tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post7874287210295435944..comments2023-08-21T03:51:17.425-06:00Comments on Enlightened Catholicism: Bishop DiMarzio Throws A Hissy Fit Over The Gay Marriage Vote In New Yorkcolkochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comBlogger19125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-45255615288559225432011-06-29T07:18:20.879-06:002011-06-29T07:18:20.879-06:00Joe, I noticed you got whacked big time at Commonw...Joe, I noticed you got whacked big time at Commonweal. The discussion over there borders on high brow trailer trash. <br /><br />I can't remember off hand who wrote it, but the comment about the Church not taking the gut level emotional abomination road and staying on the rational high road sent me into hysterical laughter. NOM is on the reasoned high road? I guess if one is looking up from the depths of the sewer NOM is on the high road.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-87787842946143024342011-06-28T21:31:40.210-06:002011-06-28T21:31:40.210-06:00When I celebrate a marriage with a gay couple in t...When I celebrate a marriage with a gay couple in the congregation (like Elton John and partner at the Royal Wedding) I do not feel that the couple are attacking or undermining marriage, rather they are enriching it. That is the way Catholic culture is developing today. Our hierarchs have cut themselves off from development.Joehttp://josephsoleary.typepad.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-5674537570937437442011-06-28T10:27:23.421-06:002011-06-28T10:27:23.421-06:00Mark, you're exactly correct in your observati...Mark, you're exactly correct in your observation. The attitude that sex is bad, only permissible when procreation occurs, harkens back to St. Augustine. He even hinted that "desire" (concupiscence) between a married couple is sinful and must be suppressed. Nowadays that's considered pathological, but Mother Church carries remnants of that thinking still.kevin57https://www.blogger.com/profile/01681985465980196347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-35115916764395285842011-06-27T14:28:14.230-06:002011-06-27T14:28:14.230-06:00I may go one step further than your commenters.The...I may go one step further than your commenters.The Church's basic position is 'sex is wrong.'But it can be justified if children are the outcome. This teaching (sex is bad) is absolutely vital to the 'I never have sex, even sex thoughts' that is the very essence of the priesthood. Absence from SEX is the very reason theclerics are morally superior to the laity and closer to God. Sure, I know JP2 and others act like Sex is good, BUT not as good as never having even a sex thought. MarkMarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02362724995392108962noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-81946538180661729402011-06-27T11:00:18.346-06:002011-06-27T11:00:18.346-06:00The Trad sites are electric with how these GOP Sen...The Trad sites are electric with how these GOP Senators were "bought off" by wealthy Wall St. types. Funny, though, their side never, ever buys off anyone. They're also in a dizzy because, in their view, the NY bishops have not done enough to "punish" these legislators. They want them all excommunicated. Ah, to live in such an exclusionary world!kevin57https://www.blogger.com/profile/01681985465980196347noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-1821564287165701372011-06-27T08:27:57.160-06:002011-06-27T08:27:57.160-06:00@Dennis Moore: it appears from Bishop DiMarzio...@Dennis Moore: it appears from Bishop DiMarzio's remarks that the RC are already there for you on the polygamy angle.<br /><br />"It is not a civil rights issue, but rather a human rights issue upholding the age-old understanding of marriage." <br /><br />As anyone who reads the Bible knows, polygamy (but not polyandry, sorry Colleen) is the OT standard endorsed by G-d and enshrined in the books of the law, along with divorce. This whole one man/one woman thing is rather new, comparatively speaking.<br /><br />On a somewhat related note, I have a simple question for the assembled which I'd like help with. Would you take legal advice from someone who has never been in a courtroom or medical advice from a doctor who has never actually practiced medicine? Then why take marriage counsel from someone who never has nor will be married or sex advice from someone who has never known the touch of another?Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04200045196217644013noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-62131314925576454362011-06-27T05:58:24.087-06:002011-06-27T05:58:24.087-06:00Dennis Moore, I find it interesting you see polyga...Dennis Moore, I find it interesting you see polygamy as the next big issue and leave out polyandry. <br /><br />In any event I see legal serial monogamy as the biggest mockery of marriage, at least as practiced by Catholics like Newt Gingrich. In that sense, as far as Church theology is concerned, we already have a legal form of polygamy. Gay marriage certainly won't have any effect on that trend in heterosexual marriage.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-65133717770538815502011-06-27T05:00:23.246-06:002011-06-27T05:00:23.246-06:00Dear Dennis Moore,
As long as the civil law defin...Dear Dennis Moore,<br /><br />As long as the civil law defines marriage as between two people, you, Dennis, are very wrong. Polygamy is a choice that people have made in the past that was made illegal. It may have been more useful when the population was low. Medical science and good sense shows that homosexuality is not a choice and we are indeed discriminating against homosexuals in all the other states that do not allow them to marry. There are religious practitioners that have pretended to “cure” homosexuals, but medicine and psychiatry have never defined it as a disease. It seems to be something very inherent to some individuals. In fact in some ways it serves to both help and protect the rest of society. <br /><br /> The polls in NY and California have for several months indicated more than 50% favor letting gays marry. <br /><br />Your argument does not make sense to me even with all the logic courses that I took on Catholic campuses so many years ago, I can not follow your argument as logical. I have heard similar arguments in the past but they were just as illogical as what you are saying now. <br /><br />As for he Bishops, they were spending money not meant for political use trying to defeat this bill and should be held accountable by the lay people in the diocese. It is also clearly and incidence that Church is attempting to interfere with state governance. Perhaps if they are allowed to do that, then those churches should be taxed. dennisrdp46https://www.blogger.com/profile/04427786268228285222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-4759084572639049942011-06-26T22:57:13.211-06:002011-06-26T22:57:13.211-06:00The Bishop makes an excellent point - this is the ...The Bishop makes an excellent point - this is the latest mockery of marriage. The institution has been under attack for years and this was a broad shot. <br /><br />After this law, I fail to see any intellectually honest argument that polygamy should be illegal. Crazy? As crazy as gay marriage sounded 40 years ago. Any argument about "it has to be 2 people" or "nobody will ever vote for that" are outright funny now. Polygamists must simply argue they are a discriminated class, get some effective TV images (that is starting already)and Bob's your uncle. <br /><br />As for the polls, if they really reflected the popular appeal of this bill it would not have been passed under"emergency powers" that precluded debate on the issue.Dennis Moorenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-24782118671437160602011-06-26T17:00:08.780-06:002011-06-26T17:00:08.780-06:00I agree with Bill and as Mary said, brilliant post...I agree with Bill and as Mary said, brilliant post. Excellent.bobfett11https://www.blogger.com/profile/09668410092478588528noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-34087687305716799042011-06-26T11:15:08.226-06:002011-06-26T11:15:08.226-06:00Brilliant post, Colleen. After the Bishop's br...Brilliant post, Colleen. After the Bishop's breakfast, he certainly ended up with egg on his face!Mary H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/18319596057433636243noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-39300625964278741662011-06-26T11:13:31.512-06:002011-06-26T11:13:31.512-06:00Colleen, this is just such a perfect posting--far ...Colleen, this is just such a perfect posting--far and away the best response to DiMarzio, et al., that I've seen. It strikes just the right tone: cranky pants French toast, unhappy face pancakes, and a random tantrum fruit cup, indeed!<br /><br />As you rightly point out, "It's their own insistence on these religious exemptions that make them look like bigots and maybe that's because they are bigots." And so, isn't it delicious that DiMarzio tries to argue that the governor and the legislature are the ones responsible for turning DiMarzio, et al., into bigots?!<br /><br />They evidently want their bigotry and want to eat it, too. They want to BE bigots without being known as or called bigots.<br /><br />And what a totally un-leaderlike response: "Furthermore, I have asked all pastors and principals to not invite any state legislator to speak or be present at any parish or school celebration."<br /><br />NO state legislator--period--is to be invited to Catholic parish or school celebrations. Talk about an undignified, immature temper tantrum.<br /><br />One of the things I learned as an academic administrator (and a teacher) was NEVER to lay down a rule like that, which tries to punish a whole group of people without distinction, to make my own petty point.<br /><br />Because that behavior makes the one engaging in it look petty. Not like a bona fide leader at all.William D. Lindseyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07246026074693891965noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-2402121121158771412011-06-26T10:29:53.061-06:002011-06-26T10:29:53.061-06:00"The New York Church leaders have put themsel..."The New York Church leaders have put themselves in a difficult position for entering the next round, whatever that is (assuming civilization continues)."<br /><br />Assuming civilization survives, I would hope they take that reprieve and begin to re evaluate what they are on about. Maybe they might consider their is a vast difference between sexual acts for selfish ends, and the very different concept of love between two people. I would suggest they read Salzman and Lawler, and this time with an eye to be educated rather than an eye to condemn.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-1586210328559653962011-06-26T09:37:04.546-06:002011-06-26T09:37:04.546-06:00Bishop DiMarzio orates as if he is about to be for...Bishop DiMarzio orates as if he is about to be forced to marry his Vicar General. <br /><br />Ironically, to his credit, he recognizes more than one principal purpose of marriage. He then focusses on only one, the procreative. It is the other principal purpose, the unitive, that allows him and his Church to bless marriages of heterosexual couples too old or otherwise definitively known to be incapable of reproduction. Capability to procreate is not an absolute prerequisite for marriage in the Catholic Church, as documentation (HV) and practice show. <br /><br /> If human history and the cornerstones of civilization are at the mercy of the New York Sate legislature, more thoughtful, honest consideration is warranted. How one loses a battle sometimes reveals more about the contenders than winning. The New York Church leaders have put themselves in a difficult position for entering the next round, whatever that is (assuming civilization continues). <br /><br />Could some Latinist please remind me of the plural of "ad hominem".Jack Bnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-83920218046248730772011-06-26T08:39:02.090-06:002011-06-26T08:39:02.090-06:00Who is this Bishop DiMarzio? I’ve never heard of h...Who is this Bishop DiMarzio? I’ve never heard of him. I probably could find out quickly, but don’t care to. As you say, Colleen, some of these people are getting sillier and sillier.<br /><br />Anyhow, I am absolutely honored that DiMarzio thinks I belong to a political elite. I have not been aware of that lately.<br /><br />I also had difficulty understanding what DiMarzio meant by his last sentence in which he wonders how these legislators were acting in good conscience if they carved out exemptions for religious groups. <br /><br />On the one hand DiMarzio seems to mean that the legislators were protecting bigots and prejudice which would be wrong. So the legislators were not acting in good conscience. On the other hand, I like to think that law for marriage equality and the exemptions really reflect many legislators struggling with their consciences and then acting in good conscience which DiMarzio would like to deny.<br /><br />I spent a good amount of time Friday night listening to a live feed from Albany of the Senate proceedings. One of the best speeches of the evening was the one by Senator Mark Grisanti, a Catholic and a republican. Grisanti said he applied reason to the issue, something which the bishops seem incapable of doing. Here is a link to Grisanti’s speech. http://pixalex.posterous.com/in-a-moving-speech-ny-r-sta-sen-mark-grisanti<br /><br />Grisanti talked about his Catholic upbringing and how he struggled with the concept of marriage being between a man and a woman. He added that he was also an attorney and that the more he struggled with this issue and thought about it; he had to conclude that gay and lesbian people had these same rights to marriage that he and his wife had. In an earlier interview with a Buffalo newspaper Grisanti said: "If I take the Catholic out of me, which is hard to do, then absolutely they should have these rights," In the end, reason won out. In the person of Senator Grisanti, I witnessed a person struggling with his conscience and acting in good conscience. DiMarzio got it wrong!wild hairhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08464835061893041481noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-73117443297125783482011-06-26T07:38:15.729-06:002011-06-26T07:38:15.729-06:00Why don't DiMarzio and his fellow bishops take...Why don't DiMarzio and his fellow bishops take all that excess energy and use it toward encouraging economic justice and improving the employment outlook? Oh well, like a good many members of Congress, they are looking out for the big money boyz to the detriment of the rest of us. I think NOM should redirect its energies toward job creation rather than denying people their rights.khughes1963https://www.blogger.com/profile/16118365554189078448noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-58754714206987010952011-06-26T00:45:49.808-06:002011-06-26T00:45:49.808-06:00Spiritual Marriage is when two people decide to co...Spiritual Marriage is when two people decide to commit to one and other for an expected life time of personal relationship. <br /><br />Civil marriage is when this marriage is registered with the state as a contract. <br /><br />Seems to me this NY Bishop (as well as most RCC Bishops) now have little to say about either civil or spiritual marriage. Congratulations Bishops, you have taken yourself out of the market place of decisions. Just as for celebrating the Eucharist, we do not need clerics to witness marriage. Both of these sacraments can be carried out just fine ---- no clerics present. There was a time when clerics were welcome! <br /><br />This Bishop is having a fit when he should be learning that people will no longer listen to the flimsy homophobia or sexual amorality as demanded by the RCC Magisterium. <br /><br />My only fear is that these empty miters will now attempt to push another poorly thought out agenda about birth control and birth control pills. They will only show the People of God how foolish they are in the long run, but they will attempt to throw up barriers in the short run. I hope Gays will stay united against these unreasonable homophobes and would be "gyno-moralists." The heterosexual community that has helped the gays hope that the gays will help the heterosexual community when it comes to the Bishops who actually believe they know more of embryology than do the scientists. We helped the gays because the Bishops made no sense, we hope that the gays, parents and brothers and sisters of gays (especially wealthy ones, will continue to understand that this current crop of RCC Bishop makes little ethical sense. dennisrdp46https://www.blogger.com/profile/04427786268228285222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-83474812404847370812011-06-26T00:36:51.132-06:002011-06-26T00:36:51.132-06:00It's just plain old fear mongering. Gay marria...It's just plain old fear mongering. Gay marriage has no effect on whether John and Jane Doe keep their marriage together. <br /><br />Deconstruction only counts if one discounts love as the major reason most people get married and instead really believe it's all about fertile sexual acts. <br /><br />I'm loathe to think our bishops are fixated on sexual acts as opposed to relational love, but rationally I have to admit they seem fixated on sexual acts as opposed to relational love. Oh well, in theory they've given up both so I guess they can be totally confused on these two issues. And also wrong.colkochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03432916690101599393noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8383701632927065467.post-64625774606331626782011-06-26T00:09:01.697-06:002011-06-26T00:09:01.697-06:00Why do they act like, just because gay people are ...Why do they act like, just because gay people are going to get legally hitched, heterosexual unions are suddenly going to stop or dry up and go infertile or something? <br /><br />How has any institution been "deconstructed"? I'm pretty certain people are going to continue wanting to e have husband or a wife, create children and teach them a thing or two about how to survive...<br /><br />Civil marriage is simply not principally about creating families. This was acknowledged legally a long time ago, and it wasn't the gays who made that change. Nothing really changes with gay marriage legislation, it only acknowledges to the letter what has already been true culturally of the institution for some time.JDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723284994480231037noreply@blogger.com