Archbishop Warns Obama: You’ll Cause 'Conflict Between Church and State of Enormous Proportions’

[Pirate_Talker]

Hi, all,

The Bishops are right.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church is abiding in the truth.

President Barak Hussien Obama II is in error.

American is in dire danger of losing her claim of “…with liberty and justice for all.”

God loves all of you, lurkers, too,
Don

Is America a Catholic nation?

 

[The_Rock]

Well, I don’t have a problem with same-sex civil unions. I don’t know that the Church’s opposition to civil unions raises to the level of it’s opposition to same-sex marriage which I agree with.

Well now you will know that the Church opposes same sex civil unions just as strongly as same sex “marriage”. Here is the document, if you refuse to now read it you are guilty of willful ignorance.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

This is the Church’s official teaching from the Vatican written by our current Holy Father, and Pope John Paul II ordered it’s publication. Here the Holy Father is teaching on faith and morals so the teaching is binding on all Catholics. We can choose to submit… or disobey and sin, but to claim ignorance is no longer an option.

An excerpt:

Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

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

We have a DUTY to oppose homosexual unions.

 

[rlg94086]

Well now you will know that the Church opposes same sex civil unions just as strongly as same sex “marriage”. Here is the document, if you refuse to now read it you are guilty of willful ignorance.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html

This is the Church’s official teaching from the Vatican written by our current Holy Father, and Pope John Paul II ordered it’s publication. Here the Holy Father is teaching on faith and morals so the teaching is binding on all Catholics. We can choose to submit… or disobey and sin, but to claim ignorance is no longer an option.

An excerpt:

We have a DUTY to oppose homosexual unions.

 

[Dale_M]

After reading through Archbishop Dolan’s letter, I guess I am still puzzled. Where is the alleged conflict between Church and State? His letter does not explain where he sees the conflict. And while I can understand why Archbishop Dolan would like the Catholic theology of marriage to be the law of the land, that desire in itself seems to contradict the separation of Church and State.

I have the greatest respect for Archbishop Dolan on theological matters, but when he crosses the line into politics, I think he is open to question. The legal insitution of marriage is not tied to the religious institution of marriage. They simply have the same name.

 

[kslat]

American is in dire danger of losing her claim of “…with liberty and justice for all.”

Not sure exactly if you mean that, while the Catholic Church says marriage between members of the same sex is wrong, the country should allow it. That’s how I’m reading it.

But here’s a point: on a legal level (in my state and most other states), I, as a heterosexual woman, can’t marry a woman any more than a homosexual woman can marry a woman. We all have the same right to marry. Just has to be a member of the opposite sex, not a very close relative, etc.

Thank you, Archbishop Dolan, for speaking out. So many religious seem to be going the way of society…or maybe it’s just me…

 

[JimG]

**He could have an ace up his sleeve. Suppose, in order to get votes, he resorts to "offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. "

**

Well, he already did that in the last election.

I would love to see Archbishop Dolan’s letter read from every pulpit and published in ever parish bulletin. This administration is at war with the Church.

 

[rlg94086]

After reading through Archbishop Dolan’s letter, I guess I am still puzzled. Where is the alleged conflict between Church and State? His letter makes no reference to that doctrine. And while I can understand why Archbishop Dolan would like the Catholic theology of marriage to be the law of the land, that desire in itself self seems to contradict the separation of church and state.

I have the greatest respect for Archbishop Dolan on theological matters, but when he crosses the line into politics, I think he is open to question.

It is not a violation of “separation of Church and State” for religious sects to make their preferences known.

 

[Dale_M]

It is not a violation of “separation of Church and State” for religious sects to make their preferences known.

I don’t think that is the case. We do have freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion in the US. People are permitted to express religious viewpoints.

However, such freedom doesn’t mean that simply because a government policy is contrary to a religious doctrine that a constitutional issue is at hand. And that seems to be what Archbishop Dolan is claiming. Even if the US federal government allows same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church is not bound to offer it. I don’t see any constitutional conflict, and I didn’t see in his letter why Archbishop Dolan thinks that such conflict would exist.

 

[Darryl1958]

After reading through Archbishop Dolan’s letter, I guess I am still puzzled. Where is the alleged conflict between Church and State? His letter does not explain where he sees the conflict. And while I can understand why Archbishop Dolan would like the Catholic theology of marriage to be the law of the land, that desire in itself seems to contradict the separation of Church and State.

I have the greatest respect for Archbishop Dolan on theological matters, but when he crosses the line into politics, I think he is open to question. The legal insitution of marriage is not tied to the religious institution of marriage. They simply have the same name.

The desire to see marriage as it has been defined in America from even before the nation of America came into existence is a violation of the separation of Church and State?!!!
I gotta admit, I didn’t see that one coming.

 

[Dale_M]

The desire to see marriage as it has been defined in America from even before the nation of America came into existence is a violation of the separation of Church and State?!!!

Eh?

Archbishop Dolan is claiming that allowing same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue. I don’t see where in his letter he explains that viewpoint, or why he thinks that is true.

 

[rlg94086]

I don’t think that is the case. We do have freedom of speech, as well as freedom of religion in the US. People are permitted to express religious viewpoints.

However, such freedom doesn’t mean that simply because a government policy is contrary to a religious doctrine that a constitutional issue is at hand. And that seems to be what Archbishop Dolan is claiming. Even if the US federal government allows same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church is not bound to offer it. I don’t see any constitutional conflict, and I didn’t see in his letter why Archbishop Dolan thinks that such conflict would exist.

I was commenting on your claim, not the letter. That said, the explanation of the concern the Bishops have regarding the First Ammendment are best explained in the third from last paragraph in the analysis following the letter.

Are churches allowed to discriminate against interracial couples after Loving v Virginia?

 

[Raskolnikov]

The desire to see marriage as it has been defined in America from even before the nation of America came into existence is a violation of the separation of Church and State?!!!
I gotta admit, I didn’t see that one coming.

For the first 70-some years of American history ‘human being’ was defined to exclude black people. One can argue from precedent, but it’s not a sure thing. As Thomas Payne wrote in defending the American seperation from Britain, ‘the dead should not rule the living.’ A favorite quote of mine.

 

[Dale_M]

I was commenting on your claim, not the letter. That said, the explanation of the concern the Bishops have regarding the First Ammendment are best explained in the third from last paragraph in the analysis following the letter.

Oh, okay… I hadn’t read that far.

Here it is:

In particular, the Administration‟s efforts to change the law—in all three branches of the federal government—so that support for authentic marriage is treated as an instance of “sexual orientation discrimination,” will threaten to spawn a wide range of legal sanctions against individuals and institutions within the Catholic community, and in many others as well. Based on the experience of religious entities under some state and local governments already, we would expect that, if the Administration succeeds, we would face lawsuits for supposed “discrimination” in all the areas where the Church operates in service to the common good, and where civil rights laws apply—such as employment, housing, education, and adoption services, to name just a few.

I guess I think that is a misplaced concern. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a religious practice and as such is protected by the constitutional bar against interference of Church and State. The examples site in the above paragraphs are not religious practices, and thus are not entitled to constitutional protection. I think that paragraph is a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Are churches allowed to discriminate against interracial couples after Loving v Virginia?

Yes, they are. The ruling is that the government can not refuse to issue a marriage license to interracial couples.

 

[The_Rock]

Even if the US federal government allows same-sex marriage, the Catholic Church is not bound to offer it. I don’t see any constitutional conflict, and I didn’t see in his letter why Archbishop Dolan thinks that such conflict would exist.

The Catholic Church would be bound not to offer marriage…yet, but it would be bound to recognize it and give the same sex couples and “their” children the same benefits etc. that it offers real married couples. This would be impossible for the Church to do, as stated by the Vatican document:

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

.
The 1st amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Requiring Catholic institutions to recognize the evil of same-sex unions for legal purposes infringes on this amendment. We have already seen this in the adoption cases.

 

[rlg94086]

Oh, okay… I hadn’t read that far.

Here it is:

I guess I think that is a misplaced concern. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a religious practice and as such is protected by the constitutional bar against interference of Church and State. The examples site in the above paragraphs are not religious practices, and thus are not entitled to constitutional protection. I think that paragraph is a case of comparing apples and oranges.

Yes, they are. The ruling is that the government can not refuse to issue a marriage license to interracial couples.

Thanks. I wasn’t sure.

Regardless, I believe the Bishops concerns are valid.

 

[Darryl1958]

Eh?

Archbishop Dolan is claiming that allowing same-sex marriage is a constitutional issue. I don’t see where in his letter he explains that viewpoint, or why he thinks that is true.

But American marriage policy conforming to Catholic theology of man and woman had been the law of the land from the very beginning. I can;t see how what has always been the case somehow now violates the Separation of Church and State.
That is what you seemed to be saying, and it came as a bit of a shock to me.
I wasn’t commenting on the rest of what you said. Probably others here can address your actual question better than I.

 

[Darryl1958]

The Catholic Church would be bound not to offer marriage…yet, but it would be bound to recognize it and give the same sex couples and “their” children the same benefits etc. that it offers real married couples. This would be impossible for the Church to do, as stated by the Vatican document:
.
** The 1st amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. Requiring Catholic institutions to recognize the evil of same-sex unions for legal purposes infringes on this amendment. We have already seen this in the adoption cases.**

Ah yes.
This most certainly would and now does infringe on the free exercise of religion.
Thank you for a very concrete example of where indeed the State is infringing on the free exercise of religion.

 

[Dale_M]

The Catholic Church would be bound not to offer marriage…yet, but it would be bound to recognize it and give the same sex couples and “their” children the same benefits etc. that it offers real married couples.

That is a good point, and we have seen it play out in the adoption issue. I guess I can understand why the Archbishop would like to preempt such situations at the highest possible level. But I wonder if it wouldn’t be better for states and local governments to handle such things? Isn’t subsidiarity normally considered advisable? Wouldn’t local laws allowing a religious exemption satisfy both sides of this debate?

Requiring Catholic institutions to recognize the evil of same-sex unions for legal purposes infringes on this amendment. We have already seen this in the adoption cases.

I guess I don’t consider adoption services to be a component of the Catholic faith. Granted, the motivation to provide such services may grow out of a religious sentiment, but adoption is not a doctrine nor is there a religious ceremony involved in the adoption process.

 

[The_Rock]

I guess I think that is a misplaced concern. Marriage in the Catholic Church is a religious practice and as such is protected by the constitutional bar against interference of Church and State. The examples site in the above paragraphs are not religious practices, and thus are not entitled to constitutional protection. I think that paragraph is a case of comparing apples and oranges

All of the corporal works of mercy stated in those paragraphs are indeed “religious practices”. The 1st amendment applies to more than just religious ceremonies.

 

[Dale_M]

All of the corporal works of mercy stated in those paragraphs are indeed “religious practices”.

Those would be:

To feed the hungry;
To give drink to the thirsty;
To clothe the naked;
To harbour the harbourless;
To visit the sick;
To ransom the captive;
To bury the dead.

The 1st amendment applies to more than just religious ceremonies.

I suppose, but I think you will have to justify that any specific program to provide social services is integral to the faith. Is the practice of the faith impaired if government funded adoption contracts are denied to Catholic Charities? I don’t think so.