Catholics really don’t want to be thought of as bigots

Timothy Kincaid

February 25th, 2011

More and more I find myself running across angsty protests against describing actions that exclude gay people from civil inclusion as “discriminatory.” Often these come from Catholic Bishops who have become accustomed to thinking of their church as the defender of the downtrodden and panic when downtrodden gay folk start pointing fingers.

Take, for example, this Catholic News Agency response to the President’s recent DOMA decision:

Anthony R. Picarello, Jr., the top legal counsel for the U.S. bishops, called the administration’s decision a “grave affront” to Americans who reject unjust discrimination but also affirm “the unique and inestimable value of marriage as between one man and one woman.”

“Support for actual marriage is not bigotry, but instead an eminently reasonable, common judgment affirming the foundational institution of civil society,” Picarello said.

Any government suggestion that this belief is discriminatory is a “serious threat” to religious liberty, he added.

Note Picarello’s greatest concern: that the official Catholic teaching is seen as discriminatory, that the church’s anti-gay political activism be viewed as based in bigotry. And anti-gay activism’s number one marriage theorist, Robert George, explains why.

“He treats that belief as if it were a mere prejudice, as though it is motivated by a desire to cause harm to people,” George told CNA Feb. 24. “Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a legitimate moral belief that has informed our law throughout history.”

The statement suggests to George the possibility that the Justice Department will “abuse its authority to suppress the religious liberty of people who dissent.”

“It raises the concern that the Justice Department will treat believing Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as though they are the equivalent of racists,” he warned.

And if there is anything that the Catholic Church wishes to avoid, it’s facing society equating their dogma with racism or other animus-based bias. That doesn’t bode well for evangelism or donations.

TonyJazz

February 25th, 2011

The catholic church’s moral stance should be that they don’t plan to support gay marriage in the church.

Civil marriage is a legal construct, and it has nothing to do with their religion-specific definition of marriage.

And the church should be morally concerned with fair treatment and opportunity for all capable people.

Chris McCoy

February 25th, 2011

“It raises the concern that the Justice Department will treat believing Christians, Jews, Muslims and others as though they are the equivalent of racists”

They are. They should be treated as such.

The Truth is so damned inconvenient.

Throbert McGee

February 25th, 2011

I could be mistaken, but I think the Vatican’s official position that (a) “obedient Catholics” should not politically support any form of legal recognition for same-sex couples — even Maine-type “domestic partnerships” that not only avoid using the term “marriage” but aren’t even close to being “marriage in all but name”; and (b) the Vatican would hew stubbornly to this position even if “one man, one woman” were written into the Constitution to prevent DPs from being “sneakily expanded” into gay marriage.

In other words — for the Vatican, not necessarily for rank-and-file clergy or the entire Catholic laity — it’s not simply about an opposition to “Same-Sex Marriage”, nor merely about avoiding slippery slopes that might potentially lead to “Same-Sex Marriage.” Any formal acknowledgment of gay housholds by the (secular) state is Too Much.

Regan DuCasse

February 25th, 2011

Thanks for that quote, Chris.

Again with their ‘”We’re the VICTIMS here, if gay people are treated as equals.”

Or, “We’re the victims here if WE don’t want gay people treated as equals.”

They are washing themselves in the victim river every which way possible.

A person who believes that gay aren’t equal to them, nor deserve to be married by their houses of worship ARE free to feel that way.

It’s a no brainer that CIVIL LAW MUST treat gay citizens as equal and equally responsible as well as equally deserving of the same rights.

As I keep saying. Jehovah’s Witnesses are people who believe that blood and organ donation are immoral and impure.
But they can’t demand that others can’t receive it.
Nor complain that their rights are compromised because others use donated blood.

This complaint by the CC is as specious as a JW saying that blood donation contaminates the blood supply according to their religious teaching.

Regan DuCasse

February 25th, 2011

Oh and, is the CC complaining too that people who divorce and remarry compromise the CC’s rights in their stance to refuse ceremonies for the divorced and remarried?
Even those that don’t belong to their church?

What kinds of stupid people buy this crap?

Amicus

February 26th, 2011

One could write a book on this, but one view is that most people, including Catholics, find the Church’s teachings on women to be irrational/biased, or, if not, then really of limited applicability, rather than universal in all respects.

So, why are the CC’s views on gays to be taken so much more strictly?

Last, they commit a grave error, if they are wrong in their moral judgement in this.

One would like to see the most fervent defense of those topics for which one has the strongest of moral insight. That might be, with limited exceptions, murder, theft, violence (assault), etc.

But, with the CC already admitting to a class of people who are invariably oriented toward the gay, one has to question that the wisdom of how they weigh their moral considerations, not just the logical consistency of the considerations themselves.

lurker

February 26th, 2011

“He treats the belief in antimisegenation law as if it were a mere prejudice, as though it is motivated by a desire to cause harm to people. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. It is a legitimate moral belief that has informed our law throughout history.”

Matthew S

March 8th, 2011

What the radical churches need to realize is that while freedom of religion gives churches the right to practice their religion, the prohibition on establishment of religion prohibits them from making their dogma the law of the land in the USA. You don’t have to like a group, but no one has the right to codify their fear in this country.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

Jubal

Another Temporary Hiatus

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1971: Minnesota Couple Stake Claim To First American Same-Sex Marriage

Today's Agenda Is Brought To You By...

Today In History, 1954: "Perverts Vanish" From Miami

Born On This Day, 1907: Evelyn Hooker

Born On This Day, 1925: Fr. John J. McNeill

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.