You can find the aticle here. Non-Scripture quotes are from said article.
This is sad for a number of reasons:
(1):
"That’s
because “Catholics” includes not just worshipers who attend Mass weekly
and perhaps tilt in a more conservative direction but those who go less
frequently and those for whom Catholicism is as much an ethnic as a
religious identity."
Catholics who identify themselves as
cultural and claim that their views are inspired by their Catholicism,
when really its inspired by pluralistic influences, should not say
"because of my Catholicism."
Not participating in the sacraments
whatsoever and no taking even the slightest time to understand what the
Church teaches (or read Scripture) is doing a disservice to one's
conscience.
In that same vein, (2):
"We journalists too
often use “the Catholic Church” as a synonym for the pope, the cardinals
and teachings that have the Vatican’s stamp of approval.
But in
Europe and the Americas in particular, the church is much more fluid
than that. It harbors spiritually inclined people paying primary
obeisance to their own consciences, their own senses of social justice.
That impulse and tradition are as Catholic as any others."
Primary obedience to one's conscience is not a blank check to do and act
as you please, but a right given to all to exercise their free will to
the best of their ability and knowledge.
One's conscience formed
by his or her own convictions and preferences is not a "Catholic
Conscience," but a "church-of-me" conscience. The Church can and won't
infringe upon anyone's free will, but she does reserve the right, by
virtue of her teaching and authority, to say if a given claim is
erroneous, heretical, or schismatic to Catholicism and truth. So it is
with myself or with anyone else who says they are Catholic, we must be
humble in light of what is taught and obedient to the Church through a
conscience formed by the Cross, a daily incorporation of Scripture,
understanding of Tradition, and guidance from one's spiritual leaders.
Blame should probably fall on priests, myself included, who are not a
steady witness to the Gospel, but rather seek comfort in those who agree
with them and in topics of universal agreement, such as feeding the
poor (which still isn't done enough, along with other corporal works of
mercy), as opposed to preaching the Gospel on matters of gay marriage,
divorce, contraception, the dignity of all persons, war, and the death
penalty (things which pertain, I think, to spiritual works of mercy).
It's difficult to preach on these difficult issues without hijacking
the mass which, in turn, makes the sacraments of the Church vehicles of
personal preference as opposed to sources of life-giving grace. Yet we
and our faithful don't do much before or after mass to build off that
grace to grow in knowledge of our Church. So when should we talk about
them? It's worth discussing, I think.
Thus, with brief reference
to this article, advocating for gay marriage, even in a Catholic country
and saying that it is a result of a Catholic conscience is, in my
opinion, erroneous as best (insofar as they are mistaken about Church
teaching) and those who proclaim it publicly (knowing consciously the
teachings of the Church), with the intention of persuading other
Catholics into seeing it as a "Catholic answer/alternative," speak in a
heretical fashion. Neither of these actions are/become sinful unless
those who hold to it as a Catholic position are obstinate and refuse to
discuss it with their local, spiritual leader (typically a priest or
deacon; or bishop). Catholics may, out of respect for their consciences,
hold gay marriage as a personal belief, but publicly proclaiming it as
coming from Catholicism is wrong.
My opinion is that most people
simply speak in error because they have been taught to let "their
conscience be their guide" while never being taught how to form it for
themselves. "Do not be carried away by all manners of strange teaching"
(Heb 13:9), rather, "test everything, hold onto what is good" (1 Thes
5:21). "Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions
that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of
ours." (2 Thes 2:15)
**tl;dr verson:**
It's time we as
Catholics actually started forming our consciences, priests included,
and be in genuine discourse with each other and the Tradition.
Feel free to give comments on this or similar topics below.
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gay marriage. Show all posts
Friday, May 29, 2015
Sunday, November 10, 2013
Marriage as Status
When marriage is viewed as a sacrament, the one who affirms gay marriage
is simply wrong. But this is because the sacrament is clearly (or to
some, narrowly) defined. There are those who do not recognize the
sacred, however, and there are those who see no value the vocabulary of
sacrament. That's fair, and it's also the world/culture we happen to
live in. It requires those of us to who see it as both religious and
social to further reflect on what we mean by marriage in the social
sphere.
Marriage as a legal concept is a status, and since many have condemned and pushed aside any religion—perhaps justly or unjustly—their main thrust in the arguments surrounding this situation is equal status among heterosexuals. It's not so much that I feel homo- and heterosexuals do not have equal status in the United States insofar as I think good strides have been made to reaffirm that homosexuals (all persons for that matter) are, in fact, human beings and treating them with dignity and respect is a right. Those who don't, for “religious reasons,” do so at the peril of their souls— those who bully, mistreat, attack others, and marginalize people do violence to their brothers and sisters. They deface the very image of God. But there is also a difference, let's be clear, between arguing for marriage and against gay marriage as opposed to doing violence to someone (spiritual, psychological, physical, or otherwise).
Marriage as a foundation for a natural, nuclear family is something based on natural potential. Marriage is a status only insofar as it affirms this natural union—both social and sexual. Hence saying “marriage is between a man and a woman” describes a relationship, but that it is also a relationship for a purpose. The status that attends this relationship also indicates publicly what the couple is supposed to be in private.
Marriage, however, is being redefined as a “relationship between persons.” Is it two? Is it more? The language is by design ambiguous or, at the very least, one cannot truly defend any sort of clarity. One may say “a consensual relationship between persons” implies adults, but does it? Does the moment of consent imply a lifetime, or is the duration of consent the contract itself?—once I no longer consent to being in a relationship is the marriage hereby dissolved? Law is silent on this issue and divorce solves this dilemma, clearly.
Nevertheless, “a relationship between persons” is descriptive of an event. The potentiality of marriage in this instance (i.e., that plateau one could reach) points to a social status. Legal aspects come into play (e.g., finances, visiting privileges, etc.) but the prospect of family makes this even more difficult.
Many homosexuals no doubt desire the stability of what marriage offers for their lives and for the sake of raising their own family. A woman or man's desire for progeny likely exists in some equal fashion for homosexuals as it does heterosexuals despite the easily recognized fact that a child requires a sperm and ovum. In these relationships adoption or some form of in vitro fertilization is necessary—already it adds third parties to the process of having a family in the first place. One can perhaps only guess the difficult legal battles that might lie ahead. Regardless of this aspect marriage opens up a whole new set of questions regarding family, custody, and child-rearing.
People are generally swayed by the very emotionally-convincing speeches given by children or young-adults who speak before politicians or debates extolling the good life they have with two mothers or fathers. This is, for them, some proof that there is simply no difference between one's situation growing up. In the case of homosexual families it seems as if lesbians have an easier route—they can be inseminated and develop the child in their own womb. For men, however, neither of them can easily be involved in the process.
Yet it is also odd for me to hear the common reply that whether from gay or straight households the child can grow up healthy. I certainly suppose that the child can grow up healthy, but we simultaneously hear (especially on the radio here in Chicago) of the importance of the father's positive role in a child's life. The government website on the well-being of children likewise indicates this fact (Child Welfare). So we hear both that “it doesn't matter” and that “it matters.”
I suspect that many will begin arguing that these facts are, in the end, simply an assumption about what perspective we want children to grow up with (that is, with their natural mother and father).
Those of us who believe in God often get run out of the argument for allegedly forcing God into this argument, but I think we have real points in the argument of gay marriage on legal grounds (what will it look like when expanded upon?) and family grounds (children growing up with parents).
Objectors may bring into light the fact that there are deceased parents, deadbeat fathers, drunk mothers, etc. as an indication that heterosexual marriage isn't all beautiful and perfect—a valid point. But in this argument it ceases to be valid when it takes the weak example of marriage and compares it to a normal or strong example of gay marriage. It becomes a false comparison and simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a way marriage and family should be. If there were 20 toys, but 19 were broken, would we reassess how the toy actually functions because the data tells us that 19 are simply broken after all. Rather, wouldn't we judge the 19 by the 1 that actually did work as it was intended? So too with marriage in arguments like this—we cannot judge what is less than right and proper as normative.
There are many other situations that I would like to treat but require greater space: impotent couples, couples that do not want children, couples that do not value marriage (though they are married), among others. Many advocates of gay marriage that I've come across are only concerned with the legitimacy of their own definition and that their views on marriage are protected and sanctioned by the law. Many others, however, realize that many different ideas of marriage cannot simply be reduced to every last person thinking marriage is something different. Everyone would do well to distinguish particular expressions of marriage (which are as numerous as people, e.g., Hindi, Muslim, Christian, secular, etc.) and the purpose of marriage (something that is far more unified among a great number of peoples).
Is marriage something that demands equal status? In the case of gay marriage and marriage I answer no. This comes with the caveat, however, that civil marriage as it stands has no standard by which it says this or that person should get married. In the legal world marriage is simply the desire of two individuals and they are then bound legally to one another. There is very little “quality control” (so to speak) nor is there counseling that goes into determining whether or not a couple are prepared emotionally and relationally for marriage. This is a weakness of our system.
The benefit of the religious conception of marriage, alongside its insistence on it being sacred and for the family, is that there is certain counseling and guidance along the way that helps couples understand the conflicts that arise from living together and raising a family. It is a system with weaknesses, to be sure, but one that often produces more stable marriages. That it urges self-sacrifice that mirrors Christ on the cross while also emphasizing that their union mirrors the love of the Trinity is itself something of great importance.
Marriage, when used as a status, often leads people to say that their love is now validated, but marriage viewed in this way seems less about the triumph of love and more about the triumph of how one wants the world to view them. The desire of many is to be treated equally under the law but this desire extends beyond equal treatment. The argument is that “My view of marriage is equally as valid as yours and thus it deserves to be protected by law” but this argument only has legs when marriage is reduced to a piece of paper. Marriage reduced to a status produces this argument. One ought to look, rather, at what he means by marriage and not what he wants to get out of it. In this manner I feel more fruitful dialog can begin.
Similarly, I personally would care less about my view or “opinion” on marriage because I don't raise my opinion to the level of belief on matters social and sacramental (should you see it that way). I trust rather in what I've been given by my Tradition on the one hand while also applying what I've been given with reason and experience. Does everyone's opinion carry the force of “belief”? I don't think so—but such is the way many people see it.
Marriage as a legal concept is a status, and since many have condemned and pushed aside any religion—perhaps justly or unjustly—their main thrust in the arguments surrounding this situation is equal status among heterosexuals. It's not so much that I feel homo- and heterosexuals do not have equal status in the United States insofar as I think good strides have been made to reaffirm that homosexuals (all persons for that matter) are, in fact, human beings and treating them with dignity and respect is a right. Those who don't, for “religious reasons,” do so at the peril of their souls— those who bully, mistreat, attack others, and marginalize people do violence to their brothers and sisters. They deface the very image of God. But there is also a difference, let's be clear, between arguing for marriage and against gay marriage as opposed to doing violence to someone (spiritual, psychological, physical, or otherwise).
Marriage as a foundation for a natural, nuclear family is something based on natural potential. Marriage is a status only insofar as it affirms this natural union—both social and sexual. Hence saying “marriage is between a man and a woman” describes a relationship, but that it is also a relationship for a purpose. The status that attends this relationship also indicates publicly what the couple is supposed to be in private.
Marriage, however, is being redefined as a “relationship between persons.” Is it two? Is it more? The language is by design ambiguous or, at the very least, one cannot truly defend any sort of clarity. One may say “a consensual relationship between persons” implies adults, but does it? Does the moment of consent imply a lifetime, or is the duration of consent the contract itself?—once I no longer consent to being in a relationship is the marriage hereby dissolved? Law is silent on this issue and divorce solves this dilemma, clearly.
Nevertheless, “a relationship between persons” is descriptive of an event. The potentiality of marriage in this instance (i.e., that plateau one could reach) points to a social status. Legal aspects come into play (e.g., finances, visiting privileges, etc.) but the prospect of family makes this even more difficult.
Many homosexuals no doubt desire the stability of what marriage offers for their lives and for the sake of raising their own family. A woman or man's desire for progeny likely exists in some equal fashion for homosexuals as it does heterosexuals despite the easily recognized fact that a child requires a sperm and ovum. In these relationships adoption or some form of in vitro fertilization is necessary—already it adds third parties to the process of having a family in the first place. One can perhaps only guess the difficult legal battles that might lie ahead. Regardless of this aspect marriage opens up a whole new set of questions regarding family, custody, and child-rearing.
People are generally swayed by the very emotionally-convincing speeches given by children or young-adults who speak before politicians or debates extolling the good life they have with two mothers or fathers. This is, for them, some proof that there is simply no difference between one's situation growing up. In the case of homosexual families it seems as if lesbians have an easier route—they can be inseminated and develop the child in their own womb. For men, however, neither of them can easily be involved in the process.
Yet it is also odd for me to hear the common reply that whether from gay or straight households the child can grow up healthy. I certainly suppose that the child can grow up healthy, but we simultaneously hear (especially on the radio here in Chicago) of the importance of the father's positive role in a child's life. The government website on the well-being of children likewise indicates this fact (Child Welfare). So we hear both that “it doesn't matter” and that “it matters.”
I suspect that many will begin arguing that these facts are, in the end, simply an assumption about what perspective we want children to grow up with (that is, with their natural mother and father).
Those of us who believe in God often get run out of the argument for allegedly forcing God into this argument, but I think we have real points in the argument of gay marriage on legal grounds (what will it look like when expanded upon?) and family grounds (children growing up with parents).
Objectors may bring into light the fact that there are deceased parents, deadbeat fathers, drunk mothers, etc. as an indication that heterosexual marriage isn't all beautiful and perfect—a valid point. But in this argument it ceases to be valid when it takes the weak example of marriage and compares it to a normal or strong example of gay marriage. It becomes a false comparison and simply refuses to acknowledge that there is a way marriage and family should be. If there were 20 toys, but 19 were broken, would we reassess how the toy actually functions because the data tells us that 19 are simply broken after all. Rather, wouldn't we judge the 19 by the 1 that actually did work as it was intended? So too with marriage in arguments like this—we cannot judge what is less than right and proper as normative.
There are many other situations that I would like to treat but require greater space: impotent couples, couples that do not want children, couples that do not value marriage (though they are married), among others. Many advocates of gay marriage that I've come across are only concerned with the legitimacy of their own definition and that their views on marriage are protected and sanctioned by the law. Many others, however, realize that many different ideas of marriage cannot simply be reduced to every last person thinking marriage is something different. Everyone would do well to distinguish particular expressions of marriage (which are as numerous as people, e.g., Hindi, Muslim, Christian, secular, etc.) and the purpose of marriage (something that is far more unified among a great number of peoples).
Is marriage something that demands equal status? In the case of gay marriage and marriage I answer no. This comes with the caveat, however, that civil marriage as it stands has no standard by which it says this or that person should get married. In the legal world marriage is simply the desire of two individuals and they are then bound legally to one another. There is very little “quality control” (so to speak) nor is there counseling that goes into determining whether or not a couple are prepared emotionally and relationally for marriage. This is a weakness of our system.
The benefit of the religious conception of marriage, alongside its insistence on it being sacred and for the family, is that there is certain counseling and guidance along the way that helps couples understand the conflicts that arise from living together and raising a family. It is a system with weaknesses, to be sure, but one that often produces more stable marriages. That it urges self-sacrifice that mirrors Christ on the cross while also emphasizing that their union mirrors the love of the Trinity is itself something of great importance.
Marriage, when used as a status, often leads people to say that their love is now validated, but marriage viewed in this way seems less about the triumph of love and more about the triumph of how one wants the world to view them. The desire of many is to be treated equally under the law but this desire extends beyond equal treatment. The argument is that “My view of marriage is equally as valid as yours and thus it deserves to be protected by law” but this argument only has legs when marriage is reduced to a piece of paper. Marriage reduced to a status produces this argument. One ought to look, rather, at what he means by marriage and not what he wants to get out of it. In this manner I feel more fruitful dialog can begin.
Similarly, I personally would care less about my view or “opinion” on marriage because I don't raise my opinion to the level of belief on matters social and sacramental (should you see it that way). I trust rather in what I've been given by my Tradition on the one hand while also applying what I've been given with reason and experience. Does everyone's opinion carry the force of “belief”? I don't think so—but such is the way many people see it.
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
SR: Gay Marriage in Illinois
So the House here in Illinois just passed (61-54) Senate Bill 10 which legalizes 'gay marriage.' The flood of Facebook messages: "Finally" and "I'm so happy" and "#equality." Politicians coming out as gay, companies contorting their image so as to appear inclusive, and anyone who would dare oppose something such as gay marriage are hit with salvo after salvo of "equal protection under the law" and "human/civil rights."
In all the breakdown of certain values, such as "marriage is not a natural institution" and "marriage is not sacred" among other things lawmakers and individuals alike have decided that the former view of marriage is limiting and prejudiced. Regardless of what you believe I imagine any thoughtful reflection on the whole situation reveals a rather odd phenomenon.
Whereas it seems that everything that was once held as common-sense and true is now irrational and false, the invocation of a universal truth has taken form, not of God or of nature, but of the Constitution.
Not everyone believes in God. No one can quite agree on what nature is, far less what is natural in light of technological advances (whether theory or medicine). Not everyone can quite agree on what the Constitution means either, but it does have one advantage--so it seems--to the other two: we all must live under the law.
How is the Constitution a universal truth? It's universal because it's impartial; no one belief or value trumps the other. The way that some base their decisions is on a document they actively try to strip of any concrete value. The value that must pervade all public life is that everyone must respect the values of another.
How does one respect the value of another? Praising it? Ignoring it? Giving to each what he demands and expecting the same for yourself?
We all seem to agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are good things until we realize that we don't agree on what life means, we aren't coherent about what liberty is, and we expect that whatever we pursue will undoubtedly make us happy. As long as we agree they're good, right? As long as the law doesn't choose sides, right?
When we as individuals give lawmakers the power to be arbiters over any value we come to see ourselves as masters of any value. No one lawmaker is more powerful than the law, but the law is also a tool.
We can finally be happy, since we believe marriage is a ticket to happiness.
We can finally be equal, unless you don't agree with me to my liking.
We can be public with what we believe, but it's always secondary to the law.
By casting off God and nature as the bedrock of value law will not so much be at the service of man but the only remaining candidate to rule and guide him--and we all know how permanent the law is. Look on any popular page and see the opinion be the same: the power of law will make us all equal, by choice or by force.
What is marriage? A contract between [two?] persons.
What is marriage? A relationship with certain legal benefits.
What is marriage? Certainly not something we can assign any sort of value.
What is marriage, then? Not much, it seems.
===
(If you're interested in this topic you may enjoy my follow-up to this article "Marriage as Status."
In all the breakdown of certain values, such as "marriage is not a natural institution" and "marriage is not sacred" among other things lawmakers and individuals alike have decided that the former view of marriage is limiting and prejudiced. Regardless of what you believe I imagine any thoughtful reflection on the whole situation reveals a rather odd phenomenon.
Whereas it seems that everything that was once held as common-sense and true is now irrational and false, the invocation of a universal truth has taken form, not of God or of nature, but of the Constitution.
Not everyone believes in God. No one can quite agree on what nature is, far less what is natural in light of technological advances (whether theory or medicine). Not everyone can quite agree on what the Constitution means either, but it does have one advantage--so it seems--to the other two: we all must live under the law.
How is the Constitution a universal truth? It's universal because it's impartial; no one belief or value trumps the other. The way that some base their decisions is on a document they actively try to strip of any concrete value. The value that must pervade all public life is that everyone must respect the values of another.
How does one respect the value of another? Praising it? Ignoring it? Giving to each what he demands and expecting the same for yourself?
We all seem to agree that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are good things until we realize that we don't agree on what life means, we aren't coherent about what liberty is, and we expect that whatever we pursue will undoubtedly make us happy. As long as we agree they're good, right? As long as the law doesn't choose sides, right?
When we as individuals give lawmakers the power to be arbiters over any value we come to see ourselves as masters of any value. No one lawmaker is more powerful than the law, but the law is also a tool.
We can finally be happy, since we believe marriage is a ticket to happiness.
We can finally be equal, unless you don't agree with me to my liking.
We can be public with what we believe, but it's always secondary to the law.
By casting off God and nature as the bedrock of value law will not so much be at the service of man but the only remaining candidate to rule and guide him--and we all know how permanent the law is. Look on any popular page and see the opinion be the same: the power of law will make us all equal, by choice or by force.
What is marriage? A contract between [two?] persons.
What is marriage? A relationship with certain legal benefits.
What is marriage? Certainly not something we can assign any sort of value.
What is marriage, then? Not much, it seems.
===
(If you're interested in this topic you may enjoy my follow-up to this article "Marriage as Status."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)