Catholic "Leaders' Lie about Prop 8 Ruling

After reading the press release from the out-of-control United States Conference of Catholic Bishops over the recent federal court decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 as unconstitutional (see the press release at: http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2010/10-145.shtml ), I figured it’s time for yet another rational analysis of yet another irrational outburst from the Roman Catholic hierarchy.

Unfortunately, there doesn’t appear to be a new official document from the USCCB, so I’ll have to resort to working over the coverage from Catholic News Service, (see the article at: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/71235) which includes quotes from inane conservative Catholic lay leaders as well as members of the hierarchy – so here goes:

Catholic Leaders Refute Judge’s Ruling Overturning Proposition 8
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
By Jane McGrath

--

JP: The headline is pretty much proof is just how delusional the Roman Catholic leaders, and the headline-writer, really are. Refute, indeed!

--

(CNSNews.com) -- Catholic leaders refuted. . .

--

JP: Refuted? Really?
--

. . . Judge Vaughn Walker’s ruling earlier this month that California must stop enforcing Proposition 8, which defines marriage as between a man and a woman, and which blames religious institutions’ beliefs, including those of the Catholic Church, for harming homosexuals and lesbians.

Cardinal Francis George, head of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), rejected Walker’s claims, stating that “no court of civil law has the authority to reach
into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

--

JP: By hewing blindly to Roman Catholic hierarchy’s interpretations of teachings as they relate to human rights for cisgender and non-heterosexual and people, Cardinal George obviously does not have an inkling about nature as it applies to human beings or other creatures. People like me are by our natures different. When Cardinal George limits “nature” to the nature of cissexual heterosexual people, and ignores the small minority of people who were created by God to be different, he loses sight of the truth and condemns himself to being numbered among the goats on the Day of Judgment.

As to the authority of the courts, the federal courts do have the authority, duty and responsibility to interpret the Constitution, federal laws, and the federal constitutionality of state laws. There is nothing that Cardinal George can say that changes the fact that the trial court ruling in this matter is a masterful exercise of judicial analysis of the issues presented before the court. If Cardinal George were to read the trial transcript, and if Cardinal George applied right reason to the reading, he would be unable to conclude any differently from the judge. But Cardinal George apparently lives in an alternate universe, where black it white and Truth can be any old lie.

--

The Aug. 4 ruling, which the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put an emergency stay on this week, stated that, “Religious beliefs that gay and lesbian relationships are sinful or inferior to heterosexual relationships harm gays and lesbians.”

This finding cited, among other things, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith’s Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions Between Homosexual Persons.

--

JP: And, of course, I have already completely skewered the Vatican document, back on my od geocities site. Perhaps Cardinal George should read my commentary before he relies on the Vatican document in the future. It can robably be found using the Wayback machine . . .

--

When asked for comment on the judge’s ruling, Sr. Mary Ann Walsh, spokeswoman for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB), said in an e-mail to CNSNews.com that, “Judge Walker, in his decision, backed his bigotry with errors, including the misstatement that the ‘Catholic Church views homosexuality as sinful.’ The fact is, the Catholic Church sees homosexuality as a condition, an inclination in a person, something not intrinsically sinful.”

--

JP: Sister Mary Ann is technically correct, here, and in the below paragraph, as it relates to Catholic teaching. But beyond that, she ends up falling into the same errors as the hierarchy.

--

“The church calls for pastoral support, not condemnation, for people with this inclination,” said Sister Walsh. “The Catholic Church makes clear that it is homosexual activities it deems sinful, because it holds that all sexual activity belongs within marriage between a man and a woman.”

--

JP: Sister Mary Ann, the Church’s “clarity” about deeming “homosexual activity” to be sinful is perfectly fine if it were kept within the confines of addressing the Roman Catholic faithful. But the Church claims that its teachings in this area, which are completely wrong, must be applied universally.

--

Sr. Mary Ann defended the Church against the judge’s claim that its religious teachings “harm” gays and lesbians, saying, “the Catholic Church opposes all unjust discrimination against gays and lesbians and abhors violence against them.”

--
JP: Sister Mary Ann, that is a lie - The Catechism may provide this, but the hierarchy's actions misapply the teaching. It is unjust to deny civil marriage and the bundles of legal rights that appertain to civil marriage, to those who because of their natural sexual orientation have a desire to pursue legal family formation with a person of the same sex. Denying the right is clearly violative of the federal constitution, because there truly is no *rational* basis for giving special rights to heterosexual people just because theya re in the majority.

--

But, admitting that anti-gay bigots exist, she added, “bigoted people are an unfortunate result but not a reason to upend the U.S. Constitution.”

--
JP: Sister Mary Ann doesn’t understand that the U.S. Constitution is not being “upended,” but rather that it is being properly interpreted by the court.
--

Fr. Francis de Rosa, parochial administrator of two parishes in Virginia, responded to the judge’s ruling in an e-mail to CNSNews.com. “We are not opposed
to the human rights of someone with same-sex attraction,” he wrote. “Rather, we assert that there is no such thing as a special category of ‘gay’ rights. Why? Because homosexuality is a pyscho-sexual disorder that harms the person and society.”

--

JP: Father Francis! Homosexuality was at one time considered a psychiatric disorder by the American Psychiatric Association. That position was changed in 1973. Science does not support your sadly misinformed statement. We have come to the realization that considering people to be mentally disordered solely because their nature is different from that of the majority is a mistake.

We are increasingly coming to the realization that it’s much more rational to consider Roman Catholicism to be “a psychosexual and moral delusional disorder that harms the person and society.” Look, the Assumption and the Resurrection, and a lot of other Catholic teachings, are harmlessly delusional. But many of the Church’s “moral” pronouncements, particularly those that relate to the treatment of women, of gays, of transsexual people, are harmful to society, as well as to the individuals that the Church continues to mercilessly persecute.

While I would hesitate to call all religion harmful, there is much harm that is done in the name of religion. Jesus Christ was a great teacher, as was Buddha, and there were others. But it’s a harmless delusion to elevate Jesus into godhood. I have no problem with many aspects of the Roman Catholic delusion – it’s just when the Church crosses the line in ways that adversely affect other people, that the delusion becomes harmful.

--

“Condoning such behavior and encouraging people to engage in it by the passage of permissive and protective laws does the real harm, not the position that warns people of the destructive consequences and nature of homosexual acts,” wrote Fr. De Rosa.

--

JP: Father Francis! You should take inspiration from your namesake, Francis Bernardone! Equal justice under the law is a human right, and there is nothing destructive about people who are by their nature same-sex-oriented acting on their orientation. I’ll grant that when heterosexual people “commit homosexual acts” you may have a point – but that is just as destructive as homosexual people “committing heterosexual acts.” The lucky bisexuals are the only ones who can go either way without being self-destructive.
--

The judge’s ruling concluded that “moral disapproval alone” was an “improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians.”

--
JP: The judge was being polite. “Moral disapproval” of equal rights for non-heterosexual and non-cissexual people is itself immoral! But the judge is not the moral police, but the constitutional police.

--

William Donahue, president of the Catholic League, told CNSNews.com: “Law is only the imposition of morality. That the law requires you to wear seatbelts is the imposition of morality, but this is a bogus argument to suggest that one side is imposing morality and the other side is not.”

--

JP: My dear Bill! Law is, in some situations, an imposition of a morality. But not all laws are moral laws. It is not immoral to drive through a red light at 2 AM when there is no other traffic around. It is, however an illegal activity that would merit a traffic citation if there is an alert police officer in the vicinity who hasn’t met the monthly ticket quota!

The seatbelt law is not a moral law! It is not an imposition of morality, it’s a mere governmental regulation – one that actually interferes with the moral judgment that each adult should be allowed. Of course, a seatbelt/carseat law aimed at protecting children does have a moral value. Society has an interest in protecting children.
--

Judge Walker also wrote in his decision that, “In the absence of a rational basis, what remains of proponents’ case is an inference, amply supported by evidence in the record, that Proposition 8 was premised on the belief that same-sex couples simply are not as good as opposite-sex couples.”

Walker continued, “Whether that belief is based on moral disapproval of homosexuality, animus towards gays and lesbians or simply a belief that a relationship between a man and a woman is inherently better than a relationship between two men or two women, this belief is not a proper basis on which to legislate.”

--

JP: Okay, what’s wrong with Judge Walker’s ruling? Nothing. It’s the right ruling.

--

In response to Judge Walker’s statement that, “A state’s interest in an enactment must of course be secular in nature,” Donahue said that the state does indeed have an invested, secular interest in upholding traditional marriage.

--

JP: Wrong, Bill! As a matter of fact, the testimony from the opposition’s own experts showed that your conclusion is wrong!

--

The traditional family is the anchor of society and teaches children citizenship, said Donahue. “All the psychological data show that children need a father and a mother.”

--

JP: Studies have actually shown that children do even better with two mothers. But let’s not rush into pushing a form of plural marriage where there is a second wife to help raise children, or pushing heterosexual couples into divorce so that the wives/mothers can find a female spouse.

There is nothing about having a father as a male role model that can’t be filled by another male figure in a child’s life.

--

Other Catholic clergy have made public statements disapproving of Judge Walker’s decision. Calling heterosexual marriage “the bedrock of any society,” . . .

--

JP: No one is disputing that heterosexual marriage is a bedrock of society – the question is whether it is fair to limit marriage to heterosexual people. And the answer is that it is indeed unfair.

--

. . . Cardinal Francis George said, “It is tragic that a federal judge would overturn the clear and expressed will of the people in their support for the institution of marriage. No court of civil law has the authority to reach into areas of human experience that nature itself has defined.”

--

JP: Cardinal George, as I wrote already, does not have a grasp of nature, natural law, or morality. And the first sentence in this quote is the Cardinal’s endorsement of what deTocqueville called “the tyranny of the majority.” In a system that prizes individual human rights, the use of the ballot box by a majority to impose its will to unjustly discriminate against a minority is one of the ultimate moral corruptions. Had the people of California voted to abolish marriage for everyone, it might have been a stupid decision, but at least it would have been fair. But to abolish marriage for just those who have a same-sex orientation was unfair, immoral, and in the court’s just analysis, unconstitutional. Freedom of religion allows Cardinal George to use his Roman Catholic Church’s delusional teachings to refuse to sacramentally celebrate a same-sex marriage in a church or cathedral, but it does not permit Cardinal George to discriminate against married same-sex couples in the public square. The Contitutional protection of religious freedom has limits, and Cardinal George is not free to impose his religious beliefs on me, just as I am not allowed to force him to accept that “God is One” as I maintain as a Unitarian, or that “God is in all” as I maintain as a Universalist. I’m no longer a Trinitarian, and while I have abandoned that belief in favor of something else, I still support the Cardinal’s right to maintain it.

--

And Archbishop Joseph Kurtz, who chairs the USCCB Ad Hoc Committee for the
Defense of Marriage,

--

JP: That title is, of course, a joke. All this blather about “Defense of Marriage” is merely a code for being an “Assault on Marriage.” Archbishop Joe favors assaulting marriage equality.

--

. . . joined Cardinal George in his statement and added, “Citizens of this nation have uniformly voted to uphold the understanding of marriage as a union of one man and one woman in every jurisdiction where the issue has been on the ballot.”

--

JP: See my comments above about the immorality of the tyranny of the majority, when it is used to impose the majority’s will on the human rights of the minority. Even the majority is not entitled to vote itself special rights.
--

The archbishop also said, “Marriage is more fundamental and essential to the well being of society than perhaps any other institution. It is simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution.”

--

JP: Archbishop Joe is even more of an ass than I thought from his first tidbit. I agree, it is “simply unimaginable that the court could now claim a conflict between marriage and the Constitution” But that’s not what the court ruled, Archbishop. Are you capable of reading ane understanding the English language? The court held that marriage should be available on a gender-neutral basis, and that the Constitution demands that the majority is not entitled to special rights. Nothing at all is being taken away from the heterosexual majority’s right to enter into a marriage and raise children, except the exclusivity of the relationship to the cissexist heterosexist majority

--

Supporters of Proposition 8 cite that voters have upheld traditional marriage in all of the more than 30 opportunities to vote on it throughout the United States. . . .

--

JP: The ruling does not prohibit “traditional marriage.” It’s not as if the judge took away the right of marriage to straights to give it to gays – but these “supporters,” who actually oppose marriage equality, act as if that was in fact what was done. Perhaps they should pay some more attention to reality, rather than their supersititous delusions.

--

. . . However, Judge Walker wrote in his ruling that without “some support in
evidence,” voters’ “conjecture, speculation and fears are not enough.”

He continued, “Still less will the moral disapprobation of a group or class of citizens suffice, no matter how large the majority that shares that view. The evidence demonstrated beyond serious reckoning that Proposition 8 finds support only in such disapproval. As such, Proposition 8 is beyond the constitutional reach of the voters or their representatives.”

Fr. de
Rosa, also addressed this, saying, “Vaughn Walker’s ruling asserts that the Catholic argument against homosexual acts is without a ‘rational basis,’ yet that teaching is not based solely upon principles of faith. It is certainly possible to argue from pure reason that it is against the nature of the human person to engage in homosexuality.”

--

JP: Father Francis is completely wrong! I’ve already addressed this issue in my commentary on the Manhattan Declaration. Robby George’s arguments on natural law do not hold water, and Father Francis can argue until he is blue in the face, but he can’t deny the reality of nature and come across as being truthful. The only nature Father Francis seems to understand, may be seen through an Aristotelian lens – perhaps he should look closer.

--

“One very obvious point is the manifest lack of bodily and sexual complementarity in homosexual acts,” said Fr. De Rosa. “Furthermore, there is plenty of clinical psychological data to show that same-sex attraction is the result of a developmental disorder. Were one to make an argument from the theory of evolution, homosexuality is most certainly an inferior, dead-end phenomenon.”

--

JP: Bodily and sexual complementarity? That’s seemingly a code that indicates that homosexual activity does not result in pregnancy. So? No one is suggesting that everyone should be gay. When over 90% of the population, including many who are totally unfit to be parents, can engage in the “sexual complementarity” that makes babies, there’s no need to insist that the rest of humanity engage in the same acts. God wouldn’t have created people to be different otherwise. In fact, nature points out numerous reasons for homosexuality existing in a natural setting. As long as it is not exclusive, the species is likely to continue to propagate, perhaps excessively.

--

Bishop Jaime Soto of the Diocese of Sacramento has also weighed in on the issue. He decried the “hysteria” that, he says, “has, unfortunately, become the hallmark of California discourse. … It is important for the Catholic community and all Californians of good will not to be intimidated into silence and accommodation.”

--

JP: Now, in this snippet above, Bishop Jaime starts to sound pretty good – but what else does he have to say?

--

In 2003, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, then-headed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, issued a letter on homosexual unions that was cited by Judge Walker as harmful to the social progress of homosexuals. The letter, in part, states, “No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman” who “mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.”

--

JP: I don’t need an ideology to refute the Congregation. In fact, I’ve skewered Joe Ratzinger’s reasoning in *that* document rather effectively, too. If all the documents the Catholic Church relies on are the result of defective reasoning, what does that say about the conclusions? To persist in these wrong-headed teachings is delusional – and to insist that these be the basis for civil law is beyond reason.

--

“Homosexual unions are totally lacking in the biological and anthropological elements of marriage and family which would be the basis, on the level of reason, for granting them legal recognition,” states the letter. “Such unions are not able to contribute in a proper way to the procreation and survival of the human race. … Society owes its continued survival to the family, founded on marriage. … If, from the legal standpoint, marriage between a man and a woman were to be considered just one possible for of marriage, the concept of marriage would undergo a radical transformation, with grave detriment to the common good.”

--

JP: The reasoning was wrong in 2003, and its still wrong in 2010.

--

Proposition 8 was passed after a fierce political battle in California in 2008. Although Judge Walker’s ruling, handed down earlier this month, had been scheduled to go into effect on Wednesday, Aug. 18, an emergency stay was imposed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday. The Associated Press reported that oral arguments begin in the appeals court on Dec. 6.

--

JP: I sincerely hope that the 9th Circuit comes out with a just ruling! It's entirely possible that the appellants lack standing to appeal. In that case, the ruling will apply ony in California - if the 9th Circuit decides on the merits, several other states will be affected - and if the Supreme Court of the United States gets the opportunity to rule on the merits, and does so with a proper constitutional interpretation, the ruling would apply nationally!

That won't stop the opponents of justice, equality and fairness. They are likely to continue raving their delusions, the way they already do about women's reproductive rights.

On Maggie Gallagher, Marriage and Religious Liberty

Nearly a week late, on her Tuesday, April 7, 2009 column entitled Gay Marriage and the future of religious liberty, nationally syndicated right-wing columnist, President of the so-called National Organization for Marriage (which, curiously, is an anti-marriage group), and Ossining, New York resident Maggie Gallagher makes the claim that laws that make marriage gender-neutral threaten the religious liberty of the citizens of those states that enact such laws.

She claims that same-sex marriage “asks religious Americans to surrender a core belief” vaguely citing both Leviticus and Genesis, but like most Bible-thumpers, completely ignores the message of 1 Samuel 18, in which David, the anointed of God, enters into a same-sex marriage covenant with King Saul’s son Jonathan, and later in the same Chapter, when Saul also gives David his daughter Michal in marriage, Saul says that this makes David his son-in-law a second time. Maggie claims that opposite-sex-only-marriage is a core belief of Christians, but she ignores the Biblical evidence for gender-neutral marriage.

Her argument is specious – the adoption of gender-neutral marriage laws does not force religious Americans to give up any belief at all with regard to their religious beliefs with regard to marriage. In fact, the adoption of gender-neutral marriage laws involves an affirmation of religious freedom.

The Catholic Sacrament of Holy Matrimony between a man and a woman is not adversely affected by making civil marriage laws gender-neutral – a man may still sacramentally marry a woman in a Catholic Church. But now, Quakers, Unitarians and others whose deeply held religious beliefs sanction the religious marriage of two men, or two women, may now exercise the freedom of their deeply-held beliefs.

Maggie also envisions a dystopian future where courts will ban private discrimination within the churches. To an extent, this is utter nonsense. However, when it comes to dealing on the secular plane with people of different religious beliefs, the law should brook no discrimination. Religious freedom, like the freedom of speech, is not an absolute and untrammeled right of one religious tradition to impose its beliefs on all. That would be like Maggie Gallagher, whose organization seeks to do just that.

But when religious groups venture into the world of commerce, respect for other beliefs must be paramount. Mormons can ban anyone without a Temple Recommend (even other Mormons) from their temple precincts – but if they operate a business, they should be obliged to obey non-discrimination laws in the conduct of that business – particularly if they receive government funding or tax relief.

Still, I believe there is a legitimate church-state issue here that Maggie does not seem to comprehend or raise – government should have no authority over religious marriage or the regulation or sanctioning of religious marriage. New York’s domestic relations law has several sections pursuant to which clergy are authorized to perform marriages in the State of New York, and provides penalties for clergy who do not perform marriages in accordance with state law. This is an unwarranted intrusion into religious freedom. Clergy should have no right to preside over a secular marriage (unless they do not discriminate against anyone with a valid government-issued license), and the government should have no say about the termination of any religious marriage contract.

The distinction between secular and religious marriage is most apparent in the area of divorce laws – while under current unconstitutional law, a Catholic priest might preside over a combined secular/religious wedding, a catholic tribunal may only terminate or void the religious sacrament, while the divorce court may only terminate the civil marriage contract. It’s the same in Jewish tradition, where the Jewish religious marriage contract can only be terminated by a “get,” while the state only requires that the husband agree to obtain a get as a condition of the civil divorce decree being obtained. (This, too, is an intrusion into religious liberty.)

We should look to the more enlightened European countries, which strictly separate the secular civil marriage performed by a civil official, from a religious sacrament, contract or blessing. Such a true separation of church and state would help ease the confusion in the minds of ignorant people like my neighbor Maggie Gallagher and her ilk. She objects to being called a bigot, even though to those who are not ignorant, her position on imposing her personal bigoted narrow un-Christian Christianist beliefs on everyone is clearly seen as bigotry by anyone who has a modicum of decency or morality. To be charitable, perhaps she is truly ignorant or incapable of grasping truth, and not bigoted and mean-spirited on purpose.

If I can respect her civil rights under secular marriage laws, why can’t she accept that those rights should be equally available to persons other than the heterosexual majority?

While I could make a theological argument based on 1 Samuel 18 to the Roman Catholic hierarchy to implore it to change its stance so that it sacramentalizes marriage on a gender-neutral basis, I would expect the hierarchy to make its own rules with regard to sacramental issues. I do not expect the Catholic hierarchy to butt its way into civil marriage, but the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has done so, in a document that is offensive to anyone who respects the founding principles and the social contract upon which the American republic was created.

Maggie Gallagher and her errantly-named NOM group also want to impose Christianist religious bigotry on the civil institution of marriage.

The First Amendment to the American Constitution expressly guarantees freedom of religious expression, not just to conservative Christianists, but to all Americans. The same Amendment also prohibits the government from establishing religion. The only way to accomplish both the religious freedom and the non-Establishment is to separate religious and civil marriage, at the commencement, during the marriage, and also at and after the termination. A civil divorce should not be sufficient to end a religious contract, nor should a religious annulment be permitted to end a civil marriage – it should be the same way at the beginning.

While the government may not establish religion, it can, and perhaps should, respect the binding nature of religious sacramental contracts and blessings, requiring that any existing religious blessing or sacrament be dispensed with prior to permitting a party to enter into any new civil marriage or as a prerequisite to formally granting a divorce (though a civil separation would be available to those under a religious disability). But perhaps that should be the extent of the government/religion connection in the area of marriage.

Such an arrangement would strengthen the religious freedom of Mormons to enter into their more solemn form of marriage with sealing, or a fundamentalist Christian “covenant marriage,” or the Catholic Matrimonial sacrament. After all, a contract should be respected, even if it is a contract entered into under religious auspices.

However, a civil marriage should be required for any of the secular civil rights and responsibilities of marriage to inure.

Interestingly, this separation also creates a hope for some senior citizens in nursing homes who may choose to enter into a religious-only marriage so they can sleep together without sin, while keeping their estates separate and their social security checks intact.

In any event, the picture Maggie paints of gender-neutral marriage laws is bleak and uninviting – but it is all based on a tissue of lies, innuendo and falsification.

Maggie’s final question is “Is Vermont the beginning of a new willingness on the part of the powerful gay-marriage movement to let Christians be Christians?”

Ah, but the question should be asked of Maggie herself – is she and her curiously-named anti-marriage organization willing to let Christians be Christians rather than forcing the state to impose Christianist bigotry on everyone?

Jesus Himself recognized a separation of religion from the secular law when He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” (cit. all the synoptic Gospels: Matthew 22:21, Mark 12:17 and Luke 20:25). Perhaps Maggie might consider respecting these wise words of Jesus, and keep her religious bigotry out of civil laws that respect all religion, even atheism.

Perhaps Maggie may some day become enlightened. Perhaps she may one day be given the efficacious grace of the Spirit so that she may grow in Wisdom and Understanding, and that she will see the inherent error of her current position. Like Pastor Rick Warren, whom she skewers in her column, perhaps she may one day start down the road to a change of heart - in which her organization might some day truly and really be *for* marriage and not really against it. Perhaps only time will tell.

Marriage Equality in the Year of St. Paul

Until June 29, 2009, the Roman Catholic Church is celebrating a special jubilee year dedicated to commemorate the approximate 2000 years since the birth of St. Paul the Apostle.

In honor of St. Paul, let’s start this essay as a meditation on his writings on the issue of the purpose of marriage, expressed in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9:

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

In addition to this passage from St. Paul, let’s take a look at the recent reports coming from the Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, North Carolina, reported in an article in The Raleigh News and Observer on Sunday, February 15, 2009, entitled Push is on for same-sex celibacy: Raleigh diocese directs ministry at gays, lesbians

I learned about this from a blog essay written by Pam Spaulding, the proprietress of the Pam’s House Blend blog (a blog I highly endorse for its well-written essays), entitled Raleigh, Charlotte dioceses pushing same-sex celibacy, NC marriage amendment

Now that I’ve identified the sources of the reportage, let’s get to meat of the reports.

It seems that the Diocese of Raleigh is embarking on two initiatives related to marriage:

First, the Raleigh diocese is organizing a diocesan chapter of Courage, a group that encourages gay Catholics toward a celibate life, and

Second, the Bishop of Raleigh is planning on joining with the Bishop of Charlotte (also in North Carolina) on February 24, 2009 to endorse a proposed amendment to the North Carolina state constitution to define marriage solely as the union of one man and one woman, to enshrine in the state constitution a ban against equal marriage rights for non-heterosexual people.

I actually don’t object to the bishop starting up a Courage chapter – but I believe that Courage itself is too limited in its scope. It should be aimed at all unmarried Catholics, and not just those with a homosexual orientation. The reason is very much associated with 1 Corinthians 7:8-9.

While I would welcome an expanded Courage aimed at all sexual orientations, I strongly object to the bishops in North Carolina on the one hand trying to discourage promiscuity only for gays by pushing celibacy on them (which works only for those few actually called to a celibate life), and at the same time encouraging the adoption of a constitutional anti-marriage amendment that would serve the opposite purpose, as a secular encouragement of promiscuity in the gay population.

I also disagree with the Roman Catholic hierarchy on its objection to the idea of marriage as a sacramental covenant that is not open to non-heterosexual people. Holy Matrimony as a sacrament should be open to non-heterosexual couples on the basis of the sacred marriage covenant entered into between David and Saul’s son Jonathan (see 1 Samuel 18).

Why do I take these points of view?

Simply because anyone who reads and understands the Bible properly must know that the Church (and all Christian leaders) should, like St. Paul, be teaching that the highest calling for all Christians is to celibacy, while marriage, even though a sacremant as well as a civil right, should be seen only as the last resort for those Christians whose libidos are such that they cannot remain celibate.

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy sets up those of them who cannot live a celibate life, and who, being unmarried *and* without an option to marry, cannot contain their sexual libidos, to a life the Church can in its gross immorality gleefully condemn as sinful.

(A preferable alternative and truly moral point of view is to understand that God does not require the impossible. If marriage is not a sacramental or secular possibility for gays and lesbians, any actions they take to assuage their libidinal feelings outside of marriage cannot be sinful – they have no option to marry, God does not require the impossible, and thus the Church cannot reasonably expect all gays and lesbians to be called to celibacy.)

By closing the option of sacramental marriage to gays and lesbians, the Roman Catholic hierarchy also actually encourages them to enter into lives of promiscuity – by providing no moral alternative. It is a wonder that so many gays and lesbians are able to find a way to live non-promiscuous lives with long-term partners in informal or even legally recognized domestic partnerships, civil unions, and civil marriages. And wise governments, seeking societal stability, will find ways to encourage marriage as a choice for all. The Church, however, ignores this phenomenon and paints a picture of a “homosexual lifestyle” that is purely sybaritic, self-indulgent, decadent and promiscuous. It is this “lifestyle” that the Church creates as a straw man – as if the only alternative for the gay population is celibacy.

On the Raleigh diocese website, this promiscuous “gay lifestyle” is the main reason for the creation of Courage. The diocesan webpage starts with a quote from “Mark,” a Courage member:

“I thought I had the homosexuality under control. I'd been a Catholic for five years, went to daily Mass, prayed the rosary daily, went on one or two retreats a year, and volunteered at my parish. Yet, after a series of crises occurred, I once again became involved in addictive, homosexual behavior. So what happened?”

“Addictive homosexual behavior” is a code word for that straw man “promiscuous gay lifestyle.” I’m not about to deny that such a lifestyle actually exists – but I will deny that it is the only path taken by gay people.

The diocese goes on:

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with SSA. “The problem of same-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was gay. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with SSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the SSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This whole line of reasoning is specious. That mother would have done herself and her son a lot more good had she gotten involved with her local P-FLAG ghapter. This whole straw man “SSA lifestyle” (SSA = same sex attraction) is not any different from an OSA lifestyle (where OSA means “opposite sex attraction.” Let’s see how much sense the foregoing makes if we make the substitution (and also, as the Church seems to do with SSA, make the same assumption about OSA, that it involves lots of wild promiscuous sex parties):

In a recent interview, Fr. Check talked about his experience in counseling those with OSA. “The problem of opposite-sex attraction does not reduce well to a few words,” he said. “It is certainly no place for slogans or hastily formed conclusions. Most importantly, it calls for abundant and genuine charity, something that in my opinion tends to be conspicuous in its absence from much of the discussion of the topic.”

NCC spoke with a Raleigh woman active in Encourage. Her son was 23 when he announced defiantly – by email -- that he was straight. “I was devastated,” she says. “My son was sinning, alienating himself from me and from God, and I didn’t know how to parent him. All I could say to him was, ‘I love you with all my heart. Stay close to God.’” In her search for compassion and support, she learned about Courage/Encourage in 2004, and became an advocate for the establishment of a chapter in the Diocese of Raleigh.

The perception that people with OSA are happy is a myth, she says: “When my son is ‘acting out’ the OSA lifestyle, his whole personality changes. He becomes distant, cruel and defensive. When he’s not living it, he’s just the opposite, compassionate and empathetic.”

Of course, if a person living a real promiscuous OSA lifestyle then turns to God, the Church might encourage that individual to settle down into a marriage, if he or she can’t remain celibate.

The Church presents no moral alternative to gays and lesbians – only the (impossible for most) idea of living a celibate life. And the treatment of “internalized homophobia” blames the homosexuality itself for the effects of what one might fairly refer to as a “culturally-induced stress disorder.”

Let’s take another look at the last of the originally-quoted paragraphs:

“The problem of same sex attraction is often vexing to those who struggle with it,” Fr. Check concurs. “Shame, loneliness, and a sense of hopelessness are the enemies. Often people with SSA also struggle with sexual addiction, drug or alcohol abuse, depression, anxiety or other mental illness. This remains true even in the places where sexual promiscuity is widely tolerated.”

This is turning the whole problem upside-down! The side effects come from the lack of self-acceptance found in those who feel conflicted between the false teachings they have been exposed to about their natural orientation, and their experience of the orientation itself. The struggles cease when the individual comes to the realization that the Church is wrong, and that the individual can be good and moral and loved by God even if they are gay and having a chaste gay relationship.

The Church finds itself in this conundrum, and is itself the cause of so much of the grief (though secular society and parents and family members must also share some of the blame), because its moral theology starts with false premises about natural law. When the Roman Catholic hierarchy insists that "homosexual acts" are sinful for those with a "homosexual inclination," the hierarchy relies on a false understanding of Natural Law. Homosexual acts are only sinful for those with a heterosexual inclination (they should read and understand Romans 1 with the insight that an "act in accordance with (one's) nature" is not an "act against Nature").

The Roman Catholic Church insists on celibacy as a test for a priestly vocation - to insist that all whose sexual orientation is not heterosexual must be celibate or sinful is a perversion of the message of scripture.

The hierarchy should take a closer look at St. Paul – and to the story of David and Jonathan.

It’s about time that the Roman Catholic Church re-examined its schizophrenic teachings about homosexuality – on the one hand, that gays be treated with respect, and on the other hand, that homosexual activity cannot be condoned.

Such a teaching flies in the face of St. Paul’s teaching – sure, in context, Paul was writing directly about heterosexual people – but the point is extendable to non-heterosexual people as well.

God does not expect the impossible. For those of any sexual orientation who are called to celibacy, God will provide sufficient (and efficacious, if they exercise their free will to do so) grace for them to be celibate. For those who cannot remain celibate because they burn with libidinous passion, regardless of their orientation, a legal, moral and sacramental path must be made available for them to be able to live chaste lives within a marital bond.

To that end, an organization like Courage should be open to all unmarried Catholics – who, straight or gay, should be strongly encouraged to remain virginal, chaste and celibate as their primary goal – and that only those Catholics (and all other Christians) whose souls burn with sexual desire that they cannot completely control should be allowed to marry. (Of course, for those who are not Christian at all, there would be no need for the secular law to address the idea of celibacy as a calling – secular law should permit equal marriage rights for all as a matter of providing a level playing field.

To St. Paul, it’s clear that marriage for the Christian is not for procreation – that was a value suitable solely for those who lived before Christ came as the Redeemer, and for pagans and unbelievers. For those who have accepted Christ, and are not already married at the time they are baptized as Christians, the primary calling is clearly to celibacy. . . if they can handle it. Celibacy should not be the expectation only for priests, gays and lesbians.

Oh, and if I didn’t mention it earlier in this essay (I didn’t), the Church has painted itself into the same sort of moral corner with the trans population. We are not allowed to marry the same sex (or the opposite sex). We, too, are all expected by the Church to achieve the impossible (impossible except for a few) that God does not expect.

God does not expect the impossible - why should the Roman Catholic Church?