A Catholic website for the modern reader
Same-Sex Marriage
Desperately Seeking Satan
27/11/13 14:08
Bishop Thomas Paprocki of Springfield, Illinois is on a quest. That’s OK. Most Christians are. The difference is that, while most are seeking the kingdom of God, Paprocki is seeking the devil. Same-sex marriage has come to Illinois and on November 20, 2013 he held a Mass of exorcism in reparation for the state’s new marriage equality law.
He appears to draw his inspiration not from Jesus, but from the French poet Charles Baudelaire who once wrote: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” That’s clever and lends itself to the drama of Hollywood screenplays. But does it convince?
There is no question that evil exists and that it is the opposite of good. The problem seems to originate with the personification of evil as “Satan” or the devil. That is simply simplistic. The result of creation myths attempting to explain the existence of evil. However, casting evil as a person, while not fully exonerating us, lessens our culpability for making poor decisions. It also tends to remove the nuance of many of those decisions. Not everything is right or wrong.
Nor is opposing evil the same as pursuing good. It is a question of focus. If one over-emphasizes evil, good is diminished. Paprocki’s crusade against same-sex marriage is on point. In Christianity, as in most religious traditions, love is a good to be sought. As I have commented in the past, the most profound statement about God occurs in the First Letter of John when he writes: “God is love.”
In fact, the second time he writes those words, in chapter 4:16, he states: “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” Because Paprocki is opposed to homosexuality, his screed against same sex-marriage actually diminishes love and in the process diminishes God.
Reducing love to sexuality and/or sexual orientation makes it elusive, as even many heterosexual couples have discovered. Love is greater than sex. But when sex is an expression of love the presence of God is unveiled. And revealing the presence of God should not be shunned. After all, it cannot help but make the world better.
The Good News of Jesus Christ, the coming of the kingdom of God, cannot be about condemnation. Jesus, himself, cautions Paprocki—and the rest of us—“do not condemn and you will not be condemned.” Jesus could not be any clearer than his statement: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
There is value in looking to poets for inspiration. Paprocki turns to Baudelaire. I am tempted to invoke Shakespeare. Perhaps Paprocki protests too much? History is also a good teacher. From that perspective the bishop from Illinois reminds me of the 1950’s senator from Wisconsin. Joseph McCarthy was looking for Communists under the mattresses of every American. How poetically comical that Paprocki is also looking in people’s bedrooms. This time, however, it is to find the devil under the sheets.
He appears to draw his inspiration not from Jesus, but from the French poet Charles Baudelaire who once wrote: “The greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world that he did not exist.” That’s clever and lends itself to the drama of Hollywood screenplays. But does it convince?
There is no question that evil exists and that it is the opposite of good. The problem seems to originate with the personification of evil as “Satan” or the devil. That is simply simplistic. The result of creation myths attempting to explain the existence of evil. However, casting evil as a person, while not fully exonerating us, lessens our culpability for making poor decisions. It also tends to remove the nuance of many of those decisions. Not everything is right or wrong.
Nor is opposing evil the same as pursuing good. It is a question of focus. If one over-emphasizes evil, good is diminished. Paprocki’s crusade against same-sex marriage is on point. In Christianity, as in most religious traditions, love is a good to be sought. As I have commented in the past, the most profound statement about God occurs in the First Letter of John when he writes: “God is love.”
In fact, the second time he writes those words, in chapter 4:16, he states: “God is love, and those who abide in love abide in God, and God abides in them.” Because Paprocki is opposed to homosexuality, his screed against same sex-marriage actually diminishes love and in the process diminishes God.
Reducing love to sexuality and/or sexual orientation makes it elusive, as even many heterosexual couples have discovered. Love is greater than sex. But when sex is an expression of love the presence of God is unveiled. And revealing the presence of God should not be shunned. After all, it cannot help but make the world better.
The Good News of Jesus Christ, the coming of the kingdom of God, cannot be about condemnation. Jesus, himself, cautions Paprocki—and the rest of us—“do not condemn and you will not be condemned.” Jesus could not be any clearer than his statement: “Indeed, God did not send the Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.”
There is value in looking to poets for inspiration. Paprocki turns to Baudelaire. I am tempted to invoke Shakespeare. Perhaps Paprocki protests too much? History is also a good teacher. From that perspective the bishop from Illinois reminds me of the 1950’s senator from Wisconsin. Joseph McCarthy was looking for Communists under the mattresses of every American. How poetically comical that Paprocki is also looking in people’s bedrooms. This time, however, it is to find the devil under the sheets.
Supreme Court and Same-Sex Marriage
28/06/13 14:12
This past Wednesday, The Supreme Court of the United States weighed in on same sex marriage issuing two decisions, one dealing with a portion of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), the other with California’s Proposition 8. As is frequently the case, especially given the divisions within the Court, advocates on both sides of the debate are expressing some disappointment.
In the case of DOMA, the Court decided that the federal government must grant to married homosexual couples the same benefits its accords to married heterosexual couples. This is a victory for same sex couples and a defeat to those who oppose same sex marriage. However, while effectively gutting DOMA, the court did not strike down the entire law. Its decision does not force states to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
In the case of Prop 8, the court determined that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit to the Supreme Court, leaving intact the lower court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This is at least a temporary victory for gay rights in California, and a defeat for opponents of same sex marriage. At the same time, it does not guarantee a right to same sex marriage in all 50 states. Instead, it leaves in place the right of individual states to ban same sex marriage.
No one should be surprised at the response of the religious extremists—today’s prophets of doom—who anticipate a continuing wrath of God. Reiterating comments I made for Effie Magazine, “These two decisions are neither harbingers of a godless nation, nor reflections of a religious demise already in progress.”
The fact that people on both sides are displeased, should not suggest that the court was wise or balanced in rendering its judgments. Something more serious is in play. The Supreme Court displayed a disquieting lack of courage in its decisions. Not unlike Congress, the Court is incapable of leading. Worse, still, the Court seemed unwilling to live up to its most basic duty of guaranteeing equality and justice for all.
Whatever one’s positions on states’ rights, the U.S. Constitution stands as the foundation of equality, with the Supreme Court its guarantor. Individual states frequently enact laws that are determined to be unconstitutional; laws driven by principles based on differing faith or denominational values. However genuine these values, the United States is not a theocracy. The Constitution guarantees both freedom of and freedom from religion.
In previous generations a commonly held belief was that blacks were either not human, as in the case of slaves, or at least not 100% human. Pains were taken to root these ideas in religious values and, ultimately, distorted interpretations of the Bible.
Today there are those who make the same claims about homosexuals. Every time some religious fanatic claims that homosexuality is unnatural or contrary to God’s plan, they are disguising the same kind of prejudices that denied all races equality under the law. Again today, individual states codify those prejudices in discriminatory laws. The fact that they root their claims in religious morality, merely discredits both faith and the law.
I am reminded that it was not until 1967 that a truer and more honorable Supreme Court invalidated all laws outlawing inter-racial marriage. Such laws are unconstitutional. I hope we do not have to wait until 2067 for a more courageous and faithful Supreme Court to invalidate laws opposing same sex marriage.
Our independence was declared on this simple, yet profound, principle: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
In the case of DOMA, the Court decided that the federal government must grant to married homosexual couples the same benefits its accords to married heterosexual couples. This is a victory for same sex couples and a defeat to those who oppose same sex marriage. However, while effectively gutting DOMA, the court did not strike down the entire law. Its decision does not force states to recognize same sex marriages performed in other states.
In the case of Prop 8, the court determined that the plaintiffs had no standing to bring the suit to the Supreme Court, leaving intact the lower court decision that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional. This is at least a temporary victory for gay rights in California, and a defeat for opponents of same sex marriage. At the same time, it does not guarantee a right to same sex marriage in all 50 states. Instead, it leaves in place the right of individual states to ban same sex marriage.
No one should be surprised at the response of the religious extremists—today’s prophets of doom—who anticipate a continuing wrath of God. Reiterating comments I made for Effie Magazine, “These two decisions are neither harbingers of a godless nation, nor reflections of a religious demise already in progress.”
The fact that people on both sides are displeased, should not suggest that the court was wise or balanced in rendering its judgments. Something more serious is in play. The Supreme Court displayed a disquieting lack of courage in its decisions. Not unlike Congress, the Court is incapable of leading. Worse, still, the Court seemed unwilling to live up to its most basic duty of guaranteeing equality and justice for all.
Whatever one’s positions on states’ rights, the U.S. Constitution stands as the foundation of equality, with the Supreme Court its guarantor. Individual states frequently enact laws that are determined to be unconstitutional; laws driven by principles based on differing faith or denominational values. However genuine these values, the United States is not a theocracy. The Constitution guarantees both freedom of and freedom from religion.
In previous generations a commonly held belief was that blacks were either not human, as in the case of slaves, or at least not 100% human. Pains were taken to root these ideas in religious values and, ultimately, distorted interpretations of the Bible.
Today there are those who make the same claims about homosexuals. Every time some religious fanatic claims that homosexuality is unnatural or contrary to God’s plan, they are disguising the same kind of prejudices that denied all races equality under the law. Again today, individual states codify those prejudices in discriminatory laws. The fact that they root their claims in religious morality, merely discredits both faith and the law.
I am reminded that it was not until 1967 that a truer and more honorable Supreme Court invalidated all laws outlawing inter-racial marriage. Such laws are unconstitutional. I hope we do not have to wait until 2067 for a more courageous and faithful Supreme Court to invalidate laws opposing same sex marriage.
Our independence was declared on this simple, yet profound, principle: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…”
Time's Up! Law, Morality and Religion
26/03/13 16:07
It seems as though every aspect of life has been partitioned into an “us” v. “them” mentality. The most obvious example is black v. white--most obvious because it is so visually demonstrative. It has become the absolute metaphor for good versus evil, and right versus wrong. This is fine as far as it goes, but most of us do not live in an absolute world. Our lives are tinted by shades of gray.
The problem intensifies when we start applying that analogy to the real world, assigning goodness and evil to other people simply because they are different from us. This is particularly odious in the areas of morality and religion. And, no. They are not the same.
Moral values transcend religion in the same way that God transcends religion. To some that may seem incongruous, but the simple truth is that both God and morality existed prior to any concept of religion. Wrapping morality into one’s religious ideas, at least trying to make them synonymous, is an exercise in futility. It is certainly futile when one is in search of truth. At the same time, it is quite successful in creating a simplistic view for the simple-minded. But that has its own drastic consequences.
Several generations of white people believed that blacks were inferior. Some ignorant people still do. Who knows the actual root of such prejudice? Perhaps it was rooted in the economic and structural development of the Western world. But did such advances make the West more civilized? I suppose it depends on how one defines civilization. One thing is clear: The resulting prejudice defiled religion as believers sought to justify their bigotry in their faith.
A similar kind of discrimination occurred with women. In fact, choose your group and there is a prejudice to match. Many people of faith have continually twisted their thinking into knots to justify bigotry that has no rational foundation. And they have managed to complicate the matter even further.
Recently, people of religion have been making louder and louder claims to be the guardians of morality. Almost without exception, these claims to moral superiority are rooted in their religious values--values that are neither absolute nor universal.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage. There is nothing inherently immoral about same-sex marriage, nor about homosexuality itself. The morality exists only by way of social construct. And those constructs, like all moral values, differ from one society to the next and are always in a state of flux or evolution between generations.
To claim that religion determines morality is like saying religion determines God. Wait a minute. That is exactly what many believers do! They can only accept and believe in a God who conforms to beliefs they already hold. They are not about to be challenged by God. By extension, they can only accept people who believe and act the same way they do.
How else to explain the absurd refusal of some fundamentalist Jews to recognize a non-Orthodox marriage? How else to explain the absurd claim by Christian fundamentalists that non-Baptized people are going to hell? How else to explain the absurdity of Muslim fundamentalists who say that a person who converts from Islam should be put to death? How else to explain the religious belief that same sex couples cannot marry—a religious belief with a very uncertain ground in truth and no claim on the mind or heart?
Enter the law. One of the beauties of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are that they are not based in any religious tradition. The Declaration transcends faith, at least beyond the general acknowledgment that certain unalienable rights are bestowed by God. The Constitution transcends the contextual limitation of social morality, at least insofar as those same unalienable rights are inherent in being human.
The result of the American experiment in democracy is that law is the all important and ultimate measure of our society. Neither morality nor religion can make that same claim. A certain credit must be given to those who vociferously claim that God is being pushed out of public life, schools, etc. They have managed to distract many people from the truth. Many people, but not the courts. So a certain gratitude also must be expressed to those judges that have consistently held that God does not belong in public life and schools. The United States is not run on Christian or any other religious principles.
In this country the law is the foundation of our society. It should not be capricious, nor should it be dictated to by religious whim. Our Declaration of Independence states that all are created equal and endowed with rights. The rights mentioned are not meant to be all-inclusive. What is all-inclusive is the all people have these rights.
I disagree with the religious position of the anti-gay movement. It is a skewed and false reading of the Bible. But it does not matter. The United States is not a country based on the Bible, and that is a good thing. It is a country based on the law.
All people have a right to marry, black and white, gay and straight. I would like to believe that anti-gay is the last great prejudice to be overcome by our society. History suggests that as soon as we succeed, something else will spring up in its place. There will always be those people who seek to cast a black v. white, a good v. wrong pall over the world of gray that is human life.
For now, times up! In the United States of America, law, justice and equality trump religion. Thank God! And thank the Founding Fathers!
The problem intensifies when we start applying that analogy to the real world, assigning goodness and evil to other people simply because they are different from us. This is particularly odious in the areas of morality and religion. And, no. They are not the same.
Moral values transcend religion in the same way that God transcends religion. To some that may seem incongruous, but the simple truth is that both God and morality existed prior to any concept of religion. Wrapping morality into one’s religious ideas, at least trying to make them synonymous, is an exercise in futility. It is certainly futile when one is in search of truth. At the same time, it is quite successful in creating a simplistic view for the simple-minded. But that has its own drastic consequences.
Several generations of white people believed that blacks were inferior. Some ignorant people still do. Who knows the actual root of such prejudice? Perhaps it was rooted in the economic and structural development of the Western world. But did such advances make the West more civilized? I suppose it depends on how one defines civilization. One thing is clear: The resulting prejudice defiled religion as believers sought to justify their bigotry in their faith.
A similar kind of discrimination occurred with women. In fact, choose your group and there is a prejudice to match. Many people of faith have continually twisted their thinking into knots to justify bigotry that has no rational foundation. And they have managed to complicate the matter even further.
Recently, people of religion have been making louder and louder claims to be the guardians of morality. Almost without exception, these claims to moral superiority are rooted in their religious values--values that are neither absolute nor universal.
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments for and against same-sex marriage. There is nothing inherently immoral about same-sex marriage, nor about homosexuality itself. The morality exists only by way of social construct. And those constructs, like all moral values, differ from one society to the next and are always in a state of flux or evolution between generations.
To claim that religion determines morality is like saying religion determines God. Wait a minute. That is exactly what many believers do! They can only accept and believe in a God who conforms to beliefs they already hold. They are not about to be challenged by God. By extension, they can only accept people who believe and act the same way they do.
How else to explain the absurd refusal of some fundamentalist Jews to recognize a non-Orthodox marriage? How else to explain the absurd claim by Christian fundamentalists that non-Baptized people are going to hell? How else to explain the absurdity of Muslim fundamentalists who say that a person who converts from Islam should be put to death? How else to explain the religious belief that same sex couples cannot marry—a religious belief with a very uncertain ground in truth and no claim on the mind or heart?
Enter the law. One of the beauties of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are that they are not based in any religious tradition. The Declaration transcends faith, at least beyond the general acknowledgment that certain unalienable rights are bestowed by God. The Constitution transcends the contextual limitation of social morality, at least insofar as those same unalienable rights are inherent in being human.
The result of the American experiment in democracy is that law is the all important and ultimate measure of our society. Neither morality nor religion can make that same claim. A certain credit must be given to those who vociferously claim that God is being pushed out of public life, schools, etc. They have managed to distract many people from the truth. Many people, but not the courts. So a certain gratitude also must be expressed to those judges that have consistently held that God does not belong in public life and schools. The United States is not run on Christian or any other religious principles.
In this country the law is the foundation of our society. It should not be capricious, nor should it be dictated to by religious whim. Our Declaration of Independence states that all are created equal and endowed with rights. The rights mentioned are not meant to be all-inclusive. What is all-inclusive is the all people have these rights.
I disagree with the religious position of the anti-gay movement. It is a skewed and false reading of the Bible. But it does not matter. The United States is not a country based on the Bible, and that is a good thing. It is a country based on the law.
All people have a right to marry, black and white, gay and straight. I would like to believe that anti-gay is the last great prejudice to be overcome by our society. History suggests that as soon as we succeed, something else will spring up in its place. There will always be those people who seek to cast a black v. white, a good v. wrong pall over the world of gray that is human life.
For now, times up! In the United States of America, law, justice and equality trump religion. Thank God! And thank the Founding Fathers!