Support Gay Marriage? Then Skip Communion Says Detroit Archbishop and Canon Lawyer

[Bham1982]

The Detroit Roman Catholic hierarchy has vocally injected itself into the gay marriage issue. According to their statement, Catholics who just support gay marriage [thinking not doing] and took communion were likened to perjurers by the archbishop.

As a Catholic, I don't understand these ridiculous "leaders" and their moronic opinions. It has nothing to do with Catholic teachings, and everything to do with bigotry.

Do they not see the distinction between civil recognition of marriage and religious ceremony? One can support equal rights for all under the law [[legalizing gay marriages in the civil realm), while maintaining whatever age-old standard in religious ceremonies.

The church is under no threat from gay marriage. On the other hand, they risk being thrown in the dustbin of history if they keep up this bigotry, by interjecting themseleves into civil matters of no relevance to the Church.

I support gay marriage 100% and will continue to receive communion, with a clear conscience. The issue of equal rights under the law is nonnegotiable in a civil society.

[bailey]

As a Catholic, I don't understand these ridiculous "leaders" and their moronic opinions. It has nothing to do with Catholic teachings, and everything to do with bigotry.

Do they not see the distinction between civil recognition of marriage and religious ceremony? One can support equal rights for all under the law [[legalizing gay marriages in the civil realm), while maintaining whatever age-old standard in religious ceremonies.

The church is under no threat from gay marriage. On the other hand, they risk being thrown in the dustbin of history if they keep up this bigotry, by interjecting themseleves into civil matters of no relevance to the Church.

I support gay marriage 100% and will continue to receive communion, with a clear conscience. The issue of equal rights under the law is nonnegotiable in a civil society.

I think you're missing the point of the argument, if I understand it correctly, it boils down to this.... one who claims to be catholic can not, in any fashion, support SSM.

Although I disagree with the position, I see the point. If the catholic church says gay=bad in any and all context, then yes, it's a bit like perjury to come in take communion. If you're going to have standards, what good is it not to uphold them?

Frankly, I'd like to see the church affirm and amplify this message nationwide and from every pulpit. It'll make their slide into irrelevance that much quicker.

[Bham1982]

Although I disagree with the position, I see the point. If the catholic church says gay=bad in any and all context, then yes, it's a bit like perjury to come in take communion. If you're going to have standards, what good is it not to uphold them?

To me, I still see a big distinction here, and don't understand the official Catholic position.

Even if we were to all agree that gay="bad", then I still don't see the argument against CIVIL recognition of marriage. Marriage is a contract, and this provides gay couples with the same contractural benefits as everyone else, regardless of their relative "sinfullness".

I don't see the contradition inherent in supporting equal rights for all under civil law, while denying a certain class of people certain benefits under religious law.

[bailey]

I don't see the contradition inherent in supporting equal rights for all under civil law, while denying a certain class of people certain benefits under religious law.

the problem being that the catholic church does not recognize ssm as an "equal right" in any context. That is, of course, the church's right. It's also the church's right to deny the communion to those that disagree. Again, I hope they push this measure loudly and follow through on the threat.

[iheartthed]

I think you're missing the point of the argument, if I understand it correctly, it boils down to this.... one who claims to be catholic can not, in any fashion, support SSM.

I'm not Catholic, but does the church deny communion to everyone who supports something that they perceive as sin? Like abortion rights? And divorce laws?

[DetroitPlanner]

I'm not Catholic, but does the church deny communion to everyone who supports something that they perceive as sin? Like abortion rights? And divorce laws?

They won't deny, but you're supposed to abstain due to your moral conscience. What is bizarre about this is that many cases the church takes a 'line drawn in the sand' approach that is really not needed or is not supported by their own doctrine [[or changes doctrine to fit its own justifications). The same thing was going to happen with the whole mess with 'Obamacare' and how the church run hospitals wanted to continue to suckle at the govt you know what but wanted to do their own thing.

Yes the church wanted to take the position that this law, which helps the poor and those who cannot get medical insurance, was a bad thing.

[bailey]

I'm not Catholic, but does the church deny communion to everyone who supports something that they perceive as sin? Like abortion rights? And divorce laws?

Yes there have been similar calls in the past for denial of communion to pro choice politicians and parishioners. Just about every major election year someone will spout off about it. Divorce? not so much.

Roman Catholic Bishop Michael Sheridan of Colorado Springs, who holds a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas in Rome, says that Vice President Joe Biden should know that he ought not to receive communion.

Bishop Sheridan made the point in an interview he did in October with columnist Daniel Cole of The Colorado Springs Gazette.
.....
[Sheridan] made national headlines when he spoke out against Catholic politicians on the wrong side of four non-negotiables: abortion, embryonic stem-cell research, euthanasia and same-sex marriage. You said that these politicians, and Catholics who vote for them, may not receive Communion until they have recanted and confessed. Is that still your position?"

"It’s clear to me that the Code of Canon Law, Canon 915, says that a Catholic politician who publicly espouses positions that are contrary, not just to any teachings of the Church, but to serious moral teachings, should not receive Holy Communion until they recant those positions publicly," Bishop Sheridan responded.

I don't see where the Bishop is wrong. If it's against Canon, then deny the communion. And make sure you let the world know what you are doing and why. please. thank you.

[Oldman]

"....I support gay marriage 100% and will continue to receive communion, with a clear conscience. The issue of equal rights under the law is nonnegotiable in a civil society.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, well.....

See the thing is, you're free to leave the Church if you disagree with its precepts.

No one 'makes' you be Catholic.

[Bham1982]

Yeah, well.....

See the thing is, you're free to leave the Church if you disagree with its precepts.

No one 'makes' you be Catholic.

Are you even Catholic? What "precept" are you referring to? I know of no precept that obligates the Catholic church to intervene in U.S. civil recognition of contracts between adults. The Catholic church is obviously against same-sex marriage, which is an entirely different issue and not relevant to the discussion [[because the Church does not recognize civil marriage to begin with). The issue has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and everything to do with separation of church and state.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Are you even Catholic? What "precept" are you referring to? I know of no precept that obligates the Catholic church to intervene in U.S. civil recognition of contracts between adults. The Catholic church is obviously against same-sex marriage, which is an entirely different issue and not relevant to the discussion [[because the Church does not recognize civil marriage to begin with). The issue has nothing to do with same-sex marriage, and everything to do with separation of church and state.

Dang. I thought the entire thread and discussion was centered around the churches position on same-sex marriages [[and the relevency of accepting Holy Communion).

The separation of church and state discussion is another I enjoy discussing. Ignoring for the moment "In God we trust, One nation under God, and God bless America", do we truly want to entirely isolate God from the policy-setting and law-making process? The president calls for His blessing after darn near every public address. Must just be for show eh?

Whenever we get our collective selves in a bind, He's the first one we call upon for help.

Look. I don't want or need an intermixed church/state any more than anyone else, but to whom do we turn to determine what is right and what is wrong?

Our scientific intellect has by far surpassed our ability to discuss and make moral decisions. We are leaving our children and our grandchildren with decisions to make for which they are not equipped.

Let me give you two examples.

1. The nuclear weapon club is small, and thus far...sane. Fast forward 25 years from now. How many own the bomb then? Under what conditions do the good guys launch to prevent the bad guys from doing far more damage. And who are these good guys anyway?

2. Genetic engineering and the cloning of human beings. If we can clone a sheep, we can clone a human being. We'll be able to grow body parts for medical replacements before very long [[maybe we can do it now). Where does this process stop? Does a cloned human have a soul, or are they meat? It's a crude question, but would anyone care to answer with certainty?

How do you separate church and state when contemplating the answers to those kinds of questions? Now, I don't want the pope making those decisions for me either. I'm just saying we've got a lot of praying to do.

[Bham1982]

Dang. I thought the entire thread and discussion was centered around the churches position on same-sex marriages [[and the relevency of accepting Holy Communion).

Obviously the Catholic church doesn't recognize civil marriage. And obviously the Catholic church doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

So what does it matter if the state recognizes contracts between Dick and Jane, Dick and Joe, or Bigfoot and Space Alien? It's of no relevance to the church. In Rome's eyes, if it isn't in the Catholic church, it isn't marriage.

The separation of church and state discussion is another I enjoy discussing. Ignoring for the moment "In God we trust, One nation under God, and God bless America", do we truly want to entirely isolate God from the policy-setting and law-making process? The president calls for His blessing after darn near every public address. Must just be for show eh?

The U.S. was founded as an anti-Papal and deeply Protestant nation, with mostly secular Founding Fathers, none of them Catholic.

The dominant religion back during our founding was Episcopal Church, and the Episcopals do perform gay marriages. Episcopals comprised the majority of our Founding Fathers.

So if you want to roll back the clock and get religion more deeply involved, looks like civil gay marriage has the official religious stamp of approval, at least here in the Episcopal U.S. And the Catholics will be sure to be suffer suspicion for their allegiance to the Pope.

[Zacha341]

Excluding the evangelical and other Christians who also tend not to endorse same sex marriage.

...looks like civil gay marriage has the official religious stamp of approval, at least here in the Episcopal U.S. And the Catholics will be sure to be suffer suspicion for their allegiance to the Pope.

[TheUsualSuspect]

In Rome's eyes, if it isn't in the Catholic church, it isn't marriage.

See Bham...maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this is true. It's just too impractical. I'll have to claim personal ignorance here I guess.

The dominant religion back during our founding was Episcopal Church, and the Episcopals do perform gay marriages. Episcopals comprised the majority of our Founding Fathers.

So if you want to roll back the clock and get religion more deeply involved, looks like civil gay marriage has the official religious stamp of approval, at least here in the Episcopal U.S.

The Christian denominations which separate themselves from the catholic faith do as they please. No one should hold their breath waiting for the Catholic church to follow suit. The vatican is rarely swayed by popular opinion, I think we can probably agree on that.

And the Catholics will be sure to be suffer suspicion for their allegiance to the Pope.

I'm not sure what you meant by this comment. I suppose one can call themselves catholic without acknowledging, accepting, or agreeing with the leadership of the church. Certain Popes to be more personable than others, but they are all Peter's successors and the single most visible and powerful voice of the catholic church.

[poobert]

I'm not sure what you meant by this comment. I suppose one can call themselves catholic without acknowledging, accepting, or agreeing with the leadership of the church. Certain Popes to be more personable than others, but they are all Peter's successors and the single most visible and powerful voice of the catholic church.

Historically, Catholics have not been treated well in this country, which still remains majority Protestant. Plenty of those Protestants will still insist Catholics are not Christians at all. I know politics make strange bedfellows and you're all giddy to vote Republican together, but wishing for a church-state combo in the U S of A as a Catholic would not be in one's best interest. So you might want to stick to the whole separation of church and state idea, unless you want to be taking orders from Billy Graham.

I say this as a Catholic: the Catholic Church has been wrong before - about denying the heliocentric universe and prohibiting autopsies, for example - and they're wrong again. They're just a little slow on the uptake sometimes. They'll get it in a few centuries.

[jackie5275]

the Catholic church doesn't recognize same-sex marriage.

So what does it matter if the state recognizes contracts between Dick and Jane, Dick and Joe, or Bigfoot and Space Alien? It's of no relevance to the church.

It matters because if the state/nation recognize & allow gay marriage, the Church will be faced with gay folks wanting to get married in the Church. There will be, as I see it, two main reasons. 1. There are gay Catholics who would want to get married in the Church to get the sacrament of marriage. 2. There are gay people who want to test the Church to see if the Church will marry them or not.

[noise]

The separation of church and state discussion is another I enjoy discussing. Ignoring for the moment "In God we trust, One nation under God, and God bless America", do we truly want to entirely isolate God from the policy-setting and law-making process?

Yes. It has no place in policy-setting or law-making.

"In God We Trust" was adopted in 1956.
"Under God" was added to the Pledge in 1954.
"God Bless America" is just a patriotic song.

Whenever we get our collective selves in a bind, He's the first one we call upon for help.

I certainly do not.

Look. I don't want or need an intermixed church/state any more than anyone else, but to whom do we turn to determine what is right and what is wrong?

If you need a God for this, I wouldn't trust you to make the right decision.

Our scientific intellect has by far surpassed our ability to discuss and make moral decisions. We are leaving our children and our grandchildren with decisions to make for which they are not equipped.

Let me give you two examples.

1. The nuclear weapon club is small, and thus far...sane. Fast forward 25 years from now. How many own the bomb then? Under what conditions do the good guys launch to prevent the bad guys from doing far more damage. And who are these good guys anyway?

2. Genetic engineering and the cloning of human beings. If we can clone a sheep, we can clone a human being. We'll be able to grow body parts for medical replacements before very long [[maybe we can do it now). Where does this process stop? Does a cloned human have a soul, or are they meat? It's a crude question, but would anyone care to answer with certainty?

How do you separate church and state when contemplating the answers to those kinds of questions? Now, I don't want the pope making those decisions for me either. I'm just saying we've got a lot of praying to do.

Praying will certainly NOT answer those questions.

As an atheist, I certainly don't have a problem determining what's right or wrong. I don't need a God for that.

[Zozo]

As an atheist, I certainly don't have a problem determining what's right or wrong. I don't need a God for that.

Since you are an atheist, can you explain how atheists make moral decisions? For example, can you explain ethically if things like racism, pedophilia, or sodomy are morally right or wrong?

[noise]

Since you are an atheist, can you explain how atheists make moral decisions? For example, can you explain ethically if things like racism, pedophilia, or sodomy are morally right or wrong?

The Golden Rule tends to do the trick.

[EastsideAl]

Since you are an atheist, can you explain how atheists make moral decisions? For example, can you explain ethically if things like racism, pedophilia, or sodomy are morally right or wrong?

This type of question is wholly insulting to non-believers. I would do just as well to ask you why you need to depend on an unseen supernatural imaginary friend and a book of bronze age fables [[and, in the case of Catholics, an old celibate man in a dress in Rome) to tell you right from wrong.

Anyway, I would hardly use the history of the Roman Catholic church, or Christianity in general for that matter, as any font of guidance on the morality of racism, pedophilia, or sodomy.

[TheUsualSuspect]

Praying will certainly NOT answer those questions

As an atheist, I certainly don't have a problem determining what's right or wrong. I don't need a God for that.

Aw Noise, as an atheist...you really don't need God for anything. Fair enough. You must be a very strong person.

Most of us aren't so lucky. We're weak, hurt, discouraged and in many ways...broken. We look for help from our Creator.

For those of us who believe, prayer remains a powerful ally, if not for answers, than for guidance, wisdom, hope, and comfort. I believe that all prayers are heard and answered.

I didn't mean to speak for you. Beg pardon.

[noise]

Aw Noise, as an atheist...you really don't need God for anything. Fair enough. You must be a very strong person.

Most of us aren't so lucky. We're weak, hurt, discouraged and in many ways...broken. We look for help from our Creator.

For those of us who believe, prayer remains a powerful ally, if not for answers, than for guidance, wisdom, hope, and comfort. I believe that all prayers are heard and answered.

I didn't mean to speak for you. Beg pardon.

I don't think it has anything to do with strength. It's mostly pragmatism.

The problem for me is the attempt to govern based on ideas I'm supposedly free from and do not share.