Initially, I assumed that the FRC was claiming that gay marriage caused God’s wrath, which in turned caused mass shootings – I couldn’t imagine another explanation for the link being made. But for Blackwell, it turns out the claim is just another brand of ignorance: gay marriage = complete breakdown of morality throughout society = mass shootings. I really hope an explanation of the invalidity of this claim is unnecessary. I also hope it’s unnecessary to explain why this kind of claim is as baseless as the “God’s wrath” judgement.
Of course, by this time, Dobson had already made his “God’s judgement” comment. They’ve really covered their bases… Finally, Dobson founded the FRC. The point being made in conjunction with this thread is that associating with the FRC does not speak to the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality.
There aren’t “distortions” here, Ishii. Just someone working really, really hard to justify the archbishop’s participation with a group that spreads ignorance and intentional falsehoods.
But again, if you can demonstrate that gay marriage leads to mass shootings, I’m all ears!
A couple of things I wanted to say here.
First, so far, all I see here is essentially more of what Pelosi’s letter said, which is just innuendo that someone connected with this March
may have at some point said something inappropriate, and that thus the march is “bad”. This is an argument of Catholic morality, and on one side we have Nancy Pelosi and Gavin Newsome, and on the other side we have the Catholic Archbishop who’s job it is to head the USCCB committee on marriage, and the local Archdiocese. I think that this fact alone, even without delving any deeper into the issue, should be enough indicate that perhaps you should reconsider some of your assumptions. I simply trust the Archbishop and Diocese’s moral judgment over Pelosi’s.
Although I certainly do
not believe that what you are saying has occurred to any significant degree, just for the sake of argument, let’s say that some people or groups connected with the march have at some point said something inappropriate. Fine. Think of an example like the March for Life. My guess would be that at some point, some person or group connected with that event has made a comment that is either a) pastorally insensative (like “women who abort are going to hell”), b) a violation of Catholic morality (like justifying violence or vandalism of abortion clinics), or c) simply misrepresents Catholic teaching. Does that mean that Catholics or members of the hierarchy should not attend the March for Life?
Or think of religious liberty events. My guess is that at some point some person or group associated with these events has made a comment that is pastorally insensitive (like “the government’s supporters are evil”), b) a violation of Catholic morality (like advocating violent resistance to the government), or c) simply misrepresented the Church’s teachings on religious liberty. Does that mean religious liberty events are to be avoided?
I would say no. The main reason being that, by their very nature, events like these are
intended to be made up of a broad spectrum of groups. For instance, the March for Marriage will have groups from other faiths (like Jewish, Muslim, and Atheist groups), and there will also be groups that are strictly political/secular, etc. This is intentional, both to show that the defense of marriage is not simply a “Catholic” issue, but is a society wide issue that effects everyone, and also to show a solidarity amongst diverse groups over this issue. It is the same with March for Life, religious freedom events, etc.
So, if an Atheist attends this event and explains why they support traditional marriage, they are certainly not going to use Catholic morality to justify their position. They are (obviously) going to make arguments that contradict Catholic teaching, or don’t represent Church teaching because they don’t believe in the teaching in the first place. Does this mean their argument taints the Catholic argument by association? Does it mean we Catholics should avoid this event because atheists will be there and some of the views presented will not line up with Church teaching?
Think of Pope Francis when he meets with secular political leaders like Putin, Obama, Chrisitna Kirchener, etc, who have “complicated” relationships with the Church. He looks for common ground right? Like starting with, “we both want to support the poor”. That doesn’t mean (obviously) that he agrees with everything they do or say, it means there are some common concerns. By doing this, does he taint the Church’s message by aligning it with these people?
Or what about Martin Luther King’s marches on Washington. Black Panthers and Nation of Islam members were there. Should he have canceled or refused to speak?
And even more to the point,
if there are people at this march that do hate homosexual people, wouldn’t these people be in just as much need of hearing the Church’s teaching of compassion, as the people that support gay “marriage”. I mean, the whole point is to
not cut off anyone from the Church’s message right, so if some people are supporting traditional marriage in a bad way, they also need and deserve to hear what Archbp Cordileone has to say.
So, while it seems to me that the accusations that Pelosi lays against these groups are unfounded, manipulative lies, I also think that to whatever extent there is some tiny level of truth to them, it doesn’t change the fact that Archbp Cordileone should be there. I think we should be thanking God for his brave witness to our Faith.
