Bishops take 'strong exception' to marriage ruling

The Baltimore Sun reports that Maryland’s Catholic bishops are taking “strong exception” to the ruling Wednesday by Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler that the state may recognize same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions. In a joint statement, Archbishop Edwin F. O’Brien of Baltimore, Archbishop Donald Wuerl of Washington and Bishop W. Francis Malooly of Wilmington, Del., said the following:

We take strong exception to Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler’s opinion that the state may recognize same-sex “marriages” performed in other jurisdictions. We trust our legislature and the people of Maryland will also object, and will act accordingly to counteract this opinion.

The General Assembly has repeatedly and explicitly upheld Maryland’s definition of marriage “between a man and a woman” even as certain limited benefits have been extended to same-sex couples. The opinion correctly notes that federal law does not require Maryland to recognize such marriages. We see a strong possibility that legal avenues to circumvent the legitimate legislative process on a serious public policy issue could be opened. Allowing the decisions of out-of-state jurisdictions or courts to dictate public policy in Maryland undermines the proper role of the legislature and the citizens they represent.

Most importantly, the opinion chips away at our society’s foundational institution. The equality of men and women and the dignity of their coming together as husband and wife is not merely a fact of religious faith or an institution established by civil authorities, but a fundamental reality rooted in our human nature and experience. Civil marriage is not simply a union of two people who love and are committed to each other. Marriage is invariably reserved to the union of one man and one woman because of their unique ability to bring children into the world, thus forming a stable and secure foundation for our society.

We respect the dignity of homosexual persons and roundly reject all unjust discrimination against them. Nonetheless, the clear words of Maryland’s marriage statute – “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State” – reflect the convictions of Maryland’s citizens and their legislators. This definition has been reaffirmed in recent acts of the General Assembly. The attorney general’s opinion demonstrates a fundamental disregard for the nature and purpose of marriage and its impact on society, as well as for the expressed will of the legislature and previous attorney general opinions. We urge lawmakers, the governor, and the courts to uphold the definition of marriage through all appropriate means.

Lets take a closer look at some of their arguments. They claim “Marriage is reserved to the union of one man and one woman..to bring children into the world,” i.e. reproduce. If marriage is to be reserved ONLY to those who may reproduce, then the Catholic hierarchy needs to immediately change its own laws and practices. Actually, there are TWO ends to marriage: 1) Unitive and 2) Procreative. The unitive end of marriage is simply a union of love and life. The Procreative end is, of course, to create new life. It is important to understand that the unitive end of marriage is sufficient for a valid marriage. The Church sanctions, and considers a sacrament, the marriage of elderly heterosexual couples who are biologically incapable of reproduction. So, if two people of different genders who are incapable of reproduction can enter into a valid marriage, then why is it that two people of the same gender, who are incapable of reproduction, cannot enter into a valid marriage?

If the biological ability to physically reproduce is to be required for ALL couples who wish to marry, then no post menopausal woman would be able to marry in the Catholic Church. Additionally, this would raise the question of the “morality” of sexual acts between a married male and female after the female became biologically infertile. You would also need to add to this list of people incapable of marriage, or the marriage act (sex), infertile males. Since, according to the bishops, marriage is “reserved to the union of one man and one woman because of their unique ability to bring children into the world.”

A verbal slight of hand is also employed by the bishops “We respect the dignity of homosexual persons and roundly reject all unjust discrimination against them.” Re-read their very carefully chosen phrase “UNJUST discrimination.” They imply that there exist “JUST discrimination” against people with same sex orientation. What might be some examples of the bishop’s “JUST” discrimination? The immediate form of discrimination which they both advocate and actively use their special rights to sway voters to support, is to strip same sex people of their right to a CIVIL LAW marriage.

In effect, the bishops are asking gay and lesbian people to live their lives alone. Why? Who does this benefit? How exactly is society helped by singling out a minority and excluding them from the union of love and life, which is marriage? How is marriage protected by intimidating gay and lesbian people into loveless and lonely lives? What is accomplished by this? Worse still, is to intimidate a gay or lesbian person into a heterosexual marriage, which is doomed from its inception, and makes two victims instead of one by this hurtful “theology.” This “theology,” which is parroted by clerics in polished tones from pulpits, produces the very prejudice and hatred in our society that they claim to abhor.

The statement made by the bishop reaffirms the feelings of exclusion and alienation that are suffered by individuals and their loved ones who have left the Church over this very issue. Imagine what hearing such damaging words does to an adolescent who has just discovered that he/she is gay/lesbian? What is the hierarchy saying to him/her? What are they demanding from that individual? What would it have meant to you personally to be told that you could never date? Never fall in love, never kiss or hold hands with another person? Never be able to marry? How would you view yourself? How would others hearing those same words be directed to view you? How would you view your life and your future?

The bishops with careful premeditation state: “We respect the dignity of homosexual persons and roundly reject all unjust discrimination against them.”

Imagine if they said that of ANY other minority group in our society! Imagine the outrage that would be expressed by African Americans, Latinos, the JDL, etc, if the bishops said that of any of those groups could be the target of “JUST discrimination.” Imagine the media reaction and yet, the bishops can say this blithely of people with same sex orientation, because their still exists legally sanctioned bigotry against this minority. The bishops should be ashamed of their bigotry, especially since they claim to speak in the name of God.

In 1975, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (the Church’s watchdog for orthodoxy) produced a document entitled: “Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics.” In this document, they made the most remarkable statement. They stated that there are “homosexuals who are such because of some kind of innate instinct.” Of course, that statement was made under Pope Paul VI, both John Paul II and Benedict XVI have/are backpedaling furiously on that statement. But, since the “Church” (pope/bishops) can never admit a mistake, they simply ignore “inconvenient” statements or, “reinterpret” them away.

The bishops also carefully state: “only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid in this State” – reflect the convictions of Maryland’s citizens and their legislators. This definition has been reaffirmed in recent acts of the General Assembly. The idea behind which the bishops are hiding their bigotry is that the “voters” want to exclude same sex couples from civil law marriages. California Supreme Court Justice Moreno explains why this is a basically flawed line of argument. In his view, the issue of marriage equality involves “the core of the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment,” and thus was not properly the subject of a voter initiative under the California state constitution.

Essentially, the Equal Protection Clause of our National Constitution trumps the majority from stripping any minority group of their rights. This is precisely the role of the justice department and of our Courts. Imagine if civil rights for African Americans had to be “voted in” in the 1960’s. Segregation, employment discrimination, laws forbidding interracial marriage, would all still exist in many places in our country today.

Perhaps the bishops would appreciate the role of the Court in protecting minority rights if we were suddenly to “vote” on tax-exempt status for the Catholic Church. I wonder how people in Utah, Alabama, South Carolina, etc would vote?

LMU and Catholics for Equality

I apologize for this past period of silence; however, I have been very busy lately. I have been occupied with an exciting new project, but more on that later. Last evening I had the privilege of speaking at Loyola Marymount here in Los Angeles. I was invited to speak on the First Amendment and how it applied in my situation with the Catholic hierarchy and Prop 8.

I began by speaking of my “back-story” with the First Amendment. My maternal grandfather was a Sephardic Jew. He stowed away on a ship from Spain to Cuba at the beginning of the last century. Half way across the Atlantic Ocean he was discovered by the crew of the ship. They were going to take him back to Spain to face imprisonment for stowing away. Fortunately, there was a passenger on the ship who knew my grandfather’s family and they paid for his passage. When the ship docked in Havana my grandfather found a job working at a dry cleaning establishment. Eventually, he ended up owning the dry cleaning shop.

Several decades later the Communists came to power in Cuba and declared a policy of state atheism. Up until this point my grandfather had never been an observant Jew, but now he began attending synagogue services. He got into a heated discussion with the state authorities over this matter. He said to them: “This is why we left Europe!” For such a response, he was taken to the police station and beaten up. He was sixty-five years old and suffered a fatal heart attack as a result of his beating. My own parents were political liberal in Cuba and opposed to the dictatorship of Batista. They wanted a democratically elected government in which there was legal due process.

I recall coming home one day from school and walking into the kitchen. My mother was busy preparing dinner. I asked her “Mom, why am I the only kid in the forth grade who doesn’t have grandparents?” I remember vividly mom setting down the knife and carrots and sitting me down at the kitchen table. Honey, she said, you do have grandparents, but your father and I left everyone and everything behind in Cuba so that you and your brother could be free.

Decades later my bishop compared the No on Prop 8 people to Nazis, Stalinist Russians and Maoist who would brainwash children. The bishop also asked pastors to promote parishioners to vote “yes” on Prop 8. I simply could not “go along to get along.” Like most priests I simply decided to be silent on the matter; however, that changed for me when I was asked at a staff meeting by parishioners to make a statement of clarification. The university community, which I served, was very progressive and many of them were both offended and confused by the bishop’s statement. Additionally, as someone engaged in pastoral service I knew first hand the painful stories and the real human cost of bigotry. In conscience, I could not become an instrument and an accomplice to such bigotry.

A priest who served on last evening’s panel pointed out that I had made a promise of obedience to the bishop and his successors. He suggested that I should not have spoken out against the bishop on this matter and that I should have simply waited for history to correct things. Here, I must respectfully and forcefully disagree with my brother priest. Thomas Aquinas pointedly stated that we must follow our conscience “even if it means excommunication,” because it is our conscience which will defend or accuse us at the end of life. For me not to have given guidance to those entrusted to my care, especially when they specifically requested such guidance would have been for me to fail them. For me to say something to them that I believed to be wrong and hurtful would have been for me to fail God and my community. To wait for history to correct things is essentially to wait for someone else to correct injustice and worse, it is to become an accomplice to that injustice. I think God expects more of us than that, I think the victims of injustice certainly do.

Are the Catholic bishops protected by the First Amendment to say whatever they wish? Yes. Religious leaders should be able to teach moral principles, form values and hopefully empower their congregants to be able to make autonomous personal moral decisions. It is quite another thing; however, to dictate to congregants “vote yes on Prop 8.” What happened in Maine was even more egregious, there the bishop required priests to give a series of sermons directing parishioners specifically how to vote on Question 1.

This goes far beyond First Amendment protections of free speech. This is a “Church” which is operating as a PAC (political action committee) while enjoying non-profit tax exemption. I was a toddler when John F. Kennedy had to explain on national television that if he were elected President that the Pope would not run the United States. Today another Kennedy is being threatened by his bishop with excommunication if he doesn’t vote in certain ways in the US Congress. The implications of the Catholic hierarchy’s misbehavior in these matters are far reaching. They would do well to take a lesson from the Cardinal Patriarch of the Church in Portugal. The government there was considering legislation that would make legal same sex marriage. The Vatican put pressure on the Cardinal to use his influence to affect civil legislation. The Cardinal did not, citing that it was a matter of civil law.

The reality is that the United States of America is a secular nation and that its population is diverse. We are a pluralistic society. Our civil society works because we respect other people’s right to think, act and believe differently than ourselves. If the hierarchy of the Catholic Church wishes to offer a contrarian view, I defend their freedom of speech. They do not however speak for all Catholics, or even for a majority of Catholics on a host of issues. In theology this is called the “sensus fidei” it means “the instinctive sensitivity and power of discernment that the members of the church collectively possess in matters of faith and morals.”

This is what I have been busy with and the reason for my silence these past several weeks. I was in Washington DC attending meetings with representatives of various Catholic organizations and theologians who are organizing into a voice for the laity, clergy and religious of our Church. Catholics for Equality will be an organization that will give a public voice to the vast members of our Church who do not share all of the bishop’s political or theological positions.

Lying in God's name

As the nation is in the grips of a cold wave, California is a bask in warmth and sunlight. Evidently, even the sun in California is subject to darkening by “Yes on Prop 8” lawyers who have successfully, delayed the television broadcast of the Federal trial regarding Prop 8. It seems that they fear the light of day being cast on the deceptive campaign which they ran in California (and mirrored in Maine) to strip same sex couples of their right to a civil marriage. Why should the “Yes on Prop 8” forces go to such lengths to prevent you from seeing the evidence presented in a U.S. Federal court of law?

Part of the answer is found in Anita Bryant’s successful campaign to stop anti-bias laws in the 1970’s. Yale professor George Chauncey said the following on the witness stand. Statements which the “Yes on Prop 8” side do not want you to hear. Chauncey testified in the witness stand .

“The initial polling data showed there was actually a margin of support for anti-bias ordinances,” said Chauncey. So Bryant and her campaign, he said, “decided to focus on the consequences of allowing such laws –the effects on children.”

“They made two arguments,” he said, during his appearance as an expert in gay history on the witness stand in the Proposition 8 trial Tuesday. “That simple tolerance of gays would mean they’ll become role models so kids would become gay,” and that gays are child molesters.

Psychology has already debunked the myth of homosexuals as pedophiles.

Homosexuals Are No More Likely to Sexually Abuse Children Than Heterosexuals.

· In fact, gays and lesbians may be less likely than heterosexuals to sexually abuse children.
Two studies that examined the sexual orientation of child molesters found that less than
one percent, in one study, and zero percent, in the other, were lesbian or gay.
· About four of every five cases of child sexual abuse reported to child protection
authorities involve a girl who is abused. But because sexual abuse of boys is less likely to
be reported, it is estimated that 1/4 to 1/3 of all sexually abused children are boys, while
2/3 to 3/4 are girls.1 Because most child molesters are men, (90 percent2), some have
argued that “homosexual” child abuse is widespread and that homosexuals abuse children
at a rate higher than their proportion of the general population, which is somewhere
around 3 to 8 percent of the population. Such claims are based on the false belief that
men who sexually abuse boys are homosexual. In fact, the overwhelming majority of men
who sexually abuse children live their lives as heterosexual men.

1 Finkelhor, 1994, pp. 46-47; Stevenson, 2000, p. 8.
2 Finkelhor, p. 31.

Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse. T he
Future of Children: Sexual Abuse of Children, 4(2) , 31-53.

Stevenson, M. R. (2000). Public policy, homosexuality, and the sexual coercion of children.
Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality, 12(4) , 1-19.

In testimony today and Monday, witnesses for the plaintiffs discussed a number of “Yes on 8” television ads and fliers which underscored the campaign slogan “Protect your children.”

Even though both the California Teacher’s Association and the State Superintendent of Public Instruction made public statements that made it clear that these allegations by the “yes on Prop 8” forces, were untrue. My own bishop, John Steinbock, in his “pastoral letter” to the people of our dioceses falsely claimed that “children would be brainwashed.” These deliberate perpetuation of grossly untrue myths and stereotypes by the “yes on Prop 8” side were and are a lie. A lie which they, like Bryant before them, successfully used to deceive and cause unfounded fears in voters. Lies and fears which were used to strip countless same sex couples of the right to a civil marriage. The Los Angeles Times reported the following:

“They were able to focus the debate on their assertion that without the ban, public school children would be indoctrinated into accepting gay marriage against their parents' wishes, churches would be sanctioned for not performing same-sex weddings and the institution of marriage would be irreparably harmed.

Supporters of gay marriage, along with political leaders including Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-San Francisco) and the state's superintendent of public instruction, denounced those messages as scare tactics, but they were not able to sway voters. Preliminary returns showed Proposition 8 passing 52% to 48%.

"It was masterful of the campaign to raise the implications of what it could mean in terms of the school system," said Republican political consultant Wayne Johnson. He said voters may have started out "thinking that as long as it doesn't affect me, do what you want" but the supporters shifted the focus to children.”

Even though the truth was publicly announced in a “No on Prop 8” commercial, the damage was done and countless voters believed the “Yes on Prop 8” lie. They lied. They deceived voters and they do not want voters to now realize that they were manipulated with carefully crafted lies.

Far more nuance are the U.S. Catholic hierarchy in promoting such myths and stereotypes. With the Catholic priest sexual scandals, you would think they would avoid this subject altogether. Therein lies the twisted appeal of the false claim that homosexuals are pedophiles. Vatican renews ban on gay priests

Even though this action by the Vatican is very vague and fails to define what is “deep seated homosexuality.” It creates the false impression that the Pope is “acting” to stop pedophile abuse in the Church. In fact, the Pope is cleverly sidestepping the real issue with the pedophilia scandal, specifically that the hierarchy covered up the abuse and transferred known offenders from assignment to assignment. In doing this they knowingly exposed innocent children to sexual abuse in an attempt to protect the Church’s material assets and PR reputation. To scapegoat gays is far easier than accepting personal responsibility. If using pseudo scientific terminology and issuing vague/ineffectual “bans” serves in redirecting outraged people away from the hierarchy, then so be it.

Thus far, the Prop 8 trial has revealed that the “yes on Prop 8” side was more than willing to lie in the name of God. It has also begun to reveal their motives. No wonder they are so desperate to hide the truth from the general public and why they have gone to such legal lengths to forbid you to see the evidence revealed in the trial. St. John gives a theological explanation in JOHN 20-21. For a more secular explanation I encourage you to read the testimony for yourself.

Robert P. George, the Catholic Bishop's Karl Rove

The New York Times reported the following regarding Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor of jurisprudence and a Roman Catholic who is this country’s most influential conservative Christian thinker.

Last spring, George was invited to address an audience that included many bishops at a conference in Washington. He told them with typical bluntness that they should stop talking so much about the many policy issues they have taken up in the name of social justice. They should concentrate their authority on “the moral social” issues like abortion, embryonic stem-cell research and same-sex marriage, where, he argued, the natural law and Gospel principles were clear. To be sure, he said, he had no objections to bishops' “making utter nuisances of themselves” about poverty and injustice, like the Old Testament prophets, as long as they did not advocate specific remedies. They should stop lobbying for detailed economic policies like progressive tax rates, higher minimum wage and, presumably, the expansion of health care — “matters of public policy upon which Gospel principles by themselves do not resolve differences of opinion among reasonable and well-informed people of good will,” as George put it.

A few months later, in a July 17 letter to Congress, the bishops did something close to that in the health care debate. Setting aside decades of calls for universal coverage, the bishops pledged to fight any bill that failed to block the use of federal subsidies for insurance covering abortion. “Stalin famously asked, ‘How many divisions has the pope?’ ” George wrote to me in an e-mail message after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi allowed a vote on an amendment that satisfied the bishops’ demands. “I guess Pelosi now knows.”

“As long as they did not advocate specific remedies.” Yes, yes say you wish to help the poor and the marginalized, but for God’s sake don’t specify HOW. Why does George insist on this vague approach? Because, any “specifics” would almost assuredly contradict the neo-conservative dogmas of the Republican party. Catholic Social teachings are indeed a “nuisance” almost as much of a “nuisance” as the poor and their needs. The beauty of George’s advice to the Catholic Bishops is that by focusing on “the moral social” issues (abortion, stem-cell research and same sex marriage) those other social justice issues can be tabled.

This extends a fig leaf behind which health care corporations can hide their obscene profits. Profits paid for by the deaths of countless Americans and the suffering of exponentially even more Americans. A fig leaf also for financial institutions which have issued billions of dollar worth of bonuses paid for by American tax payers, just as many of those American lose their homes to foreclosure. A fig leaf also for those who refuse to pay living wages to employees. A fig leaf for those who abuse migrant workers. The list goes on and on.

Not only does George’s “Catholic” agenda offer fig leaves to all of these exploiters but, at the same time he even extends to them the luxury of being morally smug. George’s new morality, or is it just the morality of the Pharisees revisited, allows the wealthy and powerful to do nothing for the poor. Well, except to judge them for having abortions, or seeking to establish a home with someone they love who happens to be of the same gender. Yes, this “morality” merely requires the prohibition of certain acts. One does not have to be “my brother’s/sister’s keeper,” just their judge.

All of this is neatly wrapped in a dispassionate appeal to “reason.”

It is a debate at least as old as the Reformation, when Martin Luther broke with the Catholic Church and insisted that reason was so corrupted that faith in the divine was humanity’s only hope of salvation. (Until relatively recently, contemporary evangelicals routinely leveled the same charge at modern Catholics.) “This is a serious issue, and if I am wrong, this is where I am wrong,” George acknowledges.

The problem with an appeal to reason as our guide can be found in our refrigerators. Think of the many times you have opened the refrigerator door and found yourself staring at a slice of chocolate cake or a pint of ice cream. Reason tells us we should have the celery. This is not to say that we should throw reason out the door, but we must recall that human reason is subject to human will.

George’s reason is very appealing to the will of those who don’t want to have to part with profits for the sake of prophets. It is very appealing to brokers of wealth and power in our society. George’s “morality” requires nothing of them, except to prohibit behaviors. It is a “morality” which would have played well at the court of Louis XVI. George states: “Obviously, I am gratified that view appears to have attracted a very strong following among the bishops,” he went on. “I just hope I am right. If they are going to buy my arguments, I don’t want to mislead the whole church.”

Sadly, not only has George misled the Bishops, he had caused them to use their influence to derail universal health care. Ironically, poor women will have to decide to either spend $400.00 on an abortion or, $4000.00 on delivering a baby at a hospital. This makes George and the Catholic Bishops de facto accomplices to the abortions they denounce. A small price to pay for becoming the "choir boys" for the Republican Party and the far right.

Prop8 proponents don’t want the public to know the truth.

The following is a reprint of a time sensitive letter from the Courage Campaign. I urge you to read it and to sign the petition to make the Prop 8 federal trial public. It is fascinating that the religious right are so terrified of their deeds being exposed to the light of day before the public.

"For everyone who does evil hates the light, and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed. But he who does what is true comes to the light, that it may be clearly seen that his deeds have been wrought in God." John 3: 20-21

The letter from the Courage Campaign follows in full:

Yesterday, we asked you to respond to Judge Vaughn Walker's request for public comment on potentially televising the Prop 8 federal trial that starts Monday. In less than 24 hours, an amazing 82,103 people have joined you in signing the letter from the Courage Campaign Institute and CREDO Action.

Thank you for signing the letter. Now we need you to spread the word by forwarding this message to your friends urgently. Despite Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling below (please read on), right-wing groups like the National Organization for Marriage and Focus on the Family are gathering signatures to stop any broadcast of the Prop 8 trial. Please tell your friends ASAP.

GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM



The news is spreading like wildfire. And it's both good and bad.
 
From a San Jose Mercury News article:
"Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker approved court-operated cameras in his courtroom for delayed release on YouTube, but rejected a bid by media organizations to televise the proceedings themselves for live broadcast."
This decision is NOT final: Judge Walker is leaving the public comment period open until Friday, pending a ruling on his decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
 
While we are pleased that the trial may be on a delayed broadcast via YouTube at least, our call for full transparency -- a televised broadcast that network news and cable channels can pick up live, as it happens -- has not been met.
 
And, it's entirely possible that the 9th Circuit Appeals Court may overrule Judge Walker's ruling, shutting down all broadcasting -- even a delayed daily YouTube broadcast. Lawyers representing supporters of Prop. 8 have already opposed broadcasting the trial in any form whatsoever and are likely to fight Walker's ruling.
 
Millions of lives across America will be affected by this federal trial challenging Prop 8. That's why more than 80,000 people have already signed our letter asking for a televised trial. To keep up the pressure before the public comment period closes on Friday, please sign here now:
 

GOAL: 100,000 signatures. DEADLINE: Friday 9 AM


 
With right-wing religious groups like NOM and Focus on the Family organizing against televising the trial, we need as many signatures on this letter as possible.
 
If you know other people who believe the Prop 8 trial should be televised so that as many people as possible can see it, please forward this message to them ASAP.
 
Thank you so much for your incredible response to this critical action. We will update you again as soon as news breaks.

Rick Jacobs
Chair, Courage Campaign Institute  

Progress! Happy New Year!

(Mexico City) Mexico City enacted Latin America’s first law recognizing gay marriage Dec. 28 and said it hopes to attract same-sex couples from around the world to wed.
The law, approved by city legislators on Dec. 21, was published in Mexico City’s official register Tuesday and will take effect in March. It will allow same-sex couples to adopt children and municipal officials say it will make Mexico’s capital a “vanguard city” – and attract extra tourism revenues. Full article.

Predictably, the Cardinal Archbishop of Mexico City responded negatively to the secular government’s granting of full civil rights to LGBT citizens. The Los Angeles Times reports: “Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera said the law created the "perverse possibility" that "innocent children" would be adopted by gay couples.” Thank you Cardinal Carrera, who better to voice the protection of “innocent children” than the Catholic hierarchy?

Meanwhile in Portugal the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal has taken a far more enlightened position towards Civil Marriages for same sex couples. “While normally vocal on the role of marriage and the family in society, the Catholic Church has refused to mobilise on a subject which, according to Lisbon's Cardinal Patriarch Jose Policarpo, is "parliament's responsibility".

The contrast between the positions taken by Carrera in Mexico and the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal is striking and illustrates a very sharp division in Catholic thought on the question of same sex marriage and the relationship between Church and State. Policarpo represents a post enlightenment respect for the division of Church and State whereas, Carrera represents a far more medieval understanding of the relationship between Church and State. In the medieval model held by Carrera, the Church dictates to the State how social laws are to be enacted. In Policarpo’s model, Civil Laws are the proper domain of the laity, who are not subordinated to the clergy in the question of civil laws.

This must of course be alarming to Ratzinger, since such an exercise of free speech and dissent from the current “official” Vatican party line is seldom seen in the Catholic hierarchy. I would imagine that there will be a furious exchange of communication between the Vatican bureaucracy (Curia) and Cardinal Policarpo before the passage of the Portuguese legislation. There will be a strong attempt by the Vatican to bring Policarpo “in line” with their monolithic position on same sex marriage. One can only imagine what will be said behind closed doors, but I doubt it will be “happy talk.”

Hopefully, Cardinal Policarpo will politely remind the Vatican that he is the Cardinal Patriarch of Portugal and not an “office boy” for the Vatican. It seems that not even popes can stop the hands of time and the progress of human history. Happy New Year!

The Politics of "Charity."

Non-profit charitable organizations are granted tax-exempt status by the people of America through our elected government. The reason for granting charitable organizations tax-exempt status is so that they can use those funds to provide charitable services. To feed the hungry, cloth the naked, house the poor, heal the sick and provide for education.

When charitable institutions willfully abandon charitable activities, our government should reexamine their tax-exempt status. Taxes should be imposed on those institutions and the funds collected should, then be used to help the needy. This may be done through governmental social service agencies, or other legitimate non-profit charitable organizations. In this way, the poor, homeless, sick and needy will not be left without help. Those who are in greatest need, who have nowhere else to turn, should not be used as bargaining chips by non profit organizations. Non profit organizations which are financially subsidized (through tax-exempt status) by the people of this nation. It is an immoral offense against the needy to hold them as hostages. It constitutes a violation of the public’s trust and a sin against the God who these institutions claim to serve. Incredibly, this is what is happening in Michigan and in Washington, DC.

No religious group is required to grant religious marriage to anyone. The Catholic Church does not grant religious marriage to people who are divorced and wish to remarry (unless they are granted an annulment by the Church). Society; however, does grant anyone who has divorced the right to a new civil marriage. Likewise, no religious group will be required to grant a same sex couple a religious marriage; however, civil marriage is now granted to same sex couples by various nations and some U.S. states. It is no more the business of a religion to dictate to government what may constitute a civil marriage, than it is for a government to dictate to a religion what may constitute a religious marriage.

The late Ayatollah Khomeini called America “The Great Satan.” He accused us of this because we are the first government on earth NOT to have an established religion. The founding fathers learned, from the Thirty Years War in Europe and the religious persecutions both on the European continent and in England, the stupidity of trying to impose a religion on a nation. Sadly, religious fanatics will always attempt to do what God does not do, they attempt to force others to accept their beliefs.

This has been most recently illustrated in the immoral example of the Archdiocese of Washington, DC. Archbishop Wuerl has issued a de facto ultimatum to the government. He threatens a suspension of charitable services to the homeless unless his demands are met. His demands!? My dear Archbishop, the Papal States became extinct in 1870. You are living in the United States of America and we have elections in which the people select who will govern. Neither you, Archbishop nor your superior were elected to conduct our civil government.