Atlanta archbishop responds to U.S. Supreme Court decision

[pnewton]

Could you point out where the Archbishop said the decision was wrong, evil, dangerous? How about any descriptor of it being a grave danger to the souls of millions? Anything to note the decision was evil?

He did not say that. He did not say a lot of things. I was referring to any confusion about what *was *said.

If you notice, the AB speaks of the limitations of this decision. Now if a Supreme Court decision has its limits, surely you must see how any statement so short cannot say everything.

 

[esieffe]

I read again twice, and I don’t find anywhere in there where the Archbishop actually said the decision was wrong.

I believe these are the parts you are looking for:

"By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.
The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

 

[zamyrabyrd]

I believe these are the parts you are looking for:

"By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.
The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

I don’t know, don’t think it needs to be said. It is understood that we respect the dignity of those we disagree with. The point about the 5 judges who rammed this through, and one of them was born into a Catholic family, HOW is it possible to say, I respect you as a person but condemn the damage you unleashed on society. In fact, I think the two women judges are despicable. Do I have a right to say it? Sure!

 

[Seamus_L]

It said nothing specifically about same sex marriage being wrong, and that is what the decision was about.

 

[zamyrabyrd]

It said nothing specifically about same sex marriage being wrong, and that is what the decision was about.

Right!!!

 

[pnewton]

From the letter:

It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a** man and woman **…

I do not see how this is confusing. Does anyone think a man and a woman can be in a same sex marriage together? I do not know if we need a refresher course in English or biology.

Or is the complaint that the AB wasn’t more abrasive and offensive using more extreme rhetoric, like some conservative talk show host?

 

[Seamus_L]

Archbishop Kurtz of Louisville referred to it as “profoundly immoral and unjust" and a “tragic error”. I’m sure to some people that was more abrasive and extreme.

 

[Thomas_White]

I don’t think that this means either that (a) it is uncharitable to clearly teach right from wrong, or (b) to point out wrong actions which are a danger to persons and society.

I agree entirely. The comment was simply meant as an observation in light of the fact that some of the criticism in the media (not here) has been pretty harsh. Nevertheless, I cannot see how the Church could ever accept SSM as a Catholic marriage. It just isn’t possible.

My displeasure would be with those who seek a change in the doctrine of any religion, Catholic or otherwise, to simply to suit their own needs of beliefs despite the fundamental teachings of the religion rather than conforming to those beliefs. I’ve always felt there was an element of aggression or hostility in that approach since it is most often offensive to the faithful of that religion. This seems wrong and a case of wolves in sheep’s clothing, so to speak, I think. But one just needs to say, plainly and clearly, “No way. Not now, not ever.”

 

[zz912]

I believe these are the parts you are looking for:

"By the same token, every court decision is limited in what it can achieve; again, this one is no exception. It does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.
The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

Nothing in there says that the decision was wrong.

In fact, I could see a dissenting Catholic who favors gay civil “marriage” using this statement from the Archbishop as support for their position.

 

[zz912]

From the letter:

Quote:
It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman …

I do not see how this is confusing. Does anyone think a man and a woman can be in a same sex marriage together? I do not know if we need a refresher course in English or biology.

Or is the complaint that the AB wasn’t more abrasive and offensive using more extreme rhetoric, like some conservative talk show host?

I see him speaking about the Sacrament of Marriage, I see nowhere where the Archbishop clearly spells out that the decision is wrong, and that Catholics cannot support gay civil “marriage”. In fact I could easily see a dissenting Catholic actually USING his statement as support for their position in defiance of the Church because it says nothing about how the decision is wrong.

 

[pnewton]

In fact I could easily see a dissenting Catholic actually USING his statement as support for their position in defiance of the Church because it says nothing about how the decision is wrong.

Might I ask what sentence you see being used and how it might be used? I do not see anything contrary to Church teaching.

 

[zz912]

Might I ask what sentence you see being used and how it might be used? I do not see anything contrary to Church teaching.

It’s the entirety of the statement. There’s no mention that Catholics must oppose this evil and immoral decision. So a dissident can grab this statement and argue that they support the Church’s definition of the sacrament of marriage, but see nothing wrong with civil same-sex “marriage”, and they can show the statement and argue that it’s just opinion. Because the statement doesn’t clearly state that this decision is evil.

 

[Seamus_L]

I see nothing in the Bishop’s statement that implies that Same Sex marriage is now acceptable, Nor do I see anything that suggests that it is sinful. I wonder how that will be interpreted in 2015

 

[MaryT777]

I see nothing in the Bishop’s statement that implies that Same Sex marriage is now acceptable, Nor do I see anything that suggests that it is sinful. I wonder how that will be interpreted in 2015

It might seem to me the Bishop affirms his adherence to Church teaching in the last paragraph.

The decision has made my ministry as a pastor more complex since it demands that I both continue to uphold the teachings of my Church regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony while also demanding that I insist upon respect for the human dignity of both those who approve of the judgment as well as those who may disapprove.”

(from thread from OP)

Mary.

 

[Thomas_White]

In fact, I could see a dissenting Catholic who favors gay civil “marriage” using this statement from the Archbishop as support for their position.

I would suggest re-reading the OP’s comment, for in it is this quote from the Archbishop:

The court decision “does not change the biological differences between male and female human beings or the requirements for the generation of human life, which still demands the participation of both. It does not change the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the Sacrament of Matrimony, which beautifully joins a man and woman in a loving union that is permanent in commitment and open to God’s blessing of precious new life.”

 

[pnewton]

I suspect that some of the criticism of the statement is because some thing the Archbishop was not harsh in his condemnation of homosexuality. Other Church leaders have been much harsher. I would point out though that these other leaders haven’t been critical of those that are overly focused on this issue, or emphasized the dignity that these people have.

In these two approaches, there is no right or wrong. Or to be more precise, there is not wrong, as both approaches are good and pastoral, but different. I take it as a positive sign that with all the complaints from Catholics complaining about the Church being too nice, that such a solid letter is upheld as an example of this excessive niceness.

 

[esieffe]

From the letter:

I do not see how this is confusing. Does anyone think a man and a woman can be in a same sex marriage together? I do not know if we need a refresher course in English or biology.

Or is the complaint that the AB wasn’t more abrasive and offensive using more extreme rhetoric, like some conservative talk show host?

I think that has to be it. It is clear that the AB supports church doctrine.