In a stirring speech on religious liberty at the U.S. bishops’ plenary assembly last October, Bishop William Lori of Bridgeport, Conn., decried the U.S. government’s propagation of moral relativism — in this instance, regarding criticism of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).
“The Department of Justice … has attacked DOMA as an act of ‘bias and prejudice,’ akin to racism, thereby implying that the churches which teach that marriage is between a man and a woman are guilty of bigotry.”
The question is simple: Why are Catholics not bigots?
Bishop Lori noted several warring fronts in the recent conflicts between the Church and the state: contraception, abortion, freedom of conscience and same-sex “marriage.”
The battle line has been named religious liberty, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has observed “with growing alarm the erosion of religious liberty in our country.”
In response to the increasing celerity of attrition between the state and the Church, Bishop Lori ended his address by exhorting the faithful to “stand united in calling for the laymen and women of the Church to put their gifts and expertise on the line in defense of religious liberty.”
The defense against religious infringement is simple. The state cannot violate the conscience and moral convictions of Catholicism because it is a breach of the religious freedom of the Church and her Catholics.
Consequently, Catholics should not be forced to participate in abortion, contraception, same-sex “marriage” or any act that infringes upon their consciences. Bishop Lori’s speech on religious liberty contained an eloquent echoing of the U.S. bishops’ new 30-page document on faithful citizenship. Slotted for national distribution by the bishops, the document submits the following summation:
“Civil law should fully recognize and protect the Church’s right, obligation and opportunities to participate in society without being forced to abandon or ignore its central moral convictions.
So, why are Catholics not guilty of bigotry akin to racism?
In the minds of many Americans, the link between the civil-rights movement of the ’60s and the current “LGBT” movement is cogent and undeniable.
In the former, the Church and a myriad of political perspectives marched hand-in-hand for the rights of black people. However, with the so-called LGBT movement — which claims to be the progeny of the civil-rights movement — the Church stands as an impediment.
Subsequently, the Church is charged with a bigotry as malformed as racism. It is in examining the connection between these two movements that the Catholic line of defense seems to incriminate the Church rather than exonerate her.
Bringing to the forefront moral convictions, conscience and religious liberty, Catholics find their weaponry wanting.
A particular weakness is presented in the realization that, unlike most other moral issues, the Church is not content with securing the right to abstain from same-sex “weddings”; she is advocating the practice be illegal within the overall state. Even the U.S. bishops’ vanguard of religious liberty stumbles to find any footing here.
Opponents of the Church contend the bishops’ conference simultaneously props religious liberty up as a shield between it and the state, and then campaigns for the state to denounce same-sex “marriage,” despite the very real moral convictions and religious freedoms of the homosexual community. Here, accusations of bigotry are brought forth, as it appears Catholics believe their moral tradition can trump the rights and moral convictions of other people and groups.
What of conscience? Arguments of conscience bring little to the forefront. Conscience is formed by habit and principle; thus, while the Catholic conscience feels the moral conviction to defend traditional marriage, a growing number of Americans — self-identifying Catholics included — feel the pangs of their unformed consciences to grant homosexual persons complete marital equality.
In response to the charge that Catholics are bigots, many claim the answer is “Yes.” In fact, the difficulty of handling this exact question has stymied the courage of many Catholics because they cannot articulate the faith without appearing “hateful,” while others have simply abjured Church leadership in favor of a seemingly much more coherent and simple standard of equality for all people. Other Catholics — frustrated by the coupling of their concerns and the inability to voice them — demonize homosexuals as persons as a way to justify being against same-sex “marriage.” They speak of homosexuals as furtive fascists seeking to unravel the moral fabric of a Christian America. Fearmongering is no substitute for valid dialogue and only precipitates more accusations of Catholic bigotry.
Americans are witnessing the inception of a rights war. Each faction has hauled in its own set of moral beliefs and traditions to the front. Multiple and contradictory reference points for what is and is not a proper “right” reveal an often unsaid belief: There is no universal reference point — a rights war is a war of competitive human wills.
America has seen and will continue to see a cacophony of autonomous moral positions willing against one another until attrition and public opinion claim a victor.
By entering into a rights war, Catholics have accepted rules of engagement that desiccate their sacred tradition and reduce them to another subset of relative religious opinions.
What the Church and the state need is not another war, but a shared language — a language for Catholics and non-Catholics alike; a universal reference point for rights and laws. What the Church in the United States needs to remember is nature.
Is the Church bigoted? Absolutely not. Holy mother Church speaks to us in charity and truth. The dilemma is how to season our political dialogue with timeless truths, while not being caught up in a “rights war” that distorts the Catholic position.
This is Part 1 of a Register series on Catholic political thought.
H.H. Ambrose is a writer for St. Peter’s List (StPetersList.com) and resides in Pennsylvania.
Comments
Post a Comment
We are fortunate that church and state matters can be separated in the United States when a need arises. I can think of no better case for this than the divisive issue of gay marriage, where the policy allows for a fair balance to be achieved for both sides. The religious traditionalist can maintain marriage as a union between one man and one woman sanctified in the presence of God, while in another building a purely secular union can be legally contracted between two consenting adults in the presence of a government official. This allows both persuations to enjoy their own respective freedoms without imposing their values and rules on the other or devaluing each other’s institution. Surely this is what makes America great.
I’m struggling to find the difference between religious liberty and religious dictatorship. I’m failing to understand why the entire nation should be forced to follow the laws of a religion, while some of it’s citizens do not follow that religion. Taking God out of the equation (which will be hard to do), there is no logical reason why a gay partnership should not be viewed as being equal to a heterosexual partnership in the eyes of the law. For some issues, separation of Church and state are an absolute must to maintain fairness, equality and freedom in America. A religion cannot have the monopoly and dictate the lives of those who choose to have nothing to do with that religion. Religion is a choice.
If you want religious liberty, then grant people the same respect to have liberty from religion.
The thing to remember is this: gay marriage does not affect you. As much as you’d like to believe it does in some roundabout way affect you, you will notice no difference to your life. On the other hand, it affects others so much it’s unbelievable. Currently, because of DOMA, I have been separated from my partner for six months. DOMA grants absolutely no recognition of us being a couple and therefore we must live in different countries. I ask you directly, is this fair? Being told “If you were a straight couple, you could live together, but since you are a gay couple you must live apart for the rest of your lives” is discrimination. That is an equal rights issue. Our lives are awful right now because of your drive to stop something from happening which will not affect you directly anyway. That to me is unjust. Again, I believe is unfair for you to play the monopoly with my life like that when I am not Catholic, my partner is not Catholic, and us being together in private, living our own lives, would not affect any of you.
I ask you first, before you defend DOMA and put up thousands upon thousands of pounds to keep me separated from my soul mate and best friend, agree to a bill such as the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA). UAFA states that gay couples can sponsor each other for immigration rights without marriage. I think at least that would be win win for us all. Marriage would stay as the union between man and woman, DOMA wouldn’t have to be repealed, and families wouldn’t have to be split up. I ask you to please show support for such a bill, I believe it in your favour.
If only there were space and time to explain why JP and Michael personify the problem. It need not be a civil rights issue. If the various State legislatures no longer agree that marriage of one man and one woman is the basis for long-term social welfare of the State, then simply abolish the State sanctions and privileges afforded to married couples. That leaves Sacramental marriage solely within the purview of the Church, and all matters civil equal among citizens. No State sanction for private behavior of either sort. That leaves the State merely as arbiter of various contactual relationships, favoring or sanctioning neither. No State or government preference. I’d rather see the State out of the “union” business entirely, then to see Holy Matrimony officially equated with abomination.
Mike,
The Bible is very clear in several places that homosexuality is against the law of God. I’m sure you’re aware of that, and that Christ consecrated the sacrament of marriage between a man and a woman. A Catholic, and all Christians, must, in good conscience, follow the teachings of Christ.
I disagree with you when you say “gay marriage does not affect you.” I’ve seen some of the gay parades in San Fransisco, and I saw very little love, and a lot of nudity. What gay marriage does affect, but advocates never talk about is the impact on children. Gay marriage discriminates against children - every children deserves a mother and father. Homosexuals are purposely not forming a union to have a child.
I can’t but think how confused a heterosexual child would be with their sexuality and behavior by growing up with homosexual parents.
Good intentions are not always enough to carry the day. H.H Ambrose’s article, “Recipe for a Rights War,” appears - arguably - to be an effort to generally uphold the Church in her position against same-sex marriage. Mr. Ambrose quotes Bishop Lori in the latter’s speech opposing the administrations’s abandonment of DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act), and he cites the USCCB’s warning of the growing erosion of religious liberty in our country. In a short concluding paragraph he expresses disagreement with the idea that Catholics are bigoted in their stand against same-sex marriage. Yet, in spite of the assumption of Ambrose’s good intentions, it must be admitted that the preponderance of his essay gives the illusion of favoring those who argue the opposite. The opinions and innuendos to that effect, although somewhat muted by attribution to others, make the “marriage” of two men, or two women, appear both logical and moral when claimed as a human right. Now it may be the author’s intention to shift the basis of the argument from “rights” to some other more viable platform that would allow the Church greater leverage to advance her own position, but what that platform might be, is never explained.The bulk of the article seems devoted to demonstrating the superiority of the same-sex advocacy to that of the Church. A case is built on several bogus comparisons and accusations: the first is the Church’s insistence on “religious freedom,” while she opposes the grant to homosexuals of a “similar” freedom that would permit same-sex marriage; the second, is a claim that same-sex marriage and racial parity issues are cut from the same cloth, e.g., “in the minds of many Americans the link between the civil rights movement of the 60’s and the current LGBT movement is cogent and undeniable.” (Actually, when analyzed, such a comparison is almost ludicrous); a third argument is offered in the description of “hateful” Catholics who “demonize homosexuals as persons” - as if such behavior is condoned by the Church, rather than abhorred and condemned.
Only in the last brief paragraph, cited above, does he deny Catholic bigotry - but he offers no rebuttal to the charges against the Church that he so effectively presented earlier. The point is heavily made that if the same-sex position is to be overturned, it will not be through a logical argument of “rights” - since the homosexual view clearly prevails. Mr. Ambrose’s only suggestion as to another base on which the Church might make its own case comes in the form of a simple, naked generalization, i.e., the Church needs to “season her political dialogue with timeless truths…” In spite of this somewhat belated flag-waving, the thrust of the entire piece tends toward accusing and rebuking the Church for alleged intolerance toward the homosexual community. The author has bent so far backward in promoting the claims of his adversary, that regardless of his intentions, he has forfeited the contest.
Thank you, H.H. Ambrose for clarifying this debate and for articulating well how the Church must engage in it. In an age of shifting moral interpretations, all involved in this issue hold in common our humanity and life in the natural world, which I think is a good starting point for meaningful discussion.
And there’s no consideration of any religious freedoms for anyone other than heterosexual catholics.
If you can’t even think that others have needs and rights too you really should not be making these decisions for a country.
Yes, let’s have a rights war.
Let’s have a war, if that is what it takes to ensure that rights are protected…just as we did with regard to the rights of black slaves.
Whose rights are being violated, pray tell?
Two men, if they happen to be in the habit of mutually masturbating one another, can already designate one another as heirs. They can likewise arrange for power-of-attorney.
I can see an argument for making certain these legal arrangements are as easily-arranged as they are between a married couple, or between unmarried heterosexual lovers.
Oh, wait…aren’t they already as easily-arranged for the two men, as they are between two unmarried heterosexual lovers? I suppose it varies state-to-state. But supposing one is in a state where there is no financial or ease-of-use disadvantage for the two men compared to the unmarried male and female lovers, then it seems to me that civil rights have already been achieved.
But perhaps it’s not all about the rights of sexually active adults? Isn’t there someone else involved in all of this?
Children are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and among these are Mothering, Fathering, and Family-ing.
Mothering is the right to be nurtured and raised by a woman who is one’s mother. That title automatically accrues to one’s biological mother and is only transferable in case of adoption, but even then the children retain the human right to know their biological mother, or at least to know her identity and (where needed) medical history.
Fathering is the right to be nurtured and raised by a man who is one’s father. That title automatically accrues to one’s biological father and is only transferable in case of adoption, but even then the children retain the human right to know their biological father, or at least to know his identity and (where needed) medical history.
Family-ing is the right to be nurtured and raised by one’s mother and father who are married, in a shared household, in the company of one’s siblings, if any.
These are unalienable rights of children.
If a child does not have a father, or is not Fathered by his father, through some undesired mishap, that is a tragedy but not a crime.
If, however, a child is denied fathering by his father because of his mother’s divorce, or because his father made an anonymous contribution to a sperm bank, that is a different matter.
In that case, one or more human beings took action to deprive the child of his unalienable rights of fathering, motherhing, and family-ing.
That is a wrongful act which does injury to the child. It often ought to be prosecuted.
This, then, is the rights war we ought to have.
Certainly a P.R. war. I don’t know if it’ll ever need to be a shooting war; one hopes not. But, then, slavery was overthrown by a shooting war. That now is not the time does not mean there’s never a time.
Just as the early centuries of the United States saw many positive advances in human liberty and the acknowledgment of human dignity, but were undermined by the presence of institutionalized slavery because the rights of dark-skinned humans were not protected under law…so, too, are the 20th and 21st centuries, whatever other advancements in human rights may occur, marred by our failure to protect the rights of children to Fathering, Mothering, and Familying.
It is the usual story: We don’t bother protecting those rights because the injured are impeded in their ability to sue the offenders in court. Sometimes they don’t know what’s been done to them. Sometimes they’re told it’s for their own good. Sometimes they aren’t old and articulate enough to make the complaint. Sometimes the courts treat them as having no standing.
So divorce and surrogate, anonymous fatherhood and in vitro fertilization through anonymous donors and similar actions deprive children of knowing and being raised by their parents, in a family.
This nation once took up arms to rescue a smaller number of less-helpless persons from a lesser (if still very great) crime; namely, slavery.
When will the battle for the rights of children begin in earnest?
It should have been decades ago.
(Considered in this context, abortion is just part of one big seamless bloody garment, isn’t it?)
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.