Italian Bishop Advocates Civil Unions
Maltastar.com reports that Paolo Urso, the bishop of Ragusa (in Sicily,) has called for civil recognition of same-sex couples. (The UPI report is here.)
He’s not calling for civil marriage for same-sex couples, but for civil unions, presumably for heterosexual couples as well as same-sex couples. money quote:
When two people, even if they’re the same sex, decide to live together, it’s important for the State to recognise this fact, But it must be called something different from marriage.
The US bishops, recall, view the civil recognition of same-sex relationships as
a multifaceted threat to the very fabric of society, striking at the source from which society and culture come and which they are meant to serve. Such recognition affects all people, married and non-married…
To my knowledge, the USCCB has not spoken about civil unions for straight couples. (We’ve always just called it “civil marriage.”) So what we see here is two places to draw a line: Urso would have civil unions regarded as different from civil marriage, while the USCCB would draw the line between heterosexual and homosexual couples.
I’m interested in the distinction Urso (or anyone) would draw between civil unions and civil marriage. If civil unions are constructed so as to grant all the legal benefits of civil marriage, (as is the case here in CA,) then it seems to me that it’d be more straightforward just to call them all one thing or the other. Why two names for one institution and one legal status? Marriage in the Church, then, is one thing, and all couples are treated equally under civil law. This would cohere nicely with Catholic teaching, viz: “Every sign of unjust discrimination in…regard [to homosexual people] should be avoided.” (CCC 2358)
If civil unions are not the same as civil marriage, then we’ll all do well to heed the law of unintended consequences. France established civil unions in 1999, ostensibly for same-sex couples, but did not specify sex in the law. As of 2009, one-third of straight couples opted for civil unions, perhaps because they were more easily dissolved. Civil unions in France are overwhelmingly a heterosexual institution. (See Andrew Sullivan on this.)
As for the USCCB stance, that civil recognition of same-sex relationships threatens the human dignity of us all, that’s a harder case to make. It’s doubly hard to assert that gay folks in love threaten civilization itself and also say that such a stance does not amount to “unjust discrimination.” It is, at the very least, stunningly painful exclusionary language to use in reference to a large number of our fellow Catholics and Christians. So maybe some of our US bishops might heed the recommendation of their Sicilian brother-bishop, and recommend that all God’s children be regarded as having equal dignity under civil law.
HT: G. Parado
Over on America, Fr. Jim Martin discusses what “respect, compassion, and sensitivity” in he catechism require I us:
As I said, the church’s stance on homosexual activity and its opposition to same-sex marriage are well known. The excerpt from the Catechism that underlies these teachings may now be one of the most well known of all church teachings. Line 2357 reads: “Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that ‘homosexual activity is intrinsically disordered’.” (The quote within the quote comes from a document from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.)
I’m not writing to contradict these teachings in any way, nor to contradict any of these church leaders. (Some of the men above are friends as well.) Rather, I’d like to turn our attention to another part of the church’s official teaching, something equally as valid. It is contained in the very next line, and is an important aspect of our tradition that is often overlooked. Line 2358 of the Catechism reads: “The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” (The original 1994 version included the line ”They do not choose their homosexual condition.”)
That line says much that is important, even though it is less well known than the previous line.
http://americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=4861
Of course, the U.S. bishops already do recognize all of God’s children as having equal dignity, and that they should have such dignity under the law. But the inherent dignity possessed by all of God’s children, including persons with same-sex attractions, and the respect and love that we owe to all of God’s children, including again persons with same-sex attractions, are, of course, entirely different questions from the matters of civil unions (of any sex) or “same-sex marriage.”
As for any lines or distinctions, we need not engage in any taking of sides here. The Church has already spoken authoritatively on the issue, here, here, here, and here, rejecting the misleading assertions made above.
Oh, the church has spoken authoritatively –
Well, that settles it then, doesn’t it?
We can all go home now and enjoy the rest of our pablum.
“As for any lines or distinctions, we need not engage in any taking of sides here. The Church has already spoken authoritatively on the issue, here, here, here, and here, rejecting the misleading assertions made above.”
Bender –
PLease. What you say here could be repeated for other so-called unchangeable teachings of the Church. You know very well that there are instances (e.g., in re usury) where one could point to other “here, here, here, and here”s where Church teachings were in agreement with each other — but not in agreement with other Church teachings.
How can you doubt history and at the same time appeal to Tradition the way the Church sometimes does?
Consider these teachings of “the church” in the past:
• It was OK to own slaves. In 1866 Pope Pius IX declared, “It is not contrary to the natural and divine law for a slave to be sold, bought, exchanged or given.”
• Earning interest on loaning money was wrong. The church condemned usury at the Second Lateran Council in 1139, the Third Lateran Council in 1179, and the Council of Vienne in 1311.
• Anyone who wasn’t a Catholic was doomed to hell. You know, the old “extra ecclesia nulla salus” thing.
• The 1864 encyclical “Quanta Cura” by Pius IX explicitly condemned freedom of religion.
• Almost anything the church said about Jews prior to Nostra Aetate.
• It was OK to kidnap a Jewish child who was clandestinely baptized and not let the child go back to his parents to be raised as a Jew.
• Women were a near occasions of sin.
• If you ate meat on Friday and died before confessing, you would go to hell because to do so was a mortal sin.
• You were not allowed to read the Bible without prior church permission.
• You were not allowed to read any book on the Index of Forbidden Books.
• Do you remember the Galileo Affair?
• Before and during the Civil War Catholic priests in the South were preaching from their pulpits that the abolition of slavery would lead to the destruction of the economy and family life.
• When woman were campaigning for the vote the Catholic Church in Canada and the United states preached from the pulpit that such a move would erode families.
• When woman struggled for the right to work outside the home and receive equal pay, the Church was right there to proclaim that such a move would destroy families.
If we applied the authoritative and definitive approach of the last 50 years to the past, consider what would have been the case today. Coitus interruptus was consider quasi homicide from ancient times up to at least the 14th century, slavery was permissible, and heretics were tortured and put to death. Sex was only for procreation, sex during menstrual periods was a mortal sin, sex during pregnancy was forbidden and sex had only one licit position.
These were once the common opinions of theologians and Church hierarchy for centuries, but have seen been abandoned. Is our understanding of homosexuality or contraception any more conscious, more universal and more complete than these obsolete principles?
Lisa Fullam said: “To my knowledge, the USCCB has not spoken about civil unions for straight couples”
Archbishop Levada of SFO and Bishop Tyson of Seattle both proposed to have Catholic Charities provide health and other benefits to all people “legally domiciled” in a household with an employee, thus covering relatives, friends, roommates, etc. and meeting the legal requirement to provide benefits to homosexual couples – but without acknowledging that any of the people receiving benefits were, in fact, homosexual couples or unmarried heterosexual couples.
http://whispersintheloggia.blogspot.com/2007/01/in-northwest-echoes-of-levada.html
The Tablet reported in December that the English and Welsh bishops wanted to endorse civil unions. (I tried to find it at the Tablet but its search function isn’t good.) Here is a second hand report:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uks-most-important-catholic-bishop-endorses-gay-civil-unions/
(Could it be? Could at least some of the bishops be starting to talk back to Rome?)
Civil unions and civil marriages aren’t equivalent. Heterosexuals have a choice: they can have a civil union, a civil marriage, and a religious marriage. But LGBT people can only get one or at best two out of the three, and there are many people who would want to have a marriege, both civil and religious, rather than have a civil union.
It’s all about the acceptability of homosexual unions. The state seems to be coming to accept them. The Church is not. Can the Church ever bless a gay couple with the understanding that they’re heading off to have sex?
I have long been puzzled about civil marriage versus civil unions.
I get it that these two terms are meant to differentiate one category from another category — Category A versus Category B, as it were.
But I’d like to see somebody construct a checklist.
In the far left column of the checklist, we would see one specific item after another listed — to wit, Item 1, Item 2, Item 3, etc.
Then there would be two other columns in the checklist.
Atop one column, we’d see the name of the category — to wit, Category A, say, Civil Marriage.
Next, atop the other column, we’d see the name of the other category — say, Category B, or Civil Unions.
Then in the second and third columns, we’d see check marks item by item showing which items applied to each category.
Next, I’d like to know if the items listed in the far left column of this imaginary checklist would vary state by state in the United States. For example, are there items that apply to civil marriage in State A that do not apply to civil marriage in State B. If the items that apply to civil marriage vary from state to state, then the imaginary checklist might have to be organized so that all 50 states would be listed alphabetically in the far-left column.
In addition, I’d like to know if there are certain federal laws that apply to civil marriage versus civil unions, as I suspect there are; so I’d like to have those items listed in the far-left column as well, but identified as federal provisions, as distinct from state provisions.
I’ve known only one couple in a civil union. The reason they entered it was because she didn’t have health benefits from her job and he did. Could it be that civil unions are just marriage lite — having the practical penefits of marriage without the demands? What are those benefits and demands? One demand I can think of: a spouse is responsible for the charges of the other spouse unless publicly rejected. In other words, if a spouse charge $5,000 on joint credit cards, then the other spouse is also responsible for the debts.
We need some lawyers to kick in here with information!
Indeed, some legal help would be good, here.
So if civil unions are “marriage lite,” which certainly seems to be the case in France, why would that be a good thing to endorse? (This is Sullivan’s point–civil unions undermine marriage.)
Istm that specifying that civil unions are for gays, civil marriage is for straights seems to violate equal protection–it’d be like saying civil unions are for blacks, civil marriage for whites. So if we construct civil unions different from marriage, they need to be available to all.
Or we could adopt the CDF’s logic on civil recognition of same-sex relationships, viz., what makes marriage important to society is reproductive capacity. So marriage for fertile straights, civil unions for gays, women over, say, 45, and younger straight people who fail their civil fertility exams. Straight marrieds have, say, 5 years to procreate at least once, or their marriages become civil unions. Straight people who procreate absent marriage could get married civilly, bringing the offspring as proof. This would seem to follow from the CDF’s logic, at least. It sounds more like livestock breeding than marriage to me. I think marriage is important for reasons that extend far beyond procreation, a stance I can find support for even in St. Augustine, that old bugaboo of sexual ethics.
Lisa, what you say here sounds eminently sane to me, and it’s a good theological solution to the many thorny questions that surround the unions-vs.-marriage debates:
“So marriage for fertile straights, civil unions for gays, women over, say, 45, and younger straight people who fail their civil fertility exams. Straight marrieds have, say, 5 years to procreate at least once, or their marriages become civil unions. Straight people who procreate absent marriage could get married civilly, bringing the offspring as proof.”
If nothing else, this solution provides two advantages that directly address problems raised by readers in this thread.
First, it dispenses us from the terrible and onerous obligation of having to imagine what those we civilly union are heading off to do the moment they’re married, since, as David Smith notes, the church’s primary concern here is that its pastors have the responsibility to keep in the forefront of their minds that any gays they might union will be headed right off to have sex.
And second, it deals with the problem that Bender implicitly raises–which is to say that, no matter how often and loudly and convincingly the pastors of the church continue to reassure us that they cherish us all equally and fight for the equal rights of all of us, some of do and will stubbornly insist on hearing something else. Sin-flawed as we are, you understand.
And so I seem some strong practical–and theological–reasons for heading down the path you’ve set forth here.
There are a number of legal implications associated with all civil unions and with same-sex marriages. Perhaps the two most important implications are (1) the recognition of civil unions and same-sex marriage among all the states/territories in the U.S., and (2) the availability of federal benefits for couples in civil unions and same-sex marriages.
While a valid opposite-sex marriage in any state in the U.S. must be recognized in other states, that’s not necessarily the case as to same-sex marriages and civil unions (whether opposite-sex or same-sex). The federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) provides that one state does not have to accord the constitutional “full faith and credit” to a same-sex marriage in states that now recognize such marriages. Though the Obama administration no longer will defend this provision of DOMA in court, the provision itself remains in force. DOMA does not address civil unions, and, in any event, there is no constitutional restriction on a state’s refusal to recognize a civil union (again, either opposite-sex or same-sex) that is valid in another state. As a result, the legal portability of same-sex marriages and civil unions of any kind is restricted.
In addition, because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions, couples in such marriages/unions can’t file a joint federal tax return, for example. There are also no Social Security survivor and spousal benefits for such couples, and one partner in a same-sex marriage or civil union can’t sponsor the other partner for U.S. citizenship. Other restrictions on access to, and eligibility for, federal benefits and programs also apply to same-sex marriages and all civil unions.
” — because the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages and civil unions, couples in such marriages/unions can’t file a joint federal tax return, for example. ”
In California, where same-sex couples who were married (briefly during the time that was allowed) or are in a registered domestic partnership are required to file joint tax returns, they are forced to pay extra to have a mock joint federal tax return prepared because the AGI for California tax purposes is what was determined to be calculated via a federal tax return.
To file for DP status is simply a matter of filing a form, paying a fee, and lo and behold! – registered domestic partnership status. Companies that offer DP benefits accept said form as the equivalent of a marriage license for benefits eligibility purpose. However to dissolve this partnership, particularly if there is any property involved, the couple has to file for a civil divorce and go through all of the proceedings required of a “real” marriage.
Anyone notice the nonsense here?
BTW, I guess DP status in California would be the equivalent of a civil union.
A p.s. to what I posted above.
The more I think about your “marriage for fertile straights, civil unions for gays” proposal, Lisa (and I like it), I think of one qualification that might well be added to safeguard the sanctity of marriage and the assure that magisterial teaching followed in every jot and tittle.
You rightly propose, “Straight marrieds have, say, 5 years to procreate at least once, or their marriages become civil unions.”
But shouldn’t we add a qualifying step prior to marriage for fertile straights?
At the very least, I think the marriage ceremony ought now to comprise a step in which a seemingly fertile straight couple promise on bended knee, while reciting the apostles’ and Nicene creeds, the anti-Modernist oath, and that oath now required by to score a mandatum, that they will not contract.
And at the first sign that they are contracepting, the marriage should the snatched from them and they should go back several squares to union status.
And every priest marrying a fertile straight couple should be imagining, as they take these various solemn oaths and say these solemn credal statements, precisely what form of contraception they may be inclined to use once they’re married and run off to hop into bed together–imagining this to keep all holy and in order, needless to say.
Yes, no? Sounds sane to me.
I can’t help thinking that these permutations of recognized relationships are brought up mostly for one purpose, to keep LGBT people from being married in church. Saw this today at the Episcopal Cafe … http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/dioceses/new_york_resolves.html …. it’s good to remember that the Catholic Church doesn’t own the copyright on Christian marriage.
Here in IL, Cdl George sure did lobby aggressively against our civil unions. In IL civil unions are for both straight and gay couples. Under this new law in IL, a civil union provides every single state benefit of marriage. The only things not covered are federal (SS survivorship, joint federal tax filing, certain military benefits).
My hope is that civil unions can provide a space for poorer Illinoisans to form civilly protected unions because so many people feel priced out of the marriage market (no house, no white picket fence. etc.) My other fond hope is that marriage will be available for gay couples (it seems weird that straight couples get 2 choices and gay only 1). Either that or only have civil unions for everyone.
There are obviously too many marriages: just consider the number of divorces. If only civil unions could replace marriage for those marriages that are going to end in a divorce, that would be much better for marriage. That’s why I don’t understand the fight against civil unions. To encourage that, perhaps the legislation could simultaneously make civil unions easier and divorce (after marriage) more difficult. In this way, people who are not sure of their commitment would be deterred from entering marriage and would still have a reasonable alternative for a period of life as a couple. Maybe the Catholic church, since it disapproves of divorce, would look at those joint measures more kindly?
Would states’ “community property” laws also apply to civil unions? If not, that is a reason for some couples to prefer such.
“Or we could adopt the CDF’s logic on civil recognition of same-sex relationships, viz., what makes marriage important to society is reproductive capacity.”
No, no, no. Having reproductive *capacity* should not be the criterion for anything. Pracally every 15 year old kid has the capacity and so what. The interest of the state in marriage historically has been in protecting the interests of *actual children”. Because most couples had kids married couples were according privileges of various sorts that single folks were not. I have no problem with some privileges, e.g., tax breaks, for people with kids, but I see no reason to support non-parents with any sort of state privileges, and it doesn’t make any difference whether the non-parents are 15 years old, 45 or 70.
As a single person who has been discriminated against in the past by various parts of the culture (e, g. paying outrageous amounts for health insurance when childless coupes got breaks just because they’re married) I think that the whole system of matrimony/civil unions/single v. married needs to be rethought. And what most especially should be kept in mind is that it is actual children who should make a difference when privileges are being dispensed.
oops. When I wrote “the Catholic church”, I meant to the Catholic hierarchy. Sorry!
I agree with Ann that the ability to have children shouldn’t be the criterion for marriage. As for civil unions for people who are more likely to end up divorced, I’d speculate that almost everyone who gets married believes and hopes that their marriage will last forever. Marriage has existed longer than the church and christianity – the Catholic church’s bid to terminally define what marriage really is and should be is pretty arrogant.
I imagine what the fairly quick turnaround the state’s made, from outlawing “unnatural sex” to sanctioning gay marriage, is a good illustration that one generation’s most deeply felt beliefs are likely to be casually shucked off by the next generation. But the likelihood of this happening today is probably far greater than it was before the appearance of the internal-combustion engine and television. People deeply engaged in the popular culture see gay unions as a no brainer; people for whom the popular culture hardly matters aren’t so sure. Perhaps one of the reasons cardinals and popes are slower to change is that they don’t watch enough MTV.
Maybe the bishop of Ragusa watches a lot of television. Is he a better man for that?
Ann, I think that there may be another reason for the state to support marriage, besides helping the people who are raising future generations: stability of society. People who are mated are much less likely to erupt in disorderly demonstrations, I think I’ve read (not sure). It’s about prevention of civil unrest!
Maybe one reason cardinals and popes are slow to change is because they do not have gay friends who have become couples and have enjoyed long and beautiful relationships. I know several gay couples whos relationship is past twenty-five years—maybe a little longer than the average on heterosexuals? Not sure.
Ted Olson, the conservative Republican who successfully represented presidential candidate George W. Bush in the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, had an article a couple of years ago in Newsweek – The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage – that discusses some reasons why such marriages would be beneficial to ohers and to the state.
Crystal, there are always good reasons for making any change. Belief goes before logic.
Hi David,
In that case, I’d argue over the belief itself, that it’s mistaken.
David S. –
About MTV — I suspect that these days Catholic kids who don’t get their values at home (and the only ones who get them at home are mainly Catholic fundamentalists) get them from TV, specifically from music videos. The Church does not realize how powerful music can be, in spite of the fact that music has been an integral part of the liturgy for centuries. But the old liturgical music doesn’t express values for contemporary kids. (Maybe it can’t — this culture is anti-old stuff.)
I thinK sermons are not nearly as important for kids as music, and MTV speaks to them louder than chinzy guitar Masses. Does this mean that Masses for adolescents have to be raves at 11;00 P.M. on the week-end with first rate kids’ musics? Maybe so. (Not that I have the slightest idea of what first rate adolescent liturgical music would be. Sigh.)
I’d like to hear from Jean Raber on this.
“People who are mated are much less likely to erupt in disorderly demonstrations, I think I’ve read (not sure). It’s about prevention of civil unrest!”
Claire –
Spinsters and bachelors are a major cause of civil unrest???? Aw, c’mon. Maybe 15 year old boys, but . . .
Ann: when you say it like that, it sounds really stupid, doesn’t it. Maybe special deals for married couples even if they are childless is simply a remnant of a time when most married couple had children.
Bender, thanks for those links – they’re very helpful. (They might help the bishop of Ragusa, too.)
Sorry for the several mistakes in my last posting (due to my poor proof-reading, but also to a refractory determination of my new spell-check program to substitute words for ones it doesn’t understand–and so contracept became contract). The following paragraph should have read:
At the very least, I think the marriage ceremony ought now to comprise a step in which a seemingly fertile straight couple promise on bended knee, while reciting the apostles’ and Nicene creeds, the anti-Modernist oath, and that oath now required to score a mandatum, that they will not contracept.
Sorry for the several mistakes in my last posting (due to my poor proof-reading, but also to a refractory determination of my new spell-check program to substitute words for ones it doesn’t understand–and so contracept became contract). The final word in the fifth paragraph should have been “contracept.”
@ William Lindsay: Indeed. In fact, any couple who contracepted would risk being “reduced to the unioned state” simply by not meeting the 5-year procreative window. There’s more of course. If a straight couple with kids suffers the death of one of the spouses, the widow (-er) has, what, a year to remarry, or else the kids will be taken away. Children have a “right” to a mother and a father, don’t they? :-)
But seriously, folks–our tradition has resources for a rich theology of the meanings of marriage–social, interpersonal, spiritual all together. But the CDF says marriage is important to society and in civil law because it’s procreative. And same-sex unions are bad because they’re not heterosexual:
At the very least, the document’s logic implies that procreation is the defining good of marriage, and absent the possibility of procreation, the rest of that rich heritage (and, to be fair, some of it is an implicit heritage, like the natural law argument that can be made for all the human–social, interpersonal, spiritual–goods of marriage) is irrelevant. Not the message our society needs to hear. Pop culture says sex is the most important recreational value and the magisterium says procreation is the most important marital value–well, like the rock band Heart asked: “What About Love?”
@Bender: of course you are correct that the magisterium has spoken authoritatively against same-sex unions. And in my citations, too, that’s clear. But here’s this bishop, and that bishop, and a few bishops here and there, members of the magisterium all of them, saying something different. Arguably even Levada, now boss of the CDF. They’re going against a strong tide. They might be shown wrong by history. But there are too many to dismiss them as crazies or cranks. ISTM that this is a teaching in development. At least it’s now a question with a plurality of views among the magisterium, yes?
“But there are too many to dismiss them as crazies or cranks.”
Lisa –
The bishops, the bishops, the bishops. It seems we always come back to the bishops. Are they crazy cranks? Not generally, I would assume. But cultures and sub-cultures, if tightly enough organized, can impose ways of behavior that individuals in the culture dare not break out of . As I see it, they are all the equivalents of cranks/nutters/flat-earthers — they hold some highly unconventional outlier opinions (e.g., that they are men of vastly superior wisdom) which they can’t begin to look at objectively — if they did their house of cards would collapse Sure, there are a few exceptions, and some are otherwise admirable people. As I see it, only the Holy Spirit can change them, but it will take miracles.
Lisa, I confess I haven’t been keeping score. Which bishops besides this one in Sicily have publicly supported civil unions?
Lisa, thanks for your reply. It relieves me of worry to know that, if your new schema for marriage carries the day, the children will be removed from households of straight couples, one of whom dies, since children do have a “right” to both a mother and a father.
All in decency and order, for the kingdom of God–that’s my motto!
And you’re very right, it seems to me: our tradition contains resources in abundance for a better way of configuring our understandings of marriage, and by pointing to the absurdity of the ultimate “logic” of the marriage-is-only-for-procreation argument, you’ve opened the door for a discussion of those other resources.
What speaks loudly and clear to me in the proposal of this particular Italian bishop and the few others who have been willing to say this is that, entirely apart from sacramental marriage, there are positive social goods to be derived from the institution of civil marriage or civil unions. For all committed couples living as families . . . .
And excluding some couples and families from those positive social goods solely on the basis of discriminatory choice (since we do NOT exclude non-procreative heterosexual couples) not only does those couples and families no good at all.
It doesn’t do society as a whole any good.
“I imagine what the fairly quick turnaround the state’s made, from outlawing “unnatural sex” to sanctioning gay marriage, is a good illustration that one generation’s most deeply felt beliefs are likely to be casually shucked off by the next generation. ”
I think “casually shucked off” is one of the most disingenuous statements I have read here in a long, long time. If you actually think that the changes we have seen made over the past few decades were “casual” you haven’t been paying much attention to the struggle for these changes.
To combine a prior reference to Charles Davis with this current divinization of “authoritative” speaking on the part of the church:
“The Roman Catholic Church contradicts my Christian faith because I experience it as a zone of untruth, pervaded by a disregard for truth…..Words were used not to communicate truth, but as a means of preserving authority without regard for truth. Words were manipulated as a means of power……For me Christian commitment is inseparable from concern for truth and concern for people. I do not find either of these represented by the official church. There is a concern for authority at the expense of truth, and I am constantly saddened by instances of the damage done to persons by workings of an impersonal and unfree system.”
“The sad fact is that the pattern of doctrine, law, ritual and government imposed upon the Roman Catholic Church no longer corresponds to the genuine and ordinary experience of people today. Hence a constant sense of frustration, aggravated by each further instance of backpedalling by authority and by the frequent jeremiads uttered by Rome against modern aberrations.”
Charles Davis, “A Question of Conscience”, 1967 (quoted by Bill DeHass 7/25/10 @ http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=9175#comments)
I’ll stick with “casual”, Jimmy. It’s either self-evident or it’s not. People don’t spend a lot of time thinking through whether or not they like or approve of something. They either do or they don’t. Younger people approve, wholeheartedly, without much thinking at all, of sexual liberality. It makes a nice story – a little saga – to imagine that the evil old ways are being overcome bravely and at the cost of much sacrifice and rhetoric, but, really, that’s not how nearly all change happens. It may look dramatic – all those loud and intense news snippets and florid journal articles – but that’s just for show, just to embellish the tale. Really, in the end, all change is evolutionary.
Gee, huge .huge (and empty) generalizations about how people think and how the young deal with questions of sexual morality.
That’s one way to deal with how the owrld is changing…..
David: I think you betray ignorance or naivete that is possible in youth. What we are seeing today re: same-sex marriage in the US may be evolution, but no evolution takes place without (may I used the term?) revolution.
History time. WWII was an event that led to the slow, uneven but steady advance in acceptance and ultimate rights for gays and lesbians. For the first time people from the most unlikely places were thrown together with what were discovered to be like-minded others. One of the reasons San Francisco because an early haven for G&L people was the fact that so many of them met either on the way to war in the Pacific or upon returning from that war. SF always has been a haven for the different and became a natural home for G&L returnees who did not want to return to the live of fear, hiding and opprobrium that they had left. But the point here is that WWII’s impetus was far from evolution.
There were many pioneers (mostly unknown outside of LGBT circles) who, because of their own revolutionary actions, added impetus to or caused a change in direction of LGBT acceptance and society’s attitudes. I’ll list some names or people and activities, and references thereto, because to even succinctly describe what they did would be way too lengthy. Look up the references and see why I know them to be revolutionary people and moments that helped change the pace and direction of what you call evolution.
Stonewall Riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stonewall_riots); Frank Kameny (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kameny); Evelyn Hooker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelyn_Hooker); Barbard Gittings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Gittings); Rev. Troy Perry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy_Perry); Dignity/USA & Patrick Nidorf (http://www.dignitysd.org/about_us.htm); and the Council for Religion and the Homosexual (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_on_Religion_and_the_Homosexual).
There are more, but these all representative people and points in time that sparked a dynamic change in the way things were done and looked at in the US political and religious landscapes.
It is because of these and many more that what you see as an evolution today actually is happening. Young people would not be growing up with an acceptance of LGBT people and same-sex marriage if it hadn’t been for these revolutionaries.
People, including Catholics (and their hierarchs) wouldn’t have changed their attitudes without the revolutionary action of “coming out” on the part of their children, parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, friends and – yes – their priests and nuns.
See also: http://www.seattlepi.com/local/connelly/article/A-Catholic-s-dissent-Bishops-don-t-speak-for-2572471.php#ixzz1jiPuoVCh
Jimmy, thanks for your thoughts. I think we’re looking at the same phenomena, just through different lenses, mine a wide angle lens and yours a more closely focused one.
Your point that revolutions are always necessary, that change is revolutionary, not evolutionary, is interesting. Point taken. Perhaps people caught up in the most intense period of change are always bound to suffer, caught as they are between conflicting allegiances. But except in very static societies where not much changes that’s the nature of human experience, isn’t it? – a constant destabilizing leading to a more or less frantic attempt to re-establish a more or less stable condition. I guess that’s how we grow – satisfaction, dissatisfaction, struggle, partial satisfaction, continuing struggle.
[...] Italian Bishop Advocates Civil Unions (commonwealmagazine.org) [...]
[...] Italian Bishop Advocates Civil Unions (commonwealmagazine.org) [...]
Look out, David. You’re starting to sound like a Marxist.