tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post7043094761728800902..comments2024-01-17T03:08:25.317-06:00Comments on The Progressive Catholic Voice: Dialoguing with the Archbishop: Amendment Campaign Contrary to Church Moral TeachingPCV Editorhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12519134580470262558noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-61906627532177757872012-01-17T13:34:47.301-06:002012-01-17T13:34:47.301-06:00Great comment, JJ! Mind boggling religious belief...Great comment, JJ! Mind boggling religious beliefs held by church groups are protected by law, and mind boggling amounts of money accumulated by church groups are also protected by law,i.e., they don't have to pay taxes on the monies they accumulate. Still, again by law, these church groups can't spend their money any old way. They must be careful to follow IRS guidelines on how they can and can't spend their funds. If they ignore these guidelines, they'll have to pay taxes. Seems more than fair.<br /><br />Now, this mind boggling marriage amendment campaign that reeks of mind boggling injustice has cost big bucks already and will cost more as election day grows near. Are those expenditures permitted by the IRS? If not permitted, our Archdiocese might have to begin paying taxes. Has our mind boggling Archbishop thought of that? Perhaps not. Perhaps he thinks he's dealing with a religious question. Well, as JJ points out, he's not. He's dealing with a constitutional question. It's NOT okay for churches to spend money to change the constitution. Don't be mind boggled or even mildly surprised when this question comes up in the legislature.NanookMNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15838761623200210050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-51912315325046932011-06-03T09:10:39.323-05:002011-06-03T09:10:39.323-05:00Under law two humans of differing sex can apply fo...Under law two humans of differing sex can apply for a marriage license. For a nominal fee they get something like 515 legal rights. Roughly half of these marriages will end in divorce. <br />The amendment issue comes down to who can legally enter into this licensing? Limiting it to just differing sex parties means contractual rights are denied to same sex applicants. It is a legal matter solely. Some people get tax deductions and some people cannot apply.<br />On the religious front there are large church groups that believe Eden was in Missouri, or that the space ships are coming back for the saved, that the mother of the Christ was a virgin etc. Under law religious belief is protected. <br />Licensing, in this case marriage licensing, is a legal, not a religious question. Remember the refrain when you vote… “with liberty and justice for all.” It’s the constitution in question here, not a religious tenant.<br />Jeff Wilfahrt, Rosemount, MNAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-19926282635130925792011-03-05T19:20:18.460-06:002011-03-05T19:20:18.460-06:00As a life-long Catholic, I have always known my Ch...As a life-long Catholic, I have always known my Church is not perfect. They are mistaken about women's issues (ordination) and are mistaken about their view on homosexuality. They were mistaken about Joan of Arc when they put her to death and mistaken about Galileo when they put him under house arrest. It took my Church nearly 400 years to apologize to Galileo. Although the leaders may not apologize to my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in my lifetime they should not continue to "burn them at the stake" by denying them their civil rights. <br /><br />Although I disagree with my Church on some issues, I can remain a Catholic in good conscience because of important church teachings such as primacy of conscience. As Cardinal Ratzinger wrote, before he became Pope Benedict, <br />"Morality of conscience and morality of authority as two opposing models, appear to be locked in struggle with each other. Accordingly, the freedom of the Christian would be rescued by appeal to the classical principle of moral tradition that conscience is the highest norm which man is to follow even in opposition to authority."<br /><br />Thank you, Paula, and the Progressive Catholic Voice, for helping Catholics such as myself inform our conscience.Lisahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16146160862921077336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-75131933744383649122011-03-03T16:36:41.013-06:002011-03-03T16:36:41.013-06:00Hi, Bob. Your argument makes a different point fr...Hi, Bob. Your argument makes a different point from the argument I am making. I can see your argument that the Roman Catholic Church sees its position on the sinfulness of same-sex coupling as correct, you do not. You are not in communion with the RCC on that so, instead of arguing the point with them, you choose to be out of union. That is a reasonable position for you to take, and, I suppose, you may make the judgment that it is "a waste of time" for anyone else to believe or act differently from you. But I am making a different point. The fact that the RCC believes and teaches that same-sex coupling is sinful does not give them the duty to force other people by law to live by their beliefs. Not only do they not have the duty to force that belief on others, they are not justified ethically in doing so. Personal conscience is free. Unless there are good reasons that almost everyone agrees upon, government should not deprive a class of persons of equal protection of the law. Persuading others to see it their way is in order for the Minnesota bishops, but forcing people by law is not. Some hierarchs may still believe that "error has no rights" but that is not the official teaching of the Church.Paulahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00135199120788030871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-876502085465766394.post-22599258843506258342011-03-03T08:45:23.223-06:002011-03-03T08:45:23.223-06:00Paula,
Thank you for this article. Your reflectio...Paula,<br /><br />Thank you for this article. Your reflections are insightful. Here is my two-sense (for what it is worth) regarding this subject...<br /><br />You quote John Tuohey's article in the "Commonweal" quoting the council fathers declaration on religious freedom ("Dignitatis Humanae") stating, <br /><br />"individual men and social groups are bound by the moral law to have respect both for the rights of others and for their own duties toward others and for the common welfare of all."<br /><br />At first glance your interpretation and argument that the church is violating its moral stance on religious freedom because it is "oppressing" the civil liberties of gay and lesbian persons right to marriage is commendable; however, a closer study of how Catholic morality views same-sex relationships reveals that the Roman bishops are not violating the precepts of "Dignitatis Humanae." <br /><br />Here's the moral premise Roman Catholic morality works from: The Roman Catholic Church respects the individual dignity of gay and lesbian persons, and does not morally fault them for their "condition," which the church labels same-sex acts as "intrinsically disordered" and sinful (i.e. not in a state of lived grace). The gay and lesbian person, if he or she is to live in a state of grace and receive the sacraments of the church, must live a celibate life (See Catechism, no. 2357-59). <br /><br />Thus, the moral response from the church is not to uphold anything that is considered morally sinful; that is, something that seperates and severes one's relationship with God. In Roman Catholic morality, sin must always be combated because its evil spreads and corrupts the faithful. <br /><br />Here's the punch line...if we work from the beginning premise of Catholic morality regarding same-sex relationships, one can reasonably conclude the Roman Church and its bishops are not incorrect for combatting same-sex marriage. Same-sex marriage (civil and/or religious) is not viewed as a religious freedom or infringement on one's civil rights or against human dignity in Roman Catholic morality. In fact, by combating same-sex marriage the Roman Church believes it is upholding human dignity on all accounts. Roman Catholic morality begins with the premise that same-sex relationships are sinful because it is not procreative. There is no getting around this fact. Thus, as commendable as your article is, and well written, I think it ignores this foundational moral principle and falls short in its argument.<br /><br />I argue the Roman Church's beginning premise about same-sex relationships. I do not believe same-sex relationships are sinful, but life-giving and procreative in its own way--that is, proper to its order in creation. The Roman Church does not agree with my premise (which is completely different from theirs). I respect the Roman Church's stance by following their mandate to not receive the sacraments in the Roman Church b/c I am in a same-sex relationship. I do not believe I am in a state of sin, but I also respect communion, and in this instance I am not in communion with the Roman Church's teaching on a significant moral issue that damages gay and lesbian persons in a most abusive manner. <br /><br />Let's not live in the illusion that gays and lesbians can live healthy lives in the Roman Church...this martyr mentality of "fighting the good fight" is in my opinion a waste of time and energy. It is time for us gay and lesbian persons to find Christ and our catholicism apart from the Roman Church. That is why I choose to be Old Catholic and live this identity in the Episcopal Church.<br /><br />Shalom, ~Bob CarusoFr. Robert W. Carusohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16938004779005331235noreply@blogger.com