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

[JReducation]

Dale, I think that you may be missing two key points here.

First, no constitution, of any nation, has the right to violate the law of God. Therefore, no constitution can protect what God prohibits.

Second, from the standpoint of rights, if you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, these come with very specific civil rights. One of them being the right to family benefits.

The Catholic Church is one the largest employers in this country. We employ people at all levels and in many programs and institutions. If DOMA falls, these couples will have the right to claim family leave, healthcare insurance and other benefits that are normally given only to married people. Those institutions that refuse these benefits to same-sex couples will be fined for discrimination.

On the flipside, these institutions have to refuse those benefits, because these are not married people or natural families.

The weakside of the Federal Govt’s agenda is that it does not offer the same benefits to heterosexual couples who are cohabiting. In essence, the federal government is involving itself in the redefining marriage, when it’s role is to protect the rights of those who are married, not define marriage. Marriage has already been defined by natural law.

The next problem, besides benefits comes in the area of services. The Catholic Church has not problems providing services for gays, lesbians and transgender people. We do it all the time. Mother Teresa has homes for AIDS victims all around the world and many of these patients are gay. They are not denied services or loving care. We have Courage Ministry to Catholic gay and lesbian people. We have regulations and moral laws that protect the human rights of gay and lesbian people. However, we provide these services to them as individuals, not as couples.

If DOMA is overturned, what happened in Boston and Washington, DC will happen all across the country. We will have close our adoption programs, because we do not place children in the homes of gay couples. We will have to employ gay couples, if they qualify for employment. Currenlty, we employ gay and lesbian women in our institutioins as individuals. But we do not employ couples unless they are married.

Imposing these obligations on religious institutions violates the religious rights of citizens. These religious institutioins are financed and operated by citizens. These citizens have a right to run their institutions according to their religious beliefs as long as these do not violate human rights. That’s when you run into a constitutional problem.

Serparation of Church and State is the greatest myth in the world. The Untied States has never had such a separation and it was never intended. The only thing that was intended was that the Federal Government should not adopt an official religion as did the English government. However, even after the erection of the United States, some of the individual states had a state religion.

Also, the states still use the services of the churches, especially Catholics, Baptists and Jews, because the states cannot meet the demands for healthcare, higher education, services and care for people with disabilities, services and care for seniors or services for its Armed Forces. It is cheaper for the states to pay religious institutions to provide these services than to operate them.

I was stationed in the Archdiocese of Washington. The Archdiocese was the only provider of housing and educational service to adults with mental retardation. The District of Columbia had to pay the Archdiocese, because it could not open its own agency. When the number of clients exceeded the system’s ability to serve, they system turned to the Archdiocese, because the Archdiocese was running Kennedy Institute since the early 1960s very successfully and very economically. The state had to accept that these were Catholic run services, that there was mass every week, there were curcifixes all over the place, there were sisters in habits, there were Catholic chaplains and no non-Catholic chaplains, there was even an office of pastoral care run by Catholics that provided religious services to every client.

When the state could not handle the number of poor children in public schools in the City of Baltimore, it turned to the Daughters of Charity. The Daughters of Charity took the state’s funds and started the school lunch program, which has since the 1800s become a fixture in every public school and is now denied to Catholic schools. Go figure.

There so called separation of Church and state exists in the mind of some people, but not in fact.

Even now, the White House is trying to court the Catholic hospitals of this country to continue to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare patients if this new proposal goes through. It’s not as if the White House is saying that they’re going to pass this proposal on insurance and birth control and they will pick up over five million patients if Catholic hospitals and clinics close. That’s not what they’re saying. They want these hospitals and clinics to remain open.

The current administration went as far as hiring a Franciscan Brother to serve on its medical ethics committee in the hope of gaining support from the religious who run hospitals and clinics. The Brother it hired is a physician, PhD in Philsophy and Doctor of Theology. It has not turned out as well as they hoped. Brother Daniel Sulmasy, OFM has turned the tables on the doctors on that committee and catergorically said that you cannot care for the body and do harm to the mind and soul. They did not expect him to say this. Now they don’t know what to do, because he’s a Presidential appointee and they can’t fire him.

That’s what happens when the government pretends that it does not need the Church and then proceeds to try to use her. It backfires.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Raskolnikov]

JReducation:

First, no constitution, of any nation, has the right to violate the law of God. Therefore, no constitution can protect what God prohibits.

But would that mean that no nation has a right to guarantee freedom of religion, which protects the worship of false gods?

 

[The_Rock]

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.

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.

See court case “Division-v-Smith” for the latest interpretation of these issues.
I think it is clear that the good Archbishop has ample reason for concern.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_Division_v._Smith

She (Justice O’Connor) agreed with the Court’s initial premise that the Free Exercise Clause applied to religiously motivated action as well as pure belief. She pointed out, however, that even a so-called neutral law of general applicability imposes a burden on a person’s exercise of religion if that law prevents someone from engaging in religiously motivated conduct or requires someone to engage in conduct forbidden by his or her religion. The First Amendment has to reach both laws that expressly target religion as well as generally applicable laws; otherwise, the law would relegate the constitutional protection of the free exercise of religion to “the barest level of minimum scrutiny that the Equal Protection Clause already provides.”

 

[SonCatcher]

Is America a Catholic nation?

Of course not. Only persons can be Catholic and a nation is not a person. However, American Catholics do have a right and responsibility to participate in the political process and form the nation by Catholic principles. There is no conflict between that responsibility and the Establishment Clause.

 

[JReducation]

But would that mean that no nation has a right to guarantee freedom of religion, which protects the worship of false gods?

Religious freedom is a natural right. Nostra Aetem makes this very clear for Catholics. If people misuse that freedom, that’s their problem. Same-sex activities are not a natural right. No nation has the authority to protect what is not a natural right, much less impose on its citizens the obligation to finance it.

Do you see the problem?

Catholics would do well to use democracy for what it was meant to be used, to protect the right to citizens to worship and practice their faith without intimidation. When the government threatens to punish us for practicing our faith and sticking to our moral values, the government has lost sight of the true purpose of democracy. We then have a moral duty to point this out to the state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[joeantony]

First, no constitution, of any nation, has the right to violate the law of God. Therefore, no constitution can protect what God prohibits.
Second, from the standpoint of rights, if you have same-sex marriage or same-sex civil unions, these come with very specific civil rights. One of them being the right to family benefits.
The Catholic Church is one the largest employers in this country. We employ people at all levels and in many programs and institutions. If DOMA falls, these couples will have the right to claim family leave, healthcare insurance and other benefits that are normally given only to married people. Those institutions that refuse these benefits to same-sex couples will be fined for discrimination.
On the flipside, these institutions have to refuse those benefits, because these are not married people or natural families.
The weakside of the Federal Govt’s agenda is that it does not offer the same benefits to heterosexual couples who are cohabiting. In essence, the federal government is involving itself in the redefining marriage, when it’s role is to protect the rights of those who are married, not define marriage. Marriage has already been defined by natural law.
The next problem, besides benefits comes in the area of services. The Catholic Church has not problems providing services for gays, lesbians and transgender people. We do it all the time. Mother Teresa has homes for AIDS victims all around the world and many of these patients are gay. They are not denied services or loving care. We have Courage Ministry to Catholic gay and lesbian people. We have regulations and moral laws that protect the human rights of gay and lesbian people. However, we provide these services to them as individuals, not as couples.
If DOMA is overturned, what happened in Boston and Washington, DC will happen all across the country. We will have close our adoption programs, because we do not place children in the homes of gay couples. We will have to employ gay couples, if they qualify for employment. Currenlty, we employ gay and lesbian women in our institutioins as individuals. But we do not employ couples unless they are married.
Imposing these obligations on religious institutions violates the religious rights of citizens. These religious institutioins are financed and operated by citizens. These citizens have a right to run their institutions according to their religious beliefs as long as these do not violate human rights. That’s when you run into a constitutional problem.
Serparation of Church and State is the greatest myth in the world. The Untied States has never had such a separation and it was never intended. The only thing that was intended was that the Federal Government should not adopt an official religion as did the English government. However, even after the erection of the United States, some of the individual states had a state religion.
Also, the states still use the services of the churches, especially Catholics, Baptists and Jews, because the states cannot meet the demands for healthcare, higher education, services and care for people with disabilities, services and care for seniors or services for its Armed Forces. It is cheaper for the states to pay religious institutions to provide these services than to operate them.
I was stationed in the Archdiocese of Washington. The Archdiocese was the only provider of housing and educational service to adults with mental retardation. The District of Columbia had to pay the Archdiocese, because it could not open its own agency. When the number of clients exceeded the system’s ability to serve, they system turned to the Archdiocese, because the Archdiocese was running Kennedy Institute since the early 1960s very successfully and very economically. The state had to accept that these were Catholic run services, that there was mass every week, there were curcifixes all over the place, there were sisters in habits, there were Catholic chaplains and no non-Catholic chaplains, there was even an office of pastoral care run by Catholics that provided religious services to every client.
When the state could not handle the number of poor children in public schools in the City of Baltimore, it turned to the Daughters of Charity. The Daughters of Charity took the state’s funds and started the school lunch program, which has since the 1800s become a fixture in every public school and is now denied to Catholic schools. Go figure.
There so called separation of Church and state exists in the mind of some people, but not in fact.
Even now, the White House is trying to court the Catholic hospitals of this country to continue to provide services to Medicaid and Medicare patients if this new proposal goes through. It’s not as if the White House is saying that they’re going to pass this proposal on insurance and birth control and they will pick up over five million patients if Catholic hospitals and clinics close. That’s not what they’re saying. They want these hospitals and clinics to remain open.
The current administration went as far as hiring a Franciscan Brother to serve on its medical ethics committee in the hope of gaining support from the religious who run hospitals and clinics. The Brother it hired is a physician, PhD in Philsophy and Doctor of Theology. It has not turned out as well as they hoped. Brother Daniel Sulmasy, OFM has turned the tables on the doctors on that committee and catergorically said that you cannot care for the body and do harm to the mind and soul. They did not expect him to say this. Now they don’t know what to do, because he’s a Presidential appointee and they can’t fire him.
That’s what happens when the government pretends that it does not need the Church and then proceeds to try to use her. It backfires.
Br. JR, OSF

An Excellent read… Couldn’t agree more with you in everything you said !!

Joe

 

[Donna_Maria]

What choices do the bishops have in opposing the requirements placed on Catholic institutions by the Obama administration? What do you think will be their most probable response?

I was impressed at the strength of Archbishop Dolan’s letter. Will there be actions to back up the words? If so, how much can the Church do?

 

[donsnow]

Is America a Catholic nation?

Good morning, Pirate Talker,

Not as Catholic as she once was. In the 1930’s and '40’s, the Holy Roman Catholic Church was a powerful force in Hollywood. There were several popular movies made, which presented Catholic values to the entire nation.

My comment about America was Church related, in that freedom of religion in America is important to us, and that freedom is being degraded. When we lose that, the loss of other rights and liberties will follow.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

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.

Good morning, Dale,

Gee, I thought you of all people would know, “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution, but is a doctrine from a private letter by Thomas Jefferson.

I once felt that the Church should stay out of politics. However, America is touted as a government of the people, for the people and by the people. It then follows, that the mystical body of Christ in the people becomes part of the government. And, that God’s law becomes our law.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Darryl1958]

Separation of Church and State is the greatest myth in the world. The Untied States has never had such a separation and it was never intended. The only thing that was intended was that the Federal Government should not adopt an official religion as did the English government

The original intention seems to have morphed into a battering ram to be used against the traditional values of religious people and have them replaced by secular leftist values.

Marriage was never a uniquely Catholic value, but was a value that Catholics shared with everybody else. Now for people to think that the cardinal is imposing Catholic theology through simply defending marriage is truly astounding. It is almost as if anything the secular left opposes has become a theological value instead of the natural human value that the theology has always been based in in the first place.

 

[donsnow]

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…

Good morning, kslat,

Oh, I see what you’re saying. Had to read your opening line about three times.

No, that’s not what I meant: same sex marriage is unjust and infringes the freedom from militant gays who want to be more equal. The perfect liberty in Christ Jesus to practice a Christian life without being called homophobes.
I sincerely think that gays have always had the same civil rights as any other segment of the population: to vote, right to equal housing, and equal opportunity of employment. That’s civil rights. They’ve always had the same criminal rights, when arrested. All those other ‘rights’ they’re wailing about are imaginary.

God loves you,
Don

 

[donsnow]

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.

Hi, again, Dale,

Oh, now I see where you’re at. I think Bishop Dolan is referring to the Constitutional right of exercising our religious beliefs are being curtailed by President Barak Hussien Obama II’s agenda to make abortion and contraception mandatory on all Catholics, including Catholic hospitals. That law then abrogates the right to refrain from abortions and contraception on religious grounds.

God loves you,
Don

 

[Trader]

It strikes me that if all Catholics read that letter, they’d have no choice but to vote Obama out of office next fall!

I agree, but that “if” is a big hurdle. In the last election a majority of Catholics who attend Mass regularly did not vote for Obama. A much greater majority of those who call themselves Catholic, but do not attend Mass regularly, voted for the most pro-death politician to ever seek national office.

Both parties treat the Catholic vote as an ethnic issue. They see the Catholic vote as people of Hispanic, Polish, and Irish(half of them) ancestry. Most mainline Protestants and even some Catholics do not understand a church as a group of people who share core values and act on those values.

 

[Darryl1958]

I agree, but that “if” is a big hurdle. In the last election a majority of Catholics who attend Mass regularly did not vote for Obama. A much greater majority of those who call themselves Catholic, but do not attend Mass regularly, voted for the most pro-death politician to ever seek national office.

Both parties treat the Catholic vote as an ethnic issue. They see the Catholic vote as people of Hispanic, Polish, and Irish(half of them) ancestry. Most mainline Protestants and even some Catholics do not understand a church as a group of people who share core values and act on those values.

It is encouraging though to note that those attending Mass would not vote for him.If Catholic values do not prevail in the Catholic ethnic communities, at least they prevail in the faith community.

 

[irishpatrick]

Is America a Catholic nation?

Who said it was?

 

[rlg94086]

Religious freedom is a natural right. Nostra Aetem makes this very clear for Catholics. If people misuse that freedom, that’s their problem. Same-sex activities are not a natural right. No nation has the authority to protect what is not a natural right, much less impose on its citizens the obligation to finance it.

Do you see the problem?

Catholics would do well to use democracy for what it was meant to be used, to protect the right to citizens to worship and practice their faith without intimidation. When the government threatens to punish us for practicing our faith and sticking to our moral values, the government has lost sight of the true purpose of democracy. We then have a moral duty to point this out to the state.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[irishpatrick]

I agree, but that “if” is a big hurdle. In the last election a majority of Catholics who attend Mass regularly did not vote for Obama. A much greater majority of those who call themselves Catholic, but do not attend Mass regularly, voted for the most pro-death politician to ever seek national office.

Both parties treat the Catholic vote as an ethnic issue. They see the Catholic vote as people of Hispanic, Polish, and Irish(half of them) ancestry. Most mainline Protestants and even some Catholics do not understand a church as a group of people who share core values and act on those values.

I agree. I was just thinking that I do not know how anyone could justify voting for Obama after reading that letter and the analysis. It is clear that Obama could not care less about the Catholic Church, or Catholics, or Catholic teachings.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I think that the Government should get out of the marriage business and just stick to Civil Unions. I feel we should leave marriage to religious bodies to pronounce.

But marriage is not simply or even principally a religious matter.

It wouldn’t make any sense for the state to involve itself in, say, the Sacrament of Confirmation, because Confirmation is of a purely religious significance.

But marriage involves the type of relationships that form the most basic unit of human society (the family), and which also most likely involve the propagation of new human life. As such, marriage is a public matter relevant to all, and so the state certainly has an interest in promoting stability, goodness, and health in any relationship that may result in new human life. It’s a matter of public concern. In some cultures - like the Byzantine Empire - marriage was almost a purely secular matter, and the Church was basically just along for the ride.

The repeal of DOMA wouldn’t trample on religious liberties. If you want to get married, you can get married in a Church, but Churches have the right to refuse to marry you.

I don’t think that’s true, as The Rock and Brendan observe below:

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.

Really? So the Catholic entity, such as a University or Hospital, could refuse to recognize the marriages of SS employees for purposes of benefits?

Plus, DOMA is the very thing preventing the pro-gay marriage side from trying - with a plausible chance of success - to force states that don’t have gay marriage to recognize as marriage the relationship between same-sex couples that have gotten “married” in a state that does.

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.

True enough, but it’s still sad that some Catholic adoption agencies have had to close over this matter.

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

No, and refusing to recognize a same-sex relationship as marriage is not comparable to discrimination against interracial couples.

The comparison to interracial marriages is certainly an important one, and it deserves to be addressed:

Taking down anti-miscegenation laws simply prevented states from refusing to recognize certain marriages; the whole concept of marriage itself was not at stake. The side opposing gay “marriage” - despite what the rhetoric of the side promoting it implies - does not want to “refuse to let gays marry” but rather maintains that the institution of marriage itself, by its very nature, cannot include relationships that can’t include sexual intercourse - which is how procreation happens and the whole reason man-woman relationships were ever of concern to the state in the first place. Marriage as an institution wouldn’t exist if human beings reproduced asexually.

I love my brother as much as any married couple loves each other. Does that mean I’m married to him? No. Gay couples no doubt very genuinely love each other. Does that mean that kind of relationship can constitute marriage? No.

I live with some roommates, and we share in a common domestic life. Does that mean our arrangement can constitute marriage? No.

Because neither of those situations involves sex. Now I know that same-sex couples do, of course, engage in sexual activity, but that’s still a far cry from sexual intercourse:

If someone had oral sex with an opposite-sex partner, it would no doubt be considered dishonest for that person to go around claiming, “I had sex with so-and-so” without any other clarification. Yet if two women in a same-sex relationship get “married,” we’re supposed to acknowledge that they have sex? The very same acts by which they consummate their relationship would not constitute “sex” at all were a man and woman committing it.

Marriage isn’t just about two people who love each other very much, and it never has been. Marriage exists because the state knows it makes sense to encourage conjugal intercourse - because of the possibility of conception - in the context of a lifelong, exclusive union.

Expanding that very institution to include other types of relationships dilutes that central attribute of what marriage is about. If defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman constitutes discrimination against gay people just as miscegenation laws constituted discrimination against interracial couples, then that definition of marriage must also be held to constitute discrimination against any set of individuals who seek the secular benefits of marriage - whether that set includes two people or more, and whether the people involved are in any kind of sexual relationship at all.

 

[irishpatrick]

What choices do the bishops have in opposing the requirements placed on Catholic institutions by the Obama administration? What do you think will be their most probable response?

I was impressed at the strength of Archbishop Dolan’s letter. Will there be actions to back up the words? If so, how much can the Church do?

I don’t see what the Church can do (maybe someone else here can). I think Obama and his admin will publicly ignore the letter…they have no compelling reason to raise the issue to the public, since Obama does not want left-leaning Catholics to wake-up.

 

[rlg94086]

Fone Bone 2001:

No, and refusing to recognize a same-sex relationship as marriage is not comparable to discrimination against interracial couples.

I agree, but I’m unclear as to whether yo or Dale M are right about interracial couples. The liberals are framing homosexual unions as equivalent, which is why there is understandable concern from our Bishops.