Archbishop of San Francisco warns of coming war on marriage

[Thomas_Peter]

Illegal? Is anyone trying to outlaw marriage between people of the opposite sex? I’m afraid he comes across as rather histrionic in his assessment. It seems pretty obvious that same sex marriage is soon going to become legal in all 50 states…civil marriage that is…big difference. And personally I don’t understand how that hurts anyone’s marriage**. The distinction between religious and civil marriage is never acknowledged in these arguments. Why is that?**

Because once “same sex marriage” becomes a constitutional right the Catholic Church could be forced to perform marriages or lose their tax exempt status. This is a direct attack on religious freedom by the secular left. It always has been

 

[JimG]

Shotgun weddings are highly effective at reducing the number of out of wedlock births.

Good idea. Better than institutionalized poverty, and Uncle Sam as the default daddy.

But in truth, I think that we underestimate the degree to which even shotgun weddings produced happy intact families. There were a lot of intact families with moms and dads. Now, marriage is becoming the privilege of the well to do, while the poor are relegated to broken families as a matter of policy.

 

[LisaA]

I definitely don’t wholly disagree with you. Our culture has become extremely self-absorbed, which is antithetical to true Christianity and Catholicism. Yet just today, two married lesbian friends announced that after two years fostering a child since he was 2 days old and born to a drug-addicted schizophrenic single mother, they’re being allowed to officially adopt him. This doesn’t sound selfish. In fact, it sounds like the opposite. This child has developmental delays and my friends have worked tirelessly to advocate for him and ensure he receives the necessary care to help him grow mentally and physically. It may be that his bio mom was acting selfishly (though honestly I think she’s too sick to be conscious of much of what she does) but in this instance, on a practical level, the lesbians involved are demonstrating selflessness. Honestly I can’t imagine a better outcome for this child. I am not discounting the import of male influence in his life. Yet of all the alternatives he might face and all the legitimate possibilities available, this seems like the best possible conclusion.

Gracepoole, but isn’t this a great example of this week’s Gospel where Christ says the Sabbath is made for man, not man for the Sabbath. As Fr Fidelis noted in his homily, the laws were intended to do good for man…a day of rest. But when that law gets in the way of a greater good then we must reconsider its strict application and that’s what Christ taught didn’t he?

My only point is that the best interests of the CHILD be paramount. In this case, a major exception to the usual adoption, it sounds as if these women would provide the care this child needs as well as having a mutual bond. I am against gay and single adoptions in general but a strict adherence of the law might work against the child’s best interest and an exception noted. My major objection is in this quest for “equality” and “non discrimination” that a child is again treated as a commodity…parceled out to whomever got their name in first and passed whatever qualifications were required. There should be room to DISCRIMINATE in such cases. The Secular Progressives however worship the god of “equality” over true love of neighbor.

 

[LisaA]

Because once “same sex marriage” becomes a constitutional right the Catholic Church could be forced to perform marriages or lose their tax exempt status. This is a direct attack on religious freedom by the secular left. It always has been

Precisely. This is already happening in Europe as the CofE allows gay pastors but as I understand will not perform a gay ‘wedding.’ Two wealthy gay men are suing to be wed in the church. Of course this IS Europe but given the way administrative laws, regulations and the Obama administration is attacking religious freedom, it would not suprise me if such cases are not already being contemplated. If they insist nuns furnish birth control and abortifacient drugs, there is little doubt of their intention.

 

[SavannahGal]

Because once “same sex marriage” becomes a constitutional right the Catholic Church could be forced to perform marriages or lose their tax exempt status. This is a direct attack on religious freedom by the secular left. It always has been

Sorry, but that bucket don’t hold much water. If that was a legitimate concern, it would be a problem for the Church already. There are millions of heterosexual couples who currently have every legal right to marry, but do not meet the Catholic Church’s requirements for marriage. The Church even turns away Catholic couples who do not meet its requirements for marriage in the Church. The right to civil marriage does not grant you the right to a religious one. There’s absolutely no legal precedent to warrant such a concern. It’s just a scare tactic. Nothing more.

 

[LisaA]

Sorry, but that bucket don’t hold much water. If that was a legitimate concern, it would be a problem for the Church already. There are millions of heterosexual couples who currently have every legal right to marry, but do not meet the Catholic Church’s requirements for marriage. The Church even turns away Catholic couples who do not meet its requirements for marriage in the Church. The right to civil marriage does not grant you the right to a religious one. There’s absolutely no legal precedent to warrant such a concern. It’s just a scare tactic. Nothing more.

You ignore the reality that divorced persons who haven’t received a certificate of nullity do not have the kind of activist cohort of the gay “rigts” supporters. We have seen NUMEROUS Catholic and religious schools, hospitals and social services organizations sued, threatened with loss of tax exempt status for not accommodating gay “marriages” among other contractual breaches. Further gays and Lesbians who feel they have been discriminated against (a gay EM who “married” and then was told he could not longer serve) have threatened, petitioned, picketed, and publicized their situation within the secular media that loves to take a poke at the Church.

This is NOT A SCARE tactic. It is occurring right now, inch by inch, case by case.

 

[Thorolfr]

Because once “same sex marriage” becomes a constitutional right the Catholic Church could be forced to perform marriages or lose their tax exempt status. This is a direct attack on religious freedom by the secular left. It always has been

If that kind of thing was really a possibility, couldn’t the Catholic Church also lose its tax exempt status for not marrying divorcees? Neither scenario seems likely.

However, Catholic churches could possibly lose tax exempt status for meddling in politics, telling people how to vote, etc.

 

[Thorolfr]

We have seen NUMEROUS Catholic and religious schools, hospitals and social services organizations sued, threatened with loss of tax exempt status for not accommodating gay “marriages” among other contractual breaches.

That’s because hospitals, social service organizations, etc. are not strictly religious in nature and often receive money from the federal government. I’m a Protestant but have been treated in a hospital (the closest one to where I lived) that was bought out by a Catholic owned hospital chain. Nothing about my treatment had anything to do with religion, most of the doctors and other employees were not Catholic. Why should Catholic moral teachings now be applied to the operations of such a hospital?

 

[LisaA]

If that kind of thing was really a possibility, couldn’t the Catholic Church also lose its tax exempt status for not marrying divorcees? Neither scenario seems likely.

However, Catholic churches could possibly lose tax exempt status for meddling in politics, telling people how to vote, etc.

Divorcees are not a protected class. Nor do they have a powerful lobby, Hollywood, the media and politicians preaching their cause.

 

[FollowChrist34]

That’s because hospitals, social service organizations, etc. are not strictly religious in nature and often receive money from the federal government. I’m a Protestant but have been treated in a hospital (the closest one to where I lived) that was bought out by a Catholic owned hospital chain. Nothing about my treatment had anything to do with religion, most of the doctors and other employees were not Catholic. Why should Catholic moral teachings now be applied to the operations of such a hospital?

It’s a Catholic owned institution. This is where you cross the line. This is an infringement on religious liberty. IMHO.

 

[Thorolfr]

It’s a Catholic owned institution. This is where you cross the line. This is an infringement on religious liberty. IMHO.

I’m sure that such a Catholic owned hospital or social service organization could make a better case for its right to apply Catholic teachings in how it is run if it only hired Catholic staff and didn’t take any government money

 

[FollowChrist34]

I’m sure that such a Catholic owned hospital or social service organization could make a better case for its right to appl Catholic teachings in how it is run if it only hired Catholic staff and didn’t take any government money

What’s behind the change in thinking? They’ve been running their institutions this way since their inception. Why is it seen as an imposition now? Just curious.

 

[LisaA]

That’s because hospitals, social service organizations, etc. are not strictly religious in nature and often receive money from the federal government. I’m a Protestant but have been treated in a hospital (the closest one to where I lived) that was bought out by a Catholic owned hospital chain. Nothing about my treatment had anything to do with religion, most of the doctors and other employees were not Catholic. Why should Catholic moral teachings now be applied to the operations of such a hospital?

Wrong but you seem to have adopted the most strict sense of the word of what makes up a religious organization…must only employ and provide services to someone of the faith. That is the complete ANTITHESIS of what living a Catholic life is about. No Catholic soup kitchen or homeless shelter or hospital or school has 100% Catholic providers and 100% Catholic patients, students or clients. You like many mix up freedom of worship with freedom of religion. There is more to religion than your bum warming a pew for an hour a week. We are supposed to live our faith every day and every where.

Catholic hospitals for example have specific directives relating to procedures they will or won’t provide. Our hospital will not provide abortion, sterilization nor provide euthanasia drugs. Catholic Social Teaching is paramount in the practice of medicine in our hospital. That does not mean all the docs and nurses are Catholic. Probably most of them are not. But as long as they do not engage in the prohibited procedures, neither they or the patients they serve do not have to be of any particular faith.

As to the “receive government funds” canard, this is not government largesse but payments for services rendered. So if Mrs Smith comes in for gall bladder surgery and the hospital is paid by Medicare, that doesn’t give the federal government the right to tell the hospital what services can be rendered. Ditto with social services. For example I was on the Board and was a volunteer for a Catholic based drug and alcohol treatment provider for a number of years. Most of the services were provided through Medicaid, a state health program. Again, government funds but for services rendered. Aside from that the reality was the payment was a fraction of what the treatment actually cost and like most such organizations we depended upon donations to stay afloat. But don’t act as if the government is tossing gold coins in our fountain. It’s getting more than what it pays for.

As to government assaults on religious faith, one of Obama’s first moves was to try to foist off the “Freedom of Choice” act which was the OPPOSITE of what it says. It meant providers couldn’t refuse to provide abortions or other religiously prohibited services. Fortunately it was batted down but this particular administration clearly has an animus regarding religious faith and continues its assault apace. I assure you if it could shove gay “marriage” down our unwilling throats it would do so.

 

[Thorolfr]

Catholic hospitals for example have specific directives relating to procedures they will or won’t provide. Our hospital will not provide abortion, sterilization nor provide euthanasia drugs. Catholic Social Teaching is paramount in the practice of medicine in our hospital. That does not mean all the docs and nurses are Catholic. Probably most of them are not. But as long as they do not engage in the prohibited procedures, neither they or the patients they serve do not have to be of any particular faith.

So I take it that you would have no objections if, for example, a Muslim group bought up your local community hospital and directed that all staff and patients must be gender segregated with women’s and men’s only parts of the hospital. If a woman wanted to see a specialist but they didn’t have a woman doctor who did that, they would just be out of luck. Any woman staff member who had to enter the men’s section would have to cover her hair.

And you wouldn’t object if they passed a rule that no pork products (bacon, etc) could be used at the hospital. It couldn’t be given to patients in their meals or sold in the hospital cafeteria.

Or if the Jehovah’s Witnesses bought up your local hospital and prohibited all blood transfusions, you wouldn’t object, I take it.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Illegal? Is anyone trying to outlaw marriage between people of the opposite sex? I’m afraid he comes across as rather histrionic in his assessment. It seems pretty obvious that same sex marriage is soon going to become legal in all 50 states…civil marriage that is…big difference. And personally I don’t understand how that hurts anyone’s marriage. The distinction between religious and civil marriage is never acknowledged in these arguments. Why is that?

:clapping: I think you don’t understand it because a SS couple’s civil marriage can’t affect a Catholic couple’s Sacramental marriage. If the Catholic couple’s Sacramental marriage is hurting, there may be other problems within their marriage. But it’s certainly not because a SS couple who they might not even know, had a ceremony performed under civil law down at the courthouse. Or for that matter even if in a faith community with a different belief than Catholics.

I read the answers you received were about taxes and then after you pointed out the Church already refuses heterosexuals, the answer turned to lobbies. So I think you were right. It’s just a scare tactic. I think some people can have a tendency to fear something that’s not the same as their own.

 

[FollowChrist34]

So I take it that you would have no objections if, for example, a Muslim group bought up your local community hospital and directed that all staff and patients must be gender segregated with women’s and men’s only parts of the hospital. If a woman wanted to see a specialist but they didn’t have a woman doctor who did that, they would just be out of luck. Any woman staff member who had to enter the men’s section would have to cover her hair.

And you wouldn’t object if they passed a rule that no pork products (bacon, etc) could be used at the hospital. It couldn’t be given to patients in their meals or sold in the hospital cafeteria.

Or if the Jehovah’s Witnesses bought up your local hospital and prohibited all blood transfusions, you wouldn’t object, I take it.

Catholic hospitals have been run like this forever. I said this earlier. I see this as an aggressive move to push them out of the health/caregiving business, to prevent them from operating their institutions in accordance with their principles. Their had have the right to adhere to their principles in their institutions in the US since they began. It REALLY worries me. I have no qualms about calling this an attack on religious freedom.

 

[gracepoole]

Yes, but that is not what the Archbishop was focusing on. Good works are good works.

Best,
Ed

Ed, I was responding to another poster who brought up selfishness as a cause for the pro-same-sex marriage movement. The example I provided seems to indicate that this isn’t always the case.

 

[JimG]

I’m sure that such a Catholic owned hospital or social service organization could make a better case for its right to apply Catholic teachings in how it is run if it only hired Catholic staff and didn’t take any government money

In order to get a waiver from the HHS mandate, the hospital would not only need to hire only Catholics, but serve only Catholic patients, which is ridiculous. The Little Sisters of the Poor are denied an exemption because they serve anyone who needs their help. Consequently they don’t qualify as a religious organization! It’s outrageous, and they are appealing.

 

[mjs2001]

I’m having difficulty understanding the Bishops’ stance on marriage. The Archbishop, in his definition of marriage, omitted the fact that the bond is also exclusive and lifelong. He must know that marriage includes those characteristics. I wonder if he omitted the “exclusive” and “indissoluble” by design because the American Church (1) issues tens of thousands of annulments every year and (2) simply does not appear to care about the dissolution of real marriages, but instead pours its energies into preventing the civil union of same sex couples.

 

[Zoltan_Cobalt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavannahGal View Post
Illegal? Is anyone trying to outlaw marriage between people of the opposite sex? I’m afraid he comes across as rather histrionic in his assessment. It seems pretty obvious that same sex marriage is soon going to become legal in all 50 states…civil marriage that is…big difference. And personally I don’t understand how that hurts anyone’s marriage. The distinction between religious and civil marriage is never acknowledged in these arguments. Why is that?

:clapping: I think you don’t understand it because a SS couple’s civil marriage can’t affect a Catholic couple’s Sacramental marriage. If the Catholic couple’s Sacramental marriage is hurting, there may be other problems within their marriage. But it’s certainly not because a SS couple who they might not even know, had a ceremony performed under civil law down at the courthouse. Or for that matter even if in a faith community with a different belief than Catholics.

I read the answers you received were about taxes and then after you pointed out the Church already refuses heterosexuals, the answer turned to lobbies. So I think you were right. It’s just a scare tactic. I think some people can have a tendency to fear something that’s not the same as their own.

I don’t consider it “scare tactics”. I just don’t like the idea of my state government promoting homosexual behavior by legitimizing same sex relationships as a marriage.

We as Catholics are called to oppose such laws…

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith,
by then Joseph Card. Ratzinger:

Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons:

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

The document then proceeds to give reasons supporting the Catholic position.