SCOTUS's Decision and the Bishops' Response | National Catholic Reporter

SCOTUS's Decision and the Bishops' Response | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: Ten years ago and civil unions was too late - and the Church would have seen it as endorsing gay sex anyway, because the Curia is obsessed with other people's sexuality.  They understand little of family - celebacy blinds them to it.  Civil unions and doing away with religious marriage were simply attempts at Political Correctness to soothe Church sensibilities. It was always a false compromise.  The key point to act was 30 years ago when all over the country in both Catholic and non-Catholic hospitals, family members were kicking what was called then Long Term Companions out of hospital rooms and taking control of end-of-life decision-making.  If the Church had stood for Love and reconciliation then, the whole movement might never have come about.  And procreation is not necessary for marriage - family and love is.



On the question of individual autonomy, the Court is correct (and Chief Roberts is wrong).  Society can decide some things, but not the rights of individuals.  I believe the concept of rights being higher than what the group wants is why martyrdom is celebrated, so this faux concern about autonomy is misplaced.  As for creation, again, foster parents create. Marriage is not just about making babies - my niece Christian is still my nice even though her father is married to my brother.  Its about family.



As for Casey, it is about privacy, just like Roe, which says the public cannot legislate everything - or use legislation to form lower classes.  Granted, the ultimate lower class is the unborn, but there really is no way to fix that without dealing with the fact that the aborted embryo and the miscarried embryo would have to have the same legal protections.  Won't work.



Legal scholars who know 14th Amendment Law, like Garrett Epps - probably the best at it - agree with the majority on both subjects.  You can read his column in The Atlantic at http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/same-sex-marriage-supreme-court-obergefell/396995/   If you are not convinced, you are defending a position, not exploring truth.



As for the bishops, I am sure that Bishop Kurtz's statement was mostly staff driven and designed to shore up the coalition between other religious conservatives on opposing Roe v Wade, which by the way the Church is wrong on too - not the abortion part but the privacy and 14th Amendment part.  Indeed, until the Church is advised by someone, like say Epps, who does understand how equal protection meant that there are some issues that inevitably are beyond the legislature, even if the legislature is not wrong - then any solution on abortion is out of reach.  Actually, its out of reach anyway, because the current strategy is not about solutions, its about making right-wing fundraisers rich and getting pro-lifers to work for Republican candidates.  Frankly, the bishops should have used this as a moment of contrition and apologized for the conduct of Catholic Hospitals three decades ago (which at least has been corrected now by CHA).  That would, of course, involve putting grace and faith before partisanship and coalition.



The doctrine is wrong too.  When I was in pre-Cana at St. Ann's in D.C. and had a marriage course at Regis High School in Iowa, we were told (both times) that the spouses made the marriage and the priest was a witness.  Same rules have to apply. We were also told, and a few marriages by uncles affirmed (even the one in the Disciples of Christ) that fecundity is not required to marry.  Anyone who really does not understand that should turn in their Theology degree for a refund.  Oh, as far as Cardinal Wuerl goes, marriage can give grace, even without baptism.  Jesus also taught that the married (and there is no difference in gender preference in this) become one flesh.  That is a little about sex, but its mostly about unity and being a family - and having that family status be unquestioned by anyone, including the Church and legislative majorities.  It is actually a wonder that this letter is out now (unless its a retread), DC and Maryland have had marriage equality for some time now.  Nothing at all is new in this Archdiocese.



The whole same-sex attraction this is bunk.  People are gay or not - or in the middle some place - based on biology from before they were born in a process known as Epigenesis.  Any repartative therapy must be considered assault and all commentary (and it is commentary, not teaching) about such attraction being disordered must be stricken as simply wrong - not because of human preference but because natural law must actually comport to nature or it is simply formalism based on authority - and can be rejected as such by thinking people - indeed, the misuse of natural law along those lines is why many have become atheists.  Hate the sin and love the sinner does not apply either, because people made by God to be gay have a right to sexual love.  There is no sin unless we force promiscuity onto them, and then the sin is ours.  As for how we treat employees - we need to restore spousal benefits in the Archdiocese and realize that if we treat heterosexual civil marriages one way and homosexual civil marriages another, then we have committed the sin of bigotry. There is no sugar coating it.  I did not find the Cardinal's restatement of teaching beautiful. I found it ugly, and I'm heterosexual and (for now) married.  The example I will give is loving my brother and his husband.  Maybe that will sink in among my fellow Catholics.



Archbishop Gregory and his call to civility is a good letter.  I suspect he won't be grandstanding on employee health benefits.  Aymond is not correct, since the natural law case supports gay marriage if you sever the theistic link.  If you disagree, read Faggothy again.  Hartmayer is correct, the decision does not teach what the Church teachers.  Perhaps the Church needs to be the one who changes.  The coda to the decision is fitting:



"No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family. In forming a marital union, two people become something greater than once they were. As some of the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage embodies a love that may endure even past death. It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right."



As for McElroy, marriage is defined by society.  It is the basic unit thereof. (See above). Without it, we are all wards of the government.  It defines that a married couple is one person under the law, which Jesus taught.  Rejecting gay marriage as non-doctrinal is a sin, pure and simple, against both the Word of God and those couples who deserve the dignity of being family (and yes, even raise children, their own or those fostered to them by family, society and even the Church (once it quits its homophobic sin).   Agreeing with this bishop continues that sin.



On the subject of Catholic gay marriage, I addressed this yesterday. I think the bishops really are reacting from fear.  Fear that families with gay children, parents or siblings will start approaching priests, especially gay priests, to bless such marriages or even do the full Catholic wedding.  Some will say yes, at least to private blessings. They are likely more afraid of priest wantinng to marry other men or priests, or sisters other women - or even other sisters.  They mostly fear young people giving up on self-loathing and rejecting the idiocy of finding homosexuality disordered and will instead marry according to their God-given sexuality and not even consider Holy Orders.  This will kind of force their hand on who gets to be in ministry.  Under Hossanna Tabor gays, women and the married cannot sue, but they won't have to.  Profound change will be in the air.  This has probably broken the camel's back.  That is not liberalism, its modernism - and it always wins because the older trads always die first.  9:59 am will never come again.