 |
| Cardinal George listens attentively while composing his own version of Benedict's thoughts. |
After
an all-out push here in Maryland by the Catholic hierarchy (and their
benighted associates like the Knights of Columbus), both in the
legislature and during the recent campaign, a majority of Catholic law
makers and the electorate voted in favor of marriage equality, making MD
one of the first states in the country to grant full civil rights to
gays and lesbians regarding their relationships. Others will follow;
the battle Cardinal George and other churchmen are fighting is OVER, but
it doesn't seem to stop them from making absurd arguments which have
the effect of alienating a large portion of their flock, making them
look shrill and idiotic as they inappropriately try to inject their
religious judgments into civil law. If the cardinal bothered to follow
the proceedings through the appellate courts regarding CA's Prop 8, he
would discover that civil law can never have as its basis simply
traditional or religious conviction as its source. We as Americans
cannot be totally protected from the biases and prejudices of other
individuals or even private groups in our society, but "Before the Law"
we are guaranteed equality, free of unfounded bias, unless it can be
demonstrated that there is, at least, some compelling Governmental
interest to the contrary. As the courts have said mere tradition or
religious judgment does NOT suffice.
To me one of the more inane assertions made by the cardinal is his hysterical claim that: "marriage comes to us from nature." Surely, marriage is a social construct, establish in various forms over the centuries as a means of regulating all sorts of social human interactions. It is a construct by humans imposed ON NATURE which can and has changed over time as humans come to a more complete understanding of their nature. Sexual attraction and the biological processes of reproduction are surely a part of this construct, but to suggest that some how these natural processes dictate how humans can understand and sanction intimate interpersonal relationships is not only to ignore history but to grossly misunderstand the dynamism of the human scientific enterprise. One can find numerous example where the biology of sex has little to do with the contract of civil marriage (e.g. Marriages between the elderly, imprisoned, handicapped, etc.)
I do however agree with the cardinal that the bottom line here is that as more and more people accept gays and lesbians as equal citizens who no longer are expected to be secretive or ashamed of who or what they are, and as their relationships are given the same dignity and civil protections before the law now afforded straight couples, those who stridently oppose these rights and recognition will be seen as the bigots they are. The fact that the cardinal grasps just exactly where all of this is heading is a bit of a silver lining. He of course see his inability to openly condemn marriage equality for same-sex couple, even for those not associated with his church, as a great infringement on his religious liberty. For me, it's eerily reminiscent to the sentiments of slave-holding or segregationist preachers of an earlier time. I have no complaint about anything which he feels his beliefs require him to say or preach, but he has no right to complain when others call him out for what is in their minds bigoted and in some cases hateful speech. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech as well as religion. I believe that the time has also long passed in this country and perhaps the world when most are willing to give a Catholic cleric the benefit of the doubt when making pronouncements on matters of sexual behavior. I think much of the current whining is motivated by this (infamously earned) loss of prerogative in the public square.
Finally, his hollow claim that; the "Catholic church is not "anti-gay"" would be hilarious if it didn't cause so much pain for so many people. The very basis of the Church's "welcoming acceptance" of gays is preconditioned on gays' acceptance of themselves as "intrinsically disordered." I'm at a loss to understand just how that embodies either welcome or respect! Gay men or women does not see their natural desires as "intrinsically" disordered or evil, anymore than do straights. Capable of sin or evil, of course, but INTRINSICALLY so!-- What Medieval Claptrap! I honestly don't know who is served by promoting this notion that gays are welcomed as long as they take their place as "afflicted--disordered" members of the Body of Christ, content to live out their lives in some quasi-monastic state constantly denying their natural desires while their straight counterparts lead "normal" lives. I find it particularly disgusting that the Catholic hierarchy not only continues to recommend this psycho-torture as their model for "ministering" to gays, but now finds a need to try to promote their "closet" solution for dealing with the "Gay Problem" on civil society. I'm only encouraged by the fact they their efforts seem to be having the same disastrous effect as their similar rants about other sexual and reproductive issues about which their lack of knowledge and sensitivity would fill libraries.
********************************************
I really truly hope this obsession with civil gay marriage ends with the Benedict papacy. It may be naive on my part, but I also believe a lot of Roman Catholic bishops hope the same thing. In the meantime I guess American society is going to have to put up with millions more dollars of lay donations being dumped into a political campaign the majority of American lay Catholics no longer support. But that's the kind of thing that happens all too frequently in an institution whose leadership is not accountable to it's constituency, and is instead accountable to one person and that person's personal whims.
To me one of the more inane assertions made by the cardinal is his hysterical claim that: "marriage comes to us from nature." Surely, marriage is a social construct, establish in various forms over the centuries as a means of regulating all sorts of social human interactions. It is a construct by humans imposed ON NATURE which can and has changed over time as humans come to a more complete understanding of their nature. Sexual attraction and the biological processes of reproduction are surely a part of this construct, but to suggest that some how these natural processes dictate how humans can understand and sanction intimate interpersonal relationships is not only to ignore history but to grossly misunderstand the dynamism of the human scientific enterprise. One can find numerous example where the biology of sex has little to do with the contract of civil marriage (e.g. Marriages between the elderly, imprisoned, handicapped, etc.)
I do however agree with the cardinal that the bottom line here is that as more and more people accept gays and lesbians as equal citizens who no longer are expected to be secretive or ashamed of who or what they are, and as their relationships are given the same dignity and civil protections before the law now afforded straight couples, those who stridently oppose these rights and recognition will be seen as the bigots they are. The fact that the cardinal grasps just exactly where all of this is heading is a bit of a silver lining. He of course see his inability to openly condemn marriage equality for same-sex couple, even for those not associated with his church, as a great infringement on his religious liberty. For me, it's eerily reminiscent to the sentiments of slave-holding or segregationist preachers of an earlier time. I have no complaint about anything which he feels his beliefs require him to say or preach, but he has no right to complain when others call him out for what is in their minds bigoted and in some cases hateful speech. The 1st Amendment protects freedom of speech as well as religion. I believe that the time has also long passed in this country and perhaps the world when most are willing to give a Catholic cleric the benefit of the doubt when making pronouncements on matters of sexual behavior. I think much of the current whining is motivated by this (infamously earned) loss of prerogative in the public square.
Finally, his hollow claim that; the "Catholic church is not "anti-gay"" would be hilarious if it didn't cause so much pain for so many people. The very basis of the Church's "welcoming acceptance" of gays is preconditioned on gays' acceptance of themselves as "intrinsically disordered." I'm at a loss to understand just how that embodies either welcome or respect! Gay men or women does not see their natural desires as "intrinsically" disordered or evil, anymore than do straights. Capable of sin or evil, of course, but INTRINSICALLY so!-- What Medieval Claptrap! I honestly don't know who is served by promoting this notion that gays are welcomed as long as they take their place as "afflicted--disordered" members of the Body of Christ, content to live out their lives in some quasi-monastic state constantly denying their natural desires while their straight counterparts lead "normal" lives. I find it particularly disgusting that the Catholic hierarchy not only continues to recommend this psycho-torture as their model for "ministering" to gays, but now finds a need to try to promote their "closet" solution for dealing with the "Gay Problem" on civil society. I'm only encouraged by the fact they their efforts seem to be having the same disastrous effect as their similar rants about other sexual and reproductive issues about which their lack of knowledge and sensitivity would fill libraries.
********************************************
I really truly hope this obsession with civil gay marriage ends with the Benedict papacy. It may be naive on my part, but I also believe a lot of Roman Catholic bishops hope the same thing. In the meantime I guess American society is going to have to put up with millions more dollars of lay donations being dumped into a political campaign the majority of American lay Catholics no longer support. But that's the kind of thing that happens all too frequently in an institution whose leadership is not accountable to it's constituency, and is instead accountable to one person and that person's personal whims.
