The Independent News Source
NCR on Kindle - NCR classifieds - YouTube - Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
PDF versionIn Maine, same-sex marriage is a Catholic issue
Oct. 29, 2009
Anne Underwood of Catholics for Marriage Equality joined two dozen clergy speaking out for same-sex marriage at a news conference in Portland, Maine. (photo by Chuck Colbert)
Commentary
Several hundred Catholics in Maine have publicly declared themselves supporters of same-sex marriage, in direct opposition to their bishop, Richard J. Malone of Portland, who they say has gone overboard with a no-holds-barred campaign to roll back same-sex marriage in the Pine Tree State.
Maine voters are to decide Nov. 3 whether to keep or reject a bill extending civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples that the state legislature passed and the governor signed in May.
"Question One," on the ballot reads, "Do you want to reject the new law that lets same-sex couples marry and allows individuals and religious groups to refuse to perform these marriages?"
If passed, it would be the first time -- in more than two dozen tries -- that same-sex marriage would be approved by a majority vote of the people.
Stakes are high. Advocates for marriage equality, still smarting from a referendum last year in California that repealed same-sex marriages in that state, have marshaled forces in the state. Groups opposed to gay marriage hope that victories in California and Maine will give the cause momentum nationally.
Catholics have taken prominent roles in the campaigns on both sides of the issue.
Expressing a sense of urgency, more than 140 of the state's high-profile business, legal, and civil leaders have placed newspaper ads, giving voice to a Catholic case for same-sex civil marriage.
"We are Catholics who are concerned that the current political campaign to repeal Maine's civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity, and with vital American traditions of separation of church and state," they write in an extraordinary eight-paragraph statement (Click to see a pdf file), which ran as a paid advertisement in Maine's leading daily newspapers the two Sundays before the vote.
"We believe that the church has a right and often the responsibility to speak out on moral and social issues, to present its views, to seek to educate its member and others," the signatories say, continuing, "But we also believe that the church should continue to recognize that Catholics are free, indeed obligated to follow their own informed consciences on such issues."
More than 500 Catholics signed a declaration of support for same-sex marriage being circulated by the Portland-based Catholics for Marriage Equality, the group announced Oct. 28.
However, Bishop Malone is a primary leader in a highly visible and vocal campaign to stop any reformulation of civil marriage to include of same-sex couples.
NCR: February 3-16, 2012
Subscribe to NCR to get all the news and special features that aren't always available online. In this issue:
- US News: Bishops Host Conference on Immigration
Conference fields advocates' questions on law, policy
- Special Section: Deacons. Serving as parish administrator; roles of wives; and more
- Study: Black Catholics are more engaged
New study by Notre Dame researcher about parish involvement in America
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two related stories:
Gay marriage supporter removed from parish ministries
Experience, research refute arguments of same-sex opponents
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Besides spearheading a parish-based petition signature drive, assisted by local and national socially conservative groups, Malone also padded church bulletins with anti-gay marriage messages — on six consecutive Sundays. He required that pastors throughout the diocese preach on traditional marriage.
Bishop Richard J. MaloneMalone has produced a DVD, in which he stars, explaining why marriage matters, and directed that it be shown in all parishes. (See Marriage: What the church teaches.)
Last month, Malone called for a second collection to be taken up during Sunday Masses, with proceeds going to Stand for Marriage, the organization leading the repeal effort.
The second collection netted $86,000. In total, the Portland diocese has given $550,000 to the effort to repeal the same-sex marriage legislation. The Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, has given another $50,000 to the cause.
While the church's view of sacramental marriage — with its sacred rites — is one thing, civil marriage, which is a basic human and civil right, is quite another. Lay Catholics are well aware of these nuances in their advocacy for pro marriage-equality.
The bishop has missed the point.
Particularly irksome for some Maine Catholics -- estimated at 15 to 16 percent of the population — is Malone's insistence "that it is the doctrine of the Catholic church -- not my personal opinion — that all Catholics are obligated to oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage." He said that in a September pastoral letter, quoting Pope Benedict XVI.
"Where does that come from?" asked William H. Slavick of Portland, a retired college professor. "It's my duty to follow my informed conscience" and respecting "pluralistic considerations in the United States."
Slavick, a long-time coordinator of the Pax Christi Maine chapter, favors keeping the civil marriage law, saying that the church is wrong to try to impose a Catholic view of marriage on society.
Sharing those sentiments is attorney Anne Underwood of Topsham, Maine, co-founder of a new grass-roots organization. "Our organization — Catholics for Marriage Equality — agrees 100 percent with the [bishop and the] church's theological teaching on marriage as a sacrament," she told NCR.
But Underwood takes strong exception to Malone's "political opinion" on civil marriage. "We urge Catholics to vote no on question one," she said. After all, "God is love."
Catholics for Marriage Equality is speaking out publicly to raise awareness and is asking Catholics to increase their visibility in opposing the referendum. The group provides bumper stickers and buttons to those who want them. Underwood urges Catholics to wear something red to Mass, as a sartorial sign of support for the cause.
In May, Governor John E. Baldacci signed into law the bill passed by the legislature that extended civil marriage to gay and lesbian couples. Baldacci, a practicing Catholic and former altar boy, once supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. In a telephone interview, he explained to NCR why he switched. He said that principles of "fairness" and "equality" provisions in the state Constitution, guided his reasoning process. He weighed his decision to sign the bill "carefully," he said. "The new law does not force any religion to recognize a marriage that falls outside of its beliefs. It does not require the church to perform any ceremony with which it disagrees." "A civil union is not equal to civil marriage," Baldacci said. "I am the governor of all the people. Everybody must be treated equally under the law in Maine." Jack Dougherty wears his Catholics for Marriage Equality button each Sunday. "I am a person who thinks the law is correct and the bishop is wrong," he said. Dougherty of Eliot, 72, is a parishioner at St. Raphael Parish.
"I think there's a clear distinction between the Catholic church's requirements for marriage and the state and its requirements," said Bob McAteer of Ellsworth who believes the current law should stand.
Church funds going to the referendum campaign has angered "No on 1" Catholics.
"I am apoplectic," said Karen Saum of Belfast, who identifies as a lesbian. "I am appalled at the bishop."
"I am furious that my church is spending money to oppose legislation," said David Meuse of Portland, a widower and father of two. "I cannot believe it -- it's infuriating that our money is being spent that way," he said. That money should be used to"feed a family or clothe somebody."
Only a few more days are left for the battle over same-sex marriage. It will be played out in television ads, door-to-door canvassing, yard signs, buttons, and bumper stickers. Money and volunteers on both sides of the question continue to pour into the state.
The group "No on 1," or Protect Maine Equality, said in its campaign finance report to the state, filed at the end of last week, that it has raised $4 million, according to the Associated Press. That figure overshadows the $2.5 million raised by Stand for Marriage Maine, which forced the referendum through a petition drive.
In addition, the Princeton, N.J.-based National Organization for Marriage has donated $1.5 million to repealing the same-sex marriage law, according to the Portland Press Herald.
Public opinion polling indicates a tight race. The most recent public opinion poll, released Oct. 26, showed marriage equality backers with a slight lead: 53 percent of those survey support same-sex marriage and 42 percent oppose it. For this poll, the Pan Atlantic SMS Group of Portland interviewed 400 Maine residents between Oct. 20 and Oct. 22. It has a margin of error of 5 percent.
A poll released last week by Public Policy Polling of North Carolina showed a 48percent to 48 percent tie on the same-sex marriage bill. That survey polled 1,130 likely voters.
It is safe to say this one is too close to call.
Perhaps it is now clearer why several hundred Catholics have taken their bishop to task in such a public manner. As the signatories have so eloquently stated, "The current political campaign to repeal Maine's civil marriage equality law is at odds with fundamental principles of truth and charity."
Such clarity -- the voice of these faithful, resounding a profoundly simple yet painfully embarrassing Catholic truth.
[A frequent contributor to NCR, Chuck Colbert freelance journalist from Cambridge, Mass.]
Good for the bishop. Let us
Good for the bishop. Let us hope all follow his example with regard to fidelity to the teaching of the Church.
I am a Catholic down here in
I am a Catholic down here in Arkansas. The bishop of Maine makes me sick, and is a shame to the nobler and higher truths of our great faith. Bishop after bishop is letting us down, since the scandals of 2002, and the continued failure to reform the structure.
Why can't so called Catholics
Why can't so called Catholics get it into their heads that the Church is not a democracy! The Church does not govern by consensus it is not majority rules. The Church tells us what is right and what is wrong and homosexuality is a SIN, no if's or but's about it. How can a Bishop say that it is ok for gays to live together in sin when the Bishop knows that the gays are putting their souls in danger of going to hell. Just because some in the Church have an opinion that is contrary to the truth does not change the fact that these gays, if they continue to live their gay lifestyle, will most likely end up in hell. So all you who call yourself Catholic should eighter follow what the Church says or leave it but no you want the Church to change to your points of views. If the Church is going to follow it's parishioner's whims well what is the purpose of having a Church if it will ultimately do what I want it to do.
I grew up with the belief
I grew up with the belief that God is a mean ol' s.o.b. ready to send me straight to Hell if I eff up!
In other words, I saw God as an "either/or" sort of guy. Black and white. Good and Bad.
Not anymore. Life is complex. We don't choose our sexual orientation.
On the other hand, we do choose to remain ignorant of human nature or to learn from the growing insights of the social and biological sciences. Likewise, we choose to see marriage as inherently procreative or marriage as inherently something far deeper.
As for the Church, WE ARE THE CHURCH, THE PEOPLE OF GOD.
The Holy Spirit works with and through all of us, not merely through the ordained.
JJ, You are correct up to the
JJ,
You are correct up to the point..."We don't choose our sex." We are either man or woman from the moment of conception. Sexual activity is a learned behavior. We most definitely DO choose whether we partake of homosexual or heterosexual behavior. The Catholic Church has been consistently there throughout all history to instruct us and confirm that homosexuality is morally wrong and sinful. The secular society/culture has partnered with the Church throughout most of history but today has adopted the laissez-faire attitude on homosexuality. Ironicly, it is the secular society/culture that is damaged most by homosexual behavior, but that is all part of the Great Deceiver's plan. You are correct again when you say that the Holy Spirit works through all of us; listen to the Spirit; you are being deceived by another spirit!
JDS, sexual activity and
JDS, sexual activity and gender orientation are not "learned behavior" or simply a matter of choice. There is legitimate clinical literature on the subject, and more specifically on prenatal factors affecting hormones and neurophysiology, involving gender orientation and attraction. Confusing physiology and morality (yours), or engaging in a blame game, is not a helpful contribution to the discussion or defense of your position. It is also uncharitably offensive.
.
The Magisterium has been less than helpful in their word choices and moral assessments, as it has often been less than helpful in medical/physiological/scientific issues. They often overstep the bounds of their expertise and educational qualifications when straying from their proper venue. Nothing new there.
I agree with you that the
I agree with you that the bible says homosexuality is sin and I don't understand how ANYONE (especially clergy) can take God's word and turn it around to say that God condones it. God LOVES the PERSON who is living a homosexual lifestyle but he HATES THE SIN because of what it does to the person who is living that lifestyle. He has a much higher purpose for us than to live a lifestyle he never intended.
The church has always held
The church has always held that celibacy is a gift. If one who God made homosexual is not given that gift of celibacy, it is not rational that he or she be denied the gift of sacramental intimacy. Nor does is comport with God's absolute love for all people.
Yes, celibacy as a gift and
Yes, celibacy as a gift and celibacy as a demand are two very different issues. I think The Church needs to recognize this. To demand that those who do not have the gift of celibacy live a life of one who does, does great damage to the individual upon whom this is placed. Yet, I see what, I belive, is a deliberate unwillingness of our church leaders to be open to the possibility of the damage this teaching may be causing to so many. Christ did not want people to live damage lives. And this teaching is very damaging to many.
Peace and prayers.
Secular marriage is the
Secular marriage is the domain of secular institutions for two reasons:
It is a means by which governments collect a tax under the form of a marriage license;
It is a means by which certain statistical information is accumulated.
So, are we proposing that we limit governments from accessing the pool of potential funds and make fees only payable by heterosexual citizens? Or, are we limiting the collection of information on the makeup of households? And, by extension, what does this have to do with a lived faith-life?
The question that concerns us is really about the purpose of marriage, and the answer is found in Genesis 2:18:
The Lord God said: "It is not good for man to be alone..."
Who among us is willing to condemn others to a life of loneliness? THAT ought to be the underlying issue.
If the church is really concerned with social justice issues, and not primarily in making itself a cottage industry, then it will leave secular matters to secular government and get back to teaching the message of Christ.
Thought you would enjoy this
Thought you would enjoy this one, my dear friend!
Marriage is first and
Marriage is first and foremost a CIVIL contract between the contracting parties -- of whatever sex. The Catholic Church quite simply has no business whatsoever interfering with civil rights legislation just because it has a longstanding homophobic history and viewpoint. I pray that any Archdiocese's not-for-profit status is legally challenged if it chooses to act as a political entity in this fashion. Taking up a collection to oppose civil rights is morally repugnant -- and illegal. States' attorneys -- take them to court!
I agree. I think it is time
I agree. I think it is time for all churches, of all faiths to lose their tax-exempt status. There are too many who are taking advantage of this privilege and are exercising too much political clout over those of us who not only pay taxes but support the sometimes way too lavish lifestyles of the clergy. Sounds like a great way to lower the national debt!
Here we go again
Here we go again Susan....
For the great majority,marriage IS a civil contract.....but,between two persons of opposite gender.
That is why marriage brings particular legal privileges,because such is in the interest of (secular) society.
Same sex unions ,do not contribute to the maintenance aned well being of society, and,indeed,a culture which encourages such unions is headed very much down the slippery slope.
Whatever these unions are,they are certainly NOT marriage,despite the efforts of their protagonists to persuade the uncommitted to that effect,which they do in large part by claiming that supporters are motivated by religious bias. The religious issue is a total red herring.
Thhe talk of "homophobia" is just a derogatory label which this pressure group bandies about in an attempt to mislead the reader.
I'm proud to finally see
I'm proud to finally see Catholics begin to stand up for human rights, even when it is at odds with the "official, Magisterial" teaching of the Church. Perhaps this is how the People of God can begin constructive and comprehensive dialogue on the issues of homosexuality, birth control, and so many other matters pertaining to human sexuality that urgently call for re-evaluation within the Church.
Let's pray that bigotry and hatred will be defeated in Maine next week and that just as it happened last year on November 4th, the Bishops will get a message that the large majority of the People of God no longer consider them credible when it comes to delivering the message of Christs' love and peace to all nations!
Thank you. Was beginning to
Thank you. Was beginning to think I was alone in my beliefs about equality.
Rest assured that you are not
Rest assured that you are not alone. There are many of us in prayerful solidarity with Christ and one another.
Hooray for Catholics for
Hooray for Catholics for Marriage Equality. As they correctly point out, an important part of Catholic tradition is speaking out against injustice and promoting human dignity. We all know the Church view on marriage as a sacrament - but this is about civil marriage, which has nothing to do with religion.
If the Bishops really want us to believe that this is about standing up for moral beliefs, and not simple hostility to gay and lesbian people as a group, they would fight equally strongly to repeal laws against contraception and divorce, for these are also proscribed by Church teaching: contraception has recently been described as "intrinsically evil".
Indeed, heterosexual civil marriage too should be opposed: cohabitation is also described as "intrinsically evil". The church does not recognise civil marriage, so heterosexuals joined by civil marriage but not in Church are presumably cohabiting. If the opposition to gay civil marriage is solely based on the requirement of chastity, does the same principle not apply to any others who have not married in Church?
We get into such Black and
We get into such Black and white thinking when it comes to these issues. I love my Church. I am also educated with a graduate degree in theology. I don't see my self as either a conservative or a liberal. I try to be authentic and objective which is something I am seeing that neither side, liberal or conservative, is able to do. Having said that, I think we are truly missing the boat on this issue. We need to begin by looking at good and healthy pastoral support for people who are homosexual. There are truly worst things than being homosexual. Some of the homosexual people are among the most loyal and caring friends and co-workers one can have. Another piece of this is when we talk about "equality" or "equal rights" I think it is important to say that "equality" doesn't necessarily mean "the same". We have this crazy idea that in order to be sensitive to people who are gay, we have to make sure that everything is exactly the "same" as those who are married heterosexual. This doesn't even make sense. There are many gay people who have had very wonderful commitment services. I admitt, I don't know all the answers, but maybe this is one of the times where the questions are more important than the answers. Maybe the questions can prod us on to grow through prayer and reflection what this whole issue is calling us, as society and Church to. We live in a society of extremes with the all or nothing approach to life. If things don't happen exactly the way we think they should, well, then, we're not being sensitive. There are many ways that people can be homosexual. There are also ways to live a healthy homosexual life and be within Church teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church tells to embrace the homosexual and bring welcome them into the community in love. The two things that we have forgotten about in this society today is obedience and sacrifice. Maybe, in humility, if we "all" sit down and reflect prayerfully on this, who knows, we might find a way that can be acceptable to everyone. Is that too hopeful? I think not.
You are correct in saying
You are correct in saying "equality" does not mean the "same", the word "necessarily" need not apply. Nevertheless, I am not sure that you still have it correct, and you leave us guessing at your conclusion. Equality would connote an equal "chance" at whatever one endeavors. So that if it is the wish of an gay person to wed his/her homosexual partner that choice, that decision would rest with that couple not you, not me and in no sense would we have a right to interfere with others decision to wed.
You are also on target with the notion of "extremes", which I would prefer stating as ends of a continuum, so that all is redux to either/or. This would be more clearly stated as thinking in "absolutes" devoid of any middle issues, diverse thinking etc. The Church in particular gives rise to such occasions. Perhaps, it use of "absolutism", takes on a special meaning since It never left the age of feudalism or divine right monarchs. To the Church there is no such matter as diversity; you shall obey...or begone. There, however, remain within the Church many who with love and understanding know and realize that the Church is a gathering of the faithful to the ancient teachings of Christianity from it beginnings...not deterred by a hierarchy which has arrogated to itself all authority, does not listen, and is self-inflicted with constipated thoughts.
i have recently been reading
i have recently been reading comments on this issue but yours stopped me! it is with honest, humility and forthrightness that I agree with you as you stated: "I think it is important to say that "equality" doesn't necessarily mean "the same". thnk you for your hopefulness!
We are to follow our
We are to follow our conscience only if it is well formed. A well formed conscience would not oppose the Magisterium and official Church teaching. Where did this attitude come from that one could be a good Catholic and oppose all her teachings come from? Not from Christ, who gave Peter to keys to bind and loose.
We would not need the
We would not need the supremecy of conscience doctrine if church authorities were always right. History has shown them to be wrong before.
In the history of salvation, only two human beings lived God's will perfectly--Jesus and Mary. The Magisterium is not God. Only God is God.
Supporters of civil marriage for gays do not reject ALL of the church's teachings, but they do seem to place more emphasis on compassion and tolerance than they do on sexual purity.
Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
the "magisterium" can police
the "magisterium" can police the 7 sacraments all it wants. This is an issue of equal protection under the law. This must be a legal right.
Try Pope Innocent III:
Try Pope Innocent III: "Whatever is done contrary to conscience leads to hell." and St. Thomas Acquinas: "When erring reason proposes something as being commanded by God, then to scorn the dictate of reason is to scorn the commamdment of God."
Innocent III, most brilliant
Innocent III, most brilliant of all popes, is just what is needed here for reference. A pope noted for his ant-judaism, proclaimed the great crusade against Albigensians for twenty years of dire cruelty, Fourth Crusade in 1202 enslaving the Byzantine Church...no wonder it was then determined that he was more of a representative as the anti-Christ. From the Fourth Lateran Council, which he convened, the usurpation and arrogation of the Church hierarchy was completed through deception, guile and greed for financial gifts...continued unto present. How did this fine servant of God and its Church meet his conclusion: June 16, 1216, found dead, naked, abandoned, and robbed by his own staff. A man of conscience, indeed, and what could it have been which protected him from being ferried across the River Styx.
He also gave binding and
He also gave binding and losing to the Church as a whole, including each member.
What! Binding and losing is
What! Binding and losing is given the the ministerial priesthood through the sacrament of reconciliation.
The church has one
The church has one priesthood, namely, the priesthood of all (baptized) believers, male and female alike, according to St. Paul.
Jesus encouraged his disciples and followers to forgive without limit.
Rome has always stressed Mt 16:19 to the exclusion of Mt 18:18, which gives the power of binding and loosing to the Christian community, not solely to some kind of ordained ministry. (I say "some kind of ordained ministry" since ordained ministry was a novelty in the Christian churches.)
While the Vatican may not want to admit it, the fact is that each Christian community has the power to bind and to loose, i.e., to reconcile sinners to full participation in communal life. Indeed, this was precisely the practice of the ancient Christian communities.
Ordination, on the other hand, admits one to the presbyterate or episcopate, not to (as customarily but erroneously believed) to "the priesthood" or "the ministerial priesthood." There is no so-called "ontological difference" conferred on the ordinand by ordination. This understanding of sacred orders was a product of its time --- but a novelty nonetheless in the greater scheme of things.
Vatican II called for renewal, that is, to make the church new again, to restore the church to its original condition. Inter alia, this means seeing the presbyter/bishop as the religious leader of his (or her) parish or diocesan community. In this scenario, he (or she) functions as the "lead priest" at mass and at communal reconciliation.
Joseph, kindly refer yourself
Joseph, kindly refer yourself to Lumen Gentium regarding the essential difference between those in the priesthood of the baptized and the ministerial priesthood. That is what Vatican II actually said.
I have, and it lacks
I have, and it lacks historical support.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry greater weight than pure doctrine" (Joseph Ratzinger, HIGHLIGHTS OF VATICAN II, Paulist Press/Deus Books, 1966, p. 17).
Do you agree with Pope Benedict (and me) on this point?
Fact is the primitive Christian communities did not have ordained ministers. The episkopoi, presbyteroi, and diaconoi were laymen (the episkopoi and presbyteroi performed the same functions; different communities used different titles).
The earliest extant ordination rituals can be found in The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, customarily dated ca. 215 AD although more recent scholarship suggests that different portions of this document might date from as early as 150 AD to as late as 350 AD. The ordination ritual for episkopos contains only a bare reference to priestly/sacerdotal duty/expectation whereas the ordination ritual for presbyter contains no such reference! In other words, Christian communities did not have ordained ministry for roughly 200 years after the Resurrection! St. Paul reminds his audience that everybody, male and female alike, is a "priest" who offers sacrifice to God through Jesus the one and only High Priest. Ordained ministry --- the "ministerial priesthood" --- was a historical development. Indeed, Jesus himself knew only the Jewish priesthood, which would disappear soon after the Roman destruction of the Second Temple in 70 AD. Furthermore, by the time Jesus arrived on the scene, the Jewish people had already accorded their priests no special status at the synagogues even though they would have been recognized as a distinct group anywhere.
"[F]acts, as history teaches, carry greater weight than pure doctrine," wrote the future pope 43 years ago.
Don't confuse doctrinal statements with history. Indeed, theologian Bernard Lonergan wrote, "The meaning of Vatican II was the acknowledgement of history."
I agree with Ratzinger. Do you?
"We are to follow our
"We are to follow our conscience only if it is well informed". Well, who is to say if it is "well informed".
"A well formed conscience would not opposed the Magisterium and official Church teaching". Well, according to whom? There really is no point of having a concience if there is this limitation of what it can oppose.
Christ stood up to the religious leaders of his time. You probably would disagree, but often (though, certainly not always), standing up to religious leaders is imitating Christ himself.
Well said John. Jesus was
Well said John. Jesus was always at odds with the Pharisees of his time, there's no reason to believe he wouldn't be battling our mitred modern Pharisees.
...and did you drink the Kool
...and did you drink the Kool Aid that fast so the flavor remains hidden to you.
The authority to bind and
The authority to bind and loose would include the authority to ordain women to the priesthood as well as gays and lesbians. You are as selective in your interpretation of "bind and loose" as the church. Hiding behind a doctrine is not the same as proclaiming a truth. The church is very selective in how it defines truth, and ironically, all of its interpretations serve to protect the male dominated authoritarian hierarchy's position of power. What the church teaches in many areas is just too self-serving to be credible.
This position seems to be a
This position seems to be a contradiction -
a well formed conscience must be in conformity with the magistarium? Really?
It seems that perhaps the magesterium must be consulted, but when does the magisterium consult with the whole community? Consultation requires listening to the people of God as well as the Scriptures and traditions - and the Holy Spirit speaks through all of creation, including all of humanity - when we know how to listen - the most underated quality that we fail miserably to understand or to develop.
Same sex marriage is NOT a
Same sex marriage is NOT a catholic issue or even an issue. Two men want to amrry each other? Go right ahead.
Be honest, everyone knows marriage is not a sacrament. Read the Gospels. Jesus was certainly no fan of marriage.
"Jesus was certainly no fan
"Jesus was certainly no fan of marriage."??? Is it because of too many mother of the brides, or could you point us to specific references? I'm a parish music director and I'm tired of couples bringing in all the "Hollywood" and sentimental and (false) traditional stuff and getting mad when I show them the Rite of Marriage. So if Jesus is really no fan of marriage, I could sure use the reference points.
Jesus was a working Rabbi (of
Jesus was a working Rabbi (of Caphernum),likely officiated at weddings (including the Wedding at Cana - which was probably for his nephew John the Evangelist, son of Salome - Joseph's daughter from his first wife) and was likely married (a requirement for a working rabbi). I think he liked marriage.
Since, given his view of the Oral Law, he would likely today be a Reform Rabbi, rather than Orthodox or Conservative, he would likely be celebrating Gay Marriages were he alive today.
Would you like to share any
Would you like to share any more of your private revelations?
The Catholic Church in Maine
The Catholic Church in Maine needs to lose its' Tax Exempt Status. People of good will of all faiths and of no faith need to speak up and show their opposition to people like Bishop Richard J. Malone. His hypocrisy brings hatred and violence to same sex couples and gay people in general. He needs to be shamed for his behavior.
It is encouraging to see the
It is encouraging to see the legendary free-thinking of Mainers come to the fore against Bp. Malone's machinations.
Malone, on the other hand, shows himself to be little more than a bully when he tosses from liturgical ministry an individual who exercises her civil right to express a political opinion that differs from his own. His subordinate, her pastor, is seriously confused--- the Catholic church does not "teach" anything about the institution of civil marriage--- in fact it doesn't mention it at all. It doesn't even recognize it.
For as long as I've been aware, I've heard about how people who have only a civil marriage aren't married "in the eyes of the Church." Why, then, is are the Bishops suddenly casting their eyes upon the civil institution?
Perhaps because the recognition of same-sex marriage by society-at-large brings into sharper focus the absurdity of some of what the Church actually does teach about human sexuality.
What is threatened is not opposite-sex marriage, but rather the arcane and archaic views espoused by a supposedly-celibate clergy which by all appearances, has a great deal of difficulty practicing what it preaches, promises, or vows.
One wonders if the whole hoopla isn't in fact more than anything else a reflection of the collective sexual ambivalance and insecurity of the clergy in general and the bishops in particular. Methinks the gentlemen in the floor-length gowns may perhaps protest too much.
One wonders, too, if the Bishops aren't with all of their inhospitality to progressive organizations, excommunications, and barrings from ministry and teaching simply trying to bring about sooner rather than later the schism that now seems all but inevitable. They will then retrench, consolidate with reactionary Anglicans, dust off the pipe-organs, turn their backs to their congregations in the Tridentine rite, indulge in golden chalices and lace vestments, and pretend that Vatican II never happened. On top of that they can enjoy the assets, some liquidated, which two centuries of the Church of Rome in America have allowed to accumulate.
The Church does not recognize
The Church does not recognize the marriage of a Catholic who is married civilly and "outside of the Church," but the Church recognizes marriages of baptized individuals who are not Catholic even if they are married civilly. Check with the Tribunal.
Greg, nice analysis. The
Greg, nice analysis. The Catholic clergy are perhaps the last group of gay men who would be susceptible to black mail-- as was born out in the advice the Vatican gave Archbishop Weakland about meeting the demands of his paramour.
I want to know who is giving all this money to Malone's appeal and why he and NOM are so desperate to keep anyone from knowing. Until our gay clergy become transparent and honest about their sexuality it seems to me the Church is open to some unsavory direction.
Right on Greg!!! Thank you
Right on Greg!!! Thank you for your clarity in a number of truths that people are confusing these days. I have been awed by many of the previous comments as well. God is alive and well. May we be rejoicing with the vote on the 4th! I am tired of people complaining about half of our human race when they have made life miserable for them in the first place. Is this called slavery to our ideocy?
Whose "fundamental principles
Whose "fundamental principles of truth and charity?" Sometimes some "principles" are simply wrong.
Where does the idea of
Where does the idea of marriage as a "basic human and civil right" come from?
Please inform me. As a student of history, I never heard of this right. Or is it a new interpretation of legalistic opinion? Thank you.
I find it interesting and
I find it interesting and disturbing as a non-American, how the American public can live with the delusion that separation of Church and state can be considered as a sane and desired way to live. If Catholicism is about how we exist in this world, we cannot park our beliefs at the door and enter into a masquerade of neutrality. It is hypocricy. Integrity is all about standing up for one's beliefs and not surrendering them in a false appeal to separating Church and State. And, on what basis or grounds has marriage ever been a fundamental right. It is not. We place all kinds of restrictions on it for the common good, whether it is issues of consanguinity, age, or mental capacities. Life, food and shelter are fundamental rights. Let's get our terms correct before we spout off about what is a right.
Well, try dening marriage to
Well, try dening marriage to heterosexual couples. It would be interesting to see what the reaction would be. I am willing to bet almost 100% would see being able to marry as a right.
Integrity is much more about oneself, rather than about dictating to others. It is about living your life as you believe and not insisting others living according to your concept of right and wrong. To do so is not allowing others to live according to the standards which they have developed. It is ignoring their integrity and replacing it with yours. One can believe in something and still hold onto their integrity while allowing others to believe and live differently.
Yes, we have put restrictions on marriage. There was a time when interacial couples could not marry. Despite a judge in Lousianna refusing to marrying just such a couple, that restriction has been removed. One can still think it is wrong, but one cannot impose this belief on others.
So live with your concept of integrity, but, please, allow others to live with theirs.
Info on Catholic
Info on Catholic
Has NCR lost it's moral
Has NCR lost it's moral compass? Just curious. I'll start praying to St. Anthony that you find it.
Catholics who support
Catholics who support same-sex marriage are not faithful Catholics. They are gravely opposed to God's will, and they endanger their eternal salvation by supporting something so gravely immoral. Simple as that.
Yes Pop 8, you are "simple".
Yes Pop 8, you are "simple". This is about civil law, not sacramental law, period. We influence society w/ our integrity not strong arming individuals and turning churches into lobbying centers and political machines.
Catholics in Maine who
Catholics in Maine who support same-sex "marriage" are not merely opposing their own bishop, but the teachings of the Catholic Church, which are firmly rooted inn Scripture and Tradition. Catholics in Maine have the political "right" to vote any way they want, but clearly they're not allowing the teachings of Christ and His Church to inform their decision-making, which isn't a good thing.
Diaperman, any teachings of
Diaperman, any teachings of the Catholic Church regarding homosexuality based on scripture are ill informed. I suggest reading "What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality" by Father Daniel A. Helminiak, PhD. It is a very enlightening and educational book.
This column is a disgrace and
This column is a disgrace and typical of why the NCR should join the Anglican Fold.If you dont like the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.....LEAVE!
I don't understand comments
I don't understand comments like this. If your opinion of NCR is that low, why do you read it, why do you bother to post? Surely there is more you can do with your time than read a paper of which you hold so much contemp? So, I would like to suggest in a respectful way that, perhaps, you and others who feel the same should move on and not continue to read the NCR.
The Episcopal Church Welcomes
The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.
I am a lifelong very
I am a lifelong very committed Catholic but I heartily applaud those in Maine working for the right to same sex marriage. The intolerance exhibited by the church toward homosexuals is very hurtful to me as a Cstholic; I can imagine it must be so hurtful to homosexuals. There must be better things we can do with our time and money than make hurtful condemning comments about our brothers and sisters.
I am a lifelong very
I am a lifelong very committed Catholic but I heartily applaud those in Maine working for the right to same sex marriage. The intolerance exhibited by the church toward homosexuals is very hurtful to me as a Cstholic; I can imagine it must be so hurtful to homosexuals. There must be better things we can do with our time and money than make hurtful condemning comments about our brothers and sisters.
I thought it was illegal for
I thought it was illegal for any religious institution to be involved with political campaigns. Church funds going to the referendum campaign has angered "No on 1" Catholics: while it angers some Catholics, it seems the church is in direct violation of the law. As one parishioner states: "That money should be used to"feed a family or clothe somebody." So it appears to be misappropriation of funds (fraud, waste, and abuse).
Life has evolved since 1478. This is a country of the people, by the people, and for the people. That is why we, the citizens of the United States of America, enjoy freedom of speech and the opportunity to establish laws that reflect who we are.
Question: In the caption
Question: In the caption above, there is reference to two dozen clergy, but the story makes no mention. Were these people supporting same-sex marriage Catholic clergy? The caption seems to imply they were. If so, who were they?
God Bless Bishop Malone. He
God Bless Bishop Malone. He should excommunicate all those who signed the petition in the paper. (once professed Catholics are actively working to undermine the very Sacraments of their own Church, we need to acknowledge them as lost causes, lest greater scandal come of their dissent and more be lead astray)
Nobody would be left except
Nobody would be left except TM! This is about secular marriage, not sacramental.
One has to wonder where this
One has to wonder where this supposed "Catholic" got the idea that secular marriage has anything to do with the domain of the Church or the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. It's no wonder that the world is in such bad shape, what with characters like TM believing that the Magisterium has the right to dictate secular matters to those who aren't even Catholic. Does TM think that any civil marriage gets registered in the church's records?
The true scandal is bigoted thinking coming from ill-informed Catholics and Evangelicals who don't seem to be happy unless they have someone to lord over with smug disdain.
And while we're at it, why
And while we're at it, why not excommunicate all the Catholics that voted for President Obama? (In my diocese, that would be over half of the Catholics.) Honestly, do we really want to go there? What's next, loyalty oaths? Are you really, really sure you want to punish people for following their consciences?
A church where everyone stays silent about injustice out of FEAR is no church at all.
I have been discussing this
I have been discussing this issue with my bishop by letters. I have written an article to explain why some Christian traditions, Anglican, Lutheran and others, take a different view based on Biblical scholarship. I also explained that there is a distinct difference between the Church's sacramental marriage and secular marriage.
I have been forbidden to publish it. The bishop, in his first letter said he would not debate Scripture or Natural Law with me.
In his response to my second letter, he states:"In addition, you also seem to misunderstand-or, at least, misapply-the teaching of Dignitas humanae. No conciliar teaching stands in isolation; it must be interpreted in context and in light of the entire corpus of conciliar and post conciliar teaching. That being said, your proposal that 'gay marriage' is both a civil and religious right is untenable." Other than making the statement, he offers no evidence that I have "misunderstood" Dignitas humanae.
I hope others will examine Vatican Council II's document "Dignitas humanae." It seems pretty clear to me. It sets a new direction for the Church; a direction the Church is going in but not its bishops.
Love & Peace
Deacon Art
"If passed, it would be the
"If passed, it would be the first time -- in more than two dozen tries -- that same-sex marriage would be approved by a majority vote of the people."
should read ‘If defeated, it would be the first time -- in more than two dozen tries -- that same-sex marriage would be approved by a majority vote of the people.’
The law in Maine, as passed by our legislature and signed by our governor allows gay marriage. The referendum question, if passed, would change the status quo and overturn that law.
What has a sacramental
What has a sacramental covenant to do with civil marriage? In Las Vegas every day they have civil marriages with hetrosexuals that is the sixth 'wedding' for each one ... performed by an Elvis Presley impersonator. Where were the bishops on that issue? Dogma about civil marriages>.. does this bishop think we are all stupid..
Will the Bishop of Maine now
Will the Bishop of Maine now propose and perform a public rite of excommunication on those Catholics who publicly dared to defy his political agenda? Perhaps burn them at the stake or toss them into the woods to freeze to death this winter? Malone is surely the Roman Catholic Bishop of Maine but in reality... he is a Maniac!
Post new comment