Jeffrey Miller

The Bishops of the Diocese of Los Angeles have finally managed to issue a statement on the California’s Supreme Court decision that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. Looking at their statement I am not quite sure if it was worth the effort.

It starts off with the standard caveat that persons with same-sex attraction must be treated with respect, and compassion, and that no form of violence can be used against homosexual persons. While I understand such caveats and the truth behind them it always makes it sound as if it is Catholics are acting in this manner in the first place and have to be constantly reminded of this.

All people, regardless of sexual inclination, are called to holiness; and "should be encouraged to take an active roll in the faith community" and to live according to its teachings.

I think this part is badly worded since to me it makes it seems that the teachings are according to the "faith community" rather than ordered towards the whole Church. But I admit that is nit-picky. I prefer how the Catechism puts it.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

It then goes on:

Nonetheless, the Church cannot approve of redefining marriage, which has a unique place in God’s creation, joining a man and woman in a committed relationship in order to nurture and support the new life for which marriage is intended.

This part is surely badly worded since it only seems aimed at one end of marriage and "committed relationship" is so broad that it hardly touches on the theology behind marriage. As the Catechism states "1601 The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring;" and 2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family." In a statement such as this obviously you are going to keep it short and not densely packed with theology, but you have to get the basics right.

The meaning of marriage is deeply rooted in history and culture, and has been shaped considerably by Christian tradition.

As Karen Hall says in her excellent fisk of this statement "I can make the exact same statement about Nascar." They have not made a very good natural law argument here which would have been appropriate.

The state has a primary and fundamental obligation to protect and promote the family, which is rooted in marriage and sustained by it.

This part I can totally agree with. The state though has done massive damage by not living up to this and is complicit in the destruction of families via no-fault divorce – one of the greatest evils of our time. Some argue that the state should just get out of the marriage business in the first place, but the reality is that it does have a duty to protect and promote the family and not a redefined family.

The statement then goes on to say that same-sex marriage is not required since basically same-sex partners can get benefits such as visitation rights and healthcare without it. From the whole statement you would basically have no idea that "homosexual acts go against the natural moral law."

I also found it interesting that none of the footnotes use Vatican documents. It seems to me that a statement of this type would do well to look at Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons written by then-Cardinal Ratzinger and approved by Pope John Paul II. But maybe that is just me.

Episcopalians, Unitarian Universalists, rabbis, a Methodist and even a Catholic priest walk into a bar. Oh wait this isn’t a setup for a joke.

…Episcopalians, Unitarian Universalists, rabbis, a Methodist and even a Catholic priest are planning to bless some same-sex marriages when they are set to become legal in California on Monday.

Catholics have long rejected homosexuality, and the Pope issued a statement a day after the court’s ruling affirming that marriage is suitable only between one man and one woman.

…Bishop Allen Vigneron of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Oakland has written a letter which has been interpreted as urging his flock to oppose the November ballot initiative: “As faithful citizens, Catholics are called to bring our laws regarding marriage into conformity with what we know about the nature of marriage,” he wrote.

Kerry Chaplin, a director at California Faith for Equality, a group which fights for same-sex marriage rights, says she knows at least one Catholic priest who will be marrying people and one Methodist minister who will defy her church’s doctrine and bless same-sex marriages next week.

Antonio Salas, coordinator of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Catholics group at Newman Hall Holy Spirit parish in Berkeley, said he knows of renegade priests who have performed religious marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.

“The greatest sin is to sin against your conscience. With an informed conscience, you can dissent from the church’s teaching,” Salas said.

Here I thought the greatest sin was the sin against the Holy spirit – the sin of final impenitence. Though I must say that the statement that with an informed conscience you can dissent against Church teaching to almost be funny if it wasn’t so sad. That your conscience agrees with Church teaching is the measure that it is properly formed. If your conscience though tells you Church teaching is wrong then shouldn’t your conscience lead you out of the Catholic Church which is teaching error? Especially since it is never just one issue they believe the Church is wrong upon in the first place.

Since no specific priests are mentioned that have previously attempted such ceremonies or plan to do them in the future we can’t really tell if this is true. Unfortunately it is all too easy to believe considering that one Catholic parish in San Francisco had promised to do so on their site until they were forced to take it down. No doubt there are priests who would have no problem with this, but would not publicly do so. If any priests attempt to marry same-sex couples in private then this would be pretty sad and rather cowardly. If your really think that this is God’s will then you should be willing to do what is right despite consequences. It is not exactly like you would be martyred for doing so. If they are willing to bless these phony marriages shouldn’t they have the strength of their convictions to attempt same-sex marriages.

Update: In a story on two gay Anglican priests who got married.

Mr Dudley opened the service by saying: “Dearly beloved, we are gathered together here in the sight of God to join these men in a holy covenant of love and fidelity. Such a covenant shows us the mystery of the union between God and God’s people and between Christ and the Church.”

Diogenes asks

So, in this “mystery,” does the man represent Christ while the man takes the place of the Church — or is it the other way around?

There has been a lot of chatter of Fr. Andrew Greeley’s column yesterday Fall election hinges on race.

In fact, only a little more than half of the Democratic voters chose the senator from Illinois as their candidate. Were the other voters racist? Influenced by racism? Inclined to racism, which they hide even from themselves? Surely all of these factors were at work, but it is virtually impossible with the current research technology to sort them out. Moreover, is the voter a bigot who says — to himself or others — “He’s too young for it,” “I don’t know anything about him,” “He’s an elitist,” “He’s just a lot of fancy talk,” “The country isn’t ready for a man like that,” “He’s weak in his support of Israel,” “He’s Muslim, possibly the anti-Christ!” Are these hints of lurking prejudice? Are the voters of regular members of the Democratic coalition — Hispanics and union members — against Obama partly because of racism?

Racism is of course still with us, but blessedly reduced. No doubt there were some within the Democratic Party that voted against him on race alone, though I don’t think it is a very large segment. Though articles like this never mention the large numbers of blacks that voted for Barack Obama. Surely some did so based on the color of his skin and it seems to me when you take that into consideration when you vote that is in fact a form of racism. Though you also had class warfare in terms of gender where some women voted for Sen. Hillary for the simple fact that she was the same gender as them. Look at the fallout when Oprah endorsed Barack and many women were upset that she had done so.

How many of the male readers of this column who are habitues of bars, locker rooms, commuter train bull sessions, pool rooms and men’s clubs have not heard the indigenous racial slurs of such environments applied to Obama?

I do wonder who Fr. Greeley hangs out with. I have to really go back in time about twenty years to remember the last time I heard someone make a racial slur within my hearing. The guy making the slur was a class A idiot who actually believed Robin Trower did the music for Jimi Hendrix. Everyone in the shop I was working in at the time would immediately go on the offensive on this guy when he said something racist or sexist. I suspect that Fr. Greeley just projects this as happening as frequently as he thinks.

And surely some of the explicit chatter during the campaign was racist, especially the obsession with the various clergy who mounted the pulpit of his church. By what stretch of sick logic could the candidate be responsible for what his clergy said and did?

So by this logic I guess you could attend one of the racist white supremacist churches and not be accountable for the rampant racism that was taught. Plus Rev. Wright was not just some clergy in a Church he attended, he was a personal friend also involved in his campaign and someone Obama had written was a great influence and advisory. He book “Audacity of Hope” comes from one of this sermons.

Certainly there are solid political and personal reasons that some Americans might have had for voting against the senator that would not be in principle racist. He is one of the most “liberal” members of Congress. He stole the election from a woman who was entitled to it. He is one of the “boys” beating up on the female candidate. He is a not a patriot dedicated to final victory in Iraq. He is weak on national security. He lacks experience. He supports abortion. Yet behind these arguments, might racism lurk?

Certainly it might lurk, but predominantly you are going to find people who oppose Obama because of the positions he holds and at least Fr. Greeley even mentioned that abortion might be one of those reasons. Original sin is still with us and the evidence for concupiscence is always increasing. We are nowhere close to judging people by the “content of their character” and can come up with vapid reasons to support someone who fails on these counts. Now we all know that if Sen. Obama fails the media will not see it as being the fault of his radicalism, but only in terms of race. That somehow if I oppose someone who is the most extreme supporter of abortion running for president ever, someone who supports cloning, ESCR, euthanasia, homosexual marriage – all intrinsic evils – that it makes me a racist. Gee I thought it made me a Catholic or someone who takes the natural law seriously. I guess the fact that I have voted for Amb. Alan Keyes multiple times just makes me a confused racist.

The point is that racism permeates American society and hides itself under many different disguises. The nomination of an African-American candidate was a near-miracle. Only the innocent and the naive think that the November election will not be about race.

I would like to know how racism permeates the society when he says there is no “current research technology to sort them out.” How does he know this? Or is it just calumny based on what he wants to believe? I guess for Fr. Greely you can make uncharitable judgments on what you think motivates most people. But then again Fr. Greeley supports a candidate that supports intrinsic evils that will continue the culture of death, so his judgment is questionable in the first place.

For those who have been following Canada’s human rights tribunals and their decisions against Christians who express moral opposition to homosexual activism and same-sex marriage, the name Stephen Boissoin should be familiar to you. I won’t go into the whole history of his case, however, the Alberta Human Rights Tribunal recently ordered him to stop talking about homosexuality from the perspective of his evangelical Christian faith. Moreover, the government tribunal ordered him to apologize for his previous expressions on this topic as a Christian, and has prohibited him from criticizing the government process to which he had been subjected.

Admittedly, given the stridency of his letter that brought about the original complaint, as well as the way he was characterized in the mainstream media, I expected a sort of Fred Phelps light.

This impression was wrong.

I realized how wrong it was within seconds of speaking to him last week for the first time.

Stephen struck me as anything but hateful. He came across as gentle, albeit fervent like most evangelicals (although he doesn’t admit the label, calling himself a simple Bible Christian). Moreover, he expressed genuinely felt concern for the emotional, spiritual and physical welfare of those who practice the homosexual lifestyle. I think part of the problem was the fact that the theological vocabulary between Catholics and Protestants has evolved differently since the Reformation. So quite often things that are understood or interpreted one way by one, are misinterpreted another way by the other.

However, there is one thing Catholics and evangelicals share besides their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. And that is a 100 percent conviction rate before Canada’s human rights tribunals on Section 13.1 cases. The legal persecution makes no distinction among Christians.

Pete Vere has put up four videos of his half-hour interview with Stephen Boissoin at Catholic Light.