It appears that presidential candidates John McCain and Barack Obama have some common ground on the looming question of same-sex marriage (AKA “gay marriage). Neither candidate supports same-sex marriage. Well, at least they say they don’t.
Obama has made his sentiment on same-sex marriage known:
I’m a Christian, and so although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.
However, in his book, The Audacity of Hope, he writes:
It is my obligation, not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided…and that in years hence I may be seen as someone who was on the wrong side of history.
Obama supports the extension of civil rights, however, to same-sex couples, meaning he supports civil unions of same-sex couples. Rich Lowry from the National Review Online asserts that, while Obama states he is opposed to same-sex marriage, he is “operationally pro-gay marriage.” I think Ramesh Ponnuru is somewhat accurate when he suggests that Obama “opposes same-sex marriage as a religious or moral matter, but supports it as public policy.” Yet, according to lesbian activist Kathy Belge, there are some major differences between marriage and civil union in terms of rights and benefits, such as state recognition, dissolution, immigration policy, and taxation.
McCain opposes same-sex marriage, though he does not support a constitutional amendment that would ban it. In 2004, McCain strongly opposed a federal constitutional amendment to ban gay-marriage, calling such a measure “un-Republican.” He argued that states ought to decide whether same-sex marriage should be legal (which is essential what is happening now). In 1996, McCain supported the Defense of Marriage Act, though it does not constitutionally codify traditional marriage between a man and a woman.
On Hardball in October 2007, McCain stated:
I think that gay marriage should be allowed, if there’s a ceremony kind of thing, if you want to call it that. I don’t have any problem with that.
Later, he clarified:
On the issue of the gay marriage, I believe that if people want to have private ceremonies, that’s fine. I do not believe that gay marriage should be legal.
McCain supports extending certain rights and benefits to same-sex couples. On the Ellen Degeneres Show back in May, McCain stated:
Well, my thoughts are that I think that people should be able to enter into legal agreements and I think that that is something that we should encourage, particularly in the case of insurance and other areas…decisions that have to be made. I just believe in the unique status of marriage between man and woman, and I know that we have a respectful disagreement on that issue.
What compounds the difficulty in understanding McCain’s position on gay marriage is his common ground with Obama. While he states that he is opposed to same-sex “marriage,” he says that he is not opposed to same-sex civil unions. In a 2006 interview, McCain was asked about a measure he supported in Arizona that denied same-sex civil union and gay domestic partnerships government benefits. McCain was asked, “Are you against civil unions for gay couples?” His comment was:
No, I am not…I believe…but the…that…that initiative was, I think, misinterpreted. I think that initiative did allow for people to join into legal agreements such as power of attorney and others.
He was then asked, “So you are for civil unions?” McCain replied:
No, am I for ability of two people–I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. I do not believe gay marriage should be legal. But I do believe that people ought to be able to enter into contracts, exchange powers of attorney, and other ways that people who have relationships can enter into.
One headline summed up McCain’s position nicely: “McCain not for, against civil unions.”
It seems to me that both Obama and McCain do not want the term “marriage” applied in a legal sense to same-sex couples. However, when push comes to shove, it is McCain who actually practices what he preaches in concrete cases (consider his position on recent Arizona and California measures). While Obama explicitly affirms his support for legal civil union, McCain skirts a bit, affirming that many of the benefits of a civil union should be allowed for same-sex couples without explicitly endorsing the term “civil union.” I think that we can safely call McCain “operationally pro-gay civil unions,” given his support for certain legal benefits for same-sex couples.
Like his position on same-sex marriage, John McCain does not support a federal measure that would ban adoption by gay couples. In a clarification sent to Andrew Sullivan yesterday, the McCain campaign responded to McCain’s earlier claim that he did not “believe” in gay adoption:
McCain could have been clearer in the interview in stating that his position on gay adoption is that it is a state issue, just as he made it clear in the interview that marriage is a state issue. He was not endorsing any federal legislation.
The campaign also seemed to imply that McCain feels that gay adoption is better than child abandonment:
McCain’s expressed his personal preference for children to be raised by a mother and a father wherever possible. However, as an adoptive father himself, McCain believes children deserve loving and caring home environments, and he recognizes that there are many abandoned children who have yet to find homes. McCain believes that in those situations that caring parental figures are better for the child than the alternative.
To sum up McCain on gay marriage and adoption, he prefers to have marriage and gay adoption be state issues, which they already are. To sum up Obama on the same issues, Obama likewise leaves marriage and gay adoption to the states, though he vocally supports equal adoption rights.
Similarities:
- Both oppose the legality of same-sex “marriage”
- Both oppose a federal ban on same-sex marriage
- Both assume a difference between “marriage” and “civil union”
- Both support the extension of certain rights and benefits to same-sex couples
- Both want same-sex marriage and adoption to remain state issues
Differences:
- Obama is clear that he supports legally recognizing same-sex civil unions, while McCain neither affirms nor denies whether he supports civil unions, yet he supports extending many privileges of civil unions to same-sex couples
- Obama does not support the Defense of Marriage Act, while McCain does support it
- Obama has vocally opposed state bans on same-sex marriage, while McCain has vocally supported state bans on same-sex marriage
Obama’s overall stance is much clearer than that of McCain, though the two hold much common ground. So while they respect the legislative actions of the states, something over which they are likely to diverge is the appointing of federal judges who would likely have a large effect on both issues.
“Both oppose the legality of same-sex “marriage””
“Obama has vocally opposed state bans on same-sex marriage”
Please reconcile those two statements.
Obama praised the California ruling on same-sex marriage when it came down, so any claim that he is opposed to same-sex marriage can’t be taken seriously, in my opinion.
Also, a clarification re the civil unions issue. Some of the benefits given to married couples (e.g. rights of hospital visitation) can be granted through means of contract. When McCain mentions power of attorney, that’s what he’s talking about. The ability to do this exists in all 50 states and has since I don’t know when, and shouldn’t be confused with civl unions, which are a specifically designed, marriage like institution created by the state.
Some states (Virginia leaps to mind) have adopted laws that negate such contracts between same-sex couples. And judges in many states have been known to ignore them (and not just contracts but even wills, even in Massachusetts) even before the advent of such laws. That was the impetus, btw, for the civil unions/marriage push back in the days of AIDS. Just a little background.
Please reconcile those two statements.
I don’t know know that they can be recognized, even though they both come from Obama (if you read my post, you’ll see I refer to Lowry and Ponnuru on this). It seems the best we can do is that while Obama opposes the term “marriage” to be enshrined in legislation for same-sex couples (a positive law), he opposes a legal ban on same-sex marriage (a negative law). I’m not saying this is easy to understand, which is why I think Ponnuru sums it up well. Nevertheless, Obama supports same-sex civil unions, and he may have seen the California measure as precluding that possibility (assuming, as McCain does, that there is a legal difference between “marriage” and “civil unions”).
Also, a clarification re the civil unions issue. Some of the benefits given to married couples (e.g. rights of hospital visitation) can be granted through means of contract. When McCain mentions power of attorney, that’s what he’s talking about. The ability to do this exists in all 50 states and has since I don’t know when, and shouldn’t be confused with civl unions, which are a specifically designed, marriage like institution created by the state.
McCain supports more than power of attorney for same-sex couples, which he states in the clips to which I’ve linked.
McCain supports more than power of attorney for same-sex couples, which he states in the clips to which I’ve linked.
Well, sure, he also mentioned contracts, which amounts to the same thing.
Please reconcile those two statements.
The first statement has to be corrected in order to be understood. It appears to be referring to state initiatives where same sex marraige was already banned by law but where some wanted it put into the state constitution.
Well, sure, he also mentioned contracts, which amounts to the same thing.
Insurance, gay adoption in certain cases, and “other things,” which he never spells out.
Neither can publicly come out in support, since they want votes in backwater states, too. It’s only a matter of time anyway, with the young, and the educated, overwhelmingly supporting equality. It’s the same process as with race – the old, uneducated and the South were last to accept equality. The whole ‘intrinsically disordered Sodomites’ bit will increasingly lead to being shunned. Sure, the Catholic argumentation is much more polite than the “God hates fags” outfit, but you’ll end up with about the same reputation. Over at WDTPRS, they’re already preparing themselves for ‘martyrdom’. In addition, just as with all sexual matters, there is a vast chasm between Catholic leadership and the average Catholic.
Policraticus,
I’ll give you gay adoption (although this is a separate issue from civil unions or gay marriage). Insurance, though, would seem to fold into the contract realm (whether an employer provides health insurance to the significant others of its employees and on what terms is a matter best left to the employer and employee to work out between themselves).
Gerald as to the Catholic Leadership and indeed the Catholic Faith there have been often times that there was deep chasm between the former and the “Faithful”.
About 2000 years ago there was such a deep chasm that a man was crucified
Blackadder,
That makes sense. I suppose McCain’s imprecision on the matter coupled with the lack of an unequivocal opposition to “civil unions” is what makes this a sticky topic.
Remember the “Levada solution”: the benefits of civil unions can be supported as long as they are available to any person in residence, not just a same-sex couple. Cardinal McCarrick said something similar, and one of the auxiliary bishops in Washington state made the Levada argument recently.
Can someone clarify something for me? What is the difference between natural marriage (not scaramental) and civil unions? Is civil union just marriage disguised with another name so as to make natural marriage advocates more at ease?
It’s only a matter of time anyway, with the young, and the educated, overwhelmingly supporting equality.
I think you are beyond this reasoning Gerald, but we are not called to find hold up equality, but to hold up the human dignity of each person, which, I believe, means we should not support the legal recognition of immoral activities.
Can someone clarify something for me? What is the difference between natural marriage (not scaramental) and civil unions?
One is the creation of the state. The other not.
I realize that, but practically…. on a moral level. Is there any reason same-sex civil unions should be more acceptable than same-sex marriage?
I hope you like James Dobson’s company, Minion ? Maybe a move to the Deep South or Colorado Springs is due :)
What you call the ‘Levada solution’ is insulting. Sure, by official Catholic standards it’s ‘progressive’. In the same manner as no longer insisting on the missionary position was ‘progressive’ and allowing “NFP” (as opposed to the earlier view of it as ‘whoring’ and ‘adultery’) was ‘progressive’. In the real world, it’s still way off.
Gerald has apparently forgotten that we are called to be in the world but not of it.
I expect a “I am leaving the Church” post from him by the end of the year.
I fear gay marriage is coming, whether we like it or not. The overwhelming generational divide on this issue is evident (unlike in other issues like abortion). The younger generation is reacting in part to a very real pattern of anti-gay discrimination and hysteria. Jesse Helms is no long dead. They are also reacting to an individualist culture which places the utillitarian over the common good.
I think the only solution for Catholics is to draw a finer distinction between the sacrament and secular marriage. No, we don’t support same-sex marriage, but nor do we supporte the mockery of traditional marriage from rampant divorce and the likes of Britney Spears’s drunken 24-hour marriage. Plus, we should make sure that the teaching that sex should be confined to marriage applies equally to gays and sexually active unmarried heterosexuals.
I fear gay marriage is coming, whether we like it or not.
I agree. Bradly argues that only a constitution amendment will prevent that from happening.
I’ve been thinking and reading a decent bit on this topic lately and am still trying to formulate my view. But, in the interest of safeguarding marriage it seems we must attempt to avoid same-sex unions just as much as same-sex marriage. I think both will further erode a proper understanding of marriage. Of course, no fault divorce and numerous other issues must be addressed as well. Sigh.
No. The younger generation has been brought up as narcissists. Sex is a recreational activity between ‘adults’ and nothing more. Ergo, there is no communal bond to what comes after them or what comes before them and no obligations arising therein. Hence, the idea that sex should be confined to marriage or marriage be reserved for the creation of the next generation is completely absent. Admittedly the Boomers had a good start by likewise rejecting these intergenerational communal bonds.
Is there any reason same-sex civil unions should be more acceptable than same-sex marriage?
I have the same question
MM-
That was an excellent comment.
Well said.
[...] disagree with MM on many issues, but this comment of his is spot on: I fear gay marriage is coming, whether we like it or not. The overwhelming generational [...]
Feddie, there is no need for that. I’ve excommunicated myself by virtue of my opinions. That the majority of Catholics share them is another matter. I am already obviously not welcome at Communion. Out of respect, someone who disagrees on fundamental issues, SHOULD stay away. Ironically, Vox Nova got me interested in social justice :)
Gerald-
Well, on that much, we agree.
As for social justice, I think your views differ greatly from almost all of the Vox Nova contributors, Say what you will about MM, but at least he takes the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage seriously. You, on the other hand, mock it. There’s nothing honorable about that.
Insurance, though, would seem to fold into the contract realm (whether an employer provides health insurance to the significant others of its employees and on what terms is a matter best left to the employer and employee to work out between themselves).
Health insurnace is a taxable benefit to a domestic partner and a tax free benefit to a spouse.
Thanks, Feddie.
On the difference between state marriage and civil unions, I linked to a piece by Kathy Belge where she outlines that difference.
Thanks Poli, that is somewhat helpful, but from a Catholic standpoint, why would people (Catholics) be more likely to likely to acquiesce in allowing same-sex civil union, while not allowing marriage?
It’s not your place to ‘allow’ others their rights. They will come, by any means necessary, just like women’s and blacks’ rights finally arrived, when most had deemed that unthinkable. To be sure, the reactionary nastiness will come back to bite you.
So Gerald, Chruch teaching on marriage and sex=”reactionary nastiness,” eh?
Sounds to me like you need to start the Church of Gerald. You’re obviously more persuaded by your own personal feelings than 2,000 years of collective wisdom.
That’s my question too JB…
I would think that given a choice between the two, Catholics might tolerate the existence of same-sex civil unions a little more easily than same-sex marriage because the former seems to have less of a moral dimension to it. There is a sense, I think, in which the civil union is just a classification by the state that provides certain privileges (like insurance, taxation, etc.) between two people who exclusively want it for each other, and provides no meaning in a traditional, and certainly not sacramentary, sense.
That being said, civil unions do nothing to discourage same-sex couples and so I suppose that they are not more acceptable than marriage from a Catholic perspective — perhaps that was the intent of your question.
Another advantage of civil unions that I see is that to the extent they are viewed solely as instruments of the State, it is unlikely that the Church will be affected by them in a direct way. If same-sex marriages are allowed, then it is possible someday that a same-sex couple will sue some Catholic parish so that they can hold their constitutionally-protected wedding ceremony there. I don’t see any same-sex couples looking for this kind of right at this time, but it seems more likely if their unions are considered marriages.
Just my off the top thoughts.
I have always been a proponent of civil unions of any two people regardless of gender or consanguinarity. So my wife’s aunt and uncle (brother and sister) who lived together most of their adult life (neither married) would be able to get a civil union to control disposition of assets in the case of one’s death.
The gayfolk don’t like this option, because it doesn’t accomplish the main goal of pushing for gay “marriage”, which is the complete acceptance of sodomy as equal to normal intercourse.
Say what you will about MM, but at least he takes the Church’s teachings on sex and marriage seriously. You, on the other hand, mock it. There’s nothing honorable about that.
Sure there is, if you think it’s wrong.
The gayfolk don’t like this option, because it doesn’t accomplish the main goal of pushing for gay “marriage”, which is the complete acceptance of sodomy as equal to normal intercourse.
Actually, there are many “gayfolk”–including couples I know who have been together 20 or 30 years–who are not interested in gay marriage and would be quite pleased with some arrangement whereby a legal option was given for siblings or friends or same-sex partners to qualify as a legal unit. As the article Policraticus links to points out, it can be extremely costly to cobble together such rights using a lawyer.
The gayfolk don’t like this option, because it doesn’t accomplish the main goal of pushing for gay “marriage”, which is the complete acceptance of sodomy as equal to normal intercourse.
Maybe I am oversensitive, but that strikes me as a rather ugly comment. I think probably very few gay people are interested in gaining acceptance for any specific sex act. For those who want marriage, it is their relationships they want recognized. Is that really so difficult to imagine?
The basic notions of fidelity, openness to children and such aren’t reactionary. The pathological, obsessively detailed rules are however madness. Celibates with too much time on their hands.
Campaigning against gay rights = reactionary nastiness. Setting the rules for the organization you run isn’t nasty as long as membership is voluntary.
Catholic sex rules are, thankfully, not enforced by law. The absurdity of a great many of them is obvious to nearly all people – if they’re even aware of them. I don’t think a significant number of Catholics knows about the ‘every ejaculation must occur in the vagina at all times” rule – since it’s too embarrassing to tell adults what to do in bed (or wherever). I thought that was just a Monty Python farce! They used to ask about these things in Confession, but that was back when Aquinas & Co. believed women were crippled men who had a higher percentage of water in their bodies and were thus unstable :) A bunch of celibates who were either awkward around women or not interested in the other sex to begin with making up the rules for married people has to turn into a farce. Who but someone without a healthy idea of married or family life would think (as many saints, doctors of the church etc did) that masturbation and oral sex are worse than incest ! Wanna know why ? Because….heh….(hetero) incest is open to conception ! You can’t agree with that and be of sound mind.
Not to mention the home-made, very Catholic-specific sex abuse scandal.
Sure, a lot of Catholic rules have fallen by the wayside or changed, insofar things have ‘progressed’. Not so long ago, even the NFPers would have been viewed as ‘whores’ and ‘adulterers’ by official church rules. Not to mention that only the missionary position was licit (and – the ‘devil’ even observed that! thus incubi and succubi). They’re still clinging on to whatever is left after the most grotesque rules fell by the wayside. It is one giant pathology. I was, like 99% of Catholics, unaware of the utter weirdness and obsessively detailed Catholic sex rules. I mean, who’d seriously think a religious organization ponders whether its members should get blowjobs ?
It’s all fruit of the poisonous tree of misogyny, unscientific views (Southern winds resulting in women, sperm believed to be the entire being – no one knew of the ovum) dread of pleasure and celibates making the rules. But, if it makes someone happy, they certainly should go right ahead. There is nothing wrong about intra-vaginal ejaculations at all times. To argue that it’s divinely ordained is a bit funny, but, as I said, no one’s forced to act that way, and no one is scared of ‘going to hell’ for oral sex, except those who don’t do it any way. Sure, there was a time when you could make kids believe they may well go to hell for masturbation. Nowadays it’s viewed as a normal part of human sexuality (which can, like anything, be abused). I’d be worried to have a child who does NOT masturbate. Homosexuality is increasingly viewed as a minority variation. Those who view it as an ‘abomination’ are approaching the same kind of reputation as Klan members.
“The gayfolk don’t like this option, because it doesn’t accomplish the main goal of pushing for gay “marriage”, which is the complete acceptance of sodomy as equal to normal intercourse.
Maybe I am oversensitive, but that strikes me as a rather ugly comment. I think probably very few gay people are interested in gaining acceptance for any specific sex act. For those who want marriage, it is their relationships they want recognized. Is that really so difficult to imagine?”
You’re not oversensitive. It’s a very ugly comment, and says a good deal about the fundamental viciousness at homophobia’s heart.
It’s always the same crap – only gay men are talked about, and then anal sex. News flash – not all gay men are into anal sex, and lots of straight people are. News flash Ctd. There are those people called lesbians. They’re actually the ones who are more prone to get married. They just don’t make for good ‘whipping boys’, since women behave better than men. You can’t cite the STDs and what not. Men are men, and men are the real problem children of humanity. They commit almost all murders, rapes, crimes in general. And then you have Aquinas & Co. declare men superior and only really good for giving birth. Hilarious.
Gerald, It’s a cheap shot for you to attack the Church for Her “pathological, obsessively detailed rules.” You seem quite preoccupied with sex yourself.
Catholic ideas about sexuality include the notion of concupiscence. The desire for sex is an appetite present to both humans and animals. Controlling our appetites distinguishes us from animals. If we orient ourselves to something higher than ourselves (such as a sacramental union) we can go a long way toward overcoming those urges and temptations that serve little purpose other than self satisfaction. The sacraments can ennoble our lives and our desires by providing a higher purpose for us. Sexuality can be remarkably fulfilling when it is properly oriented.
Homosexuality and promiscuity are disordered passions or appetites. Both of these appetites are merely self serving activities. As Catholics we strive to not judge the individual since we may not know his or her internal disposition, motivation, level of maturity, etc… However we are compelled to recognize how these behaviors distort sexuality relative to the sacramental component of marriage.
David Nickol’s comments are fair and Catholics should spend some time understanding them, regardless of what Catholics would LIKE to believe the Church does or does not “require” of them.
The sacramental nature of heterosexual marriage, the uniqueness and imperative character of love ordered to reproduction, the crucial importance of intergenerational bonds — all can be acknowledged;
the horror of popular culture, the commodification of sexuality, the denigration of trust, the new parochialism of sexual subcultures, the impoverished nature of various forms of group identity (including but not limited to gays) — all can be opposed;
and we can still recognize that certain people, for reasons that are very hard to understand, NEED same-sex love and companionship — not for their own mere pleasure or self-gratification, but for them to be the people they are — for them to give of themselves, not just to their lovers or companions, but to friends and community. In other words, some people, in all seriousness, need same-sex companionship and love to be the good, open-hearted, public-minded, charitable Christians that they are called to be.
A man with a lifelong partner, who attends mass every week, who spends his spare time with the gravely ill, who coordinates the activities of a disciplined Catholic prayer group, who is a resource for his friends in need —
What would you say about such a person?
And would it be so bad if he and his partner got — not a “marriage,” which plenty of gays have no interest in — but simply some of the legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive?
There is a place for those who support gay rights; gay marriage–the Anglican Church.
Sorry, little gal, but the majority of American Catholics do support “gay rights”–at least such things as non-discrimination and the legal benefits that state same sex unions confer–and are not going to leave.
Your revenge fantasies will have to take another form. Perhaps you can dialogue with some of our country’s more ‘hard-line’ bishops.
Little Gal -
“There is a place for those who support gay rights …”
your own wishful thinking -sure some will leave our church -
it is the churches loss since frankly this community is rather vibrant and financially solvent. In case you have not noticed our society unfortunatelly IMHO rewards particular noncommited singles or couples.
Nevertheless it is not going to happen to sort this out as conveniently as you wish-
full embrace and acceptance of gays fits actually rather nicely into the catholic core message of compassion and love for another.
And the millions of active catholic gays and their families will make sure of that.
Do also not forget we do have plenty of gay clergy – certainly a percentage much higher than the 5% commonly mentioned as the average percentage of homosexuals in the populance.
The liberal bishops oppose gay rights as well. Regular Catholics, aka those who foot the bill, tend to be a lot more progressive. They ignore them on sexual matters in particular. More conservative Catholics ignore them on most social issues.
little gal –
the whole point of my post is to say that the question is not only about “gay marriage”
committed gay couples need civil unions, for reasons of legal and economic equality — this is NOT an appeal to the church, but to the state
others earlier in the post asked why catholics should support civil unions. some want to believe that civil unions are as bad as gay marriage.
I tried to explain why catholics ought to support legal civil unions, without threatening the sacramentality of marriage
but you chose to ignore what i was saying and once again go back to “no gay marriage”
i already said there can be “no gay marriage” — but you want to go back to that — because you want to go back to anger and denunciation
Catholics should concern themselves with Catholic weddings/marriages and not mess with others’. Sacramentality is only ‘threatened’ when Catholic weddings are involved, whatever the state deems marriage has no impact on that. But, since the hierarchy won’t stay out, there’ll be karmic retributions. All of a sudden you’ll see Catholics worried about their rights and people will say…you will be judged in the same manner you judged.
There can be – and is – gay marriage. There just isn’t gay Catholic marriage. As long as the state doesn’t force the Catholic church to marry gays, it has no right to complain.
Are we supposed be regard Gerald Naus and Gerald Augustinus as the same person, or different personas? :)
Are we supposed be regard Gerald Naus and Gerald Augustinus as the same person, or different personas? :)
Gerald 2.0 doesn’t sound like the original, that’s for sure.
It’s nice that the Catholic Church contains folks like G. Alkon, Gerald Naus, Gerald Augustinus, Grega and Mark DeFrancis, but I’m afraid that they actually DON’T speak for the “leaders” of the Church–for the Pope, his bishops and the Magisterium, who control funding, positions in schools and other educational institutions, as well as the Catholic press. I myself have, in recent days, seen folks sacked from positions they’ve held for twenty-thirty years, denied pensions and publicly denounced for holding positions similar to those of G. Alkon, Gerald Naus, Gerald Augustinus, Greg and Mark DeFrancis.
“The Church” has apparently drawn the line with so-called “gay rights,” and seems willing to lose much of her youth and almost all moderately enlightened public opinion in Europe and “blue America” over this issue, combined with bitter intransigence over a woman’s “right” to “choose” (which I’ve always believed could have been negotiated and modified, through education of and dialogue with feminists).
Therefore, I think it is necessary for intellectually serious and truthful people who were once active, theologically well-informed Catholics who disagree with the Magisterium regarding this issue in particular to refrain from the Sacraments and to stop attending mass. Those who would offer the Sacraments to us in Church would be being “tricked” in some sense, by us, were we to approach the altar with the mental reservations that we have regarding the Church’s teachings on these matters.
I see Digby is advocating mortal sin now:
“Therefore, I think it is necessary for intellectually serious and truthful people who were once active, theologically well-informed Catholics who disagree with the Magisterium regarding this issue in particular to refrain from the Sacraments and to stop attending mass.”
Intentionally skipping Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. If you consider yourself Catholic, you are obligated to go, even if you aren’t properly disposed to receive Communion.
It’s one thing to have questions about Church teachings. It’s another thing to reject them entirely.
The particular teaching regarding the “intrinsically” “disordered” nature of the “homosexual condition” I reject entirely.
I recognise that it isn’t “dogma,” but the hierarchs of the Roman Catholic Church have chosen to preach it as if it were dogma.
It seems likes a lot of this is predictably but falsely centered around rights-based talk. After MM wrote his post about the Supreme Court gun-ban decision. I wrote a post using some of the same logic to talk about the issue of same -sex marriage. Its not as well written as most of the stuff on here, but I do think its start to an appropriate approach.
We can not called to blindly accept and work for equal rights for all people. In Blackadder’s Racism series we have seen that there is legitimate discrimination in some cases. We discriminate in favor of the handicapped for parking spaces, for example.
Instead of focusing on equal rights we need to work for the dignity of the person. For Catholics, the legalization of homosexual activity is not consistent with the dignity of the person. As has been said before in the comboxes Eve Tushnet and John Heard have some very convincing thoughts from the perspective of gay, but orthodox Catholics.
Furthermore the law is not meant to serve the rights of individuals but the common good. Marriage, stable, natural marriage, is the foundation of a stable and virtuous society. Marriage is in trouble in America; thus America is in trouble. We need to be working for an end to no-fault divorce and other laws and attitudes which had contributed to the breakdown of the family of society. Gay unions in any form, it seems to me, will further add to the confusion and misconceptions about what Marriage really is.
My bad, on the Mac Pro I’m Gerald A. Naus, my notebook had me saved as Gerald Augustinus :) I am like Wittgenstein! I & II. My modus operandi seems to be to fully involve myself in something, get disillusioned, move on while keeping some of what I’ve found. It was the same with liberalism, Buddhism and conservatism. What remains is an eclectic mix. But every experience is enriching. I’ve really ‘seen it all’ now.
But, if you paid close attention, you could see my decline in process for quite a while ! For the record, I never embraced NFP nor did I think masturbation, oral sex and homosexuality were mortal sins. I hadn’t been aware of the uh depths of the rules. Thanks to Uta, that’s changed! In addition, it seemed hardly worth mentioning since it’s ignored anyway. As I became outspoken ‘heterodox’ in those areas I actually also became more liberal in other areas, ie more ‘orthodox’.
I really tried to be a good conservative :D The reality is that I am an unruly contrarian. I never stopped ‘loving’ Hitchens. Obviously, there is no room for me in the not-so-big tent.
MM – we are many ! Who’d you like to talk to ? :D
digby,
The teaching on homosexuality comes from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium of The Catholic Church – all three sources of Divine Revelation. It is not Dogma in the technical sense of the word, but it is an infallible teaching.
If you believe Jesus is God, and that He established the Catholic Church as His Church, and that the Holy Spirit is the author and interpreter of the Bible, and that the Church teaches in Jesus’ name, with his authority, then I think you should understand yourself to be rejecting the moral teaching of the omni-benevolent God Himself. In some sense, I think this type of rejection of Church Teaching is a rejection of Jesus himself.
I pray this is not the case.
Obviously, the Church has drastically changed sex teachings over the centuries – the NFP stuff used to be considered matter for pimps, whores and adulterers. So another change wouldn’t be impossible. But, I don’t see it happening. In fact, I see a return to 1890 or somesuch. A much smaller, more radical church that includes a handful of Westerners and mostly depends on developing countries. ‘Real’ people like Cardinal Martini are literally dying out. Instead you have archbishops prancing around in a cappa magna. Sure, there still are liberal people in power in many places, but the future belongs to the decidedly odd. The older progressives still had hope (and ghastly music), the younger ones never even bothered. Traditionalists have better music but it tends to come with misogyny, homophobia and rants about Jews. Reverence works best from afar. I looked too closely.
Gerald,
What are you talking about, NFP “used to be considered matter for pimps, whores and adulterers?”
And I’m sorry that you’ve got the impression that traditionalists are somehow misogynistic or homophobic. In my experience, I think that’s an unfair description. But that’s why we don’t look to flawed human beings for our lessons: we look to Christ.
We ought to repeat the old maxim ad nauseum: condemn the sin, not the sinner.
“What did the Pope do? He taught what Jesus taught about marriage: it is a lifelong union between a man and a woman who give themselves totally to each other for the sake of family. The Pope did not make this up himself. Marriage is the invention neither of the Church nor of the State, and neither has the authority to change its nature. In pointing out this rather obvious truth, the document from the Holy See drew conclusions about not creating a legal parity between marriage and homosexual unions, because there is no biological or moral parity between them. For some, opposition to so-called “gay marriage” is evidently a species of attack against homosexuals themselves.
In recent years, homosexual persons have claimed their right to be part of society, politically and economically. This is a positive development. If it is important for someone to let others know his or her homosexual orientation, he or she shouldn’t be punished or demeaned, let alone attacked. But it’s a very great leap to move from respect for and acceptance of homosexual individuals to a demand that sexual relations between persons of the same sex be treated as the equivalent of marriage, morally and legally. This is a “leap” which will be the subject of public conversation in the months and years to come. The document from the Holy See helps set the terms of that debate in clear moral argument. Many will not agree…”
Fr. Cardinal George-8/17/03
——————————————————-
Condoning gay unions-including provision of legal rights-is nothing more than laying a foundation for greater acceptance of gay marriage which has the effect of distorting what marriage is. Please refer to the Cardinal’s comments. As it is, in this instant, nonreflective, multitasking, powerpoint society, nuance is lost. For those who support this nonsense, please tell me how you would explain to a seven year old, the difference between a secular union/marriage between Stan & Bob and a secular union/ marriage between John & Mary?
“The Church teaches that respect for homosexual persons cannot lead in any way to approval of homosexual behaviour or to legal recognition of homosexual unions. The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.”
Here is the entire document on giving legal recognition of homosexual unions written by Cardinal Ratzinger in 2003:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html
Please tell me how you’d explain to a seven year old the difference…etc.?
Well, I’ve got news for you, “little gal”: it’s done with ease all the time nowadays!
“Well, I’ve got news for you, “little gal”: it’s done with ease all the time nowadays!”
And I’m going to disagree with you. BTW, how much experience do you have with children?
To pin any blame for marriage’s troubles in America on homosexuality is simply nonsense.
A HUGE amount, “little gal”; I’m a teacher in an international preparatory school in Europe, and have taught in schools all over the world for eighteen years.
Digby:
And you have explained sexual issues to children? Or do you teach math or history? I ask this because I am a clinically trained social worker who works with children and my professional and personal experience has been very different.
“Explaining sexual issues to children” is not part of my curriculum, for sure. I teach literature and composition to extemely gifted high-schoolers. In discussion and analysis of literature, questions of sexual identity and morality arise frequently.
I can assure you that modern youth–particularly intelligent, well-read youth–are overwhelmingly opposed to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the position and rights of “gay” people in the modern world. In fact, that is even true of the majority of students in a Catholic school where I recently taught and which is generally academically inferior, compared to the European international school where I’ll be next year.
digby,
does it make you feel good when your students agree with you?
Zach, I feel good when they feel secure enough to speak their own minds; many of them often openly express views I strongly disagree with. I tend to be more “conservative” than they in a lot of different ways.
Digby:
For someone who teaches literature and composition, you didn’t comprehend my post. I specifically mentioned 7 year old children. High schoolers are not 7 years old.
Yes, I comprehended you perfectly, and I’m pointing out to you that the seven year old kids who you claim can’t understand the non-sex-specific character of “parenting” will, by the time they’re in high school, be perfectly accepting of parenting by couples of the same sex, as most of my students are. So what do you suppose is NOT going on, among your seven-year-olds, to persuade them that homosexuals are unacceptable as parents?
Digby:
You have decided not to respond to my challenge as laid out in my post–play around with it all you want….
Excuse me for stepping in, little gal, but I fail to see what your “challenge” to digby is.
And quotations from a man who says that violence against homosexuals should not at all be surprising these days are not an appeal to legitimate authority, as far as I am concerned….
Maybe I am oversensitive, but that strikes me as a rather ugly comment. I think probably very few gay people are interested in gaining acceptance for any specific sex act. For those who want marriage, it is their relationships they want recognized. Is that really so difficult to imagine?
Civil marriage has never been about relationships (unless you’re talking in a strictly legal “partnership” kind of relationship). Civil marriage has never been about love or even fidelity. It is about rights and responsibilities. It’s also about who gets what in the event of a break up.
The responsibility is that you generate the next generation of citizens to produce for your country, and provide fodder to fight in its wars. The benefits you get flow from that.
Recently, regular marriage has demanded the benefits while shirking the responsibilities. Why wouldn’t gay people want that. As has been pointed out before, married people are not living up to their responsibilities with regard to marriage, why should gay people be held to the same standard?
We need to reform marriage in this country especially with regard to “no fault” divorce.
A man with a lifelong partner, who attends mass every week, who spends his spare time with the gravely ill, who coordinates the activities of a disciplined Catholic prayer group, who is a resource for his friends in need —
What would you say about such a person?
And would it be so bad if he and his partner got — not a “marriage,” which plenty of gays have no interest in — but simply some of the legal benefits that heterosexual couples receive?
I’d say go for it, if and only if, brothers and sisters living in a lifelong partnership relationship are afforded exactly the same benefits. Do you agree with that?
Do you agree with that?
Of course, in all respects other than tax breaks: I believe tax breaks should only be for those–irrespective of “gender” or “orientation”–who are supporting dependents. That’s the only “interest” the government has a right to, in terms of people’s living arrangements. People NOT supporting dependents, whether “married” or “civilly united” or not, should pay the same tax rate as single people.
[...] support SPNFPUHC (single-payer not-for-profit universal health care). Don’t support same-sex marriage. Don’t support public financing of [...]
OBAMA SUPPORTS PUBLIC DEPRAVITY
(& supports the “rights” of youngsters to view it!)
Google “Zombietime” and click on “Up Your Alley Fair.” After recovering from the uncensored photos (!), Yahoo “God to Same-Sexers: Hurry Up” on the “clericalwhispers” listing (even Jesus told Judas to hurry up – John 13:27). Also Yahoo “Dangerous Radicals of the Religious Right.” See all of this before the predicted California earthquake happens a la Rev. 16:19 (“the cities of the nations fell”) – and before hurricanes and other conscience-stirring disasters occur elsewhere! The fast-moving goal of Gaydom is to quietly sneak its depravity on to every Main Street on earth while decent folks stay asleep and do nothing. Bryan
(Obama and his porn-protecting collaborators, Pelosi and Newsom, did NOT approve of this message.)