a baseball uniform, etc." Infact we induct some of them into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
However, if a football player wants to come in his fottbal outfit into the basball club (whatever his age) and act like a football player while claiming that he is a baseball player, we tell him, that perhaps he should be playing football in a football club and not in a baseball club. And, no, we will not unduct him into the Baseball Hall of Fame.
When it comes to inability to
When it comes to inability to procreate, there is no consistency in Rome's teaching. Hence, the lack of moral credibility of the pope and his episcopal lackeys.
The prime purpose of marrigae
The prime purpose of marrigae is for the procreation of marriage and the family. No creative process in "gay marriages" Call it "domestic relatinship" but not marriage. It should be noted marriage is based on the Trinity where creation is always taking place.
If "procreation and family"
If "procreation and family" is the "prime purpose of marriage", we had better start getting the entire animal kingdom married.
I am a heterosexual married
I am a heterosexual married woman. I have yet to have it explained to me how gays being granted a right of marriage in any way "undermines" marriage. It is often mouthed, but never explained.
You cannot simply define away the right, by claiming that marriage is defined as male and female only. That is mere sophistry.
You cannot avoid the discrimination charge simply by your determination to call marriage something that by definition excludes them. The case is anything but closed.
Having read a good number of books and articles by experts, both theological and biblical, there is simply no rational reason that I can find for this prohibition.
We here in Iowa have had marriage equality for more than a year now, and there are zero adverse affects, as reported by various studies done within the state. I read the Iowa Supreme court opinion in full, and it was more than apparent that the side who opposed same-sex marriage were unable to mount even a minimal argument. They had no studies, and no experts except those who were willing to give personal opinions undocumented by ANY study, anywhere. On the other hand, those who were arguing for marriage equality provided a plethora of statistics, studies, and experts in a huge array of fields including psychology, child welfare, and a host of other pertinent scholastic areas.
The judges could find no basis whatsoever for any of the claims made by the anti-marriage equality side. With good reason...they have nothing but a personal fear that their brand of conservative biblical interpretation may not in fact be the correct one.
Viva Iowa! JR
Viva Iowa!
JR
The more outspoken U.S.
The more outspoken U.S. Catholic hierarchs appeal ultimately to ignorance on the subject among the laity. Ignorance, in turn, fosters unwarranted fear. Unfortunately, the latter can promote contempt for the "other". Finally, as American history has all too often demonstrated, such contempt can lead to violence against the minority.
I find the behavior of these self-styled "orthodox" bishops to be nothing short of reprehensible. They are orthotoxic to the basic gospel message of Jesus.
"I have yet to have it
"I have yet to have it explained to me how gays being granted a right of marriage in any way "undermines" marriage. It is often mouthed, but never explained."
Perhaps this will explain things: Allowing same-sex marriage will "undermine" marriage in the same way that allowing women the right to vote "undermined" the democratic processes, and integration in schools and eating establishments "undermined" education and digestion!
"Marriage" simply isn't what
"Marriage" simply isn't what it used to be. Nearly half of all marriages, even between Catholics, end in divorce. The "institution" of marriage has become a fiction. Moreover, I don't hear people demanding a "sacramental" marriage for same-sex couples. The bishops have no call to address civil marriages, which they don't recognize. They certainly have an argument to be made for keeping the sacrament of matrimony hetrosexual, but speaking on civil marriage is beyond their competence and jurisdiction.
trick, You hit on the obvious
trick,
You hit on the obvious solution and that is to have the US legal system concerning marriage look at what is happening in Canada. There should be a legal marriage by the state of two people (either heterosexual or homosexual.) Those that wish to have a religious marriage afterwards then would go to their various denominations.
The theological definition of marriage varies widely and people not satisfied with what their denomination currently does could either work to promote change in the denomination or go to a different church.
If for instance the Catholic leadership wishes to prevent gay marriage, they would not allow a religious ceremony. The theology can be discussed inside the denomination.
If the (Catholic) Bishops then continue to insist on their role as teacher when in fact they have very little in the way of credentials (other than appointment) the people inside the denomination will need to change it or perhaps seek a Catholic Church that is independent of Roman auspices. What the (Catholic) Bishops are doing with their current interference with legislation is clearly inserting themselves into a Church-State Confrontation. This is not separation and if they continue to do it, I believe that Church property and Clerical salaries and perks should be taxed.
As a cradle Catholic I think that the current behavior of the Catholic Bishops on this issue and so many other issues has become reprehensible. These old men are behaving as if they live in a medieval authoritarian society. If they continue to insert themselves into the electoral process, then they should be visited by the tax men and women at all levels. It is further consequential that the Bishops do not believe in a electoral process for themselves and they seek to corrupt the civil process. Of course this goes for all religious denominations that insert themselves into the political process. They are breaking the separation of Church and state mandate.
The AB of Louisville, Joseph
The AB of Louisville, Joseph Kurtz, wants to "defend" and "protect" marriage.
If he's so concerned, he should work at strengthening Catholic understanding of and appreciation for heterosexual marriage, not mouthing appeals to ignorance and fear of what not be feared.
Our celibate hierarchs have enough problems among the heterosexual vineyard without trying to frustrate the efforts of people of good will to extend civil marriage and its benefits (legal and otherwise) to gays and lesbians who have no interest in changing Catholic teaching on opposite-sex marriage.
Hardly case closed. What
Hardly case closed. What about a handicapped man or woman incapable of bearing children. Should they be banned from marriage? Or a man and woman passed child-bearing years? The truth is, procreation is not the ONLY criteria for marriage.
Indeed, it is not. But
Indeed, it is not. But Marriage must be between a man and a woman. It was ordained so by no lesser a person than God.
Civil partnership is permissable today, in law, for good or ill, it is not however, and never can be marriage.
Civil society may choose to ignore God. The Church has no such choices.
The official Catholic concept
The official Catholic concept of marriage is so outdated. As increasing numbers of Catholics come to support gay marriage, we are literally seeing doctrine-in-the-making.
A Case Never Closed.
A Case Never Closed.
I truly pray that such a case is never closed and I urge you to keep your heart open to the true presence of the Holy Spirit working in the world. Thank you for sharing where you are at on this issue; it's important that all sides of this issue find a forum for expressing their concerns and ideas.
The presumption that I read in your argument is one that I must disagree with: "When you say marriage, what comes to mind? Two guys in tuxedos standing on top of a cake?" The assumption that I believe you are using to base that question is that this image, "two guys in tuxedos," is not part of the image of marriage for any right-minded person. Actually, that's exactly the image of marriage that I have and so many thoughtful, faithful, scholarly Christians have -- and it is an image that I have had since I was a small child. Two men, two women, a man and a woman: the question of which plastic figurines belong atop a cake is far less relevant than two people feeling the love, the warm embrace, the amazing peace that comes from truly finding that the presence of God felt within oneself is not only found, but also cherished, in another person. In response to that awesome call to love another person, God has asked us to express our amazement in marriage -- marriage to whomever He has created for us to fall into this kind of permanently-bonding love with.
I realize that I am only one person, another Christian, but I wish to let you know that you are not alone in your opinion and that I appreciate you expressing what you are moved to feel on this issue. No one else but you can comment on how the Spirit moves you; I feel moved by the Spirit to fight for the right of every human being to express the love that God shows to them by marrying the person of their, and God's, choosing. I ask only that you please remain open to the movement of the Holy Spirit amongst all of Creation and be willing to see that the Spirit moves each of us in a unique way.
May the awesome, life-giving, and loving presence of the almighty Creator, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit continue to show us the goodness of the diversity built into the Divine Creation.
WOW! Paulte, you've outdone
WOW! Paulte, you've outdone yourself! I've been stunned by your logic before, but never have I seen it so dizzying in its pretzel-like flow. Let's see if I got it right. Because the word "marriage" makes you think of a man and a woman, it can't be a man and a man, even if they're both dressed to the nines. So gay couples can't be married because that would be contrary to your mental image of marriage so therefore not allowing gay partners to marry each other is not discrimination. Further, they don't qualify for marriage because, as you say, "only a man and a woman united together in sexual love can create children," (even if they're both 75 years old?). Hmm. Does that mean that all those folks who never loved each other but married for other reasons weren't really married? Does that make most of the throned monarchs of history "illegitimate"? Where does it leave Joseph and Mary? Oh dear. What about those marriages where there's neither love nor sex nor children? Wouldn't we at least be likely to get two out of three from a gay marriage? So which is better? Please, Paulte, we need your Jesuitical wisdom to solve these conundrums.
More like Mind Closed!
More like Mind Closed! Paulte...read a book for heaven's sake, What are you afraid of, that gay is contageous?
To all above I say try &
To all above I say try & follow my logic. The state is not the Catholic Church or any religious group. The state is not interested in setting morality rules for marriage or anything else. This is not the business of the state.
Some of you make the point that certain heterosexual couples are beyond or incapable of procreation. This is true but the state is not saying that all married couples must procreate. This also applies to young couples who could have children but don't want them. As I said above the state is not setting up moral rules like procreation is the primary end of marriage or contraception is immoral. The state even allows abortion unfortunately.
The state looks out upon society & says we need a continual flow of new people & the only human pairing with this potential (note the word potential) is a heterosexual pair, so it restricts marriage to heterosexual couples. This particular coupling will replenish the population & it does since the birth rate is above 2.0. I believe it is 2.1.
As to homosexual couples, the state has no obligation to accommodate them. It is debatable how the question of homosexuality should be dealt with by the state. I don't intend to address that issue here. I'm restricting myself to the marriage question.
The state is making a rational decision in restricting marriage to heterosexuals on the one hand & the state has no constitutional obligation (barring what that conservative traitor, Ted Olson, is saying about the 14th amendment!) to accomodate homosexual couples on the other hand.
From a rational & secular perspective, it makes sense for the modern state to continue to restrict marriage to heterosexual pairs. That's all I'm saying; I'm not bringing religion into the question. The case against the oxymoron of "gay marriage" becomes much stronger when morality & religion are brought into it.
From the moral perspective, God's moral law restricts the covenant of marriage to a man & a woman. In Genesis we read, "God created man, male & female He created them." Genesis shows that God himself is the author of marriage.
For Catholics, it is wrong to advance anything in the civil law which contradicts God's moral law. This applies to laws which allow abortion & create the artificiality of "gay marriage." Catholics who advance such notions place their salvation at risk.
Paulte, I found the first
Paulte, I found the first eight paragraphs of this letter utter nonsense, although the rest was fine. Let me address a couple of your remarks. You claim that "it is debatable how the question of homosexuality should be dealt with by the state." This is true if the state in question is Saudi Arabia or Taliban-ruled Afghanistan. However, in the United States, homosexuality is not something that "should be dealt with" by any government body. The state's obligation and concern is with the individual, his or her God-given sexual nature notwithstanding. And yes, God created male and female, but in case you hadn't noticed, some males are homosexual and some females are lesbians. They remain male and female, as well as blue- or brown-eyed, right- or left-handed, etc.
You claim that "the state has no obligation to accomodate" homosexual couples. This would be true if the state were not involved in marriage at all, but in fact it privleges marriage in a number of ways. In doing so, it is awarding special status and privleges to the INDIVIDUALS who choose to marry. In denying this special status and these privleges to homosexual couples -- especially since the sexual combination making up the couple is the ONLY grounds for the denial -- the state is clearly discriminating against some of its citizens.
Now judging by many of your previous posts, I would guess that you disappove of homosexuality almost as much as you disapprove of women. That's your business, Paulte. But it becomes my business when the state acts on such prejudice.
I don't accept what you say.
I don't accept what you say. It is a question of the law. The category of person as homosexual has no standing in the constitution. However each individual person has a standing in the US Constitution. The state is within its rights to pass laws against homosexual activity or restrict homosexual persons in certain ways. Look at "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Until fairly recently all the states had laws against sodomy. The ten remaining states which had these laws had them struck down by a biased Supreme Court.
Admittedly, the legal situation is murky but even this biased Supreme Court decision said the state couldn't restrict homosexuals in their sexual behavior if it was private, adult & consensual. They did not maintain that the state must accommodate homosexuals in such behavior. There is a big difference here. Granting marriage or adoption rights to homosexuals as couples is to accommodate them & this the state need not do. It could do it but it is up to the discretion of the state.
Obviously, I oppose the notion of "gay marriage" but I would say from a purely legal point of view, it could come about through laws passed by state legislatures. Any claim that homosexuals have this constitutional right is a non-starter but the privilege of marriage could be granted to them from this point forward by the action of state legislatures subject to the referendum of the people. I think at this point only one state (VT) has "gay marriage" through a state legislature not contested by referendum of the people.
I think when & if the US Supreme Court addresses this issue, it will rule that it is reserved to the states but in a broader way then I have done. In other words the Supreme Court will not force the issue on the states, it will allow them to decide even with farcical court rulings as in MA.
The real answer here as with the life issue is amendments to the US Constitution to outlaw abortion & restrict marriage to normality, i.e., to restrict it to a man & a woman.
Look at it from the eyes of
Look at it from the eyes of St Paul not St Paulte. Catholicism in the last 150 years finally got St. Paul's message about the master/slave thing. After World War II it finally got the Jew/Gentile thing, and now we're getting the male/female thing.
It's taken much longer than it should have, but sometimes radical world changing ideas take awhile to come to fruition. The Church will move beyond gay marriage just as it was finally forced to move beyond slavery and anti semitism. Only this time, because patriarchal gender ordering is really the underlying issue in gay marriage, our patriarchal hierarchy may not survive this final moving beyond.
Well, St Paulte says that the
Well, St Paulte says that the Church never actually maintained that one individual could own another. This would violate the 7th Commandment. What did WWII show? That God did not hear the cries of 6M Jews? That's why many Jews today are atheists. I think the Church always had the male/female thing right. That is the correct combo for marriage. As for the gay thing, well there goes another word down the drain!
Slavery as a political / economic institution was accepted by St Paul. Our own Christian (Protestant) nation had a system of slavery as late as 1860. So when Pope Leo XIII ruled against it, he was not that far behind the curve.
Anti-Semitism may have existed among Catholics but it was never the official position of the Catholic Church. Indeed the teaching of the Church is that it was the sins of all, Jew & Gentile alike which nailed Christ to the Cross.
The Church will never accept the oxymoron of "gay marriage." The moral teaching of the Church cannot change. So sodomy will always be wrong & unnatural. Indeed it is a sin which cries to heaven. Such a sin could never be the basis for the sexual aspect of marriage. Also, women will never be priests!
Do you have any other points to make for paulte to field?
Bravo if the Lord wanted
Bravo if the Lord wanted homos to be married he would have made greater effort to state that it was not an abomination.
Romans chapter 1
[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
There was a time when it was
There was a time when it was illegal for people of different races to marry. We have come far since those days yet not far enough. Until all people whatever their race or sexual orientation are treated equally we will not have justice.
I can find no reasonable argument that supports discrimination against same sex marriage. I can reasonably argue that we are all God's children and as such should be allowed to live in love.
The claim, "I can find no
The claim, "I can find no reasonable argument that supports discrimination against same sex marriage" begs the question, have you even tried? Have you read Sacred Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? Have you read the Catechism? Have you read 2000 years of unchanged Church teaching on the issue? Are you familiar with any of the recent or historical papal pronouncements on homosexuality?
If marriage were just about reasonability and living "in love", there might be some merit in your argument. But marraige is a sacrament, a gift given by God to His people, and it carries with it certain sacramental realities. One of those is that God gave marriage to the human family as a means of procreation, of sharing in His creative act. Homosexual marriage defies that gift, it is in and of itself closed to the creative act; it is sterility itself.
This issue has nothing to do with justice and nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with God's will for His people.
But we are not talking about
But we are not talking about sacramental marriage. We are talking about a secular license to commit to a legal contract which gives access to many government benefits and legal obligations. This will not impinge on the Church's right to keep their definition of a sacramental marriage.
A good point. I stand
A good point. I stand corrected.
Yes the sacrament per se is
Yes the sacrament per se is the province of religion. The contract per se is the province of the state. But in the moral law there is the concept of marriage as a covenant, something more than a contract & God is part of it. I believe that Protestants see marriage as a covenant as well in their theology. But they do not see it as a sacrament.
However, in this majority Protestant (especially when it was very Protestant) nation, marriage has always been reserved to a man & a woman. This is only common sense. The early Puritans had theocracies up in New England. So the religious view of marriage as covenant at least (but not sacrament) was right there in the law at that time.
Clint G on Sep. 30,
Clint G on Sep. 30, 2010.
You stated:
"The claim, "I can find no reasonable argument that supports discrimination against same sex marriage" begs the question, have you even tried? Have you read Sacred Scripture, both Old and New Testaments? Have you read the Catechism? Have you read 2000 years of unchanged Church teaching on the issue? Are you familiar with any of the recent or historical papal pronouncements on homosexuality?
If marriage were just about reasonability and living "in love", there might be some merit in your argument. But marraige is a sacrament, a gift given by God to His people, and it carries with it certain sacramental realities. One of those is that God gave marriage to the human family as a means of procreation, of sharing in His creative act. Homosexual marriage defies that gift, it is in and of itself closed to the creative act; it is sterility itself.
This issue has nothing to do with justice and nothing to do with equality, and everything to do with God's will for His people."
-------------------------------------------
Sorry, Clint! But LOVE comes first! There is no sacrament without it. Think about it. God's love permeates every sacrament. God has loved us first---and because of it----we have the sacraments---that touch every dimension of human life, just as God's love does.
In marriage---God's love is reflected in the two people who love each other--whether hetrosexual or homosexual. The desire for a loving relationship MUST exist first.
Senior citizens, for example, fall in love. Then they celebrate the sacrament that symbolizes that love. And, although, they are not able to procreate because of age, their marriage is a true one.
You stated that we have had 2000 years of Church teaching about marriage. I beg to differ with you on that one. For so many centuries, only the royality and nobility actually celebrated the Sacrament of Marriage. The serfs and peasants had common-law marriages. It wasn't until a little after the Council of Trent---that celibates came up with the "rules" for the Sacrament of Matrimony. And Love, I'm afraid, doesn't enter into any of it.
Thank you for this article. I
Thank you for this article. I am going to send it to all my friends. Bless you.
I find it difficult to
I find it difficult to believe that individuals who profess to being Catholic could find homosexual behavior to be anything but abhorrent.
Their efforts would be better spent petitioning the Church to allow (male) priests to marry (women).
John, the Church seems to be
John, the Church seems to be both Catholic and catholic.
We progressive Catholics are
We progressive Catholics are advocating both optional celibacy and gay marriage. No need to choose one or the other goal.
You do mean Protestants don t
You do mean Protestants don t you, since you do an awful lot of it./ Protesting that is!
Yes, he is a Protestant since
Yes, he is a Protestant since he like they harks back to the early Church & sees all or most all that follows as a product of the Roman Empire. He also has a Protestnat view of the priesthood, i.e., that of all believers.
Here's the website for the
Here's the website for the new group, if you want to learn more (and join): http://catholicsforequality.org/
Thanks.
Thanks.
Seems the website has a page
Seems the website has a page for reporting "anti-equality activity". http://catholicsforequality.org/page/report-anti-equality-activity
I wonder what the group will do with those reports? Maybe something like this: http://www.eightmaps.com/ ?
Would those supporting this group also support a group that asked members to report "pro-homosexual activity"?
Apparently "anti-equality" is the new "pro-choice" - a gimmicky PR phrase to hide an ugly reality.
I fail to see again what
I fail to see again what grave dangers same sex marriage is posing to our school children so many of whom as I myself grew up in families where divorce was very common and continues to be. Even growing up with divorce, I turned out alright, am married with two children.... and am an observant Catholic in Ca who is wondering about the Church's leadership or lack thereof! I also have no idea that anything about marriage, traditional or otherwise is being taught in public school and would hope not, as children should learn, English, math, foreign languages,arts, music, and science in a way that would permit them to compete with countries that have better public school systems. I also do not see how families in Canada, the Netherlands or Spain, all countries I have visited have suffered from same sex marriage. They seem to be doing alright and at least as well or better than we.
Politically savvy but still
Politically savvy but still heretics.
John Maithcraic on Sep. 29,
John Maithcraic on Sep. 29, 2010.
You stated:
"Politically savvy but still heretics."
--------------------------------------------------
Define your term "heretic". Are they heretics because they are not buying everything that the Bishops state---hook, line and sinker?
The Bishops only travel in very closed circles---and don't really meet the people that they condemn. If their perspective was broader---they would find it in their hearts to skip all the condemnations (and wasting all the money to continue the social stigmation of people).
As an old retired priest, I
As an old retired priest, I rather tend to see civil gay marriage as only a matter of time. My very kind and loving gay nephew would benefit from it so that he and his partner could have the same rights as ""man and women" marriages. And the generation coming up will likely be voting in favor of it82ber
Very good comment thanks
Very good comment thanks Father.
Thank you Father for your
Thank you Father for your honesty...I agree, there is no reason, in heaven or on earth for two people who love one another and are committed to one another not to have the benefits of a union of marraige or whatever we might choose to call it. I'm a nurse and have witnessed many very sad cases of individuals who were sick and/or near death and denied the comfort and love of their partner...we, in the business, do what we can to help in these situations, but we shouldn't have to sneak around to provide care and comfort to gay patients who need it. "Gayness" is not a choice or a disease. There is solid research re hormone levels in utero to support that....so what's next, are we going to burn mothers at the stake for producing gay children?
Nienstedt again. Appealing to
Nienstedt again.
Appealing to fear.
Based on ignorance.
Lends itself to contempt toward the "other".
And the risk of violence against the minority.
Thanks but no thanks, AB.
Thanks for this. I will give
Thanks for this. I will give a mention on my blog.
It's really disheartening to
It's really disheartening to hear about the Knights of Columbus and Catholic Dioceses spending huge amounts of money to promote discrimination. Think of how many poor people could be fed, helped to find jobs, aided in rehab programs, educated, or trained for the workforce with that money!
I totally agree with your premise that the general public needs to be made aware that they know GLBT folks, and that GLBT folks love their families and children and are pretty ordinary people. I also believe that GLBT folks should be active in their parishes in all kinds of ministries, and as a group, take responsibility for certain activities - hospitality once a month, parish directory project, or such. The parish should know that it's the GLBT Ministry running a certain project.
Thank you for starting Catholics for Equality! I wish you much success and will pray that you will achieve your goals.
Ask Nienstedt how much the
Ask Nienstedt how much the mailing COST and then ask why he closing parishes for lack of funds.
There is going to be a lot of
There is going to be a lot of discussion/arguing about this, I know. Yet, in terms of the relationship between Church teaching and law, there are three ways of looking at this issue and each Catholic must decide for themselves which is the proper way for them.
- One way is to be fully supportive of gay and lesbian relationships, including the right to marry despite the Church´s teaching. Those who would take this position are similar to many who are fully supportive of those who practice birth control or those who are divorced and remarried, without benefit of annulment.
- Another is that one may be, personally, against same-sex marriage, but feel that, in this area, what is a teaching of the Church and what should be the law of the land are different issues. To continue with the same analogy, there are those who may be against both birth control and divorce, yet also feel that these are issues left to the individual and the separation of Church and State should be honored. (it was only recently, in ´2006 that Chile was able to pass a law that allowed someone to get divorce. This was accomplished in spite of great oppositon from the Church).
- And there are those who, for a variety of reasons, may feel that the Church´s positon on this issue is what should be what is the law of the land Some may support a theoracy and belive that, to be Catholic, one must vote according to the dictates of Church leaders. Others may just be in agreement with the Church on the threat they claim gay marriage proposes.
Regardless of what position, it is sure to be a difficult debate for many. My prayers will be with all that are struggling to come to terms with this issue.
Peace and Prayers,
John David
The issue continues to be one
The issue continues to be one of LOVE! Love does not allow abuse to go on, and on, and on! The church is having to face its past also society. Abuse was, is and will continue until we all embrace LOVE. For 2000 years, abuse has been taught, allowed and encouraged.
Jesus Christ came to show that LOVE is the way; the only way. Today, LOVE is absent as then, and judgement is IN also as then; nothing has changed!
Who is your neighbor? Who is your brother? Love causes you to draw close and offer your all to your neighbor, your brother! When will you start?
Words are meaningless without actions of LOVE!
Thank you for this article.
Thank you for this article. I never knew such a group existed. Now I do, and I've gotten out my checkbook to support equality. If only the bishops were in touch with the people, or the central Gospel message of liberation.
How long will it be before
How long will it be before the USCCB loses its tax-exempt status because of its continuing attempts to run political interference for the radical right? According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the sacramental nature of marriage was not agreed on (although advanced by both St. Augustine and St. Ambrose)until pronounced by the Council of Florence in 1208. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) resolved some confusion around different means of contracting marriage, but was silent on clandestine marriage and concubinage. The Council of Trent finally settled the matter definitively in the sixteenth century.
Please let's not hear folks trumpeting, then, about the universal Church holding to the same teachings about the sacramentality of marriage for millenia!
Viewing same-sex marriage as a threat seems to come from those who think sexual orientation (known to them as "lifestyle") is a matter of choice. How sad, not to mention uncharitable.
I am a heterosexual woman who
I am a heterosexual woman who has been married for 40 years. Thoughout my life I have known many people who are gay and lesbian. A couple are part of my extended family. I am 100% for equality for all. This is just discrimination. Gays and lesbians should have the same rights that my husband and I have. Good for Catholics for Equality! Margaret, thanks for the link!
I don't think people choose
I don't think people choose to be gay. There are easier ways to get through life. Ergo - it is normal for them. If so, it must be part of the different ways people are born. Recognizing this they should be permitted and even encouraged to form a relationship with another person with whom to carry on their life. Marriage is only a word we have come to accept as encompassing a man and a woman but we can change that definition. Nothing bad will happen and the Knights of Columbus can then spend their millions helping the poor.
Perhaps the church needs a
Perhaps the church needs a new target.
“The Lord said to my lord, ‘Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.’” This opening verse of Psalm 110 made a great impression on the early Christian church; it was quoted by both Matthew and the author of the letter to the Hebrews and echoed another half dozen times in the New Testament. At Mass in both the Gloria and the Creed Jesus is said to be ‘seated at the right hand of the Father.’ In Matthew’s description of the Last Judgment we find the sheep, placed on Jesus’ right, addressed in the words, “Come, O blessed of my Father…”, while the goats, on the left, hear “Depart from me, you cursed ones…”
The connection between ‘right’ and such other English words as ‘righteous’ is obvious. The Latin word for ‘right’, dextrum, and the cognate Greek word, are related to the English word ‘dexterity’, a desirable quality. The Latin word for ‘left’, sinistrum, is cognate to the English ‘sinister’. The Greek words for ‘left’ are considered words of such ill omen that they are often, in classical Greek, and invariably, in the Greek of the New Testament, replaced by a euphemism.
Let us consider a hypothetical ‘Church of the Righteous’ that takes so much to heart the rightness of ‘right’ that it declines to bless the marriages of persons who wish to sign the register with their left hands. Should such a church also pursue an amendment to civil constitutional law to render invalid any legal document signed with the left hand? About ten percent of the persons reading this letter will be outraged at the suggestion, because they know from their own experience that left-handedness is not a ‘perverse choice’ but an innate characteristic. Once upon a time many a schoolteacher did not know that, thereby causing misery to a great many children and considerable frustration to themselves. But now they, too, know better.
About the same percentage of the general population (and rather more of the Catholic priesthood; see Andrew Greeley, ‘Priests’, 2004) know, again from their own experience, that a homosexual orientation is an innate characteristic, not a ‘choice’. Should a hypothetical ‘Church of the Straight’ define civil law for the entire country? Think about it. Please.
As a priest I believe
As a priest I believe allowing marriage for same sex couples is valid and valuable. Love is from God, God is love. Why is it that we deny that God has the right to do what he wants with his creation. The Catholic Church is so off when it comes to sexuality....God made eating pleasurable so we would live....seeing so we ae able to behold beauty...hearing so we are able to hear each other and knnow each other....sex for new life but also for the expression of love and commitment to each other.....sex is also a way of knowing and loving and playfulness.....Church, it is time to grow up and to stop using sex outside of marriage as the most grievevable of all sin....teaching people to hate and to disregard people that are different is the worst of all sin.....forgive all my type ooooo's
Post new comment