Several priests shut church door to petitions to block gay marriage

[edwest2]

Here is the Archbishop’s letter:

seattlearchdiocese.org/Assets/ARCH/2539_referendumEng.pdf

Peace,
Ed

 

[Julia_Mae]

Again, the moral authority of the Church always trumps whatever concept you have of Separation of Church and State.

For whom? Again, the Church has all the “moral authority” it can ever want, over members of the Church. Civil law is not about morality, never has been and should not be.

 

[Julia_Mae]

There will be law suits forcing the church to marry gays.
This is about the secular agenda to destroy the church
Wake up

There will not be lawsuits and if there are they will fail. The Church doesn’t “marry” anyone in the legal sense. The sacrament of marriage is, I suppose, a rite in which we engage and, also, there are pastors empowered by the state to file the paperwork that is the actual contract of marriage. Unless the Church opens a public wedding chapel in Vegas and starts performing weddings for non-Catholics, no one is going to “make” the Church marry gay folks to a one another. .

There’s no “secular agenda” to destroy the Church. Non-Catholics are hardly aware of the Church. I believe they do have an agenda to get more simultaneous taping on their DVRs.

 

[Julia_Mae]

It is not the Church’s definition, but humanity’s definition througout all of human history.

I don’t think this is a statement that can be supported objectively. Most of human history is hidden with no historic record, and a great deal of it didn’t have any sort of formal arrangement one would call marriage, and a lot of that involved multiple spouses. In some cultures women were considered chattel to be held and the great love relationships and permanent bonds were among men, who felt a woman too insensitive and dull to be a worthy companion for life. Or the odd half hour, come to think of it.

Really, you don’t want to get into cultural anthropology and marriage. It’d gross you out.

 

[MJE]

When Cardinal Ratzinger was named the new pope in 2005, the pastor @ St James Cathedral, Seattle, was quoted in secular newspaper, The Oregonian, (out of Portland, OR) that he was “disappointed” (in J. Ratzinger’s elevation to the papacy).
I am confident Pope Benedict knew exactly who J. Peter Sartain was when he appointed him the Archbishop of Seattle in 2010.
Prayers for Archbishop Sartain.

 

[Brendan]

I don’t think this is a statement that can be supported objectively. .

The Institution of Marriage predated any US civil institution, ergo any US civil institution has no authority to change it. Any more so than it could redefine a circle to have 4 equal, perpendicular sides.

Sure they could pass a law that claimed so, but it would not make it true.

 

[rlg94086]

I’m thankful our parish had the petitions (and voter registration for those who aren’t yet registered voters) outside of the church this weekend. Our pastor has had a few talks and homilies addressing our state legislature’s mistake and the referendum. I’m confident we will get it on the ballot.

 

[rlg94086]

I invite you to read Church teaching on this subject:

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

Peace,
Ed

Here are a couple more good resources:

old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexfaqs.shtml
old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/samesexeng.shtml

 

[edwest2]

For whom? Again, the Church has all the “moral authority” it can ever want, over members of the Church. Civil law is not about morality, never has been and should not be.

So what is civil law based on?

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

There will not be lawsuits and if there are they will fail. The Church doesn’t “marry” anyone in the legal sense. The sacrament of marriage is, I suppose, a rite in which we engage and, also, there are pastors empowered by the state to file the paperwork that is the actual contract of marriage. Unless the Church opens a public wedding chapel in Vegas and starts performing weddings for non-Catholics, no one is going to “make” the Church marry gay folks to a one another. .

There’s no “secular agenda” to destroy the Church. Non-Catholics are hardly aware of the Church. I believe they do have an agenda to get more simultaneous taping on their DVRs.

Which is why it’s worth talking about on so many non-theist web sites? Please.

catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=402

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

For whom? Again, the Church has all the “moral authority” it can ever want, over members of the Church. Civil law is not about morality, never has been and should not be.

From George Washington’s Farewell Address, 1796:

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.”

Peace,
Ed

 

[gus]

There will not be lawsuits and if there are they will fail. The Church doesn’t “marry” anyone in the legal sense. The sacrament of marriage is, I suppose, a rite in which we engage and, also, there are pastors empowered by the state to file the paperwork that is the actual contract of marriage. Unless the Church opens a public wedding chapel in Vegas and starts performing weddings for non-Catholics, no one is going to “make” the Church marry gay folks to a one another. .

There’s no “secular agenda” to destroy the Church. Non-Catholics are hardly aware of the Church. I believe they do have an agenda to get more simultaneous taping on their DVRs.

I disagree. Currently a Catholic Church wedding is recognized as a bindinding civil marraige. What will happen is Catholic couples will be required to have two cermonies.
Its the Civil portion that will be attack.

 

[Elizabeth502]

For whom? Again, the Church has all the “moral authority” it can ever want, over members of the Church. Civil law is not about morality, never has been and should not be.

How wrong can you be? Very wrong, that’s how. A common morality has always been the basis of both criminal and civil law. Concepts like life, justice, proportionality, weighing the needs of some along with the needs of others, consideration of the protection of the defenseless, and much more. Also, giving consideration to the needs of the community as a whole (society), as opposed to the supposed supremacy of the individual.

 

[fix]

The reason St. Joseph will not allow petitioning on its grounds is that, in my pastoral discretion, I believe that the gathering of signatures for a political referendum is inconsistent with the unitive function of the Mass. People come to church for worship and to gather around the altar as one community. The educative role of the Mass is primarily a function of its liturgical action, and to bring this extremely divisive element into the church is to undercut the fundamental role of the liturgy. it is, in my opinion, a poor idea. Thankfully, I am able to exercise that discretion without violating the call of the Archbishop.

Divisive? Truth is like a sword, it divides. If one is on the wrong side of truth the solution is not for a false unity.

As for the “teaching authority of the Church,” I would note that that authority is exercised in various ways around various issues–thus, the authority in matters of dogma, such as the divinity of Christ, is different than the teaching role of the Church in matters of civic action. Because the matter under consideration concerns not sacramental marriage but civil marriage–not a matter of Church teaching but a matter of civil application–I have consistently taught that the laity, who have the first responsibility for the civil sphere, should listen respectfully and diligently to the Archbishop, but should follow their conscience. A Catholic could, I believe, in good conscience, oppose Referendum 74 without dissenting from the Church’s teaching on the sacrament of marriage.

What would be a reason that one would oppose this and still claim a good conscience?

As to the “legitimacy” of my reasons, that is a term I do not completely understand. My reasons for barring those who would gather signatures are pastoral and theological. But I need not have any reasons and they would be legitimate–from the root of that term, “within the law”–given the discretion offered to pastors by the Archbishop. Yet, legitimacy is not a primary concern of mine, except as it refers to consistency and cogency. If, by legitimate, however, you mean that they exactly coincide with the thinking of those in positions of authority within the Church, I would have to say that they are not “legitimate” in that sense–otherwise I would have come to a different conclusion.

So, he favors homosexual “unions”?

I am concerned, in your note, *(name withheld), * that too much deference is given to authority at the expense of conscience. There is nothing wrong or schismatic about dissent from authority. Indeed, real discernment requires dissent and disagreement, as well as listening and hearing. As one who has held a position of Ordinary in the Church, I note that obedience is more complex than silence; it is rooted in the honesty that comes from expressing the Spirit of God, who blows where it will. To extrapolate the authority of a bishop–or even a Pope–into areas over which others have both insight and proper voice is to do no favors for the Church, but to reduce her to the clergy (which Vatican II, as well as the teaching of Christ, seem clearly to oppose). The Church is not a democracy–it is too often said–but it is also not a corporation with a CEO and regional vice-presidents. It is a communion in Christ, in which all are called to discernment and action.

So, the Vatican statements on our duty to oppose these laws gets trumped by subjective conscience?

 

[Tigg]

I invite you to read Church teaching on this subject:

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

I think parts of this have already been posted, Ed, thnx again…it appears no one is interested in any Vatican docs. You know…rationalization and moral relativism!

 

[Corki]

What would be a reason that one would oppose this and still claim a good conscience?

This is my biggest question after reading Father’s resonse. If this were a new law being proposed, one could oppose the law on the basis of it being a badly written law or some other reason, **even if **one supported the traditional definition of marriage.

However, with a referendum to repeal a law, how does a Catholic take the “no” side in good conscience, assuming a conscience that is well formed. A Catholic cannot in good conscience* support *same-sex unions, let alone a redefinition of marriage. So on what basis could someone claim they support the law but do not support same-sex unions and still be consistent with Church teaching?

 

[fix]

This is my biggest question after reading Father’s resonse. If this were a new law being proposed, one could oppose the law on the basis of it being a badly written law or some other reason, **even if **one supported the traditional definition of marriage.

However, with a referendum to repeal a law, how does a Catholic take the “no” side in good conscience, assuming a conscience that is well formed. A Catholic cannot in good conscience* support *same-sex unions, let alone a redefinition of marriage. So on what basis could someone claim they support the law but do not support same-sex unions and still be consistent with Church teaching?

Good question. The letter seems too veiled. I do not want to assign any motives to the priest I was just confused and really wonder what the point really is.

 

[Brendan]

Fr. John:

I am concerned, in your note, *(name withheld), * that too much deference is given to authority at the expense of conscience. There is nothing wrong or schismatic about dissent from authority. "

I wonder how Fr. John would react if Catholics in the Seattle area decided to dissent from his pastoral authority and collect signatures at St. Joseph.

Or does the rights of conscience and dissent only extend to him and positions he favors?

 

[Leegal]

I see this is what the paper is saying. I think this is yet another place the paper got its facts wrong, perhaps expressing the wish of the journalist more than reality. A recall petition (for a law) is a referendum. This has never been considered political campaigning. I think this is rather a case of a secular world not wanting to hear anything about morality.

Note that even this journalist does not say that the Church would lose its status, as it would if it engaged in political campaigning, only that it would put it in jeopardy, whatever that means. You can be certain that this action has been weighed by the Church’s lawyers and found acceptable.

We will always have those that tell the prophets of the world to cease their prophecy when it condemns their own pet sins. I think this is what we are hearing today from the various factions that want the Church, along with other people of faith, to shut up and let them be.

I stand by my previous answer. It’s a known principle that the Church cannot “preach politics from the pulpit” or they can lose their tax exempt status. I don’t ask the Church to “shut up” but the Church to use discretion, as these 4 parishes appear to be doing. Actually, it’s an IRS rule.

We must use discretion and concentrate on the mandate that is pending.

“The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.”

IRS

I would not want to see the Church under attack now from the IRS, along with the administration which seeks to force us to provide contraceptive coverage and pay for sterilizations. Afterall, the Church is not being forced to perform SS unions – they have the conscience exemption. And the Washington state bill has been passed and signed.

 

[zab]

I wonder how Fr. John would react if Catholics in the Seattle area decided to dissent from his pastoral authority and collect signatures at St. Joseph.

Or does the rights of conscience and dissent only extend to him and positions he favors?

They should respect his authority not to gather signatures on parish property. But nothing should stop people from gathering signatures on the sidewalk.