The Independent News Source
Twitter - Facebook - Email Alerts - RSS
Victory over same-sex marriage comes at high price
Catholics divided by hard fought campaign
Nov. 06, 2009
Catholics for Marriage Equality at the Holiday Inn, Portland, Maine on election night. (Chuck Colbert photo)
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionAnalysis
PORTLAND, MAINE — After a campaign that saw significant Catholic activism on both sides of the issue, Maine voters rejected a law that would have allowed same-sex marriages.
Fifty-three percent of voters said yes to overturning a law passed by the state legislature and signed by the governor in May.
But in Washington state, it appeared that a referendum to uphold a law granting same-sex domestic partners the same rights as married spouses would be narrowly approved, 51 percent to 49 percent. The referendum had been opposed by Washington's Catholic bishops.
About 700 Maine Catholics signed either a newspaper ad or a declaration of support for same-sex marriage being circulated by the Portland-based Catholics for Marriage Equality.
Fifteen percent of Maine's population is Catholic, and Portland's Bishop Richard J. Malone was a visible and vocal leader in the campaign to repeal the law. The diocese gave as much as $550,000 to the effort. The Catholic fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus, gave another $50,000 to the cause.
Malone starred in a video played in Catholic churches ahead of Election Day, and the archdiocese supplied seven weeks of bulletin inserts urging Catholics to overturn the law.
In a statement released the day after the vote, Malone thanked the people of Maine "for protecting and reaffirming their support for marriage as it has been understood for millennia by civilizations and religions around the world. …
"These past few months have served as a teaching opportunity to explain to parishioners and the wider community about how and why the church views and values marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
In a statement a day earlier, Malone chastised "a group of self-described Catholics who have chosen to dissent publicly from established Catholic doctrine on the nature of marriage as the union of one man and one woman."
Malone was writing about 140 people whose names appeared in a newspaper ad titled "Statement of Conscience by Maine Catholics Regarding Marriage Equality." Malone wrote, "A Catholic whose conscience has been properly formed by scripture and the teachings of the Catholic church cannot support same sex marriage."
But hundreds of Catholics disagreed with the bishop.
"It is a sad day, as the leaders of the Catholic church in Maine relish, in delight, that they have succeeded in keeping the homosexual families of Maine outside of the walls of society where they must beg to maintain their very existence, much like the lepers and blind in the Bible were kept outside the city walls in days of old," said Jack Dougherty of Eliot, Maine, a member of Catholics for Marriage Equality.
Portland attorney George Burns, who helped draft the Catholic statement on equality, said "The bishop won at a great price -- whether he cares about that price or not. He has divided his flock."
One Catholic, Pamella Starbird Beliveau of Lewiston, Maine, was removed as a lector and eucharistic minister after her pastor read an opinion piece she wrote for the local newspaper approving of same-sex marriage.
She told a rally outside the Portland cathedral Nov. 1, "I am sad but not surprised by what happened. … The Catholic church has every right to determine who can and cannot serve as ministers in the church. I respect that. We must keep our eyes focused on the issue and that is equality for our gay and lesbian citizens."
The Catholics supporting the legislation had tried to focus on the issue of civil equality. 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. These groups were well aware of these nuances in their advocacy for pro marriage-equality.
Their newspaper ad said in part: "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.
"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. 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."
They were upset by statements from Malone like: "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."
The bishop's zeal in defeating marriage equality is "profoundly" misdirected, Burns said. The marriage law "is a civil matter."
Jesse Connolly, who managed the campaign against the referendum, tried to put an optimistic spin on the election results. "Hundreds of thousands of Maine voters stood for equality, but in the end, it wasn't enough."
"We're in this for the long haul," he said. "For next week, and next month, and next year-- until all Maine families are treated equally. Because in the end, this has always been about love and family and that will always be something worth fighting for."
Voters have rejected same-sex marriage in each of the 31 states where it has been on the ballot. Only five states currently allow same-sex marriages to be performed: Iowa, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont.
The coalition that opposed the Maine same-sex law saw the vote as a continuation of a nationwide campaign.
"The institution of marriage has been preserved in Maine and across the nation," declared Frank Schubert, a chief organizer for the winning side, Stand for Marriage Maine (www.standformarriage.org), quoted in the Portland Press Herald.
As in California's Proposition 8 campaign, which overturned same-sex marriage by amending the state's Constitution to ban gay marriage, the Schubert Flint public relations firm provided messaging fire power for TV and radio ads that hammered home a traditional marriage and family theme.
Stand for Marriage also played up fears that if the law were upheld, same-sex marriage and homosexuality would be taught in Maine's public schools, even though a month ago, the state's attorney general Jane Mills said that charge was unfounded.
"I have scoured Maine laws relating to the education of its children for any reference to marriage in the public school curricula," she wrote in a legal opinion. "I have found none."
Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Ky., chairman of the U.S. bishops' Ad Hoc Committee for the Defense of Marriage, praised the Maine vote in a statement released Nov. 4.
"Marriage is an institution which precedes all others, whether political or religious. It deserves the state's reinforcement and protection," Kurtz said. "The nature of marriage is written in the truth of who we are as human persons, as man and woman," he added. "One can say it is written not merely on our hearts, but in our very bodies."
Kurtz said, "Protecting marriage affirms the permanent and exclusive love between a husband and a wife as a wonderful and incomparable good in itself which also is of great social and practical consequence. ... Sadly, the attempts to redefine marriage today ignore or reject the unique identity and gifts of man and woman. Such a dismissal only fosters confusion about what it means to be human."
In the District of Columbia, the Catholic church and other backers of traditional marriage have lobbied the city's lawmakers and rallied to urge that citizens be able to vote on a same-sex marriage bill that is now being considered by the City Council and expected to be put to a final vote by members by the end of the year.
The district's charter forbids popular votes on laws that could be seen as restricting one's rights. All district laws that are passed are subject to review by Congress.
Reporting from Catholic News Service is included in this story.
[A frequent contributor to NCR, Chuck Colbert freelance journalist from Cambridge, Mass.]
To be clear, the District
To be clear, the District Charter prohibits votes on changing the Human Right's Law.
As for the question of civil marriage, the reason the Bishops are fighting so hard against it is because when (not if) gays have a right to civil marriage, their families will demand that these marriages be blessed by the Church (as well they should be).
Gay marriage happens between the parties, just as it does between a man and a woman. The only question is whether gay marriages are recognized under law (there is no reason they should not be - indeed, under equal protection they must be since there is no reason to deny a gay spouse the same rights vis-a-vis inlaws that a heterosexual spouse has).
Fifty years ago, no group of Catholics would ever challenge their bishop openly. There has indeed been a shift and it is something the hierarchy will eventually learn to cope with.
In other words, the liberals have made a stand and will eventually win. Pandora's box is open. It will not close and those bishops who do not realize this will be quietly ignored.
Well, at least you admit that
Well, at least you admit that the goal for supporters of gay marriage who are catholic is to force the church to perform gay marriages.
Of course that would mean that the whole understanding of the sacrament of marriage would change. The purpose of marriage is to explicitly to bind the participants in a relationship of blood ties, where a woman fills the role of wife and mother, and the man as husband and father.
To have an understanding of marriage that can allow for the notion of homosexual marriage you'd have to reduce marriage from a sacrament to a mere contract for exclusive sexual access and division of property. That's more of a protestant or civil notion of marriage.
Thanks be to God for the
Thanks be to God for the victory of marriage in Maine!
Don't look now, Pete, but
Don't look now, Pete, but divorce is rampant. You see a victory sign where there is none.
Pete, Look at the
Pete,
Look at the demographics. Look how with each passing year, marriage equality gains and, even when there is a win, it is by a smaller and smaller percentage. The amendment passed in Maine, but the undeniable truth is that the wind continues to be at the backs of marriage equality for gays and lesbians.
Thanks be to God that the
Thanks be to God that the voters of Maine decided to protect the institution and sacrament of marriage.
God bless Bishop Malone who understands that to be Catholic, to be Christian, means that, at times one has to accept a teaching that one may not agree with, because the Church knows more than the individual and the Church is guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.
Would that more Catholics would accept that personal opinion is not the same thing as Church teaching, and that Church teaching should NEVER be dependent on personal opinion.
I suppose Catholics who
I suppose Catholics who rejected the church's teaching on limbo years ago were not true Catholics, but now are true Catholics once more since the Church revised its teaching.
God forbid we Catholics should use our hearts and minds to guide us, as well as church teaching.
Thanks steph for pointing
Thanks steph for pointing that out. In fact, limbo is just one of many church positions that have changed over the centuries. Bindly following the churches teachings is sometimes shutting down an openess to the movement of The Holy Spirit.
Limbo was never official
Limbo was never official church teaching. Only speculation about what happens to unbaptized souls. If Limbo did exist, it would be a part of Hell where those relegated would be free of pain, enjoy total physical comfort, yet would be denied the Beatific Vision since they were not baptized. For current OFFICIAL Church teaching still states that one must be baptized to enter Paradise. Our Lord said it too.
So.... you were OK with the
So.... you were OK with the Bishops moving child molesters from parish to parish? After all, they were protected from error by the Holy Spirit. You would have been OK with the inquisition? The Crusades?
How about insisting that the sun revolves around the earth and forcing Galileo to recant? OK by you? These men, protected from error by the Holy Spirit?
When do you get to use your own judgment, as guided and protected by the Holy Spirit? Your own heart and mind?
I can see giving due respect and consideration to church teaching. And I do. But then I use my own heart and mind, my own conscience, in my final analysis. Sometimes I'll be right, sometimes I'll be wrong, sure, but at least I'm using the gifts God gave me.
"Catholics" who support
"Catholics" who support same-sex pseudo marriage are not really Catholic. They don't have Catholic faith. The Church is not being divisive, it's merely proclaiming the truth. Same-sex pseudo marriage supporting pseudo-Catholics have divided themselves from the true faith and the true Church. Nothing in Catholic teaching supports a perversion like same-sex pseudo marriage. Pseudo-Catholics who think that Catholic faith actually supports same-sex pseudo marriage are the divisive ones. Unless they repent, they risk being cast into the eternal fire of damnation.
"Do not judge so that you
"Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye." Matthew 7:1-6
With only a 51% victory in
With only a 51% victory in ultra progressive Washington State and a clear defeat in liberal leaning Maine, I dont think that President Obama is going to touch this issue at the Federal level with a ten foot pole.
Texes, compare these
Texes, compare these percentages with what support was 5 or 10 years ago. Yes, the battle was won in Maine by the anti-marriage equality forces, but it is only a mattere of time when the war will be won by marriage equality supporters.
'Only equals can be friends'
'Only equals can be friends' Maya Angelou
That 53% can take care of themselves, going to be a long winter.
That's the kind of work our
That's the kind of work our Church should be doing, asserting Christian social values and protecting the institution of marriage from the subversive elements within our society who would destroy it. Let us pray that more bishops will take similar action when called upon, with regard to marriage. Let us pray too, they will show similar courage and zeal in defense of the most defenseless among us, the unborn, and be willing to pay the so called high price for doing so.
You gotta ask yourself, why
You gotta ask yourself, why do the bishops not take an equally aggressive approach to divorce? Surely divorce threatens marriage more than homosexuality, and yet, the bishops say little or nothing about the current high rate of divorce. I would say that the current divorce and remarriage rates speak more to the instability of marriage than does homosexuality. I suspect the bishops fear more than they are letting on. I suspect they are trying to create the impression that they don't tolerate homosexuality when in fact nearly half of their ranks is homosexual. Fear of homosexuality or defense of marriage--kinda of hard to tell isn't it? Facts are so hard to refute!
A distinction is to be drawn
A distinction is to be drawn between the moral law and the civil law but Catholics are not really supposed to support the enactment of civil law which contradicts the moral law. It's one thing to live with the reality of civil law contradicting the moral law in a secular society but it is another thing to support such law. At the very least in a civil sense marriage should follow the prescription of God and nature that it be between a man & a woman. This is only common sense and in no way is it an unjust discrimination against persons with a homosexual orientation. Just as a blind person can't drive a car, a gay couple is not able to marry.
"Just as a blind person can't
"Just as a blind person can't drive a car, a gay couple is not able to marry."
Again, paulte, flawed logic.
Blindness is physical (although medical science may someday enable folks to overcome it).
Not being "able" to marry is the result of politics.
Let's hope the righteously "blind" among us will someday be able to "see" the moral rightness of allowing people with a different --- albeit natural --- sexual orientation to marry.
Not so logically flawed,
Not so logically flawed, JJ!
The gay couple is not able to reproduce naturally. That is a physical reality like blindness. And each physical problem means the state can't issue a license to the applicant.
This quote would be good if
This quote would be good if it were true "for protecting and reaffirming their support for marriage as it has been understood for millennia by civilizations and religions around the world". But it's not. In many ages and still in many places one man can buy (yes, buy!) multiple wives. The women are and were property, not equal partners. The idea of equal partners is an extremely new idea which came about AFTER WWII sometime. Until then men could beat their wives with impunity even here in the U.S. Even today, most marriages I know are not really equal partnerships but instead the one who makes the most money is the power player of the duo. So much for sacrament! I see it that money and power are the crux of marriage definitely in the past and still somewhat present today so I feel like this idea everyone is spouting about one man, one woman is false and about maintaining a perceived but false, status quo. If the bishops really want to help marriage then promote equality over sex and love over power. With equality and love we will have a sacrament and it shouldn't matter if it's two different sexes or one.
Hopefully the expressions of
Hopefully the expressions of the loyal opposition of members of the Church was just a foretaste of what will happen nationwide as Catholics form their consciences and understand that this is indeed a matter of justice and civility. No matter what the Church's teaching on sacramental marriage may be, we as Catholics cannot force this definition on the populace of our nation, which is a heterogenous and pluralistic society, as a whole. LGBT individuals deserve the same benefits as heterosexuals under the law when they wish to unite civilly.
Although it may be a valid and sometimes necessary solution, not ascribing the word "marriage" to these relationships will not only please homophobic activists who want to say any amount of rights denied to gays and lesbians but it will create a two-tiered system. Even if all of the amounts of rights and benefits proper to a heterosexual marriage would be transferred to a homosexual "civil union" there would still be an unfamiliar, distinct quality to this type of relationship as opposed to a "marriage." Thus, it would seem that a "marriage" might be considered more binding than a "civil union."
And in all of this, it's deeply discouraging that the leaders of the Church continue to fail seeing that in supporting such openly hostile actions towards the leagalization of rights to homosexuals, they are perpetuating homophobia. A homophobia that drastically needs to be eradicated, analyzed, and combatted with compasstion, tolerance, and pastoral sensibility within the Church.
Perhaps the Church is opposed to same-sex marriage. If this is the case, why not at least (even if it isn't the more desireable option) endorse civil unions to show and convince the public that a pretextual bias is not the basis for their opposition to the rights of homosexuals.
As we saw this past week, the leaders of the Church have a long way to go in recognizing the rights and equal dignity of homosexuals, as citizens of the world and members of the universal Church. However, it is an encouraging and hopeful sign that perhaps the common People of God are catching up where the clerical leaders have not and are leading the call for justice and equality within our Church and the world at large.
Victory? There is
Victory?
There is encouragement in the closeness of the vote. Setbacks are to be expected, I guess, in such tradition altering change. Deeply engrained stereotypes die slowly, much more slowly than does reason.
The sad part of it all is the almost insidious role of our Church in "pulling out all the stops", using political arm twisting, media experts, and fear all on top of a flawed natural law theory raised to the level of theology. Defending and promoting the "catholic position" can be respected and it also has the consequence of exposing the rationale and methodology to be later reflected upon in the tranquility of good will and common sense.
Archbishop Kurtz Says: "Protecting marriage affirms the permanent and exclusive love between a husband and a wife as a wonderful and incomparable good in itself which also is of great social and practical consequence. ... Sadly, the attempts to redefine marriage today ignore or reject the unique identity and gifts of man and woman. Such a dismissal only fosters confusion about what it means to be human." What a load of crock. Sound good, strikes a chord with the pius and the good, reassures the fearful, speaks to the bigot who needs pc words, but still a load of crock.
There is no question as to the validity of prmanant and exclusive love between a man and a woman and that it has significant social consequence. That is the traditional marriage that is and will be the norm but to deny the reality of its fragility that has no source in the same-sex issue and the legitimacy of exclusive love and permanant relationship between couples of the same sex may be a difficult issue for some, but is of value in itself and of significant social value, it contributes to the understanding of humanity and, in fact, contributes to the specific identity of what it means to be a man and a women.
There is nothing Holy, good,
There is nothing Holy, good, decent, normal, or life transmitting about sodomy. It is a disgusting act, one that makes a normal person vomit. It is an abomination. It is condemned by the Holy Spirit when He inspired the composition of the Bible at a Council of the early Church.
Your comments reflect a
Your comments reflect a rather myopic view of life.
Indeed, they illustrate one more time how "orthodoxy" = orthotoxy.
Homosexual "marriage" has
Homosexual "marriage" has nothing to do with equality. Four sided objects are not discriminated against because they are not circles, neither is an ersatz "union" of two men or two women the object of "discrimination" if it is not given the rights that belong to marriage. George Burns should recognize that marriage existed before the state, and has its own laws not subject to redefinition by the state.... unless he believes in omnipotent states that can define anything anyway they choose, in which case his legal views are even more problematic than what he's claiming here.
Clergy/ministers using church
Clergy/ministers using church bulletins, handouts, & preaching to urge members of a congregation to vote for or to vote against a specific piece of legislation or for or against a specific political party (thinly veiled with "code" words), or for or against a specific politician (again, usually with thinly veiled language full of "code" words) is against the law allowing churches to remain untaxed...we must end the religious sniveling and posturing and coercion...perhaps it is time to really investigate the tax-exempt laws of the U.S. and enforce them.
Perhaps we should really find
Perhaps we should really find the gag-rule-cum-criterion-for-tax-exemption" provision to be an unconstitutional fettering of the right of clergymen to speak their minds? One should remember that the legislation itself was the product of Lyndon Baines Johnson, intended to silence some of his critics....
Could a reader or possibly
Could a reader or possibly the NCR tell me at what point the IRS considers a religious organization is violating the political exemption rule?
It would seem to me that Bishop Malone stepped over the line.
Along the same idea. How many Maine Catholics will pass on the Annual Bishop's Appeal - and especially any contribution to the Knights?
the bishops appeal will
the bishops appeal will suffer greatly this year in maine. they'll probably do what other dioceses have done to ensure contributions: change the name to catholic ministries appeal. many dioceses with loud mouth bishops have done so to distance their charitible work from the image of an unpopular bishop.
still, the bishop is always in control of the funds; so it's pretty disingenuous.
Sometimes support of the
Sometimes support of the truth comes at a price. The martyrs paid it. Others burned incense to the Roman gods.
1 Corinthians 5: It is not
1 Corinthians 5: It is not the church's job to impose its morality on people who do not profess the faith. We should not be creating new burdens for gay couples, but protecting their dignity, blessing their relationships, and standing up for their rights.
What a shame!
What a shame!
Here's an opinion piece by a
Here's an opinion piece by a gay journalist who suggests, "This loss isn't just about politics -- it's about the very soul of the Christian religion."
‘Gay Marriage’ challenges Christianity’s credibility
Not an easy read, but helpful in understanding how some folks perceive the Church in the wake of the Maine campaign.
The problem, as I see it, is
The problem, as I see it, is due to our traditional teaching that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, and this based on limited information of anthropology, human sexuality, and a faulty exegesis of the Bible story of Sodom and Gomorrah. This has been going on for centuries. No wonder christians are confused (prejudiced). Homosexuals are born with their orientation; it is a fact. And since all human beings are made to live in relation to others if they are to prosper, homosexual persons should be free to live in a consenting, dedicated, committed and caring relationship with another. Only education about, and most assuredly, getting to know well, gay, lesbian, or transgender people, will open the eyes of Prelates, or people who profess to be Christian, and enable them to think justly and judge rightly the lives of others.
Marriage, as a Catholic
Marriage, as a Catholic Sacrament, is between a man and a woman and their marriage must be witnessed either by a priest or deacon to be valid. That means that every Catholic couple who choses to marry "outside" the church is not married in the eyes of the Church. They are nothing but fornicators - with or without children. I'm sorry to say that, in my un-scientific survey of members of my Catholic community, about 40% were married outside of the church. That means, they are not welcome...go home...don't darken my holy space - unless, of course, you want to comply with the Catholic teachings of what marriage really is! And you better not be hanging around with any couples who do not fit the Catholic code.
Gee, and here all along I
Gee, and here all along I thought it was God's Holy Place. Thanks for the catechesis. Using my reason, I have chosen to let you keep 'your' Holy Place.
The amendment was not about a
The amendment was not about a "Catholic Sacrament". No one was forcing The Church to recognize or preform same-sex marriages. It was a civil issue, not a religious one.
""That means that every
""That means that every Catholic couple who choses to marry "outside" the church is not married in the eyes of the Church"" is an ABSOLUTELY FALSE statement! Marriages made outside the church are considered VALID by the church as long as they fit the civil codes. They just are not considered sacramental. So stop thinking of all those people at your church as being more sinful than you are.
Because Bishop Malone
Because Bishop Malone diverted over a half-million dollars from the Church' ministry to opposing civil rights for people in Maine who are not even Catholic, the faithful of St. Joseph's Church and of St. Patrick's Church have been stripped of their rights to traditional marriage or to any other sacraments in the churches that their parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents sacrificed to build.
At Cana, Jesus changed the water to wine. It's really sad that Bishop Malone lacks the same generosity of spirit.
The bishops have come out
The bishops have come out against any health care reform that might include even a pittance of taxes going to pay for abortion...when will they come out against paying any taxes for war or capital punishment?
I'm not holding my breath.
It is sad, but our bishops
It is sad, but our bishops are as much "cafiteria Catholics" as anyone. Yes, it is sad.
Never
Never
This country is not run by
This country is not run by the catholic religion or any other religion, and their religions should not be shoved down anyone elses throat. It is in this country's constitution "Separation of Church and State. Period
Anonymous said: Submitted by
Anonymous said:
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Nov. 08, 2009.
This country is not run by the catholic religion or any other religion, and their religions should not be shoved down anyone elses throat. It is in this country's constitution "Separation of Church and State. Period
Dear Anonymous,
the phrase "separation of Church and State" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. it looks like it's time to hit the school books.
In the parlance of your last post:
PERIOD!
OK, what you say is correct,
OK, what you say is correct, but why does it matter? It really doesn't unless you suggesting that since the seperation of church and state is not in the constitution but rather it is written elsewhere in one of the founding doucuments of this country, that it can be ignored?
Although we in our large
Although we in our large family do not have any persons of homosexual orientation, we believe in equal rights to all and are saddened by both the Maine and California bans on same sex marriage. With six children, spouses, and grandchildren the Church has lost over twenty members of our family due to its fundamentalist attitudes. How many cradle Catholics will the Church be content to lose before it begins to change its "my way or the highway" attitude?
If you leave the Church over
If you leave the Church over its opposition to the intrinsic evil of homosexual unions and acts, then you were hardly Catholic to begin with. I pray you gain a better understanding of what Catholic faith is, and why it is the truth.
don't leave. it's your church
don't leave. it's your church too. find a parish with a nice priest who doesn't go in for all the meanness. it's worth the drive. there are plenty of priests who are not gonna go on right-wing tirades from the ambo. unfortunately, bishop malone commanded his priests to do so on gay marriage in maine. if you and others leave, the catholic church will turn into something very unkind.
When Marc Mutty resorted to
When Marc Mutty resorted to lieing in stating that the Church considers the rights of gays to be protected through other civil arrangements such as civil unions and would support those, he demonstrated just how desperate the Church is to maintain it's sexual theology in the culture. At the very time Mutty is uttering this lie in Maine, the Church is spending big money in the State of Washington to ban civil unions.
If a position is self evident and reasonable, it doesn't need to lies to bolster the case.
Given the Church's sexual teaching that procreation is the proper end of traditional marriage, the Church should also be promoting legislation to ban infertile hetersexual marriage, and the loss of marital rights upon the woman reaching menopause. Since they don't, this is obviously not about marriage as the primary social unit of the family, it's about something else entirely.
It's about sexual apartheid.
Marriage equality is about
Marriage equality is about CIVIL RIGHTS, not marriage rites. To those of you who supported Question 1 in Maine & Proposition 8 in California, YOU lack compassion, love for your gay brothers & sisters, and a sense of justice for your gay brothers & sisters. YOU do not deserve to call yourselves "Christian" or "Catholic."
Clearly the "defense of
Clearly the "defense of marriage" Catholics must now work to outlaw civil divorce and remarriage, in order to take the US back to where Ireland was 20-odd years ago.
Then again, since we are getting rid of separation of church and state, they must also support the abolition of that part of the First Amendment and the establishment of official state religions, with special privileges for the members of the majority religion.
In for a penny, in for a pound, as they say.
The sense of the faithful has
The sense of the faithful has been speaking for 2000 years. The Holy Spirit does not guide the Church for 2000 years then suddenly change. Catholics who believe in so-called gay marriage are not within the sense of the faithful which is measured across all time, not just the past few years.
Dear Rachel Good point.
Dear Rachel
Good point. First the bishops stop homosexual marriage. Then they prevent free abortion. What next? They may oppose our necessary wars in Af-Pak. The President should put the IRS on them, before he loses his entire agenda.
AB Kurtz in Louisville
AB Kurtz in Louisville again.
Just more SOS from him.
Living through the campaign
Living through the campaign in Maine to rescind the equality of marriage act, I tried desperately to hear a convincing, reasonable case from our church leaders. Sorry to say, what I heard were scare tactics, and a no-holds-barred, media savvy campaign, which made my stomach ache for the damage being done to our community. While many on both sides maintained a civil and respectful tone, the spirit of hate and intolerance made itself known too frequently for me to believe that such evil was not encouraged by my church leaders' blind guidance.
When our church leaders stop talking to us like 2nd graders and begin to engage us respectfully as adults, listening as well as talking, then I will begin to hope that the "sense of the faithful" guided by the Holy Spirit is again at work in our church's leadership.
And yet when the translations
And yet when the translations of the liturgy seek to speak to adults, everyone here wants to be treated like a second-grader.
If you are unhappy with your
If you are unhappy with your bishop's directions, one very easy form of protest...don't give to the annual financial appeals issued from the various chanceries. Give directly to agencies whom you deem worthy of your support. Also, stop giving to so called parish "special collections" and return weekly/monthly envelopes empty and/or include an explanation why it is empty.
"The bishop won at a great
"The bishop won at a great price -- whether he cares about that price or not. He has divided his flock."
A sign of BISHOPS to come, given the most recent appointment to the Congregation of Bishops in Rome.
The vote was a great victory
The vote was a great victory for Bishop Malone but it is troubling how the Church has aligned itself with Christian fundamentalists who despise gay people and view the homosexual orientation as a sin. Where does this leave Maine Catholics who are tolerant of gay people and feel that they are equal in their humanity and dignity to other people? That the Church spent all that money on a political battle when some Catholic parishes and schools are struggling financially is also cause for concern. I can imagine that the people that hate gay people willingly gave to those collections but what message did that send to the young people.
Like many other issues we
Like many other issues we face, this one is emotional for many. Realistically, however, it is pretty clear in the owners manual (the Bible). God considers homosexuality to be an "abomination." That means it is detestable in God's eyes. casino en ligne
I am struggling to find where
I am struggling to find where discipleship to Christ is a democratic process.
The Church has a responsibility to speak truth...in this case Catholic Truth..to the world. When Jesus spoke, and people didn't like what he had to say. he didn't alter his statements...the people went away.
The church leaders, however, have a responsibility to teach truth across the spectrum of Catholic teaching, and should stay out of the political realm as such.
Of course, an example of this is the call for better health care...without funding abortion. Why would the church say...gosh, lets support this even though it includes something we fundamentally believe is evil. Why should they not say..the health care system needs reform, and we support reform, but we do not support abortion. It is under no obligation to compromise it's beliefs to assuage the feelings of people in the United States.
I struggle with the strange moral relativism of the liberals almost as much as I struggle with the near fanatical fundamentalism of the conservatives. The hatred that flows from either side, as evidenced by messages on these boards is truely appalling.
The church is not a
The church is not a democracy, but by its own documents, decisions are supposed to be informed by the wisdom and lived experience of the whole church, through which the Holy Spirit acts.
One thing that disturbed me was that the first time I've heard Bishop Malone mention conscientious objection was in reference to individuals' right to not recognize same-sex marriage. Perhaps I missed his earlier references to CO, but the early church (those who were closest to the lived experience of Jesus's personal ministry here on earth) identified more strongly as CO's to service in the military, (and to participation in abortion).
It must be very difficult to be a bishop. My thoughts and prayers are with them, but I think that discipleship in Jesus has a lot more to do with the practice of non-violent love and service, than it does to any form of "pelvic theology", with which our church's leadership seems to be preoccupied.
I am struggling to find where
I am struggling to find where discipleship to Christ is a democratic process.
Are non-Catholic Christians in "discipleship to Christ?" Because the majority of them have some degree of democratic governance, at every organizational level.
So the only way the above assertion works is if you assert (in opposition to the teaching of Rome) that non-Catholic Christians aren't legitimately Christian.
The Roman Church is the remnant of first-millenium feudalism that got left behind while the world changed around it. What is ironic is that its model of governance was modeled on nothing sacred, but rather as a sort of "parallel government" to the secular governments that existed in the centuries immediatly following its foundation. Just as "clubs" that are founded today almost can't help but elect a President, Vice-President, Treasurer, and Secretary, together with a 'Board of Directors,' the Catholic Church took its governing structure from the only thing that the founders really knew--- a feudal monarchy.
What is kind of ironic is that in word and deed, the Vatican strongly supports Democracy as the favored form of civil government for nations. Perhaps that is because Democracy makes it easier to run their religion compared to any of the modern alternatives.
So when you jump up and down declaring that the Church is "not a democracy" you might want to consider the historical reasons why it is not, along with why, perhaps, it should become more like one.
Civil marriage is a contract
Civil marriage is a contract between 2 persons. It is not, and should not be confused with sacramental marriage. Indeed, the current concept of marriage as a freely entered-into relationship of two adults is only about 200 years old. Before that, civil marriage was basically a property exchange between a man and his future son-in-law.
The Church should have no role in attacking my civil rights, in denying my family fundamental protections, and in enforcing its religious views on others.
The Church recognizes that civil marriage between two divorced people is not sacramentally valid, but does not campaign to outlaw their marriages. Same sex marriage is NO DIFFERENT. the official Catholic concept of marriage should be no more privileged in the civil square than is Reform Jew, Episcopalian, or Quaker. You are free to limit marriage within your church as you see fit, but you have no right to enforce your religion on others any more than my traditionally Jewish colleague can outlaw the public consumption of pork.
Still, never fear. My formerly Catholic family will not darken the doors of an RC Church again. (We, along with a crowd of other Prop-H8 refugees straight and gay, have found the Episcopalians to be far more welcoming.) I'm sure there will be a lot of that in Maine, as well. Even those who remain will be bitterly divided. The costs of this divisive, hate-filled campaign will be paid for a long time to come.
But our children's witness will help educate their peers to ensure that the intolerance of Prop-H8 and Qstn-1 will be eventually repealed, and ALL Americans can be treated as equals under the law.
With what cost? That of the
With what cost? That of the church abandoning its social programmes. At least in Washington D.C.!
That's right, folks. The bishops there took their terror campaign one step further by blackmailing the proper authorities: if the same-sex legislation is passed, they will stop caring for the sick, the homeless and the orphans.
That is the true message and Gospel teaching brought to us 2000 years ago by Jesus of Nazareth. If people are treated humanly and equally, then we will make them croak and starve:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/11/AR200911...
"Sadly, the attempts to
"Sadly, the attempts to redefine marriage today ignore or reject the unique identity and gifts of man and woman. Such a dismissal only fosters confusion about what it means to be human."
I suspected they really didn't consider me to be human but now I know.
Is the church to now stop
Is the church to now stop referring to sin as "sin"?
The theology of the church is not democratic. The doctrine is not democratic.
It is not always popular. Arguably, life might be simpler to live if one didn't have to worry about morals or sin, and simply went with our impulses.
Actually,it is disingenuous if not a flat out lie (good christian behavior, that) to say that the Washington Diocese will stop serving the poor, the homeless etc. They simply will be pulling out of contracts with the city government because the city government is expecting them to engage in activity seen as going against church teachings. To suggest that the only way the Catholic Church can help the poor and downtrodden is be being in partnership with the government is to flat out ignore the history of such work in this country and around the world.
As the first website points
As the first website points out---" The Diocese of Portland, Maine, is a small poor diocese, so where did they get the more than half a million dollars ($500,000+) to spend on lobbying for this ballot measure??" --
http://calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=1e83d5c6-2932-4dcf-9f07-....
A sharp-eyed reader notes that "FYI, Finn is the Bishop of Kansas City, Mo. not the Archbishop of Kansas City, Ks", which the main author didn't catch.
AND from the State of Maine Campaign Contributions Report website, where this contribution is accounted for in detail, even down to 27 cents!!-- http://www.mainecampaignfinance.com/public/entity_financial_transactions...
FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL...
Post new comment