|
Published: July 17, 2008
Some will, some won’t
California religions split over same-sex marriage
The California Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage has created rifts between and within religious groups. Even before the court’s ruling went into effect on June 17, several Episcopalian, Unitarian-Universalist, and Methodist clergy said they would officiate at same-sex marriages. And, though the Catholic Church has condemned the ruling, one Catholic priest has allegedly said he will witness same-sex unions.
 The Rev. Susan Russell of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, who has been blessing same-sex unions for 16 years, told the San Jose Mercury News that she supports same-sex marriage because she favors “everything we can do to build up the values that make strong families. I think the values matter more than the gender of the people making up the heads of those families."
Bishop Marc Andrus of the Episcopal Diocese of California (which, despite its name, includes only the San Francisco Bay area) is another supporter of same-sex marriage. Not only has he called on his Episcopalian parishioners to oppose a November ballot initiative that would forbid same-sex marriages, he also has encouraged his clergy to help San Francisco conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies. Andrus, however, said his clergy may not dress in clerics.
Other religious groups have taken an active stand against same-sex marriage and for the November ballot initiative. The Mormon Church has issued a statement (read to members on Sunday, June 29) to donate “your means and time” to the initiative. "The church's teachings and position on this moral issue are unequivocal,” says the statement. “Marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."
At a May 27-28 meeting of Catholic and Muslim scholars at Rancho Palos Verdes, the Muslim participants asked their Catholic counterparts to join the Muslim Shura Council in opposing the state supreme court’s same-sex marriage decision. The Catholics – the Rev. Francis Tiso, Dr. June O’Connor, the Rev. Alexei Smith, Msgr. Dennis Mikulanis, the Rev. Dennis McManus, and the Rev. Rafael Luévano – said they would make available U.S. bishops’ conference documents on same-sex unions and would “network with the California Council of Bishops’ offices for social justice,” according to a June 16 SperoNews story.
The California bishops’ conference, along with individual bishops, has weighed in against the Supreme Court decision. Speaking the day after the court’s ruling, Pope Benedict XVI noted, "The union of love, based on matrimony between a man and a woman, which makes up the family, represents a good for all society that can not be substituted by, confused with, or compared to other types of unions."
Still, Kerry Chaplin, director of California Faith for Equality (which fights for same-sex rights) told the Mercury News that she knew of one Catholic priest who would marry same-sex couples. And Antonio Salas, coordinator for the homosexual and transgender support group at Newman Holy Hall parish at the University of California, Berkeley, told the Mercury News he knew of “renegade priests” who have performed marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples.
"The greatest sin is to sin against your conscience,” said Salas. “With an informed conscience, you can dissent from the church's teaching.”
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:49 AM By Tim Scheidler
"The greatest sin is to sin against your conscience,” said Salas. “With an informed conscience, you can dissent from the church's teaching.”
A Catholic has the duty to form his conscience in accordance with Church teaching, not against it. If the Church teaches one thing and your conscience says another, then you are obligated to conform your conscience to Church teaching so that your conscience is correctly formed, not the other way around. The Catholic Church is infallible on Faith and Morals. If you disagree with the Church it's not the Church who is wrong, you are.
Tim Scheidler
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 4:58 AM By St. Christopher
What can you expect from churches which have political reasons for being as the basis for their formation? Pope Leo XIII has already addressed the validity of Anglican sacraments, and women priests are a non-sequitur. As to the alleged renegade Catholic priest that will bless same-sexers, I don't believe it. Let's see his name and church. These are merely sacrilegious fools who are seeking to fit into the world of mankind.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 5:26 AM By Fr. M.P.
Jesus said that He came to bring not peace but a sword. The sword is the split of those who follow Jesus and those who don't. Follow Jesus, and not the father of lies. Of course the father of lies cloaks his lies in the misuse of the term "civil rights" but no one has a right to what is not natural. Satan cloaks it in "follow your conscience" but most forget the other part - that there is an obligation to form your conscience in the truth. The so-called "greatest sin is to sin against your conscience" is pure self-opinion worship, placing yourself above the laws of God and nature. What blindness. What self-idolatry. "Ye shall be as gods" said the serpent. Same lie today, only packaged in a new way. Even the laws for centuries and millenia have supported the obvious and have shown massive legal precedent - marriage is between a man and a woman. You will not find homosexuals joined in the records of past decades, centuries and millenia.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 7:29 AM By Ann
The "conscience" argument has been used over the years to promote contraception, abortion, and other evils. One must have an informed conscience to make a decision in a moral dilemma, and many who use that conscience argument are already dissenting from church teaching. They KNOW what the church teaches but they dissent anyway. Priests used that "conscience" argument to misinform thousands of Catholic couples on the use of artificial contraception. With John Paul's Theology of the Body, advances in science, theology books available to the public, EWTN, and the CCC, there is no excuse for any priest or lay person to be ignorant on Catholic doctrine, especially as it pertains to the dignity and sacredness of the human body.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:34 AM By Edward
The government cannot tell churches who they are allowed to marry, nor can it tell them whom they must marry. Maybe we should call marriage in our church "Anointed Marriage," "High Marriage," thereby separating it from homosexual reach. This may at first seem like a concession but in the greater scheme of things it may be the perfect choice because,
1. The government may not force the Church to do anything with regard to its religious practices and,
2. The Church is not going to relent in its belief in the sanctity of the sacrament marriage.
In this way we are consistent in our recognition of marriage in its proper station as a sacrament, and we make a clear, non-negotiable distinction about who may receive that sacrament.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:17 AM By margie
Perhaps some will be deceived by the Great Deceiver.The Father of Lies can mislead many who have no firm rock upon which their faith has been based.
Too many folks are out there whistling in the wind without a moral compass. Come home to Rome, folks!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:01 PM By Sawyer
Edward, let's go back to calling the sacrament "Matrimony". That would be untouchable.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:21 PM By Seina
Read 1 corinthians ch. 6
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 12:21 PM By Pax Christi
At the risk of sounding like those righteous folks who in the NT said we're glad we're not like them, I don't how else to say in a nice way that I'm glad to belong to the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church that understands what Jesus meant when he asked that we be of one flock with one shepherd. Those who dissent from her have essentially usurped the throne of St. Peter. How could the Holy Spirit possibly guide all of them when there is only one way, one truth and one life?
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:21 PM By Gary Paul Gilbert
Oh, yes, the Vatican is infallible and thus never makes mistakes. Child abuse by clergy is not wrong? Cardinal Law of Boston was given a nice job at Saint Mary Major after his having buried allegations of abuse by his priests. Rome pretends to be infallible but is no different from any other institution.
The Episcopal Church is closer to the realization that all the baptized are to be equal members of the mystical body of Christ, which is why I left Roman authoritarianism.
Gary Paul Gilbert
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 1:54 PM By Edward
Well, whatever we call it, we'll be recognizing the holiness of God's union. The civil practice is just that, a civil practice. People who marry at the justice of the peace are often getting married without asking God's blessing, and in a civil practice. One can marry in a civil practice but it does not necessarily confer God's blessing upon one; in other words they get the civil law recognition only. However, when you marry in church, you are recognized by God, and you receive His blessing; and you are recognized by the civil authority, as well. It is a higher order even to the casual observer, but it is a Holy Union to a believer. So I say let them have their civil ceremony; they will get it anyway. We should be as wise as we possibly can be by making the differences clear and preparing for the resulting civil realities, many of which are already here.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 2:29 PM By John70
If anyone thinks that we would be "untouchable" to government edicts or civil law because we are the Church,
and use the word "matrimony" instead of marriage, should look to Canada or Brazil and see whats happening in those "Catholic" countries. The world is turning "queer" and it dosn't look like their is anything we can do about it. The citizens of our once great country have been so brainwashed with all this babble about "sensitivity, fairness, moving beyond, more inclusive," it's too late to turn back the clock. When you can have a State Senator from San Francisco, tell the Catholics to "get out of town" and nothing is done about it, when you have a college professor tell the whole damn country he "will desecrate the Holy Eucharist"
(which he refers to as a "cracker" ), and nothing is done about it, when a horde of queers can dress like "nuns"and recieve communion from a "ARCHBISHOP" and again,nothing is done, I have to ask who is the "untouchables"? I don't think there are any real Catholic men anymore. When the Romans came for Christ, I don't think I ever read where St. Peter prayed for the nasty centurions, HE CUT OFF ONE'S EAR!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:24 PM By Eileen
It is very telling to see that priestess Rev. Susan Russell knows the current trends and fashions with her dangling drop earrings. I wonder if her parishioners feel more of a confidence in her guidance because she validates or condones sinfulness with a flair for looking "with it" and stylishly jeweled. Susan will be very sad when she ultimately learns that God's Laws are not changeable with time, fashions or trends. I met a priestess pastor just like Susan a few years ago at a relative's funeral. She was very charming and was not offended when I told her that she must realize deep down inside that only men can be ordained as Catholic priests and that her religion which was Espicopalian, had no apostolic succession. I also told her that many roads lead to Rome and that one day she would return to that road. I was not surprised to have this priestess pastor whisper to me that when she was a little girl that she was always drawn to the Catholic Church and she used to sneak into them to visit where the Tabernacle was. She told me that if her mother ever caught her inside a Catholic Church, she would be skinned alive. I know that this woman will one day return to the True Faith when all of the empty promises of the current trends have been shown to be lies.
There is no charity when grave sinful acts that offend God are condoned and promoted. Especially, when done with a smile and dangling earrings! Maybe Susan Russell will eventually see the true light of God's Laws reflecting off of one of the prisms of her trendy earrings!
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 8:35 PM By John L. Sillasen
John70, are you suggesting that it's time to sharpen the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution? *** Gary Paul Gilbert, the infallibility you refer to does not apply to the Vatican, but only to the faith and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. Some clergy over the centuries have proven quite horrible if not evil in some cases; yet, look at the Church ... God maintains Her even when She is in the clutches of evil or errant men.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 9:16 PM By Bill
In my opinion it comes down to one's cultural experience with the issue and also one's view of teaching authority. The earth may indeed be flat or at the least fixed in space with the sun circling around.
|
Posted Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:08 PM By Jmac
Many people found that their consciences quite approved of exterminating 8,000,000 Jews. Salas, do you really want to praise them for "acting according to their conscience"?
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 8:52 AM By Thomas
Tim, According to your remarks one need not think; God only blessed the church with faith and a brain....What ever happen to free will?!!!
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:55 AM By Edward
I think the second amendment has recently been shown to be sharper than it has been in nearly 70 years. I find the US Supreme Court's recent ruling in this regard to be a very good one; it is deferential to the concept of individual liberty, as well as that of collective freedom.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 11:16 AM By Anne T.
Oh! come on, Bill, nobody who regularly posts on this website believes the earth is flat. I know you like to think of us as being stupid, but we are not. It has absolutely been proven that the earth is somewhat round TODAY, and that cannot change unless something from outer space, etc., were to cause it to explode, etc. Some scientific and technicological issues are open to speculation, though. I will give you an example: when I was in highschool, they told us that it would take at least fifty years to get a man on the moon and back, and so it could not be done, but within ten years they sent three men to the moon and got them back. That is how fast technology advanced. So I have learned that what is said to be scientifically impossible today may or may not be scientifically impossilbe tomorrow. Also, some things, such as whether there were really centaurs in the past might change, now that some scientists have injection parts of living animals into human eggs. If you think that is "far out", tell it to the scentists who told my class we could not get to the moon. I think, if they were living today, they might have their doubts if such things were only "myths".
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 2:35 PM By Dan
"The Episcopal Church is closer to the realization that all the baptized are to be equal members of the mystical body of Christ, which is why I left Roman authoritarianism. Gary Paul Gilbert " Gary, a question for you -- what does the Episcopal church do with those who hold a high view of scripture and cast a jaundiced eye on the developments in that deomination? Do they get an equal hearing along with the progressive element?
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 3:24 PM By John L. Sillasen
I do not believe that any rational men ever thought the earth is flat. You can simply look at it and see that it is not flat. Go stand at the shore of a large lake, ocean, desert bottom or plains ... It never looked flat to anyone ... why the hype or myth remains a question. Maybe the ancient wizards were just seeing how much they could put over on the common man, convince him of the opposite that he could plainly see. I see it just as much today; find some obvious thing and tell somebody that the reality is really not that at all ... innumerable people fall for it all the time.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 3:53 PM By Anne T.
It seems as though if there were centaurs, etc. there would fossils of them, but how many fossils are there of so called missing links in the human evolution theory. Not very many when there should be at least a hundred to several hundreds. Do I believe in human evolution? I don't know. All I know is that God made us, but not how he did it. The evolutionists keep changing their tune, also, from Dawinism, then to another kind of evolution and then to another. It kind of makes one think they really don't know. So that is why many Chritians still say it is only theory. Then they laugh at some of us and call us stupid, but then one very good scientist will call another good scientist's theory stupid, too. That's life!
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 4:15 PM By Anne T.
A completion to my last post: "one very good scientist will call another very good scientist's ideas wrong until he himself is proven wrong.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 9:47 PM By John L. Sillasen
There is not one single missing link fossil. For the best in the creation debate, go to Kolbecenter.org (as in St. Maximillian Kolbe). I just ordered the first book from them that I've had time to read in a decade ... It's sure to be a humdinger, and bring me up to a more specific level of knowledge. BTW, Anne T., how do scientists do science without funding sources?, ... just something to think about.
|
Posted Friday, July 18, 2008 11:21 PM By John70
JohnS.,If your ready,count me in. I am just so tired of good Catholics saying," oh we have to say a prayer for them." Personally, I'm done praying for a bunch of reprobates, there are many more people who are more deserving of our prayers. Maybe if we acted like jihadists(?) when our Church is villified and desecrated, maybe these worthless sub-humans would think twice. I know this is not the way for a Christian to feel, but I do. perhaps some "good Catholic could say a prayer" for me. God knows I need it.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:34 AM By sonojim
John S. Why doesn't it surprise me that you haven't read a book in a decade?
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 11:29 AM By John L. Sillasen
sonojim, when you read one book, you read 'em all. *** John70, hopefully it does not come down to society having to wield its Constitutionally guaranteed militia powers or even its more basic guaranteed powers to defend "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But that is precisely why the Second Amendment was put second behind freedom to worship and speak and assemble ... to protect "we the people" from the government. This has broken out in small ways from time to time, and at one time in a big way, which cost the nation proportionately way more sons than all other wars combined. Change of government by revolution is the norm in history, not the exception ... even in the case of empires.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 3:00 PM By Bertha
John70: You are on the road to perdition with your hatefulness and association with the ignorant types of people on this site who don't read books. Some day our Church will have women priests and welcome all and bless all marriages no matter their sexual orientation. Then you can depart and be happy with your SSPX comrades. Bless our sister and teacher in the Faith, Rev. Susan!
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 6:13 PM By John Also
Just said a prayer for you John70. To a few others, I'm really not sure what a flat Earth or the Anglican minister's earrings have to do with any of this. In the Roman Catholic Church, marriage according to our norms is a valid sacramental marriage or sacramental Matrimony, we really don't need other terms.
As to same-sex attracted persons, we are told by the Magisterium not to discriminate against gay persons, only behavior. Those words ring hollow; I have yet to see them followed. Far too often my fellow Catholics assume that if someone is gay he or she is acting on that orientation. Some gay people like me are gay, practicing Catholics, and celibate.
Under the equal protection laws of civil US society all deserve the same rights including the right to marry. Denying that right also denies over a thousand priveleges enjoyed by opposite sex married couples regardless of whether their marriage is civil or sacramental. I support civil gay marriages without hesitation. Because of deeply rooted fear, prejudice, and unfounded assumptions, there are bound to be divisions on same-sex marriage between Christians. Christians such as Catholics may view marriage from within the stricter confines of sacramental marriage, but that does not give us the right to discriminate against others--including other Christians--who view things differently or are not Catholic but are entitled to equality under the law.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:52 PM By John L. Sillasen
John Also, the label, "gay", tends to refer to the political agenda of what is known as the homosexual movement.
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 8:59 PM By John L. Sillasen
John Also, I just read the second half of your post, and discovered that I agree with your self-label, "gay", in that it becomes obvious that you are pushing the gay political agenda that would legitimize a gross sinful way of life ... which really is not life but self destruction. If you are Catholic, then why do you deny teachings such as those of St Paul? Homosexuality is the consequence of sin; it carries a seared conscience: This means that homosexuals cannot discern reality very well, and explains why they always want to prevent people without such grossly seared minds from discerning fact from hype, truth from deception. Your post is full of self contradictions and contradictions of Catholic doctrine, plus exaltation of the gay agenda and secular law over God's Law. How is it that you claim to be a Catholic?
|
Posted Saturday, July 19, 2008 9:02 PM By Anne T.
John Also, the Holy Father, Pope Benedict VII, has said that marriage is to be between one man and one woman only. He also said that not allowing two people of the same sex to "marry" is not descrimination. Society limits who may or may not get married all the time. In most Western countries and others, including the Philippines, there are laws against polygamy, polyandry, incestuous marriages, etc. As two practicing Jewish writers have put it, David Benkof and Dennis Prager, society puts limits on marriage all the time and has always done so.
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 8:03 AM By sonojim
John Also - it's nice to read a coherent post. Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain (Silasen). He admittedly never reads books and has a well-documented homophobia that somehow he tries to rationalize with bizarre interpretations of the Magisterium. Like you, I am a gay man, a practicing Catholic and celibate. As you say, the Church is clear in her teachings on how gay people should be viewed and treated. While she remains firm in her condemnation of homosexual sexual activity (as she does with heterosexual sexual activity outside of marriage), the Church commands her members to treat gay people with compassion and love. A dictum that is ignored by many who post on this site. All we can do is pray for those sinners who ignore the true teaching of Mother Church. The Church opposes same-sex marriage primarily based on theological truths. That marriage is a sacrament puts it in a different context for Catholics; it is not a secular institution for us. While I have always and will continue to support equal civil, political, economic and social rights for same-sex couples, as a Catholic man, I just can't go there with "marriage". In the secular world, yes, it is discriminatory, to deny the same protections and benefits of straight couples who get licenses and sign all the right forms to "become one." The Church, however, isn't too concerned what secular Western society thinks is right and wrong. Although many in the "community" have labelled my view as homophobic, I still think that the strategy for making the acceptance of same-sex marriage the ultimate goal of "gay rights" is misguided. And I still can;t understand why, in light of the 50% failure rate of heterosexual marriages, gay people would want to use that as a model for their own realtionships. We are more creative than that!
|
Posted Sunday, July 20, 2008 12:50 PM By John L. Sillasen
The strategy posed by the gay community seeks to posit tabu thinking at key points of Catholic doctrine. Those who fall for it, then blind themselves to any depth of Catholicism beyond that. Very simple; it is a spiritual war, and any military mind or strategist will easily understand this.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2008. All Rights Reserved.
|