The Church and Her 'Enemies': Garnett versus Pius VII | National Catholic Reporter

The Church and Her 'Enemies': Garnett versus Pius VII | National Catholic Reporter by MSW. MGB: The only people looking for a fight on this are the Authoritarians, and they have already won the legal battle.  They at least believe their lawyers when they say there is no case  The moral battle, of course, if fought in every heart and the Church is losing that one.  Most educated Catholics know that the Church is but a witness to a marriage performed by the party and that fecundity is not a requirement for a Catholic union - just functionality.  While Authoritarians don't like how gay functionality exists, they cannot doubt that function is present - nor the bond between the parties.  The clergy will likely begin to quietly bless gay weddings - at least the gay clergy - as families with gay members ask for such a blessing.  There might also be a rush to the exits by gay priests who can finally marry that special man - possibly another priest.  In that case, things may happen very quickly on both married priests and gay marriage.



The major sin, of course, was the hierarchy forcing (or just causing people to assume) that long time companions did not have spousal rights when in the hospital (at least now the Catholic hospitals recognize such rights) - deferring to the family of origin (thus infantalizing gays) in vainglorious hope of some recanting in a death bed confession - which would not be necessary because being gay and acting on that in responsible sex is arguably not sinful (Fagothy's Right and Reason concedes as much - saying that only theistic authority prevents outright acceptance of gay relationships - which is a world of reason is throwing in the towel).  That little bit of logic has let thousands of gay men become priests in good conscience.  That so many clery speak out shows evidence of a cover-up more than doctrinal certainty.



In Pius VII's day, the practice of kings nominating bishops made the evolution toward papal appointment necessary,even as the Pope and bishops were losing secular power, as well as having to concede that religious freedom was the reality, even though they were grumpy about it until Vatican II (see the parallels with gay marriage).  What we have left is doctrinal authoritarianism - which is also wrong.  Give election of bishops back to the clergy or the people and that authoritarianism goes away - which would be refreshing.



So, what is left for the Church without doctrinal authoritarianism (replaced by right reason and conscience)?  I contend that the Church excels much more in providing Catholic Schools (even to non-Catholic kids), social services (although Catholic adoption sometimes seems like kidnapping) and health care.  I believe expanding these to managing welfare caseloads, adult literacy and mental health care - including residential care in lieu of corrections would better fulfill the commands of Christ and grousing over gay marriage - and that a more democratic management of Catholic affairs (say through lay deacon(ness)s who elect a diocesean administrator (while the pastors elect the bishop or a local abbess) would facilitate, not hamper, such a movement.  Over-reacing to HHS contraception mandates shows why both democratization is necessary and how essential the social mission of the Church is.