Card. George: Comparing ‘gay-liberation movement’ with KKK is A-OK. (UPDATED)
Just before Christmas, Cardinal Francis George of Chicago decided to eat one of his feet on local television. When a Fox News Chicago reporter asked George for his thoughts about the new route and schedule of the city’s gay-pride parade, which will run past a Catholic church not long before a Sunday Mass in June, the cardinal said, “You know, you don’t want the gay liberation movement to morph into something like the Ku Klux Klan, demonstrating in the streets against Catholicism.” No, you certainly wouldn’t want that. Nor would members of the gay-rights community want to be compared to a group most people associate with homicidal racists. (As others have noted, George is referring to one iteration of the Klan, the nativist strain that emerged in the 1920s. Whether that Klan really “paraded through American cities” “well into the 1940s,” as George later claimed, remains dubious. Its membership had fallen from 4-5 million to about thirty thousand by the 1930s.)
After last year’s parade got a bit too rowdy, the start time of the event was changed to cut down on drinking, and the route was moved to ease crowding. Once the pastor of Our Lady of Mt. Carmel realized the parade would pass by the church’s front doors before and during the 11 a.m. Mass, he petitioned the city and the event planners to change the time of the parade to make it easier for parishioners to get in the church, and to pray in relative peace and quiet. (The Archdiocesan Gay and Lesbian Outreach program holds its weekly liturgies at Mt. Carmel.) The planners agreed to push the start of the parade to 12 noon — a decision that came just hours after George’s provocative comments were aired.
The story has been picked up nationally, but over the holidays it dominated local news in Chicago, in part because it’s seen as an extension of George’s public spat with Illinois Governor Pat Quinn over the governor’s support for abortion rights and gay couples’ right to adopt children. No one expected George and Quinn to come to an agreement on those issues, of course. But when reports surfaced that George had tried to walk back the KKK comparison, some critics wondered whether he’d apologize. No such luck.
“Obviously, it’s absurd to say the gay and lesbian community are the Ku Klux Klan,” George told a TV reporter on Christmas Day, “but if you organize a parade that looks like parades that we’ve had in our past because it stops us from worshipping God, well then that’s the comparison, but it’s not with people and people — it’s parade-parade.” Never mind that, not unlike Soylant Green, parades are made of people. And try not to focus on the fact that the parade George thinks “looks like” an anti-Catholic KKK parade will not happen until June, and that previous gay-pride parades have not resulted in the curtailing of Catholics’ religious freedom. Cardinal George has no intention of backing down. In fact, in a December 27 statement posted to the archdiocese’s website, he doubled down, accusing the parade planners of inviting such a comparison.
The statement begins:
The Chicago Gay Pride Parade has been organized and attended for many years without interfering with the worship of God in a Catholic church. When the 2012 Parade organizers announced a time and route change this year, it was apparent that the Parade would interfere with divine worship in a Catholic parish on the new route. When the pastor’s request for reconsideration of the plans was ignored, the organizers invited an obvious comparison to other groups who have historically attempted to stifle the religious freedom of the Catholic Church. One such organization is the Ku Klux Klan which, well into the 1940′s, paraded through American cities not only to interfere with Catholic worship but also to demonstrate that Catholics stand outside of the American consensus. It is not a precedent anyone should want to emulate.
Hang on. The organizers of the parade did not ignore the pastor’s concerns. They changed its start time. After George compared them — sorry, their parade — to the KKK — sorry, to KKK parades. Obviously, if the parade planners, even those who consider themselves part of the “gay liberation movement,” had wanted to emulate the nativist KKK, they would not have agreed to the pastor’s request. (Strangely, later in the statement George acknowledges the new time. Perhaps he believes his inflammatory remarks were responsible for the change.) And obviously, U.S. Catholics find themselves in a significantly more advantageous position today than they did in the 1920s and ’30s. Especially in Chicago, where it’s nearly impossible to plan a parade route that doesn’t pass by a church.
So what’s going on here? It sounds as though the Catholic bishops’ religious-freedom concerns (and, as we’ve editorialized, at least one of them is legitimate) have leaked into the cardinal’s analysis of the controversy he created. Perhaps Cardinal George believes he is playing the role of the prophet, speaking hard truths in an ambient culture that’s unfriendly to them. But after refusing to apologize to members of the gay community, after accusing them of inviting comparison with the Ku Klux Klan, it seems more likely that the only prophesying the cardinal has engaged in is of the self-fulfilling kind.
Update: Cardinal George has apologized:
“I am truly sorry for the hurt my remarks have caused,” George said in an interview with the Tribune. “Particularly because we all have friends or family members who are gay and lesbian. This has evidently wounded a good number of people. I have family members myself who are gay and lesbian, so it’s part of our lives. So I’m sorry for the hurt.”
“When I was talking, I was speaking out of fear that I have for the church’s liberty and I was reaching for an analogy which was very inappropriate, for which I’m sorry,” George said. “I didn’t realize the impact of what I was saying. … Sometimes fear is a bad motivation.”
As a stubborn (mostly) Irishman, I’m all too aware of how difficult it can be to admit fault. Good for him. (Full statement here.)
Let’s see – must submit his resignation by end of January…..will Rome move quickly??
This rant from a man who is described as a “genius” (sort of like Newt G.) and who announced at the turn of the century the end of “liberal catholicism”.
You also did not add his follow up interview on Dec. 28th when he only dug himself deeper and made no effort to clarify or modify his comments.
Kudos to the local pastor in terms of good judgment; prudential actions; and made the effort to reach out and treat/respect his fellow Christians.
Do you have a link, Bill? I’m not sure what Dec. 28 interview you’re referring to.
Some have opined that he is just positioning himself for the next conclave.
He is already a 32nd degree cleric and, as a Yank, his chances for the Papal Big Hat are – at best, slim – and most likely, none, so there is no real need for him to be curring favor with his fellow Boyz Club members. So he really must believe this nonsense!
And he is reputed to be one of the most intelligent of US bishops! Talk about damning with faint praise.
From gollies and ghosties and long-leggedy beasties, and things that go bump in the night, may the good Lord deliver us.
Bill, is this to what you were referring?
http://www.chicagonow.com/the-life-and-times-of-a-young-republican/2011/12/cardinal-francis-george-on-the-gay-rights-movement-something-like-the-ku-klux-klan/
Thanks for this detailed post, and the many links. Readers of Mr. McClelland’s analysis of the various incarnations of the Ku Klux Klan might get the impression that the 1920s-era KKK was, although racist, primarily an anti-Catholic phenomenon.
Just to clarify for the record, the early 20th century Klan was as virulently (and violently) racist as both its post-Civil War predecessors, and as its mid-20th century successors.
In other words (the KKK’s words, to be precise), its traditional hatred of “Koons” was not diminished by its hatred of “Kikes and Katholics”.
The Chicago Tribune took Cardinal George to task in their December 30th editorial:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-12-30/news/ct-edit-cardinal-20111230_1_annual-gay-pride-parade-gay-community-gay-rights-groups
And this guy has one or two doctorates? Either case, he should ask for his money back
I agree the comparison to the KKK is problematc, but perhaps te cardinal had these prior gay pride events in mind:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-met-gay-liberation-church-protest-20100214_1_gay-rights-activists-gay-marriage-catholic-church
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-02-13/news/ct-met-holy-name-protest-20110213_1_marry-day-gay-marriage-civil-unions
Here is a link to a site that had some video of the 2011 protest:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-protesters-swarm-chicago-cathedral-police-do-nothing
Certainly loud and somewhat harassing. I have never seem a KKK march outside a church, so I couldn’t judge whether it looked or sounded similar, but I doubt it was as diverse. Not sure I would want them chanting slogans outside my parish the next time I went to mass.
Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite, a professor and past president of the Chicago Theological Seminary and a minister of the United Church of Christ, had a post at The Washinton Post about her asking Cardinal George to join her and the Chicago Theological Seminary’s Pride group in the 2012 Chicago Gay Pride parade …. Cardinal George, you’re wrong about Chicago Gay Pride. Somehow, I doubt he’ll accept – more’s the pity.
Let’s take a look at this parade of “gay culture” in action, shall we?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYVusT9WJhU
Sodom and Gomorra come to mind, not the Klan; just imagine this floating past a church (or any other function) as children are present. Rather sickening.
While the cardinal’s comparison might not be apt, the Commonwealers bloggers might be a little self-reflective and less self-righteous in defending these “rights of self-expression” – where are the calls for responsibility and decency in the public square? Also, it is common practice on the left for people to compare Catholics and Catholic leaders to Nazis – correct me if I am wrong, but I have not seen any condemnations on these pages for such ad hominem attacks.
You’re wrong.
“The Chicago Gay Pride Parade has been organized and attended for many years without interfering with the worship of God in a Catholic church.”
Since this statement seems uncontested, why can’t we just go back to the way it was?
This is why, Mark:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/gay-protesters-swarm-chicago-cathedral-police-do-nothing
Do you see Catholics blocking entrances to gay churches or clubs or harassing patrons?
They call for “tolerance”; however, the real goal is to bully and then silence (via force law or civil action) those who do not agree with their position. A new strategy that unfortunately seems to be working.
“……where are the calls for responsibility and decency in the public square?” Hey, Brett, that is exactly what some of us are saying about the Cardinal’s rant….his rant had little to do with responsibility or decency in the public square. He could learn from his own pastor of the parish that was impacted and works/accepts/lives with this group in a non-judgmental and supportive way.
Nothing George said then or later has much to do with Christian discipleship, his role as a spiritual leader, or his inability to witness a balanced response, prudence, subsidiarity, collegiality, and community outreach. If he had said nothing, his local pastor would have and did resolve the issue.
Brett–
One wonders what these protestors were possibly trying to accomplish by choosing to protest on a Sunday, when people are trying to go to Church. What were they thinking?
Brett – interesting that George never refers to, cites, and makes reference to your link. Why not?
“Nothing George said then or later has much to do with Christian discipleship, his role as a spiritual leader”
Bill, I am sure recent events are on his mind, including the related closure of Catholic adoption agencies and the increasing aggressive gay protests by the Rainbow Sash movement and others both INSIDE and outside of Catholic houses of worship.
As for the Christian leader critique, I wonder what the Jewish prophets or Jesus himself! would say about these hedonistic displays of pride and sexual libertinism going through the streets of Chicago and other cities.
“Sin no more” comes to mind…perhaps this is what George should have said.
My, how thin skinned we’ve become. Good for George – not submitting his every thought and word to the PC police. Refreshing.
“As for the Christian leader critique, I wonder what the Jewish prophets or Jesus himself! would say about these hedonistic displays of pride and sexual libertinism going through the streets of Chicago and other cities”
I imagine that they’d be freaked out by the skyscrapers and all of the cars, and probably run into the road in a panic and get squished by a city bus. Or maybe they’d flee into a church and wind up scorning all of the goyim inside for worshiping idols.
There is the fundamental and telling difference, ignored by George’s supporters and the Roman church generally–because it suits their purposes to do so. Gay-rights activists want to be left alone to live their lives without discrimination. Otherwise, they don’t care what others do. The Roman church, now and always, is essentially different: insisting that their beliefs be followed by everyone else, and be enforced by the law. To put it simply, gays want to avoid being discriminated against; the Roman church wants to impose discrimination on them. These days, the issues are marriage and associated matters like adoption. In the past, the Roman church, everywhere, always, without exception, has opposed every attempt to elimination discrimination against homosexuals in every form (employment, housing, medical treatment, everything). The Roman church has never, ever, anywhere opposed discrimination against homosexuals (although they find it convenient, most recently, to claim that they oppose discrimination). Still, better than the old days; modern secular governments to not permit their usual responses to difference; torture and mass murder.
Chris, your calling those who happen to disagree with you “bigots” or discriminators does not make them so, and standing for a traditional understanding of marriage and family does not equal discrimination. Also, it is the Catholic Church – not the “Roman Church.”
You write: “To put it simply, gays want to avoid being discriminated against; the Roman church wants to impose discrimination on them.”
Really? Did you watch the video, Chris? Are those Catholics aggressively blocking gays at their house of worship OR was it the other way around?
Or take the example of Catholic adoption agencies in IL: there are plenty of agencies within the public square that offer adoption services to homosexual couples; however, access to the vast majority of agencies was not enough…they had to use the law to force religious charities either to go against their conscious or to shut down. There could have been an exemption for religious groups (i.e. tolerance and plurality), but extremism won the day and Catholics are banished from the public square due to a highly subjective view of morality enforced by the state and liberal quarters. (is type of authoritarianism what liberalism really should look like? very similar to the “liberal” enforcement of contraception laws)
If it was the other way around, if a network of gay adoption charities were close due to the aggressive lobbying of Catholics, how would you respond? There would be outrage in Commonweal and the media — yet when Illinois Catholic charities (one of the oldest in the country) are shuttered due to political maneuvering there is hardly a peep.
Brett –
You seem to have forgotten that not all of the liberals here approved of shutting down the Catholic agencies. Let’s not over-simplify.
yet when Illinois Catholic charities (one of the oldest in the country) are shuttered due to political maneuvering there is hardly a peep.
Brett,
Illinois Catholic Charities have not been “shuttered.” They continue to operate, but without the state contracts and state funding they formerly had for adoption services. There is another way of looking at the situation, which is that Catholic Charities refused government money rather than comply with government requirements that they objected to. Here’s a brief excerpt from an opinion piece on Life News:
Many “conservative” Catholics seem to be coming to the conclusion that if Church organization want to be free from government requirements and government pressure, they should stop taking government money.
If it was the other way around, if a network of gay adoption charities were close due to the aggressive lobbying of Catholics, how would you respond?
I would say if a gay owned and operated organization illegally discriminated against Catholics, it should receive no government funding, and if the laws permitted it, the Catholics should feel free to sue for being discriminated against. I don’t really think Catholics would want to have their tax dollars funding an organization that discriminates against Catholics, and gay people do not want their tax dollars funding an organization that discriminates against them.
Hi Ann, I agree! Not all, but I would guess that the majority do.
David, (this is a complete hypothetical) if they placed only with homosexual couples regardless of race or religion, would this be discrimination considering there are many places to adopt? I don’t think so and this is the equivalent of what Catholic Charities operated. Also, CC denied adoption to unmarried couples, was this discrimination?
It seems to me “discrimination” is not used not in an objective sense, but as a means to a favored political end or politically correct discourse.
Finally, there are cases in the UK where traditionally religious couples have been denied the right to adopt because of their views on homosexuality.
Catholic bashing is easy and among folks on the Left anyway, nowadays is quite fashionable.
Still, after all the anti-Catholic blathering from the folks in the more strident “gay rights” crowd, when eventually a gay person comes down ill as a result of that lifestyle, it is usually Catholic charities that lend a helping hand.
Catholic bashing is easy . . . .
Ken,
Gay bashing, which you are doing here, is even easier than Catholic bashing. What you are saying, in essence, is that gay people bash the Church, and then they get AIDS, and the Church benevolently takes care of them. While I don’t deny the Church does a lot of good work with AIDS, your implications are just nonsense. Most people with AIDS today are leading normal lives thanks to advances in drug therapy, and they are not lying in charity wards in hospitals being taken care of by Catholics.
I think this continues to be an ugly thread.
When the Crdinal’s coments first came up here -I think consensus was his choice of words (despite the usual vapid Mr.Smith’s “refreshing” comment here) were quite wrong.
But we can’t leave it alone and the usual arguments continue then leading IMO to more ugly exchanges.
Such is the divided Church of topday where self rightous comments rule the world of blogdom.
Cardinal George didn’t help that either.IMO he is quite well book read but his little practical pastoral sense.
But maybe that’s true of many of our hierarchy.
Blecbh!!!
if they placed only with homosexual couples regardless of race or religion, would this be discrimination considering there are many places to adopt?
Brett,
If a gay-operated adoption agency made it clear that they would not place children with heterosexual couples (married or unmarried), they would and should be ineligible for state contracts, just the same as Catholic Charities. Discrimination is discrimination.
Finally, there are cases in the UK where traditionally religious couples have been denied the right to adopt because of their views on homosexuality.
I know of one case in which a couple in the UK was found unsuitable to be temporary foster parents because of their stated views on homosexuality. If you know of any actual adoption cases, I would be interested to hear about them.
Discrimination is saying a religious group should be banned from public adoptions because of their preference of religious conscious and common sense. It is not discrimination to desire to place children in homes with a mother AND father, rather than two males or two females. This is the stable and natural environment for child-rearing no matter what the PC crowd says or how they twist the language to their advantage in the law.
There should be enough plurality for the hypothetical gay adoption agency that serves the standard of the gay community and Catholic charities that serves standards and conscious of the Catholic and wider community.
Again, calls for “toleration and diversity” by the left are really calls for power and flattening homogenization. Trying to couch such actions in civil rights language only exposes it for the propaganda that it is.
I think this continues to be an ugly thread.
Bob,
Some Catholics who oppose same-sex marriage and other gay rights (or alleged rights) have ugly feelings toward gay people, and some gay people have ugly feelings toward the Catholic Church. It is a rare discussion indeed in which the topic of something like same-sex marriage is argued with total rationality, trying to find a fair balance between religious freedom and rights of conscience for Catholics and religious freedom rights of conscience for gay people. The problem is that most people don’t realize their own ugly feelings are actually ugly feelings, and they honestly feel it is helpful to provide links to gay-pride parades or score points against gay people by bringing up AIDS.
It is not discrimination to desire to place children in homes with a mother AND father, rather than two males or two females.
Bret,
This would be a very good argument if Illinois Catholic Charities had not placed children with single parents. But once you acknowledge a single man or a single woman is a suitable adoptive parent, you have lost any rational basis for saying two men or two women are not suitable adoptive parents. So the issue isn’t that every child must have a mother and a father. I personally would support an adoption agency that considered only legally married couples as suitable adoptive parents, although I wouldn’t necessarily agree with them. Saying every child deserves a mother and a father is an argument I can respect. But you lose the right to make that argument once you place children with single parents.
But David, we are talking about Catholic Charities and they did not provide adoptions to non-married couples or singles. (and for good and obvious reasons considering the reams of studies on the negative effects of single parenthood on children – through no fault of the parent, just the nature of the responsibility and work involved)
This is the disconnect with reality that liberalism seems to have: they desire not to offend or cause harm – yet perpetuate policy that goes against common sense and is detrimental to community and the very children they are trying to help. Something about good intentions that go very wrong.
I actually agree with Bob Nunz about this thread, and I’m sorry if my prior contribution allowed Ken & Brett to make it worse. I agree that Cardinal George used poor judgment in comparing the gay pride parade with the KKK. I also think many of the commonweal contributors and commenters are giving the gay pride group a free pass and completely ignoring their past protests that have intentionally disrupted mass at Holy Name and included ugly and hateful language towards those trying to “cross the picket lines” to worship. It appears that the sympathy many here have with the purpose of the gay pride group is leading them not to want to criticize their tactics. (BTW – if it was an abortion clinic, the protesters would be violating Chicago’s bubble zone law passed in 2009). So do the ends (gay marriage) justify the means (obstruction of worship) in this case or not?
Also of interest is Robby George’s recent thoughts on where this confrontation between gay rights and religious freedom goes in the future:
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2011/12/on-marriage-religious-liberty-and-the-grand-bargain.html
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2012/01/what-will-happen-to-catholics-and-others-.html
Will Catholics who agree with the Church about marriage be viewed the same as neo-nazis and KKK racists and face discrimination for their views? Will Catholic universities face denials of tax exemption and cease receiving federal benefits (through student loans and pell grants and other sources) if they prohibit same-sex couples from living in married student housing?
Also, if we are debating the parade and content of the gay liberation movement as related or opposed to Catholicism, how is it “ugly” to show the reality of that parade on video or recent demonstrations?
We are not discussing abstractions, but very real cultural realities and some cultures are better than others despite what relativists say: actions and ideas have consequences.
Also, if we are debating the parade and content of the gay liberation movement as related or opposed to Catholicism, how is it “ugly” to show the reality of that parade on video or recent demonstrations?
Brett,
If you want to go that route, we can discuss also the sex-abuse crisis in the Catholic Church and what moral authority the American Bishops have when, largely because of their own inaction, dioceses are going bankrupt paying out claims to abused people. We can discuss how the Catholic Church opposes homosexuality and contraception, and yet 95% of sexually active Catholics practice birth control. We can discuss the fact that about half of priests are sexually active.
Are you really going to claim that gay-pride parades speak for all gay people? Or that a rowdy once-a-year event defines a group? Have you ever seen what goes on at Mardi Gras? Posting a video like that is really saying, “Yuk, look at these disgusting people.”
Ah, but David, these actions you cite are deviations from the norm and from accepted behavioral restrictions within the Catholic or Christian mainstream. The problem with gay liberation and the wider issue of sexual liberation associated with the left is that these “pride parades” and anonymous sex etc. ARE the norm and are accepted behavior – it is the very point of sexual liberation and the gay movements.
After Mardi Gras comes Ash Wednesday…
Brett,
What I call bigotry, you call doctrine. In fact, it’s both. Your problem that you are making mine. Only the Roman church–there are lots of other catholic churches, you know, many older, and many others separated in response to Papal doctrinal creativity–demands that their beliefs be imposed, by law, on everyone. Only the Roman church designates a whole population as evil (“intrinsically disordered”) and says that violence against them is “understandable”. Only the Roman church demands that employers–all employers–should be able to fire them, and that landlords–all landlords–should be able to evict them, and medical serivces–all medical services–should be able to refuse them service. Speaking of medical services, the Roman hospitals here, Misericordia and St. Boniface, had an ugly history of mistreatment of homosexual patients, but they have, happily, been taken over by the government. And, only the Roman church expects that we all be taxed to pay them for their disgraceful misbehaviour. Why you imagine that this amounts to some (perverted) version of “christianity”, I don’t see, but, in any case, I won’t pay for it, although you apparently expect that, too.
Chris, in your last post you accused Catholics of “mass murder” – it is obvious that you have some conspiratorial and irrational problems with “Romans” – whoever them may be.
Brett, I consider you one of the ugly posters -in spades -who can see the specks in others’ eyes but not the beam in you rown and your repeated defense become more than tedious by their repetitiveness.
The problem with gay liberation and the wider issue of sexual liberation associated with the left is that these “pride parades” and anonymous sex etc. ARE the norm and are accepted behavior – it is the very point of sexual liberation and the gay movements.
Brett,
The gay-rights movement is not about anonymous sex. Gay-pride parades do not define the gay community. Your problem is that you want to stereotype the gay community instead of realizing it is made up of individuals some of whom may want to engage in anonymous sex, and some of whom want to get married and raise children. You want to judge the ones who want to get married and have children by the ones who want to have anonymous sex or cavort in gay-pride parades. You also seem to want to assume that those who appear scantily clad on floats on gay-pride day must act similarly every other day. You want to judge a whole class of people by those whom you most disapprove of. That is bigotry, whether the class of people are Jews or immigrants or gay people.
Brett, the reality is that the population of children being served in Illinois on a state funded basis will be lucky to be placed permanently at all. An agency that receives anywhere from 60% to 90% of its funds from the state to provide services to this population must understand that, whether optimal or not, in most cases a permanent placement with a single person or an unmarried couple is almost certainly an improvement over multiple transient foster placements, assuming the person is otherwise suitable (stable, holds a job, has no criminal background, etc.). It’s easy to make the better the enemy of the best, but in these cases, the consequences of that reasoning are heartbreaking. The state is serving the children of Illinois with its funds, not the Catholic Church.
Amazing, the sexual liberation crowd brings up the issue of odd and lewd practices, saying the rest of us should not be offended by them when in fact the things to which they refer are quite offensive, and then they act offended, hurt, victimized, when anyone actually refers to or describes the things they – the liberation folks – want to make commonplace.
The crux of the matter is that most of what the sexual liberation crowd thinks is fine, is in reality quite disgusting to more mainstream, traditional people.
No, David, I am not stereotyping. I realize that not all homosexuals are the same; however, if one looks at the rhetoric of the gay liberation movement in historic or current terms there is an undeniable push for the rejection of traditional views on sexuality and cultural norms. This mirrors the larger sexual revolution started by the left in the 60′s and 70′s and is continued today by such popular commentators such as Dan Savage, who advocates open or experiment marriage or popular homosexual smart phone apps such as Grinder that promote random and public sex acts.
While there is a percentage of “traditionalists” within the gay community, you are denying the majority of gay liberation history and content and current gay culture that is actively opposed to Christian values on sexuality and family and community.
This is not bigotry, it is a fact that you may find inconvenient for debates on forums such as these or First Things or MoJ.
Ken and Brett,
Gay rights and “sexual liberation” are not synonyms. The big battle for gay rights now is marriage. Marriage is not about “sexual liberation.” A great deal has changed since the 1960s.
Dan Savage no more speaks for all gay people than Hugh Hefner speaks for all straight people. And I think you misrepresent Dan Savage.
Ken,
Would you judge all women by the “women’s liberation crowd”? Do you think the National Organization for Women represents all the women on Commonweal?
And would you judge all animals by the “animal liberation crowd”? :)
It’s sadly ironic that a thread whose purpose was to lament the hyberbolic accusations that can result from assuming the worst in others has devolved, at times, into unwarranted accusations of bigotry, bashing and ugliness against fellow-posters, simply because we’ve assumed the worst about them.
David, I don’t mean to keep arguing; however, you seem unable to acknowledge the very basics of the reality of gay marriage: that it is radical departure from conjugal marriage and hence the radical nature of the associated politics (closing religious charities, protesting/intimidating churches) needed for victory.
Aside from the still dominate liberationist themes and transgressive nature of gay culture, homosexual “marriage” is indeed radical all by itself and is a complete redefinition of the building blocks of society and culture.
I understand that we disagree, but please just acknowledge the reality of what we are debating.
About religious freedom v. individual freedom:
Do we have a right to disapprove of others? Do we have a right not be be disapproved? And how might we express our disapproval?
(Hint: if we have a right to express our disapproval — or worse — doesn’t this imply that we have a like to disapprove?)
Oops — should have been: doesn’t this imply that we have a correlative right to disapprove?
Brett –
The big argument between you and others on this thread seems to be that you are convinced that “the majority” of people in the gay movement are sexual libertarians. Where do you get your figures? Or what other sort of evidence do you have for this claim? And don’t just tell me that the majority of the American mainstream disapprove of “typical” gay behavior. What people think of gays is not the same thing as what gays are.
Barbara –
Thanks for the wise words about the kids who get shuffled around foster homes. I wonder if studies have been done about what *they* think of these debates.
Hi Ann – I am about done with this one, but I think that there is a direct correlation between the libertine attitudes towards sex in queer communities and their rather radically individualistic notion of marriage (reducing it from an institution comprised of unitive, procreative and communal aspects into a reduced and mere affective/contractual relation between two adults).
The extreme and unnatural approach to sex translates directly into a radical approach or redefinition of marriage. One cannot separate the two on this issue.
Hello everyone, I’ve made a page to pray the Divine Mercy Chaplet for Apb. Francis George for his recent homo/trans-phobic remarks comparing the Gay Liberation Movement to the kkk. I ask if you have the time to like the page and pray the prayer…that we may be moved to be more and more like Christ for the sake of LGBTIQ and all oppressed people. Thank you.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Divine-Mercy-Vigil-for-Card-Francis-George-for-comparing-Gays-to-the-KKK/268865069816619?sk=info
and their rather radically individualistic notion of marriage (reducing it from an institution comprised of unitive, procreative and communal aspects into a reduced and mere affective/contractual relation between two adults)
Brett,
Here is a paragraph from Robert George’s essay What Is Marriage?
I have seen others who are opposed to same-sex marriage go just a little farther than George. Instead of saying that traditional marriage is hanging by threads, they say that given the current state of marriage, those threads have already been severed, and although they are not happy about it, same-sex marriage now makes sense.
Don’t forget that the most recent polls indicate that support for same-sex marriage is now slightly over 50%. It would seem to me that your exposés have to go beyond racy gay-pride parade footage on the critiques of the so-called gay lifestyle to take on the current state of marriage as lived by opposite-sex couples, who have, for better or for worse, made it an institution that 50% of the American people now find appropriate for committed same-sex couples.
On the one hand, I acknowledge that same-sex marriage is revolutionary. On the other hand, supposing gay people make up 5% of the population, and 5% of gay people actually marry, we’re talking about one quarter of one percent of the population. On the other hand, looking at the African-American population of the United States, which is between 12% to 13% of the American population, 71% of their children are being born out of wedlock, and well over 50% of pregnancies among African-American women end in abortion. From my perspective, the fact that one quarter of one percent of the gay population in the United States might get married is utterly trivial compared to the problems in the black and hispanic communities. “Conjugal marriage” and particularly Catholic “sacramental marriage” are so minimally reflected in current marriage laws that I don’t think it makes one whit of difference whether legal marriage is opened to same-sex couples.
I am not, by the way, attempting to stir up racial animosity. I think most black leaders would agree that there are deep and serious problems in the African-American community today.
“On the other hand, looking at the African-American population of the United States, which is between 12% to 13% of the American population, 71% of their children are being born out of wedlock, and well over 50% of pregnancies among African-American women end in abortion. From my perspective, the fact that one quarter of one percent of the gay population in the United States might get married is utterly trivial compared to the problems in the black and hispanic communities.”
David, I agree with your characterization of the numerical magnitude – and, if I may say so without giving offense, the relative importance – of the issues you’ve named. If I were a bishop trying to figure out how to allocate my finite resources, the problems of out-of-wedlock births and abortions, especially among minority groups and especially in NYC(!), seem more important and urgent.
In that regard: I recall Governor Cuomo, in the wake of NY’s legalization battle, stating that he thought Archbishop Dolan’s opposition was “reasonable” (I think that’s the exact term he used, although my memory is often suspect). I took that to mean that he didn’t perceive that Dolan pulled out all stops or burned all bridges to oppose it. And I take that, in turn, to indicate that Dolan may be thinking about this issue more or less as I do – that whatever the importance of gay marriage as a social issue, there are bigger issues out there. Again, I’m not trying to trivialize the importance of gay marriage, but not every issue can be the single most important one.
I’m surprised that you believe that only 5% of gay people would enter into a same-sex marriage. I have never thought about it nor seen any actual numbers, but I would have expected a significantly higher number. I suppose, though, that, as you say, it is a revolutionary development, and so there is probably little by way of custom or social pressure to drive same-sex couples to marry?
David,
“It would seem to me that your exposés have to go beyond racy gay-pride parade footage on the critiques of the so-called gay lifestyle to take on the current state of marriage as lived by opposite-sex couples”
I definitely agree with this statement – the entire culture is at fault, not just one group or sub-group. However, this does not mean that we should accept the situation as it is and not fight against the tide.
Recent essay from Touchstone on the topic:
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=25-01-024-f
I’m surprised that you believe that only 5% of gay people would enter into a same-sex marriage.
Jim,
I believe that’s roughly the percentage in the Netherlands, which has had same-sex marriage for over a decade now. It is very difficult to assess the statistics. On the one hand, one might expect that when same-sex marriage is legalized, “pent up demand” would result in a large number of marriages, at least at first. On the other hand, one might also expect that with same-sex marriage being so new (comparatively so, even in the Netherlands) the numbers might start out small and grow over the years.
There are a lot of factors, one being the fact that the number of straight people getting married has been declining, and the age at which they marry has been increasing. It’s rather difficult to predict the future of marriage for any group. In France, where there is no same-sex marriage, a very large number of opposite-sex couples have been opting for the type of civil union (PACS) open to all but really created for gay people. Where there are both civil unions and same-sex marriage (as in New York now), gay couples may opt for civil unions, if they opt for anything at all.
Jim,
Also don’t forget, the real goal of gay marriage is to set up a mechanism by which to persecute Catholics as bigots (in the short term) and intern them in reeducation camps. Then ultimately there will be the total destruction of the institution of marriage as well as everything else decent people hold dear. It is not necessary that large numbers of gay people marry to accomplish those ends. :P
I’ve been in a relationship with my partner for virtually 40 years (May 15). If gay-marriage were to become legal in California, we wouldn’t bother until and unless it is legal at the federal level so that it would be recognized across the country and included those federal benefits that would be included. Otherwise, why bother? – we’ve survived for 40 years without blessing of religion or society.
But we might change our minds IF that paragon of Catholic marriage – Nasty Newt and Good Sister Callista of Vestal Virgin Fame – would become the First “Family.”
David, I’m glad to see that y’all are being so efficient with your resources :-)
Jim,
For some reason, I hate the three-letter abbreviation, so let me just say you made me laugh out loud.
“Hi Ann – I am about done with this one, but I think that there is a direct correlation between the libertine attitudes towards sex in queer communities and their rather radically individualistic notion of marriage (reducing it from an institution comprised of unitive, procreative and communal aspects into a reduced and mere affective/contractual relation between two adults).”
Brett –
I suspect that you have never known any well-matched gay couple for very long. Have you? Consider my neighbors — whom I assume you do not know, so you really can’t talk about them. For you to imply that such people are not united in the communal good of the pair which they constitute, is simply ignorant. They are devoted to each other. I have known them for it must be 35 or more years, and you will not meet people more devoted to the good of each other, a couple more unified in mutual respect and, yes, true love. If and when one dies, I have every reason to think that their grief will be as intense as the grief of some of my married friends who also obviously truly love each other. My neighbors are also some of the kindest people, especially the older one. He is generosity personified. How you can dare characterize their relationship as a “mere affective relationahip” is beyond me.
I’m still waiting for you (or anybody else) to tell me just how their relationship has adversely affected even *one* married couple. Name or otherwise identify an actual injured married couple, and I’ll start to take your opinion seriously. And don’t tell me there must be one somewhere. That is not evidence. What have they done to anybody besides be very, very good neighbors? Who have they injured? Until somebody can tell me that, you don’t have a leg to stand on, and that includes whichever popes have made this same, unevidenced claim.
Notice this: if, as you claim, they really do injure marriage, then the evidence of that injury must exist very, very commonly because there are millions of married couples. So just where is the injury? Who injured whom?
Ann, going off of your (or my) personal experience is not the thing to do; while you have a great experience with a homosexual couple as neighbors, I have had an unfortunate experience with an abusive pair of gay neighbors, one of whom was clearly psychotic.
In any case, you are thinking in very individualistically in regards to how the redefinition of marriage will affect society. A change from something sacred and involving the creation of life and community into a bare bones coupling that we can modify according to our whims. This is a very typically modern outlook – i.e. I can create my own definition of what “works” for me and defy both nature and God in the process – everyone else be damned. I suppose that is an option for a person or couple due to free will; however, changing such things for society and law is beyond the pale.
Please read the link from Touchstone above if you want more details on why marriage should be defended for the common good.
Also, as you are one of the few liberal who opposes the closing of religious charities, this attack on religious freedom and participation in the public square is a direct result of gay marriage laws in an expanding numbers of states.
This is not an individual or atomized issue, it is a communal one that affects all of society.
Brett –
I’ll read the Touchstone article. In the meantime, please reflect on the fact that you have not answered my question: who do you know whose marriage has been badly affected by one or more gay couples? What have *you* seen in your own life that supports the claim that gay marriage is bad for homosexual marrage?
Ann: maybe Brett is worried that long-lasting same sex marriages that outlast so many opposite sex serial monogamy (Sts. Kim Kardashian and Kim Humphrey, ora pro nobis) farces might give “real” marriage a bad image.
D’ya think?
Brett –
I asked you for evidence that gay couples in loving relationships are a threat to heterosexual marriages. How, I asked, do the gay couples injure the hetero ones? You referred me to the Touchstone article. But I don’t find one bit of evidence there that there is any such injury. The article touts the beauties of hetero marriage, as well it might, and talks about such extraneous topics as pedophilia (which I’m not asking about — I already know that’s terrible, but it has nothing to do with marriage of any sort).
So — where’s the evidence? Maybe I misunderstood the Touchstone article, if I did perhaps you’d be so kind as to translate whatever part of that article that tells us “this is how gay loving relationships injure heterosexual marriages”. What kind or kinds of injury do the gays cause in married people?
Cardinal George has apologized.
News story: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8493774
The Cardinal’s statement is currently on the landing page of the archdiocesan website: http://www.archchicago.org/
Good!
Is the closing of religious charities due to mandates for gay marriage not an injury, Ann?
How about teaching that homosexuality is natural in schools and pre-schools (as is done in CA) – is this not an injury to the children involved?
I am not saying that gay couples do not have the free will or “right” to do as they see fit in their own lives, I am saying that such extreme arraignments should not be foisted on the entire community.
Jim–
Thanks for the link. I agree with you, it was good of the Cardinal to apologize for any hurt he may have caused, and I think this hits just the right note. However, I seem to be less offended by his initial remarks than others, so I wonder what their take is.
“Is the closing of religious charities due to mandates for gay marriage not an injury, Ann?”
Brett –
You keep ignoring my question: I’m not asking about their children, or the children of single parents (who are generally the immediate problem for orphans).
This is my question: which hetero spouses have been injured by gay spouses and what kind of injury was it? You should be able to name many instances, given the number of married people, both straight and, now, gay.
“..which hetero spouses have been injured by gay spouses and what kind of injury was it? ”
Ann–
Apologies if I’m intruding on your discussion with Brett but, at least as far as I understand it, the Church’s teaching is more of a “for whom the bell tolls” view. We are all diminished by the actions of any of us that are not ordered toward what the Church teaches as the good, just as the good anyone person does, like a limitless undying love, ripples felicitously across the universe.
“Is the closing of religious charities due to mandates for gay marriage not an injury, Ann?”
The closing of these charities was NOT mandated; it was a voluntary action on the part of the bishops involved. There is nothing that prevents these charities from remaining open and discriminating as they choose (so long as it does not violate general laws against discrimination) with their own private funding.
If Catholic Charities cannot continue based on private funding from good Catholics and others, then maybe it deserve to pass out of existence. Or are we seeing good conservatives who are against the overreach of government all of a sudden crying over lost government funding?
How about teaching that interracial marriage is natural in schools and pre-schools – is this not an injury to the children of racial bigots?
How about teaching that marriage is sacramental and for life in schools and pre-schools – is this not an injury to the children of broken families?
How about teaching that children are born to a man and a woman in schools and pre-schools – is this not an injury to the children of single parents?
“How about teaching that children are born to a man and a woman in schools and pre-schools – is this not an injury to the children of single parents?”
No, Jim, I don’t believe so; the existence of imperfect conditions and human weakness in a fallen world does not mean that we should abandon striving for or preaching the summum bonum or the greatest goods of human flourishing.
Also, thanks Mark for explaining what I was ineffectually trying to articulate ;)
Mark P. –
That’s not JP II’s point. He thought that gay marriage actually had a bad effect specifically on hetero marriage.
What you say about evil rippling might be true to some slight degree — bad example can lead others to behave badly. But if giving bad example is the reason that gay marriage is forbidden, then adulterers, who give very bad example, should also be forbidden to marry . Why doesn’t the Church refuse *them* the opportunity to marry? Consider the evil rippling of adultery (e.g., murder by the injured spouse!) Adulterers are sexual sinners, but the Church doesn’t forbid them to marry!
So my question now is: WHY is it just the gays who get singled out for the rippling effects of their so-called evil actions? There must be a reason. I say it’s disgusting prejudice. Or maybe every culture needs a scape-goat or whipping boy.
We are all diminished by the actions of any of us that are not ordered toward what the Church teaches as the good, just as the good anyone person does, like a limitless undying love, ripples felicitously across the universe.
Mark,
Does this apply to Catholic couples who use artificial birth control? How about to the divorced and remarried. There are far more couples who are divorced and remarried in the United States than I am guessing there ever will be married same-sex couples. According to the Church, those people are all living in adultery. There are far more people conceiving and giving birth to children out of wedlock than there will ever be married same-sex couples.
By the way, there is a fascinating discussion over on Vox Nova of a case of a single woman, a Catholic school teacher, who got pregnant through artificial insemination, and as a consequence was fired by the school.
In any case, even if we are all affected by the actions of others—good or evil—as the effects “ripple across the universe,” does that imply we all have a right to stick our noses into each others’ business? Might I not argue that the sum total of “evil” from Catholic married couples using contraception is harming the universe more than the small number of same-sex marriages?
I thought you believed in small government!
A belated thought not having much to do with the KKK or gay rights . . . .
It is impossible to have a parade without inconveniencing somebody. I was once stuck in traffic on the way to a funeral because of a parade, and at the time, the parade seemed a lot less important to me than getting myself and my friends to the funeral. The number of people inconvenienced by the annual St. Patrick’s Day Parade in New York city probably numbers literally in the millions. But most of us have a parade or two that we think worthwhile, and we put up patiently with other people’s parades because we want everyone to have the same opportunity to celebrate their causes as we want to celebrate our own.
The church that asked for a change in the parade—which is 6 months in the future—was only one of a number of churches along the parade route. Non of the other churches complained. Is it too crazy to suggest that with 6 months to plan what to do about a parade, the church in question might have made alternate plans for their own congregation, rather than requesting a change in the parade?
If everyone who was going to be inconvenienced by a parade six months in the future had veto power over the parade route and the parade timing, there would be no parades.
I don’t think that if a gay organization this year in New York requests a change in the St. Patrick’s Day parade because it will disrupt a gay event, anyone would do anything but laugh.
Yes, good for Cardinal George for apologizing. It must have been difficult.
“So my question now is: WHY is it just the gays who get singled out for the rippling effects of their so-called evil actions? ”
No one is singling out gays, Ann – there is a long standing traditional of Catholic thought against libertine and individualistic behavior that transgresses the Catholic idea of the common good.
This goes for our entire culture of materialistic individualism. This issue is just one of many “flash points” for the culture wars, as they are called, especially as catholic charities are closed and catholics are attacked as “bigots” for standing up for their religious conscious and common sense.
Or, the question could be: why is the state and gay lobby singling out religious charities for closure? Who is attacking whom, I suppose, depends on your opinion and sentiment.
Before we let George off the hook too soon just because he has given a limp apology for his offensive and tasteless remarks about gays and lesbians, let’s remember that this cardinal has repeatedly over the years tried to stigmatize those he perceives as his enemies.
Critics of George’s abject failure, indeed his refusal, to protect children from a sexual predator priest(s) were met with slurs of being “anti-Catholic” and dismissed for their “Catholic hatred.”
Being one of the most narcissistic and clueless American hierarchs, it probably took George nearly two weeks to give his apology to those he hurt because it most likely took his “handlers” that long to convince him that his crude remarks were indeed offensive and odious – especially coming from a senior cardinal archbishop, at Christmas time no less.
I would presume that once George was made to understand that his stubbornness was hurting the “bottom line,” he then reversed himself with his forced apology. [Imagine being the person whose job it is to try to inhibit George from doing or saying what is his natural instinct?!?]
Or, the question could be: why is the state and gay lobby singling out religious charities for closure?
Brett,
Do you know the actual history of what happened?
Brett –
The gays are indeed singled out. Yes, there is disapproval of sinners generally, but adulterers who do much more harm than gays, are not forbidden to marry.
Take your blinders off, Brett.
P. S. You still haven’t said how gay couples injure straight ones.
Mr. Jenkins – agree and cynically wonder if this is connected to his wanting to stay beyond his retirement submittal which happens later this month. Custom is to allow sitting cardinals to remain for 2 or more extra years but wonder if the current pope is tired of George and the small cabal in the curia that supports him?
Ann, you are overwhelmed by an illogical sentimentality – this is about culture and community, not just love in the abstract or individual sense.
Adultery and homosexuality are both EQUALLY condemned by the church as sins of lust, yet neither the adulterer nor the person engaged in homosexual acts are denied the right to natural marriage (defined throughout history and revelation as a union between a man and a woman). Adultery is just as transgressive as homosexual acts – neither are permitted so there is no hypocrisy involved.
In any case, we are not talking about “gay couples” in the unofficial sense, but about the legal redefinition of marriage and how this will negatively affect the common good in the various ways that have been outlined: attacks on religious institutions, weakening of social bonds created through the special place of conjugal marriage in history and culture, an increasingly dysfunctional and utilitarian view of sex (disconnecting the unitive and procreative aspects of the marital union).
Please stop viewing this as a pure individualist or romantic and you will understand what is at stake for the commonweal. Look at the closure of the charities (which you rightly bemoan) and understand that this is just the beginning.
Dismissing the right of gay couples to have their love recognized and celebrated by their families and friends and yearning, it seems, for the days when gay just agonized in their closets, Brett says of the gay pride parade: “Sodom and Gomorra (sic) come to mind, not the Klan; just imagine this floating past a church (or any other function) as children are present. Rather sickening.”
Well, I looked at the link, and unless I am missing something, all there was to see were men and women in swimming costumes dancing to a disco beat. I fail to see any problem in this.
“We are all diminished” when . . . . [fill in the blank] is certainly a tried and true rhetorical device. It’s an argument that goes all the way back, for instance, to Jesus’ exhortation that whoever hurts the least of these hurts him. It has been used to explain why presumptions of innocence are so important (an innocent man left to rot in jail is a cancer on the freedoms of all of us); free speech (we are all diminished when we are deprived of the full range of everyone’s expression, cacophonous and insulting it may sometimes seem). But the notion in most of these uses of that reasoning is that DIMINISHING or HURTING another person, whether by direct injury or taking away their rights, lessens the rights of all of us because rights or the right to be free from harm are a collective good that must find its expression in equality before the law.
Whether or not it is fair or equitable in any normal sense of those terms to lift some up by directly diminishing others, the rhetorical sleight of hand used by Mark and Brett is actually quite opposite from the traditional uses of this argument: maintaining the “collective good” by denying rights to some members of the polity. Don’t fall for it.
Adultery is just as transgressive as homosexual acts – neither are permitted so there is no hypocrisy involved.
Brett,
You seem to be forgetting that Catholics believe in the indissolubility of marriage. Those who have been validly married, who divorce civilly, and whose spouses are still alive, are no more eligible to marry (according to the Catholic Church) than same-sex couples. Yet anyone who has been divorced is free to legally remarry in the United States, is free to get all the benefits of legal marriage, and as far as I know, Catholic organizations who hire the divorced and remarried don’t deny them any of the benefits they give to people who are “really” married.
The number of divorced and “remarried” will almost certainly always outnumber same-sex married couples, even if same-sex marriage is accepted in all 50 states.
So why should people living in adultery—the divorced and remarried—have the benefits of legal marriage while same-sex couples do not?
Thanks, David N. That makes my point beautifully.
By the way, Brett still hasn’t answered my basic question: how do homosexual couples injure straight ones? What sort of injury do they inflict? (Remember, we’re looking for a generalization here that can be the basis for a law.)
David—
“Does this apply to Catholic couples who…”
Yes, of course.
“In any case, even if we are all affected by the actions of others—good or evil—as the effects “ripple across the universe,” does that imply we all have a right to stick our noses into each others’ business?”
Well, with every law we pass we “stick our noses into each others’ business.” And I’m no anarchist.
“Might I not argue that the sum total of “evil” from Catholic married couples using contraception is harming the universe more than the small number of same-sex marriages? “
I believe, using Catholic teaching, you could make a pretty compelling argument along those lines. What I do not think you could argue, using Catholic teaching, is that if Action A is less evil than Action B, that Action A is therefore Good.
Barbara—
I think you’ve done me wrong. You have a different premise than Church teaching. Your disagreement is not with me, it’s with the Church.
My response dealt with the concept of “victimless” crimes. My point is that IF a crime has been committed, there is a victim: each of us. The bell tolls for thee.
Mark, no, the kind of imaginative empathy that allows one person to hear the tolling of a funerary bell and think of his own eventual demise is precisely what is lacking here: the failure to comprehend how a gay man or woman might actually be “similarly situated” in a way that makes it wrong to extend comparable protections to their marital relationships.
wrong not to extend, of course.
“the failure to comprehend how a gay man or woman might actually be “similarly situated” in a way that makes it wrong to extend comparable protections to their marital relationships.”
The problem is that these relationships are actually not similarly situated at all: one is procreative and the other is not. One is sanctioned by history and revelation and the other this not.
It is mere sentimentality or politics that prevents you from acknowledging that these two type of relations are, in fact, very different.
I am still reeling with shock at the sight of almost naked men dancing on the streets of Chicago! And now Mark reminds me of the vast mountains of evil piled up by Catholic married couples who dare to use contraceptives!
We must indeed be living in the latter days when such ghastly wickedness piles up around us on every side!
Mark and Brett have reminded us that every Sperm is Sacred: let this never, ever be forgotten.
The problem is that these relationships are actually not similarly situated at all: one is procreative and the other is not. One is sanctioned by history and revelation and the other this not.
Brett,
Sex using artificial contraceptives is not procreative, and yet this is the kind of sex most people (including most Catholics) of childbearing age have. Adultery is procreative, and in the eyes of the Church, divorced and remarried people are living in adultery, quite legally, when they legally remarry while their spouses are alive. Of course, people who are infertile (including women past childbearing age) cannot have procreative sex (although they can go through the motions of having sex that would be procreative if they were not infertile), but they are perfectly free to marry. I saw a survey over on First Things saying that “80 percent of unmarried evangelical young adults (18 to 29) said that they have had sex – slightly less than 88 percent of unmarried adults.” Of course, that may be okay, since fornication can be procreative. According to estimates that seem accurate to me, at any given time, 50% of priests are sexually active.
But heaven forbid that gay people have sex! It’s not procreative!
I think Brett is right. A few years ago in Virginia a judge recognized the Vermont “marriage” and “divorce” of a Lesbian couple. One of the two women had a biological child. Because the biological mother had seen fit to change her religion and to teach that religion to her daughter, the non biological “parent” had her custody rights taken away. Of course, the new religion taught that same sex unions were sinful. My point is that the mother, the only real mother, had lost her right to change her religion. How would King Solomon solved this one? Interestingly no one in the newspaper report stood up for the rights of the real mother. Even biological fathers do not often try to take custody from mothers of small children. There was no charge of the mother being unfit. A child can really only have one mother. The mother and child went into hiding. That is the last I heard about the situation.
Cardinal George needs some good advisers to help make decisions. He should have canceled the Mass which was affected by the parade and sent the priest to a satellite church somewhere off the parade route for that time slot.
The dancing in the video is lewd. Exposure to it could lead people astray. Christians do not participate in lewd behavior.
The idea of something ought not to be more important than a person’s rights. If straight people value marriage as an arrangement for the getting and raising of children the living arrangements of their gay neightbors are utterly inconsequential because those arrangements do not impede anything that a straight person wants to do. Interference, not symbolic affirmation of a particular value, is the standard by which legal restrictions are judged. This “mere sentiment” over marraige (in this case, a lot of hand wringing backed up by no action whatsoever) cuts both ways Brett. The Church should kick out all of its procreating, divorced, and adulterous members if it wants its affirmation of marriage to rise above being “merely sentimental.”
Good morning, Brett ==
How do straight, infertile couples and gay couples differ as to their ability to procreate? (This is the same sort of question as: how does the Mississippi River differ from the Hudson River in not earning an Academy Awards?) If the answer is ‘they don’t', then why refuse marriage to one couple but not the other? Or are you saying that the non-ability to procreate of the one couple differs essentially from the non-ability of the other? How do two zeroes differ?
And, how does the reality of gay couples hurt the straight ones? You say the gay couples shouldn’t exist, but if they do, they by their very existence diminishes the straight couple. How does their existence hurt the straights? (You might be irritated by this question, but your irritation does not determine what your answer would be, if you had an answer , would it? Neither does my “sentimentality” determine the truth of falsity of my answer.)
(Note: not a whit of affectivity in either of those questions. My motives might be “sentimental”, but my motives are not part of the questions. By the way, we never do anything consciously without some affectivity involved. That’s good Aquinas.)
David N noted that “Sex using artificial contraceptives is not procreative, and yet this is the kind of sex most people (including most Catholics) of childbearing age have. Adultery is procreative, and in the eyes of the Church, divorced and remarried people are living in adultery, quite legally, when they legally remarry while their spouses are alive. . . “
Yes David, we all know that lots of people do not behave properly; that is not news. But to say that because so many have gone astray, that the Church should abandon the truth, is quite wrong. The Church does not “invent” right and wrong; she simply points to them.
In addition to gay marriage not being in line with natural law, as a practical matter we should also consider what is best for the common good; what of society?
Society involves an understanding that we are not the center of the universe, that we ought to think of others as well as ourselves, and that our moment in time will pass. With this in mind, society is like a contract between ourselves, those who have gone before us (ancestors), and those who will follow us (our children); a contract between past, present and future.
A simple example would be if one generation starts building a road, it is understood that the next generation will complete it, and that the subsequent generations will maintain and/or improve it.
Gay marriage, the “gay lifestyle”, along with artificial contraception and lax attitudes towards divorce for that matter, is a “me first” sort of thing; glaringly short sighted. Of course it is not murder, like abortion, but that does not mean it is good either.
But to say that because so many have gone astray, that the Church should abandon the truth, is quite wrong.
Ken,
My point is that, in some respects, the Church has abandoned the truth. Unless I have missed something, the Church does not claim that divorced and legally remarried couples should not have all the benefits of legal marriage. Yet such people cannot marry in the eyes of the Church, and they are living in adultery. On the other hand, the Church does insist that same-sex couples should not be able to legally marry, and if they do, they should not get the benefits of marriage.
Now, the Church has, in at least some instances in the past, fought against divorce being made legal. But again, unless I am totally missing something, the Church does not maintain that validly married and divorced people are incapable of legally remarrying, nor does it deny them the benefits of legal marriage.
Gay marriage and the so-called “gay lifestyle” are two quite different things, by the way.
According to the standards of the Church, the vast majority of heterosexuals are engaged in routine sexual misbehavior—unmarried people in fornication, both unmarried and married people using artificial contraception, divorced and remarried people in adultery, and priests violating their commitments to celibacy or chastity. Yet there is a relentless focus on gay people, as if they were somehow particularly evil.
When 50% of Catholic priests re-commit to celibacy, and when the 95% of Catholics of childbearing age who use artificial birth control start practicing NFP, then maybe the Catholic Church will be a little closer to having the moral authority to try to exert control over non-Catholics.
For all of its rhetoric, the Church has not produced ‘officially’ one single piece of demonstratable evidence that proves that gays/lesbians ‘choose’ their sexual preferences.
All that they have done is pull out Sacred Scripture—which is not a genetics handbook, nor a biology textbook, nor an astronomy manual.
Or the Church points to the writings of the ‘Doctors’ of the Church, who were products of their own times and societies. They were educated by the Church, employed by and supported by the Church. Their proclamations against homosexuality are neither accurate nor timely.
We already know from extensive studies from zoology—-that there is a percentage (small, yes but present) of homosexuality present in every species of animal. Humans belong to the primates—and there is homosexuality among this group as well. And we know that animals do not CHOOSE their sexual preferences.
At the end of the 19th and into the 20th centuries, young children in school who were left-handed were physically punished (knuckles cracked or palm of hand whacked) with rulers, caned (England, Ireland, Scotland) for using their left hand.
It was believed that those who use the left hand had tendencies to seriously sin and thereby place themselves in danger of being placed on Christ’s left hand and being sent into everlasting damnation at the end of time.
We have since found out that hand dominance along with hair and eye color are a matter of genetics and are NOT CHOOSEN.
The Church has a good chance of repeating its Galileo debacle—-if it continues to categorize the homosexual community—-as ‘disordered’.
Little Bear, you are lost in the weeds; it does not matter whether or not someone is born with the tendency toward same-sex attractions; you are caught up in details and are missing the point.
And David is correct that Catholics do not live up to our creed. Does that mean the creed is wrong or that we modern Catholics are wrong? Obviously regarding divorce, artificial contraception and homosexuality, the Church is correct and the people who disagree with her are not.
Because the truth is not subjective, things that were objectively wrong five thousand years ago are still wrong today and will still be wrong five thousand years from now.
As a practical matter, no successful society in the history of the world has embraced homosexuality like we some Americans are proposing that we so casually do.
Strange definition of “our creed”
Strange use of “obviously”
Who’s subjective?
it does not matter whether or not someone is born with the tendency toward same-sex attractions
Ken,
It certainly matters, even in Catholic thought, if the alternative is to claim same-sex attraction is freely chosen. If it is not chosen, it cannot be considered sinful. If it is chosen, according to the Church it is a sinful choice and someone with same-sex attraction can be condemned for choosing it. I think the Church makes it rather clear that same-sex attraction is not chosen, but many people (including many Catholics) seem to believe it is.
Because the truth is not subjective, things that were objectively wrong five thousand years ago are still wrong today and will still be wrong five thousand years from now.
Polygamy? Slavery? Usury? A married man having sex with an unmarried woman? (The latter was not covered by the commandment against adultery in Old Testament times.)
Truth may not be subjective, but what makes you so certain you know the truth? The Bible was used to argue in favor of slavery and anti-Semitism for centuries. Just because arguments are religiously motivated doesn’t mean we must accept them as demonstrating timeless truths.
David “It certainly matters, even in Catholic thought, if the alternative is to claim same-sex attraction is freely chosen. If it is not chosen, it cannot be considered sinful. If it is chosen, according to the Church it is a sinful choice and someone with same-sex attraction can be condemned for choosing it. I think the Church makes it rather clear that same-sex attraction is not chosen, but many people (including many Catholics) seem to believe it is.”
The Church is clear enough; being born with same-sex attraction is not in itself sinful, no more than being born with a tendency toward alcoholism is sinful. One cannot help how he was born. When one follows, gives in to, surrenders to those sorts of self-destructive (flawed) instincts; that is where the sin lies.
David please: “Polygamy? Slavery? Usury? A married man having sex with an unmarried woman? (The latter was not covered by the commandment against adultery in Old Testament times.)”
“Truth may not be subjective, but what makes you so certain you know the truth?”
Ken – Truth “may” not be subjective? Wow. Come on; what sort of thinking is that?
If you want to quote old Pontius Pilate, I think the phrase is credited with goes something like; “Truth? What is truth?”
Ken,
The question for you was, “How do you know you have the truth?” There is no need to compare me to Pontius Pilate.
David – How do you ‘know’ the truth?
Ken,
You are the one talking about truth not being subjective. I am asking how you can be certain that your views are true. You seem to be certain that they are. So the question is for you to answer.
We need Ann on this one, but I think you are not talking about truth in general, but whether morality is objective. I think there are objective truths, and I lean toward thinking that some morality is objective. But as to how one (like you) can be certain a moral claim you are making is clearly true, or obvious, or self-evident—and ought to apply even to those whom you disagree with—I don’t know.
Regarding these matters, the ones we are discussing on this thread, for guidance about what is right and what is wrong (what is true and what is false), I rely on the Catholic Church. Whether or not I like the Church’s position is of no importance; the truth is the truth regardless of my opinion. The Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
From Catholic Encyclopedia; “Papal Infallibility: In general, exemption or immunity from liability to error or failure; in particular in theological usage, the supernatural prerogative by which the Church of Christ is, by a special Divine assistance, preserved from liability to error in her definitive dogmatic teaching regarding matters of faith and morals. . . .”
You admit that oyu think there are objectives truths. I am not trying to be tedious, but I am curious; what sort of things would you be comfortable saying are objectively true?
In fairness the argument that gayness is not a choice is rather irrelevant to the Catholic debate, since both Persona Humana and Homosexualitatis Problema work with the presupposition that gayness is not chosen.
However groups like NARTH do have some influence in Catholic circles, even in Italy (as I discovered from the book Opus Gay by an Italian female journalist — a book tainted by her sacrilegious use of simulated confession to fish for information on priestly views, as well as her practice of impersonating a young man on the internet and trawling for priestly respondents).
The Pope, guided by the Holy Spirit, is infallible in matters of faith and morals.
Ken,
You’re not talking about objective truth. You’re talking about religious faith. If something is objectively true, you should be able to know that, instead of relying on an infallible pope to tell you about it. Matters of faith are pretty much by definition not empirically true or objectively verifiable, so they are pure faith. If there are objective moral propositions, they someone should be able to demonstrate that they are true.
The number of “infallible” truths one can rely on from the pope or the magisterium is really quite small. I would say that the Church’s teachings against homosexuality carry great weight, but I wouldn’t say they are infallibly true by the standards I understand to be applicable.
I would feel comfortable saying that rape is always wrong, but it seems to me the problem in making statements like that (and particularly like “You shall not steal,” and “You shall not murder”) is that rape and stealing and murder are WRONG BY DEFINITION. There are any number of circumstances in which Catholic morality justifies killing another human being (self-defense, battlefield, capital punishment), and the commandment against murder doesn’t tell you which kind of killing is murder and which is not. I have always considered several of the Ten Commandments really quite useless. :-)
In fairness the argument that gayness is not a choice is rather irrelevant to the Catholic debate, since both Persona Humana and Homosexualitatis Problema work with the presupposition that gayness is not chosen.
Fr. O Leary,
I basically agree, but why the change in paragraph 2358 from the first to the second edition of the Catechism?
First Edition: They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial.
Second Edition: This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.
Here’s what happens when you believe in “objective truth.” You keep getting the rug pulled out from under you. :P
Study Finds Nicotine Gum and Patches Don’t Help
I spoke too soon: this month’s Furrow contains an article by Bart Kiely, an Irish Jesuit teaching at the Gregorianum in Rome, who quotes Socarides, Bieber, Nicolosi et al. to prove, to his own satisfaction, that about one third of gays who want to change to heterosexuality can do so. It seems that the sickness of Catholicism must get worse before it gets better.
I wasted two hours writing a reply to Fr Kiely: http://josephsoleary.typepad.com/my_weblog/2012/01/homosexuality-and-the-freedom-to-think-by-bart-kiely-sj.html
I would like to respond to Ken.
If a person is NOT responsible for their genetic make-up—-who IS responsible for their being born that way? If there is a small percentage of animals born who are homosexual and humans, who are born with homosexual traits—then the Lord, God of Creation IS responsible.
My question is a theological one. Can the Church point a finger at God and claim that God is guilty of creating ‘disordered’ human beings? And is God guilty of creating animals who
are homosexual?
Hi Little Bear; here are my replies to the important points you raise:
LB – If a person is NOT responsible for their genetic make-up—-who IS responsible for their being born that way?
K – Of course God made each of us; God created folks who have all sorts of tendencies, both good and bad, heavy and light; homosexuality, alcoholism, frantic genius, artistic talent, insanity, physical handicaps, children born already addicted to drugs because of their poor mother’s problem. While most people find their cross to bear or have one imposed on us after we have been born, along the trail of life, the list of crosses people in this world are born bearing is long.
LB – My question is a theological one. Can the Church point a finger at God and claim that God is guilty of creating ‘disordered’ human beings?
K – Of course not, and the Church does not do that at all. “Human beings” are not disordered. Tendencies and proclivities can be disordered, but a human being is not disordered. While God gives all of us a cross to bear, He does not give any person a cross that is too heavy for that person to carry.
For a wider view, let’s step away from homosexuality for the moment and look at other tendencies some are born with. If one is born with a tendency toward alcoholism for example, that does not mean the person is born “disordered”. It does mean that person, once he figures out his tendency, that with which he was born, is self-destructive because it leads him to drunkenness, should try to steer clear of, or certainly limit his intake of booze.
If a person is born with a mental problem that leads him to delight in stealing things, when he figures this out, he does well to really work on this problem and most likely will try to not go into a store unaccompanied.
If a person is born with an addictive tendency and finds that he gambles all the time, that he revels too much in casino life, since that also is self-destructive in that it removes food from his family’s table, he does best to try to avoid games of chance.
If someone is born with one arm missing, should he curse God? Was the person born “disordered” or was he born “bad”? Of course not. He will however, need to work much harder than the rest of us and will need to learn how to get along in this world for 70 or maybe 90 years with only one arm. He probably will get grouchy and down and say bad things sometimes (I cannot imagine how difficult physical handicaps like that are), but God does understand and will forgive the man if he is sorry and tries to follow God.
Nobody is perfect and the Church does not ask for perfection. The Church (and Christ) simply asks that rather than following our own flawed instincts, that we try to follow Christ. Try and try we must, and when we fail time and again, we ask God for forgiveness, mercy and strength.
We cannot understand God or the patience he has with us. But as he never tires of setting the sun up to to rise for another day and set in the evening, God also never tires of us trying to do our best to follow Him. He knows we will fall, He knows all too well how and why we fall down and fail Him in a hundred ways.
With trust in Him then, the Church advises that we should try to do our best, that’s all.
The statement in the Catechism that: They do not choose their homosexual condition; for most of them it is a trial. (Second Edition: This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial), characterizes homosexual orientation not only as disordered (in that it is oriented to immoral acts) but also as a trial (and it is the latter aspect that Ken is focusing on). Personally, I do not believe that most gays live their orientation as a trial; moreover, if they see their sexual orientation as a trial they are inflicting on themselves, or allowing others to inflict on them, unnecessary unhappiness that will paralyze them. The parallel with tendencies to alcoholicism and gambling addiction or with the pedophile orientation are misleading, because the former are manifestly self-destructive and the latter manifestly socially destructive. Homosexuality does not exhibit either feature.
Ken sets up homosexual orientation as a source of temptation and makes a gay sexual life consist in resisting this, falling, getting up again. But what a miserable view of sexuality this is? I much prefer the excellent statement of Bishop Jefferts-Schori, to the effect that homosexuality is a vocation to love people of the same sex.