Catholic bishops: Gay marriage threatens religious liberty
Tags
Related Posts
About the author
The state’s four Catholic bishops, while professing to abhor “bias” and “rejection” directed at gays and lesbians, have delivered a pastoral statement calling Referendum 74 a threat to religious liberty.
Ref. 74, on the November ballot, would make Washington the seventh state to legalize marriage between partners of the same sex.
The bishops’ statement, issued Tuesday by the Washington State Catholic Conference, came as Washington-based Expedia became the latest major employer to come out in support of same-sex marriage.
In the most controversial passage of their pastoral statement, the Catholic bishops argue that passage of Referendum 74 would make THEM the objects of discrimination.
“The legal separation of marriage from procreation would have a chilling effect on religious liberty and the right of conscience,” the bishops claim. “Once marriage is redefined as a genderless contract, it will become legally discriminatory for public and private institutions such as schools to promote the unique value of children being raised by their biological mothers and fathers.
“No institution or individual could propose that married mothers and fathers provide a singular benefit to children without being accused of discrimination. Recent attacks on churches, businesses and nonprofit organizations that express their conscientious objection to the redefinition of marriage underscore the danger.”
SOURCE
Leave a Comment
Photo Archive
-
May 24, 2013 7:00
Historic vote to accept gays as Boy Scouts draws mixed faith response
-
May 24, 2013 6:55
Faith-Healing Churches linked to 2 dozen child deaths
-
May 24, 2013 6:51
Clergy campaign for indigent care
-
May 24, 2013 6:46
Five more come forward alleging abuse by Hawaii Catholic priests
-
May 23, 2013 1:58
Religious freedom reports see little improvement in troubling countries
-
May 23, 2013 1:43
LGBT Catholics find a new supporter: An openly gay priest
-
May 22, 2013 1:37
Tornadoes exact deadly toll; region needs ‘a lot of prayers right now’
-
May 22, 2013 1:32
State Dept. report says countries have repressed religious freedom with laws
-
May 22, 2013 1:23
2 lawsuits filed against Maine Catholic church
-
May 21, 2013 1:32
Church Whistle-Blowers Join Forces on Abuse
56 Comments
Are we opposed to adoption? Are we so self-righteous that Catholic Bishops have the right to define what is a family for people of other faiths? Is the Church an autocratic tyranny imposing is very narrow views on people, not of their faith? Whose religious freedom? Do we need another anticlerical revolution within the Church to protect religious freedom Catholic or not?
“The state’s four Catholic bishops, while professing to abhor “bias” and “rejection” directed at gays and lesbians…” Yeah, yeah, yeah.
To Greg Smith. To answer your question: How does Gay marriage or civil union interfear with my marriage? Because it is a COUNTERFEIT of what mariiage really is. It is a make believe state that tarnishes the beauty and sacredness of Marriag that God gave to human kind. The gays complete their fantasy of being equal to Heterosexual marriage by adopting a child. We will make a home for this child and love this chil as our own. Yes, they will give the child a home and yes they will love the child. But they will deny that child the most sacred RIGHT that child has, a Male father and a female mother; to meet their own needs.
If it was truly a right for a child to have a mother and a father, then test tube babies would be banned, and the state would force the biological parents (the man and woman responsible for having the kid in the first place) to raise them, making the entire practice of adoption pointless.
But, we don’t live in that fantasy world. Unfortunately, some people don’t want to raise their biological kids, so the kids get placed with foster parents/families, some of whom might be gay parents. Now, psychiatrists (the APA) have repeatedly said that gay people do not have a greater statistical probability of being sexual abusers then straight people, so that argument is wrong. And I would argue that being raised by two parents – gay parents or straight parents – is very often a much better situation than being raised by no parents, a single parent, or parents who didn’t want the kid in the first place and have no interest in helping the child grow to be a successful adult. So, as I see it, your argument boils down to showing that kids are missing something so fundamental that they have a right to have it when they are raised by homosexual parents as opposed to heterosexual parents. Can you elaborate on what, specifically, that thing is? Why do you think two-homosexual-parent households are worse for foster kids than two-heterosexual-parent households? And if that thing is so important, then why don’t we just require the biological parents to raise their child to begin with?
The major danger to the Catholic Church that comes from gay marriage is that many of their priests will no longer have to hide their sexuality behind the collar, and will leave the priesthood to get married.
Arnold — on a scale of one to ten of cynicism, your post rates a ten.
Less than 3% of priests are even accused of gay pedophilia. Yes, when seminaries gave up theology for pop sociology, and gave up morals for pop psychology, the result was that some seminaries in the 1970s became gay collectives, and they died out or were closed down. But even more “pop culture” seminaries trained good men poorly, so that confessionals sometimes became psycho-analytical sessions instead of acknowledgements of a sinner who already knows the sin is wrong and wishes graces to resist better in the future. But we have much better bishops now, bishops not as afraid as their predecessors a generation ago. The main threat to Catholicism, from “gay marriage” is that gay activists won’t stop at just salve-seeking legal recognition of their perversion of cross-clutural and historical institution(s). Gay activists won’t be satisfied until everybody is forced to tell them they are morally right, as a salve on a deep-down guilty conscience knowing what they do is other than intended by their Creator. The major danger is coercion of gay activists through legal means, dictating to others what they must believe. It really is that simple, and it is playing out in societies that have legalized “bay” marriage. Note in Brazil, that polygamy is now legal marriage too, thanks to breaking the barrier to legalize homosexuals. The bigger point is the patent absurdity of it all: gays are already free to marry anybody of the other sex that they may wish to, and absolutely nobody is stopping them from having precisely the same marriage rights that any other adult has. Forcibly redefining culture to one’s minority viewpoint? That’s true tyranny, when it doesn’t result in utter chaos.
Pedophilia and pedorasty have nothing to do with being attracted to lawfully consenting adults of the same gender as yourself.
Furthermore, in EVERY state where gay marriage has been allowed, in the law that allowed for gay marriages, was an opt-out clause that allowed ANYBODY to opt-out of marrying two homosexuals for any reason (ignoring the fact that there are similar laws for canonical/heterosexual marriages – NOBODY is required to officiate your marriage). So, how exactly are gay people using the law to force others to tell them they are morally right, as you said in your post?
Like it or not, gay marriage is happening, because the legal/state definition of marriage is completely separate from the religious/church definition of marriage thanks to separation of church and state. That means that gay couples have the same rights as straight couples, including automatic power of attorney, next of kin status, visitation rights, adoption rights, tax incentives, and plenty of other things people take for granted every day. Fighting for legal equality while allowing others to practice their religion is not forcing their religion down anybody else’s throats. If that were the case, then the US would have never had legal interracial marriages.
The bottom line in my thinking is that promiscuity, whether heterosexual or homosexual is a destructive lifestyle, but two people unconditionally loving one another and forming a permanent bond is loving “from the heart” and is probably o.k. This message of loving from the heart has been preached throughout the ages, and the “heart” is the bodily organ that must take precedence. That being said, it is my opinion that adopting children by gay couples is a different matter and something that needs much more study as to how being raised by two gay people psychologically affects those children. Perhaps it’s more of a question of the love they see between their parents that is important than whether the parents are traditionally male and female. I don’t know, but I’m starting to change my thinking about that.
P.S. In my opinion, “procreation” is NOT be the reason most people get married. Older couples certainly don’t marry for that reason; they marry because they are lonely and want a marriage partner with whom to journey through life the rest of their lives. I believe it was either sigmund Freud or Carl Jung who wrote that, and as an older person, I see that this is true. “Procreating” is a side effect of some peoples’ marriages — the young ones.
Not the point. Marriage has never been about the reasons people desire marriage. Indeed, any two people can live together whenever they wish. Marriage is all about setting up a proper partnership, regardless of “feelings” or “reasons”, for each partner to be a complimentary partner, but more importantly to set up a close relationship that is most beneficial for raising kids and advising grown kids. Two males will over-emphasize certain things and under-emphasize other things; two females would do the mirror image, emphasizing things guys de-emphasize, and over-emphasize things guys seldom consider. Thus, male and female are essential to each other in a special relationship both for each other, and for the good of kids (both juvenile who need formation, and grown who need advice). Marriage has not been, at its root, ever about “feelings” or “reasons”; marriage roots run far deeper than that, right to the core of how the Creator created male & female. The root reasons are important, anything else is mere bonus or detraction.
Marriage was set up to protect property. As far as raising kids and advising grown kids, most parents haven’t got a clue.
Hey Recovering, I think the debate would be much more productive if everybody specified whether they are talking about the legal aspect of marriage, which is just a legal contract signed between to able, of-age, and consenting people, and the religious aspect of marriage, which can have more odious requirements placed on it by the religious community or religious marriage official (eg: the Catholic church basically requires pre-marriage counseling and requires that you get married in a Catholic church).
That may be the religious aspect of marriage, but not the legal reasoning behind it. All homosexuals are asking for is legal recognition of their marriages, not requiring religious recognition. In every state with gay marriage there is an opt-out clause to allow objecting people to refuse to officiate homosexual marriages (the opt-out clause in the gay marriage laws reflects similar language in the marriage statutes for straight/canonical marriages).
So, legally speaking, what is the purpose of marriage, and why should to consenting adults be barred from signing what only amounts to a legal contract (in either type of marriage) between each other based on their genders?
Sure, Recovering — but remember, you have started your own church, the church of Recovering Catholic. I don’t care what you “dogmas” are — I care what God thinks, and He speaks to us inerrantly through the Catholic Church.
Remember, the concept of infallibility was promulgated by a Pope at a time when there was no concept of infallibility. The Pope could have been wrong.
Arnold — just as the Protestants believe Scriputure was inerrantly inspired, Catholics believe the same Holy Spirit inerrantly guides the Catholic Church in proclamation of dogma. Of course the Church could be wrong — I can’t prove to you my belief that they are inerrant — I accept it as a matter of faith, as do other faithful Catholics.
What you consider a matter of faith is just blind obedience to out of date material. Be a man and think for yourself.
I am a man, and I don’t have to rely on faith. All of history supports what Catholicism teaches. Infallibility, for instance, was a hallmark of the papacy from the start; the dogma was only proclaimed, as all dogma proclamations, when there was a serious discussion about the issue and the issue had to be resolved. Look at each and every council: each one dealt with matters under question that had previously been simply accepted as handed down from the Apostles. Answers are in history. Faith is required only for understanding how incredible things can be so; but even then, it’s not any kind of blind faith. History points back to how Jesus originally made it so, or else confirmed what the Hebrews heard from God previously.
Hey, I have to give you props for thinking things through as far as you have. Sometimes it seems like religious people blindly follow what they are told instead of thinking for themselves to come to their own conclusions (even if it is the same conclusions) about their faith as you have.
However, I would like you to take a step back and ask yourself what kind of god you believe in (eg: just whatever was before the Big Bang but neither inspires nor requires moral systems based on this belief, a deist god who starts the universe then leaves it/us to figure things out for ourselves, a fiery Christian god who damns people to hell for eternity, a warm god who personally cares for/about everybody, or a combination of any of those), and what evidence you have for those beliefs.
If you believe the Bible is accurate and it says that god exists, then I can show you many other historical fiction books that agree with reality in many ways but contain some fiction, obvious fiction or not.
If you just have feelings but you can’t describe their origins or justify why you have them or why they are so strong, then I would ask you if you think you would believe in the same type/characteristics of god if you grew up in a different country: the US, Canada, the UK, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, China, Japan, Nepal, or Nigeria. If you admit that if you grew up in those areas you would probably have a different view of god, then that would indicate that your belief in god is dependent upon under what religion you were raised, what your parents believed and taught you, and what your surrounding community believed and indirectly taught you. If that’s the case, then why do you believe that you are more correct than any of those other people? If you think that you would have the same belief regardless of where you were raised, then how do you explain the religious differences being correlated with where somebody was raised and what their parents’ believed?
If you start with the belief in god and use that to justify why the Bible (and therefore whatever Bible-based religion you follow), then how do you justify that original belief in god?
PS: Please forgive me for not capitalizing the word god. I do not because I am referring to more than just the Christian definition of god, and capitalizing that word indicates that I am only referring to the Christian “God”-with-a-capital-G.
Okay, Thomas Merton, I am taking you up on your challenge. I am thinking like a man; and here’s what I think: I think the Catholic Church is inerrantly inspired by the Holy Spirit. Now that I think that, why would I rely on my own faulty, sinful logic and nature? Why wouldn’t I rely on the expert — God and His Church? It’s a little like going to see a medical doctor for a physical complaint. The doctor tells me what the problem is and how to treat it. Thinking for myself, I decide to take the doctor’s advice, because I am convinced he knows better than me. In fact, his patients say that he NEVER makes a mistake in diagonsis or prescribing treatment. If I don’t listen to him, I am a fool.
Incoming logic bat:
You have evidence to believe that the doctor is correct – he’s graduated medical school, been reviewed for an MD license by the state, following his advice in the past has worked, and what he says dovetails with what you have learned about how the body works. Doctors do make mistakes all of the time, but they do so in the course of treatment because they are human so they cannot know and retain for immediate retrieval every highly improbable sickness, they cannot inherently know all of and the severity of the patients’ symptoms, and they will admit the fact that they make mistakes in the course of testing to see what is wrong but that testing is required to diagnose what is wrong in the first place.
Contrast this with the Catholic church (well, really, any church). Thinking from the position of somebody who doesn’t share the same beliefs as the Catholic church, why should those people trust the Catholic church on moral matters? The Catholic church itself has not gone to god school, it cannot legitimately claim to know more things about the universe than anybody else because we all have the same tools at hand, its beliefs do not line up with skeptics and it cannot logically justify its beliefs to skeptics, it has been wrong in the past for incredibly selfish and immoral reasons (Galileo, apologists notwithstanding), it seeks to influence those outside of its area of expertise (gay marriage) with no legal justification, and the whole time, it takes centuries to enact changes that are obviously necessary to connect with modern people to outside observers (Vatican II), and in the meantime, it does not admit to having any uncertainty in its beliefs (as opposed to science). Basically, if you are raised by Catholic parents, or if you beliefs align with the Catholic church, they will welcome you with open arms, but if you don’t completely agree with any of the premises upon which they base their power, then they claim that you are ignorant even though they have not and cannot logically justify themselves to you to change your assumptions (eg: existence of the Catholic definition of God). So if you agree with them, they make total sense, but if you disagree with them, their advice is nonsensical at best, and completely backwards and wrong at worst (Galileo).
I do appreciate your try though, Jim.
Okay, so if it is just a matter of faith, why should other people, who don’t share your faith/beliefs try to be Catholic or consider Catholic doctrines? Faith and beliefs are personal – you can’t change somebody else’s beliefs, so why do you think there should be legislation based on your belief systems (ie: gay marriage, divorces requiring approximately $20,000, the healthcare mandate, etc.)?
Why should the entire US follow what you believe over what somebody else (who presumably disagrees with you) believes?
We are a constitutional republic with democractic elections to determine our representatives, but that doesn’t mean we can impose our religious views on others using the government to do so.
Blag — at least with regard to the issue of HHS mandate, you’ve got it backwards — the Catholic Church is NOT asking the rest of the population to not use birth control in their opposition to the mandate; they ARE asking to have the freedom to not have to fund birth control. Big difference.
Wrong. Infallibility was not even a question until the Protestant Revolt. The revolt called “infallibility” into question, since refuting it was the basis for protestantism’s legitimacy. Thus, what was always known had to be formally declared. It was the same thing as when the very first schisms decided to oppose Jesus’ teachings and still call themselves Catholic – each sought papal approval for some point that had never been defined enough to eliminate the schism’s intended “wiggle room”. The Nicene Creed, thus, built upon the Apostles’ Creed but contradicting none of the earlier creed. The more detailed definition was essential because creative minds tried to find legitimacy for thier different brand. It is the same with each Church Council and papal decree: clarify points the schisms tried to wiggle into and still call themselves Catholic. Protestantism was different, declaring the pope as expendible, despite Jesus’ clear teaching, despite history proving faithful Catholic adherence to, and schismatic aspirations to, papal approval of doctrinal points. Papal infallibility, on issues of faith & morals, was always a ground rule, until the Protestants sought a different path to religious legitimacy; thus the need to clarify the point of papal infallibility on matters of faith & morals. “It just isn’t so” that papal infallibility was cut out of thin air all of a sudden; papal infallibility was always there, just never before assaulted.
Even the bible exists due to papal infallibility. St Augustine, with the bishops in north Africa, held a couple regional councils to clarify how to re-unify as the Donatist heresy died out. The council at Hippo, in 393AD, was confirmed a couple years later in a larger council at Carthage. The final canon (of almost forty cannons) declared at that council is what for the first time specified the list of divinely inspired books to be called “holy scriptures”. (Today, we consider that list of divinely inspired books as a single book called “the bible” or “Holy Bible”.) But even with the mind of Augustine behind it, these council’s decision was only tentative until the pope approved it in 405AD. So, even back then, the pope was seen as having the final say, the infallible declaration, of what was legitimately Catholic faith & morals. The 1800s proclamation was merely a definitive statement of historical norm, to answer the claims of people who suddenly were gaining ground with a claim that papal infallibility wasn’t so. In short, declarations are reactive, to confirm or further detail, not to create something new.
Gee….what does that say about the rest of us? Also how inerrant were the mandates to burn witches and the “holy” wars. Hmmmm..know your history
Jake56 — yes, know your history. You are not a scholar in how the Church handled the Inquistion or the Crusades — you have listened to the lies of writers who hate the Church, and you uncritically accept them. Go buy a good book from a scholar without a bias against the Church and you will then see the truth. For example, the Crusades were started to re-claim land taken from the Christians by the Muslims. Are you saying Christians don’t have a right to defend themselves?
Lol, yes, the many secular historians who actually use logic and evidence to back up their claims clearly only hate the church and aren’t doing it because they love history, don’t want to see humanity repeat its previous mistakes, or want to correct people who spout inaccuracies.
Attention: If you disagree with the Catholic church, or Jim, then you must have an unjustifiable and diabolical motive for doing so.
To answer your last question – what’s the point of the WWJD bracelets? It’s to get people to stop lashing back at each other and follow Christ’s message. Christ allowed himself to become a martyr for others, and I would think that Christians would want to follow that example in every way possible seeing as how Christ is the central figure and central story of Christianity.
I can’t believe that this wasn’t pointed out by a Christian in the first place, but Ghandi made the excellent point that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Forgive others. Seek peace even amidst turmoil. Give yourself up to a higher ideal. These are supposedly the messages of Christianity, even if they are rarely practiced by supposed followers.
Hey Blag — there was a book published about 2004 by an author who (I believe) was not Catholic at the time. It made the NY Times bestseller list — titled something like “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” In it, he debunked many of the myths around the Crusades and the Inquisition. He is objective, blag.
Oh come on! No one has ever been able to explain to me how my gay and lesbian friends getting civilly married, or domestic partnered will harm my marriage, my daughter’s marriage or my yet unborn granddaughter’s future marriage. Now, I’s ask the WA bishops how gay marriage impacts my freedom of religion. As they know, other mainstream faiths such as the Episcopalians and Reform Judaism bless gay marriages. In prohibiting them, doesn’t the state limit their freedom of religion? The bishops need to focus on other serious issues and stop being obsessed by the gays.
Okay, Greg, then let me be the first to do so, and to do so concisely. Gays getting married diminishes the sacredness of marriage — marraiage now becomes whatever I want it to be. If I want to be married in a three-some, I can do it (don’t say this won’t happen, because in the last month it happened in Brazil). If I want to be married to an ape, I can marry one. If I as a man want to “marry” my boyfriend, I can do so. So, in summary, marriage has no transcendent value, but rather it is man-imposed. If that is true, then when I no longer am “in love” with my wife, I divorce her. Heck, why even marry her in the first place? Marriage imposes civil and financial penalties on me if I change my mind later. Thus, gay “marriage” weakens the sacredness of marriage, until all of society simply says, “I’m going to do whatever I feel like doing, because it’s right for me.” Come to think of it, USA society is already there. And we can see the wreckage: 42% of babies now born out-of-wedlock, and about 50% of marriages ending in divorce. Who suffers? In particular, the children — no child benefits from a split family. So, Greg, your faith is superficial. If you took your faith seriously, you would not have needed someone to explain this to you.
Thanks for the comment, Jim, and well said–until the last sentence. You diminish your remarks by the personal attack. Let us be kind to one another–we are all seeking truth.
I don’t entirely agree with that, Johanna — he who seeks, finds, and he who knocks, it is opened to him. I do not believe people like Greg are genuinely seeking the truth — they seek it to a point, but then when the come to a tough stretch for them, they go with their own doctrine.
But incredibly unlikely case that you are wrong about what other people are seeking…
If somebody truly is seeking, Jim, then being mean to them distracts from your message and pushes them further away from the truth. You are better than that, and we can all strive to be civil and not stoop to personal attacks.
And, Johanna, Jesus was not the man most people think He was. He overturned the tables of the money changers in the temple — and He wasn’t very nice in doing that. He cursed a fig tree because it wasn’t producing (even though it was out of season), and the tree died. He called the Pharisees “vipers” and “hypocrits” — not very nice designations. Many of these posters here may spend an ETERNITY in Hell — and it is a sin to not do what must be done to get their attention.
Note also, Jesus made a weapon, which he used, when not just once but twice cleansed the temple of people abusing the faithful. Gun Control advocates would wish it otherwise. Peacenicks would wish it otherwise. But the historical fact is that Jesus taught both justice and mercy, and that mercy was for the repentant, while the unrepentant received a far less “merciful” response. In this way, Jesus gave a just response applicable to each person’s own freely-chosen actions.
Perfect, Paul — thanks.
That’s true, but then he allowed himself to be a martyr for his cause, and that part of the story contains the entire premise that Christianity is based off of. That, to me, makes it seem more important than not “turning the other cheek”.
And Joanna, if I have to punch my drunk friend in the face to ensure I get his car keys so he can’t drive, was I “kind” to him? Depends on how you define “kind”, but at a minimum we would agree that what I did was beneficial. I’m not interested in being “nice” — men are warriors — I’m interested in results.
On September the 8th the Church will celebrate Mother Mary’s Birthday. What if Mary had chosen a different path than the path the God had chosen for her? What if Joseph had chosen to put her away quietly? It took a family, a earthly father Joseph, and a mother Mary to care for and teach the child Jesus.
God points us to truth, to a life the way we were intended to live. God choosing a foster father to partner with a mother is a key indication that few cultures have even ever questioned… until a supremely vocal minority in the USA today. Yet the pointers remain. It’s up to us to choose or reject. It’s also up to us to let everybody know, so that everybody has a fair chance to choose to follow the pointers, or to reject them. Note that preaching won’t always result in opening hearts & minds; God Himself left his Galilean ministry with only a handful of followers: 11 of 12 apostles, and a handful of women. He then went north to pagan lands and found faith there, before returning to Jerusalem and transient triumph that lasted through his 2nd temple cleansing, but several days later had turned to death by popular acclaim … sorrowed over by 3pm that last day when everybody went home sullen and afraid of the wrong they finally saw they had done. God points us to truth. It’s up to us to accept, and to keep accepting. Though free to disagree, truth remains truth whether we freely agree or disagree. God is wholly clear, from prophets through the Holy Family itself, to apostles, and to 2,000 years of bishops: male & female are complimentary and the intended way of things. Marriage of one male plus one female is in all cultures agreeing with what God has specified from the start, regardless if people listen. And history is also clear that the complimentarity of male plus female is the balance that kids need both for security and development, and husbands need the female advice just as wives need the male advice, for balance for themselves and to allow justice in attitudes for all persons. And historical pointers are also unanimous that anything else is wholly & entirely an abomination — an abomination that doesn’t even work the way modern proponents insist. This all is history; it is historical fact.
Replace the gay marriage issue in your post with the racial marriage issue of the 1950′s and 1960′s and you will see how your post will appear in the 2050′s and 2060′s.
Enjoy your descent into irrelevancy; your grandchildren will dismiss you as a bigot and you will become an embarrassment to your family as you age.
Up late, huh? Can’t sleep? Having illicit sex late at night? No peace in the soul? Try Catholicism.
One other point, Greg — man, you thinking is confused, like many who post here. Everyone has the freedom to practice the religion they want to practice (at least up to this point in our history — Catholic institutions will, within the next year, lose their ability to live their faith — but why should you care? You’re not Catholic anyway). Conversely, the Catholic Church has the right to practice their faith as they believe God has given it to them. So, gays who want to get married have the freedom to do so in some states; but they have no right to impose their revolting sin on others.
Jim actually hits the main point about bigotry and discrimination: gay-marriage proponants aren’t satisfied with freedom to do what they wish; they in every case insist on conforming others to their way of thinking, and use laws to compel everybody else to their way of thinking. Thus, the gay-marriage activists are the true intolerant segment, and seek to hide the fact by accusing the shiny copper-bottom kettel of being as black as the intolerant gay pot really is. In every state, this is the truth: intolerance comes from the gay activists by their insistence that everybody conform to thier desires, while Catholicism insists on a true “live and let live” kindness through seeking changes in behavior by persuasion without coercion. Truth. Historical truth, too.
In every state where gay marriage laws have passed their have been opt-out clauses included specifically for marriage officials who object over religious grounds. This is on top of laws that allow marriage officials to reject performing canonical/heterosexual couples for any reason. The only other rights gays have asked for are the rights that are immediately granted to couples upon marriage (eg: next of kin, power of attorney, visitation rights, adoption rights, etc.).
So, given that, how, specifically, are gays forcing others to conform?
Catholic bishops have long held unbridled opportunity and power to discriminate, even when it comes to paying their own employees! (Catholic school teachers, for example, are still paid significantly less than their public school counterparts.) Equal pay and equal treatment are merely preached, not practiced by the bishops. If somehow gay marriage threatens bishops’ religious liberty, that would be a step in the right direction, namely the religious liberty of everyone, not just the bishops’ “liberty” to discriminate against whomever they choose to discriminate.
Florian — I remember reading recently that bishops were holding Catholic school employees at gun-point, not allowing them to work for another employer. Get you head in the game, Florian — but knowing your history, I think it would literally take a miracle for your thinking to comport with Truth.
Jim – I understand frustration. But, regardless of His sadness at even one lost sheep, even Jesus didn’t worry about those who closed thier minds. Jesus worked for, and taught his apostles to work for, the people who were willing to listen: preach & persuade so all might hear, but not so all would agree. I propose a simple statement, as kindly but clearly as possible, is warranted for the person addressed but more for others who might be new and confused about bona-fides of various commenters. A simple statement of fact, even if often repeated, should be sufficient; any thing more is probably a waste and may even be counterproductive. I know, how it hurts to give up on even one person; but it really is up to us to propose persuasion; we have no claim to coercion nor to universal agreement. Remember even Jesus left his entire year-long Galilean mission with less than two dozen followers, and a final sad formal announcement of woe to the cities that rejected what he had to say. He went north to the Jordan River headwaters and told Peter how he’d lead an impending Catholic Church. Regardless of sadness at people unconvinced, Jesus went on with work to convince all the people of all nations who would listen. Just make a clear testimony by verbally shaking dust off of your sandals? Just a thought: these comments are for opposition to read, and perhaps one day understand and adopt, but more for article readers who are willing to listen to (read) both sides. A thought, anyway…
Thanks, Paul — I take input from people like yourself, because I know you are on the money. God probably sent you to this site to tell me that. And you are right — I am frustrated with some of the posters here. In addition, though — a less noble motive is that this blog has allowed me to study people (I’ve been prolifically posting since late May) and how they react / think — it truly has opened my eyes more to how stubborn, hard-headed, and illogical people can be. Before posting here, I would have given people in general more credit. Now I’m starting to think this planet is populated mostly by confused, uninformed, biased individuals. Back to your counsel, though: I do believe it is God speaking to me through you, and if God is telling me to let some people go, that makes it easier for me to do so (although my sinful humanness makes me want to persist). May the Lord continue to bless you and your family — you are an enormous benefit to those with whom you have contact (even if they don’t know it).
Your post doesn’t respond to the fact that Catholic schools are not paying teachers the equivalent of public school teachers. Blaming Catholic school teachers for being nice in more ways than one seems like a losing proposition to me.
The comparison is mere confusion. Bishops have no control over public school pay, nor curriculum nor anything else in public schools, except for the occasional force of persuasion freely agreed to by people in public schools. Further, nobody forces teachers in Catholic schools to have less pay; it’s a free choice, when they are paid less, and a known choice going in. There’s no coercion, no force; all free choices. Thus the bishops are not “discriminating” in any definition. Definitions … Discrimination would require different people being paid differently, without thier consent, for doing the same work for the same employer. Anything else is only smoke & mirrors to confuse issues. If bishops were to insist on pay levels outside realms where they hire, then there is the potential for discrimination. Thus it is an extreme claim, and unsuported by facts, to claim any bishop promotes discrimination. Further, history shows bishops rail against descrimination, being loyal to Catholic teaching no matter the cost to even thier own lives in retaliation by powerful political types. To declare “the bishops” discriminate, or even have power or any moral authority to discriminate, is simply fantastic and absurd. The falseness of such claims is proven by contemporary actions, but also by historical actions through two milennia of faithfully working to reveal each person’s equal dignity regardless of the passions of each generation. It began with St Paul urging a slave’s master to “do the right thing” … and this slave ended up later a free man and a bishop. A few centuries later, Bishop Ossius even convinced Emperor Charlemagne to alter Roman Empire law to recognize each person’s inalienable right to live, and to make the freeing of slaves as easy as going to a Catholic church and declaring the freedom with the priest as the witness. (The alternative was lengthy and costly in Roman courts.) Bishops have fought discrimination ever since, and have done so even when going overboard with current Catholic Koombaya-level pop sociology. To accuse “the bishops” of discriminating is simply absurd!
Paul — nice to have you posting here — you are a logical, clear thinker. Unfortunately, as you can see from Florian’s post, many are confused about so many things. It’s okay to disagree about the best way to tackle a problem; but it disturbs me that many people here are exactly as you describe — confused. How much hope does America have when it seems the majority of the population can’t even think straight? Only God can save us. There are Rosary rallies all over the USA on October 13, BTW, sponsored by America Needs Fatima — the Rosary can save us. I hope you can find a rally in your area.
“Happy to be here. Proud to serve.”
Paul, thank you. For posting on this websit I appreciate your wisdom and knowledge.