posted
I am not normally interested in the decisions of Catholics, but I thought this was a particularly moving/convincing essay. It's short, so I am posting the full letter. I hope some of the native Catholics will comment.
quote:My name is Fr. Bob Pierson, and I would like to talk to you today about “Why Catholics Can Vote NO” on the proposed constitutional amendment that would limit the freedom to marry in Minnesota.
The Catholic Church is obviously very supportive of this amendment, which would, they say, protect “traditional marriage”. But as an ordained priest, I feel compelled to speak out now, and let me explain why. On Saturday, June 2nd I celebrated my 28th anniversary of ordination. I became a priest because I felt called to share the Good News that God loves each and every one of us unconditionally. Too many of us have been taught to think of God in terms of God’s judgment rather than God’s tremendous love and mercy.
In 2001, I began a 5-year assignment in campus ministry. It wasn’t long before I found myself meeting gay and lesbian students who were being put down by some of their peers because of their sexuality. When I turned to my professional colleagues in Student Development to ask how I could support these gay and lesbian students, I was told, “There’s not much we can do. You know what the church says….”
Yes, I know what the church says. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in #2358, gays and lesbians “must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided.” I spent many years as an LGBT ally on campus, starting a Safe Space training program on our campus, and while it was not without some controversy, I knew I was doing the right thing – I was called upon as a Catholic of good conscience, to do the right thing.
It was in November 2005 that I was offended to learn the Vatican had released a document that stated that gay men cannot be priests because they are “seriously obstructed from properly relating to men and women.” I couldn’t believe what I was reading. I knew that I was gay when I was ordained. Did that mean that my 21 years of ministry was a mistake? My faith suggested that I could not in good conscience continue to remain silent, and I cannot remain silent today. I spoke up then, and I am speaking up now to say that I believe this amendment violates an important principle of Catholic teaching, and that as Catholics, we can vote no.
As a Catholic priest, I am not here to criticize our Church’s teaching, but rather to lift up an aspect of the Church’s teaching that seems to have been forgotten by some who are supporting the amendment. The issue I am talking about is “Freedom of Conscience.” The Catechism of the Catholic Church states in #1782: [The human person] has the right to act in conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. “He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters.” Dignitatis Humanae 3 § 2.
A young theologian by the name of Joseph Ratzinger, whom many of you know now as Pope Benedict XVI, put it this way in 1967: "Over the pope as expression of the binding claim of ecclesiastical authority, there stands one's own conscience which must be obeyed before all else, even if necessary against the requirement of ecclesiastical authority.”
My conscience tells me to vote NO on the amendment because I have yet to hear a convincing reason why we need such an amendment to our state constitution. In fact, I believe that the church does not have the right to force its moral teaching on others outside our fold. When the religious beliefs of any particular religious group become the law of the land, we run the risk of violating everyone’s freedom to believe and their freedom of conscience. Allow me to mention three examples of where I see the church “fudging” the facts.
We have heard it said that civil marriage for committed, same-sex couples “will destroy the sanctity of the Sacrament of Matrimony.” But the truth is, until now the church has not concerned itself with civil marriage. The church does not recognize the civil marriage of its members. If a Catholic is married in a civil ceremony, they are said to be married “outside of the Church” and the marriage is not recognized as a sacrament due to “lack of canonical form.” Civil marriage for committed, same-sex couples is not the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the government cannot tell churches who they may or may not marry. We have heard it said that if committed, gay and lesbian couples “are allowed to marry, then the church will be forced into recognizing the rights of those couples to adopt children.” According to the supporters of the amendment, “studies show that same-sex couples are not effective parents and that children need to have both a mother and a father.” But the truth is that the most reputable studies, those accepted by the American Medical Association, the American Pediatrics Association, and the American Psychological Association, say that same-sex couples are just as effective as parents as heterosexual couples are. This has no correlation to their effectiveness as parents. We have heard it said that if committed, same-sex couples can marry, “then the church will have to recognize those marriages in its social service programming in housing, health care, and education.” This is true, to the extent that the church accepts government funding for social service programs—the same rules that everyone else must follow. Would we want other religious groups to discriminate against us based on their beliefs while using government tax dollars? I don’t think so.
In any faith, marriage is about love, commitment and responsibility. In our faith, it is a sacrament, a commitment to God to live with your partner, to raise a family together, and most of all, to live the word of God. We know that gay and lesbian couples want to get married for the same reasons as anyone else. And it is incumbent upon us as Catholics to ensure that the people in our community have the same freedoms—whether it’s the freedom to worship or the freedom to marry.
I would like to conclude my remarks with a quote from one of my favorite Catholic churchmen, Cardinal Basil Hume, who said in 1995: “Love between two persons, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to be treasured and respected... When two persons love, they experience in a limited manner in this world what will be their unending delight when one with God in the next… To love another, whether of the same sex or of a different sex, is to have entered the area of the richest human experience…” (Note on the Teaching of the Catholic Church Concerning Homosexual People, 1995)
posted
I think that Fr. Bob definately cherry picks his quotes from the Catachism, but that he makes a good argument.
His quote from 1782 is right on, as is his interpretation of DH. The idea that the catholic church refuses to force anyone to do anything, including how they vote, or who they can have sex with, or who they can marry, is not new but possibly could be emphasized more. The crux here is that the church, and catholics, should never force their morality unto others, especially through law.
The flip side to this argument is that if you are a Catholic, you already accept the teaching of the church that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy and cannot marry. Thus, even if homosexual marriage is made legal, you cannot do it and still call yourself a catholic, because you are in willful violation of the church's teachings.
The second good argument is that the church basically has never interferred with the definition of civil marriage, for good reason. The church does not recognize civil marriages as "marriage" anyways.
The final counter-argument is that the idea of conscience cuts both ways. While the church basically states that it has no place in telling people how to govern themselves, it also cannot prohibit individual Catholics, or individuals of other religions or philosphies, for voting "Yes" if they believe that either homosexuality or homosexual marriage is immoral.
The real question is wether a "good Catholic" should vote "no", or not vote at all, based on the conception that Catholics should not discriminate against homosexuals, or prohibit their conscious choice, and how far catholics should take this concept of letting others make their own moral choices.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The real question, to my mind, is whether a good Catholic feels like dictating terms of civil marriage.
Posts: 18710 | Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: The flip side to this argument is that if you are a Catholic, you already accept the teaching of the church that homosexuals are called to a life of celibacy and cannot marry. Thus, even if homosexual marriage is made legal, you cannot do it and still call yourself a catholic, because you are in willful violation of the church's teachings
Not really. Some Catholics accept that. Others are ahead of the curve of Church teaching. The Church will catch up to us eventually. Posts: 1643 | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not being Catholic I don't see a conflict. Civil laws are not moral. Why would a Catholic care if two gay people have a civil marriage? They should only care if they ask for a Church blessing, which I assume would be denied in most places. It would actually be a sign of true Catholic catholicism if Catholics advocated for SSM, since it has nothing to do with religion.
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: Not being Catholic I don't see a conflict. Civil laws are not moral.... It would actually be a sign of true Catholic catholicism if Catholics advocated for SSM, since it has nothing to do with religion.
So civil laws are not moral, but Catholics should advocate for SSM because it has nothing to do with religion? That's really convoluted.
Posts: 5284 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Catholics were opposed to owning animals not used for husbandry because the bible tells them that man's dominion over animals is for that purpose, should Catholics say that it is immoral for anyone else to own pets? Or should they act as good citizens and support laws that let people adopt pets as a matter of their civic option.
[kmbboots:] "Well some of us care because, as Catholics, we are concerned with justice."
Exactly.
[ June 11, 2012, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
They are and they should be. One can argue that they should be divorced from religion, but to argue that they should be divorced from morality is self-contradictory, because by just using the word "should" there implies a system of morality.
Posts: 2828 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
People are motivated by moral impulses, but our system of laws and justice tries to ensure that there is a difference in law between what one person feels is right/wrong and what someone else does. We agree on the big ones (murder, theft, rape, slavery (lately, anyway)), but it's hard to draw the line brightly between morality and freedom, which is the fundamental principle on which our entire culture is based.
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, no law should be immoral, but you and I disagree apparently on the opposite, whether laws should be moral. The Ohio law stating that any map sold in the city of Lima must include Lima is not moral.
[ June 11, 2012, 11:31 AM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: If Catholics were opposed to owning animals not used for husbandry because the bible tells them that man's dominion over animals is for that purpose, should Catholics say that it is immoral for anyone else to own pets? Or should they act as good citizens and support laws that let people adopt pets as a matter of their civic option.
There is a line between allowing other people the freedom to do things you believe is wrong, and the preception of actively supporting something by legally allowing it.
For instance, there would be a difference between making it against the law for someone else to own a pet, and a law that says that owning a pet is legal. In the same manner, most Catholics who see homosexuality as immoral, do not call for homosexuality to be against the law or for homosexuals to be prosecuted under very old laws. I don't think there are any catholics who are calling for homosexuals to be prosecuted.
On the other hand is the perception that by voting FOR SSM, a catholic is saying "this is alright", rather then "you have the freedom to make your own mistakes".
This approach obviously has problems and confuses people. How do you say something is immoral but not have a law forbidding it? In law, there is no morality outside of law. From a legal standpoint, homosexuality is moral. Thus there is no grounds for saying that SSM should not be legal. Otherwise it is discrimination, plain and simple.
The problem is that there are still alot of people, Catholics included, who do not believe that homosexuality is moral. But they also believe that people should be allowed to decide that for themselves, as long as it does not effect them.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Grant shows clearly that it is a convoluted issue. IMO, the problem with religion in politics in the US is that it seems the more closely some people hold their religious moral principles, the more unwilling they are to allow others to act on their own when theirs differ.
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Aris Katsaris: They are and they should be. One can argue that they should be divorced from religion, but to argue that they should be divorced from morality is self-contradictory, because by just using the word "should" there implies a system of morality.
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: Grant shows clearly that it is a convoluted issue. IMO, the problem with religion in politics in the US is that it seems the more closely some people hold their religious moral principles, the more unwilling they are to allow others to act on their own when theirs differ.
Not all religions have the Catholic perspective on the freedom of conscience.
Honestly, neither did Catholicism before DH.
Divorcing religious "shouldn'ts" from legal "couldn'ts" is a rather recent phenomena and was pioneered in the United States more then anywhere else.
It was the American bishops who pushed hard for DH, while the Italian and Spainish bishops fought hard against it. Strange how in the end it was a Candian biship who decided to take his ball and go home.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're conflating "good**" as in "promotes public well-being" with "intrinsically proper". Laws governing trash removal and property maintenance satisfy the first meaning, but how do you translate that to being moral unless you want to say that everything that happens can be classified as either moral or immoral? No wonder some religions spend so much time dithering over small matters to find whether they are or not...
[Aris:] "because by just using the word "should" there implies a system of morality."
It implies obligation, not specifically morality.
** FWIW, the PIE root of "good" is to unite, draw together. All senses of the word implicitly retain that basic meaning.
[ June 11, 2012, 12:02 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:"It implies obligation, not specifically morality."
Can you taboo the words obligation and morality for me? For me the words seem to mean roughly the following: - Obligation: That which you should do. - Morality: The system that says what you should and shouldn't do.
So, to me, you seem to be saying "It implies that which you should do, but isn't part of a system that says what you should or shouldn't do".
Which seems incoherent to me: but perhaps you define the word 'obligation' and 'morality' different?
Posts: 2828 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but you need to have a moral value that says that "promoting public well being" is "intrinsically proper". Otherwise why would you promote the public well being?
The question becomes wether "promoting public well being" should be the only moral value that matters when deciding civil, secular law, or that other values have weight as well.
Cannibalism of naturally deceased human beings, or of state enemies, does not necessarily harm the "public well being". But there is a strong enough moral value in the United States that dictates that cannibalism should be against the law.
Though I'm honestly not sure if states actually do have laws against cannibalism Going to have to ask one of the lawyers.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Aris, I do define them differently. An obligation is more like a pledge or promise. It could be in the context of law, social behavior or morality, but isn't fixed to any one of them.
If you agree to clean up the kitchen after you fix a meal so that others can find it in the same pristine condition when they come to eat, then you have an obligation to your kitchenmates to do so. I can't stretch that to a moral expectation because there's no reason for such a rule except for mutual efficiency and politeness.
Many laws do carry a moral weight because caring about the welfare of the greater population implies recognition of individual constraints and expectations on one's actions. But religion tends to understand morality as something derived from and reflecting obedience to the deity. In that sense the word moral stretches from proper behavior in society to obedience to God. My reading of word origins suggests that the latter meaning came into usage in the 1500's, and may coincide with the rise of the secular Renaissance and the beginnings of the separation between Church and state dominion over individual behavior. Both realms can lay claim to establishing controls and freedoms somewhat independently.
[Grant:] "Cannibalism of naturally deceased human beings, or of state enemies, does not necessarily harm the "public well being". But there is a strong enough moral value in the United States that dictates that cannibalism should be against the law."
That's one the clearly violates some deep human impulse, like incest. But in the extreme situation when there is no alternative, would starvation be preferable to survival of the remaining individual? If society were reduced to two people, a father and daughter, would extinction be preferable to the survival of the species?
[ June 11, 2012, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Instead of examples, can you try to provide a definition?
quote:"If you agree to clean up the kitchen after you fix a meal so that others can find it in the same pristine condition when they come to eat, then you have an obligation to your kitchenmates to do so. I can't stretch that to a moral expectation because there's no reason for such a rule except for mutual efficiency and politeness."
I don't see the difference between "it's your obligation to your kitchenmates to do so" and "it's morally wrong if you don't do do so". At best it seems to me that the latter sentence may just be a bit stronger, but with no qualitative difference.
Posts: 2828 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
An act or course of action to which a person is morally or legally bound; a duty or commitment. The condition of being morally or legally bound to do something.
Those are alternative ("or") uses. The word in simplest terms means just commitment.
"I don't see the difference between "it's your obligation to your kitchenmates to do so" and "it's morally wrong if you don't do do so"."
I'm curious if others see a difference or not. To me, they are clearly not intrinsically the same thing, but often coincide and are in those cases synonymous. By your usage everything a person does is either moral or immoral, unless they have an unfettered freedom of choice. I could be hard pressed to come up with something that is that free of constraints. That's the hinge point, since our supposed freedoms are supposed to guarantee choice except where denied by law. That's why religious groups try to intrude on the legal code to ensure that where they see something being a matter of moral obligation there is no choice. That's why other people (rightly) resist them.
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: That's one the clearly violates some deep human impulse, like incest. But in the extreme situation when there is no alternative, would starvation be preferable to survival of the remaining individual? If society were reduced to two people, a father and daughter, would extinction be preferable to the survival of the species?
I agree with you completely. I just don't know if we are applying these ideals universally.
I know alot of people who would argue that homosexuality goes against a "deep human impulse". On the other hand I know that homosexuals can argue that they feel a "deep human impulse" to have sex with those of their own sex. Whose impulse is wrong and how do we determine it? All we have in democracy is the majority view, and the majority view dictates the law. (Granted in the US Constitution there are several degrees of "majority" in order to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority).
A guy who has sex with his sister is going to probably say that he had a "deep human impulse" to do it.
The counter-balance we have in America is the ideal of liberty. We attempt to draw the line between preference and immorality. Nobody is going to try and outlaw Pepsi because they prefer Coke. Some people will try and outlaw eating dogs because they prefer cows and chickens (or soybeans), but I'm not sure if they have ever succeeded. In the past, homosexuality was illegal, but today we do not enforce it.
Where and when does liberty trump "deep human impulses"? The answer differs on your political philosphy.
Are you Libertarian? The answer is never.
Are you Liberal? The answer is when said liberty harms others or creates unfairness.
Are you conservative? The answer is when said liberty is detrimental to the community, or when it conflicts with any other value, period.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:By your usage everything a person does is either moral or immoral
If by immoral we mean "morally forbidden" and by moral we mean "morally permissible", it is hardly strange to say that something which isn't forbidden is permissible.
Posts: 2828 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But you are constraining things so that everything is one or the other. I'm saying that morality doesn't apply so universally. We may have to simply agree to disagree on our definition and application of terms.
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: Grant shows clearly that it is a convoluted issue. IMO, the problem with religion in politics in the US is that it seems the more closely some people hold their religious moral principles, the more unwilling they are to allow others to act on their own when theirs differ.
You were just arguing that Catholics are obliged by civic duty to vote to permit the will of the majority even if it goes against their concience.
You've got kind of a "my way or the highway" approach yourself.
Posts: 5284 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: If Catholics were opposed to owning animals not used for husbandry because the bible tells them that man's dominion over animals is for that purpose, should Catholics say that it is immoral for anyone else to own pets? Or should they act as good citizens and support laws that let people adopt pets as a matter of their civic option.
[kmbboots:] "Well some of us care because, as Catholics, we are concerned with justice."
Exactly.
By that rationale all those Quakers running stations on the underground railroad because their religion forbade slavery were bad citizens.
Posts: 5284 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
VL, your last two posts to me indicate that we're talking past each other. It would help me if you would explain why what you wrote is a response, since I don't see the connection with what I had written.
[ June 11, 2012, 04:35 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote: If Catholics were opposed to owning animals not used for husbandry because the bible tells them that man's dominion over animals is for that purpose, should Catholics say that it is immoral for anyone else to own pets? Or should they act as good citizens and support laws that let people adopt pets as a matter of their civic option.
Quakers (and many ofther Christians eventually) believed that ownership of slaves was wrong. This was based on their religion. Your illustration here about pets argues that even if a religious person personally opposes something they should support the civic option for others to partake of it. By that rationale Quakers shouldn't have been trying to force others not to own slaves or even have said it was immoral for them to do so.
posted
Religious or secular convictions that restrict other people's freedoms in our freedom oriented democracy are wrong. You flipped that on it's head to make it seem that those who defend and promote freedom for enslaved people are wrong if a majority feels otherwise. That's totally opposite to what I'm saying. Did that clarify it for you?
[ June 11, 2012, 04:56 PM: Message edited by: AI Wessex ]
Posts: 4520 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by AI Wessex: You flipped that on it's head to make it seem that those who defend and promote freedom for enslaved people are wrong if a majority feels otherwise.... That's totally opposite to what I'm saying.
No Al it's not the opposite of what you're saying. It's what the outcome of your argument would be if applied to slavery in the USA in the 1800s particularly the South.
If you are going to argue that religious people shouldn't attempt to impose their religous values on others you are arguing that the majority of the abolitionists should have kept their religion to themselves and not forced their agenda on the rest of the country.
This isn't simply a matter of freedom. It's a demand for a change in society. Personally I don't think it's in of itself a dangerous change, but I don't see where you get off demanding other people not even vote their concience when it disagrees with your opinions.
Posts: 5284 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Depends on whether or not the religious view is a crappy one.
Or, to put it less harshly, if they religious view can also be supported by secular reasoning.
No it doesn't. People have the right to vote according to crappy views.
second of all plenty of seculars were arguing in the 1800s that blacks were inherently inferior and were the beficiaries of the slavery system. Plenty of seculars spent the first half of the 20th century arguing for ugenics. Secular reasoning can be very wrong too.
posted
Secular reasoning can, indeed, be very wrong.
You'll notice that there are very few, if any, secularists who support eugenics today.
To show why I think secular reasoning is superior to religious reasoning, contrast that with the number of people alive today who still believe in Biblical creation.
Posts: 439 | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by djquag1: To show why I think secular reasoning is superior to religious reasoning, contrast that with the number of people alive today who still believe in Biblical creation.
You are limiting "religious reasoning", whatever that is, to what is more commonly known as "orthodoxy". The concept of orthodoxy is that they take scripture as an authoritative account of events and god's message. For the Orthodox, the Bible, Koran, or Pentatuch (sp?) truely is the "word of god". There are varying degrees.
What you refer to as "secular reasoning" is just plain reasoning, which I suppose you could divide into rationalism and empiricism.
I think it is detrimental to think of, or classify, all religious thought as orthodoxy. Men of faith brought about the renaisance and the enlightenment. They clearly abandoned all tradition as authority, not just scripture. But the majority held deep theological beliefs that they rested their science upon.
There is no such thing as secular and religious reasoning. There are just different methods that deal with how you view authority and what qualifies as authority. There is however a vast gulf between faith and reason. Maybe this is what you were referring to.
Posts: 2396 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Going to have to ask one of the lawyers.
