Washington State
February 9, 2012, 2:26 am
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
I’m feeling proud of my home state today. Amidst the news coverage of its vote to allow same-sex couples to marry, I found this quote from marriage equality supporter, and Republican and Catholic State Rep. Maureen Walsh very moving:
Republican representative Maureen Walsh, whose daughter told her she was gay a few years ago, voted in favor of the bill on the basis of equality. “Nothing’s different,” Walsh said. “She’s still a fabulous human being. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid.”
It all comes too late for so many…
Well, she’s her mother, for God’s sake. What’s that got to do with public policy?
David, I think the unconditional love that a mother normally feels for her child has had and will continue to have a very large effect on the trajectory of this particular public policy.
John, nobody’s denying anybody’s humanity. That’s a given. It’s all in where you go from there. There are at least several good ideas on the table, not just one.
In his Lenten message, the Pope spoke about fraternal correction. Although it can be a painful road, even with all good will, that doesn’t mean it’s not right. I think it’s what is called for, reading “the signs of the times.”
“…’Being concerned for each other’ also entails being concerned for their spiritual well-being. Here I would like to mention an aspect of the Christian life, which I believe has been quite forgotten: fraternal correction in view of eternal salvation. Today, in general, we are very sensitive to the idea of charity and caring about the physical and material well-being of others, but almost completely silent about our spiritual responsibility towards our brothers and sisters. This was not the case in the early Church. … Christ Himself commands us to admonish a brother who is committing a sin. … The Church’s tradition has included ‘admonishing sinners’ among the spiritual works of mercy. It is important to recover this dimension of Christian charity. We must not remain silent before evil. I am thinking of all those Christians who, out of human regard or purely personal convenience, adapt to the prevailing mentality, rather than warning their brothers and sisters against ways of thinking and acting that are contrary to the truth and that do not follow the path of goodness. Christian admonishment, for its part, is never motivated by a spirit of accusation or recrimination. It is always moved by love and mercy, and springs from genuine concern for the good of the other. … In a world pervaded by individualism, it is essential to rediscover the importance of fraternal correction, so that together we may journey towards holiness. … It is a great service, then, to help others and allow them to help us, so that we can be open to the whole truth about ourselves, improve our lives and walk more uprightly in the Lord’s ways”.–Pope Benedict XVI, Lenten Message 2012
To lie to somebody and to encourage them to live a lie is no love, actually just the opposite… Indeed, the farthest thing from love is sentimentality separated from the truth.
Thanks for this. Just a bit more about the context in which this is happening. Here’s Nate Silver’s chart from last spring of polling trends on support for same-sex marriage. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/20/gay-marriage-opponents-now-in-minority/
What’s significant is that except for a small squiggle around 2004, support for civil marriage for gay and lesbian couples has been increasing in a straight-line curve for over 20 years. Similarly, opposition to same-sex marriage has been decreasing in a straight-line curve.
I couldn’t find it with a quick search, but I recall Silver once putting together a state-by-state chart on attitudes towards same-sex marriage in which he concluded that—assuming those straight-line trends continue—there would be majority support for same-sex marriage in all 50 states (yes, even Mississippi) within 15-20 years.
I also found Rep. Walsh’s statement moving. I have long suspected (though have no way of proving it, obviously) that for many American Catholics, the experience of living in a society in which marriage is both sacramental (for Catholics) and civil (for all of us) has been of some help in reaching the conclusion Rep. Walsh did with her vote.
Well this is how it should be done. While I do not agree with legalizing same-sex marriage, at least in Washington state the people had a say in the matter.
Elected representatives of the people of that state expressed the will of the majority of the public by passing legislation the state’s governor says she will sign into law that will legalize gay marriage.
It is too bad the hard-Left is not as happy with the will of the public when it goes against their wishes/agenda.
It is a sad commentary indeed how the Left only likes/allows the will of the people to prevail when it suits their agenda.
Benedict’s Lenten message is I think right on point, and the Washington State vote may be a good example of “fraternal correction” of the views of so many Catholics.
It is not “fraternal correction,” much less a good example of same, to say that what is objectively evil is actually good, or to repeatedly advocate for the transposition of moral truth.
Rather, a good example of fraternal correction is a reminder of what the Lord has said: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who change darkness to light, and light into darkness, who change bitter to sweet, and sweet into bitter. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight.” (Is 5:20-21)
And for those who lead others astray with their advocacy and keep others mired in darkness (and this would apply most especially to those who held themselves out to the national media as a Catholic commenter on such things): “it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea”
@Ken (2/9, 10:00 am) I appreciate the spirit in which you receive the decision of the Washington state legislature.
Just for the record though, it’s not just “the hard-Left” and “the Left” who at times aren’t happy with “the will of the public”. Also, there’s a difference between not liking “the will of the people”, and “not allowing the will of the people to prevail”.
It’s in the nature of politics (which is to say, in the nature of being human) for people to continue arguments. Indeed, it’s when politics fails that we end up fighting wars.
America had a recent comment on the changing face of families (as traditional marriage declines) and raising the question of how the Church should reach the different types that still populate the Church and those outside.
I think simple pronouncements of “truth’ are not going to reach many.
Well Bender, you are correct of course on the morality. I was just talking about the civics or societal aspect of majority rules.
While obviously I agree that legalizing gay marriage is not a good thing, on the civic level, the manner in which Washington state is reaching their (collective) conclusion regarding this is sound enough.
“Republican representative Maureen Walsh, whose daughter told her she was gay a few years ago, voted in favor of the bill on the basis of equality. “Nothing’s different,” Walsh said. “She’s still a fabulous human being. And some day, by God, I want to throw a wedding for that kid.””
Another success story for Catholic education. If faith wedded to reason is our ideal, then it should grieve us to note that this justification is devoid of both. But at least she now gets to be a mother of the bride. A new dress, some video memories – what *isn’t* that worth? (And how fitting that she invokes the Deity – it sanctifies the sentiment, nearly.)
If any bishops were to solicit my advice, it would be as follows: dialogue and teaching have their place, but so does some judiciously meted-out punishment. Defiant actions like hers should have ecclesial consequences – and in this temporal realm. *That* would be some fraternal correction.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/faithful-citizenship/church-teaching/interim-reflections-tf-bishops-politicians-statement.cfm
“It is not “fraternal correction,” much less a good example of same, to say that what is objectively evil is actually good, or to repeatedly advocate for the transposition of moral truth”
Objectively?
http://tinyurl.com/ykygzm5
Bender–
Since I suspect that those in favor of gay marriage are not chortling about taking us into evil, but rather believe it to be not only good and right, but even holy and a movement of the Holy Spirit, I’d be careful when you quote lines about calling “good evil” and vice versa, in case you should fall on the wrong side of that divide on this issue. I–a strong supporter of gay marriage who am convinced that God is at work here, not just secularism–may of course be wrong. But so could you. I won’t cast you into the outer darkness if you return the favor :)
Ken–
I also appreciate the balance of your comments, but I have to wonder. Why is majoritarianism “proper” in the case of gay marriage and not, for example, on the HHS question. If we put that to a state-wide or nation-wide referendum, I suspect the church would be on the losing side. Would you applaud that as ok simply because the majority has spoken?
Thanks Luke – I appreciate it. I would add that in my opinion, the will of the people is in fact the will of the voters. Talk of the will ‘of the people’ other than the voters, in my mind, just refers to the mob, the rabble.
In a representative republic like ours, the ones whose opinion really matters are the folks who are registered to vote and who make the effort and take the time to vote.
That having been said, obviously voters do well when they take time to listen to non-voters, to bear their concerns in mind when voting. I do not however, think that public questions such as gay marriage or what to do about indocumentados should be made via polling data i.e., by trying to determine the current mood of the mob.
Andy – Good point. Bearing in mind that abortion is different from gay marriage in that involves killing, it is difficult to compare the two.
Still, if the question of a religious exemption regarding contraception and abortion was put to voters either via Congress or more directly via plebiscite, I am fairly confident that most Americans would come down on the side of granting the exemption.
In fact the HHS ruling will likely be taken up by Congress and will likely be overturned. That is what the controversy regarding it is about; the particulars of the price of contraception are one side, but that an unelected HHS secretary (federal bureaucrat) thought she had the power to ram that through without permission of the majority of voters is what has so many people so upset.
Bureaucrats not only are not experts on the Constitution; indeed few of them “get” it in the first place.
Regarding gay marriage, there is no doubt that Catholics and others will ask for an exemption to the gay marriage act as well; we will exercise our First Amendment right – on religious grounds – to disagree with the whole thing.
Imagine a photographer who does weddings and who is Evangelical, a Muslim, or maybe a Catholic. He is approached by a gay couple in Seattle and they want to engage his services for their upcoming wedding. He declines saying he cannot participate in that sort of ceremony because it is contrary to his conscience. Without some space for the photographer in the law, the gay couple might be able to sue him saying he is discriminating against them. There will probably arise, similar situations with banquet hall and restaurant owners.
When you start demanding that people act in a way that is sinful, or that they participate in what they hold is sinful, that will lead to real problems.
When I hear news like this I think of the “Canticle of the Turning” which we sing occasionally at Newman Hall here in Berkeley: Let the fires of your justice burn!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXyGh1MW2OM
@Ken (2/9, 12:25 pm) From the “front lines” of same-sex marriage here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I’d say that overall it’s turned out to be a non-issue to the vast majority of Catholics. (Others with a different perspective, please jump in.)
I’m curious about your photographer example. What, in your view, is the moral distinction (for Catholics) between getting paid to take pictures at a wedding (religious or secular) of a same-sex couple and getting paid to take pictures at any other wedding (opposite-sex couple) that takes place outside the context of the sacrament of matrimony?
This week I’m feeling really sorry for the Pope (there’s a brand new financial scandal), but ==
The Vatican is sponsoring a 4-day conference of all sorts of church leaders including powerful bishops on how to heal the scandal. Some people are speaking out bluntly. (Keep your eye on Msg. Scicluna from Malta — now there’s real brotherly correction!) The Pope himself sent a message reaffirming his sorrow and shame for the misdeeds of those who injured the children. It must be a very difficult week for him
But he still doesn’t get it. Cardinal Law, the poster boy for dreadful bishops, is still, by order of the Pope himself, a member of 8 curial dicastories, including the one which vets new bishops!!
My point? How can the Pope be taken seriously as someone who understands brotherly correction givne his own history in the scandal, especially when he continues to shower rewards on the likes of C. Law? Brotherly correction does not ensconce serious evildoers in high places, even if the evil doers say they’re sorry. The Pope needs to listen to Msgr. Scicluna and the Irish victim who spoke at the conference, not the other way around
See John Allen’s reporting on the conference in this week’s NCR. Some headway is being made.
http://ncronline.org/
Ken–Thanks for the reply. I think you’re wrong about the church needing an exemption from this though. The Court is not ordering (and I know of know where where this has happened) that church’s have to marry gay persons. I’m very pro-gay marriage but I would be opposed to that. I don’t think it’s any different from the fact that churches aren’t required to marry a Jew and a Muslim to each other, or assuming one is Catholic, a person who has been divorced and is eligible for marriage civilly. Simply saying the state recognizes these marriages (at least those done in-state, see John Coleman’s piece on America’s blog) does not mean that anyone who performs some marriages the state recognizes has to perform all of them.
A lot of good things being said in Rome: listen to victims, not priests; report to ciivil authorities, hold bishops a countable, end culture of silence’omerta.”
But the proof will be in the pudding say in Poland, and the Philipines, not to mention all the things happening here in Philly, Kc and Milwaukee.
Cardinal Levada wants to asure us that BXVI did what he could, but it seems that insulating the Pontiff from criticism is a major motif of curial behavior.
If we move forward in this papacy, despite confernces, visitations, etc. it wil be in fits and starts at best.
Perhaps a way thru this is to restore the ancient blessing of same sex unions as something very distinct from marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis
God Bless
Watch this wonderful women (Maureen Walsh) making here statement here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGmgqW6ES8&feature=youtu.be
God bless her and those like her.
“Bureaucrats not only are not experts on the Constitution; indeed few of them “get” it in the first place.”
But you do?
Ann – I would not say I am an expert on the Constitution but yes I do “get it”. Moreover I would hazard a guess that almost anyone on this blog knows more about and puts more value on, the US Constitution than the garden variety federal bureaucrat does.