Those Were the Days…
May 7, 2010, 8:59 am
Posted by Eduardo Peñalver
Brazilian Archbishop Dadeus Grings does his best Archie Bunker impersonation, seeming to wistfully recall the days when it was acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. (Via the Daily Telegraph, HT Andrew Sullivan):
“When sexuality is trivialized, it’s clear that this is going to affect all cases. Homosexuality is such a case. Before, the homosexual wasn’t spoken of. He was discriminated against.
“When we begin to say they have rights, rights to demonstrate publicly, pretty soon, we’ll find the rights of paedophiles,” he said.
Well, it’s good that this bigotry is out an exposing itself. Let’s not kid ourselves that we do not have subtle bigotries of our own.
This is when we see the downside of the Internet. In days gone by, people would say stupid things and their audience would be limited to their listeners. Now, the whole world hears this instantly. People will say stupid things from now until the end of time. Let’s not lose too much sleep over it
Fr. O Leary,
Are you saying that the good thing about bigots is you know where they stand?
Anthony Andreass,
What about the people who don’t think what he said is stupid? What about Father Geraldo Martins, the “spokesman for the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops,” who didn’t even say, “That does not reflect the position of the NCBB.” When people say stupid things, and those who could contradict them say nothing, the stupid things stand. Or maybe what Archbishop Grings said was just Catholic teaching awkwardly stated and needs no criticism.
Why were the remarks the Archbishop alledgedly made on the sidelines of the gathering and apparently reported by O Globo made in English?
MAT,
O Globo reports the story in Portuguese, including this quote from Archbishop Grings:
David – The bishop did not say anything stupid. He simply made the point that if society says homesexuality is OK and the Church says it is not OK, that will bring problems.
That conflicts between society and church on this level are problematic is clear enough.
I would say calma te – no need for hysteria.
“When we begin to say they have rights, rights to demonstrate publicly, pretty soon, we’ll find the rights of paedophiles,”
What else is new? It’s the usual locution of Catholic authority — if the Church doesn’t make the rules, there’ll be no rules at all.
In the words of ex-senator Rick Santorum:
If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,”
Exactly; these folks are engaged in a discussion of the limits that we as society should impose on individual liberties.
All societies have the obligation to impose certain limits on personal liberties. For example no society allows murder or theft; why? Society prohibits murder and theft in order to help secure the common good and make the society more pleasant and liveable.
Some societies impose stricter limits on individual liberties than others. In Sicily, the mafia and associated coercion and violence are more or less tolerated. Here (the USA), we do not tolerate the mafia; we prosecute it. In India, arranged marriages are the norm; here they are not. In some societies, child-marriage is routine; here it is not allowed. Some societies allow polygamy; we do not permit that. A very few societies tolerate slavery; we do not.
And so all societies place limits on what is allowed, what is acceptable behaviour.
The bishop and that senator are simply pointing out that if we (society) decide regarding sexual relations, that people are free do anything they can think of i.e., if all limits on this aspect of society are removed, that will open the door to the sort of free-for-all which will in general not be good for society.
While it does make some people uncomfortable, there is nothing inherently wrong with discussing this sort of thing. In fact those who sneer or mock, or who click their tongues and roll their eyes at this sort of discussion would probably do better to actually pay attention to what is actually being said and written, in order that they might learn from the dicussion and constructively contribute to it.
David – Why do you think Bishop Grings’ statement was, as you say, “stupid”?
Homosexuality refers to sexual relationship or preference, not to a separate species. Perhaps you can explain how refusing to condone sexual acts or sexual relationships that are not consistent with God’s intention for Conjugal Love makes one a bigot?
David – Why do you think Bishop Grings’ statement was, as you say, “stupid”?
Ken,
I did not actually say his statement was stupid. Note my concluding sentence: “Or maybe what Archbishop Grings said was just Catholic teaching awkwardly stated and needs no criticism.”
Of course, he did say this:
Now, this is a medical fact in the same category as my mother’s warning that you shouldn’t cross your eyes, because if someone hits you on the back, your eyes will stick that way. Or perhaps it is on a par with the theory of Sister Julietta’s that if you wore your boots indoors, it would harm your eyes, because it drew your body’s moisture to your feet as sweat and your eyes dried up. The Archbishop’s theory would help explain why so many priests molested boys: teenage boys are spontaneously homosexual.
And who would dispute the fact that “more Catholics than Jews died in the Holocaust, but this isn’t known because the Jews control the world’s media”?
In 1967, when the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia was about to rule that laws forbidding black and white people to intermarry were unconstitutional, I remember saying that pretty if they permitted miscegenation, pretty soon gay people would insist on the right to marry. And I was right! And now that that’s happening, soon brothers and sisters will want to marry each other, and then people will want to marry their dogs. Now, I picked out a nice wedding gift when my nephew got married (to a woman). It was a nice punch bowl from Tiffany. But what are we going to do when people start marrying dogs? What will the wedding presents be? A leash would be an insult to the dog, but a rubber ball, a rawhide chew, or a water bowl might not please the human partner. It all should have been stopped before black people married white people — that’s what I say. Because once you give in just a little bit, it’s all downhill from there.
Sister Julietta was my sixth grade teacher, and reportedly had been considered elderly when she had taught the parents of my sixth-grade classmates. (My family had moved into the parish when I was in the fifth grade.)
We already dealt with Bertone and now this! Defended by Ken.
The Australian auxuililary who seemed to say bertine’s reamrks were stupoid woulkd also have the same to say here, I think.
Personally, I’d describe them as idiotic, though some don’t like that word here.
I get your humor David, but surely you agree that society has the right to place limits on individual liberty.
So if we start from that point – a point of agreement – then it is simply a matter of settling on the things society will not allow.
For example, since you brought up marriage and living arrangements; our society presently does not allow polygamy, gay marriage, incest or child brides. Some say we ought to allow gay marriage, but the other things on my little listing are more or less settled. Few Americans want child brides, to marry their close relatives or to have more than one spouse.
In discussing something like gay marriage then; we should approach the matter rationally e.g.:
Calmly state the facts:
Currently we Americans do not allow gay marriage. Some in our nation propose we change our laws to allow gay marriage. Some gay people do not support the notion of gay marriage.
Pose questions for analysis:
Why should we change our laws to permit or legally sanction gay marriage?
Would permitting gay marriage benefit the individuals involved? If so, how would those involved benefit?
Would permitting gay marriage benefit society? If so, how would the various sectors of society (e.g., children and families, communities, workplace, etc.) benefit from such arrangements?
Would permitting gay marriage harm society? If so, how would it harm society?
Would permitting gay marriage harm the individuals involved? If so, how would those involved be harmed?
As for miscegenation, that is a red herring – and an old one at that – some younger readers won’t even know the meaning of miscegenation. In any case many black folks do not appreciate the gay-marriage crowd piling on trying to claim that gay marriage is anything close to inter-racial marriage. That was one reason Prop 8 (the act by which we Californians declined to change state law to allow gay marriage and in fact reinforced existing law via amending our state constitution; 2008 election) passed to strongly out here in California.
While gay marriage advocates out here properly understood that Catholics and Mormons would not approve of the state sanctioning gay marriage, they seriously underestimated the level of feeling on this issue within the Latino, Asian, Black and Muslim communities.
Bob – If I am defending anything, it is the right for people to hold the sort of discussion to which the bishop refers.
If we are not allowed to say that homosexuality is not the norm of society, if we are to insist that homosexual behavior is pefectly acceptable lifestyle, that realy stifles the discussion doesn’t it?
It is sort of like trying to discuss the ramifications of alcoholism without being allowed to mention drunkeness.
Ken,
I can only be very brief this afternoon, but my point is not that interracial marriage and gay marriage are alike. It is that they are different. And gay marriage is different from polygamy. And gay marriage and polygamy are different from incest or from pedophilia. But the people who like to make the slippery slope argument against gay marriage are fond of saying if you allow gay marriage, that puts you on the road to allowing incest, pedophilia, bestiality, and so on.
Grings says if you give rights to gay people, pretty soon you will give them to pedophiles. I don’t accept that argument. In general, I don’t accept slippery slope arguments, and the slippery slope arguments against gay marriage (and miscegenation) are some of the worst.
Ken,
Thanks for the impetus. I’ve been struggling with an essay on reasons Catholics might support same-sex marriage. I’m aiming for 2500 words but the best draft I’ve written is 3 times that. Your questions remind me that the issue is urgent. So a brief:
1. In Catholic tradition, civil law is governed by the requisites of the common good, not the entirety of natural law. Since John XXIII, we’ve expressed the requisites of the common good in the language of rights that protect all equally.
2. The current magisterial teaching against same-sex unions traces directly or indirectly (e.g. JPII’s Theology of the Body) to the concept that procreation is essential to the meaning of marriage. JPII creates a mystical doctrine of masculinity and femininity that is not inductive, nor does it pass the test of most people’s ordinary experience, but reflects his abstraction from a heteronormative approach to marriage. In short, his arguments are circular–same-sex marriage is not allowable because it is not heterosexual.
3. But even in the church we allow post-menopausal women to marry, KNOWING that they cannot reproduce. For people of any age, infertility does not justify anullment. And in civil law, we should recognize at least that, as we affirm in letting the old and the infertile marry in the Church, the meaning of marriage does not depend on its procreativity–as affirmed in the documents of Vatican II and several popes.
4. Instead, we look to things like companionship, the joys of intimacy, both sexual and non-sexual, the resources of partners in sickness and health, and “for richer and for poorer.” Gay people seeking to marry give witness to the importance of permanent and public bonds at a time when too many people trivialize that holy state. (Good) marriage is good for people, physically, psychologically, socially and spiritually.
5. The right to marriage is a basic human right, as Paul VI maintained. Gay people cannot enter into a relationship that is deeply nuptial with a person of the opposite sex, just as straights would find it hard or impossible to marry homosexually. If we do not allow same-sex civil marriage, in fact we deny gay and lesbian people the right to marriage, which is unacceptable in Catholic teaching about civil law.
“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,”
What Santorum doesn’t understand, apparaently, is that all those practices he lists above are injurious to the individuals involved, and those involved are not just the sexual partners. Always prohibition has to be limited to what is bad for people. But just because the things he lists are all sexual practices that are bad, that does not imply that homosexuality, also being a sexual practice, is also intrinsically evil. It’s a particularly simple-minded form of the fallacy of the undistributed middle you all might remember from freshman logic: (It goes from saying *some* of a kind is X, therefore, *all* of king is X.):
Incest, adultery, polygamy, etc. are sexual practices.
They are all bad.
Active omosexuality is a sexual practice.
Therefore, active homosexuality is bad.
To establish that such homosexuality is bad you would have to give some *reason* that it is bad. But Santorum (and Ken) don’t seem to see that.
“All societies have the obligation to impose certain limits on personal liberties. For example no society allows murder or theft; why? Society prohibits murder and theft in order to help secure the common good and make the society more pleasant and liveable.”
Ken 00
Pleasant and livable for whom? Most people find Brussell sprouts to be unplesant. That implies that eating Brussell should be banned. Same with haggis. Do you want to spoil the Christmas dinner of Scottish America? Same with snails for the non-French. Hmmm.
And Just what do you mean by “livable”? Pleasant to you?
I’m still looking for some reason why i should think that homosexual behavior is intrinsically evil or that it adversely affects other people. My homsexual friends lives don’t affect me at all as far as I can see. In fact their happiness makes me happy. So why should I disapprove?
Should morality be a matter of majority rule? You seem to think so.
Thanks for picking up the thread Lisa – here goes:
Lisa – 1. In Catholic tradition, civil law is governed by the requisites of the common good, not the entirety of natural law. Since John XXIII, we’ve expressed the requisites of the common good in the language of rights that protect all equally.
Ken – True enough. It is our (society’s) responsibility to thoughtfully consider this matter, which was after all raised by our fellow citizens, mindful that we are well within our rights to set what we (American society) consider to be reasonable limits on who we will allow to marry whom. In fact that is why we (society) are having this discussion; to determine whether or not we in America will recognize gay marriage.
Lisa – 2. The current magisterial teaching against same-sex unions traces directly or indirectly (e.g. JPII’s Theology of the Body) to the concept that procreation is essential to the meaning of marriage. JPII creates a mystical doctrine of masculinity and femininity that is not inductive, nor does it pass the test of most people’s ordinary experience, but reflects his abstraction from a heteronormative approach to marriage. In short, his arguments are circular–same-sex marriage is not allowable because it is not heterosexual.
Ken – The Catholic Church maintains that homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered. Along with the notion of the mercy of God, that is basically the Church’s starting point; the foundation of its reasoning regarding homosexuality. Regarding marriage, whether we like it or not, procreation is the main purpose of marriage. Sure some couples are sterile, but they are the minority and in any case Lisa, you seem to miss the fact that couples where the wife is post-menopausal and couples who through no fault of their own or action on their part are for whatever reason sterile are nonetheless open to God’s gift of life, in that that are not taking any artificial means to thwart God’s plan. Without being too frank about it, couples who through no fault or doing of their own are sterile, are not having sex while intentionally via chemicals or various mechanisms trying to avoid pregnancy; they are not intentionally trying to thwart God’s plan.
Lisa – 3. But even in the church we allow post-menopausal women to marry, KNOWING that they cannot reproduce. For people of any age, infertility does not justify anullment. And in civil law, we should recognize at least that, as we affirm in letting the old and the infertile marry in the Church, the meaning of marriage does not depend on its procreativity–as affirmed in the documents of Vatican II and several popes.
Ken – It is true that marriage does not depend of procreation; however procreation is the main reason for the institution of marriage. I think I addressed this sufficiently (comment above).
Lisa – 4. Instead, we look to things like companionship, the joys of intimacy, both sexual and non-sexual, the resources of partners in sickness and health, and “for richer and for poorer.” Gay people seeking to marry give witness to the importance of permanent and public bonds at a time when too many people trivialize that holy state. (Good) marriage is good for people, physically, psychologically, socially and spiritually.
Ken – I agree with you that companionship and the various forms of intimacy, and the helping are all very important in any relationship, and that relationships should not be trivialized. Your statement also brings us closer to the heart of the matter. Do we as society want gay people to “give witness”, to give public witness, to their relationship and intimacy? That is what we are considering
Lisa – 5. The right to marriage is a basic human right, as Paul VI maintained. Gay people cannot enter into a relationship that is deeply nuptial with a person of the opposite sex, just as straights would find it hard or impossible to marry homosexually. If we do not allow same-sex civil marriage, in fact we deny gay and lesbian people the right to marriage, which is unacceptable in Catholic teaching about civil law.
Ken – Certainly marriage is a basic human right, but it is not an unlimited right. Speech is a basic human right, but we do not allow people to needlessly yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Marriage is limited by the society in which one lives, limited by laws and social customs that spring from the social mores held by that society. In fact you began your post noting exactly this point. All societies place limits on the right of marriage. No society allows everyone to marry whomever they choose; all societies have rules regarding who is allowed to marry whom.
The question of gay marriage involves whether or not we- i.e., American society – will heed the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Islamic, Buddhist and Jewish faiths (among others), regarding the problems associated with homosexuality, or whether we will instead intentionally set up a social framework or construct that is fundamentally in conflict with the teachings that we individually and collectively hold dear and try to live by, and which we are sincerely trying to pass on to our children.
Does setting up a conflict like this improve society or harm it, or is a built-in conflict like this neutral toward society?
Will you enjoy explaining to your children that what they learn in school, and what they take in from TV and movies and other mass media – that which they learn from the society around them – that on the suject of homosexuality, that all those sources (schools, TV, movies, etc.) that all those sources are morally wrong? Will you relish explaining to them how – that on this subject – that you are correct and the world they know is wrong?
Do you think they will accept your teaching regarding this? I maintain that this sort of inherent conflict between Church and society will make it more difficult to inculcate in children the values I want to pass along; in my case the values of the Roman Catholic church. Muslims and Mormons and people of other faiths have feelings similar to mine. We prefer that society Not make it more difficult to pass along the values and morality of the faiths we hold.
Why – in order to placate a tiny minority of society i.e., gay couples who wish to marry – should we as society make it far more difficult for parents to pass along their morals and values?
Another month, another need to restate that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference betwen CIVIL MARRIAGE which confers secular benefits, and MATRIMONY which churches claim confers spiritual benefits, bindings and blessings.
The church has learned to live with this in Catholic Europe for many decades now. Learn to live with it in Secular America now. America is NOT Christendom nor a Christian nation.
In a country that constantly harps on the separation of religion and state, the right is mighty eager to impose religious biases on state institutions and benefits when it suits the purposes of the religious right.
Let’s restate this slightly:
“Why – in order to placate a tiny minority of society i.e., mixed-race couples who wish to marry – should we as society make it far more difficult for parents to pass along their morals and values?”
This was BS before and it is BS now.
Preach any morals and values you want to your children. In this country, however, you are not free impose those values on those who do not agree with this kind of “morals and values.”
And don’t even begin to equate murder, theft, etc. that have a tangible negative impact on individuals with gay marriage that only allegedly impacts narrow religious thinking, no matter how honestly held.
“Why – in order to placate a tiny minority of society i.e., gay couples who wish to marry – should we as society make it far more difficult for parents to pass along their morals and values?”
The obverse is: Why, in order to make it easier for a minority of parents to teach their chldren that homosexuality is a grave (mortal) sin and an intrinsically disordered psychological condition, must we bar homosexual couples from obtaining civil marriage?
To follow up in Jim and Jean’s last two comments: arguments about justice premised on the “tiny minority status” of a group being denied justice are extremely dangerous arguments, when their gist is to undercut the claims of a group being denied justice.
Justice obtains and its demands remain whether a group has minority or majority status.
In fact, because tiny minorities are more susceptible to unjust treatment precisely because they are minorities, the demand for justice is usually more acute re: such minorities.
Pleasant and livable for whom? Most people find Brussell sprouts to be unplesant. That implies that eating Brussell should be banned. Same with haggis
I’d support a ban on the public consumption of haggis. Dreadful stuff, only to be eaten in the privacy of one’s home.
“O Globo reports the story in Portuguese, including this quote from Archbishop Grings…”
Thank you! I tried finding the original in Google and came up short.
Some sexual acts are demeaning because they are not Respectful of the Dignity of the Human Person. All homosexual sexual acts are demeaning because they are not Respectful of the Dignity of the Human Person. Any act that is not oriented towards The Will of God, is not an act of Love. Justice requires The Truth of Love, The Word Of God, Who remains consistent in every location, private or public.
” we are well within our rights to set what we (American society) consider to be reasonable limits on who we will allow to marry whom”
Ken –
You seem to think that a human right is something which is granted by the state. This is a Communist idea, not a Catholic one. It’s a theory of rights that led to the use of terror as an instrument of Soviet courts and the starvation of millions of Ukranians by Stalin’s government.
This theory is a terrible foundation for a just government.
When I think about the following questions, I become confused over why so many Catholics don’t like sodomy.
Is the use of a shot glass as a paperweight “intrinsically disordered”?
Does the survival of humankind require all sperm or only some sperm?
Do all non-procreative sex acts destroy human capacities to take out the garbage, return lost items, be truthful, and contemplate God as the primary cause making secondary causes to be and as Jesus crucified and risen, etc.?
It seems that sodomy doesn’t destroy our organs, doesn’t cause the demise of the species, doesn’t attack the common good of society, doesn’t destroy the capacity for flourishing in sodomites and others, and thus, doesn’t offend God.
So why don’t more people support sodomy? It can’t be a correct interpretation of Scripture. Truths about the orders of redemption and creation don’t conflict because each reflects the same wise, loving plan God is.
If God wills a creation in which sodomy doesn’t destroy our organs, doesn’t cause the demise of the species, doesn’t attack the common good of society, and doesn’t destroy the capacity for flourishing in sodomites and others, then the Holy Spirit isn’t sending people the message “boo for sodomy” through Scripture in the order of redemption.
I know it’s not considered useful to reply to the early 20th Century degenerate Thomistic handbook informed comments of Nancy Danielson, but forgive me.
Nancy, what do you make of those famous gay penguins? Let me guess, the original Sin of Adam has distorted nature so that, yes, some animals will exhibit the gay animal lifestyle.
And what about when you walk out to your car in the fall and see the windshield covered with the seed of sinful arboreal Onanism (i.e. pollen).
If this planet is teeming with life then it is necessarily teeming with sexuality, desperate to meet itself in another.
I only feel compelled to answer Nancy’s fascistic formula because I suffered for a long time under such doctrines, thinking that, unlike the decadent world at large, these offered some kind of deliverance. Now I’ve realized that I wasted a good decade of my life in self-loathing deference to clerical magic.
I remain and will remain a friend of Jesus of Nazareth. I appreciate him now more than I ever did while trying to believe that he was some Hellenistic god-man. I believe that Jesus as friend brings us all closer to the true meaning of Incarnation.
From The Beginning, God revealed that man was created separate from all the living creatures on earth to live in a complementary Loving relationship with God, reflective of the Love that is The Blessed Trinity. “Let US make man in OUR Image.” And thus, “God created man in His Image; in the Divine Image He created him; male and female He created them.”-Genesis
Love is not possessive, nor is it coercive, nor does it serve to manipulate. Love requires free will because Love is a Gift given freely from the Heart. God desires that we turn away from that which is evil and choose Love. God desires that we Love Him as He Loves us and always Has Loved us, From The Beginning.
Nancy, I see how you want to get the word out about love and Love. True, there are some differences in what we take our descriptions of love to exclude. But that doesn’t stop me from liking the work you undertake here in the comment boxes. If you take God to be saying x, then you must defend x. You make this honest response whether people like it or not. Say a prayer for me if you think of it sometime. (And if it comforts you, know that I’m not a’sodomizing, but rather just interested in this debate and what it means for how to relate to the magisterium of the shepherds.)
Since you like love, and Bl. Jan Ruusbroec likes love, please accept this Ruusbroec treat as my thanks to you in advance:
… the attractive power of the unity of God is nothing other than love without end which, through love, draws the Father and Son and all that lives into an eternal delight. And we desire to burn and be consumed in this love for all eternity, for it is here that the blessedness of spirits lies. Therefore we should found our whole life on a fathomless abyss so that we eternally sink into love and immerse ourselves in its fathomless depths. And in the same love we will rise up and rise above ourselves to an incomprehensible height. In this modeless love we will wander, and it shall bring us into the immeasurable breadth of God’s love. There we shall flow forth and flow out of ourselves into the uncomprehended abundance of God’s riches and goodness. There we will melt and be dissolved, eternally taken up in the maelstrom of God’s glory.
St. Paul says, “As all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ” (1 Corinthians 15.22 NRSV). I hope you have hope that any people you worry over, including those who might get sodomy wrong, finally get taken up into Ruusbroec’s “maelstrom of God’s glory.” And I hope you experience that very hope as God’s loving touch, his gift of healing and transforming us.
Nancy, I’ve tried to follow your last posting down the path that it seems you want those reading your postings to take: down the path of literalism.
And when I do so, I have to tell you, the path leads to bogs–in my case, at least.
You tell us to listen and believe (and, it appears, cease questioning–but how to believe without questioning and thereby reading understanding and internalization?):
“From The Beginning, God revealed that man was created separate from all the living creatures on earth to live in a complementary Loving relationship with God, reflective of the Love that is The Blessed Trinity. Let US make man in OUR Image.’”
And then: The Blessed Trinity, which Consists of Three Male Persons, makes Man in His image, and we somehow end up with male AND female.
And then your conclusion:
“God desires that we Love Him as He Loves us and always Has Loved us, From The Beginning.”
God wants us to Love Him as He Loves. From the Beginning.
In the beginning, God made the world out of the overflowing love that moves constantly between the three persons of the blessed trinity (sorry: God made the World out of the Love that moves constantly between the Three Persons of The Blessed Trinity).
Who are all male.
Listen and believe. Don’t question. Walk down the path of literalism with Me.
But that path leads to a bog as I try to follow meekly, with the signposts you’ve given me here.
Are you saying that the model of human love is a tripartite same-sex relationship?
I’m lost. I’ll admit it. But there seems to be a problem with the signposts and where they lead.
To get me along the path and not have me end up in a bog, I think you’ll need signposts that explain a bit more–e.g,, the difference between literal truth and metaphorical truth in religious statements; the reason gender (and gender roles) are all-important and unquestionable if I expect to be in communion with The Blessed Trinity, etc.
With the three male persons who made Man in His own Image, and ended up with Male and Female, who are somehow central to the drama of salvation by being and remaining male and female with all that this implies World Without End.
Sorry for a typo in the third paragraph of my posting above.
It reads now, “. . . but how to believe without questioning and thereby reading understanding and internalization?).
It should read “. . . but how to believe without questioning and thereby understanding and internalizing?).
William, the fact that you could even suggest that I was implying that “the model of human love is a tripartite same -sex relationship” reveals how you have manipulated the meaning of complementary Love, and what little respect you actually have for The Word of God and God’s intention for Conjugal Love.
Nancy, I’m sorry you think I have little respect for the Word of God or God’s intention for Conjugal Love.
From my standpoint, it’s respect for God’s word that motivates my questions to you.
Literalism seems to me to demean the word of God. The implication that God’s word is somehow easily appropriated, or that you or I clearly understand “God’s intention” for anything, seems to me to debase the coinage of the powerful, transformative word of God.
I’m thinking here along the lines of the great Swiss theologian Karl Barth, who noted that biblical literalism robs the word of God of its power to transform us, because this approach assumes that the text is patent, manageable, something to be handled like a tool rather than to bow before in the recognition that we will never utterly fathom that transformative word.
To the put the point differently, Literalism Betrays the Powerful Word of God, Nancy.
I’m pointing out to you that we need to work (and dialogue) in order to understand the meaning of texts that seem altogether clear to you. We need to do that in order to do more than parrot the texts and what We Think They Mean. We need to do that in order to internalize the texts and make them a part of the foundations of our spirituality.
I’m also pointing out–and had hoped to do that with a little jocularity–that literalism leads us into inextricable tangles (bogs, I called them). Because The Word of God is not Meant To Be Taken Literally.
It has far more meaning and truth than a superficial literal replication can capture or transmit.
(And God’s Intention for Males and Females and Conjugal Love may turn out to be revealed through the reading of the Word of God by Some of Those People We Regard as Straying from the Path, even Homosexuals).
If We Would Only Listen to Them with the Respect Due to Brothers and Sisters in Christ.
It is not literalism that betrays the Word of God, it is those who call The Truth a lie, From The Beginning.
And, again, in Catholic teaching, it is not the case that marriage is only, or even primarily, for reproduction. That is obsolete teaching. So when Catholic leaders seek to express to the wider culture that marriage is important, why do they only talk about reproduction? Especially w.r.t. CIVIL marriage? They aren’t representing the breadth of our own tradition, but a 13th-century version of it.
Plus, IMHO, what contemporary culture need to be reminded or vis a vis marriage is not that it can be reproductive, but that therein lies the possibility of a public and committed partnership that makes us all (partners and society) better. Anyone can reproduce–why aren’t Christian leaders calling all of us, believers and non-believers alike, to engage the love possible in marriage more deeply?
I’ve offerred to write a piece on gay marriage for a French review, and like Lisa I am finding it a tough subject to handle. The above discussion will be very valuable to me.
Ken, I agree that our sexually permissive society of course encourages people with desires of which we disapprove to claim rights and freedoms as much as anyone else. It is rather hypocritical of a sexually permissive person to come down like a ton of bricks on women who have abortions or on pedophiles. However, gay marriage is the polar opposite of sexual permissiveness. It is actually the application to gays of the rigors of monogamy.
“The question of gay marriage involves whether or not we- i.e., American society – will heed the teachings of the Catholic Church and the Islamic, Buddhist and Jewish faiths (among others), regarding the problems associated with homosexuality,”
First, there is no single monolith here. Second, even when there has been an approximation to an orthodox line — as in the highly controverted Vatican documents of 1975 and 1986 — it has visibly frayed. John Paul I and Card. Schoenborn are only the tip of an iceberg in calling for respect for lasting gay relationships and civil unions. Buddhism can hardly be said to have a position, and the Dalai Lama has made some very gay-friendly remarks.
So it is not a matter of “heeding” but of “dialogue” with all available sources of wisdom, dialogue in which both parties can be expected to grow and change further. It’s what Newman called Development.
” we are well within our rights to set what we (American society) consider to be reasonable limits on who we will allow to marry whom”
Ken –
You seem to think that a human right is something which is granted by the state. This is a Communist idea, not a Catholic one. It’s a theory of rights that led to the use of terror as an instrument of Soviet courts and the starvation of millions of Ukranians by Stalin’s government.
This theory is a terrible foundation for a just government.
Ann – Wow that was a whopper; what a ramble. I see you have learned to take sentences out of context too. The part that caught your attention is the last line in my statement.
Of course I did not say our rights come from the state; they don’t.
I said our rights are not unlimited.
Ken wrote – “Certainly marriage is a basic human right, but it is not an unlimited right. Speech is a basic human right, but we do not allow people to needlessly yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Marriage is limited by the society in which one lives, limited by laws and social customs that spring from the social mores held by that society. In fact you began your post noting exactly this point. All societies place limits on the right of marriage. No society allows everyone to marry whomever they choose; all societies have rules regarding who is allowed to marry whom
————————-
To help clarify, everyone has the right to own property, however this right is limited in that I do not have the right to start a junkyard or a supermarket in the middle of my residential neighborhood. I own my house and the land on which it is situated, but I must abide by the laws that govern residential property.
In a similar manner, marriage is a basic right, but it is not unlimited. It is well established that society can place limits on who is allowed to marry whom. For example – and before the wailing and tearing of robes begins let me state for all, that I realize homosexuality is different than the examples I am about to cite. I cite examples only to show that the state is well within bounds to place limits on marriage.
For example then; we Americans do not allow a man to marry his sister or close relatives, we do not allow child marriages, and we do not allow polygamy. Again, let me emphasise that I realize incest, polygamy, and child marriage are different than homosexual marriage. I use them only as examples of the state (society) placing limits on who is allowed to marry whom.
It is worth noting that some societes do allow polygamy and child marriage, and some societies allow gay marriage. In fact we in America are trying to calmly discuss whether or not we (society) will allow gay marriage.
But the question of the state being withing its rights to place limits on marriage is a very red and very old herring.
I hope this calms your apparent fear that I am turning into a Stalinist or a Communist.
;-)
Why – in order to placate a tiny minority of society i.e., gay couples who wish to marry – should we as society make it far more difficult for parents to pass along their morals and values?
Ken,
Why should Catholics, wherever they are in a majority, allow Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on, to practice their own religions? Doesn’t it make it more difficult for Catholics to pass along their morals and values to their children when the children are exposed to other (and, of course, false) religions, and may even wind up marrying someone from a false religion?
Let us not pretend that we are not aware that Commonweal professes to be Catholic, David, despite the fact that there are those on this blog who continue to call The Word of God a lie.(you know who you are) For those who may simply be mistaken:
Genesis 2:24 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/genesis/genesis2.htm
Matthew 19:5 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew19.htm
Mark 10:17 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/mark/mark10.htm
Ephesians 5:31 http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/ephesians/ephesians5.htm
Nancy, your last two postings use the term “lie.” The most recent one says that there are people on this blog who continue to call the Word of God a lie.
That’s a very large claim. I’m not aware that there are those on the Commonweal blog who represent the position you claim to see among some bloggers here.
The point seems to me to be the following: none of us owns the Word of God. Not in the exclusive way that some people appear to imagine they do.
None of us has fathomed or can fathom the mind of God.
It appears to me more profoundly religious, more honest, and yes, more Catholic, to assume that we are all journeying together towards a shared, always imperfect understanding of God’s Word and God’s mind.
And on that journey, the contributions of everyone count, including the contributions of those we’ve decided to shut out as illicit Catholics or immoral Catholics–and the contributions of those who may not even be Catholic.
The Spirit is active in the entire cosmos, not just within the tiny confines of “our” church, surely?
Per David – “Why should Catholics, wherever they are in a majority, allow Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and so on, to practice their own religions? Doesn’t it make it more difficult for Catholics to pass along their morals and values to their children when the children are exposed to other (and, of course, false) religions, and may even wind up marrying someone from a false religion?”
———–
It is important to be practical and fair. We live in a pluralistic society and diversity can be a source of strength. In spite of the diverse notions we hold, most Americans are Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or Deists, which is to say most Americans at the very least believe in God. While these philosophies obviously differ in the particulars, the fact is they do have much in common.
For example one thing held in common between Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and most Christian denominations is that homosexuality is not the norm, and that state-sanctioned gay marriage is not a good idea.
When organizing a society and deciding what that society will promote, what it will simply allow and/or tolerate, and what in fact it will prohibit and/or discourage, while fairness is certainly part of the equation, conscience and common values obviously play the larger role.
Making changes to a society so as to further the common good depends in large part on societal rules being set up, based on common notions, that is to say based on values held by the majority. Those ideas and values of course are influenced by individual consciences and by the religious beliefs of the various groups that make up the society.
In focusing on the disagreements between the major religions in America, you are straying a bit off course David. In spite of the title of this thread, the discussion has turned to whether or not American society – or any society for that matter – even has the right to dis-allow gay marriage.
I maintain that a society (any society) has the right to (among other things) prohibit gay marriage; that any society has the right to – based on what the majority of society thinks and believes – to do that which it (collectively) thinks is best for the common good.
Ann and some others here do not seem to agree.
I am not exactly sure where you are going with your thoughts David, but unless it is sarcasm; your post seems to question the very basis of the sort of cooperation and consensus building that makes society possible.
Jimmy sez: “Let’s restate this slightly:
“Why – in order to placate a tiny minority of society i.e., mixed-race couples who wish to marry – should we as society make it far more difficult for parents to pass along their morals and values?”
This was BS before and it is BS now.
Preach any morals and values you want to your children. In this country, however, you are not free impose those values on those who do not agree with this kind of “morals and values.”
And don’t even begin to equate murder, theft, etc. that have a tangible negative impact on individuals with gay marriage that only allegedly impacts narrow religious thinking, no matter how honestly held.
————————
Wow – please spare us your sanctimony Jimmy.
The Catholic Church never did condemn mixed-race marriages.
You may now climb down from your high horse.
The fact of the matter is that any society has the right to set the rules about any number of matters. In this case we happen to be discussing whether or not we Americans will decide to allow state-sanctioned marriage of gay couples.
For you to say that nobody has the right to “impose” values on you that are held by the majority of society is sheer (and shrill) nonsense. Of course society can and routinely does impose the values of the majority – that is what societies do.
You might – and I emphasize For Example – think that mercy killing or euthanasia is ok. Society does not think so and so no matter your personal view on the matter, society will not allow you to engage in the practice; it will not allow you to act on your beliefs.
The point is Jimmy, that of course society can set up rules under which we as individuals operate.
The question then it; what rules will we as a society put in force?
More specific to this discussion, is whether or not we (society) will allow gay marriage.
We can disagree on whther or not state-sanctioned gay marriage is a good idea, but surely you must cede that a society has the right of self determination, the right to establish its own norms based on the values individual in the society hold in common.
Nancy, you write “[T]here are those on this blog who continue to call The Word of God a lie.”
I grant that people might call the Word of God a lie without using those very words, but I bet it happens only infrequently. I bet it’s not happening on this thread. We need to follow a procedure that will help us identify when it happens.
Is there a good test I can use that will cause me to make a correct judgment on whether this or that statement calls the Word of God a lie? In a contest between two people over whether a particular statement calls the Word of God a lie, how do I determine who is the winner?
One test I already know about holds that if a statement is contrary to or contradicts a customary interpretation of the Word of God, then that statement calls the Word of God a lie.
I don’t think that test will help us. It only works if I know in advance that the customary interpretation is true. But if selecting a good interpretation is what I’m up to, then I do not already know that the customary interpretation is true.
So if I’m not sure that the customary interpretation is true (St. Cyprian said that sometimes custom is merely error grown old), then I have not yet identified that interpretation with the Word of God. And if I haven’t done that, then when I contradict or say something contrary to that interpretion, I am not contradicting or saying something contrary to what I take to be the Word of God. And if I am not doing that, I’m not really calling the Word of God a lie. Know what I mean? Isn’t that what’s happening with the people who disagree with you and what you take to be (probably correctly) the teaching of the Church authorities?
Although it is true that sometimes” custom is merely error grown old”, and error begets error, this does not change the fact that The Church recognizes that The Word of God IS The Truth and for this reason, there is no lie or error in Him.
Nancy, it seems significant to me that you agree with St. Cyprian that custom is sometimes merely error grown old.
And so one of the central questions being discussed on this thread is how we recognize that something we’re accustomed to taking for granted as “the” truth (or Truth, as you prefer to say) is simply error grown old.
Ken writes, “For example one thing held in common between Catholics, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and most Christian denominations is that homosexuality is not the norm, and that state-sanctioned gay marriage is not a good idea.”
It seems important to think about that statement in light of St. Cyprian’s recognition that custom may sometimes be error grown old. Setting aside the question of the consensus Ken assumes across religious traditions re: same-sex marriage (I don’t see the uniformity Ken does), I’d immediately want to note in reply to Ken that “one thing held in common” in many religions and cultures for centuries was that women are inferior to men.
And should be held in subjugation to men as a result.
We no longer recognize those assumptions as “the” Truth, even if they happen to be held in common by the majority of world religions. We have, many of us, decided that these assumptions do not accurately reflect what God’s Word is saying to us–even when we can find texts here and there that seem to affirm male domination of women, and even when we know that there is a long, ancient tradition that male domination of women is God’s intention for men and women.
How did we come to the growing consensus that those long-held beliefs, based on the Word of God, are error grown old–no matter how venerable and customary they are?
I’d propose that we’ve come to that consensus by way of respectful dialogue that tries to bring everyone to the table, in which any one of relinquishes the claim to unilateral ownership of the Word of God and privileged access to the mind of God. (And so those minorities over which the majority thinks it has the right to rule simply because it IS the majority may be extremely important to our discernment process as we listen to the Word of God.)
I am not exactly sure where you are going with your thoughts David, but unless it is sarcasm; your post seems to question the very basis of the sort of cooperation and consensus building that makes society possible.
Ken,
My point is that although it agreed that society can make laws and otherwise enforce its will for the common good, there are also matters which society has no right to decide. No matter how it may benefit society as a whole, for example, no part of the population may be enslaved. And although it is generally agreed now that all should have religious freedom, this wasn’t the case in the past. If I am a white supremacist, it may make it more difficult for me to instill my values in my children when there are laws against discriminating against black people, but that is just too bad. If I am a Catholic and want to teach my children that divorce and remarriage is wrong, it may make it more difficult for me when civil divorce and remarriage is permitted, but would you argue that there should be no civil divorce and remarriage just to make it easier for Catholics to teach their children Catholic values?
You have not made an argument that gay marriage is harmful to society. You have made an argument that a lot of people are against it, and they would have a hard time convincing their children to be against it if it is sanctioned by the state.
I maintain that a society (any society) has the right to (among other things) prohibit gay marriage; that any society has the right to – based on what the majority of society thinks and believes – to do that which it (collectively) thinks is best for the common good.
Ken,
We have a Constitution with a Bill of Rights in this country precisely because we believe the right of the majority is limited when it comes to making decisions that affect the minority.
While I would not say that interracial marriage is equivalent to same-sex marriage, nevertheless there was a time when the majority in society believed it had a right to prohibit interracial marriage. Was that majority correct? Society does not have an absolute right to treat one group differently from another group just because the majority wants to. The task regarding gay marriage is to determine whether it is acceptable — even if the majority wants to — to refuse marriage to same-sex couples.
The Supreme Court in 1986 struck down sodomy laws applying to gay people. The majority of Americans may have believed that sodomy was wrong, but the court held it was not a matter where the majority could impose its will and beliefs on the minority.
We believe in freedom and equality in America, and you seem to be avoiding the question of when the majority may not make decisions for the minority.
Ken: this may come as a huge surprise to you, but the Catholic Church is NOT the same as society!
I take it from your comments that you support tyranny of the majority over the minority.
And to keep your knickers in a knot, I fully support the right of adults to enter into any kind of family relationship to which the involved parties give full and informed consent. Including polygamous relationships.
Does any religious group have to agree to or support this? No. Does any religious group have the right to prevent this? No.
There is no correlation between The Truth and error. If one compromises truth, one ends with error. The Truth is not a matter of opinion.
Our Founding Fathers did not provide for establishing a separate personhood based upon ancestry, sexual orientation or sexual preferences. For this reason, prohibiting interracial Marriage is unconstitutional, and allowing same-sex couples to marry is unconstitutional.
Our Founding Fathers declared, “We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” All Men are created equal, but not all women. When God created Adam, he then created all the Animals in order to make a Helpmeet for Adam, but no animal was good enough. So he created Eve, who was better than the Animals but not as good as Adam, whom she persuaded to eat the forbidden fruit.
St. Paul said, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.”
Man was made to be the leader, and woman the follower. Wives must submit to husbands. Women can submit to husbands because they are not created equal to men. Men must not submit to women or to other men.
Because men are equals, our Founding Fathers made it clear that they cannot marry each other, because an equal cannot submit to another equal. A man cannot submit to a man. Only a woman can submit to a man. Therefore a man cannot marry a man.
Women, not being equal to men, must submit to men. A woman must not submit to another woman, because no one must submit to a woman because women cannot be the head of anything, because they are like the Church, and the Church cannot submit to the Church. Therefore, a woman may not marry another woman.
Also, we find this truth to be self-evident, that there were only Founding Fathers and not Founding Mothers. If there had been only two Founding Fathers then the country would have two Fathers and no Mother and same-sex marriage would be constitutional. However, there were more than two Founding Fathers, and since, from the Beginning, marriage has been between one man and one woman (except for Abraham and David and Solomon etc.) consequently having more than two Founding Fathers would be polygamy, which from the beginning was not so because God did not create Adam and Eve and Flo.
Therefore, from the beginning, Truth has been Truth and there have been Three Persons in the Trinity and Love is not selfish and unborn infants are persons and homosexual persons do not exist and consequently cannot marry because nonexistent persons cannot show identification to obtain a marriage license.
Ken -
You seem to think that rights are what society agree they will be. OR is there such a thing as an inalienable right, a right constituted not by society/the state but by the simple fact of being human?
Ann – I am trying to understand; are you hinting that you think gay marriage is an “inalienable” right?
Ann – I am trying to understand; are you hinting that you think gay marriage is an “inalienable” right?
Ken,
Unless I have missed something, so far your entire argument has been that society has a right to impose its will for the common good. Although you haven’t explicitly said so, surely you don’t believe that society has an absolute right to decide every issue based on its idea of the common good. Up until fairly recently, there were laws forbidding blacks and whites to intermarry. Would you be willing to say that society has the right — if it believes it is for the common good — to forbid interracial marriage? Please note that I am not arguing that same-sex marriage is “the same” as interracial marriage. I am just asking you to tell us whether you feel society has an absolute right to determine who may marry and who may not.
David,
The fact is that whether anyone – nowadays – likes it or not, that the societies of old that you and Jimmy mention had the right to set the rules underwhich the peoples in those societies operated e.g., women’s status lower than men.
Now, you and I do not agree that women are inferior to men and so today – in our society – women have a more equal footing.
Likewise with Jimmy trotting out the rule in older American society that did not allow inter-racial marriage. The Catholic Church did not have a problem with inter-racial marriage, but – in those days, in the USA – the majority of society did not like it and so it was not allowed. As Jimmy kindly pointed out, the Catholic Church “is not the same as society”. Eventually society’s notions regarding race changed and on this particular point, American society moved so as to be more in line with Catholic teaching (thankfully), and Americans decided that American society would change its rules regarding inter-racial marriage. Accordingly, nowadays – in our society – interacial marriage is not a big deal.
The individual rules a particular society sets up are not what I am defending. I am simply stating that any society has the right to organize itself as the people in that society see fit.
Following this idea further, how a society sees fit to organize itself is naturally dependent on more than one factor. These things include but are not limited to; the notions of fairness that people in that society hold, their notions of religion and ethics, the common experience of the society, and their individual consciences.
David, you correctly mention our (American) Bill of Rights. Most societys do not have such a thing. We have the Bill of Rights because as a society, the majority of Americans would not approve the Constitution unless it was included. Why? Because the people in the generation of the Founding Fathers had just gotten out from under the British Crown and the majority of American society had a deep distrust of government.
I do not understand why you and Ann and Jimmy seem to have such a problem with a societal self-determination. Do not the people who live in a society have the right to determine the rules underwhich they will live, the rules underwhich they will operate?
Some primitive societies are very strict and patriarchal. Do you think they have the right to be that way? Should we make it our business to change tribal societies against their will? I do not think so.
I do not like the idea of public floggings, but the fact is that if the people in a given society have determined that is their way, the way they prefer to deal with criminal or misfits, that is their right; it is not my place to tell them their business.
If you do not think a society has the right to determine what it will allow and what it will not allow, it is difficult to even begin the discussion of whether or not we in America should or will allow gay marriage.
Finally David, you mention that I have not made an argument to show why gay marriage would be harmful to society. That is true. It is not my place (or job if you will) to prove why we should not allow gay marriage. The status quo is that in the main, US society does not recognize gay marriage. It is the job of those who want to change society to make an argument – and convince the majority – why we should change the status quo to their liking. Consider if you will, another example. Let us imagine I think the speed limit on the freeway should be raised from 70 mph to 90 mph. Because the speed limit already is 70 mph and most are happy with or resign to that, it would then be my job (my place) to convince the majority of my fellow citizens why raising the speed limit to 90 mph would be good for society, or at least why raising it to 90 mph would not be harmful to society.
You and other who advocate gay marriage sometimes try to reverse the norm; here you try to put the onus on me as to why we should not try to change the status quo. In a way you are trying to force or goad me into trying to prove a negative, when in fact it is your job to prove a positive i.e., it is your job to convince me and others who agree with me (i.e. the majority) that gay marriage would either be good for society or at least that it would neutral towards it. From a logic and argument standpoint, you seem to have this the wrong way ‘round.
Another example is abortion; I do not think it should be allowed. However I understand it is not the job of the abortionist to prove to everyone why society should allow him to make his living by performing abortions. Society already does allow him to make his living via abortion. I understand it is my job and the job of all pro-lifers, to convince society that abortion should not be allowed. We – the prolifers – are the ones requesting that society change the status quo; the abortionist is not requesting any change in the status quo. Therefore it is the job of pro-lifers to convince the majority that outlawing abortion would either be good for society or that at least it would be neutral toward society.
Ann – my answer to your point about racial intermarriage is in my post to David.
Ken, you say that the Catholic church did not have a problem with interracial marriage.
As a New Orleanian, Ann would know far more about the following than I do. I know some of this history only because 1) I did an undergraduate and graduate degree at universities in New Orleans, 2) I lived in New Orleans for a number of years after I graduated, 3) I returned there to teach at Xavier University, an HBCU, for 7 years, and 4) I myself do have roots in New Orleans, though my family moved by the 1830s to the Natchitoches area of the state.
As you probably know, there was a longstanding tradition in Louisiana of the arrangement called placage, in which women of color lived with and often had children by white men who then later married white wives. From what I can learn about this system in both New Orleans and the Natchitoches area, though the church itself may not have refused to marry these interracial couples, the law of heavily Catholic Louisiana forbade their marriage.
And I do know from researching the history of one family, the Metoyer family, of the Natchitoches region, who descend from a liaison of a slave woman and a white planter, that some of the local clergy did everything possible to break up that arrangement and to force Metoyer to take a white wife. I also know from college friends who were descended from these Creole families of color that they experienced tremendous prejudice from brother and sister Catholics for generations.
I also frequently heard from Sisters of the Holy Family in New Orleans, who were founded by Henriette Delille, a Creole woman of color whose family expected her to be the placee of a white man, that Henriette Delille was not accepted by any white religious community when she sought to be a nun. She did so with the profound conviction that she had a religious vocation, and she did not want to spend her life as the mistress of a white man.
I have also been told by Sisters of the Holy Family that Delille was informed she could not join a white religious community because women of color couldn’t keep the vow of chastity. So she simply and courageously founded her own community, for women of color.
I was also told in my years in New Orleans that some of the prestigious societies of local Catholic women had a “ministry” of sorts for many years, to spot engagement announcements in the local paper, which showed a white person and a person with traceable African ancestry who were planning to marry. I’ve been told these Catholic women’s groups would then report the couple to the state and prevent their marriage under miscegenation laws.
It may well be true that the church itself permitted couples to marry across racial lines. But it is also undeniable that racism, including opposition to interracial marriage, is a deep part of our history. It’s also undeniable that at many points in American history, the Catholic church did very little to oppose all of this institutionalized racism, and that the church lived comfortably with it. There are, of course, conspicuous examples to the contrary–conspicuous precisely because they point to prophetic witness of a small minority of Catholics willing to go against the grain.
It’s one of those errors grown old by custom that we have begun to repudiate, I hope, this longstanding racism, which did include opposition to interracial marriage on the part of many Catholics. As I believe we will one day repudiate the cruelty and injustice towards gay human beings with which we’ve lived comfortably for a long time, believing that cruelty and injustice to be founded in the same scriptures to which we’ve turned to justify racism.
I do not understand why you and Ann and Jimmy seem to have such a problem with a societal self-determination. Do not the people who live in a society have the right to determine the rules underwhich they will live, the rules underwhich they will operate?
Ken,
A society has a right to determine its rules as long as they are just. A society does not have a right to legalize slavery or racial discrimination or discrimination against religion. We should always be careful not to judge societies in other times or other cultures for encouraging or permitting what we know to be wrong today (such as slavery), but the fact remains that something like slavery is wrong because it is wrong, not merely because a majority of people say it is wrong. This is a very basic teaching of Catholicism — that the concepts of right and wrong do not depend on public opinion and do not change with circumstances. Slavery was always wrong, even when practiced by those who didn’t think it was wrong.
Finally David, you mention that I have not made an argument to show why gay marriage would be harmful to society. That is true. It is not my place (or job if you will) to prove why we should not allow gay marriage.
In your message above of May 7th, 2010 at 3:09 pm, you wrote the following:
That seems like a pretty good approach to me, but so far your argument consists only of saying, “The majority is against gay marriage, and the majority gets to make the rules.” You are taking the approach you yourself advocated for dealing with the question.
David, please let me comment on the important points you made.
Per David – “A society has a right to determine its rules as long as they are just. A society does not have a right to legalize slavery or racial discrimination or discrimination against religion.”
Ken – Sure it does. I am not saying all societies are just or fair or that they are correct. I am saying a society is within its rights to organize itself in the manner in which the majority of those who live in that society see fit.
Per david – “We should always be careful not to judge societies in other times or other cultures for encouraging or permitting what we know to be wrong today (such as slavery), but the fact remains that something like slavery is wrong because it is wrong, not merely because a majority of people say it is wrong.”
Ken – Obviously slavery was and is wrong; that is not my point. The point is that societies have the right to organize themselves as the majority in those societies see fit. Abortion is wrong, but since the majority of people in our society do not think it is wrong, in American society, we allow abortion.
Do you agree with me that the burden of persuasion, the burden of convincing the majority in our society to change our laws so as to outlaw abortion is on us pro-lifers? Do you then likewise agree that those who want to change our laws so as to allow gay marriage bear a similar burden?
Per david – “This is a very basic teaching of Catholicism — that the concepts of right and wrong do not depend on public opinion and do not change with circumstances. Slavery was always wrong, even when practiced by those who didn’t think it was wrong.”
Ken – You are correct David, but we are not arguing about whether the rules of any society are just or fair or right or wrong. I am saying societies have the right to set the rules for themselves, as the majority in those societies think best, and you and Ann and Jimmy seem to disagree.
Thanks for your time, and I hope this at least helps clarify the argument.
” So when Catholic leaders seek to express to the wider culture that marriage is important, why do they only talk about reproduction?”
Lisa, is this a fair characterization of what Catholic leaders actually express? To take two top-of-mind examples of what Catholic leaders have expressed, it doesn’t square with what is found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, nor with the recent US Bishops document on marriage.
I am saying a society is within its rights to organize itself in the manner in which the majority of those who live in that society see fit.
Ken,
When you says “society is within it’s rights,” where do those rights come from? Catholics believe that rights come from God. The Catechism says, “Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.” So societies have no right to make any rules they want just because the majority approves.
So I disagree with your fundamental premise. Society is within its rights to organize itself in the manner in which the majority of those who live in that society see fit only if their plan of organization is just. Catholics believe that unjust laws are not really laws, and may (or must) be broken.
A society does not have the right to set itself up in such a way that it violates the fundamental rights of individuals.
If you mean the majority can do anything it wants to because it holds enough power to always get its way, that’s one thing. But that has nothing to do with what it has a right to do.
David, it just seems to me that statements such as this: “Society is within its rights to organize itself in the manner in which the majority of those who live in that society see fit only if their plan of organization is just.” … probably support those who argue that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Opponents of homosexual marriage acknowledge that the electoral math is trending against them. Even though state ballot referendums to legalize homosexual marriage or amend state constitutions almost always result in the defeat of pro-homosexual-marriage advocates, the gains among those who advocate for homosexual rights are pretty impressive. Among young adults, probaby a majority favor homosexual marriage already. If the numbers continue to trend the way they have, it seems likely that today’s election-night losses will become eleciton-night victories in just a few years.
In this environment, those who oppose homosexual marriage are left to argue that, regardless of what the majority prefers, homosexual marriage is wrong.
Continuing the thought of my previous comment, I will don my Alvin Toffler hat for a moment and make a prediction.
Currently, the marriages at which I officiate are recognized as valid and legitimate by two organizations: the Catholic Church and the State of Illinois.
Let us suppose something that is not far-fetched: sometime in the next few years, it will become legal for homosexual persons to marry in the State of Illinois.
When that happens, homosexual persons who wish to marry presumably will have a number of choices for a wedding venue: they could have a civil ceremony before a judge; and I would think that some Christian churches will also permit homosexual marriages, officiated by the church’s ministers.
But of course, such a wedding won’t be possible in the Catholic Church.
Here is my prediction: at some point after homosexual marriage becomes legal, and after the initial controversy dies down, and homosexual marriage becomes more or less unremarkable, legislation will be introduced that penalizes ministers, such as Catholic clergy, who refuse to officiate at homosexual marriages.
This would be in line with legislative proposals to curtail that conscientious objections of Catholic health care workers to dispense artificial birth control or participate in abortions, or that would mandate that Catholic health care institutions offer such services.
Here is my prediction: at some point after homosexual marriage becomes legal, and after the initial controversy dies down, and homosexual marriage becomes more or less unremarkable, legislation will be introduced that penalizes ministers, such as Catholic clergy, who refuse to officiate at homosexual marriages.
Jim, not to be flip, but I’m having trouble following that. Should we forbid two Jews from marrying each other out of fear that one day Catholic priests may be forced to officiate at marriages between Jews? Sorry, just not following you here. The state does not interfere with our current marriage regulations, whereby lots of people are refused Catholic marriages. Why do you think it would be different in this case?
David, it just seems to me that statements such as this: “Society is within its rights to organize itself in the manner in which the majority of those who live in that society see fit only if their plan of organization is just.” … probably support those who argue that homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to marry.
Jim,
That is a point that will be argued once it is established that society can’t do anything it wants! Whether or not same-sex couples have a right to marry can’t be argued until it is established that society must respect people’s rights. Ken hasn’t conceded that yet! Once he concedes that there exists rights that society cannot take away, then we can discuss whether same-sex marriage is one of them.
Eric, I thought the parallel was pretty straightforward. Why is it controversial that a pharmacist would refuse to dispense the “morning-after” pill? Presumably, pharmacists refuse service to other classes of people, e.g. minors and the indigent, without controversy. What is it about the morning-after pill that engenders a public and legal controversy?
If we’re going to use Catholic opposition to same-sex marriage as a basis for arguing against same-sex marriage, while playing interracial and same-sex marriage against each other by claiming that the Catholic church has historically supported the former, I wonder if fidelity to the truth also demands that we look at another set of data:
1. Countries with an historically strong Catholic heritage have been at the forefront of nations permitting same-sex marriage (e.g., Spain);
2. Polls in the U.S. show American Catholics supporting same-sex marriage or unions at a much higher rate than evangelical Protestants do.
Do these data indicate that, despite hierarchical opposition to same-sex marriage, Catholics in many places actually support same-sex marriage? If so, is this, in part, due to the Catholic church’s stress on social justice?
Jim,
Catholic clergy are in an altogether different category than pharmacists! Pharmacists are licensed to practice by the state. “Federal and State laws regulate all pharmacies, wholesalers, repackers and manufacturers that manufacture, distribute and dispense prescriptions drugs and prescription devices” (see here). With that degree of government involvement, it is not strange at all for the government to require pharmacists and pharmacies to follow certain rules. That is far, far different than requiring a minister, priest, or rabbi to do marry a couple ineligible for marriage in their religious tradition. Have any divorced Catholics sued because they cannot remarry in the Church? Has a law been passed to this effect? Are Catholic priests required to marry unbaptized Jews?
Among other things, the morning-after pill is an “emergency contraceptive.” It must be taken within a certain time period in order to be effective. It is reasonable to assure that a woman who seeks emergency contraception need not go from one pharmacy to another to another trying to find one that carries the morning-after pill.
I am not sure what laws are in effect and where, but I am pretty sure no individual pharmacist is forced to dispense the morning-after pill. It is pharmacies, not pharmacists that are mandated to do so. But where state laws require pharmacies to stock and dispense the morning-after pill, if there is only one pharmacist on duty and it is against his conscience to dispense the drug, he may be required to. If there is a federal law about dispensing emergency contraception, I can’t find it.
Jim, I’m with David. I don’t see a parallel between providing a product in a regulated environment and free practice of religion.
I know a pharmacist in SD who does not carry such pills. He does not like the idea of the so called “morning after pill” and otherwise notes that those pills simply don’t move fast enough to warrant his buying and keeping them on inventory.
Why should he bear that loss? No matter how high and mighty or philosophical some folks try to make out, a pharmacy is a store that sells things, there is no “emergency” regarding contraception, and someone wanting abortion pills can just go down the street to another pharmacy and buy some.
In any case, the owner of a retail store (in this case a pharmacy) needs to cover his or her costs, pay their employees and at the end of the day, hopefully earn a profit.
“Catholic clergy are in an altogether different category than pharmacists! Pharmacists are licensed to practice by the state. “Federal and State laws regulate all pharmacies, wholesalers, repackers and manufacturers that manufacture, distribute and dispense prescriptions drugs and prescription devices” (see here). With that degree of government involvement, it is not strange at all for the government to require pharmacists and pharmacies to follow certain rules. That is far, far different than requiring a minister, priest, or rabbi to do marry a couple ineligible for marriage in their religious tradition. ”
Well … marriage, among all the other things it is, is also a legal arrangment. It really is regulated by the state. That’s why getting a divorce involves lawyers and courts.
The state also determines who is eligible to officiate at a wedding, just as it determines who is eligible to dispense controlled substances. That the State of Illinois recognizes the weddings celebrated in my parish church as legal and binding is because the state has granted authority to clergy of the Catholic Church to perform these ceremonies. In theory, the state could revoke that recognition, and then, in the eyes of the state, a couple who got married in our church would not really be married. Legally speaking, marriage, and all of the legal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage, is whatever the state says it is.
I believe there are churches that are sympathetic to the situation of homosexuals in stable relationships that have conducted marriage ceremonies of a sort for these couples, with all parties understanding perfectly well that, in the eyes of the state, the couple is not married. I think Timothy Luke Johnson wrote about one in Commonweal a few years ago? If I’m right in this understanding, then these are real-life illustrations of this point.
So I disagree that it’s “far, far different”. There are parallels. Most of us can’t dispense controlled substances, and most of us can’t officiate at weddings, in both cases because the state says so.
Ken,
I don’t think there is any law in South Dakota that requires pharmacists to carry the morning-after pill. But does he carry birth-control pills? I don’t see why one would have a moral objection to the morning-after pill and not have an objection to birth-control pills.
Legally speaking, marriage, and all of the legal rights, responsibilities and benefits that flow from marriage, is whatever the state says it is.
Jim,
Assuming the state wanted to penalize clergy who wouldn’t officiate at the weddings of same-sex couples — and I think it is a wild assumption — the worst it could do is withdraw their ability to perform legal weddings. That would mean any couple wanting to get married in the Church could be wed by a judge or justice of the peace and then have a Catholic wedding. Or they could do it in reverse order. I can’t imagine this every happening, but how much of a burden would that be to Catholic clergy? All the groundwork for a legal marriage is laid with the state anyway. The Church doesn’t issue marriage licenses.
I think your prediction is part of the “victim mentality.” Is it possibly you secretly hope the state will exact some penalty for not going along with same-sex marriage?
Perhaps someone can explain how refusing to condone demeaning sexual acts is the same as discriminating against a person?
Nancy, I think at least part of the answer to your question is in this AP article about the refusal of a Catholic school in Hingham, MA, to accept the child of a lesbian couple as a pupil in the school: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jiATz-H-WPYxoZ0rhzd8oYgjOxvQD9FLFP3G1.
As one of the child’s mothers states,
“The church’s stance against homosexual relationships was no shock, but the woman said she didn’t think it was a deal-breaker, given the church’s ‘many variations of tolerance,’ such as its inclusion of families of divorce, which the church doesn’t recognize.
‘There are many different non-traditional families that fall under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, and I guess we assumed we would fall under one of those,’ she said.”
The point I take from these observations: the church practices “many variations of tolerance” when it comes to the “demeaning sexual acts” of heterosexual people and heterosexual couple.
When it comes to the lives of those who are gay and lesbian, the church seems to practice an unyielding purism that singles out those persons, and their purported “acts,” as if they unilaterally encapsulate “demeaning” sexuality.
The church is not actively crusading to pass laws that target heterosexuals who practice “demeaning sexual acts.” It is actively crusading to remove even the right of CIVIL marriage from same-sex couples.
There’s a glaring double standard at work here that undermines what the Catholic church tries to teach about social justice.
Does this information help with your question? I hope so.
David – I suspect you are correct about SD law not requiring pharmacists to carry abortion pills. As for oral contraception pills, I suppose he sells them.
As for “moral objections”, I am not sure that is why he doesn’t carry the morning-after pills. He just said he “doesn’t like the idea” of them. Now that might mean he does not like them for some medical or liability reason, or because they simply do not sell, I did not press the point.
I sympathize with store-owner Pharmacists; they are not philosophers and they are not social workers. They are men or women (in this case a man) who are both educated in pharmacology and who also own and run their own business. Of course they tend their pharmacy, but they also sell other retail goods (greeting cards, gift items, diapers, after shave etc.) and must tend their building, pay their utilities, pay taxes, make payroll, sponsor local civic groups (ball team or the like), be a good local busininess booseter (e.g., Chamber of Commerce), and earn a profit. Not all pharmacies are part of big-box store chains.
I realize, as most folks do, that pharmacies need to be licensed and as such, regulated by the state. However it is best if the state does not over-burden these small business people with petty rules that, for the sake of making some social point, either truly violate their consciences, or needlessly make their jobs more difficult.
Pharmacies should be regulated by doctors and pharmacists rather than meddlers, pharmaceutical firms, or social activist gadflies.
William, where in our Constitution does it state that there exists a civil right to practice demeaning sexual acts? Homosexual sexual acts are not persons, they are acts.
One cannot profess to be Catholic and tolerate or condone homosexual sexual acts, simultaneously.
Nancy, your question had to do with discrimination.
And, having had a clear-cut case of discrimination practiced by the church itself pointed out to you, you continue to defend discrimination.
If you imagine that heterosexuals don’t practice “demeaning sexual acts,” then I would suggest to you that your education about what people do and who people are is somewhat defective.
The Catholic church teaches that all genital acts not ordered to procreation are disordered and therefore, by implication, “demeaning.”
I don’t see the church advocating to outlaw access to contraception. Do you?
And I don’t see Catholic schools, which, as the Massachusetts mother rightly notes, practice “many variations of tolerance” with regards to these issues and family arrangements, excluding any families right now except those with same-sex parents.
This is the Essence of Discrimination, Nancy. And it really is impossible to keep talking credibly about Love when the church Discriminates.
It is you, William, that desires that The Catholic Church not discriminate between acts of Love, and sin, not I.
Please eloborate William – to which “demeaning sexual acts” and “genital acts” (now there’s a phrase!) are you referring?
Ha, ha –
;-)
Ken,
According to the statistics I have seen, 95% of Catholic married couples use some form of artificial birth control. It would be interesting to hear Nancy apply her theories to that fact. Accepting for the sake of argument all of the Church’s teachings on sexuality, why would it not be a worse sin for a Catholic married couple to use contraceptives than for a same-sex couple to engage in homosexual acts? The married couple has a licit means of sexual expression. They are not coping with an “intrinsically disordered” inclination. If they want to avoid pregnancy, they can use NFP. Their marriage was sacramental, making the bond between them of a different order than that of an unmarried couple.
One suspects that by “demeaning,” Nancy really means “disgusting.” Contraceptive sex practiced by a male and a female is something that does not disgust heterosexuals. But many heterosexuals find the idea of two men or two women engaging in sexual acts to be disgusting.
As my reply to Nancy notes, Ken, as well as I understand Catholic teaching, all genital acts that are not open to procreation are disordered–and to use Nancy’s phrase, would therefore be regarded as “demeaning sexual acts.”
For my part, I don’t think that the focus on acts gets us very far. I tend to agree with the point Cardinal Schoenborn made recently, in which he stated that we need to take a second look at the quality of gay relationships–which implies to me that we need to think more about sexual relationships and less about sexual acts, as we make ethical judgments in the area of human sexuality.
And of course, another point I’m making is that if we’re going to focus more or less exclusively on “demeaning sexual acts” done by people who happen to be gay while more or less ignoring the many “demeaning sexual acts” done by people who happen to be straight, we’re walking into the realm of discrimination.
If every genital act that is not open to procreation is implicitly a “demeaning sexual act,” I would imagine there are plenty of such acts out there in the heterosexual community for the church to focus on as well. And to try to prohibit by legislation.
William, since you are well aware that homosexuality refers to sexual relationship, how can one be involved in a homosexual sexual relationship without being involved in demeaning sexual acts?
As far as I can determine, Nancy’s description of homosexual acts as “demeaning sexual acts” is her own. I cannot find it in any Catholic documents about homosexuality. This is not necessarily to argue against it (although I would). It is just to say that it is apparently her own expression, unlike, say, “intrinsically disordered.”
Nancy, if I’m not mistaken, the word “homosexual” refers to a sexual orientation, to a person who has that orientation, and to acts.
Isn’t it reductionistic, first of all, to make assumptions about the “acts” of all those who happen to be homosexual persons?
In the second place, I suspect that people “involved in a homosexual sexual relationship” may engage in various kinds of “acts” at any point in that relationship. And they may equally over the course of time continue in their relationship of love without sexual “acts” of any kind.
In the third place, it’s reductionistic to define a group of human beings by the “acts” we assume they perform.
In the fourth place, as I’ve noted when we’ve had this conversation before (repeatedly) at other Catholic blogs, those of us who are gay prefer to call our orientation and ourselves gay rather than homosexual, precisely because of the reductionism implied by the term “homosexual,” which wasn’t coined by gay persons (as you have repeatedly claimed), but by psychologists.
Finally, I wouldn’t dream of classifying an entire group of people according to the “demeaning” sexual “acts” I imagine that they perform. I’m truly not very interested in what other folks happen to do in the privacy of their bedrooms, if they’re adults, if they both consent to the behavior, and if they are not harming either each other or anyone else by the “acts” they happen to be performing.
Years and years ago (I’m old!), a professor at the Jesuit university I attended once said to the class, “The one place the church doesn’t belong is in the bedroom, between someone’s vagina and someone’s penis.” That comment struck me as true and has remained with me–perhaps, in part, because the professor making the remark was clearly a gay man who was later “outed” and fired by the school’s administration.
It seems to me that Cardinal Schoenborn is on the right track: it’s wiser and more charitable to assess sexual life by looking at relationships rather than acts.
Our Dignity comes from God for we are made in His Image. If we Respect God’s intention for Conjugal Love to begin with, we Respect the fact that homosexual sexual acts can never be reconciled with God’s intention for Conjugal Love because they are intrinsically disordered.
Nancy, thank you. It seems we’re doomed to talk at cross purposes (and past each other) in these conversations.
We’re starting from very different first principles, it appears to me. And I had also heard you wanting to address the issue of discrimination, but it appears your concern here is quite different.
Thanks for explaining again to me where you stand and why you stand where you do.
Nancy,
So does the fact that you hammer away at homosexual relationships but remain silent on the issue of married couples using artificial birth control mean that you approve of contraception? Are homosexuality and abortion the only two sins you recognize?
I would suggest all of us actually read or re-read Humane Vitae
Nancy –
If any sexual acts are open to conception, it is *all* the sexual acts of *all* the gay people. They can’t possibly produce a child so, if anything their acts are *intrinsically* non-demeaning, by your definition of demeaning, anyway. You should be jumping up and down and clapping your hands and crying, “Yay, gays!!!!”
1
Demeaning sexual acts are sexual acts that do not respect the inherent Dignity of the Human Person who is made in the Image of God. Love is not possessive. Only in a complementary relationship of Love, can two become one body, one spirit in Love.
It is demeaning to refer to any Person according to sexual orientation because the sexual objectification of any Person does not respect the inherent Dignity of that Human Person. We are Men and Women, called to be oriented towards The Word of God Who Is Love.
Nancy: the idea of homosexual acts being demeaning is a moral judgement. Our laws do not make that judgement. This country was founded on the principles of life, liberty and pursuit of human happiness. What you might consider to be demeaning, others consider part of their pursuit of human happiness. No one is asking you to do that. You have no right to prevent others from doing that.
No one has the right to manipulate and deny the Truth about God’s intention for Conjugal Love, especially those who profess to be Catholic, for “to whom much has been given, much more will be expected.”
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html
“This Country was founded on the principle of life, liberty,and pursuit of human happiness.”
This Country was founded on the self-evident truth that the fundamental Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness that is endowed to each Human Individual at the moment of our creation are unalienable Rights because they come from God and thus are subject to The Laws of Nature and Nature’s God. (with the capital G)